I Chronicles
11
1 “Then
all
Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.” Upon the death of Saul, Abner,
for
a while espousing the cause of Ishbosheth, the only surviving
son of Saul,
“made him king over” a large
proportion of the people, exclusive of
(II Samuel 2:8-10). Already
David had been anointed at
of Judah, king over the
house of
“king in
v.11; ch. 5:5;
I Kings 2:11; ch.3:4, here). Notice the
agreement of this date with
the
account of the six sons born to David in
explanation of the chronology for Ishbosheth
affecting this period is not easy.
It is said that he reigned over
the
difference of five and a half years lost? Our first verse here, with its apparently
emphatic “then” (compare
Ibid. ch.5:1), would seem to make it very unlikely
that it was lost between the death of Ishbosheth
and the kingship of David over
“all the tribes of
interval in question might find its account in the “long war (Ibid.
ch. 3:1,6,
17-21) between the house of Saul and the house of David.” There
is, however, still possible the supposition that the
historian intends to give
the intrinsically correct facts of the case, and means
that, what with delay
before getting the adhesion of the people to Ishbosheth, and what with the
early decay of his sovereign power, he could not be said to
have reigned
more than two years. This verse, then, shows that the
history proper of
Chronicles purports to begin from the time of David’s rule
over the entire
and united people, at the exact date of seven and a half
years after Saul’s
death, while no mention is here made of his intermediate
partial rule over
representatives, “the elders of
our
v. 3). The first nine verses of this chapter cover the same ground as
the
first ten verses of II Samuel 5. “Unto
came to be here from Ibid. ch.2:1. “And
it came to pass after this” (i.e.
after David’s “lamentation
over Saul and Jonathan”) “that David
inquired
of the Lord, saying,
Shall I go up into any of the cities of
Lord said unto
him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And
he
said, Unto
special memorials of David. An interesting sketch of the
topography and
natural features of this place, and a succinct Biblical
history of it in
following quotation: — “
the primeval city of the vine. Its name indicates community
or society. It
was the ancient city of Ephron
the Hittite, in whose gate he and the elders
received the offer of Abraham, when as yet no other fixed
habitation of
man was known in central
the patriarchs; their own permanent resting-place when they
were gradually
exchanging the pastoral for the agricultural life. In its
neighborhood can
be traced, by a continuous tradition, the site of the
venerable tree under
which Abraham pitched his tent, and of the double cavern in
which he and
his family were deposited and perhaps still remain. It was
the city of
the old Canaanite chief, with his three giant sons, under
whose walls the
trembling spies stole through the land by the adjacent
Here Caleb chose his portion when, at the head of his
valiant tribe, he
drove out the old inhabitants, and called the whole
surrounding territory
after his own name; and here the tribe of
asserted its independent existence against the rest of the
Israelite nation. It
needs but few words to give the secret of this early
selection, of this long
continuance of the metropolitan city of
desert must have been struck by the sight of that pleasant
vale, with its
orchards and vineyards and numberless wells, and we must
add, in earlier
times, the groves of terebinths
and oaks which then attracted from far the
eye of the wandering tribes. This fertility was in part
owing to its elevation
into the cooler and the more watered region above the dry
and withered
valleys of the rest of
This is a figurative
expression, the pedigree and lineage of which it is interesting
to
note (see II Samuel 19:12; Judges 9:2; Genesis 2:23; 29:14). The highest
service to which it was promoted may be said to be reached,
however, in
Ephesians 5:30, Paul, in speaking of Christ, said “For we are members of
His body, of His
flesh, and of His bones.”.
2 “And
moreover in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast
he
that leddest out and broughtest in
said unto thee, Thou shalt
feed my people
Psalm 78:71). Thus to the servant is condescendingly
vouchsafed the same
description as the Master takes through the Spirit for Himself — to
the under-
shepherd the same as the Chief Shepherd acknowledges; note same
psalm,
v. 72; Psalm 23:1-4; 100:3; 1 Peter 5:4 -“and thou shalt
be ruler
over my
people
A True Leader (v. 2)
David’s life was made up of several successive stages; and,
as we read his
biography and so trace his course, we see clearly — what at the time
he
could not see — how one position, one experience, prepared for
the next.
His youth was a preparation for his manhood, his court life
for the throne,
exile for power, rule over
years during which Saul’s son ruled over the other tribes were
the years of
David’s reign over
Ishbosheth, the elders of all
him
the crown. This was the occasion upon which they made the
acknowledgment, “Even when Saul was king, thou wast
he that leddest out
and broughtest in
true leadership, called forth by circumstances, and cultivated by
responsibility
and
action.
DIVINE
LED. Whilst in
government there is much which is artificial, there is a
natural foundation for the relationships which subsist. Parents
direct the
course of their children; elder brothers to some extent that of
the younger;
the capable, the self-confident, the experienced, are the
natural leaders of
the timid and submissive. In all human communities there are
born leaders
of men. If all distinctions were abolished today, tomorrow
they would be
revived in other forms. There is doubtless injustice in many political and
social arrangements; but whilst the unjust acquisition and use of
authority is of man, THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY IS
FROM GOD. (Romans 13:1-8)
of a man being placed in a position of influence and
authority is sure, if he
be capable and strong and under the domination of high
principle, to elicit
his best and most useful qualities. Especially will such a
position foster
habits of sound judgment and quick decision, habits of
self-control and
self-reliance, a just discernment of character, and aptness in
recognizing
ability and trustworthiness in others. Thus it is that a high
position is fitted
to lead to one yet higher.
It was leadership which made of the shepherd
son of Jesse the warrior and King of Israel. As in other
departments of life,
so here, exercise promotes strength and development. Let none
shrink
from the responsibility of guiding others when
work; strength and wisdom shall be “as his day.” (Deuteronomy 33:25)
WHEN A SUITABLE AND CAPABLE LEADER IS PROVIDED BY
THE DIVINE RULER. (I believe that the Bible teaches that God will
provide good leaders as long as His people honor Him. There is a
correlation
between
CY – 2012) When men have been accustomed to be
well led, their confidence
in their leader grows with rapidity, and their attachment is
consolidated by time.
When the throne was vacant, the
eyes of all
Their experience of his ability
and valor, his designation by God’s
prophet, were the indications to them that the son of Jesse was the right
man to rule over them. Events proved that they were not
mistaken. The
sway of David made the chosen people one great nation, and
fitted them
for the work appointed for them by the theocratic governor. There is in this
passage a lesson specially suitable to young men of ability,
education,
and position. For
such God in His providence has assuredly a work to
do. It is for them
quietly and patiently to await the indications of Divine
providence, in the persuasion that faithfulness
and diligence in present
duty are the best preparation
for future responsibilities. It is God’s
prerogative to TRAIN THE WORKMEN
and TO PROVIDE THE
WORK!
3 “Therefore
came all the elders of
David made a covenant with them in
use
of this phrase occurs in Judges 11:11. It implies that the engagement was
ratified in the presence of a holy place, a holy vessel of the
sanctuary, or a
holy person (I Samuel 21:6-7; Joshua 18:8; Leviticus 1:5). Whether the tabernacle
was
now at
“and they anointed
David king over
David’s being anointed (I Samuel 16:1, 13) Samuel the
prophet officiated.
