2 Samuel 8 commentary

David subdued the Philistines. They had long been troublesome to Israel. And after the long and frequent struggles the saints have with the powers of darkness, like Israel with the Philistines, the Son of David shall tread them all under foot, and make the saints more than conquerors. He smote the Moabites, and made them tributaries to Israel. Two parts he destroyed, the third part he spared. The line that was to keep alive, though it was but one, is ordered to be a full line. Let the line of mercy be stretched to the utmost. He smote the Syrians. In all these wars David was protected, for this in his psalms he often gives glory to God.

All the precious things David was master of, were dedicated things; they were designed for building the temple. The idols of gold David destroyed, 2Sa 5:21, but the vessels of gold he dedicated. Thus, in the conquest of a soul by the grace of the Son of David, what stands in opposition to God must be destroyed, every lust must be mortified and crucified, but what may glorify him must be dedicated; thus the property of it is altered. God employs his servants in various ways; some, as David, in spiritual battles; others, as Solomon, in spiritual buildings; and one prepares work for the other, that God may have the glory of all.

David neither did wrong, nor denied or delayed right to any. This speaks his close application to business; also his readiness to admit all addresses and appeals made to him. He had no respect of persons in judgment. Herein he was a type of Christ. To Him let us submit, his friendship let us seek, his service let us count our pleasure, diligently attending to the work he assigns to each of us. David made his sons chief rulers; but all believers, Christ's spiritual seed, are better preferred, for they are made kings and priests to our God, Re 1:6.

CHAPTER 8

2Sa 8:1, 2. David Subdues the Philistines, and Makes the Moabites Tributary.

1. David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines--that is, Gath and her suburban towns (1Ch 18:1). That town had been "a bridle" by which the Philistines kept the people of Judah in check. David used it now as a barrier to repress that restless enemy.

2. he smote Moab, and measured them with a line--This refers to a well-known practice of Eastern kings, to command their prisoners of war, particularly those who, notorious for the atrocity of their crimes or distinguished by the indomitable spirit of their resistance, had greatly incensed the victors, to lie down on the ground. Then a certain portion of them, which was determined by lot, but most commonly by a measuring-line, were put to death. Our version makes him put two-thirds to death, and spare one-third. The Septuagint and Vulgate make one-half. This war usage was not, perhaps, usually practised by the people of God; but Jewish writers assert that the cause of this particular severity against this people was their having massacred David's parents and family, whom he had, during his exile, committed to the king of Moab.

2Sa 8:3-14. He Smites Hadadezer and the Syrians.

3. Zobah--(1Ch 18:3). This kingdom was bounded on the east by the Euphrates, and it extended westward from that river, perhaps as far north as Aleppo. It was long the chief among the petty kingdoms of Syria, and its king bore the hereditary title of "Hadadezer" or "Hadarezer" ("Hadad," that is, "helped").

as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates--in accordance with the promises God made to Israel that He would give them all the country as far as the Euphrates (Ge 15:18; Nu 24:17). In the first campaign David signally defeated Hadadezer. Besides a great number of foot prisoners, he took from him an immense amount of booty in chariots and horses. Reserving only a small number of the latter, he hamstrung the rest. The horses were thus mutilated because they were forbidden to the Hebrews, both in war and agriculture. So it was of no use to keep them. Besides, their neighbors placed much dependence on cavalry, but having, for want of a native breed, to procure them by purchase, the greatest damage that could be done to such enemies was to render their horses unserviceable in war. (See also Ge 46:6; Jos 11:6, 9). A king of Damascene-Syria came to Hadadezer's succor; but David routed those auxiliary forces also, took possession of their country, put garrisons into their fortified towns, and made them tributary.

9. Toi king of Hamath--Coele-Syria; northwards, it extended to the city Hamath on the Orontes, which was the capital of the country. The Syrian prince, being delivered from the dread of a dangerous neighbor, sent his son with valuable presents to David to congratulate him on his victories, and solicit his alliance and protection.

10. Joram--or Hadoram (1Ch 18:10).

11. Which also king David did dedicate unto the Lord--Eastern princes have always been accustomed to hoard up vast quantities of gold. This is the first instance of a practice uniformly followed by David of reserving, after defraying expenses and bestowing suitable rewards upon his soldiers, the remainder of the spoil taken in war, to accumulate for the grand project of his life--the erection of a national temple at Jerusalem.

13. David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians--Instead of Syrians, the Septuagint version reads "Edomites," which is the true reading, as is evident from 2Sa 8:14. This conquest, made by the army of David, was due to the skilful generalship and gallantry of Abishai and Joab. (1Ch 18:12; compare Psa 60:1, title.) The valley was the ravine of salt (the Ghor), adjoining the Salt Mountain, at the southwestern extremity of the Dead Sea, separating the ancient territories of Judah and Edom [Robinson].

2Sa 8:15-18. His Reign.

15. David executed judgment and justice unto all his people--Though involved in foreign wars, he maintained an excellent system of government at home, the most eminent men of the age composing his cabinet of ministers.

16. Joab ... was over the host--by virtue of a special promise (2Sa 5:8).

recorder--historiographer or daily annalist, an office of great trust and importance in Eastern countries.

17. Zadok ... and Ahimelech ... were the priests--On the massacre of the priests at Nob, [1Sa 22:19], Saul conferred the priesthood on Zadok, of the family of Eleazar (1Ch 6:50), while David acknowledged Ahimelech, of Ithamar's family, who fled to him. The two high priests exercised their office under the respective princes to whom they were attached. But, on David's obtaining the kingdom over all Israel, they both retained their dignity; Ahimelech officiating at Jerusalem, and Zadok at Gibeon (1Ch 16:39).

18. Cherethites--that is, Philistines (Zep 2:5).

Pelethites--from Pelet (1Ch 12:3). They were the valiant men who, having accompanied David during his exile among the Philistines, were made his bodyguard.

David took Metheg-ammah - This is variously translated. The Vulgate has, Tulit David fraenum tributi, David removed the bondage of the tribute, which the Israelites paid to the Philistines. Some think it means a fortress, city, or strong town; but no such place as Metheg-ammah is known. Probably the Vulgate is nearest the truth. The versions are all different. See the following comparison of the principal passages here collated with the parallel place in 1 Chr: - 2 Samuel 1 Chronicles 2Sam 8:1. - David took Metheg-ammah 2Sam 8:3. David 1Chr 18:1. - David took Gath and her towns. 1Chr 18:3. David smote Hadadezer 2Sam 8:4. And David took from him smote Hadarezer 1Chr 18:4. And David took from him 1000 and 700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot. 1000 chariots, and 7000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot. 2Sam 8:6. Then David put garrisons in Syria 2Sam 8:8. And 1Chr 18:6. Then David put in Syria 1Chr 18:8. And from Betah and Berothai cities of Hadadezer. 2Sam 8:9. from Tibhath and Chun cities of Hadarezer. 1Chr 18:9. When Toi heard that David had smitten When Tou heard that David had smitten Hadadezer 2Sam 8:10. Then Toi sent Joram his son Hadarezer 1Chr 18:10. He sent Hadoram his son 2Sam 8:12-Syria and Moab 2Sam 8:13. - Syrians, in the valley 1Chr 18:11-Edom and Moab 1Chr 18:12. - Edomites, in the valley of salt, 18,000 2Sam 8:17. - Ahimelech - and Seraiah of salt, 18,000 1Chr 18:16. - Abimelech - and Shausha was the scribe. 2Sam 10:16. Shobach the captain was scribe. 1Chr 19:16. Shophach the captain 2Sam 10:17. David passed over Jordan, and came הלאמה 1Chr 19:17. David passed over Jordan and came אלהם to Helam. 2Sam 10:18. David slew 700 upon them 1Chr 19:18. David slew of the Syrians 7000 chariots of the Syrians, and 40,000 horsemen; chariots, and 40,000 footmen; and smote Shobach, etc. and killed Shophach, etc.

