II SAMUEL 8 COMME�TARYWritten and edited by Glenn Pease

PREFACE

This is a hard chapter to get excited about. Pink tries to make it inspirational andinformative, but it takes him forever, and when he is done with one verse he cannotcontinue to make this chapter a great source of encouragement or inspiration. It isall about victories in war over nations we have so little concern about, and so it isnot likely anyone's favorite chapter. Most preachers skip it in their series on IISamuel, and many commentators just skip it as well. The great preachers likeSpurgeon and Maclaren do not deal with this chapter at all. It is a focus on violenceand war, and not a pleasant chapter to read, or expound on, and that is why mostskip it.

All of David's victories made him a famous and rich man, and he began compilingthe fortune that Solomon started off with in his reign. He also dedicated his riches toGod's service. All of these victories are important, for they set the stage forSolomon's great reign of peace. He did not have to go out and fight battles, forDavid had already done that. Solomon could have a reign of peace because of whatDavid did. Most all of us have this same experience. We live in peace because ofthose who went into battle before us, and they eliminated the threats that we wouldotherwise have to face and fight ourselves.

The commentaries often have little to say, and so much is just technical, but we needto seek for values that come from every part of God's word, and that is what I seekto do in this commentary. Most of those I quote are old commentators, but some aremore contemporary, and if any of these do not wish to have their wisdom shared inthis way, they can let me know, and I will delete it. My e-mail address isglenn_p86@yahoo.com

I�TRODUCTIO�

1. Constable in his commentary gives us a good introduction to this chapter. Hewrote, “From the religious heights of chapter 7 we descend again to the everydayworld of battles and bloodshed in chapter 8. The military action picks up where the

story left off at the end of chapter 5." Chapter 8 evidently describes the conquest ofDavid's enemies that took place before David brought the ark into Jerusalem (ch. 6)and received the Davidic Covenant (ch. 7). An apparent problem with this view isthe statement, "�ow after this," in verse 1. However since 7:1 says God had givenDavid rest from all his enemies, chapter 8 must precede chapter 7 and probablychapter 6. "After this" most likely refers to the battles with the Philistines the writerrecorded in 5:17-25. Following those battles David had one or more other conflictswith the Philistines described in 8:1. The chief city of the Philistines (v. 1) was Gath(cf. 1 Chron. 18:1). The writer described David's military campaigns from west (v.1) to east (v. 2) to north (vv. 3-11) to south (vv. 13-14) suggesting victory in everydirection, total success thanks to Yahweh (vv. 6, 14). "The Philistines consideredthemselves the legitimate heirs of the Egyptian rule in Palestine and their defeat byDavid implied the passage of the Egyptian province of Canaan into the hands of theIsraelites."

2. Brian Morgan, “The battles summarized here, which took place over a period oftwelve years, gather up David's military and administrative successes as king ofIsrael. These conquests took his rule to new heights never before achieved byhimself or by any other leader in Israel. In much of this we can see God fulfilling hispromises of chapter 7 to make David a name and to plant his people Israel in peace.God would be victorious over Israel's enemies.

What is so striking in the description of the battles is the stark brevity with whichthey are catalogued. Often just one verb ("David smote") is used to describe anentire campaign. This is rather amazing when we realize that David was dealingwith international conflicts involving thousands of troops. The numbers arestaggering: 1,700 horsemen, 20,000 foot soldiers, 22,000 Arameans, 18,000Arameans. They convey a feel for the surge of irresistible power driving David'stidal wave of success which moves through foreign soil at breakneck speed. When afew details are given to linger over, even then the focus is not on the battle, but on itsaftermath. This emphasizes the new heights David has achieved. He is now thedominant force on the international scene.”

3. Bob Deffinbaugh, “It may be helpful to our understanding of the events of thesechapters to establish the background for what is about to happen by callingattention to several relevant facts:

First, the peoples and the places we are about to discuss are those which surroundthe nation Israel. These are not distant places and peoples, but those near Israel,which impact Israel's past, present, and future.

Second, these are peoples and places that occupied the territory God gave to Israel(see Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-18; 15:18-21; Exodus 23:31), which the Israelites hadneither overcome nor possessed (see Judges 1:1-36; 3:1-6).

Third, these are not international super-powers but small kingdoms, much like city-states. The Bible does speak of the super-power nations such as Egypt, Assyria,Babylon, and Rome, but these are not what David and the Israelites are dealing within our text. These are small nations which surround Israel. To protect themselvesand to promote their own interests, they must enter into alliances with other smallkingdoms.

Fourth, we know from chapter 7, verse 1, that this is a time of relative peace. It isnot a permanent peace, however. Israel's enemies are not presently attacking thepeople of God or her king. The Philistines have tried -- twice -- to nip David's reignin the bud, but they have not succeeded (2 Samuel 5:17-25). In chapter 8, David isnot on the defensive as much as he is on the offensive. This is due, in part, to thepromise of a more permanent peace God gives David in this time of temporarypeace:

8 “�ow therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD ofhosts, “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over Mypeople Israel. 9 “I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off allyour enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names ofthe great men who are on the earth. 10 “I will also appoint a place for My peopleIsrael and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not bedisturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, 11 even fromthe day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give yourest from all your enemies” (2 Samuel 7:8-11a).

Fifth, David is acting on the basis of this promise, made in chapter 7, when heactively and aggressively sets forth to subdue the enemies of Israel and to possess theliberty and the land God had promised. There is no command to David recordedhere, just as there is no crisis caused by foreign aggression (as with the Philistines inchapter 5). I believe David acts on the basis of the promises God made earlier toIsrael, and on the basis of his previous commands to Israel to possess the land.David does not ask for divine guidance here because he does not need it, and he doesnot need it because it has already been given. David is now in power, and he sets outto do the things that heretofore have been left undone.”

4. Blaikie : “We are called to contemplate David in a remarkable light, as aprofessional warrior, a man of the sword, a man of blood; wielding the weapons ofdestruction with all the decision and effect of the most daring commanders. That thesweet singer of Israel, from whose tender heart those blessed words poured out towhich the troubled soul turns for composure and peace, should have been sofamiliar with the horrors of the battle- field is indeed a surprise. We can only saythat he was led to regard all this rough work as indispensable to the very existenceof his kingdom and to the fulfillment of the great ends for which Israel had beencalled.”

David's Victories

1 In the course of time, David defeated the Philistinesand subdued them, and he took Metheg Ammah fromthe control of the Philistines.

1. Jamison, “took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines — that is, Gathand her suburban towns (1Ch_18:1). That town had been “a bridle” by which thePhilistines kept the peoof Judah in check. David used it now as a barrier to repressthat restless enemy.”

1B. Grant, “God's declaration to David of His sovereign counsels in chapter 7 andDavid's submission and worship had good practical effect. �otice it is "after this"(v.1) that David defeated and subdued the Philistines, taking control of their capitalcity (Gath). Saul had never been able to do this: in fact he was soundly defeated bythe Philistines and killed in his last battle with them (1 Samuel 31). The reason forthis was that he was more interested in his own self-importance than in the counselsof God. He never learned to honestly depend on the living God, therefore he couldnot be depended on to fight God's battles. May we, like David, learn to fully submitin adoring worship to the truth of the authoritative Word of God. Only in this wayshall we gain victories for Him. The Philistines picture mere formal religion overwhich only faith can gain the victory, for the things of God are vital and real to aman of faith, not a matter of empty ritual.”

1C. “David didn't avoid fighting the Philistines because Israel had lost to them somany times before. “The thing that fascinates me about this complete victory is theutter contempt with which David treated the great power of his adversaries.”(Redpath)

2. Clarke, “David-ammah- This is variously translated. The Vulgate has, Tulit David

fraenum tributi, David removed the bondage of the tribute, which the Israelites paidto the Philistines. Some think it means a fortress, city, or strong town; but no suchplace as Metheg-ammah is known.”

3. Gill, “after this it came to pass,.... After David had rest from his enemies for atime, and after the conversation he had had with �athan about building the house ofGod, and after the message sent to him from the Lord by that prophet, forbiddinghim to build, and David's prayer to the Lord upon it, the following eventshappened; and which are recorded to show that David's rest from his enemies didnot last long, and that he had other work to do than to build the house of God:

that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them; these had been long andimplacable enemies of Israel; Samson began to weaken them in his days; a war waswaged between them and Israel in the times of Samuel and Saul, and the battlesometimes went on one side and sometimes on the other; but now David made anentire conquest of them: before they had used to come into the land of Israel, andthere fight with Israel, but now David entered into their land, and took it from :

and David took Methegammah out of the hands of the Philistines; the name of aprovince in Palestine, and from the parallel place in 1Ch_18:1, it appears to be , andits adjacent towns; but why that was called the bridle of Ammah, or the bridle of acubit, as it may be rendered, is not easy to say. The conjecture of Kimchi is, thatthere was a pool or river of water, so Ammah is thought to signify; and Aquilarenders it a water course, which passed through the city, having been brought fromwithout it into it, the communication of which from place to place it may be Davidcut off, by stopping or turning its stream; but interpreters more generally supposethat Gath was built upon an hill called Ammah, see 2Sa_2:24; thought to be thesame with the Amgaris of Pliny (d)though that is sometimes read Angaris, amountain he places in Palestine; and that it was called Metheg, a bridle, becausebeing a frontier city, and being very strong and powerful, erected into a kingdom, itwas a curb and bridle upon the Israelites; but now David taking it out of theirhands, opened his way for the more easy subduing the rest of their country: or theword may be rendered Metheg and her mother, that is, Gath, the metropolis, sincethat and her daughters, or towns, are said to be taken, 1Ch_18:1; and Metheg mightbe one of them.”

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

I. He quite subdued the Philistines, 2Sa_8:1. They had attacked him when theythought him weak (2Sa_5:17), and went by the worst then; but, when he foundhimself strong, he attacked them, and made himself master of their country. Theyhad 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 hadbegun long before, Jdg_13:5. Metheg-ammahwas Gath(the chief and royal city of thePhilistines) and the towns belonging to it, among which there was a constantgarrison kept by the Philistines on the hill Ammah (2Sa_2:24), which was Metheg,abridle(so it signifies) or curbupon the people of Israel; this David took out of theirhand and used it as a curb upon them. Thus, when the strong man is disarmed, thearmour wherein he trusted is taken from him, and used against him, Luk_11:22.And after the long and frequent struggles which the saints have had with the powersof darkness, like Israel with the Philistines, the Son of David shall tread them allunder their feet and make the saints more than conquerors.”

5. Keil, “of the Philistines. - In the introductory formula, “And it came to pass

afterwards,”the expression “afterwards”cannot refer specially to the contents of 2Samuel 7, for reasons also given, but simply serves as a general formula of transitionto attach what follows to the account just completed, as a thing happenedafterwards. This is incontestably evident from a comparison of 2Sa_10:1, where thewar with the Ammonites and Syrians, the termination and result of which are givenin 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 thegovernment from them and made them tributary. The figurative expressionMetheg-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 toanother 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 asingle passage to support the rendering “arm” for ammah. The word is a feminineform of אם, mother, and only used in a tropical sense. “Mother”is a term applied tothe chief city or capital, both in Arabic and Phoenician (vid., Ges.Thes. p. 112). Thesame figure is also adopted in Hebrew, where the towns dependent upon the capitalare called its daughters (vid., Jos_15:45, Jos_15:47). In 1Ch_18:1the figurativeexpression is dropped for the more literal one: “David took Gath and its daughtersout of the hand of the Philistines,” i.e., he wrested Gath and the other towns fromthe Philistines. The Philistines had really five cities, every one with a prince of itsown (Jos_13:3). This was the case even in the time of Samuel (1Sa_6:16-17). But inthe closing years of Samuel, Gath had a kingwho stood at the head of all the princesof the Philistines (1Sa_29:2., cf. 1Sa_27:2). Thus Gath became the capital of the landof the Philistines, which held the bridle (or reins) of Philistia in its own hand. Theauthor of the Chronicles has therefore given the correct explanation of the figure.The one suggested by Ewald, Bertheau, and others, cannot be correct, - namely, thatDavid wrested from the Philistines the power which they had hitherto exercised overthe Israelites. The simple meaning of the passage is, that David wrested from thePhilistines the power which the capital had possessed over the towns dependentupon it, i.e., over the whole of the land of Philistia; in other words, he brought thecapital (Gath) and the other towns of Philistia into his own power. The referenceafterwards made to a king of Gath in the time of Solomon in 1Ki_2:39is by nomeans at variance with this; for the king alluded to was one of the tributarysovereigns, as we may infer from the fact that Solomon ruled over all the kings onthis side of the Euphrates as far as to Gaza (1Ki_5:1, 1Ki_5:4).”

6. Robert Roe, “The first thing David did was strike the enemies of God, thePhilistines. He took their chief city and brought them into subjugation thus securinghis coastal flank. He also gained control of the Via Maris, one of the twointernational trade routes between the Fertile Crescent and Egypt, which ran downthe west side of Palestine. Incidentally before he was through, he also controlled theKing's Highway, the other international trade route which ran through Damascusdown the eastern side of the Jordan to the Gulf of Elath which was the right hand

finger of the Red Sea.”

7. Arthur W.Pink gives us the longest commentary on this verse, and it is so longthat it could very well be the longest comment he ever made on a single verse. Hecovers a great deal of ground in seeking to make a rather obscure verse afoundation for practical Christian living. He wrote, “2 Samuel 8 opens with, "Andafter this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: andDavid took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines. And he smoteMoab . . . David smote also Hadadezer" (vv. 1-3). The thoughtful reader may wellask, What is there here for me? Why are such matters as these recorded in God’sWord, to be read by His people in all generations? Are they merely a bare accountof incidents which happened thousands of years ago? If so, they can hardly hold forme anything more than what is of historical interest. But such a conclusion will befar from satisfactory to a devout inquirer, who is assured there is something ofprofit for his soul in every portion of his Father’s Word. But how to ascertain thespiritual value and practical lessons of such verses is that which sorely puzzles not afew: may it please the Lord now to enable us to render them some help at this point.Whilst it be true that none but the One who inspired the Holy Scriptures can opento any of us their hidden depths and rich treasures, yet it is also true that He placesno premium upon sloth. It is the prayerful and meditative reader who is rewardedby the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the mind, giving him to behold wondrous thingsout of God’s Law. "The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soulof the diligent shall be made fat" (Prov. 13:4). If, then, any verse of Scripture isreally to speak to our hearts, there has to be not only a crying unto God for thehearing ear, but there must be a girding up the loins of our minds and a carefulpondering of each word in the verse.

"And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines and subdued them:and David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines. And he smoteMoab David smote also Hadadezer." As he carefully weighs these statements, thespiritually-minded can hardly fail to discern One more eminent than David, even hisgreater Son and Lord. Here we may clearly behold in type the Lion of the tribe ofJudah (to which tribe the son of Jesse belonged!), springing upon and overcomingHis enemies. In figure, it is the Lord as "a man of war" (Ex. 15:3), going forth"conquering and to conquer" (Rev. 6:2), of whom it is written "For He must reigntill He hath put all enemies under His feet" (1 Cor. 15:25). Yet, precious as this is, itfails to direct us to the practical application of the passage unto our own particularcase.The question, then, returns upon us, What direct message is there in these verses forthe Christian today? �ot simply what curious signification may be found to amusehim during a few minutes’ recreation, but what practical lessons are here inculcatedwhich can be turned to useful account in his struggle to live the Christian life?�othing short of that should be before the Satan-harassed, sin-afflicted, temptation-tried soul, when he turns to the Word of God for help, instruction, strength andcomfort. �or will God fail him if he seeks in the right spirit—confessing his deepneed, pleading the all-prevailing �ame of Christ, asking God to grant him for the

Redeemer’s sake that wisdom, understanding and faith he sorely craves. Yet, let usadd, prayer is not designed to encourage laziness, for it is not a substitute fordiligent effort: the Scriptures must be "searched" (John 5:39) and "studied" if theyare to yield food to the soul.

But how is the devout and anxious reader to get at the spiritual meaning andpractical value of the verses quoted above? Well, the first thing to observe is that thecentral thing in them is, David overcoming his enemies. Put in that form, theapplication to ourselves is obvious. David is here to be viewed as a type of theChristian who is menaced by powerful foes both within and without. These are notto be suffered to lord it over the believer, but are to be engaged in mortal combat.Second, we note that David is not said to have exterminated or annihilated thoseenemies, but to have "subdued" them (v. 11), which is true to the type, and suppliesa key to its practical interpretation. Third, we must pay due attention unto the time-mark which is given in the opening verse—"And after this it came to pass that Davidsmote the Philistines"—for this is another key which unlocks for us its meaning. It isby attending carefully unto such details that we are enabled to burrow beneath thesurface of a verse."And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines." These words lookback to what was before us in 7:1, "And it came to pass, when the king sat in hishouse, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies." May wenot apply these words to the first coming of a sinner to Christ, heavily laden with aconscious load of guilt, sorely pressed by the malicious foes of his soul, now findingspiritual rest in the only One in whom and from whom it is to be obtained. HithertoDavid had been assailed again and again by the surrounding heathen, but now theLord granted him a season of repose. That season had been spent in sweetcommunion with God, in the Word (2 Sam. 7:4-17) and prayer (2 Sam. 7: 18-29).Blessed indeed is that, but let it be duly noted that communion with God is intendedto animate us for the discharge of duty. It is not upon flowery beds of ease that thebeliever is conducted to Heaven. Being led beside the still waters and being made tolie down in green pastures is a blissful experience, yet let it not be forgotten that it isa means to an end—to supply strength for the carrying out of our obligations."And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines and subdued them."We may observe a very noticeable change here: previously the Philistines had beenthe aggressors. In 2 Samuel 5 we read, "But when the Philistines heard that theyhad anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines came up to seek David . . .the Philistines also came and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim . . . Andthe Philistines came up yet again" (vv. 17, 18, 22). "From their assaults God hadgraciously given His servant rest" (2 Sam. 7:1). But now he evidently received acommission from the Lord to make war upon them. Thus it is in the initialexperience of the Christian. It is a sense of sin—its vileness, its filthiness, its guilt, itscondemnation—which drives him to Christ, and coming to Christ, he finds "rest."But having obtained forgiveness of sins and peace of conscience, he now learns thatbe must "strive against sin" (Heb. 12:4) and fight the good fight of faith. �ow thatthe young believer has been delivered from the wrath to come, he discovers that hemust "endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ" (2 Tim. 2:3), and sparenot anything within him which opposes God.

