Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 Samuel 17:24 - 17:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Sa_17:24 to 2Sa_18:33 [2Sa_19:1]
a. David at Mahanaim. 2Sa_17:24-29
24And David sat [was sitting] between the two gates; and the watchman went up to the roof over [of] the gate unto the wall, and lifted up his eyes, and looked 25[saw], and behold a man running alone. And the watchman cried [called] and told the king. And the king said, If he be alone, there is tidings in his mouth. And he came apace and drew near [he came nearer and nearer]. 26And the watchman saw another man running; and the watchman called unto the porter, and said, Behold, another [om. another, ins. a] man running alone. And the king said, He also bringeth tidings. 27And the watchman said, Methinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok. And the king said, He is a good man, and cometh with good tidings. 28And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well [Peace!] And he fell down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king. 29And the king said, Is the young man Absalom safe? And Ahimaaz answered [said] When Joab sent the king’s servant and me [om. the king’s servant and me] thy servant, I saw a great tumult, but I knew not what it was. 30And the king said unto him [om. unto him], Turn aside, and stand here. And he turned aside and stood still. 31And behold, Cushi [the Cushite] came; and Cushi [the Cushite] said, Tidings, my lord the king, for the Lord [Let my lord the king receive the tidings that Jehovah] hath avenged [delivered] thee this day of [from] all them that rose up against thee. 32And the king said unto Cushi [the Cushite], Is the young man Absalom safe? And Cushi answered [the Cushite said], The enemies of my lord the king, and all that rise against thee to do thee hurt [for evil] be as that [the] young man is [om. is]. [Heb. 19:1]. 33And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept; and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God [O that] I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!
2Sa_17:24. To Mahanaim, east of the Jordan (which he had crossed in the night, passing through the Jordan-valley, 2Sa_17:22), probably a fortified place, north of the Jabbok, suitable for a rendezvous for gathering an army, whence it was chosen by Abner as Ishbosheth’s capital-city. See on 2Sa_2:8. [A well-provisioned country, friendly to David (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.]—Absalom’s passage over the Jordan took place when he had had time to gather (according to Hushai’s counsel) “all the men of Israel,” that is, all the military force of the country (comp. 2Sa_17:11 sq.). 2Sa_17:25. Whether Amasa, appointed by Absalom captain in place of Joab (who remained faithful to David), is the same with the Amasai of 1Ch_12:17-18 (Ewald, Bertheau), must be left undetermined. “If this conjecture were correct, the man, so cordially received by David (1Ch_12:17), would have committed grave wrong in attaching himself to Absalom” (Then.). Elsewhere the phrase “son of a man (or woman)” is defined by a following appositional word or genitive (Böttcher); but here the defining phrase is introduced by “and” [“and his name was Ithra”], so that we have the independent assertion: “son of a man,” which is meaningless. Perhaps the text originally had: “whose name was” ( àֲùֶׁø ùְׁîåֹ ), and the relative pronoun has fallen out (from the following àùׁø ). Böttcher conjectures that “foreigner” ( âֵø ) stood after “man,” comp. 2Sa_1:13 [it would then read: “Amasa was the son of a foreigner, and his name was Ithra.”—Tr.].—With this would agree that Ithra was an Ishmaelite, for so we must here read instead of “Israelite,” after 1Ch_2:17, where Jether is shortened form of Ithra (Sept.: “the Jezreelite,” Jos_19:18, so David’s wife Ahinoam, 1Sa_28:3). The designation of Ithra as an “Israelite” would be superfluous; but the statement that he was an “Ishmaelite” serves to illustrate the fact that Amasa was an illegitimate son of Abigail. If Nahash be taken as a man’s name, and the word “sister” in apposition with Abigail, then Zeruiah and Abigail are daughters of David’s mother by her first marriage with Nahash, step-daughters of Jesse, and on this side step-sisters of David (so the older expositors, Michaelis and Schultz). But Nahash may, with Movers and Thenius (who refers to 1Ch_4:12, where it is the name of a city), be taken as a woman’s name, here a second wife of Jesse. In this case also the two, Zeruiah and Abigail, would be David’s step-sisters. Clericus supposes Nahash to be another name, or a surname of Jesse; Capellus would read “Jesse” instead of “Nahash” (after a variant of the Sept.); Böttcher puts “sister” in apposition with “Nahash,” which he regards as a woman’s name. [It is an old Jewish view that Nahash is another name of Jesse. For many persons, says Kimchi, had two names, and this (Nahash) signifies “a serpent.” From whence it is that when Isaiah (2Sa_14:29) saith: “out of the serpent’s root (or, the root of Nahash) shall come forth a cockatrice or basilisk,” the Chaldee paraphrase expounds it, “out of the root of Jesse shall come forth the Messiah;” who was typified by the brazen serpent in the wilderness (Patrick). This would be baseless allegorizing, even if Nahash were proved to be another name of Jesse, which is not probable. The omission of the name Nahash in 1Ch_2:16 is against the view that it belongs to a daughter of Jesse; more probably it is the name of the otherwise unknown father of Abigail. See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
2Sa_17:26. Absalom pitched his camp in Gilead. Nothing is said of a siege (Ewald) of Mahanaim. Against this view is the fact that David, as appears from what follows, here got supplies of men and provisions, formed an army, and organized it in three divisions, which required time. It is hence evident that David was able to establish himself strongly at Mahanaim without being attacked by Absalom’s army.