And measured them with a line - even with two lines - It has been generally conjectured that David, after he had conquered Moab, consigned two-thirds of the inhabitants to the sword; but I think the text will bear a meaning much more reputable to that king. The first clause of the verse seems to determine the sense; he measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground - to put to death, and with one line to keep alive. Death seems here to be referred to the cities by way of metaphor; and, from this view of the subject we may conclude that two-thirds of the cities, that is, the strong places of Moab, were erased; and not having strong places to trust to, the text adds, So the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts, i.e., were obliged to pay tribute. The word line may mean the same here as our rod, i.e., the instrument by which land is measured. There are various opinions on this verse, with which I shall not trouble the reader. Much may be seen in Calmet and Dodd.

David smote - Hadadezer - He is supposed to have been king of all Syria, except Phoenicia; and, wishing to extend his dominions to the Euphrates, invaded a part of David's dominions which lay contiguous to it; but being attacked by David, he was totally routed.

A thousand chariots - It is strange that there were a thousand chariots, and only seven hundred horsemen taken, and twenty thousand foot. But as the discomfiture appears complete, we may suppose that the chariots, being less manageable, might be more easily taken, while the horsemen might, in general, make their escape. The infantry also seem to have been surrounded, when twenty thousand of them were taken prisoners.

David houghed all the chariot horses - If he did so, it was both unreasonable and inhuman; for, as he had so complete a victory, there was no danger of these horses falling into the enemy's hands; and if he did not choose to keep them, which indeed the law would not permit, he should have killed them outright; and then the poor innocent creatures would have been put out of pain. But does the text speak of houghing horses at all? It does not. Let us hear; ויעקר דוד את כל הרכב vayeakker David eth col harecheb, And David disjointed all the chariots, except a hundred chariots which he reserved for himself. Now, this destruction of the chariots, was a matter of sound policy, and strict piety. God had censured those who trusted in chariots; piety therefore forbade David the use of them: and lest they should fall into the enemy's hands, and be again used against him, policy induced him to destroy them. The Septuagint render the words nearly as I have done, και παρελυσε Δαυιδ παντα τα ἁρματα.

He kept however one hundred; probably as a sort of baggage or forage wagons.

Brought gifts - Paid tribute.

David took the shields of gold - We know not what these were. Some translate arms, others quivers, others bracelets, others collars, and others shields. They were probably costly ornaments by which the Syrian soldiers were decked and distinguished. And those who are called servants here, were probably the choice troops or body-guard of Hadadezer, as the argyraspides were of Alexander the Great. See Quintus Curtius.

Toi king of Hamath - Hamath is supposed to be the famous city of Emesa, situated on the Orontes, in Syria. This was contiguous to

Hadadezer; and led him to wage war with Toi, that he might get possession of his territories. For a comparison of the 10th verse, see 1Chr 18:9.

David gat him a name - Became a very celebrated and eminent man. The Targum has it, David collected troops; namely, to recruit his army when he returned from smiting the Syrians. His many battles had no doubt greatly thinned his army.

The valley of salt - Supposed to be a large plain abounding in this mineral, about a league from the city of Palmyra or Tadmor in the wilderness.

He put garrisons in Edom - He repaired the strong cities which he had taken, and put garrisons in them to keep the country in awe.

Joab - was over the host - General and commander-in-chief over all the army.

Ahilud - recorder - מזכיר mazkir, remembrancer; one who kept a strict journal of all the proceedings of the king and operations of his army; a chronicler. Or, remembrancer, or, writer of chronicles.

Seraiah - the scribe - Most likely the king's private secretary. See 1Chr 24:3 (note).

Benaiah - The chief of the second class of David's worthies. We shall meet with him again.

The Cherethites and the Pelethites - The former supposed to be those who accompanied David when he fled from Saul; the latter, those who came to him at Ziklag. But the Targum translates these two names thus, the archers and the slingers; and this is by far the most likely. It is not at all probable that David was without a company both of archers and slingers. The bow is celebrated in the funeral lamentation over Saul and Jonathan; and the sling was renowned as the weapon of the Israelites, and how expert David was in the use of it we learn from the death of Goliath. I take for granted that the Chaldee paraphrast is correct. No weapons then known were equally powerful with these; the spears, swords, and javelins, of other nations, were as stubble before them. The bow was the grand weapon of our English ancestors; and even after the invention of firearms, they were with difficulty persuaded to prefer them and leave their archery.

And David took - Gath and her towns, as it is expressed in the parallel place, 1Chron 18:1. Which are called Metheg - ammah, or the bridle of Ammah, Gath was situate in the mountain of Ammah; and because this being the chief city of the Philistines, and having a king, which none of the rest had, was the bridle which had hitherto kept the Israelites in subjection.

Moab - For although the king of Moab, out of hatred to Saul, gave protection to his parents, 1Sam 22:3,4, yet the Moabites were perpetual and sworn enemies to the Israelites, who therefore were forbidden to admit them into the congregation of the Lord. And though God commanded them in their march to Canaan, to spare the Moabites, yet afterwards they proved fierce enemies to God and his people, and thereby provoked God to alter his carriage towards them. Measured them - That is, having conquered the land, he made an estimate of it, and distributed the towns and people into three parts. Casting down - Overthrowing their towns, and utterly destroying their people in manner following. And now that prophecy, Numb 24:17, was accomplished.

As he went - David, remembering the grant which God had made to his people of all the land as far as Euphrates, and having subdued his neighbouring enemies, went to recover his rights, and stablish his dominion as far as Euphrates.

Seven hundred - Or, seven hundred companies of horsemen, that is, in all seven thousand; as it is 1Chron 18:4, there being ten in each company, and each ten having a ruler or captain. Houghed - - That is, cut the sinews of their legs, that they might be useless for war.

Of Damascus - That is, who were subject to Damascus, the chief city of Syria.

On the servants - Or rather, which were with the servants, that is, committed to their custody, as being kept in the king's armoury: for it is not probable they carried them into the field.

From Betah, &c. - In 1Chron 18:8, it is, from Tibhath, and from Chun. Either therefore the same cities were called by several names, as is usual, the one by the Hebrews, the other by the Syrians, or those were two other cities, and so the brass was taken out of these four cities.

The Lord preserved, &c. - All David's victories were typical of the success of the gospel over the kingdom of Satan, in which the Son of David rode forth, conquering and to conquer, and will reign 'till he has brought down all opposing rule, principality and power.

Recorder - The treasurer, who examined all the accounts, and kept records of them.

Scribe - Or, secretary of state.

Cherethites, &c. - The Cherethites and Pelethites were undoubtedly soldiers, and such as were eminent for their valour and fidelity. Most probable they were the king's guards, which consisted of these two bands, who might be distinguished either by their several weapons, or by the differing time or manner of their service. They are supposed to be thus called either, first, from their office, which was upon the king's command to cut off or punish offenders, and to preserve the king's person, as their names in the Hebrew tongue may seem to imply. Or, secondly, from some country, or place to which they had relation. As for the Cherithites, it is certain they were ether a branch of the Philistines, or a people neighbouring to them, and so might the Pelethites be too, though that be not related in scripture. And these Israelites and soldiers of David might be so called, either because they went and lived with David when he dwelt in those parts or, for some notable exploit against, or victory over these people.