"And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subduedthem." While these words may be legitimately applied to the initial experience of thebeliever, they are by no means to be restricted thereunto. They contain a principlewhich pertains to the Christian life as a whole, and to every stage thereof. Thatprinciple is that before we are fitted to engage our spiritual enemies we must firstspend a season in communion with God: only thus and only then can strength beobtained for the conflict which lies before us. Renewed efforts to subdue ourpersistent foes can only be made (with any degree of success) as we are renewed bythe Spirit in the inner man, and that is only to be obtained by feeding on the Word(2 Sam. 7:4-17) and by prayer (2 Sam. 7:18-29)—the two chief means of communionwith God.

"And David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines." Here ourpassage passes from the general to the particular, and a most important practicaltruth is here inculcated. This is another case when Scripture has to be comparedwith Scripture in order to understand its terms. 1 Chronicles 18 is parallel with 2Samuel 8, and by comparing the language of the opening verse of the former we areenabled to arrive at the meaning of our text: "�ow after this it came to pass, thatDavid smote the Philistines, and subdued them, and took Gath and her towns out ofthe hand of the Philistines." Thus "Methegammah" has reference to "Gath and hertowns." �ow Gath (with its suburbs) was the metropolis of Philistia, being afortified city on a high hill (2 Sam. 2:24). In our text it is called "Methegammah"which means "the bridle of the mother city." It had long acted as a "bridle" or curbupon Israel, serving as a barrier to their further occupation of Canaan. So much,then, for the etymological and historical meaning: now for the typical.What was denoted spiritually by "Gath and her towns"? In seeking the answer tothis question let us carefully bear in mind the three details mentioned above: Gathoccupied a powerful eminence, it was the metropolis or mother-city, it had served asa "bridle" upon Israel. Surely the practical application of this to ourselves is notdifficult: is it not some master lust in our souls or dominant sin in our lives which ishere represented?It is not the eyelashes which require trimming, but the "eye" itself which must beplucked out; it is not the fingernails which need paring, but the "right hand" whichmust be cut off (Matthew 5:29, 30), if the Christian would make any headway inovercoming his inward corruptions. It is to his special "besetting sin" he must directhis attention. �o truce is to be made with it, no excuses offered for it. �o matter howfirmly entrenched it may be, nor how long it has held sway, grace must be diligentlyand persistently sought to conquer it. That darling sin which has so long beencherished by an evil heart must be slain: if it be "spared," as Saul spared Agag, itwill slay us. The work of mortification is to begin at the place where sin has itsstrongest hold upon us.The subduing of the Philistines, and particularly the capture of Gath, was vitallyessential if Israel was to gain their rights, for as yet they were not in full possessionof the land to which, by the divine promise, they were entitled. Canaan had beengiven to them by God as their heritage, but valiant effort, hard fighting, was calledfor, in order to bring about their occupation of the same. This is a point which hassorely puzzled many. It is clear from Scripture that the land of Canaan was a figure

of Heaven, but there is no fighting in Heaven! True, but the believer is not yet inHeaven; nevertheless, Heaven ought to be in him, by which we mean that even nowthe believer should be walking in the daily enjoyment of that wondrous portionwhich is now his by having been made a joint heir with Christ. Alas, how little is thisfact appreciated by the majority of God’s dear people today, and how little are theyexperimentally possessing "their possessions" (Obadiah 17).It is greatly to be regretted that so many of the saints relegate to the future the timeof their victory, joy and bliss; and seem content to live in the present as though theywere spiritual paupers. For example, how generally are the words "For so anentrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom ofour Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:11) regarded as referring to the timeof the believer’s glorification. But there is nothing whatever in the context towarrant such a view, nothing required in it to understand that "abundant entrance"as belonging to a day to come, nothing to justify us postponing it at all in ourthoughts. Instead, there is much against it. In the preceding verses the apostle isexhorting the believer to make his calling and election "sure," and this by adding tohis faith "virtue" etc. (vv. 5-7), assuring him that by so doing he shall "never fall,"and adding "for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly."Legally, the believer has already been "delivered from the power of darkness andtranslated into the kingdom of Gods dear Son" (Col. 1:13), but experimentally an"abundant entrance" there into is dependent upon his spiritual growth and thecultivation of his graces. The believer has already been begotten unto "aninheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved inHeaven" for him (1 Peter 1:4), but his practical enjoyment thereof turns upon theexercise of faith. "Abraham," said Christ, "rejoiced to see My day" (John 8:56):and how did the patriarch "see" it? Why, by faith, for there was no other way inwhich he could see it: by the exercise of faith in the sure promises of God. And whatwas the effect upon Abraham of this entrancing vision which faith brought to him?This, "And he saw it and was glad." In like manner, the believer now is to use thelong distance lens of faith and view his promised inheritance, and rejoice therein;then will "the joy of the Lord" be his "strength" (�eh. 8:10).Israel had a valid title to the land of Canaan: it was theirs by the gift of God. Butenemies sought to prevent their occupation of it: and enemies seek to hinder theChristian from faith’s appropriation and enjoyment of his "inheritance." And whatare those enemies? Chiefly, the lusts of the flesh, sinful habits, evil ways. Faith

cannot be in healthy exercise while we yield to the lusts of the flesh. How many a saintis sighing because his faith is so feeble, so spasmodic, so fruitless. Here is the cause:allowed sin! Faith and sin are opposites, opponents, and the one cannot flourishuntil the other be subdued. It is vain to pray for more faith until we start in earnestto mortify our lusts, crucify our Christ-dishonoring corruptions, and wrestle withand overcome our besetting sins; and that can only be accomplished by ferventlyand untiringly seeking enabling grace from on High."David smote the Philistines, and subdued them." In figure that represents thebeliever waging unsparing warfare upon all within him that is opposed to God,"denying ungodliness and worldly lusts" in order mat he may "live soberly,righteously and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:12). It represents the believer

doing what the apostle speaks of in 1 Corinthians 9:27, "But I keep under my body,and bring it into subjection:" his "body" there referring not so much to thephysical, as to the "old man" within, the "body of sin" (Rom. 6:6), "this body ofdeath" (Rom. 7:24 margin); or as it is spoken of elsewhere as "the body of the sinsof the flesh" (Col. 2:11), Indwelling sin is spoken of in these passages as a "body"because it has, as it were, a complete set of members or faculties of its own; andthese must be subdued by the Christian: "Casting down imaginations, and everyhigh thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing intocaptivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5),"And David took Methegammah out of the land of the Philistines," Typically thisturns, as we have previously said, from the general unto the particular—from thework of mortification as a whole to the crucifying of a special sin which prevailsagainst the saint. In figure it represents the believer concentrating his attentionupon and conquering his master lust or chief besetting sin, that "mother" evil whichis the prolific source of so many iniquities, that "bridle" which has for so longhindered his entering into God’s best for him. But our space is exhausted: as thesubject is of such vital moment we will continue it in our next chapter.

Pink goes on in another chapter to write, “David’s smiting of the Philistines andsubduing them is a figure of the work of mortification to which God calls theChristian: "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication,uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence and covetousness" (Col. 3:5).The clear call of God to His people is, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortalbody, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof" (Rom. 6: 12). The Christian mustnot suffer his fleshly lusts to lord it over, him, but is to engage them in mortalcombat, refusing to spare anything in him which is opposed to God. David’s takingof "Methegammah" (which means "the bridle of the mother") out of the hands ofthe Philistines, speaks of the believer devoting his special attention unto his masterlust or besetting sin, for until that be (by grace) conquered there can be no realexperimental progress in spiritual things; "Wherefore putting away lying, speakevery man truth to his neighbor Let him that stole, steal no more . . . Let no corruptcommunication proceed out of your mouth" (Eph. 4:25, 28, 29).�ow David’s subduing of the Philistines and his capture of Methegammah, theirchief stronghold, was imperatively necessary if Israel was to gain possession andoccupy their inheritance, and it is this fact which we desire to press most upon thereader. The Christian has been begotten unto a blessed and eternal inheritance inHeaven: from his eventual entrance into it Satan cannot keep him, but from hispresent possession and enjoyment thereof he seeks by might and main to rob him;and unless the believer be duly instructed and steadfastly resists him, then theenemy will prove only too successful. Alas that so few of the Lord’s people realizewhat their present privileges are; alas that so many of them relegate unto the futurewhat is theirs now in title; alas that they are so ignorant of Satan’s devices and sodilatory in seeking to resist the great robber of their souls.

The believer has, even now, a rich and wondrous portion in Christ; a portion whichis available and accessible unto faith: "For all things are yours; whether Paul, orApollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to

come; all are yours; and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s" (1 Cor. 3:21-23). ButO how little are we impressed by such glorious declarations as these; how little dowe enter into them in a practical way; how little do we appropriate them. We aremuch like the man who died in poverty, knowing not that a valuable estate had beenleft to him. Instead of setting our affections upon things above, we act as thoughthere was nothing there for us until we pass through the portals of the grave. "InThy presence is fulness of joy; at Thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore"(Ps. 16: 11)—now as well as in the future!O what a tremendous difference it makes whether or not the Christian be living inthe present enjoyment of his eternal inheritance. What power could the attractionsof this world have for one whose heart is on high? �one at all. Instead, they wouldappear to him in their true light, as worthless baubles. How little would he beaffected by the loss of a few temporal things: not making them his "treasure" orchief good, the loss of them could neither destroy his peace nor kill his joy—"Andtook joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have inheaven a better and an enduring substance" (Heb. 10:64). How little wouldtribulation and suffering move us from a steady pressing forward along the path ofduty: "who for the joy that was set before Him (by faith) endured the cross,despising the shame" (Heb. 12:2).But for the present enjoyment of our eternal inheritance faith must be in exercise,for "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"(Heb. 11:1). Faith is that which gives visibility and tangibility to that which isinvisible to sight. Faith is that which gives reality to the things which hope is setupon. Faith brings near what is far off. Faith lifts the heart above the things of timeand sense:"By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son ofPharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God,than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christgreater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense ofthe reward" (Heb. 11:24-26). Ah, the "recompense of the reward" was a livingreality unto Moses, and under the elevating power thereof the flesh-inviting offer ofEgypt’s princess was powerless to drag him down. And, my reader, if "ourcitizenship is in heaven" (Phil 3:20) in a practical way, so far from the baits of Satantempting us, they will repel.But, as we pointed out in the preceding chapter, faith cannot be in healthy operationwhile the work of mortification be neglected. If we yield to the solicitations of ourfleshly and worldly lusts, if we fail to crucify our besetting sins, if any evil be"allowed" by us, then faith will be suffocated and rendered inactive. Just as boththe Canaanites and the Israelites could not possess the promised land at one and thesame time—one being compelled to yield occupancy to the other—so neither canfaith and sin rule the heart at one and the same time. The idolatrous Canaanitesalready had possession of the promised land when God gave it to them, and only by

hard fighting could the Israelites secure it for themselves. in like manner sinful lustsoriginally possess the heart of the Christian, and it is only by hard fighting that theycan be dispossessed and the heart be filled with heaven.As the Canaanites were vanquished, the Israelites occupied their places. Thus it

must be spiritually. The mortification of sin is in order to the vivification ofspirituality. The garden plot must first be clear of weeds and rubbish before it isready for the vegetables and flowers to be planted therein. Hence the oft-repeatedword is, "Cease to do evil, Learn to do well" (Isa. 1:16,17), "depart from evil and dogood" (Ps. 34:14), "hate the evil and love the good" (Amos 5: 15)—the secondcannot be attended to until the first be accomplished. "Put off concerning theformer conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitfullusts . . . Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and trueholiness" (Eph. 4:22, 24). That is God’s unchanging order throughout: we must"cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit," if we wouldknow "perfect holiness in His fear."

How instructive and how striking is the order in Obadiah 17, "But upon mountZion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shallpossess their possessions." First, there is deliverance upon "mount Zion," which iswhere Christ is, for in Psalm 2:6 God declares, "Yet have I set My King upon Myholy hill of Zion." Only by Christ can the sin-harassed believer obtain"deliverance" from those enemies which are ever threatening to destroy his peace,joy and usefulness. Second, following the "deliverance" is the promise of "holiness,"which is a positive thing, a moral quality of purity, with the added signification ofdevotedness unto God. But note this cannot be before the "deliverance"! Third,there is then the assurance that God’s people shall "possess their possessions," thatis, actually enjoy them, live in the power thereof.”

2 David also defeated the Moabites. He made them liedown on the ground and measured them off with alength of cord. Every two lengths of them were put todeath, and the third length was allowed to live. So theMoabites became subject to David and brought tribute.

1. Jamison, “smote Moab, and measured them with a line— This refers to a well-known practice of Eastern kings, to command their prisoners of war, particularlythose who, notorious for the atrocity of their crimes or distinguished by theindomitable spirit of their resistance, had greatly incensed the victors, to lie down onthe ground. Then a certain portion of them, which was determined by lot, but mostcommonly by a measuring-line, were put to death. Our version makes him put two-thirds to death, and spare one-third. The Septuagintand Vulgatemake one-half. Thiswar usage was not, perhaps, usually practiced by the people of God; but Jewishwriters assert that the cause of this particular severity against this people was theirhaving massacred David’s parents and family, whom he had, during his exile,

committed to the king of Moab.

1B. “This jarring note is not easy to reconcile with friendlier relations that Davidhad with Moab earlier in his career (1 Sam. 22:3-4: David left his parents with theKing of Moab for safe-keeping!). Remember, David was the great-grandson of Ruththe Moabitess. Something must have happened in the meantime. Perhaps Moabjoined in an alliance with the anti-Israelite kingdoms of the Trans-Jordan.” authorunknown

1C. Brian Morgan, “This wave of success lands David on dangerous ground. Successoftentimes spawns a perilous euphoria that can lift our senses up to heaven, but itcan just as easily sweep us away to hell. When the air around us is permeated withsuccess, when we seem fused with God's perennial activity, and we are at the centerof everything that is significant, it is tempting to endow ourselves with some aspectof deity. In the language of the Moabite tribute, the narrator gives subtle hints thatthis is the shift that is occurring here: "the Moabites became servants to David,bringing tribute." The term "tribute" (minchah) is normally a "gift" (usually agrain offering) brought to the Lord by his servants. �ow David is receiving it whilethe Moabites become his servants. David's euphoria causes him to cross the sacredline between being a servant of God engaged in holy war and becoming a god untohimself. When that happens, a horrible detachment from human beings occurs thatgives birth to the most terrifying wickedness.We see this in the heartless subjugation of the Moabites.

And he defeated Moab, and measured them with the line, making themlie down on the ground; and he measured two lines to put to death andone full line to keep alive. And the Moabites became servants to David,bringing tribute.

David lines the Moabites on the ground and measures them off with a rope todetermine who lives and dies. David, the undisputed victor, now makes sure heremains victor by demonstrating that he is lord of life and death--and this isdetermined arbitrarily, by the length of a rope. In the end, twice as many Moabitesare dead as alive. Those who managed to survive are left in awe that this "lord"permitted it. In this way David commands their allegiance for their remaining days.Such servants often end up as mercenaries of the worst kind, carrying out the dirtywork of kings and commandants.

Here then we find the strange juxtaposition of holy devotion inside the temple andrandom violence on the battlefield--holy piety, coupled with unrestrained,humiliating, abusive emotions, practically verging on the demonic. As happens withmany of the ambiguities in life, we are left a little dazed as to how to put these thingstogether.”

1D. Grant, “In verse 2 David is seen fully defeating Moab also. The character of thisenemy of God is defined for us in Jeremiah 48:11 "Moab has been at ease from his

youth; he has settled on his dregs, and has not gone into captivity. Therefore histaste remained in him, and his scent has not changed." Moab is therefore a pictureof such religion as is seen in Laodicea (Rev.3:14-22), self-satisfied, boasting inmaterial riches, easy going, settling down in the world without the exercise of tryingcircumstances. His taste for the things of the flesh remains in him, and there is nochange in his scent. He is a stranger to the change that new birth brings. There may be a question as to what is literally meant by David's measuring themwith a line (v.2), but the spiritual significance of this is important. The self-indulgentreligion pictured by Moab has no concern for the discipline that keeps one withinproper lines of limitation. �ever having learned self-discipline, people of this kindwill be made to feel the discipline of God in measuring them precisely as they are,when the Lord Jesus takes the reigns of government. Evidently two thirds were cutoff in death as a result of this measuring, while one third were preserved alive. Thisseems to indicate that the Lord Jesus will clearly discern and divide between thosewho have given themselves up to self-indulgent religion and those who, thoughidentified with such religion, are not wholly given up to it. This is observing theprinciple, "on some have compassion, making a distinction" (Jude 22).”

1E. Bob Deffinbaugh, “..the reader may well be troubled by the severity of David'sdealings with the Moabites. When I taught school, many times I would divide agroup of students into smaller groups. I would simply have the group form a lineand then number off: one, two, three, one, two, three, . . . . In effect, this is whatDavid did. He then took two groups and put them to death, sending the third grouphome as his (very frightened) subjects.

Some might be troubled that David let so many people live. In the case of Saul andthe Amalekites, Saul lost his kingdom because he left the king alive and kept some ofthe best of the flocks of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). David let far more than thislive, so why does God not punish him for letting so many live? The answer is simple.God had a long-standing problem with the Amalekites, and He therefore orderedSaul to kill every person and all their cattle (1 Samuel 15:1-3). Saul was at faultbecause he failed to obey a direct order. David had no such order nor was itnecessary that all the Moabites be killed. In the midst of divine judgment (in thekilling of the two-thirds), mercy was shown to the one-third.