The second time (II Samuel 2:4) was when the “men of
him
king over “the house of
anointed king over the united people, it was at all events at the
special
instance of “all the elders
of
last occasions is not mentioned -“according
to the word of the LORD by
Samuel.”
The sentence marks the complete
fulfillment of what had been
foreshadowed in I Samuel 16:12-13; and it may probably have been
the
more carefully introduced by the compiler of Chronicles, in consideration
of
the absence from his own work of previous details and of the previous
anointings of David.
David’s Accession (v. 3)
With this chapter commences another part of this Book of
Chronicles,
which, from this point onwards, is occupied with the reign, the
character,
and
the exploits of David, King of Judah and
in
this verse, occupies accordingly a position of interest and significance in
the
narrative. The point especially deserving notice in the language of this verse
is
the combination of Divine and human agency
in the nomination of
David to the throne. This combination, especially apparent in the history of
theocratic
of
life and history. Observe:
To many eyes no other than human agency was visible.
Ø
His own character and services marked David out as the one
only ruler whom
had yet within him the heart and the future of a king.
Ø
A popular election effected his elevation. It
was the wish of
“all
In his election the old adage
was verified — Vox populi
vox Dei
(the voice of the people is the voice of God).
Ø
A senatorial
requisition sanctioned and enforced the
popular
nomination. “All the elders
of
the general feeling and to prefer formally the national
request. The
appointment of the king was not the work of a moment of enthusiasm,
was not the caprice of a mob; it was the deliberate act of the wisest
and the noblest in the land.
not have been apparent to all, but it is acknowledged with
justice by the
sacred historian.
Ø
A Divine prediction led to David’s accession. The language of the
people is very noticeable: “The
Lord thy God said unto thee, Thou
shalt feed
my people
Ø
A prophetic designation foreshadowed it. The appointment, so
we
read, was made “according to the
word of the Lord by Samuel”
The same inspired seer who
anointed Saul was directed to nominate
his immediate successor.
Ø
A religious covenant ratified the nomination of David. When he
“made a covenant with them in
in accordance with his religious convictions, but he acted
also in a manner
harmonizing with the theocratic position of
not merely allied, THEY WERE IDENTICAL! Nothing more
natural than that a sacred ceremony should accompany the public
and
political act. There is no trace of selfish ambition on David’s
part. He
acknowledged the tremendous responsibilities of reigning. And in the
sight of Jehovah his subject, THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
UNDERTOOK TO
COOPERATE WITH THE KING IN
SEEKING THE
GENERAL GOOD!
o
In all human history
and biography there is a blending of the
human and
the Divine.
We should seek the Divine in the human.
o
Social and
political duties can only be discharged aright
when fulfilled in a
devout and prayerful spirit. The more
responsible our position, the greater our need of a sincere
confidence in the Supreme Lord who
is the Supreme Guide
of man.
4 “And
David and all
the Jebusites were,
the inhabitants of the land.”
This ancient name of
in
Judges 19:10-11; the Gentile form of the noun, however, Jebusi,
is of more
frequent occurrence,
and sometimes it is found even as the name of the city
(Joshua 15:8, 63; 18:16, 28). The derivation and meaning of
the word
are unascertained. Gesenius
explains it to mean “a place dry or
downtrodden like a threshing-floor.”
5 “And the
inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither.” -
The inhabitants of Jebus added something beside (II Samuel 5:6).
They had said,
“Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in
hither: thinking,
David cannot come in hither.” “Nevertheless
David took
the
Josephus, and is different from the modern
was
the second highest elevation in the city, and up to the time of the destruction
of
the city of
There is but little doubt of the identity of the hill of Moriah (Genesis 22:2; II
Chronicles 3:1) with the hill of Zion, though no individual
passage of Scripture asserts
it.
The passage before us, however, with its parallel, tells us plainly enough that
the
city of
passages in the Psalms and the prophets both confirm this and point
out the
difference between
6 “And
David said, Whosoever smiteth
the Jebusites first shall be
chief and captain. So Joab
the son of Zeruiah went first up, and
was chief.”
The name and fresh glory of Joab, as given here, are not given
in
II Samuel 5:3-10; and we could suppose that they were purposely
withheld there. It is true that Joab
already held high office, probably the
first place as captain of David’s men, but Bertheau’s
objection to the
statements of this verse on such grounds easily yields to the
considerations
— first, that there can be no
doubt Joab had fallen into disfavor with
David and others, upon his slaying of Abner (II Samuel 3:26-29, 36-37);
and
further, that this was a great occasion, exceedingly favorable for
evoking any very special ability of younger or unknown men, at
present
lost under the shadow of larger growths. The advantage which Joab gained
now
was one that confirmed his position and increased largely his
influence; and an indication that he was not slow to avail himself
of it is
probably to be traced in the our eighth verse, where it is said while “David
built… even from Millo round about,… Joab repaired
the rest of the city.”
Joab,
the Military Statesman (v. 6)
Though this man, Joab, is
introduced to us before (II Samuel 2:13, 26, etc.), yet, in
order of time, this passage is his first appearance, and only
here have we the account
of
his prowess in taking Jebus, and his part in the
building of the city of
probably had been chief captain of David’s band of outlaws, but on
this occasion
he
gained the position of general of the national army, and he became subsequently
the
great military statesman of the kingdom, and the chief king’s counselor.
Probably
he may be regarded as the man who exercised most influence over the
king, and
the careful review of their relations produces a deep
impression that the influence
was seldom a good one. He became David’s master, and under his bondage David
vainly writhed and struggled in his later years.
mainly the following:
Ø
Abner’s killing of Asahel, Joab’s brother (II Samuel 2:12-32), filled
Joab with purposes of revenge.
Ø
Joab treacherously slew Abner (Ibid.
ch.3:6-39), and David felt
himself too weak to do more than denounce the murder; he dare not
punish the murderer.
Ø
Joab took a leading part in the wars of the reign, especially
distinguishing himself against the Ammonites (Ibid. ch.10:6-14).
Ø
Joab connived at David’s sin in the matter of Bathsheba, and
so gained the power over him which he so humiliatingly used
afterwards.
Ø
Joab was faithful in the time of Absalom’s
rebellion.
Ø
He directly and insultingly disobeyed his king and lord in
slaying
Absalom. (Ibid. ch. 18:5-17)
Ø
He showed his mastery
and his control of the army by killing Amasa,
who had been appointed chief general in his stead. (Ibid. ch. 20:9-10)
Ø
He properly
remonstrated with David against his self-willed scheme of
taking a census. (Ibid. ch. 24:1-4)
Ø
But after David’s
death he took the part of Adonijah, and was
condemned by Solomon. He was strictly
a man of the world, brave,
daring, manly,
generous, and persevering, but masterful,
impatient of what he thought David’s hesitancy and weakness;
a man who saw clearly
an end to be aimed at, and was in no
way particular about the choice of means by which to reach
it.
