FIRST : DAVID’S RULE OVER JUDAH ALONE TILL HE BECOMES KING OVER ALL ISRAEL2 Samuel 1:1 to 2 Samuel 5:5__________________ FIRST SECTIONDavid after Saul’s Death2 Samuel 1:1-251. The News of the Death. 2 Samuel 1:1-161 Now [And] it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode [that David abode] two days in Ziklag [in Ziklag two days]. It came even [And it came] to pass on the third day that, behold, a man came out of [from] the camp from Saul with his clothes rent and earth upon his head; and so it was [om. so it was] when he came to David, that [om. that] he fell to the earth and did obeisance. 3And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of [From] the camp of Israel am I escaped. And David said unto him, How went the matter? 4I pray thee, tell me. And he answered [said], That [om. that] the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead, and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.8 5And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? 6And the young man that told him said, As [om. as] I happened by chance upon Mount Gilboa, [ins. and] behold, Saul leaned upon his spear, and lo, the chariots and [ins. the] 7horsemen followed hard after him. And when [om. when] he looked behind him [or turned round], he [and] saw me, and called unto me. And I answered [said], Here am I. 8And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered [said to] 9him, I am an Amalekite. He [And he] said unto me again [om. again], Stand I pray thee, upon me, and slay me, for anguish is come upon me [the cramp hath 10seized on me], because [for] my life is yet whole in me. So [And] I stood upon him and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen; and I took the crown [diadem] that was upon his head and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord. 11Then David took hold on his clothes and rent them, and likewise all the men that were with him; 12And they mourned and wept and fasted until [ins. the] even for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the Lord [Jehovah] and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword. 13And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered [said], I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite. 14And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed? 15And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near and fall upon him [Approach, fall on him]. And he smote him that he died. 16And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed. 2. David’s Elegy. 2 Samuel 1:17-2717 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son, 18(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah The use of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) [Om. parenthesis-sign, render: And he commanded that the children of Judah should be taught this song of “The Bow;” behold, etc.:] 19The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places [heights]! How are the mighty fallen! 20Tell 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. 21Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain upon you [be neither dew nor rain on you], Nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away,[For there was cast away the shield of the heroes], The shield of Saul as though he had not been anointed [unanointed] with oil. 22From the blood of the slain, From the fat of the mighty [of heroes] The bow of Jonathan turned not back, And the sword of Saul returned not empty. 23Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, And in their death they were not divided. They were swifter than eagles! They were stronger than lions! 24Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed you in scarlet with other delights, Who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel. 25How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places [on thy heights].I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan. Very pleasant hast thou been unto me, Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. How are the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war perished! AND . 2 Samuel 1:1-16. The news of Saul’s death, and David’s reception of it. 2 Samuel 1:1 sq. This narrative is closely connected with that of David’s return to Ziklag and Saul’s death in chaps. 30 and 31 of the First Book. The words: “and it came to pass after the death of Saul,” attach themselves immediately to 1 Samuel 31, thus continuing the narrative after the account there given of his death. The words: “and David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites,” resume the narrative in 2 Samuel 30, and connect themselves especially with 2 Samuel 1:17; 2 Samuel 1:26.—The grammatical apodosis begins with “and abode” (εַ ?ιֵּ ?ωֶׁ ?α), though according to the sense and the connection 2 Samuel 1:2 forms the factual apodosis. The narrator desires to make an exact chronological statement for the following account, to bring out prominently that the news of Saul’s death was closely connected with the events related in chs. 30, 31. The precise statement that “after David had stayed two days in Ziklag, the messenger came on the third day with the news of Saul’s death,” indicates, on the one hand, that the narrative is drawn from exact, minute original sources, and, on the other, that David’s return from the battle with the Amalekites happened about the same time as the battle of Gilboa. 2 Samuel 1:2. And behold, a man came, according to 2 Samuel 1:6 a youth; he had belonged to the Israelitish army as a combatant.—[See the doubt as to this fact in “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]—“From with Saul” (ξֵ ?ςִ ?ν) = “from the neighborhood of Saul,” comp. 2 Samuel 1:3-4. The rent garment and the earth on the head are signs of grief. See 1 Samuel 4:12. His “falling down” recognizes David as future king. See 2 Samuel 14:4; 2 Samuel 19:18; 1 Kings 18:7. 2 Samuel 1:3. “Escaped,” as all the people had fled from the battle, according to 2 Samuel 1:4. 2 Samuel 1:4. David’s question: “How was the affair, that happened?” is at the same time the expression of dismay at the news of the flight. The answer is introduced by a Conj. (ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, Eng. A. V. “that”), here = our “namely;” comp. 2 Samuel 4:10; 1 Samuel 15:20 (λִּ ?ι is sometimes used). Three statements follow one on another in the rapid, curt account of the informant, who, in keeping with David’s word “tell me,” is repeatedly termed “the young man that told him,” 2 Samuel 1:5-6; 2 Samuel 13:1) “The people are fled from the battle,” the whole army broken up in flight; 2) “Many of the people are fallen and dead.” This is not in opposition with 1 Samuel 31:6 : “and all his men,” because the latter refers to the men immediately around Saul; 3) “And also Saul and Jonathan his son are dead.” We may render; “not only many of the people, … but also Saul and Jonathan are dead.” The climax in the three statements is obvious. To David’s question (2 Samuel 1:5), which refers only to the last statement respecting Saul and Jonathan, the messenger replies (2 Samuel 1:6-10) with a full account of Saul’s death. 2 Samuel 1:6. I happened by chance, that is, in the press of battle, and in the flight, which took the direction towards Mount Gilboa, see 1 Samuel 31:1.—Behold, Saul leaned on his spear. This does not mean (Bunsen) that Saul was lying on the ground, “propping his weary head with the nervously-clutched spear;” no support for this view is found in 2 Samuel 1:9-10, for the “after he was fallen” in 2 Samuel 1:10 does not refer to his fall to the ground. Nor is it to be understood (Cler. and others) of the attempt to kill himself (according to 1 Samuel 31:4). We must rather suppose that Saul was leaning on his spear (which was fixed in the earth, 1 Samuel 26:7) in order to hold himself up, being perfectly exhausted. While he was standing there, “lo, the chariots (that is, the chariot-warriors) and the horsemen followed hard on him,” came so near that they must soon have reached him, see Judges 20:42. Death or captivity stared him in the face. It is not probable that “chariots and horsemen” followed the flying Israelites on the mountains; according to 1 Samuel 31:4 the pursuers were the archers. Cler. justly: “This seems to be the beginning of the young man’s falsehoods.” 2 Samuel 1:7. And he turned round, which could not be said of him, if he had been lying on the ground.2 Samuel 1:8. The marginal reading “I said” [so Eng. A. V.] is to be preferred to the text “he said,” which seems to have come from the “he said” in the beginning of the following verse (Then.).—[Some take the Hebrews 3 pers. to be oratio obliqua; but this is not probable.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:9. For the cramp has seized me. So we must render this subst., “cramp” as a twisting of the body (from a stem meaning “to weave, interwork, work together”), not “death-agony” (Vulg.), not the “cuirass” or other part of the armor (S. Schmid), nor “vertigo or fainting” (Gesen., De Wette), to which the following: “all my life is yet in me” does not suit. In consequence of his excitements and exertions, Saul found himself in a bodily condition in which he could not defend himself against the onpressing enemy. The “because” (the second λִּ ?ι) gives a further reason for the request to slay him, since Saul feared that in his defenceless condition he would suffer the indignity of falling alive into the Philistines’ hands.—[Paraphrase of 2 Samuel 1:9 : Kill me, for the enemy will soon be on me, I am too badly wounded to defend myself, yet, not being mortally wounded, I shall be taken alive.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:10. The Amalekite says, that he slew Saul in accordance with his request, because he saw he “would not live after his fall,” could not survive his fall. The “fall” does not mean “apostasy from God” (O. v. Gerlach), for, apart from the impossibility of the Amalekite’s using such an expression, we should expect some corresponding additional phrase; nor “falling after a severe, but not mortal wound,” inflicted by himself (Cler., Schmid et al.), for this view presupposes a wrong conception of the “leaning on his spear,” the account in 1 Samuel 31:4 being mixed up with this account. The “fall” here means “defeat;” see Proverbs 24:16.—He took from his head his golden diadem (not “crown,” πֵ ?ζֶ ?ψ), the emblem of the royal dignity. The “bracelet or arm-band” was worn not only by women, but also by men, see Numbers 31:50. So the army-commanders are adorned on the Assyrian monuments (Layard’s Nineveh), and the kings on the Egyptian. The Amalekite brings from Saul’s corpse the symbols of the royal dignity in order to confirm his words, and thus secure the favor of David, whom he looked on as king, and gain a rich reward.—The narrative of the Amalekite contradicts 1 Samuel 31:3, where Saul kills himself with his own sword. The explanation of this difference by the assumption of two different original accounts of Saul’s death (Gramberg, Religionsid. II. 89, and Ewald) is totally baseless (Then.). Winer (R.-W. II. 392): “In any other than a biblical writer, this difference would certainly not be regarded as proof of the composition of the Book from two narrations” Equally untenable is the attempt at harmonizing the two (Joseph., Ant. 6, 14, 7, some Rabbis, and especially S. Schmid) by saying that Saul had only wounded himself severely by falling on his sword, and received the death-stroke from the Amalekite; this contradicts the statement in 1 Samuel 31:1.—A careful comparison of the Amalekite’s account with the other shows that, although his statement about Israel’s defeat and the enemy’s pressing on Saul was true, he lied in saying that he killed Saul, in order to gain favor and a royal reward from David; so Theod., Brenz, Calov., Serar., Sankt., Cler., Mich., Winer, Then., Keil—[A. Clarke, Kitto, Bib. Com., Philippson reject the Amalekite’s story as a fabrication; Patrick and Gill seem to think it in general true, though distorted here and there; Wordsworth defends it (appealing to Josephus), taking it to be supplementary to the other—if it were not true, he asks, why did the Amalekite not deny it, when he saw that he was to be put to death for it? To this it may be replied, that no time was given him, or perhaps he did deny it, and his denial was disregarded. As for the diadem and bracelet, he might easily have picked them up before the Philistines came to strip the slain. His account of Saul’s death cannot well be harmonized with that of 1 Samuel 31., and then he had an obvious motive for his story.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:11 sq. “Weeping and mourning aloud” and rending the garments on the breast were signs of grief and sorrow for the dead. See Genesis 37:34-35; Genesis 50:1; 2 Samuel 3:32; 2 Samuel 3:34; Judges 11:35.—The whole body of soldiers took part in David’s deep grief. The Sept. adds at the end: “rent their clothes” as explanatory of the terse Heb. text. The numerous signs of sorrow here mentioned, rending the garments, mourning, weeping, fasting (“till evening”) exhibit the greatness of David’s sincere grief. The order of mention of the objects of the lamentation is the inverse of that in 2 Samuel 1:4 : Saul, Jonathan, the people. His grief for Saul shows his heart to be free from bitterness, revenge and malignant joy; he mourns the fall of the anointed of the Lord. His heart must have been filled with deep sorrow for the death of Jonathan, whom he had not seen since the incident recorded in 1 Samuel 23:18. He laments over the slain and scattered people for the misery and ignominy that had befallen them through defeat by the uncircumcised heathen. He calls them “the people of the Lord” with special reference to their position as a people chosen by the Lord from all nations, thus His special property by a holy covenant, whose wars against foreign nations, out of whom he had separated them, are the Lord’s wars, comp. 1 Samuel 25:28. The house of Israel denotes the people as a unit, with reference to their common descent. The people of the Lord was in this battle abandoned by the Lord; the house of Israel as a whole and in all its parts was cast down.—[On the alleged difficulty in the text of the latter part of this verse see “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:13 sq. To David’s question concerning his origin the young man answers that “he is the son of an Amalekite stranger,” that is, of an Amalekite who had settled in Israel2 Samuel 1:14. From the same reverence for the sacred life of Saul that he showed before in the words: “I will not lay my hand on my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 24:11), springs David’s indignant question to the Amalekite: How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand against the Lord’s anointed?—Comp. 1 Samuel 31:4 where the armor-bearer “fears” to do such a thing. This question supposes that the young man, as a foreigner at home in Israel and living under its law, might very well know what a crime he committed in laying his hand on the king’s person, even at the king’s request. The question shows beyond doubt that David took his account to be true, and his indignation at the crime shows how far he was from any sort of revenge against the (in his eyes) sacred person of Saul. 2 Samuel 1:15. David causes the Amalekite to be straightway slain for his self-avowed crime. He slays him not merely that, after the Amalekite has confessed the regicide, he (David) may not be supposed to countenance such a crime, and especially not Saul’s murder (Thenius), but he punishes him for his crime against the person of the anointed of the Lord, and that on the ground of his right as the king now chosen and appointed by the Lord. It was a theocratic, not a political act, as Glericus think (“it is to be attributed to political reasons”), and so Thenius and other moderns. 2 Samuel 1:16. While the preparations for the execution of the judgment are going on, David pronounces the formal sentence of capital punishment: Thy blood be on thy head.—“Thou hast brought this bloody punishment on thyself, having confessed thy crime”—For thy mouth hath testified against thee—The ground of the sentence of death was the statement of the Amalekite himself; he affirmed that the ornaments he brought were taken from the body of Saul, designing thus to prove that Saul had been killed by his hand, and hoping to receive a rich reward. See 2 Samuel 4:10.—Theodoret remarks that it was becoming that the “Prophet and King” should be astonished at this deed, but not blame it.—[It was so obvious and dreadful a crime that he could only express astonishment at it.—Tr.]—What David himself with holy horror had refused to do, namely, to lay hands on Saul’s sacred person, this murderer (so it seemed to him) had done.—[The Commentators refer to the fact that the law requiring two witnesses in a death-sentence was here set aside from the peculiarity of the circumstances. There is no trace of special anger and haste because of the nationality of the supposed regicide; but the execution may without difficulty be regarded as having a political character—not that David, looking to his own accession to the throne, wished to ward off such attempts against himself, or to curry favor with Saul’s friends, but that, regarding himself as in fact the highest political authority in the land, he dispensed punishment for a notorious and shocking political crime. It can hardly be suspected (Philippson) from the words: “thy mouth hath witnessed against thee,” that “David saw through the Amalekite” Against the allegation that David’s conduct here was hypocritical, Chandler cites the cases of Alexander weeping over Darius, Scipio over Carthage, Caesar over Pompey, and Augustus over Antony.—Tr.] II. David’s elegy. 2 Samuel 1:17-272 Sa 1:17. And David sang this lament.—That David was the author of this elegy is proved by this history, as well as by the vigor of the song and its harmony with David’s situation and feeling. For the general defeat of Israel David and his men expressed their sorrow as is above related. Here follows the voice of mourning from David’s heart especially over Saul and Jonathan, the deaths of both of whom must powerfully have moved him, though for different reasons. 2 Samuel 1:18. Two notices are prefixed to the Song: one as to its destination; the other as to its source. As respects its destination it is said: “and he said (commanded) to teach it to the children of Judah,” they were to learn and practice it (comp. Deuteronomy 31:19; Psalms 60:1), probably that they might sing it in their military practice with the bow (Grot., Delitzsch in Herz. xii. 280). For χֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ is best understood (from 2 Samuel 1:22) as the title: Song of the Bow.—[Eng. A. V. improperly supplies: “the use of.”—Tr.]—With all its notes of sorrow the whole Song has a warlike ground-tone, celebrating Saul and Jonathan as warriors, and “the bow was a principal weapon of the times, and used especially by Saul’s tribesmen, the Benjaminites, with great success, see 1 Chronicles 8:40; 1 Chronicles 12:2; 2 Chronicles 14:7; 2 Chronicles 17:17” (Keil). Bφttcher connects “bow” with “children of Judah” and renders: “to teach the archers of Judah;” but against this restriction to Judah, Thenius rightly remarks that David’s purpose doubtless was that the whole people should preserve a faithful remembrance of Saul and Jonathan. Instead of “bow” (χֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ). Then. and Ew. substitute adverbial accusatives, the former “heedfully” (χֶ ?ωֶׁ ?α, Isaiah 21:7), the latter “exactly” (χωֶׁ ?θ). Against this see the admirable remarks of Bφttcher.—[Bφttcher points out that Thenius’ “heedfully” applies to hearing, and does not suit here, and that Ewald’s conjectured word means “truth,” not “correctness,” and further requires (if he write χωϊ) the substitution of the late Aramaic ϊ (in this word) for the Heb. θ. To regarding “Bow” as the title of the Song Bφttcher objects that this ought in that case to be its first word; or, if the mention of the bow in 2 Samuel 1:22 justifies this title (as the second Sura of the Koran is called “The Cow” from the incidental story of Moses’ cow in it), the word should at least have the Art., and we should indeed expect “the song of the bow.” On the other hand we may refer to such titles as those of Psalms 22, 56, 45, 60. (Kitto). A new suggestion is made by Bib. Com., that there was in the Book of Jashar a collection of poems, in which special mention was made of the bow (2 Samuel 1:19-27; 1 Samuel 2:1-10; Numbers 21:27-30; Lamentations 2.; Lamentations 3; Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 32; perhaps Deuteronomy 33, etc.), that this collection was known as Kasheth (the bow), and that the author of 2 Sam. transferred this dirge from the Book of Jashar to his own pages with its title as follows: “For the children of Israel to learn by heart. Kasheth from the Book of Jashar;” the “and he said” must then be regarded as introducing the Song, the title being a parenthesis. The objection to this rendering is the position of the “and he said,” which it is hard to attach to the dirge, and the way in which the Book of Jashar is referred to, which does not suit a title like those in the Psalms—So far no satisfactory translation has been given from the existing text, nor any satisfactory emendation suggested. The rendering of Erdmann is adopted as offering the fewest difficulties—Tr.]—The source whence the author drew this Song was “the Book of the Upright” (Sing.), or if the subst. (Jashar) be taken as collective, of the upright ones (Vulg. liber justorum). Comp. Joshua 10:13. It was in existence before the Books of Joshua and Samuel, and contained (judging from the two extracts here and in Joshua) a collection of Songs on specially remarkable events of the Israelite history, together with celebration of the prominent pious men, whose names were connected with these events (see Bleek, Introd.); Maurer: “songs in praise of worthy Israelites.”—[On the Book of Jashar or The Upright, the various opinions as to its origin and character (including Donaldson’s fanciful and unsound book), the two Rabbinical works of this name, the anonymous work of 1625 (an English translation of which was published in New York in 1840 by M. M. Noah; it abounds in fables, and was apparently the work of a Spanish Jew), and the “clumsy forgery” which appeared in England in 1751 under the name of the “Book of Jasher” (reprinted in 1827 and in 1833)—see Art. “Book of Jasher” in Smith’s Bib. Dict., and Gill’s Commentary in loco and on Joshua 10:13. Patrick holds the opinion that it was a book concerning the right art of making war (Jasher—right), and quotes Victorinus Strigelius, who says that it was “an ecclesiastical history like those of Eusebius and Theodoret.” The author has been surmised to be Gad or Nathan, inasmuch as no extract is given from the work later than the death of Saul. Dr. Erdmann states in the text the substance of what we know about it.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:19. The glory of Israel on thy heights slain!—This lament is the superscription of the whole song; herein David addresses “the people of the Lord, the house of Israel” (2 Samuel 1:12). “Israel” cannot be taken as Vocative, “O Israel” (Buns., Keil, et al. [Kitto, Stanley, Bib. Com.]), because then the expression “the glory” would stand too isolated and undefined, especially at the beginning of the song; we must therefore suppose it to be defined by the following word.—[Bib. Com., to avoid this difficulty, renders: “thy glory;” Chandler, Philippson and Cahen: “O glory of Israel,” which is easier as supplying an antecedent for the “thy heights;” but perhaps less suitable in the connection, where we should not so naturally expect a mere exclamation, and where the subst. verb could not with this translation be supplied. Still it is a quite possible rendering, and deserves consideration.—Tr.]—Some render the opening word (δַ ?φְּ ?αִ ?ι) “Gazelle” (De Wette, et al. [Kitto, Stanley]), and Ewald then refers this to Jonathan, who, he says (Thenius: “a high-handed way, in truth, of dealing with history”), was generally known among the warriors as “the Gazelle;” but this, apart from the absence in the song of any comparison with the gazelle, or any allusion to its swiftness and agility, is untenable simply because the song speaks throughout not of one hero (Jonathan), but of two (Saul and Jonathan). As the composition has the ring of a hero-song in honor of these two, who were in fact the hero-glory of Israel, we must render the word “glory, ornament.” The “heights,” on which these the “ornament of Israel” were slain, are the mountains of Gilboa, on which David looks as the scene of the tragic end of the two greatest heroes of Israel. At the outset of his song he laments the heavy loss which Israel suffered in noble, hero-power. This sorrowful lament is still more definitely expressed in the following words: “How are the heroes fallen!” Thrice it appears as the ground-tone of the whole song. Here at the beginning it introduces the lament for the two strong heroes, Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:20-24), which forms the greater part of the song; in 2 Samuel 1:25 it is the basis for the lament over Jonathan alone, the deeply loved friend. At the close (2 Samuel 1:27) it sounds out the third time, strengthened by a parallel exclamation, that the whole song as a hero-elegy may not merely “die away in a last sigh,” but close with an exclamation aloud of deepest grief over the loss of these great heroes. 2 Samuel 1:20. The two Philistine cities Gath and Askelon, as the most prominent, are named in the language of poetry, for the whole land, which they represent (Gath very near, Askelon at a distance on the sea). The singer will not have Israel’s great calamity known among the heathen [he did not know that the Philistines had possession of the bodies of Saul and his sons.—Tr.], for they are the “uncircumcised,” the enemies of Jehovah and of His people. The latter’s shame is already great enough in being overcome and trodden down by the uncircumcised nation; may it not be increased by Philistine songs of triumph over vanquished Israel.—Tell it not in Gath, so Micah 1:10. “The rejoicing of the daughters of the Philistines” refers to the common oriental custom of the celebration by the women and virgins with songs and dances of the heroic deeds and triumphal return of the men (see 1 Samuel 18:6).—David’s expression: “Tell it not,” etc., must be conceived and understood throughout according to its poetical significance: he wishes that Philistia may not learn of this defeat, that Israel may be spared the shame of becoming the object of the Philistines’ scornful joy over victory. In fact the defeat of Israel could not possibly remain unknown; news of it had already gone through the whole land (1 Samuel 31:9 sq.). It would be in contradiction with the poetical type to suppose (as Sack does) that David’s words are an exhortation to the men assembled about him on Philistine soil [at Ziklag], that they themselves at least should not announce the sad news to the enemy. Nor Isaiah 2 Samuel 1:21 to be taken as a real imprecation against Nature (Then.), but as a poetical image. 2 Samuel 1:21. Over against the exultant joy of victory of Israel’s enemies, which he would gladly be spared, David sets the attitude of mourning, in which he would behold the mountains of Gilboa, the scene of his heroes’ death-struggle: ye mountains in Gilboa, poetical for the usual prose-form: “mountains of Gilboa” (2 Samuel 1:6; 1 Samuel 31:1), the Preposition further defining the Stat. Const. (see on this construction Ew. § 289 b, Ges. § 116, 1).—[Others suppose, not so well, that Gilboa is here named as a tract of country.—Tr.]—Be there neither dew nor rain on you!—May you lack that which makes you green and fruitful, and dispenses fresh life. Waste and desert they were to lie, that their death might present forever a picture of the dreadful end of those that were slain there, and so Nature might, as it were, mourn for them.—And fields of first-fruits (be not on you). The fields from which were taken the firstlings (as best), were the most fruitful. The expression therefore means: may these places be destitute (not only of fructifying dew and rain, but also) of the products of a fruitful soil, may there be here no fruitful fields whence might be gathered offerings of first-fruits. This is a poetical elaboration of the thought expressed in the figure of the dew and rain, and is by no means “meaningless” (Then.). There is no need for changing the text, as Thenius, for example, after Theodotion would read: “ye forests and mountains of death.” Equally untenable is Bφttcher’s conjecture (Aehrenlese, p. 24, and Neue Aehrenl, p. 139): “on the fields of Jarmuth,” especially as “the name of the city in question [Jarmuth] is doubtful, and its location near Gilboa arbitrary” (Then.). The translation “lofty fields” (campi editi, Cler., Maur.) is opposed to the usual meaning of the Heb. word (ϊְּ ?ψεּ ?ξεϊ), is here without special significance, and requires too much to be supplied in order to connect it with the preceding: “and on you, ye lofty fields,” come neither dew nor rain.—For there is defiled the shield of the heroes, defiled with dust and blood, not “cast away” (Vulg.).—[Eng. A. V.: “vilely cast away,” combining, not badly, the two shades of meaning of the word.—Tr.]—The shield of Saul is specially mentioned as the military emblem of the leader of the army.—Not anointed with oil. This is not an explanation of the words “defiled is Saul’s shield,” as the Vulg. has it: “the shield of Saul, as if it were not anointed with oil,” nor a reference to Saul: “as if he were not anointed,” 1 Samuel 10:1 sq. (J. H. Michaelis, S. Schmid, Dathe, et al. [Eng. A. V.]), the “as if” and the reference to the royal anointing being both wrongly introduced; but it expresses the fact that the shield is not “anointed with oil,” as was usually done to the metallic shield (ξָ ?βֵ ?ο), in order to clean and polish it when it was stained with blood and defiled by dirt and rust (see the description in Isaiah 21:5). In the individualizing poetical language the defiled and uncleansed shields denote the unfitness for war and the helplessness of the glory of Israel lying powerless in dust and blood. If the shield of Israel lack its ornament and grace, so mayst thou also, O field of slaughter, lack thine, mourn thou waste and dreary! Let Nature respond to the shame and wretchedness of the people. 2 Samuel 1:22 celebrates the bravery of the two heroes, which impelled them ever onward to victory, that thus the contrast to their sad end may come out more prominently. To Jonathan is assigned the bow (comp. 1 Samuel 18:4; 1 Samuel 20:20), to Saul the sword. They thus represent the weapon-power (“Wehr und Waffen”) of the whole people. The sword, and in a sort the arrow, drinks the blood and devours the flesh. This frequent poetical conception (2 Samuel 2:26; Deuteronomy 32:42; Isaiah 1:20; Isaiah 34:6; Jeremiah 2:30; Jeremiah 46:10) mingles in the words: Saul’s sword returned not empty [Jonathan’s bow turned not back]; these heroes were accustomed to gain complete victory, to overthrow and destroy all opposing power (comp. 1 Samuel 14:15). 2 Samuel 1:23. The singer sets forth how the two met death not only together, but also in a deep, cordial union of war-comradeship. They were “beloved” and “lovely, amiable,” the latter quality being the cause of the former; important data for the characterization of the two men, both adjectives being referred to each. Comp. the corresponding description of Saul in 1 Samuel 9:2 sq. and 1 Samuel 10:24. David here looks at him only in the light of his God-given noble endowments and qualities, and praises them, turning his glance away (in view of his death) from the time during which the “evil spirit” had darkened and destroyed his nobility, and not thinking of the persecutions he himself had suffered.—In life and in death—not divided.—On the one hand David here bears witness to the cordial love that Saul felt for his son, traces of which we find in 1 Samuel 19:6; 1 Samuel 20:2, though according to 1 Samuel 20:30 sq. the evil spirit in him burned in hot anger even against Jonathan. On the other hand David here praises the filial love of Jonathan, in which he remained true to his father in spite of the latter’s hatred and persecution of his friend, not permitting his friendship to diminish his filial piety. Equal in noble qualities of heart, bound together in life and death in cordial personal association, they had also the noblest heroic qualities in common: each was distinquished for eagle-like swiftness and agility (Isaiah 40:31; Deuteronomy 28:49; Jeremiah 4:13; Lamentations 4:19; Habakkuk 1:8), for lion-like courage and strength (2 Samuel 17:10; Judges 14:18; Proverbs 30:30). How sorrowful, then, the loss! 2 Samuel 1:24. Saul’s gracious free-handedness in dividing out the booty of war. Scarlet-red, purple or crimson (ωָׁ ?πִ ?ι, Exodus 25:4; Judges 5:30; Proverbs 31:21).—With delights=in an amiable manner [or the “with” may=“and;” in scarlet and (other) delights.—Tr.].—To this costly clothing for women he added golden ornaments, brought along in the spoil of war. As the men are to mourn for the hero, so the women for the gracious king, who out of the booty of his battles has bestowed on them costly adornment.—[The poetical power of this appeal to the women of Israel, beautiful in itself, is heightened when we recollect that these women had once sung the war-praises of Saul, and were therefore the admirers of his prowess as well as the grateful recipients of his bounty. Womanly tenderness is to mourn the fallen hero, whom in his life womanly enthusiasm had celebrated.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:25-26. The special lamentation for Jonathan. 2 Samuel 1:25. The first part is a repetition of the lamentation in 2 Samuel 1:19 b with the addition: in the midst of the battle. Then follows first the lamentation over the fact of his death: Jonathan on thy heights slain, comp. 2 Samuel 1:19 a. David mentions him alone, in order to bemoan what he had lost in him, the dearly-loved friend. His union of heart with his friend differences this lament sharply from the foregoing over him and Saul as heroes.—I am distressed, etc., thus standing first indicates that David’s heart was deeply moved, and utterly given up to grief. My brother—the expression of the cordial brotherly love that united them. Very pleasant wast thou to me must be understood as setting forth the deep impression that Jonathan made on him by his faithful, absorbing love. On this account, and because of the expression: “I am distressed,” the “thy love” can only = “thy love to me,” not “my love to thee” (Bunsen). “David mourns for him not because he himself loved him, but because he has lost him” (Then.). “More wonderful, extraordinary” than the love of women, the love that women bear—thus he sets forth the deep devotion of Jonathan’s love, like that which is peculiar to women, and is the basis of the completest loving union between man and woman. Theodoret; “As they that are married are made one flesh by their union, so they that love one another perfectly are made one in soul by their disposition of mind.” In these words David has not only reared to Jonathan a monument of friendship, but also borne testimony to that highest ideal of friendship (realized in him), which in the Old Testament was possible only on the basis of a common covenant of heart with the living God. 2 Samuel 1:27. The climacteric expression of sorrow after this declaration of highest loss in Jonathan’s love: How are the heroes fallen! At this culmination of grief the lament again sounds the key-note of the whole, and returns in conclusion to its chief object, the sorrow for the hero-glory of Israel destroyed in Saul and Jonathan. For the concluding words: The weapons of war are perished, refer not to materials of war (Vulg., De Wette, Bφttcher, al.). This would be a psychologically inconceivable transition, in sharpest contrast with the lofty tone of the Song, from the deepest, tenderest, innermost sorrow of heart for what the singer and all Israel had lost in these two heroes, to a lament which, as Thenius admirably says, a Napoleon might have made, but not a David. The “weapons of war” are the heroes considered as instruments of battle and war; comp. Isaiah 13:5; Acts 9:15 (σκεν͂ος). [The exquisite beauty of this Ode has been noted by all commentators. The artistic skill with which its successive thoughts are introduced is equal to the beauty and passionate tenderness of the thoughts themselves. The lament over Israel’s glory slain—the picture of exulting foes—the imprecation on the spot of ground that witnessed and, as it were, permitted the misfortune—the praise of the military exploits of the heroes, their oneness, their strength—the appeal to the women—the picture of Jonathan’s deep and faithful love—these are all exquisitely expressed and connected; the ode has unity, and yet, short as it is, has wonderful variety.—It is to be observed that the divine name does not occur in the song, nor does it contain any theocratic or religious thought. There is no reference to Jehovah’s wrath, no prayer for Jehovah’s interposition, no expression of resignation to the divine will. Whatever David may have thought of these things, he here says nothing about them. The elegy, therefore (though noble in feeling), is not religious; it is a national song, as the title seems to indicate, and is here chronicled by the historian as the speech of Jotham (Judges 9.) or that of Tertullus (Acts 24.) is recorded—a gem of ancient Hebrew poetry, not only pleasing as poetry, but instructive in the light that it throws on the personages and events of the time.—Tr.] AND 1. David’s noble, kingly disposition is here splendidly attested in the temptation that the announcement of Saul’s death brought him. Suddenly he sees himself freed from the persistent murderous persecutions of Saul, and the way open for his accession to the long-promised royal power and honor; how easily might his heart have abandoned itself, if not to malicious joy, at any rate to joy at God’s righteous judgment on his enemy, and the restoration of quiet in his life and peace in his land! How human and natural it would seem if he expressed satisfaction at Saul’s end and its results for himself! Instead of this we see in David’s words and conduct in the presence of this terrible catastrophe the noblest and purest unselfishness, and concern only for the sacred interests of Israel as the people of the Lord. Looking altogether away from himself and his royal calling, he immerses himself with his men in mourning for the national calamity, for the downfall of the army of the Lord, for the violation done to the Lord’s honor in the defeat of His people. He shows deep, true sorrow for Saul’s death, looking away from all that Saul had done to him, and taking note only of what he was for Israel in his royal calling as Anointed of the Lord. Further, he without envy celebrates him as the glory of Israel in the elegy, which contemplates Saul only as military hero, but as such from the theocratic point of view in his quality of leader of the people and army of the Lord. As he acted theocratically with perfect justice in slaying in holy anger the Amalekite as the murderer of the Lord’s anointed, giving no room in his heart to revenge, so he stands on the summit of the theocratic view, when in his elegy he celebrates Saul as the national hero and consecrated leader of Israel, being wholly free from bitterness and anger at the suffering that Saul had so long inflicted on him. All selfish feeling vanishes, in the presence of the slaughtered people and the slain king, in the general theocratic concern for Israel and in the consciousness of the Lord’s control over His people with the army and its leaders. “David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan is the consecration of completion that is poured out over the attestation of his royal disposition” (Baumgarten). It is “a monument of his noble unrevengeful spirit. He who can so speak of the enemy who has for years sought his life and inflicted on his soul wounds that never heal, can certainly not be charged with revenge” (Hengst., 4:298 sq.). 2. While he thus exhibits a noble, high-hearted disposition, David also presents an example of true love of enemies, being not merely free from all feeling of revenge in the heart, making no complaint or accusation concerning the wrong done him, uttering no word of joy over the judgment that has befallen his enemy, but mourning his fall as that of a friend, avenging in holy anger the insult offered to God in his person, and dwelling with just recognition and praise on the good with which God has endowed him. 3. As David did, so must every servant of God keep the good and righteous cause for which he fights and suffers (whether it be merely personal, or also a matter of God’s kingdom) free and pure from the self-seeking that mingles therewith under the pretence of furthering and completing it, that he may not set himself at variance with God’s holy will, whose wise direction prepares right ways for it, nor with the ends of his kingdom which can never be furthered by sinful means. He who employs the sin of the world for a cause good and holy in itself, so as to make himself partaker of this sin, treads the path of falsehood and destruction, and desecrates the name and the aims of the kingdom of God. 4. Sincere love of enemies has its root in a heart purified from selfishness and in fellowship with the living God, which seeks not its own, but looks only to God’s love and honor. For God’s sake the truly God-fearing man loves his enemy. And so love to enemies shows itself in such main features as are here described: in the putting away of all revengeful feeling, in the refraining from a strictly justifiable condemnation in view of God’s completed judgment, in silence of heart and mouth before God and man as to the evil that the enemy has done, in covering the sin that the Lord has visited or will visit, in recognizing what was good and praise-worthy in the enemy, and what he was and what he accomplished by God’s will and endowment for his kingdom, in praising the name of God for all whereby the Lord even in the person and life of the enemy has maintained His honor and exhibited His merciful and long-suffering love. AND Wonderful is God’s management in the life of His people. When through the entanglement of their life with the world their anxieties and afflictions have risen highest, the Lord suddenly causes things to take a turn that puts an end to all need and conflict, and introduces a thoroughgoing help that brings all temptations and trials of faith to a wholesome conclusion.—To those who are distinguished in the kingdom of God as specially called and favored instruments of His grace, falsehood and hypocrisy draw near most pressingly and corruptingly in the guise of humility and self-abasement.—Children of God should not betake themselves to the ways of unrighteousness and self-will, in order to attain the goal set up for them; they can reach this only through decided rejection of the means offered and commended to them by the tempting world.—The God-fearing man sees in the misfortune that strikes his enemy the judicial righteousness of God, and accordingly lets no feeling of revenge or of rejoicing at injury to others gain a place in his heart, and is humbly silent when the Lord speaks. Rather does he mourn over the fall of his opponent, and over the damage that has been done not only to the opponent, but to the common good cause.—Love to an enemy is righteous in that it recognizes the good in an opponent without envy and without reserve, and thankfully recognizes what God has done in his case according to His own goodness and mercy.—Even amid the most painful experiences we should be quick to discern the stamp of divine nobility in an immortal human soul.—When we behold God’s hand righteously smiting men from whom as our persecutors and foes we have had to suffer for the sake of God’s cause and kingdom, we should keep our eyes open against the sin which wishes to anticipate God’s will and assail the life of our opposers: we should by word and deed testify in holy wrath against conduct so offensive to God. 2 Samuel 1:1 sq. Schlier: God the Lord has for every one of us also fixed His aim, and though it be no royal crown that is destined for us, yet about us all God has long ago formed His special plan. The way to reach this end is the way of duty, the way of quiet, faithful obedience to God’s will. In such a way we come to the goal. Think of David, to whom the crown was promised, and who in order to obtain it did absolutely nothing else than his duty, and how beautifully did David reach the goal! without his asking, the crown was laid at his feet. 2 Samuel 1:2. Cramer: Hypocrites turn their cloak according to the wind, and worship the rising more than the setting sun; but He who deals hypocritically with his neighbor prepares a net for his own feet (Proverbs 29:5); 2 Samuel 1:3. Osiander: Those who wish to deceive other people mix truth and falsehood together, in order that they may sell one along with the other, like good and bad wares (James 3:10-12). [2 Samuel 1:10. Hall: Worldly minds think no man can be of any other than their own diet; and because they find the respects of self-love, and private profit, so strongly prevailing with themselves, they cannot conceive how these should be capable of a repulse from others.—Henry: David had been long waiting for the crown, and now it is brought him by an Amalekite. See how God can serve His own purpose of kindness to His people, even by designing men, who aim at nothing but to set up themselves.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:11-12. For him who has the Holy Spirit it is not impossible to love his enemies.—Schlier: Who among us has such a persecutor as David had in Saul? What we have in the worst case is one or another opposer, who injures us or hurts our feelings. And yet how full we are of hate! and even if we do our opposer no evil, how glad we are when evil befalls him! Of this we will be ashamed, we will learn better the love of enemies. We are Christians, and as Christians have double cause to follow Him who for us, His enemies, gave up His life.—F. W. Krummacher: O how it should shame us, already in the days of the Old Testament to meet with a love of enemies such as here manifests itself in David, while it must with sincerity, truth and candor be confessed that among us, though we know the revelation of love to sinners in Christ, it belongs, alas! to the rarest pearls. 2 Samuel 1:16. It was indignation at such an outrage when David caused the regicide to be slain, and such indignation proceeded from fear of God, and at such a moment there was nothing like calculating prudence to be found in David. But in truth the fear of the Lord is always at the same time true prudence.—[David’s course in this matter was the best policy for him; but we have no right to conclude from that fact that he was led to it by considerations of policy. He had himself shown, on an occasion of great temptation (1 Samuel 24:6), that reverence for the Lord’s anointed of which he here speaks. The fact that “honesty is the best policy” will not of itself alone make a man honest; but neither does it prevent a man’s being honest, or give us a right to suspect a good man’s motives.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:17. S. Schmid: When a man dies, it is for the first time seen how people have been disposed towards him during his life. 2 Samuel 1:20. Krummacher: The word: “Tell it not in Gath,” etc., has since become a proverb in believing circles. It is often heard when one of their number has not guarded his feet, and has somewhere given offence. Would that this call were but more faithfully lived up to than is for the most part the case! Would that the honor of the spiritual Zion lay everywhere as near the heart of the children of the kingdom as to David’s heart that of the earthly Zion! But how often it happens that they are even zealous to uncover the nakedness of their brethren, and by this renewal of Ham’s offence become traitors in the Church which Christ has purchased with His blood. They thus make themselves partakers in the guilt of calumniating the gospel, in that they open the way for it by their perhaps thoroughly malicious tale-telling—Schlier: Do but let us once learn to love our fellow-man, not for the sake of what he is or deserves, but for the Lord’s sake who demands it of us; then shall we, even when we suffer injustice, for all that not be wanting in love, but shall understand the blessed art of showing love even where we find no love! How it ought to shame us though that David, after long banishment and tribulation, feels nothing at the death of Saul but mourning and lamentation.—Where office and calling does not otherwise demand, we should be silent as to the evil done by a dead man, especially when it was a prince or a king; love should cover all that, should find no joy m saying much of the faults of others. But it should be to us a rightful concern and a holy joy to bring to light the good that another has done.—[“De mortuis nil nisi bonum.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:23. How could David sincerely speak thus? There came back to him now the recollection of those bright days when he dwelt peacefully as Saul’s son and Jonathan’s brother, and his heart melted into tenderness as he recalled the amiable traits which not only his dear friend Jonathan, but even Saul in his better moments, had manifested. Eulogies over the dead often seem insincere or exaggerated to those who know not the memories awakened. 2 Samuel 1:26. To say, as is sometimes done, that the Scriptures speak of the love of Christ as “passing the love of women,” is utterly unwarrantable “accommodation.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:1-16. A cunning schemer failing and perishing; 1) Amid bloodshed and mortal agony he coolly lays a deep scheme to promote his own interest. 2) He makes a cunning mixture of truth and falsehood (David could not know, and we cannot tell, just how much of it was true)—as deep schemers usually do. 3) He calculates on the narrow selfishness of human nature—commonly a very safe basis of calculation. 4) He is foiled by encountering such generosity, loyalty and justice as he has not been used to and did not look for (2 Samuel 1:11-15). The shrewdest schemers sometimes mistake their man. 5) His plan issues in benefit to another, but only ruin to himself. In this world which so abounds in selfish schemers and tempters there is yet a grace that can sustain and a Providence that overrules.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:19-27 : Henry: The excellent spirit which David here shows: 1) Very generous to his enemy, Saul; a) conceals his faults, b) praises what is worthy. 2) Very grateful to Jonathan, his sworn friend; a) nothing more delightful in this world than a true friend, b) nothing more distressful than the loss of such a friend. 3) Deeply concerned for the honor of God (2 Samuel 1:20). 4) Deeply concerned for the public welfare. The beauty of Israel slain (2 Samuel 1:19), the mighty fallen (2 Samuel 1:19; 2 Samuel 1:25; 2 Samuel 1:27).—Tr.] Footnotes: [2 Samuel 1:1. Cahen and Wordsworth regard this phrase as connecting the Second Book with the first; but it seems to be nothing more than the ordinary formula of historical narrative, referring to 1 Samuel 31. So begins 2 Samuel 2 of 2 Sam. There is no trace here of a division of “Samuel” into two Books.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:1. Some MSS. and EDD. read δָ ?ςֲ ?ξָ ?μֵ ?χִ ?ι, the usual form. Whether the present Heb. text (with the Art.) is impossible (Wellh.) may be considered doubtful. A final Yod may, however, have fallen out from similarity to the following Waw.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:2. Thenius thinks that the Sept. reading: “from the people of (ξֵ ?ςַ ?ν) Saul” suits the connection as well as the Heb.; against which Wellhausen remarks that the Greek reading contradicts 2 Samuel 1:6, from which it appears that the Amalekite did not belong to the army. This reason of Wellh. does not seem decisive (for in 2 Samuel 1:3 he seems to say, that he had been in the army); but the Heb. phrase is more natural than the Greek.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:2. αְּ ?βָ ?γָ ?ιε, the word for civilian dress, not military vestment (ξַ ?γ) as in 1 Samuel 4:12; Judges 3:16 (Bib. Com.). This would so far make against the supposition that he was a soldier.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:3. The Impf. (ϊָּ ?αεֹ ?ΰ) may represent the action as incomplete, = whence art thou now engaged in coming?—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:4. Sept.: What is this affair? that is, What is the matter? = ξַ ?δΞζֶּ ?δδַ ?γָּ ?αָ ?ψ (Wellh.), which is not as good as the Heb. text. Syr.: “what is the affair?”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:4. The ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ here = ὄτι, introducing a remark as oratio indirecta (Then. and Erdmann: = “namely”), and we might render: and he said, that the people were fled and … fallen, etc. (so Philippson); but “that” with orat. directa (as in Eng. A. V.) is not Eng. idiom.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:4. This “also … also” is not a very good rendering of the Heb. βַּ ?ν ... βַּ ?ν, since it does not clearly bring out the collocation and climax in the two clauses. On the other hand Erdmann’s rendering: “not only are many of the people dead, but also Saul and Jonathan are dead,” makes a sharper contrast than the Heb. expresses. Perhaps the sense would be more exactly given by translating: “the people fled, and moreover many are dead, and moreover Saul,” etc—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:5. Lit: that Saul is dead, and Jonathan his son? The Syr. has: “David said to the young man, Tell me how died Saul and Jonathan his son?” a reading which seems to have nothing for it. The repetition of the descriptive phrase: “that told him” = “his informant,” is in accordance with the ancient manner of writing; compare the standing epithets of the Homeric gods and heroes—Tr.] 2 Samuel 1:6. Lit: “possessors of horses,” where the last word τָ ?ψָ ?ωׁ is the charger or war-horse as distinguished from the ordinary horse (ρεּ ?ν). The Chald. translates the first word (αַּ ?ςֲ ?μֵ ?ι) “army,” which is a loose and inaccurate rendering. Wellhausen, regarding the Heb. phrase as a strange one, has an ingenious supposition that there was originally to this τָ ?ψָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν of the text a correction αַּ ?ςֲ ?μֵ ?ιχֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ “possessors of bows,” of which the first word got into the text here, and the second (χֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ) into 2 Samuel 1:18, to the vexation of interpreters. Our phrase, though it occurs here only, is perhaps possible, but the αςμι is probably an early insertion—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:9. ςָ ?ξַ ?ψςַ ?ε. Instead of “stand upon” = “stand against,” some (Gesen., Philippson, Cahen, Erdmann) render “stand by,” = “come near, approach.” The objection to this latter rendering is that the verb means always “stand” or “make a stand,” as in the passages cited by Cahen, Daniel 12:1, Michael stands by (on behalf of) the people, Esther 8:11, the Jews make a stand for their lives. Here we should expect a verb of motion: “come near and slay me,” as in Jeremiah 7:10; Jeremiah 17:9. It is better, therefore, to adopt the sense of rising up, standing against, or to use the phrase “stand on” made familiar by the English Authorized Version.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:9. So Aq. (ὁ σφιγκτήρ) and probably Syr. (φεּ ?ψֹ ?πֹ ?ΰ, rendered badly in Walton's Polyg. caligines. Castellus gives vertigo, and J. D. Michaelis spasmus), and so most moderns. See Gesenius, Thesaur. s. v.—The last clause of the verse is literally: “for all yet is my life in me,” which is given by Saul as the reason why the young man should slay him—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:10. So Sym. and Theod. Aquila has ἁφορισμα from the ground-meaning of the stem πζψ, “to set apart,” perhaps regarding the diadem as that which especially characterizes and sets apart a king (Schleusner)—Wellh. thinks that the Art. is necessary to ΰֶ ?φְ ?ςָ ?γָ ?δ.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:12. Sept.: “for the people of Judah and for the house of Israel,” the other VSS. as the Heb. Wellh. thinks “people of Judah” the true text-reading, but supposes that this may be a corruption of “people of Jahveh,” and that it called forth the addition “house of Israel.” But, on the other hand, the Sept. reading looks like an attempt to smooth away a supposed difficulty, and the Heb. text gives a clear and deeply theocratic sense, which is well brought out by Then. and Erdmann. The Synopsis Criticorum and Wellh. are wrong in saying that “people of Jahveh” and “house of Israel” are identical expressions.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:13. Or: “an Amalekite stranger.” Aq. προσηλύτου, and so Gill.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:16. The text has the Plu., the Sing. is found in many MSS. (De Rossi) and in Qeri, apparently as if the Plu. alone meant “blood-guiltiness.” But in the Heb. of O. T. both Sing. and Plu. are used in both senses, of “blood” and of “blood-guiltiness,” see Leviticus 17:4 for the latter sense in the Sing. The Sing. in the VSS. decides nothing for the Heb. text, because elsewhere (as Genesis 4:10) the Heb. Plu. = “blood” is given by the Sing. in Syr. and Chald. Wellh. thinks that this Qeri may have been determined by the use in 1 Kings 2:33; 1 Kings 2:37—After “saying” Sept. has ὄτι of orat. indirecta as in 2 Samuel 1:4, and De Rossi mentions that one MS. in his possession here has λִּ ?ι, which is perhaps a copyist's imitation of later usage—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:18. So Targ., Rashi and Gill. The discussion in the Exposition—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:19. Some take the δ as Interrog., and render: Is the beauty of Israel slain? etc.; but the interrogative form does not so well suit the connection. Others regard “Israel” as Vocative, on account of the following “thy,” which otherwise would have no antecedent; against this (otherwise most natural) rendering is, as Erdmann remarks, the hardness of the first word: The beauty, O Israel, is slain, etc. Bib. Com. therefore translates: Thy beauty, O Israel; but it is questionable whether the “thy” can lawfully be supplied. The rendering: “O beauty of Israel slain,” etc., is harsh, because we should expect “thou art slain” Perhaps the second of the above translations is the preferable—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:21. Erdmann and others render “defiled,” against which see Ges., Thes. s. v.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:21. The Chald., and perhaps Syr., refers the anointing to Saul instead of to his shield. Eng. A. V. follows Vulg., which is undoubtedly wrong.—In some MSS. and printed EDD. ξָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ηַ is written instead of ξָ ?ωִ ?ιηַ, and this is the more usual form; but in this poetical passage the less usual form is not unnatural. Instead of αְּ ?μִ ?ι‍ ?, “not,” some MSS. have αְּ ?μּ ?ι = “implement:” “the shield of Saul, armor anointed with oil,” an improbable and unsupported reading—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:22. The reading ηֶ ?ψֶ ?α, “sword,” found in some MSS., is perhaps a mere textual error (found in no VS.), or perhaps a correction for dignity—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:23. These Adjectives have the Art. in the Heb., whence Then and Erdmann render: “Saul and Jonathan, the lovely and pleasant, in life and in death they were not divided.” Eng. A. V. is supported by all the ancient VSS. and by most modern commentators.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:24. ςַ ?μ instead of ΰֶ ?μ in some MSS.; but the change is unnecessary since ΰֶ ?μ = “in respect to, for.”—In ξַ ?μְ ?αִּ ?ωְׁ ?λֶ ?ν some codices substitute the fem. suffix λֶ ?ο, as in the last word of the verse; it is probable, however, that the masc. form was used (especially in poetry) for both genders.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 1:25. Coislin.: εἰςθάνατονἐτραυματίσθης, “thou wast wounded unto death,” a weak reading in comparison with the Heb. Text.—Tr.] On the adverb use of the Inf. Abs. (δַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?δ) see Ew., § 280 c.—On βַּ ?ν ... βַּ ?ν, see 1 Samuel 17:36 and Ew. § 359, 1. [The Heb. (εַ ?ιτֶ ?ο) means “turned his face, looked round,” which seems possible for a man lying on the ground, half-raised on a spear.—Tr.] This insertion of ςεֹ ?γ between αּ ?μ as nomen regens and the nomen rectum occurs in a few other cases, Job 27:3. See Ges., §114, 3 R. 1. On the irreg. form (πְ ?τְ ?μεֹ) see Ew., § 255 d. [For Jewish traditions and fables on this whole history see Patrick, Gill, Philippson.—Tr.] Read the Plu. of γָּ ?ν as in the Kethib [Germ. has Qeri, wrongly], since this alone is used in the sense of “blood-gniltiness.” [This is incorrect; see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] As ωְׂ ?γֵ ?ι is Sing. (the Plu. is ωְׂ ?γεֹ ?ϊ), all explanations based on the Plu. are wrong. ϊְּ ?ψεּ ?ξָ ?δ is used of the bringing of first-fruits, Numbers 15:19 sq.; 2 Chronicles 31:10 [but also of other offerings.—Tr.] ιְ ?ςָ ?ψֵ ?ιεְ ?ηָ ?ψֵ ?ιξָ ?εֶ ?ϊ [which is “unhebraic, and the first word ungrammatical” (Wellh.).—Tr.]. εּ ?ωְׂ ?γεֹ ?ϊιַ ?ψְ ?ξεּ ?ϊ. [A phrase from Luther’s famous hymn (Eine feste burg)—“shield and weapon.” For a translation see Carlyle's Miscellanies.—Tr.] [On the translation see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] The form πִ ?τְ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?ϊָ ?δ as if from a verb μΧΧδ [with ΰַ for ΰָ ?]. Ges., § 75, 21 a, Ew. § 194, b. SECOND SECTION2 Samuel 2:1 to 2 Samuel 3:6I. David anointed King over Judah—dwells in Hebron. 2 Samuel 2:1-71 And it came to pass after this, that David inquired of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, Shall I go up into any [one] of the cities of Judah? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, 2Unto Hebron. So [And] David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam. the Jezreelitess and Abigail, Nabal’s wife [the wife of Nabal] the Carmelite.. 3And his men that were with him did David bring up, every man with his household; and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron. 4And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabesh-Gilead were they that buried Saul. 5And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-Gilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the Lord [Jehovah] that ye have showed this 6kindness unto your lord, even [om. even] unto Saul, and have buried him. And now, the Lord [Jehovah] show [do] kindness and truth unto you; and I also will 7[om. will] requite [do] you this kindness, because ye have done this thing. Therefore [And] now, let your hands be strengthened [strong], and be ye valiant; for your master [lord] Saul is dead, and also [ins. me] the house of Judah have [have the house, etc.] anointed me [om. me] king over them. II. Ishbosheth’s anti-godly Elevation to the Throne of all Israel through Abner, and the consequent long Contest between the House of Saul and the House of David 2 Samuel 2:8 to 2 Samuel 3:6. 8But [And] Abner, the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim, 9And made him king over [for] Gilead and over [for] the Ashurites and over [for] Jezreel, and over Ephraim and 10over Benjamin and over all Israel. Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years; but the house of Judah followed David. 11And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months. 12And Abner the son of Ner, and the servants of Ishbosheth the son of Saul went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon. 13And Joab the son of Zeruiah and the servants of David went out; and [ins. they] met together by the pool of Gibeon; and they sat down, the one [these] on the one 14side of the pool, and the other [those] on the other side of the pool. And Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now [om. now] arise and play before us. And Joab said, Let them arise. 15Then there arose and went over by number twelve of Benjamin, which [who] pertained to Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David. 16And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword into his fellow’s side, so they fell [and fell] down dead together; wherefore [and] that place was called Helkath-hazzurim, which is in Gibeon. 17And there was a very sore battle that day, and Abner was beaten, and the men of Israel, before the servants of David. 18And there were three sons of Zeruiah there, Joab and Abishai and Asahel; and Asahel was as light of foot as a wild roe [gazelle]. 19And Asahel pursued after Abner, and in going he turned not [he turned not to go] to the right hand nor to 20the left from following Abner. Then [And] Abner looked behind him and said, Art thou Asahel? And he answered [said], I am. 21And Abner said to him, Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armor. But Asahel would not turn aside from following of [om of] him. 22And Abner said again to Asahel, Turn thee aside from following me; wherefore should I smite thee to the ground? how then should I hold up 23my face to Joab thy brother? Howbeit [And] he refused to turn aside; wherefore [and] Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him under the fifth rib [in the abdomen], that [and] the spear came out behind him, and he fell down there and died in the same place [on the spot]; and it came to pass that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still. 24Joab also [And Joab] and Abishai pursued after Abner; and the sun went down when they were come [and they came] to the hill of Ammah, that lieth before Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon. 25And the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together after Abner, and became one troop, and stood on the 26top of an hill. Then [And] Abner called to Joab and said, Shall the sword devour forever? knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be then, ere thou bid the people return from following their brethren? 27And Joab said, As God liveth, unless thou hadst spoken, surely [om. surely] then 28in the morning the people had gone up every one from following his brother. So [And] Joab blew a trumpet, and all the people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither fought they any more. 29And Abner and his men walked all that night through the plain, and passed over Jordan, and went through all 30[ins. the] Bithron, and they [om. they] came to Mahanaim. And Joab returned from following Abner; and when [om. when] he had [om. had] gathered all the people together, [ins. and] there lacked of David’s servants nineteen men and Asahel. 31But [And] the servants of David had smitten of Benjamin and of Abner’s men, so that three hundred and three-score men died. 32And they took up Asahel and buried him in the sepulchre of his father which was in Bethlehem. And Joab and his men went all night, and they [om. they] came to Hebron at break of day. 2 Samuel 3:1 Now [And] there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David; but [and] David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. 2And unto David were sons born in Hebron; and his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; 3And his second, Chileab, of Abigail, the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; 4And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; 5And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron. And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul. AND . 2 Samuel 2:1-7. David’s elevation to the throne of Judah, and his residence in Hebron. 2 Samuel 2:1. The inquiry of the Lord was made through Urim and Thummim, comp. 1 Samuel 23:2; 1 Samuel 23:10 sq.; 1 Samuel 30:7-8 sq. The high-priest Abiathar with the Ephod was with David, 1 Sam. 22:30; 2 Samuel 23:6. At this decisive turning-point of his unquiet life he wished to know the will of the Lord. The “after this” refers to all that is narrated in 2 Samuel 1. and 1 Samuel 31. The motive for inquiring of the Lord is thereby at the same time indicated. He saw that the promise of the kingdom was now to be fulfilled to him. As he could no longer remain in the land of the Philistines, but must return to his country, and as the northern part of the land was held by the Philistines, the return to the territory of his own tribe was most natural; for there, where he had a long time found refuge (1 Samuel 22:5), he might count on a large following (1 Samuel 30:26 sq.) and firm support and protection against the remains of Saul’s army under Abner. To the first question he receives from the Lord the definite answer that he is to return to Judah. To the second question: “Whither?” the answer is: “To Hebron.” This city, situated in a valley (Genesis 37:14) in the most mountainous, and therefore the safest part of Judah, held to be a holy place from the recollections of the Patriarchal time, one of the principal places in the Tribe of Judah, an ancient royal city and a priestly city (Joshua 12:10; Joshua 21:11), must now have had for David a very special importance, which appeared all the clearer from the divine decision and in respect to his future life became indubitable; here now was to be fulfilled the old Patriarchal promise (Genesis 49:8 sq.), the establishment of the theocratic kingdom in the Tribe of Judah. 2 Samuel 2:2 sq. In accordance with the will and direction of his God he went thither with his whole family. But also the men that were with him (comp. 1 Samuel 27:2). he led thither into the cities of Hebron, that is, the places that belonged to the district of Hebron; every man with his house, a complete and permanent colonization of David’s entire following took place, the foundation of David’s royal authority, which was established with its seat in Hebron. For it is forthwith declared in 2 Samuel 2:4 a that the “men of Judah,” that is, the elders as the representatives of the Tribe anointed him king over the house (the tribe) of Judah. See 2 Samuel 5:3, where the elders of all Israel come to make him king over the whole nation. The first anointment received from Samuel (1 Samuel 17.) denoted the divine consecration to the royal office; this second one, performed by the Elders of Judah, was the public solemn installation of David (based on that anointment) into this office. Comp. Saul’s first anointment by Samuel (1 Samuel 10:1) and his subsequent public inauguration as king by the Elders, 1 Samuel 10:24; 1 Samuel 11:15.—So two anointments of Solomon are described, 1 Chronicles 23:1 sq.; 1 Chronicles 29:22. The anointing of David was perhaps hastened because Abner’s purpose (2 Samuel 2:8 sq.) was already known. [On the motives of the Tribe of Judah in making David their king see Chandler’s “Life of David,” Bk. II., 2 Samuel 30.—Tr]. 2 Samuel 2:4-7. David’s first act as king. The message to the Jabeshites with thanks for their burial of Saul and the announcement of his anointing as king.—And they told David, saying (Luther: And when it was told David that) the men of Jabesh are they that buried Saul. (The form) of this sentence would certainly be somewhat “hard and ill-constructed” (Then.), but for the obvious pre-supposition that David, having heard of and deeply lamented Saul’s death on the battle-field, inquired whether the body of the “Anointed of the Lord” had been rescued from the hands of the uncircumcised and buried in the sacred soil of his native land. S. Schmid well remarks of this explanation (which Tremellius has) that “it accords with David’s piety.” It is thus natural to suppose that David, now by God’s providence king in Saul’s stead, in consequence of the afflicting news that had wrung from him such a lament, purposes to give a becoming royal burial to the man whose person had always been sacred to him, and whose heroic greatness and virtues he had so passionately celebrated. There is therefore no need for the bold emendation of Thenius (after Vulg. and Sept.), who would read simply: “it was told David that the men of Jabesh buried Saul.”—On the burial by the faithful and grateful Jabeshites of the bodies of Saul and his sons brought away from Bethshean, see 1 Samuel 31:11 sq. 2 Samuel 2:5. The message to the Jabeshites was couched in the tone or royal authority. It conveys 1) a grateful invocation of blessing for the noble deed of love that they have wrought’ on Saul by burying him; the phrase “your lord” indicates that they had herein acted as became their relation to Saul as their king and lord. 2 Samuel 2:6. And now the Lord do to you kindness and truth.—This is the expansion of the wish of blessing in 2 Samuel 2:5. The first noun (ηֶ ?ρֶ ?ψ), favor, kindness is not merely pardoning grace (Keil), but in general the gracious love that God shows His people on the ground of His covenant with them. The second (ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ), truth is the trustworthiness and attestation of all His promises. David wishes them all exhibitions of the love and faithfulness of the Lord for the faithful love which they showed king Saul even in his death.—And I also do you this good, because ye have done this thing; the good that he does them is not merely this wish for the divine blessing (Keil), or therewith a gift of honor (Bunsen), but this honorable royal embassy with expression of thanks and invocation of blessing. The rendering: “And I also wish to show you such kindness” (S. Schmid, Clericus, De Wette) gives no appropriate sense, whether the comparison be referred to God’s goodness or to the deed of the Jabeshites. Thenius excellently: “greeting you with blessing by my ambassadors.”—[Eng. A. V., Patrick and Philippson give the incorrect future rendering.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:7 adds 2) encouragement and exhortation: let your hands be strong means not: be consoled! but: “be of strong courage.” And be sons of power [valiant], that is, show yourselves brave men and unappalled. [The phrase means in general “men of force,” the context showing whether the force intended is moral, intellectual or physical. The word (ηַ ?ιִ ?μ) is used of Ruth (Rth 3:11) and of the “virtuous woman” in Proverbs 31:10, and elsewhere of warlike valor and of wealth. Bib. Com.: the opposite of “men of virtue” are “men of Belial,” that is, men of no force of character.—Tr.]—The ground (λִּ ?ι) of this exhortation is at the same time the explanation of its importance for the interests of David as anointed king. In the reason assigned he shows them not directly, but indirectly that he has been made king of Judah, their king Saul being dead. But his exhortation to valor and courage is intelligible only on the supposition that he gives them to understand that for them also he has taken Saul’s place as king, and that they must valiantly espouse and defend his cause against his enemies, the party of Saul under the lead of Abner. It is not clear whether or not Ishbosheth had at this time been already set up as king by Abner. But from 2 Samuel 2:9 (which states that Gilead was one of the districts gained by Abner for Ishbosheth) it is evident that David, seeing Abner’s movement thither (comp. 1 Samuel 26:7), must have been concerned to secure to himself the capital city [Jabesh] of this province (Joseph., Ant. VI. 5, 1). Whether he succeeded in this is questionable. His demand that it should recognize him as king was justly founded on his divine call to be king over the whole people in Saul’s stead, comp. 2 Samuel 3:9-10. So certainly along with sincere gratitude “there was policy in this embassy” (Then.), but it was a thoroughly justifiable theocratic policy. II. 2 Samuel 2:8 to 2 Samuel 3:6. Ishbosheth’s antigodly elevation to the throne of Israel by Abner and the thence resulting war. 2 Samuel 2:8. On Abner see 1 Samuel 14:50.—He had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim, that is, across the Jordan. Ishbosheth had probably taken part in the unfortunate battle of Gilboa, and as he survived, Abner his uncle saved him together with the force under his command in the flight across the Jordan (1 Samuel 31:7), in order to keep the kingdom in the house of Saul. This retreat across the Jordan passed from Bethshean or Mount Gilboa southeast into Gilead, where not the city Jabesh (as we might expect from the foregoing), but Mahanaim (that is, “two camps,” Genesis 32:2) became the abode of Ishbosheth. In the division of the land this place was assigned to the Tribe of Gad, and lay on the border between it and the half-tribe of Manasseh (Joshua 13:26; Joshua 13:30) on the Jabbok [the present Wady Zerqa]. It was afterwards given to the Levites, Joshua 21:38. At a later period David found refuge there in his flight from Absalom, 2 Samuel 17:24.—Ishbosheth according to 1 Chronicles 8:33; 1 Chronicles 9:39, was Saul’s fourth son, while in 1 Samuel 14:49 only three are named, who also fell with him in the battle, 1 Samuel 31:2. But in Chronicles he is called Eshbaal, that is, “Fire of Baal” [or “man of Baal.”—Tr.]. For the name of the god Baal in Hosea 9:10; Jeremiah 3:24, is put as equivalent bosheth [shame] in order to indicate the reproach and shame of idol-worship (comp. Isaiah 42:17; Isaiah 45:16). So for Gideon’s surname Jerubbaal (Judges 6:32; Judges 8:35) we find Jerubbesheth (2 Samuel 11:21). Similarly the name Eshbaal was changed into Ishbosheth= “man of shame or disgrace.” Ewald’s supposition that bosheth was originally used in a good senses= “reverence, awe,” is without foundation, and is in opposition to the fact that the word occurs only in a bad sense. It is therefore a natural conjecture that the change of Eshbaal to Ishbosheth had reference to the shame and disgrace that befell Saul’s house in the person of this his last son, Psalms 35:26 being thus fulfilled.—[It seems more probable that the name Baal = lord was in early times given to the God of Israel, and proper names were formed from it, as Eshbaal or Ishbaal = man of the lord; afterwards when the worship of the false Baal was introduced into Israel, the change above-described was made. Possibly this change was made by later editors and scribes, and the original form was retained in the Book of Chronicles because this book was less read than the prophetic historical books.—Tr.]—That Ishbosheth was a weak, characterless tool in the hand of Abner for the maintenance of the interests of the fallen royal house is already intimated in the words: And Abner took Ishbosheth and carried him over.—Mahanaim was fitted by its position to be a refuge for Ishbosheth and the remains of the defeated army. 2 Samuel 2:9. And made him king, as being in his view the legitimate heir to Saul’s royal throne. Then follows the statement of the districts over which Abner extended Ishbosheth’s authority: he made him king for Gilead, in which was the central point of his dominion, Mahanaim, whence consequently the territory of the two and a half east-jordanic tribes in the first place, which in contrast with the west-jordanic Canaan (Joshua 22:9; Joshua 22:13; Joshua 22:15; Joshua 22:32; Judges 5:17; Judges 20:1) is put as equivalent to Gilead, was claimed for Ishbosheth. The change of prepositions, three times “to, for” (ΰֶ ?μ), and three times “over” (ςַ ?μ), is neglected by all the versions, which take the first as equivalent to the second. The difference, however, is to be retained; see Ew., § 217; and c. The former, as sign of movement “to” [occurring in the Hebrew text with Gilead, the Ashurites and Jezreel], indicates those regions over which Abner gradually extended Ishbosheth’s authority, being obliged to wrest them from the Philistines by continued wars; for it cannot be doubted that the Philistines followed the flying Israelites across the Jordan, and that after the battle of Gilboa the districts of the Ashurites and Jezreel remained securely in their possession. It is obvious that the “Ashurites” here cannot be the Arabian tribe of Asshurim in Genesis 25:3 (Maur.) nor the Assyrians. The Chald. has “over the tribe of Asher;” but, apart from the in that case strange insertion of the Article (Then.), this explanation does not accord with the position of the other districts here mentioned, according to which the territory of Asher must have embraced also that of Zebulon and Naphtali, which is not supposable. According to the view of Bachienne cited by Keil the reference is to the city Asher (Joshua 17:7) with its territory, since this city lay south-east of Jezreel, and Abner might well from Gilead have first subjected this region to Ishbosheth. But in that case (Keil) no reason appears why the name of the inhabitants (Ashurites) is given instead of that of the city (Asher), and the mention of a city among districts is improbable. The best way out of the difficulty is to adopt the reading “Geshurites” found in Vulg., Syr. and Ar., and approved by Then., Winer (R. W. I. 414) and Ewald. This misreading might easily have gotten into the text. This Geshur cannot, however, be the district whose inhabitants, “Geshurim” = “bridgemen,” appear in the south of Palestine in connection with Philistia (Joshua 13:2), and are mentioned along with Girzites and Amalekites (1 Samuel 27:8); nor can it be the little kingdom of Geshur which belonged to Syria (2 Samuel 15:8), and there formed an independent State (2 Samuel 3:3; 2 Samuel 13:37; 2 Samuel 14:23). From this latter is to be distinguished (against Keil) a district of the same name which (Deuteronomy 3:14 sq.; Joshua 12:5 sq.) with the region of the Maachathites on the west formed the border of the kingdom of Bashan and at the same time touched Gilead. But the Maachathites dwelt on the southwestern declivity of Hermon, at the sources of the Jordan (so Jerome). We shall therefore have to look for the Geshurites (whose district is named also in Joshua 13:11 along with both Gilead and Hermon) together with the Maachathites south of Hermon in the upper Jordan-region on both sides of the river. That this district is to be distinguished from the independent “kingdom” of Geshur in Syria is clear also from Joshua 13:13 : “ the children of Israel drove not out the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and Geshur and Maachath have dwelt among Israel to this day,” whence it appears that it belonged to the Israelitish territory. The name Geshur (Bridgeland) it doubtless received from the numerous crossings that connected the two banks of the Jordan (Winer, Thenius).—And for Jezreel—this district called after the city of the same name, the scene of the great battle in which Israel succumbed to the Philistines, was the great fruitful plain (τὸ μέγαπεδίον, 1Ma 12:49; Jos., Ant. XV. 1, 22 u. s.) whose recovery must have particularly occupied Abner.—To these three great regions, which are mentioned in geographical order, are added, going from north to south (with the preposition ςַ ?μ “over”), the tribe-territories of Ephraim and Benjamin.—He made him king over Ephraim and Benjamin, these tribes, which had not yet been conquered by the Philistines, holding no doubt to the House of Saul.—And over all (the rest of) Israel, that is, over all that country which afterwards formed the kingdom of Israel (Then.). 2 Samuel 2:10-11. Duration of Ishbosheth’s reign over Israel and of David’s in Hebron.—Forty years old was Ishbosheth when he became king over Israel.—The words: over Israel connect themselves with and take up the closing words of 2 Samuel 2:9 : “and over all Israel.” The following: and he reigned two years, might therefore be understood of his reign over all Israel excluding Judah, the words “over Israel” being naturally supplied from the context. Abner, in fact, on account of the wars necessary to conquer from the Philistines at least the three regions mentioned in 2 Samuel 2:9, could only gradually establish Ishbosheth’s royal authority, and could not make him king over all Israel till after the clearing of those districts. It may well be supposed that this reconquering process took five and a half years. This explanation (Ewald, Bunsen, Keil) sets aside the seeming discrepancy that arises when we compare the statements that Ishbosheth was king two years, and that David reigned in Hebron over Judah seven years and six months; and it yet remains beyond doubt that Ishbosheth’s elevation to the throne was nearly synchronous with David’s anointment as king over Judah, and his murder (2 Samuel 4), up to which he was king, with the anointing of David as king over all Israel. Ishbosheth occupied the throne as long as David was king over Judah; but he was only two years king over Israel, which he could really become only after the gradual expulsion of the Philistines. However, instead of this explanation the reading of Thenius (which, it must be confessed, does some violence to the syntax) commends itself as better: he takes the passage from “but the house of Judah” to the end of 2 Samuel 2:11 as parenthesis, and renders: and when he had reigned two years (only the house of Judah followed David, and the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months), then went out Abner, etc. The harmonistic attempt of S. Schmid, Cler. and others who hold that David reigned two years over Judah till the murder of Ishbosheth and then further five and a half years over Israel in Hebron till the conquest of Jerusalem, is in direct contradiction with the words (2 Samuel 2:11): David reigned over Judah seven years and six months. Equally untenable is the view that the two years of Ishbosheth’s reign were the time of quiet till the outbreak of the war with David, during which Abner played the chief part (Grotius)—for Ishbosheth was king till his murder after Abner’s death.—[Wellhausen connects 2 Samuel 2:10 b with 2 Samuel 2:9, and throws out 10 a as chronologically wrong, and 2 Samuel 2:11 as interrupting the narrative. It seems probable that 10 a and 11 are parenthetical chronological statements; but they are not on that account to be rejected; they may be regarded as explanatory insertions by the editor of the book. As to the chronology, there is no objection to be made to 2 Samuel 2:11, which is well supported (1 Kings 2:11), and the two years of 2 Samuel 2:10 is reasonably explained by Ewald as above stated by Erdmann, or if the numeral be incorrect, this merely leaves doubtful the duration of Ishbosheth’s reign (as Saul’s in 1 Samuel 13:1), and does not invalidate the clause. Exception is, however, specially taken to Ishbosheth’s age as here given, forty. The context. it is said, represents him as a youth or child, and moreover, as probably Saul’s youngest son, he must have been several years younger than Jonathan, who was the oldest son, and Jonathan seems to have been nearly of the same age with David, about thirty, when he died. To this it may be answered that Ishbosheth need not have been much younger than Jonathan (especially if Saul had more than one wife), that Jonathan may have been twelve years older than David without bar to their friendship, that Jonathan may easily at the age of forty-two have left just one infant child (2 Samuel 4:4), and that Saul might have been a husband and a father at the age of twenty-one, and, dying a stout warrior at the age of sixty-three, have left a son of forty-two. There is no difficulty in these suppositions single or combined. But if the number forty be incorrect, this does not affect the genuineness of the clause. The editor thought it well to insert here these chronological statements at the beginning of the narrative of the war between the house of Saul and the house of David. It is quite possible, but by no means certain, that the numerals have been lost or corrupted by copyists. See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:12 sq. From 2 Samuel 2:12 on is related how Abner, after actually establishing Ishbosheth as king over Israel, begins the conflict against David in order to subject Judah also to Ishbosheth. He could not have undertaken this war, if he had not finished the war against the Philistines for the establishment of Ishbosheth’s authority over Israel, so that he knew that he was secure on that side. It is to be noted that David had at no time and in no way planned or begun hostilities against Ishbosheth. Rather he was forced into war by the latter through Abner. From Mahanaim, where Ishbosheth’s headquarters had hitherto been, Abner advanced with his army against David to Gibeon (the present Jib in the western part of Benjamin, five miles north of Jerusalem) in order thence to march southward on Hebron to attack David.—[Bib. Com.: To go out is a technical phrase for going out to war.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:13. Though David had no hostile designs against Ishbosheth, he was yet fully prepared against such a foreseen attack.—[Some hold less well that war was already going on between the two princes.—Tr.]—To Ishbosheth’s army under Abner he opposed a force under Joab. Joab, the son of David’s sister Zeruiah (1 Chronicles 2:16), had no doubt already, as his brother Abishai (who was with David during his persecution, as David’s family also, 1 Samuel 22, came to him for protection against Saul), had a military training with his uncle, and taken a prominent position among his warriors; else he would not now appear as the chief leader of David’s forces. In the roll of heroes in 2 Samuel 23:8 sq. his name is not given, probably because he already then stood above them all as General, as we may conjecture from 2 Samuel 23:18; 2 Samuel 23:24 (Vaihinger in Herzog VI. 712). As General-in-chief he appears in the official lists, 2 Samuel 8:16; 2 Samuel 20:13.—The two armies met at the pool of Gibeon, David having hastened to anticipate Abner’s attack on the territory of Judah, and to carry the war into Ishbosheth’s territory. The pool of Gibeon is the “great water” mentioned in Jeremiah 41:12; there is still in Jib (the ancient Gibeon) in a cave a copious spring [forming a large reservoir], and not far beneath [on the side of the hill] the remains of an open tank which Robinson (II. 353 sq. [Am. ed. 455 and ii. 256]) saw, one hundred and twenty feet long and one hundred feet wide, about equal to the pool of Hebron. Comp. Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem II. 515 sq. [and Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art. Gibeon.—Tr.]. The armies encamped at this pool opposite one another, the one on this side, the other on that side. 2 Samuel 2:14-16. To avoid a bloody civil war and perhaps also to escape personal conflict with his near friend (2 Samuel 2:22) Joab, Abner proposes to Joab to decide the contest by a duel between individual warriors (“young men,” πְ ?ςָ ?ψִ ?εν, comp. 2 Samuel 2:21) put up on both sides. This word “play” (ωִׁ ?ηֵ ?χ) is used of children in the street (Zechariah 8:5), of beasts in the sea (Psalms 104:26), and so here of warlike play, = to wrestle, but not to denote a game of arms for entertainment (Ew.), but a serious battle-play to decide the matter for both armies (comp. 1 Samuel 17) as the result (2 Samuel 2:16) shows.—Joab accepts the proposal immediately, a sign that it was agreeable to him. Twelve warriors from each side, the number probably derived from the number of the Tribes, meet in single combat on one side of the pool. The “went over” is to be understood of one party only, while the preceding arose refers to both.—[The “went over” refers from the wording to both parties; probably they met at some intermediate point.—Tr.]—And they seized every man the head of his fellow, that is, they rushed on one another, in order by the stunning seizure of the head the more quickly and thoroughly to finish the struggle. It is not necessary (Then. and Ew. after Sept.) to supply “his hand” after “man” (“they thrust each his hand on the head of his opponent”) in order to get a verb for “his sword” [Eng. A. V. inserts “thrust”]; there is no need to repeat the verb “seized,” for we may without forcing render: and his (every one’s) sword in the side of his opponent! The rapidity with which, at the same time with the seizure of the head, the sword entered the adversary’s side is vividly set forth by the absence of the verb, it being logically necessary to supply merely the word “was.”—And they fell together.—This result shows the embittered feeling of the young men, but also their military skill and training.—[Bp. Patrick understands that only the twelve Benjaminites were slain; but it was clearly a mutual slaughter, the twenty-four fell dead. Bib. Com. cites the strikingly similar combat of the Horatii and the Curiatii; as the Alban Mettius there urged the desirableness of avoiding bloodshed because the two people had in the Etruscans a common powerful enemy, so might Abner have here urged the same argument in reference to the Philistines (Livy I. 25).—The hair was often worn long in those days; but it was a custom also to cut the hair (and sometimes the beard) before going into battle, that the enemy might not have a hold thereby.—These single combats still occur among the Arabians.—Tr.]—The place (of combat) was called (by the people in consequence of this result).—Field of knives (or edges) (ηֶ ?μְ ?χַ ?ϊδַ ?φֻּ ?ψִ ?ιν). The narrative indicates that this name was connected immediately with what was peculiar in the occurrence, namely, the mutual synchronous slaughter by the edge of the sword, so that they fell down together. To this corresponds the meaning of φεּ ?ψ, “knife, edge” (comp. Eng. knife), which is found also in Psalms 89:44, and is established from the ground-idea of the Arabic stem by Fleischer in Delitzsch’s Comm. on the Pss. in loco (2 vols., 1859–60). Thenius after the Sept. (τῶνἐπιβούλων, “the plotters”) renders field of adversaries (drδngerfeld, ηΧδַ ?φָּ ?ψִ ?ιν); but this does not answer to the characteristic fact that occasioned the name, which was not the mutual attack, but the mutual slaughter with swords. Thenius’ objection to the rendering: “field of edges”—that it would apply to every place of combat—holds rather against his own translation. Ewald’s rendering: “field of the artful” (φָ ?γִ ?ιν) unwarrantably introduces the notion of “artifice” into the affair, and changes the Heb. text, which is supported by all the versions. Vulg.: ager robustorum, Aq., Sym.: κλῆροςτῶνστερεῶν, “field of the strong,” a rendering derived from the signification “rock” (which also belongs to the Heb. word), as if the rock-like firmness of the combatants (which, however, is not specially mentioned in the narrative) were here indicated.—[Bishop Patrick follows the Vulg. in the translation of this name, Syr., Philippson, Bib. Com. (which, however, also suggests “field of sides,” φִ ?γִּ ?ιν) give it as Erdmann. Chald. has “possession of the slain.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:17-25. In consequence of the undecisive result of the single combat, a general and fierce battle between the two armies, which issues in the defeat and flight of Abner. To the bitterness of the bloody duel answers the violence of the general conflict that arose the same day, which is described as “very sore” (2 Samuel 2:17). Its result, in allusion to the single combat, which had not proved decisive, is straightway given: Abner and his army were beaten.—In 2 Samuel 2:18-23 we have a very vivid and interesting description of a special battle-scene or rather pursuit. In this scene the three nephews of David come forward, Joab, Abishai (comp. 1 Samuel 26:6 with 2 Samuel 16:9; 2 Samuel 18:2; 2 Samuel 21:17; 2 Samuel 23:18) and Asahel, who are expressly described as sons of Zeruiah (as Joab in 2 Samuel 2:13) in order to indicate the prominent part taken in this battle by the family of David. 2 Samuel 2:18. Asahel, distinguished for agility and swiftness, and therefore compared to a “gazelle in the field” [Eng. A. V.: wild roe], see Proverbs 6:5. 2 Samuel 2:19. He pursues Abner in order by conquering the General to strike the decisive blow that must end the battle.—He turned not to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner, pressed hard and straight on him. 2 Samuel 2:20. Asahel was doubtless already known to Abner, comp. 2 Samuel 2:22. Abner’s speaking supposes that Asahel had almost overtaken him, and might now infer from his silence that he would surrender himself prisoner. 2 Samuel 2:21. Abner’s address to Asahel is based on the supposition that the latter is anxious only for the glory of making a prisoner and for booty.—Take his armor, that is, after having slain him.—[Such was the custom; see Homer for example.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:22. Abner speaks again, since Asahel will not desist from the pursuit. He gives as reason for his exhortation that he wishes to spare Asahel’s life, and not, by slaying him, make a deadly enemy of his brother Joab, with whom, therefore, he must previously have stood in friendly relations (Thenius). “From regard and former friendship to Joab, he was unwilling to kill the young hero” (Keil), [who was also “probably but a stripling and no fit antagonist for so great a warrior” (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.]—How should I lift up my face? that is, present myself with a good conscience before him. [Bp. Patrick not so well: “because Joab was a fierce man, and would study revenge.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:23. Asahel, however, did not desist from pressing on Abner, who, not wishing to kill him, was compelled to defend himself, and so, not with the front part of the spear, which was designed for war, but with the hinder part, which was stuck into the ground (1 Samuel 26:7), and therefore no doubt was furnished with a sharp edge (perhaps of metal) smote him in the abdomen so that it came out behind in his back, and he fell dead on the spot. It hence appears that Asahel pressed violently on Abner, who was defending himself with the point of the spear, which must have been very sharp. In proof that there was a lower metallic point to spears, Bφttcher cites Hom. I. vi. 213; x. 153; xiii. 443; Herod. vii. 41.—[On the translation “abdomen” instead of “fifth rib,” see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] This place, too, where Asahel fell, received importance among the people from the general mourning over the young hero. This is pathetically and vividly described by the single expression: “Every one that came to the place stood still,” comp. 2 Samuel 20:12. 2 Samuel 2:24. The pursuit continues with all the more violence. The two brothers Joab and Abishai follow Abner till the evening. At the same time the locality (now unknown) where the pursuit ended, “the hill Ammah in front of Giah on the road to the wilderness of Gibeon,” is stated with precision; an evidence of the exactness of the narrative. The wilderness of Gibeon lay east of Gibeon in the tribe of Benjamin. 2 Samuel 2:25. The “children of Benjamin,” as the nearest tribesmen, who must have been most interested for the kingdom of Ishbosheth. They gathered themselves together from the dispersion produced by flight into one body after Abner on a hill, that is, to protect Abner, and from this more favorable position to defend themselves.—[Bib.-Com.: Abner’s skill and courage in rallying his followers to a strong position in spite of so crushing a defeat. On the text of 2 Samuel 2:24-25, see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:26-28. On Abner’s appeal to Joab the conflict is straightway stopped, and the pursuit on Joab’s part ceases. A truce is concluded. Abner’s first word: Shall the sword devour forever? expresses decided aversion to this bloody combat. The second question: Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness at last? points not to outward destruction, but to the empoisoning and brutalizing (the necessary result at last of such a war) of the feeling that the members of a people, and especially God’s covenant-people, ought to cherish towards one another. Just at this moment the bitterness had reached its highest point, and the result of the continuation of the war would necessarily have been bitter and sullen despair on the part of the Benjaminites and an increase of military fury in the army of Judah. Vulg.: “Dost thou not know how dangerous is desperation?” The third question is a pressing demand to Joab to suspend hostilities immediately and agree to a truce. Joab answers Abner with an oath, in which he partly charges him with the blame of the day’s bloody struggle, partly affirms his own perfect willingness to cease hostilities without following up his victory. The first λִּ ?ι = “surely” (imo), the mark of emphatic asseveration in an oath, Ew. § 330 b; comp. 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Samuel 20:3; Genesis 22:16 sq.; 1 Kings 1:29 sq.; 2 Samuel 2:23 sq., where, as here, it follows real oaths and introduces their contents. [This first “surely” is not in the Eng. A. V.—Tr.] If thou hadst not said this, surely then.—The second “surely” (λִּ ?ι), strengthened by “then” (ΰָ ?ζ) as elsewhere by “now” (ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ), Numbers 22:29; Genesis 43:10; 1 Samuel 14:30, takes up the first in order to bring out more expressly and strongly what would then have happened. What Abner said is his proposition for the single combat (2 Samuel 2:14), which resulted in this obstinate battle. Yea verily, then had the people gone up—that is, returned (Niph. of ςָ ?μָ ?δ in reflexive sense “get up,” Ew. § 123 b). There would then have been no fraternal war. Thenius (after Syr. and Ar.) explains: If thou hadst not (now) spoken (about a truce), then surely in the morning, (namely to-morrow) would the people have been led back. But 1) The “to-morrow” is not in the Hebrew, and 2) Joab’s answer would then amount to nothing, as it was then evening, and a return on the next morning was a matter of course. To our interpretation Thenius objects that Abner’s proposal of a duel was meant for good, and the two armies had originally marched out with intention to fight; but this objection is of no force against that interpretation, which follows the original word for word, for Joab means to say simply: if thou hadst not by that challenge given the signal for the battle, which, as a matter of fact, continued the whole day, then early in the morning one side would have retreated before the other, and the battle would not have occurred. Joab herein assumes that Abner, with the disposition which he has just expressed, would have avoided the battle if he had not excited it by his well-meant arrangement of the duel, and in his whole address and his bearing to Abner it may be seen that he (Joab) would not have made the attack, and that his march against Abner was simply to protect the territory of Judah. We must read between the lines: but for thine unfortunate word, which has had such results, we two should have avoided the battle. Here is to be noted what is indicated in 2 Samuel 2:12 as to the personal relation of Abner to Joab, and how afterwards (chap. 3) Abner passed from “the House of Saul” to David’s side. [Vulg., Lightfoot, Patrick, Philippson agree with Erdmann in the interpretation of this clause—Bib. Comm. with Thenius. A common explanation is: even if thou hadst not spoken (for a truce), the pursuit would have ceased to-morrow morning. This answer would not (as Erdmann declares) be meaningless, for it was by no means otherwise certain that the battle would not have been continued the next day. Moreover the phrase “from the morning” might be understood of the following morning. Two facts seem to favor this latter interpretation: 1) the phrase “from after their brethren,” repeated by Joab after Abner, would naturally have the same meaning in both cases, “desist from pursuit;” 2) the form in which Joab couches his answer, that is, an oath, better refers to something which lay in his power, not the non-occurrence of a battle that day, but the cessation of the battle going on. Joab would then say (agreeably to the context): I did not design to continue the battle, but, if you had said nothing, my purpose was to withdraw my troops in the morning—the context showing (as in Exodus 29:34) that the following morning was meant.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:28. Joab straightway causes the trumpet to sound the signal “Halt! Arms at rest!” The army halts, the pursuit is discontinued, the battle is ended. 2 Samuel 2:29-32. The withdrawal of both armies from the scene of battle, and the loss on both sides. 2 Samuel 2:29. Abner and his men marched through the Arabah (that is, the valley or plain of the Jordan) from the south northward, having marched from the battle-field first directly eastward towards Jericho. The distance from the entrance into the Jordan-plain (to reach which point, however (2 Samuel 2:3-4), cost them some hours) up to the point where they crossed the Jordan to go to Mahanaim, was so great that it took them at least the whole night to pass through the Arabah. They marched “the whole night,” not from fear of pursuit (for the pursuit was discontinued and a truce concluded), but probably to avoid the heat of the day. After crossing the Jordan they traversed “all the Bithron.” The word “all” forbids us to understand here a city—it is therefore not Bethoron (Aq., Vulg.), apart from the fact that this lay in the opposite direction north-west of Gibeon—but it must mean a district beyond the Jordan, probably a mountain-gorge or a plain on the Jabbok between the Jordan and Mahanaim, which lay on the Jabbok. These specific geographical statements also about Abner’s return-march show the historical exactness and value of the narrative. 2 Samuel 2:30. At the same time Joab began his return-march “from after Abner (who was withdrawing),” as it is vividly described. Not till the whole force was assembled for the return was a muster held in order to learn the loss. Only nineteen men and Asahel were missing from David’s army. [Among these nineteen some reckon the twelve that fell in the single combat.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:31. The Benjaminite loss, on the other hand, was much greater, “360 men dead,” as might easily be determined by counting the slain. Joab had in his army only veteran “servants of David,” tried by many severe battles and privations, while Abner led into the battle the remains of the army that was beaten by the Philistines at Gilboa, who moreover in previous battles with that people “might have been still more weakened and discouraged” (Keil). The disproportion in the losses “may, however, have been due also in part to the character of the ground,” comp. 2 Samuel 2:25 (Then.). [On the apparently corrupt text of this verse see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:31. Asahel is buried on the march back in the burial-place of his father at Bethlehem, which lay only a little to the left of the direct road to Hebron. “They went the whole night thence,” and came at break of day to Hebron. Gibeon is distant from Hebron about 26 miles; they might therefore have gone from Gibeon to Hebron in one night, even if they stopped on the way to bury Asahel, which need not have taken much time (against Then.). [However, the text says only that they went all night from Bethlehem to Hebron, fifteen miles. They had previously marched from near Gibeon to Bethlehem, after having attended to the duties incident to the close of a battle.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:1-6. Further general and summary account of the long duration of the conflict between the houses of David and Saul and their different fortunes. 2 Samuel 3:1. And the war was protracted between the house of Saul and the house of David.—The former stands first because the attack came from it. From the account of the particular incident at Gibeon, where the contest assumed the form of open war, which was suddenly ended by the two generals, the narrator turns to the summary description of the condition in which the two houses from now on found themselves in respect to the contest, notwithstanding the discontinuance of external war. While this long-continued struggle lasted, outward hostilities were not renewed [at least there were no pitched battles—Tr.], Ishbosheth lacking courage and energy therefor, Abner, as his bearing (chap. 2) towards Joab showed, having no special interest in continuing the bloody strife, and David, as before, so now holding back from attack, since, though he had power and courage to maintain his claims, he yet hoped to gain his promised royal authority over Israel, not by his own military power, but only by the interposition of the Lord. Further is related the fortune of the two houses during the long contest. David grew stronger and stronger.—David’s advance in strength means, however, not the increase of his family (Keil), but of his adherents, of the number of those that recognized him as king over all Israel, and came forward as supporters of his authority over the whole country, as is fully and clearly narrated in 1 Chronicles 12:23 sq. On the other hand the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker in consideration and power. The reason of this was Ishbosheth’s incapacity for royal rule and Abner’s afterwards related defection from the house of Saul. During the time of struggle he was the only person that sought still to maintain this house (2 Samuel 3:6), and it rapidly sank and disappeared when he went over to David. 2 Samuel 3:1 and 2 Samuel 3:6 are therefore connected; 2 Samuel 3:1, according to this view, not only continues the preceding chapter (Then.), but at the same time begins a new section (2 Samuel 3:1-6) which forms a transition to the narrative from 2 Samuel 3:7 on, in which is related how David’s elevation to the throne of all Israel was prepared by the sinking and disappearance of the house of Saul under his last son.—The statement (2 Samuel 3:2-5) concerning David’s family during his residence in Hebron, and the sons there born to him certainly interrupts the progress of the narrative (Then.); for it is not to be connected with 2 Samuel 3:1 as being a factual proof of the strengthening of David’s house (Keil). But it is quite in place here, since it is in keeping with the habit [of the biblical writers] of inserting at the beginning or at a turning-point of the history of the reign of each king, information about his house and family. Comp. 1 Samuel 14:49-51; 2 Samuel 5:13 sq.; 1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 14:21; 1 Kings 15:2; 1 Kings 15:9. The same list of the sons born in Hebron, with the names of their mothers, is found in 1 Chronicles 3:1-3. The two first are the sons of the two wives Ahinoam and Abigail (1 Samuel 25:42 sq.), whom he brought with him to Hebron. On Amnon see chap. 13. The Prep. “to” (so the Heb. μְ) in these cases, where a corresponding noun is to be supplied, expresses immediate belonging [property], as “a song of (μְ) David;” so here “son to (or of, Germ. von) Ahinoam,” comp. Ewald, § 292 a. 2 Samuel 3:3. The second son is called Chileab, in Chron. Daniel; he had perhaps two names (Keil). [The name Chileab is suspected by Wellhausen to be a collateral form of Caleb (see the two in the Heb.), while Bib. Comm. thinks it a copyist’s erroneous transcription of the first letters of the following word. The Midrash derives it from λμδΰα = “exactly his father,” the name indicating his likeness to David against those who said that he was the son of Nabal. Similarly the name Daniel, “God has judged me,” is said to refer to God’s judgment on Nabal. These are all conjectures, and the relation of the two names is involved in obscurity.—Tr.] The third, Absalom (called in 1 Kings 15:2 Abishalom), son of Maachah, daughter of king Talmai of Geshur. This was a small independent kingdom in Syria. See 2 Samuel 15:8, comp. 2 Samuel 2:9. Perhaps this marriage of David with a foreign un-Israelitish princess had a political ground. Comp. 1 Kings 3:1, Solomon’s marriage with a daughter of Pharaoh. The origin of the three wives, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, whose sons were Adonijah, Shephatiah, and Ithream, is not given. The last is strangely described in an especial way as “David’s wife.” Bertheau (on 1 Chronicles 3:3) holds that the unknown and un-described Eglah is so called for the sake of a fuller conclusion; but Thenius justly remarks against this reason that Haggith and Abital also are otherwise wholly unknown. Thenius’ suggestion that Michal originally stood in the text is opposed by the fact that with the exception of the Cod. Vat., which has Aigal, the correctness of the text-reading is supported by all the witnesses. Probably this in itself superfluous addition is made in order to give a fuller conclusion by this epithet which suits each of the six women (Berth., Keil). [On this reading see “Text. and Gramm.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:6 resumes 2 Samuel 3:1 in relation to the continuance of the conflict between the two houses, and the statement: Abner showed himself strong (=a strong support) for the house of Saul, concludes the period during which the house of Saul was able through Abner to maintain itself against the house of David. In contrast therewith follows now the narrative of the events which, in consequence of Abner’s ceasing to work for it, through Ishbosheth’s unwise conduct, farther and farther depressed the house of Saul; comp. 2 Samuel 3:1 b. So 2 Samuel 3:1-6 form the bridge to the following history (from 2 Samuel 3:7 on). AND 1. David’s personality, bearing and doing after Saul’s death, and the consequent turn of his life towards the fulfilment of his call to the theocratic kingdom, show in all points, as here detailed in the prophetic narrative, absolutely free, trustful and humble dependence on the will of God, as it has up to this time shown itself as the foundation of David’s life-development, and a determination of conduct solely by the carefully sought, distinctly apprehended and clearly recognized divine decision, as it had before been obtained by him at many important and difficult moments (1 Samuel 19:19; 1 Samuel 22:5; 1 Samuel 23:2; 1 Samuel 23:4; 1 Samuel 23:10; 1 Samuel 23:16; 1 Samuel 30:8). That this was accomplished here also through the Urim and Thummim is not doubtful; for the high-priest with the ephod was with him, while nothing is said of a prophet in his retinue, apart from the fact that the expression “he inquired of the Lord” cannot be applied to a prophet; it cannot, therefore, be supposed that David received a declaration from a prophet. 2. David’s pathway from Ziklag to Hebron, till he gained the crown of Judah, and thence passed to that of Israel, is the way of the Lord. For 1) he asks concerning the will of the Lord, which way he shall go (2 Samuel 2:1), humbly subjecting his will to that of the Lord, in his heart relying firmly on the Lord’s decision, which could be only for his good, and seeking by repetition of his question to obtain a clear and secure knowledge of the way he is to go. 2) He goes the way appointed him by the Lord (2 Samuel 2:2-3) in unconditional obedience towards His command, in the faithful discharge of his duties towards all about him, who had hitherto shared all sufferings with him, and in joyous reliance on the further help of the Lord. 3) He finds in this way appointed by the Lord after the cross the crown, and mounts up from lowliness to glory (2 Samuel 2:4). 4) He pauses on this way, which has led him to royal honor, in order quietly to wait in patience till the Lord direct him to go forward to the final goal, the kingdom over all Israel, and in order to unfold the noble royal virtues in which he proves himself the Anointed of the Lord (2 Samuel 2:5-7). 5) He advances on the same way according to the Lord’s direction to ward off the attack of the adversary (2 Samuel 2:8-13), to bloody war, into which he is drawn against his will (2 Samuel 2:14-23), to splendid victory over his opponents (2 Samuel 2:25-32), and to the attainment of increasing power and glory in respect to the sinking house of Saul. 3. Grace (ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γ) and Truth (ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ) are the fundamental attributes of God, which set forth His relation to the people of Israel as the covenant-people; grace is the special exhibition of His love, by which Hebrews 1) chooses the people, 2) establishes the covenant with them, and 3) in this covenant-relation imparts favor and salvation; truth is God’s love unchangeable and continuing over against the people’s sin, love that 1) does not suffer the choice of free grace to fall, 2) maintains the covenant, and 3) fulfils uncurtailed the promises that correspond to the covenant-relation. Comp. Exodus 34:6; Psalms 25:10. 4. Every human work well-pleasing to God, wrought out of genuine love and truth, is a reflection of God’s love and truth, of which the heart has had experience, an offering brought to the Lord, the impulsion to which has come from this inwardly experienced love and truth, an object of God’s love and truth which repays with blessing and salvation, and of men’s honoring recognition in respect to its ethical value. 5. Invocation of the Lord’s blessing (2 Samuel 2:5) presupposes the presence of the conditions under which alone this blessing can subsist. AND 2 Samuel 2:1 sq. Faith’s inquiry of the Lord. 1) Whereon it is founded; a) Upon an entire looking away from human prudence and wisdom; b) Upon unconditional trust in the divine love and faithfulness, and c) Upon previous experiences of His gracious help. 2) What sort of answer it finds; a) A certain decision, which puts an end to all doubt; b) A definite direction which way to go; c) A safe security that this way leads to the goal. 2 Samuel 2:1-4 a. From Ziklag to Hebron—the way of humility from the depths to the heights. 1) After humble subjection to sore trials, which the Lord had imposed, (“after this,” 2 Samuel 2:1). 2) After humble inquiry of the Lord’s will as to the way he must further go. 3) In humble submission to be directed and guided by the Lord in the way appointed for him. 4) In humble and patient expectation of the fulfilment of His promises. The way of faith through cross to crown. 1) How it is surely found (2 Samuel 2:11), a) inquired for of the Lord; b) pointed out by the Lord. 2) How it is confidently pursued, a) under the guidance of the Lord’s hand; b) in communion with those united in the Lord (2 Samuel 2:2-3). 3) How it is joyfully completed, a) at the goal set up by the Lord; b) under the direction of faithful human love, the instrument of the Lord’s love (2 Samuel 2:4). 2 Samuel 2:4-7. Faithful love to our neighbor in time of need. 1) How it is in a noble and unselfish manner shown and attested amid the misfortune of our neighbor (2 Samuel 2:4 b). 2) How it is blessed by God in the manifestation of His grace and the attestation of His faithfulness (2 Samuel 2:5-6). 3) How it is honored by men through thankful recognition and righteous requital (2 Samuel 2:6). 4) How it is exalted in itself to a stout heart and to great joy (2 Samuel 2:7). [2 Samuel 2:6. “And now the Lord do kindness (grace) and truth unto you.” See points for the homiletical discussion of this text in “Hist. and Theol.” No. 3. 2 Samuel 2:1-13. See outline of a sermon in “Hist. and Theol.” No. 2.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 2:8-32. God’s judgment in war: I. How the divine decision falls: 1) Against him who has begun the war unrighteously, a) to fight out a pretended right; b) to extend an assumed power and dominion; c) in conscious resistance to God’s right and command. 2) For him who has been innocently drawn into it, a) to repel injustice; b) to defend His righteous cause; c) to uphold God’s command and righteousness. II. How men should submit to this divine decision: 1) The conquered have to bow in humility under God’s hand, and to abandon the war, a) in order to avoid further bloodshed; b) to ward off further mischief; c) to preserve the people from spiritually and morally running wild. 2) The conquerors must, a) in the course of victory and honor stop immediately with self-denial when the Lord commands it; b) give the conquered the hand of peace when they ask a cessation of hostilities on the ground of the divine decision which has been reached, and c) testify to the readiness for peace which they have felt, and against the unrighteousness which has constrained them to the conflict. 2 Samuel 3:1-6. By justice divine are decided All conflicts that men have divided. 1) What comes from God, alone can last; 2) What stands against God, soon is past.2 Samuel 2:1. Cramer: When the righteous are oppressed and have stood the test, God leads them by a right way that they may go to a city of habitation, Psalms 107:7; so let us wait patiently for the right time, Hebrews 2:3; Psalms 55:22. Osiander: A Christian should never undertake anything without good forethought and effort to learn God’s will from His word, and should often seek to strengthen his faith therefrom, Psalms 119:105.—Berl. B.: David rests not in all the illuminations and promises he has before received, but only in the will of God, and looks to the divine nod and glance, the truest and only guide for tranquilly trusting souls. Thereby the soul remains free in all things from selfishness and vain joy. [Henry: He doubted not of success, yet he uses proper means, both divine and human. Assurance of hope in God’s promise will be so far from slackening, that it will quicken pious endeavors.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 2:3. Cramer: Faithful friends, proven in time of need, are a great treasure. Starke: When God gives us prosperity, we should cause this also to be shared by those who have shared with us in distress. [Hall: Thus doth our heavenly leader, whom David prefigured, take us to reign with Him who have suffered with Him.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 2:4. Osiander: The hearts of subjects are in God’s hand, and God can incline them so that they must love their rulers. What God has promised is sure to come at last. After enduring sufferings thou shalt receive the crown of life, 2 Timothy 4:8.—S. Schmid: Praiseworthy deeds always get their praise and their reward even among men, although they are not performed to that end, but from love to righteousness. 2 Samuel 2:6. Cramer: By gentleness and friendliness rulers may easily win the hearts of their subjects, and also quiet much contention, Judges 8:2. 2 Samuel 2:7. J. Lange: Kings derive their kingly majesty immediately from God, but also mediately from their subjects.—F. W. Krummacher: People gained here the conviction that this man, unmoved by the lower affections of revenge and malice, knew how to forgive and to forget, and that all the wrong and injustice he had experienced had not been able to darken for him in his predecessor the dignity and sacred-ness of an Anointed of the Lord. Besides, this conduct of David’s made on the people the decided impression that they might expect of him a humane rule, since he would reckon even the most trifling and insignificant praiseworthy thing that might happen anywhere in the land to be worthy of grateful recognition and consideration. 2 Samuel 2:8-9. Cramer: The whole life of pious men is and remains a continual school of the cross. In them holds good the saying: Must not man be always in strife on earth? Job 7:1. [So Luther. Similarly Conant: Has not man a term of warfare on the earth?—Tr.].—S. Schmid: Carnal prudence and pride is never willing to submit itself to God’s will, but will always oppose itself, Exodus 5:2. = 2 Samuel 2:10. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ III. Abner’s quarrel with Ishbosheth, defection from the House of Saul and transition to David 2 Samuel 3:7-217 And Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine? 8Then was Abner [And Abner was] very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog’s head which against Judah [a dog’s head on Judah’s side?] [ins. I] do show kindness this day [to-day] unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that 9[and] thou chargest me to-day with a fault concerning this [the] woman? [!] So do God to Abner and more also except, as the Lord [Jehovah] hath sworn to David, even so I do to him, 10To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba. 11And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him. 12And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf [or in his stead], saying, Whose is the land? saying also [om. also], Make thy league [covenant] with me, and behold, my hand shall be with thee to bring about [to turn] all Israel unto 13thee. And Hebrews 9 said, Well; I will make a league [covenant] with thee; but one thing I require of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face except thou first7 [om. first] bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when thou comest to see my face. 14And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, saying, Deliver [Give] me my wife Michal, which [whom] I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 15And Ishbosheth sent and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish. 16And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner [And Abner said] unto him, Go, return. And he returned. 17And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for 18David in times past to be king over you; Now, then, do it; for the Lord [Jehovah] hath spoken of David, saying, By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies. 19And Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin; and Abner went also13 to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel and that seemed good [om. that seemed good] to the whole house of Benjamin. So [And] 20Abner came to David to Hebron and twenty men with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast. 21And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king, that they may make a league [covenant] with thee, and that thou mayest reign over all that thine heart desireth. And David sent Abner away, and he went in peace. IV. Murder of Abner by Joab. 2 Samuel 3:22-3922 And behold the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop [came from an expedition], and brought in a great spoil with them. But [And] Abner was not with David in Hebron, for he had sent him away and he was gone in peace. 23When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace. 24Then Joab came to the king and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite [om. quite] gone? 25Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest. 26And when [om. when] Joab was come out [went out] from David he [and] sent messengers after Abner, which [who] brought him again from the well of Sirah; but David knew it not. 27And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in [to the middle of] the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib 28[in the abdomen] that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother. And afterward when David heard it [when David afterward heard it], he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord [Jehovah] for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner; 29Let it rest [be hurled] on the head of Joab and on all his father’s house, and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff [crutch], or that falleth on [by] the sword, or that 30lacketh bread. So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle. 31And David said to Joab and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And king David himself [om. himself] followed the bier. 32And they buried Abner in Hebron; and the king lifted up his voice and wept at the grave of Abner, and all the people wept. 33And the king lamented over Abner and said, Died Abner [Must Abner die] as a fool [or villain] dieth? 34Thy hands were not bound Nor thy feet put into fetters. As a man falleth before wicked men So fellest thou. 35And all the people wept again over him. And when [om. when] all the people came to cause David to eat meat [bread] while it was yet day [ins. and] David sware, saying, So do God to me and more also, if I taste bread or aught else till the sun be down. 36And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as whatsoever 37the king did pleased all the people. For [And] all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the son of Ner. 38And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? 39And I am this day weak, though anointed king, and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me; the Lord [Jehovah] shall [om. shall] reward the doer of evil [wickedness] according to his wickedness. AND . 2 Samuel 3:7-21. Abner quarrels with Ishbosheth, and goes over to David2 Samuel 3:7-8. The falling out. Its occasion was Abner’s taking Saul’s concubine, Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah. The Harem was part of the property of the reigning house, and therefore fell to the successor, comp. 2 Samuel 12:8. Taking possession of it was a political act, and signified actual entrance on royal rights, comp. 2 Samuel 16:21, and of this act Abner was guilty. Supply from the connection Ishbosheth (comp. my father and 2 Samuel 3:8) as subject of the verb said. His question: “Why,” etc., might be taken as the expression of suspicion that Abner was thus seeking the throne, for in the ancient Orient claim to the harem was claim to the throne, so especially with the Persian, comp. Herod. 3, 68; Justin. 10, 2. But, if Ishbosheth really had such a suspicion, Abner’s conduct gives no ground for such a view; his act seems rather the outflow of passionate self-will and presumptuous contempt towards Ishbosheth. If he had really wished to seize the throne of Israel for himself, his conduct towards David (2 Samuel 3:9 sq.) would be inexplicable. His answer in 2 Samuel 3:8 shows how loose his relation to Ishbosheth and concern for his cause already was. “Dog’s head,” as in our language also, is the expression for something perfectly despicable. The. words: “which is to Judah,” omitted by Sept., are not to be connected with the preceding (Clericus: thinkest thou that I am worth no more to the Tribe of Judah than a dog’s head? Syr.: Am I the head of the dogs of Judah? Ewald: Am I then a Judahite dog’s head?—such an adjectival periphrasis would be very strange)—nor in sense to be connected with the following (Vulg.: who against Judah to-day show kindness; De Wette: who in respect to Judah now show kindness), but to be rendered simply as they stand: “who is for Judah, pertains to, holds with Judah” (Buns.). Abner is angered by the insult he thinks shown him by Ishbosheth’s reproachful question. The sense of his reply is: that Ishbosheth treats him as a despicable man, who takes no interest in him, as one who belongs to his opponents, the party of the Tribe of Judah, whereas Hebrews 1) is showing only kindness to the whole house of Saul, and 2) especially has not delivered him, Ishbosheth, into the hand of David. By adducing these his services to the royal house Abner repels the reproach based on his appropriation of the concubine. His words express the extremest contempt towards his king, and the strongest consciousness of services, to which the house of Saul and Ishbosheth owed everything. The “to-day” is significant;, even “now” he occupies this position towards Saul’s house; comp. the “made himself strong, was a strong helper” in 2 Samuel 3:6. The contrast to this comes out sharply in what follows. There follows— 2 Samuel 3:9-11, the sudden complete breach with the house of Saul and the solemn oath in respect to the house of David. This is the culmination of what is said in 2 Samuel 3:1 of David’s advance in strength over against the house of Saul. (On the simple λִּ ?ι in oaths see on 2 Samuel 2:27; 1 Samuel 3:17.) The history does not show a formal divine oath, such as Abner here refers to. But the divine choice of David to be king, his anointment performed by Samuel at the divine command (1 Samuel 15:28-29; 1 Samuel 16:1-12), and the therewith conjoined divine declaration which Samuel declares to be inviolable (1 Samuel 15:29) because based on God’s truthfulness (comp. Numbers 23:19)—all this had in fact the significance and weight of a divine oath. Abner’s words presuppose that acquaintance with the promises given to David was, through the prophetic circles, widely extended. Abigail is an example of such acquaintance among the people (1 Samuel 25:28-31).—So will I do to him; Abner does not consider himself (as Cler. thinks) as the Lord’s instrument for fulfilling his declaration to David, which he in fact was not. He merely says, that he will now make David king, as had been promised him by divine oath. The remark of Cler. that “military men do not sufficiently weigh what they say” does not apply here; for in Abner’s words there is the distinct consciousness that over against the divine promise concerning David the cause of Saul and Ishbosheth is a lost one, but at the same time also the mortified ambition that thinks its services not sufficiently recognized, and the overweening pride of a vigorous and energetic man who thinks that he can of himself make history. In spite of his reference to a divine declaration, his conduct is anything but theocratic, is rather throughout autocratic, comp. 2 Samuel 2:8, 2 Samuel 9 : “he took Ishbosheth, and made him king.” How far his previous energetic, autocratic activity for Saul’s house was connected with ambitious, high-reaching plans for himself, is uncertain. In any case, however, so much is true: 1) that he knew David’s divine call to be Saul’s successor, and therefore stood in conscious opposition to the known will of God, and thus in conflict with himself, and 2) that it was only after his defeat in the battle with Joab (which he himself began, 2 Samuel 2:12 sq.) and his gradually confirmed recognition of the fact that Ishbosheth was wholly unfit for the kingly rule and its maintenance in the house of Saul, and in truth the personal insult now offered him by Ishbosheth—that he suddenly decided to break with the house of Saul and go over to David. How far ambition herein influenced him along with political insight, we cannot tell; but it is not probable that he showed so much energy in gaining over all Israel to David, as is afterwards related, without hope of a high and influential position with David—With the words: “to translate the kingdom from Saul,” comp. Samuel’s word, 1 Samuel 15:28.—From Dan to Beersheba, as in Judges 20:1; 1 Samuel 3:20.—[Bib. Com. thinks it probable that Abner had before this begun to incline towards David, so that Ishbosheth had some ground for the taunt: “which belongeth to Judah,” and this made it all the more slinging to Abner.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:11. And he (Ishbosheth) could not answer, because he feared him. This characterizes Ishbosheth sufficiently for the explanation of the whole situation. Having with an effort plucked up courage to ask that reproachful question, he here shows the greatest feebleness, cowardice and timidity towards Abner. This also contributes to the explanation of what is said in 2 Samuel 3:1 concerning the house of Saul. 2 Samuel 3:12-21 Abner’s covenant with David.2 Samuel 3:12. The threat against Ishbosheth is straightway carried out by sending an embassy to David. ϊηϊε is not “in his place” (Vulg. pro se, Cler., De Wette, Keil [Eng. A. V.: “on his behalf”]), which would be superfluous and unmeaning (Buns.), but, in keeping with Abner’s passionate excitement in 2 Samuel 3:9, “on the spot, immediately,” παραχρῆμα (Sept., Chald.), as in 2 Samuel 2:23, where Keil also adopts this meaning, though he here declares that there is no ground for it.—[On this whole passage see “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]—The first “saying” (μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ) can be taken here only in the usual sense as introduction of direct discourse, not as = “to say” in reference to the messengers. And the second “saying” is also so to be taken, and not as = “that is to say” (Buns., Then.), since it introduces another direct discourse of Abner: “Make a covenant,” which cannot except by forcing be regarded as an explanation of the question: “to whom belongs the land?” rather the demand contained in it, as a consequence of the silent answer to this question, is, on account of its importance as the chief thing in the commission of the ambassadors, naturally appended by means of a repeated “saying.” The saying: To whom belongs (or whose is) the land? does not relate to David, as if = “to whom does it belong but to thee?” This interpretation, that the land properly belonged to David by virtue of his anointment (Vat., S. Schmid, Ew. [Patrick, Bib. Com.]), would agree indeed with Abner’s acknowledgment in 2 Samuel 3:9, but not with the following words: Make a covenant with me to turn all Israel to thee, which rather indicate that Abner means to say: “the land belongs to me” (Sanct., Thenius [Scott, Philipps]).This is quite in keeping with his proud, haughty nature, as hitherto manifested in his words and conduct, and also with the facts of the case, since in fact the whole land except Judah was still subject to Saul’s house, that is, to him (Abner) as Dictator. Because he still as influential ruler controlled the greatest part of the land, he could 1) demand of David, as one standing on the same plane with him, to make a covenant with him, and 2) give him the promise (the product not only of strong self-consciousness, but also of extensive power): “my hand is with thee to turn all Israel to thee” Obviously there is here not merely implicitly involved as answer to the above question, the declaration: “the land is his whom I, the leader of the army, shall favor” (Cler.), but also the expectation that, after the fulfillment of this promise, David would assign him the highest position in the army and in the nation next to himself. Abner’s proud and haughty words hardly permit us to doubt that he was filled with such thoughts. 2 Samuel 3:13. David replies with a condition, namely, the restoration of his wife Michal—Thou shalt not see my face before (= except) thou bring Michal, etc.—Certainly we should have the opposite of David’s meaning (Then.) If we rendered: “Thou shalt not see my face except before thou bring Michal.” But, if we retain the text (μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι), this explanation is unnecessary, rather it quite answers to the original signification of the word to render literally: “except in the face of thy bringing Michal …. in thy coming to see my face,” that is, thou shalt not see my face except by at the same time bringing me Michal when thou comest to see my face; thy coming to me to see my face shall not occur except in the presence of this fact, namely, that thou (= unless, before thou) bring Michal. It is therefore unnecessary either to omit the Prep. (μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι) after the Sept., and change the following Inf. into a Perf., = “unless thou bring” (Then.), or to omit the “but”(λִּ ?ιΰִ ?ν) = “thou shalt not see my face before thy bringing (= before thou bring)” (Bφttcher). 2 Samuel 3:14 presupposes the acceptance of this condition by Abner. In realization of what Abner had threatened him with, Ishbosheth finds himself compelled to fulfil David’s condition himself, and that immediately by Abner’s own hand, to whom was assigned the duty of bringing, and who really did bring Michal to David (2 Samuel 3:15-16). To this end David sends a formal embassy to Ishbosheth, in order legally to demand and receive Michal back, she having been illegally taken by Saul and given to another man (1 Samuel 25:44). Seb. Schmid: “that it might be manifest that he had acted legally towards Phaltiel before his king, and taken her back, not carried her off by force from a husband.” Whom I espoused to me, that is, purchased as bride, married—For a hundred foreskins, comp. 1 Samuel 18:27, where two hundred is the number given. David thus justifies his claim that Michal lawfully belongs to him, since he had lawfully won her as his wife. Besides this right to Michal, which he was now for the first time in position successfully to assert, he was led to a reunion with her partly by love (“she loved him,” 1 Samuel 18:27; 1 Samuel 19:11 sq.), partly by a political motive; as king he could not in the presence of the people leave Michal in a relation into which she had been forced against her will, and he wished the people to see from his relation to Saul as son-in-law that he was free from hatred towards the latter. 2 Samuel 3:15. And Ishbosheth sent, that is, to Gallim, where Phaltiel, the present husband of Michal, dwelt, 1 Samuel 25:44, and sent Abner himself (2 Samuel 3:16). Her husband cannot part with her without sorrow. [The Jewish tradition represents Phaltiel as the guardian merely, not the husband of Michal—a view that the text does not permit.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:16. A touching scene, briefly but vividly sketched. The faithful husband follows his wife weeping to Bahurim, where Abner, who therefore had himself brought Michal from Gallim, ordered him to return. Bahurim, the home of Shimei (2 Samuel 19:17; 1 Kings 2:8), a village near Jerusalem (Jos., Ant. 7, 9–7) north-east, on the road between the Mount of Olives and the Jordan (Gilgal), not far from or in the plain of the Jordan (comp. 2 Samuel 16:1; 2 Samuel 16:5; 2 Samuel 17:18). 2 Samuel 3:17-19. Abner’s preparatory negotiations with the Elders of Israel and especially of Benjamin, and his report thereon to David. 2 Samuel 3:17. Before Abner carried out David’s condition (the restoration of Michal), he had a conversation (γְּ ?αַ ?ψΞΰΧδָ ?ιָ ?δ) with the Elders of Israel, that is, the Northern Tribes with the exception of Benjamin—Both yesterday and the day before (= in times past) ye desired [= sought] David to be your king—a striking testimony to the fact that outside of Judah also there had been a favorable sentiment towards David, against which Abner had energetically established and hitherto maintained Ishbosheth’s authority. The existence of this favorable feeling towards David in the Northern Tribes is confirmed by 1 Chronicles 12. 2 Samuel 3:18. Now, then, do it, that is, fulfil your desire, recognize him as your king. As reason for this demand Abner refers to a “word of Jehovah,” which indeed in the form here given: I will save my people Israel, is never expressly mentioned as spoken “to David” (so the Vulg.); but it is to be regarded as the word applied in the prophetic tradition (which Abner, 2 Samuel 3:9, is well acquainted with) to David, with which Saul (1 Samuel 9:16) received this divine commission, which in its completeness could only now be fulfilled by David.2 Samuel 3:19. The special elaborate and pressing negotiations with Benjamin were necessary not only because this tribe had enjoyed many advantages from the royal house of Saul, 1 Samuel 22:7 (Then.), but in general because, though numerically the smallest tribe, it had hitherto had the honor of furnishing the reigning family; it was necessary to overcome the tribal ambition and the tribe-interest, to which Saul appealed, 1 Samuel 22. The “also … also” (βַּ ?ρΞβַּ ?ν), which denotes mutualness (Ew., § 352 a), points out the close connection and relation between the negotiations carried on with Benjamin as the tribe most important for David, and the earnest conversation that Abner therefore had with David (“in the ears of David”) at Hebron. He “went,” namely, after these double negotiations, in order to bring Michal to David.—All that seemed good, that is, not their demands and conditions (De Wette, Then., Buns.), which does not accord with the context or lie in the words, but (since the negotiations referred to the recognition of David’s divine right to the kingdom over all Israel, 2 Samuel 3:10) the willingness to recognize him as king, the recognition of his royal authority.—[Patrick observes that David so effectually attached the Benjaminites to him that, though they had been Saul’s closest adherents, they became David’s warm friends, and never afterwards left him. However, comp. 2 Samuel 20.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:20. The twenty men, who accompanied Abner to David and for whom he prepared a feast, appeared “as representatives of all Israel, in order by their presence to confirm Abner’s overtures” (Keil).—[Patrick: The feast was not merely an entertainment, but of the nature of a league. Bib.-Com.: “It is remarkable that not a word should be said about the meeting of David and Michal.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:21. The same quickness with which Abner carried out his resolution to go over to David (2 Samuel 3:12) fulfilled the required condition (2 Samuel 3:16), pressed the preliminary negotiations (2 Samuel 3:17 sq.) in order to inform David about them, he now shows in the further proceedings, that he may institute as soon as possible the solemn installation of David as king of Israel under formal conclusion of a covenant between king and people. The gradation in his following words: I will arise and will go and will assemble all Israel to my lord, is characteristic of the rapidity, excitedness and energy that we everywhere remark in Abner. He now for the first time calls David “his lord.” He will “assemble the whole nation (i. e. in its elders and other representatives) to the solemn covenanting.” This last was not to consist in the establishment of a constitution after the nature of a “constitutional monarchy” (Then.), which is wholly foreign to the theocratic kingdom, but the words: that they may make a covenant with thee mean: they are to vow to obey thee as the king given them by the Lord, thou promising to govern them as the theocratic king, through whom as His instrument the Lord Himself will rule over His people.—And that thou mayest be king over all that thy heart desireth, that is, not: “in a way or under conditions that thou canst accept” (Then.), but he is to rule as he desires; it does not, however, mean: “as thy soul desires” (Clericus), or “according to thy pleasure” (Dathe), because the conception of the theocratic rule excluded all arbitrariness from it, but “over all, according to which is the desire of thy soul,” that is, according to the Lord’s will and appointment, over the whole people and land. David had indicated the desire of his heart in his message to the Jabeshites. Abner was dismissed by David as his king who was in accord with his purpose. That he was now looked on by David and his adherents as thoroughly a friend, and received no harm from any body, is indicated by the concluding words: And he went in peace. IV. 2 Samuel 3:22-39. Murder of Abner by Joab and his solemn interment by David. 2 Samuel 3:22. Instead of the Sing, “came,” referring to Joab as leader of the troop, Sept., Syr., Ar. render: “they came.” “From the troop” came Joab with the servants of David, who had undertaken an expedition for booty Whither, is not said, but probably outside the Israelitish territory near the tribe of Judah. In the incomplete organization of David’s court, such expeditions were necessary for the support of the large army. “Abner was no longer with David;” probably he had purposely chosen the time when Joab, with the army, was absent, to carry out his plan. “He had gone in peace” is repeated from 2 Samuel 3:21 in contrast with the hostility afterwards shown him by Joab, when (2 Samuel 3:23) on his return he learns that Abner had meantime been with David and had been dismissed in peace. [For the correction of the rendering of this verse in Eng. A. V. see “Text, and Gramm.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:24. Joab’s reproach of David that he had sent Abner away—so that “he was now quite gone” (εֵ ?ιֵּ ?μֶ ?κְ δָ ?μεֹ ?κְ Ew. § 280 b)—supposes that Abner had only come with evil and hostile purpose. [Joab, of course, was afraid that he would be superseded by Abner, if the latter entered David’s service. He was younger and less renowned than Abner.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:25. Joab gives a reason for his charge of unwisdom against David in sending Abner away in peace: Thou knowest (or, as a question, knowest thou?) Abner, that ….. In a quick, passionate speech, for the truth of which he appeals at the outset to David’s knowledge of Abner’s character (against Thenius’ remark: “had David known what Joab here says, he would have acted differently”), he makes a threefold charge against Abner, with the intent of thereby branding him as spy and traitor. He declares that Abner came 1) to trick him out of his most secret thoughts. The verb (τָּ ?ϊָ ?δ) means “to be open” (Ps. 20:19), Piel “to make open, persuade, get one’s secrets from him” (Judges 14:15; Judges 16:5); so here; 2) to learn David’s outgoing and incoming, that is, all his present undertakings, his whole action and course of life (comp. Deuteronomy 28:6; Psalms 121:8); 3) all that he will do, all his plans for the future. 2 Samuel 3:26. Without David’s knowledge (whether expressly in David’s name, falsely used by him, is not stated) he sends messengers and brings Abner back, making him believe, no doubt, that David had something further to say to him. The pit (or cistern) of Sirah, to which Abner had gotten when he was turned back, according to Jos. Ant. 7, 1, 5, distant twenty stadia [= nearly two and a half English miles] from Hebron, is now unknown; the name is perhaps to be derived from a verb (ρεּ ?ψ) meaning “to turn in” (Thenius), and denotes an inn or caravanserai. [According to others, so-called as surrounded with thorns, Sirim, ρִ ?ιψִ ?ιν (Philippson).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:27. [Bib. Comm.: Abner’s conduct bespeaks his entire reliance on David’s good faith.—Tr.] After Abner’s return to Hebron, Joab met him in the gate of the city, and turned him “aside to the middle of the gate, in order to speak with him quietly.” Clericus: “made him turn aside, took him apart” (the Hiphil δִ ?θָּ ?δ is transitive as in Job 24:4; Numbers 22:23). Joab could not speak with him in the way where people were going out and coming in. He had therefore to take him aside to the places in the gate-space, where, according to the oriental custom, men used to meet for private or public conversations and consultations. To the middle of the gate.—Joab drew Abner to the middle of the inner gate-space (which was no doubt roofed) between the places of exit and entrance, because it was not so light there, and one could better escape the notice of the passers-by, who, however, were probably not very numerous. Bunsen renders well: “made him turn aside (from the way) near the middle of the gate.” For Joab wished, as he made Abner believe, to talk with him “in quiet, undisturbed, in private” (αַּ ?ωֶׁ ?μִ ?ι). There he stabbed him in the abdomen (δַ ?ηֹ ?ξֶ ?ωׁ, comp. 2 Samuel 2:23) [not “under the fifth rib,” as in Eng. A.V.—Tr.]. For the blood of Asahel his brother see 2 Samuel 2:23; that is, to avenge or punish the death of his brother. According to this it was an act of revenge for bloodshed. But Abner had not wilfully slain Asahel, but in self-defence, when the latter pressed on him, 2 Samuel 2:22 sq. But blood-vengeance was appointed only for intentional killing, and he was protected by law from it, who had killed a man unintentionally (Deuteronomy 4:41 sq.; Joshua 20:1-9). Joab’s deed was a murder, like that which he afterwards committed on Amasa, 2 Samuel 20:11. He thereby cast false suspicion on David (comp. 2 Samuel 3:37), whose friendly relation to Abner he yet must have known, since David no doubt informed him in their conversation (2 Samuel 3:24-25) of Abner’s true position. The avenging of blood was a mere pretext; the real ground of Joab’s deed was envy and ambition, as Josephus already rightly holds. He feared that Abner would take a higher position in the new kingdom than himself—especially would cut him out of the rank of general-in chief of the whole army. Grotius: “an equal and rival in military glory galled him.” 2 Samuel 3:28 sq. What David said of this crime. And when David after-wards heard of it.—The word “afterwards” (as the “David knew it not” in 2 Samuel 3:26) certifies that David had no share in Joab’s deed. David 1) declares his innocence of this murder. He distinguishes between himself personally and “his kingdom,” that is, his royal house, his “hereditary successors on the throne” (Thenius), who no more than himself could be visited with divine punishment therefor. Comp. 1 Kings 2:31-33. On the other hand, he affirms 2) that the righteous punishment of God in requital of this crime must fall both on the person and on the house (the posterity) of Joab. Let the blood of Abner turn, roll, plunge on the head.—This strong expression, instead of the ordinary “let it come,” answers to the enormity of the crime and the energy of David’s righteous anger. “And let there not fail,” literally “not be cut off, separated, exterminated” (ιִ ?λָּ ?ψֵ ?ϊ), so that it no longer exist, comp. Joshua 9:23. One that hath an issue (ζָ ?α), one that pines away miserably with seminal or mucous flow,—comp. Leviticus 15:2 sq., and a leper, see Leviticus 13:1-46, and one that holds the distaff.—The word (τֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ) means in Heb., Talm., Arab, only “distaff,” never “staff” (Bφttcher), comp. Proverbs 31:19. Usually indeed the phrase is rendered after the Sept. (κρατῶνσκυτάλην) “one that holds a staff;” that is, a cripple, lame, or blind (the last by Aquila). But against this it is to be said with Bφttcher that, apart from the fact that the word cannot be shown to mean “staff,” the phrase “one that holds a staff” does not necessarily denote a cripple, since the staff was held by “rulers and men of eminence (Judges 5:14; Genesis 38:18; Numbers 21:18), old men (Zechariah 8:4), travellers (Luke 6:3), shepherds (1 Samuel 17:40; Micah 7:14), and where a cripple is described with a staff, the expression is quite different (Exodus 21:19).” It is therefore better (with Bφttcher) to take this as a contrast to the next described unfortunate strong warrior who “falls by the sword” = the weakly “spindle-holder, unfit for war.” “The Greeks also had their Hercules with the distaff” as a type of unmanly feebleness, and for a warrior like Joab there could be no worse wish than that there might be a distaff-holder among his descendants” (Bφttcher). So also Vulg., Schulz, Maurer . [In spite of this forcible and striking argument of Bφttcher (which is also adopted by Thenius) it seems better to take the signification “crutch,” chiefly because the other terms of imprecation in this verse are all literal, and the term “distaff-holder” would be figurative. The rendering “crutch” or “staff” is adopted by Gesenius, Ewald, Philippson, Bible Commentary, and others, and may be given without violence to the Hebrew word, though in the one other passage in the Old Testament in which it occurs it means “distaff”—Tr.] And that lacks bread.—The indication of bitter poverty. These exclamations of David express no feeling of revenge (as indeed he undertakes no revenge or punishment against Joab and his house), but commit to the holy and righteous God the inevitable punishment of such a violation of the divine command. They are not “genuinely Jewish” (Thenius), but genuinely theocratic, as the expression of the clear, energetic consciousness of God’s punitive justice which maintains the laws of the moral government of the world and the foundations of the kingdom of God, and which here he wishes may exhibit itself on Joab’s house in a fourfold manner: in miserable, levitically unclean sicknesses, in despicable weakness and crippling, in violent death, and in bitter poverty. As to Joab’s violent end, comp. 1 Kings 2:28-34, especially 2 Samuel 3:31-33, and as respects the curse on his house, see Exodus 20:5. [The ancient Jewish writers regarded this imprecation of David’s as sinful. The text passes no opinion on it, but from the religious-theocratic point of view of the time, it would seem even necessary that the wrath of God should be specially and sharply invoked on so high-handed a crime, especially as David was not able to call the criminal to legal account.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 3:30. Supplementary remark of the narrator, who 1) confirms the fact that the slaying of Asahel by Abner was the ground (pretext) for the murder of the latter just related, and 2) adds the important statement that Joab’s act was not merely personal, but also a family-act: “Joab and Abishai slew Abner.” Abishai’s part in the affair is not related. Literally: “threw themselves on him,” the verb being used with Dat. instead of Accus., Isaiah 22:13 (Bφttcher, Then.). 2 Samuel 3:31-39. David’s mourning for Abner. 2 Samuel 3:31. David said to Joab (as him who by his murderous act was chiefly and terribly interested) and to all the people that were “with him” (those about him), not merely to the “courtiers” (Thenius): Rend your garments, etc.