I think if we had been there, we would have found it very difficult to carry out themission David and the Israelite soldiers undertook. The very arbitrariness of it allseems harsh. It almost sounds like one of the �azi death camps, doesn't it? Onegroup of Jewish inmates went to take “showers” and were gassed to death. Anothergroup went to “shower” as well, and they came out alive and clean. How couldDavid have his men do something so similar?

Allow me to give a short answer for now, and then come back to this matter at theconclusion of this message. David is God's king. He is the King of Israel, who rulesfor God. He is God's representative. These Moabites became the enemies of Israel,and thus the enemies of God. As such, they all deserve to die. The wonder is not that

two-thirds of the Moabites are killed, but that one-third are left to live. And in thekilling of the two-thirds, any thought of resisting David or rebelling against him islaid to rest."

1F. What we learn from this verse is that war is hell, and terrible things happen inwar even by the good guys. Any nation that goes to war has to fight with a hatred ofthe enemy, and they will do things that would be criminal outside the context ofwarfare. In that context, however, it is believed that all is fair in love and war, andthe good guys do some terrible things to their enemies. �obody is nice in the contextof war. It is a blessing to be ignorant of all the horrible things that our own troopshave to do in the context of warfare. We don't know all the reasons for why Davidfelt compelled to do what he did here, but he felt justified, and we have to leave it inthe hands of God. All we know is that God refused to let David build his templebecause he was a man of war and bloodshed.

2. Barnes, “took great numbers of the Moabites prisoners of war, and made them liedown on the ground, and then divided them by a measuring line into three parts,putting two-thirds to death, and saving alive one-third. The cause of the war withthe Moabites, who had been very friendly with David 1Sa_22:3-4, and of thistreatment, is not known. But it seems likely, from the tone of Psa_60:1-12that Davidhad met with some temporary reverse in his Syrian wars, and that the Moabites andEdomites had treacherously taken advantage of it, and perhaps tried to cut off hisretreat.

3. Clarke, “- even- It has been generally conjectured that David, after he hadconquered Moab, consigned two-thirds of the inhabitants to the sword; but I thinkthe text will bear a meaning much more reputable to that king. The first clause ofthe verse seems to determine the sense; he measured them with a line, casting themdown to the ground - to put to death, and with one line to keep alive. Death seemshere to be referred to the cities by way of metaphor; and, from this view of thesubject we may conclude that two-thirds of the cities, that is, the strong places ofMoab, were erased; and not having strong places to trust to, the text adds, So theMoabites became David’s servants, and brought gifts, i.e., were obliged to paytribute. The word line may mean the same here as our rod, i.e., the instrument bywhich land is measured. There are various opinions on this verse, with which I shallnot trouble the reader.”

3B. Robert Roe, “In order to secure his eastern flank also, he attacked the Moabitenation whose land he had not been given. After he conquered them, he laid thepeople, at least the warriors, in three lines and butchered the people in two of thelines. He left the third line alive to pay tribute. God allowed him to take the land,but God certainly didn't advocate the little butcher job.”

4. Gill, “he smote Moab,.... He next went against that, and invaded it, the people of it

being always troublesome and distressing to the children of Israel; and though theking of it had shown some favour to David, yet it was when he considered him as anenemy to Saul, and Saul to him; but things having taken a different turn, his and hispeople's enmity against David and his people appeared; wherefore he went andfought them, and made them his subjects, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy ofBalaam, �um_24:17; as it referred to David:

and measured them with a line: either their country and fields, to distribute amonghis people, or rather the soldiers he took prisoners; which, as Procopius Gazaeussays, were so numerous that they could not be told, and therefore they were orderedto lie prostrate on the ground, and they were measured with a line, as it follows:

casting them down to the ground; or ordering them to lie down; though someunderstand this of casting down their cities, towers, and strong holds, and levellingthem with the ground:

even with two lines measured he; with one, so it may be supplied, as the VulgateLatin:

to put to death, and with one full line, to keep alive; that is, in measuring them withhis lines, he divided them into two parts, one he put to death, and the other, the fullline, which contained the most, he saved alive; though it seems according to ourversion, and so most understand it, that David slew two thirds, and saved one, andso Josephus (e). This must be understood of the army of the Moabites that fell intohis hands, so Josephus, who persisted and refused to submit, not of all theinhabitants of the land. The Jews say (f), that the reason of this severe treatment ofthem was because they slew the father, and mother and brethren of David, whom heto the care and custody of the king of Moab, when he fled from Saul, see 1Sa_22:3;since after that they are heard no more of; though it should rather be imputed totheir enmity against the people of Israel. The phrase of "meting out the valley ofSuccoth" seems to be an allusion to this fact, Psa_60:6, the psalm being on occasionof the victories here related:

and sothe Moabites became David's servants; the inhabitants of the land who wereleft in it, perhaps that part of the soldiers preserved alive were brought homecaptives:

and brought gifts; paid a yearly tribute to King David, as they afterwards did toSolomon and to Rehoboam, until the revolt of the ten tribes, and then they paid itunto the kings of Israel, to the times of Ahab, see 2Ki_3:4, though these gifts may bedistinct from, and besides the tribute paid, which is supposed in their beingservants, see 2Ch_17:11. Thus the Arabians (g)carried gifts to the king of Persiabesides tribute.

5. Henry, “smote the Moabites, and made them tributaries to Israel, 2Sa_8:2. Hedivided 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 theground and be servants to Israel. Dr. Lightfoot says, “He laid them on the groundand measured them with a cord, who should be slain and who should live;” and thisis called meting out the valley of Succoth,Psa_60:6. The Jews say he used this severitywith the Moabites because they had slain his parents and brethren, whom he putunder the protection of the king of Moab during his exile, 1Sa_22:3, 1Sa_22:4. Hedid it in justice, because they had been dangerous enemies to the Israel of God; andin 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 tokeep alive, though it was but one, is ordered to be a full line. Be sure to give thatlength enough; let the line of mercy be stretched to the utmost in favorem vitae- so as

to favour life.Acts of indemnity must be construed so as to enlarge the favour. �owBalaam'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, �um_24:17. TheMoabites continued tributaries to Israel till after the death of Ahab, 2Ki_3:4,2Ki_3:5. Then they rebelled and were never reduced.”

6. Pink, “"And he smote Moab" (v. 2). In order to get at the practical application ofthis unto ourselves it will be necessary to go back to earlier scriptures. From Genesis19:36, 37 we learn that Moab was the incestuous son of backslidden Lot. Theirterritory was adjacent to the land of Canaan, the Jordan dividing them (�um. 22:1;31:12). It was Balak the king of the Moabites who hired Balaam to curse Israel(�um. 22:4, 5). Her daughters were a snare to the sons of Israel (�um. 25:1). Herland also proved to be a snare unto �aomi and her family (Ruth 1:1). God used theMoabites as one of His scourges upon His wayward people in the days of the Judges(3:12-14). �o Moabite was suffered to enter into the congregation of the Lord untothe tenth generation (Deut. 23:3). It was foretold that Christ would "smite" them(�um. 24:17). In the last reference to them in Scripture we read, "Surely Moab shallbe as Sodom" (Zeph. 2:9).

From the above facts it is clear that the Moabites were a menace unto Israel, andthat there should be no fellowship between them. But the particular point which weneed to define is, exactly what do the Moabites symbolize? The answer to thisquestion is not difficult to discover: they figured the world away from God, butmore particularly, the world bordering on the domain of faith. It is not the world-bordering church, but the church-bordering world, ever inviting the people of Godto leave their own heritage and come down to their level. The Moabites were near toIsrael both by birth and locality. There was a long and a strong border-line betweenthem, namely, the Jordan, the river of death, and that had to be crossed before thepeople of God could enter their domain. Moab, then, typifies the world near thechurch; in other words, Moab stands for a mere worldly profession of the things ofGod.

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, bywhom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Gal. 6:14). The Crossof Christ is the antitype of the Jordan. It is by the Cross the Christian is separated

from the world. While the principle of the Cross—the principle of self-sacrifice,death to sin—rules the Christian, he is preserved from the blandishments of theworld. But as soon as the principle of the Cross—mortification, the denying of self—ceases to dominate, we fall victims to the fair "daughters of Moab," and commitspiritual adultery with them (�um. 25:1); in other words, our testimony degeneratesinto a mere profession; we cease to be heavenly pilgrims, and vital godlinessbecomes a thing of the past. "Every fair attractive worldly delight that makes usforget our true Home is a ‘daughter of Moab’" (F. C. Jennings)."And he smote Moab." The spiritual application of this to us today is, we must beuncompromising in our separation from an apostate Christendom, and unsparinglymortify every desire within us to flirt with worldly churches and an emptyprofession. For a child of God to come under the power of "Moab" is to have hisusefulness, power and joy, replaced with wretchedness, impotency and dishonor.Hence our urgent need of obeying that emphatic command, "Having a form ofgodliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away" (2 Tim. 3:5). It isnot that we are called upon to fight against the modern "Moabites" (as Israel didunder the Old Testament dispensation) but to mortify that within us which lustsafter their attractions. In sparing one third of the Moabites and in receiving "gifts"from them, David temporized—the sad sequel is found in 2 Kings 3:4, 5 and whatfollows.”

3 Moreover, David fought Hadadezer son of Rehob,king of Zobah, when he went to restore his controlalong the Euphrates River.

1. Jamison, “Zobah— (1Ch_18:3). This kingdom was bounded on the east by the ,and it extended westward from that river, perhaps as far north as Aleppo. It waslong the chief among the petty kingdoms of Syria, and its king bore the hereditarytitle of “Hadadezer” or “Hadarezer” (“Hadad,” that is, “helped”).

as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates — in accordance with thepromises God made to Israel that He would give them all the country as far as theEuphrates (Gen_15:18; �um_24:17). In the first campaign David signally defeatedHadadezer. Besides a great number of foot prisoners, he took from him an immenseamount 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 forbiddento 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 wantof a native breed, to procure them by purchase, the greatest damage that could bedone to such enemies was to render their horses unserviceable in war. (See alsoGen_46:6; Jos_11:6, Jos_11:9). A king of Damascene-Syria came to Hadadezer’ssuccor; but David routed those auxiliary forces also, took possession of theircountry, put garrisons into their fortified towns, and made them tributary.

2. Barnes, “Hadadezer - (see the margin) Hadarezer. Hadadezer, is the true form, asseen in the names Benhadad, Hadad (1Ki_15:18, etc.; 1Ki_11:14, etc.). Hadad wasthe chief idol, or sun-god, of the Syrians.

To recover his border - literally, to cause his hand to return. The phrase is usedsometimes literally, as e. g. Exo_4:7; 1Ki_13:4; Pro_19:24; and sometimesfiguratively, as Isa_1:25; Isa_14:27; Amo_1:8; Psa_74:11. The exact force of themetaphor must in each case be decided by the context. If, as is most probable, thisverse relates to the circumstances more fully detailed in 2Sa_10:15-19, the meaningof the phrase here will be when he (Hadadezer) went to renew his attack (uponIsrael), or to recruit his strength against Israel, at the river Euphrates.

3. Clarke, “David- - 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’sdominions which lay contiguous to it; but being attacked by David, he was totallyrouted.

4. Gill, “And David also smote Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah,....Called sometimes Aramzobah, and was a part of Syria, as its name shows.Benjamin, of Tudela (h)takes it to be the same with Haleb or Aleppo; Josephus(i)calls it Sophene; but that is placed by Ptolemy (k)beyond the Euphrates; whereasthis country must be between that river and the land of Israel, and was contiguousto it, and near Damascus; and it was so near the land of Israel, and being conqueredby David, that it became a controversy with the Jews, whether it was not to bereckoned part of it, and in several things they allow it to be equal to it (l). Rehob wasfirst king of this part of Syria, and then his son the second and last; he is calledHadarezer in 1Ch_18:3; the letters ד "D" and ר "R", being frequently changed inthe Hebrew tongue: him David fought with, and overcame:

as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates; which some understand ofHadadezer, so Jarchi and Kimchi, who attempted to recover part of his dominionsthat had been taken by some one or another from him, which lay upon the riverEuphrates; or he endeavoured to enlarge his dominions, and carry them as far asthe river, and establish the borders of them; and while he was doing this, orattempting it, David fell upon him, and routed him; or rather this refers to David,who considering that the ancient border of the land of Israel, as given to Abraham,reached to the river Euphrates, Gen_15:18; he set out on an expedition to recoverthis border, and whereas the country of this king lay in his way, he invaded that;upon which Hadadezer rose up against him, and was conquered by him, and by thismeans the border was recovered to the kingdom of Israel, and reached so far, as isplain it did in Solomon's time, 1Ki_4:21. 5.

5. Henry, “He smote the Syrians or Aramites. Of them there were two distinctkingdoms, as we find them spoken of in the title of the 60th Psalm: Aram �aharaim,- Syria of the rivers, whose head city was Damascus (famed for its rivers, 2Ki_5:12),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, 2Sa_8:3, 2Sa_8:4. As hewent to settle his border at the river Euphrates (for so far the land conveyed by thedivine grant to Abraham and his seed did extend, Gen_15:18), the king of Zobahopposed him, being himself possessed of those countries which belonged to Israel;but David routed his forces, and took his chariots and horsemen. The horsemen arehere said to be 700, but 1Ch_18:4 they are said to be 7000. If they divided theirhorse by ten in a company, as it is probable they did, the captains and companieswere 700, but the horsemen were 7000. David houghed the horses, cut the sinews oftheir hams, and so lamed them, and made them unserviceable, at least in war, Godhaving forbidden them to multiply horses, Deu_17:16. David reserved only 100chariots out of 1000 for his own use: for he placed his strength not in chariots norhorses, but in the living God (Psa_20:7), and wrote it from his own observation thata horse is a vain thing for safety, Psa_33:16, Psa_33:17. 2. The Syrians of Damascuscoming in to the relief of the king of Zobah fell with him. 22,000 were slain in thefield, 2Sa_8:5. So that it was easy for David to make himself master of the country,and garrison it for himself, 2Sa_8:6. The enemies of God's church, that think tosecure themselves, will prove, in the end, to ruin themselves, by their confederacieswith each other. Associate yourselves, and you shall be broken in pieces, Isa_8:9.”

4 David captured a thousand of his chariots, seventhousand charioteers and twenty thousand foot soldiers.He hamstrung all but a hundred of the chariot horses.

1. The KJV has just seven hundred charioteers, and this has led some commentatorsto struggle to figure out how you can have more chariots than men to drive them.Clarke, for example, wrote, “- It is strange that there were a thousand chariots, andonly seven hundred horsemen taken, and twenty thousand foot. But as thediscomfiture appears complete, we may suppose that the chariots, being lessmanageable, might be more easily taken, while the horsemen might, in general,make their escape. The infantry also seem to have been surrounded, when twentythousand of them were taken prisoners.

David houghed all the chariot horses - If he did so, it was both unreasonable andinhuman; for, as he had so complete a victory, there was no danger of these horsesfalling into the enemy’s hands; and if he did not choose to keep them, which indeedthe law would not permit, he should have killed them outright; and then the poorinnocent creatures would have been put out of pain. But does the text speak ofhoughing horses at all? It does not. Let us hear; ויעקר דוד את כל הרכב vayeakkerDavid eth col harecheb, And David disjointed all the chariots, except a hundredchariots which he reserved for himself. �ow, this destruction of the chariots, was a

matter of sound policy, and strict piety. God had censured those who trusted inchariots; piety therefore forbade David the use of them: and lest they should fallinto the enemy’s hands, and be again used against him, policy induced him todestroy them. The Septuagint render the words nearly as I have done, και παρελυσε∆αυιδ παντα τα ἁρµατα. He kept however one hundred; probably as a sort ofbaggage or forage wagons.”

1B. Constable, “There are many minor textual corruptions in the Hebrew text of 1and 2 Samuel, probably more than in any other book of the Old Testament. Davidevidently captured 7,000 horsemen and preserved enough horses for 1,000 chariots.Hamstringing the horses involved severing the large tendon above and behind theirhocks, which correspond to human ankles, to disable them. Evidently David hadplenty of horses and did not need to use all that he captured in war.”