2Sa_17:27-29. David receives reinforcements and provisions. Shobi, the son of Nahash, from Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites; this last statement “guards against the possible error that Shobi was a brother of Abigail” (Thenius). Rabbah, on the lower Jabbok (2Sa_12:26-31), belonged to David’s empire, and now remained true to him. Shobi, if not an Israelite, was perhaps a son of the deceased Ammonite king Nahash and brother of the Hanun (2Sa_10:1 sqq.) conquered by David (Keil), or a member of the royal house of Ammon favored by David (Ewald). [Shobi was hardly tributary king of Ammon (Bib.-Com.), else he would have been called king.—Tr.]—Machir, son of Ammiel of Lodebar, who had received Jonathan’s lame son Mephibosheth into his house (2Sa_9:4).—Barzillai, a Gileadite of Rogelim, an otherwise unknown place, mentioned besides here only in 2Sa_19:32. The Sept. (alone among the ancient versions) inserts “ten” before “beds” and before “basons;” but this does not agree with the connection, since the articles mentioned were brought by several persons for “the people” (2Sa_17:29), and therefore certainly in considerable quantities. Ten would have been too few for David’s “court and army” (Ew.); the insertion of this number in the Sept. was perhaps suggested by 1Sa_17:17-18. Whether they were “fine mattress-beds” (Ew.) must be left undecided. “Basons,” metallic vessels for preparing food. “Parched food” ( ÷ָìִé ), comp. 1Sa_17:17. As not only corn-grains, but also pulse-beans were roasted (Bochart, Hier. II. 582, Harmar, Beobacht. I. 255 sq.), the second word may refer to pulse, of which, as well as of corn, two kinds are named; and therefore the omission of the second ( ÷ìé ) as an error (Sept., Syr., Arab.) is unnecessary [Eng. A. V. retains it, and renders: “parched pulse”]. The last term in the list ( ùְׁôåֹú ðָּ÷ָø ) is variously translated; Vulg.: “fat calves;” Theod.: “sucking calves;” Chald., Syr., Rabbin.: “cheese of kine (cows)” [so Eng. A. V.]. The last sense agrees better with the preceding words [Eng. A. V. incorrectly: “butter”]; the first sense accords with the “sheep” (small cattle). Sept. transfers the Heb. word: “saphoth of oxen.” The meaning of the Heb. phrase is doubtful. The verb in this sentence (“brought”) stands strangely and unnaturally after the long list of articles; it is therefore better, with Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., to supply a verb-form (partcp.) at the beginning of 2Sa_17:28, and then to insert “and” before the verb in 2Sa_17:29 : “they brought beds, etc., and gave them to David.” [Eng. A. V. simply transfers the verb to the beginning of 2Sa_17:28. On the reading see “Text. and Gram.” Patrick calls attention to the food of the times (only one sort of meat) as indicated by the list in 2Sa_17:28-29, and Bib.-Com. remarks that God’s care for David was evident in the kindness of these people.—Tr.]
For the HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL and HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL sections, see 1Sa_18:1 ff.
Footnotes:
[2Sa_17:25. Probably we should read: “the son of a stranger (foreigner)” ( àִéùׁ ðָëְøִé , or àִéùׁ âֵּø ). Instead of “Israelite” editors now generally read: “Ishmaelite” (1Ch_2:17). The old Jewish view is that Ithra or Jithra or Jether (another name for Jesse) was an Israelite by birth, but had lived long among the Ishmaelites, or was an Ishmaelite by birth and an Israelite by religion (a proselyte), and that the phrase “son of a man” = “a man of distinction” (so Philippson); but this is less probable than that our text is corrupt. Wordsworth supposes that the name “Israelite” may be used in distinction from ‘Judahite,’ to show that Jithra did not belong to the tribe of Judah; but Cahen remarks that this designation (Israelite) seems not to have come into use till after the division of the kingdom.—Wellhausen thinks that “daughter of Nahash” is for “son of Nahash,” and is an insertion from 2Sa_17:27. a not improbable supposition; the statement would then be: “Amasa was the son of a foreigner named Jethra the Ishmaelite, who went in unto Abigail, sister to Zeruiah, Joab’s mother.” Abigail and Zeruiah would then be full sisters to David, and Amasa illegitimate son of Abigail, and cousin of Joab.—The reading of Sept. and Vulg.: “Jezreelite” is less probable than the “Ishmaelite” of 1Ch_2:17, because our text indicates (by the maimed phrase: “son of a man”) that Jethra was a non-Israelite. The Arabic reading is noticeable: “and Absalom made his lance-bearer in place of Ahithophel, a man named Amsa, son of a rich man named Jether.”—Tr.]