AND after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Metheg-Ammah out of the hand of the Philistines.

i. e. Gath and her Towns, as it is expressed in the parallel place, 1 Chron. 18. 1. which are called Metheg-Ammah, or the Bridle of Ammah, because Gath was situate in the Mountain of Ammah; and because this being the chief City of the Philistines, and having a King, which none of the rest had, was the Bridle which had hitherto kept the Israelites in subjection, but now was taken out of their mouths.

Marginal references: Or, the bridle of Ammah▪

2 And he smote Moab , and measured them with a line , casting them down to the ground : even with two lines measured he to put to death ; and with one full line to keep alive: and so the Moabites became Davids servants, and brought gifts.

For although the King of Moab, out of hatred to Saul, pretended some kindness to David, and gave protection to his Parents, 1 Sam. 22. 3, 4. yet the Moabites were perpetual and sworn Enemies to the Israelites, who therefore were forbidden to admit them into the Congregation of the Lord, and to seek their peace and prosperity, Deut. 23. 6. And though God commanded them in their March to Canaan, to spare the Moabites, Deut. 2. 9, 19. yet afterwards they proved unthankful, and insolent, and fierce Enemies to God and his people, Numb. 22. 2, &c. and 24. 17. and 25. 17, 18. Iudg. 3. 14, &c. 1 Sam. 14. 47, &c. and thereby provoked God to alter his course and carriage towards them.

i. e. As with Line, the Particle as being oft understood, as Psal. 11. 1. and 22. 6. and 45. 1. The sense is, Having conquered the Land, he made an estimate of it, and, as it follows, distributed the Towns, and People into three parts.

i. e. Overthrowing their Towns, and utterly destroying their People in manner following.

Which severity was necessary for his own and his Peoples security, because they were numerous, and Potent, and Bordering upon Canaan, and very vexatious and mischievous to the Israelites. And now that Prophecy Numb. 24. 17. was accomplished.

3 ¶ David smote also Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah , as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.

Called Hadarezer, 1 Chron. 18. 3. the Hebrew letters Daleth and Resch being alike, and so oft interchanged.

A part of Syria, lying North-East from Canaan towards Hemath, 1 Chron. 18. 3. See 1 Sam. 14. 47.

Quest. Who? Ans. Either, First, Hadarezer: who being already very Potent, and going to enlarge his Dominion further, David thought fit to oppose him. Or, Secondly, David, who remembring the grant which God had made to his people, of all the Land as far as Euphrates, and having subdued his Neighbouring Enemies, went to recover his Rights, and stablish his Dominion as far as Euphrates.

Marginal references: Psal. 60. title.

4 And David took from him a thousand charets , and seven hundred horsemen , and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the charet horses , but reserved of them for an hundred charets.

Which word is fitly supplied out of 1 Chron. 18. 4. such Substantives being oft understood in the Hebrew Language, as Gen. 26. 30. 2 Sam. 21. 16.

Or, seven hundred Companies of Horsemen, i. e. in all seven thousand; as it is 1 Chr. 18. 4. there being ten in each Company, and each ten having a Ruler or Captain, Exod. 18. 21. Deut. 1. 15. Or, these seven hundred were the Chief and the Rulers of the rest, and the remaining 6300 were the common Horsemen, subject to their Commanders.

i. e. Cut the sinews of their Legs, that they might be useless for War. Compare Ios. 11. 6.

Except the following reserve. Chariots are here put for Chariot-Horses, as they are 1 Sam. 13. 5. 2 Sam. 10. 18. Psal. 76. 6. David did this, because he could not keep them for his own use, Deut. 17. 16.

Marginal references: Or, of his.; As 1 Chron. 18. 4.

5 And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

i. e. Who were subject to Damascus, the chief City of Syria.

6 Then David put garisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts : and the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.

To purchase their peace, and acknowledge their subjection to him.

7 And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem.

Or rather, which were with the servants, i. e. committed to their custody, as being kept in the Kings Armoury: for it is not probable they carried them into the field.

8 And from Beta, and from Berothai , cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass.

In 1 Chron. 18. 8. it is, from Tibhath, and from Chan. Either therefore the same Cities were called by several names, as is usual, the one by the Hebrews, the other by the Syrians: or those were two other Cities, and so the Brass was taken out of these four Cities.

9 ¶ When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hedadezer,

Another eminent City of Syria.

10 Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, and to bless him, because he had tought against Hadadezer, and smitten him: (for Hadadezer had wars with Toi) and Ioram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass;

Here also the Names differ from 1 Chron. 18. 9, 10. where it is Tou and Hadoram.

Heb. was a man of Wars, i. e. was exercised with continual Wars. Compare Gen. 9. 20, &c.

Marginal references: Heb ask him of peace.; Heb. was a man of wars with, &c.; Heb. in his hands were,

11 Which also king David did dedicate unto the LORD ; with the silver and gold that he had dedicate of all nations which he subdued:

To the building of Gods Temple. So he shewed his affection to God and his House, in preparing for it, when he was not permitted to build it.

Marginal references: 1 Chron. 18. 11. and 26. 26.

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

i. e. Much increased his reputation.

Or, Edomites, as they are said to be, 1 Chron. 18. 12. It is likely these two people were confederates, and that divers of the Syrians whom David had defeated in Syria, fled to Edom, and there joyned with them against their common Enemy, and made up together a very great Army (as the number of the Men slain in it sheweth) consisting of the veterane Soldiers of both Countries. Although the slaughter here following may seem not to have been of the Syrians, as the words at first reading seem to intimate, but of the Edomites; (it not being probable that the Syrians would come so far from their own Country, as to the Valley of Salt, to fight) and this Verse may be [illegible: 1 word] thus, and that very agreeably to the Hebrew: And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians, in smiting (which is easily repeated out of the last Clause, according to the common usage of Scripture) in the Valley of Salt eighteen thousand men, who were Edomites, as is sufficiently implied here in the next Verse, and expressed 1 Chron. 18. 12.

A place in Edom so called, either from its Neighbourhood to the Salt Sea, or for some other cause now unknown.

As it is also 1 Chr. 18. 12. where also they are said to be smitten by Abishai; because he was then a chief Commander of the Army under David, and, it may be, began the fight; as, for the like reason, they are said to be smitten by Ioab, Psal. 60. title where also there are onely 12000 mentioned; which place, if it speak of this Battel, the state of it was this: Abishai begins the Combat, and kills 6000, after him comes in Ioab and kills 12000 more, which makes up this 18000. But why may not that be another History and Battel? So the Edomites and Syrians together did first fight with Abishai, and lost 18000 men, and afterwards recruited their Forces and fought with Ioab, and lost other 12000 men. Nor is it strange if two Battels were fought in one place; of which there are divers instances in Historians.

Marginal references: Heb. his smiting.; See Psal. 60. title.

15 And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed judgment and justice upon all his people.

i. e. Just judgment, as Deut. 16. 18. A Figure called Hendiadis; as in Gen. 3. 16. Matth. 4. 16.

16 And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host ; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder .

Who having doubtless declared his repentance for his former crimes, and having done eminent service for his Country, and having received the chief Command by vertue of David's promise and contract, 2 Sam. 5. 8. was still continued in his place.