He was unscrupulous,
having no quick sensitiveness of conscience
to that which is wrong. He
ordered his life by the rule of the
expedient, not the rule of the right, and was heedless of the claims
of others if they stood in his way. A man who was a type of a class
still to be found in business and social spheres, who are all for
self, and do not mind who they trample down as they go up.
“His character was
ambitious, daring,
unscrupulous, yet with an
occasional show of piety” (Ibid. ch.10:12). Wordsworth says,
“Joab
is the personification of worldly policy and secular expediency,
and temporal ambition eager for its own personal aggrandizement, and
especially for the maintenance of its own political ascendancy, and
practicing on the weaknesses of princes for its own self-interests;
but at last the victim of its own MACHIAVELLIAN
SHREWDNESS.”
skilfully
aided in the restoration of the banished Absalom; and he properly
roused the king from the excessive grief he felt at the death of
his favorite
son (Ibid. ch. 19:1-8). Again and again, with statesmanlike genius,
he enabled
David promptly to seize the
occasions that promised success; and he had
Religion enough, or insight
enough, to see where David was wrong in the
matter of the census. But, as a whole, Joab’s influence was bad. His
unscrupulousness led David into crimes, and his masterfulness prevented
David from
properly punishing crimes. When
conflict came between state
necessity and religious duty, Joab gained
the victory for mere policy, and
so made David act in
ways that were unworthy of one who was only
Jehovah’s
vicegerent. It is never good for us to come into the power of any
fellow-man. We should be ever in
GOD’S LEAD but refuse any fellow-
man’s bonds. And no undue
influence exerted by a fellow-man can ever
relieve OUR RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE
GOD! CRAFT,
GUILE,
POLICY, are no forces of blessing in any HUMAN SPHERES!
7 And
David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of
David.
8 And he built the city round about,
even from Millo round about:
and Joab repaired
the rest of the city. 9 So David waxed greater and
greater: for the LORD of hosts was with him.” “Millo” – There is
great uncertainty as to the derivation and the meaning of this word. It is probably
not
really of Hebrew extraction, but of
the oldest Canaanitish
origin. In the Hebrew
it
is always used with the article, and would presumably come from the Hebrew
root “to fill.” Josephus
seems to use, as synonymous expression for “David’s
wall round Millo,” this, viz. “buildings round about the lower city” (‘Jud.
compared with 5; ‘Wars,’ 6:1, where he identifies those
“buildings,” etc.,
with Acra). As the
name of a family, it is mentioned in connection with
Shechem, known specially as a place of the
Canaanites (Judges 9:6, 20).
The Septuagint represents it by the word hJ a}kra – hae akra
– Acra - In the
remarkable passage, II Kings 12:20, the word “Silla”
is even a greater enigma,
which, however, may designate the “steps from the city of
(Nehemiah 3:15), or “the causeway of going up” to
the west of the
temple (I Chronicles 22:16). The likeliest view of Millo is that it was a
very strong point of fortification in the surrounding defenses of the hill
of
unvarying translation (hJ
a}kra) of the
Septuagint is superseded by to<
ajna>lhmma – to analaemma - a word itself of doubtful signification. For
while some would render it by the word “foundation,” Schleusner translates
it
“height.” Grove (in Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ 2:367) puts it in “the
neighborhood
of the Tyropaean valley at the
foot of
“inward,” applied to the building by David. Does it imply a
covering by
edifices of the space, or some portion of it, that lay
between
rest of the city?
David’s Greatness (v. 9)
From the time that the king began to reign over all the
tribes of
fortunes began to improve. Dark days had he gone through before;
now
the
sun of prosperity blazed upon his path.
Ø
In warlike achievements. He was a man of war
from his
youth, and his manhood was occupied with the defense of his
kingdom and the defeat of his foes.
Ø
In the valor of his captains. “Mighty men of
valor” gathered
around him, and contributed to his power and his fame.
Ø
In the prosperity of his people. That David’s reign
was an era of
material prosperity is evident enough. If nothing else proved it,
it
would be established by the munificent offerings which the
princes
and the people presented at the close of David’s reign towards
the temple fund.
Ø
In the prevalence of religion. This appears from the
establishment
upon a grander scale of the Levitical
and priestly orders, with the
services, sacrifices, and festivals connected with the house of
God.
David’s own psalms, sung as
they were by the Levitical choirs, at
once evidenced and furthered the prosperity of true religion.
greater.” His career was
one of continually advancing prosperity. As with
most men favorably circumstanced, so in his case, success and
prosperity
were the cause of their own increase. “He went growing and
growing.”
hosts was with him.” Cui
adhoeres, praeest – he prevails to whom! The
Lord God may better say than any
earthly prince, He to whom I attach
myself, he shall prosper. “The
Lord of hosts was with David:”
o
To give him regal
qualities.
o
To surround him with
prudent counselors, devoted friends,
and faithful servants.
o
To give him favor with
the people.
o
To reveal Himself to
his heart, as the Subject of praise, the
Law of
righteousness and the Lord of life.
David’s Mighty Men (vs. 10-25)
This list of chiefs of David’s “mighty men’ finds a more appropriate
position where
it is placed here, than where it is found, after the close of
the very dying speech of
David, in II Samuel 23:8-23. It
plainly belongs to the time of the establishment of
David’s sway
over the whole people. The different
position of the list here is itself
an indication of some force, that the writers of the work of
Samuel and of Chronicles
availed themselves independently of the common source, and that
the latter did not
take through the former.
10 “These
also are the chief of the mighty men whom David had, who
strengthened themselves with him in his kingdom, and
with all
to make him king, according to the word of
the LORD concerning
11 And
this is the number” - The Hebrew has, “These are the number.”
The sentence should probably be, “These are the names” (II Samuel 23:8) –
“of the mighty men
whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite,” –
Jashobeam. In the parallel passage, this name is supplied by the
words
“The Tachmonite tb;V,B"
bvey, Authorized
Version, “that sat in
the seat” (see the previous verse), probably in error for our μ[;b]v;y; (see
Kennicott’s ‘Dissert.,’ 82). His immediate
paternal ancestor seems to have
been Zabdiel (see ch.27:2). The only other notice of him are in (Ibid. ch.12:6),
in
which latter passage he is mentioned as “over
the first course for the first
month and in his
course were twenty and four thousand” - “the chief of
the captains:” - The
Authorized Version follows the Keri (which is distinguished
from the Chethiv by a yod
in place of a vau), and translates captains.
It seems
better (vs. 15, 25; ch.12:1,18; 27:6) to abide by the Chethiv, and translate
“the chief of the thirty”
- “he lifted up his spear against three hundred
slain by him at one time.” Notice
the probable error in Samuel,
occasioned by some similarity in the Hebrew letters. “The
same was Adino
the Eznite.” The number of Jashobeam’s victims is stated at “eight
hundred” in the parallel passage (II Samuel 23. 8). (For analogous
idioms,
see
Exodus 7:20; 20:25; Deuteronomy 27:5; Joshua 8:31; Psalm 41:9; 74:5;
Isaiah 2:4)
Mighty Men (v.11)
Great epochs and great leaders call forth great men. In most nations’
histories there are periods when greatness seems to spring forth
spontaneously, and to display itself in all the departments of human
activity. David had the power — distinctive of true leadership — of
evoking, as it were, capable,
valiant, and devoted followers. In his
day and
in
the early periods of many nations, warlike qualities were needed, and the
recommendations of physical strength and courage were the highest of all.