—He ordered a public mourning with all the usual ceremonies (rending garments, putting on sackcloth, that is, rough mourning garments of haircloth, and lamentations for the dead). We must distinguish two principal acts: 1) The mourning not over, for, in honor of (Ew. § 217 l) Abner, but “before” him (μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιּ), in the presence of his corpse; 2) the burial, 2 Samuel 3:31 b sq.: And the king David followed the bier. The word “king” is put emphatically first to indicate the official character that he as king gave to these obsequies, in order to show his personal deep sorrow for the death of Abner which concerned the whole people, and to stifle at the outset any suspicion that he had a share in it. His “tears at the grave” showed the genuineness of his grief to the people who shared in his trouble and wept with him. His elegy (2 Samuel 3:33-34) is the expression of the deepest sorrow over Abner’s innocent and shameful death. In reference to his guiltlessness he exclaims: Must Abner die as a worthless fellow dies?—as a nabal (πָ ?αָּ ?μ), a fool; where this term is used of immorality and crime, these, like denial of God and godlessness (Psalms 14:1), are regarded under the point of view of foolishness; nabal always denotes hollowness, emptiness, insipidity (see Moll [in Lange’s Bible-Work] on Psalms 14:1), and signifies therefore somewhat more precisely “good-for-naught.” [The sentence may be paraphrased: is this the fate that the noble Abner was to meet, to die like a worthless fool? alas that he found so inglorious a death.—Tr.] But he was murdered in shameful wise also: Thy hands were not bound and thy feet not put into fetters—with free hands, with which he might have defended himself; with free feet, with which he might have escaped from overpowering force; without suspecting evil, he was attacked and murdered as a defenceless man, who yet might have defended himself. (De Wette (against the μֹ ?ΰ) wrongly renders: Thy hands were never bound, thy feet never put into fetters.) Only dishonorable, wicked men could so act. This lament of David increased the grief of the people, so that “they wept still more over Abner.” 2 Samuel 3:35. David’s grief is strongest and most enduring—he refrains entirely from food. Fasting often occurs as a sign of sorrow—see 2 Samuel 1:12. All the people (that is, as many as were present) came to cause David to eat bread—that is, not to give him to eat (De Wette), as 2 Samuel 13:5 (an impossible conception in respect to “all the people”), but to demand of him to take food. Josephus: “his friends tried to force him to take nourishment.” It was the custom for mourners to fast immediately after the death of their friends, whereupon their relatives and friends exerted themselves to comfort them, and persuaded them to strengthen themselves with food and drink, comp. 2 Samuel 12:16-17; 2 Samuel 12:20; Jeremiah 16. Perhaps the people here acted in accordance with this custom; but their demand may also be referred to the mourning meal that followed the burial. But David refuses with an oath; up to evening he will eat nothing. The expression of grief here reaches its culmination. 2 Samuel 3:36. The people took notice of it—namely, of his deep sorrow, and estimated this expression of his mourning as corresponding to the intensity of his grief. It pleased them, as all that the king did pleased all the people.—Thus he was not only freed from suspicion of share in the murder of Abner (2 Samuel 3:37). but won the love and confidence of the people. 2 Samuel 3:38. An echo of the elegy: Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?—Not: “great prince” (Thenius, after Sept., omitting the copula), since the distinction between the prince=“army-leader” and the great man is perfectly appropriate. Abner was a “prince” by his distinguished military ability, which (as this exclamation intimates) David might have employed for all Israel; he was a “great man” by reason of his lofty qualities of character and virtues, his power of action, his courage, the honorable self-conquest he exhibited in turning from his previous false course of opposition to David, the obedience that he yielded to the will of God, and the zealous desire he showed to serve by deeds the true king of Israel. On account of his natural noble endowments and these moral qualities, Abner rightly seems to David to be a great man in Israel, not merely, therefore, in the incorrect sense in which the term has been applied to a Napoleon. 2 Samuel 3:39. The usual explanation: “but I am still weak….. and these men are too strong for me;” that is, as a weak young king I feel unable to bring a man like Joab to justice; I must therefore confine myself to an imprecation, and leave the punishment to God (Jos., Theod., Brent., Tremell., S. Schmid, Clericus, De Wette, Keil [Patrick]), is wholly untenable; for David could not and durst not so express himself. It would have been very unwise to acknowledge his fear and weakness in respect to Joab and Abishai; nor would it have been true; for he who had conquered Abner, by whose side stood 600 heroes, in whose grief over Abner’s murder all the people shared, no doubt had power to punish this crime; such a self-exculpation based on confession of weakness does not at all agree with the courage and fearlessness that form a fundamental trait of David’s character.—Against Ewald’s explanation: “I indeed now live in palaces and am crowned king, and yet the sons of Zeruiah are out of my reach,” it is to be remarked with Thenius that the word ψַ ?κְ [Eng. A. V.: “weak, tender”]) for whose meaning “well living” he cites Isaiah 47:1; Deuteronomy 28:54-56, is used in those passages in a bad sense=delicatus [luxurious, effeminate], and that the other adj. (χָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν) cannot mean “out of reach;” and there is the further objection to this rendering that David had as yet no very splendid position, and his dwelling proudly in royal palaces is out of the question. Against Bunsen’s rendering: “hard, out of my reach” (Ex. 48:25), Thenius rightly remarks that hard and out of reach are two different conceptions, and that the former can be used only of things, not of persons. Bφttcher translates: “And I am to-day easy, and am crowned king, but these men—are too rough for me,” and finds in the “easy” (ψַ ?κְ) a double contrast, on the one hand between David’s present comfortable circumstances and Abner’s sad death, and on the other hand between the easy disposition (natural in easy circumstances) inclined to pardon (as was lawful and right for the king), and the rough deed of the sons of Zeruiah. But 1) “we cannot suppose such a double meaning in the declaration” (Thenius), and 2) the history is in conflict with this supposition of royal well-living on the part of David, who with his men must have depended chiefly for their living on the booty taken in their incursions. Thenius alters the text after the Sept. and translates: “know ye not that… and that I am to-day weak and am raised to the position of the king. Those men… are harder than I. Jehovah reward,” etc. But the text of the Sept in the first third of the verse is too confused to allow an emendation of the Hebrew to be based on it. Nor could David yet have said: “I am raised to the position of the king.” Holding to the text, we might rather adopt Thenius’ explanation, according to which David, over against Abner’s greatness and importance for all Israel (which he had just affirmed), sets his own present situation, in which this distinguished man would have been of the greatest value to him, so that the sense would be: “How well in my situation could I have used such a man as Abner, I who have just been set on the throne! What these men have done I could not have done! (comp. 2 Samuel 16:10). But God will judge!” Yet in this explanation also a confession of weakness would be the chief point, which in David’s present situation is altogether improbable. David was actually not “set on the throne” in respect to all Israel; that does not take place till 2 Samuel 3:1. The little word “just” is put in. Before the whole people David has avowed the deepest, sincerest grief of heart for Abner by declaring that he would continue his fasting till the sun went down. Then follows in 2 Samuel 3:36-37 the parenthetical double statement of the impression that his conduct made on the people: they approved his feeling, and were firmly convinced that he had no part in the murder. It is then further related in 2 Samuel 3:38 (which connects itself with 2 Samuel 3:35) how David expressed to the narrower circle of “his servants” (that is, his immediate royal retinue) his grief at the loss that he and Israel had suffered by Abner’s death. In 2 Samuel 3:39 follows immediately the avowal of his disposition of mind, that he as king showed himself soft and weak, while those men showed themselves so hard. The contrast of “soft” and “hard” (here evidently intended) is thus fully preserved in respect not to the political situation, but to mental constitution. The meaning of David’s words would thus be: Wonder not that I so give myself up to grief. You know what a great man we and all Israel have lost. I am then soft and weak, I, an anointed king, while these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are in disposition harder than I. They (at least Joab) were obliged indeed to take part in the ceremony of mourning (2 Samuel 3:31); their hard, inflexible mind, whence proceeded the evil deed, showed itself in their mien and deportment at the ceremony. This gave David occasion to contrast his weakness, his absorption in grief with their hardness, a contrast that is sharpened by his comparing them with himself as king. The concluding words: The Lord will reward.… are the natural expression of the feelings and thoughts that filled David’s soul when he looked at their hardness and inflexible defiance (comp. 2 Samuel 3:29). AND 1. “The house of Saul grew weaker and weaker” 2 Samuel 3:1. This is the theme of the following narrative of Ishbosheth’s kingdom under Abner’s lead and guidance. In the first place, the heir to Saul’s throne appears as a very weak man, unfit to rule, without character or will, who is merely an object of Abner’s mighty, unlimited activity, and never (except for a moment in the affair of the concubine) attempts to take the position of subject [that is, independent agent] in respect to Abner. While David undertakes nothing of his own will and strength in order to overthrow the dynasty of Saul and gain the promised kingdom over all Israel, patiently waiting for the fulfilment of the promise given him, this fulfilment is already introduced by the fall of Saul’s house through its own weakness, and by its loss of the royal throne through the incapacity of its representative for the royal office, with the co-operation at last of Abner, who was still its only support. Ishbosheth appears as a will-less, weak mock-king in degrading dependence on the mighty, vigorous, heroic nature of Abner. When the latter, in reply to the charge made against him of high-handed and reckless proceeding against the royal house, breaks forth into anger, discarding all reverence for his royal master and openly announcing his defection to David, Ishbosheth has nothing to answer, because he fears Abner. Indeed in his utter helplessness Ishbosheth seems to have entertained the thought of sharing the royal dignity with David, being perhaps ready to cede to him the greater part of the power. At least he became Abner’s passive tool so far as to lend his hand to the fulfilment of the condition on which David was willing to yield to his proposals, namely, the restoration of Michal. “The Scripture presents in him a living example of how the sacredly held right of legitimate inheritance has no root when it is not ennobled by a vigorous personality. When the divine calling is lacking, no legitimate pretensions help” (P. Cassel, Herz. s. v.). 2. “David grew stronger and stronger.” This second statement also in 2 Samuel 3:1 is in respect to David the title of this section. While David bears himself patiently and humbly in respect to his royal interests, the spirit of the people, under the misrule of Ishbosheth, turns to him more and more in the desire that he may be king over the remaining tribes also (2 Samuel 3:17). Even the bearer and support of Saul’s kingdom, the mighty Abner, inclines secretly to him on the ground of his ever clearer consciousness and conviction that it is Jehovah’s will that the kingdom of Israel should depart from the house of Saul and pass over to David; till his rupture with Ishbosheth leads to his open transition to David’s side. Abner had indeed, against his better convictions, maintained his partisan position against David and continued his hostile efforts against him, and it was only after the overthrow of his hitherto unlimited power and the violence done to his self-esteem and ambition, that he came to the conclusion to abandon his position as David’s opponent; and certainly ambitious plans and views for his position in the new kingdom were not wanting in his transition to David and his energetic efforts for David. But all this could give David no ground to reject Abner’s offer; rather he was under obligation to employ this unsought change in Abner’s mind and position (which entered into his life as a factor permitted by the Lord) for the end (fixed not by himself, but by the Lord) of his kingdom over all Israel, the kingdom of Saul falling to pieces of itself, when the Dictator, who had furnished its outward support, left it. Abner’s defection from Ishbosheth and effort to gain from the whole people the recognition of David’s authority was an important preliminary step thereto. But further, by a wonderful providence of God, Abner’s shameful murder by the envious, ambitious Joab was to lead to this result, namely, that, after the Elders of the people had already shown themselves willing to recognize his authority over all Israel, the whole people gave him their love and confidence; “all that he did pleased them” (2 Samuel 3:36). 3. The realization of the plans and aims of the wisdom of God in the development of David up to his ascension of the royal throne in Israel is secured by the co-operation of human efforts and acts (like Abner’s and Joab’s), which have their ground not in zeal for the cause of the kingdom of God, but in selfish ends and motives of the self-seeking, sinful heart. Human sin must subserve the purposes of God’s government and kingdom.—The absolute freedom of control in the things of His kingdom takes the activity of human freedom into its dispensations, and weaves them into the fast closed web of divine arrangements and acts, in which they fulfil the plans of divine wisdom.—J. Hetz (Geschicht. Davids I. 309) remarks on 2 Samuel 3:18 : “Here also it is to be noted how, merely by preparing circumstances, the free actions of men have been forced to accord with divine declarations, of which fact this theocracy gives so many examples.” 4. David’s words concerning Joab and his house are no more the expression of revenge than the orders that he gives to Solomon in his last words (1 Kings 2:5 sq.) respecting the punishment of Joab for this bloody crime (against Dunker, Gesch. des Alterth. I. 386); but they express his moral horror at this evil deed, and at the same time the everlasting law of God’s requiting justice, which reaches not merely the person, but also the posterity (Exodus 20:5) of the offender. David (though, as theocratic king, he had the right to do it) does not himself execute the deserved act of divine righteousness on Joab, not, as the common view is, because he felt himself too weak in his royal office, but because he wished to avoid the appearance of personal revenge, especially now when Abner had just done him such great services. He therefore committed to the Lord the requital and expiation of this crime, 2 Samuel 3:39. This could be accomplished, however, only through a human instrument. The commission to this end he accordingly gave to his son Solomon (1 Kings 2:5 sq.), who, not as his son, as a private person, but as his successor on the throne and as theocratic king, had therein an official duty to fulfil. For “in the kingdom of God, in which ruled the law of earthly requital, such a crime might not go unpunished” (O. v. Gerlach). 5. In David’s ethical conduct in this important episode also, which immediately precedes his ascension of the promised throne, we see individual prefigurations of his humble obedience to the Lord, without whose will he will take no step in life. Under the strongest temptations to arbitrariness and violence, which were the rule with the ancient oriental princes, he maintains strict self-control, exhibits uniform circumspection, a wisdom and discretion cognizant of God’s ways, and does not permit anger at the deed of horror that had been done under his eyes to lead him to immediate, bloody punishment. We must guard against exaggerated demands on the morality of the Old Testament men of God, that we may not unfairly judge them by an improper standard, and that we may not pervert the truth of the divine development of revelation by confounding the stand-points of the Old and New Testaments. David’s invocation of divine punishment on Joab (2 Samuel 3:29) (wherein, indeed, we must distinguish between the eternal truth of the divine justice and the sinful element of subjective passion) is held by some to be unjustifiable from the Christian point of view. To this it is to be replied once for all, that David belongs to the Old Testament, not the New Testament economy, stands on the stand-point of the Law, not of the Gospel, and therefore is not to be ethically judged according to the New Testament stand-point. [Dr. Erdmann’s remarks on David’s moral motives are determined in part by his interpretation of 2 Samuel 3:39, about which there is much room for doubt. It may be merely a confession of political weakness that he here makes privately to his friends, in which case his self-control is simply political sagacity. David had high moral and spiritual qualities; at the same time we must guard against the determination to find the loftiest theocratic motives in every act of his life. Dr. Erdmann holds that in 2 Samuel 3:39 David affirms his own softness of nature as reason for his deep grief over Abner, in contrast with the hardness of Joab. The objection to this is that it does not explain sufficiently why David immediately appends an appeal to God for the punishment of the doer of evil. Further, the reason assigned by our author for David’s failure to punish Joab (namely, his desire to avoid the appearance of revenge) seems unsatisfactory; nobody would have accused him of personal vengeance. To the usual interpretation Dr. Erdmann objects that a confession of political weakness on David’s part would have been unwise and untrue. But, what more natural than that he should make such a statement to a select body of friends; and that it was not true, we are not warranted in saying, since we do not know Joab’s power and position. The words of the Heb. may refer to political relations, and such a statement would accord with the whole history. It must be allowed, however, that the words are obscure.—Tr.] AND 2 Samuel 3:7 sq. The designs that God has with His chosen ones for the furtherance of His kingdom often have the way smoothed for them through human sins.—Single wicked deeds, proceeding from momentary passionate excitement, do often in God’s government give occasion for changes having important consequences.—Division among the opposers of God’s kingdom must subserve the furtherance of His aims, and on the contrary, discord among those who, on a like ground of faith, wish to live and labor for the same tasks in the kingdom of God must help the wicked one and further his aims. 2 Samuel 3:12 sqq. When an opposer of God’s word honestly turns, we should without reluctance give him the hand, without undertaking to pass judgment on the motives that are hidden in his heart. 2 Samuel 3:13. Where the honor of God and His holy ordinances are concerned, a man should guard his rights, and demand reparation of a right that has been impaired. 2 Samuel 3:17 sq. He who has left the ways of unrighteousness, upon which for a long time he had consciously or unconsciously gone, and returned to the way of truth and righteousness, will exhibit the sincerity of his change by a so much the more earnest striving to restore the damage done by his previous conduct, and to carry into execution the previously hindered aims of divine wisdom and love. 2 Samuel 3:23 sq. That there is a kingdom of evil is proven by the fact that a man’s turning from evil to good, which pleases God and is a joy to the angels, commonly excites bitterness and hate in wicked men, who see their aims and plans thereby interfered with, and awakens an envy and jealousy that does not shrink from the most wicked deeds. 2 Samuel 3:28 sq. The honor of one’s good name is too precious a possession to let even the suspicion cleave to it of participation in other men’s guilt. Manly honor demands that in every way, by word and deed and behaviour, one should set forth his innocence when the circumstances and relations give occasion to untrue and unjust accusations. 2 Samuel 3:33 sq. In lamenting the loss of great men who were prominent in advancing the kingdom of God, we not merely render to them the honor they deserve, but also praise God who gave them. 2 Samuel 3:36. That king will be most honored and loved by his people who walks in the ways of God, and by a noble disposition, magnanimity and hearty goodness himself awakens the nobler feelings of his people. 2 Samuel 3:39. In patience and humility must we refer to God the Lord the righteous requital for wicked transgression of His holy commandments. Indifference thereto makes one a partaker of like guilt.—[Comp. above at close of “Hist. and Theol.”—Tr.] On 2 Samuel 3:8. Schlier: How many stand together and seem the most inseparable friends, so long as each hopes to gain his end; but only let this aim remove to a distance, only let it become manifest that a selfish or ambitious desire is not going to be fulfilled, and how soon is all rent in twain! For there is nothing that really unites men but the fear of God. No friendship is permanent and progressive that is not rooted in the fear of God.—[2 Samuel 3:9-10. Scott: While men go on in their sins apparently without concern, they are often conscious that they are fighting against God.—Tr.]—On 2 Samuel 3:16. F. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD SECTIONDavid becomes Sole Ruler over Israel 2 Samuel 4:1 to 2 Samuel 5:5I. Murder of Ishbosheth. 2 Samuel 4:1-81 And when [om. when] Saul’s Song of Solomon 1 heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, [ins. and] his hands were [became] feeble, and all the Israelites [Israel] were troubled. 2And Saul’s son had two men that were captains of bands. The name of the one was Baanah and the name of the other Rachab, the sons of Rimmon a Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin; for Beeroth also was reckoned to Benjamin. 3And the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were [have been] sojourners there until this 4day. And Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son that was lame of his feet. He was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel, and his nurse took him up and fled; and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth. 5And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon [and he was taking his midday-rest]. 6And they came thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched [fetching] wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib 7[in the abdomen]; and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped. For when they [And they] came into the house, [ins. and] he lay on his bed in his bed-chamber, and they smote him and slew him and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night. 8And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron, and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, which [who] sought thy life; and the Lord [Jehovah] hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul and of his seed. II. Punishment of Ishbosheth’s Murderers by David. 2 Samuel 4:9-12. 9And David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said unto them, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, who hath redeemed 10my soul out of all adversity, When one [Hebrews 8 who] told me, saying, Behold Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings—I took hold of him and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given [in Ziklag, to give him] a reward for his tidings; 11How much more when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed? shall I not therefore now [and now, shall I not] require his blood of your hand, and take you away [destroy you] from the earth? 12And David commanded his [the] young men, and they slew them and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over [at] the pool in Hebron. But [And] they took the head of Ishbosheth and buried it in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron. III. David anointed King over Israel. 2 Samuel 5:1-5. 1Then came all the tribes of Israel [And all… came] to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest [led] out and broughtest [brought] in Israel; and the Lord [Jehovah] said to thee, Thou shalt feed my 3people Israel, and thou shalt be a [om. a] captain over Israel. So [And] all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron, and king David made a league [covenant] with them in Hebron before the Lord [Jehovah], and they anointed David king over Israel. 4David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. 5In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah. AND . 2 Samuel 4:1-8. Murder of Ishbosheth2 Samuel 4:1. In consequence of the news of Abner’s murder, Ishbosheth’s hands became “slack,” the opposite of the “strong” (ηָ ?ζַ ?χ) comp. 2 Samuel 2:7; 2 Samuel 16:21—that is, he completely lost heart. And all Israel was troubled, because people knew Ishbosheth’s incapacity, and that Abner alone had been the prop of his kingdom (2 Samuel 3:6). [Things were generally in an unsettled state. Patrick: By Abner’s death the treaty with David was broken off, or there was nobody to manage it like Abner; Plato observes: “when any calamity is about to befall a city, God is wont to take away (the) excellent men out of that city.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 4:2. The son of Saul had two band leaders, Baanah and Rechab, sons of Rimmon.—Noteworthy is the designation “son of Saul” for Ishbosheth, who is never called “the Anointed of the Lord.”—The two “band-leaders” in Ishbosheth’s service were no doubt bold, adventurous men. The part that they play, as well as Abner’s conduct, suggests the supposition that the firm military organization that Saul had called into being had relaxed, and a disintegration of the army into separate bodies under adventurers and partisans was imminent, if it had not already occurred. Of the sons of Benjamin; for Beeroth also was reckoned to Benjamin.—Beeroth, according to Rob. II. 345 sq. [Am. Ed. i. 451–453, ii. 262] and Later Bibl. Researches 190 [Am. Ed. III. 289], the present village Bireh, seven miles north of Jerusalem in an unfruitful and stony region on a mountain, with old foundations, not far from Gibeon on the western border of Benjamin. Comp. Joshua 9:17; Joshua 18:25. As from its border-position, it might easily be reckoned to another tribe, it is here expressly mentioned as belonging to Benjamin, that there might be no doubt that these murderers were really Benjaminites, fellow-tribesmen of Saul’s son. 2 Samuel 4:3. An explanatory statement about Beeroth with reference to the time of the narrator, when that Beeroth was no longer in existence. Not: “they had fled” (for at the time of Ishbosheth’s murder Beeroth no longer existed), but: “they fled to Gittaim.” They dwelt there as strangers (πָּ ?ψִ ?ιν) not protιgιs (against Ewald, Then.). Neither the reason for their flight, nor the position of this place is known to us. In Nehemiah 11:33 a Gittaim is mentioned among the places inhabited by Benjaminites after the Exile. If that is the same with our Gittaim, we yet cannot certainly conclude that it belonged to Benjamin before the Exile; the contrary rather is probable. The word “strangers” points to the fact that the fugitive Beerothites dwelt there among non-Israelites. It was perhaps one of the places on the border of Benjamin belonging to the non-Israelitish Amoritic Gibeonites. [Patrick and Philippson suggest that Beeroth was abandoned by its inhabitants at the time of the Philistine invasion, 1 Samuel 31:7. Bib.-Com. (supposing the Beerothites to be Gibeonites) conjectures that the flight was occasioned by Saul’s attack, 2 Samuel 21:1-2, and that the act of Baanah and Rechab was one of vengeance.—But we know nothing certainly about it.—Gittaim has been supposed to be the Philistine Gath (Then. and others) or Gath-Rimmon, Joshua 19:45; Joshua 21:24 (Wellh.).—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 4:4. A historical remark in respect to the then condition of Saul’s house. Its only representative besides Ishbosheth was Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth, five years old at the time of the catastrophe at Jezreel, lame in both feet, helpless therefore, and neither a support to Ishbosheth nor fit to succeed him on the throne. In view of this the narrator here inserts this statement in order to make clear how, on the murder of Ishbosheth related below, the kingdom of Saul’s house was necessarily extinguished. For further notices of Mephibosheth see 9, 2 Samuel 16:1 sq.; 2 Samuel 19:25 sq. Instead of this name we find (parallel with Eshbaal for Ishbosheth—see on 2 Samuel 2:8) in 1 Chronicles 8:34; 1 Chronicles 9:40, Meribbaal = “opponent, conqueror of Baal,” and Mephibosheth also perhaps means “exterminator of Baal.” [This statement about Mephibosheth also prepares the way for the subsequent notices of him.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 4:5. “In the heat of the day” the murderers came to Mahanaim where Ishbosheth dwelt, see 2 Samuel 2:8. He lay on the midday-bed, that is, in a quiet, remote, cool spot of the house. They chose this time of midday-rest as favorable to their purpose. 2 Samuel 4:6. “And hither.” The phrase “fetching wheat” explains how they could penetrate “into the midst of the house,” where Ishbosheth was lying; they came as persons that wished or were directed to fetch wheat. The Particp. is sometimes put for the Impf. as our Fut., as Exodus 10:8, “who are they that are going?” (=that purpose going), and so in narration does the duty of the Pret., as Genesis 19:14, “marrying his daughter” (=who were to or wished to marry). Ewald, § 335 b. They came not as “purchasers of wheat” (Buns.), but as band-leaders, to get wheat for the support of their men, “corn [grain] to divide out to their soldiers, which was kept in the middle of Ishbosheth’s house” (Cler.). We need not suppose that this was merely a pretext; rather their entrance into the midst of the house is the more easily explained when we suppose that this was a usual practice in accordance with their military position, and that they had done it before. Thus without attracting attention they could slay Ishbosheth, and quickly make their escape.—The Sept., departing completely from the Masoretic text, here reads: “and behold, the portress of the house was cleansing wheat and had fallen asleep and slumbered; and Rechab and Baanah, the brothers, escaped (or, slipped by).” Thenius’ restoration of the original text after the Sept. is rejected by Bφttcher as “frightfully far” from the masoretic text, while Thenius disapproves Bφttcher’s reading (which Ewald with some modifications adopts) as more circumstantial than his own. If the original text accorded with these conjectures, it is not easy to see how the present masoretic text (which differs from it so much) came from it, while it is easy to suppose that the Sept. (according to its custom), tried by an interpretation to explain partly how the two murderers could get into the house unopposed, partly the strange repetition of the account in 2 Samuel 4:7. The Vulg. (which, through the Itala on which it is based, is dependent on the Sept.) has the corresponding insertion: “and the portress of the house cleansing wheat fell asleep,” while in the rest of the verse it follows the masoretic text against the Sept. All the other ancient versions follow the Heb. According to the latter there is certainly a tautology in 2 Samuel 4:6-7, the entrance into the house and the murder being twice mentioned. But in the first place, it is to be observed that in the attempted restorations of the original text the phrase “came into the house” remains in 2 Samuel 4:5 and 2 Samuel 4:7. But we must further bear in mind a peculiarity of Heb. narration (referred to by Kφnigsfeld, Annot. ad post. libr. Sam., and Keil), by which a previously-mentioned fact is repeated in order to add something new. So in 2 Samuel 3:22-23 the coming of Joab, and in 2 Samuel 5:1; 2 Samuel 5:3 the coming of the Tribes is twice mentioned. Here the “coming” of 2 Samuel 4:5 is more fully described in 2 Samuel 4:6, and the “slaying” of 2 Samuel 4:6 is defined in 2 Samuel 4:7 as beheading, and this makes the transition to the account in 2 Samuel 4:8, that the murderers brought the head of Ishbosheth to David, having during the night traversed the Arabah or plain of the Jordan. Comp. 2 Samuel 2:29. 2 Samuel 4:8. To the king.—Notice that David is always here so termed, while in respect to Ishbosheth the title is avoided. Behold the head of thy enemy, who sought thy life.—The better to justify their deed, and to gain favor and reward from David, the risen star, they stigmatize Ishbosheth as one that sought after David’s life, thinking perhaps that the recollection of Saul’s persecution and Abner’s hostility would give the color of truth to their false assertion. [Others hold less well that Saul is the enemy here meant.—Tr.]. Nothing is said in the history of attempts on David’s life by Ishbosheth, and David’s designation of him as a “righteous man,” who was guilty of no evil deed stamps that assertion as a lie. They have the effrontery indeed to represent their crime as an act or judgment of God, the better to commend themselves to David, though they had committed the murder of their own accord without any commission at all. II. 2 Samuel 4:9-12. Punishment of Ishbosheth’s murderers by David2 Samuel 4:9. The words: Who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity—are therefore not a confirmation of the murderers’ assertion about Ishbosheth, but contain the thought “that David is not obliged to free himself by crime from his enemies” (Keil). 2 Samuel 4:10. He who told me… thinking himself a messenger of good—a recapitulation of the history of the Amalekite (2 Samuel 1), here put in the absolute construction, and the words and I seized him follow as principal assertion, instead of: “if I seized and slew him who told me” (2 Samuel 1:15). “In order to give him a reward for his tidings,” that is, to inflict on him the punishment he deserved. [See “Text. and Gram.” The last clause of this verse is of the nature of biting irony—David gave the man a reward, and it was death.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 4:11. “How much more!” (ΰַ ?σλִּ ?ι) the apodosis to the protasis in 2 Samuel 4:10. The words: wicked men… on his bed are (as in 2 Samuel 4:10) proposed in absolute construction, instead of: “how much more shall I require his blood from your hand, ye wicked men!” The “wicked men” stands in sharp contrast with the “righteous man.” David characterizes Ishbosheth as a “righteous man,” that is, as one who had never done anything wicked (so Josephus). This judgment accords with the character given of Ishbosheth in chaps. 2, 3. (he was a “good man,” without falsehood and blameless), and is at the same time a decided refutation of the charge by which the murderers think to palliate their crime. “David declares that Ishbosheth was blameless, having done nothing to occasion this end” (Cassel). With the phrase “and now” David brings his speech to a close, pronouncing sentence of death, by the same royal authority as in 2 Samuel 1:14-15. The form of the thought is a progression from the less to the greater: If I executed in Ziklag him who avowed having killed at his own request on the battle-field my adversary Saul, under whose persecutions the Lord delivered me from all adversity, how much more must I demand at your hands the blood of this righteous man whom ye murderously slew in his house on his bed. On the phrase “require blood,” see Genesis 9:5, according to which God Himself is the avenger of blood, comp. Psalms 9:13. David recognizes himself as king in God’s service and His instrument, when he causes these criminals to be slain in expiation of intentional homicide. Comp. Numbers 35:31.—“Take away, destroy;” the verb (αִּ ?ςֵ ?ψ) is used of extermination by death, for example, in Deuteronomy 13:6 (5); not “from the earth,” but “from the land” (ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υ), since according to the law (Numbers 35:33), the murderer lost his abode in the land of promise. 2 Samuel 4:12. The order for execution is given and carried out. It is specially severe in two points: the dismemberment of the corpses by cutting off hands and feet, the deepest indignity, and the hanging up of the mutilated corpses at the pool in Hebron, a place where many persons came and went; this was for a public testimony to David’s righteous severity against such evil-doers, as well as his innocence of the murder, and for a terrible example, comp. Deuteronomy 21:21-22. [Hands and feet were cut off because these were the offending members (Abarb. in Philippson). This sort of punishment has always been common in the East.—Tr.].—David had “Ishbosheth’s head” buried in “Abner’s sepulchre in Hebron” on account of the relation that had existed between the two men. III. 2 Samuel 5:1-5. David anointed king over all Israel. 2 Samuel 5:1. These incidents (the murder of Abner and that of Ishbosheth), which made a deep impression on the whole people, taken in connection with the growing inclination to David in all Israel, necessarily favored and hastened the attainment of the end after which Abner had striven in his negotiations with the elders (2 Samuel 3:17-18). The tenor of the history leads us to hold with Ewald that the recognition of David as king over all Israel occurred immediately after Ishbosheth’s death, against Stδhelin, who thinks that there was an interval of several years after his death, during which the tribes gradually came over to David. [Here the Book of Chronicles again falls in with our history (1 Chronicles 11), and runs parallel with it in general (though with many differences) to the end of David’s life. The differences will be noticed as they present themselves.—Tr.].—Thus, then, appear at Hebron “all the tribes of Israel,” that is, the elders (2 Samuel 5:3) of all the tribes except Judah. The elders give three reasons (arranged in order of importance) for raising David to the throne over the whole nation: 1) Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.—This expression denotes blood-relationship in the family, Genesis 29:14; Judges 9:2; it here refers to their common descent from one ancestor: “we are thy kinsmen by blood,” in view of which the enmity between us must cease. 2 Samuel 5:2. 2) Before, when Saul reigned over us, it was thou that leddest Israel out and in—the same thing is said of Joshua in Numbers 27:17. The expression “lead out and in” does not refer to the affairs of Israel (Keil), but the people itself (“Israel”), and “the whole people” indeed. This is expressly affirmed in 1 Samuel 18:16 in the words: “And all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and in before them,” and that this “going out and in” is to be understood of military leadership is clear from 2 Samuel 5:5, 2 Samuel 5:13, and from the whole connection. The bond of fellowship and love, which had bound him to them (even under Saul) as leader in their military undertakings, is the second ground of their proposal.—3) Their last and strongest ground is the immediate call by the word of the Lord to be shepherd and prince over Israel. And the Lord said to thee; on the word “feed” (ψָ ?ςָ ?δ) see Psalms 78:70-72, and on “prince” [captain] see 1 Samuel 25:30. No such word of the Lord, spoken immediately to David, is ever mentioned. The declaration of the elders is to be explained as Abigail’s in 1 Samuel 25:30, and Abner’s in 2 Samuel 3:9; 2 Samuel 3:18 [that is, as belonging to the circle of prophetic thought.—Tr.]. It is perhaps based on the word of the Lord to Samuel, 1 Samuel 16:1-2, by which David was chosen to be king over Israel, comp. with 1 Samuel 15:28.—The first and third grounds answer exactly to the precept in Deuteronomy 17:15 : “Thou shalt make him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; out of the midst of thy brethren shalt thou make a king over thee.” [Patrick: 2 Samuel 5:1. They were not overcome by the arms, but by the piety and justice of David, to acknowledge him their king. 2 Samuel 5:2. This is the first time we find a governor described in Scripture as pastor of the people; afterwards the name is much used by the prophets, particularly Ezekiel 34:23 and many other places. Whence our Lord Christ is called “the good Shepherd” and “the great Shepherd.”—Evil rulers are called “roaring lions, hungry bears, and devouring wolves,” etc., Ezekiel 19:2.—Comp. the Homeric epithet ποιμένεςλαω̄ν, and the emblematic animals in Dante’s Inferno. Bk. I.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 5:3. And the elders… came to Hebron—resumption of the words of 2 Samuel 5:1 with exacter definition of the expression “tribes” by the mention of their representatives “the elders,” for the purpose of further detailing the solemn covenanting of David with the people and his anointing as king of Israel. And king David made a covenant with them before the Lord.—Comp. 2 Samuel 3:21, “that they may make a covenant with thee.” In this word of Abner is given one side of the covenant, namely, the obligating of the people to obey him as the king given them by the Lord; here the other side is given, namely, David promises in this covenant, in accordance with his divine choice and call to the throne, to rule the people according to the will of the Lord. Notice the expression of the Heb. “made to them a covenant” (λָּ ?ψַ ?ϊμְ), which does not permit us to regard this as a mere bargain, wherein both parties have equal rights and authority” (�hler, Herz. viii. 11). The relation of both parties to the Lord is indicated by the expression “before.” The view that an agreement was here entered into of the nature of a modern constitution [There was probably gradually established between king and people some recognition of mutual rights and duties—an unwritten, or possibly in part a written law. This would not be out of harmony with the theocratic conception of the government. Philippson points out some apparent indications (as 1 Kings 12.) of such a law.—Tr.] (Then.), does not accord with the relation that the theocratic principle of the Davidic kingdom established between king and people in their common obligation to the Lord, the true king of His people. And they anointed David king over Israel—to which the Chronicler adds (1 Chronicles 11:3): “according to the word of the Lord by Samuel,” an explanatory addition referring to the Lord’s command to Samuel to anoint David king over Israel, 1 Samuel 16:1; 1 Samuel 16:12. David’s anointing by Samuel (1 Samuel 16) is now confirmed by the anointing of the people, they having expressly and solemnly recognized his divine call to be king of Israel (1 Samuel 15:28), made by Samuel and witnessed by Samuel’s anointing. The Chronicler, deriving his information from precise accounts, declares that there was a large attendance of military men from the whole nation at this royal festival (1 Chronicles 12:23-40). 2 Samuel 5:4-5. The statement in 2 Samuel 2:11 is here resumed, and we have stated, 1) David’s age (30 years) at his accession to the throne; 2) the whole time of his reign (40 years), and 3) the time of his reign over Israel (33 years). See on 2 Samuel 2:11. These statements of time are given in 1 Chronicles 29:27 at the close of David’s reign. [Bib. Com.: The age of David (30 years) shows that the events narrated from 1 Samuel 13 to the end of the book did not occupy above 10 years—four years in Saul’s service, four years of wandering, one year and four months among the Philistines, and a few months after Saul’s death.—Tr.] AND 1. In the section 2 Samuel 4:1 to 2 Samuel 5:5 we have the completed fulfilment of the statement made in 2 Samuel 3:1 concerning the theocratically contrasted fortunes of Saul’s house and David, up to the culmination of the latter’s rise and the uttermost point of the former’s depression. The spiritual weakness, moral slackness and personal insignificance of Saul’s heir on the throne, the unfaithfulness, ambition, selfishness, rude violence and dissolution of all discipline and order about the royal court, the increasing favor of the people to David and the entire absence of prospect for the physical maintenance of the kingdom in Saul’s house, whose last scion was a cripple—all this co-operated to bring about the fall of this kingdom before the eyes of the people and the fulfilment of the divine judgment on Saul’s house, without David’s doing the slightest thing to produce the catastrophe or staining his hands with Ishbosheth’s blood, holding, as he did, to what he had sworn to Saul, 1 Samuel 24:22. Amid the affecting events that introduce the final fall of Saul’s house, and the severe temptations with which he is beset to make a compact with sin, or at least to come in contact with crime in order to gain his end, David holds, as from the beginning, firm and unshaken to his stand-point of humble obedience to and complete dependence on the will and leading of the Lord, knowing himself to be in person and life and in his destination for the throne of Israel solely in the hand of God. The anger with which he repels self-commending crime [2 Samuel 4:8-11], appealing to the guidance of his God who had brought him through all adversity, is at the same time a positive witness to his determination to take all further steps also up to the attainment of his promised dominion only at the hand of his God, and to guard against all tainting of his divine mission by sin and crime. “His way to the throne had hitherto been always the way of obedience to God’s will; it was ever the way of the fear of God and of conscientious fulfilment of duty, and with such crimes he had never had anything to do. How could he now defile himself with them! The execution of these two murderers was a testimony to all the people, what ways David went and wished further to go, and that whoever would avail anything with this king, must tread solely the path of godly fear and duty” (Schlier). 2. Ishbosheth’s violent end is not to be regarded as a natural step in the fall of Saul’s house, or as a necessary consequence thereof, but as a revelation of the divine justice against his guilt in permitting himself (by his good-nature and moral weakness) to be misused by his ambitious and high-aiming general Abner, to be made a rival king and seduced into hostile undertakings against David (2 Samuel 2:12). Such an end must Ishbosheth’s kingdom according to the divine justice have had, since it was founded on opposition to God’s will. 3. And so, in respect to God’s judgments on men’s sins, the God-fearing man, like David, with all his holy anger against evil, which is a reflection of God’s holy anger, and with all his obligatory energy of punitive justice, must yet exhibit recognition of the good that exists in his neighbor who is smitten by the judgment of God, and especially cherish gentleness and forbearance where personal wrong has been done him. 4. The covenant, which David made with the people on his accession to the throne, is not to be thought of as a contract between two parties, who by negotiations and mutual concessions produce a constitutional relation, in which their mutual rights and duties are to be considered and carried out.—This would be directly contradictive of the fundamental idea of Israel’s constitution, namely, that the God of the fathers, who had chosen the people, separated them to be His people, redeemed them from the bondage of Egypt, and made a law-covenant with them at Sinai, was their king, and that they owed Him obedience as their ruler according to the demands of His law. People and God-given king had to obey the Lord as their proper, true king; there is no contrasting of king and people, but both have to render unconditional obedience to the invisible God as their Lord and Ruler. See 1 Samuel 12:20-25. The conviction that David was called immediately by the Lord to be king of Israel had spread from Samuel and the prophets throughout the nation, and announced itself expressly in the formal and solemn recognition of David as king in accordance with the demand in Deuteronomy 17:15 : “Thou shalt set as king over thee him whom the Lord thy God shall choose.” This recognition of the divine call precedes the covenanting and the anointing. On the basis, now, of this recognized fact, the covenanting could include nothing but what followed necessarily from the principle of the theocratic kingdom, to govern the people in the name of the Lord, and according to the law that the invisible King of the people had given. David promised, in accordance with Deuteronomy 17:19-20, faithfully to perform the law given by the Lord for him as well as for the people, and not merely a constitutional law agreed on between him and the people; and the people promised to obey the Lord their God in His royal government, and to be subject to David as God-appointed instrument of the theocracy. [While this statement of the joint subordination of king and people to the divine law is perfectly just, so that there could not be in Israel a political constitution, political progress, or free institutions according to modern conceptions, we may still suppose that in carrying out the details of the government there came to be recognized certain principles (subordinate to the central principle) which controlled the customary action of sovereign and people, and were of the nature of Common Law or a Constitution.—Tr.]. 5. The establishment of David on the throne of Israel as an act of God (completed by the people, in the knowledge and recognition of God’s will, by the anointment as an act of choice and homage) restored externally and internally on the old deep theocratic basis, the unity of the people introduced by Samuel, which was gradually weakened under Saul’s government, and after his death destroyed by the division of the nation into two parts and the establishment of two kingdoms, so that a recurrence of the disintegration of the Period of the Judges was imminent. The perfect unity of all the tribes shows itself at David’s anointment in Hebron, 1) in the avowal of the blood-relationship of the whole people with David through their common descent from one ancestor —in contrast with the nations that were corporally foreign to them (comp. Deuteronomy 17:15); 2) in the recognition of David’s services to the whole nation even in Saul’s time as military leader against foreign nations, and of the bond of love and confidence that consequently bound the whole people to him; 3) in the declaration that David was called by the Lord Himself to be king over all Israel (comp. Deuteronomy 17:15), and 4) in the covenant that the two, king and people, make with one another before the Lord as their King, on the basis of the law-covenant that God had made with His people (comp. Deuteronomy 17:19-20, with 1 Samuel 12:20 sq., and Exodus 19:20.) AND 2 Samuel 4:1 sq. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, 1) Because of the frailty of all flesh and of all human supports, with which fall the hopes based on them. 2) Because of the faithlessness of men, in whom blind confidence is placed instead of putting all confidence in the faithfulness of the Lord. 3) Because of the danger of ruin of body and soul, to which one thereby exposes himself. 2 Samuel 4:8. How evil seeks deceitfully to clothe itself with the appearance of good, 1) by falsehood, in alleging something evil in others as a pretext to make itself appear right and good; 2) by hypocrisy, in representing itself as in harmony with God’s Word and will; 3) by the pretence of having promoted the interest of another. 2 Samuel 4:8-12. How the children of God should guard against the power of evil which presses upon them. 1) By repulsing every service of evil that is to their advantage, and pointing to the Lord who alone is their help. 2) By avoiding all participation in others’ guilt. 3) By energetically testifying, in word and deed, against evil. 2 Samuel 5:3. What kingdom is in truth a kingdom by the grace of God? That which, 1) is based on the solid ground of the word and will of God; 2) conducts its government only in the name and service of-the living God, fulfilling its office of shepherd and leader, and 3) strives after the welfare of the people only in the covenant of love and obedience towards the holy and gracious God. 2 Samuel 4:1. Starke: Let no one trust in men, Jeremiah 17:5; for they are nothing, Psalms 62:10 [9], and when they fall, all hope falls, too, Psalms 146:3-4.—S. Schmid: At last the will of God does come to pass, and His promises go on to their fulfilment, Romans 4:21; Hebrews 2:3. [2 Samuel 4:2. Scott: Wretched indeed are they who are engaged in undertakings in which none can serve them without opposing the known will of God ! The more exalted their station, the greater is their danger; for the very men in whom they repose their chief confidence are destitute of principle, serve them only for gain, and will betray or murder them when their mercenary schemes require it.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 4:2-3. Berl. B.: A true king is nothing else than the shepherd of the people, 2 Samuel 7:7; Psalms 78:71-72. Accordingly God made David a shepherd of men, as Peter a fisher of men. 2 Samuel 4:3. Starke: God causes His own people, whom He wishes to exalt, first to come under the cross awhile, Proverbs 13:12.—S. Schmid: Kings and princes must know that they stand under God, according to whose will and direction they have to judge themselves.—Wuert. B.: Although God does not cause that which He has promised the pious, to come to them immediately, yet He does at least give it to them, and indeed the longer He delays the more glorious it becomes. So let men patiently wait for the right time. 2 Samuel 4:4. Osiander: What often seems most hurtful to us, must often be most helpful to us.—Wuert. B.: When God with His grace turns away from a man or a whole race, there is then no more prosperity, but all gradually goes down. 2 Samuel 4:8. Cramer: Ungodly men boast of their trickery and villainy, and imagine they will thereby gain praise, and glory in their sin.—Berl. B.: They wish, as it were, to spread the name of God and His Providence as a mantle over their knavery, as bad boys are wont to do.—[Wordsworth: It has been often so in the history of the world and of the Church, where zeal for God is sometimes a color for worldly ambition, and an occasion for deeds of cruelty and treachery.—Tr.].—Schlier: Where is there a human heart that knows nothing of selfishness? O do let us recognize such an enemy in ourselves, and humble ourselves therefor, do let us all our days fight against the enemy with real earnestness! Either thou slayest selfishness or it slays thee, and plunges thee into sin and shame, and thereby into ruin and damnation. It was selfishness that made these two Benjaminites become murderers of their king.—[2 Samuel 4:8. Scott: Many are conscious that they should be pleased with villainy, provided it conduced greatly to their profit: thus they are led confidently to conclude that others will be so too; and as numbers are rewarded for villainous actions, they expect the same.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 4:9-11. To hate and avoid sin is to be prudent, to keep out of sneaking ways is to build one’s fortune, and to put away from us even enticing offers that are not in accordance with duty and the fear of God is to be sensible for time and eternity. 2 Samuel 4:9. Cramer: True Christians should commit and commend all their affairs to God, who judges righteously; He can and will make all well, 1 Peter 2:23; Psalms 37:52 Sa 4:10. Cramer: God-fearing rulers should not bring territory and people to them through treachery, assassination, unfaithfulness, apostasy from known truth, hypocrisy and such like villainous tricks; for to be pious and true will alone protect the king, and his throne is established by righteousness, Proverbs 20:28. [2 Samuel 4:11. Henry: Charity teaches us to make the best, not only of our friends but of our enemies, and to think those may be righteous persons who yet in some instances do us wrong.—2 Samuel 5:1. Wordsworth: And thus God overruled evil for good, and brought good out of evil. He made the crimes of Abner, Joab, and of the two Beerothites to be subservient to the exaltation of David, and the establishment of his kingdom over all Israel. Thus God will make all the sins of evil men to be one day ministerial to the extension and final settlement of the universal dominion of Christ.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:1. When the sudden death of one man completely disheartens a whole people, it shows that he was a great man, but also that the people were already in an evil condition. And this man who seemed the prop of everything, may have long been in fact delaying some grand Providential destiny.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:4. Sunday-school address, The little lame prince. His lameness was produced under very sad circumstances, was itself a sad calamity, and Seemed to cut him off from a great career. Yet it afterwards preserved his life, and brought him wealth and honor (2 Samuel 9.). Let us not conclude that the afflicted or unfortunate have no future. Let us remember how often Providence turns calamity into blessing.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:5-12. Sunday-school address, The assassins. Describe them walking rapidly all night along the plain of the Jordan, bearing the slain king’s head. 1) Their foul deed, 2 Samuel 4:6-7; 2 Samuel 11:2) Their false pretences, 2 Samuel 4:8. 3) Their deserved and terrible fate, 2 Samuel 4:12. Reflections: The sacredness of human life—trickery often fails—it is a shame to claim God’s sanction for wickedness—men becoming immortal by their crimes alone.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:9. Memory of past deliverances by the Lord. 1) Inspiring gratitude. 2) Restraining from sin. 3) Cheering with hope. (Each may be richly illustrated by David’s circumstances when he uttered the text).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:4. How has David reached the throne? 1) By aspiring to it only because divinely appointed. 2) By deserving it a) in what he did; b) in what he refused to do. 3) By waiting for it, a) continuing patient through a long course of trials; b) using all lawful means in his power to gain it (e. g., 2.5; 2 Samuel 3:20; 2 Samuel 3:36); c) preparing for it, consciously and unconsciously, learning how to rule men, and to overcome difficulties.—Tr.] Footnotes: [2 Samuel 4:1. Sept. (Jebosthe) and Syr. (Ashboshul) prefix the name “Ishbosheth,” and Sept. also in the beginning of 2 Samuel 4:2. Wellhausen thinks the omission due to the same feeling that led to the change of Eshbaal (or Ishbaal) to Ishbosheth, namely, repulsion to a bad (idolatrous) name. But the omission may naturally be explained as a breviloquence or ***, the context clearly fixing the reference to Ishbosheth; similarly the Sept. inserts in this verse after Abner the words “son of Ner.” Comp. 1 Samuel 22:7-9; 1 Samuel 22:12-13.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:2. The brackets of Eng. A. V. may just as well be omitted, since the Heb. regards this statement as part of the narrative, and 2 Samuel 4:4 is as much a parenthesis as 2 Samuel 4:3.—Aq. improperly makes these men εὔζωνοι = ωׂ ?ψιβΧ.—The notice 2 Samuel 4:2-3, is an archζological or historical remark of the editor, not necessarily a “marginal remark” (Wellh.) that has gotten into the text.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:4. This verse is an explanatory historical remark; see the Exposition. It is “too peculiar for a gloss” (Wellh.).—“Made haste” is not strong enough for ηָ ?τַ ?ε, which contains the notion of “terror,” Sym. θορυβεῖσθαι Erdmann: sie sich in der angst beeilte, Chald., Syr., Cahen, Philippson as Eng. A. V.—The name Mephibosheth is written by Sept. Memphibosthe, by other Greek VSS. Memphibaal. For the first part of the name no satisfactory etymology has been found, and it is not improbably a corruption of Merib in Meribbaal, 1 Chronicles 9:40.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:5. Lit.: “sleeping the sleep of noon” (example of cognate Ace.).—Instead of “about” we may render “at (or, in) the heat of the day.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:6. δֵ ?πָּ ?δ, “hither,” which Norzius (cited by De Rossi) declares to be the true reading. Some MSS. and printed Edd., together with Sept., Syr., Chald., read δִ ?πֵּ ?δ, “behold.” (So the Chald. text of P. de Lagarde; but others have the masc. pron. δֵ ?ξָּ ?δ, “they.”)—Instead of ςַ ?ψϊּ ?εֹ ?κְ, some MSS. and EDD. have ΰֶ ?μΞϊεֹ ?κְ.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:6. Two points are to be noted in the criticism of the difficult text of 2 Samuel 4:6; 2 Samuel 7:1) the seeming repetition of the masoretic text, double account of the murder; 2) the divergence of the Sept. in 2 Samuel 4:6 especially from the Heb. The Vulg. agrees with Sept. in 2 Samuel 4:6 a; the Chald. and Syr. substantiate (with slight variations) the masoretic text.—The view taken of the text will depend largely on the decision of the first point.—Some hold the repetition in the Heb. of 2 Samuel 4:6 and 2 Samuel 4:7 to be unmeaning, and therefore adopt the Sept., out of which they endeavor to explain the MSS. text as a corruption (Ew., Bφttch., Then., Wellh., who all differ somewhat in their restorations of the original text). Others regard the repetition as a characteristic of Heb. historical narration, and take the Sept. in 2 Samuel 4:6 as a corruption or an explanatory paraphrase (Keil [who cites Kφnigsfeld], Philipps., Erdmann, Bib.-Com.). A middle view seems preferable: the repetition seems unnecessary; but the corruption of the Sept. text into the masoretic is improbable. It is therefore more natural to suppose that the Heb. contains two different accounts of the same fact put together by the editor, and that the Sept. either represents a different text or is a corruption of the masoretic.—The following are some of the restorations attempted. Thenius: εְ ?δִ ?πֵּ ?δτְ ?χִ ?ιγַ ?ϊγֶּ ?μֶ ?ϊδַ ?αַּ ?ιϊμֹ ?χֶ ?θֶ ?ϊηִ ?θִּ ?ινεַ ?ϊָּ ?πָ ?νεַ ?ϊִּ ?ιωַ ?οεְ ?γֵ ?λָ ?αεּ ?αַ ?ςַ ?πָ ?δΰָ ?ηִ ?ιεπִ ?ξְ ?μָ ?θεּ “and behold the female overseer of the door of the house was gathering wheat, and nodded [slumbered] and slept. And Rechab and Baanah his brother (came) unperceived (into the house).” But the Greek has “cleansing,” not “gathering” wheat, and it is not easy to construct the masoretic text out of this. Bφttcher: μִ ?χְ ?ηηַֹ ηִ ?θִּ ?ινεְ ?πָ ?ξָ ?δδִ ?εΰεπְ ?ψְ ?γָּ ?ξָ ?δεְ ?ψֵ ?λָ ?αεπεΧεְ ?δִ ?πֵּ ?δδַ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ςֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊϊּ ?εֹ ?κְ δַ ?αַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ, and behold, the portress (was) within the house to cleanse wheat, and she had slumbered and slept; and Rechab and Baanah had slipped through.” He introduces a verb χηη, “to purify,” from the Arabic, and does not account for the Heb.: “smote him in the underbody.”—Ewald adopts Thenius’ reading except that he puts ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψςַ ?μ for the Heb.αָ ?ΰεּ ςַ ?γ, and instead of μχθ writes νχμ. Wellhausen: εְ ?δְ ?πֵּ ?δωׁ ?εֹ ?ςֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊδַ ?αַּ ?ιְ ?ϊνֹ ?χְ ?μָ ?δηΧ, “and behold, the portress of the house was stoning wheat,” where the ρχμ makes a difficulty.—If the suggestion made above be adopted, we may take the masoretic text as the original (though a blending of two contemporary accounts), and then with the help of these emendations explain the emergence of the Sept. text from it—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:8. Acc. of limit. Three MSS. prefix the prep. αְּ, “in.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:10. Partcp. as preposed absolute Nominative.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:10. Lit.: “who (or, which) for my giving to him [the reward of] tidings.” Hence three renderings: 1) “which (namely, the slaying him) was to give him;” 2) “to whom I should have given;” 3) “who thought that I would have given him.” The first is simplest and strongest (so Bottch., Cahen, Philipps., Keil, Erdmann). The second is that of the Sept. and Vulg. The third is adopted by Chald. and Eng. A. V. The Syr. has (in the simplifying style it so often adopts): “instead of giving him.”—αְּ ?ωׂ ?ψָ ?δ, “good tidings,” here stands for “reward of good tidings.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:11. Or: “from the land” (Bφttcher, Erdmann), a more distinctively Israelitish conception.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 4:12. ςַ ?μ in the sense of “on, at” (ἐπί with Dat.).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:1. Lit.: “said, saying,” at which repetition offence has been taken, but improperly, since it is genuine Heb. (though rare), comp. Exodus 15:1; 2 Samuel 20:18.—The first word is omitted in 1 Chronicles 11:1 and in the Vulg.; the second by two MSS., Sept., Syr., Ar. After εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξְ ?ψεּ some MSS., Sept., Syr., Ar., insert μεֹ, “to him.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:2. Eng. A. V. is here ungrammatical. The sentence would now more naturally read: “it was thou that leddest.”—Remove the final δ from δָ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?δ, and prefix it (as Art.) to the following word, as the masoretic note suggests. Comp. 1 Chronicles 11:2—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:4. The “and” is found in several MSS. and VSS., a natural interpolation.—Tr.] It is necessary to supply μְ (but not μְ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ ?Ξαּ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ) before αֶּ ?οΞωָׁ ?ΰεּ ?ψ. ςμ = “on to,” “to.” αּ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ for αַּ ?ςַ ?μ and ξְ ?τִ ?ι from τָ ?ΰָ ?δ “scatter” (only Hiph., Deuteronomy 32:26, Sept. διασπερῶ αὐτούς, and so Ar., Chald.) It is unnecessary (with Ges. § 121, 6, Rem. 1) to take δֵ ?πָּ ?δ as Pron. fem. for masc.; we may render “hither” (Maur.), or point δִ ?πֵּ ?δ “behold.” The initial λִּ ?ι introduces the discourse. The ΰְ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ in the last clause=ὄτι (Ew. § 338 b) introducing the following words. SECOND KING OVER ALL ISRAEL2 Samuel 5:6 to 2 Samuel 14:25FIRST SECTIONDavid’s reign at its culmination and greatest splendor 2 Samuel 5:6 to 2 Samuel 10:19I. Its Glorious Establishment And Confirmation 2 Samuel 5:6 to 2 Samuel 6:23A.—WITHOUT: 1) BY THE VICTORY OVER THE AND THE OF THE CITADEL OF ZION, IN OF WHICH BECOMES THE CAPITAL CITY OF THE KINGDOM. 2 Samuel 5:6 to 2 Samuel 16:2) BY TWO OVER THE . 2 Samuel 5:17-25. I. The victory over the Jebusites and the conquest of the citadel of Zion. 2 Samuel 5:6-16. 6And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land. Which [And they] spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither; thinking [saying], David 7cannot [shall not] come in hither. Nevertheless [And] David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David. 8And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said [say], 9The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. So [And] David dwelt in the fort [stronghold], and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward. 10And David went on and grew great [David kept growing greater and greater], and the Lord God [Jehovah the God] of hosts was with him. 11And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees and carpenters and masons; and they built David an house. 12And David perceived that the Lord [Jehovah] had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel’s sake. 13And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron; and there were yet sons and daughters born to David. 14And these be [are] the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem: Shammuah 15[Shammua] and Shobab and Nathan and Solomon, Ibhar also [And Ibhar] and 16Elishua and Nepheg and Japhia, And Elishama and Eliada and Eliphalet. 2. David’s two victories over the Philistines. 2 Samuel 5:17-2517 But when [And] the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, [ins. and] all the Philistines came up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down to the hold. 18The Philistines also [And the Philistines] came and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim. 19And David enquired of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? wilt thou deliver them into mine hand? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto David, Go up; for I will doubtless 20[certainly] deliver the Philistines into thine hand. And David came to Baal-pera-zim, and David smote them there, and said, The Lord [Jehovah] hath broken forth upon [broken asunder] mine enemies before me as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baal-perazim. 21And there they left [they left there] their images, and David and his men burned them [took them away]. 22And the Philistines came up yet again, and spread themselves in the valley of 23Rephaim. And when [om. when] David enquired of the Lord [Jehovah], [ins. and] he said, Thou shalt not go up; but [om. but] fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry-trees [baca-trees]. 24And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry-trees [baca-trees], that then thou shalt bestir thyself; for then shall [will] the Lord [Jehovah] go out before thee to smite the host of the Philistines. 25And David did so, as the Lord [Jehovah] had commanded him, and smote the Philistines from Geba until thou come to Gazer [Gezer]. AND . 2 Samuel 5:6-16. Victory over the Jebusites, conquest of the citadel of Zion, and fixing of Jerusalem as the capital.—In keeping with the reminder of the elders that he had before led the people out and in to battle and victory, David now proceeds without delay to fulfil the warlike duties that devolved on him as king of Israel against the external enemies of the kingdom; for a principal condition of the establishment of internal unity and of the vigorous theocratic development of the national life was the purging of the land from the still powerful remains of the Canaanitish peoples. 2 Samuel 5:6-10. See the parallel 1 Chronicles 11:4-9. The two accounts agree substantially; being taken from a common source, they complement and confirm one another in particular statements, of which each has some peculiar to itself. [In respect to these differences it is important to remember that in general “Samuel” is more biographical and annalistic, “Chronicles” more historiographical.—Tr.]-2 Samuel 5:6. And the king and his men went—that is, according to the Chronicler, the Israelitish warriors who gathered around him from “all Israel,” and were now united with his former soldiers—to Jerusalem against the Jebusites.—This undertaking followed immediately on the anointing in Hebron, as is evident from the statement (2 Samuel 5:5) that David’s reign in Jerusalem was co-extensive with his reign over all Israel (Keil). After the word “Jerusalem,” instead of “unto the Jebusites… saying,” “Chronicles” has: “that is Jebus, and there (are) the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, and the inhabitants of Jebus said to David.” Which of the two forms is nearer to the original account in the common source must remain undetermined. [Well-hausen remarks that “the original author would not have written ‘Jerusalem, that is, Jebus,’ but more naturally ‘Jebus, that is, Jerusalem;’ the Chron. inserts this statement in order to explain the transition from Jerusalem to the Jebusites—and this leads to the further remark that the Jebusites were dwelling in the land” According to this, the author of Chronicles (who wrote after the Exile) introduces this historical explanation as necessary for his time.—Tr.] The Jebusites belonged to the great Canaanitish race (Genesis 10:6), who dwelt, when the Israelites took possession of Palestine, in the mountain-district of Judah by the Hittites and Amorites (comp. Numbers 13:30; Joshua 11:3), especially at the place afterwards called Jerusalem, and under kings, Joshua 10:1; Joshua 10:23. Neither Joshua (Joshua 15:8; Joshua 15:63; Joshua 18:28), who conquered the Jebusites along with other Canaanitish tribes in a battle (Joshua 11:3 sq.), nor the children of Judah, who only got possession of the lower city (Judges 1:8; comp. Jos. Ant. V. 2, 2), nor the Benjaminites, to whom the city had been assigned (Joshua 18:28), could conquer the strong citadel of Jebus on Mount Zion, which was the centre of their dwellings spread out “in the land,” that is, around Jerusalem (Judges 1:21; Judges 19:11 sq.). In the time of the Judges Jebus is still called “a strange city, in which are some of the children of Israel” (Judges 19:12). But as long as this point was unconquered, the possession of southern and middle Palestine was unassured; and so David’s first act was the siege and capture of the citadel. Relying on its hitherto invincible strength, they declared that David could not get into it; but the blind and the lame repel thee—that is, if only blind and lame defend it, thou canst not take the citadel, “saying” (=namely, the Jebusites meant to say), “David will not come in hither.” Some have supposed (after Josephus) that the Jebusites had really in derision of David put lame and blind men on the wall, trusting to the strength of their citadel; an expression that is by no means so strange (Then.) as that which regards the blind and lame as the idol-images of the Jebusites, which they had placed on their walls for protection, and had so called in order to scoff at the Israelites, who (Psalms 115:4 sq. et al.) described heathen idols as “blind and lame” (Cler., Luth., Wasse [de c�cis et claudis Jebus�orum, Witt., 1721]). Would the Jebusites have used such expressions of their gods? This saying of the Jebusites is not found in “Chronicles.” [Omitted in Chron. perhaps as being obscure, or else as unnecessary to the general sense, “Chronicles” avoiding details that do not bear on its main aim, the history of the development of the theocratic cultus.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 5:7 it is briefly remarked that in spite of this braggart reliance of the Jebusites on the impregnability of their fortress, David took it. This old Jebusite city and fortress lay on the highest of the hills or mountains that surrounded Jerusalem, “Mount” Zion (2 Kings 19:31; Isaiah 4:5; Isaiah 29:8; Psalms 48:3), which stretched out in the south and south-west of the city, mount Ophel and Moriah on the east (more precisely north-east) lying opposite, separated from it by a precipitous ravine. See more in Winer s. v. [and in the Bible Dictionaries and books of travel; Philippson has a good description of Jerusalem in his Comm. on this passage. It is not yet possible however to restore with precision the Jerusalem of David’s time.—Tr.] The name “Zion” probably=“the dry mountain” (from φָ ?ιָ ?δ “to be dry”). [See Psalms 78:17; Psalms 105:41; Isaiah 25:5, where the root occurs. Some take the name to mean “sunny” (Ges.), others “lofty” (Abarb. in Philippson). The rock-formation on which the city stands is limestone.—Tr.] The explanatory addition, “city of David,” anticipates what is narrated in 2 Samuel 5:9. From this mountain, where David built (whence arose the city of David, that is, the Upper City) and resided, the city extended itself northward and eastward. [The name “City of David” was sometimes given afterwards to Jerusalem, Isaiah 29:1; and see 1 Kings 11:43; 1 Kings 15:8 for its use as burial-place of the kings.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 5:8. “David had said,” the sense requiring the Plup. (Then.)—an appended incident of the capture in connection with the derisive words of the Jebusites. We must undoubtedly assume a reference to those words in the treatment of the following difficult and variously explained saying of David. The “blind and lame” are the Jebusites themselves, so called by David in answer to their scornful words. We must further suppose that the assailants had a difficult task before them, and were all the more embittered by the derisive remarks of the Jebusites, as David’s words indicate. In the attempt to explain this obscure passage, the principal point is the meaning of the expression ba-zinnor, αַּ ?φִּ ?πּ ?εֹ ?ψ [Eng. A.V.: “to the gutter”]. Zinnor occurs elsewhere only Psalms 42:8, where the meaning assigned by several expositors (mostly with regard to our passage), “conduit, canal,” does not suit at all, but the connection (in which the Psalmist speaks of the roaring of violently swelling and plunging waves) indicates the signification to be that adopted (after Sept. καταῤῥαικταί) by Keil, Moll, Delitzsch, and others, “cataract, waterfall.” Ewald accordingly translates: “Every one who conquers the Jebusites, let him cast down the precipice both the lame,” etc.; and this of all the attempts at explanation is the simplest in sense and construction, suiting the locality also, since Mount Zion had steep declivities on the east, south and west, which, with the opposite-lying heights, formed deep gorges. Yet it is better with Keil to keep more strictly to the signification of the word according to Psalms 42:8, and to take it as meaning not with Ewald the precipitous declivity of the rock that produces the waterfall, but the waterfall itself. We are therefore not to think of an aqueduct, by cutting off which the capture of the citadel was decided (Stδhelin), nor water pipes for carrying off the rain from the height (Vatab., Cler.), nor gutters (Luther), nor a subterranean passage (Joseph.). But there is nothing opposed to the supposition of a waterfall on one of the declivities. At present the south-east part of the ridge, which slopes somewhat toward the northwest (the ridge running from south to north) is still the point where appear the only springs in Jerusalem, at the foot of the declivity (comp. E. Hoffmann, Das gelobte land, 1871, p. 116 sq.). There is the pool of Siloah in the valley Tyrop�on [cheesemongers’ valley], on the border of Zion and Moriah, which receives its water from a lofty-lying basin hewn out of the rocky side of Zion, into which it flows from springs that break forth higher up. Might not this be conjecturally the precipice spoken of in our passage, if the question of locality (a precise answer to which is impossible) is to be raised? But in another place also, for example, on the west, where is found the lower pool under the highest part of the northwestern corner of Zion, there might be waterfalls which in the precipitous descent of the rocky declivity plunged into a gorge. According to this view, David gives strict orders that when the Jebusites are overcome in the fortress, where the space was relatively limited, their slain should be thrown into the waterfall. He calls them “the lame and the blind,” taking up their own words, with reference, perhaps, at the same time, to the expression “every one that smiteth,” etc; the fallen and slain in the battle (regarded as a victory) are to be cast down the precipice, that the citadel may be free and habitable for the Israelites. The next clause may be rendered “they hate,” or “who hate,” pointing the verb as 3 plu. Perf.; the absence of the Eel. Pron. (Keil) is not a decisive objection to this rendering; comp. Ges. § 123, 3; Ew. § 332, 333 b. But the connection and warlike tone make the marginal pointing (Pass. Partcp.) also appropriate: “who are hated of David’s soul,” that is, hated by David in his “soul.” Both of these admissible renderings point to the fact that the Israelites had to maintain a furious, embittered combat with this enemy who so confidently and scornfully boasted of his strong fortress, and they were directed to make short work of it with the “blind and lame” in the assault, and clear the ground of the enemy straightway. Therefore they say: Blind and lame will not come into the house.—That is, one holds no intercourse with disagreeable, hateful people like the Jebusites; or, with reference to the crippled condition of lame and blind persons, the sense is: “will not get home,” like those blind and lame plunged into the precipice and unable to get back. “Into the house.” Some (Buns., Then.) understand by this the temple, and assume (with reference to Acts 3:2; John 9:1; John 8:59) an old law, forbidding the blind and the lame to enter the temple, which law the narrator derives from this incident; but this view is wholly without support. This explanation [Erdmann’s explanation of the whole passage] avoids the difficulty that ensues when David’s address is taken as protasis merely, and the apodosis supplied [as in Eng. A. V., Philippson]. Against Thenius’ rendering: “he who smites the Jebusites (paves the way to the capture of the city, in that he first) reaches the battlements and the lame and the blind—him David’s soul envies” apart from its unwarranted changes of text—it is rightly remarked by Bφttcher that its tone is too modern: one cannot well think of David as showing envy at such a military exploit (unfortunately not open to him), in order to inflame the ardor of his warriors. Bφttcher translates: “he who smites the Jebusites shall attain the staff,” that is, become captain; against which it is to be remarked with Thenius that he has not succeeded in showing (Zeitschr. d. morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1857, p. 541 sq.) that zinnor means “captain’s staff,” and that, according to the unrestricting phrase “every one that smites,” David would have had a good many staffs of the sort to bestow; and for the same reason the remark of the Chronicler (1 Chronicles 11:6, which omits our 2 Samuel 5:8) that “David announced that whoever first smote the Jebusites should be chief and captain, and Joab won this prize,” is not to be taken as an exhibition of the sense of our passage (against Bφttcher). Maurer changes the text and translates: “He who has smitten the Jebusites and reached the canal, let him slay those blind and lame,” to which the objection is the tautology in protasis and apodosis. Maurer’s other rendering: “whoever shall slay the Jebusites and reach with the sword either the lame or the blind, him will David’s soul hate” [that is, as Maurer explains, David forbids his men to slay the Jebusites with the sword, in order that these boasters might die a shameful death.—Tr.], contains, as Thenius rightly remarks, a contradictio in adjecto, “and David would, according to this, have desired something impossible.” Joab, having led the stormers in the attack, was named by David “head and prince,” that is, elevated to the rank of general-in-chief of the whole army of Israel, which, according to 2 Samuel 2:13, he could not yet have been. [The decisive objection to Erdmann’s rendering: “let him cast into the waterfall the blind,” etc., is that the verb (πβς) whether in Qal or in Hiphil, cannot be so translated. In Qal it means only “to reach, touch, strike,” the object reached being usually introduced by αְּ; in Hiph it means “to cause to touch, to join, to raze,” usually followed by ςַ ?γ ,ςַ ?μ ,ΰֵ ?μ or μְ. In the passages most favorable to Erdmann’s rendering, such as Ezekiel 13:14; Isaiah 26:5, the object introduced by the Prep, is that to which something is brought (corresponding to the signification “touch” of the verb), not that into which it is cast. Similarly, for reasons derived from the construction of the verb, we must reject the interpretation of Bib. Com.: “whosoever will smite the Jebusites, let him reach both the lame and the blind, who are the hated of David’s soul, by the water-course, and he shall be chief,” which, moreover, hardly renders the εְ in the first εְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊ) (it must here= “and,” though it might as an emendation of text be omitted). The natural conception of the passage would lead us to take zinnor as the object reached (so Eng. A. V., Philippson, Cahen), but it is very difficult in that case to find a satisfactory meaning for this word, or to construe the following words. Wellhausen would take it to mean some part of the body, a blow on which or violent grasping of which produces death, and Hitzig suggested the ear, others the throat (zinnor being supposed to mean a “tube”); but the absolute form of the word (“let him seize the throat”) is opposed to this rendering, and the construction of the following words presents a difficulty, even if we suppose the ΰֵ ?ϊ to be used as equivalent to αְּ. Taking zinnor (as seems safest) to mean “channel, canal,” the whole context and tone suggests that “the blind and the lame” is the object of the verb “smite,” or some similar verb, and it is not unlikely that the inversion of the Eng. A. V. (though an impossible translation of the present text) gives the general sense. The supplying of an apodosis is harsh, but we have here only a choice of difficulties. No defensible translation of the passage has yet been proposed, and it is natural to conjecture that the text is corrupt, though its restoration is now perhaps impossible.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 5:9. Two things are here said: 1) David took up his abode in the conquered Jebusite citadel, which with its buildings formed the Upper City, and called it the City of David. Chron.: “therefore it is called the city of David.” He made it the royal residence (which was equivalent to making Jerusalem the capital), on account of its remarkable strength, through which alone the Jebusites had been able to hold it so long, and on account of its very favorable position on the border between Judah and Benjamin, almost in the centre of the land. 2) The building up of this city. And David built round about from the Millo and inward.—The Def. Art. before “Millo” shows that this work was already in existence at the time of the capture, having been founded by the Jebusites. From the connection the Millo must have belonged to the citadel on Zion and have formed a part of the fortification. This alone would set aside the explanation of the word (founded on the etymology = “a filling out”) as = “outfilling embankment,” an earthwall, which ran aslant through the Wady and connected Mount Zion with the opposite-lying temple-mountain (Kraft’s Topog., p. 94, Schultz, Jerus. 80, Ewald and others)—apart from the fact that that connection is shown by the latest investigations to have been not an earthwall, but a bridge resting on arches (Tobler, Dritte Wande-rung, p. 223 sq.). But a comparison of Jdg 9:6; Judges 9:20; Judges 9:46-49, puts it beyond doubt that Millo is the castle proper of the citadel or fortification=Bastion, a strong fortified tower or separate fortification which is called “house” in Judges 9:6; Judges 9:20; 2 Kings 12:21. The fort designed to protect the citadel and Upper City on Zion, lay no doubt at the point most exposed to hostile attack, that is, the northwest end of Zion, where the castle still stands. “From the Millo out” David built “around and inward,” that is, while Millo formed the most advanced fortification, he built in connection with it and out from it on Zion, 1) “roundabout” the city and citadel for further fortification, as was necessary especially on the north towards the Lower City, where an attack could be most easily made, and 2) “inward,” so that the Upper City (City of David or of Zion) was extended by houses and defensive edifices, and more and more covered the mountain. The Chronicler (1 Chronicles 11:8) expresses substantially the same thing: “from one surrounding to the other,” that is, the whole space between the fortifications which were built around. As it is here clearly only buildings designed to fortify and extend the city on Zion that are spoken of, Josephus has misunderstood this passage when he relates (Ant. 7, 3, 2) that David surrounded the Lower City and the citadel with a wall, and united them into one. Comp. “Winer. s. v. and Arnold in Herzog, s. v. “Zion” (XVIII. 623 sq.). On the extension of the Millo and the other fortifications by Solomon see 1 Kings 9:15; 1 Kings 9:24; 1 Kings 11:27. [See also 2 Chronicles 32:5.—Bib. Com. refers to Lewin’s “Siege of Jerusalem.” p. 256 sq., where it is argued from the etymology and the mentions in the Bible that the great platform, called the Haram esh-Sherif (1500 by 900 feet) was itself Millo, and Mr. Lewin thinks that Solomon’s Palace (Beth-Millo, so called from abutting on Millo) was built on a terrace immediately below, and to the south of the Temple-area.—Patrick: “Some take Millo to be the low place between the fort and the city, which was now “filled’ with people.”—On the “Palace of Solomon” see “Recovery of Jerusalem” (Am. Ed.) pp. 84, 91, 222, 249, and see also the remarks on the Haram esh-Sherif.—Tr.]. According to 1 Chronicles 11:9, “Joab renewed the rest of the city,” that is, he restored at David’s command what was destroyed in the capture. He thus seems as “chief and captain” to have been charged also with other than military affairs. 2 Samuel 5:10. General statement of the continuous advance and growth of David in power and consideration. Observe, 1) how this is referred to the highest source, not merely to God’s assistance, but to the fact that God was with him, and 2) how God is in this connection called the God of Hosts. 2 Samuel 5:11-16. David’s house. Building of a royal residence, and extension of his family. Comp. 1 Chronicles 14:1-7.—And Hiram, king of Tyre, sent messengers unto David.—This name is written variously, Heb. Hiram or Huram (ηεּ ?ψָ ?ν 2 Chronicles 2:2), Ph�nician Hirom (1 Kings 5:24, 32), Sept. Χειράμ (Cheiram), Joseph., Eiram and Eirom. That this king Hiram, who was in friendly connection with David, is the same Hiram that was Solomon’s friend and ally, and his helper in building the Temple and palace, is clear not only from 2 Chronicles 2:2 : “as thou hast done to David my father, (so do to me also”), but also from 1 Kings 5:15 : “Hiram had always been David’s friend.” We can neither suppose therefore, with Ewald, that this king Hiram is the grandfather of Solomon’s friend of the same name, nor with Thenius that his (our Hiram’s) father is here meant, whose name according to Menander of Ephesus (in Joseph, cont. Ap. I. 18) was Abibaal, whether this be considered a surname to the proper name Hiram, or it be held that the two persons are here confounded. The occasion to this hypothesis has been given by the difference that exists between the Biblical chronological statements and those of Josephus after Menander. The latter relates (Jos. ubi sup.) that Hiram succeeded his father Abibaal, and that he died in the thirty-fourth year of his reign and the fifty-third of his life. With this is to be connected the statement of Josephus (ubi sup. and Ant. 8, 3, 1) that Solomon began the temple in the twelfth year of Hiram. Now, according to 1 Kings 9:10 sq., Hiram was still living after twenty years of Solomon’s reign, counting from the beginning of the Temple-building (and therefore twenty-four years of his reign in all) had elapsed, namely seven years for the building of the Temple (1 Kings 6:38, and thirteen years for the building of the palace (2 Samuel 7:1). On comparing these statements of the Bible and Josephus, it appears that Hiram reigned at the most eight years contemporaneously with David, and that therefore David began his palace in about the seventh year before his death, that is, in the sixty-third year of his life, and that his determination to build a temple to the Lord (which was after the completion of his palace, 2 Samuel 7:2) was not made till the last years of his life. Both these conclusions, however, are incompatible with our passage and with 2 Samuel 7.; for the position of these two narratives in the connection of the history leaves no doubt that both things belonged to David’s prime of manhood. It has indeed been declared, in order to set aside the discrepancy, that the Books of Samuel narrate events not so much in chronological order as in the connection of things, and that here the building of the palace, which occurred much later, is related in connection with other buildings (Movers, Phφniz. ΙΙ. 1, 147 sq., Rόtschi in Herzog. s. v. Hiram, Stδhelin, spez. Einl. 107). And in fact it must be admitted that David’s palace-building, which must have taken time, and supposes a corresponding period of rest and peace, probably did not (as might appear from the narrative) follow immediately on the conquest of Zion, before the Philistine war (2 Samuel 5:17) which broke out as soon as the Philistines heard of David’s anointment as king over Israel, but after this war. “The historian has rather attached to the conquest of Zion and its choice as David’s residence not only what David gradually did to strengthen and beautify the new capital, but also the account of his wives and the children that were born to him in Jerusalem.” (Keil). But though in detached instances a topical rather than a chronological arrangement of the material is to be recognized, it is nevertheless not probable in itself that David would have deferred the building of a royal palace till the last part of his life; and further, this, as Winer rightly observes, would not accord with 2 Samuel 11:2, where the palace whence David sees Bathsheba is called the “king’s palace,” which is to be understood, not of the simple house that David took as his dwelling-place on Mount Zion immediately after its capture, but of the place that he had had built for himself there. Comp. 2 Samuel 7:1-2. And if the affair with Bathsheba occurred when David was an old man, which is in itself highly improbable, Solomon, who was born a couple of years later, would have been a little child when he ascended the throne. If David had not resolved on the building of the Temple till in advanced life, or towards the close of his life, we could not harmonize this fact with 1 Samuel 7:12, and 1 Chronicles 22:9, according to which Solomon was not yet born when David received the divine promise there mentioned. If therefore the account of the palace-building is in this place chronologically anticipatory, the building is nevertheless not to be put towards the end of David’s reign. We are therefore forced to assume a longer reign for king Hiram, and to suppose inaccuracies in the chronological statements of Josephus, as has been shown to be true in the periods of reign of the succeeding Tyrian kings, even when he refers to Menander. See more in Movers (ubi supra) and Keil on this verse.—[On Tyre see Movers and Arts, in Bib. Dict.—Tr.] It is not said that the object of this embassy, as in Solomon’s case (1 Kings 9:15), was to congratulate David on his accession to the throne (Then.), and this is improbable from the length of time (presupposed in his purpose to build) that must have elapsed since his accession. We should rather infer from the sending of cedar wood and workmen along with the messengers, that David had previously put himself in connection with Hiram, partly to maintain a good understanding with a powerful neighbor, partly and especially to obtain the help of this king (who was renowned for his magnificent edifices, Mov. ΙΙ. 1, 190 sq.) in his building plans.—The eastern part of Lebanon (Antilibanus), which belonged to Israel, produced only firs, pines and cypresses (Rob. Pal. ΙΙΙ. 723); the northwestern part, which alone was covered with cedar-forests, and furnished the best cedar for building, belonged to Ph�nicia. On account of its strength, durability, beauty and fragrance, the cedar-wood was much used for costly building and wainscoting.—Through Tyrian workmen David began the splendid structures of cedar in Jerusalem, which had so increased in Jeremiah’s time that he could exclaim to the city: “Thou dwellest on Lebanon and makest thy nest in the cedars” [ Jeremiah 22:23]. 2 Samuel 5:12. And David perceived, namely, from his success externally against Israel’s enemies and in the connection with the friendly king of Tyre, and internally in the establishment of unity in Israel and in the execution of his plans, that the Lord had established him King over Israel; the “established” (in contrast with the previous divine choice of David as king and the fate of Saul’s kingdom) refers to the divine providences, through Which, as David clearly saw, all doubt as to the permanence of his kingdom was ended, and it immovably established. And that he had exalted his kingdom (Chron: “and that his kingdom was exalted on high” [I. 2 Samuel 14:2]) for his people Israel’s sake, that is, not for the sake of the blessing that rested on his people Israel (Bunsen), nor simply because he had chosen them (Then.), but because he wished to rule them as his (chosen) people through David’s kingdom, glorify himself in them and make them a great and mighty people according to his covenant-faithfulness. 2 Samuel 5:13-16. Account of the growth of David’s house and family, appended to the summary statement concerning the establishment of his kingdom and his palace-building. Concubines and wives.—David follows the custom of eastern princes, and gathers a numerous harem. See the law against this, Deuteronomy 17:17. The “concubines” are mentioned first in order to bring out prominently the extension of the harem, as an essential part of oriental court-state, and as a symbol of royal power. The omission of the “concubines” in 1 Chronicles 14:3 is not to be regarded as intentional (against Then.), for David’s concubines are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:9.—“From Jerusalem” (ξִ ?ο) is not = “elsewhere than in Jerusalem,” which view (Keil) cannot be based on the following words, “after he came from Hebron,” but (because of this very chronological statement) = “from, that is, out of Jerusalem,” substantially agreeing with Chron.: “in Jerusalem.” After changing his residence from Hebron to Jerusalem, David took concubines and wives in the latter place also.—The statement: sons and daughters were born to him shows clearly that, in all these summary accounts concerning family and building, a greater space of time than at the beginning of his reign is assumed; and this statement is here put proleptically not only before the following notice of the Philistine wars, but also before the narrative concerning Bathsheba. For among the sons of David (given in 1 Chronicles 14:5-7, and also in 2 Samuel 3:5-8) occur here first the names of the four sons of Bathsheba: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. For Shammua Chron. (I. 2 Samuel 3:5) has Shimea, and for Elishua it has (2 Samuel 5:6) Elishama, a clerical error from the following Elishama. After Elishua, 1 Chronicles 3:6; 1 Chronicles 14:6 sq. have the two names Eliphalet (or Elpalet) and Nogah. This last is not to be taken as miswriting of Nepheg (Mov.). Thenius supposes that the latter (Nogah) has fallen out of our text by oversight, and that the former (Eliphalet) got into the text of Chron. by mistake from the following verse (2 Samuel 5:16), that David had, therefore, only eight sons, not nine (as in 1 Chronicles 3:8) born in Jerusalem.—Keil thinks that the names of these two sons are omitted in our passage because they died early, and the late-born Eliphalet (whose name stands last) received the name of his dead brother; but the question is involved in doubt. According to the former view David had in all eighteen sons, according to the latter nineteen, of whom six were born in Hebron (2 Samuel 3:2 sq.). Instead of Eliada 1 Chronicles 14:7 has Beeliada, another form of the name, with Baal [= lord] instead of El [= God]. No daughter is named (see 2 Samuel 5:13), because daughters are in general not considered in genealogical lists. The only daughter that appears by name in the following history is Tamar, 2 Samuel 13:1. [Patrick: Kimchi says that Sam. gives the sons of the wives only, Chron., those of wives and concubines, which does not agree with 1 Chronicles 3:9.—It was looked on as a piece of political wisdom in princes to endeavor to have many children, that by matching them into many potent families they might strengthen their interest and authority.—Tr.] II. 2 Samuel 5:17-25. David’s victories over the Philistines, 1 Chronicles 14:8-17. 2 Samuel 5:17. And when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel—this was the occasion of the war. From David’s elevation to the throne of all Israel and the consequent unification of the people, the Philistines feared (and did their best to prevent) such increase in his power as would endanger their power and foot-hold not only in Palestine [Israel], but also in their own land. Hence, according to the narrative, their attack followed on the receipt of intelligence of his anointment, which must have come on them as a surprise. Ewald conjectures (but it is a mere conjecture, and unnecessary) that the occasion of the war was David’s withholding the tribute that he had paid the Philistines while he was in Hebron.—And all the Philistines marched up, namely, from the lowlands of Judah which they held, or from their own land against the Israelitish army (with which David had attacked the Jebusites) which was on the mountain-plateau of Judah. As this Jebusite war followed immediately on David’s anointment (comp. 2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 5:6), and the gathering of all the Philistines was not the affair of a moment, it is for this reason alone an untenable view that these two victories “probably belonged in the interval between the second anointment at Hebron and the capture of Zion” (Keil). But the following words: And when David heard of it, he marched down to the hold, are decisive, for the reference (as the context shows) is here to Mount Zion, which is mentioned just before (2 Samuel 5:7; 2 Samuel 5:9); and this is proved also by the Def. Art., which (from the context) cannot refer to some other stronghold in Judah resorted to by David in Saul’s time (so Keil, who cites 2 Samuel 23:14), but points to the citadel of Zion which is here twice named with emphasis as the centre of David’s position. The expression “he went down to the hold” is not against this view; for, though the citadel of Zion was so high that one ascended to it from all sides, yet its plateau was by no means a horizontal plain, but was made up of higher and lower parts, and David of course made his residence on the highest and safest part, the most favorable position for a military outlook, while the fortifications most protective against the enemy (enlarged by him, 2 Samuel 5:9) must certainly have lain on the relatively lower north-western side (in accordance with their design), and with this agrees the fact that the Philistines advanced to the attack from the west. David, accordingly, on hearing of the approach of the Philistines, went down from his residence to the fortifications on Zion, in order to make at this rendezvous and sally-point of his army the necessary preparations whether for defence (Maur.) or for attack. Maurer: “David was not yet certain whether to defend himself at the walls, or to advance to meet the enemy,” comp. 2 Samuel 5:19. There is no need, therefore, to change the text (Syr., Mich., Dathe) to “siege” (besiegers), the narrative giving no hint of a siege. It is by no means sure (Then.) from 2 Samuel 23:13-14, that the hold here referred to is the cave of Adullam; for, even if the incident here related was an episode in this Philistine war, it may very well have occurred after David had left the citadel to march against the Philistines, while they were encamped in the valley of Rephaim. [Still, the impression made on us is that David went down into the plain against the Philistines; thus in 2 Samuel 5:20 he does not go down, but comes to Baal-perazim, as if he were already in the plain. Perhaps the editor has here inserted a separate narrative of this war, so that the “hold” here may be different from the “hold” in 2 Samuel 5:9. Adullam was a strong place, and was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:7). If we take the narrative in 2 Samuel 23:13-17 to belong to the time of this war, it would show that David was at one time hard pressed; but this cannot be determined with certainty.—Tr.]—The phrase: “to seek David,” cannot prove that David had at this time not yet taken up his residence on Zion (Keil), but only that the aim of the Philistines was to get possession of the person of David so dangerous to them. 2 Samuel 5:18. The strategical position of the Philistines. Instead of our text-word “spread themselves,” 1 Chronicles 14:9 has “made an inroad” (τωׁ ?θ). The valley of Rephaim, according to Joshua 15:8, was a fruitful plain, nearly three miles long by two wide, separated from the valley of Ben-hinnom (south and southwest of Jerusalem) by a ridge, and large enough to hold a large army in camp; it was named after the old Canaanitish giant-tribe, the Rephaim (Genesis 14:5). Comp. Rob. I. 365 [Am. Ed. I. 219, 469], Tobl., Top. Jerus. II. 401 sq., and 3 Wand. 202, Winer II. 322, Thenius in Kδuffer’s Stud. II. 137 sq. [For various opinions see Kitto, Porter, Bonar, Fόrst.—Tr.] The Philistines had probably advanced from the west by way of Bethshemesh (comp. 1 Samuel 6:9). 2 Samuel 5:19. David inquires of the Lord (comp. 2 Samuel 2:1; 1 Samuel 23:2), 1) whether he shall march out against the Philistines, and 2) whether he shall get the victory over them. The expression “shall I go up?” is explained by the fact that David has led his army down from Mount Zion, the defence of which he had first to keep in view. He now advances to the attack from his position in the plain, which lay lower than the Philistines, perhaps near the cave of Adullam (Then.), after having inquired of the Lord and received an affirmative answer. He no doubt made a sudden impetuous attack, as is clear from the meaning of the name “Baal-perazim,” the place where he “smote” the Philistines. He said, namely (referring the victory to the Lord according to the Lord’s answer, 2 Samuel 5:19): “The Lord hath broken asunder (or through) my enemies before me as the breach of waters,” that is, as a violent torrent makes a rift or breach. All other explanations, that make the point of comparison the division of the water-mass itself, depart from the conception of the expression, and weaken the force of the image. The place where the battle was fought was thus called, from the way that David won it, Water breach, “Bruch-hausen, Brechendorf” (Keil) [Breach-ham, Break-thorpe—the Heb. name = “possessor of breaches.”—Tr.]. It cannot have been far from the Valley of Rephaim. In Isaiah 28:21 it is called (with allusion to this battle) “mount” Perazim. This fills out the topographical description of the place, and in exact accordance with the name “water-breach.” As a torrent plunging from the mountain rends asunder everything before it, so David rushed with his army suddenly and unexpectedly on the Philistines, from a gorge opening into the valley of Rephaim, burst through and scattered them with impetuous and irresistible power. Perhaps he marched northward around the position of the Philistines, and attacked them from the rocky height (the border of the valley of Hinnom), that bounds the valley of Rephaim on the north, comp. Joshua 15:8. 2 Samuel 5:21. And there they left their images behind, which they were doubtless accustomed to carry with them to war, in order to make the victory more certain. Clericus: “as if they would feel the help of the gods more present, if they had their statues along. Perhaps they imitated the Hebrews, who sometimes carried the ark of God into camp.” Their abandonment of their sacred images confirms the supposition (founded on the name of the scene of battle) that David made a sudden attack. Chron. has (by way of explanation) “gods” instead of “images.” According to our passage David took them away as spoil; according to Chron., they were at David’s command burned with fire. It cannot be determined whether this text of Chron. is an addition from another source (Movers), or taken from the same source as our text (Keil), or an explanatory remark of the Chronicler himself according to Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 7:25, where the burning of heathen idols is prescribed. Thus the disgrace of the Philistine capture of the Ark was wiped out. 2 Samuel 5:22-25. Second invasion by the Philistines and victory over them. 2 Samuel 5:22. Their approach is described (as 2 Samuel 5:17) by the phrase: came up. They had therefore fled as far as the lowland on the west, but, as David had not pursued them, soon assembled again. They advance (as 2 Samuel 5:18) to the valley of Rephaim. Chron. (2 Samuel 5:13) has simply: “in the valley,” Rephaim being understood from the context, and in fact supplied by Sept., Syr. and Arab. [Joseph., Ant. 12, 7, 14) and Gadaris (Strabo XVI. 759)—an old Canaanitish royal city (Joshua 12:12), belonging to the tribe of Ephraim, who did not drive the Canaanites out of it (Joshua 16:9-10; Judges 1:29), in the south of Ephraim (whose border passed from Lower Beth-horon over Gezer to the sea north of Joppa), north-west of Beth-horon on the western declivity of Mount Ephraim, where the latter sank into the Philistine plain (Plain of Sharon). Solomon fortified it, along with other important military positions (1 Kings 9:15-17), inasmuch as it formed a strong defence towards the south against the Philistines; for “from this point an army might penetrate into the country and reach the capital far more easily than over the mountains of Judah” (see Then. and Bδhr in loco). It is noteworthy that this place plays an important part as fortress in the Maccabean time also, and that the route taken by Judas Maccabζus from Emmaus to Gazer (1Ma 4:15) and from Adasa to Gazer (1Ma 7:45) is the same as this, namely, the north-westerly. Comp. v. Raumer, p. 191, and his map. For the Geba, from which David pursued the Philistines, is not = Gibeon (according to the inexact reading of Chron., which constantly changes the Gibeah of First Samuel into Gibeon, Stδhelin, Leben Davids 38), which is adopted by Movers, Then., Keil, Dδchsel—nor = Gibeah, whether Gibeah in Judah (Joshua 15:57), 8–10 miles south-west of Jerusalem (Bertheau, Stδhelin), or Gibeah of Samuel (Cler., Budd., O. v. Gerlach), neither of which could here come into consideration as a military position—but it is the place known from 1 Samuel 13:15-23 as the camping-ground of Saul and Jonathan, on the southern border of the Wady-es-Suweinit, opposite Michmash (now Mukhmas) which is on the northern border of the Wady, where Rob. found a place Jeba (with ruins) still existing. Comp. Isaiah 10:29. See Rob., Bibliotheca Sacra, 1844, p. 598, and v. Raumer, 196, Furrer, Wanderungen, 212–217, Fay [in Lange’s Biblework] on Joshua 18:24. The battle therefore passed from the valley of Rephaim on the west of Jerusalem about nine miles northward to the plateau of Geba, where the Philistines vainly tried to make a stand, and, having the deep gorge of Michmash before them, took a north-westerly direction towards Bethhoron and Gezer. Here the pursuit ceased, because the Philistines were driven into the plain, and no danger could be apprehended from them. According to Joseph. (Ant. 7, 4. 1) Gazer was then their extreme northern limit. On the great extension of their power northward comp. Stark, Gaza, 170.—[Gibeon (instead of Geba) is here preferred by many critics, because Gibeon lies more nearly on the road from Rephaim to Gezer; but the pursuit may easily have gone first north to Geba and then west to Gezer, as Erdmann points out. It is not to be expected, however, that we can settle with absolute certainty these minute geographical points.—The phrase: “till thou come to Gezer,” does not necessarily mean: “up to Gezer,” but, like the similar expression: “as thou goest,” may = “on the way to.” See on 1 Samuel 27:8.—Tr.] In reference to the chronological relation of the account here, 2 Samuel 5:17-25, and that in 1 Chronicles 14:8-17 it is to be remarked that the two differ, in that the former puts these victories without further statement in the beginning of David’s government over all Israel, the latter in the interval between the unsuccessful and the successful attempts to remove the Ark. “Whether this exacter statement of time is correct cannot be determined with certainty” (Stδhelin, ubi sup., p. 37). AND 1. In his first royal deed of arms David, by a victory over the last Canaanites of any power that were left, completed the conquest of the land for the Lord’s covenant-people, and thus concluded the military work that was first entrusted by divine command to Joshua (Joshua 1:1-9), but had been completed neither by him, nor by the Judges, nor by Saul. The result of this first exploit against the Jebusites was the firm establishment of the royal rule in the strongest position and in the centre of the land. 2. In David’s person and government the Covenant-God, the King of His people, takes His royal seat on Mount Zion, and the city that David builds there is (with old Jerusalem under Zion) called, as being the theocratic dwelling-place and holy city of God, the “city of the great King” (Matthew 5:35). In the historical books the “City of David” (2 Samuel 5:9) always has the narrower signification of the old Upper City or David’s city, being used only in poetry of the whole city (Isaiah 22:9; comp. Isaiah 31:1) while according to 1 Kings 8:2; 2 Chronicles 6:2; 1 Chronicles 15:1; 1 Chronicles 15:29; it is distinctly differenced from Jerusalem as a whole. So “Zion” in the historical books means originally only Mount Zion, on which the city of David lay, but is used by Poets and Prophets for Jerusalem in general, in allusion to its character as God’s royal dwelling-place and throne (see Arnold, “Zion” in Herzog XVIII., Hupfeld in Zeitschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. ges. XV., p. 224, Rem. 67). From the time of David’s making his residence on Mount Zion dates in the theocratic language of the Old Covenant the terminology of God’s royal dwelling and enthronement in the midst of His people on His regnal seat, “Mount Zion.” See Psalms 3:5 [4]: “He hears me from His holy mountain.” Psalms 9:12 [11]: “Sing ye to the Lord, who is enthroned on Zion.” Psalms 15:1; Psalms 24:3; Isaiah 8:18; Joel 4:16, 21, and other passages. “Zion” is the royal seat of the future Anointed of the Lord, of whom David with his theocratical kingdom is the type, and concerning whom the promise in 2 Samuel 7 comes to him, the fulfillment of which is the matter of the prophetic declaration in Psalms 2, 89, 110. Mount Zion is the geographical-historical symbol of the dominion of the Messiah to be sent by God to His people, and of the extension of the Messianic kingdom of God from this as centre. Hengstenberg on Psalms 2:6 : “Zion, the holy mountain of the Lord, is the fitting seat for His king; for as after David’s time it was the centre of Israel, so is it destined to become some day the centre of the world, for from Zion goes forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3). 3. The military stamp of the first part of David’s reign is the pre-indication of the military character of the whole of it. That the theocracy in Israel may be developed, he purges the land of the remains of the heathen, extends the borders of Israel, and secures for the people the possession of the land and the maintenance of their boundaries by mighty victories over all their enemies. In the Psalms of David we hear the echo of this warlike and victorious theocracy. They are mostly songs of conflict and victory in praise of the God who saved His people from their enemies. Psalms 9. may serve as an example of them all, much of it corresponding with David’s experiences in these first wars and victories, though it cannot be said that it was composed with special reference thereto. 4. Several prominent features characteristic of the prophetical-theocratical historiography appear in this section (which embraces the elevation of David to the throne of Israel, his wars against internal and external enemies): 1) the relation between king and people is described as essentially a covenant before the Lord (2 Samuel 5:3); 2) it is declared to be the task and calling of the theocratic king to be shepherd and captain of the people (2 Samuel 5:2); 3) the reference of all the king’s successes to the highest and last source, the God of Sabaoth, who was with him, whereby all his own human merit is excluded (2 Samuel 5:10); 4) the conception of all these events whereby David’s kingdom was confirmed and recognized even by the powerful heathen king of Tyre, through whose friendly relations with David it was exalted and honored at home and abroad, as ordinations of God, the object of which was to establish David’s kingdom as a divine institution, and give him the assurance that he was confirmed by the Lord immediately as king over Israel (2 Samuel 5:12); 5) the repeated exhibition of David’s humble subjection of his will to the will of God, which he seeks and asks after, that he may have a sure path in what he is to do, which path the divine answer shows him (2 Samuel 5:19; 2 Samuel 5:23); and 6) the express declaration of David’s unconditional active obedience to the Lord’s will, which is revealed to him in a definite Yes and No (2 Samuel 5:25). 5. All the powers and goods of the world which have their origin in the might and goodness of God, are employed by Him also for the ends of His wisdom in the government of His kingdom of grace (which is founded on His positive self-revelation) and of His people. The help of the heathen king in David’s Zion-buildings (and so in Solomon’s Temple) sets forth the great truth that all the art and treasures of the lower, natural world are to be subservient to the higher world, which has entered humanity through the kingdom of God, and to contribute to the glorification of the name of God. Bδhr on 1 Kings 5:15-18 : “Israel was destined not to foster the arts, but to be the bearer of divine revelation, and to secure for all nations the knowledge of the one living and holy God; thereto had God chosen this people out of all peoples, and therewith is closely connected its manner of life and occupation, yea, its whole development and history. To the attainment of this its destiny the other nations had to contribute with the special gifts and powers which had been lent them. Israel, in spite of faults and errors, stood as high above the Ph�nicians in the knowledge of the truth, as they above Israel in technic and artistic performances (comp. Duncker, Gesch. u. Alterth., p. 317–320); distinguished as was Ph�nicia for arts and industries, its religion was nevertheless the most perverted and its cultus the rudest (Duncker, ubi sup., 155 sq.).” AND 2 Samuel 5:6-9. The stronghold on Mount Zion: 1) How it is gained: a) by holy war against the enemies of God’s kingdom; b) by holy victory, which God vouchsafes. 2) How it is maintained: a) in defiance of God’s enemies, and b) as a reliance for God’s friends. 2 Samuel 5:10-12. The true kingdom by the grace of God: 1) It is firmly founded through the Lord’s power; 2) It grows and prospers under the Lord’s blessing; 3) It renders subservient to itself the Lord’s enemies; 4) It serves the Lord in the Lord’s people. 2 Samuel 5:12. The true salutary relation between government and people rests on two things: 1) That the people recognize the authorities as set over them by God’s grace, and honor them. 2) That the authorities regard themselves as constituted by God only for the people’s welfare, and fulfil their calling to that end. 2 Samuel 5:17-25. The war-counsel from on high: 1) How it is inquired after—by looking above. 2) How it is imparted—by the voice from above. 3) How it is carried out—by help from above.—Victory comes from the Lord: 1) When it is beforehand humbly asked for according to the Lord’s will and word; 2) When the battle is undertaken in the Lord’s name and for His cause; 3) When it is fought with obedient observation of the Lord’s directions and guidance. The Lord will go out before thee (2 Samuel 5:24): 1) A word of consolation in sore distress; 2) A word of encouragement amid inward conflict; 3) A word of exhortation to unconditional obedience of faith; 4) A word of assurance of the victory which the Lord gives. The rustling of the Lord’s approaching help in the tops of the trees (2 Samuel 5:24): 1) Dost thou wait for it at His bidding? 2) Dost thou hear it with the right heed? 3) Dost thou understand it in the right sense? 4) Dost thou follow it without delay? 2 Samuel 5:6-9. Krummacher: David dwells now in Mount Zion, the crown of the land, and from here on begins the history of Jerusalem, which as the history of a city has not its like in grandeur, in change of fortunes, and in importance for the whole world.—Now exalted to heaven, now cast down to hell, thrice destroyed to the foundations and always rising again from the ruins, now given up to the heathen, plundered, covered with shame, and then again crowned with the highest honors, the city stands on its seven hills amid the cities of the earth as a high seven-branched candlestick, from which shines forth into the world both the consuming flame of God’s holiness and justice, and the mild and blessed light of the divine long-suffering, love, compassion and covenant-faithfulness. 2 Samuel 5:6 sq. S. Schmid: In that which God has commanded, we must not look to what others have done before us, but to God’s command (1 Samuel 15:22-23).—Schlier: The Lord, who delivered Jerusalem’s stronghold into David’s hand, still lives to-day, and will, so far as it is good for us, always help us still in every time of need, and well is it for all them that trust in Him. 2 Samuel 5:10. [Henry: Those that have the Lord of hosts for them need not fear what hosts of men or devils can do against them. Those who grow I great must ascribe it to the presence of God with them, and give Him the glory of it.—Tr.]—Berl. Bible: The world thinks little of it when it is said, God be with a man. But it is assuredly no trifle, it is the greatest of all things, for one to have with him the God of all the hosts of heaven and earth.—Krummacher: O blessed is the man on whose heart nothing so presses as this, that in all his doings he may be with God and God with him. 2 Samuel 5:11. Cramer: A glorious testimony that even the heathen will serve Christ.—Starke: God knows how to incline towards pious rulers the minds of neighboring princes and kings, so that they may show them all friendly good-will (Proverbs 21:1) 2 Samuel 5:12. J. Lange: Great lords exist for the sake of their subjects, not these for their sake: O that the fact might be recognized!—[2 Samuel 5:13-16. Scott: Alas! even good men are apt to grow secure and self-indulgent in prosperity, and to sanction by their example those abuses which they should oppose or repress; and all our returns for the Lord’s mercies are deeply tinged with ingratitude.—Tr. 2 Samuel 5:17. Schlier: Then might David clearly enough see that there is appointed to man no true resting-time upon earth. David’s life was a warfare, and from one strife it went on into another, and when he thought to have found rest, then battle and strife began anew. Our life upon earth is not yet the resting-time; what awaits us is strife and warfare.—Cramer: The pious never cease to encounter opposition; therefore whoever wishes to be pious, let him prepare for this (Luke 14:28).—Krummacher: The old enemy of Israel stood again in arms upon the plain. God the Lord knows how to mingie always with the encouragements which He gives His friends so much also of the humbling as suffices to secure them against the danger of losing their equilibrium. 2 Samuel 5:19 sqq. Schlier: Whatever we undertake then, we must look to the Lord in beginning it, and it should be to us a matter of earnest concern that we may really have the Lord’s word and will on our side.—So long as we have a good cause, we too may comfort ourselves with the help of the Lord; but what does it help if we pray and have a bad cause, or use God’s word, and yet do not walk in the Lord’s ways! God’s word and prayer make no bad cause good, but help only when we undertake a good, God-pleasing work. And there is one more thing we must not overlook if we wish really to have the Lord’s help, namely, that we must be acting only and entirely for the Lord’s cause and honor. How did it stand, properly speaking, between Israel and the Philistines? On the one side was the Lord, and on the other the idols; there was the Lord’s people, and here an idolatrous or heathen people. So the conflict was the cause of the Lord; the Lord’s name and kingdom was in question; David’s defeat would have been the Lord’s defeat; a victory for David was the Lord’s victory. 2 Samuel 5:20. Berl. Bible: David will not agree that the honor of the victory which he has gained by the help of God’s goodness shall be ascribed to him, but rather to God.—Cramer: Believers when they have been rescued from distress should heartily thank God for it, and recognize that the victory comes from Him; for He fights for His Church (Psalms 50:15; Psalms 115:1). 2 Samuel 5:21. Berl. Bib.: Men do not commonly let their idols go until they have been smitten by God, and do not quite let them go even then. 2 Samuel 5:23-25. Krummacher: It rustles in the tops of the baca-trees, as if an invisible host were passing over them. We know what this meant for him. Nothing less than what was once meant for Jacob by his dream of the heavenly ladder, for Moses by the burning bush that was not consumed, for Elijah by the still, small voice on Horeb, and for Saul by the light which shone round him from heaven. The Lord was near and would go out for him.—Berl. Bible: God Himself gives to those who tranquilly trust in Him to know His will, and also places them in a position to be able to carry it out.—Krummacher: The word of the Lord: “As soon as thou shalt hear the rustling in the tops … bestir thyself,” applies figuratively to us also in our spiritual conflict with the children of unbelief in the world. There too it comes to nothing that one should make war with his own prowess and merely in the human equipment of reason and science. Success can only be reckoned on when the conflict is waged amid the blowing of the Holy Spirit’s breath and with the immediate gracious presence of the Lord and of the truth of His word.—[Henry: But observe, though God promised to go before them and smite the Philistines, yet David, when he heard the sound of this going, must bestir himself, and be ready to pursue the victory. God’s grace must quicken our endeavors. Philippians 2:12-13.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:6-7. Men are prone to rely on strong fortifications, so as to feel no fear of successful attack, and no need of help from God. So at a later period the men of the southern kingdom were at ease in this same Zion, and those of the northern kingdom trusted in the mountain of Samaria, which was also a very strong place, and neither Judah nor Israel felt that their help came from Jehovah (Amos 6:1-8). The same principle applies as to all reliance on mere human agencies, without recognizing our dependence on God; for example, on religious societies and boards, eloquent preachers, active pastors, famous revivalists, beautiful houses of worship, etc.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:12. A good man in great prosperity. 1) He ascribes it all to the Lord. 2) He regards it as given him for the benefit of his fellow-men. (This is the text of Maurice’s Sermon on “David the King,” see “Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:17 sqq. The Philistines could conquer Saul, who had been forsaken by God for his disobedience; but they only stimulate David to fulfil his divine calling (2 Samuel 3:18), and to seek divine guidance (2 Samuel 5:19).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:24. In like manner, when we perceive signs of the Spirit’s special presence among us, we should bestir ourselves to secure the blessed results.—Tr.] [Chap. 5. King David’s first years of sunshine. After struggling through so many years of darkness, he now gains 1) a new crown, 2 Samuel 5:1-3; 2 Samuel 2) a new capital, 2 Samuel 5:6-9; 2 Samuel 3) a new palace, 2 Samuel 5:11; 2 Samuel 4) new victories over the old enemy, 2 Samuel 5:17-25; and in them all, 5) new proofs of Jehovah’s favor, 2 Samuel 5:2; 2 Samuel 5:10; 2 Samuel 5:22; 2 Samuel 5:19; 2 Samuel 5:24.—Tr.] Footnotes: 2 Samuel 5:6. Instead of “king” we find “David” in several MSS., in Sept., and in 1 Chronicles 11:4, and “king David” in Syr., Ar.; we can feel the differences that these readings make in the tone of the narrative, but it is hardly possible to decide which of them is original.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 5:6. Eng. A. V. has here unnecessarily inverted the clauses; read: “thou shalt not come in hither except, etc.;” so Sym., Chald., Syr., Vulg., pointing δֱ ?νִ ?ιψְ ?κָ as Inf. But others point it Perf. plu. δֱ ?νִ ?ιψֻ ?κָ and render: “thou shalt not come in hither, but (λּ ?ιΰִ ?ν) the blind and the lame will keep thee away” (Sept., Then., Bφttch., Wellh., Bib. Com., Erdmann and others), which rendering (making “the blind and the lame” the subject of the sentence) Philippson declares to be unnecessary and ungrammatical. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ III. Solemn transfer of the Ark of Mount Zion and establishment of regular divine service 2 Samuel 6:1-231 Again David [And David again] gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. 2And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims [which is called by the name of Jehovah of hosts who sitteth on the cherubim]. 3And they set [transported] the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah [on the hill]; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave [led] the new cart. 4And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah [on the hill] [om. And … Gibeah] accompanying [with] the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark. 5And David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord [Jehovah] on all manner of instruments made of firwood [with all their might, with songs] even [and] on harps [lyres] and on psalteries and on timbrels and on cornets [sistra] and on cymbals. 6And when they came to Nachon’s threshing-floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. 7And the anger of the Lord [Jehovah] was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died [he died there] by the ark of God. 8And David was displeased because the Lord [Jehovah] had made a breach upon Uzzah; and he called the name of the [that] place Perez-uzzah to this day. 9And David was afraid of the Lord [Jehovah] that day, and said, How shall the ark of the Lord 10[Jehovah] come to me? So David would not remove the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] unto him into the city of David, but David carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 11And the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] continued in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months; and the Lord [Jehovah] blessed Obed-edom and all his household. 12And it was told king David, saying, The Lord [Jehovah] hath blessed the house of Obed-edom and all that pertaineth unto him, because of the ark of God. So [And] David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom 13into the city of David with gladness. And it was so [it came to pass] that when they that bare the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] had gone six paces, he sacrificed oxen and fatlings. 14And David danced before the Lord [Jehovah] with all his 15might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. So [And] David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] with shouting and with the [om. the] sound of the [om. the] trumpet. 16And as the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] came into the city of David, Michal, Saul’s daughter, looked through a [the] window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord [Jehovah]; and she despised him in her heart. 17And they brought in the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] and set it in his [its] place in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings12 before the Lord [Jehovah]. 18And as soon as David had made [And David made] an end of offering [ins. the] burnt-offerings and [ins. the] peace-offerings, [ins. and] he blessed the people in the name of the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts. 19And he dealt among [dealt out to] all the people, even among [to] the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as [ins. to the] men, to every one a cake of bread and a good [om. good] piece of flesh and a flagon of wine [a raisin-cake]; so [and] all the people departed every one to his house. 20And David returned to bless his household. And Michal, the daughter of Saul, came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was [om. was] the king of Israel [ins. made himself] to-day, who uncovered himself to-day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! 21And David said unto Michal, It was [om. it was] before the Lord [Jehovah] which [who] chose me before thy father and before all his house, to appoint me ruler [prince] over the people of the Lord [Jehovah], over Israel—therefore will I play 22[yea, I have played] before the Lord [Jehovah]. And I will yet be more [be yet more] vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight; and of the maid-servants 23which [whom] thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honor. Therefore [And] Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. AND [Parallel with 2 Samuel 6 Isaiah 1 Chr. 13, 15., 16—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:1. Assembly of all the chosen men in Israel.—“David assembled.” Thenius renders: “and David increased again all the chosen men;” but against this is that nothing has been before said of the numbers of the army (as the “again” would then imply), and that such a completely isolated statement of the augmentation of the standing army would be very strange, [and further this rendering would not agree with the expression “all the chosen men.”—Tr.].—The ancient VSS. all have: “assembled.”—The expression “all the chosen men” can be understood (as in Judges 20:15; 1 Samuel 24:3) only of the military men chosen expressly for service of war, not of a chosen body identical (according to 1 Chronicles 13:1-5) with the captains of thousands, etc., that is, with the representation of the nation in stocks and families (Keil), for the term “chosen” (λָ ?ηεּ ?ψ) could not be so employed. And for this reason the word “again” cannot refer to the non-military assembly of the Elders in 2 Samuel 5:1; 2 Samuel 5:3, against which further is, that David did not convoke that body, while it is here said that “David again gathered,” and that that assembly lay too far back of the two gatherings of the military population for the Philistine wars described just before [ch. 5]. Rather the “again” refers to this latter assemblage of the military men, which is obviously presupposed in the immediately preceding narrative. Thus 2 Samuel 6:1 by the “again” and the “all the chosen men” connects itself immediately with what precedes, while it introduces what follows: for why should David not have brought up the ark with an army of thirty thousand men (against Thenius)? The exhibition of such military pomp accorded perfectly with the importance of the ark for the whole people, whose elite in these “hearts of oak” [Germ. kernel- or core-warriors] (Ew. Gr. § 290 c) the more appropriately took the first place in the solemn procession, since it was their victory over the Philistines that made the transference of the ark possible. Besides, a military escort might be necessary to guard against a new attack of the enemy.—We learn from this “that David already in a certain sort maintained a standing army” (Then.).—The Sept. has seventy instead of thirty thousand, supposing, no doubt, that the whole military force of all Israel was here assembled, a supposition that is excluded by the phrase “chosen men.” [The consultation of David with the leaders in 1 Chronicles 13, and the assembling of “all Israel” (that is, probably, through its representatives) is not inconsistent with the statement here. The Chronicler brings out prominently details of organization, especially religious, “Samuel” gives the simplest historical narration.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:2-10. David’s march to fetch the ark from Kirjath-jearim. 2 Samuel 6:2. And David went with all the people that were with him.—These are not the above-named thirty thousand chosen warriors, but, besides them, the representatives of the whole nation gathered to the festival, as described in 1 Chronicles 13:1-14, where nothing is said of a military body, while here in our passage the preliminary conference with the heads of families is passed over, and only a summary statement made in reference to the accompaniment of the ark by the people. The expression “from Baale” is strange, since nothing has before been said of David’s going thither. But we cannot make the Prep. (ξִ ?ο) = “to” (Dathe), nor regard the phrase as definitive of the preceding “all the people,” as do the ancient VSS. (Sept. “of the rulers of Judah,” Vulg. “of the men of Judah,” and so Luther “of the citizens of Judah”)—the latter view is untenable because the designation of place presupposed in the expression “from thence” would then be wanting. From what follows “Baale-Judah” can be nothing but the place Kirjath-jearim (comp. 1 Chronicles 13:6) whither the ark was carried according to 1 Samuel 6:21; 1 Samuel 7:1, = Kirjath-baal, Joshua 15:60; Joshua 18:14; Baalah, Joshua 15:9; 1 Chronicles 13:6. This original Canaanitish name continued along with the Israelitish. See Joshua 18:14, “Kirjath-baal, that is, Kirjath-jearim, the city of the children of Judah;” to this last name answers here Baale-Judah, whereby this city is distinguished from others of like name, Baal or Baalah in Simeon (Joshua 19:8; 1 Chronicles 4:33) and in Dan (Joshua 19:44). It lay on the border between Judah and Benjamin, westward on the border of the latter tribe and about eight miles west of Jerusalem [identified by Rob. with the modern Kuryet el-Enab or Abu Gosh, on the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa.—Tr.].—Since, now, the Prep. “from” cannot well be taken (with Keil) to be an ancient clerical error, we may either suppose that the writer here gives a very condensed narrative, not mentioning David’s march to Baalah, because he took it for granted in relating what was to him the chief matter, the bringing of the ark thence (Kimchi, Maurer), or, if such a condensation seems too hard, we must suppose a lacuna in the text. Thenius thinks it probable that it originally read “to Kirjath-jearim of the citizens of Judah,” = “children of Judah,” Joshua 18:14 (χִ ?ψιִ ?ϊιςָ ?ψַ ?ιναּ ?Χ) and the two first words except the last letter (ξ) have fallen out. This, as explaining how the Prep. (ξִ ?ο) came into the text, seems better than the conjecture of Lud. Capell. (Crit. Sac. I. 9, § 8), who supplies the words of 1 Chronicles 13:6 “to Baalah, to Kirjath-jearim, which is to Judah,” or that of Bertheau (and Ewald) “Baalah, it (δִ ?ιΰ), is K., which is to Judah.” [It seems a difficulty in the way of Thenius’ ingenious restoration that the word αַּ ?ςַ ?μ in the sense of “citizen, inhabitant” is found only with names of cities, not of countries. This, if correct, will also set aside Well-hausen’s explanation of the Prep. (ξִ ?ο), that it arose from a misunderstanding of, αַּ ?ςֲ ?μֵ, which was taken = “citizens or inhabitants.” Perhaps the ξ is clerical error for μ, the two letters being not very unlike in their ancient forms.—Tr.]. To bring up thence the ark of God.—The rest of the verse is descriptive of the “ark of God,” but opinions vary as to the exact sense. The rendering (connecting ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ with ςָ ?μָ ?ιε): “on which (ark) the name, the name of Jehovah … is called” (Keil) or “called on” (De Wette), has against it that “there is no example of so many words between the Rel. and its complement” (Then.), and the strangeness of this repetition of the “name” [which is written twice in the Heb.—Tr.]. The translation: “which (ark) is called the name” (Kimchi, and also Bunsen: which is called by name [whose name is called] …), is untenable because the ark itself is never so called; equally insufficient is Keil’s explanation of his translation: “over which the name of Jehovah is named,” that is, above which Jehovah reveals His glory, for the verb “is called or named” must be referred not to Jehovah, but to the human naming” of Jehovah’s name. Also to Ewald’s view, who refers the Relative to “God,” and translates “He was named with the name” (Gr. § 284 c) the twice-recurring “name” is an objection. It is better, therefore, to render (with Cler., Maur., Then., Berth.): “where the name of the Lord of hosts … is invoked” (reading ωָׁ ?ν for ωֵׁ ?ν). Usually indeed the verb “call” is followed by the Prep. αְּ (in, on) when it means “invoke,” but it is found without this Prep., Psalms 99:6, and Lamentations 3:55; and though there was no invocation of the Lord’s name at the ark itself (since none was permitted to approach it), yet the place where it stood was doubtless a place of divine worship. “Who is enthroned on the Cherubim,” that is, is present with His ruling power in the midst of His people; the expression is never used except in relation to the ark; see on 1 Samuel 4:4. “Who is enthroned on the Cherubim above it (the ark).” [On the text of this verse see “Text. and Gram.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 6:3 sq. “Set it on the cart.” A “new cart” must be taken, because the sacred vessel was not permitted to come in contact with anything already desecrated by common use, comp. 1 Samuel 6:7. “And brought it out;” according to the above translation (“set”) there is no need of rendering this verb as Pluperf. “had brought” (Then.).—Carrying the ark on a cart was contrary to the legal requirement (Numbers 7:9), according to which it was always to be borne by the Levites. “The Hebrews here probably imitated a Ph�nician or Philistine custom. The Ph�nicians, namely, seem to have had sacred carts, on which they carried about their gods (Mόnter, Relig. der Karthager, p. 120), and the oxen were sacred to Baal (p. 15).” (Stδhl., David p. 39). See 1 Samuel 6:7. Out of the house of Abinadab on the hill, comp. 1 Samuel 7:1 sq. According to this passage Abinadab’s son Eleazar was entrusted with the oversight of the ark; here we find “Uzza and Ahio” mentioned as Abinadab’s sons, and as driving the cart in charge of the ark. The ark had been about seventy years in Abinadab’s house, twenty years up to the victory of Ebenezer (1 Samuel 7:1 sq.), forty years under Samuel and Saul, and about ten years under David. Thus the statement that Uzza and Ahio led the ark may (as Keil remarks) be explained without difficulty. “Either these two sons were born about or after the time that the ark was deposited in his house, or the word ‘sons’ is used in the wider sense of ‘grandsons,’ as is often the case” (Keil).—Text-criticism of 2 Samuel 6:4. By the mistake of a transcriber, whose eye wandered at the words πδֲֹ ?βִ ?ινΰֵ ?ϊΞδΧ back to ηֲ ?γָ ?ωָׂ ?δΰֶ ?μΞςΧ, the words from δγΧ to αַּ ?πִ ?λְ ?ςָ ?δ were repeated, and are to be omitted. Only thus is the omission of the Art. in the second ηγΧ to be explained. [That is, omit the “new” at the close of 2 Samuel 6:3, and in 2 Samuel 6:4 omit the first clause ending with “Gibeah.” Some read 2 Samuel 6:4 thus: “and Uzza went with the ark of God, and Ahio (or, his brother) went before the ark,” which gives a good sense. The whole verse is omitted in Chron. See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:5. Whilst Ahio went before the ark, and Uzza went alongside it (2 Samuel 6:6)—perhaps in 2 Samuel 6:4 the words “and Uzza went” have fallen out before “with the ark of God” (De Wette, Then., Buns.)—the whole procession, David at the head, moves forward with music, song and dance. The whole house of Israel, see 2 Samuel 6:1-2. Before the Lord, whose presence was symbolized by the ark itself. “Sporting,” that is, playing (see Judges 16:25) and dancing (see 2 Samuel 6:14). The Heb. word (φַ ?ηֵ ?χ ,ωַׂ ?ηֵ ?χ) is the general expression for dancing in its connection with vocal and instrumental music, 1 Samuel 18:7; 1 Samuel 21:11; 1 Chronicles 13:8; 1 Chronicles 15:29; Jeremiah 30:19; Jeremiah 31:4; Proverbs 8:30 sq.—The words of the Heb. text “with all manner of cypress-woods” make no sense; for what signifies the mention of the material, of which the instruments were afterwards made? The Sept. and Vulg. (ἐνὀργάνοιςἡρμοσμένοις) “with fitted instruments,” in omnibus lignis fabrefactis “with all manufactured woods”) presuppose indeed this reading; but the Sept. has also another reading “with might and with songs,” to which answer the corresponding words in Chron. (2 Samuel 6:8): “with all their might and with songs.” [This reading of Chron. is now generally adopted here, though not by the Jewish expositors Philippson and Cahen, who retain the text of “Samuel.”—Tr.] With the expression “with all might” comp. 2 Samuel 6:14 : “and David danced with all (his) might.” On the connection of song with festive dance and instrumental music see on 1 Samuel 18:6-7. The timbrel (tabret, hand-drum ϊּ ?εֹ ?σ) or Aduffe [Arab, and Pers. duff or diff, Span. adufe] was used by the virgins to give the time in dancing.—The menana [incorrectly “cornet” in Eng. A. V.] is an instrument that gave forth a melodious tone when shaken to musical time (from, πεּ ?ςַ “to shake”), the sistrum (σεῖστρον) of the ancients.—“Cymbals,” smaller or larger metal-plates, which when struck together gave a clear sound. Chron. has “trumpets” in place of “sistra;” the two accounts are doubtless mutually complementary (Keil). [On these instruments see the Bib.-Dicts.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:6. And when they came to a fixed threshing-floor.—Nachon (πָ ?λεֹ ?ο) is not to be taken (with many expositors [and Eng. A. V.]) as a proper name, since it never so occurs; nor is it = “threshing-floor of the blow” (πָ ?λָ ?δ Mov., Keil), for the word is always found as a Pass. Partcp. (Niph.), and cannot be derived from the Qal [simple Active] of the verb “smite” (πλδ), which never occurs; besides, in that case, as Bφttcher rightly remarks, “the name would not be connected with Perez (2 Samuel 6:8).” Nachon (from λεּ ?ο) = “a fixed threshing-floor, which did not change its place like the summer floor (Daniel 2:35), and therefore probably had a roof and a stock of fodder” (Bφttch.). Chron. has “threshing-floor of destruction” (Kidon, λִּ ?ιγ = λִּ ?ιγεֹ ?ο Job 21:10, destruction, properly blow, plaga = Ar. caid), a designation that probably has its origin in the succeeding narrative. Later the name Perez-uzza came into use instead of these appellations. It is not necessary to insert in the Heb. the words “his hand” (ιָ ?γεֹ) after the verb “put forth,” for the verb is found alone in Psalms 22:17; for example, comp. with Psalms 18:17; Obadiah 1:13. [Bib.-Com.: the word reach is so used in Eng. without a following hand.—Tr.]. Uzza reached out to the ark of God and took hold of it, namely, to keep it from falling over or down; for the oxen shook, jostled it (ωָׁ ?ξְ ?θεּ); according to the usual signification of the verb,—not “ran away” (Ges. Dietr.), or “had gotten loose” (De Wette), nor “had thrown it down” (Bφttch., Then.), since according to the narrative Uzza wished to save it from falling by laying hold of it. Ewald: “they jostled the ark so that it seemed about to fall off.” [The Acc. Pron., not expressed in the Heb., is easily supplied from the connection.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:7. “God smote him for the error.” [Erdmann thus agrees in this translation with Eng. A. V., Abarb., Philipps., Keil, Chald.; the difficulty is stated in “Text. and Gram.” Some render “for his rashness,” some “unawares,” and others adopt the reading in 1 Chronicles 13:10. Consult Kennicott’s “Dissertation,” p. 456, Levy’s Chald. Dict. s. v. ωְׁ ?μִ ?ι, Wellhausen’s “Text Samuelis.”—Tr.]. The error consisted in touching the ark, which as the symbol of God’s presence (1 Samuel 4:7), none could look at (Numbers 4:20; 1 Samuel 6:19), much less lay hold of, without peril of life. For transportation, therefore, it was first covered up by the Levites to whom it was committed (especially the Kohathites, Numbers 7:9), and that with faces covered (Numbers 4:15; Numbers 4:20), and carried on staves which constantly projected (Exodus 25:14-15).—Instead of this brief statement of the offence, Chron. has the descriptive periphrasis: “because he had put out his hand to the ark,” which is followed by Syr. and Arab. A suddenly fatal apoplectic stroke was the natural means of the manifestation of the divine anger at Uzza’s violation of the majesty of the holy God symbolized in the ark of the covenant. 2 Samuel 6:8. “And David was angry that the Lord had made a breach (or inflicted a stroke) on Uzza;” not “was amazed (confounded),” for the verb is always used of anger, the angry person being introduced with the Prep. μְ [= to], 2 Samuel 19:43; 1 Samuel 15:11; Genesis 18:30; Genesis 18:32; Genesis 31:36. The cause of his anger or angry excitement is not the deed of Uzza, but the deed of God, the slaying of Uzza, in so far as he was obliged to look on himself as the cause of this punishment through his non-observance of the legal prescription concerning the transportation of the ark; for the ark was to be borne, not ridden, and touching it was forbidden on pain of death (Numbers 4:15). “To this day” this name had continued the only one in use in commemoration of this occurrence, [that is, up to the writer’s time, which was at some considerable remove from the event referred to.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 6:9. While David is angry at this justly-incurred misfortune, his heart is filled with fear of the Lord. How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?—This question indicates the ground and object of David’s fear of the Lord; in view of what had happened on the touching of the ark, he feels himself guilty before the Lord and unworthy of His presence; he fears to be similarly stricken, if he now bring the ark to him into Zion. 2 Samuel 6:10. The procession was broken up, and the effort to bring the ark to Zion abandoned; he carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.—Obed-edom, a Levite of the stock of the Korahites, which was a branch of the family of Kohath (Exodus 6:16; Exodus 6:18; Exodus 6:21), a “son of Jeduthun” (1 Chronicles 16:38), appears afterwards as a porter in Jerusalem, and also acts as musician in the transference of the ark (1 Chronicles 15:18; 1 Chronicles 15:21; 1 Chronicles 15:24; 1 Chronicles 16:5). He is called “Gittite” not from a former protracted residence in the Philistine city Gath (Vatabl.), but from Gath-Rimmon, the Levitical city in Dan. (Cler.), Joshua 21:24; Joshua 19:45, where he was no doubt born. Since he was of the Korahites, who were porters during the march through the wilderness, we can the more readily understand how the ark was carried to him. [If Jeduthun is the same as Ethan (comp. 1 Chronicles 15:17; 1 Chronicles 15:19 with 1 Chronicles 16:41-42; 1 Chronicles 25:1; 1 Chronicles 25:3; 1 Chronicles 25:6; 2 Chronicles 35:15) then Obed-edom, the son of Jeduthun, was a Merarite. There may, however, have been several of the name. 1 Chronicles 25:15 is supposed by some to establish the identity of our Obed-edom with the Jeduthunite, though this cannot be said to be certain. If the two are the same, it is suggested that, “though a Merarite by birth, marriage with a Kohathite would account for his dwelling in a Kohathite city.” The question can hardly be certainly decided. His name is peculiar, apparently = “serving (servant of) Edom.” It is suggested (Wellh.) that Edom is here the name of a god, to which the objection is that there is no trace elsewhere of such a deity, the name occurring only as a gentilic one, and in connection with Esau. It having been shown by Erdmann that the man Obed-edom was a Levite, it may be surmised either that he was a foreigner adopted by marriage into the tribe of Levi, or, more probably, that he, or some ancestor of his, had once been in servitude to the Edomites.—See Bib.-Com. in loco.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:11-19. [1 Chronicles 13:14; 1 Chronicles 15, 16]. Transference of the Ark from the house of Obed-edom to the City of David. 2 Samuel 6:11 sq. Three months the Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom.—After the words “with the house of Obed-edom,” Chron. has “in its house,” “in order to maintain the dignity of the sacred vessel” (Then.). The blessing on Obed-edom’s house and possessions (comp. Jos. Ant. 7, 4, 2) “for the ark of God’s sake,” that is, by reason of God’s gracious presence in His majesty and glory, forms the contrast to that other revelation of God’s anger [against Uzza] and to David’s fear of misfortune and destruction from the presence of the ark, and now becomes the occasion of David’s resolution to bring the ark to himself to Mount Zion. After the words (2 Samuel 6:12): “because of the ark of God” the Vulg. has: “and David said, I will go and bring back the ark with blessing into my house,” which is an explanation of what precedes in reference to Obed-edom’s experience of blessing, as motive for bringing back the ark. [Well-hausen: “This addition in the Vulgate of 1590, which pragmatically connects the two facts which in the masoretic texts are merely collocated, does not belong to Jerome—see Vercellone in loco. It is found also in several Greek MSS. Against Thenius.”—Tr.]. Chron. (2 Samuel 15:1) connects this narrative with the preceding (the palace-building, 2 Samuel 14:1 sq.) by the remark that David, while building houses in Jerusalem, prepared a place for the ark of God and pitched a tent for it. And David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom (which was not necessarily near Perez-Uzza, but lay perhaps on the outskirts of the Lower City) into the city of David “with gladness,” in glad procession, with festive joy, comp. Genesis 31:27; Nehemiah 12:43. 2 Samuel 6:13. Since bearers of the ark are spoken of, it appears that David now observed the prescription of the Law. In 1 Chronicles 25:2 sq. David declares that no one should bear the ark but the Levites, because they were thereto chosen by God. The former procedure is thus expressly recognized as illegal (comp. Numbers 1:40; Numbers 4:15; Numbers 6:9; Numbers 10:17). In Chron. we then find (2 Samuel 6:2-13) the king’s consultation with the priests and Levites about the legal performance of the solemn act of bringing up the ark, and (2 Samuel 6:14 sq.) David’s further regulations concerning the singing and instrumental music in the procession.—And when the bearers of the ark of the Lord had made six steps, he sacrificed (caused to be sacrificed) an ox and a fat calf.—De Wette renders wrongly: “And it came to pass, as often as they went six steps, he sacrificed;” the Heb. would not allow this rendering (it must then be εְ ?δָ ?ιָ ?δ ... εְ ?ζָ ?αַ ?η, Bφttch.), and what a monstrous representation: such an offering every six steps! The meaning is that David, having arranged and started the procession, introduced and consecrated it with a sacrifice. “It was a thank-offering for the happy beginning and a petition for the prosperous continuation of the undertaking” (Bφttch.). The halt after six steps is therefore not a “surprising fact” (Then.), nor need we suppose that the bearers stood “a long time” with the ark on their shoulders. The offering of seven bullocks and seven rams, which according to Chron. (1 Chronicles 15:26) was made by the Levites, was not the same with this, but a concluding thank-offering for the happy completion of the undertaking with the Lord’s help (comp. 2 Samuel 6:12). [So also Patrick and Keil regard the sacrifice in 1 Chronicles 15:26; but it seems clear from the context that the same offering is here intended as in our passage, for the solemnity is not completed till 2 Samuel 6:15. It is no objection to this that David is the offerer in the one and the Levites in the other (Patr.), for David may have used the Levites as sacrificers (as Erdmann intimates); nor does the apparent difference in the animals make a serious difficulty, for the terms in “Samuel” may be collective, see Genesis 32:6 (so Eng. A. V.), Chron. simply supplying the exact numbers, the special term “bullock” of Chron. may be included under the general “oxen” of “Samuel,” and the “rams” under the somewhat indefinite “fatlings” (so Sept. and Vulg.). Or, if it be difficult to take the second word (ξְ ?ψִ ?ιΰ) as collective, we may suppose a difference in the figures in the two accounts, such as is not infrequent.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 6:14. And David danced with all his might before the Lord.—The verb (Pilp. of λָּ ?ψַ ?ψ, only here and 2 Samuel 6:16) = “to hop, spring, dance in a half circle,” comp. the similar word for “camels, dromedaries” (λִּ ?