Either, First, The writer of Chronicles. But it is not likely he would have been put among the great Officers of State and Church. Or, Secondly, The Treasure[illegible: 1+ letters] ▪ who examined all the accounts, and kept Records of them▪ Or, Thirdly, The Kings Counceller, as Ahitophel is called 2 Sam. 15. 12. 1 Chron. 27. 33. who was to bring things [illegible: 1 word] moment to the Kings mind and remembrance, and to admonish him from time to time of things fit to be done. See 1 King. 4. 3. and 2 King. 18. 18.

Marginal references: Or, remembrances, or writer of Chronicles

17 And Zadok the son of Ahitub , and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar , were the priests ; and Seraiah was the Scribe;

Not of that Ahitub, 1 Sam. 4. for that was of Ithamar's race, but this of Eleazar.

So Abiathar called his Son by the name of his Father, 1 Sam. 22. 20.

i. e. The Chief Priest next under Abiathar, who fled to David, 1 Sam. 22. 20. and now was High Priest, as may be gathered from 2 Sam. 15. 35. and 1 King. 2. 27, 35. under him these two were the next Chief Priests, or the Second Priests, each one being Chief of the House of his Father, Zadok of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of Ithamar. See Numb. 3. 32. 1 Chron. 24. 3, 4. Or, these two are here mentioned, because they constantly attended upon the King, that he might consult with them in the matters of the Lord, as need required.

Marginal references: 1 Chron. 24. 3, 4.; Or, Secretary.

18 And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites : and Davids sons were chief rulers .

These words are supplied out of the parallel place, 1 Chron. 18. 17. and out of 2 Sam. 20. 23. where they are expressed.

i. e. The Cherethites and Pelethites were undoubredly Soldiers, and such as were eminent for their Valour and Fidelity to the King, as is evident from 2 Sam. 15. 18. and 20. 7. and 1 King. 1. 38, 44. and most probably they were the Kings Guards, which consisted of these two Bands, who might be distinguished either by their several Weapons, or by the differing time or manner of their service. They are supposed to be thus called, either, first, from their Office, which was upon the Kings command to cut off or punish offenders, and to preserve the Kings Person, as their names in the Hebrew Tongue may seem to imply. Or, Secondly, From some Countrey, or place to which they had relation. As for the Cherethites, it is certain they were either a Branch of the Philistines, or a People neighbouring to them, and confederate with them, as is manifest from 1 Sam. 30. 14. Ezek. 25. 16. Zeph. 2. 4, 5. And so might the Pelethites be too, though that be not related in Scripture. And these Israelites and Soldiers of David might be so called▪ either, because they went and lived with David when he dwelt in those parts: or, from some notable Exploit against, or Victory over these People; as among the Romans the names of Asiaticus, Africanus, &c. were given for the same reason. One of their Exploits against the Cherethites is in part related, 1 Sam. 30. 14. And it is likely they did many other against them, and against other people, amongst which the Pelethites might be one.

Had the places of greatest Authority and Dignity conferred upon them.

Marginal references: 1 Chron. 18. 17.; Or, Princes.

2Sa 8:1

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

2Sa 8:2

Subjugation of Moab. - “He smote Moab (i.e., the Moabites),and measured them with the line, making them lie down upon the ground, and measured two lines (i.e., two parts)to put to death, and one line full to keep alive.” Nothing further is known about either the occasion or the history of this war, with the exception of the cursory notice in 1Ch 11:22, that Benaiah, one of David’s heroes, smote two sons of the king of Moab, which no doubt took place in the same war. In the earliest period of his flight from Saul, David had met with a hospitable reception from the king of Moab, and had even taken his parents to him for safety (1Sa 22:3-4). But the Moabites must have very grievously oppressed the Israelites afterwards, that David should have inflicted a severer punishment upon them after their defeat, than upon any other of the nations that he conquered, with the exception of the Ammonites (2Sa 12:31), upon whom he took vengeance for having most shamefully insulted his ambassadors (2Sa 10:2.). The punishment inflicted, however, was of course restricted to the fighting men who had been taken prisoners by the Israelites. They were ordered to lie down in a row upon the earth; and then the row was measured for the purpose of putting two-thirds to death, and leaving one-third alive. The Moabites were then made “servants” to David (i.e., they became his subjects), “bringing gifts” (i.e., paying tribute).

2Sa 8:3-4

Conquest and Subjugation of the King of Zobah, and of the Damascene Syrians. - 2Sa 8:3. The situation of Zobah cannot be determined. The view held by the Syrian church historians, and defended by Michaelis, viz., that Zobah was the ancient Nisibis in northern Mesopotamia, has no more foundation to rest upon than that of certain Jewish writers who suppose it to have been Aleppo, the present Haleb. Aleppo is too far north for Zobah, and Nisibis is quite out of the range of the towns and tribes in connection with which the name of Zobah occurs. In 1Sa 14:47, compared with 2Sa 8:12 of this chapter, Zobah, or Aram Zobah as it is called in 2Sa 10:6 and Psa 60:2, is mentioned along with Ammon, Moab, and Edom, as a neighbouring tribe and kingdom to the Israelites; and, according to 2Sa 8:3, 2Sa 8:5, and 2Sa 8:9 of the present chapter, it is to be sought for in the vicinity of Damascus and Hamath towards the Euphrates. These data point to a situation to the north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and Euphrates, and in fact extending as far as the latter according to 2Sa 8:3, whilst, according to 2Sa 10:16, it even reached beyond it with its vassal-chiefs into Mesopotamia itself. Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 195) has therefore combined Zobah, which was no doubt the capital, and gave its name to the kingdom, with the Sabe mentioned in Ptol. v. 19, - a town in the same latitude as Damascus, and farther east towards the Euphrates. The king of Zobah at the time referred to is called Hadadezer in the text (i.e., whose help is Hadad); but in 2Sa 10:16-19 and throughout the Chronicles he is called Hadarezer. The first is the original form; for Hadad, the name of the sun-god of the Syrians, is met with in several other instances in Syrian names (vid., Movers, Phönizier). David smote this king “as he was going to restore his strength at the river (Euphrates).” ידו השׁיב does not mean to turn his hand, but signifies to return his hand, to stretch it out again over or against any one, in all the passage in which the expression occurs. It is therefore to be taken in a derivative sense in the passage before us, and signifying to restore or re-establish his sway. The expression used in the Chronicles (2Sa 8:3), ידו הצּיב, has just the same meaning, since establishing or making fast presupposes a previous weakening or dissolution. Hence the subject of the sentence “as he went,” etc., must be Hadadezer and not David; for David could not have extended his power to the Euphrates before the defeat of Hadadezer. The Masoretes have interpolated P'rath (Euphrates) after “the river,” as in the text of the Chronicles. This is correct enough so far as the sense is concerned, but it is by no means necessary, as the nahar (the river κ. ἐξ.) is quite sufficient of itself to indicate the Euphrates.