In more settled states of society and more civilized
communities, gifts of
mind are more prized than those of body. The qualities that are developed
among nations are for the most part those which are demanded by
the
necessities of the times. (It
is taken for granted that in any stage of
a
nation’s development, that “MEN WILL SEEK
THE LORD!”
So much the more when men are wrestling “AGAINST PRINCIPALITIES,
AGAINST POWERS, AGAINST THE RULERS OF THE DARKNESS
OF
THIS WORLD, AGAINST SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS IN HIGH
PLACES.” (Ephesians 6:12)
FROM GOD. This is indeed true of
all gifts. “We are His offspring.” “In
Hm we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Yet how
often is this truth forgotten in the presence of splendid
endowments
of strength and skill, genius and influence! “Thus
saith the Lord,
Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty
Man glory in his might,
let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth
glory in this, that he understandeth
And knoweth me,
that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness,
Judgment, and righteousness, in the
earth: for in these things
I delight, saith
the Lord” (Jeremiah
9:23-24). Men take
the praise
to themselves for the powers which GOD HAS CONFERRE,
for the
achievements which He has enabled them to accomplish. But it should ever
be remembered that all human might is but a slight
and evanescent glimmer
of His glory.
SERVICE. There is a notion that high station and great genius
absolve
men from allegiance to the ordinary laws of morality and
religion. What is
regarded as proper for the multitude is sometimes deemed
inapplicable to
the exalted few. There can be no
greater error. Great men have great
power for good or for evil, and in their case it is preeminently
of
importance that the “five
talents” (Matthew 25:14-30) should be
employed in the service of the Divine Lord, who has a rightful
claim to their consecration.
THEIR GIVER. There is
nothing in the fact of their unusual number or
magnitude that absolves from that responsibility which characterizes
all
moral and accountable natures. The DIVINE JUDGE will doubtless
require a strict account at last. There is no principle more prominent in
Christian teaching than this . “To whom much is
given, of them much
will be required.” (Luke 12:48)
Let those amply endowed with natural gifts beware
of pride. There is
nothing so unreasonable, nothing so spiritually disastrous, as is this sin.
Let such “great ones” remember to render to Heaven grateful
acknowledgments,
for
to Heaven such acknowledgments are ASSUREDLY DUE! “What
hast thou
that thou didst not receive? Who hath made thee to differ?”
(I Corinthians 4:7)
12 “And after
him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was
one of the three mighties.”
Eleazar. Perhaps the same as Azareel in
the list at
ch.12:6, in which Jashobeam is
also found. Dodo. This name
is found
in three forms,
the
Chethiv being Dodi; the Keri, Dodo;
and Dodai being
found in ch.27:4. He is
mentioned there as “over the
course of the second month… in his course likewise
twenty and four
thousand.” The Ahohite. In the parallel passage (II
Samuel 23:9),
for
yjiwOj"a]h;
here, we find yjiwOja}Aˆb,. Ahohite is the patronymic of the Ahoah,
who
(ch.8:4) was given among the sons of Bela, the
firstborn of Benjamin.
The three mighties. Who is the
third? We have here but two — Jashobeam and
Eleazar.
The parallel passage supplies the omission by the name of Shammah
the
Hararite (II Samuel 23:11, 33; compare our v. 27). And a careful
comparison of
the
passages suggests how the omission came about, and that it was but part of
a larger omission. Between the sentences, “and there the Philistines were
gathered together to
battle,” and “where was a parcel of ground full of
barley” (in our next verse, 13) there is an hiatus of two
verses (viz. those
found in II Samuel 23, as latter half of v. 9, v. 10, and
former half of
v. 11), and this
hiatus was occasioned probably by the recurrence of the
expression, “and the Philistines were gathered together,” in the
remaining
half of v. 11.
13 “He was
with David at Pasdammim, and there the Philistines
were
gathered together to battle, where was a parcel of
ground full of
barley; and the people fled from before the
Philistines.”
“Pas-dammim.” This word, μyMiD"
sP"h",
appears in I Samuel 17:1
as
μyMiD"
sp,a,, and is
supposed to mean, in either form, “the boundary
of blood;” it was the scene of frequent conflicts with the
Philistines, and was
the
spot where they were encamped at the time of Goliath’s challenge to
It was near Shocoh, or Socoh, in
passage (II Samuel 23:11) is “full
of lentiles,” the Hebrew for “barley” is
μyriwO[c], for “lentiles” μyvid;[}. Possibly the
words should be the same,
one
being here spelt, by accident, wrongly
for the other. The first Bible mention
of
“barley” occurs in Exodus 9:31-32,
from which verses we learn that it, together
with “flax,” was an earlier crop
than “rye” and “wheat.” It was not only
used for food for man (Numbers 5:15; Judges 7:13; Ezekiel 4:12), but also
for
horses (I Kings 4:28). That it was nevertheless of the
less-valued grain, we have
significant indications, in its being prescribed for the “jealousy offering”
(Numbers 5:15, compare with Leviticus 2:1), and in its
being part of the purchase
price of the adulteress (Hosea 3:2). Its derivation in the
Hebrew, from a verbal
root signifying “to
bristle,” is in noticeable analogy with the Latin hordeum,
from horreo. The lentile,
on the other hand, was a species of bean, and used
much for soup, of which Egyptian tomb-paintings furnish illustration
(Genesis
25:29-34; II Samuel 17:28; Ezekiel 4:9). Sonnini, in his ‘Travels’ (translation of
Hunter, 3:288), tells us that still the Egyptian poor eat lentile-bread, but,
what is more apropos of this passage, that in making
it they prefer to mix a
little “barley” with it. This apparent discrepancy between
the parallel
accounts not only counts in itself for very little, but may
easily be
surmounted by supposing that, though it be written that the
“parcel” of
ground was “full of lentiles,” and again “full of barley,” the description may
only amount to this, that such parcels were in close
juxtaposition. But if not,
our
allusion above to the possible error in the Hebrew words will sufficiently
explain the variation.
14 “And
they set themselves in the midst of that parcel, and delivered
it, and slew the Philistines; and the LORD
saved them by a great
deliverance.” This, as well as the latter half of the preceding verse,
belongs
to
the account of Shammah the Hararite
(II Samuel 23:11), and in the
parallel the verbs are accordingly in the singular number.
In that same
place Shammah is called the “son of Agee,” which probably answers to
the
“Shage” of the present chapter
(v. 34), where our reading should rather
be, “Jonathan the son of Shammah
the son of Shage, the Hararite.”
The
word “Hararite” designates, according to Gesenius, “one from the hill country,”
i.e. the hill-country of
Judah or Ephraim, and would be equivalent with us to
such a description as “the
mountaineer.”