ψְ ?λָ ?ψεϊ). Dances on festive occasions, as in thanksgiving for deliverances (Exodus 15:20), for victory (Judges 11:34; Judges 21:19; 1 Samuel 18:6) were commonly performed by women alone. The expression “with all his might” sets forth the high degree of David’s joyful excitement, comp. 2 Samuel 6:5. “Before the Lord,” that is, before the ark of the covenant as the symbol of the presence of the Lord as the king of His people.—Girded with a (white) linen ephod.—As elsewhere the white ephod was worn only by priests as a sign of their priestly character (1 Samuel 22:18), there was a special significance in David’s wearing the priestly dress now; it lay, however, not in a desire on his part to represent himself, in honor of the Lord as head of the priestly people of Israel, but partly in the general priestly character that the kingly office of David and Solomon still continued to maintain at the head of the people, partly in David’s priestly procedure in this festivity; he, as it were, performed the functions of a priest (Thenius), not merely in blessing the people (2 Samuel 6:18), but also in conducting the whole procession and arranging the sacrifice. While the Chronicler gives elaborate information respecting the dress of David and the Levites, our narrator here confines himself to the statement that David was clothed with the white ephod. On the other hand, David’s dancing is omitted by the Chronicler, not because it offended him from a priestly point of view (for he alludes to it in 2 Samuel 6:16, and mentions it 2 Samuel 13:8 in agreement with 2 Samuel 6:5), but because he here wished to bring out with special prominence the ritualistic side of the ceremony, for which the priestly dress was important. (See Keil in loco.) [It is suggested by some (see Bib. Comm.) that the first clause of 1 Chronicles 15:27, “and David was clothed with a robe of fine linen,” is merely another form (possibly a corruption) of the text of “Samuel,” “and David danced with all his might,” especially as this same 2 Samuel 6:14 mentions the linen-ephod also. The Heb. letters in the two clauses are sufficiently alike to permit one to be derived from the other, and the context in Chron. is not against such a supposition. But it is impossible to say whether the one text is to be derived from the other, or, under such a supposition, which is the original.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:15. Comp. 1 Chronicles 15:28, where the names of the several instruments are given. Here we have briefly with shouting and sound of trumpet.—The Chron. draws full accounts from the common source, our author gives a summary statement. [On religious dances among the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, see Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Ant., Arts. Chorus and Saltatio, and comp. Art. Dance in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:16. Michal is expressly called Saul’s daughter, not thereby to characterize her as lacking in true-hearted piety (Keil), but to distinguish her in comparison with David’s other wives, as highest in position. She looked through the window—that is, holds herself aloof from the procession, and criticises David’s conduct (as her remark proves) with a cold heart which had no part in his and the people’s joyous inspiration. When she saw the king leaping and dancing (Chronicl.: dancing [= leaping] and playing), she despised him in her heart—despised him on account of his presumed degradation of himself, to the shame of his royal dignity (2 Samuel 6:20). 2 Samuel 6:17. The tent that David pitched for the ark being merely a covering on poles without a firm structure of boards, could have been only temporary, since David had the purpose to build a permanent sanctuary, a “house” to the Lord (chap. 7). Set it in its place in the midst of the tent.—That is, in the space marked off according to the tabernacle which still stood in Gibeon, in the Holy of Holies. The burnt-offerings and thank-offerings that David now offered referred to this provisional sanctuary, and served to consecrate it. Of course he made the sacrifices not in his own person, but through the priests. 2 Samuel 6:18. The offerings being ended, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of Sabaoth.—The blessing was not the Aaronic (Numbers 6:22 sq.), which pertained only to the high-priest, but (like Solomon’s, 1 Kings 8:55) a concluding benedictory address to the whole people. “The name of the Lord of Sabaoth” is the essential being of God, as it was exhibited in the fulness of all His revelations to His people. The benedictions find their fulfilment only in this self-revelation of God to His people as their source, which is at the same time the pledge for the fulfilment. 2 Samuel 6:19. The entertainment of the people. Each one, men and women, received a “bread-cake” (λִּ ?λַּ ?ψ = ηַ ?μַּ ?ϊ, 1 Chronicles 16:3), a round cake, such as was baked for sacrificial meals, comp. Exodus 29:23 with Leviticus 8:24 sq. Eshpar [Eng. A. V.: good piece of flesh] occurs only here, is not = “piece of flesh,” but probably to be derived from a verb “to measure” (Aeth. ωׁ ?τּ ?ψ, De Dieu, Gesenius, Rφdiger, De Wette), and = a “measure of wine,” which would not be too hard a suppletion [would not be supplying or understanding too much] (Thenius). The third term [Eng. A. V.: flagon of wine] means raisin-cake, or a mass of dried grapes pressed into a cake (Ges.), comp. Son 2:5; Hosea 3:1.—Thereupon the people returned home.—In like manner David, having finished the offering and the entertainment, returned to his house to bless it (2 Samuel 6:20 a)—that is, to invoke on his house the blessings he had pronounced on the people, and (having finished this sacred act) to place it under the protection and blessing of the Lord, of whose presence in his house the ark standing near in the tent was the symbol. The close of verse 19 and the beginning of verse 20 are given at the end of the narrative, 1 Chronicles 16:43. 2 Samuel 6:20-23. Michal’s pride and David’s humility. 2 Samuel 6:20. And Michal came to meet David.—The words here added by the Sept.: “and greeted him” are an insertion, which there is no ground for putting into the Hebrew text. How glorious did the king of Israel make himself to-day!—This bitterly ironical address with which David, returning joyfully to bless his house, is received by Michal, is the outburst of her wicked feeling (2 Samuel 6:16). Who uncovered himself to-day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants.—That is: exposed, degraded himself, obviously alluding to the fact that David had exchanged the royal robes proper to such an occasion for the light, comparatively short sacerdotal dress. She blames him not so much for dancing as that in such a procession and in such attire, forgetting his royal dignity, he mingled with the common people and put himself on a level with them. As one of the vain fellows uncovers himself.—“Worthless, bad fellows” (ψֵ ?ιχ) as Judges 9:4; Judges 11:3; Proverbs 12:11; Vulg.: “buffoons” (scurris), Sept.: “dancers” (ὀρχουμένων), which is an explanation instead of a translation. Observe the twofold definition of the degradation: “in the eyes of the maids of his servants” over against the reference to the king of Israel. 2 Samuel 6:21. David’s answer.—Before the Lord who chose me …… and I have played before the Lord.—We have here an anacolouthon, the long Rel. clause “who chose … Israel” breaking the connection, which is then restored by “and [or yea] I have played,” the phrase “before the Lord” (which stands at the beginning) being resumed. [On this verse see the English translation and “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] After the words “before Jehovah” Sept. inserts “I will dance; blessed be the Lord,” and after “and I have played” [which it renders “I will play”] has “and I will dance,” in order thus to relieve the anacolouthon, and to introduce the “dancing,” which (though the object of Michal’s blame) is strangely omitted [in the Heb.] in David’s reply. In answer to Michal’s cutting irony, which regards David’s conduct merely from the point of view of its accordance with the dignity of “the king of Israel,” and characterizes it as common and low, he affirms two things: 1) that in his procedure he had an eye only to the glory of God, and that it must therefore not be condemned as common and low, but rather recognized as holy and well-pleasing to God; and 2) that he received his kingdom and his position as king of Israel through the Lord’s choice and command. He had therefore acted not counter to, but in accordance with this royal dignity, in that he gave the honor to the Lord, who had raised him from lowliness to this height. The expression “before the Lord” derives a very strong emphasis from its position at the beginning and at the end, and, thus repeated, indicates the holiest and highest point of view whence (in opposition to Michal’s profane utterance) his procedure in this festival is to be judged and estimated. Before thy father and before his whole house says David, in order to repel the charge that he had thus lowered the royal dignity which had passed to him from Saul and his house, thus pointing also to the cause of the rejection of Saul and his house, namely, such haughtiness and pride as the “daughter of Saul” had here exhibited. 2 Samuel 6:22. “And I will be yet more vile.” Instead of this Sept. has the nonsensical rendering: “and I will still thus uncover myself” (βָּ ?μָ ?δ)! The less reason then for changing the Heb. “in my eyes” into the Sept. “in thy eyes.” Certainly David did not lower himself in his own eyes, that is, in his own judgment, by his playing and dancing (as Thenius, contrary to the text-reading, remarks)—not in the sense of Michal’s charge; yet he did lower or humble himself in his own eyes in the sense that he expresses in 2 Samuel 6:21, where he describes his conduct as a self-abasement before the presence of the Lord. “In comparison with this” (that is, with this abasement before the Lord) he continues: And I will be held (= become) yet more vile (Niph. = Qal. as Genesis 16:4) in my eyes.—That is, in my own judgment will humble myself yet more than to-day. The expression “in my eyes” cannot be explained as = I will suffer still greater contempt from men than what I have just experienced.” And with the maids, of whom thou hast spoken, with them will I be held in honor.—Ewald’s explanation: “should I seek honor from them? no, that is not at all necessary” falls to the ground, since Michal’s assertion that he had gotten himself honor was not serious, but ironical. Thenius: “of the maids shall I be held in honor” [so Eng. A. V.]—that is, they, the simple souls, will know better than thou how to estimate my humility, and this will compensate me for thy foolish contempt. But this latter is an interpolated thought, which would be farthest from David’s soul at this moment of extreme humility before the Lord, and would savor of Michal’s ideas about human honor. The “honored” here (obviously contrasted with Michal’s “honored, made glorious,” 2 Samuel 6:20) refers (as is clear from the throughout recurring words, “before the Lord”) to the honor in the sight of the Lord, which will be given those who humble themselves before the Lord. David, having opposed to Michal’s “in the eyes of the maids” his “in the presence of the Lord,” places himself “before the Lord” on the same level with the maids, expressing by the repeated “with” his fellowship and equality with these humble folk, and pointing to the honor which he with them would have before the Lord, because he humbly showed due honor to the Lord. [The objection to this interpretation is that we should then expect David to say “I will (or shall) be honored by Jehovah,” that is, the subject or agent of the honoring must be expressed, and is given in the text only by the word “maids.” The Hebrew Prep, may mean “among” or “before” (apud), and thus permits the translation of Eng. A. V., Patr., Then., Philippson. Besides, in reply to Michal’s sneer about the maids, it is a natural and sharp rejoinder on David’s part to accept this honor which she regards as beneath contempt.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 6:23. Michal’s childlessness is specially mentioned as a punishment of her pride. This was the deepest humiliation for an oriental woman. [For a vivid description of the scenes of this chapter see Stanley’s Jewish Church, Second Series, p. 89–98, Lect. 23 (Am. Ed.).—Tr.] AND 1. It was not till David had taken Jerusalem from the Jebusites, made Zion his capital and secured it by his victories from Philistine attacks, and thus for a short time at least secured peace, that he could proceed to the holy work that he completed in bringing the ark to Zion, and that was of great importance for the religious life of the nation. This act had its root in David’s truly pious feeling, was the living expression of his gratitude to the Lord for His favor, and aimed at the elevation and concentration of the religious life of Israel. It needed a new elevation, since under Saul it had partly at least sunk down from the height to which Samuel had brought it, and fallen into a somewhat brutalized condition. The royal house itself, whose influence on the people was so great, had more and more lost living piety; the spirit of pride reigned in it, as Michal (who was herein very like her father) plainly shows here in her bearing towards David; it is a significant fact that in her father’s house she has an idol-image. The religious-moral life of the nation fell of necessity into more and more thorough dissolution, the longer Saul’s persecutions of David continued and the external unity established by Samuel was destroyed by the wars between Saul and David, and by partisan oppositions. When, now, David by establishing his theocratic kingdom over all Israel had restored the external (national and governmental) unity, he made an important step further, by the act recorded in this chapter, towards elevating and sanctifying the inner life of his people; he laid the deepest foundation for their internal unity by again concentrating their religious life on its centre and source, namely, the dwelling of God in the midst of His people, symbolically set forth in the ark. “In Saul’s time it [the ark] had not been sought after” (1 Chronicles 13:3); the centre of divine service that it indicated had been lost. Now David gathers the representatives of the whole nation around him, in order at the head of the nation solemnly to restore to the centre of the national life the long-vanished sanctuary, and to renew the religious unifying of the people, especially in regard to divine service, about the kernel and star of the innermost life. By the transference of the ark to Zion Jerusalem, representing the national and political unity, becomes now the centre of religion and divine service for the national life. The account in Chron. supplements our history in regard to the part taken by the priests, the divine service and the ordination of the sacred service before the ark (chs. 13, 15, 16). With this was connected the restoration of the unity and arrangement of the priestly service and of the duties of divine service. This unity indeed does not yet reach a complete external representation. There continue to be two holy places; the ark remains apart from the old tabernacle, which abode with the altar of burnt-offering at Gibeon, where also the offerings still went on (1 Chronicles 16:39; comp. 1 Kings 3:4). There the high-priest Za-dok officiates, the son of Ahitub, of the family of Eleazar, who performs the legal regular sacrificial service at the tabernacle (Leviticus 17:3). But beside him we find a second high-priest in that Abiathar (of the family of Ithamar), who escaped from Nob to David (1 Samuel 22:20), had remained with him, and now resided with the sanctuary on Zion (comp. 1 Kings 2:26); so the two are named together in 2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Chronicles 18:16. This double high-priestship, which had arisen from the separation of the tabernacle and the ark, was the reason why David permitted this separation to continue, and did not remove the Mosaic tabernacle also to Mount Zion, since he could remove neither the one high-priest nor the other from his office. We see also two sacred tents, besides the old one at Gibeon a new one pitched by David over the ark. While the sacrificial service is still continued in Gibeon according to the Law (1 Chronicles 16:40; comp. 1 Kings 3:4), a sacred service is established by David at the ark also; ibid. 2 Samuel 6:37 sq.—But in spite of this still continuing external dualism, there was after the institution of the sacred service on Zion an internal unity (through the establishment of regular divine service) such as did not exist before. The tent which is pitched on Zion, is provisional, and points like the old tent, which in the march through the wilderness and in the time of the Judges was the symbol of a provisional arrangement, to a central sanctuary to be erected, the founding of which David has in mind, but cannot yet execute (2 Samuel 7). But in this provisional, personal state of the religious life which in its two principal seats is unified, purified and arranged, the sanctuary in Jerusalem steps into the central point of the religious consciousness both for David and for the whole people, while the sanctuary in Gibeon retires into the background, as is especially evident from the fact that the tabernacle is never mentioned in the Psalms. Comp. Hengst. Gesch. d. R. Gottes [Hist. of the kingdom of God] II., p. 122 sq. 2. The significance of this narrative (of the transference of the ark to Jerusalem and David’s conduct therein) for the apprehension and representation of the theocratic royal office in his person, is first to be considered on the one side in relation to God, and on the other side in relation to the people. The content of his consciousness as king is simply this one thought of the dependence of his kingdom for its dominion on the royal rule and might of the covenant-God, whose choice and command has appointed him king over Israel (2 Samuel 6:21), that he is the instrument by which God carries on His government of His people. From this point of view the bringing back of the ark is an act of reverence and gratitude to the Lord, whose name, symbolically set forth in this sanctuary, is honored and praised by David at the head of the whole people as the sum of all his revelations to them. But also by the establishment of this token of the presence of the Lord in the midst of His people and of His royal dwelling and enthronement in His possession on Mount Zion, which David has prepared for his own residence, the idea of the indivisible unity of the human kingship and the kingly rule of God in His people is brought out. There is enthroned the king of glory, Psalms 24:7-10; the king’s throne is the throne of God, Psalms 45:7 [6]; Jerusalem is the city of the Great King, Psalms 48:3 [2]; Zion is Jehovah’s dwelling, Psalms 9:12 [11]; Psalms 74:2; Psalms 76:3 [2]; thence proceed all manifestations of God’s royal might and glory, Psalms 20:3 [2]; Psalms 110:2.—But also in relation to the people David represents the theocratic kingship in the light of its ideal signification. He assembles the whole people about the sanctuary as the throne of Jehovah; he will make them a people truly united under the dominion of God, moving with their whole life around Jehovah as centre, showing their king-God the highest honor and serving Him alone (Psalms 24:1-10). In contrast with every other oriental kingly office David shows in his conduct the popular character of the theocratic kingship. He does not soar at an unattainable and unapproachable distance and height above the people, but “makes himself one” with them, mingles immediately with them, is accessible to all, and does not scorn fellowship with the lowest and meanest, because be knows that in the presence of the Lord he is not connected but religious-morally on the same level with the whole people and every individual one of these (2 Samuel 6:21-22). David, as theocratic king, whose government is to be the organ and representative of Jehovah’s rule over His people, is conscious that he is mediator between the Lord and His covenant-people, and acts accordingly: on the one hand he “represents the whole people” before the Lord and leads them to Him, at their head and in their stead brings burnt-offerings and thank offerings, and appears with them “before the presence of the Lord” (2 Samuel 6:21) to restore at the ark the legally ordained divine service—on the other hand he represents the Lord before His people, declaring His “name” to them, and praying and obtaining His “blessing” for them.—Herein, as appears most clearly in this history, David not only stands in closest connection with the bearers of the prophetic office, but we see in him also the kingly office in closest association with the priestly, while Saul, in opposition to both these offices, allowed his kingly rule to assume more and more an antitheocratic character. But still farther: as David, as representative and instrument of God’s royal rule over the people of His possession [peculiar people = his private property—Tr.], possesses the prophetic spirit, whereby Jehovah’s word designed for the people is on his tongue (2 Samuel 23:2), so also, like Samuel representing the people before God, he combines in his person the priestly character with the kingly and the prophetic, and in this festival in his priestly dress and procedure brings out and represents the idea, that the theocratic kingship, as a representation of the people before the Lord is to be a priest-kingship. [As David is never said to have performed the distinctively priestly work of sacrifice (committing this, as Erdmann himself says in the Exposition, to the priests), and as the representation of the people before God, and mediation between them and Him is a general pious work, performed often by prophets and others (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Josiah, Nehemiah), it is not easy to see why on this ground alone a priestly character should be assigned to him. In one sense the whole people were priests (Exodus 19:6), a great spiritual idea being thus guarded against the perverting tendencies of outward ritual, and so David was in the high spiritual sense a priest, as every Christian now is; but in the narrower sense an Israelitish priest made atonement for sin by blood, and none but sons of Aaron could perform this service, as now human priesthood is abolished, and the priestly work is done by Christ alone.—Tr.].—But also the religious-moral character and the disposition of the theocratic king is here set forth typically in the presence of the whole people; he precedes them in showing the Lord His due honor in word and deed; he shows himself to be the faithful and conscientious overseer, leader and arranger of the divine service; he shows himself to be deeply penetrated with the feeling that he owes his royal office solely to the free undeserved grace of the Lord, and exhibits a deep humility, wishing to be nothing but the servant of the Lord in fellowship with his servants and maids. [See Translator’s note to Erdmann’s exposition of 2 Samuel 6:22.—Tr.].—This humble disposition of David in the presence of his God forms the sharpest contrast to the haughtiness and pride of his wife Michal, “who knew nothing of the impulse of divine love” (Theodoret). 3. God’s blessing is an outflow of His name; it can only be mediately obtained by man for man, when it is drawn from this eternal, inexhaustible source. The Lord dispenses His blessing to house and family, people and State, only on the condition that His gracious presence is desired and preserved (2 Samuel 6:11), and honor given to His name in mind, word and deed, as here by David and all the people. When men devote their heart and all their life as a sacrifice to the Lord, and consecrate themselves to Him, in reward therefor He sends on them streams of blessing. 4. The following are the references in the Psalms to the important event of the transference of the Ark. Psalms 24 was no doubt composed by David to celebrate Jehovah’s entrance into the sanctuary on Mount Zion, with direct reference to the incidents narrated in 2 Samuel 6 Jehovah, the king of glory, comes to make His dwelling on Mount Zion amid His people. He is celebrated as the king of the whole world (2 Samuel 6:1; 2 Samuel 6:10); on this foundation of the majesty of the Creator and Lord of all things rests the view of His royal glory, the revelation of which is unfolded in and for Israel. The praise of Jehovah as the strong hero in war, the Lord of Sabaoth, points to David’s Philistine wars (2 Samuel 6:1; 2 Samuel 6:15). The primeval doors, which are to lift themselves up that the king may hold his entry, are the gates of the old fortress of Zion. The exhortation to the doors to raise and widen themselves assumes that this is the first entrance of the ark, and excludes the view that the Psalm was composed on its return from war. While 2 Samuel 6:7-10 describe the arrival and solemn entry of “the King of glory” with the outward preparation for His worthy reception and for His entrance into the place prepared for him, 2 Samuel 6:1-6 refer to the ascension of the people to Mount Zion and to the moral requirements made of those who will be in truth the people of God, who desire and seek after Him. Only the pure in thought, word and deed are His people and may approach Him. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ II. The divine consecration of the Davidic kingdom by the promise of the imperishable kingly dominion of the Davidic house. 2 Samuel 7:1-291. David’s purpose to build the Lord a house, and the divine promise that the Lord will build him a house. 2 Samuel 7:1-16. 1And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the Lord [Jehovah] had given him rest round about from all his enemies, 2That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but [and] the ark of God dwelleth within curtains [the curtain]. 3And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart [All, etc., go do], for the Lord [Jehovah] is with thee. 4And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came unto Nathan, saying, 5Go and tell [say to] my servant, [ins. to] David, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], 6Shalt thou build me a house for me to dwell in? Whereas [For] I have not dwelt in any [a] house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel 7out of Egypt even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel, spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, 8Why build ye not me an house of cedar? Now, therefore, so [And now, thus] shalt thou say unto my servant, [ins. to] David, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote [pasture], from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel; 9And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight [from before thee], and have made thee a great name like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. 10Moreover [And] I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own [and they shall dwell in their own place], and move no more [and no more be disturbed], neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, 11And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, [.] and have caused [And I will cause] thee to rest from all thine enemies, also [and] the Lord [Jehovah] telleth thee that he [Jehovah] will make thee an house. 12And [om. and] when [When] thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be 14my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men. 15But my mercy shall not depart away from 16him, as I took it from Saul whom I put away [ins. from] before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established [stable] forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever. 2. David’s prayer as answer to this divine promise. 2 Samuel 7:17-2917 According to all these words and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David. 18Then went king David in [And king David went in] and sat before the Lord [Jehovah], and he said, Who am I, O Lord God [O lord Jehovah], and what is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto? 19And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord God [O lord Jehovah], but thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come. And is this the manner of man, O Lord God? [And this is the law of man, O lord Jehovah]. 20And what can [shall] David say more unto thee? for thou, Lord God [om. Lord God], knowest thy servant [ins. lord Jehovah]. 21For thy word’s sake, and according to thine own heart hast thou done all these great things, to make thy servant know them. 22Wherefore thou art great, O Lord God [Jehovah God]; for there is none like thee, neither is there any [and there is no] God beside thee, according to all that we 23have heard with our ears. And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even [om. even] like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you [them] great things and terrible, for thy land [om. for thy land, ins. to drive out] before thy people, which thou redeemedst 24to thee from Egypt, from the [om. from the] nations and their gods? For [And] thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee forever, and thou, Lord [Jehovah], art become their God. 25And now, O Lord [Jehovah] God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant and concerning his house, establish it [om. it] forever, and do as thou hast said. 26And let thy name be magnified forever, saying, The Lord [Jehovah] of hosts is the [om. the] God over Israel; and let the house of thy servant David be established before thee. 27For thou, O Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house; therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee. 28And now, O Lord God, [lord Jehovah], thou art that [om. that] God, and thy words be true [are truth], 29and thou hast promised [spoken] this goodness unto thy servant; Therefore [And] now, let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant that it may continue forever before thee; for thou, O Lord God [lord Jehovah], hast spoken it, and with thy blessing let [shall] the house of thy servant be blessed forever. AND 1. David’s purpose to build the Lord a house, and the divine prohibition with the promise that the Lord will build him a house. 2 Samuel 7:1-16 (1 Chronicles 17). 2 Samuel 7:1-3. David’s resolution to build the Lord a house is approved by the prophet Nathan. Comp. 1 Chronicles 17:1-2. 2 Samuel 7:1. And when the king dwelt in his house (comp. 2 Samuel 7:11). What follows occurred not only after David had built his royal palace, but also after he, having secured external quiet, had taken up his permanent abode therein. The starting-point of David’s words in 2 Samuel 7:2 (like that of the narrative) is the “house” in which he dwelt [Philippson: Abarbanel refers to Deuteronomy 12:9-10 sq., supposing that David thought the condition there laid down to have now reached a fulfilment.—Tr.]—And the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies.—According to these words the following narrative cannot be put chronologically immediately after the Philistine war related in 2 Samuel 5, which view the position of this section after 2 Samuel 6 might seem to favor. Decisive against this is the phrase: “round about from all his enemies,” and 2 Samuel 7:9 : “I have cut off all thy enemies before thee.” The temporary quiet that David gained by that double victory over the Philistines he used to bring the ark to Zion; but he soon found himself involved in new wars begun by Israel’s enemies round about, first by the Philistines, according to the narration in 2 Samuel 8. Not till he had crushed all Israel’s pressing enemies could he wish to carry out his determination to build a house for the Lord. On account of its factual connection with the account of the ark the history of this determination is attached to 2 Samuel 6, the narrative throughout, indeed, not appearing to be strictly chronological, but bearing the impress of a grouping of the several sections according to certain principal points of view. (In chs. 8–12 the external wars, in 13–20 the internal difficulties, and in 21. sq. detached occurrences in David’s life are brought together without chronological sequence.) But it is not to be assumed that “our narrative is to be put in the last part of David’s life” (Then.), since, according to 2 Samuel 7:11, he had still other wars to carry on against the enemies of Israel, for which reason precisely, and because he had to be on his guard without, the peaceful work of temple building could not be executed (as Solomon also expressly affirms, 1 Kings 5:17); and since the promise in 2 Samuel 7:12 refers to the seed, that will yet proceed from his body. The time of the words: “when the Lord had given him rest” (wanting in Chron.), is to be put after that of the wars in 2 Samuel 8, whereby David secured his throne against “enemies round about,” without being able thus to exclude further wars; his resolution to build a temple can be referred only to a temporary rest after his first victorious contests against all his enemies.—[Comp. the language in 2 Samuel 22:1 and Joshua 23:1.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 7:2. David communicated this resolution to the prophet Nathan, who, according to this, stood in a confidential relation to him as counsellor, and this is confirmed not only by Nathan’s reproof after the sin with Bathsheba, but also by the fact (2 Samuel 12:25) that Solomon’s education was committed to him, and he with David’s approval anointed Solomon as successor to his father while the latter was still living (1 Kings 1:34). [On Nathan see Erdmann’s Introduction and the Bible-Dictionaries.—Tr.]—David states to Nathan as the ground of his resolution the contrast that he dwelt in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God stood within the curtains, that is, simply in a tent (2 Samuel 6:15). The word here used (δַ ?ιְ ?ψִ ?ιςָ ?δ) means in Exodus 26:2 sq. the inner cover composed of several curtains, that was spread over the board-structure of the tabernacle. The Plu. is used in Isaiah 54:2 as=“tent,” and in Son 1:5; Jeremiah 4:20 as=“tents.” The “within” refers to the drapery formed by the curtains; Chron. has “under curtains.” David’s words express the pious, humble disposition in which his purpose was founded. The utterance of the purpose itself is not added to this statement of its ground, but is presupposed in Nathan’s approval [2 Samuel 7:3]. All that is in thy heart, that is, in this connection, what thou hast resolved on, comp. 1 Samuel 14:7; 2 Kings 10:30. For the Lord is with thee, where the preceding “do” is based on the Lord’s leading, under which David, as theocratic king, stands. Nathan characterizes David’s purpose as one well-pleasing to the Lord. J. H. Michaelis: “out of his own mind, not by divine revelation.” 2 Samuel 7:4-16. The divine revelation to Nathan for David and his house. a. 2 Samuel 7:4-7. Not David is to build the Lord a house. 2 Samuel 7:4. In that night, following the day on which David held the above conversation with Nathan, came the word of the Lord to Nathan. Nothing is said here of a divine revelation through a dream (comp. Numbers 12:6; 1 Kings 3:5), or through a vision and the hearing of a voice (comp. 1 Samuel 3:5; 1 Samuel 3:10; 1 Samuel 3:15), but the word of the Lord is described as having come to Nathan by night; that is, it is related that he received a divine revelation in the form and through the medium of the word, he receiving its content with the inner ear of the Spirit as a divine decision respecting that which was stirring his heart. Comp. Isaiah 21:10. By the conversation held with David during the day Nathan’s soul with all its thoughts and feelings was concentrated on David’s great and holy purpose; this was the psychological basis for the divine inspiration that forms the content of the following revelation, and not in inner contradiction with, but in distinction from his answer to David, informs him that the purposed temple-building is to be executed according to the Lord’s will not by David, but by his seed. 2 Samuel 7:5. Nathan receives the divine revelation that he may officially impart it to David.—Shouldest [or, shalt] thou build me a house to dwell in?—The question has a negative significance=thou shouldest [shalt] not. Chron., interpreting the meaning, has: “not thou.” Certainly Nathan’s assent to David’s thought that a house ought to be built for the Lord is not thereby set aside; but it is true that the opinion that David himself is to be the builder is corrected into this other, that this resolution is to be first carried out by his seed. Hengstenberg’s interpretation, therefore, that David is to build the house not personally, but in his seed [Christol., Eng. tr. I. 126], is forced and in contradiction both with his word and with Solomon’s interpretation (1 Kings 8:15-21). 2 Samuel 7:6. The reason for the no. It is logically obvious that this reason must stand in some relation to the sense in which the “shalt thou?” is spoken. Not thou shalt build me a house, for: 1) “I have not dwelt in a house from the day when I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt to this day.” During this whole period, while the people had yet no secure, firm, unendangered dwelling-place, the symbol of the Lord’s presence and dwelling amid His people could also have no permanent abode. But I was a wanderer in tent and dwelling-place, that is, as the people was in constant movement and unquiet, so my abode was of necessity a movable tent, wandering from place to place; the allusion is to the necessary frequent change of place of the sanctuary, first in the wilderness, and then during the unquiet movements hither and thither in the land itself (Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon). Comp. 1 Chronicles 17:5 : “and I was from tent to tent and from dwelling to dwelling.” There is no sufficient ground for distinguishing “tent” and “dwelling” as tent-frame and tent-cover (Then.); rather the “dwelling” is to be taken with Keil as explicative: in a tent, which was my dwelling.—[The word mishkan, rendered in Eng. A. V. “tabernacle,” sometimes means the whole structure built by Moses, as in Exodus 35:11, where it includes the boards, the tent (ohel, the goatskin-curtain) and the covering (mikseh, the curtains of ram-skins and seal-skins). Elsewhere (as in Exodus 40:18) it denotes the board-structure with the inner curtains of blue, purple and scarlet; and again it is used (Exodus 26:6) apparently for the inner curtains alone. It seems clear that technically the ohel or tent signified the outer cloth of goat-skin, and the mikseh or covering the two protecting heavy cloths of ram-skin and seal skin, the mishkan proper denoting the rest of the structure; but it is not so probable that the technical distinction is introduced here; the interpretation of Keil seems better. Still, taking the somewhat different reading in Chron., we may suppose that each of the terms ohel and mishkan is put for the whole structure of which they formed a part, a variation of terms for the sake of filling out the conception, the former rather suggesting the wilderness, the latter the land of Canaan.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 7:7. 2. To the statement that the Lord had hitherto had no fixed dwelling, but had dwelt only in a movable tent, is appended a second, that in all this time He had never given command to build Him a fixed abode.—In all wherein I walked, that is, in my whole walk, during the whole time that I walked among all the children of Israel. These words are to be taken not with the preceding (2 Samuel 7:6), which form the adversative definition of the immediately preceding declaration, but with the following, and correspond in context with the statement of time in 2 Samuel 7:6 : “from the day. . . to this day.” The “walking” denotes the self-witness of the divine presence, might and help in the whole historical development of Israel up to this time. Spake I a word with any one of the tribes of Israel?—Instead of “tribes” (ωׁ ?αθι) Chron. has “judges” (ωׁ ?τθι), which is adopted by Ewald, Bertheau, Thenius, Bunsen, after 2 Samuel 7:11. But the “judges” are there mentioned in a totally different connection of thought; and if this were the original word, it would be impossible to explain the origination and general unquestioned acceptance of the difficult “tribes.” The reading of the text “tribes” is to be retained with Maurer, Bφttcher, Keil, Hengstenberg. Maurer correctly remarks: “those tribes are to be understood that before the time of David attained the supremacy, as Ephraim, Dan, Benjamin. Bφttcher gives a complete list of the tribes that successively attained the headship through the Judges chosen from them. [Abarbanel (quoted by Philipps.) renders “sceptres” = “judges,” but this is not admissible. On the text see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] The “feeding” (a figure derived from the shepherd, who goes before the flock, leads it to pasture and protects it) denotes the guidance and defence of the whole people, to which one tribe was called, and which it accomplished through the judge that represented it. The Chronicler had only the line of judges in mind; his alteration is a collateral text that serves very well to explain the main text. Why build ye not me a house of cedar?—That is, a permanent and costly sanctuary, worthy of my glory. Comp. 1 Kings 8:16, where Solomon, with reference to these words, cites as the Lord’s word: “I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build me a house.” Psalms 78:67 is in like manner elucidatory of this passage; for there the choice of David as prince, and of Zion as the place of the sanctuary, is represented as if it were the choice of the tribe of Judah after the rejection of Ephraim. [Synopsis Criticorum: In this discourse of God some things are omitted that are afterwards represented as having been said here, as in 1 Kings 8:16; 1 Kings 8:18; 1 Kings 8:25; 1 Chronicles 22:8-9; 1 Chronicles 28:6; it is Scriptural usage not always to report the whole of a discourse, but sometimes to give a brief summary.—Tr.] Thus in 2 Samuel 7:6-7, looking at the whole past of the people, one side of the reason for the “shalt thou?” in 2 Samuel 7:5 is given: From the beginning of the history till now a permanent dwelling for the Lord, instead of the moving tent, had neither actually existed (because not possible under the circumstances), nor been divinely commanded. [There is no reproof to David in this.—Tr.] b. 2 Samuel 7:8-11. The other side of the reason lies in the history of the Lord’s dealings with David, which point to the fact that the Lord will build David a house before a house can be built to the Lord. 2 Samuel 7:8. The Lord’s first manifestation of favor to him was his elevation from the lowliness of the shepherd-life to the office and dignity of prince over Israel. “From the sheepfold” (πָ ?εֶ ?δ) see Psalms 78:70. [Better: “from the pasture.” The word means “habitation,” which in reference to flock means, not where they spend the night (which is, as Thenius says, βְּ ?γֵ ?ψָ ?δ), but where they feed (see Isaiah 65:10, where Eng. A. V. has improperly “fold”), and this suits the context of our passage.—Tr.] To this was added the continuous revelation of His gracious presence: 2 Samuel 7:9.—I was with thee in all thy going.—These two facts, the elevation of David to be king and his constant attendance [by God] in all his walk, answer to the elevation of Israel to be his people, and the Lord’s walking with them (2 Samuel 7:6-7). The wars hitherto waged form the third stadium: I have cut off all thy enemies before thee.—These wars, however, were the wars of the Lord, waged by Him as king of his people (1 Samuel 25:28). On this plane of the Lord’s exhibition of power in wars and victories over enemies rises the glory of the great name that the Lord has made for him in the sight of the nations round about (comp. Psalms 132:17-18; 1 Chronicles 14:17). 2 Samuel 7:10. These gradually advancing manifestations of the Lord’s favor to David look to the wellbeing of the people of Israel: 1) He thereby prepared a place for them [Erdmann renders: “I prepared a place,” etc.; see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]; that is, by subduing their enemies made room for a safe, unendangered expansion in the promised land; 2) Planted them—that is, on the soil thus cleansed and made safe He established a firm, deep-rooted national life; 3) They dwell in their [own] place, their life-power unfolds itself within the limits secured them by the Lord; 4) They shall no longer be affrighted by restless enemies. In these words the discourse turns to the future of the people. The sense is: after all these manifestations of favor in the past up to this time, the Lord will for the future assure His people a position and an existence, wherein they shall no more experience the affliction and oppression that they suffered from godless nations. The “as beforetime” refers to the beginning of the people’s history in Egypt. The words in 2 Samuel 7:11 from “and as since” to “Israel” belong with the “beforetime” as chronological datum, and depend on the “as” in 2 Samuel 7:10. And from the time when I ordained Judges over my people Israel.—That is, not merely during the period of the Judges, but on from the time when the judges began to lead the people, since the Prep. “from” [Eng. A. V.: “since”] gives only the terminus a quo, and consequently the period of the continuous oppression of the people by surrounding nations in the time after the judges till now is not excluded. This glance at the history of Israel’s affliction and oppression from the beginning on answers to the glance at the Lord’s presence and walk with them during their long period of wandering. All this the Lord has done to the people through His servant David (comp. Psalms 89:22-24). The usual connection of these words with the following: “and from the time that.… have I caused thee to rest” (so still Hengst. ubi sup. [p. 130]) is untenable—because: 1) we thus have the impossible statement that God gave David rest from the beginning of the period of the Judges on, and 2) the period of the Judges was any thing but a time of quiet. And I give thee rest from all thy enemies.—The verb (Perf. with Waw consec.) is to be understood of the future, as is usual with this form when, as here, a future precedes. “In the quiet progress of the discourse the Future here passes over into quiet description” (Ges. § 126, 6). It is also here to be considered that the Perf. refers to Future in asseverations and assurances. To take the verb in a Perfect sense [= I have given rest], the narrative concerning the past in 2 Samuel 7:9 being thereby resumed (De Wette, Thenius [Bible Commentary, Philippson]), is inadmissible, because the discourse has already in the preceding words turned to the future, and such a retrogressive repetition, considering the rapid advance elsewhere in all these words, would be intolerable. David’s present rest (2 Samuel 7:1) was only a temporary one—for the hostile nations were ever seeking opportunity to assault Israel. Although David’s wars and victories hitherto had so far firmly established Israel that the former times of “terror and distress” could not return, yet his reign was a constant war with the hostile nations around, in order to maintain the security that had been won, and to ward off the freshly inpressing enemies. To this continuing unquiet refers the first promise of the Lord to David: “I will give thee rest from all thy enemies.” The Chron. has (2 Samuel 7:10): “and I subdue all thy enemies, and tell it thee, and a house will the Lord build thee.” The second declaration is introduced by the words: “the Lord announces to thee” (not, has announced), “causes to be announced.” Thereby the promise itself: The Lord will build thee a house is raised to its supereminent importance above all the preceding words. In it culminates the gradually rising line of the Lord’s exhibitions of favor to David, and through him to the people. The “house” is the royal authority in Israel, which is assured and established for his family. According to these words (2 Samuel 7:5-11) there are two principal grounds for the Lord’s negative answer to David’s determination to build him a house: 1) as the Lord could have no fixed dwelling-place amid His people, so long as they were wandering out of Canaan, and in Canaan were constantly disquieted by enemies and driven hither and thither, so also David’s rule, in spite of victories over enemies, was still too much disquieted by external enemies that had to be fought, he being especially called thereby to secure to the people a settled permanent existence for the future. Hence now also the dwelling-place of the Lord amid His people can have no other form than that of the tent, the symbol of Israel’s wandering, which was to be ended and quieted first by David’s battles and victories. 2) David had indeed declared that he wished to perform something for the Lord in the building of a house, but this human plan should and could not reach fulfilment except and before the Lord had completed His manifestations of favor to David and carried out His plan, which looked to confirming the royal authority for his house and family forever, and thereby assuring the well-being of the people. What the Lord had hitherto done for David, and through him for Israel, was only the beginning of this confirmation of his kingdom; it was by its assured connection for all the future with David’s posterity that the firm foundation was first laid, on which could be carried out the work of temple-building as the sign of the immovably founded kingdom of peace and of the theocracy that was to exhibit itself in undisturbed quiet in Israel. The meaning of the divine prohibition, therefore, is this: Thou canst not build me a house, for I must first build thee a house, before the building of a house for me is possible. This second principal ground is connected immediately with the first; for the promise could not be fulfilled, unless by the establishment of external peace the condition for the confirmation of David’s house was given. The first ground is more precisely defined in 1 Chronicles 22:7-13; 1 Chronicles 28:3 sq. by the statement that David was not permitted to build the temple on account of his wars: “because thou art a man of war and hast shed blood.” With this agrees Solomon’s word to Hiram, 1 Kings 5:3 : “My father could not build a house to the name of the Lord for the wars that were about him.”c. 2 Samuel 7:12-16. The wider expansion and exacter definition of the promise: “I will build thee a house.” 2 Samuel 7:12 starts from the end of David’s life; after his death the promise will be fulfilled. I will set up thy seed after thee.—The “set up” (δֵ ?χִ ?ιν) denotes not the “awakening” or bringing into existence, but the elevating the seed to royal rule and power. The “seed” is not the whole posterity, as is clear from the explanatory words in 1 Chronicles 17:11 : “thy seed that shall be of thy sons,” nor merely a single individual, but a selection from the posterity, which will be appointed by God’s favor to succeed David on the throne. Which shall proceed (come) out of thy body.—The seed here spoken of was still in the future when this promise was made to David. We are not, with Thenius, to change “will proceed” (ιֵ ?φֵ ?ΰ) to “has proceeded” (ιָ ?φָֹ ?ΰ), as if Solomon were then already born. And I will establish his kingdom.—On the setting up and elevation to the royal dignity follows its confirmation to David’s posterity, which has been called to be bearer of the theocratical royal office. This promise was fulfilled in the first place in Solomon, who also expresses his consciousness of this fact in 1 Kings 8:20; comp. 1 Kings 2:12. 2 Samuel 7:13. He, this thy seed, will build a house for my name.—The name stands for God Himself, so far as He reveals Himself to His people as covenant-God and makes Himself known in His loftiness and holiness. “To build a house for His name” signifies therefore not simply “in His honor, or as a place to call on Him,” but “to establish a fixed place, which should be the sign and pledge of His abode in Israel.” To the shorter formula: “To the (or, for the) name of the Lord” (comp. 1 Kings 8:17-20; 1 Kings 8:48; 1 Kings 3:2; 1 Kings 5:17; 1 Chronicles 22:7; 1 Chronicles 22:19; 1 Chronicles 28:3) answers the longer: “that my name may be there, my name shall be there” (1 Kings 8:16; 1 Kings 8:29; comp. 2 Chronicles 6:5; 2 Kings 23:27), or, “that my name may dwell there” (Deuteronomy 12:11; Deuteronomy 14:23; Deuteronomy 16:11; Deuteronomy 26:2; Nehemiah 1:9), or, “that I may put my name there” (1 Kings 9:3; 2 Kings 21:7).And I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever.—The royal dominion will not only be one established in David’s house, but also one enduring forever, never to be severed from this house. It is not here the everlasting dominion of one king that is spoken of, but it is said: with the seed of David the kingdom shall remain forever (= everlastingly). The everlasting stay of the kingdom in the house of David is promised. Comp. 2 Samuel 7:25, where David so understands this divine promise. Comp. Psalms 89:30; Psalms 72:5; Psalms 72:7; Psalms 72:17. 2 Samuel 7:14. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.—The relation of fatherhood and sonship will exist between the covenant-God of Israel and the seed of David. This denotes in the first place the relation of the most cordial mutual love, which attests its enduring character by fidelity, and demonstrates its existence towards the Lord by active obedience. But besides this ethical significance of the relation of David’s seed as “son” to God as “its father” (indicated by the Prep, “to”), we must, from the connection, note 1) the origin or descent of the son from the father; the seed of David, entrusted with everlasting kingly dignity, has as such his origin in the will of God, owes his kingdom to the divine choice and call, comp. Psalms 2:7; Psalms 89:27; Psalms 28:2) In the designations “father and son” is indicated community of possession; the seed, as son, receives the dominion from the father as heir, and, as this dominion is an everlasting one, he will, as son and heir, reign forever in possession of the kingdom. The father’s kingdom is an unlimited one, embracing the whole world; so in the idea of sonship there lies, along with everlastingness, the idea of all-embracing world-dominion, on which the son lawfully enters. Comp. Psalms 89:26-30; Psalms 2:7-9. Whom, if he commits iniquity—that is, not hypothetically, “in case he sin,” but actually, when he sins (as cannot fail to happen); the seed, David’s posterity here spoken of is not exempted from the sin that clings to all men—I will chasten with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men.—That is, with such punishments as men suffer for their sins. David’s seed will be free neither from sin nor from its human punishment. “Grace is not to release David and the Davidic line from this universal human lot, is not to be for them a charter to sin” (Hengst.). Comp. Baur: Gesch. d. altt. Weissag. [Hist. of O. T. Prophecy] I. 392 sq. Such chastisement will not be set aside by the cordial relation of David’s seed as son to the Lord as father, but will rather follow David: The father will punish the son for his sins. The elevation of the latter to such glory above all the children of men is not to be a reason for making him an exception in respect to punishableness, but in this regard he will be equalled with all men before God’s righteousness. Clericus, against the connection, explains the “rod of men” to mean: “moderate punishments, such as parents usually inflict.” Wholly wrong is the rendering: “whom if any one offend, or, against whom if any one sin,” comp. Pffeiffer, Dubia Vexata, V. 2, l. 84, p. 390; Russ, De promissione Davidica soli Messi� vindicata, Jen., 1713. In Psalms 89:31-33 we have the further elucidation: “If his sons forsake my law and walk not in my judgments.… I will visit them with the rod of their sin and with the stripes of their iniquity.” Chron. omits this declaration in order to bring out the more strongly the following thought that the divine favor will, in spite of sin, remain with David’s seed (Hengst. ubi sup. [p. 135]). 2 Samuel 7:15. But my favor shall not depart from him.—It is presupposed that in his sinning he remains faithful to the Lord, not departing from Him, and that the chastisement leads him to repentance (comp. 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalms 132:12). This is clear from the following words: as I took it from Saul whom I put away before thee.—Comp. 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Samuel 15:26; 1 Samuel 15:28. “Before thee,” before thy face; Saul and his kingdom had to disappear before David, who, with his kingdom took their place, and with whose seed the kingdom will remain forever in spite of the sins that shall be found in the individuals of his posterity, “his sons” (Psalms 89:31). “The contrast is that between the punishment of sin in individuals and the favor that remains permanently with the family, whereby the divine promise becomes an unconditioned one” (Hengst.). 2 Samuel 7:16. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be permanent, as the result of the permanent favor and grace assured to David’s seed (comp. Psalms 89:29; Psalms 89:38; Isaiah 55:3 [“sure mercies of David,” same word as is here rendered “established” in Eng. A. V.—Tr.]), and as the lasting fulfilment of the promise in verse 2 Samuel 12 : “I will raise up, lift up thy seed.” The word “before thee” is arbitrarily changed by Sept. and Syr. into “before me.” Bφttcher explains: “in thy conception” (comparing 2 Samuel 7:26; 2 Samuel 7:29; 1 Kings 8:50), and adds: “the reference is to the outlook of the living, not to a conscious participation still granted to the dead.” O. v. Gerlach: “David, as ancestor and beginner of the line of kings, is conceived of as he who passes all his successors before him in vision.” Thy throne will be firm forever.—This answers to the words in 2 Samuel 7:12 : “and I will confirm his kingdom,” as the continuous effect of this promise. In the “forever” (here twice given and resumed from 2 Samuel 7:13) in the promise of the everlasting kingdom connected with the house of David, the prophecy culminates. On the “firm” [βָ ?λεֹ ?ο, Eng. A. V.: “established,” different from the word so rendered in the former part of this verse, which = “sure,” “faithful.”—Tr.], comp. Micah 4:1, and on the “forever” comp. Psalms 72:17; Psalms 89:37; Psalms 45:7; Psalms 110:4; Psalms 132:11-12. Comp. John 12:34. 2. David’s prayer. 2 Samuel 7:17-29. 2 Samuel 7:17. Conclusion of the preceding section and introduction to the following. According to all these words and according to all this vision.—The words, as the content of God’s revelation to Nathan, are distinguished from the vision as indication of its form and mode. To suppose a dream here (Thenius) because the revelation occurred at night (2 Samuel 7:4) is inadmissible—since nothing is said of a dream; for the vision (ηָ ?ζεֹ ?ο=ηִ ?ζָּ ?ιεֹ ?ο) is every where distinguished from the revelation by dream (Keil); and in Isaiah 29:7 the word “dream “is expressly added in order to indicate a “vision” that occurred in a dream. Our word signifies the view, vision, as the result of the looking or gazing of the prophets (who are called ηֹ ?ζִ ?ιִ ?ν, gazers, seers) with the inner sense, whether in a waking state or in a dream. In the former case the “vision” may denote either collectively a number of divine revelations, taken as a whole (so Isaiah 1:1; Obadiah 1:1; Nahum 1:1), or, a single revelation, as here (so Ezekiel 7:26; Daniel 8:1-2; Daniel 8:15; Daniel 8:17). But it is not the vision or view in itself that forms the essence and substance of the prophetic revelation, but rather the “word” or the “words” of the Lord, which as medium of the Spirit of God come to the prophetic spirit; the vision is the psychical form under which the revelation takes place. David’s answer to the Lord falls into three parts: Thanks for the exceeding abundant favor shown him and his house now in this revelation (2 Samuel 7:18-21), Praise to the Lord for the great things He has done for His people in the past (2 Samuel 7:22-24), and Prayer for the fulfilment of the promise in the future (2 Samuel 7:25-29). a. 2 Samuel 7:18-21. David’s thanksgiving for the Lord’s gracious manifestation in the great promise now received.—The words “David went in… before Jehovah” indicate the powerful impression that Nathan’s communication made on David’s soul; the divine revelation received compels him to betake himself to the sanctuary “into the presence” of the Lord, where he “remained” (ψַ ?ιֵּ ?ωֶׁ ?α tarried [Eng. A. V. sat]) sunk in contemplation and prayer. It cannot be inferred from Exodus 17:12 that David is to be thought of here as sitting; for Moses there sat from weariness after long prayer. The verb (ιָ ?ωַׁ ?α usually “sit”) is often used in the general sense: “remain, tarry.” [Bib. Comm. correctly points out that, even if the verb be rendered “sat,” it is not necessary to suppose that David prayed sitting. He may have risen to pray after meditation. Yet sitting under such circumstances would be a respectful attitude, and elsewhere we have no proof in the Scriptures of a customary attitude in prayer; that Solomon (1 Kings 8:22) and Ezra and the Levites (Nehemiah 8:4; Nehemiah 9:4) stood was due to the peculiar circumstances. It is not stated in what place David offered his prayer; it may have been in his own house or in some part of the tabernacle.—Tr.]—The content of this thanksgiving-prayer is like a clear glass, wherein we see into the innermost depths of David’s heart. His soul, wholly taken up with the divine revelation and promise, expresses itself in the following utterances, which follow one another quickly in accordance with the internal excitement of feeling: 1) The humble confession of unworthiness in respect to all manifestations of favor hitherto made to him and his house Who am I, Lord Jehovah, and what is my house? The words answer exactly to Jacob’s words in Genesis 32:10 as the expression of the deepest humility and feeling of nothingness over against the greatness and glory of God. So in Psalms 8:5; Psalms 144:3 there is the contrast between the divine loftiness and human lowliness and nothingness. That thou hast brought me hitherto.—David reviews all the past leadings of God’s grace, in respect to which, as manifestations of the divine favor and love, he so feels his unworthiness and nothingness, and at the same time indirectly declares that he has hitherto submitted himself to the Lord’s guidance. 2) David, with like humility, thanks the Lord for this present supereminent manifestation of His favor in the promise relating to the future of his house.2 Samuel 7:19. He gives the liveliest expression to his humble and joyfully excited feeling of the greatness and glory of God in the repetition of the preceding address, “Lord Jehovah” (2 Samuel 7:18), and (comparing the abundant fullness of grace in this present revelation with the former exhibitions of grace, which culminate in it) in the first sentence of this verse (from the beginning to “great while to come”). From the far future [Eng. A. V.: “for a great while to come”], that is, of my house; the promise refers to favors in the far future for his house. The sense is: if, looking at former undeserved favors, I must bow low with the feeling of unworthiness, much more in view of the promises made out of free grace to my house for the far future. The last sentence of this verse (εְ ?ζֹ ?ΰϊϊּ ?εֹ ?ψַ ?ϊδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν) is as enigmatic as the parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 17:17 (εּ ?ψְ ?ΰִ ?ιϊַ ?πιλְּ ?ϊεֹ ?ψδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?νδַ ?ξַּ ?ςֲ ?μָ ?δ). At the outset it must be assumed as certain that this word torah [Eng. A. V.: manner] never=“manner, custom, mode of acting” (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ ,ηχ). Therefore the explanation (in itself very agreeable and easy): “and this (hast thou spoken) after the manner of men, thou actest with me, that stand so infinitely below thee, in human manner,—that is, in such friendly manner as men use with one another” (Grotius, Gesenius, Winer, Maurer, Thenius, and De Wette: “such is the manner of men”) is as untenable as Luther’s translation: “this is the manner of a man who is God the Lord,” which besides rests on the conception of this passage as directly Messianic (pointing to the incarnation of God in Christ), and incorrectly takes “Lord Jehovah,” which here as before and after is an address, as explanatory apposition to “man.” For the same reason the explanation of Clericus and others is to be rejected: “in human fashion—that is, thou hast cared for me and my family as men do for their children and grandchildren, looking out for their future,” especially as it assigns to David’s words the very trivial thought of caring for a family for the future. Ebrard (Herz. VI. 609) characterizes this expression, “the law of man, of the Lord Jehovah,” as a word of “presageful bewilderment,” and finds the explanation in 1 Chronicles 17:17, where he renders: “Thou hast looked on me like the form of man, who is God, Jehovah above;” David, says Ebrard, saw that he himself was contemplated, but at the same time so that Jehovah appeared to him here as a man, who was also God and enthroned on high, recognizing the fact that the final point of the promised posterity was Jehovah Himself, but Jehovah as man and God.So already S. Schmidt, who (after Chron.) inserts “as” before torah, taking this last=“condition, state” (ϊּ ?εֹ ?γ): “O Jehovah God, Thou hast looked on me.…Thou who, in the humble condition and infirm state of wretched, afflicted man, art in all things made like man.” Apart from the incorrect, direct Messianic interpretation, all these and similar expositions take torah in a sense that it never has. It means regularly law. Hence Dathe and Schultz render: “such is a law for men”—that is, so should my enemies act when they think to hurl my descendants from the throne. So Bunsen: “This (Thy promise) is an indication (law) for men—that is, Thou wilt make Thy will authoritative even among men.” But this explanation requires too much to be supplied in order that the words may be understood. The same thing is true of the rendering of Hengstenberg—which Keil adopts: “The law of man, the law that is to regulate the conduct of men (comp. the expression Leviticus 6:2 (9), the law of the burnt-offering; 2 Samuel 14:2, the law of the leper; 2 Samuel 12:7, the law of the woman that has borne a child), is the law of love to one’s neighbor, Leviticus 19:18; Micah 6:8; ‘this,’ namely, the Lord’s conduct to him in his love and faithfulness, answers to the law by which men are to be governed in their conduct to one another; when God the Lord so graciously and lovingly condescends to act towards poor mortals according to this law that holds among men, it must fill us with adoring wonder. To this answers the parallel passage in Chron.: and thou sawest me (visitedst me, dealedst with me) after the law of man (ϊεֹ ?ψδ = ϊεֹ ?ψ), that is, the law of love to one’s neighbor, thou height (!) Jehovah God.” Against this view is to be remarked 1) that it requires too much to be understood in connection with “this” and “law,” 2) that God’s acting according to the law of love (given by Himself) cannot be thus represented as in contrast with His greatness and glory, as if He stood above the conduct that men (according to this law) are to follow, and should therefore be worthy of the greater admiration if He condescended to such conduct.—As torah originally signifies teaching, instruction, both divine (Job 22:22; Psalms 19:8) and human (Proverbs 1:8; Proverbs 3:1; Proverbs 4:2; Proverbs 7:2; Proverbs 28:7; Proverbs 28:9), it is possible to render: “and this is a (divine) instruction for (poor, abject) man, to whom Thou so condescendest, O Lord God,” or, to paraphrase with Bunsen: “Thou instructest me (makest disclosures to me) as one man another; so great is thy condescension.” But this rendering, contrary to David’s tone of feeling throughout this whole section, lays all the stress on a formal thing, namely, the fact that God condescends to speak to him, to make disclosures to him, while it must be the content of the Lord’s words about the future of his house that moves him to humble thanksgiving and praise. Not the fact that the Lord condescends to him with His word of revelation (which He has often done before), but what He has now spoken to him is the cause of his humble thanksgiving.—For the explanation of this obscure passage it is further to be considered that these words, uttered abruptly and in lapidary style, are from the connection evidently to be token 1) as the expression of a joyfully excited heart, and 2) as the exclamation of humble astonishment at the greatness and glory of the grace of God in the promise given to his house, in contrast with human lowliness, as is indicated by the word “man” over against the address “Lord Jehovah.” The content of the promise to David’s house for the future, to which David has just referred as the highest evidence of the divine favor, and to which the “this” must beyond doubt be referred, is the divine determination that the kingdom is to be one proper to his house and forever connected with it, and is thus to have an everlasting duration. This is the divine torah or prescription, which is to hold for a weak, insignificant man and his seed, for poor human creatures. In the exclamation “this,” David looks in astonishment and adoration at the glory and the everlastingness (imperishableness) that is promised his house. This kingdom is indeed the kingdom of God Himself, and since it is promised his house forever, divine dignity and divine possession is thus for the farthest future ascribed to this house by that “word of the Lord;” the “Lord Jehovah,” towards whom David already feels so humbled and lowly by reason of His former manifestations of love and favor, now condescends to attach His kingdom in Israel, His everlasting divine dominion forever to his house, to his posterity, that is, to insignificant children of men, by such a law, which is contained in that word of promise. Similarly O. v. Gerlach: “This is an expression of wondering admiration of the gracious condescension of God. Such a law Thou establishest for a man and his house, namely, that Thou promisest it everlasting duration.” Comp. Bunsen: “Of so grand a promise hast Thou, O Eternal One, thought a mortal man worthy.” [Eng. A. V., adopting the interrogative form with negative force, apparently takes the meaning of this sentence to be: “it is not thus that men act towards one another, but Thy ways, O Lord, are above men’s ways.” Against this is that the word torah does not mean “manner” (so Erdmann above), and that the sentence thus stands in no relation as to sense with the parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 17:17.—Other interpretations (see Poole’s Synopsis) take ΰָ ?γָ ?ν as the proper name Adam, and explain: “as Adam’s posterity rule the world, so shall mine rule Israel,” or: “as Thou madest a covenant with Adam and his posterity, so with me and mine;” but the proper name Adam occurs nowhere else in the Davidic period, and this interpretation does not suit the context, especially the sense of unworthiness expressed by David.—This word again is taken as =“a great man” (so Bib.Com. and Abarbanel), or as =“a mean man,” neither of which senses it can have by itself. We cannot therefore explain: “Thou dealest with me as is becoming (to deal with) a great man,” or: “this is the law (or prerogative) of a great man, to found dynasties that are to last into the far future” (Bib. Comm.), which interpretations (though agreeing somewhat with 1 Chronicles 17:17) do not accord with the humility that characterizes the whole passage. Chandler’s rendering: “this is according to the constitution of men,” namely, that the crown should be hereditary (God graciously making it hereditary in David’s family), is somewhat far-fetched and unsuitable to David’s line of thought. The early English commentators mentators generally interpret the passage as directly Messianic; but the context does not permit this.—If our text be retained, the sentence must be rendered: “and this is the law of man,” that is, the promise given is the prescription made for the government of man, who, in comparison with God, is so low, so unworthy of such honor; and Dr. Erdmann’s explanation is the most satisfactory. But regard must be had to 1 Chronicles 17:17, in which it is evidently intended to give the same thought as is given here, and which, as it now stands, is to be rendered: “Thou regardest me according to the line of men on high.” It is difficult to bring these two declarations into harmony. Moreover, the two texts have enough similarity and difference to suggest that one has been altered from the other, or that both are corruptions of the original text. The ancient versions give little or no aid in determining text or meaning; they mostly either render literally, or give paraphrases that cannot be gotten from the existing Hebrew, and that offer no fruitful suggestion. It is noticeable, however, that the Chald. in “Samuel” has: “and this is a vision of men,” while the Sept. in “Chronicles” renders: “Thou regardedst me as a vision of man,” and these translations favor the causative form of the verb in Chron. (Hiph. ϊַּ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?πι), or else a reading ψΰι “vision” instead of ϊεֹ ?ψδ or ϊεψ.—Ewald (after Chron.) reads the Samuel text: εְ ?δִ ?ψְ ?ΰִ ?ϊַ ?πִ ?ιαְ ?ϊεֹ ?ψδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?νμְ ?ξַ ?ςֲ ?μָ ?δ “and Thou hast made me look on the line of men upwards,” that is, into the future; and Wellhausen changes ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ (and ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψ) into γּ ?εֹ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ “Thou hast made me see generations.”—Since none of the proposed amendments of the text are quite satisfactory (for it is not clear how our present text originated), we must be content to know the general idea of the passage (which does not essentially vary in the renderings of Erdmann, Ewald and Wellhausen), namely, that David here continues his humble acknowledgment of the divine favor.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 7:20. David here affirms 3) the inexpressibleness and exceeding abundance of the divine favor bestowed on him, and the consequent impossibility of setting forth in words the thankfulness that he feels in his heart. And what shall David say more to thee?—Language fails; silence is here the most eloquent thanks. And thou knowest thy servant, Lord Jehovah.—As in 2 Samuel 7:19 the exclamation “Lord Jehovah!” formed a sharp contrast to the “man,” so it does here to “thy servant,” answering to the humble consciousness of the endless distance between him and his God, with which, however, is connected the childlike consciousness of immediate cordial community with God: for, as he often elsewhere appeals to God, who knows the heart, for consolation and justification against man, so he does here in respect to his thankful heart, since he is sure of having the testimony of the Omniscient for him (see Psalms 40:6; Psalms 40:10 [5, 9]). 2 Samuel 7:21. For thy word’s sake and after thy heart hast thou done all these great things to make them known to thy servant; the concrete “great deeds” is here meant, not the abstract “greatness,” see Psalms 71:21; Psalms 145:3. The word “this” [Eng. A. V. “these”] shows that the great things here referred to are the splendid promises that the Lord announced through Nathan to Him, his servant. Looking, now, at all the great things that the Lord has done for him in this revelation, David declares 4) the supernatural, superhuman eternal ground and origin of these new great manifestations of favor (which exceed all preceding ones) in “the word” and in “the heart” of God, that is, in His free gracious will, which is independent of all human merit. For Thy word’s sake. Chron. 2 Samuel 2 Samuel 5:19 : “for thy servant’s sake,” that is, because Thou hast chosen and called me to be king of Israel. “For David does not boast before God that his own merit had gained him these things” (Cler.). According to this point of view “the word” is perhaps that word of choice and destination given in 1 Samuel 16:12 (“the Lord said, Arise, anoint him, for this is he”), as Hengst. supposes. It is possibly, however, the old prophecy concerning the Tribe of Judah in Genesis 49:10; “for that David recognized the connection between the promise given him through Nathan and the prophecy of Gen 49:10, is shown by 1 Chronicles 28:4, where he represents his choice to be king as the result of the choice of Judah to be prince” (Keil). [It does not appear from this passage in Chron. that David means more than that the tribe of Judah had been now selected in his person as the royal tribe.—Tr.]. “And according to thy heart,” that is, according to the love and grace by which thy heart is filled, from thy loving will. Clericus: “From the spontaneous motion of thy mind, without external incitement.” Comp. Exodus 34:6; Psalms 103:8. Over against “God’s heart” as the source of the great favor received David sets his heart as filled with humble thanks therefor; but his word of thanks must stand dumb before the clear Yea and Amen and the earlier words of promise of God, the Yea and Amen of which is this exhibition of favor. In thus deriving it from God’s faithfulness to His promise, and from His heart-love, he adds the positive thought to the negative “who am I?” of 2 Samuel 7:18, and so leads the conclusion of this thanksgiving back to its beginning. [“To make thy servant know,” or, as in Chron. (2 Samuel 5:19) “to make known all (these) great things.” God not only in His sovereign mercy determined great things for David, but further for his consolation and strengthening made them known to him through His prophet.—Tr.] b. 2 Samuel 7:22-24. Praise of the Lord’s greatness and incomparable glory as manifested by this highest exhibition of favor, in accord with the great deeds whereby in times of old He made Himself known to His people as their God. 2 Samuel 7:22. Therefore, because Thou hast done so great things for me, on the ground of this experience of Thine abounding favor, thou art great, Lord God; comp. 2 Samuel 7:26 : “and Thy name will be great,” not: “considered great” (Luth.), nor: “be Thy name praised by me” (5. Gerl., Then.), but it is an assertion of greatness manifested objectively in facts. The factual confession “great is the Lord” (comp. Psalms 35:27; Psalms 40:17 (16) is precisely praise to God. —Now follows the ground for this praise of the Lord’s greatness: For there is none like thee—this declares God’s incomparableness. Comp. Exodus 15:11 “who is like thee, etc.?” Deuteronomy 3:24. And there is not a God beside thee, declaration of God’s aloneness and exclusiveness, comp. Deuteronomy 4:35; 1 Samuel 2:2. According to all that we have heard with our ears; David here passes from the contemplation of the greatness, incomparableness and soleness, wherein the Lord has declared Himself to him in the present, to the praise of God in the review of the great deeds whereby in the past He has revealed Himself to His people as such a God. “In Psalms 40:6 David rises, just as here, from his personal experience to the whole line of God’s glorious manifestations in the history of His people” (Hengst.). 2 Samuel 7:23. And what nation is as thy people, as Israel any [nation] on earth? The initial “and,” according to the sense, gives the factual ground of what precedes. We cannot render: “where is, as Israel, a nation, etc.” (De W. [and Luther]), nor “for whose sake God went, etc.”, (Hengst.), but must translate: “what nation … whom God, etc.” Elohim here stands with a plural verb—as often elsewhere where heathen idol-worship is referred to, as in Exodus 32:4; Exodus 32:8, where Elohim is used of the golden calf (“these are thy gods, that brought thee out of Egypt”), comp. Deuteronomy 4:7; 1 Kings 12:29, while, as name of the God of Israel, it has a singular verb or other complement—because the thought is here intended to be expressed that there is no nation but Israel that had been redeemed by its deity or its idols by such a deed as that by which the true God had redeemed Israel to be His people. It is therefore unnecessary to change the verb into the singular, reading “brought” ( δεֹ ?μִ ?ικְ) [δεֹ ?μִ ?λεֹ ?] instead of “went” (δָ ?μְ ?λεּ). In consequence of God’s great deeds Israel is a people sole of its kind, to be compared with no other, comp. Deuteronomy 4:7; Deuteronomy 33:29. By His great deed, the deliverance out of Egypt, He has proved Himself to His people to be the only God, besides whom there is no God, and with whom no other is to be compared (Exodus 15:11-13; Deuteronomy 4:34). Whom God went (put Himself in motion) to purchase to himself (redeem) for a people; the deliverance from Egypt was the suigeneric, incomparable deed of the incomparable, sole God, whereby He made Israel an independent nation and gained them out of all nations as His own possession. And to make himself a name; that deed of redemption is the factual historical proof that He is the true God, who has not His equal, and the God of Israel in the fulness of His might and of the revelation of His grace, and this fulness it is that makes His name. In this His name (whereby Israel only knows and names Him as the God that led them out of Egypt) He is contrasted with the vain idols of the heathen nations as the one true God (Joshua 24:17; Judges 2:1; Judges 2:12; Judges 6:13).—And to do for you great things and terrible. The “for you” refers not to “gods” (Elohim), but to “people;” but it is not necessary to change the text to “for them” (after the Vulgate), because, David’s soul being filled and excited with the thought of his people, in the course of his prayer his words turn suddenly in increasing vividness from reference to the people naturally and immediately to the people itself, and “since also 1 Chronicles 17. has in its ‘for thee’ this easily explicable leap to an address to the thing spoken of” (Bφttch.). [But the address to the people is much harder than the address to God, and it seems better to read “for them.”—Tr.].—On the other hand, the “for thy land” gives no good sense without forcing, and Chron. has instead of this “to drive out” (2 Samuel 7:21). It is therefore better (with the Sept. τοῦ ἐκβαλεῖνσε) to suppose a clerical error, and (taking μְ ?βָ ?ψֶ ?ωְׁ ?κָ as the true text) to render: (namely) that thou drovest out before thy people.—The frightful, terrible things are the great deeds of the Lord in connection with the destruction of the heathen nations. On this idea comp. Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 10:21. The fundamental passage respecting the expulsion of foreign nations is Exodus 23:27-33, where this verb “drive out” (βּ ?ψωׁ) is repeatedly used. Which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt.—This fundamental deed of the God of Israel is expressly mentioned in this parenthetical sentence, because the right of property that He thereby had in His people chosen out of the nations, necessarily led to His maintaining and defending them against the heathen nations, and the destruction of the Egyptians in this deed was the prelude to God’s for Israel “great” but for the hostile Canaanites “terrible deeds,” whereby He placed Israel in position to drive their enemies out of the land. The heathen and their gods; these words depend on the verb “drovest out.” Keil (who retains the “for thy land,” rejecting the alteration according to Chron.) takes these words as apposition to “from Egypt” and supplies the prep. “from” before them [so Eng. A. V. and Philippson.—Tr.].—But this construction is inadmissible, because the Plur. “nations” does not accord with the Sing. “Egypt.” After the deliverance from Egypt David will celebrate the expulsion of the heathen from Canaan as a great deed of God. The Sing. suffix [Heb. “nations and its gods”] gives no sense after the Plu. noun; to take it distributively, as Keil does (“the gods of each of these heathen nations”), is too hard; we must therefore read the Plu. suffix “their gods.” 2 Samuel 7:24. The result of God’s mighty deeds stated in 2 Samuel 7:23. And thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel, comp. 2 Samuel 7:10; it is God’s act whereby in the conquered land the people were led to the firm establishment of their dwellings, their possessions, and their whole life. The thought does not go back to the time of Moses, but advances from the foregoing fact of the subjection and expulsion of “the heathen nations and their gods” to the establishment of the people in Canaan. To be a people to thee forever. The design of God’s gracious benefits was: 1) Israel was to belong to Him alone as His property; through God’s mighty deeds the long-since executed choice of the people as His property is ever anew confirmed, and their obligation, to belong to and serve Him alone as people, ever repeated. 2) “For ever” they were to belong to Him as His people. This appointment of the people to be everlasting is remarkable; there shall never cease to be such a people of possession on the ground of such gracious manifestations and saving acts of the Lord. To this idea of the everlasting continuance of a people of God, (—“all nations are finally merged in this people, the divine Israel, the congregation of Jesus Christ,” O. v. Gerlach), answers the promise of the everlasting continuance of the throne of David, which gave him occasion thus to praise God for His deeds, whereby He has established and prepared Israel for Himself as His people forever. And thou, Lord, art become their God, as Israel has become Thy people. This His relation to His people as their God has been established by all His revelations and deeds; for He has thereby testified that He is their God and given Himself to them as their own. The people on their part have contributed nothing thereto. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ III. The splendid development of David’s royal rule without and within2 Samuel 8-101. Without by wars and victories over Israel’s external enemies. 2 Samuel 8:1-141 And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued [humbled] them; and David took Metheg-Ammah out of the hand of the Philistines. 2And he smote Moab and measured them with a line, casting them down to [making them lie down on] the ground; even with two lines measured he [and he measured two lines] to put to death and with [om. with] one full line to keep alive. And so [om. so] the Moabites became David’s servants and brought [bringing] gifts. 3David smote also [And David smote] Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at [to make an attack at] the river Euphrates. 4And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen and twenty thousand footmen; and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots. 5And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, 6David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men. Then [And] David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David and brought [bringing] gifts. And the Lord [Jehovah] preserved David whithersoever he went. 7And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. 8And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass [copper]. 9When [And] Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of 10Hadadezer, Then [And] Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him and to bless [congratulate] him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and smitten him; for Hadadezer had wars with Toi; and Joram brought with him [and in his hand were] vessels of silver and vessels of gold and vessels of brass [copper]. 11Which [These] also king David did dedicate unto the Lord [Jehovah] with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all [ins. the] nations which he subdued, 12Of Syria and of Moab and of the children of Ammon and of the Philistines and of Amalek and of the spoil of Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah. 13And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of [om. of] the Syrians in the valley of salt, being [om. being] eighteen thousand men. 14And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of [om. they of] Edom became David’s servants. And the Lord [Jehovah] preserved David whithersoever he went. AND general survey is here given of David’s wars and victories with the aid of the Lord (2 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 8:14), without its being indicated, however (as is above observed), by the word “after this” that the wars here detailed were chronologically attached to the events of chap 7, or that these wars were chronologically related to one another as the sequence of mention might seem to show. The phrase “after this” is the general formula of transition and connection, which introduces David’s wars grouped according to the factual point of view, and works them into the broad frame of the theocratic history. See a similar loose, not strictly chronological connection by this formula in 2 Samuel 10:1; 2 Samuel 13:1. The parallel section in 1 Chron. is chap. 18. 2 Samuel 8:1. The subjection of the Philistines. David not only defeated them in a battle, but also subjected them to his authority. He took out of their hand “the bridle of the mother” (ξֶ ?ϊֶ ?βδָ ?ΰַ ?ξָּ ?δ metheg ha ammah). The Chronicler has for this “Gath and her daughters,” which words are to be accepted in explanation of our expression instead of giving place to vague conjectures. Ammah (ΰַ ?ξָּ ?δ, feminine formation from ΰֵ ?ν) = “mother-city;” so the capital city of a country is often called in Arabic and Ph�nician, comp. Gesen. Thesaurus, p. 112, and our word “metropolis;” and the cities dependent on the capital city are called “daughters,” comp. Joshua 15:45; Joshua 15:47. Among the five chief cities of the Philistines (1 Samuel 6:16-17), Gath in Saul’s time already, as seat of a king who appears at the head of the Philistine princes (1 Samuel 27:2; 1 Samuel 29:2 sq.), had attained the rank of a capital of Philistia, whence the bridle of dominion was extended over the other cities and the whole people. [These notices do not seem sufficient in themselves to show a hegemony for Gath.—Tr.] The “bridle of the mother”—that is, according to Chron., the power and authority over Philistia concentrated in the metropolis, Gath, the mother with the “daughters,” or Philistine cities over which Gath exercised authority—David took possession of, he subjugated Philistia, and made it tributary, as the nations afterwards mentioned. The king of Gath mentioned in 1 Kings 2:39 belonged also to the tributary kings, subject to Solomon, this side of the Euphrates, as far as Gaza (1 Kings 5:1; 1 Kings 5:4). So Gesenius, De Wette, Keil. Of other explanations of our phrase some do not accord with the meaning of the words, e. g., Schultens, Mich., Ewald render “arm-bridle,” but ammah does not mean “arm,” and Grotius gives claustra montis Amm�—“the fortress of Mount Ammah,”—but metheg cannot mean “fortress.” Some do not agree with the actual condition of things, e. g., Bertheau explains, “he wrested from the Philistines the dominion that they had hitherto exercised over Israel,” but this does not agree with David’s dominion over Israel; and Bφttcher takes ammah—(ΰֵ ?ν)—as meaning one that goes before and leads, and then in the abstract sense of leading, guidance, “the bridle of guidance,”—but “this would suit only if the setting aside of a hegemony were here spoken of” (Then.). Looking at the words of Chron., the Sept. (τὴνἀφωρισμένην= “the separated, marked off”) and 1 Samuel 7:13-14, Thenius conjectures that the text has arisen by error of copyists from an original text, which contained a description (that cannot now be made out) of the boundary-district, which David then forever wrested from the Philistines. In the essence of the thing, this explanation agrees with that above given. 2 Samuel 8:2. The subjugation of the Moabites.—On the former friendly relation between the king of Moab and David, see 1 Samuel 22:3-4. The cause of Moab’s enmity against him is unknown. Perhaps meantime another king had come to the throne than he with whom David sought refuge and with his parents found hospitality. Probably in this war occurred what is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 11:22 of Benaiah, one of David’s heroes, that he slew two of the king of Moab’s sons. The severe punishment inflicted on the arms-bearing Moabites (they were compelled to lie in a row on the ground, two-thirds were measured with a line for death, and one-third for life) points to some very grave offence on their part. They thenceforward became David’s servants, that is, were subject to him and paid him tribute. [Patrick: Now was fulfilled the prophecy of Balaam, Numbers 24:17.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 8:3-4. Subjugation of Hadadezer, king of Zobah.—And David smote Hadadezer.—Instead of this name we have “Hadarezer” in 2 Samuel 10:16; 2 Samuel 10:19, and in Chron.; so also Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., Josephus. But as Hadad was the name of the sun-god of the Syrians, and frequently occurs in Syrian proper names (see Movers, Ph�n. I. 196 sq.), Hadadezer, = “whose help God is,” must be taken as the original reading. [For a different view see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] The district of Zobah was a part of Syria (2 Samuel 10:6; 2 Samuel 10:16 and Psalms 60:2, where it is called Aram-Zobah), bordering on Syria, beyond the Euphrates in Mesopotamia, whence Hadadezer brought Arameans to his help across the Euphrates. Its position is more exactly described in 2 Samuel 8:5 (it was near the territory of the Damascus Syrians) and 2 Samuel 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 8:3 (it touched Hamath on the north, at the Orontes). It must therefore be put north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and the Euphrates. Comp. Winer, R.-B. II. 738. It seems to have reached so far south that the Ammonites could get help from it against Israel, 2 Samuel 10:6; 1 Chronicles 19:6. As Zobah was doubtless the capital city of the country, it is probably (Grot., Ew.) to be identified with the city Sabe (Ptol. 2 Samuel 5:19) which lay on the same parallel with Damascus and eastward towards the Euphrates. “We must therefore look for Zobah to the east of the transjordanic Israelitish territory and beyond its northern border, and its king must have ruled over a great part of the desert between Palestine and the Euphrates, and consequently over the southern part of Syria” (Stδhelin, Leben Davids, p. 51). But on what occasion and under what circumstances was David involved in a war with this distant kingdom? The answer to this question will appear in the course of the following exposition. As he went to re-establish his power at the river (Euphrates). [Lit. “as he went to put forth his hand” = to make an effort or attack. See “Text and Gramm.” against Erdmann’s rendering.—Tr.] The question is whether Hadadezer or David is subject here. The Heb. ιָ ?γ [hand] = power, dominion. The Infin. (δָ ?ωִׁ ?ιπ) means not to stretch out, extend (De Wette), but to draw back, re-establish a dominion, which consequently existed before. Taking Hadadezer as subject, and looking to 1 Samuel 14:47, where it is said that Saul fought successfully against Zobah, it has been explained to mean that Hadadezer now attempted to regain the territory then lost (Maurer, Bunsen, Ewald, Keil). But can we suppose that Hadadezer waited so long after Saul’s death? Rather it is to be presumed that he had long ago re-established his power. In favor of taking David as subject, it may be said that the whole sentence would then have the same subject, which is most natural according to the tenor of the narrative, and that David must have felt called on to restore Israel’s power up to the Euphrates which had been lost since Saul’s time. But against this undoubtedly is the word “his power” (ιָ ?γεֹ); for David had not yet occupied the land on the Euphrates. We are therefore obliged to take Hadadezer as subject, who had attempted to restore his shattered power on the Euphrates when David conquered him in this war and made him his vassal. How his power was shattered will appear hereafter. Chron. has “to establish” (δַ ?φִּ ?ια), which agrees with the above explanation—and so the Sept. ἐπιστῆσαι. [=establish]. Which was the original reading cannot be determined. [The phrase in Sam. is a common one; that in Chron. (in the Heb.) is difficult and improbable.—Tr.] Against the rendering of Grot. and Cler.: “as he (David) went to force back his (Hadadezer’s) power towards the Euphrates” is the prep. “in, at” (αְּ) before “river,” and the change of persons in this subordinate sentence (Thenius). [Adopting the rendering suggested above, the reference may very well be to David as the subject: David going to make an attack at the Euphrates, was naturally opposed by the powerful Hadadezer; otherwise it is difficult to see how Hadadezer’s attack in this region could have brought him in contact with David.—Tr.] The Masora adds “Euphrates” after “river” [so Eng. A. V.],—which, however, is not necessary, since the word “the river” (δַ ?πָּ ?δָ ?ψ) of itself means the Euphrates. How important it must have been for David to rest his power on this side on the Euphrates is obvious. 2 Samuel 8:4. And David took (prisoners) from him 1700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen.—Chron. has 7000 horsemen and 1000 chariots. Here, therefore, the word “chariot” has fallen out, and the sign for seven thousand (ζ̈ ?) been changed to that for seven hundred (ο). The text of Chron. is the correct one; “for to 20,000 footmen in the plains of Syria 7000 horsemen is evidently better proportioned than 1700” (Thenius). The 1000 chariots also accords with the connection, “because afterward David is said to have houghed the chariot-horses” (Cler.). And David lamed all the riding-animals.—The word (ψֶ ?λֶ ?α) means riding-animals in general, not merely chariot-horses (so Isaiah 21:7). These David made useless and harmless by cutting the sinews of their hind feet (ιֲ ?ςχֵּ ?ψ.—comp. Judges 11:6; Judges 11:9). It was a matter of importance to David to render useless not the chariots, but the horses. [He reserved a hundred horses not for war, but for a triumph or a guard; whether or not this reservation was illegal and ungodly is not said.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 8:5-8. The conquest of Aram-Damascus (the Syrians of Damascus). 2 Samuel 8:5. Aram-Damascus—that is, the Aramζans whose capital was Damascus (Chron. Darmesek, Sam. Dammesek)—east of the Antilibanon range, on the Chrysorrhoas (Pharpar) river, and on the great caravan-route from Central Asia to Western Asia. These Syrians of Damascus came as allies to the help of Hadadezer, attacking David from the north, but suffered a severe defeat, as appears from the fact that they lost 22,000 men. [See Josephus’ reference here to the account of Nicolaus of Damascus (Ant. 7, 5, 2), who mentions a Syrian king Hadad beaten at the Euphrates by David (Then.).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 8:6. To hold them in subjection he placed posts, garrisons in their territory, comp. 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Samuel 13:3. “He made them subject and tributary to him.” [Some render “officers” instead of “garrisons,” but hardly so well.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 8:7. “Shields” (ωֶׁ ?μֶ ?θ), not “armour,” comp. 2 Kings 11:10, Gesen., Thes. and Lex. by Dietrich. The golden shields of Hadadezer’s servants (that is, his immediate guard) David sent as booty to Jerusalem. The Sept. here has the additional statement: “And Susakim [Shishak] king of Egypt took them away when he went up against Jerusalem in the days of Roboam, son of Solomon,” of which there is no trace in any other version or in Chron., and which there is no good reason for introducing into our text (against Thenius), since, by comparing 1 Chronicles 18:8 (where the use made of the copper is mentioned), and 1 Kings 14:25-27, it is clear how a translator or copyist from inexact observation of these passages might have been led to make such an addition to the text as marginal note or explanation. [Keil also points out that the shields carried off by Shishak were not these captured by David, but those made by Solomon.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 8:8. And from Hadadezer’s cities Betah and Berothai took king David very much copper.—It is not possible to determine certainly the position of these cities. But it may be conjectured that Berothai (comp. Ezekiel 47:16), for which Chron. has Kun, is identical either with Barathena, near Sabe (Ptol. Geog. 5, 19, 5; so Ewald), or with the present Berah south-east of Damascus (Thenius), or with Birtha on the eastern bank of the Euphrates (= Birtha, Ptol. Geog. 5, 19, 3), not to be confounded with Birtha, on the Tigris (Ptol. Geog. 5, 18, 9). The old Ph�nician Berytus on the Mediterranean Sea (= Beirut) is out of the question, since the territory of the king of Zobah could certainly not have reached so far. “The name may be derived as well from berosh [cypress], in Syrian beroth, as from beer [a well]” (Thenius). See Winer s. v. (Bib. Comm.: Can the Wady Barada be the modern representative of the name?—Tr.] Instead of Betah Chron. has Tibhath, to which answer the Metebak of the Sept. and the Tebah of the Syriac—so that we may suppose “from Tebah” (ξִ ?θֶּ ?αַ ?η) to be the original reading (Then., Keil). This is favored by the Tebah of Gen 22:24 (which points to this region), the name of a son of Nahor, and also of a place that now stands north of Damascus and Tadmor, between Tadmor and Aleppo (Bόsching, Erdbeschreib. XI., I., 544). The booty of these cities consisted of a large quantity of copper. Chronicles (either, as Movers supposes, taking it from another source, or using more completely the same source as the author of Samuel) adds in respect to the use of the booty: “Therefrom Solomon made the copper sea and the pillars and the coppern vessels.” The Sept. adds these words here after “very much brass” with the insertion “and the wash-basins.” But there is no reason with Thenius to alter our text accordingly, since the effort of the Sept. to explain and fill out from other material is evident here, as in 2 Samuel 8:7. [On copper in Canaan see Deuteronomy 8:9. Some centuries before this copper was carried in quantities from Syria to Egypt [Bib. Com.).—Tr.]—The loss of the Syrians in these battles was forty-two thousand men (comp. 2 Samuel 8:4-5). This number agrees with the statement of the loss in 2 Samuel 10:18 = forty thousand men. From this alone it is clear that the Aramζan war that is minutely related in 2 Samuel 10 is the same as that here spoken of. It is to be further noted that the war against the Aramζans here related ends with their complete subjection (2 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 8:9). Against the view that 2 Samuel 10 narrates a second Aramζan war, wherein the subjugated Aramζans revolt when David becomes involved in war with the Ammonites, and help them against him, is the fact that in 2 Samuel 10 nothing is said of such a revolt, the Syrians appearing as wholly independent of David and hiring their aid to the Ammonites (2 Samuel 10:6). Before the Aramζans could unite with these latter, Joab defeated them under Hadadezer; the latter called the Aramζans from beyond the Euphrates to his help in order to regain his power on the Euphrates, which was lost by that defeat, and they were now also defeated by David (2 Samuel 10:13-18). This explains our 2 Samuel 8:3 : “as he (Hadadezer) went to re-establish his power at the river Phrath” (Luther). In the general view of David’s wars in 2 Samuel 8 this Aramζan war is briefly related according to its issue under David’s lead. In 2 Samuel 10 the Ammonitish war (here merely alluded to, 2 Samuel 8:12) is minutely related on account of the history of Uriah therewith connected; and as this war led to that with the Aramζans, the latter also, after the summary statement of it in 2 Samuel 8, is fully narrated in 2 Samuel 10 “The war with Ammon, whose development could not be understood without the Syrian, is more elaborately narrated (in 2 Samuel 10.) for a special reason only, namely, for the sake of Uriah’s history, and is for this reason no doubt merely mentioned in the general view of all the great wars (2 Samuel 8:12), since otherwise its issue at least would necessarily have been described as fully as that of the Moabite war” (Ewald, Gesch. [Hist. of Israel] III. 205). Comp. Keil’s Comm.,[Eng. Tr., p. 358 sq.]—According to 1 Chronicles 18:3 David’s decisive victory over the Aramζans was gained at Hamath, that is, Epiphania on the Orontes, a colony of the Canaanites (Genesis 10:18), at the foot of Hermon, therefore on the western boundary of the district of Zobah, and on the northernmost border of Palestine, still one of the greatest cities of Turkish Asia, retaining its old name; according to 2 Samuel 10:17 the victory was gained at Helam, an unknown place; but this difference is insignificant, and may be removed by supposing either that Helam was near Hamath (Keil), or that the decisive combats occurred at both places at the same time.2 Samuel 8:9-10. King Toi of Hamath seeks a friendly alliance with David in consequence of the latter’s victory over the king of Zobah and his allies.—For Toi Chron. has Toό. When Toi heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer (David’s victory was therefore a decisive one), he sent his son Joram (better Hadoram) to David. Chron., instead of Joram, has Hadoram, Joseph. Adoram, and Sept. Jeddouram; Hadoram (according to Mich., from Hador, the name of a Syrian deity, but see also Genesis 10:27; 1 Chronicles 1:21, where it is the name of an Arabian tribe) is to be regarded as the original reading, instead of the Heb. name Joram, which doubtless got into the text from similarity of sound by error of copying or of hearing [or, it is a Hebraization of a foreign name, as often happens.—Tr.]. The embassy was 1) to greet David in Toi’s name, properly, to ask after his welfare, comp. Genesis 43:27; Genesis 43:2) to bless him, that is, to congratulate him on his victory over Hadadezer. The reason for this congratulation is given in the words: “for a man of wars of Toi was Hadadezer,” that is, Hadadezer carried on constant wars with Toi; Aq. and Sym. have “waging war” (πολεμῶν). On the phrase: “man of wars” = one whose call and business is warring, comp. 1 Chronicles 28:3; Isaiah 42:13. Since Hamath and Zobah bordered on one another, Toi was in constant danger of being entirely despoiled of his authority by Hadadezer, on whom he was perhaps in some degree dependent. Hence his congratulation of David as the expression of joy over the victory that freed him from a dangerous enemy, and of the wish to enter into a relation of friendship and alliance with the powerful victor, to which end he sent rich presents consisting of vessels of silver, of gold, and of copper. [For the forms of ancient Chaldean and Assyrian vessels see Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies I. 91, 386.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 8:11-12. David consecrates to the Lord all the booty of gold and silver taken from the conquered nations. David’s wars were wars of the Lord, in whose name he fought against the enemies of the chosen people, and led the people to victory. Therefore the booty belonged actually to the Lord. David affirmed this by separating it from profane use (this is the primary meaning of “dedicated,” δִ ?χְ ?γִּ ?ιωׁ), and setting it apart for the Lord, that is, either in general he put it into the treasury of the sanctuary, or he determined that it should be used in making sacred vessels for the temple that was to be built. Instead of the second “dedicated” (δִ ?χְ ?γִּ ?ιωׁ) Chron. has “took” (πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰ), which gives the same sense. 2 Samuel 8:12. From Aram [-Syria] and from Moab and from the children of Ammon and from the Philistines and from Amalek and from the spoil of Hadadezer. Instead of Aram Chron. has Edom, and omits the words referring to Hadadezer, that is, makes no mention at all of the wars against Aram. But as in this enumeration of all David’s wars (as it obviously is) Aram could not, as it seems, be properly omitted, it might appear probable that we should read Aram in Chron. instead of Edom especially as the victory over Edom is not mentioned till afterwards. It might, however, be also supposed that “Aram” was omitted [in Chron.] because the booty taken from the Aramζans has just been spoken of, and the further mention of booty from other nations was attached immediately to that statement. On the other hand it is not necessary (with Keil) to suppose a gap in our text after “Aram,” that is to be filled with “from Edom.” It may be supposed that, as the Chronicler did not mention Aram because he had spoken of it just before, so our narrator did not include Edom because he intended to speak of the victory over the Edomites immediately afterwards. [On this reading see “Text. and Gram.” As Edom is geographically connected with Moab and Ammon, and as the spoil of the Syrian Hadadezer is mentioned at the end of the verse, it seems better (with Bib. Com.) to read Edom for Aram; though the Aram of our text might refer to the Syrians of Damascus (so Gill).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 8:13-14. Conquest of Edom. Comp. 1 Chronicles 18:12-13, where it is said that Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, smote the Edomites in the valley of salt, eighteen thousand men, and the statements in Psalms 60:2 [superscription] and 1 Kings 11:15, which vary from this in minor points. 2 Samuel 8:13. And David made himself a name. Against the rendering “he set up a monument” is the fact that such a statement could not have been made here without reference to the Lord and indication of the place, and that it is wholly irreconcilable with David’s disposition that he should here set up a monument to himself. The proper translation is: “made himself a name” (comp. Genesis 11:4; Genesis 21:1) gained renown (so the Vulg.), 2 Samuel 7:9, “I have made thee a great name,” etc., is not in contradiction with this, for it points out the divine causality in David’s glorious military career as contrasted with its human side.—The glory of his name was exalted still more by another splendid achievement. As he returned from the battle against Aram, literally, from smiting Aram. The connection alone naturally suggests that the Aramζan wars related above are here meant. But our text affirms David made himself a name by a new victory over Aram in the valley of salt. The text is here obviously incomplete. The words “in the valley of salt” cannot be connected with what here precedes, since a battle with the Aramζans in this valley, which lay on the ancient border of Judah and Edom in the Edomite territory south of the Dead Sea, is out of the question. Before these words we must insert “and he smote Edom,” which may easily have fallen out in copying through the similarity of Edom and Aram (ΰγν and ΰψν). Sept: “he smote Idumea.” [Or, we may read Edom instead of Aram (Syria), comp. 1 Chronicles 18:12, and see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] David’s wars in the north against the Aramζans and Ammonites had led the Edomites to fancy that they might easily get possession of the southern part of the Israelitish territory. When David had ended those wars, he returned (the word “returned” does not refer to Joab (Ew.)—see below). Whether he returned on the east or west of the Jordan and the Dead Sea is uncertain. The battle with the Edomites was then fought in the salt valley, the same place where Amaziah afterwards conquered the Edomites (2 Kings 14:7). The Edomites lost eighteen thousand men; so also Chron. But in Chron. the battle is fought not by David himself, but by Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, and in 1 Kings 11:15 and in Psalms 60:2 [superscription] by Joab. There are here no real contradictions, since in different reports (for ex., in the last German-French war) the same battles are referred to different leaders, in one to the Fieldmarshal, in another to his subordinate Generals, in still another to the Generalissimo himself. Abishai, who in the Syrian-Ammonitish war commanded a division of David’s army under Joab, was the conqueror of the Edomites, while Joab was General-in-chief, and David had control of the whole military operation. Michaelis: “David as king, Joab as chief commander, and Abishai, who was sent forward by his brother, and overthrew the enemy.” Only incapacity to conceive such affairs in their reality and manifoldness can find a discrepancy here. For the rest it is to be noted that the Chronicler, though he names Abishai as leader in this victory, was at the same time thinking of David as the conqueror (in accord with our passage), since he adds: “And the Lord helped David in all his undertakings.” The difference in numbers also (here and in Chron. eighteen thousand, in Psalms 60. twelve thousand) is unimportant; there is no need to suppose an error of copyist in the last passage (Ew.) to explain it. It receives a simple explanation from the various statements about the battle in different authorities. In the last German-French war the reports of the numbers of killed or prisoners often differed by thousands. How much more might such differences arise at a time when so exact countings were not provided for. [Bp. Patrick suggests that Abishai began the fight and slew six thousand, and then Joab, advancing with his reserve, slew twelve thousand more (so Psalms 60). It is impossible to give a certain explanation of the difference.—Tr.] David put garrisons in all Edom (not in Chron). Thenius supposes the reason of the special emphatic statement here (comp. 2 Samuel 8:6), that no part of Edom was left without a garrison, to be that this was not the case in former campaigns against Edom (see for ex. 1 Samuel 14:47). But the explanation lies rather in the numerous mountains, caves and gorges of the country, which made a complete garrisoning necessary.—Thus had David overthrown the huge column of nations that were dangerous to Israel from north to south, and on its ruins founded his dominion. AND 1. In all his wars and victories over Israel’s enemies David, as theocratic king, was only the instrument of the Lord, who Himself waged these wars for His people. Therefore in his royal military calling David knows himself also only as servant of the Lord, to whom, as the true Commander, he consecrates and dedicates the booty gained. And the prophetical narrative can say nothing higher of David than that he performed these splendid deeds of arms through the help of the Lord (2 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 8:14). But in these victories over the enemies of God’s people was fulfilled the Lord’s promise (2 Samuel 7:10-11), trusting in which David could advance to battle prepared for war and certain of victory. 2. David’s royal calling was to be fulfilled chiefly in wars and victories over Israel’s enemies, in order that the kingdom of God in Israel might attain its unhindered, theocratic-national full development of form. But from this historical basis is subsequently developed the idea of the theocratic kingdom as a mighty and powerful one that victoriously combats the enemies of the theocracy, and makes them subservient to the divine might and power. On this is then built up the Messianic prophecy of the future king, who in divine might and glory will complete the kingdom of God by the thorough conquest of all its enemies, establish God’s universal dominion in the people of God redeemed from the world-powers, and dispense God’s blessing under His protection and pastoral fidelity. Compare especially Psalms 2, 72, 110, which in their historical foundation and fundamental ideas are unintelligible without the history of David’s wars and victories (ch. 8.) that lays the foundation both for the Messianic prophecy and for the promise in ch. 7. 3. Under the guidance of Psalms 60—which refers to the impending new war with the Edomite (after the glorious conclusion of the Syrian-Ammonite war) and to Israel’s new danger from their inroad (Delitzsch, Moll), not to the situation after the victory over Edom in the Salt-valley (Hengst.)—it is possible to follow the ups and downs of David’s thoughts under the experiences of this time and afterwards in his recollection of its trials and God’s gracious manifestations, and to exhibit the truths therein contained that hold good for God’s kingdom in all times. After the days of mighty manifestations of divine help there have come for God’s people times of great distress within and without, not, however, by chance, by a necessary natural process or by unavertable fate, but immediately from the Lord. The deep powerful feeling of the absolute dependence of all human life on the Lord permits no lament over calamity, without accompanying declaration that the Lord has sent it according to His unsearchable counsel, and without giving Him the glory by the confession: “This hath the Lord done!” So David’s lament in Psalms 60:3-5 [1–3] is such a declaration and confession of the Lord’s omnipotent power in the infliction of severe sufferings and great dangers on His people. “O God, thou hast cast us off, thou hast scattered us, made the land tremble and broken it, hast made thy people see hard things, etc.”—But with such lament and confession is connected in the pious heart the living remembrance of God’s former manifestations of favor in His promises, as the banner that is raised by the Lord for them that fear Him. Thereby has the Lord Himself given His assailed ones the right to remind Him of His promises, and so the lament changes into the prayer: Help, answer us! (Psalms 60:6-7 [4, 5]). Praying faith hears the divine answer in the might-displaying word of the living God (“God hath spoken in His holiness”) wherein He announces Himself as the unlimited Owner and Lord of His land and people, and as the victorious opponent and sovereign of their enemies. These are the two fundamental truths that the history of God’s kingdom everywhere affirms and confirms: the Lord acknowledges His people (as His possession) with His promises and their fulfilment; and the enemies of God’s kingdom and people will not be able to elude His power, but must submit to it (Psalms 60:8-10 [6–8]). But in how sharp contradiction of such divine promises is the actual condition of God’s people in the world? “Hast thou not cast us off?” Dost thou not go forth with our hosts? (Psalms 60:11-12 [9, 10]). [The translation of the Eng. A. V. is also possible, and gives the same general sense.—Tr.]. The above lament is repeated in such a question, which arises from the involuntary comparison of the present straitened condition of God’s kingdom and people with the majestic declaration of God that promises victory and dominion over all enemies. This sharp dissonance must penetrate deep into the heart of God’s servant when he sees with equal vividness and clearness both the rich promises of God and the needs and straits of God’s kingdom. But it is resolved into all the more pressing entreaty and prayer for the divine help and into the twofold confident avowal and confession: 1) In God we shall show our power, that is, carry off the victory, and 2) God the Lord, who is in His people, will through them destroy the power of the enemy (Psalms 60:13, 14 [Psalms 60:11-12]). The Psalm ceases with the same twofold ground-tone that sounds through 2 Samuel 8. David made himself a name by his victories over his enemies, and the Lord helped him whithersoever he went. Nearly related to Psalms 60. is Psalms 44, which similarly presupposes the affliction of God’s people and the danger of their conquest and dispersion by the hostile neighboring nations. Through the Lord’s help to the fathers when the land was taken possession of (Psalms 44:2-4 [1–3]) is awakened and sustained faith that the same God, as king of His people, will now also grant His people victory over their enemies (Psalms 44:5-8 [4–7]), so that they shall forever thank Him as they have hitherto boasted of Him (Psalms 44:9 [8]). But in contradiction of this tradition of divine help in the olden time and of this confidence is the present overthrow and distress of the people (Psalms 44:10-17 [9–16]) which is felt all the more deeply in view of the people’s faithfulness to the covenant, as the omniscient God knows (Psalms 44:18-22 [17–21]). But the consciousness of undeserved sufferings and afflictions leads to the profounder conviction that such sufferings, inflicted by the Lord, must be endured for the Lord’s sake, since the enmity towards the Lord’s people is directed against the Lord Himself (Psalms 44:23 [22]). Therewith, however, is connected also the hope of God’s people, as expressed in their prayer that the Lord would arise from His inactivity and espouse His people’s cause. The ground of this hope and prayer lies in their need of help and in the free grace of God. Psalms 44., being thus similar to Psalms 60. in its course of thought and its historical presuppositions, most probably belongs to the time of affliction expressly designated in Psalms 60., when the Edomites sorely pressed Israel; comp. Amos 1:6. The frightful castigation that Joab inflicted on them (1 Kings 11:15) intimates the greatness of the suffering that they had prepared for Israel, and thus serves indirectly to confirm the historical circumstances presupposed in these two Psalms.—In Psalms 108. we find a repetition of Psa 60:7-12 [5–12]) loosely combined with another Psalm-fragment Psalms 57:8-11 [7–11]). AND War is right and a duty before God, when the object Isaiah 1) To guard God’s law and order against hostile power; 2) To preserve gifts and goods granted by God; 3) To fulfil tasks assigned by God; 4) To carry out the clearly recognized plans of God’s wisdom. 2 Samuel 8:1. Schlier: We see here … how it still is at the present day with wars in the world, what righteous and unrighteous wars properly are, but also what wars always ought to be. 2 Samuel 8:2. Tueb. Bible: To pious kings God gives victory and glory. Proverbs 20:28.—Osiander: That is the most glorious victory and the most fortunate government, when the conquered enemies do not hate the conqueror, but hold him in honor and render him willing obedience. 2 Samuel 8:3-4. Osiander: If the mightiest foes could not subdue David, so too no human power will extirpate the kingdom of Christ.—S. Schmid: Against God and those who trust in God no human might avails (Proverbs 29:25). When the kingdom of God is the object of attack, the ungodly are somewhat united and help each other, while at other times they are against each other (Luke 23:12; Acts 4:27). 2 Samuel 8:6. Cramer: The heathen also must bring gold and gifts (Isaiah 60:6), and willingly offer to him in holy attire. 2 Samuel 8:9-13. A beautiful emblem of the fact that many among the heathen also shall willingly turn to Christ.—Starke: God’s promises, though it be late, are yet truly and surely fulfilled (Genesis 25:23). If God gives to us, we should also give to Him again. But we give to Him again when we do good to His children and servants.—Schlier: How well it would be if all rulers and warlike heroes never had their eye on themselves, but always and only on the honor of the Lord, if all happened to the Lord’s honor alone, if all honor were given only to the Lord, if all booty were spent only for the service of the Lord and never for display and pride. [2 Samuel 8:2. David is at the present day often charged with great cruelty for slaying so many of the Moabites; but to most of his contemporaries, friend and foe, it probably seemed a hazardous leniency to spare a full third. The Asiatic rulers have always inclined to what we should regard as extreme severity in punishment; but no man has ever been able to rule long in Asia without such punishments, at least to the extent of making examples, as David did here and in 2 Samuel 12:31. Is there not danger in the Christendom of to-day that we shall go to the opposite extreme, that mercy to criminals will be carried so far as to become cruelty to society? 2 Samuel 8:3. Only once, and for a brief season, did the children of Abraham possess the whole region promised to him, Genesis 15:18. During all the centuries it was theirs by right through God’s gift; but it was not theirs by possession through their own fault. In like manner, how seldom does national or individual life and character reach up to the height of its heaven-permitted possibilities.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 8:14. I. How trying a life David was leading, in its exertions, hardships, perils. II. How blessed a life amid it all, since the Lord preserved him whithersoever he went! 2 Samuel 8:10-11. It is the lot of many who wish to be greatly useful that they can but gather materials and devise plans, leaving it for others to build and rejoice. Men forget the former class, but God does not. We speak only of Solomon’s Temple; but in the eye of God it was David’s Temple too. Does one long for a different task, and feel tempted to repine? That which God assigns will be best for us, if we waste not life in dreaming of some other lot, but faithfully stand where He puts us.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 8:1-13. Lessons from David’s years of warfare. 1) A pious man may have many enemies. 2) A pious man may be required to spend much of his life in war. 3) A pious man may be compelled to inflict severe punishments (2 Samuel 9:2). 4) A pious man, even though not always prospered or preserved (2 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 8:14) is always guided and blessed. 5) A pious man will rejoice to consecrate the richest results of his struggles and toils unto God (2 Samuel 8:10-11).—Tr.] 2. David’s Internal Government: Organization of the Administration of the Kingdom (2 Samuel 8:15-18) and Magnanimous Exhibition of Royal Favor to the Sunken House of Saul.—Mephibosheth. Chapter 2 Samuel 8:1-13. a. The Administration of the Kingdom and David’s Officers 2 Samuel 8:15-1815 And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people. 16And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; 17And Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar [Abiathar the son of Ahimelech] were the priests; and Seraiah was the [om. the] scribe; 18And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both [om. both] the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David’s sons were chief rulers.b. David’s Magnanimity toward Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s Son. 2 Samuel 9:1-13. 1And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake? 2And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba. And when they had called [And they called] him unto David [ins. and] the king said unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, Thy servant is Hebrews 3 And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness of God unto him? And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son [There is yet a son of Jonathan] which is [om. which is] lame on 4[in] his feet. And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel in Lodebar. 5Then [And] king David sent and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the 6son of Ammiel, from Lodebar. Now when [And] Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come [came] unto David he fell [and fell] on his face and did reverence. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered [said], Behold thy servant! 7And David said unto him, Fear not, for I will surely shew [show] thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father, and thou shaft eat bread at my table continually. 8And he bowed himself and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?9Then [And] the king called to Ziba Saul’s servant and said unto him, I have 10given unto thy master’s son all that pertained to Saul and to all his house. Thou therefore [And thou] and thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring in the fruits that thy master’s son may have food [bring thy master’s son food] to eat; but [and] Mephibosheth thy master’s son shall eat bread alway at my table. Now [And] Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants. 11Then said Ziba [And Ziba said] unto the king, According to all that my lord the king hath commanded his servant so shall thy servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he shall eat at my table as one of the king’s sons. 12And Mephibosheth had a young son whose name was Micha. And all that dwelt in the house 13of Ziba were servants unto Mephibosheth. So [And] Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did eat continually at the king’s table; and [ins. he] was lame on [in] both his feet. AND CRITICALa. 2 Samuel 8:15-18. The internal administration of the kingdom. Alongside of David’s military activity without is here placed the new summary view of the offices and their incumbents, whereby a unitary administration, embracing all the internal affairs of the kingdom was carried on. 2 Samuel 8:15. To David’s wars, which gained him safety from enemies and dominion over Israel is here attached a general characterization of his government in its inward nature. He was executing, that is, striving in all things thoroughly to establish judgment and justice in the whole nation.—According to this point of view he ordered and administered the affairs of the kingdom through the following offices, the names of the incumbents of which are given. 2 Samuel 8:16. 1) Joab was over the host, had the supreme command of the army, was Minister of war and Chief Marshal in one. See 2 Samuel 2:18. 2) Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud (Ahilud was a well-known man) was Mazkir (ξַ ?ζְ ?λִּ ?ιψ), that is, not the recorder and preserver of the most important events of the kingdom, as Vulg. (a commentariis) and Sept. (ἐπὶ τῶνὑπομνημάτων [keeper of the records]) understand it, but the referee in all internal affairs and highest representative counsellor, the Chancellor, who at the same time suggested and drew up the royal decrees and saw to their proper publication and registration in the State-archives. Comp. �hler in Herzog. VIII. 15. [For further mention of this office see 1 Kings 4:3; 2 Kings 18:18; 2 Kings 18:37; 2 Chronicles 34:8. It is evident that the office was a very important one; and from the etymology (the word = one who calls to remembrance) it seems not unlikely that it included the recording of important events. It would thus sufficiently differ from that of Sopher (Scribe or Secretary), which would be more personal and political. Gesenius and others refer to the Roman Magister memori� and the Persian Waka Nuwis (imperial historiographer). In the absence of any English term exactly representing the Hebrew, the “recorder” of Eng. A. V. may be retained.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 8:17. Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests (= high-priests). Zadok here appears for the first time; he therefore did not become high-priest till after David’s accession to the throne. Through his father, Ahitub, he was a descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar (1 Chr. 5:29 compared with 1 Chr. 5:34 and 1 Chronicles 6:35-37); Ahimelech on the contrary descended through Abiathar from Ithamar, Aaron’s younger son, 1 Chronicles 24:3; 1 Chronicles 24:6. The “Abimelech” in 1 Chronicles 18:16 is an error of copyist, since we have “Ahimelech” also in 1 Chronicles 24:3; 1 Chronicles 24:6. Elsewhere, however, the two high-priests in David’s time are given as Zadok and Abiathar (2 Samuel 15:24; 2 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 17:15; 2 Samuel 19:12; 2 Samuel 20:25), and according to 1 Samuel 22:20, Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech. Movers, Thenius, Ewald, hence suppose an inversion of names here, so that we should read: Abiathar, son of Ahimelech. But in that case we should have to suppose a similar inversion, so far as regards the change of Ahimelech to Abiathar in 1 Chronicles 24:3; 1 Chronicles 24:6; 1 Chronicles 24:31, passages quite independent of ours, where Ahimelech, as son of Abiathar appears as high-priest of Ithamar’s line alongside of Zadok, who is of Eleazar’s line. Instead of this violent procedure Bertheau (on 1 Chronicles 18:16), �hler, Keil, and others, suggest that Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, had a son of the same name as his grandfather, and that he, for some reason unknown to us, acted as high-priest along with his father who was still living at the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 2:27). That he might have had such a son of proper age is to be presumed from 1 Samuel 14:3. According to 2 Samuel 15:27; 2 Samuel 17:17; 2 Samuel 17:20, Abiathar had a younger son Jonathan, who afterwards joined Adonijah against Solomon [1 Kings 1:42], while Ahimelech is mentioned neither there nor here, perhaps because he was no longer alive. But this suggestion is open to grave doubts, not merely because an Ahimelech son of Abiathar appears nowhere but here and in the passages cited from Chron., but especially because elsewhere Zadok and Abiathar appear as the acting priests [=high-priests] under David. There remains the supposition of a historical error (instead of an error of copyist) in the authority used here and in 1 Chronicles 24:3; 1 Chronicles 24:6; 1 Chronicles 24:31, the author of the original account having reversed the order of the names. [This supposition of Erdmann’s seems the most improbable of all here cited; error in such a point can hardly be supposed in the author of “Samuel,” with 1 Samuel 22. and the rest of the history before him. An error in copying easily perpetuates itself, though we cannot always explain how it arose, and how it comes to reappear in certain places and not in others.—Still less probable is the opinion of Geiger (Urschrift, p. 21) and Well-hausen that there are here traces of a systematic attempt to exalt the line of Eleazar (Zadokites) at the expense of the house of Ithamar; that an “Ahitub” should occur several times is not strange or suspicious, and the whole tone of the history is quiet and natural, showing no signs of distortion and tendentious manipulation. There seems to be no sound objection to supposing an inversion of these names here by a scribe’s error. See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.].—Zadok acted as high-priest in Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39; comp. 1 Kings 3:4) at the Sanctuary, the other in Jerusalem.—4) Seraiah was scribe (Sopher), State Secretary, not a military muster-officer, for this is designated by another word (τָּ ?χַ ?γ), see 2 Samuel 24:2; 2 Samuel 24:4; 2 Samuel 24:9. Comp. �hler (Herz. VIII. 15) and Keil. [So in 2 Kings 25:19 a certain military officer is termed “the scribe (sopher), the captain of the army, who levied the people,” or, perhaps (as in margin of Eng. A. V.) “the scribe of the captain of the army. It is possible that the Sopher combined civil and military duties; it has also been supposed (though there is no proof of it) that there were two officers called Sopher, one civil and military (as here), the other ecclesiastical.—Tr.].—The name of this man in 1 Chronicles 18:16 is Sharsha, in 2 Samuel 20:25 Sheya [Eng. A. V. has the marginal (Qeri) Sheva] and in 1 Kings 4:3 (where the same person is meant) Shisha. According to this, Sheya seems to be a shortened form of Shisha = Shavsha, and the latter, along with Seraiah, a second name of the same person. Possibly, however, the difference came from scribal error or indistinctness of letters, whichever was the original form. 2 Samuel 8:18. 5) Benaiah the son of Jehoiada (a mighty warrior of Kabzeel, 2 Samuel 23:20-23) was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites (we are to read “over” instead of the unintelligible masoretic “and,” as in the parallel passage in Chron.). These two names designate the royal body-guard attached to the king’s court and person (Jos. Ant. 7, 5, 4 σωματοφύλακες). The name Cherethite is to be derived from a verb (λָּ ?ψַ ?ϊ) meaning “to cut down, destroy,” it having been the duty of royal guards in the East to execute the death-sentence; so did Benaiah in 1 Kings 2:25. Pelethites, from a verb (τָ ?μַ ?ϊ), “to hasten, flee,” means “runners,” the men of the bodyguard having had to carry the royal orders swiftly to distant places. Comp. 2 Chronicles 30:6. In the parallel passage 2 Samuel 20:23 instead of Kerethi [Cherethi] stands Kari (from λεּ ?ψ, “to dig”), and in 2 Kings 11:4; 2 Kings 11:19, for the whole phrase stands: “the Kari and the runners;” that is, Pelethites = runners. So Gesen. (Thes. s. v.), Then. (here and on 1 Kings 1:38; 2 Kings 11:12) and Keil (here and on Chron.). The words are adjectives (formed by ι) with substantival meaning, designating offices, properly “executioners and runners” (as the ωָ ?μִ ?ιωִׁ ?ιּ in 2 Samuel 23:8 [Eng. A. V. “captains”]). Comp. Ew., § 177, 164.—Opposed to this explanation is another, first advanced by Lakenmacher (observ. philolog. II. 11 seq.), and then defended by Ew., Berth., Mov., Hitzig, Starke, Rόtschi and others, namely, that the Kerethi = Cretes or Carians (λψι), and the Pelethi = Philistines, since the latter are called Kerethi in 1 Samuel 30:14; Zephaniah 2:5; Ezekiel 25:16. But in the first passage the name designates not the Philistines in general, but a branch of the Philistine people settled in the southwest of Philistia, and in the two prophetic passages the name “Philistines” stands along with this name (Kerethi), which characterizes them as murderers, exterminators. Further, the view that Pelethi is corrupted from Philistines (τְּ ?μֵ ?ϊִ ?ι from τְּ ?μִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊִּ ?ιν) is to be rejected as “wholly without foundation” (so Keil after Gesen.: “who can endure such a contraction in a Shemitic language?”). If Kerethi and Pelethi both mean Philistines, the application of two synonymous words to the royal body-guard is as strange as if one should combine “Englishmen and Britons, Italians and Welshmen” (Gesen.). Against this view, moreover, is the later designation “Kari and runners,” whence Pelethi = runners. Besides, the conjecture that the Philistines immigrated from Crete rests on the indefinite statements of Tacitus (Hist. 5, 1, 2): “they say that the Jews fled from the island of Crete, and settled in the extreme parts of Libya,” and of Stephanus of Byzantium (s. v. Γαζά) that this city [Gaza] was once called Minoa after Minos king of Crete, to which are opposed Deuteronomy 2:23; Amos 9:7, which state that the Philistines came from Caphtor. See Keil, Comm. 266 A. 1 [Eng. transl., p. 368 Note]. Further, as Thenius remarks, “it is altogther improbable that the patriotic David, so faithful to the service of the one true God, should have surrounded himself with a foreign and heathen body guard,” to which Keil (ubi supra) admirably adds against Hitzig: “Least of all would David have chosen his bodyguard out of the Philistines, the hereditary enemies of Israel.”—[The ancient versions throw little light on these words. Sept. and Vulg. transfer them; Syriac has “nobles and rustics (Lond. Polyg. soldiers),” Chald. “archers and slingers.”—There are strong reasons for holding them to be not appellatives (as Ges. and Erdm.) but gentile nouns: 1) the grammatical form of the words (Krethi, Plethi) points to this; the termination i is used in Heb. to form patronymics and gentilics, and besides to form nouns only from other nouns (sub. or adj.) or adverbs, that is, in general it forms denominative nouns; it cannot, then, be here well referred to verbal roots, as Gesenius and others wish, but must form a denominative, which here cannot well be anything but a gentilic noun; the shalishi of 2 Samuel 23:8, cited by Erdmann, being a denominative, does not favor his view; 2) in 1 Samuel 30:14 one of these words, Krethi, actually denotes a Philistine tribe, or a tribe dwelling near Philistia; this establishes the fact that it was the name of a tribe, while of any other use there is no established trace in the Bible; for so also it is used in Ezekiel 25:16 and Zephaniah 2:5, where there is no reason to hold that anything else than the gentilic sense is meant, Ezekiel simply making a play on the name, as is very common in the prophetic writings; 3) add to this that if these words were appellatives signifying “executioners and runners,” it is not easy to see why the common Heb. words for these offices were not employed, and why our words appear only in David’s time (Rόetschi).—These reasons seem almost decisive for regarding these as proper names (without saying anything of their origin and signification).—The objections urged against this view by Keil and Erdmann seem insufficient to set it aside: a) the objection from synonymous names rests on the assumption that both words must be taken as = Philistines; but, as Erdmann himself remarks, the Krethi are only a tribe living in or near the Philistine territory, and the Plethi may be another different tribe or family possibly not Philistines at all; b) it is thought that the later phrase “the kari and the runners” (2 Kings 11:4; 2 Kings 11:19) establishes the fact that plethi = “runners,” and that one of our words being an appellative, the other also must be appellative; but that the common Heb. word for “runners or footmen” should be used in Athaliah’s time (as in Saul’s, 1 Samuel 22:17, and of Absalom and Adonijah) cannot prove that David did not have a special body of guards with a special gentilic name, even supposing the phrase in 1 Kings 11. to be parallel with ours, which is by no means certain; if the Plethi were runners, it does not follow that the word itself means “runner’s;” nor is it clear whether the Kari (Eng. A. V. incorrectly “captains”) are the same with the Krethi (in 2 Samuel 20:23 the text has Kari, the margin Krethi), rather the word is another proper name (Carians or some other); c) David’s patriotism and piety would be no bar to his taking a body-guard from neighboring tribes, among whom he had probably passed a part of his time of exile, and had many friends (compare Uriah, Ittai, and other foreigners), nor were such men necessarily heathen because they were foreigners, many foreigners having attached themselves to the religion of Israel.—As to the origin of the names Krethi and Plethi there is much uncertainty. The first is identified with Cretan by those that think Caphtor (Genesis 10:14, Deuteronomy 2:23) to be Crete, but against this Ebers has brought strong reasons (Ζgypt. I. 130 sq.); however, independently of any reference to Caphtor, a tribe may have come from Crete and settled on the Mediterranean shore. The connection of Kari with Carian, while not improbable in itself, is yet unproved. The identification of the second name Plethi with Plishti or Philistine (by the falling out of the s letter) is hard and improbable; Bp. Patrick thinks it likely that the name designated an Israelitish family, and refers to the Reubenite Peleth, Numbers 16:1, and the Judahite of the same name, 1 Chronicles 2:33; Abarbanel (cited and approved by Philippson) regards both words as names of Israelitish families. At present we must be content to remain in ignorance of the origin of the names.—Tr.] 6) And David’s sons were confidential counsellors. As Movers (Bibl. Chron. 302 sq.) has shown, the word cohen [usually = priest] does not here mean “domestic chaplains, palace-priests, unlevitical spiritual advisers” (Gesen., De Wette, Winer, Maurer, and others), but “confidential counsellor,” according to 1 Kings 4:5, where the same term applied to Sabud, son of Nathan [Eng. A. V. “principal officer”] is explained by the phrase “the king’s friend.” [This phrase is not necessarily an explanation of the term cohen, but may be simply another descriptive epithet.—Tr.]. The periphrastic expression in 1 Chronicles 18:17 “the first [chief] at the hand (side) of the king” points to the same signification. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ IV. The Ammonite-Syrian War 2 Samuel 10:1-191 And it came to pass after this that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead. 2Then said David [And David said], I will show kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon. 3And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather [om. rather] sent his servants unto thee to search the city 4and to spy it out and to overthrow it? Wherefore [And] Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in 5the middle even [om. even] to their buttocks and sent them away. When [And] they told it unto David [ins. and] he sent to meet them, because [for] the men were greatly ashamed; and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return. 6And when [om. when] the children of Ammon saw that they stank [that they had made themselves loathsome] before David [ins. and], the children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians of Beth-rehob and the Syrians of Zobah, twenty thousand footmen, and of king Maacah [and the king of Maacah] a thousand men, and 7of Ish-tob [and the men of Tob], twelve thousand men. And when [om. when] David heard of it, he [and] sent Joab and all the host of [om. of], the mighty men. 8And the children of Ammon came out and put the battle in array at the entering in [the doorway] of the gate; and the Syrians of Zoba and of Rehob and Ish-Tobit 9[the men of Tob] and Maacah were by themselves in the field. When [And] Joab saw that the front of the battle was against him before and behind [ins. and], he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array against the Syrians; 10And the rest of the people he delivered into the hand of Abishai his brother that he might put [and put] them in array against the children of Ammon. 11And he said, If the Syrians be too strong for me, then thou shalt help me, but [and] if the children of Ammon be too strong for thee, then I will come and [to] help thee. 12Be of good courage, and let us play the men [Be strong, and let us show ourselves strong] for our people and for the cities of our God; and the Lord [Jehovah will] do that which seemeth him good. 13And Joab drew nigh, and the people that were 14with him, unto the battle against the Syrians, and they fled before him. And when [om. when] the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians were fled, then fled they also [and they fled] before Abishai, and entered into the city. So [And] Joab returned from the children of Ammon and came to Jerusalem. 15And when [om. when] the Syrians saw that they were smitten before Israel [ins. 16and], they gathered themselves together. And Hadarezer sent and brought out the Syrians that were beyond the river; and they came to Helam, and Shobach 17the captain of the host of Hadarezer went before them [was at their head]. And when [om. when] it was told David [ins. and], he gathered all Israel together and passed over [ins. the] Jordan and came to Helam. And the Syrians set themselves in array against David and fought with him. 18And the Syrians fled before Israel, and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians and forty thousand horsemen [of the S. seven hundred chariot-men and four thousand horsemen], and smote Shobach the captain of their host who [so that he] died there. 19And when [om. when] all the kings that were servants to Hadarezer saw that they were smitten before Israel [ins. and], they made peace with Israel and served them. So [And] the Syrians feared to help the children of Ammon any more. AND Compare the parallel narrative in 1 Chronicles 19 2 Samuel 10:1-5. The cause of the war with the Ammonites. This war, having been only mentioned in 2 Samuel 8:12, is here, together with the Syrian wars occasioned by it (given fully in 2 Samuel 8), described in its whole course, because of its close connection with the history of Uriah and his wife, which became for David the fatal point at which his kingdom turned from glory to downfall. 2 Samuel 10:1. And it came to pass after this. On this loose, general formula of connection see 2 Samuel 8:1. The king of the children of Ammon died.—His name (which is inserted in Chron. by way of explanation) is not mentioned till 2 Samuel 10:2; this Nahash is the same as he of 1 Samuel 11:1. [As this was probably about forty years after the events narrated in 1 Samuel 11, it is possible, certainly, that the two kings Nahash may be the same; but it is neither certain nor very probable, considering the usual length of royal reigns.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 10:2. What kindness Nahash had shown David is unknown. Perhaps he had sent congratulations on his accession to the throne. At all events his relations with David were friendly, while with Saul his relations were hostile. For his defeat at Jabesh see 1 Samuel 9—[Some refer to 2 Samuel 17:25 as possibly indicating a family-alliance between David and Nahash.—Tr.] David accordingly sent an embassy of condolence to Hanun the son of Nahash. 2 Samuel 10:3. After the death of Nahash, who was in friendly connection with David, the Ammonite princes, jealous no doubt of the mighty growth of the kingdom of Israel, introduce a new era by counselling his successor to adopt a hostile policy that would be a challenge to war.—Is David in thine eyes an honorer of thy father (which question involves a negation)? The question itself contains a slight reproach against the king, that he allowed himself to be deceived by David’s conduct. They express to him the suspicion that David sent this ostensibly consolatory embassy merely for the purpose of spying out and then destroying the “city,” that is, Rabbah (1 Samuel 11:1), the capital-city of the country. Rabbah was a strongly fortified place (comp. 2 Samuel 10:14), the internal examination of which was certainly important for an enemy purposing to besiege it. 2 Samuel 10:4. The king, treating the ambassadors as spies, subjected them to the indignity of shaving off the half (that is, one side) of their beards. This is the grossest insult that can be offered an Oriental; for the beard is the sign of the free man’s dignity and his finest adornment. Isaiah 7:20; 1. 6. See Lakemacher, Observ. X. 145 sq., Arvieux, Nachricht. III. 173, Niebuhr, Beschreib. v. Arab., 317, and farther in Winer, s. v. Bart.—[Keil, Philippson and others quote modern instances. Many Orientals would rather die than lose their beards, and the Turks used to regard beardless Europeans as runaway slaves. A war like this occurred in Persia in 1764.—Tr.] Hanun besides cut off the long outer garments of the ambassadors to the buttocks. The Israelites, except the priests, wore no breeches. So much the grosser, therefore, was the insult. 2 Samuel 10:5. After hearing of the double insult offered his ambassadors, David directs them not to return, but to stay at Jericho and wait for their beards to grow. 2 Samuel 10:6-14. Israel’s successful war against the Syrians, whom the Ammonites had hired (2 Samuel 10:6-13), and against the Ammonites, who after the flight of their allies, likewise took to flight (2 Samuel 10:14). 2 Samuel 10:6. The Ammonites desired war with Israel. They knew that by their treatment of the ambassadors of David they had made themselves stinking, that is, hateful to him (1 Samuel 13:4), and hired as allies: 1) the Syrians of Beth-Rehob; comp. 2 Samuel 10:8; 2 Samuel 10:16 where we have simply the name Rehob. This Rehob is the name of the Syrian district, whose capital-city was Beth-Rehob. This is hardly to be sought where Robinson (Neue bibl. Forschung., p. 488 [Am. ed. III. 371, 372]) conjecturally locates it, namely, in the ruins of the fortress Hunin, southwest of the Tell el Kadi (the old Laish-Dan), the northern boundary of Palestine, since in that case the capital-city of this Aramζan region would have lain within the land of Israel (Keil); it is better located [twenty-five Eng. miles] north-east of Damascus, on the site of the present Ruhaibeh (Kremer, Dam., p. 192, Ritter XVII. 1472, Stδhelin, 56), unless, following the reading in Chron. (Naharaim for Beth-Rehob), we prefer the Rehoboth of the river, that is, of the Euphrates (Genesis 36:37), where there is now (near the junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates) a place called Er-rahabeh or Rahabeh (Rosenm., Alterth. II. 2, 270 sq.; Ritter XV. 128), where this city may have been situated. Keil’s argument against this view, namely, that the sway of the king of Zobah (2 Samuel 10:16) extended beyond the Euphrates into Mesopotamia, and hence this “Rehoboth on the river” cannot well have been the capital-city of a particular Aramζan kingdom, is not of force, partly because this sway is by no means certainly proved, partly because it is not made out that it embraced the whole territory between the two rivers. [See Arts. Rehob and Rehoboth in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.]—2) The Syrians of Zobah, see 2 Samuel 8:3. 3) The king of Maachah (in Chron. Aram-Maachah), bordering on Geshur, according to Joshua 12:5 on the northern border of Bashan, on the south-western declivity of Hermon (comp. Onom. Μαχαθί), on the border of the Israelitish trans-jordanic territory (Deuteronomy 3:14), especially of Reuben and Gad (Joshua 13:11). 4) Not Istob (as in the VSS., Joseph., Ew., § 273 b), but the men of Tob, since there was a region of this name near the Ammonite territory, to which Jephthah fled (Judges 11:5). Its location cannot be fixed with certainty. Ewald: the Thauba (θαῦβα) of Ptol. 5, 19, which, however, must be sought for in desert Arabia. Knobel: the present Tubneh, about twenty-four Eng. miles south of Damascus, comp. Tubion (Τούβιον, Τουβίν), 1Ma 5:13; 2Ma 12:17. Stδhelin: the present village Taibeh, mentioned by Ritter XV. 891, 922, and placed north of Tibneh in Wetzstein’s map of Hauran. Chron. gives exacter information: Hanun sent one thousand talents of silver to hire from Aram-Naharaim, Aram-Maachah and Zobah chariots and horsemen. For this large sum (over two million dollars) the Ammonites, according to Chron., hired him thirty-two thousand chariots and horsemen (ψֶ ?λֶ ?α, comp. 2 Samuel 8:4) and the king of Maachah with his people. Chron. states that the hired auxiliaries encamped at Medeba (comp. Joshua 13:9; Joshua 13:16, with Numbers 21:30), the present Medaba, four Eng. miles south-east of Heshbon, between the Arnon and the Jabbok opposite Jericho, in the territory of Reuben; it afterwards came into the possession of Moab, Isaiah 15:2.—[It is mentioned in the inscription of the Moabite king Mesha as having been captured by Omri, and recaptured by Mesha.—Tr.] The ruins, situated on a hill, are a mile in circuit. See Raumer, 264. As it was in a plain (Joshua 13:16), not more than eight miles southwest of Rabbah, the strong Ammonitish capital-city, it was a suitable rendezvous for the hired auxiliaries and a good position for the defence of Rabbah against a siege. The auxiliaries of Tob are not mentioned in Chron. The two accounts [Sam. and Chron.] agree in the number of the auxiliaries. According to Chron. the Ammonites hired thirty-two thousand men [Chron. says “chariots.”—Tr.] and the troops of Maachah; Sam. gives one thousand from Maachah, two thousand from Zobah, and twelve thousand from Tob. But as to the composition of the auxiliary troops, the two accounts differ; according to the Chronicler there were “chariots and horsemen,” according to our passage “footmen,” while yet according to 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 the king of Zobah fought against David with “chariots and horsemen.” Keil: “Here, then, there are copyists’ errors in both texts. For the Syrian troops consisted neither of infantry alone, nor of chariots and horsemen alone, but of infantry, cavalry and war-chariots, as is evident not only from 2 Samuel 8:4; 1 Chronicles 18:4, but also from the close of our narrative.—The Syrians fought in both battles with all three arms, so that David twice defeated chariots, cavalry and infantry.” 2 Samuel 10:7. Against these hostile troops David sends his general Joab and the “whole host, the mighty men.” Not “the whole host of the warriors” (De Wette), but “Gibborim” [mighty men] is in apposition with “the whole host.” The mention of the whole army excludes the supposition of a select body, “a foundation of the Israelitish army” (Bunsen), especially as the Gibborim are never distinguished from the whole army (Bertheau on 1 Chronicles 19:8). There is therefore no ground for supplying “and” before “the mighty men” (Thenius). [Eng. A. V. incorrectly inserts “of.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 10:8. And the Ammonites came out, that is, from their capital city, where they had gathered within the protecting fortifications. This appears from the following words: and put themselves in battle-array before the gate of the city, that is, Rabbah (so in Chron. “before the city”). The position of the Syrian auxiliaries “in the field,” that is, on the broad plain of Medeba, is clearly distinguished from that of the Ammonites before the city (for defence or attack), so that the statement of the position of Joab’s army (2 Samuel 10:9) is clear. It is not said: “And when Joab saw that the battle was against him” (De Wette), but: “that the face (front) of the battle was against him, in front and in rear.” He could be attacked on both sides, by the Ammonites in rear, by the Syrians in front. He therefore so makes his dispositions as to select some from all the chosen men in Israel. This chosen body Joab sets against the Syrians, their position in the open field making their attack sharper (perhaps, also, they were the more numerous), while the Ammonites stood in reserve to cover their stronghold Rabbah.