[2Sa_17:28. The verb does not occur in the Heb. till 2Sa_17:29, whence it is proposed to insert (with the versions) a verb or participle ( îְáִéàִéí ) at the beginning of 2Sa_17:28. The verb in 2Sa_17:29 may be retained, and would, indeed, serve to govern the nouns in 2Sa_17:28, but for the phrase “for the people to eat,” since the things mentioned in that verse are not all eatables. The difficulty, however, still exists if (with Erdmann) we supply the copula before the “brought” of 2Sa_17:29; we may then say that the word “eat” is used of the principal part of the things brought (in which case it will not be absolutely necessary to supply the verb at the beginning of 2Sa_17:28), or, we may suppose that the articles last mentioned (2Sa_17:29, together with the ÷ָìִé “parched corn” at end of verse 28, the repetition of which would thus be explained) were brought ready for immediate eating, the others (2Sa_17:28) as a store of provisions.—The word “corn” is retained in its proper sense = “grain,” though liable to be misunderstood by American readers for maize.—Tr.]
[2Sa_17:29. The people were not at Mahanaim, and had gotten hungry during the march through the wilderness.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:2. The verb does not mean “sent forth,” nor had the army yet begun its march (2Sa_18:6); the phrase ùׁìç áéã means either: “to send by the hand of some one,” or: “to give over to some one,” here the latter.—The adverb “surely” is too strong for the signification of the Infinitive Absolute.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:3. Literally: “set heart on us.”— àַúָּä “thou” instead of òַúָּä “now” is read by Sept., Vulg., Sym., and by one or two MSS.—Syr. has “now;” its text here (followed by Arab.) is badly maimed.—Instead of “out of the city” Sept., an anonymous Greek version and Vulg., have “in the city,” which is perhaps merely an explanatory rendering. The absence of the Art. in îֵòִéø creates a difficulty. Bib.-Com., taking îֵòִéø as Hiph. participle of òåּø , proposes to render: “that thou be to us a stirrer-up in helping us,” i.e., that thou help us by stirring us up. But the construction here does not favor this rendering; the verb (Hiphil) is followed by the Acc. of the person or thing roused, and frequently by òַì (“against”) with the person against whom it is roused; the Infin. here also would from the construction rather have for its subject the roused than the rouser. It is better to supply the Art. îֵäָòִéø , or else to read áָּòִéø .—Kethib ìַòֲæִéø for ìְäַòֲæִéø Hiph. Infin.; Qeri ìַòֲæåֹø Qal.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:7. Omitted by Sept. as unnecessary. The first “there” in this verse is retained in Sept. (not omitted, as Wellh. says).—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:9. Wellhausen: “from the connection with ìִôְðֵé [‘in the presence of’] and from 2Sa_18:10 it appears that the text åַéִ÷ָּøֵà is incorrect; read perhaps åַéִּéøָà [‘and Absalom feared’].” But the construction is supported by Deu_22:6 (Bib.-Com.), and the statement of 2Sa_18:10 is properly explained by this statement that Absalom in his flight “met,” accidentally came across some of David’s men.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:12. Read the Qeri ìåּ or ìֻà (= ìåּà ).—“Though I should weigh ( ùֹׁ÷ֵì ) into (upon) my hand;” instead of the Act. Particip. Wellhausen reads the Pass. ùָׁ÷åּì : “though there were weighed into my hand,” but the man might easily conceive of the weighing as done by himself.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:13. Eng. A. V. here follows the Qeri (“my life,” Kethib “his life”). The whole verse is difficult in text and meaning. The line of thought seems to favor the marginal reading áְּðַôְùׁåֹ “against his life; but it is then difficult to see whether the man presents two reasons for not killing Absalom: 1) his regard for the king’s command (2Sa_18:12), 2) his fear of the consequences to himself (2Sa_17:13), or only the former. Moreover whether the last phrase in the verse is to be rendered “thou wilt have to stand before him” (to give account, or testimony), or “thou wilt stand (appear) against me” is uncertain; the latter is more probable. In the first part of our verse the Sept. had a different text from the Heb.: “guard me the young man Absalom, not to do wrong against his life,” which would simplify the man’s address. We may adopt the reading ( îֵòֲùׂåֹú instead of àåֹÎòָùִׂéúִé ), or keep the Heb. text and render: “or if I acted falsely against his life, then nothing is concealed from the king, and thou wouldest take stand against me.”