15 “Now three
of the thirty captains” - The thirty here
alluded to have not
Been mentioned either in the Book of Samuel or here, except
by implication of
our
v. 11, where we might imagine the sense to be, “Now these are the
names of the mighty men, in number thirty, whom David
had, viz.
Jashobeam, an Hachmonite,
the chief of the thirty.” Nor are we told in
either place who were the “three”
here spoken of. The article is absent in
both places, or it would be convenient and natural to suppose that the three
just mentioned are those intended, which cannot, however, be taken for
granted. The language of vs. 20-22, 25, might rather indicate that
the
three mentioned in those verses are those in question. The
repeated
uncertainty in which we are left on matters to which no intrinsic
difficulty
adheres seems evidence of injured manuscripts rather than of
anything else -
“went down to the
rock to David,” - This is the right reading, dwiD;
rXujeAl[e; and that in the parallel passage (“to David in the
harvest-time”)
is
not correct, dwiD;
Adullam, evidently a place of great antiquity (Genesis 38:l,12, 20), is mentioned
in
Joshua 12:15; 15:35; it was the seat then of a Canaanite king. It afterwards
lay
in
11:7; Nehemiah 11:30). The “rock” marks the limestone cliffs of the region.
We read of it, as David’s refuge (I Samuel 22:1-2). From
our present passage,
and
its parallel we should have concluded that it could not have been far from
refers to the tradition that fixes the cave at a spot now called Khureitun, between
Arabs, and taking one Arab for a guide, we started for the
cave, having a fearful
gorge below, gigantic cliffs above, and the path winding along a
shelf of the rock,
narrow enough to make the nervous among us shudder. At length
from a great
rock, hanging on the edge of this shelf, we sprang by a long leap into a low
window, which opened into the perpendicular face of the cliff. We
were then
within the hold of David, and creeping half-doubled through a
narrow crevice for
a
few rods, we stood beneath the dark vault of the first grand chamber of
this mysterious and oppressive cavern. Our whole collection of lights did
little more than make the damp darkness visible. After groping
about as
long as we had time to spare, we returned to the light of day, fully
convinced that, with David and his lion-hearted followers inside,
all the
strength of
not
even have attempted it.” - “and the host of the Philistines” - For this
word “host” (hgej}m") the parallel (II Samuel 23:13) has the “life of the Philistines”
(but the Authorized Version, the “troop of”), i.e. the beasts and
cattle of the
Philistines. So also the Syriac Version
translates, The Septuagint shows in
this place parembolh> - parembolae – army;
camp; castle - and in Samuel
ta<gma – tagma –troop; series; order
- “encamped in the
The situation of this notable valley is not certain. Yet
there can be little
doubt, in spite of Furst (‘Handwortbuch,’ 2:383), who supposes a situation
northwest of
southwest of the city. The word employed Here for “valley” (qm,[i should
mark an enclosed one. Rephaim
means “giants.” Hence our
Authorized
Version, “The
of the giants
northward” (Joshua 15:8; 18:16; also II
Samuel 5:18; compare with
our
present passage; and II Samuel 5:22 compare
with ch.14:9).
16 “And
David was then in the hold,” - This statement
may, perhaps,
sufficiently identify this occasion with that of II Samuel 5:17-18;
where
it
is expressly said that “David went down
to the hold” (hd;Wxm]
being the
word found there as here) - “and the Philistines’ garrison
was
then at
(byxin]), but the parallel passage has “garrison” (bX;m"); yet, according to
Gesenius (‘Thes.,’
903), the former word has both meanings. He is right,
certainly, if he means that it has received both translations, for
see I Kings 4:19
for
the one, and our present passage supplies the other (I Samuel 10:5; 13:3).
17 “And
David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the
water of the well of
of this well. No trace of it exists now, according to Dr.
Robinson (‘Bibl.
Res.,’ 1:473). The traditional well is half a mile distant,
to the north of the
town, and consists of a group of three cisterns, while the
present town is
supplied with water by an aqueduct.
18 “And
the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew
water out of the well of
it, and brought it to David: but David would
not drink of it, but
poured it out to the LORD.” This was done after the nature of a
libation (I Samuel 7:6; Judges 6:20; Exodus 30:9; Genesis 35:14).
19 “And
said, My God forbid it me,” - Compare the Hebrew
of this with that
of
the expression in the parallel (II Samuel 23:17), where hwO;hy] is found
in
the place of our yh"loa’me. It is probable that the preposition nieni
is lost
from before “Jehovah” - “that
I should do this thing: shall I drink the
blood” – i.e. the water which
has been obtained at the imminent peril
of the
life of these three brave men (compare Genesis 4:10-11; 9:4-6; John 6:53,
54) –
“of these men that
have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy
of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not
drink it. These things
did these three mightiest.”
The Well of
This is one of the most touching and poetical incidents in
the romantic life
of
the son of Jesse. It exhibits him in a light in which we cannot but discern
both his amiability and his piety.
in the stronghold upon the borders of the Philistine
territory. The enemy
were in possession of his native vale, the scene of his boyish
happiness and
youthful exploits. It was a position of danger and of privation —
this which
he occupied at this time. How natural, how human, his desire
for a draught
of the bright, cool water from the spring that gushed from
the hillside near
his father’s fields! The associations of childhood and of home
are precious,
and it is no sign of weakness to cherish them. It was a longing for home, it
was a clinging to the associations of childhood, it was the unchanged
heart,
that prompted the desire that found utterance in his words, “Oh that one
would
give me,” etc.!
men ready for any daring exploit — bold, fearless, and prompt.
Yet they
had tender hearts, that could sympathize with such a wish as
that their chief
expressed. It was a gallant and heroic feat, this which they
performed, in
breaking through the ranks of the Philistines, and bringing to
David the
draught of water his soul desired from the dear well at
David appreciated the
faithfulness, the sympathy, the bravery, of the noble
three. He could not drink the water, for it seemed to him like
the life-blood
of the heroes. It was too
precious for any but for Jehovah.
Accordingly he
poured it out in a pious libation before the Lord, giving his
best to God.
20 “And Abishai the brother of Joab, he
was chief of the three: for
lifting up his spear against three hundred, he
slew them, and had a
name among the three.” It is
remarkable that again the name of one of the
three is wanting, even if we take Benaiah
of v. 22 for the second.
21 “Of the
three, he was more honorable than the two;” - The Hebrew
(syin"v]b") cannot be thus translated, but possibly the words may
mark the second
set
of three - “for he was their captain: howbeit he attained not to the
first
three.”
22 “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the
son of a valiant man of Kabzeel,
who had done many acts; he slew two lionlike men of
he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a
snowy day.” Beneiah ‘s father
was
Jehoiada the chief priest (ch.27:5). Benaiah was, therefore, a Levite by tribe,
though Kabzeel (Joshua
15:21) was in
host for the third
month… and in his course were twenty and four thousand”
(ch.27:5). When in our v. 25 it is said that “David set him over his guard,” the
allusion probably is to his uniform and prolonged command of “the Cherethites
and Pelethites” (II Samuel
8:18; 20:23; I Kings 1:38;
ch.18:17). His fidelity and
influence remained into Solomon’s
time (I Kings 1:8,10,32,38,44; 2:35; 4:4).