1C. Keil deals with verses 3 and 4, “and Subjugation of the King of Zobah, and ofthe Damascene Syrians. - 2Sa_8:3. The situation of Zobahcannot be determined. Theview held by the Syrian church historians, and defended by Michaelis, viz., thatZobahwas the ancient /isibisin northern Mesopotamia, has no more foundation torest upon than that of certain Jewish writers who suppose it to have been Aleppo,the present Haleb. Aleppois too far north for Zobah, and /isibisis quite out of therange of the towns and tribes in connection with which the name of Zobah occurs.In 1Sa_14:47, compared with 2Sa_8:12of this chapter, Zobah, or Aram Zobahas it iscalled in 2Sa_10:6and Psa_60:2, is mentioned along with , Moab, and Edom, as aneighbouring tribe and kingdom to the Israelites; and, according to 2Sa_8:3,2Sa_8:5, and 2Sa_8:9of the present chapter, it is to be sought for in the vicinity ofDamascus and Hamath towards the Euphrates. These data point to a situation tothe north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes andEuphrates, 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 intoMesopotamia itself. Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 195) has therefore Zobah, which was nodoubt the capital, and gave its name to the kingdom, with the Sabementioned inPtol. v. 19, - a town in the same latitude as Damascus, and farther east towards theEuphrates. The king of Zobah at the time referred to is called Hadadezerin the text(i.e., whose help is Hadad); but in 2Sa_10:16-19and throughout the Chronicles he iscalled Hadarezer. The first is the original form; for Hadad, the name of the sun-godof 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 השיב does not mean to turn his hand, but signifies to returnhis hand, to stretch it out again over or against any one, in all the passage in whichthe expression occurs. It is therefore to be taken in a derivative sense in the passagebefore us, and signifying to restore or re-establish his sway. The expression used inthe Chronicles (2Sa_8:3), ידו הציב, has just the same meaning, since establishing ormaking fast presupposes a previous weakening or dissolution. Hence the subject ofthe sentence “as he went,” etc., must be Hadadezer and not David; for David couldnot have extended his power to the Euphrates before the defeat of Hadadezer. TheMasoretes 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 nomeans necessary, as the nahar(the river κ. ἐξ.) is quite sufficient of itself to indicatethe Euphrates.There is also a war between David and Hadadezer and other kings of Syriamentioned in 2 Samuel 10; and the commentators all admit that that war, in whichDavid defeated these kings when they came to the help of the Ammonites, isconnected with the war mentioned in the present chapter. But the connection isgenerally supposed to be this, that the first of David's Aramaean wars is given in 2Samuel 8, the second in 2 Samuel 10; for no other reason, however, than because 2Samuel 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 thecomplete subjugation of the Aramaean kings and kingdoms. Aram became subjectto David, paying tribute (2Sa_8:6). �ow, though the revolt of subjugated nationsfrom their conquerors is by no means a rare thing in history, and therefore it isperfectly conceivable in itself that the Aramaeans should have fallen away fromDavid when he was involved in the war with the Ammonites, and should have goneto the help of the Ammonites, such an assumption is precluded by the fact that thereis nothing in 2 Samuel 10 about any falling away or revolt of the Aramaeans fromDavid; but, on the contrary, these tribes appear to be still entirely independent ofDavid, and to be hired by the Ammonites to fight against him. But what isabsolutely decisive against this assumption, is the fact that the number ofAramaeans killed in the two wars is precisely the same (compare 2Sa_8:4with2Sa_10:18): so that it may safely be inferred, not only that the war mentioned in 210, in which the Aramaeans who had come to the help of the Ammonites weresmitten 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 wagedwith the Aramaeans, like his war with Edom (2Sa_8:13.), arose out of theAmmonitish war (2 Samuel 10), and the fact that the Ammonites enlisted the help ofthe kings of Aram against David (2Sa_10:6). We also obtain from 2 Samuel 10 anexplanation of the expression “as he went to restore his power (Eng. Ver. 'recoverhis border') at the river,” since it is stated there that Hadadezer was defeated byJoab the first time, and that, after sustaining this defeat, he called the Aramaeans onthe other side of the Euphrates to his assistance, that he might continue the waragainst Israel with renewed vigour (2Sa_10:13, 2Sa_10:15.). The power ofHadadezer 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 hewas defeated a second time, and obliged to submit to him (2Sa_10:17-18). In thissecond 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 battletook place, according to 1Ch_18:3, in the neighbourhood of Hamath, i.e., Epiphaniaon the Orontes (see at �um_13:21, and Gen_10:18), or, according to 2Sa_10:18ofthis book, at Helam, - a difference which may easily be reconciled by the simpleassumption that the unknown Helam was somewhere near to Hamath. Instead of1700 horse-soldiers, we find in the Chronicles (1Ch_18:4) 1000 chariots and 7000horsemen. Consequently the word receb has no doubt dropped out after אלף in thetext 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 horsemenwould 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., hemade the war-chariots and cavalry perfectly useless by laming the horses (see atJos_11:6, Jos_11:9), - “and only left a hundred horses.”The word recebin theseclauses signifies the war-horses generally, - not merely the carriage-horses, but theriding-horses as well, - as the meaning cavalry is placed beyond all doubt byIsa_21:7, and it can hardly be imagined that David would have spared the riding-horses.”

2. Gill, “David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen,...."Chariots" are not in the text here, it is only 1700 "horsemen"; but it is suppliedfrom 1Ch_18:4; where the word is expressly mentioned, and there the horsemen aresaid to be seven thousand as in the Septuagint version here, and in Josephus (m);which may be reconciled by observing, with Kimchi and Abarbinel, that here thechief officers are meant, there all the chariots and horsemen that were under theircommand are mentioned, which together made up that large number; or else hereare meant the ranks and companies of horse David took, which were sevenhundred; and these having ten in a company or rank, made seven thousand; andthere the complement of soldiers in those companies and ranks are intended: andtwenty thousand footmen; the same as in 1Ch_18:4; and so in Josephus (n): andDavid houghed all the chariot horses; or hamstrung them, as Joshua was ordered todo with respect to the Canaanites, Jos_11:6; he did not kill them, which might seemcruel and unmerciful to the brute creatures, but hamstrung them, that they mightbe useless for war; and the reason of it was, that horses might not be multiplied inIsrael for that purpose, that so their trust and confidence might not be placed inthem; see Deu_17:16, but reserved of them foran hundred chariots; for his own use,not for war, but for grandeur; which accounts in some measure for the number ofchariots and horses Solomon had, 1Ki_4:26; the number of horses reserved issupposed to be four hundred, four horses being used in a chariot, which Jarchigathers from 2Ch_1:17.”

3. Robert Roe, “And David captured from him 1,700 horsemen and 20,000 footsoldiers, and David hamstrung the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for100 chariots. He needed 2 horses per chariot plus relief. Remember one of the thingsGod said the kings of Israel could not do? Multiply horses! Chariots were theSherman tanks of that day, and God always wanted the Jews to be at thedisadvantage of the enemy so that God would get the victory. God would get theglory. Intriguing enough David says in the 20th Psalm, which he writes about thistime: Psalm 20:7:

Some boast in chariots, and some in horses; but we will boast in the nameof the Lord, our God.

Except for my hundred chariots just in case You don't show up. He violated theword of God again by keeping those chariots, just in case. A little bit of flesh, just in

case.”

5 When the Arameans of Damascus came to helpHadadezer king of Zobah, David struck down twenty-two thousand of them.

1. Barnes, “of Damascus - Syrians (Aram), whose capital was Damascus, were thebest known and most powerful. Damascus (written Darmesek in marginalreferences, according to the late Aramean orthography) is first mentioned inGen_15:2. According to �icolaus of Damascus, cited by Josephus, the Syrian king’sname was Hadad.

2. Gill, “when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king ofZobah,.... These seem to have had no king at this time, or, if they had, Hadadezerwas their king, which is not improbable; and �icholas of Damascus (o); an Heathenwriter, is clear for it, whom he calls Adad, who, he says, reigned over Damascus,and the other Syria without Phoenicia, who made war with David king of Judea,and was routed by him at Euphrates: and he seems to be the first king of Damascus,which he joined to the kingdom of Zobah, and all the kings of Damascus afterwardswere called by the same name; though Josephus (p), who also speaks of Adad beingking of Damascus and of the Syrians, yet makes him different from this Hadadezer,to whose assistance he says he came: avid slew of the Syrians two and twentythousand men; that is, of the Syrians of Damascus.

3. Keil, “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 Darmesekin the Chronicles according to its Aramaeanform), Damascus, a very ancient and still a very important city of Syria, standingupon the Chrysorrhoas(Pharpar), which flows through the centre of it. It is situatedin the midst of paradisaical scenery, on the eastern side of the Antilibanus, on theroad which unites Western Asia with the interior. David smote 22,000 of Damascus,placed garrisons in the kingdom, and made it subject and tributary. נציבים are notgovernors of officers, but military posts, garrisons, as in 1Sa_10:5; 1Sa_13:3.”

4. Pink, “We do not have sufficient light and discernment to follow out all the detailsof 2 Samuel 8 and give the spiritual application of them unto ourselves, but severalother obvious points in the chapter claim our attention. "David smote alsoHadadezer" (v. 3); "David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men" (v. 5).How numerous are the (spiritual) enemies which the people of God are called uponto engage! It is to be carefully noted that David did not quit when he had subdued

the Philistines and the Moabites, but continued to assail other foes! So the Christianmust not become weary in well doing: no furloughs are granted to the soldiers ofJesus Christ: they are called on to be "stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in thework of the Lord" (1 Cor. 15:58), i.e. the work or task which the Lord has assignedthem, which, as the immediate context shows, is to gain the victory over sin.

Let us now anticipate a criticism which some of the Lord’s people may feel ready tomake against what we have said in this and the previous chapter: Have you not beenarguing in favor of self-sufficiency and creature-ability? �o, indeed; yet, on theother hand, we are no advocate for Christian impotency, for there is a vitaldifference between the regenerate and unregenerate as to spiritual helplessness. Theway to get more faith and more strength is to use what we already have. But we arefar from affirming that the Christian is able to overcome his spiritual foes in hisown might. So with David. Considering the vast numbers which composed the ranksof his numerous enemies, David and his small force could never have won such greatvictories had not the Lord undertaken for him.”

6 He put garrisons in the Aramean kingdom ofDamascus, and the Arameans became subject to himand brought tribute. The LORD gave David victorywherever he went.

1. Gill, “David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus,.... Which was Coele-Syria, andlay between Libanus and Antilibanus, the chief city of which was Damascus; whichCurtius (q) calls Damascus of Syria, being the head of it, Isa_7:8; in the principalplaces of which he put garrisons of soldiers to keep the country in subjection to him;or he put commanders or governors, as the Targum, in the, chief cities, and so BenGersom and R. Isaiah interpret it: and the Syrians became servants to David,andbrought gifts; or paid him tribute by way of homage, acknowledging themselveshis subjects: and the Lord preserved David he went; he covered his head in the dayof battle, and saved him from the hurtful sword.”

2. Pink, “And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went" (v. 6): note theexact repetition of these words in verse 14. Here is the explanation of David’ssuccess: he fought not in his own strength. So the Christian, fighting the good fightof faith, though weak in himself, is energized by divine grace. David’s onslaughtupon the Philistines and the Moabites was in line with the promises of God inGenesis 15:18 and �umbers 24:17, and most probably they nerved him for thebattle. Thus it should be with the Christian. It is his privilege and duty to remindGod of His promises and plead them before Him: such promises as "I will subdue allthine enemies" (1 Chron. 17:10), and "sin shall not have dominion over you" (Rom.6:14), O to be able to say "Thou hast girded me with strength unto the battle: Thou

hast subdued under me those that rose up against me" (Ps. 18:39).

We have space to consider only one point: "Which also king David did dedicateunto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which hesubdued" (v. 11). While David destroyed the idols, he dedicated to God all thevessels of silver and gold which he took from his enemies. So while the Christianstrives to mortify every lust, he must consecrate unto the Lord all his natural andspiritual endowments. Whatever stands in opposition to God must be crucified, butthat which may glorify Him must be dedicated to I us service. This point is a blessedone: David entirely changed the destination of this silver and gold: what hadpreviously adorned the idolaters, was afterward used in the building of the temple.The spiritual application of this is found in "as ye have yielded your membersservants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield yourmembers servants to righteousness unto holiness" (Rom. 6: 19). May the Lordgraciously add His blessing unto all that has been before us.”

7 David took the gold shields that belonged to theofficers of Hadadezer and brought them to Jerusalem.

1. Clarke, “David- We know not what these were. Some translate arms, othersquivers, others bracelets, others collars, and others shields. They were probablycostly ornaments by which the Syrian soldiers were decked and distinguished. Andthose who are called servants here, were probably the choice troops or body-guardof Hadadezer, as the were of Alexander the Great. See Quintus Curtius.

2. Gill, “And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants ofHadadezer,.... That were found with them, which they had in their hands; thesemust be supposed to be with the principal officers of his army; or golden chains, asAquila, or golden bracelets on their arms, as the Septuagint; the Syriac version is"quivers of gold", such as they put arrows into, and so Jarchi and R. Isaiahunderstand it of such, and refer to Jer_51:11; and so Josephus (r): and broughtthem to Jerusalem; where they were laid up, and converted to the use of thesanctuary Solomon built; see Son_4:4."

3. Henry, “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 andIsrael, jeoparded his own life in the high places of the field; but God covered hishead in the day of battle, which he often speaks of, in his psalms, to the glory ofGod. 2. He was enriched. He took the shields of gold which the servants ofHadadezer had in their custody (2Sa_8:7) and much brass from several cities ofSyria (2Sa_8:8), 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, andthe ancient entail of these countries on the seed of Abraham.”

8 From Tebah [2] and Berothai, towns that belonged toHadadezer, King David took a great quantity of bronze.

1. Barnes, “Betah and Berothai - names (see also margin) have not been identifiedwith certainty.

Exceeding much brass - “Wherewith Solomon made the brazen sea, and thepillars, and the vessels of brass” 1Ch_18:8. The Septuagint and Vulgate both addthese words here, so that perhaps they have fallen out of the Hebrew text. For theexistence of metals in Lebanon or Antilebanon, see Deu_8:9.”

2. Gill, “from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer,.... Which, in 1Ch_18:8,are called Tibhath and Chun, they having different names; or their names might bechanged upon this conquest of them, and the one might be the names they went bywith the Syrians, and the other the Israelites called them by; the latter is the samewith Berothah in Eze_47:16; and the Barathena of Ptolemy (s), placed by him nearMesopotamia; in the Arabic version of 1Ch_18:8, they are called Emesa andBaalbec, the former was a city of Coele-Syria, the latter was at the foot of MountLebanon; See Gill on Amo_1:5,

King David took exceeding much brass; whereby he was furnished and able to givethe large quantity he did for the service of the temple, 1Ch_29:7. The Septuagintversion adds here what is expressed in 1Ch_18:8,"wherewith Solomon made thebrazen sea, and the pillars, and the layers, and all the vessels.''

3, Keil, “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 brazencolumns and vessels of the temple. The lxx have also interpolated this notice into thetext. The name Betach is given as Tibhath in the Chronicles; and for Berothai wehave Chun. As the towns themselves are unknown, it cannot be decided withcertainty which of the forms and names are the correct and original ones. מבטחappears to have been written by mistake for מטבח. This supposition is favoured bythe 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�ahor the Aramaean in Gen_22:24 proves little or nothing, as it is not known thathe founded a family which perpetuated his name; nor can anything be inferred fromthe fact that, according to the more modern maps, there is a town of Tayibeh to thenorth of Damascus in 35 north lat., as there is very little in common between thenames 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 notsufficiently certain to warrant us in founding any conclusions upon it with regard tothe name Chun which occurs in the Chronicles; so that there is no ground whateverfor the opinion that it is a corruption of Berothai.”

9 When Tou [3] king of Hamath heard that David haddefeated the entire army of Hadadezer,

1. Jamison, “Toi king of Hamath— Coele-Syria; northwards, it extended to the cityHamath 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 valuablepresents to David to congratulate him on his victories, and solicit his alliance andprotection.

2. Barnes, “Hamath - appears as an independent kingdom so late as the time ofSenacherib Isa_37:13. But in the time of �ebuchadnezzar, both Hamath and Arpadappear to have been incorporated in the kingdom of Damascus Jer_49:23.

3. Clarke, “Toi- Hamath is supposed to be the famous city of Emesa, situated on theOrontes, in Syria. This was contiguous to

Hadadezer; and led him to wage war with Toi, that he might get possession of histerritories. For a comparison of the 10th verse, see 1Ch_18:9.

4. Gill, “When Toi king of Hamath,.... Which was another small kingdom in Syria,lately erected to defend themselves against Hadadezer, and this the first king of it, atleast the first we hear of; his name is Tou in 1Ch_18:9; where in the Targum he iscalled king of Antioch. Hamath lay to the north of the land of Canaan; See Gill on�um_34:8, it is said (t)to be three days' journey from Tripoli, and that it stands inthe midway to Aleppo, on a very goodly plain, replenished with corn and cottonwool, but very much in ruins, and falls more and more to decay: at this day (says myauthor, who travelled in those parts in the beginning of the seventeenth century)there is scarce one half of the wall standing, which hath been very fair and strong.The king of this place

heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer; the news of which soonreached him, he being in the neighbourhood.

5. Henry, “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 hisenemy, sent his own son ambassador to him (2Sa_8:9, 2Sa_8:10), to congratulatehim on his victory, to return him thanks for the favour he had done him in breakingthe power of one he was in fear of, and to beg his friendship. Thus he not onlysecured but strengthened himself. And David lost nothing by taking this little princeunder his protection, any more than the old Romans did by the like policy; for thewealth he had from the countries he conquered by way of spoil he had from this byway of present or gratuity: Vessels of silver and gold.Better get by composition thanby compulsion.”

10 he sent his son Joram to King David to greet him andcongratulate him on his victory in battle overHadadezer, who had been at war with Tou. Jorambrought with him articles of silver and gold and bronze.

1. Gill, “Then Toi sent Joram his son unto King David,.... Who is called Hadoram in1Ch_18:10; though the Syriac and Arabic versions read Joram there:

to salute him: to inquire of his welfare after his fatigue in the battles he had hadwith the Moabites and Syrians, and to wish him all happiness and prosperity for thefuture:

and to bless him; to congratulate him on his victory, and to wish him success in allafter wars he might be engaged in; and particularly to give him thanks fordelivering him from so great an enemy as Hadadezer had been to him, as also tobring a present to him, which is sometimes called a blessing; see Gen_33:11,

because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten him; that is, David had,which had endeared him to Toi:

for Hadadezer had wars with Toi; was an enemy of his, sought to take his kingdomfrom him, and had had many battles with him: and though he could not conquerhim, he sadly harassed him, being too mighty for him:

and Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold,

and vessels of brass; as a present to David, in gratitude for his deliverance from hisenemy by him, and as a token of his homage and subjection to him; at least as a signthat he put himself under his protection, and desired to be his friend and ally. Theword "Joram", though not in the Hebrew text, is rightly supplied; for none else canbe supposed to bring the present.”

2. “This is not precisely what it sounds like: hearty congratulations from a friend.Tou is also paying tribute and confessing his subjection to David. He becomes avassal but doesn't have to suffer the military defeat that made vassals of other kingsand kingdoms. In 1 Chron. 18:10 Joram - which means "Yahweh is exalted" - isgiven as Hadoram - Hadad is exalted. Probably what this indicates is that David, asTou's sovereign, changed the name of his son, the crown prince, to indicate thatsovereignty. He now would bear the name of David's God not Tou's.”

