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. David had on two occasions gone to Gath for refuge from Saul and 'made up' with them, promising them his loyalty. Each time he had been lying through his teeth. And yet he proclaims his utter integrity and truthfulness so often in his psalms. Although he had a heart after God's, refusal to accept his sinfulness was a major feature of his character. This is one outcome of having endured false accusation. His stellar sin with Bathsheba was perhaps used by God in the bigger picture to help with correct this, and yet such psalms continue at the time of Absalom's rebellion.
The victory over Gath was not very long lasting because in Solomon's time there was an independent king there (1 Kings 2:39). The conquest of Edom (:14) was after a great defeat and only by God's grace, as explained in Psalm 60. And Edom was soon back independent of David. Psalm 60 speaks of this campaign- there was a great defeat of Israel because they had broken the covenant, and then a victory once they turned to God pleading His [mercy and] truth as their battle banner, i.e. the covenant. The extent of the initial defeat may be hinted at in 1 Kings 11:15,16: "When David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the army was gone up to bury the slain, and had struck every male in Edom (for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom)". This seems to say that Joab went to bury the slain of Israel, and at that slain in a great defeat, and at that time he remained six months subduing the Edomites with the victory which Psalm 60 later celebrates. Much of Psalm 60 is repeated in Psalm 108 as a victory song. Likewise in Psalm 44. The war with Edom clearly had a far larger dimension than the simple note in 2 Samuel 8 that David defeated Edom. He did, but after a stunning defeat, and an amazing victory by God's grace alone, for which David gave ample thanks in at least three Psalms, 44,60 and 108.
But that is all rather overlooked here; the record is giving an impression of positive victory everywhere for David. In all these conquests of David there was a hollowness to them, for all the subdued nations very quickly broke free from Israelite rule. And the victory over Syria was hardly permanent because the history of the subsequent kings is full of multiple wars with Syria. We get the impression that David is seeking to set himself up as his own promised son with a Messianic kingdom, but it was all so hollow and temporary. He made himself a name rather than believing God would make His Name great in a living temple of people. On one level, David's conquests can just be read as a type of Christ's future Kingdom. But I suggest in reality he was making a hollow attempt to have that kingdom now with himself as king. But that perhaps was on the level of deep inner psychology and he still had a heart for God.
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. Yet
those words are possibly David's reported speech to Solomon; he refused to
accept God's reasons for not wanting a temple, and goes ahead with the
plan, imagining in his own mind that his blood shedding was the reason.
And he repeated that narrative until he believed it, and thought it was
indeed God's narrative. But he did clearly have a conscience about his
needless blood shedding, and this would have been an example of him doing
so. And this was the
worse because his parents had been given refuge there (1 Sam. 22:3,4)
; again we get the sense of David using people with no conscience.
And his ancestor Ruth was a Moabitess who had come to dwell under the
protective shadow of the wings of Israel's God. We wonder
whether despite having received the promises about his Messianic son in 2
Sam. 7, David somehow wanted to be the center of them. And so he smites
Moab because this is what the Messiah is prophesied as doing in Num.
24:17: "A star will come out of Jacob, a scepter will rise out of Israel,
and shall strike through the corners of Moab". In this case he would be
rather like Nebuchadnezzar, who initially humbly accepts the dream of Dan.
2 with himself as the head of gold who is to be replaced by others. But
then in Dan. 3 he builds an entire statue of gold, as if wanting himself
to be the permanent center of God's purpose. 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. Today it would be classified as a war crime. 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). We think likewise of his breaking up of Michal's marriage and the weeping husband walking behind her, and his genocide of the villages around Gath lest anyone tell the Philistines that in fact David was not attacking villages in Judah as he had falsely claimed.
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.
Verse 11 suggests that these were dedicated to the future temple. But Song 4:4 speaks of "David's tower... whereon a thousand shields hang". So what David dedicated to the temple ended up being used for "David's tower". The king of Israel was not to multiply silver and gold "to himself" (Dt. 17:17), and David presumably got around that by arguing that he was dedicating this wealth to some future project for Yahweh. But in fact he ended up keeping the gold for himself, for his very own tower, and so in fact his apparent dedication of his wealth to God was once again a case of very mixed motives. And of course this can be so relevant to us all- seeking wealth under the self persuasion that this some day will be 'for the Lord's work' when in fact it effectively is for ourselves.
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", confirming what is stated in 1 Chron. 18:8,
"wherewith Solomon made the brazen sea, and the pillars, and the layers,
and all the vessels". So right after the grace of God in declining David's
offer of building a temple, David gets right on with planning for it and
amassing materials for it. The wonder of pure grace in Messiah, the future
Christ, soon wore off- as it does for so many, and they too revert to
legalism and salvation by works and wanting to see it all in this life.
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.
Dt. 17:17 warns Israel's king not to multiply gold and silver "to himself". On one hand, we could argue that David obeyed this by dedicating his multiplied gold and silver to Yahweh's work. But on the other hand, this gold and silver was dedicated to David's own obsession- that his son Solomon should use it to build a magnificent temple. When Yahweh had said he didn't want this. So again it would seem David's motives were mixed.
As discussed on :8, the LXX for :8 specifically says that the
dedicated materials were used for building the temple. So again we see an
element of poor thinking in David at this time. He has just been told not
to build a physical temple, and to quietly trust that Yahweh will build
him an eternal "house" through the work of the Messianic Son of David. But
he immediately sets about gathering materials for the physical house which
he had been told not to build.
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.
Or we can read this comment that David made himself a name as a criticism of him for not accepting the promises of 2 Sam. 7. Yahweh would make David and Israel a name (2 Sam. 7:23), and that name was to be part of Yahweh's Name; Yahweh would make a house of people where that Name would dwell. But David relapses to the physical, visible and religious rather than the spiritual, as seen in his continued efforts to establish / prepare a physical house for God. Rather than accepting Yahweh was going to establish / prepare that house in spiritual terms through Messiah, as a house of persons manifesting His Name. In contrast, David makes himself a name rather than being devoted to manifesting Yahweh's Name. This may well be reflected in the style of the narrative- for the word "David" occurs 21 times in the 18 verses of 2 Samuel 8. It was all about his name. The same phrase is used of the Babel builders who said "let us make us a name" (Gen. 11:4). Soon after that we read that in contrast, Yahweh would make Abraham's name great (Gen. 12:2 s.w.).
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).
See on :1.
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.
The question of there being two High Priests is probably because Zadok served at Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:39) and Abiathar at Jerusalem. This again suggests that David was playing fast and loose with Divine law. He wanted to cement religious and political power in his own backyard, quite literally, in his citadel at Zion. So he brought the ark there, made tents for it and appointed a High Priest for it. But the actual tabernacle remained at Gibeon. This assumption that he could act as he wanted with God's law sets the scene for his failure with Bathsheba.
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. As
ever, David presents as mixed in his motives. On one hand, he loved God's
law and understood the spirit of it to the point that he could break it
technically. Although the Uzzah incident was to reign him in about this.
However on the other hand, he was doing what monarchs did at the time-
concentrating both religious and political power in his own hands. This is
also shown by his taking the ark to his own back yard in his citadel of
Zion, rather than to the tabernacle in Gibeon, and seeking to build a
temple for it there- on his own property. His setting up his sons as
priests [Heb. kohen] likewise- and we note that nothing more is ever heard
about this, because clearly they were spiritual failures. This contributes
to the overall impression of this chapter- that David's apparent
achievements were hollow. This is not to say he had no spirituality, for
we see him showing grace to Mephibosheth, but after he was given the
amazing promises, we see nothing but a downward spiral in his life
overall.
Previous Chapter