23 “And he
slew an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high;” -
This height is not given in the parallel passage; it means
seven feet six inches –
“and in the
Egyptian’s hand was a spear like a weaver’s beam;” - A spear
like a weaver’s beam (so I Samuel 17:7; II Samuel 21:19) - “and he went down
to him with a staff, and plucked the spear
out of the Egyptian’s hand, and
slew him with his own spear.”
24 “These
things did Benaiah the son of Jehoiada,
and had the name
among the three mighties.” The name. There is no
article in the Hebrew.
25 “Behold,
he was honorable among the thirty, but attained not to the
first three: and David set him over his
guard.” If
the reference is not as
above (see v. 22),
the margin of the parallel (II Samuel 23:23) may
be followed,
which would translate “guard”
as council. Ch. 27:6-7 shows Benaiah to be
captain of the third division.
Benaiah
the Son of Jehoiada (vs. 22-25)
“Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the
son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had
done many acts; he
slew two lion-like men of
slew a lion in a pit
in a snowy day. And he slew an Egyptian, a man of
great stature, five
cubits high; and in the Egyptian’s hand was a spear like a
weaver’s beam; and he
went down to him with a staff, and plucked the
spear out of the
Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own spear.” I
venture to treat of this hero, although far removed from any
nineteenth century
characteristics. (Or twenty-first, for that matter, this written
two-hundred years
ago
– CY – 2012) He was a priest, son of a high priest, yet a warrior.
To find one like him in office and quality one has to go
back to the fighting
bishops of the Middle Ages. We do not read of his ministering at
the altar.
Yet we must not, therefore, imagine him some degenerate son
of Aaron,
affording warning rather than example. For there is something savoury in
his
brief story, which occurs twice in the Bible, and just because of its
unusual combinations of
characteristics it is worth our
lingering on it.
Let me urge some simple lessons which may be of use, at
least to the more
combative of our readers. Observe:
PRIESTHOOD.
To make a true priest of God, the first and greatest thing
required is godliness, and the second is like unto it — manliness; and on
these two qualities hang all effective discharge of priestly
duties. It may be
objected that this remark does not necessarily spring from Benaiah, who,
though of the tribe of Levi, might be an exception to rather than
a
specimen of the priestly order. And I should admit the relevancy of
the
remark were it not that the tribe of Levi seems, in
conspicuous for its courage and leading qualities (for otherwise the
eminence of Aaron before Moses received his commission would be
inexplicable); that the tribe of Levi was called preeminently “the host,”
during all the encampments in the wilderness; that in David’s
time the tribe
of Levi seems to have afforded one of the monthly army corps
of twenty-
four thousand men (ch. 27:5); that
from the days of Phinehas
to those of the Maccabees, and even
later, the priesthood furnished many
of
we have the fact clear that the
manliness of the tribe of the Levites was
one reason of its selection for the priesthood, or at least one characteristic
of it. There is a
vulgar manliness, loud, blatant, coarse, unfamiliar
with any of the finer questionings or feelings of the soul. Far from all
priestly work be such. But the noblest manliness is not coarse. It blends
gentleness with courage, is a thing of force of
spirit rather than of bodily strength,
marked by vigor and truth, daring rather than any braggart delight in blows.
And it should be remembered that weak and feeble spirits are
nowhere more
out of place than
in the Christian ministry. To make a true minister of the
gospel of Jesus Christ you want essentially, as the raw material
out of
which God makes him — manliness. Courage
to avow the faith when all
may be denying it; to stand alone; to resist all seduction to
smother doubt
and to repeat hearsay; to dare to do right; to have the
inspiring power
which nerves others to dare it as well; to rebuke; to warn; to
count and
accept the cost of faithfulness to principles; to be a leader and
commander
to the people; — for these things is manliness is needed!
Is courage not
supremely requisite? Peter said, Add to
your faith manliness (
virtue in the
Latin sense,
not in the English) (II Peter 1:5). Christ said of Peter, “Thou art
a
rock,
and on this rock I will build my Church”
(Matthew 16:18).
In Hebrews 11, you could almost
substitute the word “courage” for the word
“faith,”
so constantly and inseparably are they united. The great names of the
Church are
no less illustrious for courage than for spiritual insight. Paul,
Athanasius standing “alone
against the world,” Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley,
Carey, Williams, Livingstone
(and in later years, Spurgeon, Moody, Sunday,
Graham, Stanley, etc – CY -
2012); you have just to go over the great names
of the Church’s history to see that the names of those
greatly good have been
those, preeminently of men, greatly brave as well. Whatever your
work,
Christian, if you would be a
true priest of God you must be brave. “Put
on thy
strength, O
thing, but uses and increases
all the braver qualities of the spirit. FAITH
IS
A FIGHT IN ALL
DIRECTIONS! We have sometimes
fostered a piety
too sentimental, phrasy, and self-conscious. From the manliness
which God
approved in in the old priesthood, and which Benaiah had in prime fullness,
learn that godliness and manliness should meet to make A
THOROUGH
CHARACTER! Observe
(what, indeed, flows from this):
HALLOWING, ADMITS OF IT. Man is very largely a fighting animal. His
modes of attack come almost as instinctively as the various
modes of
assault used by the lower animals. The taste for conflict
distinguishing all
men, true religion does not destroy, but seeks to hallow it.
(One of the
most profound statements, outside of the Bible, which I have
come across
in my life is “The purpose of
Christianity is to SANCTIFY THE
SECULAR! – Charles Haddon Spurgeon – CY – 2012). The mental
analyst will tell you that he needs some admixture of the
combative element
to produce some of the finest qualities of nature. It is that
which gives
hardness and a staying power to the man. There is no decision of
character
without it. We need the power of
standing up against our enemies to
stand up against ourselves.
There is no pertinacity of purpose without it.
He who has not a little of
the combative element soon gives in. There is no
conquest of difficulties without it. We shrink from every trouble
and say
“there is a lion in the streets” (Proverbs 26:13), if there is nothing of
this quality in us. So that the combative quality is not one of
nature’s mistakes
that grace has just to weed out, but something it has to
hallow; an edged tool,
in learning the uses of which we often cut our fingers, but
something not on
that account to be thrown away. It
may be hallowed, but it needs a good
deal of effort to secure a thorough hallowing of it. It is apt
to be a reckless
quality, striking wildly; the
weapon of the passions rather than of the
reason; used by and
intensifying animosity; the source of strife and confusion,
and the “every evil work” which attend them
(II Timothy 4:18) — shedding
blood, devastating kingdoms, burdening conscience with guilt,
running riotous
in its wrong. When rightly
used, one of the grandest blessings of
life;
when ill used, one of its
great curses. If so valuable hallowed,
so mischievous
unhallowed, the question rises — When
is it hallowed, and truly and divinely
used? And I think Benaiah’s case gives us, somewhat roughly, perhaps, but
clearly, the true answer to the
question. It is used rightly and hallowed when
directed against the enemies of the public good. Sometimes against
an
Egyptian host mustered to battle, sometimes against the
Moabites, and
Sometimes against the wild beasts. An evangelical generalization might not
be far out of it which stated it
that the combative clement is wisely employed
when it operates against
whatever injures our own character or our neighbor’s
well-being. The man fights foolishly who does not begin the conflict
by
fighting with himself. It were vain to fight against Egyptians and Moabites,
and then give in and let some lion destroy the power so
valuable — power
which might have done such splendid service. To say “No” to our
own
weaknesses, to protect the interests of others, to oppose whatever by its
falsehood, sin, or mischief threatens the true well-being
of our friends
and neighbors. Oh, how
much there is that needs fighting! how much of evil
in our own hearts! how much in the world! How much of evil is daily
assailing and destroying the happiness and well-being of multitudes,
but for
want of brave hearts that think of more than merely getting to
heaven
themselves, and that are willing to
make some sacrifice of comfort and
ease and to risk what is dearer than either! “Fight the good fight of
faith; lay hold on eternal life” (I Timothy 6:12); “Thou
therefore
endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” (II
Timothy 2:3)
and oppose whatever
harms your brethren.