11 King David dedicated these articles to the LORD , ashe had done with the silver and gold from all thenations he had subdued:

1. Jamison, “Which also king David did dedicate unto the Lord — Eastern princeshave always been accustomed to hoard up vast quantities of gold. This is the firstinstance of a practice uniformly followed by David of reserving, after defrayingexpenses and bestowing suitable rewards upon his soldiers, the remainder of thespoil taken in war, to accumulate for the grand project of his life - the erection of anational temple at Jerusalem."

2. Gill, “Which also King David did dedicate unto the Lord,.... He devoted it tosacred uses, particularly to the building of the house of the Lord, as he also had thegold and the brass he took from Hadadezer: together

with the silver and the gold he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued; whoare after particularly mentioned; he did not convert the spoils he took to his ownuse, but observed the law God gave to the kings of Israel, that they should notgreatly multiply to themselves silver and gold, Deu_17:17. He set it apart, and laid itup for the service of the sanctuary; and this accounts for the abundance of gold,silver, and brass, which David had amassed together, and left to his son Solomon tobuild the temple with; see 1Ch_28:1.”

3. Henry, “. The offering David made to God of the spoils of the nations and all therich things that were brought him. He dedicated all to the Lord, 2Sa_8:11, 2Sa_8:12.This crowned all his victories, and made them far to out-shine Alexander's orCaesar's, that they sought their own glory, but he aimed at the glory of God. All theprecious things he was master of were dedicated things, that is, they were designedfor the building of the temple; and a good omen it was of kindness to the Gentiles inthe fulness of time, and of the making of God's house a house of prayer for allpeople, that the temple was built of the spoils and presents of Gentile nations, inallusion to which we find the kings of the earth bringing their glory and honour intothe new Jerusalem, Rev_21:24. Their gods of gold David burnt (2Sa_5:21), but theirvessels 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 mortifiedand crucified, but what may glorify him must be dedicated and the property of italtered. Even the merchandise and the hire must be holiness to the Lord (Isa_23:18),the gain consecrated to the Lord of the whole earth (Mic_4:13), and then it is trulyown and that most comfortably.

4. Keil on 11 and 12, “David also sanctified Toi's presents to the Lord (handed themover to the treasury of the sanctuary), together with the silver and gold which hehad sanctified from all the conquered nations, from Aram, Moab, etc. Instead of.which he took, i.e., took as booty ,נשא אשר the text of the Chronicles has הקדיש אשרBoth are equally correct; there is simply a somewhat different turn given to thethought.

(�ote: Bertheau erroneously maintains that נשא אשר, which he took, is atvariance with 2Sa_8:7, as, according to this passage, the golden shields ofHadadezer did not become the property of the Lord. But there is not a word tothat effect in 2Sa_8:7. On the contrary, his taking the shields to Jerusalemimplies, rather than precludes, the intention to devote them to the purposes ofthe sanctuary.)

In the enumeration of the conquered nations in 2Sa_8:12, the text of the Chroniclesdiffers 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 Chroniclesis 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 toa later period,” as Moversmaintains, but because the conquest of Edom is mentionedfor the first time in the subsequent verses. But if we bear in mind that in 2Sa_8:12ofboth texts not only are those tribes enumerated the conquest of which had beenalready noticed, but all the tribes that David ever defeated and subjugated, even theAmmonites and Amalekites, to the war with whom no allusion whatever is made inthe 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 “fromEdom” out of the one before us; so that the text in both instances ran originallythus, “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 thebooty of Hadadezer is specially mentioned at the close of the verse, for the simplereason that David not only made war upon Syria-Zobah (the kingdom ofHadadezer) and subdued it, but also upon Syria-Damascus, was quite independentof Zobah.”

5. Meyer, “DAVID might not build the temple, but he was bent on making provisionfor it. Indeed, Solomon had never been able to do as he did, unless his father hadgathered these stores of gold and silver. Thus other men labour, and we enter intotheir labours; but the accomplished building is credited by God to each. He does notforget David when Solomon's temple stands complete. The reward is proportionedto each man's service, according to his share.

It is a glorious thing when we not only defeat our foes, but get spoils out of theiroverthrow which we can use for the service of God and man. It is as possible for usas for David. Out of our failures, temptations, mistakes, let us get the power ofhelping and directing others. In death Jesus won the keys of death and Hades, andthe power to become a merciful and faithful High Priest; and now He ever liveth tomake intercession for his people (Heb. vii. 25).

But the main lesson of this chapter is the foreshadowing of God's purpose, thatGentiles should contribute to the building of his Temple. What was literally true inthe case of the temple of Solomon, is spiritually true of the heavenly Temple, theChurch. From every nation, and kindred, people and tongue, souls are beinggathered, who form a spiritual house, a holy Temple in the Lord. The whole world isdestined to contribute to that structure, which is being prepared secretly andmystically, but shall ere long be manifested in its full glory. It is very interesting toget this suggestion from the chronicles of a nation so exclusive and haughty as theJews. "They shall come from the East and West . . . . "

6. Rossier, “David consecrates all the spoil from the victory over the enemy (vv. 11-

12) as well as Toi's free-will offerings to the Lord. He claims nothing of all for

himself. What purpose will these riches serve? 1 Chronicles 18: 7-8 shows us that

they were brought to Jerusalem and that Solomon made “the brazen sea, and the

pillars, and the vessels of brass” for the temple of the Lord out of this great quantity

of brass. In 2 Samuel 6 David had given the Lord's throne the place due to it in the

government of the kingdom. Henceforth his only thought is that the fruit of all his

victories be used to ornament the ultimate, unchangeable dwelling place of his God

in the midst of Israel. The victories of 2 Samuel 5 had served to strengthen David's

throne; the victories of 2 Samuel 8 serve to glorify the throne of God who is seated

between the cherubim.”

12 Edom and Moab, the Ammonites and the Philistines,and Amalek. He also dedicated the plunder taken fromHadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah.

1. Barnes, “Syria - , as in 1Ch_18:11, Edom, which is manifestly the right reading,both because Edom, Moab, and Ammon are so frequently joined together, becauseDavid’s Syrian spoil is expressly mentioned at the end of the verse. (The Hebrewletters for Aram (Syria) and Edom are very similar.)

2. Gill, “Of Syria,.... Of Syria of Damascus, as distinct from Syriazobah, Hadadezerwas king of, after mentioned; this is omitted in 1Ch_18:11,

and of Moab: who brought him gifts and presents, and were tributaries to him,2Sa_8:2,

and of the children of Ammon; who very probably joined the Moabites, and wereconquered and spoiled at the same time:

and of the Philistines; when Methegammah was taken from them, 2Sa_8:1,

and of Amalek; for though we have no account of any war of his with that people,since he was king, yet he doubtless had, and had been victorious and spoiled them;see Psa_83:7,

and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah; see 2Sa_8:3. Theseconquests of David, are confirmed by the testimony of Eupolemus, an Heathenwriter, who says that he overcame the Syrians by Euphrates, and the Assyrians inGaladene (or Gilead), and the Phoenicians; that he fought against the Idumeans (orEdomites), the Ammonites, Moabites, Ituraeans, �abathaeans, and �abdaeans; alsoagainst Syron king of Tyre and Phoenicia; all of whom he obliged to pay tribute tothe Jews .”

13 And David became famous after he returned from

striking down eighteen thousand Edomites [6] in theValley of Salt.

1. Jamison, “David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians—Instead of Syrians, the Septuagintversion reads “Edomites,” which is the truereading, 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 theSalt Mountain, at the southwestern extremity of the Dead Sea, separating theancient territories of Judah and Edom [Robinson].

2. Barnes, “Syrians - the Edomites, as in marginal references (compare Psa_60:1-12title), and as the context 2Sa_8:14requires. For a further account of war ofextermination with Edom, see 1Ki_11:15-16. The war with Edom was of someduration, not without serious reverses and dangers to the Israelites (2Sa_8:2note).The different accounts probably relate to different parts of the campaign.

3. Clarke, “- Became a very celebrated and eminent man. The Targum has it, David

collected troops; namely, to recruit his army when he returned from smiting theSyrians. His many battles had no doubt greatly thinned his army.

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

4. Gill, “David gat hima name,.... Fame and reputation in the several nations of theworld for valour and courage, for the many and signal victories that he obtained;the Jewish writers generally refer this to his humanity in burying the dead bodies ofhis enemies slain in war, which gained him great esteem among all, and even hisvery enemies; but nothing of that kind is pointed at here, but his conquests: or "hemade himself a name"; erected a triumphal arch (b)in memory of his victories:

when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt, beingeighteenthousand men; in the relation of this fact in different places some difficulties arise,both as to the people smitten, and their numbers, and by whom; in this place theyare said to be Syrians, but in 1Ch_18:12, and in the title of Psa_60:1, which wascomposed on account of these victories, they are called Edomites, and said to be ofEdom; which may be reconciled by observing, that the Syrians and Edomites wereconfederates in this war; and that whereas the latter were auxiliaries to the former,the whole body of the army might be called Syrians, of which twenty two thousandwere slain that were properly Syrians, and eighteen thousand Edomites, in all fortythousand; which was a very great slaughter: or the sense is, that when he hadsmitten the twenty two thousand Syrians, and was upon the return, he met with abody of Edomites, who came to the assistance of the Syrians, and he slew eighteenthousand of them; and the Jews say, as Jarchi observes, there were two battles; andif so, this would remove all the difficulties started; as for the numbers slain, herethousand, and Psa_60:1, twelve thousand, it is reconciled by observing, that Abishaifirst began the attack upon the Edomites, and slew six thousand of them; and thenJoab fell upon them, and slew twelve thousand more, in all eighteen thousand; in1Ch_18:12, this slaughter is ascribed to Abishai, because he began it, even the wholenumber; and in Psa_60:1, to Joab, the twelve thousand slain by him, who secondedAbishai; and the whole is here attributed to David, because he was king, underwhom Abishai and Joab served as generals: and no less difficult is it to ascertain theplace where this slaughter was made, called "the valley of salt": it seems by our textthat it was in Syria, but in other places as if it was in Edom; see 2Ki_14:7; but inEdom itself is no such valley to be found, though there is in Syria; one traveller (c)tells us, that in the way from Aleppo to the banks of Euphrates are many villages,among which is one of note, called Tedith, famous for a synod held here by the Jews,in the year from the creation 3498, of which Ezra was the scribe; were placed thebooks of the Old Testament in the order in which they now are; and near this town,he says, is the valley of salt, memorable for the victory here recorded: others say (d)about three or four hours' journey from Aleppo is the valley of salt, near which is asalt spring, whose waters running over the place leave, when dried by the sun, agreat quantity of excellent salt; this salt is thrown together in the Gabboul, or salthouse; but by others (e) we are informed, that near about an hour's distance fromthe city of Tadmor, see 1Ki_9:182Ch_8:3, is to be seen a large valley of salt,

affording great quantities thereof; and it is thought that this is more probably thevalley of salt mentioned here, than another which lies about four hours fromAleppo, and has sometimes passed for it; and which the above accounts show: but amodern writer (f), in his account of Palmyra, the same with Tadmor, speaks of agreat plain, all covered with salt, from whence the whole country round is supplied.This plain is about a league from Palmyra, and extends itself towards the easternpart of Idumea (or Edom) the capital city of which was Bozra; and indeed thisvalley being both in Syria, and reaching to the borders of Edom, bids fair to be thevalley here spoken of.

5. Henry, “reputation he got, in a particular manner, by his victory over the Syriansand their allies the Edomites, who acted in conjunction with them, as appears bycomparing the title of the 60th Psalm, which was penned on this occasion, with2Sa_8:13. He got himself a namefor all that conduct and courage which are thepraise 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 totransfer the honour to God, as appears by the psalm he penned on this occasion,2Sa_8:12. It is through God that we do valiantly.”

6. Keil on 13 to 15, ““And David made (himself) a name, when he returned fromsmiting (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 theMasoretic text as it has come down to us, and must have fallen out from a mistake ofthe 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 thiswould be decidedly incorrect, as the Aramaeans were not smitten in the valley ofSalt, but partly at Medeba (1Ch_19:7) and Helam (2Sa_10:17), and partly in theirown land, which was very far away from the Salt valley. Moreover, the difficultypresented by the text cannot be removed, as Moverssupposes, by changing את־ארם(Syria) into את־אדום (Edom), as the expression בשבו (“when he returned”) would stillbe unexplained. The facts were probably these: Whilst David, or rather Israel, wasentangled in the war with the Ammonites and Aramaeans, the Edomites seized uponthe opportunity, which appeared to them a very favourable one, to invade the landof 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 armyhad returned from this war, David ordered it to march against the Edomites, anddefeated them in the valley of Salt. This valley cannot have been any other than theGhor adjoining the Salt mountain on the south of the Dead Sea, which reallyseparates the ancient territories of Judah and Edom (Robinson, Pal. ii. 483). ThereAmaziah also smote the Edomites at a later period (2Ki_14:7). We gather moreconcerning this war of David from the text of the Chronicles (2Sa_8:12) taken inconnection with 1Ki_11:15-16, and Psa_60:2. According to the Chronicles, it wasAbishai the son of Zeruiah who smote the Edomites. This agrees very well not onlywith the account in 2Sa_10:10., to the effect that Abishai commanded a company inthe 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 returnedafter the defeat of Aram, and smote the Edomites in the valley of Salt, twelvethousand men; and with 1Ki_11:15-16, in which we read that when David was inEdom, Joab, the captain of the host, came up to bury the slain, and smote everymale in Edom, and remained six months in Edom with all Israel, till he had cut offevery male in Edom. From this casual but yet elaborate notice, we learn that thewar 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 textbefore us and in the Chronicles, and 12,000 in the heading to Psa_60:1-12, may beexplained in a very simple manner, on the supposition that the reckonings madewere only approximative, and yielded different results;

(�ote: Michaelis adduces a case in point from the Seven Years' War. After thebattle of Lissa, eight or twelve thousand men were reported to have been takenprisoners; but when they were all counted, including those who fell into thehands of the conquerors on the second, third, and fourth days of the flight, thenumber amounted to 22,000.)

and the fact that David is named as the victor in the verse before us, Joab inPsa_60:1-12, and Abishai in the Chronicles, admits of a very easy explanation afterwhat has just been observed. The Chronicles contain the most literal account.Abishai smote the Edomites as commander of the men engaged, Joab ascommander-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 hisundertakings.” 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 theaccount of David's wars and victories there is appended a list of his officialattendants, which is introduced with a general remark as to the spirit of his . Asking over all Israel, David continued to execute right and justice.”

7. Robert Roe, “There is that phrase again, "And the Lord helped David whereverhe went." God used that phrase in verse 6 and now again in verse 14. Why do youthink God used that phrase the second time? When the Hebrew wants to emphasizesomething it is always repeated. What may be beginning to slip into David's mindconcerning his ability as a general, a ruler, a conqueror and a warrior as he beginsto knock off these kingdoms? What generally happens when we have tremendousvictory? Yeah! We begin to think, "Gee, the Lord is kind of lucky that I am on hisside, isn't he?" When God begins to really use you, pray like the dickens and getyour friends to pray, because the first thing that happens is we slip into this old self-assurance routine, "Hey, I am really useable. I am really a vessel. I am reallysomething." God says, "�o, you're not. I am really something. I can take an ass andmake it prophesy. I can take an ass and rebuke my prophet with him. I can makesons of Abraham out of stones. I am something."God said Edom was a much closer relative [than Moab or Ammon] for he and Jacobwere brothers, twin brothers. Do you know what David did when he conqueredEdom? I Kings 11 tells us. He spent 6 months trying to kill off all the males ofEdom. Even if you figure just adult males, that is a monstrous thing to do when it

flies in the face of the word of God according to Deuteronomy 23, but Daviddeliberately defied God and tried to eliminate Edom. [God did let Hadad the kingand his family escape to Egypt. They came back later and were a thorn in the side ofSolomon.] So you see this hardening beginning to happen to David.”

14 He put garrisons throughout Edom, and all theEdomites became subject to David. The LORD gaveDavid victory wherever he went.David's Officials

1. Clarke, “- He repaired the strong cities which he had taken, and put garrisons inthem to keep the country in awe.

2. Gill, “he put garrisons in Edom,.... To keep the inhabitants in subjection to him;as their forts and strong holds came into his hands, he placed companies of soldiersin them for the said purpose; or governors, as the Targum, men of his own nation,into whose hands he put their principal cities, who governed them for him, andunder him. Jarchi interprets it of officers appointed to collect the tribute he exactedof them: throughout all Edom put he garrisons; which is observed to show that thewhole country was brought into subjection to him: and all they of Edom becameDavid's servants; and hereby were fulfilled the oracle delivered to Rebekah, and theprophetic blessing of Isaac, Gen_25:23,”

3. Henry, “His success against the Edomites. They all became David's servants,2Sa_8:14. �ow, and not till now, Isaac's blessing was accomplished, by which Jacobwas made Esau's Lord (Gen_27:37-40) and the Edomites continued long tributaryto the kings of Judah, as the Moabites were to the kings of Israel, till, in Joram'stime, they revolted (2Ch_21:8) as Isaac had there foretold that Esau should, inprocess 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 employshis servants variously, some in one employment, others in another, some in thespiritual battles, others in the spiritual buildings; and one prepares work for theother, that God may have the glory of all. All David's victories were typical of thesuccess of the gospel against the kingdom of Satan, in which the Son of David rodeforth, conquering and to conquer, and he shall reign till he has brought down allopposing rule, principality, and power: and he has, as David had (2Sa_8:2), a line tokill and a line to save; for the same gospel is to some a savour of life unto life, toothers a savour of death unto death.”

15 David reigned over all Israel, doing what was justand right for all his people.

1. Jamison, “David executed judgment and justice unto all his people — Thoughinvolved in foreign wars, he maintained an excellent system of government at home,the most eminent men of the age composing his cabinet of ministers.