—The rest of the army (2 Samuel 10:10) he placed under the command of his brother Abishai against the Ammonites, in order that he might be covered in rear in his attack on the Syrians, and might have support, if he needed it.—To this refers his agreement with Abishai in 2 Samuel 10:11. Either was to come to the help of the other, if there was danger of being overpowered by the enemy. It hence appears that the Israelites were not to make an assault on both sides at the same time, but Joab intended first to attack and defeat the Syrians, while Abishai was to cover his rear. A simultaneous attack might, however, be made by the two armies between which Joab and Abishai stood. The point here, therefore, was quickly and stoutly to carry through a bold stroke.—This is the reference in Joab’s words to Abishai in 2 Samuel 10:12, of which Thenius finely remarks: “This is a warlike exhortation, the briefest indeed, but the fullest of meaning.” Be stout, strong—this applies to Abishai personally and indicates stout temper of mind—and let us show ourselves stout—this refers to warlike action; for our people and the cities of our God—with these words he points out the prize for which they were contending. The weal and freedom of the whole Israelitish people was at stake. “The cities of our God;” these words mean either the cities of Israel in general, which as representatives of the whole land are called the cities of God, because they are with the whole land God’s property and possession (Keil), or those cities in which the worship of the living God was established for the whole people, whose conquest by the enemy would have resulted in the overthrow of the worship of Jehovah and the establishment of the heathen worship of idols. [Others suppose, not so well, that the reference here is to Medeba and other cities now threatened by the enemy, though still in the hands of the Israelites.—Tr.]. The Lord will do what is good in his eyes; these words express trust in God combined with unconditional submission. Alongside of the faithfulness (to be shown by bravery and firmness), that was to do its duty in this situation so dangerous for the people and for Jehovah, is put the hidden will of God in respect to what will happen, and unconditional submission to His counsel and deed. The sense is well expressed by Clericus: “If it should seem good to God to give our enemies the victory, we must acquiesce in His will; meantime let us go bravely into battle.” 2 Samuel 10:13. Quickly and vigorously the attack is made on the Syrians—they flee. Grotius: “as often happens with those that fight for pay alone without respect to the cause.” [So Bp. Patrick.—Tr.]. “Inasmuch as for them, casually assembled, there would be neither glory in victory nor shame in flight,” Tacit. Hist. II. 12. [Perhaps Joab first attacked the Syrians not solely because they were mercenaries and in the open field, but also because they were better disciplined and therefore more to be feared than the Ammonites.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 10:14. This rout of the allied force occasioned the flight of the Ammonites also, who threw themselves into their capital city. After this brilliant exploit Joab brought the campaign to an end and returned to Jerusalem, probably because (see 2 Samuel 11:1) the advanced season was unfavorable to carrying through the siege of Rabbah [or also, because the Syrians were not sufficiently broken, or because he had not the materials for a siege (Bib. Com.).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 10:15-19. Second battle with the Syrians and their complete defeat under Hadarezer. 2 Samuel 10:15. The ground of the Syrians for again collecting their forces was shame at having been defeated by the Israelites, and care for their safety against a presumable campaign of David. Among the Syrians king Hadarezer of Zobah (2 Samuel 8:3) appears as the most powerful prince and David’s most hostile opponent. Here and in Chron. he is always called Hadarezer, in chap. 8. Hadadezer. The Syrians (reassembled after their rout) are reinforced by the Syrian troops that Hadarezer (2 Samuel 10:16) called to his help “from beyond the river,” that is, from Mesopotamia. These Mesopotamians levied by him were, therefore, under his jurisdiction (comp. 2 Samuel 10:19). Shobach, Hadarezer’s field-marshal, led these troops, but was also general-in-chief of the whole Syrian army (2 Samuel 10:18). And came to Helam.—The Hebrew might also be translated: “and their army came” (Then., Bφttcher). But the remark would be somewhat superfluous and excessively dragging in this militarily lively and curt account. As there is no such remark in Chron., and as in 2 Samuel 10:17 the phrase “he came to Helamah,” designates the place where David met the Syrians, the word is to be taken (with the ancient VSS.) as the name of a place, our word here being merely a shorter form of that in 2 Samuel 10:17 (ηֵ ?μָ ?ΰν = ηֵ ?ιμָ ?ν). The place has not yet been identified. [Instead of the second Helam Chron. has “to them.” If we adopt this text and render “their army” in 2 Samuel 10:16, the account will read: Hadarezer brought the Syrians, and their army came and Shobach before them … and David passed over Jordan and came to them, and the Syrians, etc. It is not easy to decide between the texts of Sam. and Chron.; the difficulty of identifying Helam may be an argument for both.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 10:17. Helam is designated as the place across the Jordan whither David brought his army and fought the Syrians. Chron. has “he came on them” (the Aramζans)—either a scribal error, or an intentional omission of the name of the place because it was too little known. The name Helam is thought by Ew., Bφtt. and Then. to point to the Alamata on the Euphrates (Ptol. 5, 15, 25). But the Syrians would hardly have fallen back before David as far as the Euphrates to receive his attack there with the river in their rear. As this is the same battle that (according to 1 Chronicles 18:3) was fought at Hamath (comp. 2 Samuel 8:4), and the statement “came to Helam” here follows immediately after the remark that David crossed the Jordan, Helam must be located across the Jordan, not on the Euphrates, but farther west near Hamath. Here the whole Israelitish and Syrian armies stood opposed to one another in battle. [Why David took command in person is not stated; probably on account of the importance of the campaign, hardly from any dissatisfaction with Joab. Some account must be taken of David’s military spirit.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 10:18. David’s splendid victory. The Syrians partly took to flight, partly were cut to pieces by the Israelites. The completeness of the victory is farther especially brought out by mentioning first (2 Samuel 10:18) the large number of the slain: seven hundred chariot-soldiers and forty thousand horsemen (Chron. gives seven thousand chariot-men and forty thousand footmen). With this the statements in 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4-5 (one thousand seven hundred horsemen, or one thousand chariot-men and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen of Aram-Zobah, and twenty-two thousand men of Aram-Damascus) agree “as well as can be expected in the well known corruption of numbers, so that there is scarcely a doubt that the number of fallen Aramζans is the same in both accounts (chaps. 8 and 10), and that our chapter relates circumstantially the same war, the result only of which is given in 2 Samuel 8 and 1 Chronicles 13” (Keil). It is then further stated that David so smote the general that he died; that is, he died on the field of wounds received in battle. 2 Samuel 10:19. The result of this defeat: 1) “all the vassal-princes” that had followed Hadarezer’s summons to war against David, made peace with Israel when they saw that they were beaten. The addition (after the first “Israel”) in the Vulg.: “they feared, and there fled fifty-eight thousand in the presence of Israel,” does not warrant us in introducing it into the text (with Thenius), and finding therein the statement of the number of those that were “slain in flight;” for such a numerical statement does not suit the tenor of the narrative, which here intends only a general remark on the recognition of their complete defeat by the Syrians, so that we should least expect such a statement here about merely a part of the defeated army—apart from the fact that the word “smitten” (2 Samuel 10:19) includes all the slain, not merely those that fell in flight; 2) the Syrian princes and peoples became tributary to Israel, and rendered the Ammonites no more aid against the Israelites.—Nothing is here said of the wars with Damascus and Edom, to which Joab turned in the south (2 Samuel 8), while David was gaining his victories in the north, because the narrative is here occupied with the fortunes of Rabbah only because of their connection with those of Uriah (Ewald). AND 1. One injustice produces another, and drags men on irretardably to destruction by the resulting chain of sins and injustices. The king of Ammon with sinful levity lends his ear to the liars and calumniators that surround him; thence comes the most outrageous insolence towards David’s ambassadors, and the most abusive insult to the whole people of Israel; on this follows the hasty preparation and provocation of a wholly unjust, wicked war; therein the princes are forced to take part, and so to stake their land and people. The end is complete destruction. 2. This great danger, prepared for David by his enemies, was made through the divine control to conduce to the magnifying of his name, and to his ascent to the highest point of royal glory. The bold insolence of the enemies of God’s people and kingdom must serve not only to bring about more wonderfully the revelation of the Lord’s power in subduing enemies and helping friends, but also to manifest more splendidly the glory and might of His kingdom in the battles into which it is forced by enemies. 3. Joab’s word to Abishai is a prelude to the Lord’s word to Peter: “Strengthen thy brethren.” Heroic bravery in the war (it exhorts) is to be combined 1) with the recognition of those most sacred possessions and ends for which the struggle is to be made,—thereby it is consecrated,—and 2) with humble, trustful submission to the will of the Lord—thereby it is preserved from temerity and presumptuousness. The war is a just and holy one, undertaken for the defence of the possessions received from God, to guard the honor of God, and in the name of God. AND 2 Samuel 10:12. Bravery in battling for the highest objects: 1) It is rooted in fidelity to God and to our brethren the people of God; 2) It is proven by devotion of body and soul and the whole life to the aims of the kingdom of God; 3) It is sanctified by unconditional submission to the purposes and doings of the will of God. “The Lord do that which seemeth him good:” 1) A confession of humble submission to God’s will, in presence of the greatest perils referring everything to Him; 2) A testimony borne by childlike and strong reliance on the Lord’s help, which is confidently expected in the cause of His people and His kingdom; 3) The expression of a devout frame of mind, which is the basis of all genuine fidelity in fulfilling the duties of one’s calling, and especially of all true bravery in fighting against the enemies of God’s kingdom. 2 Samuel 10:1 sqq. Cramer: Nothing worthier can be devised than to requite thanks with thanks. Proverbs 17:13.—Seb. Schmid: When God will chastise a people, He withdraws from them good and sensible rulers; and woe to the land whose king is a child (Ecclesiastes 10:16). 2 Samuel 10:3. Seb. Schmid: Calumny is a diabolical vice, since under appearance of prudence and truth it calls forth the greatest misfortunes.—Starke: To put an evil construction upon good is the best art of the ungodly.—[Hall: Carnal men are wont to measure another’s foot by their own last; their own falsehood makes them unjustly suspicious of others. … It is hard for a wicked heart to think well of any other; because it can think none better than itself, and knows itself evil. The freer a man is from vice himself, the more charitable he uses to be unto others.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 10:6. Cramer: That is the way with an evil conscience; it flees before it is hunted (Job 15:20).—J. Lange: When a man knows that he has deserved punishment, and yet is unwilling to acknowledge his guilt, he is sure to heap upon himself more and more guilt.—[Hall: It is one of the mad principles of wickedness, that it is a weakness to relent, and rather to die than yield. Even ill causes, once undertaken, must be upheld, although with blood; whereas the gracious heart, finding his own mistaking, doth not only remit of an ungrounded displeasure, but studies to be revenged of itself, and to give satisfaction to the offended.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 10:12. Starke: A Christian must indeed show all diligence in his calling and station, but must look to God for whatever progress he wishes to make (1 Corinthians 3:6).—[Hall: The tongue of a commander fights more than his hand. A good leader must, out of his own abundance, put life and spirits into all others: if a lion lead sheep into the field, there is hope of victory. … All valor is cowardice to that which is built upon religion.—Henry: “God and our country” was the word. … When we make conscience of doing our duty, we may with the greatest satisfaction leave the event with God; not thinking that our valor bids Him to prosper us, but that still He may do as He pleases, yet hoping for His salvation in His own way and time.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 10:13 sq. Osiander: Those who rely on man and do not trust God, come to shame (Psalms 25:3).—[Henry: Joab provided for the worst, and put the case that the Syrians or Ammonites might prove too strong for him (2 Samuel 10:11); but he proved too strong for them both. We do not hinder our successes by preparing for disappointment.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 10:15-19. Schlier: He who does evil will also reap a harvest of evil; and he who helps in evil will certainly also get a poor reward from it. As the seed, so the harvest.—The Lord has everything in His hand, then He has the insolence of enemies in His hand and makes all work well. He can check and subdue even the greatest insolence, and convert it into a blessing for His people. [2 Samuel 10:3-4. They who are tempted to offer gross insults had always better look before they leap. 2 Samuel 10:5. “Tarry at Jericho,” etc. 1) We must beware of casting pearls before swine (2 Samuel 10:2. The Ammonites must have been known to David as a cruel and barbarous people). 2) Nothing is so offensive as a wanton insult, in return for respect and kindness. 3) The gravest men are sensitive to ridicule of their personal appearance. 4) All persons of noble nature are considerate of the feelings of others. 5) Time heals many ills. 2 Samuel 10:12. Joab was a selfish, unscrupulous, unprincipled man; yet in entering upon a perilous battle he talks piously. So do almost all generals and civil rulers in any great emergency; not only because they know that the people feel their dependence on God, but because in the hour of trial they feel it themselves. Such language under such circumstances does not clearly prove one to be devout, or to be hypocritical; it expresses a feeling which may be genuine, though transient and superficial.—Tr.] Footnotes: [2 Samuel 10:1. The reason for the omission of the king’s name here (in the Heb. and all the VSS.) is not obvious; yet there is no good ground for supplying it. The Arab. vers. omits the name of the son also in this verse. [2 Samuel 10:3. Lit.: “is David an honorer of thy father in thy eyes, that?” etc. [2 Samuel 10:3. Some MSS. and edd. of the Heb., and the Arab. have “land” instead of “city,” which, as being the easier rendering, is here less probable. [2 Samuel 10:5. Chron. has: “and they went and told David concerning the men,” which is an expansion for the sake of clearness. [2 Samuel 10:6 Syr. Arab., Vulg., Sym. and Chald. render: “that they had injured David,” which does not point to a different text, but is an explanation. Instead of αּ ?γεψ Sept. read (as in the Heb. of Chron.) ςργεγ, which is rendered by them “the people of David” (ςַ ?ν). [2 Samuel 10:9. Philippson renders: “put himself,” and so below (2 Samuel 10:10) “he put himself,” but this seems less natural than the usual translation.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 10:12. It is better here to preserve the identity of the Heb. word rendered “strong,” which is used in several places in the context.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 10:12. The form here is future, not optative (Vulg.), though it is possible that the final δ is repeated from the following word.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 10:16. Here also there is wavering in the Heb. MSS. as to the spelling of this name, some MSS. and edd. having “Hadadezer;” see on 2 Samuel 10:3.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 10:16. For the discussion of this reading see the Exposition. So on 2 Samuel 10:18.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 10:19. Sept. renders “fled to” (ἠυτομόλησαν), a free translation; so probably Vulg. As to the addition in the Vulg. (see Exposition) Bφttcher would put it at the beginning of 2 Samuel 10:18. It is perhaps better to regard it as a marginal remark made on some copy of the Vulg., though it is not easy to account for the number given, fifty-eight thousand. Its absence from the other versions justifies us in excluding it from the text.—Tr.] [The German here has incorrectly “the Septuagint,” instead of “Chronicles.”—Tr.] [Bp. Patrick suggests that he was friendly to David because hostile to Saul.—Tr.] [Leviticus 19:27; Deuteronomy 14:1 are not in point here; they refer not to ordinary shaving, but to idolatrous clipping of the hair. Comp. the Nazarite-vow.—Tr.] For ωְׁ ?ϊϊ = nates Chron. has the euphemistic ξִ ?τְ ?ωָׂ ?ςָ ?δ = step, that is, the part of the body where stepping is made possible, since the legs there begin. [The Germ. has 2 Samuel 8, where the name Rehob is used of a king (2 Samuel 10:3; 2 Samuel 10:12), but not of a district.—Tr.] [In 1Ma 5:13 Tischendorf writes Τώβὶον, Tobion.—Tr.] [The word in Chron. means “chariots” only, and does not include horsemen.—Tr.] Chron. has the Sing. (αָּ ?ηεּ ?ψ), which is a more common designation of the army than the Plu. The αְּ (“in”) before “Israel” is to be retained (against the VSS. and some MSS.). ηֵ ?μָ ?ΰξָ ?δ, “Heb. name of a Syrian city, dual-form from ηַ ?ιִ ?μ (two armies), with the ָ ?δ-local” (Bφttcher). [This number is almost incredibly large, and the text of Sam. is to be preferred.—Tr.] SECOND SECTIONThe beglooming of David’s royal rule by the sins of himself and his house, and the thence resulting misfortunes2 Samuel 11-18I. Internal shattering of David’s rule by the grievous sins of himself and his house2 Samuel 11-141. David’s deep fall during the war against Rabbath-Ammon. 2 Samuel 11:1-271 And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But [And] David tarried still at [abode in] Jerusalem. 2And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed and walked upon the roof of the king’s house; and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself, and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. 3And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bath-sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 4And David sent messengers and took her, and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for [and] she was purified from her uncleanness, and she returned unto her house. 5And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child. 6And David sent to Joab, saying, Send me Uriah the Hittite. And Joab sent Uriah to David. 7And when Uriah was come [And Uriah came] unto him, [ins. and] David demanded [asked] of him [om. of him] how Joab did, and how the people did, and how the war prospered. 8And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed [went] out of the king’s house, 9and there followed him a mess of meat [food] from the king. But [And] Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord, and went not down to his house. 10And when they had told [And they told] David, saying, Uriah went not down to his house, [ins. and] David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? [Art thou not come from a journey?] why then [om. then] didst thou not go down unto thine house? 11And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah abide in tents [booths]; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields [field]; shall I then [and shall I] go into mine house to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? as thou livest and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing. 12And David said to Uriah, Tarry here to-day also, and to-morrow I will let thee depart. So [And] Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day and the morrow. 13And when David had [And David] called him [ins. and] he did eat and drink before him, and he made him drunk; and at even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but [and] went not down to his house. 14And it came to pass in the morning that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. 15And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten and die. 16And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were. 17And the men of the city went out and fought with Joab; and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; 18and Uriah the Hittite died also. Then [And] Joab sent and told David all the things concerning the war; 19And charged the messenger, saying, When thou hast made an end of telling the matters of [all the things concerning] the war unto 20the king, And if so be that the king’s wrath arise, and he say unto thee, Wherefore approached ye so nigh unto the city when ye did fight [to fight]? Knew ye not that they would shoot from the wall? 21Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. 22So [And] the messenger went, and came and showed David all that Joab had sent him for. 23And the messenger said unto David, Surely [om. surely] the men prevailed against us, and came out unto us into the field, and we were upon them even [om. even] unto the entering [doorway] of the gate. 24And the shooters shot from off the wall upon thy servants; and some of the king’s servants be dead [died], 25and thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. Then [And] David said unto the messenger, Thus shalt thou say unto Joab, Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth one as well as another; make thy battle more [om. more] strong 26against the city and overthrow it. And encourage thou him. And when [om. when] the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, [ins. and] she 27mourned for her husband. And when [om. when] the mourning was past [over], [ins. and] David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But [And] the thing that David had done displeased the Lord [Jehovah]. AND 2 Samuel 11:1. The siege of Rabbah. Comp, 1 Chronicles 20:1. And it came to pass at the return of the year—that is, at the setting in of spring in the month of Abib (Nisan), with which the new year began. Josephus: “as the Spring set in.” [Comp. our March from the god of war, Mars, the beginning of the old Roman year.—Tr.] The term. a quo referred to in this chronological statement is the time (2 Samuel 10:13-14) when Joab, having driven the Aramζans off, and the Ammonites having retired before Abishai into their capital city, had returned to Jerusalem on account of the rain in winter, which made it unwise to begin a siege. At the time when kings go forth.—Instead of the “messengers” of the Heb. text, read “kings” (Qeri), as in all the versions and in Chronicles. A reference to the embassy of 2 Samuel 10:2, after all the intervening events, would here be completely out of place. The “kings” here, however, are not the hostile kings (chap. 10) that came out against David (Maurer)—against which is the preceding chronological statement, and the absence of any reference to the past events recorded in chap. 10—but the Israelitish kings. On the return of the season favorable to military operations, when the kings of Israel were accustomed to go forth to their wars, David advanced to the siege of Rabbah, which he had deferred the year before on account of the unfavorable season. [Joab had no doubt taken precautions to guard against hostile movements of the enemy.—Tr.] And David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel—that is, the military chieftains from about his person and his court (comp. 2 Samuel 11:9) and the whole army, including soldiers and officers. The “servants” are not the war-servants proper in distinction from a militia serving only in time of war (Mich.)—an entirely arbitrary distinction—nor the “officers” in distinction from “all Israel” as the army (Thenius). And they destroyed the children of Ammon.—Chron.: “the land of the children of Amnion.” But the verb is elsewhere used (as in 1 Samuel 26:15) of persons in reference to the land inhabited by them. It is unnecessary to regard “land” as more correctly used here in contrast with the capital city (Thenius), because it was usual, while some strong point was attacked to ravage the land far and near by incursion-parties; so 1 Samuel 13:16-17. [Our text, as the harder, is to be preferred; Chron. has introduced a natural explanation.—Tr.] And they besieged Rabbah = “Rabbath of the children of Ammon,”—that is, the great city of the Ammonites. See Joshua 13:25; Deuteronomy 3:11; the present ruins of Rabbat-Amman on the Nahr-Amman (the upper Jabbok), perfectly desert and uninhabited. Polybius: Rabbathamana. But David remained in Jerusalem [the impending war with the Ammonites alone not being of sufficient importance to require his presence—Tr.]—explanatory transition to the episode of David’s adultery. 2 Samuel 11:2-5. David’s adultery with Bathsheba.—This section and the following one are wanting in Chronicles. Towards the evening [Heb.: in the evening—Tr.]—when the noon-rest was over, and the cooler part of the day had come. [In later times the evening (ςֶ ?ψֶ ?α) began at three o’clock in the afternoon; it was the time when it was getting darker, when the sun was declining, and after sunset till dark.—Tr.] David was walking (for pleasure) on the roof of the king’s house, which was built on the edge of Mount Zion, so that one could thence look immediately down into the courts of the Lower City, where Uriah’s house was, comp. 2 Samuel 11:8. The woman that David saw was in the act of bathing (the Heb. uses the participle) in the uncovered court of her house, where, in accordance with general Eastern custom, there was a well. [Or, in her chamber, the casements being open (Patrick). In either case, the place was private, visible only from a neighboring roof; and in the East people refrain from looking down from a roof into neighbors’ courts (Philippson); so that it is on this ground an unfounded suggestion that Bathsheba was purposely bathing in an exposed place in order to attract the king’s gaze.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:3. Inflamed with sensual desire, David makes inquiry about the woman whose beauty had attracted him. “And one said (Vulg.: nuntiatum ei est), Is it not, etc.?” That is, “It is, etc.” (the negative question is often used in lively discourse). This form of expression supposes that the object or person mentioned was somehow already otherwise known.—Instead of “Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam,” 1 Chronicles 3:5 has “Bathsheba, daughter of Ammiel.” The form Bathsheba (= “daughter of the oath,” not “daughter of Sheba”) is, according to 1 Kings 1:11; 1 Kings 1:15 and other places, to be regarded as the usual, and so as the original and correct, one. The difficulty of explaining it makes it impossible to adduce the meaning in favor of the originality and correctness of the form Bathshua (Thenius), which may easily have come from the other by a copyist’s change of a single letter (α into ε). According to Ewald (§ 273 d), Eliam and Ammiel are different forms of the same name by an arbitrary inversion of the component parts. [From 2 Samuel 23:34, where Eliam is called the son of Ahithophel, it is supposed by some that Bathsheba was the grand-daughter of Ahithophel, and that this explains the latter’s adherence to Absalom. So Jerome, Chandler, p. 407, Note, and Blunt, Undesigned Coincidences, p. 143 sq. (Am. ed.). The supposition seems not improbable.—Tr.] Uriah was a Hittite. He belonged (2 Samuel 23:39) to David’s Gibborim [Heroes]. The Hittites already in Palestine in Abraham’s time (Genesis 15:20) dwelt near Hebron (Genesis 23:7 sqq.), afterwards near Bethel (Judges 1:24 sqq.); Solomon reduced the remnant of them to servitude (1 Kings 9:20). 2 Samuel 11:4. Short but very vivid narrative of the sinful deed committed by David in spite of his learning that Bathsheba was a married woman. That David used force or artifice to get possession of the “innocent” woman (Mich.) is not indicated in the expression: “and he took her.” The narrative leads us to infer that Bathsheba came and submitted herself to David without opposition. This undoubtedly proves her participation in the guilt, though we are not to assume that her bathing there was “purposed,” in order to be seen (Thenius). She was moved doubtless by vanity and ambition in not venturing to refuse the demand of David the king. Her purification (which was according to the Law, Leviticus 15:18) was performed while she was yet in the king’s palace. [Eng. A. V., Philippson and others not so well make the purification precede her coming to the palace, putting a full stop after the word “uncleanness.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:5. Adultery was, according to Leviticus 20:10, punishable with death. Her message to David had in view the avoidance of the consequences of this sin (Keil). 2 Samuel 11:6-13. David’s efforts to conceal the adultery frustrated by Uriah. 2 Samuel 11:6. There is no evidence that Uriah was the armor-bearer of Joab (Josephus). He had a command in the army, as is clear from what follows, especially from the questions in 2 Samuel 11:7, which could be answered only by one whose position gave him a wide and exact knowledge of the condition of the war. David brought him to Jerusalem in order that, as Bathsheba’s husband, he might hereafter pass for the father of the child begotten in adultery. The questions addressed to him were intended to conceal from him as far as possible the purpose for which he was called, and to make the impression that he was summoned to render a military report. Washing the feet is the symbol at the same time of rest and refreshment. After David has dismissed him to his home, he sends him literally “something taken up,” what the man of rank sets before his guest from his own table (Genesis 43:34), and then any present (Amos 5:11; Esther 2:18). Here it was probably a dish of honor, which Uriah was to enjoy at home. 2 Samuel 11:9. Uriah, however, did not act according to David’s will and expectation, but remained in the king’s palace “at or in the door,” and spent the night there, in the guard-room (1 Kings 14:27-28), with the royal court-officials or the body-guard. It is possible that he did this merely out of zeal of service (comp. 2 Samuel 11:11); but also his suspicions may have been already aroused, and he may have heard something of the affair with Bathsheba. 2 Samuel 11:10 sq. [Perhaps David had sent to find out whether Uriah went home, or the servants that carried the present may have informed him.—Tr.] There is a certain tone of displeasure in David’s words already, though his question was a natural one, since Uriah’s conduct (as indicated in the question) must have been strange. Uriah’s answer [2 Samuel 11:11] is an explanation and justification of his not going home, together with a solemn asseveration; whereby he conceals his real ground of action, his unwillingness to meet the king’s wish. According to his statement, the Ark had been carried along into the field,—for the war was a war of the Lord. When it, the sign of God’s presence, and all Israel, God’s host, were in tents, and Joab and the king’s officers were lying on the bare ground, how could he take his pleasure in his house? By thy life and by the life of thy soul is not a tautology, but a strengthening of the oath by repetition of the thought, the expression combining the general and the special. [See the text examined in “Text. and Gram.” The phrase “Israel and Judah” probably indicates an authorship for our Book after the division of the kingdom; yet not certainly, since there was foundation for the distinction of the two parts in the fact that Judah alone at first adhered to David. See Erdmann’s Introduction, § 6.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:12 sqq. This attempt failing, David tries to gain his end by keeping Uriah a day longer. He invited him to his table, and made him drunk, in order thus more certainly to secure his passing the following night with his wife. That night, however, Uriah again slept at the palace-door. A factual irony! David sees his plan wholly frustrated, and is now driven by his sin-entangled, sin-darkened heart to add murder to adultery. [A chronological difficulty is made here unnecessarily by some critics: it is said that the invitation of 2 Samuel 11:13 was given on the “morrow,” and this last word is joined to 2 Samuel 11:13 so as to read: “Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day. And on the morrow David called him,” etc. In that case Uriah did not depart on the morrow, as David promised (2 Samuel 11:12), since he slept in Jerusalem that night (2 Samuel 11:13), but the day after the morrow (2 Samuel 11:14). The difficulty is removed by supposing (as is quite possible) the invitation of 2 Samuel 11:13 to have been given on the “that day” of 2 Samuel 11:12; then the “morrow” of 2 Samuel 11:12 will be identical with the “morning” of 2 Samuel 11:14. The “calling” in 2 Samuel 11:13 does not necessarily require a more definite statement of time than is suggested in 2 Samuel 11:12.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:14-27. The letter concerning Uriah. Uriah’s death. Bathsheba David’s wife. 2 Samuel 11:14 sqq. Uriah himself must bear the letter that decrees his death. A new artifice of David’s that makes murder its minister. Uriah was to be placed in the hottest, most dangerous part of the battle, where a retreat would not be strange, and he, David well knew, as a brave soldier (one of the Gibborim or Heroes) would not so easily retreat. No reason is assigned [in the letter] for this command, which Joab could not misunderstand. He had simply to carry out the royal instructions, and so he did (2 Samuel 11:16 sqq.). And it came to pass when Joab watched the city (such is the literal rendering of the Heb. ωְ ?ξεֹ ?ψ). “We must understand by this a procedure different from the usual siege, a nearer approach, which challenged the warriors in the city to a sally” (Bunsen) [comp. Judges 1:24, where the participle of the same Hebrew verb is rendered “spies” in Eng. A. V., properly “the observing (i. e., besieging) force.”—Tr.]. Joab knew the place where the enemy’s best warriors would fight in the sally. There he put Uriah, whose bravery he knew, without needing to say to the soldiers: “leave him in the lurch” (Michaelis, Bunsen), since he could foresee that this would happen from the dangerousness of the post. In becoming the instrument of David’s murderous artifice, Joab needed not to know the ground of the order. As obedient servant of the king he carried it out the more unhesitatingly, inasmuch as it was an order of the commander of the army in relation to a soldier, who might have committed some grave offence against him, and whose seemingly accidental death might be desired by him for special reasons. 2 Samuel 11:18 sq. Joab’s message.—From the account of the message it is obvious that the messenger knew nothing of the crafty plot against Uriah’s life. It is an elaborate report by Joab of the near approach of a part of the besieging force to the wall of the city, leading to a sally by the enemy, wherein a number of the Israelites fell. To this circumstantial account the report of Uriah’s fall (the only part of it now interesting to David) was to be added in a supplementary way at the end. Joab takes it for granted that the king will exhibit anger (pretended or real) at this useless spilling of blood. Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth—i. e., Gideon, Judges 6:32. His death by a mill-stone is related Judges 9:53. [Bible Commentary here remarks that “this reference to Judges 9:53 indicates the existence in David’s time of the national annals of that period in an accessible form, and the king’s habit of reading or having read to him the history of his country.” But Joab’s reference to Abimelech shows merely that the facts were known (possibly by tradition), not certainly that national annals existed (though it is not improbable that there were written accounts of such events). It is hardly probable that our Book of Judges existed at this time.—Tr.]—Say, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.—This the messenger was in any case to say last, as an appendix to his report, “as if Uriah, of his own accord, or even against Joab’s will, had pressed forward with his men, and so was chargeable with his own death and that of the others that had fallen” (Keil). Joab is evidently concerned to conceal the wicked deed from the messenger, and at the same time to let David know that it is accomplished. 2 Samuel 11:22 sq. David’s reception of the messenger.—The message is delivered exactly in accordance with Joab’s instructions.Text Between 2 Samuel 11:22-23 the Sept. has an insertion [Sept. reads: and David’s anger was kindled against Joab, and he said to the messenger, Why did ye approach to the city, etc., inserting nearly through 2 Samuel 11:21.—Tr.] This Thenius adopts on the ground that neither David’s presumed displeasure, nor any expression of it on the report of the messenger is mentioned. But this is unnecessary. Either the “kindling” of David’s anger, supposed possible by Joab, did not take place—or, if it did, there was no need to relate it at length; it was taken for granted, and the narration gives only the words of the messenger in reply to David’s comment on the rash affair, in order to explain and justify it. [The text here is discussed in “Text. and Gramm.” and the present Heb. reading defended—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:23. The enemy supposed that with their superiority of numbers here they could make a successful sally. This sally led to a hot fight, wherein the Israelites pressed near to the wall within shot of the archers, and thus many were killed. The messenger therefore reports a sally of the besieged, which occasioned this dangerous approach to the wall.2 Samuel 11:25. David’s answer is, as it were, an extenuation of the matter, and of such nature that the messenger cannot suppose a reference to any thing more than this bloody military affair. Let not this thing be evil in thy eyes; so and so devours the sword.—David’s words seemingly express the quiet and equanimity of a commander who does not permit himself to be disturbed by such bad news. Thus he conceals his excitement over the success of his plot. He orders the siege of Rabbah to be pressed and the city to be destroyed. The messenger is dismissed with this answer to Joab, with the further instruction: strengthen him, encourage him. Neither the isolated position of these words, nor David’s encouraging the field-commander by a messenger, makes this expression a strange one (Thenius); for we need not suppose the “messenger” so far below “his general” in rank as to make such an exhortation in the king’s message necessarily unbecoming. The “messenger” was certainly not a common soldier, but doubtless a high officer who, as his words show, had knowledge of the whole conduct of the war before Rabbah. The Sept., Syriac and Arabic translate: get possession of it, namely, the city, comp. 1 Kings 16:22. These words would then form the conclusion of the message. [Comp. also Jeremiah 20:7. But this sense of the verb cannot be established from the biblical usage. It means to press on one (Jeremiah 20:7), to prevail against (of persons, 1 Kings 16:22), but apparently not to conquer a city. Another objection to this rendering is that it would introduce an anti-climax: “destroy it and prevail against it.” On the other hand, the signification encourage is well established, Deuteronomy 1:38; Isaiah 41:7.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:26-27. Bathsheba David’s wife. The usual mourning lasted seven days (comp. 1 Samuel 31:13). Bathsheba was probably taken to wife by David immediately after the expiration of this time of mourning. If the mourning-time of widows was no longer than the ordinary mourning, then the interval between the adultery and the marriage was doubtless short enough to allow Bathsheba’s child (begotten in that adultery) to appear to be begotten in wedlock. The concluding words of the narration: But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord contain the moral decision from the theocratical point of view, and are, as it were, the superscription to the following history of the divine judgments that fell on David and his house on account of this sin. [For mention of other times of mourning, see Genesis 50:10; Deuteronomy 34:8; 1 Samuel 31:13; 2 Samuel 14:2. In particular cases special feeling would lead to an extension of the ordinary mourning-period.—Tr.] AND 1. The history of David’s fall from the height of his communion with God as “a man after God’s own heart” into the deepest depth of sin and crime contains a serious and warning lesson concerning the power of sin even over those who are under the guidance of God’s will and word, when they give place in a single point of their inner life to the yet unoccupied sinful lust therein hidden, and fail in faithfulness in the struggle against their own evil hearts, and in self-denial. [It is obvious, and yet often overlooked by assailants of the morality of the Old Testament, that the history, in chronicling this sin of the “man after God’s own heart,” does not endorse, but distinctly condemns it. It admits that such a man could commit such a sin, and afterwards enjoy the favor of God; but only on the condition that the real bent of his soul, turned aside for a while under temptation, was towards God and holiness.—Tr.] 2. The inscrutable development of many individual sins from one hidden root proceeds according to an inner natural law: the human will, by detaching the heart from the living God, surrenders itself to the power of sinful lust, and the latter through the removal of the moral forces that had hitherto held it down and controlled the outer and inner life, gets unrestrained dominion. When the life is at the highest point of communion with the living God, pride slips in and leads to an all the deeper fall. The enjoyment of experiences of divine favor and of the fruits of struggle for the kingdom of God, leaves the door of the heart open to fleshly security. Temporary rest from work and fight, though not in itself insidious, leads to moral indolence, to spiritual sloth, to carelessness and unfaithfulness in office and calling. Wicked lust, excited from without at a hidden point of the inner life, no longer finds limitations in thoughts on the solemn divine command and prohibition: Thou shalt and thou shalt not, in the warning and exhorting voice of conscience, in the restraints and hindrances of divine providence, in faithful performance of duty and labor in one’s calling, whereby the kindled fire might again be smothered. The “evil conscience” that follows the satisfaction of evil lust leads on the beaten, slippery and precipitous path to lying and deception, in order to conceal the sin from men. From the soil of the heart poisoned by one sin, from perversion from God of feeling and will in one hidden point of the heart, comes one sin after another; and not only does the fruitfulness and frightfulness of sinful lust show itself in its production of an unbroken series of wicked thoughts and desires, but “the curse of the evil deed” is made complete in that “it must continue to produce evil.” 3. It is a sign of the irresistible power of conscience, and an involuntary self-condemnation, when a man seeks in every way to conceal his sin from men, but to extenuate and justify it before God; and on the other hand unwillingness to make confession has its deepest ground in the pride of the human heart, which increases in proportion as the man becomes involved in sin, and the evil in him develops itself from the slightest beginnings into a power that exercises dominion over the whole inner life. “Whosoever commits sin, he is the servant of sin” [John 8:14, comp. Romans 6.—Tr.] AND [Hall: With what unwillingness, with what fear, do I still look upon the miscarriage of the man after God’s own heart! O holy prophet, who can promise himself always to stand, when he sees thee fallen, and maimed with the fall! Let profane eyes behold thee contentedly, as a pattern, as an excuse for sinning; I shall never look upon thee but through tears, as a woful spectacle of human infirmity.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:1. Schlier: If God has granted us some special good fortune we will never be puffed up, but will rather become little and lowly, and the higher we rise the more will we humble ourselves. An humble man always finds grace and blessing, but pride always goes before a fall. 2 Samuel 11:2. Disselhoff: Idle hours bring forth idle thoughts, and idle thoughts are nothing but dry kindling wood, that waits only for a spark to be suddenly ablaze.—All have had the painful experience that our sins often have their roots in indolence and unfaithfulness in our calling. As long as we walk and work in our office, we are encompassed with a wall. As soon as we fall out of our office, we fall away from our fortunes and become a prey to the enemy.—[Hall: There can be no safety to that soul, where the senses are let loose. He can never keep his covenant with God, that makes not a covenant with his eyes. It is an idle presumption to think the outward man may be free, while the inward is safe.—Taylor: Here, then, in the moral weakness which constant prosperity had created, in the opportunity which idleness afforded to temptation, and in the blunted sensibility which polygamy had superinduced, we see how David was so easily overcome.—Chrysostom: Youth is sometimes wiser and better than age. David the youth smote down the barbarian, and showed all philosophy (wisdom and piety), and when he grew older, then he sinned.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:2-4. Schlier: Let us watch and pray; we may well need it. What shall become of us if a feeling of security arises in us? How shall we get through with a pure body and heart if we are filled with self-conceit? Let us also carefully avoid idleness; labor is a medicine against sin.—J. Lange: One sin brings forth another, and one act of unfaithfulness to conscience draws another after it. James 1:15.—Starke: Loneliness affords the most convenient time for the temptations of Satan (Matthew 4:1 sq.).—S. Schmid: The quieter and securer men are in things bodily, the more perilous is it for them in things spiritual.—Disselhoff: If the not fully slain ungodly impulses in the man after God’s own heart grew up so quickly and to such strength when he deviated a finger’s breadth from the way of the Lord—and the Lord allowed him to go—how will it be with the untamed lusts in our hearts? If such a story does not give one a view of the unfathomable depths of sin and of its power, he will never learn what sin is.—Starke: Rulers sin in leading their subjects into sin, for they are not lords over God’s command (Acts 5:29; Matthew 22:21).—[Hall: Had Bathsheba been mindful of her matrimonial fidelity, perhaps David had been soon checked in his inordinate desire; her facility furthers the sin. It is no excuse to say, I was tempted, though by the great, though by the holy and learned. Let the mover be never so glorious, if he stir us to evil, he must be entertained with defiance.—Tr.]—Schlier: Human customs are carefully observed, and God’s command is trodden under foot. People attend to outward forms and usages, and live on consoled thereby in their sins.—[Henry: The aggravations of David’s sin. (1) His age, at least fifty years. (2) He had many wives and concubines—this is insisted on, 2 Samuel 12:8. (3) Uriah was one of his “worthies,” a man of honor and virtue, now jeoparding life in his service. (4) David was a king, whom God had intrusted with the sword of justice, and he made himself a pattern, when he should have been a terror, to evil-doers.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 11:6-9. Cramer: When sin has once lodged itself it becomes fruitful, and bears other sins (James 2:10).—[Hall: It is rare and hard to commit a single sin.—Tr.]—Seb. Schmid: The most cunning devices are often, through the special Providence of God, made a laughing-stock by the simplest simplicity.—Osiander: Although the ungodly seek out all manner of cunning inventions to cloak their sins, yet it does not succeed; for God knows how, in a wonderful manner, to bring even secret sins to light (Matthew 10:26).—Schlier: When we have sinned, how often we trouble ourselves to hide our sins from the world, but how little do we think of God’s eye and God’s judgment! How contented we are if only we stand free from censure before men, and can throw the blame upon others! 2 Samuel 11:14 sqq. Osiander: So great is the devil’s cunning and wickedness that when once he has brought a man to fall, he drives him on to more and greater sins.—Disselhoff: As the poisonous seed, laid in the bosom of the earth, comes up and brings fruit a hundredfold, as one root branches into a hundred new ones, spreads with rapid growth through the whole field and sends up everywhere the wild shoots, not otherwise is it with the sin which a man hides in his heart. Inwardly it strikes its roots deeper, broader, mightier; outwardly it brings superabundant fruit. It blinds the eyes, stops the ears, petrifies the feeling, deadens the conscience. It bursts all tender bonds, it dulls and benumbs to all else that one held dear and holy on earth. Holy fear vanishes, the reins are cast off from the heart, and mean, hateful, foul traits of character, which one had reckoned impossible, reveal themselves in mournful nakedness.—Schlier: Sin takes a man captive, so that from one he hurls himself into another, so that sin becomes wantonness and crime, yea, even abomination. He who consents to sin, knows where the corruption begins, but who will undertake to say where it ends? And what is most fearful is the blindness into which sin casts the man, so that his eyes are holden, that he no longer knows what he is doing, no longer sees through the simplest things that were once known and familiar to him, but with eyes open rushes into ruin. [Taylor: It may be asked, how can you account for such enormous iniquity in such a man as we have seen that David was?. … .There are some men in whom everything is on a large scale. When their good nature is uppermost, they overtop all others in holiness; but if, unhappily, they should be thrown off their guard, and the old man should gain the mastery, some dreadful wickedness may be expected. This is all the more likely to be the case if the quality of intensity be added to their greatness; for a man with such a temperament is never anything by half. … .A man of David’s nature ought to be more peculiarly on his guard than other men: The express train, dashing along at furious speed, will do more mischief if it runs off than the slow-going horse-car in the city streets. Every one understands that; but every one demands, in consequence, that the driver of the one shall be proportionately more watchful than that of the other. With such a nature as David had, and knew that he had, he ought to have been supremely on his guard, while again the privileges which he had received from God rendered it both easy and practicable for him to be vigilant.—Kingsley: Such terrible crimes are not committed by men in a right state of mind. Nemo repente fuit turpissimus. He who commits adultery, treachery and murder, must have been long tampering, at least in heart, with all these. Had not David been playing upon the edge of sin, into sin he would not have fallen. He may have been quite unconscious of bad habits of mind; but they must have been there, growing in secret. The tyrannous self-will, which is too often developed by long success and command; the unscrupulous craft, which is too often developed by long adversity, and the necessity of sustaining one’s self in a difficult position,. … and that fearful moral weakness which comes from long indulgence of the passions. … On David’s own theory, that he was an utterly weak person without the help of God, the act is perfectly like David. It is what David would natuturally do, when he had left hold of God. Had he left hold of God in the wilderness, he would have become a mere robber-chieftain. he does leave hold of God in his palace on Zion, and he becomes a mere Eastern despot.—Tr.] J. Disselhoff: The fall of the man after God’s own heart: 1) What brought the beloved of God to so deep a fall? 2) He who once gives himself up to sin becomes its slave, and is driven ever deeper and deeper by its might. [Hall: O God, Thou hadst never suffered so dear a favorite of Thine to fall so fearfully, if Thou hadst not meant to make him a universal example to mankind, of not presuming, of not despairing. How can we presume of not sinning, or despair for sinning, when we find so great a saint thus fallen, thus risen!—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:1. This entire campaign, with the siege of a capital and slaying of thousands, interests us now only as the occasion of David’s series of great sins. And in truth the striking excellencies or faults of one great and good man, when permanently recorded and widely read, become more important to the welfare of the human race than the overthrow of cities or kingdoms. 2 Samuel 11:2 sqq. What a series! A lascivious look (Matthew 5:28), actual adultery, pitiful and then base attempts at concealment, and finally a treacherous murder. How little David imagined, in the moment of lustful looking, that he was taking the first step in such a course of frightful wickedness! 2 Samuel 11:14-15. Here is the darkest moment of this terrible story. Few scenes in all the sad history of our race are so disgraceful to human nature and so utterly disheartening to the beholder, as when David, the Psalmist and King, with such a history, such experiences, such promises, sat writing this letter. 2 Samuel 11:16. It is often hard to find helpers to virtue, but always easy to find helpers in vice and crime. 2 Samuel 11:17. Uriah the Hittite—immortal by his wrongs! 2 Samuel 11:25. Alas! often do men hide wicked designs, and satisfaction at successful plotting, under the common-places of resignation to the inevitable, of submission to the conditions of existence. 2 Samuel 11:27. So he seemed to have compassed his ends and effectually concealed his crime by a still baser crime. But his conscience slept uneasily its poisoned sleep, and Jehovah was displeased!—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:2-27. David’s frightful fall. 1) The inspired writings (unlike most biographies) narrate without reserve the faults of good men. 2) This story serves as an encouragement to sin, or as a solemn warning against sin, according to the spirit of him that reads it. We should discipline ourselves to take a right and wholesome view of other men’s faults. 3) One sin leads to another; and attempts at concealment often involve one in greater difficulty, and tempt him to additional wrong. When a good man has been betrayed into crime, let him humbly confess it, and cut short the series. 4) If David fell, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (1 Corinthians 10:12). Chrysostom: The narrow way has precipices on both sides. Let us walk it awake and watchful. For we are not more exact than David, who by a moment’s neglect was precipitated into the very gulf of sin.—Tr.] Footnotes: [2 Samuel 11:1. So the Qeri (margin). Bφttcher and Hitzig retain the Kethib “messengers,” the former understanding it of ambassadors, the latter of watchers to observe the new moon (comp. Jeremiah 31:6); but these views are not probable; it is not likely that a time of the year would be defined by an act that was performed twelve times a year, and it is unlikely that ambassadors were sent out at a special time of the year. Though the Kethibh (ξμΰλιν) may be the harder, and so far the preferable form, general considerations strongly favor the Qeri.—Bφttcher’s theory is that there existed two recensions of the history, one made by priests (which he marks PR.), the other by laymen (LR), of which the former is here followed by “Chronicles” (making Joab act independently, and softening the “Ammonites” into the “land of Ammon”), and the latter by “Samuel” (emphasizing the king’s activity, etc.). Rather we should say that the author of “Samuel” selected his material from a prophetical point of view, the author of “Chronicles” from a Levitical point of view.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:4. Wellhausen rightly observes that the Athnach should be under ςִ ?ξָּ ?δ, and the purification will then be subsequent and not previous (as in the following “for” of Eng. A. V.) to the time of εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?λַּ ?α.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:6. After “Uriah” one MS. of De Rossi, Syr., Chald., insert “the Hittite,” an instance of the tendency to assimilation.—The omission of the μֵ ?ΰξψֹ (“saying”) makes no difficulty here (so also in 2 Samuel 19:15); it is easily supplied in thought, and is inserted by Sept., Vulg., Arab. (as in Eng. A. V.). Bφttcher thinks that the omission belongs to the curt priest-text, the insertion to the lay-text.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:7. Some MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi, and Syr., Arab., Vulg., read “to David,” an illustration of the disposition of copyists and translators to make the text clearer by stating the person or thing explicitly rather than trust to the frequently indefinite Pronoun. In general, the preference is in such cases to be given to the less explicit.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:8. “Or, a portion, gift,” literally “something lifted up” (Sept. ἄρσις). Vulg. and Chald. render food and meal, Syr. and Arab. gift. Some anonymous Greek VSS. (in Montfaucon’s Hex.) have a strange rendering: ὀπίσωἀυτῶνπαρεστηκότωντῶ βασιλεῖ “after those that stood by the king” (reading τῶν for ἀυτῶν), as if Uriah were preceded by royal officers, from whom David may have learned (2 Samuel 11:10) that Uriah did not go home. Schleusner suggests that they read ξְ ?ωָׁ ?ψֵ ?ϊ (minister) instead of ξַ ?ωְׂ ?ΰֵ ?ϊ.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:9. The omission of the word “all” in Sept. and Arab. (Vulg. has cum aliis servis) has simplicity in its favor; it would be natural to insert here a descriptive word.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:11. The Heb. text is here supported by all the versions except Sept., which has: πῶς; ζὴ ἡ ψυχήσου, “how? as thy soul liveth,” that is, it read δֵ ?ικְ “how?” (see Daniel 10:17) instead of ηַ ?ιֶּ ?κָ. On account of the seeming tautology of the Heb., Thenius and Bφttcher adopt the reading of the Sept. (in which, however, the how? is intolerable, while Wellhausen would read ηιιδεδ “by the life of Jahveh,” or strike out the second clause: “by the life of thy soul.” But this double asseveration may easily be understood as the repetition of an excited soldier.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:15. δָ ?αεּ; Sept. ἐισάγαγε “bring in” = δָ ?αֵ ?ΰ, but the Sing. here does not agree with the following Plu. ωַׁ ?αְ ?ϊֶּ ?ν (so Wellhausen).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:20. The Sept. repeats in 2 Samuel 11:22 the whole of the speech (with one or two verbal alterations) that Joab puts into David’s mouth in 2 Samuel 11:20-21. On the other hand the Heb. text says nothing of David’s anger, nor of any such speech, when the messenger reports to him (2 Samuel 11:23 sq.). Bφttcher, therefore, rejecting the “monstrous repetition” of the Sept., holds that the speech in question belongs (with an introductory “and David was wroth with Joab”) at the end of 2 Samuel 11:22, that it was afterwards inserted after 2 Samuel 11:19, because it seemed necessary there, the Sept. translating from a text that contained the repetition, while the masoretic text dropped the second speech as cumbersome. So also (as to the form of the text) substantially Thenius, who omits 2 Samuel 11:21 as far as the second “wall.” The latter, however, thinks the alleged omission in the Heb. (at the end of 2 Samuel 11:22) to have been purposely made by the transcriber, in order to conceal his recognized error of insertion in 2 Samuel 11:21-22 : Wellh., on the contrary, holds that the omission was for brevity’s sake simply.—Joab’s speech, as it stands in the Heb., certainly shows a very lively anticipation of David’s view of the case; but Bφttcher is wrong in saying that such anticipation is impossible, for Joab of course puts it only as a supposition, and Abimelech’s case would naturally occur to him. There is no need on this account merely to suppose that David actually got angry, or cited Abimelech’s history; Joab’s lively anticipation does not logically involve David’s conformity to it. But, if David did show anger, there is still no necessity for supposing that he mentioned Abimelech, and his objection to approaching the wall might easily have been taken for granted and omitted.—Then, it is after all more probable that the Sept. should make so natural an insertion than that the Heb. text should omit it. We, therefore, with Erdmann, retain the masoretic text.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 11:21. Sept. Jerubbaal, the original form of the name; but probably Jerubbesheth (so Bφttcher) is the correct text-reading here, this form having become common in the time of the author of our Book. The Sept.-translator went back to the original form. This does not offer support to Bφttcher’s hypothesis of the two recensions of our text (priestly and laic).—The Sept. also calls Jerubbaal the son of Ner, which Thenius thinks is for Zer, the last syllable of Abiezer (see Judges 6:11). It may, however, be worthy of notice that the Syriac has “Abimelech the son of Nedubbeel” (for Nerubbeel), substituting the Syr. n of the 3 sing.-masc. Impf. for the Heb. Yod; and there may be some connection between this and the Sept.-form.—Tr.] [Some interpret: “when the summer set in.” Abarbanel: “when the sun returned to the same point.” Perhaps the phrase is a general one: “when the year had rolled round, and the time came for kings to go forth.”—Tr.] [It is not necessary to suppose that David’s siesta and evening-walk show that he had become inert and luxurious. It was the habit of the times, and he seems to have begun his walk with no evil design.—Tr.] [That is, the names are composed of am = people, and el = God. Eliam = God of the people; Ammiel = people of God. For other views see the lexicons of Gesenius and Fόrst.—Tr.] [Comp. 1 Samuel 4:4. The ark was taken along as an encouraging sign of the divine presence and favor—probably not to inquire of God (against Patrick and Bible Comm.). Such inquiry was made through the high-priest’s ephod. In Joshua 7:6 (the only case of inquiry at the ark mentioned) Joshua had a special divine revelation, as Moses used to have. On 1 Samuel 14:18 see the discussion of the text in loco. On a rabbinical view that there were two arks, one containing the ephod, see Philippson in loco.—Tr.] [There written Jerubbaal. On the change of name see on 2 Samuel 2:8; 2 Samuel 9:6—and on the Sept. reading see “Text. and Gramm.” on this verse.—Tr.] ωָׁ ?μַ ?η with two Accus.; to send a person with a thing—commission him, 1 Kings 14:6; Isaiah 55:11. λִּ ?ι = at the time that, when, frequently so used in Exodus 21 (in distinction from the conditional ΰִ ?ν), or eo quod = because, fully ιַ ?ςַ ?ολִּ ?ι “for this reason because,” comp. Isaiah 1:29-30; Job 38:20. [Or = ὄτι, that, introducing substantive clause (as frequently in N. T.). Thenius unnecessarily objects to this λִּ ?ι as “referring to nothing.”—Tr.] The ΰ in ιֹ ?ψΰεּ and ξεֹ ?ψΰιν [2 Samuel 11:24] is an Aramaic form. The intrans. ιֵ ?ψַ ?ς with the sign of the Acc. ΰֵ ?ϊ (as elsewhere the Pass. Verb is found with the Acc.) according to the sense, the active meaning coming forward against the intrans. and pass. Ew. § 277 d. [The ΰֵ ?ϊ here introduces the Acc. of general limitation.—Tr.] The sense is: Look not evilly on this thing. Comp. 1 Samuel 20:13; Joshua 22:17; Nehemiah 9:32. On αָּ ?ζֹ ?δεְ ?αָ ?ζֶ ?δ see Ew. § 105 b. The first time o is put for e, a. slight phonetic change easily occurring in such correlative phrases (Judges 18:4; 1 Kings 14:5). [A. Clarke refers to the similar incident in Bellerophon’s life: πόρενδ̓ ὅγεσήματαλυγρά,Γράψαςἐνπίνακιπτυκτῷ θυμοφθόραπολλά.(Il. VI. 168, 169).—Tr.] 2. Nathan’s Exhortation to Repentance. David’s Repentance. Conquest of Rabbah and Punishment of the Ammonites 2 Samuel 12:1-311 And the Lord [Jehovah] sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other 2, 3poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds. But [And] the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up; and it grew up together with him and with his children; it did eat of his own meat [food], and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. 4And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but [and] took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. 5And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said unto Nathan, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die; 6And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and because he had no pity. 7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house4 of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover [further] have given unto thee such and such things. 9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah], to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10Now, therefore [And now] the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the light of this sun. 12For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun. 13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord [Jehovah]. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord [Jehovah] also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 14Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord [Jehovah] to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 15And Nathan departed [went] unto his house And the Lord [Jehovah] struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, 16and it was very sick. David therefore [And David] besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the earth [ground]. 17And the elders of his house arose and went to him, to raise him up from the earth 18[ground]; but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice; how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? [and how shall we say to him, The child is dead? he will then act badly.] 19But when David [And David] saw that his servants whispered, [ins. and] David perceived that the child was 20dead; therefore [and] David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then [And] David arose from the earth [ground], and washed and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord [Jehovah] and worshipped; then he [and] came to his own house, and when he required [and asked], [ins. and] they set bread before him, and he did eat. 21Then said his servants [And his servants said] unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child while it was alive; but 22[and] when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may [shall] live? 23But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. 24And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her; and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon; and the Lord [Jehovah] loved him. 25And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the Lord [Jehovah]. 26And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city. 27And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, 28and have taken the city of waters. Now, therefore [And now] gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city and take it, lest I take the city, and it be called after my name. 29And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it and took it. 30And he took their king’s crown from off his head, the weight whereof [and its weight] was a talent of gold with the [and] precious stones; and it was set on David’s head. 31And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws and under harrows [threshing-sledges] of iron and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln; and thus he did unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So [And] David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem. AND 1. 2 Samuel 12:1-12. Nathan’s exhortation to repentance. 2 Samuel 12:1. And the Lordsent.—Nathan received his commission to David as prophet; as the Septuagint., Syr., Arab. and some MSS., rightly indicate by the addition of the explanatory phrase “the prophet” [after “Nathan”]. After the words “said unto him” the Vulgate adds “give me your opinion” (responde mihi judicium), a gloss, probably occasioned by the fact that Nathan’s discourse begins immediately with a parallel.—David is caught beforehand in the cleverly spread net of the prophet’s parable. 2 Samuel 12:3. The poor man had “nothing at all” but one lamb, which he “kept alive,” supported, reared. It was not a pet-lamb (Keil), since the man had absolutely no other possession in cattle. As a poor man he had the means of buying only one little lamb, which he was now raising, and which he loved the more as it was his only property. [Bib.-Com.: All these circumstances are exquisitely contrived to heighten the pity and indignation of the hearer.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 12:4. [The three designations “traveller,” “wayfarer,” “the man that came to him,” are rhetorical variations and mean the same thing substantially, though the last is obviously specially appropriate in its place. Some of the rabbis and the fathers (quoted with apparent approval by Wordsworth) make the three names set forth lust in its different stages of growth, as a passer-by, as a guest, as a permanent inmate; of course this allegorizing is out of place here.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 12:5 sqq. Nathan so told his story that David must needs believe it referred to a deed of violence to be immediately punished, not supposing at all that it concerned him. Hence his violent indignation. The fourfold compensation for a stolen sheep was a legal provision, Ex. 21:37. The sevenfold of the Sept. is to be explained by the fact that the number seven was so common among the Hebrews. Comp. Proverbs 6:31. [The Chald. says fortyfold, either by clerical error, or in a mere spirit of exaggeration. This variation may suggest the uncertainty of Bφttcher’s view, that the Heb. text here has the priestly recension (according to the law in Exodus) and the Greek the laic recension. Nor is there any ground for the assertion of Thenius (and Wellhausen) that David was certainly here not thinking of the law in Exodus, and that the Greek text is the original. Though the Book of Exodus in its present shape may not have existed in David’s time, there is no reason why this law should not have been known.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 12:7. Thou art the man.—The farther David was from thinking of a reference to himself, the greater the force with which this word must have struck him. The account here given of the firmness and wisdom with which Nathan approached the king is “inimitably admirable” (Ewald). The Sept. and Vulg. [not the common Vulg. text,—Tr.], have: “thou art the man that has done this,” a mere explanatory addition. Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel.—The following words, as far as 2 Samuel 12:9, bring out most clearly the greatness of David’s guilt in various points: 1) from the point of view of his royal office; his crime is most sharply opposed to his divine induction thereinto; 2) his deliverance from Saul was a gracious act of God, for which he has here shown himself in the highest degree ungrateful; 3) David might unblamed have taken his predecessor’s wives (Thenius); this is the only meaning to be attached to the words: “I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom.” [Bp. Patrick and others give the later Jewish understanding of the law or custom: the king and no other person fell heir to the property and harem of his predecessor, but it did not follow that he actually married the inmates of the harem; they might be merely a part of his establishment. If it was a son that succeeded his father, he treated these women with reverence; if no blood-relationship existed between the two kings, the successor might actually take the women as his wives (Philippson). As to the morality of the act, it was a natural result of a polygamous system, and morally in the same category with it; and polygamy was allowed by the Mosaic Law.—Tr.]. According to 1 Samuel 14:50 Saul had only one wife, and according to 2 Samuel 3:7 only one concubine who fell into Abner’s hands. 4) David, as king, had control of all Israel (1 Samuel 8:16), and might have increased his establishment from their daughters, without committing this crime. And I have given thee the house of Israel; instead of “house” Syr. and Arab. read “daughters,” for which change, according to the above explanation, there is no need. 5) David despised, transgressed the “word,” that is, the law of God by slaying Uriah. The Heb. text has: “in his eyes,” the margin: “in my eyes;” the difference is insignificant. This crime is heightened, however, by the fact that he committed the murder by “the sword of the children of Ammon.” With this added statement and the use of the stronger word “murder” [Eng. A. V. slain] instead of “slay,” the fact already mentioned is repeated, in order that the culmination of the iniquity, the using the enemies of God’s people as its instrument, may come forth more sharply. 2 Samuel 12:10-12. Threat of punishment, David’s misdeed being again characterized as a factual contempt of the Lord. Instead of: “Thou hast despised the word of the Lord,” it is here said: “Thou hast despised Me.” For in His word the Lord Himself reveals Himself. For this reason, because David is guilty of despising the Lord, 1) “the sword shall not depart from his house forever,” that is, as long as the house or posterity of David shall last. From the seed of this evil deed of David sprang the poisonous fruit of the evil deeds of his sons and the consequent domestic and fraternal war. The bloody sword appears in the murder of the incestuous Amnon by Absalom (2 Samuel 13:28-29), in the death of the rebel Absalom (13, 14), and in the execution of Adonijah (1 Kings 2:24-25). Thereby is Uriah’s murder punished; 2) David is threatened with disgrace through the disgrace of his wives. To thy neighbor. … in the sight of the sun—before all Israel. For the fulfilment by Absalom, see 2 Samuel 16:22, and comp. 1 Kings 2:23 sq., where Adonijah asks for Abishag the Shunammite. [On the text in 2 Samuel 12:9-10 see “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 12:13-23. David’s penitent confession and punishment by the death of the child of Bathsheba. 2 Samuel 12:13. I have sinned against the Lord.—This frank, short, honest confession of sin was made not some time after this discourse of Nathan, but immediately as its direct result. The power of the prophetic word laid hold of the depths of his heart and conscience; the divine truth, which inexorably laid bare his sin, put an end to all self-deception and all anxious effort to cover up and palliate his transgression of the divine word. He confesses his sin as a sin against the Lord, to show that he clearly recognizes it to be, what it essentially is, a contradiction of God’s holy will. Nathan’s answer is the announcement of the Lord’s grace 1) in forgiving the sin: The Lord will cause [or, has caused—Tr.] thy sin to pass over, that is, it is not to remain before him, but to vanish, be forgiven; 2) in remitting the deserved punishment: Thou shalt not die!—As adulterer and homicide David had deserved death; but this just punishment was not executed, because he honestly repented and did not harden his heart against the Lord. [Probably the civil law in such a case could not have been enforced against an absolute king by human authority; but God could have found means to execute it. Clearly it is physical death that is here meant, not the death of the soul (against Wordsworth and Bib.-Com.).—In the Mosaic code there is no provision against such a marriage as that of David and Bathsheba; on general moral grounds it would have been pronounced wrong. Yet there were also reasons why the marriage should take place, and God Himself solves the ethical question by the mouth of His prophet, not increasing the evil by sundering the marriage tie, but so chastising the sinners that one of them at least must have remembered the lesson to the end of his life.—According to the later Jewish law the marriage was illegal; and some Jewish writers have tried hard to clear David of the charge of adultery. See Patrick’s Comm., 2 Samuel 11:27; 2 Samuel 11:4.—Tr.].—This is not inconsistent with the threat of punishment in 2 Samuel 12:14, the fulfilment of which is specially founded on the provocation to blasphemy given to the heathen. Only because thou hast made the enemies of the Lord to despise (him). The enemies of the people of Israel were also enemies of the Lord and of the king of this people. Towards the heathen Israel’s duty was, by obedience to God’s word and commands, to set forth the theocracy and bring it to honor and recognition. Transgression of God’s command by the king himself must lead the heathen to heap shame and reproach on Israel and its God; and there must therefore be expiation by punishment. David and Bathsheba must lose their adulterously begotten child, and this should be a sign to the Lord’s enemies of the severe justice of the God of Israel. “The child also, etc.;” the statement is introduced by the word also as in keeping with what precedes (βַּ ?ν, not howbeit, but also). 2 Samuel 12:15. The Lord smote the child.—The fulfilment followed immediately on the prediction. The sickness is represented as a punishment inflicted by God; therefore is added: which the wife of Uriah had borne to David.—[It was, then, apparently not till after the birth of the child that Nathan came to David; the latter had remained many months seemingly unconscious of his sin.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 12:16. David acknowledges the punishing hand of the Lord. He goes away to a retired spot, to collect himself and pour out his heart before God. The phrase “went in” refers to his going not to the Sanctuary (to which he does not go till 2 Samuel 12:20), but to a quiet room in his house, where he could be alone; Vulg.: ingressus seorsum [“he went in apart”]. 2 Samuel 12:17. The elders of his house are its oldest and most trusted servants. Comp. Genesis 24:2; Genesis 50:7. So Clericus. Whether David’s uncles and oldest brothers are thereby meant (Ewald) must remain undecided. 2 Samuel 12:18. The elders hesitate to tell David of the death of the child, lest he be plunged into deeper grief, or do himself a harm. Vulg.: “how much more will he afflict himself?” [David’s affection for this child is remarkable. He was a “great lover of his children” (Patrick) and perhaps specially attached to this one by reason of his love for its mother.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 12:19 sqq. David’s conduct is the opposite of what the servants expected. The solution of their perplexity lay in the fact that David had hitherto prayed for the child’s life, but now bowed humbly beneath God’s hand, and thus gains strength joyfully to bear the burden laid on him. David’s two courses of conduct in immediate juxtaposition have one common source within him; namely, humble, unconditional devotion of heart to the will of the Lord. After “and he asked” [2 Samuel 12:20] “bread” is omitted, because it is mentioned immediately afterwards. The shorter phrase is obviously original; the addition of the Sept.: “bread to eat,” is an interpretation. 2 Samuel 12:21. Render: “thou didst fast and weep for (αֵּ ?ςֲ ?αεּ ?ψ) the child, while it yet lived” [= for the child living—Tr.]; so Vulg., Cler., Ew. § 341 b [Sept., Eng. A. V.]; not “while the child lived” (Ges., De Wette, Maur., Keil [Chald., Syr., Luther]), since as conjunction the word denotes only either the ground or the end.2 Samuel 12:22. See on 2 Samuel 12:19 sqq. David had continued to hope that the Lord would hear his prayer and spare the child. 2 Samuel 12:23. The continued existence of the child’s soul in Sheol is here assumed, and the hope of reunion with it expressed. “Nothing is said, indeed, of conscious existence, but this must have been supposed, in order to find consolation and repose in going to the dead” (Bφttch., de inferis, § 109 sq.). 2 Samuel 12:24-25. Birth of Solomon. David comforted Bathsheba, because he himself had received comfort. The Sept. prefixes “she conceived” to our appropriately curt text “she bare a son.” And he called his name Solomon. Solomon’s birth is mentioned here because of its factual connection with what precedes. The name Solomon, like the similar names in Leviticus 24:11; Numbers 34:27; 1 Chronicles 26:25 sq., was “an old and common one … it is therefore wholly without foundation to say that Solomon first received this name from the ‘peace’ of his time” (Ew., Gesch. [Hist. of Israel] III. p. 228, Rem. 1). It is probable, indeed, that Solomon’s birth occurred just after the conquest of Rabbah related below; for, as Bathsheba’s first son was conceived during the siege, this siege, if Solomon was born before its termination, would have lasted about two years [Cler., Thenius]. Nevertheless the name Solomon is to be explained not from the peace gained by the Ammonite war, but (after 1 Chronicles 22:9) from the wish that peace might be allotted him as a gift of God, in contrast with the continual wars of his father’s life. And the Lord loved him.—Here instead of David, the Lord appears as subject; and so in the verb “sent” [2 Samuel 12:25] the Lord is subject, not David, since the latter had already given the name Solomon. Ewald renders: “he (David) asked through Nathan from the oracle a loftier name for his new-born son;” but this rests on the inappropriate conception of the words “Jehovah loved him” as referring to the maintenance of this child’s life [in contrast with the dead child—Tr.], apart from the fact that the subject “Jehovah” is again arbitrarily changed. This last consideration is also against the rendering: “and he (David) gave him into the hand of Nathan the prophet (to bring up),” where the Piel of the verb would be required. The expression in the text (Qal with αְּ ?ιַ ?γ [to send by the hand of]) means to give a commission (comp. Exodus 4:13). Jehovah sent Nathan to David with the commission to give the child the name Jedidiah. Nathan is expressly called prophet, because he appeared in divine commission as such. This was the factual opposite of the former message [2 Samuel 12:1], God’s declaration that He had bestowed His grace and mercy on David and his child. The subject of the verb “called” is Nathan. “On account of Jehovah,” that is, because Jehovah loved him, as the name signified (= “beloved of Jehovah,” Germ. Gottlieb.) While Solomon was the name given him by his parents, by which he was to be called, Jedidiah, as the high name given him by the prophet, denoted the Lord’s love and faithfulness bestowed on him whose light was to illumine his whole life. [Bφttcher, Thenius and Wellhausen insist on rendering 2 Samuel 12:25 : “and he committed him to the care of Nathan,” etc., which agrees, says Thenius, with the general opinion (of which, however, there is not a word in the Bible) that Nathan was Solomon’s tutor. This is also the view of Victorinus Strigelius quoted by Patrick, and is certainly more in keeping with the context than the other. If the view of Eng. A. V. and Erdmann be correct we should expect some additional explanatory phrase; unless the next sentence is such a complementary phrase, in which case the subject of “called” must be the same as that of “sent,” namely Jehovah. But, as Erdmann himself points out, the subject of “called” is not Jehovah, but either Nathan or David. For this reason it seems better to take David also as subject of “sent” or delivered.” David committed him (reading the Piel) to Nathan, and Nathan gave him his higher name. Comp. similar second names in the histories of Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Simon Peter.—Then. remarks of this whole narrative that its exact fidelity to nature and touching simplicity, when we recollect that the scenes passed in the interior of the palace, show that it must have been communicated by a contemporary.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 12:26-31. Conquest of Rabbah and cruel punishment of the Ammonites. Comp. 1 Chronicles 20:1-3. 2 Samuel 12:26 sqq. The narrative returns to 2 Samuel 11:1. From the connection the “city of the kingdom,” the capital of the kingdom, is the whole city, not merely the water-town (2 Samuel 12:27) “excluding the acropolis” (Keil). Joab, as commanding general, conducting the siege, conquered the whole city; and this result is here summarily stated in advance. [But this statement does not read like an anticipative summary; the capture of 2 Samuel 12:29 seems to be different from that of 2 Samuel 12:26.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 12:27 sq. Detailed account of the affair, especially how Joab, after taking the water-city, summoned the king, who had remained in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 11:1), in order that the remaining higher part of the city might be taken under his direction to the honor of the royal name. And so it happened, though it was none the less true (2 Samuel 12:26) that Joab was the real conqueror. Vulg.: “lest, the city being taken by me, the victory should be ascribed to my name.” Luther: “that I may not have the name of it.”—To judge from the ruins of Ammon (comp. Ritter XV., p. 1145 sq.) the capital-city of the Ammonites lay on both banks of the Upper Jabbok, in a narrow valley, on the north side of which on an eminence was the citadel (“the city” 2 Samuel 12:28) towering above the whole lower city (“the water-city”). This citadel was not taken by Joab till David came, in order that the completion of the conquest might appear as the deed of the king himself. See Curt. 6, 6 (quoted by Grotius): “he (Craterus), after everything was prepared, awaited the coming of the king (Alexander), yielding to him, as was proper, the honor of the capture of the city.”—[Eng. A. V. has: “and it be called after my name.” As there seems to be no example of a conquered city’s being called after the name of the conqueror, it may be better to render (with Erdmann and others): “and my name be called (or honored) upon (in respect to) it.” However, the ordinary meaning of the phrase is as in Eng. A. V.—Joab’s conduct here is either that of a devoted servant, wishing to give his master honor or shield him from popular disfavor (on account of the affair of Bathsheba), or that of an adroit courtier, who will not run the risk of exciting his king’s envy by too much success (see 1 Samuel 18:6-8).—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 12:29. All the people, the soldiers that had remained at home; the besieging force had to be strengthened in order to conquer the strong Upper City. 2 Samuel 12:30. When the citadel was taken, the king of the Ammonites was either killed or captured. David took the crown from his head, and set it on his own, in order to represent himself as lord of the Ammonite kingdom. The kikkar [talent] was 3000 shekels (comp. Winer, s. v. Gewichte); the weight of the crown was 83½ [Dresden] pounds [= about 100 English pounds, for the silver talent, which was probably the current unit of weight; the gold-talent weighed twice as much.—Tr.]. This heavy crown of gold and precious stones might have been worn during the short time of coronation by a strong man like David. In many places now weights scarcely less heavy are borne on the head even by women. We need not, therefore, suppose that the weight is here accidentally exaggerated (Keil), nor that the crown was supported on the throne above the head (Clericus). [Some would understand that the value, and not the weight of the crown is here given; but the text-word can mean nothing but “weight.” The Sept. has: “he took the crown of Molchom their king from his head.” This reading Molkom or Milkom instead of “their king” is adopted by Geiger (p. 306), who sees in our Hebrew text an illustration of the tendency to get rid of the names of idol deities. As our text stands the suffix “their” is strange, since the Ammonites are not mentioned immediately before (Wellh.), and we might also expect here the mention of the Ammonite king by name (Bib.-Comm.). We may therefore render: “he took Malcom’s (Moloch’s) crown from his head.”—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 12:31. The cruel punishments inflicted by David on the Ammonites were probably the same that they were accustomed to inflict on the Israelites or other nations in war. For their cruelties see 1 Samuel 11:2 and Amos 1:8. As they did, so it was done to them. Instead of “he put them under saws, etc.” we must read: “he cut them with saws, etc.,” as in Chron. and the Targum (ωׂ ?εּ ?ψ instead of ωׂ ?εν); our present text can only be rendered: “he put them into saws,” etc., a phrase that cannot be applied to the saw. Comp. Hebrews 11:37, and Sueton. Caligula 2Sa 27: “he cut them in two with the saw.” And with cutting instruments [Eng. A. V. axes] of iron. Instead of this 1 Chronicles 20:3 has “saws” a second time, a clerical error for “axes” [Eng. A. V. corrects the error, and renders “axes.”—Tr.].—In the next clause the Qeri, Sept. and Vulg. [and Eng. A. V.] read: “made them pass through the brick-kiln,” that is, burned them in brick-kilns (Keil). But the text is to be retained with Kimchi, whose explanation is essentially correct: “he passed them through Malchan, i.e., the place where the Ammonites burned their sons to their idol.” Instead of malkan (from ξֹ ?μֶ ?κ = Moloch) we may with Bφtt. pronounce the word milkon=milkom. Both denote the image of Moloch (comp. 1 Kings 11:5; 1 Kings 11:33). In the burning image human sacrifices were offered to Moloch, and “to cause to pass through (or, through the fire) to Moloch” is the usual phrase for this idol-service (see Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 32:35; Ezekiel 20:31). “The design was to inflict a striking punishment on idolatry, and in so far the war was a holy one” (Then.). The milder explanation of the punishment as consisting in the imposition of severe labors, cutting wood, burning bricks, etc. (Danz and others) is inconsistent with the words of the text. However, the text does not require us to suppose that all the inhabitants of Rabbah were thus treated; it was probably only the soldiers that were in the Upper City [“and so he did to all the cities of the Ammonites.”—Tr.]. By this Ammonite war (probably the last that he waged) David had extended and strengthened his kingdom toward the whole east. By all his wars (Chron. 8. sqq.) the boundaries of his kingdom were so far extended that it was secure against heathen nations. But this splendor of outward power and dominion stood in sharp contrast with the inward disintegration of the royal house and of the whole people through David’s sin. AND 1. David’s condition of soul in the time from his fall to his repentance may be understood from the fact that it needed such a strong impulse as Nathan’s discourse to bring him to repentance, while on the other hand the word of confession followed immediately on the discourse. This latter indicates that his conscience had accused him of sin; but frank confession had been somehow hindered, till the hindrance was set aside by Nathan’s word. The confession was preceded by a silence, which did not proceed from a contrite heart, but concealed an unquiet conscience and distracted heart. Thenius rightly says: “Psalms 32 describes what David felt before he was led to confession of sin by Nathan’s address.” The expression (2 Samuel 12:3-4): “for I kept silence; my bones wasted away in my crying all the day; for day and night thy hand was heavy upon me,” sets forth how his silence was accompanied by consuming anguish of body and soul, wherein he felt in his conscience the oppressive burden of God’s punitive righteousness, without being thereby moved to confession of sin. “We see plainly from Psalms 32 what bitter inward struggles he endured before he yielded to the divine chastisement and grew strong enough to confess his sins openly before God” (Ewald). These inward conflicts were produced by two factors: (1) the constant “weight of God’s hand on him”—the accusing, condemning voice of conscience, the inward completion of the divine judgment; (2) his impenitent, uncontrite heart (which was the cause of his silence), which wished to “maintain its rights” by self-excuse and self-justification against the inevitable divine judgment (comp. Psalms 51:6). This was “the guile in his spirit” (2 Samuel 12:2), which was the ground of his silence (“for,” 2 Samuel 12:3). He was not upright in heart (2 Samuel 12:11), so that he did not honestly confess his sins, but concealed them (comp. 2 Samuel 12:5). Thus Psalms 32. fills out our picture of David’s condition and conduct after his sin and after Nathan’s piercing punitory discourse. Against the reference of this Psalm to the crime of David against Bathsheba it has been alleged (De Wette, Stier, Clauss, Hitzig) that in it the confession comes from inward pain of conscience, while in 2 Samuel 12 it is occasioned by Nathan’s discourse. The two facts, however, are not mutually exclusive, but mutually complementary. Nathan’s discourse is not the ground, but the occasion of David’s confession. See Hengstenberg on Psalms 32 for the particular points in which the Psalm and the history correspond to one another. 2. The deceit of the impenitent heart consists in its seeking to excuse and justify itself despite the condemnation of conscience, while it yet obtains no relief from the feeling of guilt, rather brings about a sharper reaction of conscience, and increases the pains that come from the conflict of mutually accusing and excusing thoughts. Sin is not gotten rid of by failure to acknowledge it; it rests all the more heavily on the conscience, and the closer the mouth that ought to confess is shut, the clearer sounds out the accusing, judging voice of conscience. “The roots of this deceit (which appears immediately after the Fall of man) are pride, lack of trust in God, and love of sin. Many are thereby kept altogether from confession of sin, in Pelagian self-blinding take delight in their wretchedness, and think themselves most excellent. In others are seen the beginnings of true confession; but they do not obtain the goal, because guile prevents them from acknowledging the whole extent of their harm. And even they that have really come into a gracious state, greatly embitter by guile the blessing of the forgiveness, that they have attained through sincerity. What especially exposes them to this temptation is their strict view of sin and of its condemnableness before God and the consciousness of the grace received from God and of their situation. Nature struggles vigorously against the deep humiliation which (especially for them) recognition and confession of sin carries with it. It is therefore necessary that they lay deeply to heart David’s word (2 Samuel 12:1-2), spoken out of painful experience of the misery of guile: happy is he whose transgression is removed, etc.” (Hengst.). But it is a quality of the deceit of the impenitent heart to apply God’s word, the mirror of sin, to others rather than to itself, and thus to put away self-examination and self-knowledge in its light. 3. The grace of God does not suffer man to go on unwarned in the path of sin, but leads him to recognition and confession of sin, and to an humble bowing under the mighty hand that must smite him for his sin. The divine grace herein employs human instruments like Nathan; and the only effective means in this case of bringing men to confession is the word of God, which 1) shows them sin in its true form, in unadorned full reality, in all its baseness and shockingness (comp. 2 Samuel 12:1-6); 2) points out the fulness of the divine benefits that should have kept them from sin, in the presence of which sin appears as sheer ingratitude (2 Samuel 12:7-8); 3) presses home the demands of God’s holy will in His word and law (2 Samuel 12:9); and 4) exhibits the inevitable results of sin as the sign of the divine retributive righteousness, under which man must bow.—When a man quietly opens his heart, as David did, to this ministry of grace (that leads to penitence), then appears its purposed working: 1) deep, penitent recognition of sin, not merely as an offence against man, but as enmity “against the Lord Himself,” so that there is an end to the blindness about the nature of sin, founded on self-love; 2) sincere, frank confession of sin as an offence against the holy God, so that now ceases the inward conflict of opposing accusations and excuses, of a condemning conscience and a pride founded on self-justifying self-love. Open confession of sin was a legal part of the sin-offering, Leviticus 5:5; Leviticus 16:21; Numbers 5:7.—“I have sinned against the Lord. The words are very few, as with the publican in Luke 18:13. But just that is a good sign of a truly broken heart; here is no excusing, no shrouding, no belittling of sin; no hiding-place is sought; no pretext used, no human weakness pleaded” (Berl. Bib.); 3) personal experience of the comfort of the forgiveness of sin, granted to the sinner of God’s free grace, he having done nothing to deserve it. “The Lord also hath taken away thy sin” (2 Samuel 12:13). From this experience comes confidence and certainty of the grace received; 4) humble, quiet submission to the suffering inflicted by the Lord as the consequence of sin, which is to be for the chastisement, purification and trying of the penitent and believing heart (2 Samuel 12:14-23), and 5) renewed enjoyment of the friendliness and goodness of the divine love (2 Samuel 12:24-25). 4. As Psalms 32 exhibits the frame of mind out of which David came to sincere penitence, so Psalms 51 (as the title indicates) is the echo of the personal experience of God’s grace, which alone is the source of the forgiveness of sin and blotting out of guilt (2 Samuel 12:3-4 [Eng. 2 Samuel 12:1-2]), under the condition of penitent confession of personal transgression against the Lord deeply founded in inborn sinfulness (2 Samuel 12:5-8 [2 Samuel 12:3-6]), and of humble supplication for grace (2 Samuel 12:9-11 [2 Samuel 12:7-9]) and renewal (2 Samuel 12:12-14 [10–12]) out of a broken and contrite heart (2 Samuel 12:15-21 [2 Samuel 12:13-19]). On the correspondence of the chief features of this Psalm with the history see Hengstenberg’s and Hupfeld’s commentaries thereon.—[If Psalms 51 was written or composed on this occasion, then the two last verses must probably be regarded as a later addition (the sentiment is similar to that of Psalm 53:7 (6); Psalms 79:9, and other passages). For the rest, the spiritual teaching of this Psalm and Psalms 32 is entirely independent of their historical origin.—Tr.] AND God does not leave men in their sins to go their own way unwarned and unchastised, but sends His messengers after them to call them to repentance.—The word of God that would call the sinner to repentance reminds him on the one hand of the fulness of the divine manifestations of grace and the manifold gifts of God’s goodness, in order to shame the sinner for his ingratitude and disobedience; on the other hand it points him to the earnestness of God’s holiness and righteousness in His commands. To this end it often clothes itself in image and similitude, in order either to work in the man receptivity for the indwelling power that awakens to repentance, if the man will give heed, or so far as this is not the case, so much the more to harden the inner man, comp. Matthew 13:10-16. The right sort of awakening preaching consists in immediate direct application of the word of God to individual hearts, so that after holding up the mirror of God’s law, it is always said: Thou art the man! Men are always, according to their natural disposition, inclined to look not at their own sins, but at the sins of others, to judge and pass sentence on them. Such looking away from one’s self to the sins in the world around often finds its occasion and temptation in preaching upon the universal sinfulness of mankind and in testimonies against the sins of the times or of a whole people; if these testimonies are to be effectual for awakening in the hearers a true repentance, they must have their point in the word: Thou art the man!—As clearly as the sins of others, should we see and recognize our own sins; as inexorably and strictly as we judge and pass sentence upon others, should we enter into judgment with ourselves. But this is done only when we let the word: “Thou art the man,” press into our hearts. The humble confession: “I have sinned against the Lord,” roots itself in the penitent recognition of guilt, and has as a consequence the assurance of forgiveness of all sins, not as something thereby deserved and won but as a gift of the free grace of God, which grace immediately answers the honest and penitent confession of guilt by acquitting of guilt; the sinner’s unreserved confession is followed by unconditional divine absolution. Rescue of the man fallen into sin. 1) The compassionate God stretches out to him the receiving hand (Nathan’s mission and reproof). 2) The fallen one seizes this hand, and by its help lifts himself up in humility of heart and honest confession of guilt.—Repentance and grace: 1) How repentance is a work of grace, or how grace leads to repentance, and 2) How the experience of grace in the consolation of forgiveness is conditioned on repentance, or how repentance leads to grace.—The right sort of awakening preaching is that which 1) In view of the fulness of God’s goodness reveals the sinner’s ingratitude, 2) In view of the earnestness of God’s commands reveals the sinner’s disobedience, and 3) Puts an end to all self-justification and excuses by the earnestness of the word: Thou art the man! True Repentance: 1) Wherein it consists. In penitent recognition and confession of sin as of enmity against the holy God (“I have sinned against the Lord”). 2) How it is attained. In the ways along which the sinner is led by seeking, pursuing and preventing grace. 3) Whither it leads. To the consolation of the forgiveness of all sins, to an humble yielding to the chastening hand of God under the sufferings which necessarily follow from sin, and to new experiences of God’s love in the joy which, after sufferings patiently borne, is granted by Him.—The painful consequences of sin are for the penitent man a means of grace. 1) In order to prove and try his faith and confidence in God’s fatherly love. 2) To chasten and instruct in righteousness, according to the holy will of God. 3) To purge from still clinging sinfulness. 4) To establish in a state of grace. 2 Samuel 12:1-4. Starke: God does not always keep silent to the sins of the ungodly, but at the proper time sets them before their eyes, Psalms 50:21.—Disselhoff: That is always God’s way, first to speak to the sinner in similitudes, in dark sayings, in works and deeds. Dumb preachers, and yet calling so loud! For those similitudes in which the Lord speaks to us contain no unintelligible speech, these trumpets give no uncertain sound.—Cramer: In the office of reproof one must not be too mild, nor yet too sharp, but must so manage that what is said shall be penetrating, shall smite the heart, shall stir and shame the conscience.—[Hall: He that hates sin so much the more as the offender is more dear to him, will let David feel the bruise of his fall. If God’s best children have been sometimes suffered to sleep in a sin, at last He hath awakened them in a fright.—Nathan the prophet is sent to the prophet David. Let no man think himself too good to learn; teachers themselves may be taught that, in their own particular, which, in a generality, they have often taught others: it is not only ignorance that is to be removed, but misaffection.—There is no one thing wherein is more use of wisdom, than the due contriving of a reprehension.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 12:5. sq. Schlier: We see well the wrong that others do, even if it is only a trifling mote, and how little we care for our own failings, how little we mark our lapses even when it is great beams that we bear in ourselves.—[Hall: How severe justicers we can be to our very own crimes in others.—Tr.]—Wilt thou judge, then judge thyself, and wilt thou be strict, then before all be strict against thyself, and wilt thou be indulgent, then before all be indulgent towards others, but towards thyself be strict and unindulgent. 2 Samuel 12:7 sqq. [Hall: The life of doctrine (teaching) is in the application. We may take pleasure to hear men speak in the clouds—we never take profit till we find a propriety in the exhortation or reproof. There was not more cunning in the parable than cunning in the application: “Thou art the man.”—Tr.].—Disselhoff: He who is used by God to call out to another, “Thou art the man,” often does not himself know that he has performed Nathan’s service. The Lord sends His word like arrows; so many are struck, in the preaching of the divine word, exactly as if the word had been aimed at their heart alone. It is aimed at them too, only not by men, but by God Himself.—S. Schmid: Every sin is despising God.—Cramer: Despising the divine word is the evil fountain of all sins (Proverbs 29:18).—Starke: With whatever one sins, with that he is also commonly punished.—Schlier: He who insults the word of the Lord, even this word will crush him to atoms, and he who sins against the commandment of God, even this commandment which he has despised will become to him a consuming fire. He who practises injustice and violence shall in his time himself also experience injustice and violence, and he who commits adultery will in his own honor become conscious of God’s judgment.—Cramer: God punishes sin with sin, not that He has pleasure in sin, or that He works it or works with it, but that as a strict Judge, He pronounces sentence and inflicts and permits the evil. 2 Samuel 12:13 sq. Schlier: He who openly and unreservedly acknowledges himself guilty has thereby inwardly cut himself loose from sin, and broken with it in his heart.—Disselhoff: “I have sinned against the Lord.” There is in the Bible no confession so unconditional, no expression of repentance so short, but also none so thoroughly true. So long as sin reigns upon the earth, all penitent sinners will with this confession cast themselves down before God, into this confession will they pour out their hearts, this confession will become ever more openly, deeply, truly and movingly their prayer, and they will know how to say nothing else. [Hall: It was but a short word, but passionate; and such as came from the bottom of a contrite heart. The greatest griefs are not most verbal. Saul confessed his sin more largely, less effectually. God cares not for phrases, but for affections. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 3. Breaking up of David’s house and family by the crimes of his sons Amnon and Absalom 2 Samuel 13:1-39a. Amnon’s incest with Tamar. 2 Samuel 13:1-211 And it came to pass after this that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2And Amnon was so vexed [troubled] that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin, 3and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her. But [And] Amnon had a friend whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David’s brother; and Jonadab was a very subtil man. 4And he said unto him, Why art thou, being the king’s son, lean from day to day [Why art thou so lean, O son of the king, morning by morning]? wilt thou not tell me? And Amnon said unto him, I love Tamar my brother Absalom’s sister. 5And Jonadab said unto him, Lay thee down on thy bed, and make [feign] thyself sick; and when thy father cometh to see thee, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come, and give me meat [food to eat], and dress [prepare] the meat [food3] in my sight, that I may see it and eat it 6at her hand. So [And] Amnon lay down and made [feigned] himself sick. And when the king was come [And the king came] to see him, [ins. and] Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of 7cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand. Then [And] David sent home to Tamar [sent to Tamar to the house], saying, Go now [I pray thee] to thy brother 8Amnon’s house, and dress [prepare] him meat [the food]. So [And] Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house, and he was laid down; and she took flour [the dough] and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes. 9And she took a [the] pan, and poured them out before him; but [and] he refused to eat. And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they went out every man from him. 10And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat [food] into the chamber, that I may eat of [at] thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. 11And when she had brought [And she handed] them unto him to eat, [ins. and] he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me my sister. 12And she answered [said to] him, Nay, my brother, do not force [humble] me, for no such thing ought to be done in Israel; do not thou this folly. 13And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go [shall I carry my reproach]? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now, therefore, I pray thee, speak [And now, speak, I pray thee] unto 14the king; for he will not withhold me from thee. Howbeit [And] he would not hearken unto her voice, but, being stronger than she, forced her [and he was stronger 15than she, and humbled her], and lay with her. Then [And] Amnon hated her exceedingly [with a very great hate]; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone. 16And she said unto him, There is no cause; this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But [And] he would 17not hearken unto her. Then [And] he called his servant [young man] that ministered unto him, and said, Put now [ye] this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her. 18And she had a garment of divers colours [a long-sleeved garment] upon her; for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then [And] his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her. 19And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of divers colours [the long-sleeved garment] that was on her, and laid her hand on her head, and went on crying 20[ins. as she went]. And Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy peace, my sister [and now, my sister, hold thy peace]; he is thy brother; regard not this thing. So [And] Tamar remained 21desolate in her brother Absalom’s house. But when [And] king David heard of all these things, [ins. and] he was very wroth. b. Amnon murdered by Absalom. 2 Samuel 13:22-3322 And Absalom spake unto his brother Amnon neither good nor bad; for Absalom hated Amnon because he had forced [humbled] his sister Tamar. 23And it came to pass after two full years [about two years], that Absalom had sheepshearers in Baal-hezer, which is beside Ephraim; and Absalom invited all the king’s sons. 24And Absalom came to the king, and said, Behold, now, thy servant hath sheepshearers; let the king, I beseech thee, and his servants go with thy servant. 25And the king said unto Absalom, Nay, my son, let us not all now [om. now] go, lest we be chargeable unto thee [burdensome to thee]. And he pressed him; howbeit [and] he would not go, but [and he] blessed him. 26Then said Absalom [And Absalom said], If not, I pray thee let my brother Amnon go with us. And the king said unto him, Why 27should he go with thee? But [And] Absalom pressed him, that [and] he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him. 28Now Absalom had commanded [And Absalom commanded] his servants, saying, Mark ye now when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say unto you, Smite Amnon, then kill him, fear not; have not I commanded you? be courageous and be valiant. 29And the servants of Absalom did unto Amnon as Absalom had [om. had] commanded. Then [And] all the king’s sons arose, and every man gat him upon his mule and fled. 30And it came to pass, while they were in the way, that tidings came to David, saying, Absalom 31hath slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one of them left. Then [And] the king arose, and tare his garments, and lay on the earth; and all his servants stood by with their clothes rent. And Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, 32answered and said, Let not my lord suppose [say] that they have slain all the young men the king’s sons; for Amnon only is dead; for by the appointment of Absalom this hath been determined from the day that he forced [humbled] his sister 33Tamar. Now therefore [And now] let not my lord the king take the thing to his heart, to think that [saying], All the king’s sons are dead; for Amnon only is dead. c. Absalom’s flight. 2 Samuel 13:34-3934 But [And] Absalom fled. And the young man that kept the watch lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, there came much people by the way of the hillside behind him. 35And Jonadab said unto the king, Behold, the king’s sons come; as thy servant said, so it Isaiah 36 And it came to pass, as soon as he had made an end of speaking, that behold the king’s sons came, and lifted up their voice and wept; 37and the king also and all his servants wept very sore. But [And]13 Absalom fled and went to Talmai the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur. And David mourned 38for his son every day. So [And]13 Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was 39there three years. And the soul of king David longed to go forth unto Absalom; for he was comforted concerning Amnon, seeing he was dead. AND 2 Samuel 13:1-21. Amnon’s crime. 2 Samuel 13:1. sqq. And it came to pass after this—general chronological statement, referring what follows to the time after the Ammonite war. Tamar and Absalom were the children of Maacah, daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, whom David had married after he ascended the throne at Hebron (2 Samuel 3:3). Amnon was David’s oldest son; his mother was the Jezreelitess Ahinoam (2 Samuel 3:2). The apodosis begins with the words: “and Amnon was so troubled” (2 Samuel 13:2), while 2 Samuel 13:1 from and Absalom to the end is explanatory parenthesis. 2 Samuel 13:2. Literally: it was strait to Amnon unto becoming sick, that is, he was sore troubled, so that he fell sick. Not: “feigned himself sick” (Luther), for he does not feign till 2 Samuel 13:5-6 (where the word is properly so rendered). [Ewald (quoted by Thenius) remarks that Amnon’s character and conduct were doubtless affected by the fact that he was the first-born son, and of a mother apparently not of the noblest birth.—Tr.] We have a picture here of the consuming fire of passionate love, which could not be satisfied, because Tamar was a virgin and it seemed to him impossible to do anything to her, that is, her maidenly reserve and her inaccessibility [in the harem or women’s apartment] or other difficulties thwarted his designs. 2 Samuel 13:3 sq. By his wicked, crafty cousin Jonadab, the son of his uncle Shimeah (another son of whom, Jonathan, is mentioned 2 Samuel 21:21) Amnon is not only strengthened in his sinful desire, but is shown a way whereby he may attain his end by guile and violence. He becomes “lean,” an appearance all the more striking in a “king’s son,” in whose case there was no reason for it. From morning to morning—his aspect was more wretched in the morning after nights made sleepless by torturing passion. [Thenius: a finely chosen point in the description of his malady, from which also it appears that Jonadab was, if not a house-mate, at least his daily companion. Bib. Com.: he mentions the morning because it was his custom to come to Amnon every morning to his levee.—Tr.] This wretched appearance of his favored the advice to feign himself sick (2 Samuel 13:5). To see thee, “seeing” used for visiting the sick (Psalms 41:7 (6); 2 Kings 8:29). Jonadab’s counsel takes for granted that the father will not refuse the sick son such a request. From the whole account we see that the king’s children dwelt in different households. “Probably each wife with her children dwelt in a separate part of the royal palace” (Keil), and further the grown sons, as appears from 2 Samuel 13:7; 2 Samuel 13:20, had each his separate house. “A couple of cakes;” some solid, distinctly shaped preparation is here meant, since there were “two” of them. Whether it received its name from its heart-like shape, or its heart-strengthening power (Keil), [the word is lebibah, and the Heb. for “heart” is leb], or because it was made from rolled dough, is left undecided. Tamar was probably famed for her skilful cooking. [In the East such skill is not unusual, even in women of high rank.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:8 sqq. “She took a pan [2 Samuel 13:9], so Chald. and Sept. [On the word rendered “pan” see “Text and Gram.;” it seems more probable that it is a name for some preparation of food.—Tr.] “Baked” [2 Samuel 13:8]; the Heb. word (αωμ) is used for roasting or baking, see Exodus 12:9 comp. with 2 Chronicles 35:13. Amnon’s refusal to eat must have conveyed the impression that he was very sick, and the exclusion of all persons from the room might be easily explained by the fact that he was weakened by his illness. He was as clever an actor as Jonadab a crafty counsellor. 2 Samuel 13:12 sqq. Tamar’s noble conduct in rejecting this wicked proposal is a confirmation of what is said in 2 Samuel 13:2 of the hindrances in Amnon’s way. Such things are not done in Israel, it is against the law and custom of the people of God (as contrasted with the heathen). Comp. Leviticus 20:17 with 2 Samuel 13:7; 2 Samuel 13:26. Tamar repels the wickedness from the highest moral point of view, which is determined by the theocratic-national position and significance of Israel. The word “folly” (πְ ?αָ ?μָ ?δ) is here used of unchastity as in 2 Samuel 34:7. [The same sense is given substantially by the rendering of Eng. A. V.: “not so should it be done in Israel” (as Philippson).—Keil remarks that the expression recalls Genesis 34:7 (where it is a commentary on Shechem’s conduct to Dinah), the words being the same; and Bib. Com. adds that Tamar probably knew the passage in Genesis, and wished to profit by it. But, as this passage is a remark of the Editor of the Pentateuch (as the phrase “in Israel” shows), and it is doubtful whether the Pentateuch in its present shape existed in David’s time, the resemblance between the two passages must be otherwise explained. The phrase in question may have been a common one, or the Editor of Genesis may have taken it from our narrative, as a remark appropriate in his narrative.—Tr.]—Next to the honor of Israel as the people sanctifying itself to the Lord, she adduces her own honor and Amnon’s (2 Samuel 13:13); both, she would say, will suffer irreparable shame. Further, in order more certainly to hold him off, she urges him to ask her in marriage of the king, who would not deny his request. This would be in opposition to the law, Leviticus 18:9; Leviticus 20:17; Deuteronomy 27:22, whereby sexual connections between brothers and sisters (those having only one parent in common are especially mentioned) are strictly forbidden. In order to harmonize this apparent contradiction Thenius thinks it not impossible that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:7-18; Leviticus 20:19-21; Deuteronomy 27:20; Deuteronomy 27:22 referred first to the maintenance of moral purity in family-life, and that they did not wholly forbid real marriages between brothers and sisters (having only one parent in common), particularly where there was special inclination. But this view cannot be well made to accord with the absoluteness of the prohibition and the sharpness of the threat of punishment. The strict prohibition of sexual connection in general must have applied to marriage also. It must be supposed either that the law was not strictly carried out, or that Tamar, knowing the law very well, wished to keep back the passionate advances of Amnon. So Josephus [7, 8, 1]: “this she said, wishing to escape his passion for the present,” and Clericus: “that she might elude him in every way possible, lest, if all hope of marriage were denied, the man should be the more incited to violence.”2 Samuel 13:15. On the satisfaction of sexual desire follows hate towards its object and instrument; “a psychological trait,” remarks Thenius, “that vouches for the truth of the narrative.” 2 Samuel 13:16. Tamar’s reply is not to be rendered (Vulg., Luther): “the evil is greater than the other,” for the Heb. requires: “this great (greater) evil.” Nor can we (with Thenius) alter the Heb. text after the Sept.: “nay, my brother (ΰַ ?μΞΰָ ?ηִ ?ι), for the evil is greater,” etc., which is obviously a change to avoid difficulty, and the consequent change of text is too violent. The renderings: “give no occasion of this greater evil” (Cler., Ges.), and: “but not this greater evil than the other!” (De Wette) do not accord with the wording of the Heb. Bφttcher, by two changes (ςַ ?μ for ΰָ ?μ, and insertion of ξָ ?η), gets the sense: “wherefore this great evil, greater than …?”; on which Thenius rightly remarks that it is difficult to see why the narrator should have put this unintelligible phrase into the mouth of the unfortunate woman rather than the simple “why?” (ξַ ?γּ ?εּ ?ςַ or μָ ?ξָּ ?δ).—It certainly seems better (if anything is to be added) to insert the word “let there be” or “be thou” (ϊְּ ?δִ ?ι), so that it shall read: “become not the cause of this great evil, which is greater than …” (Maur., Dietrich in Ges. Lex. s. v. ΰֹ ?γεֹ ?ϊ); but this expression also: “become not the cause” is, not simple and natural enough in the mouth of the excited Tamar. It is better to suppose an unfinished sentence and render (changing ΰַ ?μ into ΰֶ ?μΞ): On account of this greater evil … she is interrupted by Amnon, and cannot finish her address. This is clear from what immediately follows: But he would not hear her, and said to his servant, Put her out from me; he ordered her to be put out before she could finish. This expulsion was a still “greater evil” than the other violence done her, both for her, because it would create the impression that she had done something shameful, and for him, since he thus added wrong to wrong. [On this reading see “Text. and Gram.,” where reasons are given for adopting substantially the text of the Sept.: “nay, my brother, for this evil is greater,” etc. The objection to Dr. Erdmann’s rendering is the same that he has himself urged against another: it is too formal, too little in keeping with the excited state in which we should suppose Tamar to be. A similar objection applies to the translation given in the Bib. Com.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:17. [Amnon orders Tamar to be expelled.] This order and conduct must have led the servant to suppose that she had done something shameful.—[Bib. Com.: The brutality of Amnon needs no comment.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:18. [Tamar is expelled.] She had on a garment with long sleeves (τַּ ?ρִּ ?ιν); the usual undergarment covered only the upper arm, while this covered the whole arm. and took the place of the armless meil [outer garment or robe.] Translate: thus were the king’s daughters, the virgins, clothed with robes; such long-sleeved mantles distinguished the princesses. 2 Samuel 13:19. Her indication of grief at the shame done her. The hands clasped above the head or laid on the head, are a sign of grief at the shame that has come on the head as the bearer of one’s personal honor. Comp. Jeremiah 2:37. [2 Samuel 13:18 b would seem to connect itself more naturally with 2 Samuel 13:17, and 2 Samuel 13:18 a with 2 Samuel 13:19. It may be, as Keil says, that her royal dress is mentioned to bring out more clearly the harshness of her treatment, since the servant must have recognized the dress. The word “robes” in 2 Samuel 13:18 is discussed in “Text. and Gram.;” the sentence would perhaps be helped by omitting the word.—Bib. Com. suggests that Tamar took the ashes that she put on her head from the very place where she had cooked the food for Amnon.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:20. [Absalom cares for his sister.] Instead of “Amnon” the Heb. has Aminon, a diminutive, expressive of scorn and contempt. Absalom’s question shows that a suspicion of Amnon naturally suggested itself to him: Has Aminon thy brother been with thee? euphemism for Amnon’s deed. Absalom, with his careless exhortation: lay not this thing to heart, is a sad comforter. [More probably, under this careless exterior he concealed a deep purpose to avenge the crime, which he at this moment had neither words nor inclination to discuss. He seems not to have failed in his duty to his sister.—Tr.]—And Tamar abode in his house as a desolated woman; literally, “and as desolated,” not “as solitary.” 2 Samuel 13:21. [David’s anger.] After the words: “and he was very wroth,” the Sept. adds: “and he grieved not the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his first-born.” But this addition gives too circumstantial and full a reason why David contented himself with being angry and did not punish Amnon; we cannot alter the Heb. text to accord with it (as Then, and Ewald do). David’s failure to inflict on Amnon the legal penalty of death [Leviticus 20:17] was a sign of weakness, and led to Absalom’s revenge and his rebellion against his father. 2 Samuel 13:22. [Absalom’s hatred of Amnon.]—From bad to good, neither bad nor good (Genesis 24:50), he talked not at all with him because he hated him.—There is no need with Bφttcher to transpose 2 Samuel 13:21-22. Verse 20 having described Absalom’s procedure (in connection with Amnon’s crime) and 2 Samuel 13:21 the king’s, 2 Samuel 13:22 begins a new section, in which is first stated the deepest ground of Absalom’s conduct towards Amnon afterwards related, namely, his hate towards him. The present order of verses therefore presents the thoroughly well-arranged progress in the narrative, which Thenius thinks can be attained only by a transposition. b. 2 Samuel 13:22-33. Amnon’s murder by Absalom. 2 Samuel 13:22 is closely connected with 2 Samuel 13:23 sq., giving the ground of Absalom’s fratricide, though two years elapse before the act of vengeance is executed. According to verse 23 Absalom had an estate in Baalhazor near Ephraim. Probably also the other sons of the king had such landed possessions. A joyful festival was connected with sheepshearing (comp. 1 Samuel 25:2; 1 Samuel 25:8), as is not seldom the case also in Germany. Baal-hazor is more exactly described as being near Ephraim. This cannot mean near the tribe-territory of Ephraim; the Prep. “near” (ςִ ?ν) shows that a city called Ephraim is meant (2 Chronicles 13:19 Qeri, comp. Joshua 15:9; John 11:54; Joseph., bell. Jud. 4, 9. 9, according to Eusebius eight miles north of Jerusalem). Thenius: “probably Tell Asur south of Shiloh; see Kδuffer, Stud. II. 145.”2 Samuel 13:25. He blessed him, i.e. wished him well (αֵּ ?ψֵ ?κְ as in 1 Samuel 25:14). 2 Samuel 13:26. “If thou goest not,” literally: “and not;” so Sept. and Vulg. But Thenius renders: “O that Amnon might go with us” (taking μεּ = μֹ ?ΰ, Ew., § 358 b). The king, unwilling to go himself, is also unwilling for Amnon to go, as the question: “why should he go with thee?” shows. For he could not be ignorant of Absalom’s hatred to Amnon. [Thenius: “let Amnon, the first-born [and heir-apparent] go along with us (me and the other princes) as thy representative.”—Thus David found it hard to deny Absalom’s request without giving as a reason what he was unwilling to say.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:27. [David consents.] David here also shows himself weak in yielding to Absalom’s request.—As our narrator is only concerned to tell how the fratricide was accomplished, he omits mention of the meal that Absalom prepared, especially as this was indirectly given in 2 Samuel 13:23-24. The addition of the Sept.: “and Absalom prepared a repast like the repast of a king,” is to be regarded, therefore, as a mere explanatory insertion.2 Samuel 13:28 sqq. [The murder.] As David had weakly left Amnon’s crime unpunished, Absalom held it his duty to take vengeance on Amnon and maintain his sister’s honor. This feeling does not, however, exclude the motive of selfish ambition in Absalom; by the death of Amnon he would be one step nearer to the succession to the throne; there may, indeed, have been another brother, Chileab, older than he (2 Samuel 3:3), but probably (to judge from Absalom’s conduct, 2 Samuel 15:1-6) he was no longer alive. Absalom’s ambition, which afterwards led him into rebellion, probably welcomed this pretext for putting Amnon, the heir to the throne, out of the way. Comp. Winer, R.- W. I. 14. 2 Samuel 13:29. [Flight of the princes.] “Every man on his mule.” Mule-breeding is forbidden in Leviticus 19:19. [Yet mules were frequently used by persons of distinction, Absalom (2 Samuel 18:9), David and Solomon (1 Kings 1:33; 1 Kings 10:25), and were probably introduced by commerce or war. Our passage contains the first mention of them; afterwards they seem to have become common (1 Kings 18:5; Zechariah 14:15; Ezra 2:66). Ewald thinks that the law in Lev. does not forbid breeding them; certainly it does not absolutely forbid owning them. See Art. Maulthier in Herzog.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:30. Tidings came, namely, by the servants, who had come on in advance of the princes. The exaggeration in their report is psychologically easily explained by the circumstances. 2 Samuel 13:31. [The king’s grief.] The king’s servants stood still, immovable (πִ ?φָּ ?αִ ?ιν), comp. Numbers 22:32 sq.; Deuteronomy 5:20. It need not be inferred from the phrase: And all his servants stood before him with garments rent, that the courtiers preceded the king in the rending of the garments (Bφttcher), since this rending on their part would naturally follow on the king’s, and did not require special mention.—[Sept.: “and all his servants that were standing about him rent their garments,” which represents an easy and natural Hebrew; but there is not sufficient ground for altering the Heb. text to accord with it.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:32 sqq. Jonadab, who had counselled Amnon to commit his crime, now corrects the false report [sharp-sightedly seeing how the thing must De.—Tr.], and gives a reason for his assertion that Amnon alone was dead: for on Absalom’s mouth was it laid (it lay) from the day; that is, one could infer from his words that he intended this (De Wette), or, better: “one could see it in him; for the movements of the soul are seen (next to the look) most clearly about the mouth” (Thenius). The subject of the verb “was” [Eng. A. V. this], namely, the murder of Amnon, or hatred to Amnon, naturally suggests itself, and the omission is in accordance with Jonadab’s excited, hurried speech. His purpose was set, determined (ωִ ?ιϊָ ?δ), comp. Exodus 21:13; his determination to do the deed lay on his mouth, was decidedly and clearly stamped in the features about his mouth. Vulg.: “in hatred,” instead of “in the mouth;” Aq., Sym.: “in wrath” (they read ΰַ ?τֵּ ?ι instead of τּ ?ι). [If our Hebrew text is retained, the rendering of Eng. A. V. is in accordance with the general usage of the words: “according to the commandment of Absalom it was determined from the day,” etc., where the difficulty is to say what was determined and to whom the commandment was given. On the other hand, it is not probable (as Erdmann’s rendering asserts) that Absalom openly showed his purpose to kill his brother; in that case the latter would have been warned. The general meaning, however, is clear, that Absalom had made up his mind two years before to kill Amnon.—Tr.] c. 2 Samuel 13:34-39. Absalom’s flight. 2 Samuel 13:34. And Absalom fled. There is no ground for attaching these words to Jonadab’s speech, 2 Samuel 13:33 (Mich., Dathe), since the latter could not have known of Absalom’s flight, and it is not a mere surmise about it that is expressed, but the fact. From 2 Samuel 13:29 on two lines of narration must be distinguished. The one, starting with the flight of David’s sons (2 Samuel 13:29), gives the rumor, the fact affirmed by Jonadab and its impression on David, up to 2 Samuel 13:33; the other, pointing back to 2 Samuel 13:29, begins with Absalom’s flight (synchronous with that of the princes), and proceeds to tell of the arrival of the other sons after Absalom’s flight. The sentence: “And Absalom fled,” certainly breaks the connection, since the next sentence (“the watchman lifted up his eyes”) is closely connected with 2 Samuel 13:33. But the words are not taken from 2 Samuel 13:37, as has been assumed; the object of this interruption is to bring forward the important event that preceded the arrival of the sons of David, so that on the one hand Absalom’s flight and absence from the royal court, on the other hand the presence of his brothers and their complaint to their father are the subject matter of the narration, which closes with the goal of Absalom’s flight and David’s conduct in respect to Absalom and the death of Amnon. 2 Samuel 13:34. The young man, the watchman, who was looking out for the persons returning from the festival. Much people, a crowd of people made up of the numerous retinue of the sons of David. “From the way behind him,” that is, “according to well-known usus loquendi (see Exodus 3:1 comp. with Isaiah 9:11; Job 23:8) simply from the west” (Thenius), since in front means geographically the East. “From the side of the mountain,” probably Mount Zion. The princes came not from the north, but from the west, because the return by this route was easier and quicker. 2 Samuel 13:35. Jonadab confirms his previous, assertion. 2 Samuel 13:36. Repetition of the mourning of 2 Samuel 13:31, only deeper. 2 Samuel 13:37. The narrative returns to Absalom, resuming the statement of his flight (from 2 Samuel 13:34); this repetition is occasioned by the preceding remark: “the king’s sons came.” The sense is: “except Absalom, who had fled.” On Talmai see 2 Samuel 3:3. Absalom’s stay with him lasted three years. [On the text of 2 Samuel 13:34-38 see “Text, and Gram.” The conclusion there reached is that the order in our present text cannot be defended, there being no visible reason for the repetitions, and the omission of the subject (David) in 37 b being impossible if that clause were in its proper position, but that our present text may be the abridgement of a longer narrative, in which the repetitions were not out of place, and the omission of subject not improper.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:39. And David the king held back from going forth against Absalom, for he had consoled himself for Amnon, that he was dead.—The construction being impersonal [it restrained=David was restrained], no subject is to be supplied, as “grief restrained” (Maurer), or: “Absalom’s flight to Geshur and his abode there restrained” (Keil); for the reason of his not going out after Absalom lay in his tone of feeling, as indicated in the words: “for he had consoled himself.” This was his ground of action, not sorrow for Absalom’s flight, and this accords with the capacity for rapid change of his sanguine temperament; his hot anger soon sank into quiet. Comp. 2 Samuel 13:21; 2 Samuel 12:20-24. The rendering: “And David longed to go forth to Absalom” (Chald., the Rabbis, De W. in the Remarks) supposes the insertion of the word soul (πֶ ?τֶ ?ωׁ) after the verb (so Eng. A. V.] But (apart from the hardness of this insertion) there are two objections to this rendering, namely, that David could have sent for Absalom, if he wanted him, and that, so far from feeling any love-longing towards Absalom, David was permanently set against him, as appears from the fact that, after Joab had gotten him back, it was two years before the king would see him (2 Samuel 14:24; 2 Samuel 14:28). Ewald renders: “David’s anger ceased to express itself about Absalom.” But the verb (ιφΰ) cannot be so translated, and the insertion [of the word anger] is arbitrary and violent. Bφttcher’s translation: “and David left off going,” etc., supposes that he had begun to go, and was stopped by obstacles, which is nowhere intimated. The same objection lies to Thenius’ rendering: “he desisted from going out” (after having begun), time having softened his grief; but nothing is said of this in the connection. [The impersonal construction (of Erdmann and others) cannot be maintained here, and the Heb. text in its present shape gives no sense. We must either adopt the rendering of Eng. A. V. supplying the word soul, or (after Ewald) supply some such word as anger. David’s feeling towards Absalom here indicated is apparently a kindly one, since it is probably what Joab is said in 2 Samuel 14:1 to perceive, and in this latter verse it is a kindly feeling (Dr. Erdmann takes a different view). The sense, then, seems to be as follows: David longed to recall Absalom, but political and judicial reasons deterred him; Joab perceives this, and helps the king out of the difficulties that his sense of justice threw in the way of the exhibition of his love for his exiled son.—Tr.] AND 1. “The sins of the fathers are visited on the children.” The truth of this moral law is illustrated in the history of David’s family. The divine threat uttered by Nathan (2 Samuel 12:7-12) begins here to be fulfilled in the disintegration of David’s family-life. As he destroyed the honor and happiness of Uriah’s house, so his first-born son brings shame on his; as he committed murder, so the sword dooms his child. One sin led to another; the bitter spring of sin grew in time to a river of destruction that flowed over the whole land, and even endangered David’s throne and life (Baumgarten). 2. The fratricide Absalom is a transgressor of God’s command, infringing by his self-avenging the divine arrangement whereby sin and sinner meet with their judgment. On the other hand, God controls Absalom’s crime, and by it punishes Amnon’s crime. Absalom is God’s instrument, though not himself less guilty. The Lord uses men’s sins according to His pleasure; human unrighteousness must serve the ends of His righteousness. 3. Right family-discipline consists in enforcing God’s holy laws in the control of children, and carelessness in this causes sin to grow quietly, till the evil bursts suddenly forth and destroys the happiness of the household. But when evil makes its appearance God’s law requires strict chastisement, wherein David failed towards both Amnon and Absalom. This neglect, usually the result of weak affection (and in David’s case induced also by the recollection of his own sin), leads to still greater sins and crimes in the family. 4. These dreadful experiences of David and his sons are intended to lead him to purity, humility and sanctification. “He that thinks all this a sign of God’s wrath and disfavor knows little of what it means to have forgiveness of sins. David confessed his sins, and so found favor with the Lord his God. But how wholesome for him was the Lord’s chastisement now, how he needed constant self-humbling, and what better for this end than these bitter experiences of his family? Whom the Lord loves He chastens” (Schlier). “Forgiveness of sin usually merely converts punishment into paternal chastisement, the rod of anger into the smiting of love. Externally the consequences of sin remain the same, only their internal character is changed. Otherwise forgiveness of sin might too easily lead to wilfulness” (Hengstenb. Gesch. d. Reiches Gottes [Hist. of the Kingdom of God], II. 127). AND 2 Samuel 13:1. Osiander: Even though God forgives the sin, nevertheless He lays upon the sinner a cross, that he may be more heedful, and his neighbor may be deterred from sin (Numbers 14:20-23). 2 Samuel 13:2. Starke: Where the parents live in sin, the children commonly follow after (1 Kings 15:1-3).—[Henry: Godly parents have often been afflicted with wicked children; grace does not run in the blood, but corruption does. We do not find that David’s children imitated him in his devotion; but his false steps they trod in, and in those did much worse, and repented not.—Wordsworth: He was forgiven by God, but they came to a miserable end.—Scott: So depraved is the human heart, that even natural affection may degenerate into licentiousness; and the intercourse even between near relations should be conducted with caution and prudence, that no opportunity may be given to those who are disposed to commit iniquity.—Tr.]—Osiander: The more one thinks about an unchaste love, the greater it becomes. 2 Samuel 13:3-5. Cramer: Lust punishes itself, consumes the marrow in the bones, shortens life, and ruins one’s good name (Sir 23:22).—J. Lange: One man is another’s angel, a good angel for warning, and so for seduction an evil angel.—[Hall: Had Jonadab been a true friend, he had bent all the forces of his dissuasion against the wicked motions of that sinful lust; had showed the prince of Israel how much those lewd desires provoked God, and blemished himself, and had lent his hand to strangle them in their first conception. There cannot be a more worthy improvement of friendship, than in a fervent opposition to the sins of them whom we profess to love—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:10. Starke: The ungodly are ashamed only before men, not before God (Sir 23:25 sq.).—Seb. Schmid: He who wishes to guard against sinning with others, should not follow them where he may be constrained to sin.—Hedinger: Unrighteous works always seek to remain concealed (Proverbs 7:18-20). 2 Samuel 13:15-17. Starke [from Hall]: Inordinate lust never ends but in discontent. … Brutish Amnon, it was thyself whom thou shouldst have hated for this villainy, not thine innocent sister. O how many brothers of Amnon there are even to-day.—[Scott: It cannot reasonably be expected that those who make no scruple of debauching the persons of those for whom they pretend affection, will feel any remorse at deserting them with cruelty and disdain, at exposing them to shame and contempt, or at leaving them to all the horrors of penury and prostitution. Let none ever expect better treatment from those who are capable of attempting to seduce them.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 13:21. Wuert. B.: While parents should love their children, yet they must not spare them when they have done evil, but bring them to due punishment, that they may not have to be punished by God or by the executioner (1 Samuel 2:29).—[Hall: The better-natured and more gracious a man is, the more subject he is to the danger of an over-remissness, and the excess of favor and mercy.—Wordsworth: David was wroth, but did not punish his son Amnon; being conscious of the sin which he had himself committed, and by which he had tempted his children to sin. And because the king did not execute justice, therefore Absalom, Tamar’s brother, takes the law into his own hands, and murders his brother Amnon. Thus one sin leads to another by an almost endless chain of consequences.—Tr.]—J. Lange: It is very important that persons in authority, teachers and fathers of families should lead such a life that in punishing others they may not have to fear reproach, and thereby be restrained.—Schlier: What is to become of a house, in which father and mother, in the consciousness of their own faults, no longer venture to do their duty? 2 Samuel 13:28 sq. Schlier: The Lord our God has everything in His hand; He uses even the sin of men according to His will, He punishes one transgressor through another, He chastens one wrong-doer through the wrong-doing of another. The Lord’s mighty hand comes into the common course of the world, and the execution of His judgments goes on right through the midst of the unrighteousness of men.—Always does that remain true which is written: Be not deceived, God is not mocked; sin remains always and everywhere the ruin of peoples. 2 Samuel 13:36 sq. Osiander: By new attacks and afflictions God brings to His people’s mind their before committed sins, in order that they may the more earnestly go forward in a penitent life.—Cramer: Next to experience of the wrath of God there is no sorer pain under heaven, than when parents come to have such heart-sorrow in their children as to doubt of their souls’ salvation, 2 Samuel 18:33. [Amnon. (This might be addressed to an assembly of men alone.) 1) An improper love. 2) Brooding over a sinful attachment till unhappy (2 Samuel 13:2). 3) In cherishing a sinful desire, one meets temptation to indulge it (2 Samuel 13:3-5). 4) Unmanly deception and unnatural crime (2 Samuel 13:6-14). 5). Sinful love sooner or later turning to hate and disgust (2 Samuel 13:15-18). 6) Licentiousness often leads to other crimes and great calamities (2 Samuel 13:28-29).—A miserable father. 1) He has been obliged to leave unpunished a disgraceful crime in his house (2 Samuel 13:21). 2) This has given excuse to a headstrong and ambitious son to murder his brother. 3) Rumor, accepted by his fears, has greatly magnified the calamity (2 Samuel 13:30). 4) He knows these terrible events to be deserved chastisements for his own former misconduct (2 Samuel 12:10-11).—Tr.] Footnotes: [2 Samuel 13:2. Impf. Qal. of ιָ ?φַ ?ψ, impersonal construction.—The διΰ in this verse is written δεΰ in one MS. of Kennicott, which is perhaps an illustration of the fact that this archaic form was not confined to the Pentateuch.—Wellhausen suggests that the Athnach would better stand under ΰηεϊε.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:3. The name Jonadab (abbreviated from Jehonadab) means “Jahveh has freely given,” as Jonathan means “Jahveh has given;” but there is no ground for supposing that the two names (here and 2 Samuel 21:21) represent the same person (Josephus).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:5. Two different words are used for “food,” the first the ordinary expression (μην), the second a rarer word (αψιδ), rendered βρῶμα by the Sept. The word μαιαδ “cake” is discussed by Erdmann in the Exposition.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:9. ξַ ?ωְׂ ?ψֵ ?ϊ, an obscure word. It is nearly identical in form with the Chaldee ξρψϊΰ “pan,” which is the rendering in the Targum of the Heb. ξַ ?ηֲ ?αַ ?ϊ “pan,” and is by some (Cahen) regarded as the Chald. word itself here used instead of the ordinary Heb. word, which is, however, improbable in the Book of Samuel. But while Chald. and Sept. (and Josephus) render it “pan,” Syr. and Vulg. regarded it as designating the food that had been prepared: Vulg. quod coxerat, Syr. “cakes,” and such a meaning would better suit the connection. But no satisfactory etymology has been proposed for it. Geiger’s explanation (Urschrift, p. 382), that it is for ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ (from ωׂ ?ΰψ) “unbaked leavened dough” is not in keeping with the statement in 2 Samuel 13:8 that the dough had been baked. The meaning of the word must be left undetermined.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:14. The ΰϊδ, pointed in the text as Accus., may be read ΰִ ?ϊָּ ?δּ “with her,” for which several MSS. read ςִ ?ξָּ ?δּ; but the Accus. is allowable (later usage, according to Wellhausen).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:16. The translation of Eng. A. V. is impossible in the present form of the Hebrew text; the text, indeed, gives no sense at all, and must be regarded as corrupt. Dr. Erdmann (changing ΰַ ?μ into ΰֵ ?μ and regarding the sentence as interrupted) renders: “on account of this evil, which is greater than the other, etc.,” but such a rendering of ΰֶ ?μΞΰγֹ ?εֹ ?ϊ is without authority, and does not fit well with the context. Philippson also, throwing forward the beginning of Tamar’s speech, translates: “and she said to him respecting the evil deed, Greater is this than the other, etc.,” which is intolerably flat. We should naturally regard the ΰַ ?μ as introducing a protest, as in 2 Samuel 13:12; and, changing the ΰγεϊ into ΰηι, we obtain the sense (by transposing the Adjective πְּ ?γεֹ ?μָ ?δ): “nay, my brother, this evil is greater than the other, etc.,” which is nearly what the Vat. Sept. (in verse 15) and some other Greek versions (in Montfaucon’s Hexapla) give: “nay, my brother, for the last evil is greater than the first, etc.” These Greek versions apparently had δָ ?ψִ ?ΰωׁ ?πָ ?δ instead of δַ ?εּ ?ΰֹ ?ϊ, ΰַ ?μΰָ ?ηִ ?ιλִּ ?ιπּ ?γְֹ ?μָ ?δδָ ?ψָ ?ςָ ?δδָ ?ΰַ ?ηֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊξֵ ?δָ ?ψִ ?ΰωֹׁ ?πָ ?δΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ. The “this” of our Hebrew text is supported by the Syr. “why doest thou me this grievous evil, etc.?” and by the Sept. in 2 Samuel 13:16, which seems, however, to be altered into conformity with the Heb.—Or, following 2 Samuel 13:12 more exactly, we may write: ΰַ ?μΰָ ?ηִ ?ιΰַ ?μΞϊַּ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δ “nay, my brother, do not this evil which is greater, etc.;” the text above-given is simpler and more in accordance with the ancient versions.—Some MSS. and printed editions have ςַ ?μ instead of ΰμ (according to the constant usage with ΰֹ ?γεֹ ?ϊ in the O. T.), and this reading is adopted by the Bib.-Com., which renders: “and she spake with him on account of this great wrong in sending me away, greater than the other, etc.,” supposing that the writer has here blended Tamar’s words with his own narrative (so Cahen). But (not to insist that the rendering “spake with him” is impossible) such a blending is improbable, and the phrase “on account of” in general is not in keeping with the context. Fόrst takes the word as a substantive, and renders: “let there be no occasion of this evil, etc.,” which is without support in the usage of the O. T., and is besides very tame.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:17. Sept. “the overseer of his house;” the word is omitted in one MS. of Kennicott, and in one of Pinner’s (Thenius).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:18. So Sept. and other Greek versions, Vulg. and Chaldee (Syr. and Arab. omit the verse). The Greek renderings are καρπωτός and ἀστραγαλωτός.—The ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμִ ?ιν (Eng. A. V. “robes”) is somewhat difficult, and various unsatisfactory alterations of the word have been proposed (Wellh.: so the king’s daughters … were apparelled of old, ξֵ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν). The sentence sounds strange: “she had on a long-sleeved tunic, for so the unmarried princesses wore over-mantles;” but nothing better has been proposed. Bφttcher regards it as a gloss.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:21-22. The proposed changes of Bφttcher and Thenius are criticised by Erdmann.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:23. Literally: “unto two years days,” a common mode of expression in Heb. (see Lex. s. v. ιֶ ?ψַ ?ηηγֶֹ ?ωׁ) the general designation of time being defined more precisely by the addition of the simplest unit “day.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:30. Absolute construction, corresponding to the Abl. Absol. in Latin. Lit.: “and it came to pass, they on the way, and the news came, etc.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:38. The repetition of the statement that Absalom fled is striking, and the narrative 2 Samuel 13:36-38 is not clear and natural in arrangement. We should rather expect 37 b (in which no subject is expressed) to follow 36, and 38 makes 37 a unnecessary. So the first clause of 34 seems out of place. But, while it is hard to justify the present arrangement on logical grounds, the unnecessary repetitions may result from the fact that we have the outline of an originally longer narrative wherein these repeated statements would not be out of place. The order of the masoretic text is sustained by the versions. In 2 Samuel 13:37 after Geshur (Γεδσούρ) Sept. adds εἰςγῆνχαμμαχάδ, which Thenius accepts as representing an original Heb. “land of Maacah” (Bφttcher: land of his mother Maacah), and Wellh. rejects because of the Art. (χα=δַ) and because of the absence of the word “mother.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 13:34. Erdmann (after Thenius) renders: “from the West,” referring to Exodus 3:1 compared with Isaiah 9:11; Job 23:8, in none of which passages, however, has the word a suffix as here; and the present Heb. form is suspicious because the anarthrous γֶּ ?ψֶ ?κְ (way), as construct, would naturally require a substantive after it. Moreover, the Sept., Syr. and Vulg. here show important deviations from the Heb. The Syr. omits this word (ΰηψιε), the Vulg. renders it with devium, and the Sept. (adding to our text) has: “and behold, much people were coming in the way behind him on the side of the mountain on the declivity (ἐντῇ καταβάσει), and the watchman came and told the king and said, I have seen men on the way of Oronen on the side (μέρους) of the mountain.” As to this addition it is hard to say whether it belongs to the original text, or is an explanatory insertion; it fills out the narrative very naturally, but this is itself a suspicious fact, and the words spoken by the watchman might certainly be a variant translation of the same Heb. as lies at the basis of the statement in 2 Samuel 13:34 (in the Hebrew). However this may be (Thenius, Bφttcher and Wellhausen accept the addition), the Oronen of the Sept. points to Horon or Horonaim, a well-known place on the neighboring mountain, and the phrase “on the declivity” is thus explained as referring to the declivitous side of the hill (and so the Vulg. devium, Heb. ξεֹ ?ψָ ?γ). We thus reach the rendering “by the way of Horonaim (Beth-horon) on the side of the mountain,” which is syntactically and geographically satisfactory; and need suppose only that ηψֹ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν has been altered in the masoretic text into ΰηψιε. The addition in the Sept. may be a marginal explanation (if is not found in the Vulg.), and its first clause may be altered into conformity with the existing Heb. text; the ἐντῇ καταβάσει may belong to the original form (Vulg. devium), and the “on the side of the mountain” may be an explanation of this original or marginal. At any rate the change of ΰηψιε to ηψπιν is altogether probable.—Tr.] [From this point to 2 Samuel 23:7 (and 2 Samuel 11 except 2 Samuel 13:1) is omitted in Chron., it not entering into the design of that Book to record the merely individual history of David, but only his theocratic and ritual acts.—Tr.] Bφttcher: from Arab. μαα, Chald. μτκ, Heb. μεδ. [Bp. Patrick mentions an (unfounded) Jewish opinion that Tamar was born of Maacah while the latter was a captive (Deuteronomy 21:10 sqq.), that is, before she became a proselyte and David’s wife, and that Tamar was therefore legally not Amnon’s sister.—Probably both the explanations suggested above by Erdmann are correct; the Levitical code was hardly observed with strictness at this time.—Tr.] [Thenius here writes μεγάληἡ κακία, but Tischendorf has μείζων.—Tr.] [So Bφttcher and Thenius, after the analogy of the Arabic, in which a diminutive is formed by inserting a letter (Yod) after the second radical; but the diminutive form is doubtful here, partly because the ancient versions (Arabic included) except Chaldee do not here follow the Heb., but give the form Amnon; the reading here may be a clerical error (so Wellhausen and Bib.-Com.).—Tr.] Bφttcher: “The name ΰτψιν is probably from ςτψιν or ςτψιο.” Thenius: “If the tribe Ephraim were meant, it would read: ‘which pertains to’ (ΰֲ ?