2 Samuel, Volume 11 by Arnold A. Anderson

Author:Arnold A. Anderson [Anderson, A. A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: REL006060 Religion / Biblical Commentary / Old Testament
Publisher: Zondervan Academic

Comment

1 The present setting of “after this” (see Comment on 2:1) may imply that David’s victories were seen as the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise that wicked men will no longer oppress Israel (7:11). This was accomplished by eliminating the sources of potential danger.

The crux of this verse is which we have reluctantly taken as a metaphorical expression. A possible literal rendering might be “the reins of the forearm,” hence perhaps “control” or “supremacy.” 1 Chr 18:1 reads “Gath and its dependent villages” or “. . . its daughters.” Historically this may be true (see Kassis, JBL 84 [1965] 269) but the Chronicler’s reading is usually regarded as secondary. The versions do not offer any real help and most modern translations take as a place-name, “Metheg Ammah”; unfortunately, no such location is attested even though it ought to have been sufficiently important to be singled out for mention in this passage. McCarter (243) offers another suggestion; he follows G and reads “the common land”; however, this, too, is doubtful. Why only common land?

It is unlikely that v 1 was intended as a summary of the events described in 5:17–25 (see Alt, ZAW 54 [1936] 150); clearly, there must have been also other battles with the Philistines (see 23:9–17). It is also uncertain to what extent did David subdue the Philistines. It is doubtful that he occupied the entire territory which may have been theoretically under Egyptian control but he may have annexed certain areas. However, he definitely broke the Philistine domination over Palestine once for all.

2 Two out of every three Moabite prisoners of war were put to death, chosen by an unusual method of selection, not attested elsewhere. It does not follow that all David’s prisoners of war were treated in the same fashion although David’s handling of the Edomites was even more ruthless (see 1 Kgs 11:15–16). 1 Chr 18:2 omits the gruesome mass execution of the Moabite captives, while G and Vg change the ratio: half were put to death and half were spared. All this may imply that the Israelite economy was not able to absorb large numbers of slaves unless the measures taken had a deterrent value. David’s harsh treatment of the Moabites is rather unexpected since his own great grandmother is said to have been a Moabitess (cf. Ruth 4:21–22); moreover, the Moabites had been helpful to David’s parents during their enforced exile (1 Sam 23:3–4). Moab became David’s vassal state and its tribute may have consisted of sheep and wool (as in 2 Kgs 3:4).

3 Hadadezer, son of Rehob, probably came from Beth-rehob, at the southern foot of Mount Hermon. In Malamat’s view (Studies in the Period of David and Solomon, 196) Hadadezer was the leader of a powerful political bloc in Syria. By vanquishing Hadadezer, its overlord, all “these territories passed to David en bloc . . . it was this legacy which facilitated David s acquisition of empire” (ibid.). Thus David “took over Hadadezer’s realm not only territorially, but also structurally” (JNES 22 [1963] 2).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.