2. Gill, “ And David reigned over all Israel,.... �ot only over Judah, but over all thetribes of Israel, and over the whole land of Canaan, as promised to Abraham,Gen_15:18; reaching to the river Euphrates, as Syria did, now conquered by David: and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people; when he returnedfrom his wars, he heard and tried all causes impartially, brought before him, andgave sentence according to the law of God, and administered righteous judgmentwithout any respect to persons; all had justice done them that applied unto him,whether high or low, rich or poor; and indeed during his wars he was not negligentof the civil government of his subjects, and the distribution of justice to them byproper officers, in which he was a type of Christ; see Isa_11:5.

3. Henry on 15 to 18,

“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(2Sa_8:15); 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 goodgovernment.

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 toadmit all addresses and appeals made to him. All his people, even the meanest, andthose too of the meanest tribes, were welcome to his council-board. 2. Hisimpartiality and the equity of his proceedings, in administering justice. He neverperverted justice through favour or affection, nor had respect of persons injudgment. Herein he was a type of Christ, who was faithful and true, and who dothin righteousness both judge and make war,Rev_19:11. See Psa_72:1, Psa_72:2.III. He kept good order and good officers in his court. David being the first kingthat 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 greatofficer 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 theCherethites and Pelethites, who were either the city train-bands (archers and

slingers,so the Chaldee), or rather the life-guards, or standing force, that attendedthe king's person, the pretorian band, the militia. They were ready to do service athome, to assist in the administering of justice, and to preserve the public peace. Wefind them employed in proclaiming Solomon, 1Ki_1:38. 2. Two ecclesiasticalofficers: Zadok and Ahimelech were priests,that is, they were most employed in thepriests' work under Abiathar, the high priest. 3. Two civil officers: one that wasrecorder, or remembrancer, to put the king in mind of business in its season (he wasprime 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 putin mind of business and he would do it himself); another that was scribe, orsecretary of state, that drew up public orders and despatches, and recordedjudgments given. 4. David's sons, as they grew up to be fit for business, were madechief rulers; they had places of honour and trust assigned them, in the household, orthe camp, or in the courts of justice, according as their genius led them. They werechief about the king (so it is explained, 1Ch_18:17), employed near him, that theymight be under his eye. Our Lord Jesus has appointed officers in his kingdom, forhis honour and the good of the community; when he ascended on high he gave these

gifts(Eph_4:8-11), to every man his work,Mar_13:34. David made his sons chiefrulers; but all believers, Christ's spiritual seed, are better preferred, for they aremade to our God kings and priests,Rev_1:6.”

4. Robert Roe, in contrast with William Taylor

who finds David amazing in most everything,

finds much in David that is wrong and not

consistent with God's will. He wrote, “Well, that looks

pretty good on the surface. There is only one problem. What kind of a person wasJoab the man David put in charge of all his army? Joab was David's nephewthrough his sister Zerviah. He killed Abner, a general of Israel for two reasons. #1 toget even because Abner had killed his bother Asahel in battle, and #2 to eliminate arival who might become the general of all Israel. It was Abner, remember, whodelivered all of Israel, the northern part, into the hand of David who at the time wasking of only Judah. In Hebron, which was a city of refuge where you were notallowed to touch anybody even if you had the right of revenge, Joab murderedAbner. He would later on murder Uriah the Hittite for David and after that, tomaintain his position, would murder Amasa, a nephew of David's from his othersister and also a general in Judah. Joab may have been brilliant. but he was aruthless and totally immoral general. David was afraid of him. We don't know muchabout the chap who was the secretary, but we have Zadok and Ahimelech who were

rival priests in two different locations. One of them later turned traitor. Then wehave David's sons. He made his own sons chief ministers. Well #1 son, Ammon, wewill find out, raped his half-sister, Tamar and in turn was murdered by his half-brother Absalom. #2 son Absalom chased daddy out of town, tried to take over thekingdom and wanted to kill daddy. He got killed in the process. #3 son Chileabapparently died some how. We don't know why or what. #4 son Adonijah tried tousurp the throne from Solomon after God had given it to Solomon through Davidand got killed for his actions. This was the kind of administration David set up.Do you see the problem? He could not put a righteous general in charge of his armybecause of his fear of Joab. He had two rival priestly lines, a situation he didn't eventry to settle and eventually lost one of them to Adonijah who wanted to usurp histhrone.

As the kid who was the runt of the litter, was denied everything, was ridiculed andat the bottom of the heap, he wanted his children to have everything he didn't have.So as I Kings 1:6 says, "And his father [David] had never crossed him at any timeby asking, 'Why have you done so?'" He never even questioned the things his sonsdid. They grow up totally spoiled brats. So David puts together an administration,part of which is holy but part of it unfortunately is not. He doesn't seem to realizewhat he is doing.”

5. Constable, “Verses 15-18 constitute a summary of David's administration and

conclude this section of Samuel that records the major important features of David's

reign (cf. 20:23-26). God established his empire firmly. He had relocated his capital,

subdued his enemy neighbors, brought the ark into Jerusalem, and received the

Davidic Covenant. The writer probably listed David's military victories last in

chapter 8 because the formal record of a king's accomplishments normally ended

this way in the official records of ancient �ear Eastern monarchs.142 The writer of

the Book of Kings followed the same procedure in recording the reigns of the

succeeding kings of Judah and Israel. These selected events from David's reign show

God's blessing on him and on Israel through him. Because he was the Lord's

anointed who followed God faithfully, Yahweh poured out blessing and fertility.”

16 Joab son of Zeruiah was over the army; Jehoshaphatson of Ahilud was recorder;

1. Jamison, “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.

2. Clarke, “Joab- - General and commander-in-chief over all the army.

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

3. Gill, “And Joab the son of Zeruiah wasover the host,.... Which was not only owingto his relation to David, being his sister's son, but to his promise that whoever smotethe Jebusites first should be chief and captain; that is, should have the command ofthe army under him; this Joab did; and so was entitled to this office, and was putinto it, and continued in it, 1Ch_11:6,

and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud wasrecorder; of memorable events, who kept adiary of whatsoever remarkable happened, which were digested into a chronicle,history, or annals; see Est_6:1; so the Targum, he"was appointed over thememorials;''or book of memorials, as Kimchi interprets it; that is, to take care of it,and see that everything worthy of notice was inserted in it; or was "remembrancer"(g); one that put the king in mind what was to be done every day, or in certain cases,and so R. Isaiah explains it, the king's counsellor; some take him to be chancellor, asLuther and others.”

4. Keil, “The chief ministers were the following: - Joab (see at 2Sa_2:18) was “overthe army,” i.e., commander-in-chief. Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, of whomnothing 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 importantincidents and affairs of the nation, but an officer resembling the magister

memoriaethe later Romans, or the waka nuvis of the Persian court, who keeps arecord of everything that takes place around the king, furnishes him with anaccount of all that occurs in the kingdom, places his visé upon all the king'scommands, and keeps a special protocol of all these things

5. Barnes on 16 to 18, “For a similar account of the officers of Solomon’s kingdom,see 1Ki_4:1-6, where Jehoshaphat is still the recorder, and Benaiah is advanced tobe captain of the host in the room of Joab. The recorder seems to have been a highofficer of state, a kind of chancellor, whose office was to keep a record of the eventsof the kingdom for the king’s information, and hence, he would naturally be theking’s adviser. See Est_6:1-2; Isa_36:22; 2Ch_34:8. Such an officer is found amongthe ancient Egyptians and Persians.

Ahimelech the son of Abiathar - According to 1Sa_22:9-23, Abiathar, Zadok’scolleague, was the son of Ahimelech. Abiathar the son of Ahimelech continued to bepriest through the reign of David. (Compare also 1Ki_1:7, 1Ki_1:42; 1Ki_2:22-27.)It almost necessarily follows that there is some error in the text.

The scribe - Or secretary of state 2Ki_12:10; 2Ki_18:37, different from the militaryscribe (Jdg_5:14note).

2Sa_8:18

The Cherethites and the Pelethites - See the marginal reference note.

Chief rulers - The word כהן kôhên, here rendered a “chief ruler,” is the regularword for a priest. In the early days of the monarchy the word כהן kôhên had notquite lost its etymological sense, from the root meaning to minister, or manageaffairs, though in later times its technical sense alone survived.”

6. David Guzik, “�o great ruler succeeds by himself. Only the smallestorganizations can be governed well without a gifted and committed team. Part ofDavid's success as a ruler was in his ability to assemble, train, empower, andmaintain such a team.i. We never find such a list regarding the organization of King Saul's government.This is because David's government had much more form and structure than Saul's.

ii. There is a limit to what we can be and what we can do for the Lord without orderand organization. It isn't that order and organization are requirements for progressin the Christian life; they are progress in the Christian life, becoming more like theLord.

iii. /othing is accomplished in God's kingdom without order and organization.While it may seem so to us, it is only an illusion - behind the scenes God is movingwith utmost order and organization though sometimes we cannot see it.

17 Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiatharwere priests; Seraiah was secretary;

1. Jamison, “Zadok ... and Ahimelech ... were the priests— On the massacre of thepriests at �ob, [1Sa_22:19], Saul conferred the priesthood on Zadok, of the familyof 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 respectiveprinces to whom they were attached. But, on David’s obtaining the kingdom over allIsrael, they both retained their dignity; Ahimelech officiating at Jerusalem, andZadok at Gibeon (1Ch_16:39)

2. Clarke, “Seraiah - the scribe - Most likely the king’s private secretary. See1Ch_24:3

3. Gill, “And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, werethepriests,.... �ot high priests, as Josephus (i)suggests, for there was only one highpriest at a time; indeed there was a "sagan", or deputy priest, on occasion; and soAbarbinel says that Zadok was the high priest, and Ahimelech his second or deputy;but the truth of the case was this, Abiathar was high priest only, and continued sountil the time of Solomon, when he was thrust out of his office, and Zadok put intoit; and Ahimelech his son and Zadok were the principal priests under him, the oneof the family of Ithamar, the other of Eleazar; so the Targum on 1Ch_18:16callsthem "sagans", or deputies of the high priesthood. Zadok is mentioned first, though

Ahimelech was the son of the present high priest, because he was in great favourwith David, as afterwards with Solomon, in whose days the high priesthood was tohim; the family of Eli being now upon the decline, and near being removed from thehigh priesthood, as was foretold by Samuel it should:

and Seraiah wasthe scribe; or secretary of state; in 1Ch_18:16he is called Shavsha;he seems to have had two names.

4. Keil, “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; theformer at the tabernacle at Gibeon (1Ch_16:39), the latter probably at the ark ofthe covenant upon Mount Zion. Instead of Ahimelech, the Chronicles haveAbimelech, evidently through a copyist's error, as the name is written Ahimelech in1Ch_24:3, 1Ch_24:6. But the expression “Ahimelech the son of Abiathar” isapparently a very strange one, as Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech according to1Sa_22:20, and in other passages Zadok and Abiathar are mentioned as the twohigh 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, andother suppose, by transposing the names, so as to read Abiathar the son ofAhimelech; 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 theline of Ithamar, and according to 1Ch_24:6he was the son of Abiathar. It wouldtherefore be necessary to change the name Ahimelech into Abiathar in this instancealso, both in 1Ch_24:3and 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 beenchanged in so many passaGes.We are therefore disposed to adopt the view held byBertheau and Oehler, viz., that Abiathar the high priest, the son of Ahimelech, hadalso a son named Ahimelech, as it is by no means a rare occurrence for grandfatherand grandson to have the same names (vid., 1Ch_6:4-15), and also that this (theyounger) Ahimelech performed the duties of high priest in connection with hisfather, who was still living at the commencement of Solomon's reign (1Ki_2:27), andis mentioned in this capacity, along with Zadok, both here and in the book ofChronicles, possibly because Abiathar was ill, or for some other reason that wecannot discover. As Abiathar was thirty or thirty-five years old at the time when hisfather was put to death by Saul, according to what has already been observed at1Sa_14:3, and forty years old at the death of Saul, he was at least forty-eight yearsold at the time when David removed his residence to Mount Zion, and might havehad a son of twenty-five years of age, namely the Ahimelech mentioned here, whocould have taken his father's place in the performance of the functions of high priestwhen he was prevented by illness or other causes. The appearance of a son ofAbiathar named Jonathan in 2Sa_15:27; 2Sa_17:17, 2Sa_17:20, is no validargument against this solution of the apparent discrepancy; for, according to thesepassages, he was still very young, and may therefore have been a younger brother ofAhimelech. The omission of any allusion to Ahimelech in connection with Abiathar'sconspiracy with Adonijah against Solomon (1Ki_1:42-43), and the reference to hisson 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 fatherwas 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, hemust have been about eighty years of age. Seraiahwas a scribe. Instead of Seraiah,we have Shavshain the corresponding text of the Chronicles, and Shevain theparallel passage 2Sa_20:25. Whether the last name is merely a mistake for Shavsha,occasioned by the dropping of ש, or an abbreviated form of Shisha and Shavsha,cannot be decided. Shavshais not a copyist's error, for in 1Ki_4:3the same man isunquestionably mentioned again under the name of Shisha, who is called Shavsha inthe Chronicles, Sheva( שיא) in the text of 2Sa_20:25, and here Seraiah. Seraiahalso ishardly a copyist's error, but another form for Shavsha or Shisha. The scribewas asecretary of state; not a military officer, whose duty it was to raise and muster thetroops, for the technical expression for mustering the people was not ספר, but פקד (cf.2Sa_24:2, 2Sa_24:4,2Sa_24:9; 1Ch_21:5-6, etc.).”

5. William Taylor, “In the minds of most readers of the Bible, the name of David,king of Israel, is associated mainly with military prowess, poetic genius, andpersonal piety ; and only on the rarest occasions do we hear any reference made tohis administrative ability. Yet in this last quality he was, at least, as remarkable asin any one of the others which we have named ; and great injustice is done to him ifwe leave out of view the eminent services which he rendered to his country by theexercise of his governmental and organizing faculties. It has happened thus with theson of Jesse, as with many others, that the showier and more dashing talents which he possessed have eclipsed, or cast into the shade, his other less ostentatious, but, intheir own places, equally valuable characteristics. It may help us, therefore, to acorrect estimate of his public and official career, as well as prove in itself a mostinteresting study, if we devote a short while to an inquiry into the manner in whichhe arranged and administered the affairs of the nation. In prosecuting our investi- gations, we shall avail ourselves of the details which are very fully given in variousportions of the books of Samuel, the Kings, and the Chronicles, acknowledging ourobligations throughout to the labors of Dean Stanley, Dr. Blaikie, Dr. Kitto, andothers, in this department; and we shall fail to produce in your minds the convictionat which we have ourselves arrived, if we do not lead you to conclude that more than Charlemagne did for Europe, or Alfred for England, David accomplished forthe tribes of Israel.” For a complete reading of Taylor's study see Appendix A.

18 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over the Kerethites andPelethites; and David's sons were royal advisers.

1. Jamison, “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.

1B. “The Kerethites and Pelethities were two groups of foreign soldiers, serving asDavid's bodyguards. Royal bodyguards were often foreigners whose loyalty to theking was less likely to be effected by tribal allegiance or internal politics.

The �IV translates the Hebrew term as "royal advisers" because that is themeaning of the word that 1 Chron. 18:17 uses in the parallel passage. What this textactually says is that David's sons were priests. �ow the use of that term "priest"here of David's sons has produced very conflicting interpretations.

1. The simplest is that the term, "priest" may have also served as adesignation for "advisor." In 1 Kgs. 4:5 it may mean that. In that case,the term would be used here in a more original sense of the word, fromwhich its religious use also derives: someone who administers somematter for another. So, religious administrators became "priests" - aterm that became a technical religious term - while political adviserscould be "priests" as well, but only in the old, general sense of anadministrator.

2. Another view is that it is a positive thing, harking back to David'sdoing priestly things in chapter 6, where he wore a linen ephod andblessed the people in connection with the bringing of the ark toJerusalem. The combination of priesthood and royalty would thenanticipate their combination in the life and work of Jesus Christ.

3. Still another view is that this is, as one scholar says, "a stick ofdynamite placed by the narrator under the perfection" of David's reign.[Fokkelmann, iii, 262-3] That is, it is a hint of David's approachinghubris. He is starting in this small way to act like a typical king, thinkinghimself above the law of God and man. Like Eli he does not prevent hissons from assuming privileges to which they had no right.

I confess myself unsure as to the proper way to read this. We can all lookfor clues as to the narrator's meaning as we read on in 2 Samuel.” authorunknown

1C. Brian Morgan, “"The successful conclusion to military violence abroadculminates in harmony at home created by so righteous a king."[3] ("David

administered justice and righteousness for all his people")...'Justice' and'righteousness' "stand next to one other twenty-seven times in the Bible." Here it"ensures that David is permanently occupied with this quality."[4] Here is a reignthat is well oiled. Everything is orchestrated to a tee, listing the highest rankingarmy officers, government officials, civil servants, to priests. "�ow that everythingis in order, at home and abroad, it seems as if heaven on earth has broken loose.

Where to now? What more is there to experience?"[5]David has it all. Or does he? There is a price to pay for all that administration andmachinery: the king becomes detached from the people. In the very last line in thestory, the narrator places "a stick of dynamite"[6] under David's perfect world:

And the sons of David were priests.

"This is such a difficult thought that the translators of the LXX and other Aramaicversions stretched the meaning of the word priest to be 'administrators of the royalestates.' But this is the same word in verse 17, and carefully placed outside the circleof priests. But it may be that, in light of their father's success, the sons themselvesusurped the office of the priesthood, and their father did nothing to correct them(just as Absalom and Adonijah usurp the office of king later). In that case theepisode provides a sequel to the corruption of Eli's sons and Samuel's sons earlier inSamuel."[7]

David's immeasurable success has left him detached from his own sons. They lovedaddy, they respect him, but most of all they want to be like him, so they imitatehim. Unfortunately, the father has not been home to teach his sons that the way toglory is the way of the wilderness, brokenness and prayer. Instead, surrounded bysuccess and power, the sons grab some of it for themselves and usurp the holypriesthood. Through these sons the whole kingdom disintegrates, and David spendsthe rest of his life trying to recover what he had lost.”