ωְ ?ψμְ) (comp. 1 Samuel 17:1; 1 Chronicles 13:6), not ‘near’ (ςִ ?ν), Vulg. juxta Ephraim, and see Genesis 35:4 and especially Joshua 7:2.”—[Mr. Grove, in Smith’s Bib. Dict., thinks that three different places are meant in John 11:54; 2 Samuel 18:6 and 2 Chronicles 13:19, and does not identify our Ephraim with any of them; there is, he says, no clew to its situation.—Tr.] [Kitto (Dai. Bib. Ill.) remarks that David’s reason in 2 Samuel 13:25 is the first intimation in history of the ruinous expense of royal visits, and mentions the case of the Hoghton family in Lancashire, said to have been ruined by a visit from King James I.—Tr.] [Thenius (followed by Wellh.) accepts this addition as a part of the original text because of its naturalness, holding the reason for its omission from the Heb. to be the similar ending of the two clauses (δַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ, here and in 2 Samuel 13:27). But Erdmann’s argument against this elucidatory statement is just and entitled to consideration.—Tr.] [Some VSS. and EDD. have “my lord the king,” instead of “my lord;” and some read λִּ ?ι, “for,” instead of λּ ?ιΰִ ?ν, “but.” In such particles the text is uncertain.—Tr.] [The common Vulg. text has “in the mouth (in ore) of Absalom.” The Syr.: “it was fixed (ωׂ ?ιξδ) in the purpose of Absalom,” confirms the Heb. as a free rendering, while the Chald.: “treachery (waylaying) was in the heart of Absalom,” seems to take the ωׂ ?ιξδ (“laid”) as a substantive (= ζִ ?ξָּ ?η, Thenius). Hence Ewald would read it ωִׂ ?θְ ?ξָ ?δ [an unknown word] = “look of revenge,” and Wellhausen takes our word (from the Arab, root = sinister fuit) as a substantive = “sinister expression.” A substantive as subject would naturally be expected here, but the proposed emendations are hardly satisfactory. Following the Chald. we might read: “on the heart of Absalom was laid this thing,” etc., which (by inserting the words “this thing”) would correspond with the following clause. But this conjecture is not sufficiently supported by external authority.—Tr.] “David the king,” instead of the usual (Sept., Vulg.) “king David” (comp. Ges., § 113, Rem.). [Some take the γָּ ?εִ ?γ here, on account of its unusual position (but see 1 Samuel 18:6), to be a corruption of some other word meaning grief, soul, or the like.—Tr.]—εַ ?ϊְּ ?λַ ?μ from λμΰ = λμδ, “to prevent” (Maur., Keil), “these two verbs often interchanging.” As the 3 pers. masc. is often impersonal [εַ ?ιֵּ ?φֶ ?ψμεֹ ?], so sometimes the 3 pers. fem. (1 Samuel 30:6; Psalms 1:3; comp. Ges., § 137, 2). εַ ?ϊַּ ?λַ ?μ therefore here = “and it hindered him.” [To this impersonal construction there are two syntactical objections: 1) the substantive idea of the verb is active instead of neuter, and in any case we should expect the object (γεγ) to be introduced by a preposition; 2) the Inf. after λμΰ is properly introduced by ξִ ?ο instead of μְ as here. Maurer renders: “it restrained him,” i. e. grief; others: “David restrained [his servants],” which the form of the verb (fem.) does not permit.—Tr.] Ewald: εַ ?ϊֵּ ?λֶ ?μδֲ ?ξַ ?ϊγָ ?εִ ?γμָ ?φֵ ?ΰϊςַ ?μΞΰַ ?αְ ?ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν; Bφttcher: εַ ?ϊֵּ ?λֶ ?μμְ ?γָ ?εִ ?γ; Thenius; εַ ?ιֶּ ?ηְ ?γַּ ?μ. 4. DAVID’S TOWARDS JOAB AND ABSALOM. ABSALOM’S RETURN AND WITH DAVID THROUGH JOAB’S 2 Samuel 14:1-331 Now [And] Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was toward Absalom. 2And Joab sent to Tekoah and fetched thence a wise woman, and said unto her, I pray thee feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on now [om. now] mourning-apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil, but [and] be as a woman that had [has] a long time mourned for the dead; 3And come to the king, and speak on this manner unto him. So [And] Joab put the words in her mouth. 4And when [om. when] the woman of Tekoah spake [came] to the king, she [and] fell on her face to the ground and did obeisance, and said, Help O King. 5And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered [said], I am indeed [In truth, I am] a widow woman. And mine husband is dead [died]; 6And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but [and] the one smote the other and slew him. 7And behold, the whole family is risen [rose] against thine handmaid, and they [om. they] said, Deliver him that smote his brother, that we may [and we will] kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew; and we [they] will destroy the heir also, and so they shall quench [and quench] my coal which is left, and shall [will] not [or in order not to] leave to my husband neither [om. neither] name nor remainder upon the earth. 8And the king said unto the woman, Go to thy house, and I will give charge concerning thee. 9And the woman of Tekoah said unto the king, My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless. 10And the king said, Whosoever saith aught unto thee, bring him to me, and he shall not touch thee any more. 11Then said she [And she said], I pray thee, let the king remember the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, that thou wouldest not suffer the revengers of blood to destroy any more, lest they destroy my son [that the avenger of blood multiply not destruction, and that they destroy not my Song of Solomon 8]. And he said, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, there shall not 12one hair of thy son fall to the earth. Then [And] the woman said, Let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak one [a] word unto my lord the king. And he said, Say on. 13And the woman said, Wherefore, then, [And why] hast thou thought such a thing against the people of God? for the king doth speak this thing as one which [that] is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again [bring back] 14his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person [and God takes not away the life], yet doth he devise means [and thinketh thoughts] that his 15banished be not expelled [banished] from him. Now therefore [And now] that I am come to speak of this thing unto my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid; and thy handmaid said, I will now speak unto the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his handmaid. 16For the king will hear, to deliver his handmaid out of the hand of the man that would destroy 17me and my son together out of the inheritance of God. Then [And] thine handmaid said, The word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable [May the word, etc., be for rest]; for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern [hear] good and bad; therefore the Lord thy God will be [and may Jehovah thy God be] with thee. 18Then [And] the king answered and said unto the woman, Hide not from me, I pray thee, the thing that I shall ask thee. And the woman said, Let my lord the king now [om. now] speak. 19And the king said, Is not [om. not] the hand of Joab with thee in all this? And the woman answered and said, As thy soul liveth, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from aught that my lord the king hath spoken; for thy servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of thine handmaid; 20To fetch about this form of speech [To change the face of the thing] hath thy servant Joab done this thing; and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth. 21And the king said unto Joab, Behold, now, I have done this thing; go, therefore 22[and go], bring the young man Absalom again [back]. And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and bowed himself, and thanked [blessed] the king; and Joab said, To-day thy servant knoweth that I have found grace in thy sight, my lord 23O [the] king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant. So [And] Joab arose and went to Geshur, and brought Absalom to Jerusalem. 24And the king said, Let him turn to his own house, and let him not see my face. So [And] Absalom returned [turned] to his own house, and saw not the king’s face. 25But [And] in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty; from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. 26And when he polled his head (for [and] it was at every year’s end [from time to time] that he polled it, because [for] the hair was heavy on him, therefore [and] he polled it), he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king’s weight. 27And unto Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar; she was a woman of a fair countenance. 28So [And] Absalom dwelt two full [om. full] years in Jerusalem, and saw not the 29king’s face. Therefore [And] Absalom sent for Joab, to have sent [to send] him to the king; but [and] he would not come to him; and when [om. when] he sent 30again the second time, [ins. and] he would not come. Therefore [And] he said unto his servants, See, Joab’s field is near [beside] mine, and he hath barley there; 31go and set it on fire. And Absalom’s servants set the field on fire. Then [And] Joab arose and came to Absalom unto his house, and said unto him, Wherefore have thy servants set my field on fire? 32And Absalom answered [said to] Joab, Behold, I sent unto thee, saying, Come hither, that I may send thee to the king, to say, Wherefore am I come from Geshur? it had been good for me to have been there still [better for me that I were still there]. Now therefore [And now] let me see [I will see] the king’s face, and if there be any iniquity in me, let him kill 33me. So [And] Joab came to the king, and told him. And when he had called for [And he called] Absalom, [ins. and] he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king; and the king kissed Absalom. AND 2 Samuel 14:1-24. Joab by a stratagem procures Absalom’s return to Jerusalem without punishment. 2 Samuel 14:1. Though David’s soul was comforted for Amnon’s death, and he had consequently desisted from the pursuit of Absalom, his anger at the latter’s fratricide had nevertheless not disappeared. This supposition is psychologically necessary, since otherwise David would appear as an extremely weak man; and it is supported by the fact that he would not see Absalom for two years after his return [2 Samuel 14:28]. For this reason the latter clause of this verse is to be explained as indicating not David’s returning inclination to Absalom (as Vulg., Sept., Syr., Arab. [Eng. A. V.], Joseph., Cleric., and most modern expositors), but his enduring disinclination towards him. [Erdmann renders: “Joab perceived that the king’s heart was against Absalom.”—Tr.] It might have been supposed from the discontinuance of the pursuit that David’s heart had turned to him; but Joab, who had exact knowledge of court-affairs, observed that the king’s heart was against him. How the word “perceived” is contrary to this view (Maur., Then.) does not appear, since it contains the simple statement that David was still hostilely disposed towards Absalom. And “in the only other place where this construction (without substantive verb) occurs, Daniel 11:28, the Prep. means against” (Keil). [The Prep. (ςμ) is often used, however, in the general sense of “towards,” sometimes with favorable meaning, and the absence of the subst. verb is not important. The whole connection (somewhat disguised by the division of chapters) seems to favor the rendering of Eng. A. V. In the last verse of the preceding chapter David’s heart goes forth towards Absalom (see annotations on that verse), and here Joab is said to perceive it, so that he devises a scheme to remove the king’s judicial objections to recalling Absalom. The understanding of the narrative, however, is not affected by the rendering of the Prep. In either case Joab appears as a shrewd man. Possibly he was influenced by a genuine feeling of kindness towards David and Absalom; it is more likely perhaps that he wished to ingratiate himself with them and the people (Patrick). A. P. Stanley (in Smith’s Bib. Dict.): “Joab combines with the ruder qualities of the soldier something of a more statesmanlike character, which brings him more nearly to a level with his youthful uncle, and unquestionably gives him the second place in the whole history of David’s reign.” Wordsworth: “Joab is the impersonation of worldly policy, and temporal ambition practising on the weakness of princes for its self-interests.” Bib. Comm.: “He ever appears wily and politic and unscrupulous.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:2. Tekoah, now Tekua, about five [Eng.] miles south of Bethlehem, the native place of the prophet Amos. See Robins. II. 406 [Am. ed. I. 486 sq.; and see Dr. Hackett’s Art. in Am. ed. of Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.]. As Bethlehem was Joab’s native place, it is not strange that he was acquainted with Tekoah. He knew this “wise woman” as one fitted by her readiness of speech, boldness, shrewdness, and adroitness, to act the part he wanted. That it cost Joab so great pains to gain his end is evidence moreover against the supposition that David’s heart was already turned to Absalom. 2 Samuel 14:4. “And the woman came,” etc.; for so we must read instead of the first “said” [Eng. A. V.: “spake”] of the Hebrew text. Bφttcher supposes that here by similar ending (hom�oteleuton) two lines have fallen out, in which is given the answer of the woman before she goes to the king; but there is no sign in any ancient version of such an omission. 2 Samuel 14:5. Here begins the lively, flowing narration of the feigned misfortune. Though Joab had “put the words into the woman’s mouth,” yet considerable readiness was required in order to bring them out so skilfully in her assumed character, and to make such an impression on the king as to lead him to the desired definite resolution. [Read: I am a widow. And my husband died, and I had two sons, etc.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:6. The fratricide. “And he smote him, the one the other,” a pleonasm arising from the circumstantialness and liveliness of the narration. [A slight change in the text will give the reading: “one smote the other,” as in Eng. A. V.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:7. The demand for the survivor. “And we will destroy the heir also.” Instead of this, Michaelis, Dathe and Thenius propose to read (after Syr. and Arab.): “and they will destroy,” etc. But these authorities [the versions] are not sufficient to warrant this emendation. Thenius urges that if the woman had put these words also into the mouth of the kinsmen, she would have represented them as diabolically wicked; but it does not follow that it is really so bad, simply because she expresses her opinion of what they wish to do. These words [“we will destroy the heir”] are added to the preceding “we will kill him” (to indicate the purpose of the kinsmen) by reason of the second thought that characterizes the blood-revenge—namely, that, while they kill him for blood-vengeance, they wish at the same time to destroy the surviving heir. The woman’s purpose is not only to bring out the design of the kinsmen in their blood-avenging as harshly as possible, but also, with reference to David’s hostile feeling to Absalom, to emphasize the point that the latter is the heir to David’s throne, and to save him as such from his father’s anger. [Wellhausen: “The woman does not really intend to represent the unavoidable result [killing the heir] as the purpose [of the kinsmen], but is carried on by the connection of the discourse; not till she has uttered the word does she correct herself.” Yet the third person seems more natural here, especially as the whole thing is feigned, and the woman had carefully prepared her words beforehand.—Tr.] So that they quench.—The power of the discourse lies in the fact that they are represented as already doing what their words show to be their purpose. “My coal,” the burning coal (ζώπυρου) with which fire is kindled. “In order not to set (permit, grant) to my husband name and remainder (posterity).” [The law in the case is given in Numbers 35:18-19. Blood-revenge was no doubt an ancient pre-Mosaic custom. The whole family was against the fratricide. “This indicates that all the king’s sons and the whole court were against Absalom, and that the knowledge of this was what hindered David from yielding to his affection and recalling him” (Bib. Comm.).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:8. I will give charge concerning thee in thy behalf. David grants her request and protects her son because, as the homicide was committed in the heat of conflict, a purposed murder was out of the question. 2 Samuel 14:9. On me be the iniquity.—That is, if it be wrong not to carry out the blood-avenging. The woman is not yet satisfied with the somewhat indefinite statement of the king that he would fulfil her request. She proceeds to work on him still further. 2 Samuel 14:10. She gains the end that she had in her remark in 2 Samuel 14:9, namely, to bring the king to say definitely that no one should further molest her or demand her son for blood-vengeance. 2 Samuel 14:11. Third stage of the woman’s address. She wishes to bring the king to swear before God, and that not in the “character of a talkative woman” (Thenius), but rather to gain her end as surely as possible, and to bind the king by his own words to reconciliation with Absalom. “That the avenger of blood (cause) no more destruction” (De Wette); literally: “let the king remember the Lord thy God from the avenger’s increasing to destroy;” that is, “so that the avenger shall not more destroy”—the phrase “let him interpose” being understood (Thenius). The woman brings the king to the point of assuring her son’s safety by an oath. [Patrick: “Others think she only prays him to remember how merciful and gracious God is, and had been to himself, even in pardoning the murder of Uriah”—not so well.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:12. Transition in the woman’s discourse to a reference to David’s relation to Absalom by the request to be permitted to say something farther. [“The woman proceeds cautiously and hence obscurely” (Bib. Comm.).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:13. “Why dost thou contrive (think, proceed) thus against the people of God?” The “thus” refers to the following words: “that the king does not bring back his banished.” She goes on as if she now advanced to a second object of her coming; in reality, however, she now comes to the principal matter, though sure of success from what the king (led on by her skilful talk) had granted her. “Now she is to make the application to the king’s own case, and this is hard, because she cannot speak openly and boldly like a prophet, but only slightly, and, as it were, in passing, yet must make the allusion to Absalom intelligible” (Ewald). The woman intimates that David’s hostility towards Absalom is directed “against the people of God,” since the people would suffer in the suffering of the heir, who would some time become their king. Having thus softly represented his conduct as blameworthy from the point of view of the people (among whom there was certainly a party for Absalom, as appears from the following history), she proceeds to entrap him in his own words (spoken in reference, to her feigned case) for Absalom’s advantage. And by the king’s speaking this word (that is, 2 Samuel 14:11, the oath that her son’s blood-guilt should not be avenged) he is as one in fault (against God’s people as against Absalom), in that the king brings not back his banished.—He must show his son the mildness he has shown hers. And, as for Absalom there was only the question of punishment for a homicide, not of release from the demand of the avenger, the woman, having gained grace for her son, might the more surely expect it for Absalom. She calls Absalom his banished because the latter, though he had banished himself by flight, had not since received permission to return. Dathe [“why resolvest thou thus in a cause pertaining to God’s people?”] and Thenius [“why thinkest thou thus in relation to God’s people?” (thy subjects)] refer the question to David’s protection of the woman and her son, while, according to his own words, he appears as blame-worthy towards Absalom; but the meaning of the Heb. (ςַ ?μ = against) and the connection do not permit this. [Bishop Patrick remarks that the woman’s reasoning here was weak, her son’s case being very different from Absalom’s, but the king, inferring that the people were well disposed towards Absalom, concluded to overlook the differences, without saying any thing to her of the defects of her argument. Probably the king was glad of an excuse to recall Absalom. Though an absolute monarch, he had to attend to the wishes of the people, who liked the young prince, and would be offended if he were kept in banishment. It seems less likely that there is a reference in the words “people of God” to Absalom’s deprivation of religious privileges (Bib. Comm.), though the phrase is intended to include Absalom.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:14. The reasons that should determine David to forgiveness: 1) for we must die, and are like water poured out on the ground that is not gathered again.—Thenius refers these words to Amnon’s death, with the meaning: “he had to die some time, and all you can do against the murderer will not bring him to life;” but the connection shows that the woman is referring not to Amnon, but to Absalom, as the “banished one,” her meaning being: “Absalom (like all men) may die in banishment, and, as the dead (like poured out water) do not return, it would then repent thee not to have recalled him; take him back before it is too late.” Possibly, however, the reference is to David himself, a warning that he may soon die, and must, therefore, not delay to be reconciled to Absalom. [The sense seems to be: “As life is fleeting and perishable, let not these enmities engage your mind, but put away unkindness and forgive your son.” According to any of these explanations, the woman’s argument is false, since it leaves the justice of the case out of view; but see the quotation from Philippson below at the end of this verse.—Tr.] 2) And God takes not away a soul, but thinks thoughts not to banish a banished one.—An argument from God’s procedure towards the sinner. He does not take away the soul [life] of one that is banished, condemned for sin, so as thus to banish him forever, but “thinks thoughts not to banish him;” such mercy show to thy banished son. These words must have brought to David’s recollection God’s mercy towards him banished from God’s presence as adulterer and murderer. [Philippson: “This is one of the noblest and profoundest declarations of the Scripture: God, who has determined us to death, nevertheless does not deprive us of life, of personality (πֶ ?τֶ ?ωׁ), but has the holy purpose to receive again the banished, the sinful.” This explanation makes the first half of the verse merely introductory to the thought in the second, merely a relative sentence containing an affirmation about God; this is not so probable as the view that makes the first half a separate argument. Patrick sees here a reference to the cities of refuge, for which, however, the language is too general. The argument (appeal to the divine mercy) is powerful, though false; the human judge cannot set aside the demands of justice, though God may pardon the sinner. The woman’s view of death is a general one, neither denying nor affirming a future state: her statement is simply that the dead do not return to earthly life. It is therefore inadmissible to press her simile, and represent it as meaning that, as the spilt water passes in vapor to the clouds and returns as rain to the earth, so human life is to return in the raised body. This may be an allowable simile now, but it is not the teaching of this passage.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:15. The wise woman skilfully turns David’s thoughts again to her own affair, in order to remove the suspicion that she came merely to plead for Absalom; she is content to have lodged a sharp thorn in David’s heart. And now that I am come.—A natural mode of return to her first subject. Her design is to append a further explanation of her boldness in troubling the king with such a personal affair. The occasion of her coming is, she says, that the people [her kinsfolk] frightened her by demanding her son, so that she had to appeal to the king. This, therefore, is not a mere repetition of what she has already said (Thenius). 2 Samuel 14:16 expresses 1) joyful assurance that her request will be heard, and 2) the evil from which the king will save her and her son, “destruction from the inheritance of God;” the cutting off of posterity by slaying the heir is so dreadful in her eyes, because it is excision from the people belonging to the Lord. Comp. 1 Samuel 26:19; Deuteronomy 32:9. 2 Samuel 14:17. Further, she says, the king’s word was to be to her for rest—that is, for herself. “The king hears (judges) as” the angel of God—the angel that God sends to impart His manifestations of grace to His people, the covenant-angel, the mediator of grace for the peculiar people [the people that is God’s private property]. [Rather the woman here praises the king’s wisdom as being like that of one of the higher intelligences (so Achish speaks of David in 1 Samuel 29:9), a proof that the Israelites were then familiar with the idea of angels. Her praise is here skilfully introduced to mollify him; she does not mention Absalom’s name, but leaves the king to reflect on what such a high character requires of him.—Tr.] To hear the good and the evil.—This affirms two things: 1) in every case brought before him the king will impartially and justly hear both sides, the good and the bad, Vulg.: “unmoved by benediction or malediction 2) He helps the oppressed. And the Lord thy God be with thee! (not “therefore be” (De Wette)); with this blessing she concludes, touching the king’s heart in its innermost relation to his God and Lord. [Patrick: “There is a great deal of artifice in all this. For to presume upon the kindness of another, and to expect gracious answers from their noble qualities, is very moving; men being very loath to defeat those who think so highly of them, according to that saying of Aristotle (Rhet. 2, 4, 19): ‘We love those that admire us.’ ”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:18 sq. From the cleverly put discourse of the woman the king perceives that there is something else in hand than her private affair; and surmising at the same time that she is only the instrument of another, he thinks of Joab from the confidential relation in which the latter stood to Absalom. “Is the hand of Joab with thee in all this?” The woman frankly answers in the affirmative [in the form of a compliment to the king’s sagacity]: There is nothing on the right or the left of what the king says, he always says the right; “you always hit the nail on the head” (Thenius). Joab, she says, arranged this to turn the face (form) of the thing [not “fetch about this form of speech,” as in Eng. A. V.—Tr.] These words do not refer to the clothing of the request for Absalom in this story about her sons, as if she meant: “that I should turn the thing so” (Luther), or “to disguise the thing in a skilful way” (Keil), or “to set before thee a figurative discourse” (Vatablus), or “that I should transfer to myself and my sons what pertains to the king and his sons” (Clericus), but the thing is Absalom’s relation to his father. In order to change this relation in its present unhappy form, that is, to bring about a reconciliation, has Joab done this, sent me to thee with the words I have spoken. The woman concludes (looking back to her comparison of David to the “angel of God” in 2 Samuel 14:17) with the words: My lord (the king) is wise according to the wisdom of the angel of God—anxious by this appeal to the king’s wisdom to secure a favorable decision for Absalom. [Here again render: “an angel of God,” as in 2 Samuel 14:17. “To know all things that are in the earth,” better, perhaps: “in the land,” all the affairs of the land of Israel. The mingling of flattery and boldness in the woman’s discourse is skilful and striking.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:21-23. Joab’s request fulfilled by permitting Absalom to return to Jerusalem. Behold, I have done this thing (according to thy word).—The margin has (through misapprehension): “thou hast done;” but the text is to be retained. The Perfect is used because the thing is an accomplished fact = I have fulfilled thy request. Go and bring Absalom back.—These words refer merely to the execution of what had been already determined and accomplished. 2 Samuel 14:22. Joab thanks and blesses David for granting his request. To judge from his words here, he had often before made this request, but hitherto in vain. Read: “his servant,” as in the text, against the marginal reading: “thy servant.” Joab himself brings Absalom back to Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 14:24. Absalom’s pardon, however, was not a full one; it consisted only in the permission to return to Jerusalem. He remained banished from the royal court. My face shall he not see, says David. This was no real pardon. David’s anger still continued. It is a natural surmise that this was because Absalom showed no repentance and did not ask for forgiveness; there is not the slightest hint of his doing so. Let him turn to his own house.—These words suggest that Absalom was not merely banished from court, but also confined to his own house. Otherwise (as Thenius points out) he would not have been obliged to send for Joab (2 Samuel 14:28 comp. with 2 Samuel 14:31.) [David’s banishing Absalom from court was just and wise, since his crime deserved punishment, and it was right that the people should know the king’s abhorrence of the crime (Patrick). Perhaps this half-forgiveness was an impolitic measure (Keil), since it may have merely vexed and embittered Absalom. It is not necessary to suppose that the king was angry with him; his conduct may have been determined by his regard for law and justice while his heart desired complete reconciliation. Bib. Comm. suggests that Bathsheba’s influence may have been exerted to keep Absalom in disgrace for the sake of Solomon.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:25-33. Absalom’s person and family.—By defiant obstinacy he secures his recall to court through Joab’s mediation. 2 Samuel 14:25 sqq. Absalom’s beauty.—He was the handsomest man in Israel. Literally: “and as Absalom there was not a handsome man in all Israel to praise much.” There was no spot, no bodily blemish in him. From year to year he polled or cut his hair. The weight of the polled hair here given, 200 shekels, is certainly too great, being about six pounds, if the royal shekel = the sacred shekel; and if it be taken as = one half the sacred shekel, the weight is still too great. There is no doubt an error of text here. Perhaps we should read 20 instead of 200 (λ may have passed into ψ); “for 20 shekels (= 9 or 10 ounces) would suppose a very heavy, but not incredibly heavy, head of hair” (Thenius). [Others read four shekels—(γ instead of ψ). But as all the ancient versions (except the anonymous vers. quoted in Montfaucon’s Hex. as giving “one hundred”) agree with the Hebrew, any such change of letters must have been made early, when probably not the present square characters, but the old Phenician were in use; so that we must go to them to discover possible changes of this sort.—There is doubt as to what particular weight is meant by the “king’s shekel.” It cannot be the Babylonian shekel, says Thenius, for this would point to a postexilian origin for this passage, which is impossible. The king, says Wellhausen, is the Persian Great King, and this verse betrays a postexilian origin. Nothing more definite can be said than that the king’s shekel is probably a different weight from the sacred shekel, and probably less than that. Kitto mentions reading of a lady’s hair that weighed more than four pounds, and, if the two hundred shekels is not more than this, it is a possible weight. It is evidently intended to represent the hair as extraordinarily heavy and strong, in order to explain 2 Samuel 18:9. The ancients were accustomed to bestow much care on the hair, see Jos. Ant. 8, 7, 3, and Bp. Patrick in loco.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 14:27. Absalom’s children. Only one is mentioned by name, a daughter Tamar, probably called after Absalom’s unfortunate sister. The sons (contrary to custom) are not named, probably because they died young. This would explain Absalom’s erecting a monument (2 Samuel 18:18) to perpetuate his name. Concerning Tamar the Sept. adds: “and she becomes the wife of Roboam the son of Solomon and bears him Abia.” Now 1 Kings 15:2 certainly describes the wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abijah as a daughter of Absalom, but calls her Maacah. The Sept. has here (as elsewhere) evidently introduced an explanation from that passage, confounding, however, Tamar with another later-born daughter of Absalom, who was Rehoboam’s wife. Thenius remarks: “Rehoboam’s wife is certainly a granddaughter of Absalom (daughter of his daughter Tamar) named after her great-grandmother Maacah (iii. 3);” where “perhaps” ought to stand instead of “certainly.” 2 Samuel 14:28 sqq. As Absalom was not permitted for two years to enter the king’s presence, and Joab declined to visit him though twice sent for (evidently because he did not wish to have any thing more to do with the matter since the king’s displeasure continued), it is clear that 2 Samuel 14:1 cannot be rendered: “the king’s heart was toward him.” [David’s conduct may be explained by supposing that, while his heart was with Absalom, his regard for justice led him to punish his crime by keeping him at a distance.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 14:30. Joab’s “piece, parcel,” that is, field (as we also use the word). Sept. has: “the portion in the field of Joab,” but there is no reason to change the Heb. text accordingly.—The Heb. text reads: “I will set it on fire;” but all the versions adopt the marginal reading: “set it on fire.” The phrase “at my hand” = “alongside of my ground, beside me.” This confirms the view that Absalom occupied himself with tilling the soil even in Jerusalem. That Absalom fired Joab’s barley because he knew it would bring Joab to him (Keil) is not probable. It was rather an act of angry revenge in keeping with Absalom’s haughty and passionate nature. In 2 Samuel 14:30 Sept. and Vulg. add: “and the servants of Joab came to him with garments rent, and said: Absalom’s servants have set the field on fire.” It is possible that these words belonged to the original text, and fell away by similar ending, two consecutive sentences ending with the word “fire” (Then.). But the narrative is perfectly clear without this addition. 2 Samuel 14:31. Joab came to Absalom’s house, because the latter was shut up, a prisoner, as it were, in his own house. 2 Samuel 14:32. The message sent by Absalom through Joab to his father contains 1) a reproach: why am I come from Geshur? (= why didst thou send for me) if I am not permitted to appear before thee? 2) A repudiation of the indulgence shown him in the permission granted him to return home: it were better for me that I were still there; 3) a self-willed demand: and now I will see the king’s face, and 4) a defiant challenge: if there be iniquity in me, let him kill me.—These words mean neither: “if the king can and may not forgive me,” (Thenius), nor: “if he remember my iniquity” (Vulg.). Absalom rather defiantly challenges his father to proceed with strict justice, if he has done wrong; this, however, (from the tone of his speech) he does not allow, but relies on the rights he thinks he has against his father, who had been too indulgent to Amnon, having also the support of a considerable party, who would the more approve his act of bloody vengeance, because David had let Amnon go unpunished. Absalom gives no sign of repentance; there is rather a savage defiance in his words, and, instead of confessing his guilt, he challenges his father to kill him, if he is guilty, that is, he denies his guilt. David has already shown weakness in permitting Absalom to return without penitent confession; and by this halfway-procedure (letting him return, yet banishing him from his presence two years) had given occasion to the defiance and bitterness that appears in these words. He is now guilty of a still greater weakness in receiving Absalom into favor when he shows the very opposite of penitence. 2 Samuel 14:33. The words: he bowed himself on his face to the ground by no means show penitence with humble request for forgiveness, but merely exhibit the usual homage paid to the king. David was soon to taste the bitter fruits of all this faulty weakness towards Absalom. AND ETHICAL1. David, weakly yielding to ungodly influence on his mind (the woman of Tekoa), on his will (Joab) and on his feeling (Absalom), sinned against the Lord in failing to punish Absalom (as he had failed to punish Amnon) for his crime, and in receiving him into favor, on his return, without penitence. As God does not forgive sin, without confession and prayer for pardon, so men must observe this law in their relations to one another. This is demanded both by truth and by justice, neither of which may be set aside by expiating and pardoning love. 2. He who in unholy, weak love confounds the disposition to forgive one’s neighbor with the act of forgiveness itself, and pardons when the condition is not complied with, sins not only against God’s holy ordination of love, but also against his neighbor, since the hard, impenitent heart is the more hardened by such weak love, and led into further evil, as Absalom’s example shows. 3. Moral weakness makes one unforesighted and unwise, and often leads to the destruction of the moral ordinances of life, on which rests the welfare of private and public life. David, by his weakness towards Absalom, became guilty of the further dissolution of the theocratic rule of life in his house and in his kingdom; the breaking up of the royal family thereby produced was the cause and the starting-point of the breaking up of the theocratic kingdom by Absalom’s revolt. AND 2 Samuel 14:1-3. Cramer: The children of the world are wiser in their generation than the children of light, Luke 16:8. Wuert. B.: The greatest rogues have, commonly the best patrons, who take interest in them and try to help them through.—[Hall: Good eyes see light through the smallest chink. The wit of Joab hath soon discerned David’s renewed affection, and knows how to serve him in that which he would, and would not, accomplish.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 14:4-11. Starke: To represent something wisely is also a gift of God; for thereby much good is accomplished and much evil hindered, Proverbs 18:15.—[Hall: We love ourselves better than others, but we see others better than ourselves: whoso would perfectly know his own case, let him view it in another’s person. Parables sped well with David: one drew him to repent of his own sin, another to remit Absalom’s punishment.—Tr.]—Schlier: Foresight is profitable in all things, and doubly so when others wish to accomplish something with us. There are cases where certainly the first impression is the most correct, but as a rule it is better not to yield to the first momentary impression, but to prove everything. Had David first proved and inquired into the matter which with cunning and deceit was brought before him, he would not have given assurance with an oath. 2 Samuel 14:13 sqq. Schlier: If thou hast something against a person, forget not how soon thy adversary may die, how soon thou thyself also mayst perhaps have to pass away, and besides think of what God does to us, how rich is His mercy towards us. 2 Samuel 14:21 sqq. Cramer: It is easily done, to let loose an outrageous offender and a murderer, but not so easily is it excused before God: for thereby blood-guiltiness is brought on the land, and other great misfortunes caused; Ezekiel 7:23.—J. Lange: Wilful sinners also are not permitted, so long as they continue impenitent, to come into blessed communion with God, although instead of the well-deserved punishment they enjoy God’s long-suffering.—Schlier: If thou wilt pardon, do it wholly, take out of thy heart everything thou hast against another person, forget also the injustice done thee, and make it thy concern again to show the other a whole and full heart. 2 Samuel 14:25. Starke: Ungodly men often receive from God the fairest gifts, 1 Samuel 9:2; 1 Samuel 17:4.—Schlier: A fair body is also a gift of God, but what does all physical beauty help, if there does not also dwell therein a fair soul? A deformed and ugly man who has beauty of soul is worth more in the sight of God. The Lord looks at the heart. 2 Samuel 14:30. Lange: Friendship that has self-interest for its ground, does not commonly last long. 2 Samuel 14:33. Schlier: David is propitiated, but it does not occur to him to work for a thorough reconciliation in Absalom’s heart also; he brings to meet his son the old, full love; but he does not observe whether his son is in condition really to receive such love.—Chastisement without love is an outrage, no father is at liberty to plague or torture his child; but a love that cannot chastise is no love, and reaps a poor reward. A child that does not at the proper time feel the father’s rod, becomes at last a rod for his father. [2 Samuel 14:1-20. The wise woman of Tekoah. Her previous reputation for worldly wisdom, known to Joab. Her skilful employment, at Joab’s instance, of a parallel case, yet not too obviously similar. I. Observe the motives to which she appeals. Knowing David’s character, she makes good motives most prominent. 1) His course impolitic and unpopular (2 Samuel 14:13). 2) We are all mortal, and enmities should not be perpetual. 3) God is forgiving (2 Samuel 14:14). 4) She flatters him, a) as impartial (2 Samuel 14:17), b) as knowing everything (2 Samuel 14:20). II. Contrast this address with that of Nathan, 2 Samuel 12. In certain respects similar; but 1) One sent by Joab, the other by the Lord. 2) One designing and unscrupulous, the other sincere. 3) One mingling bad motives, the other employing only the good. 4) One flattering, the other humbling. 5) One giving the king an excuse for what he wishes to do, the other arousing him to what he ought to do. 6) One bringing upon David great temporal trouble, the other great spiritual blessing. 2 Samuel 14:14. Two great reasons for forbearance and forgiveness. 1) Both we and those who have wronged us must die, and so our enmities should not be undying. 2) God forbears, and is disposed to forgive.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:25. Causes which spoiled the character of Absalom. 1) The personal gift of extraordinary personal beauty. 2) Great power of bending others to his will (2 Samuel 14:30; 2 Samuel 13:28; 2 Samuel 15:6). 3) A doting father, weak through consciousness of his own great and well-known sins (2 Samuel 14:1). 4) A good excuse for indulging revenge and selfish ambition (2 Samuel 13:22-29). 5) Resentment at what seemed neglect by his father and by Joab (2 Samuel 14:28-29). 6) Success in reckless and defiant measures (2 Samuel 14:30-33). 7) Apprehension that the son of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:24-25) might supplant him as heir to the throne.—Tr.] Footnotes: [2 Samuel 14:1. Erdmann renders: “against” and gives his reasons therefor in the Exposition. The versions generally and most commentators favor the rendering of Eng. A. V. The translation of this preposition depends on the view taken of the whole connection, on which see the notes on 2 Samuel 13:39.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:2. The Hithpael in the so-called hypocritical sense, a derivation from the reflexive or reflexive-declarative sense. See Conant’s Gesen., § 54. Ewald, Gr., § 124 a.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:2. The Eng. “now” is sometimes a proper rendering of the Heb. cohortative particle πָ ?ΰ (rendered just before by “I pray thee”), but would here have too much the effect of an adverb of time.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:4. The reading “came” (εַ ?ϊָּ ?αֹ ?ΰ, or, as in one MS. of Kennicott, εַ ?ϊֵּ ?μֶ ?κְ) is now generally adopted, and is required by the sense. Bruns (in De Rossi) thinks that the date of the introduction of the corrupt reading (εϊΰξψ) may be fixed in this way: The correct reading is found in all the ancient versions (not excepting the Chald., the text of which in the London Polyglot is corrupt here, and should be εΰϊϊ); but David Kimchi had the present reading (εϊΰξψ) before him, while Cod. 154 has εϊαΰ, whence it may be concluded that the corruption in question came between A. D. 1106 (date of Cod. 154) and 1190 (date of Kimchi’s commentary). This is a very interesting fact for Old Testament text-criticism, if it be true, for it then shows that our text exhibits very recent changes. It depends on the assumption that all codices in the beginning of the twelfth century had the same reading; but it is possible that Cod. 154 and Kimchi’s Cod. had different genealogies.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:5. The rendering: “I am a widow, and my husband is dead,” presents a useless tautology; Bφttcher therefore suggests a relative force for the ε: “inasmuch as my husband is dead;” but it may be better (with Thenius) to connect this latter clause with the following verse: “and my husband died and I had two sons,” that is, when my husband died, I was left with two sons.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:6. For εַ ?ιַּ ?λּ ?εֹ read εַ ?ιַּ ?κְ. The suffix is hardly allowable here; the text-form may have been originally plural, so written because the two brothers formed the subject in the mind of the writer.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:7. So Syr. and Arab. It is more probable that this is the expression of the woman than that she should put it into the mouth of the kinsfolk (against Erdmann and Wellhausen). A δ may easily have passed into a π. Bφttcher proposes to read: “we will kill, etc., and destroy (πωξιγ); even (δֲ ?βν) the heir will they destroy,” etc., which puts the expression about the heir into the woman’s mouth, but seems unnecessarily involved.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:11. The Inf. (ηψּ ?αϊ) has for its subject the Goel, and not “the king” as in Eng. A. V The word goel also is Sing., while in the succeeding clause the indef. Plu. construction is used, so that it might be rendered: “and that my son be not destroyed.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:13. Instead of “against,” Thenius renders the Prep. (ςμ) by “in respect to,” on the ground that David had expressed no thought contrary to the well-being of God’s people. But the woman covertly refers to his procedure towards Absalom as something against the people of God.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:13. The ξִ ?γַּ ?αֵּ ?ψ is better understood as a participle, either as Hithpael with assimilation of ϊ (as in Numbers 7:89; Ezekiel 2:2; Ezekiel 43:6) or as Piel (as Bφttcher insists) with dagesh forte emphatic (as in Isaiah 52:5; 2 Chronicles 36:16). Only in this way can the λְּ ?ΰָ ?ωֵׁ ?ν (“as a faulty man”) be easily construed, for, if the above form be taken as Infin. (“from the king’s speaking this word”) we should more naturally expect δεּ ?ΰ after λΰων; or possibly we might render (with the Sept.): “from the speaking (στόματος) of the king this thing is as a fault,” where ΰָ ?ωָׁ ?ν is read instead of ΰָ ?ωֵׁ ?ν.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:14. Bφttcher: “when we die it is as (with) water,” etc. The “needs” of Eng. A. V. represents the Infinitive Absolute (emphatic).—The difficulty in this verse lies partly in the translation of the second half, partly in the relation of thought between the two halves. The thought of our text is: “The king has declared himself faulty, in that he does not restore his banished. We die and pass away; God does not take life, but devises means not to banish his banished.” Here the expression: “to banish one already banished,” is hard, but may be perhaps understood in the pregnant sense of keeping banished the banished. So the representation of God as thinking thoughts or devising means to gain an end is somewhat rudely anthropomorphic, but is not wholly out of keeping with the times and with the terse and obscure address of the wise woman. Then, the reference to human mortality (allusion to Amnon, Absalom or David?) is to quicken the king to haste or to mercy, and the exhortation is enforced by a reference to the divine mercifulness.—Various alterations have been proposed to get rid of supposed difficulties. Ewald (Gesch. Isrl. III. 236) changes εְ ?ηָ ?ωַׁ ?α to ηεֹ ?ωֵׁ ?α and renders: “God takes not away the soul of one that thinks not to leave in banishment one banished by Himself.” Here the “devising” and the “banishing” are transferred to the man; but the resultant thought (that God will not slay a merciful man) is not specially striking or appropriate. Wellhausen (reading δֵ ?ωִׁ ?α for ηָ ?ωַׁ ?α) translates: “We must die, etc., and when God takes away a soul, does He give it back?” in which the second clause simply repeats the thought of the first. The attempts at alteration are all unsatisfactory, and the ancient versions help little or nothing. Sept.: and God will take life, even devising to thrust from Him an outcast; Theodotion: as water, etc., and the soul hopes not in it; Syr.: God takes not away the soul, but deviseth means that no one may wander from Him (or, perish through Him). The Vulg. is a tolerably literal rendering of the Heb.—Houbigant (in Chandler) proposed to insert 2 Samuel 14:15-17 in 2 Samuel 14:11 after the word “son;” but there is no ground for this change nor advantage in it. There seems nothing better than to retain the present text.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:15. The word “that” (ΰωׁ ?ψ) is omitted in several MSS. and printed EDD., and in Syr., Arab., Vulg., perhaps because it seemed superfluous (Sept. ὅ).—Patrick: though the people make me afraid. Philippson: when I came, etc., the people made me afraid. Better (if the ΰωψ be retained) as Eng. A. V.—In the last clause one MS. of De Rossi has ιωξς (hear) instead of ιςωδ (do), correction for the sake of propriety of expression.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:16. Something has here fallen out of the Heb. text, perhaps δַ ?ξְּ ?αַ ?χֵּ ?ωׁ (Bφttcher). Vulg. takes the word δΰιωׁ as collective (de manu omnium qui volebant). Syriac (as not infrequently) gives a condensed rendering: “I will speak to the king; perhaps he will deliver his handmaid from the hand of men, that they destroy not me and my son,” etc. Yet the diffuse language of the Heb. is more in keeping with the character of a glib-tongued woman assumed by the speaker.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:17. Syriac: “the word of my lord the king shall be sure, and shall be an offering (ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ),” misunderstanding the text.—Wellhausen reads at the beginning: “and the woman said” (after the Sept.), as the common formula introducing the conclusion of a long discourse. This is rendered somewhat probable by the voluntative form of the following sentence; but this form is not decisive for a change of text.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:21. So the Kethib (text). Qeri (margin) has second person: “thou hast done,” on which De Rossi says that many of his MSS. and printed EDD. have not this Qeri; and he quotes R. Jacob Chayyim and Norzi, the former of whom says that not more than one MS. in a thousand has this Qeri, and the latter that it is not found in the correctest Spanish MSS. The ancient, VSS. also follow the Kethib, for which, therefore, the external authority is complete. Bφttcher, however, defends the Qeri on the ground that it better suits the initial: “behold, now,” and that a change from it to the Kethib is more easily explicable than the converse. But, as the text gives a good sense, these considerations (even if they were unquestionable) cannot avail against the external evidence.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 14:22. Kethib (his) in all the VSS. except Vulg.; Qeri (thy) in Vulg., and some MSS. and EDD. The text is properly retained by Erdmann and Eng. A. V.—Tr.] [According to the Talmud (Menachoth, 85, 2) there were important oil-plantations near Tekoah, and the women there were noted for their shrewdness (Philippson).—Tr.] The error in the Heb. text may easily be accounted for by supposing that in the manuscript to be copied the εַ ?ϊָּ ?αֹ ?ΰ [came] stood immediately over the following εַ ?ϊּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ [said] (Thenius). There is no reason for changing ιַ ?λּ ?εֹ to ιַ ?λּ ?εּ (Ewald, § 252 a; Then.), since, the suffix εֹ with verbs μΧδ, though infrequent, is not unexampled; nor does the Plu. suit here (Keil).—[By reading ιַ ?κְ we avoid the intolerable repetition of the Hebrew text, and the inappropriateness of the plural.—Tr.] ιַ ?ωְׁ ?ξִ ?ιγεּ [or δְ ?ωִׁ ?ξιγεּ ?] instead of the text-word πַ ?ωְׁ ?ξִ ?ιγָ ?δ. [Bishop Patrick points out how cleverly the woman’s story was put, so as essentially to include Absalom’s case, while yet it was different enough from it to avoid rousing the king’s suspicions at the outset.—Tr.] Instead of the Kethib δַ ?ψְ ?αִּ ?ιϊ read Qeri δַ ?ψְ ?αַּ ?ϊ—an unusual form of the Infin. Absolute. Comp. Ew. § 240 e. [Or, δַ ?ψְ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊ Inf. Construct may be read.—Tr.] Instead of ξִ ?γַּ ?αֵּ ?ψ [Inf. with ξִ ?ο], Vulg., Chald., Syr. read the Participle ξְ ?γַ ?αֵּ ?ψ, which does not change the sense. [So Eng. A. V. See “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] There is no need to write (with Thenius) δַ ?ξְּ ?λַ ?χִ ?ωׁ before μְ ?δַ ?ωְׁ ?ξִ ?ιγ (after Sept. and Vulg.), since ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψδָ ?ιָ ?δ (“the man that was, had in mind, to destroy”) is naturally supplied (Gesen. § 132, 3, Rem. 1). [On this comp. “Text. and Gramm.” Eng. A. V. supplies “that would.”—Tr.] ΰִ ?ωׁ is later softer form for ιֵ ?ωׁ, Micah 6:10; Ew. § 53 c. ιָ ?ξִ ?ινεְ ?ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν = ιָ ?ξִ ?ινμַ ?ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν [“from time to time”].—Tr.]. εְ ?δַ ?φִּ ?ιϊεּ ?δָ (ordinary Hiph. of ιָ ?φַ ?ϊ, 2 pers. plu.) instead of εְּ ?δεֹ ?φִ ?ιϊִ ?ιδָ (Hiph. according to αּ ?Ψε, 1 pers. sing.). II. External Shattering of the Royal Authority till its Loss2 Samuel 15-181. Absalom’s revolt and David’s flight. 2 Samuel 15:1 to 2 Samuel 16:141 And it came to pass after this that Absalom prepared him chariots [a chariot] and horses, and fifty men to run before him. 2And Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate; and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment [and it came to pass that, every man that had a cause to come to the king for judgment], then [om. then] Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel [or, of such and such a tribe of Israel]. 3And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. 4Absalom said moreover [And Absalom said], Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which [who] hath any suit or cause [cause or controversy] might come unto me, and I would do him justice! 5And it was so [And it came to pass] that when any man came nigh to him [om. to him] to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him. 6And on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment; so [and] Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel. 7And it came to pass after forty [four] years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the Lord [Jehovah], in Hebron. 8For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the Lord [Jehovah] shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord [Jehovah]. 9And the king said unto him, Go in peace. So 10[And] he arose and went to Hebron. But [And] Absalom sent spies [or, emissaries] throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, As soon as ye hear the sound of the trumpet, then ye shall say, Absalom reigneth in Hebron. 11And with Absalom went two hundred men out of Jerusalem, that were called; and they went in their simplicity, and they knew not anything. 12And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counsellor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom. 13And there came a messenger to David, saying, The hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom. 14And David said unto all his servants that were with him at Jerusalem, Arise, and let us flee; for we shall not else escape from Absalom; make speed to depart, lest he overtake us suddenly, and bring evil upon us, and smite the city with the edge of the sword. 15And the king’s servants said unto the king. Behold, thy servants are ready to do whatsoever my lord the king shall appoint 16[choose]. And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left ten women which were [om. women which were] concubines to keep the 17house. And the king went forth, and all the people after him, and tarried [halted] in a place that was far off [in Beth-hammarhak, or, at the far house]. 18And all his servants passed on beside him, and all the Cherethites and all the Pelethites, and all the Gittites, six hundred men, which [who] came after him from Gath passed on before the king. 19Then said the king [And the king said] to Ittai the Gittite, Wherefore goest thou also with us? Return to thy place, and abide with the king; for thou art a stranger, and also an exile. 20Whereas thou camest but yesterday [Yesterday thou camest], should I this day [and to-day shall I] make thee go up and down with us? [om.?], seeing I go whither I may [ins.?] Return thou, and take back thy brethren; mercy and truth be with thee. 21And Ittai answered the king and said, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, and as my lord the king liveth, surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in [for] death or [ins. for] life, even there also will [there will] thy servant be. 22And David said to Ittai, Go, and pass over. And Ittai the Gittite passed over, and all his men, and all the little ones that were with him. 23And all the country [land] wept with a loud voice, and all the people passed over; the king also himself [and the king] passed over the brook Kedron, and all the people passed over, toward the way of the wilderness. 24And lo Zadok also and all the Levites were [om. were] with him, bearing the ark of the covenant of God; and they set down the ark of God; and Abiathar went up, until all the people had done passing out of the city. 25And the king said unto Zadok, Carry back the ark of God into [to] the city. If I shall find favour in the eyes of the Lord [Jehovah], he will 26bring me again, and show me both it and his habitation. But [And] if he thus say, I have no delight in thee; behold, here am I, let him do to me as seemeth good unto him. 27The king said also [And the king said] unto Zadok the priest, Art not [om. not] thou a seer? return into [to] the city in peace, and your two sons with you, Ahimaaz thy son, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar. 28See, I will tarry in the plain [by the fords] of the wilderness, until there come word from you to certify 29me. Zadok therefore [And Zadok] and Abiathar carried the ark of God again to Jerusalem; and they tarried there. 30And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot; and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up. 31And one told David, saying, Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom. And David said, O Lord [om. O Lord], I pray thee, turn [Turn, I pray thee] the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness [ins. O Jehovah]. 32And it came to pass that, when David was come to the top of the mount, where he worshipped God [where God was worshipped], behold Hushai the Archite [Arkite] came to meet him with his coat [garment] rent, and earth upon his head. 33Unto whom David said [And David said to him], If thou passest on with me, then shalt thou be a 34burden unto me; But if thou return to the city, and say unto Absalom, I will be thy servant, O king; as [om. as] I have been thy father’s servant hitherto, so will I now also [and now I will] be thy servant; then mayest thou for me defeat the 35counsel of Ahithophel. And hast thou not there with thee Zadok and Abiathar the priests? therefore [and] it shall be that [om. it shall be that] what thing soever thou shalt hear out of the king’s house, thou shalt tell it [om. it] to Zadok and 36Abiathar the priests. Behold, they have there with them their two sons, Ahimaaz Zadok’s son, and Jonathan Abiathar’s son; and by them ye shall send unto me 37everything that ye can [om. can] hear. So [And] Hushai David’s friend came into [to] the city, and Absalom came into [to] Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 16:1 And when [om. when] David was a little past the top of the hill, [ins. and] behold, Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth met him, with a couple of asses saddled, and upon them two hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches [cakes] of raisins, and an hundred of summer-fruits [cakes of figs], and a bottle 2[skin] of wine. And the king said unto Ziba, What meanest thou by these? And Ziba said, The asses be [are] for the king’s household to ride on, and the bread and summer-fruit [figs] for the young men to eat, and the wine that [for] such as be [are] faint in the wilderness may [to] drink. And the king said, And where Isaiah 3 thy master’s son? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he abideth at Jerusalem; for he said, To-day shall the house of Israel restore me the kingdom of my father. 4Then said the king [And the king said] to Ziba, Behold, thine are all that pertained unto [is all that belonged to] Mephibosheth. And Ziba said, I humbly beseech thee [I bow down] that [om. that]; I may [may I] find grace in thy sight, my lord O king. 5And when [om. when] king David came to Bahurim, [ins. and] behold, thence came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose [and his] name was Shimei, the son of Gera; he came forth, and cursed still as he came. 6And he cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David; and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. 7And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial 8[wicked man]. The Lord [Jehovah] hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned, and the Lord [Jehovah] hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son; and behold, thou art taken in thy mischief [thou art in thy calamity], because thou art a bloody man. 9Then said Abishai the son of Zeruiah [And Abishai, etc., said] unto the king, Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head. 10And the king said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? so let him curse, because [for] the Lord [Jehovah] hath said unto him, Curse David; [,] who shall then say [and who shall say], Wherefore hast thou done [doest thou] so? 11And David said to Abishai and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which [who] came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life, [ins. and] how much more now may this Benjamite do it [how much more now the Benjaminite]? let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord [Jehovah] hath bidden him. 12It may be that the Lord [Jehovah] will look on mine affliction, and that the Lord [Jehovah] will requite 13me good for his cursing this day. And as [om. as] David and his men went by [on] the way, [ins. and] Shimei went along on the hill’s side over against him, and cursed as he went, and threw stones at him, and cast dust. 14And the king and all the people that were with him came weary [or, came to Ajephim] and refreshed themselves there. AND 2 Samuel 15:1-12. Absalom’s insurrection. 2 Samuel 15:1. “After this.” The word here used (ξֵ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ιλֵ ?ο comp. 3:28) shows that what is here related follows immediately on the event narrated in 14:28–33. Absalom provides himself a state-chariot with its appurtenances [fifty runners or footmen] in order thus to assume a royal appearance and to attract the wondering attention of the people to himself. Comp. the similar procedure of Adonijah, 1 Kings 1:5. 2 Samuel 15:2 sq. Vivid description of his condescending behaviour (in contrast with his pompous appearance) to gain the favor of the people in connection with their law-matters. [He “rose up early” in order to show his zeal and get opportunities; and such legal business is usually attended to very early in the East; Malcolm (quoted by Philippson) says that Oriental ministers hold their levees at an hour when Western people of quality are not yet up.—Tr.]. The “gate” here referred to is the gate of the royal palace, whither those came that sought the decision of the king in law-matters. “For judgment,” that is, for legal decision. The “hearer” is the judicial officer whose duty it was first to hear and understand the people’s matters, and then lay them before the king, an auscultator. For just decision everything depends on careful hearing and understanding. But there is no hearer for thee on the part of the king.—Absalom guards indeed against accusing the king himself of injustice; but he excites in the minds of the people distrust of the king’s whole judicial practice by saying that there was no regular judicial process for a good and just cause. Perhaps neglect and partiality had crept in, so that Absalom could find some handle for his charges, and avail himself of an already existing dissatisfaction. In the words: See, thy matters are good and right, he gives (in order to win favor) a judicial decision before thorough investigation has been made. Thy just cause, says he, is not investigated; else thou would’st not lack a favorable decision. [Absalom shows himself master of the art of political intriguing—he flatters the people and brings charges against the rulers. Perhaps his insinuations were directed in part against the princes his brothers, possibly against Solomon (Patrick), whose age, however, at this time we do not know, or whether it had been intimated that he was heir to the throne.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 15:4. “O that I were made judge,” literally: “who will make me judge!” (Ges. § 136, 1). “That to me [lit. “on me”], might come every man.” The “to me” is put first for the sake of emphasis; Absalom contrasts himself as just judge with the state of things under his father. ςַ ?μ (“on me”) stands for ΰֶ ?μ (“to me”), or, the sentence is to be explained with Thenius from the collective idea “all men” (λָּ ?μΞΰִ ?ιωׁ): “In imagination Absalom sees the litigants assembled around him;” comp. Exodus 18:13; Judges 3:19; 1 Samuel 22:6. The phrase “on me” is not to be explained from the sitting of the judge and the people standing around above him. [The phrase “come on me” is like English “press on,” “lean on,” and implies probably that Absalom would bear their burdens, or else, the proposition here = “at, near, with” (apud).—Tr.].—I would do him justice.—Absalom here presumes on the people’s litigiousness and their confidence in the justice each man of his own cause, and, having brought his father’s judicial procedure into discredit with them, promises to do every man justice. Vulg.: “I should judge justly.” 2 Samuel 15:5 sq. [Absalom’s affability]. He magnanimously puts aside the honor gained by these arts, and attaches the people to him by a pretended fraternization with every man. The result of these preparations for the purposed insurrection: Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.—The phrase (βָּ ?πַ ?αμֵ ?α) may also mean “to deceive the heart,” as in Genesis 31:20; but the connection shows that the meaning here is “to steal the heart.” [Sept. very well: “made his own the heart,” ἰδιοποιεῖτο; Vulg.: solicitabat corda.—Tr.]. He turned the hearts of the people by guile from his father to himself. [Patrick: a most vile piece of flattery (2 Samuel 15:5), yet acceptable to the people. So Plato (Rep. Lib. viii.), describes those as doing that would get possession of the government; and see Aristotle Pol. V. 4. Absalom’s beautiful person no doubt attracted the people, as well as his condescending familiarity of manner.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:7-12. The conspiracy set on foot. 2 Samuel 15:7. The statement of time: At the end of forty years, is certainly wrong according to the connection. An immediate sequence of events being indicated in 2 Samuel 15:1 [see on 2 Samuel 15:1 and translator’s note], the phrase “at the end of” can only point to a previous occurrence in Absalom’s life—not, however, to his return from Geshur, which is not important enough in the narrative to serve as reckoning-point (terminus a quo) for a new series of events, but rather to his reconciliation with David (14:33). But Absalom’s procedure here described (2 Samuel 15:1-6) up to his insurrection cannot have lasted forty years; and further, such a space of time cannot be fitted into the history of David and Absalom, though this would be allowable only in case there were here indicated some chronological-historical point of support, as it has been attempted to find, for example, in Absalom’s age at this time or in the duration of David’s reign. According to these conjectures Absalom’s conspiracy must have occurred in the last days of David’s reign, and this would be wholly unhistorical. The reading of Codd. 70 and 90 (Kennicott) “forty days” is a violent attempt to remove the difficulty, and only introduces another difficulty, since forty days is too short a time after Absalom’s reconciliation with his father for all his preparations here described. We must read “four years” with Syr., Arab., Vulg. [but Codex Amiatinus has “forty”—Tr.], Josephus, Theodoret (Capellus, Grotius, Ewald, Thenius, Keil and others [Bib.-Com.]). [Others, (as Ussher, Patrick, Cahen, Philippson) retain the number “forty,” and reckon it in various ways, some from the beginning of David’s reign (Abarbanel), some from David’s anointment by Samuel (Ussher and others), some from the people’s demand for a king (Seder Olam); but the objection to all these is (as Erdmann above suggests) that there is no hint in the text of so remote a terminus a quo as any of them; the time is evidently reckoned from some near event. Though the number four is more probable than forty, it is after all only a conjecture, though a well-supported one; the chronology must here be regarded as uncertain.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 15:8. Absalom’s “vow” and “serving the Lord” is to be understood of the offering of a sacrifice. He wished to sacrifice in Hebron, ostensibly, no doubt, because it was his birth-place, but really because (his father having there assumed the crown) he considered it a peculiarly suitable place for his being proclaimed king. He chose this place, not because there was dissatisfaction at the removal of the royal residence to Jerusalem (Thenius and Keil, following the “Exegetical Manual”), but because he could there count on a numerous following from the tribe of Judah. [We have here an example of sacrificial feasting not in connection with the Tabernacle (as in David’s history 1 Samuel 20:6), an indication that the strict law of Leviticus (Leviticus 17:3-4; comp. Deuteronomy 12:13-14) was not in practical operation; else David would have objected to sacrificing in Hebron.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 15:9. David permits himself to be deceived by the pretence of a thank-offering in Hebron, which Absalom might have offered as well, or better, in Jerusalem. Ewald remarks: “that David observed nothing of all this till the startling news reached him that the heart of Israel was turned to Absalom, cannot be reckoned to his disadvantage, since so ancient and simple a kingdom had nothing like our modern state-police; it is rather a mark of the noble-minded security that we elsewhere see in him, that he gives so free scope to his beloved son, who might be regarded as first-born and heir-apparent, and whose quiet nature certainly even greatly pleased him.” 2 Samuel 15:10. “Absalom sent.” The verb is not Pluperfect but Imperfect, since the sending out of emissaries might be synchronous with the journey to Hebron, where Absalom’s accomplices had gotten everything in readiness for proclaiming him king, else he could not have said: As soon as ye hear the sound of the trumpet, say, Absalom is become king in Hebron. Absalom sent emissaries into all the tribes of Israel, to find out public opinion and prepare for his attempt throughout the whole kingdom at the same time, he having already gotten the favor of the people by the arts above-related, and thrown his net over them. The emissaries had only to spread the net wider and deeper, and then at the signal to draw it in and catch the people. 2 Samuel 15:11. The two hundred men that accompanied him were not “poor, dependent people,” which would certainly have excited surprise, but courtiers such as ususually accompanied kings and kings’ sons on their journeys without causing remark. That these men might be perfectly at their ease, under the impression that they were going to a sacrificial feast at Hebron, and that the real purpose might the better be concealed from David, nothing was said to them of Absalom’s design; they knew “nothing at all” of the matter. Taken by surprise in Hebron by the sudden proclamation of Absalom as king, they must have appeared to the people at Jerusalem and elsewhere as part of the royal retinue. [Bib.-Com. points out the extreme secrecy of the affair as explaining David’s ignorance of it, and also Absalom’s taste for large entertainments.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 15:12. Ahithophel appears as Absalom’s secret counsellor in the contriving of the conspiracy, and so as traitor to David, whose counsellor he was. His native city Giloh was near and south of Hebron (Joshua 15:51; Joshua 15:54). The text reads literally: “He sent Ahithophel from his city,” that is, he caused him to come. Either this expression is to be regarded as a pregnant one=“he sent and brought” (Keil), or we must change the vowel-points. Why Ahithophel abandoned David is not said; probably from dissatisfaction and ambition. [Patrick: “And it is supposed by the Jews that Ahithophel was incensed against David for abusing Bathsheba, whom they take to have been his grand-daughter, she being the daughter of Eliam (11:3), and Eliam being the son of Ahithophel (23:34).”—So Blunt, Coincidences, Part II. (ix.)—Tr.]—No doubt he had been slyly working at Giloh, and had prepared everything for proclaiming Absalom. The conspiracy grew rapidly, and the people came to Absalom in constantly increasing numbers. It is noticeable that it is in the tribe of Judah that this defection from David is consummated. The elements of this so astonishingly successful insurrection of Absalom were David’s grievous sins, his weakness towards Amnon and Joab, the lacks of the royal government and the consequent dissatisfaction among the people. [The expression: “while he offered bloody offerings” is difficult. If the subject be Ahithophel, it does not appear why his offering should be mentioned; or if, as is more probable, the subject is Absalom, the reason for his sending for Ahithophel while he was offering is not clear; we should rather have expected the latter to be present at the beginning of the solemn sacrifice that was to pledge the conspirators. As the text stands, it cannot be rendered: “he sent for Ahithophel to be present when he offered,” nor: “and while he sacrificed, the conspiracy grew strong,” though something like one of these renderings seems to be the meaning. The text is discussed in “Text, and Gram.”—Grotius refers to the similar procedure of Civilis (pledging conspirators at a feast), Tacit., Hist. IV. 14.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:13 to 2 Samuel 16:14. David’s flight before Absalom.2 Samuel 15:13. Literally: “the messenger;” according to our usage: “a messenger,” the Heb. employing the Def. Art, to express the class individualized in the person in question. Comp. Ges. § 109, 3, Rem. 1 b, c.—“The heart of the men of Israel is after Absalom”—“to be after one” means “to attach one’s self to him, embrace his cause.” Comp. 2:10; 1 Samuel 12:14. 2 Samuel 15:14. Up! let us flee. David’s immediate flight is to be explained (according to the reason that he himself here gives) by the fact that seized not with momentary fear (Thenius), but doubtless with sudden terror at the unexpected revolution, he yet sees that the fulfilment of Nathan’s prophecy of approaching “misfortune” (12:10, 11) is now beginning, that the punishment cannot be warded off, and that to stay in Jerusalem will only occasion a storming of the city with much bloodshed, which he wishes to avoid. “Against an insurrection so vigorous, and yet so thoroughly groundless and unintelligible, the best defence was to withdraw quietly and try to gain time; the first fright happily gotten over, sober thought would soon return in many places” (Ewald). [How far Jerusalem was now in condition to stand a siege (Zion was probably fortified), or whether David had a well-organized standing army, and how much of the army Absalom carried off, we do not know; David’s forces seem not to have received any important addition after he left the city. Two reasons for leaving Jerusalem would be: to spare the city the horrors of a siege, and to gain the advantage of his military skill and of the discipline of his tried warriors in the open country.—Tr.]—[2 Samuel 15:15. David’s servants (soldiers) declare themselves ready to obey his commands—a comfortable faithfulness in the midst of general defection.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:16. The king’s household went “after him” (αְּ ?ψַ ?βְ ?μָ ?ιε), comp. Judges 4:10; Judges 4:15, not: “on foot” (Michaelis). The king left ten concubines to keep the house. It appears from 19:6 [Eng. A. V. 5] that other concubines went along with him. 2 Samuel 15:17. “All the people,” all persons attached to the court, including the numerous body of servants = “the whole household” (2 Samuel 15:16). They halted at “the farthest (or far) house” [Eng. A. V.: “a place that was far off”] on the road to Mount Olivet, but this side the Kidron. So the German phrase “the last cent” (der letzte Heller) used as a proper name to designate a farm lying at the extremity of a region. Probably this designation had already become a proper name among the people. [Bib. Com.: “very likely a fort guarding the passage of the Kidron.” Others write: Beth-merhak.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:18. David having halted here with his immediate retinue (of his household), caused first all his servants to pass by at his side (ςַ ?μΞιָ ?γεֹ), then his body guard and six hundred Gittites (who had followed him from Gath) to pass before him, so that the latter formed the vanguard. On the “Cherethites and Pelethites” comp. 8:18. As the “six hundred men that followed him from Gath” are called “all the Gittites,” they must be those six hundred faithful companions-in-arms that gathered about David during Saul’s persecution (1 Samuel 22:2; 1 Samuel 23:13; 1 Samuel 25:13), went with him to Gath (1 Samuel 27:2 sq.) and settled with him in Ziklag (1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 29:2; 1 Samuel 30:1; 1 Samuel 30:9). Thence they marched with him to Hebron (2:3) and Jerusalem (5:6). They are the same that are called “Gibborim” [heroes, mighty men] in 16:6, and appear as his military escort. Comp. 20:7; 23:8 sqq., where the Gibborim seem to be identical with these. “They very probably formed, from the time that David went to reside at Jerusalem, a special body, known as ‘the Gibborim,’ kept always in full number (hence here also, six hundred), living in barracks at Jerusalem (see Appendix to the Books of Kings, § 7), employed only in the most important undertakings (10:7; 20:7, 9) the Old Guard, as it were, who here also will protect the retreat of their lord with their stout, faithful bodies” (Thenius). They are here called “the Gittites” because they were so called by the people, as having followed David “from Gath on” (Keil). There is no necessity for read- Gibborim instead of Gittites (Thenius), especially as all the versions have the latter. [This reading is discussed in “Text. and Gram.” Some hold these “Gittites” to be foreigners (Philistines) that had entered David’s service, as we know many foreigners did; and this is probable, if we retain the present text. But that the Gibborim were called “Gittites” (Keil) is not probable, and as there is no account of such a body of Philistines having followed David from Gath (that is, when he lived there), there is strong reason for reading Gibborim instead of Gittites.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:19. Ittai was a Philistine of Gath, “who had lately with other bold Philistine warriors come over to David, and, having probably had a good position in his native city, was also assigned a high place by David” (Ewald). According to 2 Samuel 15:22 his wife and children were with him. He was given command of one-third of the army (18:2), and stood along with Joab and Abishai as an able general. It need not surprise us that a foreigner should occupy such a military position; comp. 11:3, Uriah the Hittite. David advises this faithful follower not to go with him, but to remain “with the king” at Jerusalem. This phrase cannot mean: with him that is or will be king, according to God’s will, whether it be David or Absalom (Keil, and so Seb. Schmidt: “it is not your business to decide this contest: wait quietly, see whom God chooses and serve him”), but it must be referred definitely to Absalom, who in David’s eyes is now king de facto. Ewald: David gave him the friendly advice to stay in Jerusalem with the new king. David thus neither recognizes Absalom as rightful king (Bφttch.), nor ironically so calls him = “with him who is acting as if he were king” (Clericus). In this usurpation of the throne David recognizes and submits to a divine dispensation, and so calls Absalom king.—The reason for his counsel to Ittai: “For thou art a stranger and moreover an emigrant (exile) in thy place. “Stranger” = not an Israelite; “emigrant or exile” (βֹּ ?μֶ ?δ) = one not in his native land. The last phrase may be rendered: “for thy place,” or “in respect to thy place,” or may be taken to express a state of quiet (comp. Ges. § 154, 3 e). The meaning is: “as a foreigner, thou needst not care who is king, or join either side; stay where thou art.” The reading of Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab.: “thou hast come from thy place,” does not warrant us in changing the preposition “to” of the Heb. into “from;” for, if the latter were the original text, it is hard to see how the present difficult reading came. [The passage reads literally: “Return, and abide with the king, for thou art a stranger and also an exile to thy place.” Eng. A. V. transposes the last phrase, or supposes a parenthesis: “return to thy place and abide,” etc. (and so Kimchi), and Bib.-Com.: “Return and dwell with the king (for thou art a foreigner and thou art an exile) at thy place” (i. e. Jerusalem). Erdmann in his translation of the chapter (prefixed to the Exposition) gives: “for thou art a stranger and moreover a man that has been carried away from his place,” but here renders it quite differently: “for thou art a stranger and an exile in thy place,” that is, remaining quietly in thy place (Jerusalem, thy adopted home). Philippson: “thou art a stranger, etc., in respect to thy place” (Gath, thy native place). The parenthesis of Eng. A. V. is improbable, and Erdmann’s rendering in the Exposition is impossible; we must adopt Philippson’s, or change the Prep. and read “from,” as Erdmann in his translation. See the discussion in “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]—Whether Ittai came with his family (2 Samuel 15:22) and his kinsfolk (2 Samuel 15:20) to Jerusalem as hostage (Thenius), or went over to David with other warriors (Ewald), cannot be determined, as nothing is said thereon. But as he was a man in high position and a distinguished military leader, and as David broke the Philistines’ supremacy in the last war with them (8:1), it is probable (2 Samuel 15:20 : “thou camest yesterday”) that this victory of David’s was the occasion of his coming to Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 15:20. The sense is: “Shall 1 drag thee, a stranger lately come, and an exile, into my unquiet and precarious life?” Since I go whither I go, without certain aim, “whither the way leads me” (Maurer). Comp. 1 Samuel 23:13.—David wishes Ittai the favor and the faithfulness of God. From this and from Ittai’s saying: “as the Lord lives,” it is probable that Ittai with his whole house had already become a believer in the God of Israel. [From this expression we cannot infer anything as to Ittai’s religious position, much less as to that of his family. Any foreigner might believe in Jehovah as a deity and swear by His name (so Achish, 1 Samuel 29:6) without giving up his own gods. On general grounds it is not improbable that Ittai accepted the God of Israel; but we have no information as to any special religious depth or conversion in his history.—Tr.] It is doubtful whether we should render: “carry thy brethren back with thee in grace and truth.” (Maurer), or take the latter part separately: “with thee be grace and truth,” that is, God’s (Keil); the accents favor the first, the connection of thought the second. Sept. and Vulg. have: “and the Lord will do with thee grace and truth,” to which Vulg. adds: “because thou hast shown grace and faithfulness,” whence Thenius (with Ew. and Bφttch. for the Sept. reading) will correspondingly change the Heb. text. But the words of Sept. and Vulg. seem to be an interpreting paraphrase, with the similar words in 2:5, 6, in mind. The text without this addition gives a good sense: “lead thy brethren back; with thee be grace and faithfulness.” 2 Samuel 15:21. Ittai’s answer expresses unconditional devotion and fidelity for life and death.2 Samuel 15:22. David accepts Ittai’s vow of fidelity. The latter with his whole family (wife and children, θַ ?σ, comp. Exodus 12:37) remains in the line of march. 2 Samuel 15:23. Description of the deep and loud lamentation of all the faithful people over the misfortune of their king. “All the land” = all the inhabitants who poured out with the procession; “all the people” = David’s courtiers and servants, were “passing by,” namely, in front of these crowds of people standing on the way-side. The procession marched eastward over the brook Kedron, it being David’s aim to reach the wilderness of Judah [that is, between Jerusalem and Jericho]. The Kedron, filled with water only in the winter or rainy season, was in the valley of Jehoshaphat, east of Jerusalem, between the city and Mount Olivet. David passed “in the direction of the way” to the wilderness, the northern part of the wilderness of Judah. 2 Samuel 15:24-29. The priests sent back with the ark to Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 15:24. Zadok (of the branch of Eleazar) with the priests took the ark from its place (2 Samuel 6), brought it out to David, and set it down where he halted (after passing the Kidron) on the declivity of the mount of Olives, “to give the people that were yet coming on time to join the procession” (Keil). On the other hand Abiathar (of the line of Eli [branch of Ithamar]) had remained in the city “till the people had all passed over from the city.” He went up, that is, of course, to the summit of Mount Olivet, where the ark was set down; the rendering: “he sacrificed” (Schultz, Bφttcher), is impossible, since the verb (ςμδ) never has this meaning except in connection with the substantive “burnt-offering” (ςεֹ ?μָ ?δ) [or some other offering, Isaiah 57:6.—Tr.], or without reference to it in the connection; in the passages cited by Bφttcher, 1 Samuel 2:28; 2 Samuel 24:22; 1 Kings 3:15, the context points to offering. Thenius proposes to read: “and Abiathar waited,” for which there is no necessity, as the text in the connection (in respect to the locality) gives a good sense.—[Bφttcher: “And Zadok, etc., bearing the ark, etc., of God, and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech at the head of all the Levites, and they set down the ark of God, and Abiathar offered sacrifices until,” etc., an improbable reading, in which the inserted clause is suggested by the Sept. ἀπὸ βαινὰρ = Abiathar. Wellhausen acutely suggests that the words: “and Abiathar went up (or, offered sacrifices),” are in the wrong place; the text reads: “they set down the ark till all the people,” etc. It is hard to get any good sense from the present text, or to explain what part Abiathar took in the proceedings. Some think he staid in the city till the ark was set down; others (contrary to the text) that he preceded the ark, which was not set down till he stopped. Probably Abiathar ought to be somehow connected with Zadok in the bearing of the ark (see the plural “your” in 2 Samuel 15:27), and perhaps in sacrificing; but we have not the means of satisfactorily restoring the text.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:25 sqq. The ark sent back. David declares that he does not need this sign of God’s gracious presence and protection. His reason for this is expressed in the words [2 Samuel 15:26]: “if I find favor,” etc., wherein in contrast with the visible sign of God’s presence he emphasizes His spiritual nearness, on which everything depends, and gives himself unconditionally up to the will of the Lord, whom he knows to be present, whose hand he sees in these events, according to the announcement made him by Nathan. He resigns himself to God in the proper sense of the word for “favor or disfavor.” David speaks only to Zadok, who here (as in in 2 Samuel 15:24) appears as the officiating high-priest at the head of the Levites. [But from 1 Kings 2:35 it seems that Abiathar was the superior (Bib.-Com., Bδhr on “Kings” (Lange’s Bible-work), Patrick). It is not improbable that some mention of Abiathar has here fallen out of the text (see 2 Samuel 15:29); though it may be that in the distribution of duties the care of the ark fell to Zadok. The two priests are throughout this narrative represented as equally faithful to David.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:27 sqq. [The king says to Zadok: Return to the city, and I will await word from you at the fords.] The word δψΰδ [Eng. A. V. seer] presents great difficulties if we adopt the interrogative pointing, and render: “Seest thou not?” (Grot.), where the insertion of the negative is unwarranted, or: “Seest thou?” (De Wette), or: “Understandest thou?” namely, what I have just said (Bφttcher), which renderings are partly too heavy, partly superfluous. [These translations take the word as Participle. Eng. A. V. takes it as a substantive, and unwarrantably inserts a negative, leaving out which, the rendering: “art thou a seer?” is grammatically possible, but not suitable to the circumstances.—Tr.] Instead of the Interrogative particle (δֲ) we must read the Article (δָ), and render: “Thou seer,” that is, thou prophet, “since a high-priest might certainly bear this higher, yet archaic name” (Ewald). The high-priest might well be called a seer, because he received divine revelations through the Urim and Thummim. David’s reason for so naming him here is found in his words in 2 Samuel 15:25 sqq. Zadok is to return to Jerusalem and learn God’s will through events, and through him David is to learn whether the Lord will again take him into favor and restore him to Jerusalem; that is, Zadok was to act as seer for him.—[This interpretation is hardly conveyed by the words. Zadok was to act as observer, as reporter or intermediary between Hushai and David, and in fact does so act. But he performs none of the functions of the official Roeh or Seer, and it is not easy to see why he should be so called. Usage forbids us to take the word in its literal sense: “seeer” = observer. Wellhausen’s reading: “high-priest” (ψΰω) belongs to a later time, and that of the Sept. “see!” (ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δ) seems to offer fewer difficulties than any other.—Tr.]—Ahimaaz and Jonathan the sons of the two high-priests are to be the messengers to bring news from Jerusalem; comp. 2 Samuel 15:28 and 2 Samuel 15:36.—In 2 Samuel 15:28 we retain (from 17:6 comp. with 19:19) the Kethib or text: “the fords of the wilderness” (instead of the Qeri “plains” [so Eng. A. V.], 2 Kings 25:5), the point where one passed from the wilderness over the Jordan. Thither (to the west side of the Jordan) David had to repair in order to escape any threatening danger by crossing the river at one of the several fords in the vicinity; and there he would await information from Jerusalem. Comp. the Jordan-fords, Joshua 2:7; Judges 3:28. 2 Samuel 15:29. The ark is carried back to Jerusalem, and the two high-priests remain there. 2 Samuel 15:30-37. Continuation of the flight on the road to the wilderness of Judah over the Mount of Olives. 2 Samuel 15:30. David went up the height of the olive trees, that is, Mount Olivet [Eng. A. V.: the ascent (or acclivity) of Mount Olivet]. Deep and loud mourning of David and all the faithful people that accompanied him. “Covering the head” is the symbol of the mind sorrowfully sunk in itself, wholly withdrawn from the outer world. Comp. Esther 6:12; Ezekiel 24:17. Of David it is said besides that he went “barefoot,” “as a penitent” (Ewald), or: “to manifest his humiliation in the sight of God” (Thenius). 2 Samuel 15:31. “It was told David,” he learned from Jerusalem, that the crafty Ahithophel (see on 2 Samuel 15:12) was “among the conspirators” with Absalom. He replies only by a brief ejaculation, praying the Lord “to make foolish the counsel of Ahithophel,” that is, to bring it to naught. 2 Samuel 15:32. The fulfilment of this prayer is straightway prepared by the arrival of Hushai, the old, faithful friend of David, see 17:1 sq.—David came to the top, that is, of Mount Olivet, its highest point, whither David had come after ascending from the height below on the declivity (comp. 2 Samuel 15:24 with 2 Samuel 15:30); for there only can have been the place where men were wont to worship. By some (Sept., Vulg., Ew.) [Eng. A. V.]) “David” is taken as the subject of the verb “worshipped;” but then an Infin. with Prep. “to” (μְ) must have been employed, or a Pers. Pron. (δεּ ?ΰ) inserted before the verb (Bφttch.). This place on the top of Mount Olivet, therefore, was one of the Bamoth or high places, which still existed in various places in Palestine.—Hushai was a trusted, proved counsellor of the king, as appears from the duties assigned him (2 Samuel 15:33 sq.). That he was in close friendship with the king is shown by his repeated designation as “David’s friend,” 2 Samuel 15:37; 2 Samuel 16:16; 1 Chronicles 27:33.—The Arkite, from the city Erek in Ephraim, on its south border near Atharoth (Joshua 16:2). Hushai came to meet David, had consequently preceded him in the flight [or else, had been out of the city]. The “torn garment and the earth on the head” betoken his grief, comp. 1 Samuel 4:12. [According to Braun this garment was like a surplice, with sleeves, worn commonly by men of rank and position (Patrick).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:33 sq.—David, however, suggests to Hushai to return to Jerusalem. If thou pass on with me, thou wilt be a burden to me—why, it is not said. Ewald thinks it was because he was not used to war; but the matter in hand now was not war, but flight. Clericus supposes that he was a talented and prudent man, but not a warrior, and so Keil. Thenius: “thou wouldst thus increase my cares.” Probably David thinks that Hushai would impede his flight, either because he was old, or because, as the king’s intimate friend and confidential counsellor he would require special care. By entering Absalom’s service, he thinks, Hushai may foil Ahithophel’s plans (2 Samuel 15:34), and through the priests’ sons keep him informed of the state of affairs in Jerusalem. Hushai is to say to Absalom: Thy servant, O king, I will be; thy father’s servant was I formerly; but now—well, I am thy servant. [This was not honest, but it was according to the policy practiced in those days, and indeed in all ages. Which Procopius Gazζus approves so far as to say that “a lie told for a good end is equivalent to truth.” But I dare not justify such doctrine (Patrick).—Tr.]—[2 Samuel 15:35-36. Zadok and Abiathar and their sons are to participate in the stratagem of Hushai, and their moral position in the matter is perhaps the same as his and David’s. Bp. Patrick’s judgment above cited is hardly too severe. This was not an ordinary stratagem; these men, Zadok and the rest, were not simply spies, but we can avoid calling them traitors only by supposing that the priests were not recognized as adherents of Absalom, but as indifferent non-combatants, or as friends of David.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 15:37. Hushai returned to Jerusalem at the same time that Absalom entered the city. The addition of the Vulg.: “and Ahithophel with him” was occasioned, no doubt, by 16:15 (Thenius). 1 Samuel 16:1–14. Two disturbing experiences in David’s flight continued from the summit of the Mount of Olives.—1) 2 Samuel 16:1-4. Meeting with Ziba, and the latter’s calumny against Mephibosheth. 2 Samuel 16:1. When David was a little past the top [of Olivet], the point where he met Hushai (15:32). On Ziba, Mephibosheth’s servant, see 9:2 sq. He came to meet David, had therefore gone on in advance of the army (as Hushai did) in order more easily to secure David’s attention after the first disorder was over. On two saddled asses he brings a quantity of food, two hundred loaves of bread, one hundred cakes of raisins or dried grapes, one hundred cakes of fruit [probably fig-cakes] (παλάθαι, comp. the Sept. in Jeremiah 40:10; Jeremiah 40:12) and a skin of wine. 2 Samuel 16:2. Ziba states his purpose in bringing this food. [His gift was particularly thoughtful and seasonable.—Tr.]—His real wish was to gain the king’s favor and gratitude, he being shrewd enough to see that David would come out victor over his son. 2 Samuel 16:3. David asks: “where is the son (Mephibosheth) of thy lord (Jonathan)?”; to which he replies with the calumny, that Mephibosheth had stayed in Jerusalem, hoping to regain the kingdom of his father (Jonathan), who, if he had outlived Saul, would have been king. That the helpless cripple had designs on the throne, was an evident lie. But David might now believe it, partly because the present excitement prevented quiet consideration and opened his mind to such an insinuation, partly because he feared the Sauline party, dissatisfied with his government, might use the confusion produced by Absalom’s insurrection to restore Saul’s dynasty under the name of the last scion of his house. The aim of Ziba in this calumny (19:25 sqq. proves it undoubtedly to have been such) was to get possession of the estate committed to him for Mephibosheth’s benefit (9:7 sq.), comp. 19:27–29. The manner of Ziba’s trick was this (19:26): Mephibosheth, learning of David’s flight, had ordered asses saddled for himself and his servants, in order to repair to the king in token of his faithful attachment; Ziba had taken the asses together with the presents intended by Mephibosheth for the king, come to the latter, and left the helpless Mephibosheth in the lurch. He was therefore not only an arrant liar and calumniator, but also an impudent thief and traitor.2 Samuel 16:4. Another example of David’s credulity and haste. He believes Ziba without investigation, and bestows on him all his master’s property. The impudent swindler replies to this grace with two words: 1) I bow myself, that is, I manifest my most humble and devoted thanks; 2) may I find favor in the eyes of my lord, the king. I commend myself to your further good-will, comp. 1 Samuel 1:18. David, in the excitement of momentary misfortune, is here guilty of a double wrong, first in treating the faithful Mephibosheth as a traitor, and then in royally rewarding the false and slanderous Ziba. 2) 2 Samuel 16:5-14. Shimei curses David. The flight reaches Bahurim, on the position of which place see on 3:16, Thenius in loco and Kδuffer’s bibl. Stud. II. 154.—[It was between Mount Olivet and the Jordan, but the exact site is unknown.—Tr.]—Shimei was of the race of Saul’s house.—[See the lists in Genesis 46:21; 1 Chronicles 8:1 sqq. Some identify him (but doubtfully) with the Cush of the title of Psalms 7.—Tr.] This explains his rage against David, which he here vents in curses and revilings and in throwing stones at him and his followers. [Such virulence is to this day exhibited in the East towards fallen greatness. Josephus states (Ant. 7, 9, 7) that Bahurim lay off the main road, which agrees very well with the account of Shimei’s behaviour (Smith’s Bib.-Dict., Art. Bahurim).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 16:7 sqq. Out, out, namely, out of the kingdom and the land. He calls David “thou bloody man” probably because he ascribed to him the murder of Ishbosheth and Abner (3:27 sqq.; 4:6 sqq.), of which he was wholly guiltless. [Others, less probably, think also of Saul and Jonathan, and even of Uriah.—Tr.] The misfortune [Eng. A. V. not so well “mischief”] that Absalom’s insurrection had brought on him he regards as a punishment from God, because he had become king in Saul’s stead. This shows how embittered Saul’s kindred were over David’s elevation to the throne, and how, therefore, Ziba’s slander against Mephibosheth found readier acceptance with David. [Shimei is here so far devout and religious that he ascribes the present state of things wholly to Jehovah, the God of Israel; but he ignores Samuel’s sentence of rejection (1 Samuel 15.), and otherwise shows a bad spirit.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 16:9. [Abishai wishes to kill Shimei.] On Abishai compare 2:23 sq.; 3:30. The “dead dog” is the expression of the extremest vileness and badness, comp. 9:8. Abishai appears here as in chaps, 2., 3. [and 1 Samuel 26:8] violent and revengeful. He wishes to make Shimei atone for his reviling with his head. 2 Samuel 16:10. [David restrains Abishai.]—Ye sons of Zeruiah. Joab is here joined with his brother (as in 2:23), being probably of the same opinion with him. “What is there to me and to you?” (comp. John 2:4,τίἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ; Joshua 22:24; 1 Kings 17:18; for the thought comp. Luke 9:52-56), that is, what have I in common with you? [Eng. A. V.: what have I to do with you?]. David decidedly repels Abishai’s suggestion, saying: I have here no feeling in common with you; we are different persons; I will have nothing to do with you in such self-help and revenge. He bases this strict prohibition on the admonition that Shimei’s cursing is by dispensation of God. The marginal reading: “so let him curse, for the Lord” [so Eng. A. V.], and the insertion of Sept. and Vulg.: “and let him alone” (following the “let him alone” of 2 Samuel 16:11) after “sons of Zeruiah,” are explanations owing their origin to the difficulty that the text presented when the first particle (λִּ ?ι) was taken as causal (= “for” or “because”), the second (εְ ?λִּ ?ι) being then very harsh. Render both particles by “when,” and begin the apodosis with “and who” (εּ ?ξִ ?ι). Maurer: “when he curses and when Jehovah has said to him, Curse David, who then shall say,” etc.2 Samuel 16:11 sq. David here combines Shimei’s cursing and Absalom’s revolt under the point of view of the divine permission and causation; and the fresh reference to this divine cause shows how deeply in his pious heart David feels in this misfortune also the blows of God’s chastening hand. “The repetition of the: And he said, is not superfluous, for the discourse is addressed to more persons than before” (Thenius). How much more the Benjamite, that is, the member of Saul’s tribe, who hate me. It is not surprising that such a one reviles me, when my own son seeks my life. David thus shows that from a purely human point of view there was no ground for the course proposed by Abishai. 2 Samuel 16:12. “Perhaps the Lord will look on my iniquity.” Instead of this (ςֲ ?εֹ ?πִ ?ι) the Qeri or margin has “my eye” (ςֵ ?ιπִ ?ι), that is, the Lord will perhaps look on “my tears,” the Masorites [ancient Jewish editors of the Heb. text] not being able to comprehend how David, guiltless in respect to this reviling, could acknowledge himself guilty. We are not, however, to change the text to “my affliction” (ςָ ?πְ ?ιִ ?ι, Then., Ew. [Eng. A. V.]), but to retain the idea of guilt, since David deeply feels that he has offended, not, indeed, in the matter mentioned by Shimei, but against the Lord. God’s “looking on His iniquity” can then be only a gracious and merciful looking. “Perhaps the Lord will requite me good for the curse that has come on me this day,” since I patiently bear it as a chastisement of His hand. Retain the text “my curse” = the curse that has befallen me, against the Qeri “his curse” [Eng. A. V.], that is, Shimei’s. [It seems more in accordance with the thought here to read “my affliction” instead of “my iniquity;” see “Text. and Gram.” David’s humility is seen in his “perhaps;” he will not be sure of the divine blessing (Patrick). His feeling towards Shimei here seems to be controlled by an overpowering sense of God’s chastising providence. He does not exonerate his reviler, but feels that at this moment it is not his business to asssert his right, but only to bow under God’s hand. The misfortune that has befallen him is so terrible that he thinks Shimei’s addition to it only natural. Afterwards (19:23) under the generous impulses of victory, he pardons him, but finally (1 Kings 2:8-9) hands him over to Solomon’s vengeance. Whatever his feeling in this last act, it is clear that now his humble sense of God’s chastisement has driven all self-assertion and revenge from his heart.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 16:13. Shimei’s rage is increased, it would seem, by David’s quiet behaviour; he runs along the side of the acclivity (by which the road passed) opposite him, cursing and throwing stones at David and his followers. 2 Samuel 16:14. David’s arrival in “Ajephim” [Eng. A. V.: “weary”]. A place of this name, indeed, is not known; but that is no ground against its existence. If the word be rendered “weary,” no place is named to which they came, as the word “there” indicates. This place was certainly not Bahurim [2 Samuel 16:5], for 17. 18 shows that David’s rest-place was beyond Bahurim towards the Jordan, the priests’ sons having hidden at Bahurim, and then gone on farther towards David. [Bib. Com. suggests that Ajephim was a caravansary, for which the meaning of the word (weary) would be appropriate.—Tr.].—The exact statement of the localities of David’s flight [and, indeed, of the whole history of the day of flight—Tr.] is remarkable; comp. 15:17, 23, 30, 32; 16:1, 5, 13, 14. AND 1. The starting-point of the shattering of the theocratic kingdom till its very existence was threatened is found in the disruption of David’s house and family by the crimes of his two oldest sons. From the royal household itself comes the seducer of the people to conspiracy and insurrection against the divinely ordained government of David. From the morally corrupt soil of the royal court, whose highest officials break faith and rise against the kingly government, springs the evil spirit (the confederate of that seducer) that drags the people into revolution. But the success of Absalom and his accomplice shows that in the nation itself there was already dissension with the Davidic government and a process of disintegration that co-operated with Absalom’s act of insurrection; if there had not been widespread dissatisfaction at defects and wrongs in administration of justice, Absalom’s treacherous conduct could not have had so great and immediate results. If the bonds of fidelity and obedience, which before held the people to David, had not been sorely loosened, Absalom could not have straightway turned “the heart of the men of Israel” from him. And it is David’s own tribe, Judah, whence the rebellion proceeds and is carried on. Absalom’s general-in-chief is Amasa, a near kinsman of Joab and David; his counsellor is Ahithophel of Giloh in Judah; and the insurrection begins at Hebron, the old capital of the tribe. “There must, therefore, have been dissatisfaction in David’s own tribe. Indeed this tribe murmurs and holds back after Absalom is slain, and the other tribes submit. The hereditary tribe jealousy and the old opposition between Judah and the others, are not extinct” (Ew. Hist. III., p. 239). The first impulse to the insurrection was given in Judah, and in Judah its effects are longest to be seen. If we inquire, indeed, concerning the innermost grounds and causes of the insurrection and the national disintegration, we must first and chiefly note the treachery of Absalom and his accomplice, which was combined with hypocrisy and with kindness offered as a bribe, and, on the other hand, the fickleness and unfaithfulness of the people. The ambition of Absalom and his associates used all means to befool the people and win their favor. And during time of peace the God-fearing sense that saw in David the Anointed of the Lord, the God-chosen king, had been lost by a great part of the people. Perhaps, also, David had erred in the government of the nation and State as of his house, and was partly to blame for the popular dissatisfaction. All these ethical factors combined to produce the present disintegration.—But, over against this manifold human guilt, David, looking at his present misfortune from the highest point of view, the theocratic, recognizes in it a divine punishment (comp. 12:10, 11), beneath which he humbly bows. Such a recognition is contained in his flight without attempt to withstand the insurrection. He goes his way a fugitive in tears, bowing humbly and quietly beneath God’s hand. “The Lord hath commanded him”—this is the expression of his submission to God. This is the source of his humble tranquillity, as he pursues his fugitive way, of his childlike submission to God’s will (“let Him do to me as seemeth Him good”) and of the gentle patience with which he takes men’s wickedness without return in word or deed, and bears it as a dispensation of God. But in all this there shows itself at the same time the fruit of this sorrowful experience: it proves to him a real visitation; he turns anew to his God with humble obedience and childlike trust; having obtained forgiveness of sins, he makes these sufferings as a paternal chastisement minister to the purification and sanctification of his heart and mind. “Only through new wrestling with the divine grace, only through humble submission to Jehovah’s righteous chastisement can he succeed in passing safely through this valley of death-shade.” 2. Penitent humility shows itself in the truly pious in patient endurance of ills that they must recognize as the consequence of their own guilt and accept as a chastisement and means of purification, as well as in the rejection of the self-willed efforts of others to ward off the evil or take vengeance on its originators. 3. To this period is to be referred (with most expositors) the origin of Psalm 41. and 55. Both Psalms have, as Delitzsch rightly observes, “the most marked historical, individual physiognomy;” they are mourning Psalms, picturing the hostility and falseness of numerous adversaries of the singer, and especially lamenting the faithlessness of a trusted friend and counsellor, with whom his numerous enemies are combined. The statement in 2 Samuel 16:23 shows how near Ahithophel stood to David as friend and counsellor, and how much importance the latter attached to his counsel. According to Psalms 41. a long sickness of the Psalmist is the occasion for his enemies to employ all their false and treacherous arts against him. In the midst of this suffering he implores the divine mercy and help, recognizing and bearing the suffering as chastisement for sin, yet affirms his conviction of God’s favor towards him as His servant, the uprightness of his heart, his firm confidence in the saving grace of the Lord, who will not let his enemies triumph over him, and (without expressing any revengeful desires, Hupfeld), holds in view the just requital that will overtake his enemies, “to which he, as a just king, was pledged” (Moll). In Psalms 55. the abruptness of the words, the excited haste of the discourse and the anguished tone of the Psalmist indicate a worsened situation, the extreme danger from the insurrection, which had now flamed openly out. By the hostility of his opponents he is brought to uttermost distress (Psalms 55:2-6 [Eng. A. V. 1–5]). He wishes for the wings of a dove, to find a refuge in the wilderness (Psalms 55:7-9 [6–8]), while in the city and on its walls are violence and deceit (Psalms 55:10-12 [9–11]), and a formerly trusted friend and companion joins his enemies (13–15 [12–14]), who are united with the hypocritical and faithless man (Psalms 55:21-22 [20, 21]). On these enemies he invokes destruction as divine punishment for their insurrection against the Lord’s Anointed, and for their wickedness from which they do not turn (Psalms 55:16-20 [15–19]). In this extreme need (corresponding exactly to the situation at the beginning of Absalom’s rebellion) the Psalmist exhorts his own soul to bear patiently the burden of suffering sent by the Lord, or rather, to cast it on Him, and expresses the firm hope and confidence, that the Lord will deliver the righteous by punishing evil-doers, concluding with the energetic exclamation of unconditional trust in God:—“But I, I trust in Thee!”—These traits of humble submission to God’s will and confident hope in His help answer precisely to David’s frame of mind as given in history. [The correctness of the foregoing historical explanation of these two Psalms is very doubtful. Psalms 41. was written while the author was still on a bed of sickness (Psalms 55:11 [10]), as David certainly was not when he heard of Ahithophel’s treachery. The alleged connection between the two Psalms as portraying the rise and full bursting-forth of the rebellion is impossible; for David did not hear of it till it was consummated. As to Psalms 55., its writer seems to be in the city (Psalms 55:9-12 [8–11]), nor does the history say anything of such intimate relations between David and Ahithophel as are indicated in Psalms 55:15 [14]; it was Hushai that was David’s friend.—Of course the religious value of these Psalms is not affected by our ignorance of their date and authorship.—Tr.] 4. This event of David’s history is of typical significance for the sufferings of Jesus in connection with the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, of which Jesus (John 13:18) says, referring to Psalms 41:10 [9] (“he that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me”) that it happened “that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” The Old Testament prediction of the betrayal, assumed in John 17:12 and Acts 1:16 must be found (according to our Lord’s reference to Psalms 41:10 [9]) in the treachery of Ahithophel, and the fate of Judas in his fate. [This view of typical significance falls of course with the failure to establish the connection of Psalms 41. with this history. Our Lord’s reference in John 13:18 is not necessarily more than a very general one. Acts 1:16 refers (see Psalms 55:20) to Psalms 109:8; Psalms 69:26 [25]. Since David suffered for his own sins, and had probably grievously wronged Ahithophel (see note on 2 Samuel 15:12) it is hardly allowable to make him herein typify Christ, and to regard Ahithophel as the forerunner of Judas.—Tr.]—Further, the separate incidents of David’s flight are strikingly parallel to the Lord’s way over the same path when He was betrayed by Judas. Though David suffered for his many sins, he had yet through penitence already obtained forgiveness of sins. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. Absalom in Jerusalem. His Evil Deed through Ahithophel’s Evil Counsel. The Designs of the Latter against David thwarted by Hushai’s Counsel 2 Samuel 16:15 to 2 Samuel 17:2315 And Absalom and all the people the men of Israel came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him. 16And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite [Arkite] David’s friend was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save [Long live] the king, God save [Long live] the king. 17And Absalom said to Hushai, Is this thy kindness to thy friend? why wentest thou not with thy friend? 18And Hushai said unto Absalom, Nay; but whom the Lord [Jehovah] and this people and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide. 19And again [in the second place], whom should I serve? should I not serve in the presence of his ?Song of Solomon 7 as I have served in thy father’s presence, so will I be in thy presence. 20Then said Absalom [And Absalom said] to Ahithophel, Give [ins. ye] counsel among you [om. among you] what we shall do. 21And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which [whom] he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of [art become loathsome to] thy father, then [and] shall [om. shall] the hands of all that are with thee 22[ins. shall] be strong. So [And] they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house [on the roof], and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. 23And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle [of the word] of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom. 2 Samuel 17:1 Moreover [And] Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Let me now choose out twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue after David this night; 2And I will come upon him while he is weary and weak-handed, and will make him afraid, and all the people that are with him shall flee, and I will smite the king only; 3And I will bring back all the people unto thee; the man whom thou 4seekest is as if all returned; so [om. so] all the people shall be in peace. And the saying pleased Absalom well [om. well], and all the elders of Israel. 5Then said Absalom [And Absalom said], Call now Hushai the Archite [Arkite] also, and let us hear likewise [om. likewise] what he [ins. too] saith. 6And when Hushai was come [And Hushai came] to Absalom, [ins. and] Absalom spake [said] unto him, saying, Ahithophel hath spoken after this manner; shall we do after his saying? if not, [after his saying, or not?] speak thou. 7And Hushai said unto Absalom, The counsel that Ahithophel hath given is not good at this time [hath given this time is not good]. 8For, said Hushai [and Hushai said], Thou knowest thy father and his men, that they be [are] mighty men, and [ins. that] they be [are] chafed in their minds, as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field; and thy father is a man of war, and will not lodge With the people. 9Behold, he is hid now in some pit [in one of the ravines] or in some other place [in one of the places]; and it will come to pass, when some of them be overthrown [fall] at the first, that whosoever heareth it will say There is a slaughter among the people that follow Absalom. 10And he also that is valiant, whose heart is as the heart of a lion, shall utterly melt; for all Israel knoweth that thy father is a mighty man, and they which be [that are] with him are valiant 11men. Therefore [But] I counsel that all Israel be generally gathered unto thee from Dan even [om. even] to Beersheba, as the sand that is by the sea for multitude, and that thou go to battle in thine own person. 12So shall we [And we shall] come upon him in some place [in one of the places] where he shall be found, and we will light upon him as the dew falleth on the ground, and of him and of all 13the men that are with him there shall not be left so much as one. Moreover [And] if he be gotten into a city, then shall all Israel bring ropes to that city, and we will draw it into the river [brook], until there be not one small stone found there. 14And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite [Arkite] is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the Lord had appointed [And Jehovah appointed] to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord [Jehovah] might bring evil upon Absalom. 15Then said Hushai [And Hushai said] unto Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, Thus and thus did Ahithophel counsel Absalom and the elders of Israel, and thus 16and thus have I counselled. Now, therefore [And now], send quickly and tell David, saying, Lodge not this night in the plains [at the fords] of the wilderness, but speedily [om. speedily] pass over, lest the king be swallowed up and all the 17people that are with him. Now [And] Jonathan and Ahimaaz stayed by [were stationed at] En-rogel, for they might not be seen to come into the city; and a wench [the maid-servant] went and told them, and they went and told king David [And Jonathan and Ahimaaz were stationed at En-rogel, and the maid-servant came and told them, and they were to go and tell king David; for they might not 18be seen, etc.]. Nevertheless [And] a lad saw them and told Absalom; but [and] they went both of them away [om. away] quickly, and came to a man’s house in Bahurim, which [and he] had a well in his court, whither [and thither] they went down. 19And the woman took and spread a [the] covering over the well’s mouth, and spread ground corn thereon; and the thing was not known [nothing 20was perceived]. And when [om. when] Absalom’s servants came to the woman to the house, they [and] said, Where is Ahimaaz and Jonathan? And the woman said unto them, They be [are] gone over the brook of water. And when they had [And they] sought and could [did] not find them, they [and] returned to Jerusalem. 21And it came to pass, after they were departed, that they came up out of the well, and went and told king David, and said unto David, Arise and pass quickly over 22the water, for thus hath Ahithophel counselled against you. Then [And] David arose, and all the people that were with him, and they passed over Jordan; by the morning-light there lacked not one of them that was not gone over Jordan. 23And when [om. when] Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed [ins. and] he saddled his ass, and arose and gat him home [and went] to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father. AND 2 Samuel 16:15-23. Absalom in Jerusalem. He is greeted by Hushai. Ahithophel counsels an evil deed. 2 Samuel 16:15. And Absalom, comp. 2 Samuel 15:12, to which this narration attaches itself, the account of David’s flight (2 Samuel 15:13 to 2 Samuel 16:14) being interposed.—And all the people of the men of Israel [literally: all the people, the men of Israel.—Tr.]. Thenius: “Very significant: The old malcontents (2 Samuel 2:8-9).” 2 Samuel 16:16. Hushai, comp. 2 Samuel 15:32. He was to be the instrument for bringing to naught the designs of Ahithophel (2 Samuel 15:31). 2 Samuel 16:17. That David’s trusted friend and counsellor should come to him with the greeting: “may the king live,” must have astonished Absalom. But instead of expressing this feeling, he answers (in his double question) with a scornful fling (as his nature was) at Hushai’s friendly relation to David. [Patrick: Absalom did not reflect that one might have said to him: “Is this thy duty to thy father?”—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 16:18 sqq. Hushai in his answer assumes the role of crafty dissimulation, suggested by David (2 Samuel 15:34). His first word is the answer to Absalom’s question: “why wentest thou not with thy friend?” It is therefore not to be rendered: “Nay, but” (De Wette, [Eng. A. V.]), but: “Not (i.e., I went not with David), because, etc.” Vulg.: nequaquam quia. [The rendering of Eng. A. V. here seems more natural and appropriate. See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]. Whom the Lord has chosen, that is, as the event has shown: I follow him who is king by God’s choice. As I served before thy father [so will I be before thee, 2 Samuel 16:19], i. e., it is self-evident that, my service with the father having ceased by God’s will, I must attach myself to the son. By the clever use of this double argument, the divine and the human, he easily imposes on the inconsiderate Absalom the delusion that he means honestly. [Hushai’s two reasons: 1) the voice of the people is the voice of God (Patrick); 2) former fidelity to the father is ground and pledge of present fidelity to the son.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 16:20. Brief statement of a council held by Absalom with Ahithophel and other counsellors (so the plural: “Give ye”) on the means of announcing and securing his usurpation. The Dativus commodi (μָ ?λֶ ?ν) gives the sense: “it is your affair to counsel me” [literally: “give ye you counsel,” Eng. A. V. wrongly: “among you.”—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 16:21. Ahithophel’s counsel was that he should publicly take to himself his father’s concubines (2 Samuel 15:16); this would indicate definite dethronement of the father, and complete assumption of royal authority. Comp. 2 Samuel 3:7; 2 Samuel 12:8. All Israel will hear, etc.—Ahithophel’s purpose Isaiah , 1) to make the breach between Absalom and his father irreparable, and 2) to infuse energy into Absalom’s followers, and confirm their defection from David.—Cornelius a Lapide: “That they may know that thy hatred against thy father is implacable, and so all hope and fear of reconciliation may be cut off, and they strengthened in thy conspiracy.” So also Ahithophel hoped to secure his own position [i. e., he feared that, if a reconciliation were effected, he would be sacrificed.—Tr.]. Absalom’s deed was the grossest insult to his father (comp. Genesis 49:4), and made reconciliation impossible. [Here again Ahithophel was perhaps avenging the wrong done to Bathsheba. So Blunt.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 16:22. They spread the tent; the Article [so the original, but it may properly be omitted in an English translation, because the definiteness is not obvious—Tr.] indicates that it was the tent designed for the roof, used by the king and his family for protection against sun, wind and rain. Thenius: “the expression: the tent is an evidence that the author is relating events of his time.” On the roof, the same where David’s look at Bathsheba led him into the path of sin, whose evil results for him are completed in this deed of Absalom. Thus is Nathan’s threat (2 Samuel 12:11) fulfilled; as he sinned against Uriah’s house, so is he punished in his own house. 2 Samuel 16:23. Explanatory remark attached to 2 Samuel 16:22. The immediate execution of Ahithophel’s counsel is explained by the fact that it had almost the weight of a divine oracle with both David and Absalom. It is thus intimated that they both put too much confidence in this bad man, the bitter fruit whereof David is now reaping. In 1 Chronicles 27:33 he is expressly called the king’s counsellor. To inquire of God’s word = to inquire of God. Comp. Judges 1:1; Judges 18:5; Judges 20:18; Judges 20:23; Judges 20:27; 1 Samuel 10:22; 1 Samuel 14:37; 1 Samuel 22:10; 1 Samuel 22:13; 1 Samuel 23:2 [comp. Genesis 25:22, where, however, the verb is different.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 17:1-23. Defeat of Ahithophel’s counsel through Hushai’s, and suicide of Ahithophel. 2 Samuel 17:1-4. Ahithophel’s counsel against David: To surprise him by night and kill him. Against the opinion of the older expositors that Ahithophel wished to avenge the wrongs of his granddaughter Bathsheba, Isaiah 1) that this relationship is not proved, for, though Ahithophel had a son named Eliam (2 Samuel 23:34), it is not shown that this man is the same with Eliam, the father of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3); 2) granting, however, that Ahithophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather, it is hard to see how an ambitious man, like him, should have sought revenge, when he saw his granddaughter raised to the highest honors of the realm.—His advice is to fall on David quickly, that same night, with a chosen body of 12,000 men, and get possession of his person. Absalom having publicly and solemnly mounted the throne, there was needed a securing of his usurped power against David and his followers. “This night” is the night that followed David’s flight and Absalom’s entrance into Jerusalem. In favor of this Isaiah 2 Samuel 17:16, and also 2 Samuel 17:2 compared with 2 Samuel 16:14; for David’s exhaustion, on which Ahithophel counted, could only come from the haste and exertion of the day’s flight. The sudden night-attack with superior force (the march required was only about four geographical miles) was to throw David’s followers into panic and flight, and, while they were thus scattered, Ahithophel was to kill the king “alone,” that is, while he was alone (μְ ?αַ ?γּ ?εֹ) He reckons on the king’s weariness; in the phrase “weakhanded” the “hand” is the symbol of strength, comp. Isaiah 8:11. 2 Samuel 17:3. And I will bring back all the people to thee, that is, all the people now gathered around David. Ahithophel regards Absalom’s government as the only lawful one, to which those fugitives must submit; their flight is in his eyes an act of insubordination, from which they are to be brought back.—In the following difficult phrase [Eng. A. V. and Erdmann: “the man thou seekest is as if all returned”] the first question is whether we shall (with Thenius) adopt the reading of the Septuagint: as the bride returns to her husband; only the life of one man thou seekest, (and all the people will be uninjured”). But, apart from the fact that no other ancient version has a trace of such a text, why may not the translation of the Sept. come (as Keil supposes) from a wrong reading of our Hebrew? For the rest, Bφttcher (against Thenius) rightly objects that we cannot speak of the “husband” of a bride; “where and when,” he asks, further, “was the bride brought back to her husband?” Bφttcher himself renders: “as her wooer leads back the bride, etc.” [where “wooer” is the person sent to propose for the bride, as Eliezer for Rebecca, Genesis 24.—Tr.]; against which is the fact that the word he proposes (ΰֹ ?ψֵ ?ωׂ) is never found in this sense of “wooer,” and also the unsuitableness of the adverb “back.” The rendering: “if all return, [only] the man that thou seekest [will be killed]” (Mich., Schultz) is to be rejected on account of the aposiopesis and consequent supplements. S. Schmid and Clericus translate: “when all the men that thou seekest return, all the people will be at peace” [so Philippson and Luther]; but this contradicts the connection, according to which the word “seekest” can only refer to David, and the word “man” (ΰִ ?ιωׁ) must be in the Singular referring to him. Maurer proposes two renderings, one: “then I will bring back to thee all the people, as if the man that thou seekest brought back all,” where the understanding of the Qal (ωׁ ?εּ ?α) as causative, though possible (Numbers 10:36; Psalms 85:5 [4]; Micah 2:13), is here improbable, as he says, since two forms [Qal and Hiphil] having the same meaning would not stand so near together; the other: “then I will bring back to thee all the people, as if all returned, would the man return (λְּ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?α) whom thou seekest” (i. e., as if David, the man that thou seekest should be brought back with all his men) is to be rejected, (with Thenius) as unintelligible. The translation of the Vulgate: “and I will bring back all the people, as one man is accustomed to return (for one man thou seekest”) gives no clear sense. Ahithophel’s words are to be taken strictly according to their connection with the preceding 2 Samuel 17:2, where he sets the one man, David over against all the people with him, and announces it as his plan to kill him alone, so as then to bring back all the people (2 Samuel 17:3) that had gone out with him. That is, the one man that thou seekest is equivalent to the return of the whole people. Peter Martyr (Vermigli): “one, says he, will perish, the multitude will be spared.” Dathe: “it is the same as if all returned, when he that thou seekest is killed” [so nearly Chald.]. De Wette: “the man that thou seekest is equivalent to the return of all.” Bunsen: “the return of all that have not yet joined thee, depends on the removal of David; his fall brings peace to the whole nation.”—Literally: “the whole people will be peace,” = “in peace,” adverbial use, as in 2 Samuel 20:9; 1 Samuel 25:6. 2 Samuel 17:1-4. “The saying was right in the eyes of Absalom, etc.,” pleased him (2 Samuel 19:6; 2 Samuel 18:20; 2 Samuel 18:26; 1 Kings 9:12; Jeremiah 18:4, etc.). 2 Samuel 17:5-14. Hushai’s counsel against Ahithophel. 2 Samuel 17:5. Though Ahithophel’s counsel had been generally approved, Absalom sends for Hushai in order to hear his opinion. There is no need to read the Plural “call ye” (Sept., Vulg., Syr., Then.) instead of the Sing, “call thou” (of the Heb.), since Absalom, as king, might give such a command even to Ahithophel, instead of to the servants. As he had accorded full confidence to Hushai (2 Samuel 16:18-19), he wished at this decisive moment to hear his advice also.2 Samuel 17:6-7. Hushai, being asked, pronounces Ahithophel’s counsel “not good” [“Not good is the counsel that Ahithophel counsels this time,” that is, his former advice was good (2 Samuel 16:21), but not this.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 17:8 sq. Hushai gives his advice in elaborate and skilful style. Against Ahithophel’s opinion that David was “exhausted” (2 Samuel 17:2), he first affirms the contrary, observing that Absalom knew his father and his men to be valiant heroes, and that they were embittered in spirit, as a bear robbed of her whelps (comp. Judges 18:25; Proverbs 17:12; Hosea 13:8). So he would not stay at night with the people, where he might be surprised. Bφttcher and Thenius render: “and lets not the people lodge for the night” (ιָ ?μִ ?ιο as unusual Hiphil); but there is no ground for this, [it does not agree with 2 Samuel 17:9 (Keil)]. 2 Samuel 17:9 sqq. Description of how David, as a genuine military man, would be on his guard during the night, and, at the approach of Absalom’s troops, would rush forth from his caverns and strong positions, fall on the enemy’s advanced guard and defeat the whole body. “In the falling on them,” where from the connection David is the subject,=“when he falls on them.” [Eng. A. V.: “in the falling among them,” = when some of them fall. See “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.]. The “them” refers from the context to Absalom’s men, and it is unnecessary to read “the people” (αָ ?ςָ ?ν Dathe). “In the beginning,” since David would begin the fight by falling on the approaching enemy. [Or, according to Eng. A. V., the fall of some of Absalom’s soldiers at the beginning of the battle would create a panic and flight, there being general fear of the military skill and prowess of David and his generals. Bib.-Com.: “It is likely that Absalom was not a man of courage, and Hushai, knowing this, adroitly magnified the terror of the prowess of David and his men.”—Tr.].—And the hearer hears and says, etc.—picture of the spread of a report of defeat by those that are first attacked. 2 Samuel 17:10. Though the hearer be lion-hearted, he will melt in fear, because it is known in all Israel what heroes David and his men are. This explains how the report of an attack by David would lead to a general everthrow. To Ahithophel’s proposal to surprise David Hushai replies that on the contrary David would surprise them. 2 Samuel 17:11. Therefore his counsel is that Absalom should summon a great force from all Israel, and lead it against David in person. Properly: “but (or, rather) I counsel.” It is unnecessary to read “in their midst” (Sept., Vulgate, Arab., Thenius) instead of “into battle,” since a change in the Hebrew from the latter to the former would be easy. 2 Samuel 17:12 sq. Hushai explains to Absalom how he could with so great an army easily annihilate David’s band. “We shall come unto him in one of the places.” The next sentence is rendered in two ways: either: “so we on him,” that is, so we fall on him (Vulg.: irruemus super eum), spread over him, as the dew falls on the earth; or, “we light on him” [so Eng. A. V.], as the phrase is used of an encamping army (Isaiah 7:2; Isaiah 7:19), and of a lighting swarm of flies or locusts (Isaiah 7:19; Exodus 10:14), and elsewhere (with ςַ ?μ “on”) in the sense of “lighting” (2 Samuel 21:10; Genesis 8:4; Exodus 10:14; Numbers 11:25-26); not: “we encamp against him” (De Wette). The second translation [“we light on him”] answers better to the figure of the dew, which falls quietly and unperceived on the earth at night, with which (as before with the sand on the sea) Hushai compares Absalom’s army, settling quietly in its overwhelming power on David. On the other hand the emphatic “we” at the beginning of the sentence [as in the first translation] is without ground, and does not correspond to the verb “we come” in the preceding clause; while to this latter properly corresponds the verb “we light” (as indeed all the ancient versions have a verb in this place). Bφttcher further remarks that this form of the Heb. Pers. Pron. is everywhere else used in a depreciatory sense: “we insignificant, very poor persons,” which would here be against the connection. Bφttcher, however, would read “locust” instead of “dew,” and render: “and sink (rush) on him, as a swarm of locusts falls on the earth;” but this is too remote a conjecture (having no support in any ancient version or in any rendering), and unnecessary besides, since the figure of the dew, together with that of the sand, fitly sets forth the swift and quiet settling of the huge host on the enemy. And with this accords perfectly the statement of the success of the attack: “not even one will be left.” 2 Samuel 17:13. Hushai, assuming that the imagination of his hearers would be carried from one conception to the other, here passes in a wordy discourse, skilfully adapted to gain his end, to the supposition (which would appear natural to a military man) that David, defeated as above described, should “concentrate to the rear,” and throw himself into a strong city. Then all Israel set ropes to this city. Vulgate: “all Israel put ropes around that city.” Hushai is not speaking of ropes thrown over the walls by which the latter are thrown into the ditch (Michaelis, Dathe, Niemeyer), for nothing is said of a ditch and walls; but in his exaggerated mode of expression, which he forces to a hyperbolical climax (all intended for momentary effect), he shows how easily even then David could be captured, all Israel laying ropes about the city and dragging it into the neighboring brook or river. We are not here with Ewald to understand a city-fosse (πַ ?ηַ ?μ), “for the fosse was close by the city” (Then.), but the brook or river on which the city is built, “because fortified cities are almost always on the declivities of brooks or rivers” (Then.). “Till not even a small stone be found,” so the ancient versions; comp. Amos 9:9 : “a little grain.”—The meaning is: “Your powerful army will easily destroy the fortified place, where David may seek refuge, and leave not one stone on another.” Cornelius a Lapide: “we will collect so great a force that we shall be able to put ropes around the city (so to speak), and drag it down to ruin.” 2 Samuel 17:14. To this advice of Hushai Absalom gives the preference over Ahithophel’s. The boldness and highflown extravagance of Hushai’s words accorded with Absalom’s character and with his wish to secure his throne in brilliant fashion by overpowering the force opposed to him. Clericus: “The counsel seemed good, and at the same time was full of a certain boastfulness, that pleased the young man.” The statement about the bravery of David and his men was true; the deceit in Hushai’s counsel was only the advice to make a levy of all Israel. Absalom deluded himself with the belief that this could be easily raised, not considering that only the discontented part of the people formed the kernel of the insurrection, that no small portion still remained true to David, and that another part, now for the moment fallen away, would return after the first fit of revolution had passed. For this reason it was an important consideration (to which Hushai slyly had regard) that David gained time while Absalom was preparing to summon all Israel. P. Martyr: “to what does Hushai look in this counsel? to delay; delay, he knows, makes for David’s cause.”—And the Lord had appointed. In all this the narrator sees a divine appointment or ordination, the aim of which was thus to bring on Absalom the evil (that was determined on). The verb (φִ ?εָּ ?δ) is used in the signification “appoint, ordain,” also in Ps. 48:29 [Psalms 48:28]; Psalms 111:9; Lamentations 1:17; Isaiah 45:12; the object of the verb is apparent from the connection. Ahithophel’s counsel is called good, because it was to Absalom’s interest to attack David immediately. 2 Samuel 17:15-22. Hushai promptly sends word to David. 2 Samuel 17:15. He first informs the two high-priests, Zadok and Abiathar, of the council that was held. Comp. 2 Samuel 15:27-28. [Bib. Com.: “It is remarkable how persistently Zadok is named first.”—Patrick: “Herein Hushai betrayed Absalom’s counsels.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 17:16. He directs them to send information to David as speedily as possible by their sons, and to convey his advice concerning his next movement. Grotius: “David’s plan, above mentioned (2 Samuel 15:35-36), succeeded well.” Lodge not to-night at the fords of the wilderness (2 Samuel 15:28), that is, stay not this side the Jordan, but cross over. The necessity of the passage of the Jordan for David’s safety is shown by the following (variously understood) words: That it (namely, the transit) be not swallowed up (defeated, rendered impossible) to the king and to all the people that are with him. So (with Bφttcher) the sentence is best understood from the connection and from David’s dangerous situation, the noun “crossing over” [transit] being taken as the subject of the verb (ςαεֹ ?ψ immediately preceding). It was important that David should get away from this side the Jordan, where the masses were to be called out against him, and meantime, since a hasty expedition might be sent against him, when it was found that he was on the west side (especially if Absalom should change his mind and adopt Ahithophel’s counsel), he must pass immediately to the east side, where he might hope to find many followers, as actually happened. To the phrase “that it be not swallowed up” other interpretations are given: that of Maurer and De Wette: “lest destruction be prepared for the king” is untenable because the meaning of the verb (“swallowed up”) makes the introduction of such a verbal subject [“destruction”] impossible; that of Gesenius: “that the king be not swallowed up” [so Eng. A. V.] is equally untenable, because then the text should have “the king” as Nominative [in the Heb. it is preceded by the Prep, “to”—Tr.]. Of Ewald’s rendering (Gram. 295 c): “that it (misfortune) be not swallowed by the king,” that is, that the king may not have to suffer it, Bφttcher rightly says: “a very unnatural rendering, with a very remote verbal subject, for which the verb would at least better be Feminine.” [It seems allowable here to take the verb as impersonal, and render (with Eng. A. V., Ges., Philippson, Cahen): “lest it be swallowed (destroyed) to the king,” i. e., lest the king be destroyed. So all the ancient versions understood it. The construction adopted by Erdmann requires a somewhat difficult supply of a subject to the verb.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 17:17. “And Jonathan and Ahimaaz were standing” [= were stationed], where the Participle “were standing” expresses their readiness to go as messengers to David at any moment, according to the arrangement in 2 Samuel 15:28; 2 Samuel 15:36. To this end they were stationed outside the city at the Fuller’s Fountain [En-rogel] for the purpose of receiving information. En-rogel (comp. Joshua 15:7; 1 Kings 1:9) is the “present very deep and abundant Fountain of Job, Bir Eyub (Von Raumer, p. 307), or of Nehemiah, south of Jerusalem where the vallies of Kidron and Hinnom meet, Rob. II. 138 sqq. [Am. ed. I. 331–333]; Tobler, Top. II. 50 sqq.” (Knobel). [See in Smith’s Bible-Dictionary, Art. “En-rogel,” Bonar’s argument for identifying En-rogel with the “Fountain of the Virgin,” and Dr. Wolcott’s reply (Am. ed.) in favor of Bir Eyub.—Tr.]—The maid, not “a maid,” since the Article [of the Heb.] denotes the particular maid-servant belonging to the high-priest’s house. And they went, an anticipatory remark, the narrator desiring to mention immediately the chief fact, namely, that they carried the information to David. [See “Text and Gram.,” where the inversion of Eng. A. V. is pointed out, and a slightly different translation proposed.—Tr.] For they could not let themselves be seen to come into the city—appended explanation of the fact that they were outside the city, and the maid-servant had to go to them. Her going out to the spring would not seem strange, while their entrance and return would have excited suspicion, since it was known (2 Samuel 15:25 sqq.) that they were on David’s side.—From 2 Samuel 17:18 it seems that Absalom closely watched them: A lad saw them and told Absalom. Seeing that they were observed, and expecting to be followed, they hastened off in order to get the start of their pursuers, and then to hide somewhere. They went to Bahurim, where Shimei met David (2 Samuel 16:5), whose counterpart is the man in whose house the two young men found refuge. It is again a woman (the man’s wife) whose presence of mind and cunning did David’s cause a great service. The messengers descended into the empty well in the court. 2 Samuel 17:19. And she spread the covering, which (as the Art. shows) was at hand, or was designed for the well (Thenius), over the well, and spread thereon the grain-corns (Proverbs 27:22) with which (so the Art. indicates) she was occupied. Vulg. (explanatory rendering): “as if she were drying barley-groats.” 2 Samuel 17:20. Absalom’s servants come in pursuit, are misdirected by the woman, find nothing and return to Jerusalem. [Patrick: “It seems to have been a common opinion in those days that these officious lies for the safety of innocent persons had no hurt in them.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 17:21 sq. The messengers hastened to David, who, in consequence of the information they brought, crossed the river immediately, so that by the morning light not even a man more was on the west side. The situation of affairs was now favorable to David’s cause. 2 Samuel 17:23. Ahithophel betakes himself to his city, leaves Absalom’s court, that is, out of chagrin at the rejection of his counsel, anger at the frustration of his ambitious plans, and also from fear of the fatal results that David’s victory would have for him, the contriver and furtherer of the insurrection. A self-murder from baffled ambition and despair. Not only is David’s prayer (2 Samuel 15:31) answered, but Ahithophel falls under God’s judgment for his unfaithfulness and treachery. AND 1. Absalom’s insurrection and the establishment of a new kingdom with public dishonoring of the royal house, is the completion of the judgment on David’s deep fall and weakness towards his sons’ crimes, the purpose of which was to purify him (after penitential self-humiliation on his part), and to subject him to the test of faith, without which he could not rise by God’s hand from this deep abasement. On the other hand, the success of the godless rebel shows a lack of a true theocratic feeling in the mass of the people, who, in abandoning God’s government, were guilty of opposition to the government of God. At the same time in Absalom’s conduct (adopted through Ahithophel’s evil counsel) is exhibited the general truth that God permits evil to work out its own consequences, and the wicked to entangle themselves in their own snares, that He may reveal His justice and holiness in the self-condemnation and self-destruction of the power of evil, and thus lead the wandering and apostate, when they will hear His voice, to reflection and conversion, as happened here to the people, after the wickedness of Absalom and Ahithophel had completely worked itself out. 2. The divine justice is anew revealed in and on the house of David through Absalom’s publicly committed crime. The answer to the question why God brought on David’s house this deed of shame of His own son, is given in the Lord’s word through Nathan (2 Samuel 12:11-12). The sins of the fathers are visited not only on the children, but through them. “Absalom’s deed was another chastisement for David from the Lord, not, indeed, a sign of the divine anger, but a wholesome paternal discipline, that was meant for his good. In such earnest does God deal with His children, even after He has taken them into favor” (Schlier). 3. Absalom’s rejection of Ahithophel’s good counsel for Hushai’s destructive counsel sets forth the truth that evil punishes itself by itself, and especially pride and vanity blind man, so that he errs in the choice of means for his sinful ends, and secures not only their frustration, but also his own destruction. But this occurs in the course of the moral government of the world, under the guidance of the divine justice and wisdom, which takes human sin, blindness and foolishness into its plans as a factor, in order to frustrate its wicked aims and to effect its own holy aims. AND 2 Samuel 16:15. Schlier: Poor, deluded fool, that strives after popular favor, and when he has found it, consoles himself therewith. There is nothing more changeable than popular favor—nothing more transitory than what is called public opinion. 2 Samuel 16:16-19. Cramer: Remain faithful to thy friend in his poverty, that thou mayest again enjoy thyself with him when it goes well with him (Ecclus. 22:28, 29).—The saints of God do many a thing with good intentions, and yet we are not on that account to take part in it all. Meantime God lets it happen, and knows how thereby to carry out His work (Isaiah 28:21; Isaiah 28:29).—Schlier: What we say should be true, not merely that it shall contain no lie, but also that it be free from all double-meaning. In the times of the Old Testament, God the Lord could overlook such double-meaning; with us, in the times of the New Testament, that is no longer the case, but it holds always and every where that the Lord will make the upright prosper. 2 Samuel 16:20 sq. Hedinger: Worldly wisdom and spiritual gifts do not always dwell under one roof.—S. Schmid: He must be extremely ungodly who can openly do that of which nature has a horror even in private.—Schlier: David certainly thought anew upon his old sins, was ashamed and humbled himself, and in his son’s sin again recognized his own sin, and anew repented before the Lord. 2 Samuel 17:1-4. Cramer: God blinds the ungodly, and confounds them through giddiness, so that they can neither see nor know what in human wise is wholesome and good for them; for He puts to shame the wisdom of the wise (Isaiah 29:14; Job 12:17).—[Taylor: This plan was worthy of Ahithophel’s reputation. If it had been energetically followed, it would have been completely successful, and would have changed the entire color and complexion of Jewish history.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 17:5-14. Large talking and grand schemes are a means whereby young and inexperienced persons are often deceived (1 Kings 12:10).—The Lord ensnares the ungodly in their cunning, so that they are deceived by that very thing on which they most relied.—S. Schmid: If God does not open and rule the eyes of the mind, even the most sensible men are blind (Psalms 119:18).—Starke: God does not leave His enemies to manage as they will, but appoints them a limit, how far they shall go. When they take hold most shrewdly, yet God goes another road (Psalms 33:10; Isaiah 8:10; Job 5:12).—[Hall: First, to sweeten his opposition, Hushai yields the praise of wisdom to his adversary in all other counsels, that he may have leave to deny it in this; his very contradiction in the present insinuates a general allowance. Then he suggests certain apparent truths concerning David’s valor and skill to give countenance to the inferences of his improbabilities. Lastly, he cunningly feeds the proud humor of Absalom, in magnifying the power and extent of his commands, and ends in the glorious boasts of his fore-promised victory. As it is with faces, so with counsel; that is fair that pleaseth.—Tr.]—Schlier: A good cause always goes the way of truth, and does not need scoffing and self-important words, but goes on soberly and simply. Absalom gave heed to Hushai’s bad counsel, because Hushai knew how by means of his vanity to bring him to a fall.—The Lord is with us and lets nothing happen to us; He also knows how to turn the wickedness of our enemies into a blessing to us. And if all the world is hostile and persecutes us, the Lord takes in hand even our persecutors, and does with them as He pleases. 2 Samuel 17:15-22. Schlier: Let us recognize the Lord’s hand in the things of common life also, but let us always honor His hand and thankfully accept what it gives. Circumstances are God’s messengers, and well for him who in these circumstances recognizes and honors the hand of his Lord. It was God’s hand that through all these littlenesses and casualties caused the news of Ahithophel’s counsel to come safe to David. 2 Samuel 17:23. Cramer: Ungodly men fall into the pit which they make for others (Psalms 7:16 [Psalms 7:15]; 1 Samuel 9:16 [1 Samuel 9:15]; Proverbs 26:27). [Hall: What a mixture do we find here of wisdom and madness! Ahithophel will needs hang himself; there is madness: he will yet set his house in order; there is an act of wisdom. … How preposterous are the cares of idle worldlings, that prefer all other things to themselves, and while they look at what they have in their coffers, forget what they have in their breasts.—Taylor: This is the first recorded case of deliberate suicide. And the feelings which led to it and which we can easily analyze, were very similar to those which have impelled many in our own times to commit the same awful iniquity. Chief among them was wounded pride. Then, besides this, there was the conviction that Absalom’s cause was now hopelessly ruined … Perhaps also there was a mingling of remorse with those other emotions of pride. He had left a master who loved and valued him, and had transferred his services to one who, as he now discovered, had not the wisdom to appreciate his worth, but preferred the gaudy glitter of empty rhetoric to the substantial wisdom of unadorned speech. This contrast, thus forced upon him, might awaken his conscience to the value of the friendship which he had forfeited when he turned against David, until remorse and shame overwhelmed him.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:5. It was not unwise in Absalom to seek the advice of another experienced counsellor also (Proverbs 24:6); his fault was that he did not know which advice to follow, and was misled by high-sounding and flattering words. In choosing counsellors, and in judging of their counsel, lies great part of the wisdom of life.—Boldness is often true prudence; and “delays are dangerous.” 2 Samuel 17:14. Hushai’s treacherous craft and Absalom’s silly vanity are overruled to the accomplishment of the Lord’s purpose. Few things are so consoling as the frequency with which we perceive how God brings good out of evil; and doubtless this is often true where we do not yet perceive it (Psalms 76:10; Isaiah 13:7). 2 Samuel 17:23. Ahithophel 1) A model of worldly wisdom (2 Samuel 16:23). Excellence of his advice to Absalom (2 Samuel 16:21; 2 Samuel 17:1-3). 2) An example of worldly wisdom failing because it ignores God (2 Samuel 17:14; Psalms 14:1). 3) A suicide; a) probable causes; b) folly and guilt.—Tr.] Footnotes: [2 Samuel 16:15. This phrase, in which the “all the people” is put in apposition with “men of Israel” (not: “all the people of the men of Israel.” as Erdmann renders), is peculiar, and is variously changed by the versions: Sept.: “all the men of Israel;” Syr., Arab.: “all the people that were with him, and all Israel;” Vulg.: “all his people.” Sept. and Vulg. may have omitted half the expression for simplicity (and they retain different halves), and the Heb. text itself may be a duplet, arisen from a marginal explanation. Thenius: “Instead of these words (ΰִ ?ιωׁ ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ) MS. Cantab. 1 has ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ (added by Syr. and Arab.), which came from the fact that in some MS. that was copied, the words ΰΧιωׂ ?Χ (men of Israel) stood under the ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ (that were with him) of the preceding verse (Kennicott, sup. rat. text. Heb., 449).”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 16:16. Sept.: ἀρχιεταῖρος (as above 2 Samuel 15:32) = ’Αρχὶ ἑταῖρος.—Hushai’s address to Absalom is literally: “live the king! live the king!” given once only in Sept. and Arabic.