Deeper Commentary
2Sa 8:1 After this it happened that David struck the Philistines and
subdued them: and David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand
of the Philistines-
"After this" may not be strictly chronological, because 2 Sam. 7:1 was
at a time when David had rest from his enemies. 2 Sam. 7 is included where
it is to continue the theme of the ark and Zion which began in 2 Sam. 6. The
promised king of Israel would save Israel from the Philistines and their
other enemies; Saul had failed in this, but David succeeded as the truly
intended king. LXX implies that until this time, Israel were still paying
tribute to the Philistines: "David took the tribute from out of the hand of
the Philistines".
But the parallel 1 Chron. 18:1 says that “David took Gath and her towns
out of the hand of the Philistines”. Gath would be the ‘mother-city’, and
the word translated “towns” literally means daughters. We note that David
had earlier lived in Gath under the protection of Achish and had lied to
the people how many Israelites he had slain in his apparent hatred of
Saul. They would have considered him a hypocrite.
2Sa 8:2 He struck Moab, and measured them with the line, making them to lie
down on the ground; and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full
line to keep alive. The Moabites became servants to David, and brought
tribute-
David made the captives lay down in three lines. He arbitrarily chose
one line to keep alive, and killed the other two lines. This can’t be
justified as some careful obedience to some Mosaic law. It reads like
something out of the Holocaust, an arbitrary slaying of some in order to
exercise the whim of one’s own power. No wonder David was barred from
building the temple because of his attitude to bloodshed. And this was the
worse because his parents had been given refuge there (1 Sam. 22:3,4).
Perhaps the incident of 2 Sam. 23:20 occurred at this time of 2 Sam. 8:2.
Likewise when Rabbah is captured, David proudly puts the crown of the king on his head, grabs their spoil for himself (not following Abraham's example), “and he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon” (2 Sam. 12:31). Now all that is torture. It’s one thing to obey Divine commands about slaying enemies; it’s another to willfully torture them, Auschwitz-style. These incidents reveal David at his worst. And again- did he really have to ensure that every male in Edom was murdered (1 Kings 11:15,16)- was that really necessary? What about the mums, wives, sisters left weeping, and the fatherless daughters, left to grow up in the dysfunction of a leaderless Middle Eastern home? Those men were all somebody’s sons, brothers, fathers, grandfathers. Was David really obeying some Divine command here, or was this the dictate of his own anger and dysfunctional bloodlust? We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (1 Chron. 22:8).
2Sa 8:3 David struck also Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah-
Hadadezer = 'helped by Hadad', the sun god. 2 Chron. 8 shows how
Solomon sought to replicate what his father David did here. It describes the actions
of Solomon in the very language which is
used earlier about David.
2 Chron. 8:3 “Solomon went to Hamath Zobah” = 2 Sam. 8:3 “David smote also Hadadezer the son of Rehob king of Zobah”; 2 Chron. 8:3 "and prevailed" = same word 1 Sam. 17:30; 2 Chron. 8:8 Those “whom the children of Israel consumed not, did Solomon make to pay tribute” = 2 Sam. 8:6 “David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts”; 2 Chron. 8:14 “He appointed according to the ordinance of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their charges… for so had David commanded” = 1 Chron. 24:1; 2 Chron. 9:15,16 = 2 Sam.8:7 “David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer and brought them to Jerusalem”.
2Sa 8:4 David took from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen and twenty
thousand footmen: and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved
of them for one hundred chariots-
See on :3. Notice how both David and Solomon dealt with the matter of
chariots and horses. Solomon’s weakness for horses was perhaps traceable
to David’s. Solomon unashamedly amassed horses and chariots, in direct
disobedience to Divine command (Dt. 17:16). When David his father had
captured 1000 chariots and horses, he hamstrung 900 of them and retained
100 of them (2 Sam. 8:4). He had a conscience about the matter, but
thought that 90% obedience wasn’t bad. And the hamstrung horses were
likely used for agricultural work and especially for breeding- breeding
yet more chariot horses. David’s 90% obedience lead to his son’s 100%
disobedience in this matter of chariot horses.
2Sa 8:5 When the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of Zobah,
David struck of the Syrians twenty two thousand men-
Again we must note that "thousand" refers to regiments / families and
is not necessarily to be taken as literally 1,000.
2Sa 8:6 Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus; and the Syrians
became servants to David, and brought tribute. Yahweh gave victory to
David wherever he went-
This was short-lived, because Solomon's adversary Rezon established
himself at Damascus (1 Kings 11:23-25).
2Sa 8:7 David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of
Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem-
"Hadad" was the god of the sun, "Hadadezer" had not been 'helped by
Hadad' as his name means, and so David brought these golden imitations of
the sun to Yahweh's temple. It is perhaps questionable whether David
should have brought idols into Jerusalem; we note that later Judah
worshipped sun gods. David's actions here were not blessed, for the LXX
adds “And Susakim [i.e. Shishak] king of Egypt took them, when he went up
to Jerusalem in the days of Roboam the son of Solomon”. Likewise 1 Kings
14:26 LXX mentions that David took golden spears from Hadadezer: “And the
golden spears which David took from the hand of the servants of Adraazar
king of Soba and carried to Jerusalem, he took them all”. These
would not have been used as real spears, but were part of the worship of
the golden sun which was the main religion in Syria at the time. He would
have been better destroying them, rather than bringing idol paraphernalia
into Jerusalem. For it later contributed towards the freedom Judah felt to
worship sun gods.