2. Clarke, “Benaiah - The chief of the second class of David’s worthies. We shallmeet with him again.The Cherethites and the Pelethites - The former supposed to bethose who accompanied David when he fled from Saul; the latter, those who came tohim at Ziklag. But the Targum translates these two names thus, the archers and theslingers; and this is by far the most likely. It is not at all probable that David waswithout a company both of archers and slingers. The bow is celebrated in thefuneral lamentation over Saul and Jonathan; and the sling was renowned as theweapon of the Israelites, and how expert David was in the use of it we learn from thedeath of Goliath. I take for granted that the Chaldee paraphrast is correct. �oweapons then known were equally powerful with these; the spears, swords, andjavelins, of other nations, were as stubble before them. The bow was the grandweapon of our English ancestors; and even after the invention of firearms, they werewith difficulty persuaded to prefer them and leave their archery.”

3. Gill, “And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada wasover both the Cherethites andPelethites,.... These, according to Josephus (k), were the king's bodyguards, and thisman is expressly said to be set over his guards, 2Sa_23:22; and which some thinkwere of the nation of the Philistines, famous for archery, and slinging of stones; andso the Targum renders it,"was appointed over the archers and slingers;''so"choriti" in Virgil (l)are quivers for arrows; the great use of which in fighting Davidhad observed, and therefore got a select company of these men, partly to teach

Israel, and partly to guard himself: but others are of opinion that David wouldnever suffer such as were Heathens to be so near his person, and therefore takethem to be Israelites; and so some Jewish writers say they were two families inIsrael; which is much better than to interpret them as others do of the sanhedrim,and even of the Urim and Thummim, as in the Targum on 1Ch_18:17; See Gill onZep_2:5; and it is most probable that they were Israelites, who were David's guards,and consisted of the chiefs that were with him in Philistia, and particularly atZiklag, which lay on the south of the Cherethites, 1Sa_30:14; and so had their namefrom thence; and among the chief of those that came to him at Ziklag there was onenamed Peleth, from whence might come the Pelethites, and they were all of themarchers; see 1Ch_12:2,

and David's sons were chief rulers; princes, princes of the blood, or "chief about theking", as in 1Ch_18:17; they were constant attendants at court, waiting on the king,ready at hand to do what he pleased to order; they were the chief ministers, and hadthe management of the principal affairs at court. Abarbinel thinks that this respectsnot only David's sons, but Benaiah, and the family of the Cherethites and Pelethites,who had none of them particular posts assigned them, which were settled andknown, as those before mentioned had, but were always near at hand, to dowhatsoever the king commanded them; and which seems better to agree with theliteral order and construction of the words; which are: and Benaiah the son ofJehoiada, and the Cherethites, and Pelethites, and the sons of David, wereprinces,or chief rulers; or priests, who according to Gussetius (m) brought the offerings orpresents to the king, and did that to him the priests did to the Lord.

3B. Constable, “David's sons were in some sense priests. "Chief ministers" (v. 18) isliterally "priests."Apparently they functioned in a mediatory capacity but not bycarrying out sacerdotal functions that were the exclusive responsibilities of theLevitical priests. David's kingdom stretched from the Gulf of Aqabah and the Wadiof Egypt on the southeast and southwest respectively to the Euphrates River on thenortheast. David did not have complete sovereignty over all this territory, however.Some of his neighbor kingdoms were tribute-paying vassal states. Israel lost controlof most of this territory later. Since God had promised Abraham's descendantspermanent possession of the Promised Land (Gen. 13:15), David's kingdom did notconstitute a fulfillment of the land promise in the Abrahamic Covenant.”

4. Keil, “Benaiahthe son of Jehoiada, a very brave hero of Kabzeel (see at2Sa_23:20.), was over the Crethiand Plethi. Instead of והכרתי, which gives no sense,and must be connected in some way with 1Ki_1:38, 1Ki_1:44, we must read הכרתי עלaccording to the parallel passage 2Sa_20:23, and the corresponding text of theChronicles. The Crethiand Plethiwere the king's body-guard,σωµατοφύλακες(Josephus, Ant. vii. 5, 4). The words are adjectives in form, but witha substantive , and were used to indicate a certain rank, lit. the executioners andrunners, like 2(השלישי Sa_23:8). כרתי, from כרת, to cut down or exterminate,signifies confessor, because among the Israelites (see at 1Ki_2:25), as in factthroughout the East generally, the royal halberdiers had to execute the sentence of

death upon criminals. פלתי, from פלת (to fly, or be swift), is related to פלט, andsignifies runners. It is equivalent to רץ, a courier, as one portion of the halberdiers,like the ἄγγαροιof 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 והרציםwas afterwards applied to the king's body-guard (2Ki_11:4, 2Ki_11:19), and הכדיthat הכרי for הכרתי occurs as early as 2Sa_20:23.

.fodit, perfodit,is used in the same sense ,כור from ,כרי

(�ote: Gesenius(Thes. s. vv.) and Thenius (on 1Ki_1:38) both adopt thisexplanation; but the majority of the modern theologians decide in favour ofLakemacher's opinion, to which Ewaldhas given currency, viz., that the CrethiorCariare Cretes or Carians, and the PelethiPhilistines (vid., Ewald, Krit. Gramm.p. 297, and Gesch. des Volkes Israel, pp. 330ff.; Bertheau, zur Geschichte Israel,p. 197; Movers, Phönizieri. p. 19). This view is chiefly founded upon the fact thatthe Philistines are called C'rethiin 1Sa_30:14, and C'rethimin Zep_2:5andEze_25:16. But in both the passages from the prophets the name is used withspecial reference to the meaning of the word הכרית, viz., to exterminate, cut off,as Jeromehas shown in the case of Ezekiel by adopting the rendering interficiam

interfectores(I will slay the slayers) for את־כרתים הכרתי. The same play upon thewords takes place in Zephaniah, upon which Strauss has correctly observed:“Zephaniah shows that this violence of theirs had not been forgotten, calling thePhilistines Crethimfor that very reason, ut sit nomen et omen.” Besides, in boththese passages the true name Philistinesstands by the side as well, so that theprophets might have used the name Crethim(slayers, exterminators) withoutthinking at all of 1Sa_30:14. In this passage it is true the name Crethiis appliedto 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 theroyal body-guard was derived from the Cretans is precluded, first of all, by thefact of its combination with הפלתי (the Pelethites); for it is a totally groundlessassumption that this name signifies the Philistines, and is a corruption of פלשתים.There are no such contractions as these to be found in the Semitic languages, asGeseniusobserves in his Thesaurus(l.c.), “quis hujusmodi contractionem in linguis

Semiticis ferat?” Secondly, it is also precluded by the strangeness of such acombination of two synonymous names to denote the royal body-guard. “Whocould believe it possible that two synonymous epithets should be joined togetherin 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 thebody-guard, 2(והרצים הכרי Ki_11:4, 2Ki_11:19), in which the Caricorrespond tothe Crethi, as in 2Sa_20:23, and ha-razimto the Pelethi; so that the termpelethican no more signify a particular tribe than the term razim can. Moreover,there are other grave objections to this interpretation. In the first place, thehypothesis that the Philistines were emigrants from Crete is merely foundedupon 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 Minosaking of Crete, - which, according to the correct estimate of Strauss (l.c.), “haveall 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. Andsecondly, “it is a priorialtogether improbable, that a man with so patriotic aheart, and so devoted to the worship of the one God, should have surroundedhimself with a foreignand heathenbody-guard” (Thenius). This argument cannotbe invalidated by the remark “that it is well known that at all times kings andprinces have preferred to commit the protection of their persons to foreignmercenaries, having, as they thought, all the surer pledge of their devotedness inthe fact that they did not spring from the nation, and were dependent upon theruler alone” (Hitzig). For, in the first place, the expression “at all times” is onethat must be very greatly modified; and secondly, this was only done by kingswho did not feel safe in the presence of their own people, which was not the casewith David. And the Philistines, those arch-foes of Israel, would have been thelast nation that David would have gone to for the purpose of selecting his ownbody-guard. It is true that he himself had met with a hospitable reception in theland of the Philistines; but it must be borne in mind that it was not as king ofIsrael that he found refuge there, but as an outlaw flying from Saul the king ofIsrael, 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 to2Sa_18:2, David handed over the command of a third of his army to a foreignerwho had recently entered his service, having emigrated from Gath with acompany of his fellow-countrymen (2Sa_15:19-20, 2Sa_15:22), and who haddisplayed the greatest attachment to the person of David (2Sa_15:21), it is hardlynecessary to observe that the fact of David's welcoming a brave soldier into hisarmy, when he had come over to Israel, and placing him over a division of thearmy, after he had proved his fidelity so decidedly as Ittai had at the time ofAbsalom's rebellion, is no proof that he chose his body-guard from thePhilistines. �or can 2Sa_15:18be 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 כהנים (“confidants”); not priests, domestic priests, courtchaplains, or spiritual advisers, as Gesenius, De Wette, and others maintain, but, asthe title is explained in the corresponding text of the Chronicles, when the title hadbecome obsolete, “the first at the hand (or side) of the king.” The correctness of thisexplanation is placed beyond the reach of doubt by 1Ki_4:5, where the cohen iscalled, by way of explanation, “the king's friend.” The title cohenmay be explainedfrom the primary signification of the verb כהן, as shown in the corresponding verband noun in Arabic (“res alicujus gerere,” and “administrator alieni negotii”). Thesecohanim, therefore, were the king's confidential advisers.”

APPE�DIX A. By William Taylor

We shall commence our review by setting before you the military organization of the country. This may be divided into three branches : first, the regular standing army ; sec- ond, the king's own body-guard ; and, third, the order of mil- itary knighthood, if so we may call it, which he established at his court. As regards the regular army, we find that there were in the land two hundred and eighty -eight thousand men enrolled as soldiers. These unitedly composed what was called the host. �ow there were two evils to be guarded against in reference to this large body of troops. On the one hand, the maintenance of an army of such magnitude, if it had been kept constantly under arms, would have serious- ly drained the resources of the country, both by the positive expense which would have been incurred in supporting it, and by the withdrawal of so many able-bodied men from those agricultural pursuits, on the fruits of which the people mainly depended. On the other hand, if all these soldiers had been called out at one time, and brought to one central place for drill, the outlying boundaries of the land would have been left, for the mean while, undefended. But both of these dangers were obviated by the plan which David adopted, and of which a minute account is given in i Chron- icles xxvii., where we have a register of " the children of Is- rael after their number to wit, the chief fathers and captains of thousands and hundreds, and. their officers that served the king in any matter of the courses, which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year, of every course were twenty-and-four thousand." From this account it appears that the army was divided into twelve portions, each of which had its own month of service. Over each of those divisions, as we may call them, there was one general officer, under whom were captains of thousands, whose bands, again, were subdivided into hundreds, each of which was led by an officer, corresponding somewhat to the Roman centurion of after days. Over the host as command- er-in-chief was Joab, the son of Zeruiah.

In addition to this national army, there was the king's jbody-guard, generally supposed to be identical with those pho in 2 Samuel viii., 18, are styled the Cherethites and the Pelethites. Dean Stanley and others are of opinion that

those who composed this royal brigade (equivalent almost to what, in Great Britain, are denominated the household troops), were mostly foreigners ; and they remind us of the analogous instances of the Swiss Guard, who stood so true to Louis XVI. at the French Revolution, and the guard of honor of the Pope at the present day. But there does not appear to me to be sufficient reason for adopting such a view, since the commander-in-chief of these troops was Be- naiah, the son of Jehoiada, of the family of the priests ; and so far as we can discover from the record, David, at this time at least, and up to the era of his great transgression, was se- cure in the affection and confidence of his subjects, and did not need the adventitious and, to his people, almost insult- ing aid of strangers.

Besides these two kinds of forces, and as furnishing a re- ward of honor for those who had distinguished themselves in any signal manner, David appears to have founded a mil- itary order analogous to that of knighthood in more recent times. The members of this body are called " worthies," or " mighty men," and a list of them, together with a rehearsal of some of their most illustrious deeds, is given in^z Samuel xxiii., and i Chronicles xi. Stanley, following in this in- stance the German author Ewald, attributes the special form which this order took, to the circumstances of David, when he was in the cave of Adullam. He says that, as there were six hundred men in the hold, that number was preserved as the limit to which the order was restricted. It became sub- divided into three large bands of two hundred each, and thir- ty small bands of twenty each. The small bands were com- manded by thirty officers, one for each band, and these offi- cers formed the thirty worthies, or mighty men ; and the three large bands were commanded by three officers, who together formed the three ; while the whole were under one chief, the captain of the mighty men. This reckoning, how- ever, gives only thirty-four as the total of the worthies, where- as in 2 Samuel xxiii. the aggregate number is thirty-seven. Moreover, there seems to be a distinction in the same chap- ter between the first three and another three, who, while very honorable, had not attained to the valor of the first ; and for this distinction the subdivision of Stanley fails to find a place. Perhaps, therefore, assuming the basis of six hundred to be correct, we may modify Ewald's arrangement thus, so as to bring it into harmony with the number thirty- seven. The six hundred, we may suppose, were divided into six bands of one hundred, as well as into twenty of thirty

each. Over the senior portion of the band, amounting to three companies of one hundred each, there were the first three ; over the junior portion of the band, composed of oth- er three companies of one hundred each, were the second three ; and then, over all, there was the captain of the might- ies, who was Jashobeam, the Hachmonite. The captain of each band formed one of the band, and must be reckoned with it in making up the numbers.

The deeds of the worthies, specified in the chapters to which I have been referring, are mostly such as in a rude and barbarous age are rewarded by badges of distinction ; and those who sneer at the record of them here must bear in mind that even in this boasted age, and in countries which claim to be enlightened, the honors of knighthood and the peerage are frequently bestowed upon no higher grounds. The day has not yet fully arrived for the recognition of the nobility of holiness and love. True, in these latter years we may have made some advancement toward it, but it is as yet in Messiah's kingdom alone that distinction is conferred for works of faith, and holiness, and love. This is the grand foundation-difference between the typical kingdom of David and that of Christ, which is its antetype ; and we must never allow ourselves to lose sight of it while we are considering either the one or the other. David's kingdom was founded and maintained by military power, and it was fitting, therefore. That its honors should be bestowed on martial heroes for daring deeds upon the field of battle. Christ's kingdom is founded on righteousness and love, and to those who cry to him for honor he makes this reply, pointing to Gethsemane and Calvary the while : "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ?" But of this more anon.

We pass now to the civil administration of the son of Jesse ; and here it will appear that he exerted himself earnestly to improve_the courts of justice, the educational institutions, the domestic comfort, and the commercial pros- perity of the country. He gave new vitality to the old tribal arrangements ; for (as we learn from i Chronicles xxvii.), he set thirteen princes over as many different districts. What the judicial functions of these princes exactly were does not appear, but probably they corresponded very near- ly to those of the lord lieutenants of counties in Great Brit- ain, with this difference, that they belonged, ex officio, to the general council or senate of the nation, which was summon-

ed on all occasions of emergency or importance. Thus, when David formally handed over the crown to Solomon, we read (i Chronicles xxviii., i) that he assembled all the princes of Israel. Over and above these princes, he distrib- uted (i Chronicles xxiii., 4) six thousand Levites over the land as officers and judges. Of these nearly one-half were settled among the tribes east of the Jordan, perhaps because, from their distance from the seat of government, these tribes were more in need of superintendence than the rest. They were sent out, as we read, "for every matter pertaining to God and the king ;" but it would be a mistake to suppose that they had to do merely with judicial trials. The Le- vites generally were the health officers of the nation. They would, therefore, look after all sanitary arrangements, and take order that the minute injunctions of the Mosaic law in this department were fully obeyed. They had to do, also, with the healing art, and formed, in fact, a medical board over the land ; while again, if we bear in mind that the peo- ple were by them to be made acquainted with the law of their God, and that their sacred books were well-nigh the only books at that time in existence among them, we may not be far wrong in regarding these Levites, or a portion of them, as set over the education of the community, and re- sponsible for the department of public instruction. In any case, I think there is good warrant for the assertion of Dr. Blaikie, when he says that "infinitely more was done for the education and enlightenment of the people than was ever attempted or dreamed of in any Eastern country. It is no- ' where said whether Samuel's schools received a special share of attention ; but the deep interest David must have taken in Samuel's plans, and his early acquaintance with their blessed effects, leave little room to doubt that these institu- tions were carefully fostered, and owed to David a share of that vitality which they continued to exhibit in the days of Elijah and Elisha."* In addition to what this writer has ad- vanced, I would remark that the pre-eminence attained by Solomon in all the branches of education is, to my mind, an evidence of the advanced condition of the nation generally in this department ; since, unless a good foundation of ele- mentary knowledge had been imparted to the youth of the land as a whole, it is hardly possible to account for the ap- pearance of such a man as Solomon in that age. �o doubt he was endowed with preternatural wisdom. But this, as is usual in the economy of Providence, would be ingrafted upon a high degree of ordinary culture ; and the question forces itself upon the historical student, Who were his tu-

tors, and who taught them ? You do not find the loftiest mountains rising isolatedly from the centre of some great plain. The highest summits are never solitary peaks. They belong usually to some great chain, and are merely the loft- iest elevations in a country, the general character of which is mountainous ; and in the same way the greatest scholars appear, not among an ignorant people, but among those who have a high average of education, and in countries where a good substratum of instruction is enjoyed even by the com- mon average of the community. The historian, Froude, has put this thought admirably when he says, " �o great general ever arose out of a nation of cowards ; no great statesman or philosopher out of a nation of fools ; no great artist out of a nation of materialists ; no great dramatist, except when the drama was the passion of the people. Greatness is nev- er more than the highest degree of an excellence which pre- vails widely round it, and forms the environment in which it grows."* �ow, if these views be correct, the rise of Solo- mon, who was so conspicuous for his intellectual culture and scientific attainments, may be regarded as a proof that in the reign of David, and more particularly, perhaps, in the zenith of his administration, education was extensively diffused, and earnestly fostered by him among the tribes.