ENEMIES TO BE TACKLED IN’ THE COURSE OF OUR LIFE.
Sometimes Egyptians; sometimes
Moabites; sometimes lions; sometimes
some other foe, like the Philistines encamped round
whom Benaiah and two others broke to
fetch David a draught of water
from its well. Yes; there is more than one or two or even three
sorts of
enemies against which we have here to fight. Now it is a subtle
whisper
that denies there is any
Ø
now it is some passion that,
rising up within us, clamors for mastery
over
reason and duty;
Ø
now it is greed, which makes the fingers stick to the money they
should part with;
Ø
now it is one of what
are called the minor faults, but which yet are
capable of inflicting much pain and injury that needs to be put
down;
Ø
now it is the ignorance of the
children of the people;
Ø
now it is their vices, their drunkenness;
Ø
now it is the system which
is permitted to increase the wealth of
individuals at the expense of CORRUPTING THE LIFE
OF THE PEOPLE! (Tell me how that by
permitting alcohol,
drugs, the abortion industry, pornography, etc. is not
fulfilling this IN OUR LIFETIME?????? – CY – 2012)
Oh for a few Benaiahs,
that in conflict with such evils will put
forth a noble strength. Let us not live a merely private
life. Rise and assail
THE FOE WHICH IS
INJURING SOCIETY beginning, I must say again,
with the enemies that fight in your own heart — Do I smoke dope? Am I
sexually active? For
convenience, will I have an abortion?
Am I
into pornography? Am I
sober? Do I believe in Jesus Christ? Am
I unwilling to
follow Him? There
are too many Reubens in every age who,
when great issues are being fought out big with bliss or woe to
generations,
“abide” ignobly “among the bleating of the sheep” (Judges 5:16).
KEENER INTEREST IN
ALL EFFORTS OF PHILANTHROPHY
AND POLITICS TO
FUTHER HUMAN WELL-BEING is what is
required at our hand.
Lastly, observe that:
Benaiah had great muscular strength, but that was but a little of
his
equipment. The splendid audacity that engaged with the Egyptian,
meaning
to kill him with his own spear. The fine superiority to
thought of
consequences to himself of engaging with that hungry lion on a winter’s
day, in close quarters, where neither could escape the other.
It was that
brave spirit in him which,
never shrinking from attempts that seemed
impossible, nor kept back by the
discretion that seeks to save its skin,
(In the Bible, Satan is to
humanity AN ADVERSARY, AN ACCUSER
OF THE BRETHREN - I Peter 5:8; Revelation 12:10. Consider how
he accused Job before God. “Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath
will he give for his life” - Job 2:4. Has the devil got his bluff in on
you and I????? – CY - 2012) –
wrought its grand marvels! Oh, how little
of this grand courage marks us! How much solicitude
we have about our
name, our peace, what people may
think of us, our money, the chance of
failing! In this world the
timid don’t always go most safely. It is the
brave
heart that comes best out of all its
conflicts. (Last Sunday, Mr. Posey
told me of a soldier in the Civil War who had on a blue top and
gray
trousers and both sides shot him!
- CY – 2012)
Jesus said,
“He that gathereth not with me scattereth” (Matthew 12:30).
Pluck up a little strength, and
call to God for more, and venture bravely
wherever duty calls you, and, like Benaiah, you will
find fame, safety,
usefulness, attendant on
your steps. “Surely goodness
and mercy
will follow me all the days of my life: AND I WILL
DWELL IN
THE HOUSE OF THE LORD FOR EVER.” (Psalm 232:6)
Verses 26-41 correspond with II Samuel 23:24-39 and with
them the subject ends
there, though not here. The list announced here as comprising “the valiant men
of
the armies,” is unannounced there, but, beginning with the same name, Asahel, it
calls
him
“one of the thirty,” and suggests the
inference that those who follow will make up
the
rest. The number that follows (coinciding in this respect strictly with our
list here) is
itself thirty, which, though one too many, may be considered
satisfactorily accounted
for
in the fact of the untimely death of Asahel, already
recorded (II Samuel 2:23).
Considering the exact crisis at which he died, it is very
likely that his place should be
compensated for, although his name was not removed from the honorable
list. Amid
the
difficulties that develop themselves in the contents of these lists,
when compared,
the
comparison of them aids the conviction that, so far as they go together,
they do stand for “the thirty” spoken
of in both places, and that a sentence
or two here and there, now lost or corrupted beyond
recognition, would
clear up the whole subject. The comparison also seems to
make it clear that
the compiler of Chronicles, meaning to go beyond an
enumeration of the
thirty, nowhere speaks of thirty after v. 25. On the other hand,
the writer
of
the account in Samuel carefully sums up all (v. 39) in the words,
“thirty and seven in all “ — an addition which means
either the actual
thirty-one given and the two sets of three each; or the
thirty, with the two
sets of three each and Joab ever
all. Our present chapter, however, goes on
to
the number forty-eight in all, vs. 41-47, adding sixteen to the thirty-two
which precede. Beside some minor differences, it must be
said that at
fewest three names, Hepher,
Ahijah, and Mibhar,
in Chronicles, resist
identification with those that should (from position)
correspond with them
in the list of Samuel and with any others. And the same
thing may be said
of the same number in the list of Samuel (Elika, Eliam, Bani) when
compared with the list now before us. The points of contact
and clearest
identification are, therefore, in so great a majority and
are so uniformly
distributed that, although it is left hard to decide the
causes of them, these
differences cannot throw any discredit upon the list as a
whole. Perhaps the
most probable suggestion to be offered is that the
knowledge of the writer
of the Book of Samuel enabled him to supersede the names of
such as were
soon lost to their brave career by death by other names;
or, resting on the
same fundamental reason, there may have been two different editions
of
the list, to one of which the writer of Samuel was
indebted, and to the
other the compiler of Chronicles.