There is also a war between David and Hadadezer and other kings of Syria mentioned in 2 Samuel 10; and the commentators all admit that that war, in which David defeated these kings when they came to the help of the Ammonites, is connected with the war mentioned in the present chapter. But the connection is generally supposed to be this, that the first of David’s Aramaean wars is given in 2 Samuel 8, the second in 2 Samuel 10; for no other reason, however, than because 2 Samuel 10 stands after 2 Samuel 8. This view is decidedly an erroneous one. According to the chapter before us, the war mentioned there terminated in the complete subjugation of the Aramaean kings and kingdoms. Aram became subject to David, paying tribute (2Sa 8:6). Now, though the revolt of subjugated nations from their conquerors is by no means a rare thing in history, and therefore it is perfectly conceivable in itself that the Aramaeans should have fallen away from David when he was involved in the war with the Ammonites, and should have gone to the help of the Ammonites, such an assumption is precluded by the fact that there is nothing in 2 Samuel 10 about any falling away or revolt of the Aramaeans from David; but, on the contrary, these tribes appear to be still entirely independent of David, and to be hired by the Ammonites to fight against him. But what is absolutely decisive against this assumption, is the fact that the number of Aramaeans killed in the two wars is precisely the same (compare 2Sa 8:4 with 2Sa 10:18): so that it may safely be inferred, not only that the war mentioned in 2 Samuel 10, in which the Aramaeans who had come to the help of the Ammonites were smitten by David, was the very same as the Aramaean war mentioned in 2 Samuel 8, but of which the result only is given; but also that all the wars which David waged with the Aramaeans, like his war with Edom (2Sa 8:13.), arose out of the Ammonitish war (2 Samuel 10), and the fact that the Ammonites enlisted the help of the kings of Aram against David (2Sa 10:6). We also obtain from 2 Samuel 10 an explanation of the expression “as he went to restore his power (Eng. Ver. 'recover his border') at the river,” since it is stated there that Hadadezer was defeated by Joab the first time, and that, after sustaining this defeat, he called the Aramaeans on the other side of the Euphrates to his assistance, that he might continue the war against Israel with renewed vigour (2Sa 10:13, 2Sa 10:15.). The power of Hadadezer had no doubt been crippled by his first defeat; and in order to restore it, he procured auxiliary troops from Mesopotamia with which to attack David, but he was defeated a second time, and obliged to submit to him (2Sa 10:17-18). In this second engagement “David took from him (i.e., captured)seventeen hundred horse-soldiers and twenty thousand foot” (2Sa 8:4, compare 2Sa 10:18). This decisive battle took place, according to 1Ch 18:3, in the neighbourhood of Hamath, i.e., Epiphania on the Orontes (see at Num 13:21, and Gen 10:18), or, according to 2Sa 10:18 of this book, at Helam, - a difference which may easily be reconciled by the simple assumption that the unknown Helam was somewhere near to Hamath. Instead of 1700 horse-soldiers, we find in the Chronicles (1Ch 18:4) 1000 chariots and 7000 horsemen. Consequently the word receb has no doubt dropped out after אלף in the text before us, and the numeral denoting a thousand has been confounded with the one used to denote a hundred; for in the plains of Syria seven thousand horsemen would be a much juster proportion to twenty thousand foot than seventeen hundred. (For further remarks, see at 2Sa 10:18.) “And David lamed all the cavalry,” i.e., he made the war-chariots and cavalry perfectly useless by laming the horses (see at Jos 11:6, Jos 11:9), - “and only left a hundred horses.” The word receb in these clauses signifies the war-horses generally, - not merely the carriage-horses, but the riding-horses as well, - as the meaning cavalry is placed beyond all doubt by Isa 21:7, and it can hardly be imagined that David would have spared the riding-horses.

2Sa 8:5-6

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

2Sa 8:7

Of the booty taken in these wars, David carried the golden shields which he took from the servants, i.e., the governors and vassal princes, of Hadadezer, to Jerusalem.The lxx has this additional clause: “And Shishak the king of Egypt took them away, when he went up against Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon,” which is neither to be found in the Chronicles nor in any other ancient version, and is merely an inference drawn by the Greek translator, or by some copyists of the lxx, from 1Ki 14:25-28, taken in connection with the fact that the application of the brass is given in 1Ch 18:8. But, in the first place, the author of this gloss has overlooked the fact that the golden shields of Rehoboam which Shishak carried away, were not those captured by David, but those which Solomon had had made, according to 1Ki 10:16, for the retainers of his palace; and in the second place, he has not observed that, according to 2Sa 8:11 of this chapter, and also of the Chronicles, David dedicated to the Lord all the gold and silver that he had taken, i.e., put it in the treasury of the sanctuary to be reserved for the future temple, and that at the end of his reign he handed over to his son and successor Solomon all the gold, silver, iron, and brass that he had collected for the purpose, to be applied to the building of the temple (1Ch 22:14., 1Ch 29:2.). Consequently the clause in question, which Thenius would adopt from the lxx into our own text, is nothing more than the production of a presumptuous Alexandrian, whose error lies upon the very surface, so that the question of its genuineness cannot for a moment be entertained.Shelet signifies “a shield,” according to the Targums and Rabbins, and this meaning is applicable to all the passages in which the word occurs; whilst the meaning “equivalent” cannot be sustained either by the rendering πανοπλία adopted by Aquila and Symmachus in 2Ki 11:10, or by the renderings of the Vulgate, viz., arma in loc. and armatura in Sol 4:4, or by an appeal to the etymology (vid., Gesenius’ Thes. and Dietrich’s Lexicon).

2Sa 8:8

And from the cities of Betach and Berothai David took very much brass, with which, according to 1Ch 18:8, Solomon made the brazen sea, and the brazen columns and vessels of the temple. The lxx have also interpolated this notice into the text. The name Betach is given as Tibhath in the Chronicles; and for Berothai we have Chun. As the towns themselves are unknown, it cannot be decided with certainty which of the forms and names are the correct and original ones. מבּטח appears to have been written by mistake for מטּבח. This supposition is favoured by the rendering of the lxx, ἐκ τῆς Μετεβάκ; and by that of the Syriac also (viz., Tebach). On the other hand, the occurrence of the name Tebah among the sons of Nahor the Aramaean in Gen 22:24 proves little or nothing, as it is not known that he founded a family which perpetuated his name; nor can anything be inferred from the fact that, according to the more modern maps, there is a town of Tayibeh to the north of Damascus in 35 north lat., as there is very little in common between the names Tayibeh and Tebah. Ewald connects Berothai with the Barathena of Ptol. v. 19 in the neighbourhood of Saba. The connection is a possible one, but it is not sufficiently certain to warrant us in founding any conclusions upon it with regard to the name Chun which occurs in the Chronicles; so that there is no ground whatever for the opinion that it is a corruption of Berothai.

2Sa 8:9-10

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

2Sa 8:11-12

David also sanctified Toi’s presents to the Lord (handed them over to the treasury of the sanctuary), together with the silver and gold which he had sanctified from all the conquered nations, from Aram, Moab, etc. Instead of הקדּישׁ אשׁר the text of the Chronicles has נשׂא אשׁר, which he took, i.e., took as booty. Both are equally correct; there is simply a somewhat different turn given to the thought.Bertheau erroneously maintains that נשׂא אשׁר, which he took, is at variance with 2Sa 8:7, as, according to this passage, the golden shields of Hadadezer did not become the property of the Lord. But there is not a word to that effect in 2Sa 8:7. On the contrary, his taking the shields to Jerusalem implies, rather than precludes, the intention to devote them to the purposes of the sanctuary.