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 16:18. Thenius and Erdmann render: “Not (i. e. I go not with David), because,” etc. But it is not likely that Hushai would make his negation with one word, and usage establishes the sense of the phrase given in Eng. A. V.: “nay, but,” or, “nay, for,” see Ges. Lex. s. v. μֹ ?ΰ 2.—The Kethib μֹ ?ΰ in this verse is approved by De Rossi against the Qeri μεֹ, which seems to be adopted by all the versions, even by Syriac and Arab., which make the sentence interrogative. The Kethib (μΰ) would be interrogative, and would require a preposition before ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 16:19. Arab.: “And ’tis not my business to be forever the servant of one man;” Syr.: “whose servant I shall be is not in my power.” Instead of απε Syr. had ιγι (ΰιγι), which Arab. read as ΰηγ.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 16:20. This Dativus commodi (μλν) cannot be here given well in English. The phrase: “give ye you counsel,” is awkward, and in “give you counsel” the pronoun would be understood as Nominative.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 16:21. The verb means: “to be in bad odor.” The ΰֵ ?ϊ is the Prep. “with,” not the sign of the Accus., as Sept. and Vulg. take it. Chald paraphrases: “that thou art stirred up against thy father.” Syr. and Arab. explain: “that thou hast gone in to the concubines of thy father.” Josephus interprets: “the people will believe that a reconciliation with thy father is impossible.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:1. Or: “I will now choose … …and will arise.” Sept. and Vulg.: “I will now choose me.” Arab.: “choose thou … and let them go forth to seek David.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:3. So Erdmann, Cahen, Wordsworth, Bib.-Com. Various other renderings are discussed by Erdmann in the Exposition. In addition to what he says it may be mentioned that Chald. renders nearly (as to the sense) as Eng. A. V.: “they will all return when the man that thou seekest is killed,” = “as the return of all is [the killing of] the man,” etc. (so Cahen). Syr.: “as if all the men that thou seekest returned,” as if reading λָּ ?μΞϊָ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ; so Philippson: “at the return of all the men thou seekest.” The translations proposed all either do violence to the text, or fail to suit the connection and give a good sense, or require a bold insertion (as of the phrase: “the killing of” in Chald. and Eng. A. V.).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:6. Eng. A. V. renders according to the accents, and so Erdmann; but it is better (with Vulg., Cahen, Wellhausen) to take the sentence as a double question. Sept. inserts εְ (εἰ δὲ μή), which may easily have fallen out (from the preceding ε), and is almost necessary for the rendering of Eng. A. V. It is found in some MSS. and EDD.—Instead of the more usual μֹ ?ΰ, we here have ΰַ ?ιִ ?ο, literally: “is there not” = “is our doing (according to Ahithophel’s counsel) not?”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:7. τַּ ?ςַ ?ν, the numeral, not the simple substantive “time” (ςֵ ?ϊ). Sept.: τὸ ἅπαξτοῦτο; Vulg.: hac vice; Cahen: cette fois; Erdmann: dieses Mal.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:8. Sept. here inserts: καὶ ὡςὗςτραχεῖαἐντῶ πεδἰῳ, “and as a fierce sow in the plain,” which addition is adopted by Ewald, Thenius and Bφttcher on the ground of its appropriate poetic character, and as not likely to have been inserted by the Greek translator. To this Wellhausen replies that the two words ἀγρῶ and πεδίῳ of the Greek point to the same Heb. word (ωγδ), making the double figure improbable, and further that an Israelite would naturally think of the hog only as an unclean animal, and would not put it alongside of the bear.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:9. The word “place” is here used in the sense of “locality” (Bib.-Com.) or “camping-place” in distinction from the “ravine” or “cleft,” not as a mere adverb, see 2 Samuel 17:12.—Instead of ΰַ ?ηַ ?γ some MSS. and EDD. have ΰηϊ, and Wellhausen remarks that the two numerals here seem to have changed places.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:9. Or: “when he falls on them at the first” (so Erdmann and Sept.], and some would therefore supply the personal suffix εֹ to the Infinitive: but the present text permits either rendering, and that of Eng. A. V. seems to agree better with the context.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:11. Sept.: “Thus I counsel,” ὂτιοὕτωςσυμβουλεύωνἐγὼ συνεβούλευσα = λִּ ?ιλֹ ?διָ ?ςυιָ ?ςַ ?φְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, preferred by Wellhausen, on the ground that the similar words might easily have fallen out. The fullness of the expression would also be in Hushai’s manner.—Some MSS. read: “as the sand on the shore (ωτϊ) of the sea,” an expansion of the original.—Bφttcher’s objection to the last word in this verse, χְ ?ψָ ?α, “battle,” is that it elsewhere occurs only in poetry (Ps., Job, Eccles., Zech.), and he proposes αְּ ?χִ ?ψְ ?αּ ?εֹ, “in their midst.” This reading is strongly supported by the fact that all the versions have it (Chald.: “at the head of them all”), and is in itself more congruous with the general context; against it is Hushai’s inclination to use pompous and unusual words.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:12. “On the face of the ground” in some MSS. and EDD., a scribal expansion, as in the preceding verse.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:13. Vulg., Thenius, Philippson, Erdmann render: “all Israel shall lay ropes at (= about) that city,” on the ground that pulling a city stone by stone into the brook by ropes was an unheard of and impossible thing (Bp. Patrick also suggests the same difficulty). But Hushai seems purposely to put his proposal in the most recklessly exaggerated form, as an appeal to Absalom’s vanity, and says expressly that the city will be drawn into the brook. This meaning will be gotten if we render the Hiphil (δִ ?ωִּׂ ?ιΰεּ): “lay to, apply to,” and the text shows a double Accusative. The Hiphil may also mean: “cause to bring.” Wellhausen remarks that we should here expect δֵ ?ωִׂ ?ιξεּ, which is, however, according to the above view, not necessary.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:14. Literally: “to,” ΰֶ ?μ. All the versions and some MSS. and Edd. have ςַ ?μ, “upon.”—The Pisqa in this verse is wanting in some MSS.; its effect is merely partially to isolate and bring out in relief the succeeding solemn statement.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:16. Eng. A. V. again adopts the Qeri, which is found in many MSS. and EDD. (De Rossi) and in all the versions. Kethib is here preferred as in 2 Samuel 15:28, which see.—The “speedily” of Eng. A. V. is meant as translation of the Infinitive Absolute, but introduces too different a substantive idea from that of the verb (ςαψ); the sense is rather: “actually pass over.” The rendering: “lest the king be swallowed up” (so Philippson, Wellhausen) seems to be the best; the phrase is discussed by Erdmann, who adopts the translation: “lest it (transit over the river) be swallowed up (= snatched away).”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:17. Eng. A V. here inverts the order of the Heb, in order to avoid the contradiction of making the statement: “they might not be seen to enter the city,” follow the statement that they “had gone to tell the king” (rendering the verb ιμλεּ as Aorist). Erdmann says that this last statement is anticipatory. But the Imperfect is here better taken in the future sense: “and they were to go and tell,” which avoids the somewhat hard anticipation. Philippson renders not substantially differently: “the maid told them that they were to go,” etc.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:20. The word ξִ ?ιλμ is as yet unexplained. Rashi says that its meaning can only be inferred from the context. Sept.: μικρόν, “little” (perhaps from similarity of sound); Chald. takes the phrase as meaning “the Jordan.” Syriac renders: “hence,” as if it were ξִ ?οΞλֹּ ?δ or ξִ ?τֹּ ?δ; Arab. omits it; Vulg.: “having tasted a little water,” after the Sept. J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius compare Arab. makil, “a dry pit,” mimkal, “a pit containing water,” but this does not agree with the form of the Heb. word. Others assume a root ιλμ (Fόrst takes this stem to mean “contain,” whence our word = “water-ditch”). Wellhausen would drop ξιλμ from the text, or supply some such word as γּ ?ψκ: “the way of the water.”—Tr.] “And the counsel of Ahithophel … days”—the construction is interrupted, and completes itself in the λַּ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ ... λֵּ ?ο. Qeri and all versions supply ΰּ ?ιωׁ after ιִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰַ ?μ; but, if one is not disposed to accept this as necessary (Keil), the verb may be taken impersonally. δַ ?λַּ ?μָּ ?δΰִ ?ιωׁ for δַ ?λֹּ ?μδָ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ [with interpolation of “only the life of one man” (Keil). The Sept. text was αְּ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?αδַ ?αַּ ?μָ ?δμְ ?ΰִ ?ιωָׂ ?δּ ΰַ ?κְ πֶ ?τֶ ?ωׁ ΰִ ?ιωׂ ΰֶ ?ηַ ?γΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δξְ ?αַ ?χִּ ?ωׁ. It is suggested that the three words following δַ ?λַּ ?μָּ ?δ may have fallen out, because the eye of the scribe passed to the following ΰִ ?ιωׁ, to which the δ in λμδ was then prefixed, and the ΰηγ made into ΰωψ. This is possible, but the sense of the Sept. rendering is doubtful.—Tr.] The βַ ?νΞδεּ ?ΰ strengthens the suffix in τִּ ?ιε. Ewald, § 311 a. τְּ ?ηָ ?ϊּ ?ιν, natural hiding-places, ξִ ?χεֹ ?ξεϊ, artificially strong positions; in these David would pass the night. So λּ ?ι after a negation, expressed or understood, Ges. § 155, 1, e—τָּ ?πֶ ?ικָ = “thy person, thyself,” the Plu. noun here accompanied by a Plu. Particip,—Instead of αַּ ?χְ ?ψָ ?α Thenius would read αְּ ?χִ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?ν. The fem. numeral (though the subst. is found as fem. in Genesis 18:24; Job 20:9) is probably (since the masc. is used in 2 Samuel 17:9) to be regarded as scribal error for masc. (Maurer). Taking πַ ?ηְ ?πεּ = “we,” as in Genesis 42:11; Exodus 16:7-8; Numbers 32:32; Lamentations 3:42. πַ ?ηְ ?πεּ as 1 plu. Perf. Qal of πεּ ?ηַ, Sept. (παρεμβαλοῦμεν), Syr., Arab. ηָ ?ρִ ?ιμ or ηָ ?ρִ ?μ for δַ ?θָּ ?μ. φεּ ?ψ = φְ ?ψεּ ?ψ.—On the masc. ΰֹ ?ϊεֹ referring to the fem. ςִ ?ιψ see Ew. § 174, 6 a. [Sept. (Alex.): “lest one swallow up the king;” Vulg.: “lest the king be swallowed up;” Syr.: “lest thou perish;” Chald.: “lest profit be gotten front the king,” i. e., lest he be betrayed (Walton’s Polyg. incorrectly: “lest the king perish”).—Tr.] ξִ ?ιλַ ?μδַ ?ξָּ ?ιִ ?ν a ἅπ. λεγ. = a small brook in the vicinity. [See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] [There is an old opinion (see Patrick in loco) that Ahithophel died of quinsy brought on by violent passions, grief, chagrin, hatred, and Then. (Comm. in loco) mentions that the same view (as to the disease) is maintained by Steuber (1741). In Dryden’s “Absalom and Ahithophel” the latter personage represents the Earl of Shaftesbury.—Tr.] 3. The Civil War 2 Samuel 17:24 to 2 Samuel 18:33 [2 Samuel 19:1]a. David at Mahanaim. 2 Samuel 17:24-2924 Then [And] David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom passed over Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him. 25And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab, which [and] Amasa was a man’s son, whose name was Ithra, an Israelite [the Ishmaelite], that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister 26to Zeruiah, Joab’s mother. So [And] Israel and Absalom pitched in the land of Gilead. 27And it came to pass, when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of 28Ammiel of Lo-debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, Brought beds, and basons, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and flour, and parched corn, and beans, and lentiles, and parched pulse [corn], 29And honey, and butter [curds], and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat; for they said, The people is [got] hungry, and weary, and thirsty in the wilderness. b. The battle in the forest of Ephraim. 2 Samuel 18:1-81 And David numbered [mustered] the people that were with him, and set captains of thousands and captains of hundreds over them. 2And David sent forth [gave] a third part of the people under [into4] the hand of Joab, and a third part under [into] the hand of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, and a third part under [into] the hand of Ittai the Gittite. And the king said unto the people, 3I will surely [om. surely] go forth with you myself also. But [And] the people answered [said], Thou shalt not go forth; for if we flee away, they will not care for [pay attention to] us; neither [and] if half of us die, will they care for us [they will not pay attention to us]; but now thou [for thou5] art worth ten thousand of us; therefore [and] now it is better that thou succour us out of the city. 4And the king said unto them, What seemeth you best I will do. And the king stood by the gate-side, and all the people came out [went forth] by hundreds and by thousands. 5And the king commanded Joab and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Deal gently for my sake with the young man, even with [om. even with] Absalom. And all the people 6heard when the king gave all the captains charge concerning Absalom. So [And] the people went out into the field against Israel; and the battle was [or, took place] 7in the wood of Ephraim. Where [And] the people of Israel were slain [smitten there] before the servants of David, and there was there a great slaughter that day 8of twenty thousand men. For [And] the battle was there scattered over the face of all the country; and the wood devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. c. Absalom murdered by Joab. 2 Samuel 18:9-189 And Absalom met the servants of David. And Absalom rode [was riding] upon a [the] mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a [the] great oak [terebinth], and his head caught hold of the oak [terebinth], and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth, and the mule that was under him went away 10[passed on]. And a certain man saw it, and told Joab, and said, Behold, I saw Absalom hanged in an oak [the terebinth]. And Joab said unto the man that told 11him, And behold, thou sawest him, and why didst thou not smite him there to the ground? and I would have given thee ten shekels [pieces] of silver, and a girdle. 12And the man said unto Joab, Though I should receive a thousand shekels [pieces] of silver in mine hand, yet would I not put forth my hand against the king’s son; for in our hearing the king charged thee and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Beware 13that none touch the young man Absalom. Otherwise I should have wrought falsehood against mine own life; for there is no matter hid from the king, and thou thyself wouldest have set thyself against me. 14Then said Joab [And Joab said], I may not tarry thus with thee. And he took three darts in his hand, and thrust them through [into] the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak [terebinth]. 15And ten young men that bare Joab’s armour compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him. 16And Joab blew the trumpet, and the people 17returned from pursuing after Israel, for Joab held back the people. And they took Absalom, and cast him into a [the] great pit in the wood, and laid a very great 18heap of stones upon him; and all Israel fled, every one to his tent. Now [And] Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a [the] pillar, which is in the king’s dale; for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance; and he called the pillar after his own name, and it is called unto this day, Absalom’s place [monument]. d. The tidings of joy and grief. David’s lament over Absalom. 2 Samuel 17:19-29 [2 Samuel 19:1] 19Then said Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok [And Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said], Let me now run, and bear the king tidings how [om. how] that the Lord [Jehovah] hath avenged [delivered] him of [from] his enemies. 20And Joab said unto him, Thou shalt not bear tidings this day, but thou shalt bear tidings another day; but this day thou shalt bear no tidings, because the king’s son is dead. 21Then said Joab to Cushi [And Joab said to the Cushite], Go, tell the king what thou hast seen. And Cushi [the Cushite] bowed himself unto Joab and ran. 22Then said Ahimaaz the son of Zadok [And Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said] yet again to Joab, But, however, let me, I pray thee, also run after Cushi [the Cushite]. And Joab said, Wherefore wilt thou run, my son, seeing that thou hast no tidings ready. 23But howsoever, said he, let me run. And he said unto him, Run. Then [And] Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain, and overran Cushi [the Cushite]. 24And David sat [was sitting] between the two gates; and the watchman went up to the roof over [of] the gate unto the wall, and lifted up his eyes, and looked 25[saw], and behold a man running alone. And the watchman cried [called] and told the king. And the king said, If he be alone, there is tidings in his mouth. And he came apace and drew near [he came nearer and nearer]. 26And the watchman saw another man running; and the watchman called unto the porter, and said, Behold, another [om. another, ins. a] man running alone. And the king said, He also bringeth tidings. 27And the watchman said, Methinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok. And the king said, He is a good man, and cometh with good tidings. 28And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well [Peace!] And he fell down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king. 29And the king said, Is the young man Absalom safe? And Ahimaaz answered [said] When Joab sent the king’s servant and me [om. the king’s servant and me] thy servant, I saw a great tumult, but I knew not what it was. 30And the king said unto him [om. unto him], Turn aside, and stand here. And he turned aside and stood still. 31And behold, Cushi [the Cushite] came; and Cushi [the Cushite] said, Tidings, my lord the king, for the Lord [Let my lord the king receive the tidings that Jehovah] hath avenged [delivered] thee this day of [from] all them that rose up against thee. 32And the king said unto Cushi [the Cushite], Is the young man Absalom safe? And Cushi answered [the Cushite said], The enemies of my lord the king, and all that rise against thee to do thee hurt [for evil] be as that [the] young man is [om. is]. [Heb. 19:1]. 33And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept; and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God [O that] I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son! AND CRITICALa. 2 Samuel 17:24-29. David at Mahanaim2 Samuel 17:24. To Mahanaim, east of the Jordan (which he had crossed in the night, passing through the Jordan-valley, 2 Samuel 17:22), probably a fortified place, north of the Jabbok, suitable for a rendezvous for gathering an army, whence it was chosen by Abner as Ishbosheth’s capital-city. See on 2 Samuel 2:8. [A well-provisioned country, friendly to David (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.]—Absalom’s passage over the Jordan took place when he had had time to gather (according to Hushai’s counsel) “all the men of Israel,” that is, all the military force of the country (comp. 2 Samuel 17:11 sq.). 2 Samuel 17:25. Whether Amasa, appointed by Absalom captain in place of Joab (who remained faithful to David), is the same with the Amasai of 1 Chronicles 12:17-18 (Ewald, Bertheau), must be left undetermined. “If this conjecture were correct, the man, so cordially received by David (1 Chronicles 12:17), would have committed grave wrong in attaching himself to Absalom” (Then.). Elsewhere the phrase “son of a man (or woman)” is defined by a following appositional word or genitive (Bφttcher); but here the defining phrase is introduced by “and” [“and his name was Ithra”], so that we have the independent assertion: “son of a man,” which is meaningless. Perhaps the text originally had: “whose name was” (ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψωְׁ ?ξεֹ), and the relative pronoun has fallen out (from the following ΰωׁ ?ψ). Bφttcher conjectures that “foreigner” (βֵ ?ψ) stood after “man,” comp. 2 Samuel 1:13 [it would then read: “Amasa was the son of a foreigner, and his name was Ithra.”—Tr.].—With this would agree that Ithra was an Ishmaelite, for so we must here read instead of “Israelite,” after 1 Chronicles 2:17, where Jether is shortened form of Ithra (Sept.: “the Jezreelite,” Joshua 19:18, so David’s wife Ahinoam, 1 Samuel 28:3). The designation of Ithra as an “Israelite” would be superfluous; but the statement that he was an “Ishmaelite” serves to illustrate the fact that Amasa was an illegitimate son of Abigail. If Nahash be taken as a man’s name, and the word “sister” in apposition with Abigail, then Zeruiah and Abigail are daughters of David’s mother by her first marriage with Nahash, step-daughters of Jesse, and on this side step-sisters of David (so the older expositors, Michaelis and Schultz). But Nahash may, with Movers and Thenius (who refers to 1 Chronicles 4:12, where it is the name of a city), be taken as a woman’s name, here a second wife of Jesse. In this case also the two, Zeruiah and Abigail, would be David’s step-sisters. Clericus supposes Nahash to be another name, or a surname of Jesse; Capellus would read “Jesse” instead of “Nahash” (after a variant of the Sept.); Bφttcher puts “sister” in apposition with “Nahash,” which he regards as a woman’s name. [It is an old Jewish view that Nahash is another name of Jesse. For many persons, says Kimchi, had two names, and this (Nahash) signifies “a serpent.” From whence it is that when Isaiah (2 Samuel 14:29) saith: “out of the serpent’s root (or, the root of Nahash) shall come forth a cockatrice or basilisk,” the Chaldee paraphrase expounds it, “out of the root of Jesse shall come forth the Messiah;” who was typified by the brazen serpent in the wilderness (Patrick). This would be baseless allegorizing, even if Nahash were proved to be another name of Jesse, which is not probable. The omission of the name Nahash in 1 Chronicles 2:16 is against the view that it belongs to a daughter of Jesse; more probably it is the name of the otherwise unknown father of Abigail. See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 17:26. Absalom pitched his camp in Gilead. Nothing is said of a siege (Ewald) of Mahanaim. Against this view is the fact that David, as appears from what follows, here got supplies of men and provisions, formed an army, and organized it in three divisions, which required time. It is hence evident that David was able to establish himself strongly at Mahanaim without being attacked by Absalom’s army. 2 Samuel 17:27-29. David receives reinforcements and provisions. Shobi, the son of Nahash, from Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites; this last statement “guards against the possible error that Shobi was a brother of Abigail” (Thenius). Rabbah, on the lower Jabbok (2 Samuel 12:26-31), belonged to David’s empire, and now remained true to him. Shobi, if not an Israelite, was perhaps a son of the deceased Ammonite king Nahash and brother of the Hanun (2 Samuel 10:1 sqq.) conquered by David (Keil), or a member of the royal house of Ammon favored by David (Ewald). [Shobi was hardly tributary king of Ammon (Bib.-Com.), else he would have been called king.—Tr.]—Machir, son of Ammiel of Lodebar, who had received Jonathan’s lame son Mephibosheth into his house (2 Samuel 9:4).—Barzillai, a Gileadite of Rogelim, an otherwise unknown place, mentioned besides here only in 2 Samuel 19:32. The Sept. (alone among the ancient versions) inserts “ten” before “beds” and before “basons;” but this does not agree with the connection, since the articles mentioned were brought by several persons for “the people” (2 Samuel 17:29), and therefore certainly in considerable quantities. Ten would have been too few for David’s “court and army” (Ew.); the insertion of this number in the Sept. was perhaps suggested by 1 Samuel 17:17-18. Whether they were “fine mattress-beds” (Ew.) must be left undecided. “Basons,” metallic vessels for preparing food. “Parched food” (χָ ?μִ ?ι), comp. 1 Samuel 17:17. As not only corn-grains, but also pulse-beans were roasted (Bochart, Hier. II. 582, Harmar, Beobacht. I. 255 sq.), the second word may refer to pulse, of which, as well as of corn, two kinds are named; and therefore the omission of the second (χμι) as an error (Sept., Syr., Arab.) is unnecessary [Eng. A. V. retains it, and renders: “parched pulse”]. The last term in the list (ωְׁ ?τεֹ ?ϊπָּ ?χָ ?ψ) is variously translated; Vulg.: “fat calves;” Theod.: “sucking calves;” Chald., Syr., Rabbin.: “cheese of kine (cows)” [so Eng. A. V.]. The last sense agrees better with the preceding words [Eng. A. V. incorrectly: “butter”]; the first sense accords with the “sheep” (small cattle). Sept. transfers the Heb. word: “saphoth of oxen.” The meaning of the Heb. phrase is doubtful. The verb in this sentence (“brought”) stands strangely and unnaturally after the long list of articles; it is therefore better, with Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., to supply a verb-form (partcp.) at the beginning of 2 Samuel 17:28, and then to insert “and” before the verb in 2 Samuel 17:29 : “they brought beds, etc., and gave them to David.” [Eng. A. V. simply transfers the verb to the beginning of 2 Samuel 17:28. On the reading see “Text. and Gram.” Patrick calls attention to the food of the times (only one sort of meat) as indicated by the list in 2 Samuel 17:28-29, and Bib.-Com. remarks that God’s care for David was evident in the kindness of these people.—Tr.] For the AND and AND sections, see 1 Samuel 18:1 ff. Footnotes: [2 Samuel 17:25. Probably we should read: “the son of a stranger (foreigner)” (ΰִ ?ιωׁ πָ ?λְ ?ψִ ?ι, or ΰִ ?ιωׁ βֵּ ?ψ). Instead of “Israelite” editors now generally read: “Ishmaelite” (1 Chronicles 2:17). The old Jewish view is that Ithra or Jithra or Jether (another name for Jesse) was an Israelite by birth, but had lived long among the Ishmaelites, or was an Ishmaelite by birth and an Israelite by religion (a proselyte), and that the phrase “son of a man” = “a man of distinction” (so Philippson); but this is less probable than that our text is corrupt. Wordsworth supposes that the name “Israelite” may be used in distinction from ‘Judahite,’ to show that Jithra did not belong to the tribe of Judah; but Cahen remarks that this designation (Israelite) seems not to have come into use till after the division of the kingdom.—Wellhausen thinks that “daughter of Nahash” is for “son of Nahash,” and is an insertion from 2 Samuel 17:27. a not improbable supposition; the statement would then be: “Amasa was the son of a foreigner named Jethra the Ishmaelite, who went in unto Abigail, sister to Zeruiah, Joab’s mother.” Abigail and Zeruiah would then be full sisters to David, and Amasa illegitimate son of Abigail, and cousin of Joab.—The reading of Sept. and Vulg.: “Jezreelite” is less probable than the “Ishmaelite” of 1 Chronicles 2:17, because our text indicates (by the maimed phrase: “son of a man”) that Jethra was a non-Israelite. The Arabic reading is noticeable: “and Absalom made his lance-bearer in place of Ahithophel, a man named Amsa, son of a rich man named Jether.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:28. The verb does not occur in the Heb. till 2 Samuel 17:29, whence it is proposed to insert (with the versions) a verb or participle (ξְ ?αִ ?ιΰִ ?ιν) at the beginning of 2 Samuel 17:28. The verb in 2 Samuel 17:29 may be retained, and would, indeed, serve to govern the nouns in 2 Samuel 17:28, but for the phrase “for the people to eat,” since the things mentioned in that verse are not all eatables. The difficulty, however, still exists if (with Erdmann) we supply the copula before the “brought” of 2 Samuel 17:29; we may then say that the word “eat” is used of the principal part of the things brought (in which case it will not be absolutely necessary to supply the verb at the beginning of 2 Samuel 17:28), or, we may suppose that the articles last mentioned (2 Samuel 17:29, together with the χָ ?μִ ?ι “parched corn” at end of verse 28, the repetition of which would thus be explained) were brought ready for immediate eating, the others (2 Samuel 17:28) as a store of provisions.—The word “corn” is retained in its proper sense = “grain,” though liable to be misunderstood by American readers for maize.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 17:29. The people were not at Mahanaim, and had gotten hungry during the march through the wilderness.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:2. The verb does not mean “sent forth,” nor had the army yet begun its march (2 Samuel 18:6); the phrase ωׁ ?μηαιγ means either: “to send by the hand of some one,” or: “to give over to some one,” here the latter.—The adverb “surely” is too strong for the signification of the Infinitive Absolute.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:3. Literally: “set heart on us.”—ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ “thou” instead of ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ “now” is read by Sept., Vulg., Sym., and by one or two MSS.—Syr. has “now;” its text here (followed by Arab.) is badly maimed.—Instead of “out of the city” Sept., an anonymous Greek version and Vulg., have “in the city,” which is perhaps merely an explanatory rendering. The absence of the Art. in ξֵ ?ςִ ?ιψ creates a difficulty. Bib.-Com., taking ξֵ ?ςִ ?ιψ as Hiph. participle of ςεּ ?ψ, proposes to render: “that thou be to us a stirrer-up in helping us,” i.e., that thou help us by stirring us up. But the construction here does not favor this rendering; the verb (Hiphil) is followed by the Acc. of the person or thing roused, and frequently by ςַ ?μ (“against”) with the person against whom it is roused; the Infin. here also would from the construction rather have for its subject the roused than the rouser. It is better to supply the Art. ξֵ ?δָ ?ςִ ?ιψ, or else to read αָּ ?ςִ ?ιψ.—Kethib μַ ?ςֲ ?ζִ ?ιψ for μְ ?δַ ?ςֲ ?ζִ ?ιψ Hiph. Infin.; Qeri μַ ?ςֲ ?ζεֹ ?ψ Qal.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:7. Omitted by Sept. as unnecessary. The first “there” in this verse is retained in Sept. (not omitted, as Wellh. says).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:9. Wellhausen: “from the connection with μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι [‘in the presence of’] and from 2 Samuel 18:10 it appears that the text εַ ?ιִ ?χָּ ?ψֵ ?ΰ is incorrect; read perhaps εַ ?ιִּ ?ιψָ ?ΰ [‘and Absalom feared’].” But the construction is supported by Deuteronomy 22:6 (Bib.-Com.), and the statement of 2 Samuel 18:10 is properly explained by this statement that Absalom in his flight “met,” accidentally came across some of David’s men.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:12. Read the Qeri μεּ or μֻ ?ΰ (= μεּ ?ΰ).—“Though I should weigh (ωֹׁ ?χֵ ?μ) into (upon) my hand;” instead of the Act. Particip. Wellhausen reads the Pass. ωָׁ ?χεּ ?μ: “though there were weighed into my hand,” but the man might easily conceive of the weighing as done by himself.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:13. Eng. A. V. here follows the Qeri (“my life,” Kethib “his life”). The whole verse is difficult in text and meaning. The line of thought seems to favor the marginal reading αְּ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ “against his life; but it is then difficult to see whether the man presents two reasons for not killing Absalom: 1) his regard for the king’s command (2 Samuel 18:12), 2) his fear of the consequences to himself (2 Samuel 17:13), or only the former. Moreover whether the last phrase in the verse is to be rendered “thou wilt have to stand before him” (to give account, or testimony), or “thou wilt stand (appear) against me” is uncertain; the latter is more probable. In the first part of our verse the Sept. had a different text from the Heb.: “guard me the young man Absalom, not to do wrong against his life,” which would simplify the man’s address. We may adopt the reading (ξֵ ?ςֲ ?ωׂ ?εֹ ?ϊ instead of ΰεֹ ?Ξςָ ?ωִׂ ?ιϊִ ?ι), or keep the Heb. text and render: “or if I acted falsely against his life, then nothing is concealed from the king, and thou wouldest take stand against me.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:14. The word (ωֵׁ ?αֶ ?θ) not “dart,” but “staff,” and is contrasted with the word “spear” (ηֲ ?πִ ?ιϊ) in 2 Samuel 23:21. Either, then, we must suppose Joab to have used an uncommon weapon (Erdmann) or we must change the text. Erdmann states the objections to Thenius’ proposed reading ωְׁ ?μָ ?ηִ ?ιν, and it would be hard to account for an alteration of ηπιϊιν or ηνιϊεϊ into ωαθιν.—Instead of: “in the heart (αμα) of the terebinth.” Thenius proposes to read after Syr. and Vulg.: “hung in (ϊָּ ?μεּ ?ι) the terebinth,” for which there seems no necessity; the renderings of these two versions are merely interpretations.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:16. Sept., Vulg., Thenius, Keil, Erdmann render: “Joab wished to spare the people,” but the rendering of Eng. A. V. seems better because the idea of “wish” is not contained in the Hebrew, and the phrase “the people” in connection with Joab more naturally refers to David’s army.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:17. Wellhausen objects to the order of 2 Samuel 17:14-17, because it represents Absalom, already half-dead from hanging, as surviving Joab’s stabbing with the staves or darts, and finally meeting his death from the young men. He would make the last word of 2 Samuel 18:15 and 2 Samuel 18:16 follow 2 Samuel 18:14, and then insert 2 Samuel 18:15; 2 Samuel 18:17, so as to read: “14, Joab took three darts, etc., … in the terebinth, and killed him, 16 and blew the trumpet, and held back the people. 15 and ten young men compassed about Absalom, 17 and took him, etc.” Though this is ingenious, it is not required by the text. Joab’s wounds did not kill Absalom, and the zealous armor-bearers finished him; then Joab called in his soldiers, and they (indef. subject = Passive) took Absalom and cast him into the pit.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:18. This word has the sign of determination (ΰϊ), and yet is not followed by a determinative noun; whence Wellhausen would supply ΰֲ ?ωֵׂ ?ψָ ?δ (in place of following ΰωψ), and render: “took the pillar of the Asherah [idol-image] in the king’s dale and set it up.” But (apart from the fact that ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?δ does not occur after a construct ξַ ?φֶּ ?αֶ ?ϊ, in 1 Kings 14:23; 1 Kings 17:10 the two words are used co-ordinately) this is an example of a word determined by a relative clause, as in Genesis 40:3. See Ew. § 277 d, 2), and Ges. § 116.—At the end of the verse ιγַ = “monument,” a different word from that rendered “pillar.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:20. Eng. A. V. here adopts the Qeri ςַ ?μΞλֵּ ?ο: “for the king’s son is dead.” Syr. and Chald., omitting the λֵּ ?ο, render: “thou wilt not announce except that the king’s son is dead,” which, however, the present Heb. will not bear.—ςַ ?μΞαֵּ ?ο usually means “therefore,” but here = “because” (= λִּ ?ιςַ ?μΞλֵּ ?ο).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:22. Eng. A. V. takes μְ ?αָ ?δ = “to thee,” and ξֹ ?φֵ ?ΰϊ Qal. Act. Particip. fem. of ξָ ?φָ ?ΰ, = “finding, ready:” Erdmann renders the Particip. “reward-finding,” Philippson: “profitable;” Wellhausen takes it as Hoph. of ιָ ?φָ ?ΰ (ξֻ ?φֵ ?ΰϊ) = “brought out, paid out” (Genesis 38:25); Bib.-Com.: “sufficing,” which commends itself as appropriate.—According to Bφttcher, it is only when the pronoun is emphatic that we can render μְ ?λָ ?δ “to thee;” and here it is better = “go thou” (= “and if thou go”). But the pronoun may be emphatic here.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:23. Insert εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֵ ?ψ at the beginning of the verse.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:26. Instead of ωςֵ ?ψ “porter” Erdmann, Then., Bφttcher, Wellhausen (after Sept. and Syr.) read ωַ ?ςַ ?ψ “gate,” which, however, is not necessary, and this statement is not in conflict with 2 Samuel 18:25, where the watchman seems to speak directly to the king.—After the second ΰִ ?ιωּׁ Thenius and Wellhausen (Sept., Vulg., Syr.) insert ΰַ ?ηֵ ?ψ “another;” but Bφttcher properly remarks that this would naturally be inserted by the versions (so Eng. A. V. inserts it) from the preceding part of the verse, while its omission could not so well be accounted for.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:29. Erdmann renders as Eng. A. V., but the construction, as it stands, is awkward and improbable. The simplest procedure seems to be that of Wellhausen, to omit ΰֶ ?ϊΞςֶ ?αֶ ?γδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ (though it is not easy to account for its insertion). Some (so Bib.-Com.) prefer the Vulg. rendering, on which see Erdmann in the Exposition. Related questions, such as the person of “the Cushite,” will there be referred to.—Tr.] For the Chapter 18 passage and footnotes, see 1 Samuel 17:24 ff. b. 2 Samuel 18:1-8. The battle in the forest of Ephraim 2 Samuel 18:1-2. David organizes his army, and disposes it for battle. 2 Samuel 18:1 sq. 1) The mustering of the whole body of people with David, which had been constantly growing by reinforcements from the country east of the Jordan; 2) the division into smaller bodies of hundreds and thousands; 3) the organization of the whole army in three grand divisions under Joab, Abishai and Ittai the Gittite, comp. 2 Samuel 15:29. He “gave them into the hand” (Vulg.), that is, put them under the command of Joab and the others [Eng. A. V. not so well: “sent forth under the hand”]. 2 Samuel 18:3-4. David’s attitude in respect to the impending battle. 1) David’s declaration that he would himself go into the fight; 2) the declaration of the people that they were unwilling to this, since the point was to secure his safety for the benefit of the whole people in the battle. “Thou art as we ten thousand,” that is, equal to ten thousand of us. David was to remain behind with a reserve-corps, in order in case of need to come to their help from the city, whence it may be inferred that Mahanaim was a strong place, where a stand might be made. The king agreed to this prudent proposition, and stood at the gate-side, while the army filed out before him. 2 Samuel 18:5. David’s order respecting Absalom. He said to the generals: Deal gently with the young man Absalom.—[Heb. has the dativus commodi: “deal me gently;” Eng. A. V.: “deal gently for my sake,” a fair rendering.—Tr.] The people heard it, that is, from bystanders, who spread it abroad.—[The text rather says that the people heard the king give the order; the fact is mentioned to explain the answer of the man to Joab in 2 Samuel 18:12; notice the phrase: “in our hearing” there.—Tr.] The brief exclamation of David accords with the vividly portrayed scene and with his feeling when he saw his army going forth against his son. 2 Samuel 18:6-8. The battle. “The people went out against Israel,” that is, David’s army made the attack. The battle was in the wood of Ephraim. This name can be understood only of the forest covering the mountains of Ephraim, which, when the Israelites entered Canaan, stretched over the whole mountain (Joshua 17:15-18 : “go up into the forest,—a mountain shall be thine, for it is forest), and was still extensive in later times; see 1 Samuel 14:22-26, where it is said that the children of Israel first hid from the Philistines in mount Ephraim (that is, in the mountain-gorges and in caves), and then that all the people came into the forest. We are thus pointed to the wooded heights in the tribe of Ephraim, not far west of the Jordan. Further, Ahimaaz (2 Samuel 18:23) traverses the Jordan-valley in order to carry the news to David at Mahanaim. “Ahimaaz could not have gone this way if the battle had been on the east of the Jordan, and he wished to take a short route” (Keil). Ewald admits that the name “forest of Ephraim” seems certainly to point to the west of the river, but yet puts it on the east, because David’s army returned after the victory to Mahanaim, “while, if the battle had occurred on the west side, it would obviously have been much better to stay on that side and take possession of Jerusalem.” To this it need not be replied with Vaihinger (Herzog, Art. Ephraim) that “David wished to avoid further shedding of blood, and prudence and clemency dictated a return to Mahanaim;” rather it must be urged that Absalom’s defeat had put an end to the insurrection (2 Samuel 18:17; 2 Samuel 19:9), his followers were completely broken up, and therefore an immediate occupation of Jerusalem was unnecessary. But besides, the battle was a severe one, as appears from the fact that of Absalom’s army (which fought very bravely) twenty thousand men fell, and David’s army was not in condition after the fight to make a long and rapid march to Jerusalem. Moreover, even in that case it would have been necessary for the reserve with David to join the victorious army; this junction effected (by crossing the Jordan), the whole army marched to Jerusalem under the lead of the king. Thenius holds that the forest of Ephraim was east of the Jordan, on the ground that nothing is said of Absalom’s re-crossing the river (according to 2 Samuel 17:28 he encamped in Gilead, east of the river), that, if he had re-crossed, David (who stood only on the defensive) would have awaited another attack on his present position [Mahanaim], and that the expectation of help from the city [2 Samuel 18:3] presupposes that the battle occurred near Mahanaim, to which it is to be replied that 2 Samuel 18:6 shows that David did not act merely on the defensive (he marched against Absalom), and that David’s unexpected attack on Absalom’s army (which could not spread out in the relatively narrow space between Mahanaim and the Jordan) may well have forced its passage across the river, so that the decisive conflict occurred in’ the wooded hill-region of the tribe of Ephraim. The fact that David stayed behind with one division in Mahanaim, and sent the three generals with their divisions against Absalom, shows clearly that he acted on the offensive. The proposed “help from the city” was only for the case that the attack was not successful, and cannot be urged in support of the view that the battle was near Mahanaim. The narrator here relates only the final and decisive conflict, it not being his purpose to describe the previous actions by which Absalom’s army was forced across the Jordan. That the messengers (2 Samuel 18:19-27) had then to re-cross the Jordan in order to reach David makes no difficulty, since the river could easily be crossed by the fords. From the eastern edge of the wooded Mount Ephraim the messengers could reach Mahanaim by rapid travel in about two hours. The assumption by some expositors of a “Forest of Ephraim “east of the Jordan, presumedly so called from the defeat of the Ephraimites by the Gileadites (Judges 12:1-5) is a mere conjecture untenable against the demonstrated geographical-historical significance of the name. [Another conjecture is that the “wood of Ephraim” was so called from the place Ephraim where Absalom had sheep-shearers (2 Samuel 13:23); but this has nothing in its favor, since, if the forest is to be put west of the river, the region in the tribe of Ephraim is the most natural here. Most expositors hold (against Erdmann) that the battle must have been near Mahanaim and on the east of the river, since the centre of action seems to be Mahanaim, and nothing is said of Joab’s crossing the river. But in the absence of all information about a “forest of Ephraim” east of the Jordan, the question must be regarded as unsettled. Mr. Grove suggests (Smith’s Bib.-Dict., Art. Wood of Ephraim) that the forest may have been called after this battle, from the prominent part taken in it by the powerful tribe of Ephraim on Absalom’s side; but this is not probable.—If the battle were on the east of the river Ahimaaz might still have found a quicker way to Mahanaim through the Jordan-valley; while, if it were on the west, it would seem necessary that the Cushite also should pass through this valley, and it is intimated that he did not go that way.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:8. Further description of the defeat of Absalom’s army. The defeat was terrible because the fight spread wide over the woody mountain-terrain, and more of Absalom’s men perished in the gorges of the mountain than by the sword. “The forest of Ephraim lay no doubt in the northeastern part of the tribe-territory, towards the Jordan and Succoth” (Vaihinger), where there were deep, narrow gorges and steep declivities towards the Jordan. [It is commonly supposed that Absalom’s army was far larger than David’s; but we know nothing of their numbers. Twenty thousand slain is a great loss, yet not improbable under the circumstances.—The victory may be accounted for by the superior organization of David’s troops and the superior generalship of his army-leaders. As to Amasa see 2 Samuel 20:4-6.—Tr.] c. 2 Samuel 18:9-18. Absalom murdered by Joab. 2 Samuel 18:9. In the tumult of the battle Absalom got into the neighborhood of “David’s servants.” The verb is to be taken as strictly reflexive: “he came upon, found himself” in a position, where he saw himself already captured or slain. He therefore entered a thicket, on the mule which he rode as royal prince (hence the Art.: “the mule”), in order to escape. His head, however, caught in (literally: “made itself fast in”) the boughs of a terebinth, not merely from his large growth of hair, but doubtless also because the head was jammed in between the branches in consequence of the entanglement of the long hair; thus he was “set,” that is, hung [Eng. A. V.: “was taken up”] between heaven and earth, since the mule went away from under him. [Bib.-Com.: “It would seem that the two things that his vain-glory boasted in, the royal mule and the magnificent head of hair, both contributed to his untimely death.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:10. Only one of David’s men saw it and reported it to Joab as commander-in-chief. [The text does not say that “only one man” saw it, but that “a man” saw it; others may have seen it, but this man reported it.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:11. Joab’s desire of revenge prevents him from regarding David’s command given to the whole army (2 Samuel 18:5). He, the highest commander, forgets himself in disobedience so far as to chide his subordinate for not killing Absalom, and tell him of the reward he had thus lost. This accords precisely with the rude passionateness, violence and barbarity of Joab’s character, as before described.—It was my affair richly therefor to reward thee with ten silver pieces (= about seven dollars) and with a girdle (comp. Ezekiel 23:15), as a valuable and essential part of military dress. 2 Samuel 18:12. The man’s reply. And thought I should weigh in (or, on) my hand a thousand shekels [or pieces], that is, if they were already given to me, I would not do such a deed. He refers to the command of the king: Beware, whoever it be [= all of you], of (touching) the young man. Maurer: “whoever (of you shall come on him”). [So Eng. A. V.: “beware that none touch”]. Most of the ancient versions and some [Heb.] MSS. read: “beware me of touching,” etc., where me is Dativus commodi; but this is to be rejected as a conjecture to avoid a difficult construction, and suggested probably by the similar phrase in 2 Samuel 18:5 [Eng. A. V.: “for my sake”]. David’s command was to all, not merely to the generals (2 Samuel 18:5), and to the common soldiers, one of whom here shows himself nobler-minded and more obedient than his commander. 2 Samuel 18:13. The initial word “or” (ΰεֹ) indicates a contrasted assertion.—The preference is to be given to the text “his life” over the marginal reading “my life.” The latter is found in the Sept.: “and how shall I do wrong against my life?”, and the Vulg.: “if I had boldly acted against my life,” and Ewald: “if I had lied (acted deceitfully) against my conscience.” Against Ewald Thenius says that the natural course of thought here is that the man should first state the act itself, and then its consequences for himself. Or, had I dealt deceitfully against his life, wrought falsehood by killing him, inasmuch as I should thus have acted against the express prohibition of the king. The words “and nothing is hid from the king” form a parenthesis; the apodosis begins with “and thou.” And thou wouldest have stood against me, that is, have appeared against me before the king as accuser. For this expression comp. Psalms 109:6; Zechariah 3:1. [On other explanations of this difficult verse see “Text. and Gram.” The man’s reply seems to be: “In the first place, I have too much respect for the king’s command to lift my hand against his son for any reward; and in the next place, the reward would avail me nothing, for the king would find out what I had done and punish me, and you yourself would be witness against me,” wherein he says plainly that he does not trust Joab. That the latter does not resent the answer by violence is perhaps to be ascribed to his consciousness of being in the wrong.—Eng. A. V. follows the marginal reading, which also gives a good sense, as does the reading of the Sept.: “the king charged thee, etc., saying, Beware of doing the young man harm, and nothing will be hid from the king,” etc.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:14. Joab’s answer betrays his vengeful, rudely passionate nature: I will not tarry thus with thee, that is, lose time in myself doing what is necessary. He took three staffs; such is the meaning of the word (ωֶׁ ?αֶ ?θ), and not “spear, dart, spit” (comp. 2 Samuel 23:21), as Sept. and Vulg. [and Eng. A. V.] give it. Thenius therefore changes the text; but the word he proposes (ωֶׁ ?μַ ?η) is used (as Keil remarks) in the older Hebrew only as = “missile” (Job 33:18; Job 26:12; Joe 2:8), and not till postexilian times in the general sense of “weapon” (2 Chronicles 23:10; 2 Chronicles 32:5; Nehemiah 4:11); and moreover no change is necessary, since our text-word signifies such sharp wooden staffs as Joab could find in the hard terebinth-wood; and this view is supported by the fact that he had to use three weapons, while one spear-thrust would have been sufficient.—The words: “and he was still alive,” etc., are connected with the preceding, not with the succeeding context; in the latter case they would be introduced by a Conjunction or other Particle. Joab thrust “through the heart of the still living prince” (Ewald). The hanging in the tree did not immediately produce death, though it would have done so finally.—“In the heart of the terebinth” (Exodus 15:8) = “in the midst of the terebinth,” agreeing with the description in 2 Samuel 18:9. This expression Bφttcher would unnecessarily change to: “in the thicket (ςָ ?α) of the terebinth.” 2 Samuel 18:15. After Joab’s thrust in the heart, Absalom is killed by ten of Joab’s young men, probably at his command.—[Thus neither the hanging nor the thrusts in the heart produced death. This, if surprising, is by no means impossible. On Wellhausen’s unnecessary re-disposition of the text (putting 2 Samuel 18:16 before 2 Samuel 18:15) see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:16. By Absalom’s death the end of the battle was secured, and Joab therefore called the people off from further pursuit. The motive for his barbarous slaying of Absalom was not private revenge (Kurtz in Herzog), but revenge for the honor of the ejected king, and the conviction that only his death could put an end to the unhappy civil war. He stopped the pursuit, however, because he wished to spare the people, that is, Absalom’s people. A piece of clemency alongside of his barbarity! [The rendering of Eng. A. V. is better: “he held back the people” from pursuit. The phrase “the people” here naturally refers to David’s (and Joab’s) people.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:17. Absalom cast aside. And they threw over it a very great heap of stones, a sign of embittered feeling against a dead man. [In his translation Erdmann has: “over him.”—Tr.] The great heap of stones over the pit (the Art. denotes the well-known pit into which Absalom’s corpse was thrown) was to be a monument of shame for his crime; comp. Joshua 7:26 (Achan), Joshua 8:29 (the king of Ai). All Israel had fled, every man to his tent, that is, all of Absalom’s army (gathered from all Israel) that survived the defeat; this also confirms the view that the battle took place on the west of the Jordan. [But they would have fled to their homes, no matter where the battle was fought.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:18. In sharp contrast with this mention of the monument of shame stands the following account of the monument that the vain and ambitious Absalom had set up in his own honor during his lifetime. The word “took” [Eng. A. V. “had taken”] (Numbers 16:1; 1 Kings 11:37) is pleonastic, as is common in circumstantial and vivid narration: [“took and reared” = “reared”]. But it may be understood as = “took for himself,” not pleonastic (Bφttcher). The form of the pillar (probably of stone) cannot be determined. In the king’s dale, the valley of the Kidron, two stadia east of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. 7, 10, 3); it took its name from the event described in Genesis 14:17, and was in later times called also the valley of Jehoshaphat. The “Absalom’s pillar” of ecclesiastical tradition, shown even in the Middle Ages, and to-day called “Absalom’s grave,” a pyramidal pointed monument about forty feet high, cannot in its present form be the work of Absalom. See Thenius’ excellent argument against the view of Winer and Ewald, that the “king’s dale” was north of Jerusalem, perhaps (according as the Salem in Genesis 14:18 is understood) not far from Salem, a northern city on the Jordan.—I have no son, comp. 2 Samuel 14:27; his three sons there mentioned must have afterwards died. “It is called to this day Absalom’s Hand” (1 Samuel 15:12), a monument recalling his memory like an uplifted hand. This monument of honor (whether it was “adorned with a splendid inscription of his name” (Ew.) must be left to the imagination) he had himself erected during his life; that monument of shame in the wood of Ephraim was set up by others after his terrible death. A significant contrast! d. 2 Samuel 18:19-32. The tidings of joy and grief. David’s lament over Absalom. 2 Samuel 18:19. Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, who with Jonathan (2 Samuel 17:15 sq.) had brought to David the information concerning Absalom’s design, and had remained with the army. He wishes to bear to the king the tidings that the Lord has judged the king [= done him justice] from the hand of his enemies—the theocratic conception of an immediate divine interposition. 2 Samuel 18:20. Joab refuses the request. His reason is: “because the king’s son is dead.” He says: Thou art not a messenger to-day [Eng. A. V.: “thou shalt not bear tidings this day”], because he knew that David, notwithstanding the victory, would be deeply moved by the news of Absalom’s death. He did not wish to expose Ahimaaz to the king’s anger, and therefore refused to let him carry the tidings. 2 Samuel 18:21. He rather committed this task to the Cushite, the Ethiopian slave, whom he had at hand for all sorts of work. The name is gentilic, not the proper name of an Israelite (Sept., Vulg. [Eng. A. V.]). After the manner of a slave, he cast himself down before Joab. Grotius: “he sent an Ethiopian, thinking it small damage if he received hurt from the king.” 2 Samuel 18:22 sqq. A remarkably vivid description of the lively conversation between Joab and Ahimaaz. The latter says: “but happen what may [Eng. A. V.: “however”], let me run;” he thought more of the victory than of the death. Joab still refuses, but gives an exacter reason than before. “Why wilt thou run? if thou go, the message is not a reward-bringing one,” not such a one as will bring thee profit (Bφttcher). Luther: “thou wilt not carry a good message.” Thenius alters the text after the Sept., and renders: “there is to thee no message leading to profit.” But according to the explanation given above, there is no need for such insertion and alteration. [Eng. A. V.: “thou hast no tidings ready,” but the signification “ready” is not easily gotten from the Hebrew word. Better: “thou hast no tidings sufficient” (Bib. Com.); that is, the Cushite has already carried the news; or, “thou hast no profitable tidings,” none that can do any body good. The Syr. is as Erdmann’s rendering, the Vulg. as Luther’s. See “Text, and Gramm.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:23. In the quick and lively account of the conversation, the phrase “and he said” (easily supplied by the reader) is omitted, as in 1 Samuel 1:20. The repetition of the “and be it as it may” shows Ahimaaz’s ardent desire to carry the tidings to David. He went “by the way of the plain,” the Jordan valley (Genesis 13:10-12; Genesis 19:17; Genesis 19:25; Genesis 19:29; Deuteronomy 34:3; 1 Kings 7:47). As “way” has here a local meaning, it cannot be explained as indicating a particular manner of running (Ewald: “he ran in the manner of the Kikkar (plain-) running”). [Erdmann supposes this statement to support the view that the battle was fought on the west of the river; but it has already been pointed out (see note on 2 Samuel 18:6) that it is here intimated that the Cushite did not go by the way of the Jordan-valley, which he must have done if he had come from the west to the east side. (Bib. Com. also calls attention to this fact in note on 2 Samuel 18:23.) Assuming that the scene of battle was on the east, the paths of Ahimaaz and the Cushite cannot be described with exactness; but if it was south-west of Mahanaim and near the river, the Cushite may have struck in over the hills, while Ahimaaz took the more level northward route along the river, and then passed in to Mahanaim (so Patrick). See Bib. Comm. in loco.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:24-27. That the two runners are seen by the watchman confirms the view that they both came through the Jordan-valley, and so could be seen afar off coming one after the other. The Cushite is seen in the same direction as Ahimaaz, and therefore they could not have come different ways (Thenius). 2 Samuel 18:24. David sat between the two gates (that is, in the space between the outer and the inner gate) waiting for tidings. The watchman went up to the roof of the gate on the wall.—That is, the outer gate connected with the city-wall. 2 Samuel 18:25. [The watchman reports to the king the approach of a runner.] The king said: If he be alone, there is good tidings in his mouth.—He has been despatched as a messenger. If the result was bad, several would come as fugitives. 2 Samuel 18:26. The watchman, seeing another man running, called out to the gate; “for here, at the farthest possible distance from the outer gate, the king must have taken his position, if he wished also to see the watchman on the flat roof” (Thenius). He also, said the king, brings good tidings—namely, since he comes alone. 2 Samuel 18:27. The watchman recognizes Ahimaaz, probably by the swiftness of his running. The king said, He is a good man, whom Joab would not have chosen as the messenger of evil. 2 Samuel 18:28-32. The double message.—Ahimaaz called out: Hail! [or, Peace! Eng. A. V. giving the sense: All is well!—Tr.] The brief exclamation corresponds to the haste of the runner, and gives David assurance of victory. It was understood, as a matter of course, that Ahimaaz would report on this point first. “The Lord hath shut up (the ground-meaning of the Verb is to be retained) thy enemies;” that is, the Lord has set bounds to thy enemies in their revolt, has surrounded and embraced them with His power, so that they can no longer stir. So Sept. and Vulg. Comp. 1 Samuel 17:46; 1 Samuel 24:19; 1 Samuel 26:8; Amos 1:6; Amos 1:9; Psalms 31:9 [8]. 2 Samuel 18:29. To David’s question concerning Absalom, Ahimaaz answers evasively. I saw, says he, the great tumult.—He describes it from personal observation—hence the Article. In the first part of Ahimaaz’s answer, Vulg., Luther and Michaelis render: “when the king’s servant, Joab, sent me, thy servant;” but “the king’s servant” is not the subject of the verbal form (Infin.), and besides the copula (“and thy servant”) renders this translation impossible, unless the text be altered and the copula omitted. “The king’s servant” is the Cushite, while Ahimaaz calls himself “thy servant.” The subject of the sentence, Joab, stands (as sometimes occurs in such Infinitive-constructions) after the object (so Joshua 14:11; Isaiah 5:24; Isaiah 29:23; Isaiah 20:1; Ezra 9:8; Psalms 56:1 [title]; 2 Chronicles 12:1. Comp. Ges. § 133, 3 Rem). [Dr. Erdmann renders here as Eng. A. V. Perhaps a better text would be: “when Joab sent thy servant;” it is not likely that Ahimaaz would call the Cushite “the king’s servant,” or mention him at all. See “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] Ahimaaz is unwilling to give the sad news; but he not only keeps back the truth, but makes the false impression that Absalom’s fate was not decided when Joab sent him off. 2 Samuel 18:30. Meantime the Cushite has arrived. At David’s command Ahimaaz stepped to one side (literally: “turned about”). The Cushite speaks in completely theocratic style: “The Lord hath done thee justice on thy enemies.” 2 Samuel 18:32 sq. He answers the question about Absalom indirectly, yet so as not only clearly to make known his death, but also to express condemnation of his hostile attempt against his father and king. The Cushite refers to God’s punitive justice in Absalom’s destruction—a fact that David in this moment of heart-rending grief loses sight of 2 Samuel 18:33 [Heb. 19:1]. “And the king was shaken” [Eng. A. V.: “was much moved”]. David’s behaviour is so vividly and touchingly portrayed as only an eye-witness could do it. Augustine (cont. Gaud. II. 14): “Absalom afflicted his father more by his death than by his life.” AND 1. The religious-moral character of David’s disposition of heart is clearly expressed in the Psalms pertaining to this gloomy time, through which the experiences of the royal singer have become the common possession of the theocratic community, and the source of comfort and strength to innumerable pious hearts. While Pss. 41. and 55. belong to the time of the development of Absalom’s insurrection, Psalms 3:4. are to be referred to the time immediately after David’s flight; for the particulars see Ewald, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, and Moll [in Lange’s Bible-Work]. Indeed, the time of day that gives coloring to each Psalm may be determined. They are not, however, both evening-songs, as Hengstenberg holds, who refers them to the evening of the day of flight; but Psalms 3. is a morning-song (J. H. Mich., Ew., Del., Moll), written after that dreadful day and the following night in which Ahithophel would have surprised him, and only Psalms 4. is to be regarded as an evening-song, whether written the day of the flight or the next day. “There is indeed,” says Moll on Psalms 3., “no special note of time, and the absence of such note is felt by many expositors to be a difficulty. But they fail to consider that we have here a specifically lyrical-religious effusion, which is not the expression of the feelings of an anxious father (as 2 Samuel 16:11), but sets forth the complaint and the confidence of faith of a commander and king (hard-pressed indeed, but cheerful in prayer) in such terse sentences and vigorous words that the reader hears the royal singer sigh, cry, weep from the bottom of his heart.” The first strophe of Psalms 3. (the title of which is: “Psalm of David when he fled from Absalom his son”), Psalms 3:2-3 [Psalms 3:1-2] describes his distress by reason of his numerous enemies, who revile him for his trust in God. In the second strophe, Psalms 3:4-5 [Psalms 3:3-4] he indicates his ground of hope, namely, that God, who has lifted up his head, will help and hear him. In the third strophe, Psalms 3:6-7 [Psalms 3:5-6] he expresses his confidence of faith, based on the experience of the Lord’s protection during the past night, to which this morning bears testimony. The fourth strophe, Psalms 3:8, 9 [Psalms 3:7-8] contains a prayer for deliverance and blessing, growing out of his confidence of faith and his ground of hope.—Psalms 4., as an evening-song, is a cry of the sorely-pressed singer to “his refuge of righteousness,” the creator and possessor of righteousness, the judge of unrighteousness, the protector and restorer of persecuted righteousness. Psalms 4:2 [Psalms 4:1] contains (with a reference to already experienced help) a prayer that God would hear him, Psalms 4:9 [Psalms 4:8], the confident conviction of its fulfilment. “The pillars of the bridge (Psalms 4:3-8) between distress and deliverance, prayer and confidence, are: 1) God’s choice of the singer, and the enemies’ opposition to the divine decision; 2) the singer’s sincere piety (Psalms 4:4 [Psalms 4:3]), the hypocritical and external religiosity of the enemies (see the words of Psa 4:6 [Psalms 4:5]: ‘offer the sacrifices of righteousness’); 3) the singer’s living trust in God, Psalms 4:7-8 [ Psalms 4:6-7], while the enemies trust in human helps; comp. the ‘trust in the Lord,’ Psalms 4:6 [5] (Hengstenberg). To these two Psalms we must add Psalms 63 on account of its direct reference to David’s stay as fugitive west of the Jordan. The title: “Psalm of David when he was in the wilderness of Judah” is confirmed by the agreement of the expressions, “thirsting in a dry land, without water,” with 2 Samuel 16:2; 2 Samuel 16:14; 2 Samuel 17:29, compared with 2 Samuel 15:23; 2 Samuel 15:28; 2 Samuel 17:16. The mention of the sanctuary, ’ Psalms 4:3 [Psalms 4:2] and the royal office, ’ Psalms 4:12 [ Psalms 4:11] forces us to refer it to the flight from Absalom, not to the Sauline persecution. The singer, “pining in the wilderness,” desires that God may be as near to him (’ Psalms 4:2 [1]) as He formerly was in the sanctuary, of which he is now, alas! deprived (’ Psalms 4:3 [Psalms 4:2]). His highest good and only comfort is God’s grace, which is “better than life,” and his communion with God (’ Psalms 4:2-4 [Psalms 4:1-3]), wherein he now even in suffering rejoices (’ Psalms 4:7-8 [Psalms 4:6-8]), having also the joyful hope for the future that the Lord will bless him (’ Psalms 4:5-6 [Psalms 4:4-5]) and judge his enemies (’ Psalms 4:10, 11 [Psalms 4:9, 10]), both of these being combined in ’ Psalms 4:12 [Psalms 4:11]: “But the king will rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by Him (God) shall glory; for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.” To the time of distress, when he was on the east of the Jordan, belong Psalms 61, 62. Psalms 61 expresses first the sorrowful feeling of homelessness, and removal from the sanctuary, whence the psalmist is banished to the “end of the earth” (’ Psalms 61:3 [Psalms 61:2]). All the more earnestly does he pray from afar (Psalms 61:2-5 [Psalms 61:1-4]) for deliverance from the evil, which he likens to a steep rock, and which he cannot escape without God’s guidance (Psalms 61:3 [Psalms 61:2]), appealing to God’s former acts of help (Psalms 61:4 [Psalms 61:3]), and begging for protection in the “tabernacle” (Psalms 61:5 [Psalms 61:4]). In Psalms 61:6-8 [Psalms 61:5-8] he states the ground of his confident prayer, referring to the prophetic word that assures him an everlasting dominion, himself affirming this dominion (on the ground of 2 Samuel 7., especially 2 Samuel 7:29), and closing with joyous thanksgiving for the mercy and truth that would defend him. In Psalms 42 David first affirms his trust in God, and the truth that rest and salvation are in Him alone (Psalms 42:2-3 [1, 2]). The wickedness of his enemies, who wish to deprive him of his God-given dignity and of his life, drives him to God (Psalms 42:4-5 [Psalms 42:3-4]). He calls on his soul to seek God only (Psalms 42:6-8 [Psalms 42:5-7]), and invites all to trust Him (Psalms 42:9 [Psalms 42:8]), warning against trust in all else (Psalms 42:10-11 [Psalms 42:9-10]), and giving in conclusion as the ground of all this God’s mighty power and love. Psalms 42:5-6 [Psalms 42:4-5], referring to attempts of enemies against his dignity and life, touch Psalms 3, 4, and point to the time of Absalom. Ewald: “From Psalms 42:5 [Psalms 42:4] the enemies seem to be slanderous fellow-citizens, who, relying on a newly-established power, attempt to cast the psalmist down to the ground and destroy him, because they cannot bear his spiritual superiority.” Closely allied with this Psalm is Psalms 39, which is therefore properly referred by several commentators (for example, Delitzsch) to the Absalomic time. David first declares that in the presence of the ungodly he was submissively silent, in order that he might avoid sin (Psalms 39:2-3 a [Psalms 39:1-2 a]). Yet he gave utterance to his burning grief (Psalms 39:3-4 [Psalms 39:2 b, Psalms 39:3]), and prays to be taught how brief is the measure of his days (Psalms 39:5-6 [Psalms 39:4-5]). The nothingness of human things forbids trust in them, therefore he will wait on the Lord alone (Psalms 39:7-8 [Psalms 39:6-7]). On this is founded next the prayer to be delivered from transgression, and from the reproach of the ungodly (Psalms 39:9 [Psalms 39:8]). He will not complain, indeed (“for thou, thou hast done it”), but he prays for deliverance, lest he be destroyed (Psalms 39:10-12 [Psalms 39:9-11]). Since he is only a sojourner and pilgrim, he prays that help may be given him before he departs.—To this time belong also Psalms 42, 43, which together form a whole. The Psalmist is east of the Jordan (Psalms 42:7 [Psalms 42:6]), and sorrowfully recalls the time when at the head of the rejoicing multitude (comp. 2 Samuel 6:14) he went to the house of the Lord (Psalms 42:5[Psalms 42:4]), lamenting the present desolation of the sanctuary by the enemy, who mock at him as one forsaken by God, in a land far from any holy place. With this is combined desire and hope of sharing in the service of the sanctuary. In both Psalms the enemies are described as internal as in the Absalomic psalms. Comp. Psalms 43:1 : “Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against a people without love [i. e., ‘ungodly’—Tr.]; deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man.” Thrice in the same words (Psalms 42:6 [Psalms 42:5], Psalms 42:12 [Psalms 42:11], Psalms 43:5) the Psalmist bids his unquiet soul “hope in God.” Not from the soul of David, indeed (Hengst., Thol.), but from his own soul does the Korahite psalmist [the title ascribes the song to the Sons of Korah] utter his lamentations and hopes; but the tones of the song are the same as those of the Davidic psalms of this time.—Further, Psalms 23, 26-27. owe their origin to the outward and inward experiences of the royal singer at this time (Del., Moll). In all of them the psalmist is far from the sanctuary, and longs to worship God in His house; in all there is the sharp contrast between the oppression of enemies, and trust in God. The refreshing aid of friends, narrated in 2 Samuel 17:27 sq., he extols in Psalms 23 as the kindness of God, his good shepherd; here we recognize the tones of Psa 3:7 [ Psalms 3:6]; Psalms 4:8 [Psalms 4:7]; Psalms 63.—The enemies, described in Psalms 26 are identical in character with the abettors of the insurrection of Absalom. The psalmist appeals to his righteous life, and to the tribunal of God, and prays not to be carried off with sinners, from whom he has ever been separate, and by reason of his love for the sanctuary will still be separate; confidently he looks for help from the Lord, and restoration to the sanctuary.—While this Psalm closes in joyful hope, Psalms 27 begins with the expression of happy confidence in God, affirms the hope of victory over enemies, and vows a thank-offering for deliverance to the Lord in His sanctuary.—Psalms 28 (in many respects similar to Psalms 27) is a passionate cry in the midst of danger for requital on enemies, and for deliverance for the Lord’s Anointed and for His people. It closes with: “the Lord is the saving strength of His Anointed. O help thy people and bless thy heritage, and feed them and bear them up forever.”2. In these psalms are contained the following truths, valid for all times and relations of the kingdom of God, especially for times of depression and convulsion. The Lord permits such times to come to purify His people, and by sifting to determine who are for Him and who against Him, and for both these classes they contain lessons. The former [God’s people] are, as David, 1) in humble penitence to confess that their own sins have helped to bring distress on God’s kingdom; 2) to learn, for the strengthening of their faith, that not human power and wisdom, but God’s, conduct and further the affairs of His kingdom; 3) to see, for their consolation, that no human power shall long hinder, or even destroy this kingdom, and 4) to recall, for their joy, God’s deeds in the past, which He has not performed in vain, and His sure promises, which will not be left unfulfilled.—On the other hand, the enemies of God’s kingdom are to reflect that they are only instruments in His hand for chastising His house, that their anti-godly work has its limits in the will and command of the Almighty God, and that they can escape His wrath only by humbly bowing under His hand and giving Him the honor. 3. The faithfulness of human love, strengthening in need and cheering in misfortune, is not only the copy, but also the means and instrument of the faithfulness of the divine love, granted to those that how humbly beneath God’s hand, and wholly trust Him. 4. In the contest for the holy cause of the kingdom of God all those that are called to defend it, must thoroughly combine all the forces that willingly offer themselves, in order to overcome the power of evil. But, with all bravery and all anger against evil, the servant of God must guard against sinful fleshly anger, and bring God’s merciful love as near as possible to the authors of the evil, in order to afford them the opportunity and means of conversion, and to save them from destruction. While their evil cause falls under the divine judgment, through human hands, the human hand is not arbitrarily and self-led to be laid on their persons, but to commend them to God, whether they may not be brought to repentance by His long-suffering, by the failure of their wicked undertakings and the exhibition therein given of God’s punitive justice. 5. He who (as Joab), self-determined, angry, merely executing strict justice, anticipating God’s judgment, sits in judgment on his neighbor and executes judgment on him, himself falls under the divine judgment. Comp. 1 Kings 2:28-34. 6. David’s lament over Absalom, as a father’s lament over his lost son, was not in itself in conflict with his theocratic calling, with all his force, to restore the kingdom of God, on the ground of God’s promises to him, against his son, even at the cost of his destruction. Peter Martyr: “in his heart two feelings met, grief for his son and joy in the divine judgment, so that he could say: just art thou, O Lord, thy judgment is right. But these feelings of joy and grief, being contrary to one another, could not have place together in his mind.” It is psychologically perfectly natural and ethically unexceptionable to feel grief at the judicial destruction of a human life and soul near and dear to us, as David here for Absalom, and at the same time to give place to anger at the unauthorized intrusion of a violent human hand into the course of divine judgment on a lost man, whose soul might else have been saved. But one may easily sin (as David did) in such justifiable sorrow and anger, by weakly yielding to passionate excitement, and holding merely to the human, so that the eye of the spirit loses sight of the earnestness of the divine justice, which permits unauthorized human intrusion into its plans, in order thus to complete itself, and to secure its ends over all human thoughts and weakly human feelings. Kurtz (Herz. III. 304): “Absalom’s sin and shame had two sides: there was in it the curse that David’s sin brought on David’s house (2 Samuel 12:10), the misdeed of the fathers, that is visited on the children (Exodus 20:5),—and not less Absalom’s own wickedness and recklessness, which made him the bearer of the family-curse. David looks at Absalom’s deed not on the latter side, but on the former (for his own guilt seems to him so great, that he looks little at Absalom’s); hence his deep, boundless compassion for his misguided son.”—This king’s path was full of tears. He wept when he parted from Jonathan and went into banishment; he wept when Saul and Jonathan perished; he wept over the death of the son of Bathsheba begotten in adultery; he wept over the murder of his son Amnon by Absalom; he wept when, a dethroned fugitive, he ascended the Mount of Olives; he mentions the tears that he so often shed on his lonesome bed; he weeps most violently and longest over Absalom’s terrible end, since he saw herein the culmination of God’s judgments on his house, which he had incurred by his sin. Augustine: “Not in his life does he weep for him, but when he is dead, because all hope of salvation for him, was then cut off.” But his unrestrained tears, his immoderate grief, as the following narrative shows, obscured his view of the divine judgment, that of necessity came upon Absalom on account of his own reckless wickedness. AND 2 Samuel 17:24 to 2 Samuel 18:8. The proof of genuine fidelity in troubled times: 1) By willing gifts of love to relieve bodily need; 2) By swift help in battle against an evil foe; 3) By offering our own person to save the dear life of our friend; and 4) By tenderly showing forbearance towards his wounded heart in the conflict against the author of his distress.—God wonderfully helps His people in battling for the interests of His kingdom: 1) By awakening and revealing hidden and faithful love, which consoles and refreshes (2 Samuel 17:24-29); 2) By collecting brave soldiers, who shrink not from taking part in the battle (2 Samuel 18:1-4); 3) By securing glorious victory even against the apparently superior foe (2 Samuel 17:5-8). 2 Samuel 18:5-16. Divine righteousness and human compassion towards the adversaries of God’s kingdom: 1) Divine righteousness in executing its judgment upon wickedness and the wicked goes its own way, independently of the feelings of human compassion for their purification and rectification. Yet 2) Human compassion is not excluded by thinking of the earnestness of the divine righteousness; but as a daughter of the divine compassion, when engaged in delivering a human life from eternal ruin, it has a right to ask that it may glory against judgment, so far as in the counsel of God patience and long-suffering is still resolved on. 2 Samuel 18:9-18. Heaven-wide opposites that cannot be reconciled: 1) God’s strict righteousness, when the measure of His holy wrath is full, and human compassion, when the measure of the divine patience and long-suffering is full; 2) Rude exercise of power, which in self-will and recklessness destroys a human life, and tender conscientiousness, which fears to strive against God by attempts upon a human life; 3) The honor, which man in his pride prepares for himself before the world, and the shame, with which God punishes such pride. 2 Samuel 18:19-33. Sweet and bitter in the leadings and dispensations of God: 1) From one source—the Lord’s wise counsel; 2) For one and the same human heart—in order to humble and exalt it; 3) To a like end—the Lord’s glory. Fr. Arndt: David’s victory over Absalom—how it Isaiah 1) prepared, 2) gained, and 3) crowned. 2 Samuel 7:27-29. Schlier: In the fidelity of men David was to recognize the fidelity of the Lord; he was to take courage from the fact that the Lord, who is such a friend, and in the midst of his wretchedness has cared for him, will also care for him still further, and help him out of all his wretchedness. Precisely thus, at the present day also, the Lord our God deals with His children. He leads us into trouble, it is true, but in the midst of trouble He sends us refreshing again.—Starke: So God knows how to refresh His people in time of need, even through strangers, from whom nothing would have been expected (Psalms 34:11 [(Psalms 34:10]; Psalms 37:19).—S. Schmid: A righteous cause finds everywhere its supporters and defenders. Chap 2 Samuel 18:1 sqq. Fr. Arndt: O when a man first reaches the point that he is lord of his pain, that no longer sorrow rules over him, but he rules over his sorrow, that thoughtfulness, quiet and peace returns into his heart, then he is again in a good way, no more brought to a stand but in progress, and a door is opened for all help and deliverance.—Osiander: Though we ought to trust God, yet we ought in so doing to neglect nothing that we have and can fitly use to turn away the evil.—[Henry: It is no piece of wisdom to be stiff in our resolutions, but to be willing to hear reason, even from our inferiors, and to be overruled by their advice, when it appears to be for our own good. Whether the people’s prudence had an eye to it or no, God’s providence wisely ordered it that David should not be in the field of battle; for then his tenderness had certainly interposed to save Absalom’s life, whom God had determined to destroy.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:4-8 : Schlier: Easy gained, easy lost. Absalom’s example shows that. And to-day also, in great as in small things, how can it be otherwise than according to the saying, Easy gained, easy lost. But another thing we also clearly see from this history: If God is left, we are not forsaken. David held fast to his God, even when the world stormed in upon him from all sides. Let us hold fast to the Lord, let us perseveringly wait for His help. To us also He will at the right time assuredly send help.—[Henry: Absalom and David …..each did his utmost, and showed what he could do; how bad it is possible for a child to he to the best of fathers, and how good it is possible for a father to be to the worst of children; as if it were designed to be a resemblance of man’s wickedness towards God, and God’s mercy toward man, of which it is hard to say which is more amazing.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:9. Starke: God punishes the disobedience of children to their parents very severely (Proverbs 30:17; Proverbs 20:20; Deuteronomy 27:16).—Osiander: Those who are puffed up with the gifts that God has granted them, and misuse them for the ends of arrogance and luxury, are often brought by these very gifts to ruin.—S. Schmid: A man whom the divine vengeance is pursuing does not escape. 2 Samuel 18:14 sqq. S. Schmid: He must be a very bad man who is not attracted to what is good by the good example of his subordinates. 2 Samuel 18:17 sq. Cramer: As the death of the saints is precious (Psalms 116:15), so on the contrary the death of the ungodly is little esteemed and horrible (Psalms 34:22).—Starke: As the memory of the just is blessed (Proverbs 10:7), so the memory of the ungodly abides in dishonor and shame. 2 Samuel 18:19 sq. Starke: Joy is always the beginning of sorrow, and good and evil fortunes are in this world always mingled.—Hedinger [from Hall]: O how welcome deserve those messengers to be that bring us the glad tidings of salvation, that assure us of the foil of all spiritual enemies, and tell us of nothing but victories, and crowns, and kingdoms. 2 Samuel 18:28. Starke: When one has obtained a victory, he should ascribe it to God Himself, and not to human powers (2 Chronicles 25:8). 2 Samuel 18:29. Schlier: David knows well how to bring his duty as ruler into harmony with his duty to his family; for he has a kingly heart full of kingly thoughts, and yet has also a faithful fatherly heart, full of love and compassion, and who should not be glad to learn from such a man? We recognize the upright man in the fidelity he shows to both his calling and his kinsmen, and he who little esteems the one or the other does not rightly do his duty. [It is not necessary to maintain that David did just right in the matter. Certainly he sometimes erred very greatly; and in this case his parental fondness seems to have overbalanced his sense of duty as a king.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 18:32 sq. S. Schmid: Pious parents are justly more anxious for their dissolute children than for the pious and obedient, because they are nearer to ruin.—Berl. Bible: God is the true and only source of all parental love and all the compassion which parents maintain even towards their ungodly Absaloms.—[Taylor: But the worst ingredient in this cup of anguish would be, I think, the consciousness in David’s heart that if he had himself been all he ought to have been, his son might not thus have perished. …… David now professes, and I believe with truth, to desire that he had died for Absalom; but that was a vain wish. He ought to have lived more for Absalom. He ought, by his own character, to have taught him to love holiness, or, at all events, he ought to have seen that there was nothing in his own conduct to encourage his son in wickedness, or to provoke him to wrath; and then, though Absalom had made shipwreck, he might have had the consolation that he had done his utmost to prevent such a catastrophe.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:14. The death of Absalom: 1) He has missed his golden opportunity. (He slighted Ahithophel’s counsel, and now David has organized a strong army.) 2) He has fought desperately, but in vain (2 Samuel 18:6). 3) The very objects of his vanity have occasioned his ignominy (riding the royal mule, his long hair). 4) His father’s often abused fondness continues to the end, but no longer avails him (2 Samuel 13:39; 2 Samuel 18:5; 2 Samuel 18:11-15; 2 Samuel 18:33). 5) His splendid gifts and reckless ambition have brought him only ruin, and destined him to immortal infamy (2 Samuel 18:17-18).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 18:33. David mourning over Absalom; 1) Wherein it was right. a) Parental love is indestructible. b) Absalom was not wholly bad, and his faults had been aggravated by the misconduct of others. c) David was conscious that all this was a chastening required by his own sins. 2) Wherein it was wrong. a) In that it excluded gratitude to his faithful and brave followers (2 Samuel 19:1 sqq.). b) In preventing attention to the pressing duties of his position (2 Samuel 19:7). c) In causing him to overlook the fact that as long as Absalom lived, the kingdom could have no peace. d) In so far as it was not tempered by submission to the will of Jehovah.—Tr.] Footnotes: Read ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ instead of ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ (obviously an error from following ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ). [He was probably willing not to have to go in person against Absalom (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.] Read the Qeri πָ ?τεֹ ?φֶ ?ϊ, “scattered,” Niph. Particip. fem. [of τּ ?εּ ?υ], instead of the Kethib πτְ ?φεּ ?ϊ, “dispersal” [Ges. reads πְ ?τֻ ?φεֹ ?ϊ, “was scattered.”—Tr.] ιִ ?χָּ ?ψֶ ?δ = ιִ ?χָּ ?ψֵ ?ΰ, Niphal. [See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.] [This sum would be equivalent to one hundred dollars at the present day.—On the various kinds of ancient girdles (a necessary article of dress for men and women), including that of the high-priest, and on the custom of presenting them as gifts (still found in Persia), see Art. Girdle in Smith’s Bib.-Dict.—Tr.] Read Qeri μεּ, with most ancient versions. On this construction of ξִ ?ι with aposiopesis see Exodus 24:14; Judges 7:3, and below, 2 Samuel 18:22; 2 Samuel 18:33. Ewald, § 104 d, a. μּ ?ι for ξִ ?ι is conjecture. [The custom still exists, in respect to robbers, for example. See Thomson, Land and Book, II. 234.—Tr.] See an exact description of it in Titus Tobler’s Siloahquelle und der �lberg (1852), p. 267 sqq. [Its base is surrounded by Ionic pillars; it is doubtful whether it is a tomb. See Robinson I. 350.—Tr.] Read the Qeri λִּ ?ιςַ ?μΞλֵּ ?ο (the λֵּ ?ο has evidently fallen out by reason of the following αֶּ ?ο); it = “because” (Genesis 18:5; Genesis 19:8), see Ges. § 155, 2 d. Maurer [so Syr., Chald.,] retains the Kethib (λִּ ?ιςַ ?μ) and renders: “for concerning the king’s son as dead (thou wouldest have to carry tidings).” But 1) this addition [of a sentence to the construction] is suspicious, and 2) if ξֵ ?ϊ [“dead”] belonged to “the king’s son” as Adjective, it must have the Article. εִ ?ιδִ ?ιξָ ?δ. Comp. Ew. § 104 d: quidquid id est. μְ ?ξָ ?δ .εּ ?μְ ?λָ ?δΰֵ ?ιοΞαְּ ?ωׂ ?ψָ ?δξֹ ?φֵ ?ΰϊ is here permissive Imperative (Bφttcher, Thenius): “go thou” = “and if thou go” (as ϊְּ ?πָ ?δ, Psalms 8:2 [1]). It can be taken (with Preposition) as Pronoun = μְ ?κָ (Genesis 27:37) only where it is conditioned by the word-tone (Bφttcher), as Numbers 22:33; 1 Samuel 1:26; Psalms 141:8. Here, however, ΰֵ ?ιο, not μְ ?λָ ?δ (as = thee), has the tone, for the message was profitable for nobody. Thenius: μְ ?αֶ ?φַ ?ςξεֹ ?φֵ ?ΰϊ, Hiph. Particp. of ιָ ?φָ ?ΰ. But the word is Act. Qal. Particp. of ξφΰ, “to come upon” = “that comes on (finds)” an end or a reward. αִּ ?λָּ ?ψ with or without δַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?γֵּ ?ο. [The word (αְּ ?ωׂ ?ψָ ?δ) sometimes means good tidings, sometimes bad tidings, sometimes simply tidings; the meaning in any particular case must be decided by the context. Here either “tidings” or “good tidings” would give a proper sense.—Tr.] Read ωַׁ ?ςַ ?ψ “gate” instead of ωֹׁ ?ςֵ ?ψ “porter.” [This change of the text (after Sept., Vulg., Syr.) seems hardly necessary. The watchman may have called to the porter, and the porter to the king. The expression “called to (or, towards) the gate” is certainly possible and intelligible, but still strange and unexampled. The fact that the porter is not said to speak to the king makes some difficulty, but not enough to call for a change of text.—Tr.] Vulg.: contristatus est, “was grieved.” [Erdmann gives the Sept. rendering of this word (εַ ?ιִּ ?ψְ ?βַּ ?ο) as ἐδάκρυσεν (wept), which he rightly characterizes as weak; but though this word is given in the text of Stier and Theile’s Polyglot (an eclectic text), both the Vatican and the Alexandrian texts have the strong and appropriate rendering, ἐταράχθη, “violently perturbed.”—Tr.] [It is clear that the internal proofs here adduced by the author of the origination of these Psalms (especially Psalms 23, 26-28, 42, 43.) in the insurrection of Absalom are of a very general nature, and cannot be considered as a demonstration. The lessons drawn from them, however, are not the less valid from the uncertainty of the authorship.—Tr.] THIRD SECTIONThe Restoration of David’s Royal Authority, which was now Endangered by Dissension between Judah and Israel and by the Insurrection of Sheba2 Samuel 19-20I. The Way opened for the Restoration of David’s Kingdom by Joab’s Reproof of his Immoderate Grief for Absalom. 2 Samuel 19:1-8 [Hebrews 2-9] 1And it was told Joab, Behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom. 2And the victory [deliverance] that day was turned into mourning unto all the people; for the people heard say that day how [om. how, ins.:] The king was [is] grieved for his Song of Solomon 3 And the people gat them by stealth that day into the city, as 4people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle. But [And] the king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son! 5And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which [who] this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines, in that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest 6thy friends. For thou hast declared this day that thou regardest neither [not] princes nor [and] servants; for this day I perceive that, if Absalom had lived 7and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. Now, therefore [And now], arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants; for I swear by the Lord [Jehovah], if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night; and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befel [hath befallen] 8thee from thy youth until now. Then [And] the king arose, and sat in the gate. And they told unto all the people, saying, Behold, the king doth sit in the gate; and all the people came before the king. [Transfer the rest of this verse to the next verse.] II. David prepares for his Return by Negotiations with the Men of Judah. 2 Samuel 19:9-14 [Heb. 10–15] For [And] Israel had fled, every man to his tent. 9And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for [from] Absalom. 10And Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now, therefore [And now], why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back? 11And king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye [will ye be] the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king even [om. even] to his house.8 12Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones [bone] and my flesh; wherefore, then are ye [and why will ye be] the last to bring back the king? 13And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of [om. of] my bone and of [om. of] my flesh? God do so to me and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room [instead] of Joab. 14And he bowed [inclined] the heart of all the men of Judah even [om. even] as the the heart of one man; so that [and] they sent this word unto the king, Return thou, and all thy servants. III. David’s Passage over the Jordan under the Escort of the Men of Judah, with Three Incidents. 2 Samuel 19:15-40 a [Heb. 16–41 a] 1. Pardoning of Shimei. 2 Samuel 19:15-23 [Heb. 16–24] 15So [And] the king returned, and came to [ins. the] Jordan. And Judah came to Gilgal, to go to meet the king, to conduct the king over [ins. the] Jordan. 16And Shimei, the son of Gera, a [the] Benjamite [Benjaminite], which was of 17Bahurim, hasted and came down with the men of Judah to meet king David, And there were [om. there were] a thousand men of Benjamin with him, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, and his fifteen sons and his twenty servants with him; and they went over [ins. the] Jordan before the king. 18And there went over a ferry-boat [And the ferry-boat went over] to carry over the king’s household, and to do what he thought good. And Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king as he was come over [ins. the] Jordan; 19And said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember [and remember not] that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart. 20For thy servant doth know that I have sinned; therefore [and] behold, I am come the first this day of all the 21house of Joseph to go [come] down to meet my lord the king. But [And] Abishai the son of Zeruiah answered, and said, Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed? 22And David said. What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah [ins.?] that ye should [for ye will] this day be adversaries unto me? [om.?] shall there any man be put to death this day 23in Israel? for do I not know that I am this day king over Israel? Therefore [And] the king said unto Shimei, Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him. 2. Mephibosheth’s Apology. 2 Samuel 19:24-30 [Heb. 25–31] 24And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day king departed until the day he came again in peace. 25And it came to pass, when he was come to [better from] Jerusalem to meet the king, that the king said unto him, Wherefore wentest thou not with me, Mephibosheth? 26And he answered [said], My lord, O king, my servant deceived me; for thy servant said, I will saddle me an [the] ass, that I may [and] ride thereon, and go to the king, because thy servant is lame. And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king. 27But my lord the king is as an angel of God; do, therefore, what is good in thine 28eyes. For, all of my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king; yet didst thou [and thou didst] set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table; what right, therefore, [and what right] have I yet to cry any more unto the king? 29And the king said unto him, Why speakest thou any more of thy matter? I have said [I say], Thou and Ziba divide the land. 30And Mephibosheth said unto the king, Yea, let him take all [Let him also take all] forasmuch as [after] my lord the king is come again [om. again] in peace unto his own house. 3. Barzillai’s Greeting and Blessing. 2 Samuel 19:31-40 a [Heb. 32–41 a] 31And Barzillai the Gileadite came down from Rogelim, and went over [ins. the] 32Jordan with the king, to conduct him over [ins. the] Jordan. Now [And] Barzillai was a very aged man, even [om. even] fourscore years old; and he had provided the king of sustenance while he lay at Mahanaim; for he was a very great man. 33And the king said unto Barzillai, Come thou over with me, and I will feed thee with me in Jerusalem. 34And Barzillai said unto the king, How long have I to live [How many are the days of the years of my life] that I should go up with the king to Jerusalem? 35I am this day fourscore years old; and [om. and] can I discern between good and evil? can thy servant taste what I eat or [and] what I drink? can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? wherefore then [and why] should thy servant be yet a burden unto my lord the king? 36Thy servant will go a little way over [ins. the] Jordan with the king; and why should the king recompense it me with such a reward [do me this favor]? Let thy servant, I pray thee, turn back again [return], that I may die in mine own city and be buried [om. and be buried] by the grave of my father and of my mother. But behold thy servant Chimham, let him go over [37let thy servant Chimham go over] with my lord the king; and do to him what shall seem good unto thee. 38And the king answered [said], Chimham shall go over with me, and I will do to him that which shall seem good unto thee; and whatsoever thou shalt require of me, that will I do for thee. And all the people went over [ins. the] Jordan. 39And when the king was come over, the king kissed Barzillai, and blessed him; 40and he returned unto his own place. Then [And] the king went on to Gilgal, and Chimham went on with him. AND . 2 Samuel 19:1-8. David’s immoderate grief for Absalom stopped by Joab’s earnest representations. 2 Samuel 19:1. And it was told Joab, comp. 2 Samuel 18:33. The purpose of the informant, it seems, was to explain to Joab and the army why the king did not come forth to greet his returning victorious warriors. [Joab had apparently just returned from the field of battle.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 19:2-3. Touching description of the impression made on the people by David’s violent grief, and their quiet and repressed behaviour. The deliverance that was achieved by the victory changed into mourning for the whole people.—The news spread everywhere (“the people heard that it was said”): “The king mourns for his son.” But these men’s hearty participation in the sorrow of the beloved king, for whom they had perilled their lives, soon changed to gloomy dissatisfaction at the fact that the king, absorbed in his private grief, did not deign to bestow a look on them. The description of the manner in which the troops, thus dissatisfied, returned to the city, is psychologically very fine. They stole away to enter the city, i.e., not: avoided entering the city (Vulgate, Luther, Mich., Niemeyer), but, instead of entering in military order as a victorious host, scattered and entered individually or in small groups, unobserved, as people steal in that have disgraced themselves by fleeing in battle, as disgraced fugitives. Mourning, therefore, instead of joy of victory, seeming shame instead of honor. 2 Samuel 19:4. Continued violent grief of David, who, overmastered by his feelings, forgets what he owes not only to the army, but also to his people and his royal position. “Certainly the army, which had perilled goods and life to win the fugitive king back his kingdom, is very much concerned at his immoderate affliction, and Joab, who was doubtless conscious of having acted with a proper apprehension of the public situation, takes the liberty by an earnest word to remind the king of his governmental duty” (Baumgarten). [The king covered his face, a sign of extreme grief or shame; comp. Isaiah 53:3 : “he was as one hiding his face from us.” He cried, with a loud voice, according to the open and violent mode of expressing grief common in the East (and so also the heroes of the Iliad); there are striking illustrations of this in the Arabian Nights.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 19:5-7. Joab’s representations to David, and first, accusatory reproof (2 Samuel 19:5-6), which is only partially just (2 Samuel 19:5). David had certainly, contrary to his duty as king and commander-in-chief of the army, done what Joab reproaches him with in the words: Thou hast to-day shamed the faces of all thy servants,= “Thou hast destroyed the hopes (thy army’s of praise, thy nearest friends’ of joy”) (Thenius). It behooved the king to give the victorious army a reception in keeping with the victory. Who have saved thy life and the life of all thine, for this they put their lives at stake. [If Absalom had conquered, David and his whole household would probably have been slain, such being the Oriental custom.—Tr.].—But Joab’s reproof goes on to what is partially untrue, 2 Samuel 19:6 : in that thou lovest them that hate thee, etc. This was true, certainly, for Absalom, who was his father’s enemy, was now the object of his father’s love; but it was a bitter untruth when Joab added: and hatest them that love thee; David had not deserved such a misapprehension of his heart and disposition, though his conduct had given occasion to it. That leaders and servants are not for thee, that is, not: that they are nothing (worth nothing) to thee (De Wette, Keil), but: are for thee as if they do not exist; Vulg.: “because thou carest not for thy leaders.” I perceive to day that, if Absalom lived, and we were all dead today, then.—As Absalom, if he had conquered, would certainly have slain with his father all his household also (2 Samuel 19:5), so, says Joab, if Absalom had lived (as David in his lamentation desired) and he himself (Joab) had been slain in his place, David’s whole army would have shared in his destruction. Joab dissects David’s words of lamentation with inexorable cruelty, and draws thence with his intellectual acuteness and the grim bitterness of his rude nature consequences that are seemingly logical, yet lay far from David’s nature, though his conduct looked like what he was reproached with.—Happily, Joab’s speech—which bears the stamp of military rudeness, disappointed ambition, cruel hard-heartedness and bitter resentment, and finds its justification only in the fact that it set aside David’s weak grief—softens in the following words (2 Samuel 19:7), wherein he earnestly presses good counsel on David, and thus deserves well of him and the people. Arise, go forth, tear thyself from the grief in which thou art lost. Speak to the heart of thy servants (Homer’s καταθύμια [comp. Eng. encourage]), in friendly fashion, satisfy and refresh their minds; so the Vulg. (comp. Genesis 34:3; Genesis 1:21 and many other passages). The meaning is not: “speak of their heart,” i.e., their courage = praise them for their bravery (Jos.), which is against the usual signification of the words. I swear, if thou go not forth … Joab does not threaten that he will lead the army away [Josephus], but he describes the indubitable result of the dissatisfaction in the army: it will not stay. Thus he points out what consequences David’s behaviour will have for his throne. Worse than all the evil, Joab rightly says, that would be; for by abandonment to grief he would give up the kingdom that God had a second time bestowed on him. Clericus: “He intimates that the troops would abandon David, who, from silly weakness and foolish love of Absalom, acted as if he were angry with the victorious army, and elect another king.” 2 Samuel 19:8. The effect of Joab’s sharp words was that David shook off his grief, and seated himself in the gate. The news goes quickly through the people. All the people came before the king, who, in accordance with Joab’s counsel, expressed to them his thanks and his kind feeling. Thus was the danger to David’s throne from the spirit of disintegration (which, as the succeeding history shows, continued after the victory) set aside by Joab’s sharp and bitter word, which David took patiently, because he was obliged to acknowledge its justness. II. 2 Samuel 19:9-14. Negotiations for David’s return. The last part of 2 Samuel 19:8 must be combined with 2 Samuel 19:9 into one sentence: And when Israel had fled, every man to his tent (comp. 2 Samuel 19:19) all the people strove together in all the tribes of Israel.—It is the other tribes, excepting Judah, that are meant. Among them, after their terrible defeat, the revolutionary excitement had soon passed away, and by this victory, whereby the land was saved from grievous misfortune, men’s minds were turned to David, as they recalled his heroic deeds at home and abroad. All the people strove together, reproaching one another with delay in bringing back the king. Why do ye keep quiet about bringing back the king?—The people are reassembled after their dispersion; their representatives consult together zealously about the restoration to the throne, to which they had raised the insurgent Absalom by the act of anointing. They reproach one another for doing nothing to restore the king. In their hearts, therefore, they feel the grievous wrong they have done an anointed of the Lord, as is shown indirectly by their words, in which David’s great deeds and the misfortunes of the terrible time just past are mentioned; and now they prepare for the deed of solemnly going to meet David, whereby they will declare that their hearts have returned to him in the old love and fidelity.—In 2 Samuel 19:9 after the word “land,” the Sept. adds: “and from his kingdom and,” meant doubtless as an explanatory statement.—At the end of 2 Samuel 19:10 [Hebrews 11] the Sept., Vulg. (some MSS.) and Syriac have: “and the word of all Israel came to the king,” which occurs in the Heb. at the end of 2 Samuel 19:11 [Hebrews 12], and is there repeated by the versions [except Syr.—Tr.] only the “to his house” is not added in 2 Samuel 19:10. If these words belonged at the end of 2 Samuel 19:10, they would assign the motive of David’s message in 2 Samuel 19:11 (Then., Bφttch., Ew.); but we must hold (with Keil) that the difficulty that was found in them in 2 Samuel 19:11 (as an explanatory sentence) occasioned their insertion in 2 Samuel 19:10 as the ground of David’s message in 2 Samuel 19:11.2 Samuel 19:11. David sent, not “the two high-priests Zadok and Abiathar to the elders” (Ewald), but a message to these two priests, who had remained in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 15:27), to say to the elders: Why will ye be the last to bring the king back to his house? The rest of the verse declares that David’s message was occasioned by information of the procedures in the other tribes.*Ver 12. My brethren are ye, my bone and my flesh are ye, that is, my nearest kindred, and the sharers of my name. The backwardness of Judah in the movement to restore David is explained by the fact that the insurrection started in Judah, and Absalom was first recognized as king in Jerusalem. Cornelius a Lapide: “Conscious that they had offended David, and fearing Absalom’s garrison in Zion, they did not dare to recall him.” 2 Samuel 19:13. David sends to Amasa, Absalom’s general (2 Samuel 17:25), referring to their relationship (1 Chronicles 2:16-17), and promises him with solemn oath the chief command of the army in place of Joab. Ewald well says that this “was not only a wise and politic act, but strictly considered no injustice to Joab, who, long notorious by his military roughness, had now shown such disobedience to the royal command in the case of Absalom, as could not be pardoned without offence to the king’s dignity.” 2 Samuel 19:14. And he inclined, that is, David (who is the subject in the preceding verse), not Amasa or one of the priests. It is conjectured by Thenius, and regarded as certain by Bφttcher, that a passage has fallen out before 2 Samuel 19:14, because otherwise there is no mention of the carrying out of David’s instructions and the effect of the promise to Amasa, whereby the change in Judah was produced; but such an insertion is not indicated in any of the ancient versions, and is not required by the connection.—After telling what David did in order to rouse his own tribe in consequence of the information received from the other tribes, the narrative states briefly that his wise procedure was crowned with complete success. He turned to him the heart of all the men of Judah as that of one man. With one accord they answered that they awaited his return, and made arrangements to bring him solemnly back. [“David was sagacious enough to see that to go back to his own people by force had its dangers, and that to wait long for a universal invitation had equal dangers. His own tribe ought to be foremost in welcoming him home, but they had rebelled with Absalom. He resolved at once to reassure them of his favor, and … even to make some concession to them ……This master-stroke of policy and of magnanimity was successful. The hearts of the people melted as one heart. It was the old David of Engedi and Ziklag. They sent a prompt invitation to him” (Knox, David, the King, pp. 377, 378).—Throughout this narrative the tribal feeling, which never wholly disappeared, is apparent; see 2 Samuel 19:12; 2 Samuel 20:4; 2 Samuel 16:8.—Tr.] III. 2 Samuel 19:15-40. David’s return over the Jordan under the escort of the men of Judah. 2 Samuel 19:15. The king returned, namely, from Mahanaim with his army and all his retinue, and came to the Jordan, comp. 2 Samuel 16:22; what a contrast to his situation when he went over the Jordan as a fugitive! On the other side Judah came to Gilgal, which (lying west of the Jordan-valley, below Jericho) was the rendezvous for the men that were solemnly to conduct David across the river from his position on the eastern bank. Thus is clearly given the scene of the following three incidents of the transit. 1. 2 Samuel 19:16-24. Shimei’s meeting with David, and his pardon. 2 Samuel 19:16. Shimei—of Bahurim, comp. 2 Samuel 16:5 sq., 1 Kings 2:8 sq.—“came down” from the mountainous table-land into the Jordan-valley, having joined the men of Judah as they advanced to Gilgal to meet the king. 2 Samuel 19:17. The thousand Benjaminites with him (who had, therefore, joined the procession of the Judahites) show the consideration he enjoyed in the tribe of Benjamin, and testified that a change had taken place in the former hostile feeling in this tribe towards David (comp. 2 Samuel 19:21). He brought this large band in order to do greater honor to the king (S. Schmid). Among the Benjaminites, Ziba (who, at David’s flight, had acted a part so injurious to Mephibosheth) is specially mentioned, because he, with Shimei, represented the former adherents of Saul’s house. He came with his fifteen sons and twenty servants probably with a bad conscience, in order to ward off betimes the effect of Mephibosheth’s counter-statements. For Shimei and Ziba, with their attendants, show themselves very quick and eager to come to the king, who was still on the eastern bank of the river; not: “they went over” (Then. [Eng. A. V.]), nor: “came prosperously to” (S. Schmid), but: “they went quickly (pressed) over the Jordan,” just as they had hastened down into the valley; and they did this in the presence of the king, who, they meant, should learn their zeal from their haste. 2 Samuel 19:18. Meantime, the ferry-boat, appointed to carry over the king’s household, was in motion. While this was going on, Shimei fell down before the king, as he (Shimei) was come over the Jordan; the prostration was synchronous with the completion of the transit. David cannot be the subject [of the verb “was come over”], as Keil and Bunsen suppose, for then, either it must read: “as he was purposing to go over,” which is grammatically inadmissible, or: “when he had gone over,” which would not be according to the fact, since the king was still on the left [eastern] bank, and did not cross till after these incidents, comp. 2 Samuel 19:40-41. 2 Samuel 19:19. The iniquity for which Shimei asks pardon is his curse (2 Samuel 16:5 sq.); he begs the king not to remember it, to forgive and forget, not to take it into his heart and keep it there (the translation of Keil and De Wette: “that the king should take note of it” is too weak); not to make it the object of memory and thought. 2 Samuel 19:20. The ground of his request, namely, the confession: I acknowledge my sin, and the substantial proof of his penitence: I am come the first of the house of Joseph. Bφttcher and Thenius, from the reading of the Sept.: “of all Israel and of the house of Joseph,” adopt “of all the house of Israel” as the true text, regarding the “Joseph” as the insertion of a later hand, in the time of the divided kingdom, when Israel and Judah were distinguished from one another. But not only do we find (Keil) in Solomon’s time the “house of Joseph” used as equivalent to the “ten tribes” (1 Kings 11:28), but in Psalms 78:67-68 (which belongs to David’s time) we have the contrast between the tent of Joseph and the tribe of Ephraim on the one side (as rejected by God), and the tribe of Judah on the other (as chosen by God). “The designation of the tribes opposed to Judah by the name of the principal tribe Joseph (Joshua 16:1) is as old as the jealousy of these tribes towards Judah, which did not begin with the division of the kingdom, but was only thereby permanently confirmed” (Keil). [As Shimei was a Benjaminite, it would seem that the “house of Joseph” here is equivalent to “Israel” (the ten tribes). It is commonly supposed that this designation points to the time of the divided kingdom, and thus so far fixes the date of authorship of this passage (unless Bφttcher’s emendation of text, above-stated, be adopted). Erdmann’s examples do not show that the designation was in use earlier than the division of the kingdom; for the Book of Kings belongs to the time of the Exile, and Psalms 78 was probably written after Solomon’s time (comp. the tone of 2 Samuel 19:1). Still it is quite possible that, with the old tribal feeling coming down from the time of the Judges (when there was probably a double hegemony of Judah and Ephraim), Shimei may have used this phrase, which, therefore, cannot be held to be perfectly decisive of the date of authorship. Bible-Commentary suggests that he employed it in order to exculpate his own tribe by intimating that it was drawn away by the preponderating influence of the great house of Joseph. Tr.] Whether Shimei’s request for forgiveness was a sign of sincere repentance, must be left undetermined; it may be doubted, when one reflects on his precipitation in seeking to be the first to do homage to David, and on the fact that his somewhat passionate cry for mercy coincided exactly with the happy turn in David’s fortunes. Certainly he desired, now that David had regained power, to secure his forfeited life and avoid punishment. 2 Samuel 19:21. Abishai storms out against Shimei (as in 2 Samuel 16:9), doubting the genuineness of his penitence, and demands his death. 2 Samuel 19:22. David refuses, as in 2 Samuel 16:10 sq. Though Abishai (in Joab’s name also, for David addresses the “sons of Zeruiah”) rightly characterizes Shimei’s offence as cursing the “Lord’s Anointed,” for which he deserved death (Exodus 22:27; Leviticus 24:14 sq.; 2 Kings 21:10), David will this day not employ the rigor of the law. “Ye will be to me an adversary,” literally, a satan (so Numbers 22:22, comp. Matthew 16:23), not a “peace-destroyer” (Bunsen), or “tempter” (Ewald). He says: “you will be a hindrance to me in the way of joy that I go to-day.” Clericus: “to injure me by your ill-timed severity.” He lays stress on the to-day. “Should any one be put to death to-day in Israel? for, do I not know that to-day I am become king over Israel?” David will show mercy, not because he is now become king and has the right to pardon, but because he sees in his restoration to his kingdom a proof of restoration to the divine favor, and by showing favor to Shimei as his right will fulfil the obligation of gratitude to the Lord. 2 Samuel 19:23. David’s oath to spare Shimei shows that his mercy was occasioned by his present experience of the divine mercy. But his injunction to Solomon (1 Kings 2:8 sq.) to punish Shimei for his reviling contradicts this promise. This contradiction is not removed by saying that Shimei was not promised immunity in the following reign (Hess), nor by the observation that he was a dangerous man capable of repeating under Solomon what he had done under David. David now pardoned Shimei, chiefly, no doubt, for political reasons, in order not to disturb the favorable feeling of the people, especially of Benjamin.2. 2 Samuel 19:24-30. Mephibosheth’s apology. 2 Samuel 19:24. Comp. 2 Samuel 9:6. He “came down” from Jerusalem to the Jordan. His feet and his beard he had not made; the word make [= “dress”] (Deuteronomy 21:12) is so used in German also [comp. similar use of do in English.—Tr.]. The addition of the Sept.: “nor cut his nails,” is merely explanatory (Bunsen), and is not to be put into the text. He had not washed his feet or dressed his beard—thus he had mourned for David; in these signs of deep grief comp. Ezekiel 24:17. This was a sign of his sincere, faithful attachment to the house of David, not a sign (Buns., Ewald) that his hopes had not been fulfilled in connection with the new government [Absalom’s]. 2 Samuel 19:25. As now Jerusalem came to meet the king.—Jerusalem here stands for its inhabitants or their representatives; this is often the case, and the expression here cannot be called “strange.” The rendering of the Arabic: “and when he came from Jerusalem” introduces a repetition, Mephibosheth’s coming having been already stated [2 Samuel 19:24]; it is therefore the less warrantable (with Thenius) to change the text on the sole authority of this version. The translation: “when Mephibosheth came to Jerusalem to meet the king” (Sept., Luther, Michaelis, Maur.) contradicts the “came down” of 2 Samuel 19:24, and the whole connection from which it appears that during this conversation David was still at the Jordan. [This rendering of Erdmann’s is improbable, 1) because it has already been stated that Judah had come to meet the king (2 Samuel 19:15), and 2) because it does not appear why the coming of the Jerusalemites should be the occasion of David’s addressing Mephibosheth.—The rendering “to Jerusalem” (as in Eng. A. V.) would change the scene abruptly and without connection. It is easier to read “from Jerusalem,” which makes good sense, and agrees with the context. It is not a mere repetition of the “came down” of 2 Samuel 19:24, since the fact is here added that he came from Jerusalem. It may be, however, that, while he set out and came down to meet the king, the meeting did not actually occur till the latter had advanced on his march as far as Jerusalem.—Tr.]—David’s question: Why wentest thou not with me? presupposes the impression made on him by Ziba’s words (2 Samuel 16:3), and also contains a reproof. 2 Samuel 19:26. Mephibosheth’s answer: my servant deceived me, injured me by lies, deceived me (Bφttcher); this is the common meaning of the word (Genesis 29:25; Joshua 9:22; 1 Samuel 19:17; 1 Samuel 28:12; 1 Chronicles 12:17). The ground of this assertion: For thy servant (=I) said (not “thought,” as most expositors render, for it appears from what follows that Mephibosheth had given an order that Ziba did not execute), I will have the ass saddled and ride thereon and go to the king.—Certainly the lame prince could not have thought of going himself to saddle the ass, an objection that Thenius urges against the text as he renders it: “and I thought, I will saddle me the ass.” He then adopts the text of the ancient versions (except Chaldee): “Thy servant had said to him: saddle me the ass.” But this change of text is unnecessary; the renderings of the versions are merely explanations. How often in all languages the expression “to do a thing” = “to have it done” (this very verb is so used in Genesis 22:3)! To refuse to translate: “I will cause to be saddled” is merely to make a difficulty where none exists. The phrase: “I said: I will” characterizes the circumstantialness of the narrative. [According to Mephibosheth’s statement, then, Ziba, instead of obeying his master’s order, had carried off animals and provisions, and used them in his own interests.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 19:27. And he slandered thy servant.—No sentence has fallen out before these words, explaining (Bφttcher) how Mephibosheth was deceived by his servant. “It is already involved in the word ‘deceived’ that Ziba had not obeyed the order” (Thenius). Mephibosheth had heard of Ziba’s slander (2 Samuel 16:3), and found it confirmed by the execution of David’s order that all the property should belong to Ziba. David’s reproachful question was a new confirmation of what he already knew. There is no trace here of “a confused way of defending himself” (Bunsen); his curt, summary mode of expression is explained by his excitement and by the situation of David who, occupied with his transit and the solemn escort of the people, had no time to listen to a long narrative. Mephibosheth’s statements were sufficient to establish his innocence, and to show how Ziba had deceived and slandered him.—My lord the king is as the angel of God (comp. 2 Samuel 14:17) to know what is truth and right. 2 Samuel 19:28. Mephibosheth refers to David’s former kindness and commits to him his fate, remarking that, though innocent, he could not rightfully demand anything, since he was a member of Saul’s house, all of whom were “only dead men for the king,” that is, all, himself included, might have been slain; being thus without rights, he could not complain or ask for help against the wrong done him. 2 Samuel 19:29. And the king said to him: Why speakest thou further of thy affairs?—This means: there is no need of further excuse on thy part (Thenius), but also expresses displeasure at Ziba, whose deception David now saw through. Wrongly Bunsen: “David saw through the complainant [Mephibosheth], and, wishing him well, made no further investigation.” David is convinced of Mephibosheth’s innocence. But the words: I say (= I decide) thou and Ziba shall divide the land, are only a half-exculpation of the poor, innocent man. For they do not “in any case” (Buns.) contain the confirmation of his first arrangement (2 Samuel 9:7-10) and the retraction of his hasty decision in 2 Samuel 16:4, as if he meant to say: Everything remains as I ordered at first (Then.). The statement is simply: Divide the land between you, that is, Ziba and his sons (to whom David in 2 Samuel 16:4 gives all) are now to possess a part of the property; neither is the decision of 2 Samuel 16:4 entirely set aside, nor that of 2 Samuel 9:7-10, whereby Mephibosheth was made sole possessor, re-established. Thenius thinks that the original arrangement (2 Samuel 9:7-10) is here restored, “in so far, namely, as Ziba and his sons had of course lived on the produce of the estate;” but a servant’s being maintained from the produce of the estate is a different thing from his being part-owner. David now sees the error of his decision in 2 Samuel 16:4, and wishes publicly to recognize Mephibosheth’s innocence, but not factually and expressly to acknowledge his own over-haste by completely revoking that decision; and so open wrong is done Mephibosheth, who gets only a part of the estate. David was herein probably controlled by political considerations, being unwilling to make the respectable and influential Ziba his enemy. That Ziba does not attempt to rebut Mephibosheth’s statements proves his own guilt and the innocence of the latter. 2 Samuel 19:30. He said to the king: Let him take all also.—Cornelius a Lapide: “Mephibosheth seems to have said this, not from desire to insult David and murmur against God, but in the bitterness of his heart.” The words express, not necessarily indeed resentment, but still Mephibosheth’s feeling that wrong had been done him; at the same time he indicates that he is not concerned about property, but that his heart rather goes out to his king, who will show him again his former kindness. Let Ziba have all the land, I am only glad that my lord the king is come again in peace to his own house; as his guest, I do not need the land for my support. Mephibosheth could not more touchingly and unselfishly express his faithfulness to David. [David’s feeling and motive in this procedure are not clear. If he thought Mephibosheth innocent, he was unjust towards him; if he thought the whole affair too uncertain to permit an absolute decision, he can hardly be defended against the charge of carelessness and precipitancy in making a decision. Perhaps he suspected the prince’s fidelity, but thought it not worth while to push the investigation; he was tired of intrigues and conflicts. Opinions differ as to Mephibosheth’s innocence, but the tone of his defence, the silence of Ziba, and the absence in the narrative (15–18) of any hint of defection on his part, concur with his lameness in inclining us to absolve him from the charge of actual or intended rebellion.—Tr.] 3. 2 Samuel 19:31-40. Barzillai’s greeting and blessing. 2 Samuel 19:31. Barzillai (see 2 Samuel 17:27) “came down” from the high region in which Rogelim in Gilead lay. Went with David over the Jordan—anticipatory statement of what did not take place till 2 Samuel 19:39, after the following conversation. To conduct him defines the statement in 2 Samuel 19:39; he intended to go with him only to the other side of the river, and then return2 Samuel 19:32. And he provided (2 Samuel 17:27-29) for the king during his long stay, abode in Mahanaim. He was a “very great” man, that is, rich, well thought of (Exodus 11:3; Leviticus 19:15). 2 Samuel 19:33. The king said, Thou come over with me. The word “thou” is by its position emphatic, the king being chiefly concerned to take him along. That I may provide for thee.—The “provide” here answers to that in 2 Samuel 19:32. David wished to requite his kindness. 2 Samuel 19:34. With modest thanks Barzillai declines the king’s invitation: 1) referring to the shortness of his remaining life. “How many days have I to live?” my life is too short to go to court. 2) Referring to his senile weakness, which unfitted him for court-life. Eighty years old, he says, he is intellectually too dull to be useful as a counsellor in distinguishing between good and evil. (For similar constructions see Leviticus 27:12; Jonah 4:11; 1 Kings 3:9; Ezekiel 44:23; Genesis 26:28; Isaiah 59:2).—But also his bodily senses, he says (taste and hearing), are too weak to enjoy the pleasures of court-life; 3) he objects that, being such a weak old man, he would be only a burden to the king. 2 Samuel 19:36. “For a short while,” for the present moment, will thy servant go over Jordan with the king; his purpose, he says, was merely to escort the king across the river, as appears from the context, 2 Samuel 19:32; 2 Samuel 19:37. The “short while” does not refer to the time he would have had to spend at court. [The word may also be rendered, as in Eng. A. V., “a little way.”—Tr.] “Why will the king requite me this requital or kindness?” namely, with reference to Barzillai’s maintenance of the king (2 Samuel 19:32). 2 Samuel 19:37. As the king might have commanded him to go with him, he requests permission to return home. He is done with life, and wishes to die by the grave of his father and mother. F. W. Krummacher: “Can any thing be more amiable than these simple and sensible words? What a cheerful and peaceful spirit they breathe on us!”—But in his stead he offers the king his son Chimham (1 Kings 2:7), not to ask a favor for him, but to put him into his service. The Syr., Arab. and Josephus add “my son” after “Chimham,” which is a proper explanation, but not to be adopted into the text. In 2 Samuel 19:41 the name is written Chimhan—comp. Jeremiah 41:17. [Jeremiah 41:17 mentions a geruth or sojourning-place of Chemoham or or Chimham. Stanley (Jewish Church, II. 201) thinks that this was a caravanserai (it was on the south of Bethlehem) for travellers to Egypt, and the same in which Joseph and Mary found shelter (Luke 2:7). The connection between the names is, however, not certain.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 19:38. David receives Chimham, and promises Barzillai further to do all that he desires. “I will do whatever thou shalt choose [require] of (literally, upon) me,” where the upon expresses David’s sense of obligation. He does not here regard Barzillai as a suppliant for a favor. So Clericus. Comp. Judges 19:20. 2 Samuel 19:39. Not till after this conversation does the passage across the river take place; why it must have occurred during the conversation (Then., Keil) does not appear from the context; and the space of transit was not great enough for the length of the talk. It is not merely “almost” (Thenius), but, from the fresh and individual touches of the picture, quite certain that this is the account of one who himself heard the conversation. And when the king was come over, he kissed Barzillai.—That is, took leave of him, comp. Rth 1:9. This shows that Barzillai merely intended to accompany the king over the Jordan, and not further. 2 Samuel 19:40. The king went on to Gilgal, a noted place in the history of Israel, and specially fitted by its position to be a rendezvous for large bodies of men; comp. Joshua 4:19; Joshua 5:1-12; Joshua 9:6; Joshua 10:6; Joshua 14:6; 1 Samuel 7:16; 1 Samuel 10:3; 1 Samuel 11:14-15; 1 Samuel 13:7-9.—And Chimhan went on with him.—Ewald’s remark that “this account of Barzillai is given at so great length obviously because his son Chimham and his family were afterwards renowned in Jerusalem,” impairs the inherent significance of this episode (taken in connection with 2 Samuel 17:27-29) in David’s life, which displays in the most vivid and beautiful way the unchangeable fidelity of this noble and influential Gileadite land-owner, as a representative of the transjordanic region, and the grateful love and devotion of the hard-proved but now once more highly favored king, who in Barzillai’s love and faithfulness saw a proof of the divine grace and truth. AND 1. Right and wrong are remarkably mingled in the conduct of David and Joab, and in the affair between them immediately after Absalom’s death. While the father’s grief for the lost son was altogether justifiable, the king by the immoderateness of his sorrow neglected his duty towards his people, through whom God had given him the victory; by his passionate grief, also, he disturbed the clearness of his mental view, and lamed his manly strength; and finally, absorbed in his loss, forgot to thank the Lord that He had avenged the honor of His name by the restoration of the theocratic kingdom to the well-being of the whole people; the whole kingdom of God in Israel, as the bearer and instrument of which he was chosen and called for the present and the future, disappears for him in the gloomy depth of grief, wherein he had buried himself with his feelings and thoughts.—F. W. Krummacher: “It is a reproach to him that he subordinated his kingly consciousness too much to his feelings as head of a family. In view of the general weal, he ought at least to have moderated his grief, given thanks to the Lord, and made acknowledgment of the faithful devotion of his brave soldiers.” Over against this wrong Joab is altogether right in reminding the king of the danger of such a course, and reproving him with severe words. But the savage and bitter manner in which he approaches the king (though it was God’s means of averting a great evil from David and the nation) is to be condemned. His undisciplined word became a means of discipline to David, and the king turned from the destructive path into which unbridled feeling had led him. 2. David’s situation after his splendid victory was, in spite of the change of popular feeling in Israel, a critical one, on account of the hesitation of Judah, the most powerful tribe, and the real historical foundation of the theocratic kingdom, as it was founded in David. For the sins of its bearer, God had before men’s eyes permitted this kingly structure, reared by His hand, to fall, in order to show that human sin must obstruct and ruin His cause, but to make manifest at the same time, that the maintenance of His kingdom is not dependent on human power and wisdom. The point now was the restoration of the ethical foundations of the theocratic kingdom, which were destroyed by the revolution first in the tribe of Judah, where the revolution began; this tribe must be brought back to its faithful obedience to David, its defection having been punished by the divine judgment on Absalom. Recognizing this, David showed discretion and wisdom in his negotiations with the elders, which had the desired result. He saw through the grounds of action of the other tribes, and perceived how dangerous it might be, if his own tribe Judah, his home and support, should be, as it were, conquered by the others, especially as the insurrection had found powerful aid among them. He therefore approached Judah with mildness. But he went beyond ordinary bounds in appointing the general of the insurrection, Amasa, his commander-in-chief in place of Joab, who had won him the victory. This act of political shrewdness, brought back Judah to him as one man. Peter Martyr: “I would not altogether defend David in this, but I regard it as an arrangement of divine providence, which purposed through Amasa to turn Judah to David.” 3. When Shimei meets David with confession of his fault, Abishai is the same hot-blooded zealot for David’s royal honor as in 2 Samuel 16:9, and is repulsed now, as then. He (with Joab, who was like him in character) is a type of fleshly zeal, as it is seen in the “Sons of Thunder,” who would call down fire from heaven on the Samaritans. But, in contrast with the law which, regarding reviling the king as reviling God, punishes it with death, David, by sparing the reviler passes out of the sphere of the Old Testament into that of the New Testament. The decision as to Shimei’s sincerity he leaves to God, but, in view of the Lord’s pardoning mercy and goodness to himself, is led by the Spirit of the Lord to accept Shimei’s actual confession, and pardon him. Thus he is the type of the merciful love of the New Testament kingdom of heaven in Christ, which blots out all guilt of sin on condition of true repentance; and he is also the type of forgiving love of enemies. He who has himself received forgiveness of sin from God, and can only praise God’s mercy as the source of all that he is and has, will also forgive his neighbor his sins. The antitype of the forgiving David is the king of the New Testament kingdom of God. Matthew 18:23-25. David had accorded Shimei mercy by an oath, without reservation and without limitation to his own reign, as some hold against the sense of his words. His command to Solomon shortly before his death, to execute Shimei, is a falling back to the strictly legal standpoint, above which he had lifted himself here on the Jordan, and can be explained only from the fact that David distinguished between his own personal interest and motive, which led him to pardon Shimei, without taking the theocratic-legal standpoint, and the theocratic interests of the kingdom, of which Solomon was the representative, and so held himself bound on theocratic-political grounds, to commit to his successor the execution of the legal prescription, which he himself had passed over. 4. Half-way reparation of a hastily committed, and afterwards recognized wrong (as in David’s conduct to Ziba and Mephibosheth) is as great an injustice as complete neglect. While he pardons the criminal Shimei, he gives the innocent Mephibosheth only half his rights, and the other half he gives to the unrepentant slanderer Ziba, without a word of reproof, evidently in order to avoid making enemies of Ziba’s not uninfluential family in Benjamin. Peter Martyr: “David’s acts are not only unjust, but self-contradictory; there he pardons a wicked man, here he oppresses a good man. Yet, though he sins so often, he does not abandon his faith; he is a weak man, but holds on to God’s word.”—Mephibosheth is an illustration of humility patiently bearing wrong. Peter Martyr: “Mephibosheth thought perhaps, of the word of the law, that God visits sins on children to the third and fourth generation.” AND 2 Samuel 19:1-8. The sinfulness of unmeasured grief. I. Wherein it consists and manifests itself. 1) As regards the Lord, in ignoring the gracious gifts which He sends us along with and amid our sufferings, and in frustrating His gracious design to purify us by suffering from all selfishness; 2) As regards our neighbor, in slighting and violating the duties of love that we owe him; 3) As regards our own heart and conscience, in reckoning the powers of spirit and will by exhausting emotion and enervating inactivity. II. How it must be overcome: 1) Through the word of earnest admonition, which gives pain; 2) By energetically rising up to new life and faithful discharge of the duties of our calling; 3) By accepting the consolation and strength which come from above through the Spirit of God. 2 Samuel 19:9-15. What wins for a king his people’s heart? 1) Risking his life for their welfare in fighting against external foes; 2) Deeds of deliverance in the overthrow of internal foes; 3) Timely words of hearty, reconciling love, which anticipates and makes advances. 2 Samuel 19:16-40. The righteousness of love, showing itself in the fact that after the divine ordinance and after the example of divine righteousness it gives to every one his own: 1) As forgiving love, pardon to the enemy who confesses his wrong and begs forgiveness, 2 Samuel 19:16 sqq.; 2) As rebuking love, earnest admonition to the unloving zealot, 2 Samuel 19:21 sq.; 3) As self-denying love, which makes good the wrong done to our neighbor, and unreservedly restores him what belongs to him, 2 Samuel 19:24 sqq.; 4) As thankful love, ready every moment to requite to our neighbor by word and deed the benefits he has done us, 2 Samuel 19:31 sqq. Barzillai the picture and example of a venerable and pious old age: 1) Blessed of God, it devotes the temporal goods it has received to the service of compassionate brotherly love, far from all avarice; 2) Honored by men, it desires not the vain honor of this world, far from all ambition; 3) Near the grave, it longs only for home, far from all disposition to find blessedness in this life; 4) But as long as God grants life, even with failing powers it still serves the Lord and His kingdom, and in this service honors him by the devotion even of its dearest—far from all self-seeking.—[Saurin has a good sermon on Barzillai and Chimham, as suggesting and illustrating the fact that court life is in certain respects proper for the young and improper for the aged.—Tr.] Fr. Arndt: 2 Samuel 19:9-40. How David crowns his triumph, and prepares for himself a new and delightful future. 1) By forgiveness of the evil that has been shown him, and 2) By thankfulness for the good that he had likewise received. 2 Samuel 19:1-8. When once a man has overcome his feelings of grief and gives himself up to fresh activity, then the struggle is soon over, the evil is wholly conquered, the fountain of suffering is thoroughly stopped, the sting of suffering broken; reconciled with past and present, there arises to us for the future a new life.—Osiander: God often so mingles joy and sorrow together, that the pious have in this world no complete joy, in order that they may the more earnestly long after things eternal. Psalms 42:3 [2].—Schlier: Let us never forget modesty, but always with genuine respect say what is necessary. Yet when we do that, let us also freely utter the truth, and never keep back through fear of men or men-pleasing.—Wuert. B.: When men do wrong and are overhasty, we should indeed reprove them, but not unseasonably, nor with bitterness, envy, reviling, and too great violence. Psalms 141:5.—S. Schmid: A man of sense must bear a slight evil in order that a greater may be averted.—Schlier: How many sore and bitter experiences we might spare ourselves, if we always made it our first wisdom to let ourselves be advised. 2 Samuel 19:9-14. [Taylor: David had been called to the throne at first by the choice of the people, as well as by the designation of Jehovah, and he would not move in the direction of resuming his regal dignity until, in some form or other, the desire of the tribes had been indicated to him.—Tr.]—Wuert. Bible: Men do not commonly recognize the good while they possess it, but only afterwards, when they have lost it and would like to have it again.—[Henry: Good services done to the public, though they may be forgotten for a while, yet will be remembered again when men come to their right minds.—Tr.]—It is always better to be too gentle than too sharp; for a good word finds a good place, and gentleness wins hearts. Judges 8:3; Judges 12:3.—Schlier: Let us also remember our sins and more and more humble ourselves, then we shall also be mild and gentle toward friend and foe, and so receive the blessing promised to all the merciful.—Berl. B.: For such a God, whose goodness is as infinite as His power, it is not so hard to win hearts; He knows the true secret of winning them in the right way; because He knows how to touch them inwardly. Thus hast Thou, O love, inclined the heart of all believers as if it were only one man. 2 Samuel 19:15-23. [Taylor: In all this procedure David was not actuated by his usual sagacity; and the result of his apparent preference of Judah over the other tribes not only provoked another rebellion after his return to Jerusalem, but also prepared the way for the division of the kingdom, which took place in the days of his grandson, Rehoboam.—Tr].—There is no true forgiveness till the thought of the offences is wholly effaced from the heart. Psalms 25:7.—Starke: By honest confession and earnest repentance one may obtain mercy and forgiveness from men, how much more from the merciful God. James 4:9.—Schlier: God’s mercy should open our hearts, should make us gentle and mild toward others; for the Lord’s sake who has forgiven us, we should also forgive others.—Berl. B.: God cannot suffer such men as under the appearance of righteousness oppose His mercy.—[Henry: David had severely revenged the abuses done to his ambassadors by the Ammonites (2 Samuel 12:31), but easily passes by the abuse done to himself by an Israelite. That was an affront to Israel in general, and touched the honor of his crown and kingdom; this was purely personal, and therefore (according to the usual disposition of good men) he could the more easily forgive it.—Scott: Our best friends must be considered as adversaries, when they would persuade us to act contrary to our conscience and our duty. Matthew 16:21-23.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 19:24-30. Starke: For reviling and slander the first and chief occasion is given by selfishness and envy.—God does not let the truth remain always defeated, but causes it at the proper time to come to light.—Schlier: When a man does us good, we should remember him for it, and if sometimes wrong is done us, we will quickly forget the wrong, but the good that has befallen us we will not forget. A thankful man is sure to come to honor, even if in the meanwhile evil times do occasionally intervene; while ingratitude always comes to shame.—[2 Samuel 19:29. Taylor: Every one knows that when he has been entrapped into the doing of an ungenerous or unjust thing, there springs up in him an irritation at himself, which is apt to betray itself in hastiness of speech and manner quite similar to that here manifested by David. But both the temper and the decision were unworthy of David.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 19:31-40. Starke: Our gratitude to our neighbor should be shown not only by words, but also by the most devoted affection of the heart, and by actions themselves.—Berl. B.: That is an honorable old age, which dies to the lusts and vanities of the world, seeks peace and quiet, earnestly thinks of the end and prepares for death.—Osiander: If we cannot requite our benefactors in their life-time for their good deeds, we should at any rate make their posterity enjoy it. [2 Samuel 19:7-8. In a time of overwhelming calamity the necessity for exertion is often a great blessing. 2 Samuel 19:9-10. The safety of popular institutions is in reaction. 2 Samuel 19:16-17. Among the sore trials of high station is the necessity of bearing with men who are grossly unworthy, but manage to command influence.—Tr.] IV. Strife between Judah and Israel over bringing David back. 2 Samuel 19:40 b–43 [Heb. 41 b–44. 40And all the people of Judah conducted the king [ins. over] and also half the 41people of Israel; And behold, all the men of Israel came to the king, and said unto the king, Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away, and have brought the king, and his household, and all David’s men with him, over Jordan? 42And all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, Because the king is near of kin to us [is near to me]; wherefore then be ye [and why art thou] angry for this matter? have we eaten at all of the king’s cost? or hath he given us any gift? 43And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, We [I] have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than ye [and also in David I have more than thou]; why then did ye despise us [and why hast thou despised me], that our [my] advice should not be [was not] first had in bringing back our [my] king? And the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel. V. Sheba’s insurrection and Israel’s defection occasioned by this strife between Judah and Israel. Both quelled by Joab after his murder of Amasa. 2 Samuel 20:1-221 And there happened to be there a man of Belial [a wicked man], whose [and his] name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite [Benjaminite]. And he blew a [the] trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we [and we have] no inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel. 2So every man [And all the men] of Israel went up from after David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri; but the men of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan even [om. even] to Jerusalem. 3And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed [maintained] them, but went not in unto them; so [and] they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood [in lifelong widowhood]. 4Then said the king [And the king said] to Amasa, Assemble me the men of Judah 5within three days, and be thou here present. So [And] Amasa went to assemble the men of [om. the men of] Judah; but he tarried longer than the set time which he had appointed him. 6And David said to Abishai, Now shall [will] Sheba the son of Bichri do us more harm than did Absalom; take thou thy lord’s servants, and pursue after him, lest he get him fenced cities, and escape us. 7And there went out after him Joab’s men, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites and all the mighty men; and they went out of Jerusalem, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. 8When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon, Amasa went before them [came towards them]. And Joab’s garment that he had put on was girded unto him [And Joab was girded with his military dress as his garment], and upon it a girdle with [of] a sword fastened upon his loins in the sheath thereof 9[its sheath], and as he went forth, it fell out. And Joab said to Amasa, Art thou in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand 10to kiss him. But [And] Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s hand; so [and] he smote him therewith in the fifth rib [into the belly], and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again; and he died. So [And] Joab and Abishai his brother pursued after Sheba the son of Bichri. 11And one of Joab’s men [young men] stood by him, and said, He that favoureth Joab, and he that is for David, let him go after Joab. And Amasa wallowed in blood in the midst of 12the highway. And when [om. when] the man saw that all the people stood still, [ins. and] he removed Amasa out of the highway into the field, and cast a cloth upon him, when he saw that every one that came by him stood still [or, because every one that came on him saw and stood still]. 13When he was removed out of the highway, all the people [every man] went on after Joab to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. 14And he went through all the tribes of Israel unto Abel and to Beth-maachah and all the Berites; and they were gathered together, and went also after him. 15And they came and besieged him in Abel of Beth-maachah [Abel-beth-maachah], and they cast up a bank against the city, and it stood in the trench [at the outer wall]; and all the people that were with Joab battered the wall to throw it down. 16Then cried a wise woman out of the city, Hear, hear; say, I pray you, unto Joab, Come near hither, that I may speak with thee. 17And when he was come [And he came] near unto her, [ins. and] the woman said, Art thou Joab? And he answered [said] I am he. Then [And] she said unto him, Hear the words of thine handmaid. And he answered [said], I do hear. 18Then she spake [And she said], saying, They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely [Let 19them] ask counsel at Abel; and so they ended the matter. I am one of them that are peaceable and faithful in Israel; thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother 20[a mother-city] in Israel; why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the Lord [Jehovah]? And Joab answered and said, Far be it, far be it, from me, that I should swallow up or destroy. 21The matter is not so; but a man of Mount Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, hath lifted up his hand against the king, even [om. even] against David; deliver him only, and I will depart from the city. And the woman said unto Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over 22[through] the wall. Then [And] the woman went unto all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and cast it out to Joab. And he blew a [the] trumpet, and they retired [dispersed] from the city, every man to his tent [tents]. And Joab returned to Jerusalem unto the king. VI. David’s chief officers after the restoration of Ms royal authority. 2 Samuel 19:23-2623 Now [And] Joab was over all the host of Israel; and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and over the Pelethites; 24And Adoram was over the tribute; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; 25And Sheva was scribe; and Zadok and Abiathar were the [om. the] priests; 26And Ira also the Jairite was a chief ruler about [to] David. AND 2 Samuel 19:41-43. Strife between Judah and Israel about bringing David back. 2 Samuel 19:41 [40 b, Heb. 41 b]. The text (ειΧ) would be rendered: “and as to the whole people of Judah, they had conducted,” etc. (Keil). But this would be a strange and heavy construction, and the Qeri or margin is preferable [“and … Judah conducted,” as in Eng. A. V.]. This last clause is to be connected with the following verse (Thenius): “and when all the people of Judah had conducted the king, and also half the people of Israel, behold, then came all the men of Israel,” etc. Besides Judah, half the people of Israel also acted as David’s escort over the Jordan. This part of Israel consisted first of the thousand Benjaminites that had come with Shimei, and then of others living near by, especially, it is probable, from the east-jordanic district (S. Schmid). The passage over the Jordan was completed, and David (as appears from the connection) with his escort had reached Gilgal (Bunsen), when there, not “at the Jordan” (Then., Ew.), “all the men of Israel,” that is, the body of deputized representatives of the other tribes (Clericus) arrived and made their complaint to David: Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away? escorted thee over so secretly, without informing us of their purpose? By directing this question to David, they at the same time reproached him, for “very probably it had been learned that he had a hand in the movement, see 2 Samuel 19:11-12” (Then.). “All David’s men” are the faithful followers that had fled with him from Jerusalem (2 Samuel 15:17 sqq.). In all this we see, on the one hand, the discord between the main divisions of the nation, Judah and Israel, and on the other the eager rivalry in the exhibition of devotion to the king, which, however, contained in itself the seeds of further disorder. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ For the Chapter 20 passage and footnotes, see 1 Samuel 19:1 ff. 2 Samuel 20:1-22. Sheba’s insurrection, Israel’s defection, both quelled by Joab. 2 Samuel 20:1. There was there, namely, in Gilgal at the assembly of the tribes; the word “there” indicates directly the place, indirectly the time of the following history, so that the causal connection between it and the preceding scene is obvious. On the person of Sheba, Luther remarks (probably correctly) in his marginal notes: “he was one of the great rogues of the high nobility, who had a large retinue among the people, and consideration or name, as Catiline at Rome.” He was a “wicked” man (Luther: heilloser [Eng. A. V. wrongly: “son of Belial]), comp. 1 Samuel 25:17; 1 Samuel 25:25. A Benjaminite, probably (to judge from his conduct) one of the rabid Sauline party, if he were not (as is possible) of Saul’s own family—We have no part in David.—This is said in contrast with 2 Samuel 19:42-43, and with a sharp emphasis on the “no” [“there is not to us part in David”]. David is called the son of Jesse contemptuously in contrast with Saul. “We have nothing in common with him, nothing to do with him,” comp. Deuteronomy 10:9. From his blowing the trumpet it may be surmised that he was a military commander, having control of a somewhat large body of men.—Every man to his tents, that is, home, as in 2 Samuel 18:17; 2 Samuel 19:9. The expression is an echo from the tent-life of the people in the wilderness. 2 Samuel 20:2. All Israel “went up” from David, namely, from the plain of Gilgal to the hill-country of Ephraim. The whole representation of Israel listens to Sheba’s rebellious signal, and follows him, which is to be explained only by the anger against Judah, freshly excited by the quarrel over bringing the king back. The men of Judah “clave to their king,” crowded close around him [rather, faithfully adhered to him—Tr.] and escorted him “from the Jordan to Jerusalem.” The expression: “from the Jordan” does not contradict the fact that the assembly took place in Gilgal (as Thenius holds from this, that it took place on the Jordan); it is not to be explained (with Keil against Thenius) by the remark that the “Judahites” had already escorted the king over the Jordan, but (Gilgal being near the Jordan) is to be taken as a general designation, such as we often use in respect to rivers. 2 Samuel 20:3. David’s return to his house at Jerusalem. The ten concubines (2 Samuel 15:16; 2 Samuel 16:20 sqq.) that he had left behind—he put in a house of ward, and maintained them, but remained apart from them. Grotius: “He pardoned their fear indeed [i. e., their fault committed through fear], but would not approach them, since they were impure for him (having been approached by his son), nor let others approach them, as they were royal concubines.” They lived in “widowhood of life,” that is, “whereas death had entered the house, widowhood during the lifetime of the husband.” (Bφttch.), comp. Deuteronomy 24:1 sqq.; Isaiah 1:1. [So Targum, Gill, Philippson. It may also be rendered: “in a lifelong widowhood,” i. e., as long as they lived; but the objection to this is, that it repeats the statement of the preceding clause.