Chapter 8

1 David subdueth the Philistines and the Moabites. 3 He smiteth Hadadezer, and the Syrians. 9 Toi sendeth Joram with presents to bless him. 11 The presents and the spoil David dedicateth to God. 14 He putteth garrisons in Edom. 16 David’s officers.

1. Smote the Philistines. After David had been established on the throne he enjoyed a period of peace that was utilized for the organization and upbuilding of his kingdom. Realizing the strength of Israel, the surrounding nations refrained from attack, and David contented himself with affairs within his realm. At length, however, he decided to reduce his enemies to submission so that they would not be in a position to attack whenever the opportunity might present itself. The Philistines were defeated and made tributary, and part of their territory was annexed to Israel.

Metheg-ammah. The meaning of this name is obscure. Some interpret it as “bridle of the mother city,” “bridle” probably being used in the sense of authority. According to the parallel passage, David took “Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines” (1 Chron. 18:1). Gath, the mother city, the metropolis of the Philistines, is thus probably referred to. This important place was now annexed to Israel. Its retention by David would denote the complete subservience of the Philistines to Israel.

2. Smote Moab. David had previously enjoyed friendly relations with Moab, the Moabites having provided an asylum for his father and mother while he was a fugitive from Saul (1 Sam. 22:3, 4). The cause of David’s change of attitude toward Moab is not certainly known. There is a Jewish tradition to the effect that the Moabites had proved false to their trust and had slain David’s father and mother. For this there is no verification. It may also be true that in David’s war with the Philistines, Moab was guilty of some treachery, and thus became the object of his next determined attack.

There is no need to assume, as some do, that Moab is mentioned here by mistake for Ammon. Moab’s rebellion under Mesha (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4–27) proves that the country was brought under the dominion of Israel. Apart from this record there is no account of the subjugation of Moab. The argument of silence, however, is in itself not sufficient evidence of the continued servitude of Moab from the time of David to the death of Ahab. There may have been other rebellions and resubjugations during the intervening years.

Casting them down to the ground. Literally, “causing them to lie down on the ground.” It would seem that David forced the Moabites to lie on the ground, and then measured them off with a line into three parts, two of which were put to death and the third was saved alive. The parallel passage (1 Chron. 18:2) makes no mention of this. The reason for such drastic treatment is not given. Perhaps information as to the causes of the war would help to account for the measures.

3. Hadadezer. Sometimes spelled, “Hadarezer” (1 Chron. 18:3, 5, 7, 10; etc.). “Hadadezer” is evidently the more correct spelling, for Hadad was the name of an important Syrian god. The title of this god appears also in the name Benhadad (1 Kings 20:1, 2; 2 Kings 8:7).

Zobah. A small Aramaean kingdom west of the Euphrates and northeast of Damascus, about 50 mi. south of Hamath. The kingdom flourished in the days of Saul, David, and Solomon (see 1 Sam. 14:47; 1 Chron. 18:3; 2 Chron. 8:3). In the period of the Assyrian domination this region became a province with the name, Subutu.

At the river Euphrates. This verse gives some idea of the wide extent of David’s domain. The border of Israel proper did not extend to the Euphrates, but the nations of that region had been brought to recognize David as their overlord.

4. A thousand chariots. The word “chariots” is not found in the Hebrew, which reads “a thousand and seven hundred horsemen.” The parallel text (1 Chron. 18:4), however, has “a thousand chariots,” suggesting that “chariots” should be supplied in the Samuel account as in the KJV.

Seven hundred horsemen. The LXX reads “seven thousand horsemen,” which is the number given in 1 Chron. 18:4.

Houghed. That is, hamstrung. The procedure was to cut the sinews of the hind legs of the horses and thus render the animals unfit for use in war (see Joshua 11:6–9).

Reserved of them. Whether or not David did wrong in this we are not told. He probably felt the need for a number of horses to be used as a means of rapid communication. Yet the introduction of these horses may have been the entering wedge for Solomon’s multiplication of horses (1 Kings 4:26; 10:26, 28, 29) in direct violation of Deut. 17:16.

5. The Syrians of Damascus. There were many groups of Syrians or Aramaeans, but those of Damascus were the most powerful and the most famous (see 1 Kings 20; 2 Kings 16:5–12; etc.).

6. Preserved David. Compare v. 14 and ch. 7:9. David lived a dangerous life, being in frequent conflict with his foes. But the Lord gave him victory and preserved him from danger. God’s protecting care became the subject of many of David’s psalms (see Ps. 18; 34; and others).

7. Shields of gold. Probably gold-plated shields. Such shields may have been used largely for purposes of display rather than for protection in actual combat. Solomon also made shields of gold that were displayed in his famous “house of the forest of Lebanon” (1 Kings 10:17). For “shields,” the LXX reads “bracelets.”

8. From Betah, and from Berothai. Betah, in Aram-zobah, is unknown. Berothai may be Bereitan, 8 mi. (13 km.) south of Baalbek.