In the enumeration of the conquered nations in 2Sa 8:12, the text of the Chronicles differs from that of the book before us. In the first place, we find “from Edom” instead of “from Aram;” and secondly, the clause “and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob king of Zobah,” is altogether wanting there. The text of the Chronicles is certainly faulty here, as the name of Aram (Syria) could not possibly be omitted. Edom could much better be left out, not “because the conquest of Edom belonged to a later period,” as Movers maintains, but because the conquest of Edom is mentioned for the first time in the subsequent verses. But if we bear in mind that in 2Sa 8:12 of both texts not only are those tribes enumerated the conquest of which had been already noticed, but all the tribes that David ever defeated and subjugated, even the Ammonites and Amalekites, to the war with whom no allusion whatever is made in the present chapter, we shall see that Edom could not be omitted. Consequently “from Syria” must have dropped out of the text of the Chronicles, and “from Edom” out of the one before us; so that the text in both instances ran originally thus, “from Syria, and from Edom, and from Moab.” For even in the text before us, “from Aram” (Syria) could not well be omitted, notwithstanding the fact that the booty of Hadadezer is specially mentioned at the close of the verse, for the simple reason that David not only made war upon Syria-Zobah (the kingdom of Hadadezer) and subdued it, but also upon Syria-Damascus, which was quite independent of Zobah.

2Sa 8:13-15 “And David made (himself) a name, when he returned from smiting (i.e., from the defeat of) Aram, (and smote Edom) in the valley of Salt, eighteen thousand men.” The words enclosed in brackets are wanting in the Masoretic text as it has come down to us, and must have fallen out from a mistake of the copyist, whose eye strayed from את־ארם to את־אדום; for though the text is not “utterly unintelligible” without these words, since the passage might be rendered “after he had smitten Aram in the valley of Salt eighteen thousand men,” yet this would be decidedly incorrect, as the Aramaeans were not smitten in the valley of Salt, but partly at Medeba (1Ch 19:7) and Helam (2Sa 10:17), and partly in their own land, which was very far away from the Salt valley. Moreover, the difficulty presented by the text cannot be removed, as Movers supposes, by changing את־ארם (Syria) into את־אדום (Edom), as the expression בּשׁבו (“when he returned”) would still be unexplained. The facts were probably these: Whilst David, or rather Israel, was entangled in the war with the Ammonites and Aramaeans, the Edomites seized upon the opportunity, which appeared to them a very favourable one, to invade the land of Israel, and advanced as far as the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. As soon, therefore, as the Aramaeans were defeated and subjugated, and the Israelitish army had returned from this war, David ordered it to march against the Edomites, and defeated them in the valley of Salt. This valley cannot have been any other than the Ghor adjoining the Salt mountain on the south of the Dead Sea, which really separates the ancient territories of Judah and Edom (Robinson, Pal. ii. 483). There Amaziah also smote the Edomites at a later period (2Ki 14:7). We gather more concerning this war of David from the text of the Chronicles (2Sa 8:12) taken in connection with 1Ki 11:15-16, and Psa 60:2. According to the Chronicles, it was Abishai the son of Zeruiah who smote the Edomites. This agrees very well not only with the account in 2Sa 10:10., to the effect that Abishai commanded a company in the war with the Syrians and Ammonites under the generalship of his brother Joab, but also with the heading to Psa 60:1-12, in which it is stated that Joab returned after the defeat of Aram, and smote the Edomites in the valley of Salt, twelve thousand men; and with 1Ki 11:15-16, in which we read that when David was in Edom, Joab, the captain of the host, came up to bury the slain, and smote every male in Edom, and remained six months in Edom with all Israel, till he had cut off every male in Edom. From this casual but yet elaborate notice, we learn that the war with the Edomites was a very obstinate one, and was not terminated all at once. The difference as to the number slain, which is stated to have been 18,000 in the text before us and in the Chronicles, and 12,000 in the heading to Psa 60:1-12, may be explained in a very simple manner, on the supposition that the reckonings made were only approximative, and yielded different results;Michaelis adduces a case in point from the Seven Years’ War. After the battle of Lissa, eight or twelve thousand men were reported to have been taken prisoners; but when they were all counted, including those who fell into the hands of the conquerors on the second, third, and fourth days of the flight, the number amounted to 22,000. and the fact that David is named as the victor in the verse before us, Joab in Psa 60:1-12, and Abishai in the Chronicles, admits of a very easy explanation after what has just been observed. The Chronicles contain the most literal account. Abishai smote the Edomites as commander of the men engaged, Joab as commander-in-chief of the whole army, and David as king and supreme governor, of whom the writer of the Chronicles affirms, “The Lord helped David in all his undertakings.” After the defeat of the Edomites, David placed garrisons in the land, and made all Edom subject to himself. 2Sa 8:15-18. David’s Ministers. - To the account of David’s wars and victories there is appended a list of his official attendants, which is introduced with a general remark as to the spirit of his government. As king over all Israel, David continued to execute right and justice.

2Sa 8:16

The chief ministers were the following: - Joab (see at 2Sa 2:18) was “over the army,” i.e., commander-in-chief. Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, of whom nothing further is known, was mazcir, chancellor; not merely the national annalist, according to the Septuagint and Vulgate (ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπομνημάτην, ὑπομνηματόγραφος; a commentariis), i.e., the recorder of the most important incidents and affairs of the nation, but an officer resembling the magister memoriae of the later Romans, or the waka nuvis of the Persian court, who keeps a record of everything that takes place around the king, furnishes him with an account of all that occurs in the kingdom, places his visé upon all the king’s commands, and keeps a special protocol of all these things (vid., Chardin, Voyages v. p. 258, and Paulsen, Regierung der Morgenländer, pp. 279-80).

2Sa 8:17

Zadok the son of Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar (1Ch 6:8; 1Ch 6:11-12), and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were cohanim, i.e., officiating high priests; the former at the tabernacle at Gibeon (1Ch 16:39), the latter probably at the ark of the covenant upon Mount Zion. Instead of Ahimelech, the Chronicles have Abimelech, evidently through a copyist’s error, as the name is written Ahimelech in 1Ch 24:3, 1Ch 24:6. But the expression “Ahimelech the son of Abiathar” is apparently a very strange one, as Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech according to 1Sa 22:20, and in other passages Zadok and Abiathar are mentioned as the two high priests in the time of David (2Sa 15:24, 2Sa 15:35; 2Sa 17:15; 2Sa 19:12; 2Sa 20:25). This difference cannot be set aside, as Movers, Thenius, Ewald, and other suppose, by transposing the names, so as to read Abiathar the son of Ahimelech; for such a solution is precluded by the fact that, in 1Ch 24:3, 1Ch 24:6, 1Ch 24:31, Ahimelech is mentioned along with Zadok as head of the priests of the line of Ithamar, and according to 1Ch 24:6 he was the son of Abiathar. It would therefore be necessary to change the name Ahimelech into Abiathar in this instance also, both in 1Ch 24:3 and 1Ch 24:6, and in the latter to transpose the two names. But there is not the slightest probability in the supposition that the names have been changed in so many passaGes. We are therefore disposed to adopt the view held by Bertheau and Oehler, viz., that Abiathar the high priest, the son of Ahimelech, had also a son named Ahimelech, as it is by no means a rare occurrence for grandfather and grandson to have the same names (vid., 1Ch 6:4-15), and also that this (the younger) Ahimelech performed the duties of high priest in connection with his father, who was still living at the commencement of Solomon’s reign (1Ki 2:27), and is mentioned in this capacity, along with Zadok, both here and in the book of Chronicles, possibly because Abiathar was ill, or for some other reason that we cannot discover. As Abiathar was thirty or thirty-five years old at the time when his father was put to death by Saul, according to what has already been observed at 1Sa 14:3, and forty years old at the death of Saul, he was at least forty-eight years old at the time when David removed his residence to Mount Zion, and might have had a son of twenty-five years of age, namely the Ahimelech mentioned here, who could have taken his father’s place in the performance of the functions of high priest when he was prevented by illness or other causes. The appearance of a son of Abiathar named Jonathan in 2Sa 15:27; 2Sa 17:17, 2Sa 17:20, is no valid argument against this solution of the apparent discrepancy; for, according to these passages, he was still very young, and may therefore have been a younger brother of Ahimelech. The omission of any allusion to Ahimelech in connection with Abiathar’s conspiracy with Adonijah against Solomon (1Ki 1:42-43), and the reference to his son Jonathan alone, might be explained on the supposition that Ahimelech had already died. But as there is no reference to Jonathan at the time when his father was deposed, no stress is to be laid upon the omission of any reference to Ahimelech. Moreover, when Abiathar was deposed after Solomon had ascended the throne, he must have been about eighty years of age. Seraiah was a scribe. Instead of Seraiah, we have Shavsha in the corresponding text of the Chronicles, and Sheva in the parallel passage 2Sa 20:25. Whether the last name is merely a mistake for Shavsha, occasioned by the dropping of שׁ, or an abbreviated form of Shisha and Shavsha, cannot be decided. Shavsha is not a copyist’s error, for in 1Ki 4:3 the same man is unquestionably mentioned again under the name of Shisha, who is called Shavsha in the Chronicles, Sheva (שׁיא) in the text of 2Sa 20:25, and here Seraiah. Seraiah also is hardly a copyist’s error, but another form for Shavsha or Shisha. The scribe was a secretary of state; not a military officer, whose duty it was to raise and muster the troops, for the technical expression for mustering the people was not ספר, but פּקד (cf. 2Sa 24:2, 2Sa 24:4,2Sa 24:9; 1Ch 21:5-6, etc.).