But David did much, also, to promote the domestic com- fort of the people. It was said of Augustus that he found Rome brick, and that he left it marble ; and a similar testi- mony as to Paris was borne to the late Emperor of the French, by all who knew that capital as it was before he so transformed and beautified it. Something of the same kind has to be said also of David. Up till his time, the inhabit- ants of Canaan dwelt in places which might perhaps be bet- ter called huts than houses. But when he took possession of Jerusalem, he not only strengthened its fortifications, but he also built the city of David, and, conspicuous therein, a stately palace for himself; nay, he introduced from Tyre arti- ficers in wood, and brass, and stone, and so adorned his capi- tal that men could sing concerning it, " Beautiful for situa- tion, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King." " Walk about Zion, and go round about her : tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces ; that ye may tell it to the generation following."

But besides the influence of all this on domestic architec- ture, not in Jerusalem alone, but over the whole country, the

prosecution of such labors tended largely to develop com- merce. The land over which he ruled was principally pas- toral and agricultural. It produced more food than the pop- ulation needed. But by the introduction of builders from Tyre, and the importation of timber from Lebanon, there was furnished an outlet for their superfluous provisions, while the general comfort of the people was advanced. This kind of trade prepared the way for the farther development of com- merce under Solomon, whose ships went to India, and, as there is reason to believe, also to China ; while it knit the Hirams and their successors in close alliance to David and his sons, and inaugurated an interchange of commercial com- modities between Jerusalem and Tyre, which we find in ex- istence even in the days of the Christian apostles.* Then again, on the principle of letting nothing be lost, David seems to have put the waste lands under extensive culti- vation. He had, as we learn from i Chronicles xxvii., 25, "storehouses in the fields, in the cities, and in the villages, and in the castles ;" he had a regular staff of men who did " the work of the field for the tillage of the ground." He had superintendents over the vineyards and wine- cellars, and over the olive and sycamore trees, together with the oil which they produced. There were men over the herds in Sharon and in the valleys of Shaphat, as well as over the. camels and asses. Thus, as Blaikie has re- marked, " Many a hill, under his able management, would become encircled with vine -clad terraces, and many a plain formerly abandoned to sterility would rejoice and blossom as the rose. The king's example, too, spreading to smaller proprietors, now blessed with peace and freedom, would effect a revolution in the agriculture of the land."* Hence the military glory of David's life was not its highest distinction, and we may warrantably enough regard him as the inaugurator of an internal civil administration which, for thoroughness and efficiency, surpassed every thing which up to his day any country on the face of the earth, with the single exception of Egypt, had enjoyed.

It is time, however, that we looked to the arrangements which David made in ecclesiastical matters ; but before we enumerate them, we must have a clear idea of the position in which he stood. He was not merely the king. He was, at the same time, a prophet as really as either Gad or �athan ; and as we saw, at the great festival of the bringing up of the ark, he arrayed himself in the linen ephod of the priests, and took part in the offering of sacrifice. Hence, while the ulti-

mate reference of the Psalm is undeniably to the Mes- siah, its primary application may well enough have been to David, who was in some sense a second Melchizeclek a priest among kings, and a king among priests. It was, there- fore, by virtue of the union of these three offices in himself, that he was entitled to take upon him the regulation of the Tabernacle service, and the setting in order of those things which in the days of Saul had been too generally neglected, and allowed to fall into the greatest confusion. As we saw before, the seat of the Tabernacle was at �ob, or perhaps (as an incidental allusion in i Chronicles xvi., 39, would seem to imply) at Gibeon ; but the ark, which was the glory of the Tabernacle, was not there. That had been for a long time at Kirjath-jearim ; but David brought it to Jerusalem, there- by making that city the ecclesiastical as well as judicial cen- tre of the land. He did not, however, suppress the services at the Tabernacle, but left Zadok to superintend them, con- tinuing him as co-ordinate priest by the side of Abiathar, and allowing the seat of the ancient Tabernacle to sink by degrees into the obscurity which ultimately enveloped it. While, however, he did not positively demolish the former Tabernacle, he devoted special attention to the arrangement of the services in the new sacred tent at Jerusalem. These, of course, had to be performed by the priests and Levites. The special functions of the former were to offer sacrifices, to burn incense, and to change the shew-bread ; the peculiar duties of the latter were to perform the lower office of attend- ing to the outward fabric, and, in general, to do all that was required to make the public worship of God excellent in char- acter, decorous in arrangement, and reverent in spirit. But the Levites had now so increased in numbers, and there were so many belonging to the priestly family of Aaron, that it was needful to make some orderly division of the work among them.

In seeking to meet this necessity, David adopted a plan similar to that which he had introduced into the army, and arranged the priests into twenty-four courses, giving to each its order by lot; and we find that this arrangement contin- ued in the days of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. " Each course served a week alternately, under a subordinate prefect ; and in the time of Zacharias, at least, the duties of each individual seem to have been determined by lot; but all attended at the great festivals."* Of the Levites, who numbered thirty-eight thousand men of thirty years old and upward, six thousand were, as we have already seen, told off

as officers and judges, and allocated to different districts over the land ; twenty-four thousand were appointed to set forward the work of the Lord, and four thousand were por- ters ; while the remaining four thousand were appointed to praise the Lord, with the accompaniment of instruments of music. These, however, were not all ordinarily needed at one and the same time, so he divided them also into courses, of which we have a minute account in i Chronicles xxiii. ; and there also we have the following most interesting record of his motive in all this proceeding (verses 25-32): "For David said, The Lord God of Israel hath given rest unto his people, that they may dwell in Jerusalem forever : and also unto the Levites : they shall no more carry the tabernacle, nor any vessels of it for the service thereof. For by the last words of David the Levites were numbered from twenty years old and above : because their office was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord, in the courts, and in the chambers, and in the purifying of all holy things, and the work of the service of the house of God ; both for the shew-bread, and for the fine flour for meat-of- fering, and for the unleavened cakes, and for that which is baked in the pan, and for that which is fried, and for all manner of measure and size ; and to stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even ; and to offer all burnt-sacrifices unto the Lord in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the Lord : and that they should keep the charge of the taberna- cle of the congregation, and the charge of the holy place, and the charge of the sons of Aaron their brethren, in the service of the house of the Lord."

The arrangements for the musical part of the service were particularly elaborate, and the twenty-fifth chapter of i Chronicles is devoted to their enumeration. The prime leaders the first three were Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun ; and under these each superintended by a son of one or oth- er of them, as the lot appointed were twenty-four bands of twelve each, who are described as " instructed in the songs of the Lord, and cunning in them." �ay, more, there were, besides these, three daughters of Heman, who, like their brothers, were skilled in the psaltery, the cymbal, and the harp. Under these twenty-four bands of twelve each, were arranged twenty- four courses, taken by lot from the four thousand. Thus, as a regular thing, only a twenty -fourth part of these musicians would be about the Tabernacle serv-

ice at one time ; but as they all came in alternate courses, the efficiency of each course would be maintained ; so that on great occasions as, for example, at the annual national fes- tivals when they were all engaged, the effect produced must have been at once most artistic and overpowering.

Two things, however, have to be borne in mind about these musical services. The first is that they were perform- ed in the open air. The court of the Tabernacle, as after- ward of the Temple, had no covering overhead. Hence the high service of a Jewish festival-day would resemble nothing so much as an oratorio in the open air, when the mingled harmony of human voices and instruments of music must have rilled the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and floated, in sub- dued and solemn tones, over the slopes of Olivet. The sec- ond thing about these services is, that only the Levites were authorized to take part in them. Praise, as I have formerly remarked, was regarded as a sacrifice to God, just as really as the meat-offering and drink-offering, and only those who belonged to the holy tribe of Levi were competent to offer it. They presented it in the stead of the people, and as their consecrated representatives. �ow this vicarious char- acter of the Tabernacle praise is that which has been done away in the Gospel Church ; for, through faith in Jesus Christ, we are all priests and Levites, consecrated, by the anointing of the Holy Ghost, for the offering of spiritual sac- rifices. Hence, says Peter, " Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light ;" and to the same effect the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has said, " By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name." The little child may join in the hymn now, as well as the trained singer, provided only he have a loving and believing heart, and there is no restriction of any part of worship in the Church of Christ to any order or class of men in it. But if while praise was thus vicarious, it was deemed of so much importance, and so much attention was devoted to the attainment of excellence in it, ought we to allow it to sink into a subordinate position, now that it is the common privilege of all believers ? Why should not all our Christian congregations become as skillful in the rendering of " the songs of the Lord " as these four thou- sand Levites were ? �ay, may not every congregation be instructed by the method of organization which David here inaugurated ? What is to hinder us, for example, from di-

viding ourselves as a cliurch into twelve, or, say, twenty-four musical courses, under appropriate leaders, each course in rotation being responsible for the leading of psalmody for a certain time, and all maintaining a constant aggregate week- ly practice, so that on the Lord's Day, as we gather together here, we shall be just one well-trained and thoroughly organ- ized choir, raising such a chorus of jubilant praise as shall be, in some degree, worthy of the priceless blessings for which we give God thanks ? What is to hinder this ? again I ask. We want, in the first place, some organizing David, who shall consecrate himself to this work as thoroughly as the King of Israel did of old. But we want even more than that, the spirit of Levitical consecration in the heart of every worshiper. Ah ! if we but remembered that, as Christians, we are anointed by God's Spirit for his peculiar- service, and if we did only faintly realize that the praise of the sanctuary was a portion of that service to which we have been thus set apart, we should be more willing to give the time and atten- tion which are needful to qualify ourselves for it. We have fallen into the grievous mistake of supposing that the music of the sanctuary is for human ears, more than for the ear of God ; and in seeking to please men by it, we have allowed devotion almost to disappear from it. �ay, we have thereby come even to displease men by it ; for it is here, as in so many other things, they who seek human appreciation and applause as the main end invariably, in the long run, lose that which they so desired ; while they, who think mainly and especially of doing honor to God, do at the last receive also the respect of men. When, in our praise, we can merge all thought of self in the eager, earnest effort to please God ; when, feeling that we are singing to God, we try to give him of our best ; then, also, the ears of men will be turned to- ward us, and the hymns of the service will, because they are the sincere expression of our hearts, produce the most salu- tary impressions on those who hear them, and will be as much a means of edification and conversion as the prayers or the discourse. The life of the good man, who is thinking only of serving God, has often been the means of converting a soul ; and the song of a devout Christian, who has been singing only to give expression to his own feelings, has not unfrequently carried the truth to the soul of him who heard it. When, therefore, we have such singing in our churches, we shall hear people say, " I was converted by the singing of such and such a hymn," just as often as we shall have them saying, " I was awakened by such and such a sermon ;" for, as the holy Herbert has said,

"A verse may find him who a sermon flies, And turn delight into a sacrifice."

I have dwelt more largely on David's administration, mili- tary, civil, and ecclesiastical, than may appear to you to have been either necessary or profitable ; but my apology must be, that I wished in a single discourse to dispose of the whole matter, so that we may not require to turn aside from other and more important things to refer to it again. For the same reason, let me in one sentence epitomize the victories of Da- vid as they are referred to in the eighth chapter of 2 Samuel. They were over the Philistines, over the Moabites, over the King of Zobah, in the direction of the river Euphrates, a cam- paign in which he encountered the Syrians, and took and garrisoned Damascus. He likewise grappled with and over- came the Ammonites, because of a deliberate insult which they offered to his ambassadors, whom he sent on a visit of condolence to the king after the death of his father. He also overcame the Amalekites, and took and garrisoned Edom. To the war with the Ammonites we shall have occasion to refer again, when we treat of the darkest spot in David's history ; meanwhile let it be noted that the 6oth Psalm was probably written during the war with Edom, when some reverse had been sustained ; and perhaps we do not err if we date the aoth Psalm at this warlike era of David's life. By these victories he greatly extended the boundaries of the land, while in Jerusalem he strengthened himself by gather- ing around him, as the members of his cabinet, the wisest and most eminent men of the nation.

I close with two practical considerations suggested by this whole subject. Let us see here the intimate connection between religion, and the intellectual enlightenment and social prosperity of a nation. David was a man of God, eagerly anxious in all things to know the Divine will and do it. He regarded his position on the throne as a trust which had been given to him, for the welfare of his people and for the glory of Jehovah ; and the result of his conscientious endeavors to act up to his responsibilities was that educational, social, and religious regeneration which to-night we have been considering. But this is no solitary instance. Similar results followed the re- ligious earnestness of Hezekiah and Josiah, in Old Testa- ment ages ; and in modern times, the nations which have been blessed with Christian rulers have ever led the van in all the nobler characteristics of civilization and prosperity. When

an African prince sent a courteous message to the Queen of England, asking, " What is the secret of England's great- ness ?" she sent him a copy of the sacred Scriptures, with the reply, "This is the secret of England's greatness." And if one should put a similar question in regard to this great re- public, he might be correctly answered in a similar manner ; for the character of the Pilgrim Fathers, which was made by their faith in the Bible, and their devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, has stamped itself indelibly on this Western land ; yea, as it seems to me, in spite of certain recent occurrences, it is to-day more conspicuous in the regulation of national affairs than ever. But much yet remains to be accomplished ; and if we would have a prosperity worthy of the name, it must, as in the case of Israel under David, be rooted in religion. It may seem strange, indeed, that in a republic I should seek to enforce this lesson from the character of a king in a mon- archy ; but when you regard it rightly, the practical point of my remarks will only become the more sharp and incisive, for here the sovereign is the people ; and so their charac- ter is even more intimately related to the country's prosperity than is that of a king in a monarchy. They give the tone to their representatives ; and as water can not rise above its level, so the morality and patriotism of the members of our Legislatures and Congress will not be above that of the peo- ple who elect them. If we wish to purge away all remaining corruptions, and to take a place among the nations which shall be at once pure and permanent, we must seek to bring the sovereign people under the influence of the religion of Jesus. This is the salt which will at once purify and pre- serve the State. Hence, while utterly repudiating all sympa- thy with what is called a national establishment of religion, we ought as patriots, no less than as Christians, to seek to have the people thoroughly Christianized. The Gospel is the grand reformer. The home missionary on our frontier, the city missionary in our streets and lanes, the humble Christian worker in all departments of benevolent activity, will do more, in the long run, to purify our legislatures than any number of political agitators ; for while the latter are seeking merely to destroy evils, the former are laboring to form character, as that alone can be formed to holiness and integrity, by trust in God and obedience to Jesus Christ. �o nation, monarchical or republican, has ever stood, unless it has been founded on the moral excellence of the people. The Roman republic became an easy prey to the ambitious grasp of Caesar, when the virtues of its ancient worthies gave place to luxury, lasciviousness, and dishonesty ; and the re-

peated failures of France in modern times to rise to the re- sponsibility of self-government have been due to the absence among the people of those solid qualities which religion fos- ters, and the presence in the midst of them of every vilest sort of abomination. Let us be instructed by such melancholy instances, and improve the opportunity which God' has given us, by seeking to form the character of the people on the basis of the Word of God. �o law upon the statute-book, no formal insertion of the name of Deity in the Constitution, will make a nation Christian ; nothing can do that but the Christianity of the people themselves ; and every man who is laboring to make the masses Christian is in the highest and the purest sense a patriot. Let each citizen-king be ani- mated with the public-spiritedness and deep religious fervor which the Gospel produces ; and then " all nations shall call us blessed, for we shall be a delightsome land."

Finally: let us take note of the principle on which the honors of the kingdom of Christ are distributed, as distin- guished from that on which David proceeded, in the found- ing of his order of merit. The men whom he exalted were warriors, who had done daring deeds upon the field of bat- tle. Of one it is told that " he slew eight hundred at one time ;" of another it is said that " he smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and clave unto his sword ;" of an- other, that " he lifted up his spear against three hundred, and slew them." �or would I seek to disparage such deeds ; for when war becomes a necessity, as it sometimes does, every man's heart glows with admiration of such dauntless courage. But there is a nobler heroism even than that the heroism of love ; and this it is that Jesus evermore delights to honor. To "drink of his cup," and to be "baptized with his baptism," is the road to this renown, and it is to be won, not by destroying men's lives, but by saving them, if need be, even by the sacrifice of our own. The field on which this heroism is to be shown is that of daily life, and the insignia of this knighthood not withering and perishable like those of earth, but enduring as immortality itself may be gained even by the lowliest follower of the Lamb. He who in his own character shall approximate the nearest to the Lord, he who, in his self-sacrificing devotion to the salvation of men, shall come the closest to the death of Christ upon the cross, shall be the greatest ; while the humble believer who gives a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of a dis- ciple shall in no wise be forgotten. This is the law of the kingdom, as sanctioned and illustrated by the example of

the King himself.

" For He before whose sceptre

The nations rise or fall, Who gives no least commandment

But come to pass it shall, Said that he who would be greatest

Should be servant unto all.

" And in conflict with the evils

Which his bright creation mars,

Laid he not aside the sceptre Which can reach to all the stars ?

Of the service which he rendered See on his hand the scars !"

Forth, then, my hearers, and seek this deathless honor. You may find opportunities of winning it, at every corner of the streets, in every home, in any place. Lift up the fallen ; comfort the mourner ; relieve the destitute ; remember the forgotten ; nurse the sick ; wipe the death-damp from the brow of the sufferer in his last agony ; tell the ignorant of Jesus, and sacrifice yourself, if need be, for the good of oth- ers. So shall you win a place in the peerage of the skies, and obtain honorable mention among the worthies of the ce- lestial kingdom.”