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:4. And the king said to Amasa, Call me, etc., namely, to follow and attack the insurgent Sheba. In giving Amasa this commission, David’s purpose is to fulfil to him his promise, 2 Samuel 19:14. And do thou present thyself here, after three days, when the men of Judah shall have assembled, that thou mayest lead them out to battle. Then David intended formally to appoint him commander-in-chief, and assign him the more important duties. In various respects David here acted unwisely: 1) in bestowing on the late insurgent leader, Amasa an unbounded confidence, that was soon proved to be misplaced, 2 Samuel 20:5-6; 2 Samuel 2) in respect to Joab who, with all his rudeness and cruelty, had remained faithful to David, and by his splendid victory over Amasa, had saved the kingdom; 3) in respect to his faithful tribe of Judah, who must have been offended by this preference shown for the leader of the revolution. [On the other hand, the insurgent Judahites might be pleased by this honor done their general (comp. 2 Samuel 19:14), and the men of Israel affected by seeing their former general in David’s service (Patrick); Amasa had probably shown himself an efficient commander, and Joab was not undeserving of punishment.—Tr.). 2 Samuel 20:5. He tarried over the set time, (three days), either because he met with distrust and opposition among the people, and could not so soon execute his commission, or because he did not wish to make haste, and nourished in his breast traitorous designs, [or, possibly, because of natural lack of vigor.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 20:6. And David said to Abishai. Instead of “Abishai,” Thenius (after Syr. and Josephus) would read “Joab,” since from the present text we cannot account for the appearance of Joab in 2 Samuel 20:8, (he is previously not mentioned—only his people mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:7); the “men of Joab” would certainly not have marched out, unless Joab had had the supreme command. He takes the original reading (after the Sept.) in 2 Samuel 20:7 to be: “and there marched out after him Abishai and the men of Joab,” and thinks that from this, “Abishai” got into 2 Samuel 20:6 instead of “Joab,” while in 2 Samuel 20:7 the word “Abishai” fell out from its likeness to the following word (ΰπωι). Against which Bφttcher rightly says that the Syriac and Josephus here made an arbitrary change in the Hebrew, and put “Joab” instead of Abishai, because they thought (from what follows) that the former ought to be named here. “How,” asks Bφttcher, “if Joab had originally stood in the text, could Abishai have been accidentally or purposely written for it, since the two names are very different, and Abishai is not mentioned till 2 Samuel 20:10?” Rather in the Sept. (Cod. Vat.) the Abishai might have gotten from 2 Samuel 20:6 (beginning) into 2 Samuel 20:7 (beginning); indeed its insertion is evidently due to the exception that was taken to the omission of his name in 2 Samuel 20:7 while in 2 Samuel 20:6 he is entrusted with the command. To get rid of the difficulties, Bφttcher proposes to read in 2 Samuel 20:6 : “And David said to Joab: behold, the three days are past, shall we wait for Amasa? now will Sheba, etc.,” (Sept. Vat. reading: “and David said to Amasa”). But this adoption of a variation of the Sept. (which clearly came from a misunderstanding), and the supposed omission of a whole line by the error of a transcriber is artificial and untrustworthy. There remains nothing but to retain the masoretic text (which is confirmed by all the Versions except the Syriac): “and David said to Abishai.” Joab was still David’s official commander-in-chief, though the latter had unwisely promised the command to Amasa; the sending of Amasa to collect the troops was indeed occasioned by that promise; but Joab was not yet deprived of the command. But David speaks to Abishai about Amasa’s delay and not to Joab, because he wished to have nothing to do with the latter on account of his crabbedness, and further knew that he would take Amasa’s appointment ill. David expresses the apprehension: Now will Sheba … become more hurtful (dangerous) than Absalom, the revolution will become more widespread and powerful than before, unless we march immediately against Sheba. Take thou thy Lord’s servants, the troops with the king in Jerusalem, the standing army (the particular parts of which are mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:7), in distinction from, the levy of the people, for which Amasa was sent. And pursue after him, for, as Sheba had gotten a good start in these three days, everything depended on quickly overtaking him. Lest he get him fenced cities,—this he fears has already happened (as the form of the Hebrew verb shows). And turn away our eye; the verb (δִ ?φִּ ?ιμ) means “to take away” (Genesis 31:9; Genesis 31:16; Psalms 119:43; 1 Samuel 30:22; Hosea 2:11), “lest he take away our view,” deceive us (Maurer); Vulg.; “and escape us” [so Eng. A. V.]; Gesen and De Wette: “that he may not escape our eye by throwing himself with his followers into fortified cities” (as actually happened, 2 Samuel 20:15). Maurer well compares the similar expression: “to steal one’s heart (mind),” i. e., to deceive him, Genesis 31:20; 2 Samuel 15:6. Ewald translates: “lest he trouble our eye,” deriving the verb from a stem = “to be shaded” (Nehemiah 13:19, comp. Ezekiel 31:3), that is, lest he cause us care and vexation; so also Bunsen, and so already the Sept.; “Lest he darken (shade) our eyes.” Certainly this translation gives too weak a sense (Then.). But, with this derivation of the verb, the meaning might still be: “that he darken not our sight,” hiding himself from us in fortified cities, so that our sight of his hostile preparations is obscured, and we cannot clearly follow and overcome him.—Bφttcher, Thenius and Keil, referring to Deuteronomy 32:10; Zechariah 2:10, where the “apple of the eye” is the figure of valuable possession, render: “and pluck out our eye,” i. e., severely injure us; but it is the eye, not the apple of the eye, that is here spoken of, nor is there anything here that is compared to the apple of the eye, since the “fortified cities” could not be so meant. 2 Samuel 20:7. “After him,” that is, after Abishai. The men of Joab=his immediate military followers, under his special control. Yet they were not the less “David’s servants.” This view is favored by the expression: “Joab’s people.” If the phrase were intended to indicate a body of men “that Joab in this emergency had collected at his own costs, and with whom as volunteers he himself as volunteer intended to go into this war” (Ewald), this fact would necessarily have been mentioned in the narrative. The Cherethites and Pelethites, the royal body-guard (see on 2 Samuel 8:18), whom “the necessity of the case now brought out” (Ewald). The Gibborim [mighty men] are the six hundred heroes, (2 Samuel 15:8) who with the body-guard accompanied David when he fled from Absalom. These two bodies together with the “men of Joab” formed the only troops now at the king’s disposal, whom he calls “the servants of thy lord” (2 Samuel 20:6). As the case required the greatest haste (2 Samuel 20:6), he ordered Abishai to follow Sheba for the present with those troops (Ew.). The words “out of Jerusalem” are added because of the local statement that follows. 2 Samuel 20:8. When they came to the great stone of Gibeon—which was doubtless an isolated rock of considerable size. Gibeon lay northwest of Jerusalem in the mountains of Ephraim, whither Sheba (2 Samuel 20:2) had gone. Amasa came towards them, literally “before their face” (De Wette). He was (2 Samuel 20:4) to have proclaimed the arriere-ban [summoned the people to war] in Judah. Here he is found in the tribe of Benjamin. As he meets the troops advancing to the northwest, he must be coming from the opposite direction, as we should expect from David’s order. The cause of his delay thus was that he had gone northward from Judah into Benjamin. Coming thence on his way to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 20:4) with the troops he had raised, he meets these others at “the great stone in Gibeon.” Here Joab, before mentioned, suddenly comes on the scene. As David had not deprived him of the command, we must suppose that he was advancing with the permanent force under Abishai to the field, where Amasa’s retarded levies were to join him. Joab regarded himself as still commander-in-chief, and, that Amasa might not attain this honor, he put him out of the way (2 Samuel 20:10) by murder. It is not to be assumed that David (2 Samuel 20:6) had ordered Abishai to march out with Joab, and that this is not mentioned for brevity’s sake (Keil), nor that David had given Joab the command (omitted in this compendious account) to go along to the field.—The minute description of Joab’s military dress and arms is intended to make it clear how the latter could suddenly kill Amasa without any one’s noticing his purpose. “And Joab was girded with his military coat as his clothing, and on it the girdle of the sword, which was fastened on his loins in its sheath; and this [the sheath] came out, and it [the sword] fell down.” The girdle is expressly mentioned in order to show how the sword did not depend from it as usual, but, with its sheath, was thrust in and held by it (Thenius). “And it (referring to the preceding “sheath”) came out” of the girdle, as if accidentally in consequence of a movement, “and it (the sword) fell to the ground”; so Maurer, Bφttcher. Mich., Dathe, Schulz render: “he brought (Hiphil) it (the sword) out, so that it fell”; but this, inasmuch as it is supported by no ancient version, is arbitrary. To render “and he (Joab) went forth” (De Wette, Keil [Eng. A. V., Philippson, Bib.-Com.]) is against the connection, since it does not appear whence Joab went forth. [A slight change in the Hebrew, making pronoun and verb feminine (after Sept., and substantially Vulg.) will give: “and it (the sword) came out and fell down,” which is much simpler and more natural.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:9. Joab performed this manipulation with the sword just before he met Amasa, making such a movement that the sword should fall, as it were accidentally, to the ground, and he could take it up in his left hand, so as with the right hand to lay hold of Amasa’s beard in friendly greeting. No surprise would be felt, therefore, at his holding the sword in his left hand, with which he had taken it up from the ground. From the friendly address: Art thou in health, my brother? Amasa would all the less suspect anything evil, since he was Joab’s rival. The grasping the beard with the right hand is not for the purpose of kissing the beard (Winer, Art. Bart.), but is a caressing gesture, like an embrace, intended to draw down the face to kiss it [so Eng. A. V., to kiss him]. So Amasa could suspect no evil. [“My brother”—he was his first cousin, 1 Chronicles 3:16-17 (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:10. And Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s (left) hand. The murder of Amasa by Joab was, therefore, a cleverly contrived and malicious act, the product of jealousy and desire of revenge. “Thus this rude soldier’s friendship and repose was merely a pretence, that he might take his revenge at the first opportunity” (Ewald). “He did it not the second time,” did not repeat the blow; his stroke was mortal! [He stabbed him in the belly (not “in the fifth rib,” as in Eng. A. V.), so that his bowels came out.—Tr.]. With the same violence that he had shown in the murder, Joab, with his brother Abishai, now rushes after Sheba, without bestowing a moment’s notice on Amasa struggling in the agonies of death. The words: Joab and Abishai his brother, from the connection favor the view that Joab had gone out at the head (together with Abishai) of the body of troops under Abishai. 2 Samuel 20:11. One of Joab’s henchmen remained by (ςַ ?μ) Amasa; no doubt at Joab’s command, in order to send Amasa’s levies on to Joab and Abishai with the cry: “He that hath pleasure in Joab, etc.”; pleasure: Joab, used to victory, doubtless inspired more confidence. “And he that is for David”—this refers to the defection from David into which Amasa had led the people, [and is intended to identify Joab’s cause with David’s.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 20:12 sqq. How vivid and touching the picture here of Amasa wallowing in his blood on the road, the advancing crowd of people stopping by him, his consequent hasty removal from the road, and the throwing a cloth over him to hide him from the sight of the passers-by, and so to prevent their stopping, and avoid the possible unfavorable impression for Joab and his cause that the sight of the body would make on the people! [Nobody knew the cause of his death, in the hurry there was no time to inquire, the danger from Sheba was imminent, and so the crowd passed on without investigating the matter.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:13. Only now, it is expressly stated, do the people follow on after Joab without delay. “Every man (or, all the men) went on.” As it is clear from the context that these are Amasa’s levies out of Israel, it is not necessary (with Then., after Sept.) to insert “of Israel” after “all the men.” 2 Samuel 20:14. “And he went through.” This refers to Joab, who now, as general-in-chief of the army, rushed through all the tribes of Israel northward from Ephraim (Manasseh, Issachar, Zebulon, Naphtali), Sheba flying before him and first reaching a strong position in the extreme north. [Others (Patrick, Wellhausen) think that Sheba is here the subject, and this is favored by the fact that the “him” in 2 Samuel 20:15 (and so in 2 Samuel 20:14, end) which refers to Sheba, seems to represent the same person as the subject of the verb “went through;” moreover this verb would naturally refer to the person last mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:13.—Tr.] To Abel and Beth-Maachah.—Abel, in the north of Naphtali, very near Beth-Maachah, the two being near and west of Ijon [Iyyon] and Dan (1 Kings 15:20; 2 Kings 15:29); in 2 Chronicles 16:4 it is called Abel-mayim, from the neighboring lake Merom on the south, or, more probably, from the well-watered Merj Ayun, the present village Abil el Kamh, i. e., Wheat-meadow. On account of its proximity to Beth-Maachah, it is often combined with this = Abel-Beth-Maacah, 2 Samuel 20:15; 1 Kings 15:20; 2 Kings 15:29; but the “and” here connecting the two names is not for that reason to be stricken out (Ewald, Thenius). By the addition “Beth-Maachah” and Mayim (2 Chronicles 16:4) it is distinguished from several other places of this name [Abel], which signifies “meadow.” If the word Berim (αֵּ ?ψִ ?ιν) indicates a region of country [Eng. A. V.: Berites] it must be connected with the preceding verb: and he went through all Berim, though then the absence of the preposition [in the Heb., as in Eng. A. V.], and still more, this appended statement of place after it has been mentioned to what point Joab went, would be surprising. But no such region is known in northern Palestine, nor any similar name of a place. We are therefore justified in supposing a corruption of the text. A suggestion for an emendation of the text is given by the Sept.: “to Beth-Maachah, and all in Charri [this suggests the Heb. bachurim, “choice, chosen young men”], and they were gathered together,” etc.; and by the Vulg.: “and all the chosen men were assembled to him.” Clericus remarks that this looks as if they read “chosen” (δαηεψιν), but declines to express a judgment in the matter. We must probably read: “and all kinds of arms-bearing men” (Then., Winer, s. v., Habarim), or: “and all the (there residing) young men” (Ew., Bφttch.). Bφttcher thinks it probable (but without sufficient ground) that we should add: “who were in the cities.” We may render then (changing to Perfect the following verb): “and all the young men were gathered together,” etc., or (keeping the form in the text): “and all the young men, and (as an additional fact) they were gathered together and went also after him,” i. e., in his march through all the tribes to Abel and Beth-Maachah. That is, the young men as far as the extreme north gathered about him; the “also” refers to the statement in 2 Samuel 20:13 that “every man went on after Joab,” that is, all that had assembled in Ephraim at Gibeon [2 Samuel 20:8]; to these were added all the young men in the other tribes. Thereby the victory was already decided for Joab. 2 Samuel 20:15 sqq. Sheba besieged.—Sheba had found refuge in Abel-Beth-Maachah—a strongly fortified place, which, as fortress, served by the quantity of water about it, also as a protection towards the north and east. In this city they besieged him.—He had therefore thrown himself into it. It cannot be gathered from the connection that the inhabitants (who could have done nothing against his sudden seizure of the city) took part with Sheba against David; we may rather infer from the procedure of the “wise woman” that they were opposed to the insurgent. They threw up an embankment against the city; and it (the embankment) stood—that is, rose at [= joined on to] the wall of the outer works of the fortress, the outer wall (Sept. προτειχίσματι [the pomerium, or open space without the wall, in which the embankment was placed in order the more easily to batter the city-walls.—Tr.]). The rest of 2 Samuel 20:15 is to be taken as protasis, the apodosis beginning with 2 Samuel 20:16 : “And as all the people, etc., then cried a wise woman.” The usual rendering: “as they destroyed, in order to throw down the wall” [so Eng. A. V.] involves a contradiction; for if they destroyed, what was left to be thrown down? and this verb (ωִׁ ?ηֵ ?ϊ) is used (Ezekiel 26:4) of the complete tearing down of walls (Then.). Also in 2 Samuel 20:20 Joab says: “Far be it from me to destroy.” It is better with Ewald and Bφttcher to take the Participle as a denominative (from ωַׁ ?ηַ ?ϊ, “a pit, ditch”), and render: “they dug ditches to throw down the wall,” by undermining. Josephus: “he ordered them to undermine the walls.” Then cried a wise woman (comp. 2 Samuel 14:2 sq.; 1 Samuel 25:3 sq.) from the city.—This expression gives a sufficiently vivid picture of the situation, and there is no need (with Thenius) to change the text after Syr. and Arab.: “down from the wall of the city,” and Sept.: “from the wall,” where the differences of wording show these renderings to be explanatory local descriptions. 2 Samuel 20:18 sqq. The woman’s words to Joab are variously explained. Maurer (after Dathe: “inquiry ought first, said she, to have been made of Abel, and then it ought to have been decided what is to be done”) renders: “and she said: it should first have been said: ‘let the city be consulted;’ so they would have finished the matter.” So also De Wette: “one should first have said: one must inquire in Abel, and so the end would have been reached.” But this is too artificial an expression for the situation. The same remark is to be made of Bφttcher’s translation: “And she said, as if she would say: ‘One should first, however, speak, speak, as if she would say: One should ask, ask in Abel; and so the matter would be finished;’ ” that is, the woman protested against Joab’s violent procedure without previous negotiation. Certainly such a protest is to be supposed in the woman’s words. But these are to be translated (with Thenius) simply after the text as follows: “They used to say in old time: let Abel be inquired of; and so they ended (the matter).” Vulg.2 Samuel 14 : “It was said in the old proverb: those that ask, ask in Abel; and so they finished.” Sept.: “It was formerly said, They shall ask in Abel, and so they left off.” The sense is: It was formerly a proverbial saying: “inquire at Abel,” and if the decision there made was acted on, the affair was satisfactorily concluded; so now, the inhabitants of Abel ought first to have been communicated with, instead of straightway investing and besieging the city; then your design respecting Sheba would have been accomplished. It is assumed and affirmed that Abel was proverbial for the discretion and wisdom of its inhabitants. This wisdom the “wise woman” illustrates factually by her discourse. It is to be noted also that the negotiation before laying siege to a city (and a foreign city, indeed) such as the woman here refers to, is prescribed in the law, Deuteronomy 20:10 sqq., comp. Numbers 21:21.—Some codices of the Sept. read: “It was formerly said, It was asked in Abel and in Dan if they left off what the faithful of Israel established,” after which Ewald adopts as original text: “Let it be asked in Abel and in Dan, whether what the devout men of Israel formerly ordained has there gone out of I use” [that is, if, when a new custom comes up, one wishes to find out whether old Israelitish usage exists anywhere, he must go to Abel and Dan; the implication being that Joab is violating old custom.—Tr.] But Keil rightly remarks that this addition of the Sept. (“what the devout men,” etc.), which is critically of so little value that Tisch. in his edition of the Sept. does not think it worthy of mention, is evidently a gloss or paraphrase of the last words of the verse: “and so they finished” [in connection with the “faithful in Israel” of the next verse.—Tr.] [Tisch. in his Sept. (4th ed.) does give these words as a part of the text of the Vatican manuscript; but they seem to be clearly a duplet or double rendering.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:19. I am of the peaceable, faithful ones of Israel. The woman says “I” in the name of the city; the plural predicates [“peaceable, faithful”] refer to the inhabitants of the city. Clericus: “I am of the number of the peaceable and faithful in Israel, says our city.” The meaning is: We are peaceable and faithful people, averse to insurrection; you ought first to have communicated with us, and then the thing would have been understood. It is herein indirectly stated that the city had no thought of taking part with Sheba, who had thrown himself into it. Whether this was the feeling in the city from the beginning, or was reached only when it was threatened with destruction by the siege, cannot be determined. Anyhow the woman was able cleverly to avert the threatened evil.—Bφttcher changes the text, so as to read: “people (that are) the peaceablest, truest in Israel thou seekest to kill,” and Ewald: “we are (or better, we are still) peaceable, etc., and thou seekest,” etc.; but there is no necessity for any change.—Thou seekest to kill a city and mother in Israel, that is, one of the chief cities of Israel, comp. 2 Samuel 8:1. Why wilt thou destroy the inheritance of the Lord? The city pertained to the people that the Lord had chosen for His possession. Comp. the discourse of the wise woman of Tekoah, 2 Samuel 20:16. [Though the Heb. text of the woman’s discourse here is harsh and obscure, no proposed changes better it. As it stands, she seems to say: “Abel is proverbial for its wisdom. You should have entered into negotiations with us instead of attempting to destroy an important city in Israel.” The margin of Eng. A. V. reads: “they plainly spake in the beginning, saying, Surely they will ask of Abel, and so make an end,” that is, in the beginning of the siege the inhabitants expressed the expectation that Joab would communicate with them, and this rendering is approved by Patrick as more literal than the text of Eng. A. V.; but it does not give the proverb-like coloring of the original. Philippson mentions among other Jewish renderings that of the Midrash which haggadistically identifies the wise woman with Serah, the daughter of Asher (Genesis 46:17), who is made to refer in her sharp discourse with Joab to Deuteronomy 20:10, the law of sieges. Erdmann also holds that this law is here alluded to; but there is no intimation of this; the woman intimates only generally that it would have been conducive to a proper understanding if Joab had communicated with the besieged.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:20 sqq. Joab, impressed by the woman’s words, declares that it is not his purpose to destroy the city, but only to get possession of the insurgent Sheba, who [2 Samuel 20:21] has lifted up his hand against the king. Perhaps the woman first learned from these words the real state of the case and the guilt of Sheba. She said immediately that his head should be thrown through the wall, through one of the openings in the wall, where the besieged might watch and shoot at the enemy, and through which perhaps she spoke with Joab. [Eng. A. V., wrongly: “over the wall.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:22. She went to all the people, to report concerning her interview with Joab—a self-evident fact that it was unnecessary to mention in the text. After “people” Sept. adds: “and spoke to the whole city,” a correct explanatory remark, but not to be inserted in the text (as Ew. and Then, think). Equally unnecessary is Bφttcher’s alteration: “and the woman went into the city, and spoke to all the people.” The words of the text: She came … in her wisdom (i. e., with her proposition to Joab, which she persuaded the people to accept) are indeed of laconic curtness; but this quite suits this rapid narration. By the delivery of the traitor’s head Joab’s end was gained. He ordered the trumpet to be sounded, as sign that the army should retire from the siege, and set out on the return-march. And they dispersed from the city, namely, the warriors that had joined him (2 Samuel 20:13). And Joab returned, with the warriors with whom he had left Jerusalem (2 Samuel 20:7), to the king, to announce to him the end of the insurrection. “The issue of this occurrence, how David received the victorious Joab, is omitted in our present narrative; he was doubtless now also forbearing to a man who as a soldier was indispensable to him, and who, with all his punishment-deserving savagery, always meant well for his government” (Ewald). 2 Samuel 20:23-26. List of David’s highest officers after the restoration of his authority. See the Introduction, p. 18 sq., as to the relation between this list and that in 2 Samuel 8:16-18, and their position and significance in respect to the two chief periods of the history of David and his kingdom, of which history they form the conclusion. [The two lists are appropriately placed at the two beginnings of David’s kingdom, and the differences between them are explained by the changes brought by time.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:23. 1) Joab, commander of the whole army of Israel,—as in 2 Samuel 8:16, except that the “Israel” is not inserted there. Joab remained commander-in-chief notwithstanding David’s overhasty decision, 2 Samuel 19:3.—2) Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, commander of the bodyguard, as in 2 Samuel 8:18. Comp. 1 Kings 2:25-46, where he performed the execution ordered by Solomon, and 2 Samuel 20:35, where he is named commander-in-chief in Joab’s place, and as such is mentioned in the list of Solomon’s state-officers, 2 Samuel 4:1-6. He was over the Cherethites and Pelethites. Cherethites is the marginal reading, for which the text has the equivalent Cari (2 Kings 11:1; 2 Kings 11:19); see on 2 Samuel 8:18. 2 Samuel 20:24.–3) Adoram (1 Kings 12:18) = Adoniram (1 Kings 4:6; 5:28), and = Hadoram (2 Chronicles 10:18). He was not “rent-master” (Luther) [Eng. A. V., “over the tribute”], for the word (ξַ ?ν) nevermeans “tribute, tax,” but overseer of the public works or tribute-work [Germ. frohn, manorial work], a new office (not mentioned in 2 Samuel 8:16 sq.), the nature of which is indicated in 1 Kings 5:27 sq. compared with 1 Kings 4:6. Adoram, put into this office in the latter years of David, held it till Rehoboam’s time, 1 Kings 12:18. [The name Adoram, if it be correct (Sept., Syr., Arab. have Adoniram, Vulg. and Chald. as Heb.) must be considered an unusual contraction of the longer form; possibly it is an imitation (though an incorrect one) of such names as Jehoram.—Tr.]—4) Jehoshaphat, son of Ahilud was “chancellor” [Eng. A. V., less well: recorder]; see on 2 Samuel 8:16. 2 Samuel 20:25.—5) Sheva (or, Sheya) = Seraiah (2 Samuel 8:17) was scribe or state-secretary.—6) Zadok and Abiathar, high-priests, 2 Samuel 8:17. 2 Samuel 20:26.—7) Ira, the Jairite, confidential counsellor to David, a new officer; in 2 Samuel 8:18 “sons of David” are said to have held this office. [The word here rendered “counsellor” (Eng. A. V.: “chief ruler”) is the ordinary term for “priest,” which rendering some would here retain. See on 2 Samuel 8:18 for the discussion of the meaning.—Tr.] Instead of “Jairite” Thenius (after Syr.) reads “Jattirite” (of Jattir), especially as this city Jattir in the mountains of Judah (Joshua 15:48; Joshua 21:14) is mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:27 among those particularly friendly to David. But the rendering of the Syriac is derived from 2 Samuel 23:38 on account of the name Ira there found, which, however, represents a different person from this. Thenius, holding that the narrator wrote the history chaps. 11–20 in David’s life-time, since he here breaks off without relating the history up to David’s death, concludes from the way in which Ira is introduced (“and also Ira,” etc.) that the author [Ira] here at the close appends his own name; but this latter assumption is unwarranted, even granting the other. AND 1. The truthfulness and justice of the theocratic historical narrative is shown, as everywhere in the frank statement of the sins of God’s instruments, so here in the unveiled narration of David’s errors in the way whereby God brought him back to his kingdom, and also of the unhappy results of his overhasty measures. His message to Judah, after he heard of Israel’s preparations to bring him back (2 Samuel 19:12) was a mistake, since it was of such a nature as to kindle anew the fire of jealousy between the two section of the people; he thereby put Judah before Israel (who had begun the movement for restoration), and the result was the violent war of words, 2 Samuel 19:41-43. His mistake in holding out to the rebel Amasa the certain prospect of the chief command, led to the murder of the latter by Joab. David had made Joab the companion and instrument of his crime against Uriah; and this community in crime was a collateral cause of the retention of the latter in the highest military office (2 Samuel 20:23). 2. God the Lord, as king of His people, permits sin to work out its extremest evil consequences, in order to reveal His justice in the punishment of sin by sin, and in wise ways hidden from men to further the ends of His kingdom, by making human sin serviceable thereto. By one bad man the greater part of the nation is seduced into insurrection, after David had erred in looking too much to his own honor at his restoration, and regarding flesh and blood (2 Samuel 19:12), neglecting to make the Lord’s honor his highest point of view, and to subordinate everything to it. By the second sudden failure of his hopes, based on the popular favor, and his natural-fleshly relations to the people, he is to be brought again to know that the Lord alone is his strength, his protection and his help. The unjustly displaced Joab becomes a second time the saviour and restorer of the theocratic kingdom, striding over the corpse of the murdered ex-traitor to victory over the insurrection; whence David was to learn anew, that the ways of the Lord are not our ways, and His thoughts not our thoughts, and that He in His wisdom and might in the ways that He chooses and to the goal that He has fixed, performs things that in men’s eyes, and through men’s sins are most involved and confused. 3. The greatest confusion of affairs suddenly arises by the concatenation of various sins and crimes, just after the certain prospect of restoration to kingdom, and peace dawns on David. Jealous quarreling divides the people into two hostile parts. The king is powerless to extinguish the fire of anger and hatred. An insurgent quickly carries the greater part of the people off from David. Civil war once more rages throughout the whole nation. The army-leader appointed by the king is treacherously murdered by the unwisely aggrieved Joab. But in this confusion God’s wisdom goes its quiet, hidden way, and His almighty hand leads the sorely tried king, who in this chaotic whirl, must see the consequences of his own errors, back to complete and triumphant royal dominion. While to men’s eyes the co-operation of many evil powers seems to endanger the kingdom of God to the utmost, and its affairs appear to be confused and disturbed in the unhappiest fashion, the wonderful working of the living God reveals itself most gloriously in the unravelment of the worst entanglements, and in the introduction of new and unexpected triumphs for His government. AND 2 Samuel 19:41-43. Envy and jealousy among God’s people always spring from a passionate self-interest, which puts one’s own honor in place of God’s honor, and often, under the pretence of zeal for the one, makes the other the aim of all its striving;—they produce a spiritual blinding in which it becomes impossible to recognize God’s designs in the matters of His kingdom, an embittering of hearts and minds, whereby brotherly love is changed into hate, and a rending of the divinely joined bonds of union, from which follow wrangling, discord and party hostility.—[Henry: If a good work be done, and well done, let us not be displeased, nor the work disparaged, though we had no hand in it.—Tr.].—From hearts full of bitterness, and rancor flow evil words; these react upon the hearts of those who quarrel, and nurse the flame of hate and discord.—An unloving disposition ends in hard and injurious words; and from evil words it is but one step to evil deeds. 2 Samuel 20:1. sq. The ambition of one man often pulls down what many with united forces have built up in a state, and may from one spark of discord kindle a great fire of uproar and insurrection, whereby a whole people is plunged into ruin.—The traitorous voice that leads to uprising against the divinely ordered authorities is followed by all that will not recognize in these authorities the ordination and action of God, and that have turned their hearts away from the living God.—Osiander: God tempers with a cross the prosperity of His elect, in order that they may be kept in His fear. Romans 5:3 sq.—Schlier: David must learn from every new experience, what grief and heart-pain it brings to forsake the Lord and not fear Him. And assuredly David did recognize in all these chastisements that again and again broke over him, not merely the hand of men, but above all, the hand of the Lord.—Starke: It is righteous in God to requite, and to measure with the measure wherewith we have measured, Luke 6:38. [From Hall]: He had lift up his hand against a faithful subject; now a faithless dares to lift up his hand against him.—That is the way of the world: now it exalts one to heaven, now casts him down to earth; let us not then trust in men, but in God. 2 Samuel 20:3. Schlier: David well knew that nothing more surely and quickly brings in the Lord’s help than to put away what is unbecoming. When trouble rises let us turn to the Lord, and put away what is an offence in His eyes, and cleanse heart and house of all that is displeasing to Him. 2 Samuel 20:4. The Lord forsakes not His people even when they make mistakes, and does not inflict on us the penalty even when we go astray. 2 Samuel 20:6. Wuert. B.: Pious men are not always steadfast and strong in faith, but amid assaults and trouble often grow pusillanimous, often as weak as if they had never met and withstood an assault. Then let us diligently pray: Lord, increase our faith. 2 Samuel 20:8-10. Starke: The world is full of insidious courtesies and flatteries, a love-token is the sign and the design is to betray. Psalms 55:22 [21].—Hedinger [from Hall]: There is no enmity so dangerous, as that which comes masked with love…Thus spiritually deals the world with our souls, it kisses us and stabs us at once: if it did not embrace us with one hand, it could not murder us with the other. 2 Samuel 20:13-15. Schlier: From this we may learn how much a man that does his duty at the right time can perform; that which does most harm is not the evil men do, but their weakness in respect to doing good.—Starke: Let the ungodly flee where they will, and seek shelter for themselves and their sins, yet the divine vengeance pursues them, Psalms 139:7. 2 Samuel 20:16-17. Wisdom is better and mightier than all weapons. Proverbs 11:14. [Hall: There is no reason that sex should disparage, where the virtue and merit are no less than masculine. Surely the soul acknowledgeth no sex, neither is varied according to the outward frame. How oft have we known female hearts in the breasts of men, and contrarily manly powers in the weaker vessels.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:18-19. Cramer: The best bulwark of a city is, in addition to the true service of God, to hold fast its fidelity to the authorities, to study peace and avoid insurrection and revolt; for he who lives in innocence lives in safety. Proverbs 10:9. 2 Samuel 20:20-21. Wuert. B.: Often a single ungodly man can bring whole cities and churches into great distress and misfortune, and a single pious man can preserve them. Genesis 34:5; 1 Samuel 22:18. [Henry: A great deal of mischief would be prevented, if contending parties would but understand one another. The city obstinately holds out, believing Joab aims at its ruin; Joab furiously attacks it, believing all its citizens confederates with Sheba; whereas both were mistaken; let both sides be undeceived, and the matter is soon accommodated.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 20:22. He that takes the sword shall perish by the sword, Matthew 26:52, and he that sets himself against the authorities deserves to pay the penalty with his life. Romans 13:2. When we punish the wicked we should spare the innocent. Ezekiel 18:20; Genesis 18:252 Sa 20:25-26. Osiander: The counsellors of princes should be priests of righteousness, that is, should administer justice and righteousness. Footnotes: πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰ “there happened,” Niph. of χψδ = χψΰ “to meet,” not from χψΰ “to call, name” = “a noted, famous man” (Luther). So Patrick, after Victorinus Strigelius; but we know nothing definitely about it.—As Aphiah (1 Samuel 9:1) is the same as Abiah (1 Chronicles 7:8), Sheba was so far of the same family as Saul.—Tr.] ΰֲ ?μֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, masc. suffix for fem., the general, less determined instead of the more determined, Genesis 31:9; Amos 3:2; 2 Kings 14:13, Ew., § 181 c. [Some MSS. and EDD. of De Rossi have the Fem.—Tr.] ΰַ ?μְ ?ξְ ?πεּ ?ϊ adverbial Acc. defined by δַ ?ιּ ?εּ ?ϊ; one cod. of Kennicott has αְּ ?ΰμΧ (Bφttcher). [This reading is given by De Rossi.—Tr. Kethib εַ ?ιְּ ?ιַ ?ηֵ ?ψְ is Impf. Pi. of ΰηψ = ιηψ, Qeri εַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ηֵ ?ψ is Impf. Hiph. or Qal of the same verb; the latter is unnecessary. τֶּ ?ο with the Perf., in expressions “of fear of a thing that, as is almost certainly conjectured, has already happened = μὴ, 2 Kings 2:16; 2 Kings 10:23” (Ew. § 337 b). δִ ?φִּ ?ιμ as Hiph. of φμμ: μְ ?αֻ ?ωׁ ?ε “his clothing” is descriptive addition to ξִ ?γּ ?εֹ “his military garment,” over which he had put the sword-girdle. It is unnecessary (with Then., after Sept. and Vulg.) to point ηָ ?βεּ ?ψ “girded” instead of ηֲ ?βεֹ ?ψ “girdle.” [However it is a custom in the East to kiss the beard (d’Arvieux in Philippson).—Tr.] λָּ ?μΞαַּ ?ηֻ ?ψִ ?ιν (Then.) or λָ ?μΞδַ ?αַּ ?ηֻ ?ψִ ?ιν (Ew.). Sept.: πάντεςἐνχαῤῥι, as if λָ ?μΞαְּ ?ηָ ?ψִ ?ι. [On this reading see further in “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] Instead of the Kethib ειχμδε we are to read the Qeri ειχδμε (Sept., Vulg., Chald.). If, instead of changing this co Perfect πִ ?χְ ?δֲ ?μεּ, we keep the Impf. εַ ?ιִּ ?χָּ ?δְ ?μεּ, the ε must be regarded as adding a new statement, as in Genesis 22:24; 1 Samuel 25:27 (Bφttcher). On the ָ ?δ- in αּ ?ΰֳ ?αֵ ?μָ ?δ Bφttcher remarks: “where the relation remains purely local (which is not the case in 2 Samuel 20:18), the adverbial –ָ ?δ in innumerable cases remains with the Preposition in names of cities.” Bφttcher: ωָׁ ?ηַ ?ϊ may easily, along with its proper Hiph., have had a denominative Hiph. from ωַׁ ?ηַ ?ϊ, = “to make ditches;” comp. δִ ?τְ ?ψִ ?ιν, proper Hiphil of τָּ ?ψַ ?ν, and also denominative from τַּ ?ψְ ?ρָ ?δ = “to cleave the hoof,” and δִ ?ωְׁ ?αִּ ?ιψ, Hiph. of ωָׁ ?αַ ?ψ and denom. from ωֶׁ ?αֶ ?ψ, = “to sell grain.” [On this and the proposed rendering: “they thought (= were trying) to throw down the wall,” see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] Vulg.: Sermo, inquit, dicebatur in veteri proverbio: qui interrogant, interrogant in Abela, et sic perficiebant. Sept.: καὶ εἶπελόγοςἐλαλήθηἐνπρώτοις, λεγόντων· ἘρωτῶντεςἐπερωτήσουσινἐνἈβέλ, καὶ οὕτωςἐξέλιπον. Sept. εἰ ἐξέλιπονἅ ἔθεντοοὶ πιστοὶ τοῦ Ισραήλ. Ew.: αְּ ?ΰָ ?αֵ ?μεּ ?αְ ?γָ ?οδֲ ?ϊַ ?ξּ ?εּ ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψωָׂ ?ξεּ ΰֱ ?ξεּ ?πֵ ?ιιωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ. Bφttcher: ΰַ ?πְ ?ωֵׁ ?ι instead of ΰָ ?πλִ ?ι. Ewald: ΰֲ ?πַ ?ηְ ?πεּ or ςֹ ?γֶ ?πּ ?εּ, and ε before ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ. δַ ?φָּ ?αָ ?ΰ, Abs. instead of Const., probably “from the error of a transcriber, who wrote this frequently-occurring form before he noticed that the word ‘Israel’ followed” (Thenius). δַ ?λָּ ?ψִ ?ι, from λּ ?εּ ?ψ “to dig.” [It seems to have this meaning in Esther 10:1, but is commonly used as Dr. Erdmann says.—Tr.] THIRD TO THE OF THE HISTORY OF DAVID’S REIGN Chaps. 21–24FIRST SECTIONThree Years’ Famine on account of Saul’s Crime against the Gibeonites, and Expiration of the Crime2 Samuel 21:1-141 Then [And] there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year. And David inquired [sought the face] of the Lord [Jehovah]; and the Lord answered [Jehovah said], It is for Saul and for his bloody house [for the blood-guilty house], because he slew the Gibeonites. 2And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now [and] the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them; and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel 3and Judah.) Wherefore [And] David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord [Jehovah]? 4And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. 5And they answered [said to] the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts [in any region] of Israel, 6Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord [Jehovah] in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose [the 7chosen of Jehovah]. And the king said, I will give them. But [And] the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of 8Saul. But [And] the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal [Merab] the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for [bare to] Adriel the son 9of Barzillai the Meholathite; And he [om. he] delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord [Jehovah]; and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of the barley-harvest. 10And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of the harvest until water dropped [poured] upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither [not] the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. 11And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done. 12And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men [citizens] of Jabesh-gilead, which [who] had stolen them from the street [square] of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa; 13And he brought up from thence the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son; and they gathered the bones of them that were hanged. 14And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son buried they in the country [land] of Benjamin in Zelah in the sepulchre of Kish his father; and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was entreated [ = listened to entreaties] for the land. SECOND SECTIONAccounts of Victorious Battles against the Philistines2 Samuel 21:15-2215 Moreover [And] the Philistines had yet [om. yet] war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines; 16and David waxed faint. And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed [was] three hundred shekels of brass in weight [om. in weight], he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. 17But [And] Abishai the son of Zeruiah succored him, and smote the Philistine and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel. 18And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob; then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. 19And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where [and] Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim [Jair], a [the] Bethlehemite, slew the brother of [om. the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. 20And there was yet a battle in Gath, where [and there] was a man of great stature, that had on every [each] hand six fingers, and on every [each] foot six toes, four 21and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. And when [om. when] he defied Israel, [ins. and] Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him. 22These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants. AND On the section Chs. 21–24 and its relation to the preceding narration, see Introduction, p. 21 sqq. [Though Dr. Erdmann’s statement of his view—that these chapters present six sections arranged in elaborate symmetry, from the point of view of theocratic historiography—is very ingenious, a comparison between these sections and similar ones in “Chronicles” and “Judges,” makes it at least not improbable, that they constitute an appendix of materials for which no convenient place was found in the body of the history. This appendix is thus not accidental, is truly theocratic (since it gives various sides of David’s character and life, as theocratic king), only has not the somewhat artificial arrangement that Dr. Erdmann proposes.—Tr.]. 1. 2 Samuel 21:1-14. The three years’ famine, and the expiation of a crime committed by Saul against the Gibeonites. 2 Samuel 21:1. In the days of David, an indefinite phrase, which does not help us to fix the date of the following occurrence. The mention of Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel 21:7 shows that it must be subsequent to the narrative of 2 Samuel 9, where David’s first acquaintance with the young prince is described. It is to be put perhaps before Absalom’s conspiracy (Ew.), since Shimei’s words (2 Samuel 16:7-8) may refer to the execution here narrated, though also to the deaths of Abner and Ishbosheth.—And David sought the face of the Lord—by prayer he endeavored to learn the cause of this judgment. The answer is given by the oracle [Urim and Thummim] consulted through the high-priest: “concerning Saul and the house of blood-guilt,” the house on which rested blood-guiltiness; comp. the phrases “city of blood” Ezekiel 22:2; Ezekiel 24:6; Ezekiel 24:9, “man of blood” 2 Samuel 16:7-8.—Because he slew the Gibeonites, a fact of which we have no account. 2 Samuel 21:2 states only the motive of this act of Saul. The Gibeonites are here termed a remnant of the Amorites. According to Joshua 9:3-27 an oath was sworn to these “Non-Israelites” that they should not be slain; comp. especially 2 Samuel 21:20. They are there called “Hivites,” while here they are designated by the general name “Amorites” (Ew.), under which all the Canaanitish tribes are often embraced (Keil) [though in other cases the Amorites are distinguished as a separate tribe from the Hivites.—Tr.] And Saul sought to slay them, that is, to exterminate them. Thenius regards this statement as contradictory of the fact narrated [since he would not incur blood-guiltiness by merely seeking to slay them], and proposes to read “exterminate” instead of “slay,”; but no contradiction exists, for, as Bφttcher remarks, “it is intended in the words ‘in his zeal’ only to give the motive of the attempt [and it is not said that the attempt did not succeed.].” Saul’s zeal “for the children of Israel and Judah” consisted in an attempt (in accordance with Deuteronomy 7:2; Deuteronomy 7:24) to cleanse the Lord’s people from the remnant of the heathen, as He purified the land from the necromancers and soothsayers (1 Samuel 28:3) according to the law. He thus “sought” to exterminate the Gibeonites, but his attempt did not succeed, as the presence of these Gibeonites shows. Wherewith shall I appease? namely, the anger of the Lord against this deed, comp. Joshua 9:19-20. “So that ye may then bless the Lord’s inheritance,” literally: “bless ye.” The Imperative “is a curt and vigorous expression, indicating a certain result, a Future Imperative, as it were” (Ew. § 347 a). 2 Samuel 21:4. Literally: “there is not to me silver and gold with Saul and with his house,” that is, I have nothing to do with it, have no right to it, according to Numbers 35:31. [They would not take money as compensation for murder. The custom of so compensating by money was common in ancient times, and its existence is supposed in the law above quoted. See Art. Blood, Revenger of, in Smith’s Bib.-Dict.—Tr.]. And we have no right to kill any one in Israel, that is, it is not permitted us without more ado to execute blood-revenge for the murder of our people; their wrong, they thus intimate, must be expiated by blood, but they cannot proceed without the consent and command of the king. The king’s question: What say ye then that I shall do for you? assumes the necessity of blood-expiation, and asks them to explain themselves more distinctly, since it is His duty thus to make expiation, and so relieve the land of the famine. [We may also render, as in Eng. A. V.: “what ye say, I will do.”—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 21:5. As to the man (Saul) that consumed us; it appears, then, that Saul had broken the power of this tribe by his bath of blood. “And who devised against us, that we should be destroyed, so as not to stand in all the territory of Israel.” Comp. Joshua 9:15; Joshua 9:26. 2 Samuel 21:6. The Apodosis. For the blood wrongfully shed by Saul, blood must flow from his house in return; according to Numbers 35:31; Numbers 35:33 homicide was to be expiated by death [but the death of the murderer, not of his kindred; it is, however, intimated in 2 Samuel 21:1 that Saul’s kindred had shared in the murderous act.—Tr.]. The execution was to be by hanging with extended limbs, crucifixion [impaling, So the term σταυρόω used for the crucifixion of Christ.—Tr.]. They demand seven men of Saul’s sons. The sacred number seven is determined by the significance of this punishment, as work in the service of God, whereby God’s wrath was to be appeased. They were to be hung up to the Lord (comp. 2 Samuel 21:9 “before the Lord,” Numbers 25:4), in God’s honor, to appease His anger, in Gibeah of Saul, because that was the home of Saul’s house, on which the blood-guilt rested. The anointed of the Lord need not be regarded as “holy irony” (Keil). Saul was really the anointed of the Lord; all the more must there be such expiation by blood to the Lord for his sin as the Lord’s Anointed. Exception has been taken to this designation of Saul by non-Israelites, and various conjectures made to set it aside: Bφttcher makes the adjective plural: “we will hang them as the Lord’s chosen ones” (after the Sept.); Houbigant [and Dathe]: “according to the word (oracular utterance) of the Lord;” Then., Ew. [Bib.-Com.]: “in the mountain of the Lord,” the place of prayer on the mountain at Gibeah (1 Samuel 10:5); if any change is to be made, the last conjecture is preferable, because it demands only the dropping of a single letter.—David declares himself ready to satisfy this demand immediately. 2 Samuel 21:7. From the members of Saul’s house he excepts only Mephi-bosheth on account of his oath to his father Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:3; 1 Samuel 20:8; 1 Samuel 20:16; 1 Samuel 23:18). 2 Samuel 21:8. Members of Saul’s house doomed to death: two sons of Rizpah, Saul’s concubine (comp. 2 Samuel 21:11; 2 Samuel 3:7), and five sons of Merab. The name Michal in our text is obviously a copyist’s error, for Saul’s oldest daughter, given in marriage to the Meholathite Adriel of Abel-Meholah in Issachar, and named Merab, 1 Samuel 18:19. The Chald. has: “the sons of Merab, whom Michal had brought up,” a baseless attempt to retain the text-reading. [This is followed by Eng. A. V. Render: sons of Merab, whom she bare to Adriel.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 21:9. And they crucified them on the mountain, namely, near Gibeah (1 Samuel 10:5) before the Lord, at the place there devoted to the worship of God, which was indicated by an altar. Retaining the text, render: “they fell sevenfold at once,” that is, “by sevens, in the same manner” (as the Dual denotes). [This rendering of the Kethib or text: “by sevens” is not appropriate here, since there was only one “seven,” and it is better to adept the Qeri or margin: “the seven of them” (Philippson) or “all seven” (Eng. A. V., Cahen).—Tr.].—The execution occurred at the time of the harvest (Keil, Bib. Arch. II. § 118,Winer I. 340 [Smith’s Bib.-Dict., Art. Agriculture]). This chronological statement serves to define the following procedure of Rizpah (Thenius). 2 Samuel 21:10. Touching picture of Rizpah’s maternal grief. She took the sackcloth, a rough, hairy cloth used in mourning (the Art. points out that it was the cloth usual on such occasions) and spread it out on the rock, for a bed for herself; she wished to remain all the time by the corpses, in order to protect them against beasts and birds; it was regarded as the greatest disgrace for corpses to be left unburied, a prey to ravenous birds and beasts, 1 Samuel 17:44.—The law (Deuteronomy 21:22 sq.) that the hanged were not to be left overnight on the stake, but to be buried before the evening, did not apply here, because the exhibition of the executed persons as a propitiatory offering was necessary till the appearance of the sign that the plague had ceased. From the beginning of harvest till water poured down on them from heaven, i. e., the bodies hung till rain descended on the parched land as sign that God’s anger was appeased. The text says neither that the rain came immediately after the execution (Josephus, Cler., Ew., Bφttcher), nor that it did not come till the usual rain-season, October (Thenius). [We therefore do not know how long Rizpah kept her watch.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 21:11-14. Hearing of Rizpah’s touching care of the bodies, David provided for their burial together with the bones of Saul and Jonathan, which for this purpose he caused to be brought from Jabesh in Gilead. [He thus honored the maternal faithfulness and showed that he cherished no ill-will against the house of Saul (Patrick).—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 21:12. [David takes part personally in the matter]. He took the bones of Saul and Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh, see 1 Samuel 31:8 sq. There it is said (2 Samuel 21:10) that the Philistines fastened the corpses on the wall of Bethshan. This is not contradicted by the statement here that the Jabeshites had stolen the corpses (i. e., taken them away secretly) from the square; for this “public square” (ψִ ?ηֹ ?αּ) is not the market-place in the middle of the city, but the open place at or before the gate (2 Chronicles 32:6; Nehemiah 8:1; Nehemiah 8:3; Nehemiah 8:16), where the people were accustomed to assemble, and where they might see the bodies hung on the wall.—“When (αְּ ?ιεֹ ?ν) the Philistines had slain Saul,” not “on the day when,” but “at the time,” since (1 Samuel 31:8 sqq.) the hanging up of the corpses did not take place till the day after the battle. 2 Samuel 21:14. They buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan; from 2 Samuel 21:13 we must suppose that the bones of the seven executed men were also buried. [Sept. adds: “and the bones of the hanged,” which some critics insert in the Hebrew text; Dr. Erdmann thinks the insertion unnecessary, because the fact would be taken for granted. But it is not clear that the bones of the seven were interred along with those of Jonathan and Saul: they may have been put into a separate sepulchre.—Tr.]—In Zelah; the locality of this city is unknown. Comp. Joshua 18:28. 2. 2 Samuel 21:15-22. Individual heroic deeds in the Philistine wars. This chronicle-like section (and so the similar section 2 Samuel 23:8-39) is probably taken from a writing that contained a historical-statistical collection of David’s wars and of the exploits of his warriors. As the three deeds here described (2 Samuel 21:18-22) are attached in 1 Chronicles 20:4-8 to the history of the Ammonite-Syrian war (comp. 2 Samuel 12:26-31), this collection may be conjectured to belong to a fuller chronicle of David’s wars, to which may have belonged also the sections 2 Samuel 5:17-25; 2 Samuel 8:1-14; 2 Samuel 10:17-19; 2 Samuel 12:26-31, in which the wars against the Philistines and other nations are narrated. a. 2 Samuel 21:15-17. Exploit of Abishai in a new war against the Philistines. The “again” cannot possibly refer chronologically to the immediately preceding narrative, but indicates that the following is a fragment from a history of Philistine wars. Comp. the “again” in 2 Samuel 5:22. Probably this fragment belongs chronologically in the group 2 Samuel 5:18-25, in favor of which is the fact that David is here already king of all Israel, since he is called (2 Samuel 21:17) the “light of Israel.” Comp. 2 Samuel 5:1-3.—And David was weary. A Philistine giant essayed to take advantage of this weariness of David, and kill him. His name was Ishbobenob, not Ishbo at Nob (De Wette), “for neither the fact that he was born at Nob, nor that the incident occurred at Nob (there is no third supposition) could be so expressed” (Thenius). The name (not to be read with Vulg. [and Eng. A. V.] Jisbibenob) perhaps means: “the dweller on the height” (Gesen.); he probably lived on a high, inaccessible rock. [The name, which has a strange appearance, is probably a corrupt reading, but it is difficult to restore the text. See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]—Who belonged to the scions of the Rapha, one of the giant-race of the Raphaites [Rephaim], who formed part of the primitive inhabitants of Canaan, comp. Genesis 14:5; Genesis 15:20; Deuteronomy 2:11; Deuteronomy 2:20; Deuteronomy 3:11; Deuteronomy 3:13; Joshua 12:4; Joshua 13:12. The name the Rapha, “the giant” designates the ancestor of this race. [Rather the name Harapha seems here to designate simply the father of the four giants here mentioned, since it is said (2 Samuel 21:22) that they were born to him in Gath. On the old races of Canaan see Art. Giants in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.) The brazen head of his lance weighed three hundred shekels, = eight pounds, half the weight of Goliath’s, 1 Samuel 17:7.—He was girded with a new suit of armor—so with Bφttcher we are to take the Feminine Adjective (ηֲ ?γָ ?ωָׁ ?δ“new”) in a collective sense; comp. Judges 18:11; Deuteronomy 1:41. [The Heb. has: “he was girt with a new,” to which Eng. A. V. supplies sword; Philippson renders as Bφttcher: “he was newly armed,” and Wellhausen suggests that the word means not “new,” but some weapon, not otherwise known.—Te.] “And he thought [= purposed] to smite David” (Ew.§ 338 a). 2 Samuel 21:17. Abishai interposed, and slew the giant. Thereupon the men of Israel swore that David should not go into battle with them. Thou shalt not quench the light of Israel, thou shalt not abandon thyself to death, and so quench the light and well-being that the Lord has given Israel in thee. On the designation of David as the light of Israel, comp. 2 Samuel 22:29 and Psalms 18:29 (28). b. 2 Samuel 21:18. The exploit of the Hushathite Sibbechai. Comp. 1 Chronicles 20:4. On Sibbechai, one of David’s heroes (1 Chronicles 11:29) comp. 1 Chronicles 27:11, where he is mentioned as leader of the eighth army-division. On “the Hushathi” as patronymic from Hushah comp. 1 Chronicles 4:4. [The “Mebunnai” of 2 Samuel 23:27 is probably (see Dr. Erdmann’s note there) corruption for “Sibbechai.”—Tr.].—Instead of Gob, an unknown place, the chronicler has Gezer, which Thenius adopts here. But as Gob is mentioned also in 2 Samuel 21:19 it is better to suppose (Keil) that Gob was perhaps a small place near Gezer, the old Canaanitish royal city (Joshua 10:32; Joshua 12:12). Perhaps the name may be recognized in El Kubab on the road from Ramleh to Yalo [Rob. III. 143, 144].—Saph = Sippai of Chron., which is the “older form” (Bφttcher). c. 2 Samuel 21:19. The exploit of Elhanan. He is called the son of Jaare-oregim. 1 Chronicles 20:5 has “son of Jair” without the “Oregim.” This latter is here evidently a repetition by error from the following line. Further, instead of “Elhanan, the Bethlehemite slew Goliath,” Chron. has “Elhanan slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” The question is, whether our text gives the original reading, and Chron. has changed it (Berth., Bφttch., Ew., Then., the last against his former view), or Chron. has the original and our text has been changed (Piscator, Cler., Mich., Movers, formerly Then., Keil). In the former case, the change of text in Chron. is attributed to the difficulty felt in the statement that Elhanan killed a giant Goliath, in connection with David’s combat with Goliath (1 Samuel 17), it being maintained that our text could not have originated from that of Chron. But the supposition of a designed falsification of text by the Chronicler is to be rejected so long as the origination of our text admits of explanation. If the above-mentioned error [insertion of Oregim] crept into our text even in the statement of Elhanan’s descent, this favors the conjecture that the following words also (given correctly in Chron.) have undergone change. Now there is an Elhanan of Bethlehem, who is mentioned among David’s army-leaders, 2 Samuel 23:24 (comp. 1 Chronicles 11:26). When the error above-mentioned had gotten in, the result might easily be that a transcriber thinking of the Elhanan of 2 Samuel 23:24, would add the local designation Bethlehemite, and, having in mind the verbal agreement of the descriptions of Lahmi’s spear and Goliath’s (1 Samuel 17:7), would change the “brother of Goliath” into “Goliath.” Further, it is not probable that there were two giants named Goliath. As for the view that 2 Samuel 21:19; 2 Samuel 21:21 “contain the true old model of the elaborate description in 1 Samuel 17” (Then.), and that the latter (notwithstanding the historical fact that underlies it), has, it may be conjectured, borrowed especially the giant’s name from these verses (Ew., Then.)—against this is that (apart from the mention here of two giants, and the description of the giant in 2 Samuel 21:20, which does not suit the Goliath of 1 Samuel 17.) neither in 2 Samuel 21:19 or 2 Samuel 21:21 is David named as the victorious warrior, but two heroes, Elhanan and Jonathan, are the conquerors. [The old opinion (Chald.: “and David, son of Jesse the veil-weaver of the sanctuary, of Bethlehem, killed Goliath,” and so Rashi) that Elhanan is David, is adopted and pressed by Bφtt., who renders: “and Elhanan, son of Jesse, killed Goliath.” After referring to the fact that a man often had two names, he gives six reasons for his identification of Elhanan and David: 1) the mention of David in 2 Samuel 21:22 can not, he says, be otherwise explained.—But see note on 2 Samuel 21:17, and, further, this insertion of David does not necessarily imply more than a general sharing by him in the exploits. 2) Two other sons of Jesse have names containing El.—This proves nothing for the remaining sons. 3) Persons ill-disposed towards David call him simply “son of Jesse” (Ben-Jesse), having forgotten his old name (Elhanan), and avoiding his later, happier name (David). Here that an earlier name was forgotten is assumed without a shadow of evidence. 4) In our passage, something must have stood in the place of the corrupt Oregim, and what can it have been but: “he is David” (δεΰγεγ)?—There is no need to suppose that anything stood there. 5) In 2 Samuel 23:24 we find: “Elhanan the son of Dodo,” which, says Bφttcher, is for “Elhanan, son of David,” and this (combining 1 Chronicles 11:26) is for: “Elhanan, son of Jesse, he is David of Bethlehem.”—But the change of Dodo into David is unwarranted, and the rest arbitrary. 6) The text of Chron. is corrupt, for ours could not have come from it.—Thus Bφttcher builds his opinion on a series of arbitrary assumptions. As Thenius remarks, this sudden and isolated change of name (from David to Elhanan) would be in the highest degree strange and misleading.—The text is difficult, and no satisfactory account of it has been given. All that is clear is that Elhanan killed a giant. See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.] d. 2 Samuel 21:20-21. The exploit of Jonathan, David’s nephew. There was again a battle with the Philistines in Gath. According to the text probably: “there was a man of measures, extensions” [Eng. A. V.: of great stature], so De Dieu, Maurer, Movers, Ew., § 177 a. Bertheau and Thenius render: “a man of length;” Bφttcher: “a man of strife,” a quarrelsome fellow, bully. Six fingers and six toes, an abnormity that has always occurred, and still occurs. Pliny (Hist. Nat. XI. 43) mentions sedigiti, six-fingered Romans. 2 Samuel 21:21. He was killed by Jonathan, son of Shimea (called Shimeah in 2 Samuel 13:3, and Shammah in 1 Samuel 16:9), Jesse’s third son.—[In our text he is called Shimei, in the margin Shimea.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 21:22. Concluding remark. These four. Literally: “as to these four (Accus.), they were the scions of the Rapha,” descendants of the race of Rephaim at Gath, remains of the pre-Canaanitish inhabitants, distinguished by their gigantic size. See Joshua 11:22.—The phrase: “by the hand of David,” refers, not to his personal conflict with Ishbobenob, 2 Samuel 21:16 (Then., Keil), but to the fact that his heroes killed these giants under him as commander. AND 1. The blood-guilt that Saul had brought on his house by slaying the Gibeonites was produced by his perverted zeal for the purity of God’s people and for the Lord’s honor; the means he chose thereto were violation of oath (Joshua 9) and murder. The result of this crime of the king of Israel, the representative of the people of God, was God’s wrath on the land announced in the famine. A dark shadow here passes from Saul’s time over into David’s, in the account of which the following fundamental thoughts are interwoven. 1) Zeal for the Lord and His cause must not be conjoined with sin; if the good end makes holy the bad means, the bad means makes unholy and void the good end. 2) God’s anger cannot fail against crime committed in ostensible zeal for the honor of His kingdom; in men’s eyes the evil may assume the appearance of the alleged holy end, in God’s eyes the evil impulses in the human heart are evident; the punishment may delay, but comes in its time in all its severity. 3) He who sheds man’s blood, by man shall His blood be shed (Genesis 9:5-6), because man is made in God’s image, and murder is therefore a crime against the holy God Himself. Such a crime Saul committed against the Gibeonites, for the law of extermination did not apply to them (Joshua 9), and if they were not members of God’s people, they were men, made in God’s image. 4) Saul’s guilt becomes also the guilt of his house and people. The land must expiate its king’s wrong. This is rooted in the idea of the solidarity of the people and the theocratic king as representative of God’s people, whence comes solidarity of guilt between king and people. If through the fault of an individual member of the theocratic people, the whole theocratic State is unhallowed and exposed to God’s anger, how much more must this be the result of a sin committed by their king. [Kitto: If it be asked—and it has been asked—why vengeance was exacted, rather for this slaughter of the Gibeonites, than for Saul’s greater crime, the massacre of the priests at Nob?—the answer is, that the people, and even the family of Saul, had no sympathy with or part in this latter tragedy, which none but an alien could be found to execute. But both the people and Saul’s family had made themselves parties in the destruction of the unhappy Gibeonites, by their sympathy, their concurrence, their aid—and above all, as we must believe, by their accepting the fruits of the crime. Yet, although this be the intelligible public ground on which the transaction rests, it is impossible to withhold our sympathy for these victims of a public crime in which it is probable that none of them had any direct part.—Tr.] 2. Blood-vengeance was ordered in the Law only in case of intentional killing. The fundamental law is given in Genesis 9:5-6; the preciser statements are made in Exodus 21:12-14; Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13. The Lord is the proper avenger of blood, Genesis 9:5-6; Psalms 9:13 [1]; [Romans 12:19]. And no other means of absolution or expiation may be substituted for the blood of the guilty. Numbers 35:31. For the intentional murderer there is no protection against blood-vengeance, not even at the altar, Exodus 21:14—in such case only the blood of the slayer can atone. And so in consequence of this crime Saul was exposed to blood-vengeance according to the divine Law. 3. According to the law, blood-vengeance was to be executed only on the criminal himself. “The legislation of the middle books of the Pentateuch [Ex., Lev., Numb.] never permits the avenger of blood to go beyond the murderer, and seize his family” (Oehler in Herzog, II. 262). Comp. 2 Samuel 14:6-11. When the Gibeonites demanded seven descendants of Saul (who was fallen under the divine judgment) David was under no legal obligation to yield to the demand. When now he nevertheless yielded, and no complaint was made against him, this points to the fact that custom had originated a practice going beyond the law, based on the oriental notion of the solidarity of the family, and on the idea (found in the law) of guilt inherited by children from parents—and that David acted in accordance with this practice; the words of Deu 24:16 (comp. 2 Kings 14:6), as supplement to earlier legislation, may be directed against this practice (Oehler, as above, Kleinert on Deuteronomy, 1872, p. 133). Kurtz (Herz. III. 305): “David yields to their request, and the persons delivered up are hanged. To understand this procedure, we must bear in mind the ancient oriental ideas of the solidarity of the family, strict retaliation and blood-vengeance, ideas that, with some limitation, remained in force in the legislation of the Old Covenant.” [David certainly did wrong, if he yielded to a mere custom against the prescriptions of the law; the custom was a cruel one. Nothing is said in the text, indeed, about a conflict between custom and law; it seems strange that neither priest nor prophet raises his voice against a public crime. But the brevity of the account withholds the circumstances that might throw light on the incident.—Tr.] AND 2 Samuel 21:1 sq. Schlier: A famine in the land is a sign of the divine wrath. The Lord our God has every thing in His hand, even natural phenomena depend on Him; even dew and rain come from Him. [Hall: Justly it is presupposed by David that there was never judgment from God where hath not been a provocation from men; therefore, when he sees the plague, he inquires for the sin. Never man smarted causelessly from the hand of divine justice. O that, when we suffer, we could ask what we have done, and could guide our repentance to the root of our evils.—Tr.]—J. Lange: God does indeed put off His judgments; but He does not therefore annul them, Exodus 32:34. [Henry: Time does not wear out the guilt of sin; nor can we build hopes of impunity upon the delay of judgments. There is no statute of limitation to be pleaded against God’s demands.… Let parents take heed of sin, especially the sin of cruelty and oppression, for their poor children’s sake, who may be smarting for it by the just hand of God, when they are in their graves. Guilt and a curse are a bad entail upon a family.—Tr.] Fr. Arndt: A secret judgment of God goes through history, and he who is spared by time is certainly judged by eternity. That so many years lie between the sin and the punishment, and the expiation comes not in Saul’s, but in David’s time, is only a sign of the divine patience. God often waits long before He punishes; He not seldom makes the whole life a day of grace, and only in the day of judgment, long, long after the guilt was incurred, does the threatened punishment begin.—Osiander: It often happens that God in His righteous judgment visits a wicked man’s great sins not on him, but on His posterity.—Hall: Every sin hath a tongue, but that of blood over-cries and drowns the rest, Genesis 4:10.—Osiander: A common prayer and a common curse have very great power; for the sighing of them that suffer violence pierces through the clouds and draws divine vengeance. Sirach 35. [32. 21–23.—Fr. Arndt: There are also well-founded complaints against us, occasioned by our behaviour, and woe to us if as secret and frightful accusers against us they go up before God’s throne of judgment. [Hall: Little did the Gibeonites think that God had so taken to heart their wrongs, that for their sakes all Israel should suffer. Even when we think not of it is the Righteous Judge avenging our unrighteous vexations.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 21:6 sq. Schlier: Our time does indeed think of the rights of the criminal; but of the rights of those whom the criminal maltreats or threatens, people no longer think much, and still less do they think now-a-days of duty towards the criminal himself. 2 Samuel 21:9. Mercy and righteousness do not exclude each other. He who fears God should exhibit both at the same time righteousness in mercy, and also mercy in righteousness.—[2 Samuel 21:10-11. “One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.” The king is moved by the lowly mother’s devotion. The passage, 2 Samuel 21:1-14, is impressively treated by Taylor.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 21:15 sq. The conflict of the world-power against God’s kingdom Isaiah 1) A continual conflict, ever again renewed; 2) A conflict carried on with malicious cunning, frightful power and mighty weapons; 3) A conflict perilous to the people of God, demanding all the power given them by the Lord and their utmost bravery; 4) A conflict that by God’s help at last ends in the victory of His kingdom. [2 Samuel 21:1-3. The solidarity of human society (comp. above, “Hist. and Theol.,” No. 3). 1) As to guilt. 2) As to punishments. 3) As to expiations. 2 Samuel 21:14. “And after that God was entreated for the land.” Reparation of wrong-doing a condition of being heard in prayer.—Tr.] Footnotes: [2 Samuel 21:1. The phrase: “to seek the face” is simply “to go to one,” while “to inquire of God” (γψωׁ αΰμδιν) is “to investigate, seek wisdom” at His hands. The two verbs αχω and γψω are often coupled.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:1. It is better to express in the translation the idea of “guilt” contained in the γָּ ?ξִ ?ιν. Sept. renders: “on (ςַ ?μ) Saul and on his house (αֵּ ?ιϊεֹ) is iniquity [in death] of blood,” where we may omit ἐνθανάτῳ and αὐτοῦ the δַ ?γָּ ?ξιִ ?ν being taken as subject and rendered: “iniquity of blood.” Bφttcher, Thenius and Wellhausen adopt this text, and render: “On Saul and on his house is blood-guiltiness.” This translation avoids the hard expression: “the house of blood-guiltiness,” where we should expect the possessive pronoun. On the other hand the ΰֶ ?μ = “concerning” (Eng. A. V.: “for”) is a correct expression, and the hardness of the phrase is not unsuitable to an oracular response; the Heb. text is supported also by Vulg., Syr. and Chald.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:2. Bφttcher’s view, that this parenthesis is a later insertion, may be correct, for ancient editors were accustomed to make such insertions. But there is no necessity for regarding it as an insertion (particularly, as a marginal gloss), because the Hebrew historical style permits such interposed remarks. Bφttcher is unfortunate in charging a historical error on our text in that it has “Amorites” where Joshua 9:1 sqq. has “Hivites;” for the name “Amorite” is sometimes a general one, given to the dwellers over a large area (see Art. Amorite in Smith’s Bib.-Dict.). On the other hand Winer thinks that instead of “Hivites” in Joshua 9:7 should be read “Amorite.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:4. Properly: “There is not to us silver and gold with Saul and with his house, and there is not to us a man to kill in Israel,” that is, as some (Thenius, Erdmann): “we have no right to these things,” or, according to others (Bφttcher, Bib.-Com., Eng. A. V.): “we lay no claim to them.”—The Qeri “to us” is better than the Kethib “to me.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:6. The Kethib is Niph. Impf., the Qeri Hoph. Impf.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:6. This phrase is a strange one, and various attempts have been made to amend the text. Three are mentioned by Erdmann; Wellhausen proposes another, to read “Gibeon” instead of “Gibeah,” and to suppose the rest of the verse an insertion from the αδψι֞ of 2 Samuel 21:9. It is, however, impossible to say whether the Gibeonites would think Gibeon or Gibeah the fitter place for the execution, and the most natural emendation would seem to be to adopt the phrase of 2 Samuel 21:9, and read: “in Gibeah of Saul, in the mountain in the presence of Jehovah.” The phrase: “mountain of Jehovah,” would require us to suppose some particular mountain at Gibeah (or Gibeon) dedicated to Jehovah, and we do not know of such a one.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:8. “Michal” is clerical error for “Merab,” perhaps, as Bφttcher suggests, from the full form ξιψα.—The “brought up” of Eng. A. V. instead of “bare” is an unwarranted mistranslation, intended (after the Chaldee) to account for the name “Michal.”—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:9. As Sept. adds the word “barley” after “harvest” in 2 Samuel 21:10, Wellhausen would regard this last phrase in 2 Samuel 21:9 as a false repetition, especially as, if any preposition is to be supplied here, it would most naturally be ξִ ?ο (since the preceding word ends with ν—but the Qeri supplies αְ), and this would not suit here. But the phrase is so natural a one that there is no good ground for rejecting it.—Bφttcher’s explanation of the Kethib ωִׁ ?ςְ ?αָ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν as dual is accepted by Erdmann, though the resulting sense is not clear (see Ewald, § 269 b). The Qeri ωְׁ ?αַ ?ςְ ?ϊָּ ?ν, “the seven of them” (Eng. A. V.: “all seven”) seems better.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:12. The word αַ ?ςַ ?μ occurs in the sense of “citizen” in the Books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel only. As it in such cases means (in the plural) “possessors of the city,” it may throw light on the civil-political constitution of ancient city-life. It seems not to occur in this sense in any other Shemitic language.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:14. Sept. here inserts: “and the bones of the exposed” (= impaled, hanged), a very natural insertion (and adopted by Bφttcher, Thenius and Wellhausen), but suspicious from its naturalness. Bφttcher thinks that the words were purposely omitted in what he calls the “priestly recension” of the Book of Samuel, because offence was taken at the burial of those persons (who were slain as an expiation) along with Saul and Jonathan; against which Thenius remarks that the omission would have been very unwise in the face of the preceding narrative. But the bones of the seven may have been gathered at the same time with those of Saul and Jonathan without being interred in the same place with them.—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:16. The strange form of this name has suggested emendations of the text. The Syriac (followed by its copyist the Arabic) omits it altogether, Vulg. and Chald. are as Heb., Sept. has Jesbi. Wellhausen proposes to read: ειּ ?ωαεּ αβα, “and they sat down in Gob” (taking Nob as error for Gob), and to place this after the “with him” in 2 Samuel 21:15; and in the εַ ?ιָּ ?ςַ ?σγָּ ?εִ ?γ he would see the name of the giant, and perhaps some verb, as “and he arose.” The sentence would then read: “David went down and his servants with him, and they sat down [ = took position] in Gob, and fought against the Philistines; and there arose [here the man’s name], who was of the sons,” etc. Similar to this is the emendation proposed in Bib.-Com.: “And David waxed faint. So they halted [ = sat down] in Gob. And there was a man (in Gob), which was of the sons,” etc.; instead of changing the “David waxed faint” (as Wellhausen does), this reading supplies the phrase: “and there was a man.” These are both ingenious, and to both there are objections. The dislocation of a phrase supposed by Wellhausen is not accounted for; and in the other reading the statement that the man was in Gob is unnatural (since he was not residing there, but had come with the army), and David’s weariness (which more naturally explains the giant’s attack on him) is given merely as the reason for the army’s halting. It is likely that the text is corrupt (and the corruption must have been made before the Sept. translation was made), the phrase: “David was weary” receives no explanation as it stands, and the ειΰξψ supposes another verb before it; but a satisfactory emendation has not yet been proposed, though Wellhausen’s seems the least objectionable.—Instead of the second ξִ ?ωְׁ ?χַ ?μ we should probably read ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?μ (so perhaps Sept.).—Tr.] [2 Samuel 21:19. The text here is generally regarded as corrupt, the oregim being manifestly a repetition of the last word of the verse. Whether then we are to adopt the text of 1 Chronicles 20:5 : “And Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite,” or to regard the latter as a conjectural emendation of ours, or, finally, to consider them both as corruptions of one original, it is hard to decide. Bφttcher reads: “Elhanan the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite slew Goliath,” etc., and identifies Elhanan with David, on which see translator’s note in the Exposition. Against the reading of “Chronicles” is the fact that it is the easier, against ours is the improbability of the existence of two Goliaths, or of the identity of Elhanan and David. But these presuppositions are all manifestly untrustworthy. See Erdmann’s discussion in the Exposition, and for various other views see Poole’s Synopsis.—Here and in 2 Samuel 21:18 some MSS. have Nob instead of Gob.—Tr.] [The whole phrase rather indicates that the chronological order is here not observed (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.] [Sept.: “on Saul and on his house is blood-guiltiness.” See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.] [Abarbanel (in Patrick) thinks they were slain when the priests were put to death (1 Samuel 22) in Nob; but there is no trace of this in the history.—Tr.] [The way in which this statement is introduced: “And the Gibeonites were not Israelites,” shows not so much that the Book of Joshua was not a part of the same work as the Books of Samuel (Bib. Com.), as that the present Book of Joshua was not in existence when our narrative was written.—Tr.] μְ ?ηַ ?λְ ?ψִ ?ϊָ ?ν instead of μְ ?δַ ?λֹּ ?ϊָ ?ν. [The word “Judah” is perhaps a later addition after the division of the kingdom, since the phrase “children of Israel” would in Saul and David’s time include the whole nation.—Tr.] The Kethib Sing. “to me” (indicating the one person speaking for all) is to be preferred to the Qeri Plu. “to us” [as in Eng. A. V.], which is an imitation of the following “to us.” [According to others (Bib.-Com.) their meaning is that it is not against the nation Israel, but against the individual Saul, that they cry for vengeance, which is better.—Tr.] λִּ ?ι is omitted before the Imperf., as sometimes occurs when the dependent sentence expresses a process or obligation; comp. Leviticus 9:6; Ew. § 336 b. δָ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ is asyndetically preposed Accus. Absolute, defined by “his sons” in 2 Samuel 21:6. Ges. § 145, 2. πִ ?ωְׁ ?ξַּ ?γְ ?πεּ depends on γִּ ?ξָּ ?δ with omission of λִּ ?ι. It is unnecessary to supply the ε consec of the Perfect, (Then.), or to read μַ ?ωְׁ ?ξִ ?ιγֵ ?πεּ (Ew., Bφttcher). Bφttch.: αְּ ?ηִ ?ιψֵ ?ι; Houb.;αִּ ?γְ ?αַ ?ψ; Then.: αְּ ?δַ ?ψ; [See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] [Bib Com. suggests that, as Aiah occurs as a [masculine] Horite name (in Genesis 36:24), Rizpah may have been a foreigner, and this may have been the reason for selecting her sons as victims.—Tr.] Kethib.: ωִׁ ?αְ ?ςֲ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν is with Bφttcher to be retained against the Qeri ωְׁ ?αַ ?ςְ ?ϊָּ ?ν, since the Dual properly denotes what is repeated in equal measure according to the number (Bφttcher). ϊְּ ?ηִ ?μָּ ?δ (not Qeri with αְּ) is adverbial Accusative; Ges. § 118. 2. On the construction of εַ ?ιֻּ ?βַּ ?γ with ΰֵ ?ϊ see Ges. § 143, 1a. [According to Gesenius the ΰֵ ?ϊ here introduces the Accusative of limitation; according to others (not so well) the Nominative.—Tr.] Kethib ϊָּ ?μεּ ?ν is the Heb. form (from ϊָּ ?μָ ?δ), the Qeri ϊְּ ?μָ ?ΰεּ ?ν the Aramaizing form; see Ges. § 75, 22; Ew. § 252 a.—Instead of Keth. ωָׁ ?νδַ ?τΧ read Qeri ωָׂ ?ξָּ ?δτ֞ the Art. being out of place before τּ֞. χֵ ?ιπεֹ = ferrum hast� (Vulg). [Patrick would render: “Abishai helped him, and he (David) slew the Philistine,” in order to explain the mention of David in 2 Samuel 21:22. The Heb. does not certainly decide this point, but more probably Abishai is said to be the slayer.—Tr.] Sam.: αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?μַּ ?ηְ ?ξִ ?ιΰֵ ?ϊβָּ ?μְ ?ιִ ?ϊ; Chron.: ΰֶ ?ϊΞμַ ?ηְ ?ξִ ?ιΰֲַ ?ηִ ?ιβָּ ?μְ ?ιָ ?ϊ. Kethib: ξָ ?γִ ?ιο probably = ξִ ?γִּ ?ιο, as archaic or Aramaic Plural (for which Chron. has Sing. ξִ ?γָּ ?δ), “extensions;” Berth. and Then. take Qeri ξָ ?γεֹ ?ο (= ξִ ?γָּ ?δ of Chron), “length;” Bφttcher: Kethib ξָ ?γεֹ ?ο = ξָ ?γִ ?ιο “contention” THIRD SECTIONDavid’s song of thanksgiving for the victories that the Lord gave him over his enemies through his deeds of might2 Samuel 221And David spake unto the Lord [Jehovah] the words of this song in the day that the Lord (Jehovah) had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul: 2And he said, The Lord [Jehovah] is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, 3The God of my rock [My Rock-God], in him will [om. will] I trust, He is [om. he is] my shield and the horn of my salvation, my high tower [fortress], and my refuge, My Saviour, thou savest me from violence. 4I will [om, will] call on the Lord [Jehovah] who is worthy to be praised, So shall I [And I shall] be saved from mine enemies. 5When [For] the waves of death compassed me, The floods of ungodly men [streams of wickedness] made me afraid, 6The sorrows [toils] of hell [Sheol] compassed me about, The snares of death prevented [encountered] me. 7In my distress I called upon the Lord [Jehovah], And cried to my God [And to my God I cried], And he did hear [heard] my voice out of his temple [palace], And my cry did enter [entered] into his ears. 8Then [And] the earth shook and trembled, The foundations of heaven [the heavens] moved And shook, because he was wroth. 9There went up a smoke out of [in] his nostrils And fire out of his mouth devoured, Coals were kindled by it [Ked-hot coals burned from him]. 10He bowed the heavens also [And he bowed the heavens], and came down, And darkness [cloud-darkness] was under his feet. 11And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly, And he was seen [And appeared] upon the wings of the wind. 12And he made darkness pavilions round about him, Dark waters [Gathering of waters], and [om. and] thick clouds of the skies. 13Through [Out of] the brightness before him Were coals of fire kindled [Burned coals of fire]. 14The Lord [Jehovah] thundered from heaven, And the Most High uttered his voice. 15And he sent out arrows, and scattered them, Lightning, and discomfited them. 16And the channels [beds] of the sea appeared, The foundations of the world [earth] were discovered At the rebuking of the Lord [Jehovah], At [By] the blast of the breath of his nostrils. 17He sent [reached] from above [on high], he took me, He drew me out of many [great] waters. 18He delivered me from my strong enemy, And [om. and] from them that hated me, for they were too strong for me. 19They prevented [came upon] me in the day of my calamity, But the Lord [And Jehovah] was my stay. 20He brought me forth also [And he brought me forth] into a large place, He delivered me, because he delighted in me. 21The Lord [Jehovah] rewarded [rendered] me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. 22For I have kept the ways of the Lord [Jehovah], And have not wickedly departed from my God. 23For all his judgments were [are] before me, And as for his statutes I did [do] not depart from them. 24I was also [And I was] upright before [perfect towards] him, And have kept myself from my iniquity. 25Therefore the Lord [And Jehovah] hath recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to my cleanness in his eyesight. 26With the merciful thou wilt show [showest] thyself merciful, And [om. and] with the upright [perfect] man thou wilt show [showest] thyself upright [perfect]. 27With the pure thou wilt show [showest] thyself pure, And with the froward [perverse] thou wilt show [showest] thyself unsavory [perverse]. 28And the afflicted people thou wilt save [savest], But [And] thine eyes are upon [against] the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down. 29For thou art my lamp, O Lord [Jehovah], And the Lord [Jehovah] will lighten [lightens] my darkness. 30For by thee I have run [I run] through a troop [troops], By my God have I leaped over [I leap over] a wall [walls]. 31As for God, his way is perfect; The word of the Lord [Jehovah] is tried [pure], He is a buckler to all them that trust in him. 32for who is God save the Lord [Jehovah]? And who is a rock save our God? 33God is my strength and power [strong fortress]. And he maketh my way perfect. 34He maketh my feet like hinds’ feet (like the hinds), And setteth me upon my high places. 35He teacheth my hands to war, So that [And] a bow of steel is broken by mine arms [my arms bend a bow of bronze]. 36Thou hast also [And thou hast] given me the shield of thy salvation, And thy gentleness [hearkening] hath made me great. 37Thou hast enlarged my steps under me, So that [And] my feet did not slip [my ankles did not tremble]. 38I have pursued mine enemies, and destroyed them, And turned not again until I had consumed them. 39And I have consumed them, and wounded [crushed] them, That [And] they could [did] not arise, Yea [And] they art fallen under my feet. 40For [And] thou hast girded me with strength to battle, Them that rose up against me hast thou subdued under me. 41Thou hast also [And thou hast] given me the necks of mine enemies, That I might destroy [And I destroyed] them that hate [hated] me. 42They looked, but there was none to save [and there was no saviour], Even [om. even] unto the Lord [Jehovah], but [and] he answered them not. 43Then did [And] I beat them as small as the dust of the earth, I did stamp [crushed] them as the mire of the street, and [om. and] did spread them abroad [stamped them]. 44Thou also [And thou] hast delivered me from the strivings of my people, Thou hast kept me to be head of the heathen, A people which I knew not, shall [om. shall] serve me. 45Strangers shall submit themselves unto me [Strangers fawn on me], As soon as they hear, they shall be [are] obedient unto me. 46Strangers shall fade away, And they shall be afraid out of their close places [strongholds]. 47The Lord [Jehovah] liveth, and blessed be my rock, And exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation. 48It is God [The God] that avengeth me, And that [om. that] bringeth down the people [peoples] under me, 49And that [om. that] bringeth me forth from mine enemies, Thou also [And thou] hast lifted me up on high above them that rose up against me [hast exalted me above my adversaries], Thou hast delivered me from the violent man. 50Therefore will I give thanks unto thee, O Lord [Jehovah], among the heathen, And I will sing praises unto thy name. 51He is the tower of salvation for his king, And showeth mercy to his Anointed, Unto [To] David and to his seed for evermore. AND This song of praise and thanksgiving is (a few deviations excepted, which will be examined in the exposition) identical with Psalms 18. The superscription is substantially the same in the two productions. In the Psalm the opening words: “to the precentor, by the servant of Jehovah, by David,” are like the title of Psalms 36; then follows (in the form of a relative sentence: “who spake to Jehovah”) the historical introduction in the same words as in 2 Samuel 22:1 of our chapter (except only that the second “hand” is given by different words): “And David spake to the Lord the words of this song,” etc. The Davidic origin of the song, which is universally recognized (except by Olshausen and Hupfeld) is thus doubly attested. The redactor of our Books regards this as equally indubitable as in the other sayings and poems attributed to David, 2 Samuel 3:33-34; 2 Samuel 5:8; 2 Samuel 7:18-29; 2 Samuel 23:1-7. The high antiquity of the song is favored by its use in Psalms 116, 144, and the quotation of 2 Samuel 22:31 in Proverbs 30:5, and of 2 Samuel 22:34 in Hab. iii. 19; and especially the early recognition of its Davidic origin is shown by the fact that the author of the Books of Samuel found the superscription, which ascribes the song to David, already in the historical authority whence he took the narrative (comp. Hitzig on Psalms, I. 95 sqq.). The source, whence Psalms 18 also with its identical historical introduction was taken into the psalter (since it was evidently not taken from 2 Sam.) is doubtless one of the theocratic-prophetic historical works; from which Sam. has drawn. See the Introduction, pp. 31–35. The content also of the song puts its genuineness beyond doubt. The victories that God has given the singer over internal and external enemies, so that he is now a mighty king, the individual characteristics, which agree perfectly with the Davidic Psalms, and especially the singer’s designation of himself by the name David (2 Samuel 22:51), compel us to regard the latter as the author. “Certainly,” says Hitzig, “this opinion will be derived from 2 Samuel 22:51. And rightly; for, if the song was not by David, it must have been composed in his name and into his soul; and who could this contemporary and equal poet be?”—On the position of the song in this connection midway among the sections of the concluding appendix, see Introduction, pp. 21–23. The insertion of the episodes from the Philistian wars (2 Samuel 21:15-22) gives the point of connection for the introduction of this song of victory, which David sang in triumph over his external enemies. And the reference at the close of this song (2 Samuel 22:51) to the promise of the everlasting kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12-16; 2 Samuel 7:26; 2 Samuel 7:29), which David now sees is assured by his victories, has obviously given the redactor the point of connection for David’s last prophetic song (2 Samuel 23:1-7), wherein is celebrated the imperishable dominion of his house, founded on the covenant that the Lord has made with him. Noticeable also is the bond of connection between the two songs in the fact that David calls himself by name in 2 Samuel 22:51; 2 Samuel 23:1 just as in 2 Samuel 7:20.—The time of composition (the reference in 2 Samuel 22:51 to 2 Samuel 7 being unmistakable) cannot be before the date when David, on the ground of the promise given him through Nathan, could be sure that his dominion despite all opposition was immovable, and that the throne of Israel would remain forever with his house. The words of the title: “in the day when the Lord had saved him from the hand of all his enemies” agree with the description of victories in 2 Samuel 22:29-46, and point to a time when David had established his kingdom by war, and forced heathen princes to do homage (comp. 2 Samuel 22:44-49). But, as God’s victorious help against external enemies is celebrated in the second part of the song, and the joyous tone of exultation shows that David’s heart is taken up with the gloriousness of that help, it is a fair assumption that the song was written not after the turmoil of Absalom’s conspiracy and the succeeding events (Keil), but immediately after the victorious wars narrated in chaps. 8 and 10. 2 Samuel 22:44-45 may without violence be referred (Hitzig) to the fact related in 2 Samuel 8:9 sqq., that Toi, king of Hamath, presented his homage to David through his son Joram. So the reference to 2 Samuel 8:6, where the Syrians are said to have been conquered and brought gifts, is obvious. The conviction of the theocratic narrator (as expressed in the repeated remark, 2 Samuel 8:6, 2 Samuel 14 : “the Lord helped David, wherever he went”) that David had the Lord’s special help in these wars with Syria and Edom, accords with the free, joyous praise of the Lord’s help in our song. The song was therefore very probably produced after the victories over the Syrians and Edomites, which were epoch-making for the establishment and extension of David’s authority. David composed it doubtless at the glorious end of this war, looking at the same time at God’s mercies to him in the early period of the Sauline persecution, and the internal wars with Saul’s adherents (2 Samuel 2:8 to 2 Samuel 4:12), and making these subject-matter of praise and thanks to the Lord. The poet’s imagination, in its contemplation of the two principal periods of war, moves backwards, presenting first the external wars, which were the nearest, and then the internal, with Saul and his house. The designation of time “in the day” (i.e., at the time, as in Genesis 2:4 and elsewhere) “when the Lord had saved him from the hand of Saul,” points to the moment of David’s victory over all his enemies, when he could breathe freely and praise God.—The form of the superscription is similar to that of the superscriptions of the songs that are inserted in the history in Exodus 15:1; Numbers 21:17; Deuteronomy 31:30. In Psalms 18, as here, the song is introduced with the words: “and he said.” 2 Samuel 22:2-4. The prologue of the song. With an unusually great number of predicates, David out of his joyously thankful heart, praises the Lord for His many deliverances. The numerous designations of God in 2 Samuel 22:2-3 are the summary statement of what, as the song exhibits in detail, the Lord has been to him in all his trials. In 2 Samuel 22:4 the thankful testimony to the salvation that God (as above designated in 2 Samuel 22:2-3) has vouchsafed him, is set forth as the theme of the whole song. The opening words of Psalms 18 (2 Samuel 22:2 [2 Samuel 22:1]): “I love thee, O Lord, my strength,” are wanting in our passage. The originality of this introduction, which the Syriac [of 2 Samuel 22] contains, and which “carries its own justification” (Thenius), is not to be doubted; it has here fallen out either “from illegible writing” (Thenius), or through mistake. “I deeply love thee;” David’s deep love to his God is the fruit of God’s manifestations of love to him. Luther: “Thus he declareth his deepest love, that he delighteth in our Lord God; for he feeleth that his benefits are unspeakable, and from this exceeding great delight and love it cometh that He giveth him so many names, as in what followeth.” These words of Psa 18:2 have occasioned the noble hymns: “With all my heart, O Lord, I love Thee” (M. Schalling), and: “Thee will I love, my strength” (J. Scheffler).—The phrase: “my strength” denotes not the inner power of heart received by David from God (Luther), but (as is shown by the following names of God, which all refer to outward help) the manifestations of the might of God amid the trials brought on him by enemies.—My rock and my fortress; the same designation is found in Psalms 31:4 [Psalms 31:3] and Psalms 71:3. “My rock, properly cleft of a rock, which gives concealment from enemies,=he who conceals me to save me. So in Psalms 42:10 [Psalms 42:9] the strong God (ΰֵ ?μ), is called, over against pressing enemies, “my rock.”—My fortress, a place difficult of access from its height and strength, offering protection against ambush and attack, a watchtower. The natural basis for these figures is found in the frequent rock-clefts and steep, inaccessible hills of Palestine. Comp. Judges 6:2; Job 39:27-28; Isaiah 33:16. The historical basis is furnished by David’s experiences in Saul’s time, when he was often obliged to betake himself to clefts and hills. Comp. 1 Samuel 22:5; 23:14, 19; 24:1, 23.—The meaning of these concrete figures is indicated in the added expression: My deliverer. Bφttcher would change the pointing and read: “My deliverance;” but there is no good ground for this, either in the occurrence of this latter word in Psalms 55:9 [8] and Psalms 144:2, or in the abstract expressions of 2 Samuel 22:4 [2 Samuel 22:3]. Rather the indication of the Lord’s personal, active help in the words saviour and savest, favors the reading “deliverer.” 2 Samuel 22:3. God of my rock, of my house, my rock-God. Psalms 18:3 [Psalms 18:2] has: “my strong God (ΰֵ ?μ), my rock;” these separated predicates are here united into one expression. The word “rock” (comp. stone in Genesis 49:24), denotes the firmness and unshakableness of God’s faithfulness, which is founded on the unchangeableness of His being (comp. Isaiah 26:4 sqq.) and gives assurance of unendangered, certain security. So in Deuteronomy 32:4; Deuteronomy 32:37 God is called the rock as the God of faithfulness, whom one securely builds on and trusts (Ps. 92:16 [Psalms 92:15]). Comp. 2 Samuel 22:47, where the name “rock-God” again occurs.—In whom I trust (the construction is relative). The “trust” as firm confidence answers to the rock-like firmness of the divine faithfulness, on which one may rely.—My shield, figure of covering against the attacks of enemies, protection against dangers. So in Genesis 15:1 God calls Himself Abraham’s shield, and in Deuteronomy 33:29 He is the shield of the help [=the saving shield] of Israel. The figure is frequent in the Psalms; see Psalms 3:4 [ Psalms 3:3]; Psalms 7:11 [10, Eng. A. V.: defence]; Psalms 28:7; Psalms 59:12 [Psalms 59:11], and elsewhere.—And horn of my salvation, denotes God’s might and strength, which gives not only protection, but also help and salvation in the overcoming of enemies. The figure refers not to the horns of the altar (Hitzig, Moll), as if protection were the only thing involved, but to the horns of beasts, in which their strength is shown in the victorious repulse of an attack [or, in making an attack] (see 1 Samuel 2:1; 1 Samuel 2:10; Job 16:15; Ps. 75:5, 6, 11 [Psalms 75:4-5; Psalms 75:10]; Psalms 89:18 [Psalms 89:17]; Psalms 92:11 [Psalms 92:10]; Psalms 112:9; Psalms 148:1). The Lord is not only protection against attacks, but also “a trusty shield and weapon” (“ein’ gute wehr und waffe”) for victoriously combating and repelling them. Comp. Deuteronomy 33:29, where the God of Israel is called the shield of their help and the sword of their excellency. The reference of the “horn” to a mountain-peak has small support from Isaiah 5:1, and, as the comparison with the strength of horned beasts is so frequent, must be rejected.—My stronghold [Eng. A. V.: high tower], steep, lofty place, inaccessible and therefore safe, see Psalms 9:10 [9 Eng. A.V.: refuge]. And my refuge, my Saviour, who saves me from violence. These words are wanting in Psalms 18. Their insertion is not to be explained from the desire to give rhythmical completeness to the strophe left imperfect by the omission of the “I love Thee, Jehovah” (Keil), but from the effort (in accordance with the position of the song here in the midst of the history) to explain the preceding declarations about God in respect to the help actually given by Him. As a testimony to the deliverance vouchsafed David by God as his rock, etc., the words make the transition to 2 Samuel 22:4.—Most modern expositors regard all these appellatives as in apposition with “Jehovah,” putting the latter in the vocative (so also Hitzig and Delitzsch) [“O Jehovah, my rock… my Saviour, Thou savest me from violence”]. But as Hupfeld (on Psalms 18:3 [2]) -rightly remarks, this would produce too long and heavy an address. The “Jehovah” is therefore (with the older expositors and the ancient versions) to be taken as subject, and the appellations as declarations: “Jehovah is my rock and my fortress,” etc. 2 Samuel 22:4. As the praised one I call on the Lord, or: I call on the praised one, the Lord. The participle (ξְ ?ηֻ ?μָּ ?μ) does not mean “glorious” (Hengst., Hupf.), but (conformably to the frequent hallelujah)=“blessed,” Psalms 48:2 [Psalms 48:1]; Psalms 96:4; Psalms 113:3; Psalms 145:3, comp. 1 Chronicles 16:25; nor does it mean laudandus, “praiseworthy.” [The Participles may have the force of the Lat. Fut. Passive; Eng. A. V.: “worthy to be praised,” Vulg.: laudabilem; Sept.: ἀινετόν. The Chaldee (which paraphrases largely in 2 Samuel 22:3) takes it as active, and renders: “Said David, With praise I will pray before Jehovah.” Ewald (on Psalms 18) renders it: “worthy to be praised.”—Tr.] It is not vocative, but Accusative, and is put at the beginning of the sentence for the sake of emphasis, as in 2 Samuel 22:2; 2 Samuel 7:16; 2 Samuel 10:7; 2 Samuel 10:14; 2 Samuel 10:17. David has actually praised the Lord in the preceding predicates; they form the content of the praise. The rendering: “Praised be Thou, I cry, O Jehovah” (G. Baur, Olshausen) does not accord with the following member: “and from my enemies I am saved.” The verbs are not (with many old expositors) to be taken as future: “I will call, shall be saved,” but as expressing undefined past time, comp. Psalms 3:5 [Psalms 3:4] [or, better as indefinite as to time, the Eng. general present.—Tr.]. David prefaces his song with this general, all-embracing declaration (based on all his experiences of the Lord’s help), of which the sense is: “as often as (= when) I call on the Lord, I am saved;” and he now proceeds to exhibit its truth by the citation of his experiences. He bases his confident appeal to the Lord for help on His manifestations of might, wherein he recognizes and praises God as his deliverer. 2 Samuel 22:5-28. First part of the description of the divine manifestation of help, experienced by David in the time of Saul’s persecutions. 2 Samuel 22:5-7. From the description of the dangers that pressed on him (2 Samuel 22:5-6), he proceeds to the avowal that he called on the Lord for help, and was heard (2 Samuel 22:7). 2 Samuel 22:5. For breakers of death had surrounded me. The “for” (lacking in Psalms 18:5 [4]) introduces the following as the ground of the declaration of 2 Samuel 22:4. Instead of “breakers” the Ps, has “cords (bands),” representing death under the image of a hunter, comp. Psalms 91:3. The “breakers” here correspond better to the “floods” of the next member. “Floods of wickedness;” the word (αְּ ?μִ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μ) means properly “uselessness, worthlessness,” commonly found in an ethical sense: “wickedness,” comp. 2 Samuel 16:7; 2 Samuel 20:1; 2 Samuel 23:6; 1 Samuel 2:12; 1 Samuel 10:27; 1 Samuel 25:17; 1 Samuel 25:25. It is found also in the physical sense of “destruction, harm,” Nahum 1:11; Psalms 41:9 [Psalms 41:8, Eng. A. V.: evil disease]. So it must be taken here also, on account of the parallels: “breakers of death, nets of hell, snares of death.” “Had terrified me” (suddenly come upon me). [Dr. Erdmann in his translation, renders: “floods of wickedness,” but his preceding statement requires: “floods of destruction,” (so Delitzsch).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 22:6. Nets of hell [better: Sheol.—Tr.]—snares of death. From the figure of water-waves the poet passes to that of the hunter, under which is represented the suddenly and treacherously attacking power of death. “Snares of death fall on me” (χִ ?γֵּ ?ν) comp. 2 Samuel 22:19; Psalms 17:13; Job 30:27.—The words of 2 Samuel 22:5-6 describe not all the dangers of David’s life up to this time (Keil, Ew., Hupf., Thol.), but the snares and persecutions that befell him in Saul’s time. The description of peril of life agrees only with this time, which the title also expressly mentions. This view is favored also by the relation between the two sections, 2 Samuel 22:5-46, “in the first of which David is saved by God without effort on his part, while in the second, he is both object and instrument of the divine deliverance” (Hengst.). In the same direction Riehm (in Hupfeld) well remarks that David in the whole of the first part is only passive, not active (only God’s hand saves him), but in the second part on the contrary himself as a warrior, wards off his enemies. 2 Samuel 22:7. Looking back at those deadly dangers, David affirms that he was driven by them to call on God, and was heard by him. In my distress I called upon the Lord, and to my God I called. Instead of “called” the Ps. has “cried,” answering to the distress that forced such a cry from him. And he heard my voice out of his palace, out of God’s heavenly dwelling, as contrasted with the depth of distress on earth, out of which he sent up to God his cry for help. Comp. Psalms 16:4 : “The Lord is in his holy palace, the Lord’s throne is in heaven.” Thence appears the Lord’s help. [Eng. A. V., not so well: “temple,” for, though heaven may be regarded as a temple, Jehovah is here represented as a king, enthroned in heaven and the word “temple” would most probably be understood by English readers of the earthly building consecrated to His service. The Hebrew word means both palace and temple.—Tr.] And my cry into his ears. The Ps., has the fuller vivid description: “and my cry came before him, into his ears;” our passage has the advantage of more emphatic brevity (comp. Hengst., Rem.). 2 Samuel 22:8-20. Splendid poetical description of God’s help appearing in answer to his prayer, under the image of a terrible storm accompanied by an earthquake, the individual features being given with vivid coloring in accordance with the natural order of the phenomena. Comp. Tholuck, on Psalms, p. 91.—As the preceding description of distress refers not to the whole of David’s life, but only to the Sauline period, so this poetical description is not to be understood of a real storm (as in 1 Samuel 7:10) that terrified the enemy and saved David. Thenius, Ewald and Hitzig, indeed, so understand it, and refer it to a storm in a battle with the Syrians (2 Samuel 7:5), and similarly others. But, in the first place, the connection is against this; for the deliverance described in 2 Samuel 22:17-20 is clearly none other than the salvation from the distress pictured in 2 Samuel 22:5-7. Further, the figure (here poetically elaborated) of a terrible storm, is the standing form of representation of God’s glory and majesty in the revelation of His holiness and punitive justice, as in the fundamental passage, Exodus 19 (the legislation on Sinai). So are often represented God’s theophanies for the revelation of His anger, for the accomplishment of His judgments, for the deliverance of His people from their enemies and for new unfoldings of the glory of His kingdom; comp. besides Exodus 19:16-18, especially Judges 5:4-5; Isaiah 29:6; Isaiah 30:27-30; Joe 2:10-11; Joe 3:3 sq. [2 Samuel 2:30-31]; Nab. 1:3-6; Psalms 50:2-3; Psalms 77:17-19 [Psalms 77:16-18]; Psalms 97:2-5.—Certainly, “if the poet had meant by all this to say merely: ‘God even in the greatest need, has accorded me almighty help,’ the apparatus would in fact be too great” (Thenius). But the connection shows that he means to say more; looking at the fears and dangers of the gloomy time of Saul’s persecution, he will comprehensively set forth how the Lord visited His wrathful judgments on the enemy that so oppressed him, God’s servant, and in him endangered the cause of God’s kingdom, and how the Lord by His invincible might, saved him and gave victory to his cause. “The combination of the figure of 2 Samuel 22:17 sqq., with other and general features, suggests that it also has a general reference.” (Hupfeld). So Riehm (in Hupf., p. 465) remarks that the description has no historical reference, but by its poetical form, holds itself above the plane of concrete history. 2 Samuel 22:8. The earthquake is the sign of God’s approaching wrath; as the Lord descends from His temple in heaven to judgment on earth, the whole earth quakes before Him. There is probably in this an allusion to thunder as the voice of the approaching wrathful God, under the mighty peals of which heaven and earth shake; see Joel 2:10, 11; 4:16; [Joe 3:16]. Nahum 1:5. The effect is vividly represented in the text by paronomasia in three verbs (“the earth was shaking and quaking, the foundations of heaven quailing and shaking”).—The foundations of the heaven shake together with the earth. The Psalm, in which only the shaking of the earth is spoken of, has: “the foundations of the mountains.” The mountains rising up towards heaven are, according to the natural view, regarded as the foundation on which heaven rests; comp. Job 26:11, where they are called “the pillars of heaven.” “The text of 2 Sam., represents the whole universe as trembling before Him, in order to picture strongly the terribleness of the wrath of the Almighty; so Joel. 2:10, 11; 4:16 [Joe 3:16]; Isaiah 13:13.” For he was wroth. The wrath of God is here expressly stated to be the cause of the trembling of heaven and earth. 2 Samuel 22:9. Elaboration of the preceding “he was wroth,” by the description of the approaching appearance of the wrath of God, under the figure of smoke and fire. Smoke rose in his nostril—not: “in His anger” (Sept., Vulg., Stier), but (in keeping with the parallel “mouth”) His nose, which is considered the seat of anger (so also in Greek and Latin writers); and so its snorting (comp. 2 Samuel 22:16), as in the case of an angry man, is the figure of God’s anger, which, as a heightening of the image, is compared to smoke, as in Psalms 74:1; Psalms 80:5 [Psalms 80:4, Eng. A. V.; “be angry,” literally: “smoke”]; Deuteronomy 29:19. And fire devoured out of his mouth. Fire is a standing image of God’s consuming anger (comp. Deuteronomy 32:22). The smoke, as the natural accompaniment of fire, denotes the uprising and approach of God’s anger. For similar figure of smoke and fire see (besides the fundamental passage, Exodus 19:18), Isaiah 65:5. The “out of his mouth” is parallel to “out of his nose.” The image of the mouth answers to the consuming force of the fire of wrath. The verb “devoured” is to be taken without an object (as “the enemy”); it stands absolutely (as in Psalms 50:3), only the consuming power of the fire being indicated. Glowing coals burned out of him; the “glowing coals” is parallel to the “devouring fire,” adding to the picture the feature of the flames that proceed from the fire. “Out of him,” that is, out of His mouth, as a burning oven, pour the flames of the sea of fire (comp. Genesis 15:17). The mouth is designated as the medium of the revelation of anger; because the fire of human anger pours from the heart through the mouth in angry words. The fire in the Lord’s mouth is symbolized “as one flaming in full glow” (Hupfeld). There is no reference here to flashes of lightning. “These are the later product (comp. 2 Samuel 22:13) of the flame of fire and anger, that is here just kindled” (Hengst.). But since the representation of a rising storm (breaking out afterwards in 2 Samuel 22:13 with thunder and lightning) is carried out in the poetical conception, so in the picture thus far the image of smoke and flaming fire is to be referred to the rising of the storm-cloud and the flaming of the sheet-lightning that announces the storm (Tholuck). 2 Samuel 22:10-12. Now follows the poetical description of the appearance of the Lord from heaven under the figures of the thickening and gathering clouds, on which the Lord sweeps on as on a throne, and of the storm-wind, on whose wings He rushes. 2 Samuel 22:10. And he bowed the heavens—a picture of the low-hanging storm-clouds, at whose approach the heaven seems to bend down to the earth. Comp. Psalms 144:5; Isaiah 63:19.—And came down, the descent of the Lord from heaven to earth to execute judgment on David’s enemies, and deliver him. On the indication of God’s coming to judgment by His “descent from heaven,” comp. Genesis 11:7; Genesis 18:21; Isaiah 64:1.—And cloud-darkness under His feet, i.e., He thus descended. The dark, black cloud (= darkness, 2 Samuel 22:12) is the symbol of the terror that the wrath of God carries with it; see Exodus 19:16 [Sinai]; 2 Samuel 20:21; Deuteronomy 5:19; Psalms 104:29 (a figure of the hiding of God’s face); Nahum 1:3 (“clouds are the dust of his feet”). 2 Samuel 22:11. And he rode on the cherub and flew.—As to the signification of the cherub, see on 1 Samuel 4:4. As the cherubim on the cover of the ark (Exodus 25:18 sqq.; Exodus 37:7 sqq.) are the bearers of the divine majesty and glory (2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Psalms 80:2 [1]; Psalms 99:1; Isaiah 37:16), so here also the cherub is the symbol of God’s almighty power and glory, as it appears in the creaturely world, and exhibits itself as the revelation of the highest and completest being (Winer, R.-W., s. v., Hengst. on Psalms 18:11 [10]). The “rode” is defined by the “flew.” The conception of flying is harmonized with that of riding on the cherub (as a chariot or throne) by the wings with which the cherub is provided.—And appeared on the wings of the wind; this, as the preceding, sets forth the majesty in which God appears in the creation in the elementary substratum of the wind, to hold judgment. Comp. Isaiah 5:28; Nahum 1:3 : “in tempest and storm is his way,” and Psalms 104:3, where, instead of the cherub, the clouds are conceived of as the vehicle, and the wings of the wind as the bearers of the appearance of His glory.—Instead of “appeared” Psalms 18:11 [10] has “flew” (γָּ ?ΰָ ?δ). The latter (which occurs also Deuteronomy 28:49; Jeremiah 48:40; Jeremiah 49:22) carries out the figure of the wings of the wind; here, on the contrary, our “appeared” is, if not an elucidation (Keil, v. Leng.), a real statement instead of a poetical figure. But there is no necessity for regarding it as a scribal error (Stier, Thenius), or as a “vague, flat and inappropriate reading” (Hupfeld). 2 Samuel 22:12. Development of the second half of 2 Samuel 22:10, as 2 Samuel 22:11 is of the first half. And he made darkness around him booths [Eng. A. V.: pavilions]. The clouds mass more closely; their darkness grows blacker. The “darkness” is that of the clouds of 2 Samuel 22:10 b. He makes the cloud-darkness “booths, tents” for Himself. The Psalm has more fully: “he made darkness his secret place, his pavilion round about him darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.” On the “round about” comp. Psalms 97:2 (“clouds and darkness are around him”), and on the “booths [pavilions]” Job 36:29, where the clouds are called God’s tabernacle or tent.—Gathering of waters, cloud-thicket is further explanation of the “darkness” of the first clause. Instead of “gathering of waters” the Ps. has “darkness of waters” [which is here unnecessarily adopted by Eng. A. V.—Tr.]; the former is obviously more picturesque. 2 Samuel 22:13-15. Issuing of lightning-flashes out of this darkness, and bursting of the storm amid thunder and lightning. Out of the brightness before him burned coals of fire. The expression “brightness before him” points back to the fire in 2 Samuel 22:9, the flames of sheet-lightning as symbol of the divine anger. Out of this fiery brightness before him “burned coals of fire,” i.e., darted the flashes of lightning, which are, as it were, the sharpening of that flaming fire-anger into separate fiery arrows (comp. 2 Samuel 22:15). The “brightness before him” is not the doxa [glory] of God embracing light and fire (Hupf., Del.), because in the connection only the fire of God’s anger is spoken of, and if the singer had here had in view the light in which God dwells (Psalms 104:2), he would necessarily have used the general term “glory” (ηεֹ ?γ ,λָּ ?αεֹ ?γ, δόξα). The natural basis of the poetical description is the blinding brightness of the flaming fire, which in a storm seems to cleave the clouds and send forth flashes of lightning.—To this refers the deviating text of the Psalm: “from the brightness before him his clouds passed away (or went to pieces),” comp. Job 30:15. 2 Samuel 22:14. The Lord thundered from heaven. Since lightning and thunder appear so close together, the storm is very near, God’s wrathful judgment bursts on the enemy. Instead of “from heaven” the Ps. has “in heaven.” God is here called the Most High as “the all-controlling, unapproachable judge” (Del.). The “giving [uttering] his voice” is poetical designation of thunder; see Job 37:3; Psalms 29:3 sqq., comp. Exodus 9:23; Psalms 46:7 [6]; Psalms 68:34 [33]; Psalms 77:18. The phrase “hailstones and coals of fire” found in the Ps. in this verse and the preceding, is wanting here. 2 Samuel 22:15. And he sent out arrows; the Ps. has: “his arrows.” These are the flashes of lightning (comp. 2 Samuel 77:18) into which the foe-destroying fire of wrath concentrates and sharpens itself. The wrathful, punishing God is represented under the figure of a warrior armed with bow and arrows, as in many other passages, Psalms 7:13-14 [12, 13]; 2 Samuel 38:3 [2); Job 6:4; Deuteronomy 32:23; Lamentations 3:12-13.—And scattered them, that is, the enemies, comp. 2 Samuel 22:4; 2 Samuel 22:18. The pronoun “them” does not refer to the arrows and lightning. The first effect is the scattering of the compact masses, into which the enemies had thrown themselves. Lightning, and discomfited (them). The Ps. has: “and lightnings much (innumerable)” [Eng. A. V. (with Kimchi) “shot out lightnings”]. The verb here is to be supplied from the preceding, as in 2 Samuel 22:12; 2 Samuel 22:14; 2 Samuel 22:42. “He discomfited” (so Jerome); the Ps. has: “and discomfited them,” from which the Qeri [margin] omits the suffix “them.” The further effect of the Lord’s interference is the complete destruction of the enemy; comp. Exodus 14:24; Exodus 23:27; Joshua 10:10; Judges 4:15; 1 Samuel 7:10. 2 Samuel 22:16. And the beds of the sea became visible. The Ps. has the weaker expression: “brooks of water.” Uncovered were the foundations of the earth, that is, the bottom of the sea, the waters being blown away; a parallel description to the preceding. In addition to the thunder and lightning from above comes the storm-wind (which accompanies the storm) and the earthquake, which has already been pictured (2 Samuel 22:8) as an effect of God’s anger. By the rebuking of the Lord, that is, the expression of anger in the voice of the thunder (2 Samuel 22:14); comp. Psalms 104:7, where the waters of the chaos are affrighted at the rebuke of God (parallel to His thunder-voice). At the snorting of the breath of his nose, comp. 2 Samuel 22:9. The Psalm has the second person, turning in sudden address to Jehovah: “at thy rebuke and thy anger.” The “breakers of death” and the “streams of evil” have, according to 2 Samuel 22:5 overwhelmed David. Under the image of water-waves he has there depicted the dangers that threatened his life. This alone would prevent our supposing that we have here a mere poetic-hyperbolical delineation of the tumult of the waters as result of the storm, in order to fill out the picture (Hupf.). But the following account (2 Samuel 22:17) of deliverance “out of great waters” is still more opposed to this view. In his distress David was overwhelmed as by mighty water-floods. The Lord, revealing His anger against his enemies, saves him by laying bare the depths of the sea in which he had sunk, and uncovering the foundations of the earth by the storm-wind of His wrath (so Delitzsch). Thither descending from on high the Lord seized him and drew him forth from the waves, as is described in the following verses. There is therefore as little ground for the view of Hitzig, that the waves denote the host of the enemy, and the bottom the ground on which they stood and from which they were driven, as for that of Thenius, that the assumed battle was near a large inland sea (he conjectures the Bahr el Atebe near Damascus, about as large as the sea of Gennesaret), and that the description is thus to be taken “almost literally.” The interpretation of the “foundations of the earth” as Sheol (Hengst., Keil) is without support in the text. 2 Samuel 22:17-20. After the description of the descent of God from heaven to save, David now traces the deliverance itself, and praises the Lord for it. 2 Samuel 22:17. “He sent forth,” the word “hand” (Psalms 144:7) is to be supplied, as in 2 Samuel 6:6; Psalms 57:4 [3]= He reached out from on high, that is, from heaven. In spite of the “came down” of 2 Samuel 22:10, which refers to God’s throne in heaven, the poetical view holds fast to the conception of God’s elevation above men. “He drew me out of many waters.” The verb (ξָ ?ωָׁ ?δ) occurs elsewhere only in Exodus 2:10 of Moses, whose name is formed from it, and whose deliverance from the waters of the Nile is here probably alluded to. Luther: “he made a Moses of me.” The “many waters” [better in Erdmann’s translation: “great waters”—Tr.] are not enemies, but the deadly perils that had befallen him, comp. 2 Samuel 22:5; Psalms 32:6; Psalms 66:12; Psalms 69:2-3 [1, 2]; Isaiah 43:2, where water is a figure of great distress and danger. 2 Samuel 22:18. Here David first passes from his perils to his enemies. He delivered me from my enemy, the strong one. “The song here passes from the epic to a more lyric tone, and direct discourse takes the place of figurative” (Del.). The Sing. “my enemy” does not justify the supposition of an individual enemy, but from the following “my haters” is to be taken as collective, though the name Saul rightly stands as superscription to this whole picture of distress. Because they were stronger than I, had overpowered me. God’s saving interposition was necessary, since David in his weakness felt himself overpowered by his enemies—extreme impotence requires divine help. 2 Samuel 22:19. Elucidation of the last words of 2 Samuel 22:18. They fell on me in the day of my calamity. This is not a definite day, but the time of his helplessness in the Sauline persecution; their purpose was to finish him by a sudden attack, and so self-help was impossible. And the Lord became a stay to me. After deliverance comes support. Compare for the thought Psalms 23:4. Verse 20. And he brought me forth into a large place, into a condition of freedom, in contrast with narrowness, straits. The “me” is emphatic. The words: He delivered me, here in conclusion embrace all that has been heretofore said of the process of deliverance. Observe the progression in the description up to this point: the dispersion and confounding of the enemy by the arrows of the lightning, the driving off of the water-waves and laying bare of their foundations by the storm; then the stretching forth of the hand, seizing, drawing out of the great waters, supporting the helpless man, bringing him out of straits into freeness, and thus completing the deliverance.—For He delighted in me—the ground of the Lord’s deliverance, over against the enemies, on whom had come God’s wrath and judgment. This delight of the Lord in Him (Psalms 22:9 [8]; 2 Samuel 41:12 [11]) is based on his integrity, as is brought out in what follows. There follows, namely. 2 Samuel 22:21-28, the exhibition of the ground of his deliverance; it is his righteousness, according to which the Lord requited him. 2 Samuel 22:21. The declaration and avowal that God in saving him requited him according to his righteousness. The verb [Eng. A. V.: “reward”] (comp. Psalms 7:17 [Psalms 7:16]) signifies to do something to a person, whether bad or good, but with reference to his conduct as ground, hence to requite.—Accordding to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me.—The hands are the instrument of action, and “cleanness of hands” signifies the purity of his actions from sin and unrighteousness. Comp. 2 Samuel 22:25; Psalms 7:5 [Psalms 7:4]; Psalms 24:4; Psalms 26:6; Job 9:30; Job 22:30. To this answers purity of mind (expressed in the “upright” of 2 Samuel 22:24), as source of purity of conduct. David often thus affirms his uprightness, for Exodus 17:3-5. The truth of this testimony to himself is exhibited in his actual conduct as described in 2 Samuel 22:22-24, where he gives the ground (λִּ ?ι) for the declaration that he is “righteous” and “his hands clean.”—[On the ethical and religious significance of this claim to righteousness, see “Historical and Theological” to this chapter, paragraph 6.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 22:22. He proved his righteousness by the affirmation: I have kept the ways of the Lord. “Have observed, held to,” so Job 22:15. “The ways of the Lord” are the rules of human conduct given in His law, which David’s enemies had wickedly transgressed.—And have not wickedly departed from my God, as he has kept God’s ways, so he has not sinned himself away from God Himself. The phrase is literally: “to be wicked from God,” that is, to fall away from God by wickedness. Not (as Grotius): “to be wicked against (ξִ ?ο) God,” nor is it a designation of judgment or decision proceeding from God, as if the sense were: “I have not sinned according to God’s decision, according to His judgment I am guiltless” (Hupf.); comp. Job 4:17; Jeremiah 51:5. Against this is both the “keeping the Lord’s ways” in the first member, to which corresponds “not departing from” the Lord, and the following reference [2 Samuel 22:23] to his abiding in God’s statutes and judgments. 2 Samuel 22:23. “For all thy judgments are before me,” that is, as a guide in my ways.—And His statutes, I do not depart from them. The reading of the Psalm: “His statutes I do not put away from me,” is not elsewhere found, while our text is the usual expression for the conception. For the thought compare the divine testimony to David, 1 Kings 14:8 : “who kept my commandments, and walked after me with all his heart,” and 2 Samuel 15:5; “David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and departed not from all that He commanded him.” Comp. also David’s testimony concerning himself, 1 Samuel 26:23 sq. 2 Samuel 22:24. “And I was upright towards him,” that is, upright in soul, the “towards him” (μεֹ) expressing the immediate relation to God, in contrast with outward works, which are done for one’s own sake or for men’s. The “with him” of the Psalm expresses still more exactly cordial communion of life with God.—And guarded myself from my iniquity, the negative side of his moral character, of which he has just given the positive side: “I guarded against committing a sin, and so contracting guilt.” A similar hypothetical expression [i. e., if I sinned, I should be guilty] is found in Psalms 17:3 (Hupfeld), and so essentially Job 33:9 : “there is no iniquity in me.” David declares that he constantly watches over and restrains himself; otherwise, the assumption is, he would have fallen into sin; this is an indirect testimony to indwelling sinfulness, whereby he might have been led to sinful deed, and against which such self-guarding was necessary. Comp. Psalms 51:7 [5], where David expressly declares his consciousness of sinfulness inborn in him, which is not the case here.—The historical proofs of David’s declaration of purity are given in *1 Sam. 24.26. though he at this moment may not have had all the individual facts in mind. 2 Samuel 22:22-24 exhibit the climax: 2 Samuel 22:22 proof of uprightness in outward walk, 2 Samuel 22:23 practice of righteousness in obedience to God’s commands as its norm, 2 Samuel 22:24, source of righteousness in a pious disposition directed towards God. 2 Samuel 22:25. Repetition of the affirmation of 2 Samuel 22:21 (the proof of his “righteousness” and “cleanness of hands” having been given in 2 Samuel 22:22-24) in the form of a logical conclusion: And so the Lord requited me, etc. Literally: “and requited me the Lord,” where the “and,” connecting this with the preceding, indicates a logical relation [the logical relation is indicated by the progress of the discourse, not by the Conjunction, in Hebrew or in Eng.—Tr.]. Instead of “my cleanness” the Psalm has “the cleanness of my hands,” as in 2 Samuel 22:21. 2 Samuel 22:26-27. General proposition, explaining and supporting the word: “the Lord requited me” by the truth, that God deports Himself to man as man to Him. This moral relation between God and man is carried out in four parallel members, “in which the divine conduct is expressed by reflexive verbs, formed from the adjectives expressing human conduct.” (Keil). The Imperfects express what is universal and necessary. The general truth that the manifestation of God’s retributive righteousness is conditioned by man’s position and conduct towards God, is set forth positively in 2 Samuel 22:26-27 a in relation to the pious, and negatively in 2 Samuel 22:27 b in relation to the ungodly. Towards the pious [better: merciful—Tr.], upright and clean, God shows Himself pious [merciful], upright and pure. The adjectives express qualities of man in relation to God; the “love” here expressed is not towards man, but towards God, (ηָ ?ρִ ?ιγ, Eng. A. V. merciful), and to such God shows Himself loving. [Rather the adjectives express general qualities without any statement that they refer only to God. The first of these adjectives means either “favored, beloved” or “merciful,” and the latter sense is more appropriate here.—Tr.].—Towards the perverse thou showest thyself perverse, that is, requiting to the perverse man perverse things as the consequence of his sin, thou seemest to Him to be thyself perverse. The ungodly man, failing to recognize his own sin, thinks of God as unjust and cruel towards him. Comp. Leviticus 26:23-24; “if ye walk perversely towards me; I will walk perversely towards you.” Moral perversity in man produces perversity and confusion in his knowledge of God. [The thought here, however, is simply that God does evil to the man that does evil.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 22:28 gives the ground and confirmation of the general truth in 2 Samuel 22:26-27, by pointing to God’s actual conduct towards the two principal classes in the people, the humble and the proud, who represent concretely the preceding contrast between the upright (merciful, pure) and the perverse. The factual relation of this verse to the preceding is indicated in the Psalm by the initial “for thou,” while here the simple “and” is used, in order to avoid a too frequent recurrence of the causal conjunction, as 2 Samuel 22:29 begins with “for thou,” and 2 Samuel 22:30 with “for.” The word “people” is here limited (by the contrast with the “haughty” of the following clause) to a large community within the nation, characterized by the epithet “afflicted;” and the following contrast shows that they are also “humble.” “Thine eyes are against the haughty,” who oppress the poor and afflicted; “whom thou bringest down” (the verb is to be taken as relative, Ew. § 332 b, comp. Joshua 2:11; Joshua 3:12; Joshua 5:15). The Psalm has in the second member: “lofty eyes (elevated eye-brows, sign of haughtiness) thou bringest down.” Comp. Proverbs 6:17; Proverbs 21:4; Proverbs 30:13; Psalms 101:5. 2 Samuel 22:29-46. Second part of the description of the help that David received from the Lord, namely, in wars against external enemies.—Looking back at these wars, he tells how through the Lord’s help he had overcome his enemies. But he looks also to the present and to the future, declaring what the Lord, after such aid, still is to him and ever will be. So in this section occur verbs of past, present and future times. 2 Samuel 22:29. First, he declares what the Lord (in connection with the exhibitions of grace in the Sauline persecution) is for him perpetually. The “for” attaches this verse as the ground or confirmation of the preceding, where David included himself among the “afflicted people,” the oppressed; the Lord has helped him “the afflicted one” out of the affliction brought on him by his enemies. All these experiences of divine help find their reason or ground in the fact that the Lord is his lamp. While “light” is always the symbol of good fortune and well-being (Job 18:5), the burning lamp denotes the source of lasting happiness and joyful strength; Job 18:6; Job 21:17; Job 29:3; Psalms 132:17; comp. Isaiah 42:3; Isaiah 43:17. The Psalm has the unusual expression: “thou makest light my lamp.”—What the lamp is for a man in his house, the source of joy and good fortune, this the Lord is for David: his lamp, the source of his well-being. This is the ground of David’s being called (2 Samuel 21:17) the lamp of Israel. This is the ground of the declaration: “the Lord is my light.” (Psalms 27:1). The consequence of this is: The Lord enlightens my darkness. Darkness is the symbol of affliction—in contrast with light, without God, his lamp, he would have remained in wretchedness and ruin. His experiences are based on the general truth: it is the Lord who, as His lamp, makes even the darkness light about Him. Comp. Job 29:3. In the Psalm: “The Lord, my God, makes my darkness light.” This general declaration, proved by the past, is confirmed also for the future by setting forth the foe-conquering might which he, through the Lord’s help, has shown and will forever be able to show. 2 Samuel 22:30. For with thee I run against troops, with my God I leap over walls—literally: “in thee;” “David declares that he is ‘in God,’ and therefore has such power.” (Hengst). By “troops” David means the hostile bands that he has attacked on the battle-field, and by “walls” the fortified places that he has conquered. Such power of victory he has now also in his God. Since the verb “run” here properly takes an Accus., it is unnecessary to take the word in the sense “crush” (Ew., Olsh.). “Running” is represented as an essential quality of the warrior in 2 Samuel 22:34; 2 Samuel 1, 19, 23; 2 Samuel 2:18, and means (with the prep, “against” or “to”) hostile attack Job 15:26; Job 6:14; Daniel 8:6. [Eng. A. V., not so well: “run through”.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 22:31. The word “God” is in apposition with the: “with my God” in 2 Samuel 22:30 (as in 2 Samuel 22:33; 2 Samuel 22:48), not nominative Absolute [so Eng. A. V.], since then the Art. [Heb.: the God] would be unexplained: The God whose way is blameless, that is, whose government is perfect. This human quality of perfectness is transferred to God, and denotes His trustworthiness. The word of the Lord is purified, that is, without guile, pure, true, comp. Psalms 12:7 [6]. God’s promises do not deceive. He is a shield to all that trust in Him. He offers sure protection against all dangers. The second and third members of this verse occur word for word also in Proverbs 30:5. All these affirmations respecting God give the ground for the declaration in 2 Samuel 22:30, that he can do so great things in and with his God. 2 Samuel 22:32. The soleness of the Lord as such a God, is next stated as the ground (“for”) of the fact that His way is perfect, His word pure and His protection sure. The expression “rock” (comp. 2 Samuel 22:3) especially emphasizes the quality of trustworthiness, firmness as the foundation for immovable trust, and the ground of his help and protection. Parallel Isaiah 7:22; “for there is no one as thou, and there is no God beside thee.” Comp. Deuteronomy 32:31; 1 Samuel 2:22 Sa 22:33 carries on the thought connected with the figure of the “rock.” The “God” here is in opposition with the “God” at the end of the preceding verse. The God who is my strong fortress. [Eng. A. V., not so well: “my strength and power.”]. On the “fortress” comp. Psalms 31:5 [Psalms 31:4]; Psalms 27:1 [Eng. A. V.: “strength.”]. The noun “strength” defines “my fortress,” literally: “my fortress of strength,” as in Psalms 71:7—The Psalm has: “who girds me with strength,”=2 Samuel 22:40 a (with omission of “to battle.”).—And leads the perfect man on his way. The pronoun on “his way” refers not to God, but to the “perfect man,” as is required by the “his feet” [Eng. A. V.: “my feet”] of the next verse. The Psalm has: “who makes my way perfect.” [This is the marginal reading (Qeri) here also: “my way,” and seems to agree better with the context, in which the Psalmist is speaking of his own experiences.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 22:34. He makes his feet like the hinds, that is, like hinds’ feet; Habakkuk 3:18. (On this abridged form of expression see Ges. § 144, Rem.) Hengstenberg.: “In Egyptian paintings also the hind is the symbol of fleetness.” Comp. 2 Samuel 2:18; 1 Chronicles 12:8. The Psalm: “my feet” [so Eng. A. V. here, after the margin]; the third personal pronoun is used here because the reference is to the “perfect (or innocent)” man [in 2 Samuel 22:33 according to the author’s translation]. The swiftness refers not to fleeing (De Wette), but to the pursuit of enemies. And on my high-places He sets me. The “high-places” are not those of the enemy, which he ascends as victor, and through faith declares beforehand to be his own (Hengst.), but “those of his own land, which he victoriously holds against his enemies” (Keil). Comp. Deuteronomy 32:132 Sa 22:35. He instructs my hands for war and my arms bend the bronze bow. Or, perhaps (with Hupf.): “He instructs my hands for war, and my arms to bend the bronze bow.” “The Egyptian weapons were almost all of bronze” (Hengst.). To bend the bronze bow is the sign of great strength; the thought expressed is: God has given him not only skill, but also strength for victorious war. 2 Samuel 22:36. From the figure of the bow David passes to that of the shield. As in attack, so in defence the Lord is his strength. And thou gavest me the shield of thy salvation, the shield that consists in God’s salvation, whereby He protects His people. Comp. Ephesians 6:17 : “helmet of salvation.” The following words in the Psalm: “and thy right hand supported me” are wanting here; they seem to have been omitted, not through error, but for brevity’s sake, as in general our song, compared with the Psalm, shows a preference for curt, pregnant expression. And thy hearing made me great. Hearing = favorable acceptance of a request. This “hearing”(not “thy lowliness,” Hengst., or “thy toil,” Bφttch.) answers to the “salvation” of the preceding clause; he received salvation through God’s granting his petition. The Psalm has: “thy humility, condescension” (comp. Psalms 113:6; Isaiah 57:15; Isaiah 66:1 sq.) [Eng. A. V., following the pointing of the Psalm, renders: “thy gentleness” (“meekness” would be a more accurate translation). Our text reads literally: “thy answering,” or “thy toiling, suffering,” neither of which gives a satisfactory sense in the connection. The reading of the Psalm is better.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 22:37. Thou enlargedst my steps under me, gave me free room, so that I could advance without hindrance. Proverbs 4:12 presents the contrasted condition of straitness and stumbling: “when thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened, and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble,” comp. 2 Samuel 22:34. Hupfeld remarks rightly that we have not here merely the usual contrast of narrowness and wideness=distress and deliverance (Psalms 4:2 [1], comp. Psalms 31:9 [8]); the wide path (step) is prepared by the Lord for the successful termination of the battle, especially for the unhindered pursuit of the enemy (2 Samuel 22:38). And my ankles wavered not (elsewhere: “my feet, or steps, Psalms 26:1; Psalms 37:31), that is, thou gavest me the power so to go with free step. Wavering, as opposed to standing firm, comes from weakness in the knees or ankles. 2 Samuel 22:38-43. After this preparation and equipment for battle by the Lord’s strength, David destroyed the power of his enemies. 2 Samuel 22:38-39. The act of pursuit and destruction is declared to be his own act. The verbs are to be taken in the Imperfect signification, since it is clear from 2 Samuel 22:40 sqq. that the reference is to the past. I pursued my enemies and destroyed them; the Psalm has the weaker expression: “overtook them” (Psalms 7:6 [5]. comp. Exodus 15:9). In the Psalm there is an advance in the thought, here a simple synonymous parallelism (Hengst.). 2 Samuel 22:39 expresses the idea of total destruction by an aggregation of words: “and I destroyed them (wanting in the Psalm) and crushed them.” That they rose not; Psalm: “and they could not rise,” that is, in the hostile sense, rise to further contest. And they fell under my feet, = under me, 2 Samuel 22:40; 2 Samuel 22:48; Psalms 44:6; Psalms 47:4 [3]. 2 Samuel 22:38; 2 Samuel 22:40 present a picture not of subjection and dominion (Hupf.), but of conquering enemies in battle by casting them down and passing over them. 2 Samuel 22:40-41. David declares, however, that he received the victorious might only from the Lord, and gives Him praise therefor. And thou didst gird me… and didst bow my opponents under me; literally, “didst make them bend the knee.”—And my enemies, thou madest them turn the back to me; literally, “thou gavest them to me as neck [nape].” 2 Samuel 22:42-43. The enemy look in vain to the Lord for help. They looked out to the Lord (comp. Isaiah 17:7-8); the Psalm has: “they cried.” The enemies are not to be regarded as Israelites, because they looked to the help of the Lord (Riehm in Hupf.); the heathen also in extreme need might well expect deliverance from the God of Israel, comp. 1 Samuel 5:7; 1 Samuel 6:5; John 2:14—And I rubbed them to pieces (pulverized them) as dust of the earth, comp. Genesis 13:16; Isaiah 40:12, their power was changed into impotence. The Psalm has: “as dust before the wind,” combining the two images of the beating the enemy to dust, and scattering them as dust is scattered by the wind, comp. Isaiah 29:5; Isaiah 41:2—As the dust of the streets I did trample and stamp them to pieces (the Psalm: “I emptied them out.”) The stamping of the dirt of the street is the symbol of a contemptuous treatment and rejection of what is in itself worthless. Comp. Isaiah 10:6; Zechariah 10:5. The description of the contest against the enemies under the guidance and help of the Lord is completed by the representation of their total destruction. 2 Samuel 22:44-46. The result of this conflict with enemies, namely, sovereign dominion over them, and their humble subjection under his royal power. 2 Samuel 22:44. Thou didst deliver me out of the wars of my people (or, of peoples). Since only external wars are spoken of in the preceding and succeeding context, it is not at all allowable to understand internal dissensions here (Hitz., Hengst., Del., Keil). That would break the connection, and destroy the continuity of advance in the description of David’s relation to external enemies up to the point of complete dominion over them by the Lord’s help.—The “wars of my people” are the wars that his people had to carry on against other nations under his lead; as he has previously spoken of them as his wars, so now he regards them as his people’s. He was doubtless led to this by thinking of his position as king and head of his people, from which position he saw as the result of his wars the subjection of the heathen nations to his royal authority.—If we take the form (ςַ ?ξִּ ?ι) as plural, = “peoples,” then the “wars of peoples” are wars carried on by Israel with foreign nations, “wars between peoples,” in contrast with the internal conflicts, the fortunate conclusion of which has been before described (Riehm in Hupfeld).—David embraces all the Lord’s helps in these wars in this brief exclamation, in order to declare how, as a consequence, the Lord has made him head over these nations. Thou didst preserve me (in the Psalm more simply: didst make me) to be head of the heathen, preserved me that I should become their head. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ FOURTH SECTIONDavid’s Last Prophetic Words 2 Samuel 23:1-71 Now [And] these be [are] the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said. 2The Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] spake by me [or, into me], and his word was in [on] my tongue. 3The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in 4the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even [om. even] a morning without clouds, as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain [when from shining after raining the herb springs from the earth]. 5Although my house be not so with God; [For is not my house so with God?] yet [for] he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure; for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow [for all my salvation and all my pleasure, shall it not prosper 6(or, shall he not cause it to prosper)?]. But the sons of Belial shall be [And the wicked are] all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands [for they are not laid hold of with the hand]. 7But the man that shall [And if a man] touch them, must be [he is] fenced with iron and the staff of a spear, and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place. AND These “last words of David” have not a merely lyrical (Ewald), but a lyrical-prophetical character. Their historical pre-supposition is the prophecy through Nathan, 2 Samuel 7. Their connection with the preceding song, chap. 22, is not indeed a chronological one, since there is no chronologically definite statement in either; but as both obviously belong (22 by its content, 2 Samuel 23:1-7 by its title) to David’s last years, they cannot lie far apart in time, and both, partly by their retrospect of a long and eventful life that rose out of the depths to high honor, partly by their outlook into a still more glorious future, have the character of the solemn, grand final words of a king. For an inward connection of the contents of the two songs is clearly to be seen in the fact that the closing view of 2 Samuel 22. (based on the prophecy of an everlasting house, 2 Samuel 7) traverses and controls this whole song, 2 Samuel 23:1-7, that the seed of the Anointed of the Lord (2 Samuel 22:51) is here individualized into a person, and the salvation there promised as an everlasting possession to the Anointed and his seed by God, is here more definitely announced as one proceeding from and secured by the messianic Ruler.—On the theocratic attitude in the biblical-theological content of this Song, see further in the appropriate section [Historical and Theological]. For the exegesis compare the following literature: Luther on the last words of David, 2 Samuel 23:1-7, opp. Jen. VIII. 137–152. Walch III. 2790–2910. Erl. A. Bd. 37, p. 1 sqq.—Pfeiffer, Dubia Vexata, pp. 398–401—Buddeus, Hist. Eccl. N. T. I., pp. 194–196.—Crusius, Hypomnemata II., pp. 219–224.—Joh. G. Trendelenburg, Comment, in noviss. verba David, Gφttingen, 1779.—Herder, Vom Geist der ebr. Poesie, II. 2, Leipz., 1825, p. 387 sqq., and Briefe das Studium der Theologie betreffend, I., p. 135.—Ewald, Die poet. Bόcher des Alt. Bundes [Poetical Books of the Old Testament], I., pp. 99–102, and Hist. of Israel, III. 268 (3 ed.).—Vaihinger, Zur Erklδrung des Liedes 2 Samuel 23:1-7, in the Stud, und Krit., 1843, pp. 983 sqq.—Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, in loco.—Reinke, Beitrδge zur Erklδrung des Alt. Testament, IV., p. 455 sq. Fries, Die letzten Worte Davids 2 Samuel 23:1-7, Stud. u. Krit., 1857, pp. 645–689.—G. Baur, Gesch. der alt.-test. Weissagung, I. 387.—Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagung, p. 166 sq.—H. Schultz, Bibl. Theol. des Alt Testament, I. 463 sq. [Oehler, Theol. of the Old Testament, § 230.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 23:1. The superscription.—And these are the last words of David.—The Davidic origin of this song, affirmed by the superscription, is raised above all doubt by the archaic form of the introduction, the pregnant curtness of the expression, the characteristic peculiarity of the thoughts, the Davidic stamp borne by form and content, and the originality of the Messianic thought, as well as the direct reference of the latter to 2 Samuel 7. “Only hyper-criticism could declare against the Davidic origin by first forming an arbitrary conception of David’s poetic style, and then rejecting this song for not coming up to that conception.—A poem that was composed later and put into the mouth of the royal singer would certainly betray its origin by a fuller and clearer exposition of the idea of the Israelitish kingdom” (Baur, as above, p. 388). So H. Schultz, as above, 464. Though the song is by its superscription attached to 2 Samuel 22, the opinion held by some (Mich., Dathe, Maurer), that the “last words” are only words later than the song in chap. 22, is untenable. Nor can the superscription refer to the following history of David, as given in the remaining part of “Samuel” and the beginning of 1 Kings (Paulus, exeg. krit. Abhandl., pp. 99–134). Further, it does not mean: the last prophetic word in the list of David’s prophetical utterances (Grot.), or the last psalm (Vatablus: “after he produced all his psalms”), or, his last will and testament, “though he said, did and suffered much afterwards” (Luther); but it is to be understood in the absolute sense: the last of all his words, which he spoke at the end of his life in his theocratic calling and royal consciousness, and in reference to the kingdom of God in Israel, “the last poetical flight that he ever took, perhaps shortly before his death, and which was specially noted down for the reason also that it was (from 2 Samuel 23:2) regarded as the utterance of a seer (πְ ?ΰֻ ?ν, Numbers 24:3-4; Numbers 24:15-16)” (Thenius). Divine saying (πְ ?ΰֻ ?ν) of David. The word always signifies a saying or oracular utterance based on immediate revelation or inspiration. It is the passive participle, = “the thing breathed in, inspired word,” and stands here with the Genitive of the human receiver, as in Numbers 24:3 sqq. (Balaam) and Proverbs 30:1 (Solomon), while it is as a rule followed by “Jehovah” as the author of the inspiration. The following words of David are thereby announced to be a peculiarly prophetic declaration, which rests on an inspeaking of God by His Spirit into his soul. The introduction of the song corresponds in form and content with that of Balaam’s prophecy, Numbers 24:3. It begins with a simple personal designation, and then designates the qualities of this person that here come into consideration, and may serve to give the reasons for the expression “divine saying” (Hengst.) [As this expression is frequent in the prophetical writings (in Eng. A. V., rendered by “saith the Lord”) it is not improbable that the title is from the hand of a later prophetical editor.—Tr.]—The son of Jesse. “How humbly he proceeds, boasting not his circumcision, his holiness or his kingdom, not ashamed of his lowly stock, that he was a shepherd; for he will speak of other things that are so high that they need no nobility or holiness, and shall be hurt by no sorrow, neither by sin nor by death” (Luther). And divine saying of the man who was raised up on high—the contrast to his lowly origin, as in 2 Samuel 7:8, “with omission of those above whom he was raised, in order to express absolute superiority” (Hengst.). Tanchum: “Fixed on the plane of loftiness.” On this idea see 2 Samuel 22:44; 2 Samuel 22:48.—Next follows the unfolding of the content of this idea in two members: the Anointed of the God of Jacob, and the pleasant in the praise-songs of Israel [the sweet psalmist of Israel]. The first designates his high position not only in the theocratic royal dignity conferred on him by God, but also in his royal dominion as Anointed of the Lord as God’s representative and in God’s name over against the people, and “not merely as an individual, but also as representative of his race” (Hengst.). The second member characterizes David as the representative towards God of the people in their praise of the Lord for His mighty deeds. “Pleasant (lovely) in the praise-songs of Israel.” The Adjective (πְ ?ςִ ?ιν) does not mean “approved, well-pleasing,” as Fries takes it, explaining: “chosen to sing Israel’s songs of triumph,” which is contrary to the constant signification of the word; comp. Ew. § 288 c, 291 a. Nor is it: “beloved [popular] through the songs that Israel sings” (Mich.), or “kindly through songs” (Maurer). It is not an ordinary song that it is here named (ζְ ?ξִ ?ιψ), but a solemn, joyful song of praise, Job 35:10; Psalms 95:2; Psalms 119:54; Isaiah 24:16, and so in Exodus 15:2 (ζִ ?ξְ ?ψָ ?δ) and in the titles of the Psalms (ξִ ?ζְ ?ξεֹ ?ψ).