2Sa 8:18 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, a very brave hero of Kabzeel (see at 2Sa 23:20.), was over the Crethi and Plethi. Instead of והכּרתי, which gives no sense, and must be connected in some way with 1Ki 1:38, 1Ki 1:44, we must read הכּרתי על according to the parallel passage 2Sa 20:23, and the corresponding text of the Chronicles. The Crethi and Plethi were the king’s body-guard, σωματοφύλακες (Josephus, Ant. vii. 5, 4). The words are adjectives in form, but with a substantive meaning, and were used to indicate a certain rank, lit. the executioners and runners, like השּׁלישׁי   (2Sa 23:8). כּרתי, from כּרת, to cut down or exterminate, signifies confessor, because among the Israelites (see at 1Ki 2:25), as in fact throughout the East generally, the royal halberdiers had to execute the sentence of death upon criminals. פּלתי, from פלת (to fly, or be swift), is related to פּלט, and signifies runners. It is equivalent to רץ, a courier, as one portion of the halberdiers, like the ἄγγαροι of the Persians, had to convey the king’s orders to distant places (vid., 2Ch 30:6). This explanation is confirmed by the fact that the epithet והרצים הכּדי was afterwards applied to the king’s body-guard (2Ki 11:4, 2Ki 11:19), and that הכּרי for הכּרתי occurs as early as 2Sa 20:23. כּרי, from כוּר, fodit, perfodit, is used in the same sense.Gesenius (Thes. s. vv.) and Thenius (on 1Ki 1:38) both adopt this explanation; but the majority of the modern theologians decide in favour of Lakemacher’s opinion, to which Ewald has given currency, viz., that the Crethi or Cari are Cretes or Carians, and the Pelethi Philistines (vid., Ewald, Krit. Gramm. p. 297, and Gesch. des Volkes Israel, pp. 330ff.; Bertheau, zur Geschichte Israel, p. 197; Movers, Phönizier i. p. 19). This view is chiefly founded upon the fact that the Philistines are called C'rethi in 1Sa 30:14, and C'rethim in Zep 2:5 and Eze 25:16. But in both the passages from the prophets the name is used with special reference to the meaning of the word הכרית, viz., to exterminate, cut off, as Jerome has shown in the case of Ezekiel by adopting the rendering interficiam interfectores (I will slay the slayers) for את־כּרתים הכרתּי. The same play upon the words takes place in Zephaniah, upon which Strauss has correctly observed: “Zephaniah shows that this violence of theirs had not been forgotten, calling the Philistines Crethim for that very reason, ut sit nomen et omen.” Besides, in both these passages the true name Philistines stands by the side as well, so that the prophets might have used the name Crethim (slayers, exterminators) without thinking at all of 1Sa 30:14. In this passage it is true the name Crethi is applied to a branch of the Philistine people that had settled on the south-west of Philistia, and not to the Philistines generally. The idea that the name of a portion of the royal body-guard was derived from the Cretans is precluded, first of all, by the fact of its combination with הפּלתי (the Pelethites); for it is a totally groundless assumption that this name signifies the Philistines, and is a corruption of פלשׁתּים. There are no such contractions as these to be found in the Semitic languages, as Gesenius observes in his Thesaurus (l.c.), “quis hujusmodi contractionem in linguis Semiticis ferat?” Secondly, it is also precluded by the strangeness of such a combination of two synonymous names to denote the royal body-guard. “Who could believe it possible that two synonymous epithets should be joined together in this manner, which would be equivalent to saying Englishmen and Britons?” (Ges. Thes. p. 1107). Thirdly, it is opposed to the title afterwards given to the body-guard, והרצים הכּרי   (2Ki 11:4, 2Ki 11:19), in which the Cari correspond to the Crethi, as in 2Sa 20:23, and ha-razim to the Pelethi; so that the term pelethi can no more signify a particular tribe than the term razim can. Moreover, there are other grave objections to this interpretation. In the first place, the hypothesis that the Philistines were emigrants from Crete is merely founded upon the very indefinite statements of Tacitus (Hist. v. 3, 2), “Judaeos Creta insula profugos novissima Libyae insedisse memorant,” and that of Steph. Byz. (s. v. Γαζά), to the effect that the city of Gaza was once called Minoa, from Minos a king of Crete, - statements which, according to the correct estimate of Strauss (l.c.), “have all so evidently the marks of fables that they hardly merit discussion,” at all events when opposed to the historical testimony of the Old Testament (Deu 2:23; Amo 9:7), to the effect that the Philistines sprang from Caphtor. And secondly, “it is a priori altogether improbable, that a man with so patriotic a heart, and so devoted to the worship of the one God, should have surrounded himself with a foreign and heathen body-guard” (Thenius). This argument cannot be invalidated by the remark “that it is well known that at all times kings and princes have preferred to commit the protection of their persons to foreign mercenaries, having, as they thought, all the surer pledge of their devotedness in the fact that they did not spring from the nation, and were dependent upon the ruler alone” (Hitzig). For, in the first place, the expression “at all times” is one that must be very greatly modified; and secondly, this was only done by kings who did not feel safe in the presence of their own people, which was not the case with David. And the Philistines, those arch-foes of Israel, would have been the last nation that David would have gone to for the purpose of selecting his own body-guard. It is true that he himself had met with a hospitable reception in the land of the Philistines; but it must be borne in mind that it was not as king of Israel that he found refuge there, but as an outlaw flying from Saul the king of Israel, and even then the chiefs of the Philistines would not trust him (1Sa 29:3.). And when Hitzig appeals still further to the fact, that according to 2Sa 18:2, David handed over the command of a third of his army to a foreigner who had recently entered his service, having emigrated from Gath with a company of his fellow-countrymen (2Sa 15:19-20, 2Sa 15:22), and who had displayed the greatest attachment to the person of David (2Sa 15:21), it is hardly necessary to observe that the fact of David’s welcoming a brave soldier into his army, when he had come over to Israel, and placing him over a division of the army, after he had proved his fidelity so decidedly as Ittai had at the time of Absalom’s rebellion, is no proof that he chose his body-guard from the Philistines. Nor can 2Sa 15:18 be adduced in support of this, as the notion that, according to that passage, David had 600 Gathites in his service as body-guard, is simply founded upon a misinterpretation of the passage mentioned.