Brass. Brass is correctly an alloy which is made of copper and zinc. The term “brass” in the Bible usually applies to bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, or to copper. These metals were in common use in the ancient Orient. Many objects made of them have been found in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Syria. David saved this bronze and other metals for the future temple (v. 11). Solomon used the bronze taken from the Syrians for “the brasen sea, and the pillars, and the vessels of brass” of the Temple (1 Chron. 18:8).

9. Hamath. A kingdom on the Orontes River. It was tributary to Solomon (1 Kings 4:24; 2 Chron. 8:3, 4), regained its independence and was again recovered for Israel by Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:28), and was finally reduced by Assyria (2 Kings 19:13; Isa. 37:13).

10. Joram. For Toi to place his son in charge of the delegation was an indication of the high regard he had for David.

Brought with him vessels. The bringing of such presents was generally regarded in the East as equivalent to the payment of tribute. The reign of David greatly enhanced the influence of Israel over wide areas of Western Asia.

11. Did dedicate. Instead of using these gifts for himself David dedicated them to the Lord. David had a great desire to see the Temple built, and even though he himself would not be permitted to proceed with this task, he made every provision possible for its erection.

12. Of Syria. The LXX, the Syriac, and several MSS of the Hebrew have “Edom.” Also the otherwise identical list of these nations given in 1 Chron. 18:11, has “Edom” instead of “Syria.” Both nations were actually conquered by David. The two names, Syria (Хaram) and Edom (Хedom) differ only by one letter in consonantal Hebrew. Where the word for Syria has an r the word for Edom has a d. The two letters look so nearly alike that they are frequently confused. For example, Hadadezer (2 Sam. 8:10) is written Hadarezer in 2 Sam. 10:16, 19. For the forms of the Hebrew d and r see p. 14.

Of Ammon. Since ch. 10 tells of trouble with Ammon after apparently unbroken friendliness from the time of David’s early days, some commentators conclude that the present verse lists all the nations whose spoils David dedicated, throughout his reign, including the nations attacked in the wars of ch. 10.

Amalek. This is the only reference to a war with Amalek after David became king. Saul had gained a great victory over Amalek (1 Sam. 15), and afterward David, as a fugitive, smote certain bands of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30).

13. The Syrians. The LXX, the Syriac, and several Hebrew MSS have “Edomites.” The parallel text of 1 Chron. 18:12 also has “the Edomites” (see on 2 Sam. 8:12 for a possible confusion of the two names). That the Edomites are intended is clear from the fact that the smiting took place in “the valley of salt,” which was in Edom (2 Kings 14:7; Ps. 60, title; see also on 2 Sam. 8:14, which is evidently a sequel).

Eighteen thousand men. Abishai, the brother of Joab, is named as the general of David who slew these 18,000 men (1 Chron. 18:12). Joab himself slew 12,000 Edomites in the same locality (Ps. 60, title). There is a record also of a campaign of Joab in which he smote “every male in Edom” (1 Kings 11:15, 16).

14. Put garrisons in Edom. The great victory gained by David’s forces over the Edomites in the valley of salt (2 Sam. 8:13; 1 Chron. 18:12) was followed by the placing of garrisons there, in the same manner as David had previously placed garrisons in Syria (2 Sam. 8:6).

16. Over the host. After giving a list of David’s victories over his enemies, the writer of Samuel gives a brief summary of the principal officers over the realm (vs. 16–18) and the same is true of the writer of Chronicles (1 Chron. 18:15–17). Substantially the same list of officers is again given in 2 Sam. 20:23–26. For the elevation of Joab to this post see 1 Chron. 11:6.

Recorder. Apparently an official of importance, a kind of chancellor. He not only kept a record of the affairs of state, particularly for the information of the king, but was also the king’s adviser. Jehoshaphat, who was David’s recorder, continued to hold the same office in the early part of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 4:3).

17. Zadok. Here Zadok and Ahimelech are listed as priests, evidently high priests, since the list comprises the highest officials of the kingdom. Zadok has already appeared earlier in the history of David’s reign, where he is named jointly with Abiathar in connection with the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:11). During David’s reign the two are repeatedly named as colleagues, apparently equal.

Three reasons have been suggested as to why David followed the seemingly strange procedure of having two high priests: (1) The two priests represented the two lines descended from Aaron’s sons Eleazar and Ithamar respectively (see 1 Chron. 24:1–6, where Zadok and Abiathar’s son, Ahimelech, are mentioned). (2) In reuniting Judah and Israel after a long war, David may have hoped to cement the unity of national religious sentiment by dividing the high priesthood between the two houses. The priestly line of Abiathar had been almost wiped out by Saul (1 Sam. 22:9–20) for help given to David, but the branch represented by Zadok remained faithful to Saul, at least until David became king of all Israel (1 Chron. 12:23–28). (3) The national worship of Jehovah was not yet centralized, for the ark was at Jerusalem, and the tabernacle at Gibeon, where it had been taken after the massacre at Nob; therefore there was need for two high-ranking priests, and Zadok is specifically mentioned as ministering at Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:39, 40). For the history of Zadok and his partners in office, see the next section on Ahimelech.