2Sa 8:8 From Betah-
LXX Tebah, a son of Nahor the Syrian (Gen. 22:24).
And from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding
much brass-
As discussed on :7, these were likely brass [better, 'copper'] idols
or idol paraphernalia which he would have been better destroying. LXX adds
"Therewith Solomon made the brazen sea, and the pillars, and the lavers,
and all the vessels".
2Sa 8:9 When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had struck all the army
of Hadadezer-
Hamath came under tribute to David (:10), and Solomon, ever seeking
to re-live the work of his father David, made a point of building forts
there (1 Kings 4:24; 2 Chron. 8:4). But this external imitation of the
faith and works of his father wasn't the same as real spirituality; and
this is a warning to all those raised as believers. For when he finally
individuated as his own man, Solomon had no faith in Yahweh and turned to
idols.
2Sa 8:10 then Toi sent Joram his son to king David, to greet him, and to
bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and struck him: for
Hadadezer had wars with Toi. Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and
vessels of gold, and vessels of brass-
These vessels were devoted to God's service by David and then Solomon
dedicated them to the temple (1 Kings 7:51). The same phrase "of silver,
and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used of the vessels taken
from Egypt and dedicated to the tabernacle (Ex. 11:2; 12:35; Josh. 6:19; 2
Sam. 8:10; 1 Kings 7:51). The generosity of others in Biblical history,
their right perspective on the wealth taken from this world, was to
inspire other believers in later history. And this is how the body of
Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to
spirituality.
2Sa 8:11 King David also dedicated these to Yahweh, with the silver and
gold that he dedicated of all the nations which he subdued-
See on :10. David "subdued" the nations, using the word often used of
the command to subdue the nations of Canaan (Num. 32:22,29; Josh. 18:1).
He is presented as a second Joshua, subduing the land as it ought to have
been subdued, and therefore becoming what Adam ought to have been in Eden
(Gen. 1:28 s.w.). This is another indication that the garden of Eden was
effectively the eretz or land promised to Abraham.
2Sa 8:12 of Syria, Moab, the children of Ammon, the Philistines and of
Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah-
There is no record of David fighting Amalek again, so the spoil in
view may be that taken in 1 Sam. 30:16.
2Sa 8:13 David made himself a name when he returned from smiting the
Syrians in the Valley of Salt, even eighteen thousand men-
This demonstrates that a "name" in Hebrew thought is not just a
lexical item. David made his name; it involves personal history,
character, reputation etc. These are all what the Yahweh Name is all
about. This is the reference of 2 Sam. 7:9, indicating that 2 Sam. 7 is
actually referring to events after 2 Sam. 8 and is not in chronological
sequence. Chronicles has “And Abishai the son of Zeruiah smote Edom
in the valley of salt, (to the number of) eighteen thousand men". Perhaps
Edom and Syria were confederate; or we should read with LXX, which had
"Edom" here rather than "the Syrians". We note that :14 goes on to talk
about Edom.
2Sa 8:14 He put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons,
and all the Edomites became servants to David. Yahweh gave victory to
David wherever he went-
This is framed in such terms as to show that Esau / Edom was indeed
now subject to Jacob as predicted in (Gen. 27:37-40), and Balaam’s
prophecy (Num. 24:17,18).
2Sa 8:15 David reigned over all Israel; and David executed justice and
righteousness to all his people-
David was motivated in doing this by realizing that this is how
Yahweh reigns (Ps. 33:5), and that by doing so he would help live out the
spirit of the promises to him, that his throne would be eternally
established; for that throne was all about justice and righteousness (Ps.
89:14). And so David's throne or way of rulership becomes the basis for
how his seed, the Lord Jesus, eternally reigns (Is. 9:7; 32:1; Jer.
23:5,6).
2Sa 8:16 Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the army; and Jehoshaphat the
son of Ahilud was recorder-
The men who had been faithful to David during his long wilderness
years, when he seemed a lost cause with Saul certain to win against him (1
Sam. 27:1), were the very ones who were the rulers in his kingdom. Despite
the very evident weaknesses of men like Joab. And in the type this looks
ahead to we who shall be king-priests in the Lord's eternal kingdom (Rev.
5:10), having been loyal to Him and His cause in these apparently hopeless
wilderness years.
2Sa 8:17 and Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar,
were priests; and Seraiah was scribe-
We notice that no high priest is nominated. David effectively acted
as the high priest; see on :18. The "scribe" or historian was a senior
advisor in the Hebrew court (2 Sam. 8:17; 2 Kings 18:18,37; 2 Chron. 34:8)
because of the huge value attached to history in the Hebrew mind, and as
reflected in the Bible being largely history. Advice on how to act was to
be based upon historical, or as we would now say, "Biblical", precedent.
2Sa 8:18 and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the
Pelethites; and David’s sons were chief ministers-
David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not
a Levite (:17; 2 Sam. 6:13-20; and 2 Sam. 19:21 = Ex.22:28), he came to
understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law
was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were
“priests” (2 Sam. 8:18 RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance
[a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he
refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (Ps. 16:4,5; 119:57)-
speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not.