26 “Also
the valiant men of the armies were, Asahel (see
above) the
brother of Joab, Elhanan
the son of Dodo of
27
Shammoth the Harorite,”
- The
parallel passage has Harodite, the local
identification of Shammoth, as from Harod, known for its spring (Judges 7:1),
by
which Gideon encamped, where also the army was tested by its mode of
drinking. Some think it the same with the fountain of Jezreel (I Samuel 29:1).
Izrahite seems to have been the family distinction of Shammoth (ch.27:8), from
Zerah son of
Elika, who is also called “the Harodite”
- “Helez
the Pelonite,” - Though
the
parallel place has Paltite, the
present form probably should hold its own. Helez
is
the seventh captain of division, and said to belong to the “sons of Ephraim”
(see ch.27:10, and Septuagint in
all three passages).
28 “Ira
the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite,
Abiezer the Antothite,
29
Sibbecai the Hushathite, Ilai the Ahohite,” - Sibbecai; Ilai. Both of
these names are conceivably reconcilable with the Mebunnai and Zalmon
of
the
parallel place (II Samuel 23:27-28, through the very possible mistake and
substitution of one Hebrew character for another. Sibbecai
was the eighth captain;
he
was of the family of Zerah, and of the town of
30 “Maharai the Netophathite, Heled the son of Baanah the Netophathite,
31
Ithai the son of Ribai
of Gibeah, that pertained to the children of
Benjamin, Benaiah
the Pirathonite, 32 Hurai of the brooks of Gaash,
Abiel the Arbathite, 33 Azmaveth the Baharumite, Eliahba the Shaalbonite,”
34 “The
sons of Hashem the Gizonite,”
- This sentence is unmanageable as it
stands, and is insufficiently assisted from its parallel But if
from this latter we take the
suggestion of the preposition “from”
(Authorized Version) before “the
sons”
(which, however, is not in the Hebrew), and from the Alexandrian
Septuagint, the
suggestion of the name Gouni (yniWG), Guni, (ch.5:15) in the
place of Gizonite
(ynizOG), we should
obtain a coherent reading. But this would be mere conjecture
suggested by the Septuagint, and “the
Gizonite” offers the difficulty of the
presence of the article, which would not subsist with the proper
name
Guni.
Were it not that the word yneB]
is found in both passages all difficulty
would disappear with its disappearance. The remainder of
this verse, in
relation to II Samuel 23:32-33 illustrates opportunely the
uncertainties of the text.
For, as seen above, Jonathan is the grandson of
Shage (Ibid.
v.11), and son of
Shammah, while (Ibid. vs. 32-33) the parallel reads “Jonathan,” with no
connective word “son” at
all, yet supplies the right name, “Shammah the Hararite”
for
the father, and omits all mention of Shage -“Jonathan the son of Shage
the
Hararite,”
35 “Ahiam the son of Sacar the Hararite, Eliphal the son of
For these three names the parallel shows Sharar, Eliphelet,
and Ahasbai
respectively. (Ibid. vs. 33-34)
36 “Hepher the Mecherathite,” - Although this
name is not found in
the
parallel passage, it is tolerably plain that the niche for it is left before
the
words (v. 34), “the son of the Maachathite,” which last word answers
to
our Mecherathite -“Ahijah the Pelonite,”
- This name cannot be identified
with the “Eliam
the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,”
which answers to it in
the
parallel (v. 34).
37 “Hezro the Carmelite,” - Hezro appears as Hezrai
in Samuel. (For
which lay south of
The differences between these words and those of the
parallel -“Paarai
the Arbite” (v. 35), or Arab (Joshua 15:52), are not formidable to
reconcile.
38 “Joel”
- This name is also easily to be reconciled with
the Igal of
the
parallel passage (v. 36), though there is nothing to evidence which
should stand - “the
brother of Nathan, Mibhar the son of Haggeri,”
For this last, we have in the parallel place (v. 36)
the names “Bani the Gadite;”
but
before these comes the last word of the previous clause, “of Zobab.”
When these three words are compared with the three of our
present passage,
it
is very possible to bring them into harmony (‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ in loc.).
Zobah was a district of
Syria in the time of
northeast and east towards the
39 “Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Berothite,” - Among David’s
great
men
were evidently numbered some foreigners, whose admiration and fidelity he
must have won. Hence the mention of (II Samuel 23:36) Zobah,
and here of the
Ammonite (II Samuel
8:12; 12:26-31), the Beerothite (Beeroth, originally a Hivite
city, Joshua 9:17, fell to the lot of Benjamin, Joshua 18:25; to it
belonging Rimmon
and
his two sons, Reehab and Baanah,
possibly native Canaanites, the murderers
of
Ishbosheth, as above), and (v. 41) the Hittite - “the
armor-bearer” - To be
made armour-bearer was a sign of honor and
attachment (I Samuel 16:21;
II
Samuel 18:15) - “of Joab the son of Zeruiah,”
40
“Ira the Ithrite, Gareb
the Ithrite,”- The Ithrite. One of the families of
Kirjath-jearim (ch.2:53). Other similar colonists from Kirjath-jearim, and
descended from Shobal, were the Puthite, the Shumathite, and the
Izrahite. With this verse we count up, including the
dropped-out Elika, the
names of “thirty mighty men.” And we may understand
Samuel’s thirty-seven
to
consist of these, increased by Uriah and the two parties of three each.
These last seven verses (vs. 41-47) are assisted by no
parallel, either in the Book
of Samuel or elsewhere. Of the sixteen names which they
contain, not a few
are to be found elsewhere, yet not as designating the same
persons. Also,
while the Reubenite and
the Gentile nouns Ashterathite and Aroerite are at
once recognized, the Mithnite,
Tizite, Mahavite,
and Mesobaite are not
traceable elsewhere, the plural form of the last but one
being an additional
source of obscurity.
41 “Uriah
the Hittite, Zabad the son of Ahlai, 42 Adina the
son of Shiza
the Reubenite, a
captain of the Reubenites, and thirty with him,”
Thirty with him. The Hebrew preposition here translated “with” appears thus,
wyl;[;z], and will naturally translate “and in addition to him.” As he was a
captain, this addendum may probably refer to those over whom he was captain,
and
whom he brought in his train, and who were
possibly themselves officers.
As the writer of Chronicles indicates no difference, nor any sense of a change
of
persons enumerated, when he has
reached (v. 41) Uriah the Hittite, it
would
all the rather be consistent with his own superscription when (v. 26) he proposes
to set forth simply
“the valiant men of the armies” without confining their
number to the “thirty.”
43 “Hanan the son of Maachah, and Joshaphat the Mithnite, 44 Uzzia the
Ashterathite,” - Ashteroth
was in East Manasseh (ch.6:71) -
“Shama and Jehiel
the sons of Hothan
the Aroerite,” - Aroer lay
east of the
45 “Jediael the son of Shimri, and Joha his brother, the Tizite, 46 Eliel the
Mahavite,” - It has been suggested that this word may stand for Mahanite, from
Mahanaim - “and Jeribai, and Joshaviah, the sons
of Elnaam, and Ithmah the
Moabite, 47 Eliel, and Obed, and Jasiel the Mesobaite.” The Mesobaite.
This name is entirely unknown, unless it may be the same as Mezobah.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All
rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.