—As the “Anointed of the Lord” he is equipped with the Holy Spirit from above; as one that is “pleasant in Israel’s songs of praise” he likewise shows himself filled with the Lord’s Spirit. His high position consists on the one hand in the dignity of his royal office as God’s representative towards the people, and on the other hand in his priestly position, wherein as representative of the people towards God he guides their worship to the height of praise and prayer; and in so far as he is raised to and enabled for both positions by the invoking of the divine Spirit, he is also a prophetical king and singer of his people, and his word is now spoken as a “divine word.” In accordance with this it is said in 2 Samuel 23:2 :—The Spirit of the Lord speaks into me, and his word is on my tongue. These words explain the phrase “divine saying” above, and declare that what follows is given him by God’s Spirit. The old Rabbis and Crusius (as above, p. 221), connect 2 Samuel 23:2 closely with the preceding, and suppose that David meant herewith to establish the theopneustic authenticity of his psalms, and dying, to put his seal, as it were, on them. The verbs must then be taken as real preterites [spake, said, as in Eng. A. V.], 2 Samuel 23:2 must be understood of all David’s songs and prophecies, and 2 Samuel 23:3 specially of the individual prophecy concerning his seed, which was fulfilled in Christ (sanctio nativitatis Christi e progenie Davidis). That is: “the Spirit of the Lord has always spoken through me, His word has always been on my tongue in all my lays and songs, and especially the God of Israel has spoken through me the prophecy of the future Messiah.” But against this Fries (as above, p. 652) properly remarks, that it would distort the relations to reckon in this especial way, among all David’s direct and indirect prophecies, precisely that one that was in fact given not through him, but through Nathan. The very definite expression of the second member: “and his word on my tongue,” does not permit such a general reference, and is besides to be taken on Present time. Then also the parallel verb in the first member is better taken as Present (speaks), and 2 Samuel 23:2-3 a are the announcement of what follows as the content of the divine inspiration from 2 Samuel 23:3 b on. “The Spirit of Jehovah spake,” not “through me,” which would require the Participle rather than the Perf. (Hengst.), nor “in me,” against which is the meaning of the phrase elsewhere, but “into me,” as in Hosea 1:2. Thereby the origin of the following declaration is affirmed to be divine in-speaking. [The reading “through (by) me” as in Eng. A. V., is allowable, and corresponds very well with the second member.—Tr.]. On the other hand: the “his word is on my tongue” refers to the human expression of this divinely given word. While in 2 Samuel 23:1 the prophetic organ of the divine saying is doubly characterized, 2 Samuel 23:2 sets forth in two-fold expression the twofold divine medium of the inspired prophetic word: the Spirit and the word of God. The first half of 2 Samuel 23:3 : Says the God of Israel, to me speaks the Rock of Israel is identical in form with 2 Samuel 23:2, and expresses in two members the same thought, with special emphasizing of the relation of God (who speaks through David’s mouth) to His people, and particularly of His rock-like faithfulness towards them as the foundation of all manifestations of salvation. There is therefore no tautology here. “Says the God of Israel,” the God that has chosen Israel as His possession, giving them the promises of salvation, whose fulfilment the following revelation announces. “To me speaks the Rock of Israel,” the God that fulfils His promises according to His faithfulness and unchangeableness (2 Samuel 22:3; 2 Samuel 22:32; 2 Samuel 22:47). The Present rendering is preferable here also. But if the Past be taken: “spake the Rock of Israel,” what is here said in 2 Samuel 23:3 a cannot belong to the content of the “divine saying” (2 Samuel 23:1), “since then David would have derived a very simple, psychologically easily explicable recapitulation of former revelations from present inspiration, and have introduced it with a disproportionate outlay of solemn words” (Fries); rather the Past form is explained by the fact that the act of divine inspeaking preceded the outspeaking of the divine word. The object of the verbs (says, speaks), is not a number of prophecies relating to blessed rule, that were received before by David (Tanchum), or (as Thenius thinks probable) the declaration of a prophet, who uttered 2 Samuel 23:3 b, 4 (here recalled by David) at the beginning of David’s reign (this thought would have been necessarily otherwise expressed), but the now following declaration. What God now, at the moment of His speaking, immediately imparts to him, is declared in what follows: The “to me” stands emphatically first (“to me speaks the rock of Israel”), because David has in view his theocratic relation to the following divine word and its relation to him, and because it will be fulfilled in his seed; he expresses his consciousness (which was connected with his prophetic endowment) of the soteriological significance of his person for the people in respect to the future fulfillment of the glorious promises given to his seed.—The four members in 2 Samuel 23:2-3 a stand in chiasmic relation to one another; the first member of 2 Samuel 23:3 a corresponds to the second of 2 Samuel 23:2, and the second of 2 Samuel 23:3 a to the first of 2 Samuel 23:2. 2 Samuel 23:3 b, 4. First part of the divine saying. The thoroughly abrupt, lapidary style corresponds with the solemn announcement of the imparted divine declaration, and with the fact (thereby declared) that the poet is filled with the divine Spirit and word; the words are inspired exclamations, whose pregnant and enigmatic curtness, heightened by the omission of verbs, is in keeping with the condition of the writer’s soul, overpowered by the mighty impulse of the prophetic Spirit, and the immediate view of truth produced by it. Comp. Tholuck, as above, p. 58. A ruler over men just, a ruler in the fear of God. These words are not to be taken as apposition to the “God of Israel” in 2 Samuel 23:3 a (Vulg., Luth.), nor as object of the verb “say” taken as = “promised” (Maurer: God promised a ruler), or as opposition to “me” [“me a just ruler”], that is, as David’s praise of himself (Sachs). Nor with Trendelenberg (in Thenius) are we to read “derision” (ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ “proverb, byword”) instead of “ruler,” and render: “a byword the righteous may be among men, a byword the fear of God, but as morning light, etc.” Further, the words are not to be understood as an affirmation concerning a pious king: “if among men one rules righteously—he is as morning-light, etc” (Cler., Herder, De W., Ew., Then., Baur), as if they expressed for a parenetic end the ethical-religious significance and mission of the Israelitish royal office in general. Such laudation of the governmental virtues of a king would accord neither with the preceding solemn announcement of a divine oracle, nor the thence naturally to be expected weighty content of the divine saying, would indeed make the prophetic character give way to the didactic. To the view that any pious and righteous king is here meant, by the portraiture of whom David wished to convey an exhortation to his sons, is opposed also the content of the individual statements that follow, picturing a royal form far above the proportions of an ordinary regent, and especially the reference in 2 Samuel 23:5 to 2 Samuel 7 as giving the ground of the picture. The “ruler” here spoken of stands to David’s prophetic gaze, in the light of the divine word spoken into him, as the ideal royal form proceeding from his seed, wherein he sees fully realized the idea of a theocratic king according to his religious-moral qualities, and the wielder of a dominion that stretches over all humanity. This last is expressed in the phrase “over men.” The “men” are not, however, the people of Israel, for the expression would then be surprisingly weak and flat, nor are they men as subjects in general and necessary appendage to “any ruler” (Then.), which would be a meaningless pleonasm, but “men” in the absolute sense, humanity, the human race (Fries, as above, p. 656 sq.). If David already sees himself made head and ruler of “the nations,” his royal dominion extended wide over “the strangers,” and praises the Lord’s name before the heathen, so that they acknowledge him and give him the honor (2 Samuel 22:44-45; 2 Samuel 22:48; 2 Samuel 22:50), here his prophetic glance takes in all the nations of the earth as embraced in the kingdom of God, wherein the portrayed ruler of the future will bear his universal sway. Comp. Psalms 72:8-17.—This ruler is just, perfectly conformed to the holy will of God, compare Psalms 72:1 sq.; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 9:9.—A ruler in the fear of God. His moral integrity combined with religious perfectness; the “fear of God” is not merely the attribute of the Messianic king, but will be seen completely to fill and control him. Compare Isaiah 11:2-3. “A ruler of the fear of God, that is, a ruler that will be, as it were, the fear of God itself, the bodily fear of God” (Hengst.). [When we compare this song with Psalms 45, 72, Isaiah 11, and similar passages, it seems correcter to regard it as the picture of the ideal theocratic king, than as a vision of a future king. This ideal king is, in the view of the pious Israelite, invested with all conceivable moral and governmental grandeur, and the picture finds its perfect realization only in Jesus of Bethlehem. The “men,” however, can hardly be said here to mean “all humanity,” but the expression must be taken in the general sense: “a human ruler.”—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:4. Picture of the blessings that follow the appearance of the future ruler, under the figure of the wholesome effects of the light of the rising sun on a bright morning. And as morning-light, when the sun rises, morning without clouds, from brightness, from rain grass out of the earth (sprouts). These words are not to be connected with the following 2 Samuel 23:5, protasis to it as apodosis [as morning-light, etc., is not my house so?] (Dathe); against this is the “for” at the beginning of 2 Samuel 23:5. Nor are they to be connected syntactically with 2 Samuel 23:3—either by adding the first clause of 2 Samuel 23:4 to complete the preceding sentence: “he is as the light of the morning” (De Wette, Thenius, Sept., which reads: “and in the morning-light of God”)—or by regarding the whole statement about the morning-light as the continuation of the description of the “ruler” in 2 Samuel 23:3 (the Rabbis, Maurer: “and He will come forth as the morning-light shines,” etc.). Against this connection is both the form of 2 Samuel 23:3 b, which is a sharply defined, isolated exclamation, and the form of 2 Samuel 23:4, “which sensibly enough deviates from the sharply-cut, monumental style of the six words compressed in 2 Samuel 23:3 b by a peculiar fulness of lingering description” (Fries, as above, p. 663). Besides, it is only by isolating 2 Samuel 23:4 on both sides that we can find the ground of its content in 2 Samuel 23:5 (which is introduced by “for”), since the statements of 2 Samuel 23:5 agree only with the content of 2 Samuel 23:4, standing in factual [or real] connection therewith, while 2 Samuel 23:3 b presents the ideal of a person. 2 Samuel 23:4 has the same abrupt, enigmatical, exclamatory tone as 2 Samuel 23:3 b, though it differs from it in its particular statements, a natural result of the fact that here a comparison taken from nature is carried out. As in 2 Samuel 23:3 b, there is not a single verb, and the different statements are unconnected. Even from this formal similarity, 2 Samuel 23:4 is to be regarded as continuation of the immediate divine saying in 2 Samuel 23:3; and not less from its content, which is closely connected with that of 2 Samuel 23:3, describing under the figure of natural light the effect of the light that proceeds from the ruler portrayed in 2 Samuel 23:3, and in similar lapidary style. Fries, however (pp. 663, 665), separates 2 Samuel 23:4 from the preceding, holding that the “divine saying” ends in the latter, and that in the former (2 Samuel 23:4) follows a vision to the ravished eye of the dying David, while at the same time his opened ear heard the revealing word of God; accordingly he translates: “God speaks—: and before me it is as morning-light in sunshine.” But against this view Isaiah 1) that the “divine saying” (confined to 2 Samuel 23:3 b) would be singularly short in comparison with the elaborate announcement [2 Samuel 23:1-3 a]; 2) that if David here consciously began to describe a vision (different from the divine saying above), he would have somehow intimated the fact, instead of proceeding with “and as the morning-light;” and 3) that the explanation: “before me it is light,” etc., introduces into the text what is not intimated in it, for there is no hint here of any special vision given to David along with the immediate word of God divinely imparted to him. The appearance of the bright glory of a clear life-awakening morning does not now for the first time dawn on the singer, but he sees it from the same height of prophetic contemplation whence he saw the ruler in 2 Samuel 23:3 b. He sees both together, and certifies both by the “divine saying,” which extends over 2 Samuel 23:4; on both sections of this divine saying, 2 Samuel 23:3 b and 2 Samuel 23:4, is stamped the same plastic objectivity of prophetic view, as it is produced by the Spirit of prophecy. The subject is not the Messiah, as was held by several early expositors (for ex., Crusius [and so Wordsworth now]), who took “the sun rises” as principal sentence, and “sun” as figure of the Messiah (after Mal. 3:20): “as the morning-light will the sun rise;” this is forbidden by the collocation of words, and by the fact that this comparison would involve a tautology. It is rather an impersonal expression, the subject being left undetermined: “And it is as morning-light, when the sun rises,” or, its appearance is as morning-light. The “light of morning” stands in contrast with the darkness of the preceding night, and denotes (as the figure of light generally does) the well-being that comes with the ruler after wretchedness and ruin. Comp. Psalms 59:17 [16]. The “when the sun rises,” defining the “morning-light,” indicates its source, and answers to the “ruler over men.” The “without clouds,” parallel to the preceding, strengthens the conception of the well-being as wholly unalloyed. In the “brightness” [Eng. A. V.: clear shining] of the risen sun its light unfolds itself and shows itself active. The “rain” stands in connection with the “without clouds;” after the rain of the night the clouds have dispersed; but from rain and sunshine now sprouts forth the verdure. The expression may be rendered either: “from brightness, from rain comes herb,” where “brightness” and “rain” are both causes, or: “from brightness after rain.” The former rendering is favored by the immediate repetition of the same Preposition. The fact involved [which is the same, whichever rendering be taken] is the morning sunshine, following the night-rain, dispersing the rain-clouds, and making the fresh herb sprout vigorously from the moist soil. On rain as a figure of blessing see Isaiah 44:3. The verdure sets forth the blessings that are the fruit of dispensations from above. Comp. Isaiah 44:4; Isaiah 45:8; especially Psalms 72:6 : “He will come down as rain on the mown field, as showers that water the earth.”—“Here,” says Thenius rightly, “ends the divine saying,” only there is described therein not “the happy work of a ruler, as he ought to be” (Then.), but in general the blessing brought by the definite ideal ruler of the future seen by divine revelation.—The whole figure carries out the thought that the ruler described in 2 Samuel 23:3 will bring weal and blessing in his train. 2 Samuel 23:5 gives the ground for the divine revelation in 2 Samuel 23:3-4, by reference to the promise in chap. 7, which forms the foundation of this prophetic view. The introductory conjunction = simply “for,” not: “is it that my house?” (as if = δֲ ?λִ ?ι, Crus., Dathe). The first member is not to be taken as an affirmation: “for not so is my house” [so nearly Eng. A. V.]. Several Rabbis so understood it, putting an artificial and foreign sense into the words: thus in the preceding verse they take the “morning without clouds” as = “not a cloudy morning,” and the “from shining after rain,” etc., as defining this “cloudy morning,” when sunshine after rain produces mildew (Isaaki), or only fleeting light breaks through the clouds (R. Levi), or under the capricious alternation of sunshine and rain “nothing better springs up than quickly withering grass” (D. Kimchi), that they may find in contrast therewith the glory of the Davidic House set forth in 2 Samuel 23:5 (comp. Fries, p. 688). So Luther takes the sentence as an affirmation, but with the exactly opposite contrast with 2 Samuel 23:4, namely, he regards 2 Samuel 23:5 as an humble confession: “it is not such a house as is worthy of such unspeakable honor from God,” that is, such honor as is pictured in 2 Samuel 23:4. “Here David falls into great humility and astonishment that such great things should come from his flesh and blood.” In accordance with this he takes the following words: “all my salvation and doing is that nothing grows,” that is, “I am also a king and lord, and have well ordered and established the kingdom; but such kingdom of mine, yea the realm of all kings on earth, is, in comparison with the dominion of my son Messiah, nothing but a dry branch, that has never grown nor thriven.” Against this view is the absence of the subject assumed in it, or, if this subject be found in the “not” taken as = “nothing,” the absence of the defining term (“earthly”); nor could David possibly have based the thought that his house would not continue on the prophecy in chap. 7. Rather the first member of 2 Samuel 23:5, as well as the third, is to be taken as a question.—For is not my house so with God? As 2 Samuel 23:3 and 2 Samuel 23:4 are in content inseparably connected, the “for” assigns the reason of the whole divine saying, not merely of 2 Samuel 23:4; and the “so” refers to the whole of 2 Samuel 23:3-4, that is, so as is said above of the ruler, the wholesome influence that he brings (light) and its happy effects (verdure). But the thought on which this statement is based is not that David says that his own reign was in accord with the truth (2 Samuel 23:3-4), that a pious king is like the morning-light, under whose influence every thing prospers—that God has granted blessing to his house and his house’s future—that he thence infers that he answers to that figure of a pious ruler, the whole being an instance or example (in the form of a question) attached to the preceding general statement about the “ruler” (De Wette, Then.). For (apart from the fact that this interpretation of 2 Samuel 23:3-4, as a statement concerning any pious ruler, whose government diffuses blessing, has been above refuted) against this is that the sentence speaks only of David’s house, not of himself and his government, and that, if David had intended to derive an argument respecting himself from the blessing that came to his house, he must have expressed himself quite differently. And Fries rightly remarks that instead of such self-assertory thoughts, it would be seemlier to put into the dying David’s mouth a “who am I and what is my house?” (2 Samuel 7:18).—The sentence is rather to be rendered: “For—stands not my house in such a relation to God?” Hearing and declaring the divine saying (2 Samuel 23:3-4), the picture of the ideal theocratic ruler and his attendant blessings, David recalls the promise of imperishable royal dominion that has been given to his house and seed. These two divine declarations he here so combines that the latter (chap. 7.) is made to confirm and give the ground of the former (2 Samuel 23:3-4). The sense is, then, not merely: Stands not my house in such relation to God that out of it shall arise the righteous ruler? (Keil), but also that the promised blessings will proceed from him? On the connection between this divine saying (2 Samuel 23:3-4) and 2 Samuel 23:5, Fries admirably remarks: “This ‘for’ serves as in innumerable cases, to attach a reflection that is meditating an explanation, and we need only put aside the erroneous opinion (that so often makes difficulty in the explanation of Old Testament passages) that sentence on sentence must be taken, as it were, in one breath, and grant the speaker a short pause of quiet thought, and we shall then understand the free transition of ideas here between 2 Samuel 23:4 and 2 Samuel 23:5. The quiet transition lies in the successful, effort of the soul to gird itself to conscious justification of its belief in the offered blessing.” [The connection may be thus indicated: the ruler of men is just and God-fearing, and brings with him all blessings, and this is true of my house, for it is thus in communion with God, for He has made an everlasting covenant with me.—Tr.]—The second “for” gives the reason not merely for the “so” (Bφttch., Then.), but also for the whole phrase “so is my house with God,” since the following sentence involves the position of his house towards God: for He has made with me an everlasting covenant. These words refer directly to the promise in 2 Samuel 7:12 sq. It is called a covenant because of the reciprocal relation between God and the seed of David, as set forth in 2 Samuel 23:12-14. It is according to 2 Samuel 23:16 an everlasting covenant: “And sure is thy house and thy kingdom forever before thee, thy throne will be established forever.” The phrase “ordered (arranged) in all things” denotes that the draught of the instrument or deed of covenant is legally correct and exact, is arranged by the declaration of God (Fries). Comp. 2 Samuel 7:14 sqq., where the eventual apostasy of the bearer of the covenant is considered, and in spite of this the maintenance of the covenant is contemplated. The covenant is preserved, secured, guarded against non-fulfillment by the truthfulness of the divine promise. Comp. 1 Kings 8:25, where Solomon, with reference to 2 Samuel 23:12-16, prays: “Preserve to thy servant David, my father, what thou spakest to him.”—As these words (“for a covenant, etc.,”) thus undoubtedly refer to chap. 7 it is inadmissible with Crusius to refer them to 2 Samuel 23:3 sqq.; for in this latter passage the reciprocity involved in the term “covenant” is altogether lacking, and the predicates, ordered and preserved are not applicable to it.—The third “for” now introduces the interrogatory third member (whose reference to the image in 2 Samuel 23:4 : “verdure (sprouts) from the earth” is indubitable), and grounds the writer’s confidence in the sureness of the covenant on the future blessings secured by that covenant. For all my salvation and all pleasure, should He not make it sprout? My salvation, that is, the salvation promised, assured to me and my seed. The pleasure must be taken (as the salvation is from God) as = what is well-pleasing to God, not as = “what is well-pleasing to me” (Then., Hengst.); the pronoun “my” is not to be repeated with it [as in Eng. A. V. ]. David refers the salvation promised him and his house—not also “the religious and ethical culture of his people” (Then.)—to its source in God’s good pleasure, expressed in the covenant as a divine counsel of salvation. “David will say of the divine resolution of salvation that it, because it has once been lodged as a principle in the bosom of the Davidic house by the divine covenant, cannot be accomplished except by thorough development, elaboration of all its elements, conclusory revelation of its deepest secret” (Fries).—“Should he not make it sprout?” The verb is transitive, having “salvation and pleasure” as its object. This corresponds also with the idea of divine causality that controls the whole of 2 Samuel 23:5 and is distinctly expressed in the phrase “made a covenant with me” (lit.: established a covenant to me). Fries would find here “the first example and fundamental passage for the solemn use of this verb (φξη “sprout”) that occurs afterwards in Isaiah 4:2; Isaiah 43:19; Isaiah 44:4; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:8; Isaiah 61:11; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12;” but here the “sprouting” (comp. 2 Samuel 23:4) is affirmed not of the person of the “righteous ruler,” but of the salvation and blessing that accompanies him. [Comp. the parallel statement in Isaiah 53:10, where it is said that the “pleasure” of Jehovah shall prosper in the hand of the righteous servant of Jehovah. Possibly there is a connection between this passage and ours, though the verb employed is different. The general declaration here is, that God in His covenant-mercy will secure all blessing to the writer.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:6-7. From the form of the righteous ruler, and in the light of the blessing that proceeds from Him, David sees in prophetic perspective, on the basis of the promise given him, not only the salvation and blessing of the everlasting covenant under the dominion of the future everlasting king, but also the judgment (which will come with Him) on the ungodly and the enemies of the Messianic theocracy. But the wicked—as cast-away thorns are they all.—The abstract worthlessness (for the concrete worthless, Deuteronomy 13:14) designates the ungodly in their general character, in contrast with the abstract fear of God (2 Samuel 23:3), which forms the religious-moral nature and character of the righteous ruler; as in him only fear of God, so in them only worthlessness. The thorns set forth the hurtful and dangerous enemies of God’s people and kingdom, Numbers 33:55; Isaiah 27:4; Nahum 1:10; Ezekiel 28:24. The thorns, considered as representing enemies, are said (literally) to be “hunted, driven away;” when the thing itself (the thorns) is had in view, this meaning is modified into “put, cast away.” The basis of the figure is the field (comp. the “verdure out of the earth,” 2 Samuel 23:3), whose yield is obstructed by thorns. The rapid, prophetic glance, not pausing at the details of the process, but hastening to the end, sees the enemy already overpowered, and now tarries by the final act of destruction, which makes the enemy harmless. While the production of blessing under the righteous ruler is represented (by the figure of sprouting, growing) as a gradual process, the judgment on the ungodly is set forth as final judgment (the burning of the thorns). The thorns are no longer hurtful; they appear to David “already as thorns torn up, with which one may no longer hurt his hands, since all kindness to them has been in vain” (Herder).—For they are not taken with the hand, that is, one does not grasp them with naked, unarmed hand in order to throw them into a heap for burning, but he that touches them for this purpose, provides, arms himself with iron and shaft. The poetical discourse names the various parts of the implement with which the thorns are seized and thrown into a heap (not: “torn out of the earth,” Then.). The expression refers not to the attacking and overcoming of the ungodly, but to their final destruction, set forth by the burning of the thorns, to which this seizing and heaping up is preparatory.—And with fire are they utterly consumed; the fire is symbol of the divine wrath; the expressions indicate the indubitable certainty and completeness of destruction in this final catastrophe (the same figure in Matthew 3:10; Matthew 13:30).—The concluding word (αַ ?ωָּ ?αֶ ?ϊ) is to be rendered: “so that there is an end to them” [Eng. A. V.: “in the same place”]. Not “at the seat,” as euphemistic expression for the place where trash and filth are thrown (Bφttcher, Deuteronomy 23:12 sqq.)—why should the thorns be first brought to this place? not: “in the place of dwelling,” the place where they grow (Kimchi, Keil), for the term “dwelling” would be here unsuitable, and the thorns are burnt not where they grow, but where they are cast; and so not: “at the seat,” = “on the spot,” “burnt straight-way,” because no other use can be made of them than to manure the fields with their ashes (Then. [Eng. A. V.]); not: “at home” (Cler., Buns.), for one does not take the trouble to carry them home, nor: “at length” (Dathe). The word = “in ceasing,” not, however: “as the extirpation is ended” (Thenius formerly), but: “in that they cease;” the burning proceeds so that a complete ceasing, disappearance takes place. “They are there only for burning, and this end awaits them, that not even the place where they stood is seen” (Herder). The complete cessation or annihilation of the thorns follows naturally on the “burning” as its final result. “This figure also … is taken from the promise in 2 Samuel 7:10. Israel is there represented as a vineyard, his family is to be its guardian, and so the rebels are hurtful, unfaithful thorns” (Herder).—The Prep, “in” serves to supplement the verbal statement by the substantive-idea, as in Psalms 65:6 : I have heard thee in or with salvation, that is, so that I gave thee salvation; so here: they are burned in ceasing, so that they cease. [Condensed, paraphrase of David’s last words: “God said to me: The righteous theocratic king dispenses blessings as the rain and sunshine. God, in His covenant, has assured me salvation; but the ungodly shall be destroyed.” The neum or oracle is thus first, a description of the ideal theocratic king, and then the expression of the writer’s personal relation to God, with the implication that godliness is the basis of the divine procedure. This conception of the true theocratic king is realized perfectly only in Jesus Christ, and may thus be termed a typical conception, that is, one that was partially realized for the contemporaries, and destined hereafter to be completely realized.—The versions here are not very useful; the Chaldee paraphrases throughout, and interprets the passage directly of the Messiah, the text of the Sept. differs from that of the Heb., but Vulg. and Syr. conform in general in text and rendering to the masoretic text.—Tr.] AND 1. The prophetic element, which appears in David’s Messianic Psalms, comes out most strongly here. In Nathan’s promise and prophecy in 2 Samuel 7:12 sq. David is merely passively receptive, and his prayer (2 Samuel 23:18 sq.) is only the echo of the divine word he has received; but here he rises to highest prophetic action, which presupposes indeed a passive bearing towards the divine saying (the Neum) by which he receives an immediate revelation in plastic form of what he had previously received as a promise through Nathan, and this revelation he announces in a prophetic discourse, which in form and content answers to the complete possession of his soul by the power of the divine Spirit. The theocratic king is here also the theocratic prophet, applying to himself as God-inspired singer epithets that are suitable only for prophecy (2 Samuel 23:1 sq.), and then, on the historical ground of his kingship and its blessings, and on the revelation-ground of the word of God that came directly to him, prophesying the antitype of his kingdom in the appearance of the royal glory and saving work of the righteous ruler of the future. It is clear from the preceding exposition that this picture transcends the form of an ordinary pious king and his blessings; and strict exegesis also shows that David here looks wholly away from himself to a royal personage in the far future. 2. The content of the prophecy is the picture of a future ruler perfect in righteousness and the fear of God. He is accompanied by the light of salvation, which has dissipated the darkness, and diffuses itself in purest radiance like morning-light at sunrise. The effect of this light-appearance is the manifestation of gracious blessings, set forth under the image of verdure springing from the earth. But with the blessing of the future ruler’s peaceful work is completed also the revelation of judgment (presupposing victorious conflict), whereby the righteous ruler puts an end to all the enmity of godlessness and to all opposition to his rule. 3. From the height of prophetic view and in the line of prophetic perspective David’s look rests on the ideal of a glorious royal person, raised high above all earthly royal forms in Israel (his antitype in the historical person of Christ), in whom righteousness and piety appear absolute and complete, and whose dominion in truth extends over all men. Comp. Psalms 72. The fulness of salvation and blessing, which is to appear with the prophesied king, is the object of the Messianic hope and expectation through all the periods of Israel’s history, but does not appear as here portrayed, in historical reality till the coming of Christ. The final judgment (following the appearance of the righteous ruler) that annihilates all ungodliness, is completed only under the rule of Him to whom all judgment has been committed by the Father, and in the final decision to which the opposition between the kingdoms of light and darkness is pressing on. 4. The historical presupposition of the prophecy is the promise in chap. 7.; here for the first time is shown how, on the basis of this promise, the view [anschauung, intuition, conception] of the Davidic-kingdom becomes clear. “In that the song gives the image of a righteous ruler with a glorious future, adding that such a government is signified by the everlasting covenant that God made with the house of David, we see clearly here already how the knowledge of the idea advances to individualization in the ideal, and so (to use Sack’s expression) typical prophecy [bildweissagung] arises. Doubtless epithets may be applied to any king that sits on David’s throne, that are true not of himself, but of the dynasty he represents (comp. such passages as Psalms 21:5; Psalms 21:7 [ Psalms 21:4; Psalms 21:6]; Psalms 61:7 [Psalms 61:6]). But, impelled by the Spirit, the sacred poetry produces a royal form that transcends all that the present shows, and exhibits the Davidic Solomonic kingdom in ideal perfectness” (�hler, in Herz. IX., 412, Art. Messias). AND blessed end, when in looking back upon the path of life that lies behind, and the manifestations of God’s grace that have been made to him, one has nothing to utter but gratitude and praise—when in looking around upon his own life’s acquisitions and his possession of salvation, all self-glorying is silent, and only the testimony to God’s grace and mercy, that has done all and given all, comes upon the lips—when in looking forward into the future of God’s kingdom upon earth, on the ground of the grace experienced in life one’s faith becomes a prophet, beholding the ways along which the Lord will lead His kingdom through darkness to light, through conflict to victory, and by such a proclamation of the coming glory strengthening the hearts of many and confirming them in the hope of the Lord’s gracious help to the end, which never suffers His people to be put to shame—and when in looking up to the everlasting hills from which all help has come, the “last word” upon earth is a loud Hallelujah, that sounds across into eternity.—The humbler the heart is, the more highly does it praise the gracious gifts and guidance of the Lord; the more a man feels himself little and poor in the sight of the great and gracious God, so much the greater and more glorious will that appear to him which without desert on his part God has given him, in bodily good and spiritual gifts, so much the more joyfully will he, under the guidance and impulse of the Holy Spirit, regard all that flesh and blood might boast of, as coming from the foundation of divine grace.—A servant of God should (every one) show himself, who like David is called to service in God’s kingdom; every one’s place is in God’s sight high and glorious, however lowly and mean it may be in men’s eyes, and in his place he should 1) as an “anointed of the Lord” perform the duties of his kingly office, and with his God and Lord conquer and rule the world, 2) as a priest of the Lord proclaim His praise in word and deed, and to the Lord’s honor make the harp of his ***art sound out into the world, and 3) as a prophet of the Lord prophesy of the glory of the Lord and of His kingdom, the Spirit of God and not his own spirit speaking through him, the word of God and not his own word sounding from his lips. True preaching is always a prophetic testimony, 1) as to its origin: the Spirit of the Lord speaks through it, 2) as to its content: the word of the Lord is upon its tongue, and 3) as to its subject: the mysteries of God’s saving purpose, which only God’s Spirit can explain; the great deeds of God’s grace, which can be proclaimed only on the ground of personal inner experience and of one’s own seeing and hearing; and the future affairs of God’s kingdom, in the manifestations of divine salvation and divine judgment, which only the eye illuminated by the light of the Spirit can behold.—When the Lord speaks through His Spirit and in His word, then should man’s own thoughts bow and be silent, but then also should the human spirit and the human word be the instruments of God’s Spirit and God’s word.—The prophetic photograph of the future ruler in the prophecy of David answers in its outlines to the counterpart of the fulfillment in Christ, and this 1) in respect to his personal appearing, perfect righteousness and holiness in complete fear of God (religious-ethical perfection); 2) in respect to the extent of his royal dominion—he is ruler “over men,” universality of world-dominion; 3) in respect to the foundations of his kingdom, the promises of God; 4) in respect to the activity and effects of his royal rule on the one hand in the enlightening, warming, animating and fructifying light of his manifestations of grace and blessings of salvation, on the other hand in the fire of His judgment, consuming all ungodliness. The morning-light of divine grace and truth in Christ, 1) Breaking in the dawn of the promises and predictions of the Old Testament; 2) Flashing up out of the night that before covered the world, and frightening away its darkness and its clouds; 3) Appearing in the Sun of righteousness and salvation; 4) Bringing salvation and blessing, dispensed from on high to call men—and a new life, fruitful for the kingdom of God, which springs from below out of the earth.—The rain in the night is the image of the blessing coming from above, which has been hidden in the trouble brought by the night, and not merely becomes manifest when the night is gone, but also in the shining of divine grace and truth dispenses the fructifying life-force, from which springs new health and new life.—“Morning-light—sunrise—morning without clouds—shining after rain—grass out of the earth—then—then—then,” this is the gradation in which faith beholds the process of appearing of salvation and life from above, and the effects of salvation beneath—this is the surpassing fullness of salvation, in presence of which our human speech, unable adequately to express the unspeakable, can only speak and testify in such a lapidary style. Luther: Here David comes forth and boasts high above all bounds, yet with truth, without any arrogance!—Here David is another man than Jesse’s son. This he did not inherit from his birth, nor learn from his father, nor gain by his kingly power or wisdom. From above it is given him, without any desert on his part; in this he is joyous, praises and gives thanks so heartily.—Faith is and also should be a fortress of the heart, which does not shake, totter, quake, writhe nor doubt, but stands fast and is sure of its point.—Faith is not quiet and silent; it comes forth, speaks and preaches of such promises and grace of God, that also others come to them and partake of them.—Schlier: In the first place we see the natural ground and soil in which the prophecy grows, namely the person of David, who out of a shepherd’s son has become the anointed of the Lord. If no prediction attaches itself to this historical ground, it is to be feared that it is no true prophetic word. But the main matter now first comes, namely, the Spirit of the Lord, that the prophet does not bring his own thoughts but God’s thoughts, and that he does not speak what has pleased himself, but what God has put into him.—Luther: David means not only the loveliness and sweetness of the psalms, as to grammar and music, in that the words are ornamentally and skillfully arranged and the song sounds sweet—but much rather as to Theology, as to the spiritual understanding, therein are the Psalms very lovely and sweet; for they are consoling to all troubled and distressed consciences, which are involved in sin’s anguish and deadly torture and fear, and all sorts of need and sorrow.—[Taylor: David spoke, and the human style had all the characteristics of his usual productions; for the Spirit and not the vocal organs of the prophet alone, but his intellectual and emotional powers as well. But God spoke by David, and that which he uttered was the truth, infallible as He who gave it.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:2. Luther: What a glorious, noble pride it is; he who can boast that the Spirit of the Lord speaks through him, and his tongue speaks the Holy Spirit’s word, must indeed be sure of what he says. Such boasting may still be made by every one of us that is not a prophet.—This may we do, inasmuch as we also are holy and have the Holy Spirit, so that we boast ourselves catechumens and disciples of the prophets, who say after them and preach what we have heard and learned from the prophets and apostles, and are also certain that the prophets have taught it. 2 Samuel 23:3. Schlier: So profess all the prophets of themselves, so professes all Scripture from beginning to end, and God be thanked that we have before us such a revelation of God, wherein God unveils Himself to us and draws near in the Holy Spirit.—Starke: The chief aim, the star and heart of Holy Scripture is Christ. Luke 22:44; John 5:39. Christ, while a true high-priest and prophet, is also a true king. Luke 1:32-33.—Luther: They fall into Jewish blindness who make David such a righteous ruler and ruler in the fear of God, and pervert the promise into a command and law, to the effect that whoever wishes to rule over men should be righteous and God-fearing, while David so devoutly and heartily boasts that they are words of promise of the Messiah of the God of Jacob, and not a command to secular lords. [This represents an extreme view of the present and many similar passages which some still entertain. The language is completely fulfilled only in Messiah, but had its suggestion and basis in what was true of David, and what every good ruler ought to strive to reproduce in himself. So above, in additions of Tr. to “Exegetical.” Taylor: David describes the character of a ruler: and reduplicating on that description, he in effect says (2 Samuel 23:5), “Is it not to be the distinctive feature of my lineage that it shall rule in justice, and in the fear of the Lord?”—a feature which came out not only in Solomon, but also in Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah and others, and especially and pre-eminently in Jesus Christ, in whom this prophecy culminated, and by whom it was thoroughly fulfilled.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:4. Schlier: Is not the Lord really our sun, which after a long movement at last rises upon us and with the splendor of His light makes all bright and clear and warm, and now under the blessing of His beam all begins to be green and blooming; everything grows and prospers, at least whatever does not shut itself against the Lord, but opens itself to Him and repels not His sunny beams?—The Lord brings blessing and prosperity, and in Him there is nothing lacking, if only we would like to receive such a blessing which is present for us.—Luther: Like the spring, so is also the rule and reign of grace a joyous, lusty time, wherein Messiah makes us righteous and God-fearing, so that we become green, blooming, fragrant, and grow and become fruitful. For He is the sun of righteousness, who draws near to us. Malachi 4:2—And now go so: Who lives in spring, he dies no more; who dies in winter, he lives no more;—for the sun goes away from the latter; but to the former the sun rises up of which David prophesies. Where the sun, Christ, does not shine clear, the spring also is not pleasant; but Moses with the law’s thunder makes everything dreadful and quite deadly. But here, in Messiah’s times (says David), when He shall reign over Israel itself, with grace to make us righteous and save us, it will be as delightful as the best time in spring, when before day there has been a delightful warm rain, that is, the consoling gospel has been preached, and quickly thereupon the sun Christ comes up in our heart through right faith without Moses’ clouds and thunder and lightning. Then all proceeds to grow, to be green and blooming, and the day is rich in joy and peace. 2 Samuel 23:5. Cramer: God’s covenant is an everlasting covenant, and remains also when the world passes away.—S. Schmid: In Christ alone our salvation blooms; He alone can quiet all our longing. Acts 4:12.—Luther: Of the everlasting covenant and house of David the two words “ordered” and “sure” are designedly used to instruct and console. For if you look at the histories, it will seem to you that God has forgotten His covenant and not kept it sure;—after Messiah His kingdom the Church is, when outwardly looked at, much more waste and disorderly, so that there is no more distracted, wretched, good-for-nothing government or dominion than the Christian Church, Christ’s dominion. Here the tyrants distract and waste it with all their might. Here the fanatics and heresies root up and spoil it. So also the false Christs with their evil life make it as if there were no more shameful, disorderly government upon earth. And these are working, or rather the evil spirit through them, to the end that Christ’s dominion shall not exist, or at any rate shall be a wretchedly disorderly thing. And in fine Christ acts as if He had forgotten His dominion and was never at home, so that here neither “ordered” nor “sure” is seen by the reason. Though we do not see it, He sees it who says, Son 8:12 : My vineyard is before me; Matthew 28:20, Lo, I am with you even to the end of the world; John 16:23, Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. However, we see that there has always remained and still remains a people which honors the name of Christ, and has His word, baptism, sacrament, key and Spirit, even against all the gates of hell. 2 Samuel 23:6-7. S. Schmid: He who seizes thistles with the naked hand acts imprudently; but yet more imprudent is he who holds close friendship with the children of Belial. 2 Corinthians 6:7.—Schlier: Where Christ the Lord counts for something there is blessing and prosperity; but where He is despised there are thorns and thistles.—A man’s true worth is determined by his attitude towards Christ.—Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.—He who cares for Christ is also cared for in the sight of God. But he who despises Christ amounts to nothing, and is counted in the sight of God as mere thorns and thistles. [2 Samuel 23:5. The covenant with David. I. Its contents: 1) His seed should reign forever, 2 Samuel 7:12 to 2 Samuel 16:2) Should reign in justice and the fear of God (2 Samuel 23:3). 3) Should bring great prosperity to His subjects (2 Samuel 23:4), like morning light dispelling the darkness, like morning showers causing the grass to spring up. 4) Should utterly destroy his enemies (2 Samuel 23:6-7). II. Its character—everlasting, well-ordered, sure.—Tr.] Footnotes: Const. state of πָ ?ΰεּ ?ν, from πΰν, properly=δξδ ,πδν “to boom, murmur, buzz,” used of any dull tone (kernel of the root m), hence especially of secret, confidential impartation (as Germ. raunen [Eng. roun, whisper]) = inspirare, of divine inspiration to prophet or poet as the confidant of God, which is conceived of as whispered into the ear” (Hupf. on Psalms 36:2 [1], where πΰν is used of the inspiration or oracle of wickedness personified as an evil demon). [Eng. A. V.: “the man spake unto Ithiel.” The text is probably corrupt, but there is no mention of Solomon in it.—Tr.] ςַ ?μ absolutely = “above,” as in Hosea 11:7 and perhaps 2 Samuel 7:16 (so ϊַּ ?ηַ ?ϊ often = adverb “below,” for example Genesis 49:25). Sept. wrongly: “whom God [Vat.: the Lord] raised up to be God’s anointed” whence Thenius would without ground read: δֵ ?χִ ?ινιδεδςַ ?μ. Luther, following Vulg. (cui constitutum est de Christo Dei Jacob) renders: “who is assured by the Messiah of the God of Jacob.” Against the latter (Vulg.) is that there is no Dative sign corresponding to the cui. Against the former (Sept.) is that ςַ ?μ is not = μְ [as introducing what a thing is made to be]; in the passages cited by Then. (Leviticus 4:35; Leviticus 5:12, comp. 2 Samuel 7:5) ςַ ?μ denotes either “being conformed to” or “coming in addition to” the other free-offerings.—D. Kimchi and Bφttcher arbitrarily make ςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο = ςַ ?μ “whom the Above [= Most High] has raised up.” On the form δֻ ?χַּ ?ν, u with doubling, see Ew. § 131 d. ξָ ?ωַׁ ?μαָּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν “to rule over men,” as Genesis 3:16; Genesis 4:7, not: “among men.” αֹּ ?χֶ ?ψμֹ ?ΰςָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ in the sense of μֹ ?ΰαֹ ?χֶ ?ψςָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ. μֹ ?ΰ without the Interrog. particle, 2 Samuel 19:23; Deuteronomy 20:19; Hosea 11:5; Malachi 2:15. Ew. § 324 a. λֵּ ?ο is Adverb, = “so,” not Adjective = “firmly fixed,” firma (Fries), or = πָ ?λεֹ ?ο, 2 Samuel 7:26; 1 Kings 2:45-46 (Crusius).—ςִ ?ρΞΰֵ ?μ = “with God,” not “before God” (De Wette). The fourth λִּ ?ιּ resumes the third, the interrogation being continued. It (the λִּ ?ι) might have been omitted, but its double use makes equally emphatic the salvation and the sprouting.—ιַ ?φְ ?ξִ ?ιηַ is Hiphil, causative. [Instead of ηֵ ?τֶ ?υλִּ ?ι Wellhausen proposes to read ηֶ ?τְ ?φִ ?ι, which is smoother, but perhaps for that very reason suspicious.—Tr.] Sept. separates the λιΞμֹ ?ΰιַ ?φְ ?ξִ ?ιηַ from 2 Samuel 23:5 and inserts it before 2 Samuel 23:6, omitting the εֹ: ὅτιὀυμὴ βλαστήσῃ ὁ παράνομος. So Michaelis: “the ungodly will not spring forth.” Against this is the Hiphil, and the fact that if this last clause were intended to express the thought: “He (God) alone is my salvation, etc.,” we should at least expect to find the words “for he” (λִּ ?ιδεּ ?ΰ). ξֻ ?πָ ?γ not Pass. of δֵ ?πִ ?ιγ “shaken (in order to remove)” (Bφttch.) but Hoph. Part. of πεּ ?γ or λֶּ ?μָּ ?δַ ?ρ—.πָ ?γַ ?γ for λֻּ ?μָּ ?ν. The ָ ?δν- for ָ ?δֶ ?ν- (cont. ָ ?ν-) is infrequent archaic form of 3 masc. Ges. § 91, Rem. 2. On ιξָּ ?μֵ ?ΰ. [lit.: fill the hand] comp. 2 Kings 9:24, and on the “arms” 1 Samuel 17:7. ωֶׁ ?αֶ ?ϊ is Subst. from ωָׁ ?αַ ?ϊ “to cease” (Proverbs 20:3); it may also be pointed as Infin., αִּ ?ωְׁ ?αֹ ?ϊ For the verb see Genesis 8:22; Isaiah 24:18; Isaiah 14:4; Lamentations 5:15; Proverbs 22:10; Joshua 5:12. [The word is possibly not part of the true text. It occurs again in the next line, and in both places Sept. reads αּ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ, αἰσχύνη, “shame” (see on 2 Samuel 23:8); it may have gotten into our verse from the following (Wellh.). Vulg.: usque ad nihilum; Syr.: “for cessation.”—Tr.] [Psalms 121:1-2, of which, however, the proper translation is: “I lift up my eyes to the mountains. Whence cometh my help? My help is from Jahveh the Maker of heaven and earth.”—Tr.] FIFTH SECTIONDavid’s Heroes 2 Samuel 23:8-398 These be [are] the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat [margin, Josheb-basshebeth the Tachmonite], chief among the captains [margin, head of the three], the same was Adino the Eznite [om. the same was A. the E.]; he lift up his spear [write without italics] against eight hundred whom he slew [slain] at one time. 9And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were there gathered together [probably: he was with David at Pasdammim, and the P. were there assembled] to battle, and the men of Israel were 10gone away [went up]. He arose and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword; and the Lord [Jehovah] wrought a great victory [deliverance] that day, and the people returned after him only to spoil. 11And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop [or, to Lehi], where was [and there was there] a piece of ground full of lentiles, and the people fled from the Philistines. 12But [And] he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended [saved] it, and slew [smote] the Philistines; and the Lord [Jehovah] wrought a great victory [deliverance]. 13And three of the thirty chief went down, and came to David in the harvest-time unto the cave of Adullam; and the troops of the Philistines pitched [encamped] in the valley of Rephaim. 14And David was then in an hold, and the [a] garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. 15And David longed and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! 16And the three mighty men broke through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David; nevertheless [and] he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord [Jehovah], 17And he said [And said], Be it far from me, O Lord [Jehovah forbid] that I should do this; is not this [shall I drink] the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore [and] he would not drink it. These things did these [the] three mighty men. 18And Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief among three [better, chief of the thirty]. And he lifted up his spear against three hundred and slew them [300 slain], and had the [a] name among three [the thirty]. Was he 19not [He was] most honourable of three [the thirty], therefore he was [and became] their captain, howbeit [and] he attained not unto the first [om. first] three. 20And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of [om. the son of] a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done many acts [man, who had done many acts, of Kabzeel], he slew two lion-like men of Moab. He went down also [And he went down] and slew a [the] lion in the midst of a [the] pit in time [in a day] of snow. 21And he slew an Egyptian, a goodly man [or, a man of great stature], and the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, but [and] he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own spear. 22These things did Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and had the [a] name among three mighty men [among the thirty heroes]. 23He was more honourable than the thirty, but he attained not to the first [om. first] three. And David set him over his guard [made him of his privy council]. 24Asahel the brother of Joab was one of the thirty, Elhanan the son of Dodo of 25Bethlehem, Shammah the Harodite, Elika the Harodite, 26Helez the Paltite, Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, Abiezer the Anethothite, Mebunnai the Hushathite, 27Zalmon the Ahohite, Maharai the Netophathite, Heleb the son of Baanah a [the] 28Netophathite, Ittai the son of Ribai, out of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin, 29Benaiah the Pirathonite, Hiddai of the brooks of Gaash [or, of Nahale-Gaash], 30Abi-albon the Arbathite, Azmaveth the Barhumite, Eliahba the Shaalbonite, of, 31the sons of Jashon [probably, Hashem the Gizonite], Jonathan, Shammah the 32, 33Hararite [or, Jonathan the son of Shammah (Shage) the Hararite], Ahiam the 34son of Sharar the Hararite [Ararite], Eliphalet the son of Ahasbai, the son of [or, Hepher] the Maachathite, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite, 35Hezrai the Carmelite, Paarai the Arbite, Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah, Bani the Gadite, 36Zelek the Ammonite, Nahari the Beerothite, armour-bearer to Joab the son of Zeruiah, 37, 38Ira an [the] Ithrite, Gareb an [the] Ithrite, Uriah the Hittite; thirty and seven in all. AND 2 Samuel 23:8. Superscription. These are the names of the heroes that David had. In the parallel section 1 Chronicles 11:10-41 there are two superscriptions. 2 Samuel 11:10 has: “And these are the heads [chiefs] of the heroes that David had, who stood stoutly by him in his kingdom with all Israel, to make him king.” With these words the Chronicler attaches the following list of heroes to the account of the choice of David by all the Tribes (2 Samuel 23:1-3), comp. 2 Samuel 5:1-3, thus giving a reason for inserting the list here. Further the list follows immediately the narrative of the conquest of Zion and the choice of Jerusalem as capital, 2 Samuel 23:4-9 (2 Samuel 5:6-10), especially to illustrate the remark in 2 Samuel 23:9 : “and David grew greater and greater” (comp. 2 Samuel 5:10).—Besides the fuller superscription, which assigns the list its historical position, the Chronicler has a second simpler one, 2 Samuel 23:11 a: “And this is the number of the heroes that David had.” The Gibborim [Heroes, Mighty men], elsewhere given in round numbers at six hundred men, formed a standing central corps, which (just as the body-guard, the Cherethites and Pelethites) remained near David and at his personal disposal. On the origin and development of this corps comp. 1 Samuel 22:2; 1 Samuel 23:13; 1 Samuel 25:13; 1 Samuel 27:2; 1 Samuel 30:9-24; 2 Samuel 10:7; 2 Samuel 15:18; 2 Samuel 16:16; 2 Samuel 20:7, and Ewald’s Hist. of Israel, III. 122, 140; 189 sq. [Germ. ed.] The first superscription in Chron.: “these are the heads of the heroes” (2 Samuel 23:10), corresponds exactly with the list, which gives not the “names” (2 Sam., 2 Samuel 23:8) nor the “number” (1 Chron., 2 Samuel 23:11) of the heroes, but only the chief among them. The list in Chron. gives no number, though the superscription (2 Samuel 23:11) states this to be the number of the heroes, while the list in 2 Samuel 23. speaking only of names on the superscription, gives at the close the whole number as thirty-seven. As in our list only thirty-seven out of six hundred Gibborim are mentioned, we may conjecture (with Then., after Chron.) that the word “heads” has here fallen out after “names” [“the names of the heads of the heroes”]. Otherwise the term Gibborim must be taken in a narrower sense (heroes among the heroes) [which is the more probable explanation.—Tr]. Neither the form nor the content of the list indicates a division into three classes (as held by most expositors); there is only a triple gradation in respect to the bravery of the heroes, first, three of the first rank (2 Samuel 23:8-12), then two, distinguished for bravery, hut “not attaining to the three” (2 Samuel 23:18-23), and finally thirty-two, of whom no deeds are mentioned. The five of the first and second ranks, and seven of the third, altogether twelve, were named by David leaders of the twelve divisions into which he divided the army, each of which had to do service one month in the year (1 Chronicles 27:1-15). In the list in 1 Chron. (1 Chronicles 11:41-47) occur sixteen names that are lacking here. In other respects the two lists agree materially, only that in both there is a considerable number of textual errors. 2 Samuel 23:8-12. The three greatest heroes, Jashobeam, Eleazar, Shammah, and their deeds. 2 Samuel 23:8. Our text has Josheb-basshebeth, while Chron., has Jashobeam; the latter (according to 1 Chronicles 27:2) is the correct reading. Instead of Tachmoni read “the son of Hachmoni” as in Chron.; comp. 1 Chronicles 27:32, where it is said: “Jehiel the son of Hachmoni was with the sons of the king;” this Jehiel was perhaps a brother of Jashobeam. Comp. also 1 Chronicles 27:32, where Jashobeam is called the son of Zabdiel; but this “is no discrepancy, since Zabdiel might he the proper name, and Hachmoni the patronymic but better known name of the father” (Bφttch.).—“Head of the knights (body-guardsmen).” “Head” here is not = “leader” (which would be ωַׂ ?ψ according to the usage of our books, comp. 2 Samuel 23:19, Bφttch.), but = “chief, most distinguished.” “Shalishim or riders (knights);” this word (ωָׁ ?μִ ?ιωִׁ ?ιν) is to be taken with Thenius as meaning the most distinguished warriors, standing nearest the persons of kings and generals; the name [lit.: “third man”] it may be conjectured, had its origin in the fact that from these warriors was chosen the man who, when the king or general went to battle, stood with him in the chariot (along with the driver) as third man. With this agrees (Then. p. 276) 2 Kings 9:25, where Jehu says to his Shalish: “Remember how I and thou rode together after Ahab;” and so in the pictures at Nineveh (Layard), in which the principal personage, drawing the bow, is covered by the shield of a warrior on his left, while the driver stands in front of the two. According to Exodus 14:7 (comp. 2 Samuel 15:4) every chariot was in unusual wise provided with a shalish [Eng. A. V. captain]. From Ezekiel 23:15, these favored men seem (later, at least) to have been distinguished by a special dress. From these shalishim (who afterwards formed a special Corps, near the person of the king, 2 Kings 10:25) the kings seem to have chosen their adjutants, comp. 2 Kings 7:2 (2 Samuel 17:19); 2 Samuel 9:25; 2 Samuel 15:25, and in 1 Kings 9:22 they appear as a special military rank or office. The term signifies, therefore, not: chariot warriors, three on a chariot, nor: (with a different pointing) the 30 leaders of the 600 Gibborim [Heroes] (Ew., Berth.), nor: regulars drawn up “three deep,” that is, superior soldiers (Bφttch.), but: shalish-corps, shalish-men, lifeguardsmen, “knights” (Luther, in “Kings”). [The meaning of shalish is obscure, but here it seems better to adopt the reading “three.” Jashobeam was chief or most eminent of the three highest, which agrees best with the context. So margin of Eng. A. V.—Tr.]—The text of the next following words [Eng. A. V.: “the same was A. the E.”] is corrupt and unintelligible, and is to be read (after 2 Samuel 23:18 and Chron. 2 Samuel 23:11): “he brandished his spear.” Instead of 800 Chron. has 300, taken probably from 2 Samuel 23:18, in order to soften the seemingly monstrous number 800. “At one time” = in one battle. “Eight hundred slain” (ηָ ?μָ ?μ), not “warriors,” as Kennicott (according to Thenius) renders: “he brandished his spear over 800 warriors, was their leader.” The meaning is, either that in one battle he swung his spear till he had killed 800 men (Ew., Berth., Bφttch., Keil), or that after the battle he brandished his spear over those that were killed by him and his men, as symbol of victory over them (Thenius). [For various forced interpretations of the verse see citations in Wordsworth and Philippson.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:9 sqq. After him, next him in the list, was Eleazar … with David; comp. 2 Samuel 23:11. “The son of Dodai,” as the text reads (pointed according to 1 Chronicles 27:4). The margin has Dodo, 1 Chronicles 11:12 [so Eng. A. V. here]. “The son of an Ahohite,” in Chron. “the Ahohite.” “Among the three heroes,” that is, the renowned trio, Jashobeam, Eleazar and Shammah (2 Samuel 23:11).—Instead of our text read with Chron.: “with David (Chron.: he was with David) at Pas-dammim, and the Philistines, etc.” Pas-dammim is probably the same place with “Ephes-dammim,” 1 Samuel 17:1.—And the Philistines had there assembled to battle. The words from “and the men of Israel went up” (2 Samuel 23:9) to “and the Philistines were gathered together to Lehi [Eng. A. V.: into a troop]” (2 Samuel 23:11) have fallen out of the text of Chron. so that the name of the third hero Shammah” is there wanting, as his deed (2 Samuel 23:11-12) falls to Eleazar.—The verb “went up” [Eng. A. V. wrongly: were gone away] denotes simply the marching of the men of Israel against the Philistines; it is unnecessary to add: “in flight” (Then.). The flight or holding back of the Israelites (involved in the “and the people returned,” 2 Samuel 23:10), inasmuch as it occurred after the advance to battle (wherefore Eleazar undertook the contest with the Philistines alone), is not expressly mentioned in the concise narrative, but is first indicated by the “returned.” If the word “went up” had been intended to indicate “flight to higher positions earlier occupied” (Then.), then necessarily a corresponding additional statement would have been made, such as Bφttcher too boldly conjectures: “they went up on the mountain and lost heart.” A correct explanation of the “returned” is given by Josephus [Ant. 7, 12, 4]: “when the Israelites fled, he alone remained,” and by the Vulgate, in its addition in 2 Samuel 23:10 : “and the people, who had fled, returned.” [There is not necessarily any hint in the text that the people had fled; the “returned” might refer to the withdrawal from pursuit of the defeated enemy. Bib.-Com., suggests that this view (as in Eng. A. V.: “gone away”) may have arisen from the misapplication in 1 Chronicles 11:13 of the phrase “the people fled” to this battle, whereas it belongs to Shammah’s exploit.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:10. He arose, that is, when the others had fallen back. Josephus: “he alone remained.” And smote the Philistines till his hand clave to the sword, his hand was cramped around the sword-hilt by weariness. “Jehovah wrought great deliverance,” that is, a great victory [observe the theocratic form of the Heb. expression: a victory is a deliverance or salvation from God.—Tr]. And the people returned after him. After this exploit the people had nothing to do but to follow for the purpose of plundering, to strip the slain (Sept.). 2 Samuel 23:11 sqq. The third principal hero, Shammah. Another of this name (not to mention the incorrect reading in 2 Samuel 23:33) is given in 2 Samuel 23:25, and called the Harodite. Here “a Hararite” is no doubt to be taken as the same with “the Hararite,” 2 Samuel 23:33, since in the parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 11:34, the same name Agee is given. Therefore we read: “Shammah the son of Agee, the Hararite.”—“And the Philistines were assembled at Lehi.” So we must render [and not: into a troop], because the words “there” and “assembled” both presuppose the name of a place (Then., Ewald). Chron. has: “to battle,” no doubt from 2 Samuel 23:9.—Lehi (= “jaw-bone”) = Ramath Lehi, where Samson smote the Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass, Judges 15:9; Judges 15:14; Judges 15:17; Judges 15:19. In Josephus’ time the place was still called Siagon (Σιαγών, “jaw-bone,” Ant. 5, 8, 8, 9). The Philistines had encamped in a lentil-field, because they found provision there (instead of “lentils,” Chron. has “barley” [probably both barley and lentils were found there.—Tr.]). The Israelites had fallen back. Then Shammah planted himself in the field, took it from the Philistines and smote them. A situation like that of 2 Samuel 23:9-10, is here described in short, sharp strokes, and the hero’s victory extolled as the immediate gift of God. 2 Samuel 23:13-17. Exploit of three other principal heroes of David, whose names are not given. Instead of the text: “thirty,” the marginal reading “three” is to be taken (with Chron. and all the Versions). As the Art. is lacking both here and in Chron., the heroes here named are not the chief three above (De Wette, Jos.), but other three out of the list, 2 Samuel 23:24 sqq.—And three of the Shalish-men (that is, the life-guardsmen, knights, see on 2 Samuel 23:8) went down, that is, from the heights of the mountains of Judah. The masoretic text has: “three of the thirty,” but instead of “thirty” we are to read “shalish-men” (Then.), as in 2 Samuel 23:8.—[There is no need to change the text. We have here an anecdote of three of the thirty afterwards mentioned. Perhaps this anecdote interrupts the list proper, in which Abishai should follow immediately after Shammah (Wellh.); but it is also possible that Abishai and Benaiah were two of the three here engaged.—Tr.]—“three of the knights, captains” [Eng. A. V.: “three of the thirty chief”]. The ψΰωׁ is to be rendered as in 2 Samuel 23:8 (“head”), but is here postposed as apposition (=“captains”). The text, however, is difficult. “In the harvest-time” (ΰֶ ?μΞχָ ?φִ ?ιψ), for which Chron. has: “on the rock;” but there is no reason to reject our text as spurious, since the rendering “in harvest-time” is not set aside by the context (Then.).—To the cave of Adullam, see 1 Samuel 22:1. According to the situation here described this exploit occurred in the Philistine war narrated in 2 Samuel 5:17 sq.—“And the troop (ηַ ?ιָּ ?δ, Numbers 35:3; Psalms 68:11 [10]; 1 Samuel 18:18) of the Philistines encamped in the valley of Rephaim.” Thenius thinks that (on account of the “post, garrison” of 2 Samuel 23:14) the “host” of Chron., as a larger body, is to be read instead of the “troop” of our passage; but this cannot be established. On the valley Rephaim see on 1 Sam. 5:18. 2 Samuel 23:14. On the “post” (ξַ ?φַּ ?α) see 1 Samuel 13:23; 1 Samuel 14:1; 1 Samuel 14:4.2 Samuel 23:15. “Who will give me to drink?” that is, Oh that some one would, etc., (Ew. § 329 a). Clericus explains this exclamation of David from his desire to see Bethlehem soon freed from the enemy’s siege; but this does not accord with the idea of appetite that especially belongs to this verb. The connection does not indicate that David wished to refresh himself after a hot fight (Ew.). Perhaps the water was bad or failed, and he had a longing desire for water from the well “at the gate,” which was perhaps particularly good. The traditional “David’s Well” lies” half an English mile from the present Bethlehem, and is, according to Ritter (Erdk. xvi. 286) “deep, and well provided with clear, cool water.” Comp. Tobler, Bethlehem, p. 10. 2 Samuel 23:16. The camp of the Philistines was in the valley of Rephaim in the direction from Adullam towards Bethlehem; comp. the local statements in 1 Samuel 22:1, 2 Samuel 5:18.—David would not drink the water, but poured it out to the Lord, not in thanksgiving for the preservation of the heroes (Jos.), nor as prayer for forgiveness of his fault in sending them into such deadly peril (Kennicott), but to honor the Lord (Vulg.), as an offering to the Lord, to whom alone it ought to belong, since it was too costly for David. 2 Samuel 23:17. His reason: Far be it from me, O Lord! to do this. One would expect here the usual form of an oath: “the Lord forbid that I should do this” (1 Chronicles 11:19, Syr., Chald., Then.). “But,” rightly remarks Bφttcher, “the Chronicler and the modern critics have failed to note the difference in the situation. Here David pours out a drink-offering to Jahwe, and in connection with it, invokes him; here, therefore, the elsewhere unusual vocative is necessary.”—“Should I [or, shall I] drink the blood of the men, etc?” Not: “The blood of the men, etc?” (interrogation with aposiopesis, Ew. § 30 3 a), which would be too unclear (Bφttch.). The words do not permit Movers’ rendering: “is it not the blood?” [so Eng. A. V.]. The verb “drink“ must be supplied, and the sense is: should I drink this water, which has the same value for me as the blood of these heroes, since they brought it “at the price of their souls,” at the risk of their lives? According to Leviticus 17:11 the soul [life] is in the blood; to drink this water would be equivalent to drinking the blood of these men. 2 Samuel 23:18-23. Feats of two other heroes of David. 2 Samuel 23:18 sqq. Abishai, see 1 Samuel 26:6. He was (as Jashobeam), a chief man, captain of the shalish-corps. (Erdmann retains the text (Kethib) shalish, Eng. A. V. follows the margin (Qeri): “chief of (the) three;” but it seems better to read: “chief of the thirty.” Abishai and Benaiah attained to fame and distinction among the thirty, without reaching to the three (2 Samuel 23:8-12).—Tr.] He brandished his spear over, etc., as in 2 Samuel 23:8. And he had a name among the three, Jashobeam, Eleazar and Shammah. Among these greatest heroes he had a name for heroic bravery. 2 Samuel 23:19. But also above the Shalish-corps (knights) was he honored. Our text reads: “above the three he was honored,” but, while the “three” at the end of 2 Samuel 23:18 is to be maintained against Thenius (who would unnecessarily change it to Shalish), here it must be regarded as a scribal error, and changed to Shalish, partly because of the following words: “and he became their captain,” partly because of the relation of these words (which indicate his position) to the “chief of the Shalish” in 2 Samuel 23:18.—The text here is as to one word (δֲ ?λִ ?ι) unintelligible, and must be changed after Chron., so as to read: “above the Shalish he was doubly honored,” so that he became their leader, which answered to his position as “chief of the Shalish-corps” (2 Samuel 23:18). But to the three (first) he attained not, they were beyond him in bravery and heroic achievement. [Dr. Erdmann thus, by somewhat arbitrary changes of text, brings out of this list a Shalish-corps with Abishai as captain; but we hear nothing elsewhere of such a corps, and it seems foreign to the design of this list to mention it. Moreover, the statement in 2 Samuel 23:23 concerning Benaiah seems to be parallel to that in 2 Samuel 23:19 concerning Abishai, and 2 Samuel 23:23 gives a clear and appropriate sense, in accordance with which it is better to render 2 Samuel 23:19 : “He was more honorable than the thirty, and became their captain, but did not attain to the three.” Thus, between the three and the thirty we have the two eminent soldiers, Abishai and Benaiah, of whom the first was made Captain of the Thirty, and the second Privy Councillor. The change of text required in order to give this reading (that is, to conform 2 Samuel 23:19 to 2 Samuel 23:23) is slight, involving only the alteration of ah to im.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:20-23. Benaiah; first, his person and character. The son of Jehoiada, according to 1 Chronicles 27:5 the priest Jehoiada (compare 2 Samuel 12:27); he was (2 Samuel 8:18; 2 Samuel 20:23) the commander of the body-guard (Cherethites and Pelethites), and became (1 Kings 1:35) in Joab’s stead commander-in-chief of the army. He was the son of an honorable man. As both texts have the “son,” it is not to be stricken out (Ew., Berth., Then., Bφtttch.), though of the Versions only the Chald. has it. Not: “the son of a valiant man”—that would not suit the priest Jehoiada—but: “of an upright, honest, capable man” (as in Numbers 24:18; 1 Kings 1:52; Rth 4:11; Proverbs 12:4; Proverbs 30:10; Proverbs 30:29). [It is not probable that, after the name of his father has been given, he would then be described afresh by this general phrase: “son of a man of force;” in spite of the concurrence of the two texts (Sam. and Chron.) in retaining the word “son,” it is better to omit it.—Tr.].—He was “rich in deeds.” Of Kabzeel, in the south of Judah, Joshua 15:21; Nehemiah 11:25.—His deeds: 1) He slew the two Ariels [Eng. A. V.: two lion like men] of Moab. Thenius (after the Sept., with a slight alteration) renders: “he slew the two sons of Ariel, the Moabite.” So also Ewald, who conjectures that Ariel was a name of honor of a king of Moab. But as both texts have the same reading, the renderings of Sept. and Targ. are mere conjectures. Nor can our text be translated: “two lions of God (God-lions)” (De W., Bφttch.) = monstrous lions; poetical expressions such as “mountains of God, cedars of God” (Psalms 36:7 [Psalms 36:6]; Psalms 80:11 [Psalms 80:10]) [= great mountains, goodly cedars] are not suitable to wild beasts and to “historical prose” (Then.). Among the Arabians and Persians “Lion of God” is the designation of a hero, comp. Boch. Hieroz. II. 7, 63, ed. Rosenmόller; Indian princes call themselves D�vasinha, “god-lions” (Ew.). It was two famous Moabite heroes that Benaiah conquered and killed. Why is it so improbable (Then. [Wellh.]) that this name should have been given to two contemporary men of a nation? This exploit belongs, therefore, in the history of the Moabite war, of which we otherwise know little.—2) He went down and slew the lion in the pit.—The word (ΰַ ?ψְ ?ιֵ ?δ) denotes a lion-animal, a beast that looks like a lion (Bφttcher). The Art. points out that the fact was generally known. On the day of snow, on a snowy day, when more snow than usual had fallen, and the lion, having approached human habitations to seek food, fell into an ordinary cistern, or a pit dug to catch him.—3) 2 Samuel 23:21. And he slew the Egyptian; the Art. denotes that the man was known according to this account. He was a “man of appearance,” that is, a large man. Chron. has: “a man of measure,” = a man of great height. Which is the original reading must be left undetermined; both denote gigantic stature, Chron, adding: “he was five cubits high, and his spear as a weaver’s beam.” The heroic nature of Benaiah’s deed consisted in his going down with a staff to the Egyptian, who was armed with a spear. We must suppose that there was a battle, in which Benaiah stood with Israel on a height, while the Egyptian and the enemy were below in the plain; he showed his skill and strength by snatching the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand and killing him with it. 2 Samuel 23:22. His name also (as Abishai’s) was renowned among the three chief heroes (comp. 2 Samuel 23:18) [here, as there, it seems better to read: “among the thirty.”—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 23:23. Here (as in verse 19) instead, of the “thirty” of the text, we are to read “Shalish” (knights).—Above the knights he was honored (as Abishai), but also he came not up to the three, the first-named three heroes.—And David made him his privy-councillor.—See on 1 Samuel 22:14. On his high military position see 2 Samuel 8:18 and 2 Samuel 20:23.—[As above remarked, it is simpler to retain the text here (as in Eng. A. V.), and make 2 Samuel 23:19 conform to it.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:24-39. The remaining heroes [thirty-two in number], who belonged to the corps of Shalishim, and, in comparison with the above-named, formed the third grade. 2 Samuel 23:24. Asahel, Joab’s brother; see 2 Samuel 2:18. He was one of the Shalishim [the text reads “thirty”], and this designation “among the Shalish” applies to all the following names. Chron. has as superscription: “and brave heroes were” (Asahel, etc.).—Elhanan, the son of Dodo, is to be distinguished from the Bethlehemite Elhanan mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:19. Instead of “Bethlehem” read “Bethlehemite;” Chron. has “of Bethlehem” [so Eng. A. V.]. 2 Samuel 23:25. Shammah, Chron. has the Harorite; here correctly the Harodite, of Harod, Judges 7:1; Chron. writes the name Shammoth (1 Chronicles 27:8 : Shamhuth).—Elika, wanting in Chron., omitted by reason of the identical “Harodite” in the two clauses. 2 Samuel 23:26. Helez the Paltite, of Beth-pelet in the south of Judah, Joshua 15:27; Nehemiah 11:26. In 1 Chronicles 11:27; 1 Chronicles 27:10 stands by error “the Pelonite.”—Ira, of Tekoa in the wilderness of Judah, see 2 Samuel 14:2, comp. 1 Chronicles 27:9. 2 Samuel 23:27. Abiezer, of Anathoth in Benjamin, Joshua 21:8; Jeremiah 1:1, comp. 1 Chronicles 27:12.—Instead of Mebunnai read Sibbekai (1 Chronicles 11:29) the Hushathite, 2 Samuel 21:18; comp. 1 Chronicles 27:11. 2 Samuel 23:28. Zalmon, of the Benjaminite family Ahoha; Chron. (2 Samuel 23:29) has llai [perhaps corrupted from Zalmon].—Maharai, of Netophah near Bethlehem (Ezra 2:22; Nehemiah 7:26; comp. 2 Kings 25:23), now Beit Nettif (Rob. II. 600 [Am. ed. II. 15, 223], Tobler, 3 Wand. 117 sq.). 2 Samuel 23:29. Heleb, according to 1 Chronicles 11:30; 1 Chronicles 27:15 Heled = Heldai, also of Netophah.—Ittai, Chron. Ithai, not to be confounded with the Ittai of 2 Samuel 15:19 [since this was a Benjaminite, and the other a Gittite.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 23:30. Benaiah; read “the Pirathonite” (Chron.), of Pirathon in Ephraim, now Ferata, near Nablus, comp. Judges 12:13.—Hiddai (1 Chronicles 11:32 : Hurai), of Nahale-Gaash [Eng. A. V. less well: “brooks of Gaash”], near the mountain Gaash in Benjamin, Joshua 24:30; Judges 2:9. 2 Samuel 23:31. Abi-Albon (Chron.: Abiel) of Beth-ha-arabah = Arabah, Joshua 15:61; Joshua 18:18; Joshua 18:22, in the wilderness of Judah.—Azmaveth of Bahurim, see 2 Samuel 16:5; Chron. has: “the Baharumite” for “Bahurimite” (Thenius), see 2 Samuel 3:16. 2 Samuel 23:32 sqq. Eliahba, of Shaalbon = Shaalbin, Joshua 19:42, perhaps the present Selbit.—Instead of the following text, Chron. has Benehashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shagee the Hararite. This is probably the correct text, since “Bene Jashen Jonathan” [Eng. A. V.: “of the sons of Jashen, Jonathan”] gives no sense; but probably the Bene [“sons”] has gotten into the text by erroneous repetition from the preceding word [Shaalboni], so that we must read simply: Hashem. The locality of Gizon is unknown. Shammah has probably gotten in here from 2 Samuel 23:11, in place of Ben-Agee.—Ahiam, the son of Sharar (Chron. Sakar, comp. 1 Chronicles 26:4); the Ararite (Chron. Hararite [so Eng. A. V.]). 2 Samuel 23:34. Eliphelet (Chron.: Eliphal, the t having fallen out). It is surprising that the text here gives not only the father, but also the grandfather, which is not done elsewhere in the list; nor does the word “son” suit before the gentilic name “the Maachathite.” Chron. here (2 Samuel 23:35 sq.) has: “Eliphal (-phelet) the son of Ur, Hepher the Mekarathite.” The first part of the Sam. text might have arisen from that of Chron. (not the converse, Thenius), while the latter part of our text is to be preferred, so that the reading will be: Eliphelet the son of Ur, Hepher the Maachathite, of Maachah in Gilead, see on 2 Samuel 10:6; comp. Deuteronomy 3:14 and 2 Kings 25:23.—Eliam, son of Ahithophel the Gilonite; Chron. has an entirely different text: “Ahijah the Pelonite.” On Ahithophel see on 2 Samuel 15:12. [This Eliam is supposed by some to be the father of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3).—Tr.] 2 Samuel 23:35. Hezro, as in the text and in Chron. [the margin has Hezrai, and so Eng. A. V.; Bib. Com. thinks this name the same with the Hezron of 1 Chronicles 2:5, the ancestor of Nabal the Carmelite.—Tr.]; the Carmelite, of Carmel, 1 Samuel 25:2 [south of Judah].—Paarai, of Arab on the mountains of Judah, Joshua 15:52. Chron. has: “Naari the son of Ezbai,” both names doubtless scribal errors [it is hardly possible to determine the correct reading here.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 23:36. Jigal [Eng. A. V.: Igal] the son of Nathan, of Zobah. Chron.: “Joel the brother of Nathan.” The designation “brother” instead of the usual “son” is suspicious from its reference to the prophet Nathan, whom, the “of Zobah” (in Syria) does not suit. Whether Jigal [Igal] or Joel is the original name must be left undetermined.—Bani the Gadite; Chron.: “Mibhar the son of Hagri,” probably a corruption of our text.2 Samuel 23:37. Zelek the Ammonite, a foreigner, as Igal of Zobah in Syria.—Naharai [Eng. A. V.: Nahari] the Beerothite, of Beeroth (see on 2 Samuel 4:2), armor-bearer to Joab. The text has the Plu. “armor-bearers,” but the Sing. (Qeri and Chron.) is to be preferred. If several armor-bearers were meant, their names would be connected by “and.” 2 Samuel 23:38. Ira and Gareb, both Ithrites of Kirjath jearim, comp. 1 Chronicles 2:53, see on 2 Samuel 20:26. 2 Samuel 23:39. Uriah, also a foreigner, comp. 2 Samuel 11:3.—In all 37; not including Joab, who, as Commander-in-chief of the whole army, is not named, but after correcting the text of 2 Samuel 23:34, and reading three names there instead of two. Otherwise there would be only 36 names. [This seems a better explanation of the numbers than the supposition that one name in a second triad (2 Samuel 23:18-23) has been omitted (Bib.-Com., Phil.), for which there is no good ground.—In 1 Chronicles 11:41-47 follow sixteen additional names, probably heroes that “took the place of those that died, or were added when the number was no longer limited to thirty” (Bib.-Comm.).—Tr.]. AND 1. The heroes of David here enumerated as the most prominent and important, and of whom particular exploits are narrated, represent David’s whole heroic army, with which he carried on the Lord’s wars, and gained the Lord’s victories; they are the heads and leaders of the people in arms, which with its king fought the heathen nations as enemies of Jehovah’s king and kingdom in Israel (comp. 1 Chronicles 27). Their deeds are deeds of God, whereby He “works great deliverance” for his people and their king against their enemies (2 Samuel 23:10; 2 Samuel 23:12). 2. As the Prophetic Office is the organ of God’s immediate word of revelation to the theocratic king and the chosen people, so is the Body of Heroes the instrument whereby God’s kingdom in Israel is protected against heathen powers, and triumphs over them. To the School of the Prophets, which gathered around Samuel, and whence came the heroes of the word and the Spirit, answers the School of Heroes gathered about David, whence came those whose forms are here slightly sketched. In them is mirrored the splendor of the royal power and glory of the Anointed of the Lord, to whom, as the visible representative of God among His people, they are devoted body and soul, and in whose person they serve the invisible Lord and King of His people with inviolate fidelity even unto death. These heroes “know themselves to be the banner-, shield-, and armor-bearers of him who stands at their head, not by human commission, but by divine investiture—to be the divinely-appointed watchmen and guardians of hearth, throne and altar, of the noblest and most inalienable possessions of their people, against attacks from without and from within. As the armed population of the land they form the brazen wall of defence of God’s kingdom, and the respect-compelling hedge-row of the soil in which their people ripens in body and spirit towards its God-appointed destiny. Such a rich consciousness must have given David’s warriors a peculiar exaltation of feeling; it imparted to them the true knightly sense, which alone up to the present hour has conferred true nobility on the profession of the soldier” (F. W. Krummacher). 2. A beautiful and touching proof of the love and fidelity that bound these heroes of David to their lord is given in the reckless devotion with which they put their lives in peril to gratify a casually expressed wish of his. Though in form it may seem to be a piece of foolhardiness, the moral kernel in it is the faithful, self-sacrificing love, which perils even life for a neighbor, and shuns no danger, in order to serve him. 4. In David’s conduct to the heroes that bring him water from Bethlehem at the risk of their lives, are set forth these things: 1) Noble modesty, which regards the love-offering of one’s neighbor as too dear and valuable for one’s-self, and declines to receive it; 2) Sincere humility before the Lord, which lays the honor at His feet, as He to whom alone it belongs: 3) A clear view and tender estimation of the infinite moral worth of human life in men’s relations towards one another and towards God. AND Where heroism and bravery put themselves exclusively in the service of God and subserve only the aims of His kingdom, the Lord causes great things to be performed through them, and often a victory to be torn from the enemies of His kingdom that they had already gained.—Even the military calling God has chosen and sanctified through His word, that through it in times of sore conflict of right against wrong and of truth against falsehood He may “work great deliverance.”—A military hero should seek his highest honor in dedicating his sword to the Lord, and as a servant of God helping to work deliverance for his fatherland and his people against their enemies.—Often in history does God the Lord use one man’s heroism and bravery to make a people great from small beginnings, or to lift it up from disgrace and downfall, or to turn its defeats into victory and triumph. Examples are furnished by every period of history. The source of true heroism is life-communion with God, wherein deeds of arms are 1) undertaken in His fear, 2) performed for the ends of His kingdom, 3) crowned with glorious results.—A threefold garland of victory for the hero, who 1) bravely repulses the pressing foe, 2) mightily strikes down the foe that is already victorious and triumphing in advance, and 3) lifts up again his people’s sunken courage.—Happy the people that has heroes, who 1) advance in God’s strength, 2) courageously stake their life for God’s honor and the people’s welfare, and 3) are counted worthy by God to work great deliverance for their people.—Hail to the throne that is encompassed by heroes, who 1) find their highest nobility in the real knighthood that roots itself in true fear of God, 2) with humble heroism defend altar and throne, 3) seek their highest honor in being God’s instruments for the aims of His kingdom and for the revelation of His power and righteousness, and 4) set the whole people an example of self-devoting love and fidelity, and of unterrified courage. Tueb. B.: Even the soldier’s calling is well-pleasing to God, especially when he wages the Lord’s wars.—Cramer: Bravery and other gifts of God should be directed not to arrogance and display and oppression of the poor, but to the maintenance and propagation of the kingdom of God and of His righteousness. 2 Samuel 23:10. Through bodily strength, however great, nothing can be performed where God does not give the success (Jeremiah 9:23). 2 Samuel 23:12. Starke: We may indeed glory in and praise heroes for their heroic deeds; but it must be so done that God shall keep His honor and His glory (Psalms 115:1). 2 Samuel 23:16. F. W. Krummacher: A knightly deed this! But was it not rather foolhardiness, if not downright servility, and was not this expending courage recklessly, and dealing wastefully with human life? This question resembles that with which Judas Iscariot presumed to censure the anointing of Mary at Bethany. True love has its measure in itself, and in its modes of manifestation puts itself beyond all criticism.—The joyfully self-sacrificing deed of the three heroes regarded not so much the man David, as rather the “anointed of the Lord,” and so the Lord Himself. [Hardly.—Tr.].—Schlier: David’s pious mind would have no right over the life of his men; that the Lord alone had, to whom all belongs. We have no right to claim for ourselves the sweat and blood of others; men do not exist for us, but we exist for others. We should not get ourselves served, but should rather serve others.—Genuine fear of God shows itself in this, that one serves another in self-devoting and self-sacrificing love, such as was mutually shown by David and these three heroes. [2 Samuel 23:15-17. The well by the gate of Bethlehem. David’s circumstances. Recollections of youth, longing for the water he used to drink when a boy at home. Strong affections which a great soldier awakens in his followers—they are eager to gratify his slightest wish. Romance of military life—brave men love sometimes to go off on an unpractical adventure. David’s regard for human life; affectionate gratitude to his men; generous sentiments overcoming bodily appetite; devout desire to honor Jehovah.—Tr.] Footnotes: According to Kennicott the two last letters of ιωαςν stood in a MS. under the αωαη of the preceding line (2 Samuel 23:7). and a transcriber by mistake attached the latter word instead of ςν to ιωα. [Or, it may be that the αωαϊ here is corruption of ςραο in Chron., and passed from 2 Samuel 23:8 into 2 Samuel 23:7. Sept. Ἰεβοσθέ = ΰִ ?ωְׁ ?αּ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ for ΰִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ςַ ?μ (Wellh.). See on αωαϊ 2 Samuel 23:7.—Tr.] So read here and in Chron. instead of our text; so in 2 Samuel 23:13; 2 Samuel 23:23-24, and 1 Chronicles 11:15; 1 Chronicles 11:42; 1 Chronicles 12:4; 1 Chronicles 27:6 (instead of ωְׁ ?μֹ ?εωִׁ ?ιν). [Or, perhaps better here ωְׂ ?μωָׁ ?δ.—Tr.] In ωָׁ ?μִ ?ιωִׁ ?ι the ִ ?ι- is Adj. ending (as in λְּ ?ψֵ ?ϊִ ?ι and τְּ ?μֵ ?ϊִ ?ι), denoting rank. Ew. § 177 a, § 164. [Some hold that ςγιπε is corruption of ςεֹ ?ψֵ ?γ, and that ςφο = “spear” (comp. Arab. ςγο and ςֹ ?ρο), but this last is altogether uncertain.—Tr.] The Qeri and Chron. insert the Art. before βִּ ?αֹּ ?ψιν. But there is nothing strange in the absence of the Art., as Bφttcher remarks against Thenius, who would read αְּ ?ωָׁ ?μִ ?ωֵׁ ?ιδַ ?βּ֞, thinking it necessary on account of following references (2 Samuel 23:12; 2 Samuel 23:16 sqq.). On the stat. abs. of the Numeral before the Subst, see Ges. § 120, 1. Against our text Isaiah 1) the following ωָ ?ν “there,” which supposes a preceding name of a place, 2) ηֵ ?ψֵ ?σ takes not αְּ, but the Accus. (2 Samuel 21:21; 1 Samuel 17:10; 1 Samuel 17:25 sq., 36), 3) the failure of the Rel. Pron. before πֶ ?ΰֶ ?ρְ ?τεּ “were assembled.” Instead of ατΧ read εְ ?δτΧ “and the Philistines.” By erroneous passage from δτΧπֶ ?ΰֶ ?ρְ ?τεּ (2 Samuel 23:9) to the similar εַ ?ιֵּ ?ΰָ ?ρְ ?τεּ τΧ (2 Samuel 23:11). Vulg.: populus qui fugerat reversus est. According to Thenius an ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψπָ ?ρ “who had fled” (comp. 2 Samuel 23:11) seems to have fallen out after “the people.” If this be rightly taken as probable (Ew.), then there is the less propriety in explaining the “went up” with Thenius as above mentioned. The masoretic pointing μַ ?ηַ ?ιָּ ?δ came no doubt from the εְ ?ηַ ?ιַּ ?ϊ in 2 Samuel 23:13. [μֶ ?ηְ ?ιָ ?δ would be the proper name Lehi with δ local, = “to Lehi.”—Tr.] This is favored also by the ξֵ ?δַ ?ωְׁ ?μωִׁ ?ινψΰֹ ?ωׁ, which introduces them as other persons. Of the Versions ψΰֹ ?ωׁ is found only in the Chald., and Thenius would thence regard it as an [inserted] explanation of the preceding word. But it is perhaps better to detach the ν from the preceding word (which would then end in ִ ?ι-, as in 2 Samuel 23:8), prefix it to ψΰω, then insert δַ ?φּ ?εּ ?ψ (as in Chron., omitting ςַ ?μ), and render: “descended three of the knights from the top of the rock.” [This phrase cannot be rendered: “in the harvest-time,” and it would seem better, therefore, to adopt the reading of Chron., or Erdmann’s suggestion in the preceding note.—Tr.] [“The hold” in which David found himself, was a strong-hold or fortress near the cave of Adullam.—Tr.] ξιδεδ (1 Samuel 24:7; 1 Samuel 26:11) instead of ιδεδ. This would require: δֲ ?μֹ ?ΰζֶ ?δγָ ?ν. ΰֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊֶּ ?δ (Sept., Vulg.) may easily have fallen out after αְּ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ϊָ ?ν by hom�oteleuton. δֲ ?λִ ?ι is not to be taken as a question, equivalent to a lively asseveration (= is it so that? = certainly, comp. 2 Samuel 9:1; Genesis 27:36; Genesis 29:15); “he was certainly honored”—“for what is a question doing in the midst of this perfectly smooth narration?” (Then.); nor is it to be explained as having arisen from the preceding δ and an inserted λִּ ?ι. Instead of this unintelligible reading the text of Chronicles is to be taken, only pointed αִּ ?ωְׁ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν, “in two, double.” Comp. Ewald § 269 b. [It is easier to suppose δֲ ?λִ ?ι an insertion than to get it out of αωπιν, though the presence of the latter in Chron. is not easily explained. Wellh. suggests δִ ?πּ ?εֹ “behold, he” for δֲ ?λִ ?ι.—Tr.] ηַ ?ι is certainly scribal error for ηֵ ?ιִ ?μ (Chron.). He inserts αְּ ?πֵ ?ι and reads δַ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ΰָ ?αִ ?ι instead of ξεΰα. ΰֲ ?ψִ ?ΰֵ ?μ, more fully ΰַ ?ψְ ?ιֵ ?ιΰֵ ?μ. [The reading of Vulg.: “two lions of Moab” is less likely on account of the following special mention of a lion. The Ariel of Isa 29:1 is different.—Tr.] ΰַ ?ψְ ?ιֵ ?δ (Keth.) as distinguished from ΰֲ ?ψִ ?ι (Qeri). [This distinction of Bφttcher’s is hardly sustained by usage.—Tr.] Instead of ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψ read Qeri ΰִ ?ιωׁ (Chron.).—Instead of ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ Chron. has ξִ ?γָּ ?δ. [As ΰִ ?ιωׁ ξֵ ?ψΧ (Sam.) means a “goodly man” (so Eng. A. V.), not a “large man” (Erdmann), the reading of Chronicles is to be preferred.—Tr.] [Wellh.: αִ ?ωְׁ ?μωִׁ ?ινδβּ ?αεֹ ?ψ “among the thirty heroes.”—Tr.] [Kennicott and Bφttcher think that Asahel forms a second triad with Abishai and Benaiah, and ought to be separated from the list, but the text is against this. “The early death of Asahel (2 Samuel 2:32) would make it likely that his place would be filled up, and so account [in part] for the number 31 [32] in the list” (Bib.-Com.).—For the Captains of the several months see 1 Chronicles 27:1-15.—Tr.] And omit the ε of απιδε [this is unnecessary.—Tr.] [This reading is preferred by Bib.-Com., Abialbon being regarded as a corruption of Shaalboni below, which 15 MSS. of Kennicott write ωςαμεπι. Wellh. suggests Abibaal = Abiel.—Tr.] The ΰηραι may have come from ΰεּ ?ψηֵ ?τֶ ?ψ. [The reading “son of Ahinathan” in some MSS. of Chron. is probably merely an attempt to conform this clause to the others.—Tr.] The ξִ ?αְ ?ηָ ?ψ is probably out of ξִ ?φֹּ ?αָ ?δ and the αֶּ ?οΞδַ ?βְ ?ψִ ?ι out of αָּ ?πִ ?ιδַ ?βָּ ?γִ ?ι. [Wellhausen: “More successful corrections in this list will be possible only when the proper names of the Old Testament, together with the variations of the Sept., have been all collected and thoroughly worked up.”—Tr.] SIXTH SECTIONThe Numbering of the People and the Plague2 Samuel 24:1-251 And again the anger of the Lord [Jehovah] was kindled against Israel, and he moved [incited] David against them to say [saying], Go, number Israel and Judah. 2For [And] the king said to Joab the captain [Joab and the captains] of the host which was [were] with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even [om. even] to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people. 3And Joab said unto the king, Now [om. Now] the Lord [Jehovah] thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it; but why doth my lord the 4king delight in this thing? Notwithstanding [And] the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel. 5And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer on the right side of the city. [better, and began from Aroer and from the city] that lieth in the midst of the river 6[valley] of Gad [toward Gad] and toward Jazer. Then [And] they came to Gilead and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi [perhaps land of the Hittites to Kadesh], and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon, 7And came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites and of the Canaanites, and they went out to the south of Judah, even [om. even] to Beersheba. 8So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. 9And Joab gave up the sum of the number [the number of the census] of the people unto the king; and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men [warriors] that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. 10And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord [Jehovah], I have sinned greatly in that I have done. And now, I beseech thee, O Lord [Jehovah], take away the iniquity of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly. 11For when David was up [And David arose] in the morning—[ins. and] the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came unto the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, 12Go and say unto David, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], 13I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So [And] Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven [better three] years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. 14And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord [Jehovah], for his mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hand of man. 15So [And] the Lord [Jehovah] sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even [om. even] to the time appointed; and there died of the people from Dan even [om. even] to Beersheba seventy thousand men. 16And when the angel [And the angel] stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord [and Jehovah] repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord [Jehovah] was by the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. 17And David spake unto the Lord [Jehovah] when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house. 18And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto 19the Lord [Jehovah] in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. And David, according to the saying of Gad, went up as the Lord [Jehovah] commanded. 20And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him; and Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king on his face upon the ground. 21And Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshing-floor of thee, to build an altar unto the Lord 22[Jehovah], that the plague may be stayed from the people. And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him; behold, here be [are] oxen for burnt sacrifice, and [ins. the] threshing-instruments 23and other [the] instruments of the oxen for wood. All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king [All gives Araunah, O king, to the king; or, the whole gives the servant of my lord the king to the king]. And Araunah said unto the king, The Lord [Jehovah] thy God accept thee. 24And the king said unto Araunah, Nay, but I will surely buy it of thee at a price, neither will I [and I will not] offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord [Jehovah] my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So [And] David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver 25And David built there an altar unto the Lord [Jehovah], and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. So [And] the Lord [Jehovah] was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel. AND . 2 Samuel 24:1-8. David’s sin in numbering the people. 2 Samuel 24:1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled. The “again” evidently refers to the famine in 2 Samuel 21:1-14; comp. especially 2 Samuel 24:1 and the identical endings of the two accounts (2 Samuel 24:25 here and 2 Samuel 24:14 there): “Jehovah (God) was entreated for the land.” From this both sections may be inferred to be from the same source. [Hence some regard 2 Samuel 21:15-22. as inserted in the midst of this history, and the two poems, 2 Samuel 23:1-7 as an insertion in the narrative 2 Samuel 21:15-22, 2 Samuel 23:8-39. Erdmann regards these various sections as separately selected, and put together according to a definite plan.—Tr.]—The additions in the parallel section 1 Chronicles 21:1-22, are to be referred to another fuller authority that the Chronicler had before him (Mov., Ew.), but not also in part to “pure remodeling by the Chronicler himself.” (Ew.).—The time of this census is certainly to be put in the later years of David’s reign, “partly because the pestilence here described is expressly said to be the second of the two great plagues under David, partly because such a measure as the census, which occupied Joab 9 months and 20 days, could have been begun only in a perfectly quiet year” (Ew.). It cannot belong to the time before the insurrections of Absalom and Sheba (Seb. Schmid), because it presupposes a permanent condition of peace without and within. The late date is also favored by the fact that the Chronicler attaches immediately to this history (in accordance with its conclusion, the purchase of Araunah’s threshing-floor as the site of the future temple) the description of the preparations for the building of the temple and David’s arrangements for divine service, which Chron, puts in this peaceful last period of his reign. “One would not, indeed, think of David’s very last days, when death was daily before him; such great matters are not undertaken at such a time” (Hengst.).—The kindling of God’s anger presupposes a grave offence against God; and this not merely by David (whose guilt is expressly affirmed in 2 Samuel 24:3; 2 Samuel 24:10; 2 Samuel 24:12 sqq.), but also by the whole people, since “Israel” is designated as the object of the divine anger (2 Samuel 24:1), and the punitive plague was intended to include the whole nation (2 Samuel 24:13 sq.). This offence of the people consists, however, not in any “hidden sins” (D. Kimchi), nor in the insurrections under Absalom and Sheba (Keil), but (since God’s anger is obviously causally connected with David’s deed) in their participation in David’s sin.—And He incited David against them, that is, against Israel, and the subject of the Verb is Jehovah, not Satan (so several older expositors [and Ewald] after Chron.), nor David’s thought of numbering the people (Theod.) The outburst of God’s wrath against Israel is produced by a sin of David’s, to which the “incitement came from the Lord;” the statement in Chron: “Satan stood up against Israel and incited David” is not in contradiction with this, since Satan is not an independent agent alongside of God, but appears always as subject to and dependent on Him. Job 1; Zechariah 3. Buddζus’ explanation: “God and the devil may concur in one and the same evil deed, though in different ways, the latter by impelling, the former by permitting” must be corrected in accordance with this statement.—“The Lord incited David” means, not that He destroyed his free will and forced him, but that He permitted the temptations, resident in the circumstances ordained by Him, to approach David, and so developed the germinal ungodly desire in David’s heart into a determination of the will, and thence into the deed. See on 1 Samuel 26:19, and “Historical and Theological” to that chapter [see James 1:13-14; there is here involved the whole subject of the co-relation of divine and human action, about which we can only insist on the two unharmonizable facts of the absolute efficient control of God, and the complete independence of man.—Tr.]—Saying, go, number Israel and Judah! David’s aim in this census could not have been pleasure at the great number that it would show, and at the growth and well-being of his subjects thus brought out (S. Schmid and other older expositors); that would have been a childish undertaking, considering the great expenditure of time and strength made. Ewald (Hist. III. 218, bibl. Jahrb. 10, 34 sq.) holds that his purpose was to perfect the royal power internally, and establish a strict rule that should embrace the whole life of the nation; the census, he thinks, was intended “to drag the people as far as possible” into all sorts of taxes, such as existed in Egypt and Phenicia, and on this supposition he bases the opinion that the people, apprehensive of the subversion of their liberty by the royal power, withstood this innovation, and David had consequently to recede from the complete execution of his measure. But there is not a sign in the narrative of such a purpose on David’s part; and against it is the military character and aim of the measure. Apart from 1 Chronicles 27:23 sq. (according to which it was connected with the military organization of the people, and probably intended to complete it), it is here discussed in the council of military officers, and executed by Joab the commander-in-chief himself in conjunction with them; and the census took account not of all classes of the people, or of all independent men, but only of “valiant men that drew the sword.” As is stated at the outset, military camps were formed for the numbering (mustering). “The military character of the procedure is clear also from the fact that Joab delayed as long as possible carrying it into Benjamin, in order not to arouse the insurrectionary spirit of this tribe, which could not forget the leadership it had possessed under Saul” (Hengst., ubi sup. p. 128). 2 Samuel 24:2. The king said to Joab: Go now through all the tribes of Israel, … and muster ye the people, that I may know the number of the people—a general mustering for a military-statistical purpose. That is, after having subjected foreign nations and established internal order and quiet, David wished to know the military force of the whole people. [Render: “the king said to Joab and to the captains (or princes) of the host that were with him.”—Tr.]—In itself this census by David was no more sinful than that of Moses, Exodus 30:12 sq. Wherein David’s sin consisted is indicated in Joab’s words in 2 Samuel 24:3 : May now the Lord thy God add to the people, as it is, a hundred-fold, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it! but why does my lord the king delight in this thing? The speech has the form of a conclusion from what precedes, and indicates that Joab perceives David’s purpose to be to please himself with the exhibition of the imposing military strength of his people; and the question at the end conveys a moral reproof. The ungodly feature in this undertaking, therefore, was its motive, David’s haughty overestimation of himself and his people. His sin was one both of the lust of the eyes and of pride. So much is true in Josephus’ explanation (followed by Bertheau), which is otherwise incorrect, namely, that David’s sin consisted in his not demanding the expiation-money that, according to Exodus 30:12 sqq., had to be paid by every man mustered; for this requirement of the law (the aim of which was: “that there be no plague among them”) had reference to the danger in such a census of falling into haughtiness and presumptuousness. “David wished to glory in the multitude of the people” (S. Schm.). And the punishment that followed the attempt—so that the number of warriors was diminished, and the result of the census was not noted in the State-annals (1 Chronicles 27:24)—shows that it was made in proud self-feeling without the will of the Lord, Israel’s true king, and for a self-chosen end that did not accord with the aims and purposes of the Lord. It is going too far to regard it as David’s purpose here to summon the whole nation to war for new conquests (J. D. Mich.), or to transform the theocratic State (Kurz in Herz. III. 306). Such a complete recession from the dependence of his kingdom on the Lord, such thought of a political world-dominion of Israel, such a complete abandonment of Israel’s national-theocratic calling, presupposes a complete defection on David’s part from the living God. But doubtless he who had led Israel to so lofty a height, forgetting himself before the Lord, had a proud desire to exhibit the splendid array of his people’s military strength, as pledge of the further advance of his house and people, and of the future development of the promise: “thine enemies shall cringe before thee, and thou shalt tread on their high-places” (Deuteronomy 33:29). “To this height David now thought he could advance without God; the annals should show for all time that he had laid the foundations of this mighty work of the future” (Hengst.). The people also, filled with proud national conceit of their strength, shared David’s sin. Though the chief fault was not with the people (Hengst.), yet the solidarity [unity] of David’s sin and his people’s in this haughty anti-theocratic movement, is beyond doubt. 2 Samuel 24:4. David submits, indeed, to Joab’s opposition now also (comp. 2 Samuel 3:27; 2 Samuel 19:1-7); but he did not follow the voice of good conscience that he heard from his mouth. The word of the king prevailed against Joab, comp. 2 Chronicles 28:3; 2 Chronicles 27:5; not: “stood fast” (De W.). “It is noteworthy that such a man as Joab, without living fear of God, but with natural directness and sound practical sense, sees sooner than David, how such a sinful exaltation does not become a king of Israel” (O. v. Gerl.). “Nothing more was said in opposition” (Grotius). In silence Joab and the officers obey their lord’s command; they went out “before the eyes” of the king. 2 Samuel 24:5. Exact geographical statement of the beginning of the census. It began beyond the Jordan in Gad, “because military affairs were in an especially flourishing condition there, comp. 1 Chronicles 12:8 sqq., 37” (Then.) Comp. Thenius’ remarks on 2 Kings 15:25. And encamped at Aroer on the right of the city; they encamped in the plain instead of going into the city, because of the large number of men engaged in taking the census, and so they doubtless did hereafter. [Another reading, in some respects better, is: “they began from Aroer and from the city.” See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.] In the midst of the brook-valley of Gad, that is, not in the vale of the Jabbok, as the greatest river in Gad (Winer, s. v. Thδler and Aroer, Then., Rόetschi in Herz. s. v. Gad); for it is identical with the Aroer of Josh. 12:25, which was before Rabbah (= Rabbah of the Ammonites), that is, between it and the Jordan; for this reason and from the statement in Judges 11:33 (Jephthah smote the Ammonites from Aroer to Abel Kernaim) it cannot have lain so far north as the Jabbok, but is probably to be sought in the valley noted on the map south of the Jabbok in the middle of the territory of God. According to Von Raumer (p. 259) it is probably the present Ayra southwest from es-Salt, with which Burckhardt also probably identified it (Reisen in Syrien, etc., p. 609). This Aroer in Gad is to be distinguished from 1) Aroer in Judah, southeast of Beersheba, whither David sent a part of the booty of Ziklag, 1 Samuel 30:28; 1 Samuel 30:2) Aroer on the right (northern) bank of the Arnon in Reuben (Joshua 12:2; Numbers 32:34. [Bib.-Com. holds that Aroer on the Arnon is here meant, on the ground that the description here agrees perfectly with that in Deuteronomy 2:36 (comp. Joshua 13:16), and that if Aroer before Rabbah is meant, the whole tribe of Reuben would be omitted from the census, which is impossible; and this view is the most natural. For a possible city on the Arnon see Art. Arnon in Smith’s Bible-Dict.—Instead of “in the valley of Gad,” render “towards Gad;” they advanced from the southern limit to Gad and Jazer.—Tr.]—They encamped as far as towards Jazer, the plain in which this gathering was held extended from Aroer to Jazer; Jazer cannot, therefore, have been far from Aroer. Jazer, formerly belonged to the Ammonites, conquered from them (Numbers 21:32), pertained to Gad (Numbers 32:35, Joshua 13:25), a Levitical city (Joshua 21:39, 1 Chronicles 6:81); afterwards Moabitic (Isa. 18:8); after the exile Ammonitish (Jeremiah 48:32), conquered by Judas Maccabζus (1Ma 5:8). Burckhardt (p. 609) conjectures that the name of the old Jazer is found in the fine spring Ain Hazir, which he found near the ruins of a very considerable city in the valley south of es-Salt, whose water flows into the Wady Shoeb, which empties into the Jordan. But Gesenius, who agrees with this conjecture (on Burckh. p. 1062), thinks it possible that Jazer is the present Sir, a ruin at the source of the Wady Sir, which flows into the Jordan, and this view is adopted by Seetzen, who found several pools at Sir (comp. Jeremiah 48:32 : “sea of Jazer”), Van de Velde and Keil (on Numbers 21:32). According to Eusebius (Onom.), “the city of Jazer extended in Gad as far as Aroer, which is before Rabbah.” In accordance with this Von Raumer, who regards Aroer as the present Ayra, to which the valley of Ain Hazir descends, adopts the view that this Ain Hazir is the ancient Jazer, as it is not five English miles from Ayra (p. 263). 2 Samuel 24:6. Then they came to Gilead, the mountain-land on both sides the Jabbok, and thence into the land of Tahtim hodshi. This local expression (regarded as a proper name by Cler. and De Wette, but as such yielding no sense) is variously given by the ancient Versions: Sept.: “land of the Hittites, which is Adasai” [Stier and Theile’s text], or “land of Thabason” [Vat., Tisch.], or, “land of Ethaon Adasai [Alex.]; Symm.: “to the lower way;” Vulg.: “to the lower land of Hodsi.” No tolerable sense can be gotten from the words except on the supposition that the text is corrupt. The first part of Bφttcher’s conjectural emendation “under the sea” is a fortunate suggestion, since it requires no change in the letters, and this designation of the Lake of Gennesareth as a “sea” accords with the usage of the language [it is the “sea of Kinnereth”] and with the local statements of the narrative. But the second part of his conjecture, that hodshi = “like the new moon,” in reference to the shape of the lake, is too far-fetched. So also Gesenius’ view, that hodshi is a matronymic from the woman called Hodesh in 1 Chronicles 8:9 [= Hodshites]. Ewald’s conjecture, to read Hermon for Hodshi, and render: “the lower regions of Hermon” is without support (Thenius). Thenius conjectures that hodshi is for Kedshi, Denominative from Kedesh, understanding thereby the town in Naphtali near lake Merom, so that it would read: “they came into the land under the lake [sea] of Kedesh [Kadesh].” But this designation of lake Merom is strange, and does not elsewhere occur; nor does the term “under or, below]” suit, we should rather expect “over [above].” Retaining the “Kedesh,” it is more probable that the reference is to the Levitical city of that name in Issachar, southwest of the lake of Gennesareth (1 Chron. 7:72 (1 Chronicles 6:57); in Joshua 19:20; Joshua 21:28 = Kishion). Comp. Raumer (p. 132, Rem. 36 b) and the country below the lake of Gennesareth southwest in Raumer’s map. This lake is often called a “sea” (Numbers 34:11; Joshua 12:3; Joshua 13:27; Isa. 8:23), called so in the last passage without further description (comp. “Galilean sea.” Matthew 4:18; Matthew 15:29; Mark 1:16; Mark 7:31). Instead of Thenius’ adjective form Kadshi [“sea of Kedesh”], it is better to read: “towards Kedesh” (χֵ ?γְ ?ωָׁ ?δ, comp. Ges. § 90. 2 a. b), understanding the town in Issachar, and rendering: “they came into the land below the sea towards [or, to] Kadesh.” Hither they came from Gilead, passing through the Jordan-plain below the Galilean sea.—[For other conjectures about this expression see Smith’s Bib.-Dict. s. v., Bib.-com. and Philippson: this whole geographical account is omitted in 1 Chronicles 21.—Tr.]—And they came to Dan Jaan; according to Schultz and Van d. Velde (Mem. p. 306, in Von Raumer p. 125) the present ruin Danian between Tyre and Aire near Ras en Nakura. But this does not agree with the statement that Joab went from this region below the sea to Dan Jaan, thence to Zidon, and then first to Tyre, whereas according to that view he would have gone from Dan Jaan by the sea to Zidon. This route would naturally lead us to think of the Dan that formed the extreme northern boundary of Israel (comp. 2 Samuel 24:2; 2 Samuel 24:15), the old Laish (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:29); but the objection to this is that the name Jaan is not appended to this Dan in 2 Samuel 24:2; 2 Samuel 24:15, and we must therefore seek another Dan between Gilead and Zidon. So Hengst., Pent. II. 194. Keil looks for it in northern Perea, southwest of Damascus, taking it to be the same that is mentioned in Genesis 14:14, which according to Deuteronomy 34:1 belonged to Gilead; but that is none other than the well-known Dan-Laish. And since no other place suiting the geographical relations can be found, we hold to this (Dan-Laish), which by its position was particularly suited for a mustering [so Wordsworth and Bib.-Com.—Tr.]. But what does the Jaan mean? Bunsen remarks on this passage: “Dan-Jaan, as the name Baal-Jaan on coins shows, is a Ph�nician god (literally: Judge, i.e. ruler, the singer, i.e. player), answering to the Greek Pan, who gave the city its name.” But this surname is never elsewhere found with Dan. The Vulg. has: in Dan silvestria, “in Dan of the wood” (ιַ ?ςַ ?ψ), which reading Winer, Lengerke, Ewald adopt, and render: “Dan in the (Lebanon) forest.” Thenius regards Laish as the original reading.—And about towards Zidon; the “about” [= roundabout] means not the environs of Zidon, but in the direction of Dan; from the northern border they turned around towards the north-western border of the kingdom.2 Samuel 24:7. From Zidon they went southward, and came to the fortified city Zor (= “rock”), comp. Joshua 19:29, the fortress Tyre built on a rock on the mainland (now Sur), in distinction from the insular Tyre. They came, therefore, into the territory of Asher, which bordered on that of Zidon and Tyre.—And into all the cities of the Hivites and Canaanites, that is, in Naphtali, Zebulon and Issachar, the region afterwards called Galilee, “in which the Canaanites were not exterminated by the Israelites, but only made tributary” (Keil). [It hence appears that even as late as this these native tribes had cities of their own. The division into Hivites and Canaanites is remarkable; perhaps these were the most prominent of the surviving native races. The Hivite territory extended down near Jerusalem (Gibeon), see Judges 3:3; Joshua 11:3; what the “Canaanite” district was is not clear.—Tr.]—And went out to the south of Judah to Beersheba, passed along the western border throughout the length of the land from Dan to Beersheba. 2 Samuel 24:8. The return, after nine months and twenty days. According to 1 Chronicles 21:6 the census was not extended into Benjamin and Levi, “because the king’s word was an abomination to Joab,” and according to 1 Chronicles 27:24 Joab did not finish the numbering “because wrath therefor came upon Israel.” Joab, who had entered unwillingly (2 Samuel 24:3) on the execution of the king’s command, had not made haste; then David saw his wrong, the plague broke out before the census was finished; the numbering had not yet begun in Benjamin, nor in Levi (which, however, was excepted therefrom by Numbers 1:47-49). 2 Samuel 24:9. Statement of the total number of the people mustered: Israel had eight hundred thousand arms-bearing men, Judah five hundred thousand. Chron. gives a higher number for Israel, eleven hundred thousand; a lower for Judah, four hundred and seventy thousand. To explain or reconcile this difference in respect to Israel it has been supposed that there were two countings, one according to the private lists in cities and villages (Chron.), the other according to the digests made therefrom for the public registers (2 Sam.) (so Cornelius a Lapide)—or that Joab was less accurate in his numbering than the officers with him (Sanktius)—or that Chron. includes the non-Israelites in the Ten Tribes and the neighboring regions, about three hundred thousand (S. Schmid). Against this last is that only Israelites proper are spoken of in 2 Samuel 24:1-2; the other suppositions are mere conjectures. Osiander’s opinion that Chron. includes the older men is opposed to 2 Samuel 24:5, and D. Kimchi’s, that Chron. includes also Benjamin and Levi, to 1 Chronicles 21:6. [Others suppose that the regular army of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men (1 Chronicles 27:1-15) is included in Israel in Chron., and excluded in Sam., and that a corps of thirty thousand men (commanded by the thirty, 1 Chronicles 11:25) is included in Judah in Samuel, and excluded in Chronicles. See Bib.-Com. on 1 Chronicles 21:5. These conjectures are without foundation, and errors of text or errors of oral tradition must be supposed.—See notes of Wordsw. and Bib.-Com., on our verse.—Tr.]. Apart from the fact that we have round numbers here, the differences explain themselves if we remember that the result of the census was not recorded in the State-annals (1 Chronicles 27:24), and the statements here must rest on oral tradition. The numbers are not to be taken as perfectly accurate, but there is no good reason to reject them as unhistorically large, since this fertile country was very thickly peopled. “We see this from the various places, whose ruins stand as near to one another, as villages in our most densely populated regions” (Arnold in Herz. XI. 23 sq.). Taking the military population as about one-fourth of the whole, Palestine [Israel] would have contained, according to this census, a population of from five to six million souls, which is not too large a number. Ewald (Hist. III. 196, Rem. 3) refers to other numerical statements about Israel, that seem to us too large, and yet must be accepted as historical, and remarks: “Though the numbers may be in part round, and sometimes exaggerated, yet in general there is no reason for doubting their historical value. If, for example, the present population of Algeria be estimated at three million, and therein from 300,000 to 400,000 arms-bearing men (see Dawson Borrer, Campaign in the Kabylie) Israel in such happy times as David’s with its wide limits might certainly sustain a larger number.” Rόetschi (Herz. VIII. 89): “Considering the general extent of the levies and the almost incredibly dense population of Palestine, the enormous numerical strength of the Israelitish army (1 Samuel 11:8; 1 Samuel 15:4; 2 Samuel 17:11; 1 Chronicles 27:1 sqq.) cannot occasion much surprise.” II. 2 Samuel 24:10-17. The judgment of the pestilence. 2 Samuel 24:10. David confesses his sin before the Lord, and asks forgiveness. David’s heart smote him, that is, his conscience, just as in 1 Samuel 24:6. Comp. 1 Kings 2:44; Job 27:6; Ecclesiastes 7:22. With anguish of conscience David sees that his sin is an offence against the Lord. As to wherein it consisted see above on 2 Samuel 24:1-3. 2 Samuel 24:11. “In the morning” = the next morning.—David had made his short penitent prayer either as he was going to sleep, or, more probably, after a sleepless night.—The word of Jehovah comes to Gad, see 1 Samuel 22:5. He is called David’s seer as being his confidential counsellor, aiding him constantly with direction from the source of divine revelation.—And the word of the Lord … this revelation had come to Gad independently of human means or occasion. 2 Samuel 24:12. Choice between three judgments set before David. Three things I hold over thee (πθμ), not: I lay on thee, but: I hold high over thee, namely, as a load of punishment, which is to be laid on thee according as thou choosest; the sense in Chron. (πθδ) is the same: “I turn [stretch] over thee” [so Eng. A. V. here: offer thee]. 2 Samuel 24:13. Then came Gad to David.—This is the apodosis to the protasis in verse 2 Samuel 11 : and when David rose in the morning … then came Gad; what intervenes is a circumstantial sentence. Instead of seven years of famine Chron. (so Sept.) has three, agreeing with the figures in the other plagues. For this reason the reading of Chron. is to be preferred; there correspond, therefore, three years of famine, three months of flight before enemies, three days of pestilence. [The seven in Sam. may be accounted for by the frequent occurrence of that number, possibly from the seven years’ famine in the history of Joseph.—Tr.]. 2 Samuel 24:14. “I am in a great strait”—the exclamation of a tortured conscience,, whose anguish is heightened by the necessity of choosing between the three punishments. David looks on the pestilence as an immediate stroke of God’s hand, while the other plagues make him and his people dependent on man; at the same time he looks to God’s mercy, whence, if he fall only into God’s hands, he may the sooner hope to draw comfort and help. In view of God’s punitive righteousness his faith holds fast to God’s mercy, and verifies itself therein.—At the close of this verse the Sept. has: “And David chose the pestilence [θάνατον], and it was the days of the wheat-harvest.” But this is nothing but an explanatory remark taken from 1 Chronicles 21:20, designed partly to make a direct statement of David’s choice (which is only indirectly stated in the text), partly to account for Araunah’s work at the threshing-floor (2 Samuel 24:18 sq.). 2 Samuel 24:15. Beginning, duration and extent of the pestilence.—And the Lord gave a pestilence, it was a divine punishment. From the morning—the morning when Gad came to David (2 Samuel 24:11; 2 Samuel 24:13). The next words, giving the terminus ad quem [Eng. A. V.: “to the time appointed;” Erdmann: “to an appointed time”], offer great difficulties.—The Sept. renders: “till the hour of breakfast,” that is, the sixth hour, to which it adds: “and the plague began among the people,” which Bφttcher and Thenius would receive into the text. But this addition of the Sept. had its origin no doubt in the reflection that the time from morning to breakfast was too short for the effects of the plague (70,000 died) therefore the words “from the morning to, etc.,” were regarded as defining the verb gave [Eng. A. V.: sent], that is, the divine arrangement in inflicting the plague, and then the plague itself was made to begin after the sixth hour. But the word “gave” itself includes the destructive effect of the pestilence, and the result is indicated immediately by the word “died.”—We have then here the limit of time of the raging of the pestilence. But what is meant? up to what point? The most natural explanation: “to the appointed time” (Cler., De W., Ew.), that is, to the end of the three days (2 Samuel 24:13) contradicts 2 Samuel 24:16, according to which the pestilence ceased through God’s mercy before this time; besides the Def. Art. is wanting, while elsewhere the word in the sense of a time designated has the Art. The Art. may indeed be omitted when the word (ξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ) signifies an assembly for divine service and festival. Hosea 9:5; Lamentations 2:7; Lamentations 2:22. Thus Bochart (Hieroz. I. 2, 38, ed. Ros. I. 396 sq.) renders (after the Chald.), having Acts 3:1 in mind: “the time when the people used to meet for evening prayers, about the ninth hour of the day, that is, the third hour after noon.” Keil adopts this view, and thinks it favors the basis of the rendering of the Vulg.: “to the time appointed” according to Jerome’s explanation (tradit. Hebr. in 2 libr. Reg.): “he calls that the time appointed, in which the evening sacrifice was offered.” Against this Thenius rightly remarks that the general expression “time of assembly” could not be used for the afternoon or evening-assembly. Thenius’ conjecture (suggested by the Chald.): “to the time of lighting” (the lamps in the sanctuary or in dwellings) is declared by Bφttcher to be contrary to Heb. usage; and Bφttcher’s reading: “up to the time of food” is unsupported. The same thing is to be said of Hitzig’s suggestion: “up to the time of dinner.” Instead of adding another to these doubtful, in fact unsuccessful attempts to gain a new text, it seems requisite to return to our masoretic text, which, since the Art is wanting, is to be rendered: “up to an appointed time.” Why should this phrase not give a suitable sense? In view of the fact that the Lord had in mercy determined on a point of time before the expiration of the three days (2 Samuel 24:16), it is here intimated that the pestilence lasted a shorter time fixed by His gracious will. It must be left undetermined whether this “appointed time” falls in the first day of the plague (which seems to be indicated by the “from the morning,” and “that day,” 2 Samuel 24:18, though not necessarily, since the “morning” is the same as in 2 Samuel 24:11, and may point out merely the beginning of the pestilence without reference to the same day), or in the second day. In any case, however, the narrator, combining and, in Heb. fashion, anticipating what follows, means by this expression to say that God in His mercy permitted the pestilence to go on only to a determined point of time within the “three days.”—Seventy thousand men.=Grotius cites the fact (Diod. Sic. l. 14) that in the siege of Syracuse 100,000 men of the Carthaginian army died within a short time.—[Dr. Erdmann’s explanation of the “appointed time” is not a little strained; the fact that he refers to (the shortening of the duration of the pestilence) would hardly have been expressed in this way. The word seems obviously to mean: “time of assembly” (so Wellh., Bib.-Com., and others), and points to some well-known gathering of the people. The most natural suggestion is that the time of evening-prayer is meant, to which some regard it as a fatal objection that the assembly for evening-prayer could not have existed in the time of David, or of the author of the Book of Samuel. But it may be replied that we do not know when the custom of thus gathering began; or, it may be that there was some other regular gathering otherwise unknown to us. It is at any rate better so to render the word, whether it can be satisfactorily explained or not.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 24:16. And the angel, namely the angel of the Lord afterwards more exactly described (“that destroyed the people”), the embodiment of His punitive righteousness, the exactor of the judgment, the destroying angel (comp Exodus 12:23)—stretched out his hand to Jerusalem to destroy it; thereupon the Lord repented him of the evil.—Chron.: “And God sent His angel to Jerusalem to destroy it.” According to both accounts the pestilence ceased at the moment when it had reached Jerusalem through the will of the merciful God. This is the moment meant by the “appointed time” of 2 Samuel 24:15. On God’s repentance see on 1 Sam. 13:35, “Historical and Theological,” No. 1 (to 1 Samuel 13.).—The Lord’s command to His angel:—Enough! now stay thy hand! the “thy hand” refers to the “His hand” above. As yet the pestilence had not attacked Jerusalem itself; for “the angel of the Lord was at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite.” Threshing-floors were usually in the open air, on heights where it was possible, on account of the chaff and the dust, and for the sake of the wind, which was necessary for the purifying of the grain; comp. Judges 6:37; Rth 3:2; Rth 3:15. So this threshing-floor was without Jerusalem, northeast of Zion, on the hill Moriah; see on 2 Samuel 24:25. The pestilence had reached the houses lying near this threshing-floor. Instead of the form Awarnah (2 Samuel 24:16) or Aranyah (2 Samuel 24:18), the name of the owner of the floor is to be read with the Masorites Araunah (2 Samuel 24:20; 2 Samuel 24:22-24). Chron. has Ornan (2 Samuel 24:15; 2 Samuel 24:18; 2 Samuel 24:20-23); Sept. Orna. Ewald: “This form of the name is un-Hebrew, but perhaps all the more Jebusite.” Bertheau: “The form Araunah does not look like Heb., while Orna and Ornan are Heb.; for this very reason the form Araunah seems to rest on an old tradition.” Jebusites still dwelt in the land (Joshua 15:63), and were tributary (1 Kings 9:20 sq.). See on 2 Samuel 5:6 sq.; Araunah is here represented as a man of property, see on 2 Samuel 24:22-23. 2 Samuel 24:17. David saw the angel; according to Chron. (whose account is fuller) he saw him standing by the threshing-floor between heaven and earth with a drawn sword in his hand, which was stretched out over Jerusalem. The drawn sword is the symbol of the execution of the divine judgment, comp. Genesis 3:24; Numbers 22:23; Joshua 5:13.—David said to the Lord: I, etc. By the “I” he presents himself as the really guilty person before God, in contrast with the people, whom he declares to be innocent. According to Chron. (2 Samuel 24:16) the elders, clothed in sackcloth and praying, shared with David the vision of the angel; the representatives of the people, therefore, confess that it has part in David’s sin; see on 2 Samuel 24:1. “The punishment was sent for the people’s own sin (2 Samuel 24:1), though David’s offence was the immediate occasion of its execution” (O. v. Gerl.). David is so penetrated with a sense of his guilt, and with sympathy with the suffering of his people, that he now prays God to visit judgment on “him and his house” alone, and spare the people as “His flock” [comp. 1 Chronicles 21:17]. III. 2 Samuel 24:18-25. Appeasement of God’s wrath by the purchase of Araunah’s, threshing-floor, and the erection of an altar thereon. 2 Samuel 24:18. God’s announcement of grace (contrasted with His announcement of judgment, 2 Samuel 24:13) is the consequence of “the repentance of the Lord” (2 Samuel 24:16) and the synchronous repentance of David (2 Samuel 24:17), though this did not cause God’s repentance; it occurs at the same time (“that day”) that God stops the plague, at the “appointed time” (2 Samuel 24:15) before the expiration of the three days.—Besides his prayer David has now to make public affirmation of his guilt, and of his willingness henceforth with the people to devote himself as an offering to the Lord, by building an altar. [According to Chron. the angel commanded Gad to go to David; the two accounts do not exclude each other. The relation of time between 2 Samuel 24:16; 2 Samuel 24:18 is not clear; but God’s repentance is represented as independent of David’s action.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 24:19. And David went up; he shows unconditional obedience to the divine command; whereby the altar was already in spirit built, and the offering of an obedient heart well-pleasing to the Lord, was made in truth. Comp. 1 Samuel 15:22. 2 Samuel 24:20. And Araunah looked forth; the verb (ωׁ ?χσ) means “to lie out over, bend forward, see, look at, look out”—here, to look into the distance, since Araunah was working in the threshing-floor, and saw David coming from the city. Chron. more fully: “And as Ornan was threshing wheat.” [2 Samuel 24:21. David announces his purpose to Araunah to buy his threshing-floor.] 2 Samuel 24:22 sqq. Araunah’s unselfish readiness is shown in the fact that he takes for granted the threshing-floor is to be made over to David, does not even mention it, but offers everything on the place to be used in averting the plague: the oxen that drew the threshing-wagon, the threshing-sledges (the Plural is used because a sledge consisted of several connected iron-pointed rollers), and the instruments of the oxen, the wooden yokes; the “wood” (yokes and sledges) was for the fire, as the oxen for the burnt-offering. 2 Samuel 24:23. Render: “All this gives Araunah, O king, to the king;” the words are a continuation of Araunah’s speech in 2 Samuel 24:22. In the ancient versions (Sept., Vulg., Syr., Ar., Chald.) the first “the king” is omitted, because, taking it as Nominative, they rightly thought it impossible that Araunah should be a king. If the words be taken as the statement of the narrator, and the “king” as Nominative, then [since it says: Araunah gave all this] there is a contradiction with 2 Samuel 24:24, where David buys the threshing-floor, and moreover a historically incorrect statement, namely, that Araunah was king of Jebus before its conquest by David; this view Ewald in fact adopts, against which Thenius rightly says: “this important fact would not have been stated in a single word, and it is in itself, but especially from 2 Samuel 5:8., incredible that David should have suffered the Jebusite king to remain at his side.” [For another reading: “all this gives Araunah, the servant of my lord the king, to the king” (which is also a continuation of Araunah’s discourse.), see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.].—And Araunah said to the king; before this we must suppose a pause, or the repetition of the announcing formula [“Araunah said”], without intervening discourse, is to be explained by the fact that the following wish is sharply marked off from what precedes as a word of special significance and wholly new content. “The phrase ‘and he said’ is frequently repeated, where the same person continues to speak, see 2 Samuel 15:4; 2 Samuel 15:25; 2 Samuel 15:27” (Keil). The Lord thy God accept thee; the verb is used of the acceptance of persons by God in connection with prayer and offering, Job 33:26; Ezekiel 20:40-41; Ezekiel 43:27; Jeremiah 14:12; so also here in reference to the offering that David proposes making. Sept., Syr., Arab. have “The Lord bless thee;” Bφttcher proposes to combine these texts and read: “the Lord thy God accept and bless thee,” after Genesis 49:25; Numbers 6:24 sqq.; Psalms 67:2 [1]. 2 Samuel 24:24. David does not accept Araunah’s offered gift (which exhibits him as a propertied man), because the offering would seem incomplete in his eyes if it were not his own property that he offered.—For fifty shekels of silver; Chron.: “shekels of gold in weight six hundred.” There would be room for the supposition of an intentional exaggeration in Chronicles (Thenius), only “if it were certain that the Chronicler had before him our present text of Samuel”(Bertheau). Bochart [approved by Bib.-Com.], holds that the word (λֶּ ?ρֶ ?σ) means here not “silver,” but in general “money,” that David paid money, fifty shekels in gold-pieces, and, as gold was worth twelve times as much as silver, this was = 600 shekels in silver [according to Bochart, Chron. (2 Samuel 24:25) reads: “shekels of gold of the weight (value) of 600 (silvershekels).”—Tr.]; but this contradicts the texts of both Sam. and Chron. We have to suppose a corruption of text here. Keil properly points out that, comparing the price (400 silver shekels) that Abraham gave for a burial-place (Genesis 23:15), and especially the smaller value of land in his day, the price here stated, 50 shekels of silver (about 30 American dollars) seems too small. [However, Abraham’s purchase was much greater in extent than this (Bib.-Com.), and peculiar circumstances may here have affected the price. The sum mentioned in Chron. seems too large, but of this we cannot very well judge. Some suppose that the 50 shekels were paid for the materials of the offering, and 600 for the ground (see note in Bib. Com. on 1 Chronicles 21:25); but of this there is no hint in the narrative. We cannot with certainty recover the true numbers.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 24:25. The building of the altar and the presentation of the offering is the work of humble and obedient faith, whereby David testifies anew his complete devotion of heart and life to the Lord. The burnt-offering precedes, because by it expiation is made, and God’s favor, as Araunah wished for David, restored; comp. Leviticus 1:3-4 “for his acceptance before Jehovah” (comp. 2 Samuel 24:23). Thereon follows the peace and thank-offering (Shelamim). It assumes God’s favor and the peaceful relation between Him and man, and on the ground of this relation, expresses thanks for divine kindnesses already received or hereafter to be received (comp. Oehler in Herz. X. 637).—After “peace-offerings” the Sept. adds: “And Solomon made an addition to the altar afterwards, for it was little at first.” It must be left undetermined whether the Alexandrian translators found these words in their text, they being an addition by an editor or scribe (Then.), or added them by way of explanation. Certainly the place on Araunah’s threshing-floor, where David built the altar and continued to offer, is the consecrated spot that he chose for the Temple, and on which Solomon built it (1 Chronicles 21:27 to 1 Chronicles 22:1); and this addition of the Sept. agrees with the statement of Josephus, that Araunah’s threshing-floor was on the hill afterwards occupied by the Temple (so Grotius).—Chr. Rosen has attempted to prove the identity of this threshing-floor on Moriah (comp. Arnold in Herz. XVIII. 625) with the sacred rock in the present Mosque es-Sakra, which stands on the site of the ancient Temple (Wochenblatt der Johanniter-Ordens-Balley Brand. Jahrg. 1860 in the Beilage to No. 12). AND 1. The grave sin of proud self-exaltation, which David and the people of Israel here had in common, presupposed the elevation to victory and power that God had bestowed by His gracious might, and its consequence was the judgment that revealed God’s anger against the perversion of His favors into plans of self-aggrandizement. God’s honor does not permit a king and people to seek their own honor in the power conferred by Him. The aims of God’s kingdom cannot, according to God’s laws of moral order, be abridged or obscured with impunity by the aims and purposes of human pride. God’s judgments fail not against false national honor and ambitious, self-seeking pride of rulers, as is shown by the history not only of Israel, but of all nations to the present time. 2. That God, angry with Israel, incites to the sin of numbering the people, and then punishes it, is no contradiction according to the theology of the Old Testament (J. Mόller, Lehre von der Sόnde I. 322), since inciting to sin does not set aside the holding one responsible for it. Man’s free will is not destroyed by the divine will, and the punishment of the righteous God presupposes man’s guilt. Immersed in the thought of God’s all-fulfilling efficiency, the human mind does not indeed refer to it “evil as well as good” (Mόller, ubi supra), for Old Testament theology is far from presenting the divine causality in this like attitude to good and evil; but the divine activity (in its punitive manifestations) is referred to the external production of evil (already present as an inward fact of man’s free will, opposed to God’s will), in so far as the circumstances that produce and incite to sin exist under God’s government, and are used by Him as means to develop man’s sin for the ends of His punitive righteousness. But also, apart from the external realization of sin, God gives man, who freely hardens himself in sin, over to the judgment of the consequence of his sin; Romans 1:28.—“There is here not mere permission, but real action on God’s part, and such as every one may see in his own experiences. He that allows the sinful disposition to rise within him is, however much he may strive against it, inevitably involved in the sinful deed, which draws down the requiting judgment” (Hengst., Hist. II. 130). 3. The root of the sin in this census is already laid bare in the word of the law relating to the numbering of the people. Hengstenberg excellently remarks (ubi sup. 129): “If David’s eye had been clear, he would have seen in God’s law the special reference to the danger attending the numbering of the people. In Exodus 30:11 sq. it is enjoined that in the census every Israelite shall pay expiatory money, ‘that there be no plague among them when they are numbered;’ by this money they are, as it were, ransomed from the death that they incurred by proud conceit. It recalls the danger of forgetting human weakness, that so easily arises when the individual feels himself a member of a powerful whole. Even the slightest movement of national pride (it is an important lesson for all times) is sin against God, which, if not vigorously repelled, involves the nation in the judgment of God. Indeed the Romans with a similar feeling made an expiatory offering when they took the census.”—The greatness of David’s guilt increases with the maintained opposition of his will to the voice of God, which he hears in Joab’s word, whereby his conscience ought to have been awakened. The degree, of man’s guilt against God rises with the maintained determination of the will against conscience in the inner life, with the outward resolution to act, with the rejection of counsel and instruction, whereby the attainment of better knowledge is frustrated, and with the final performance of the evil determination in spite of protest and opposition from within and from without. 4. The various steps whereon God leads men that yield their conscience to His Spirit to ever deeper humility in sincere penitence are mirrored in this history of David’s repentance. First God rouses David from his sleep of conscience and security by the result of his boastful antigodly undertaking, so that “his heart smote him” (comp. for this expression, 1 Samuel 24:6), that is, his conscience chastised him. So he comes to know that he has sinned and how sorely, and to acknowledge the foolishness of his sin, and to pray for forgiveness (2 Samuel 24:10). But to the inward voice of his smiting conscience is added the voice of the word of God, which comes to him from without through the prophet Gad with the announcement of punitive righteousness. The penitence of the heart proves itself in humble submission to God’s punishing hand, whence David instead of the asked-for pardon takes without murmuring the announcement of punishment, and in the unconditional trustful self-abandonment to God’s mercy (2 Samuel 24:14). Under the sorrowful experience of punishment the feeling of personal guilt is deepened, wherefore he acknowledges himself and his house alone to be the proper object of the divine punitive justice (2 Samuel 24:17). Having suffered himself to be led thus far on the path of penitence by God’s hand, he encounters the prophetically announced divine mercy, which stops the punishment (2 Samuel 24:18), and gives proof of the renewed obedience rising from the depths of true penitence, in the deed (commanded by the Lord) of faith and devotion of his whole life to him (2 Samuel 24:19 sq.). David’s repentance is finished and confirmed by the building of the altar, and his offering on the threshing-floor of Araunah. On the same spot where once Abraham, the possessor of the primeval promises of salvation, presented the sacrifice of his faith and obedience to the Lord, the royal bearer of the Messianic promises presents his burnt-offering and thank-offering, and therewith consecrates the spot, on which his son was to build a house as the Lord’s dwelling amid His people, and this on the ground of his experience of sin-forgiving grace and divine mercy that puts an end to punitive justice.—Hengstenberg: “It is very remarkable that before the outward foundations of the Temple were laid, God’s forgiving mercy was by God factually declared to be its spiritual foundation.” AND The glory of God shows itself in the life of His people, not only through His abounding grace but also through His holy wrath, whose fire is kindled by the sins into which they fall through the temptations of their own flesh or of the world without.—No height of the life of faith in the pious secures from a deep fall; the richer the possession of salvation which they have received through divine grace, the greater the loss if they do not preserve it or wish in self-exaltation to boast of it as their own acquirement.—The perverse self-will of man is the fountain of all sin; its guilt is not removed when through God’s action, the evil breaks forth from this fountain, and becomes a deed of disobedience to His holy will; God’s manifestations of grace often become, to man fallen into carnal security, the occasion of grievous acts of sin.—God would annihilate the free will of man if he did not allow the sin, which through that free will has already become an inner deed of the heart, to work itself out in its consequences; but He does not allow this to happen without first sending forth to men the voice of warning, and the call to turn from the way on which with the sinful resolve they have entered.—If God’s exhortation and warning has been uttered in vain through man’s word, His voice afterwards makes itself heard so much the more loudly through the accusation of what is called an evil conscience, but should properly be called a good conscience. The smitings with which God visits His people, when they have strayed into the ways of sin, are 1) those of conscience, in view of the goodness of God which became the occasion or subject of self-exaltation; 2) Those of the word of God, in view of the holiness of His will against which they have sinned; and 3) Those of outward chastisement, through sufferings in which punitive justice exerts itself.—Whom does the heart smite for his sins? Him who 1) Lets his heart be smitten by God’s earnestness and goodness, and takes to heart the greatness of his sin in contrast to God’s loving-kindness; 2) Recognizes his sin, in the light of God’s word, as a transgression of His holy will; and 3) Maintains in his sinning and in spite of it the fundamental direction of his heart towards the living God, and has been preserved from falling away into complete unbelief.—True and hearty repentance is preserved in the life of God’s children, 1) In the penitent confession of their sin and guilt, before the judgment-seat of God, 2) In fleeing for refuge to the forgiving grace of God, 3) In humbly bowing under the punitive justice of God, and 4) In a confidence, which even amid divine judgments does not waver, in the delivering mercy of God.—The gradual succession in the inner life of a penitent sinner under the chasten-ings of God’s love: 1) Reproving conscience, 2) Penitent confession, 3) Hearty prayer for forgiveness, 4) Humble bowing beneath the punishment imposed, 5) Unreserved submission to the divine mercy.—Conduct of an honestly penitent man beneath the blows of God’s chastening hand: 1) He bows his head under the divine judgment, yet does not lose his head; 2) He is silent before the word of God which judges him, that the Lord alone may be justified, yet his mouth does not remain closed, but opens itself for the one word he has to utter, “Take away the iniquity of thy servant;” 3) He is grieved in heart in view of the punishment he has deserved from the divine justice, yet he does not cast away his confidence,’ but places himself in the hands of the divine mercy.—“Mercy rejoices over judgment:” 1) The penitent man casts himself into the arms of God’s mercy; 2) Mercy falls into the arms of justice, in order to stay its blows; punitive justice must yield to mercy at the command of the Lord, “It is enough: stay now thy hand.”—Rear an altar unto the Lord! 1) In obedience to the Lord’s command (2 Samuel 24:18-19); 2) With dedication of thyself, and what is thine to the Lord’s honor (2 Samuel 24:21-24); 3) For the continual presentation of spiritual offerings, which are acceptable to the Lord (2 Samuel 24:23-24); and 4) For the reception of the highest gift of grace, peace with the propitiated God. Osiander: Even the holiest people may sometimes be overtaken by their corrupt flesh (Romans 7:18).—Schlier: After David had given up his heart to evil thoughts, the Lord gave occasion and opportunity for these evil thoughts to break forth unto the punishment of the king as well as of his whole people. Much depends, for the understanding of the following history, upon our not forgetting this concealed background, upon our keeping well in view, on the one hand the Lord’s wrath against Israel, and on the other hand the king’s evil thoughts.—[Hall: O the wondrous, and yet just ways of the Almighty! Because Israel hath sinned, therefore David shall sin, that Israel may be punished; because God is angry with Israel, therefore David shall anger Him more, and strike Himself in Israel, and Israel through Himself—Tr.]—F. W. Krummacher: Despite all the purifying processes through which we have passed, there is scarcely anything sinful to be named that cannot, even though conquered, come up in us afresh in the way of temptation. The most assured Christian, if his eyes are not blinded, never attains the consciousness that now he can stand justified before God in his own virtue.—[Hall: The Spirit of God elsewhere ascribes this motion to Satan, which here it attributes to God; both had their hand in the work; God by permission, Satan by suggestion; God as a Judge, Satan as an enemy; God as in a just punishment for sin, Satan as in an act of sin; God in a wise ordination of it to good; Satan in a malicious intent of confusion.—Tr.] 2 Samuel 24:2-4. Disselhoff: Even on the heights of life in God, the favored one remains the child of Adam. The jubilant cry, “according to my righteousness,” may easily become the boast, “on account of my righteousness.”—Starke: When kings and princes fall into sin, that means much; let us then not forget to pray for them, that God may preserve them (1 Timothy 2:2).—Schlier: Pride sticks in the flesh and blood of us all; and the difference is only whether pride has power over us, or whether we rein in and subjugate pride. Either thou slayest pride, or pride slays thee.—[Hall: Those actions which are in themselves indifferent, receive either their life, or their bane, from the intentions of the agent. Moses numbereth the people with thanks, David with displeasure.—Tr.]—Disselhoff: Humility wishes not to know what it is and possesses, and has done. As soon as the human heart wishes to count the fruits it has brought, its trophies and its booty, piles up before itself the proofs of its faith and zeal, and contemplates them with pleasure, humility is flown, pride has returned. From pride there immediately arises self-satisfied boasting..…Then the second step also is soon taken that the man no longer trusts in the invisible gracious God, but holds flesh for his arm, and in his heart turns away from the Lord,—that he wishes to see and calculate, and no longer to live by faith. 2 Samuel 24:10. J. Lange: God, the great and universal judge of the world, still holds as it were His secret inferior court in the conscience of the man, and summons him continually before his superior court (Romans 2:15-16).—F. W. Krummacher. As the sun always again breaks through the clouds that veiled it, so the conscience once awakened and enlightened by the Spirit of God, however darkened and ensnared it may be, ever victoriously comes forth again, and anew makes efficient its judicial office.—Disselhoff: Before God came with the punishment, before He showed him his sin from without, David’s own conscience rose up strong and living, and left him no peace till he had poured out his guilt-laden heart in sincere and earnest confession, and had supplicated forgiveness of his misdeed.—Fr. Arndt: How a man behaves after his fault, whether he persists in it, stands to his purpose, seeks to carry through his self-will and follows it out consistently to the utmost, or whether he enters into himself, humbles himself, repents, takes back, and supplicates forgiveness—that is the proof and the touch-stone for the true state of the heart. The former course is indeed apparent progress, but a progress that leads to hell; the latter is apparently going backward, but going back to heaven and blessedness. 2 Samuel 24:11-13. Starke: God is not swift to punish, but corrects in measure, only that we may not reckon ourselves innocent (Jeremiah 30:11).—God is also Lord over the kingdom of nature, and has everything therein under His government (Matthew 10:29).—Fr. Arndt: With His children the Lord is very exact. He is milder towards them, but also stricter than towards others. To whom much is given, of Him much also is required.—F. W. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/