And David’s sons were כּהנים (“confidants”); not priests, domestic priests, court chaplains, or spiritual advisers, as Gesenius, De Wette, and others maintain, but, as the title is explained in the corresponding text of the Chronicles, when the title had become obsolete, “the first at the hand (or side) of the king.” The correctness of this explanation is placed beyond the reach of doubt by 1Ki 4:5, where the cohen is called, by way of explanation, “the king’s friend.” The title cohen may be explained from the primary signification of the verb כּהן, as shown in the corresponding verb and noun in Arabic (“res alicujus gerere,” and “administrator alieni negotii”). These cohanim, therefore, were the king’s confidential advisers.

David's Conquests. (b. c. 1042.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Conquers Edom. (b. c. 1042.)

9 When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, 10 Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass: 11 Which also king David did dedicate unto the Lord , with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued; 12 Of Syria, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah. 13 And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men. 14 And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David's servants. And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went.

Here is, 1. The court made to David by the king of Hamath, who, it seems was at this time at war with the king of Zobah. He hearing of David's success against his enemy, sent his own son ambassador to him (v. 9, 10), to congratulate him on his victory, to return him thanks for the favour he had done him in breaking the power of one he was in fear of, and to beg his friendship. Thus he not only secured but strengthened himself. And David lost nothing by taking this little prince under his protection, any more than the old Romans did by the like policy; for the wealth he had from the countries he conquered by way of spoil he had from this by way of present or gratuity: Vessels of silver and gold. Better get by composition than by compulsion. 2. The offering David made to God of the spoils of the nations and all the rich things that were brought him. He dedicated all to the Lord, v. 11, 12. This crowned all his victories, and made them far to out-shine Alexander's or Caesar's, that they sought their own glory, but he aimed at the glory of God. All the precious things he was master of were dedicated things, that is, they were designed for the building of the temple; and a good omen it was of kindness to the Gentiles in the fulness of time, and of the making of God's house a house of prayer for all people, that the temple was built of the spoils and presents of Gentile nations, in allusion to which we find the kings of the earth bringing their glory and honour into the new Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 24. Their gods of gold David burnt (2 Sam. v. 21), but their vessels of gold he dedicated. Thus in the conquest of a soul, by the grace of the Son of David, what stands in opposition to God must be destroyed, every lust mortified and crucified, but what may glorify him must be dedicated and the property of it altered. Even the merchandise and the hire must be holiness to the Lord (Isa. xxiii. 18), the gain consecrated to the Lord of the whole earth (Mic. iv. 13), and then it is truly our own and that most comfortably. 3. The reputation he got, in a particular manner, by his victory over the Syrians and their allies the Edomites, who acted in conjunction with them, as appears by comparing the title of the 60th Psalm, which was penned on this occasion, with v. 13. He got himself a name for all that conduct and courage which are the praise of a great and distinguished general. Something extraordinary, it is likely, there was in that action, which turned very much to his honour, yet he is careful to transfer the honour to God, as appears by the psalm he penned on this occasion, v. 12. It is through God that we do valiantly. 4. His success against the Edomites. They all became David's servants, v. 14. Now, and not till now, Isaac's blessing was accomplished, by which Jacob was made Esau's Lord (Gen. xxvii. 37-40) and the Edomites continued long tributary to the kings of Judah, as the Moabites were to the kings of Israel, till, in Joram's time, they revolted (2 Chron. xxi. 8) as Isaac had there foretold that Esau should, in process of time, break the yoke from off his neck. Thus David by his conquests, (1.) Secured peace to his son, that he might have time to build the temple. And, (2.) Procured wealth for his son, that he might have wherewith to build it. God employs his servants variously, some in one employment, others in another, some in the spiritual battles, others in the spiritual buildings; and one prepares work for the other, that God may have the glory of all. All David's victories were typical of the success of the gospel against the kingdom of Satan, in which the Son of David rode forth, conquering and to conquer, and he shall reign till he has brought down all opposing rule, principality, and power: and he has, as David had (v. 2), a line to kill and a line to save; for the same gospel is to some a savour of life unto life, to others a savour of death unto death.

David's Administration of the Government of Israel. (b. c. 1042.)

15 And David reigned over all Israel; and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people. 16 And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; 17 And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe; 18 And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David's sons were chief rulers.

David was not so engaged in his wars abroad as to neglect the administration of the government at home.

I. His care extended itself to all the parts of his dominion: He reigned over all Israel (v. 15); not only he had a right to reign over all the tribes, but he did so; they were all safe under his protection, and shared in the fruits of his good government.

II. He did justice with an unbiased unshaken hand: He executed judgment unto all his people, neither did wrong nor denied or delayed right to any. This intimates, 1. His industry and close application to business, his easiness of access and readiness to admit all addresses and appeals made to him. All his people, even the meanest, and those too of the meanest tribes, were welcome to his council-board. 2. His impartiality and the equity of his proceedings, in administering justice. He never perverted justice through favour or affection, nor had respect of persons in judgment. Herein he was a type of Christ, who was faithful and true, and who doth in righteousness both judge and make war, Rev. xix. 11. See Ps. lxxii. 1, 2.

III. He kept good order and good officers in his court. David being the first king that had an established government (for Saul's reign was short and unsettled) he had the modelling of the administration. In Saul's time we read of no other great officer than Abner, that was captain of the host. But David appointed more officers: Joab that was general of the forces in the field, and Banaiah that was over the Cherethites and Pelethites, who were either the city train-bands (archers and slingers, so the Chaldee), or rather the life-guards, or standing force, that attended the king's person, the pretorian band, the militia. They were ready to do service at home, to assist in the administering of justice, and to preserve the public peace. We find them employed in proclaiming Solomon, 1 Kings i. 38. 2. Two ecclesiastical officers: Zadok and Ahimelech were priests, that is, they were most employed in the priests' work under Abiathar, the high priest. 3. Two civil officers: one that was recorder, or remembrancer, to put the king in mind of business in its season (he was prime minister of state, yet not entrusted with the custody of the king's conscience, as they say of our lord chancellor, but only of the king's memory; let the king be put in mind of business and he would do it himself); another that was scribe, or secretary of state, that drew up public orders and despatches, and recorded judgments given. 4. David's sons, as they grew up to be fit for business, were made chief rulers; they had places of honour and trust assigned them, in the household, or in the camp, or in the courts of justice, according as their genius led them. They were chief about the king (so it is explained, 1 Chron. xviii. 17), employed near him, that they might be under his eye. Our Lord Jesus has appointed officers in his kingdom, for his honour and the good of the community; when he ascended on high he gave these gifts (Eph. iv. 8-11), to every man his work, Mark xiii. 34. David made his sons chief rulers; but all believers, Christ's spiritual seed, are better preferred, for they are made to our God kings and priests, Rev. i. 6.