Ahimelech. Mentioned as the son of Abiathar not only here but also in the parallel passage of 1 Chron. 18:16 (spelled “Abimelech”), and in 1 Chron. 24:6, which refers to a later occasion. But David’s joint high priests (see on “Zadok,” above) are repeatedly named as “Zadok and Abiathar” throughout his life, and even at the beginning of Solomon’s reign. Therefore the mention of Zadok and Ahimelech in the present verse and in Chronicles has raised speculation about “scribal errors” and “confused names,” especially since Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar, and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.

But there is no need to assume any errors. Critics do not always take into account the fact that their supposed difficulty may as readily arise from the lack of complete information as from a mistake on the part of the ancient writer or his copyists. Scattered references to several generations of a priestly family do not constitute a complete narrative. For example, let us imagine a foreigner, unfamiliar with American history, reading a book on American politics. He might be puzzled to understand references to Cleveland as the President following Benjamin Harrison, along with other statements that he preceded Harrison. If he read the whole history of that period, he would find that both are correct.

The statements about Ahimelech, Abiathar, and Ahimelech permit the following reconstruction of the events. The Ahimelech who gave the shewbread to the fugitive David at Nob was the son of Ahitub (1 Sam. 22:9–12), and was a descendant of Eli, for his son Abiathar fulfilled the prophecy concerning the house of Eli (1 Kings 2:27). According to the genealogy of 1 Sam. 14:3, Ahimelech must have been an old man when he helped David. His son Abiathar might also have been high priest at the same time (see on Mark 2:26), if he held the office jointly with his father. Or he may have been the functioning high priest while his father was “high priest emeritus” as was evidently the relationship between Eli and his sons and between Annas and Caiaphas in the time of Christ (see on Luke 3:2). When Saul had the priests of Ahimelech’s family slain, Abiathar escaped with the ephod, the symbol of his office (see on Ex. 28:6–30), and became adviser and priest to the outlawed David (1 Sam. 22:20; 23:6, 9; 30:7). Abiathar and Zadok are again mentioned as joint high priests in connection with the festal ceremony of bringing the ark of God to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:11, 12). Henceforth Zadok and Abiathar are repeatedly named together as “the priests” in the latter part of David’s life (2 Sam. 15:29, 35, 36; 17:15; 19:11; 20:25), and even early in Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 4:4).

After the victories of David’s armies over various foreign foes, the consolidation of the kingdom, and the secure establishment of domestic justice, as described in the present chapter (vs. 1–15), we find a list of David’s highest officials. But here are included the names of Zadok and Ahimelech, “the priests,” as in the parallel passage (1 Chron. 18:16). Abiathar was apparently replaced for a time by his son. There is nothing to indicate how long Ahimelech held this office, or why it was not permanent. Perhaps he was made priest temporarily, during a time when his father was in poor health. Perhaps the older man may have been brought out of intended retirement by unexpected developments—possibly Absalom’s rebellion. Though the Bible does not inform us on these matters, there could have been changes in the priesthood for a number of reasons. There is no need to assume a scribal error.

Once more, years later, we find Ahimelech participating in a public ceremony. This was preceding the coronation of Solomon, when the aged David assigned the duties of the Levites in the future service of the anticipated Temple. Lots were cast before David and before “Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar” (1 Chron. 24:1–3; cf. vs. 6, 31) as representatives of the two branches of the family of Aaron. It is not at all surprising that on this occasion Abiathar was not present, for he had but recently been active in Adonijah’s attempt to seize the throne (1 Kings 1:5–7, 19). In his absence it was natural that his son Ahimelech should function as the head of the house of Ithamar, opposite Zadok of the house of Eleazar. So the linking of his name with Zadok here does not require another change in the office of high priest. Ahimelech is not called a priest, although he is mentioned three times (1 Chron. 24:3, 6, 31). Zadok alone was anointed high priest at Solomon’s coronation (1 Chron. 29:22).

Abiathar is still named, however, in the first list of high officials at the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 4:4; cf. v. 1, which implies that this list refers to the beginning of the reign), that is, before David’s death. Solomon probably retained him in office out of respect for David’s esteem for him as an old friend and counselor. At least he did not depose Abiathar from the priesthood until after David’s death, and then not until Adonijah made what Solomon considered to be another threatening move (1 Kings 2:22, 26, 27). Thenceforth Zadok was the sole high priest (1 Kings 2:35).

Thus it is evident that the various accounts are complementary, not contradictory, and hence require no revision.

The scribe. Evidently a high position, comparable to that of secretary of state (see 2 Kings 12:10; 18:37; 19:2).

18. Benaiah. At Solomon’s coronation Benaiah, formerly captain over the Cherethites and Pelethites, replaced Joab as commander in chief (1 Kings 4:4).

Chief rulers. From the Heb. kohen, literally, “priest.” The reference here is probably to some secular office. The LXX reads, “princes of the court.”

Ellen G. White comments

15  Ed 152; PP 719