—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:14. The word ( ùֵׁáֶè ) not “dart,” but “staff,” and is contrasted with the word “spear” ( çֲðִéú ) in 2Sa_23:21. Either, then, we must suppose Joab to have used an uncommon weapon (Erdmann) or we must change the text. Erdmann states the objections to Thenius’ proposed reading ùְׁìָçִéí , and it would be hard to account for an alteration of çðéúéí or çíéúåú into ùáèéí .—Instead of: “in the heart ( áìá ) of the terebinth.” Thenius proposes to read after Syr. and Vulg.: “hung in ( úָּìåּé ) the terebinth,” for which there seems no necessity; the renderings of these two versions are merely interpretations.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:16. Sept., Vulg., Thenius, Keil, Erdmann render: “Joab wished to spare the people,” but the rendering of Eng. A. V. seems better because the idea of “wish” is not contained in the Hebrew, and the phrase “the people” in connection with Joab more naturally refers to David’s army.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:17. Wellhausen objects to the order of 2Sa_17:14-17, because it represents Absalom, already half-dead from hanging, as surviving Joab’s stabbing with the staves or darts, and finally meeting his death from the young men. He would make the last word of 2Sa_18:15 and 2Sa_18:16 follow 2Sa_18:14, and then insert 2Sa_18:15; 2Sa_18:17, so as to read: “14, Joab took three darts, etc., … in the terebinth, and killed him, 16 and blew the trumpet, and held back the people. 15 and ten young men compassed about Absalom, 17 and took him, etc.” Though this is ingenious, it is not required by the text. Joab’s wounds did not kill Absalom, and the zealous armor-bearers finished him; then Joab called in his soldiers, and they (indef. subject = Passive) took Absalom and cast him into the pit.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:18. This word has the sign of determination ( àú ), and yet is not followed by a determinative noun; whence Wellhausen would supply àֲùֵׂøָä (in place of following àùø ), and render: “took the pillar of the Asherah [idol-image] in the king’s dale and set it up.” But (apart from the fact that àֲùֵׁøָä does not occur after a construct îַöֶּáֶú , in 1Ki_14:23; 1Ki_17:10 the two words are used co-ordinately) this is an example of a word determined by a relative clause, as in Gen_40:3. See Ew. § 277 d, 2), and Ges. § 116.—At the end of the verse éãַ = “monument,” a different word from that rendered “pillar.”—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:20. Eng. A. V. here adopts the Qeri òַìÎëֵּï : “for the king’s son is dead.” Syr. and Chald., omitting the ëֵּï , render: “thou wilt not announce except that the king’s son is dead,” which, however, the present Heb. will not bear.— òַìÎáֵּï usually means “therefore,” but here = “because” (= ëִּé òַìÎëֵּï ).—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:22. Eng. A. V. takes ìְáָä = “to thee,” and îֹöֵàú Qal. Act. Particip. fem. of îָöָà , = “finding, ready:” Erdmann renders the Particip. “reward-finding,” Philippson: “profitable;” Wellhausen takes it as Hoph. of éָöָà ( îֻöֵàú ) = “brought out, paid out” (Gen_38:25); Bib.-Com.: “sufficing,” which commends itself as appropriate.—According to Böttcher, it is only when the pronoun is emphatic that we can render ìְëָä “to thee;” and here it is better = “go thou” (= “and if thou go”). But the pronoun may be emphatic here.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:23. Insert åַéֹּàîֵø at the beginning of the verse.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:26. Instead of ùòֵø “porter” Erdmann, Then., Böttcher, Wellhausen (after Sept. and Syr.) read ùַòַø “gate,” which, however, is not necessary, and this statement is not in conflict with 2Sa_18:25, where the watchman seems to speak directly to the king.—After the second àִéùּׁ Thenius and Wellhausen (Sept., Vulg., Syr.) insert àַçֵø “another;” but Böttcher properly remarks that this would naturally be inserted by the versions (so Eng. A. V. inserts it) from the preceding part of the verse, while its omission could not so well be accounted for.—Tr.]
[2Sa_18:29. Erdmann renders as Eng. A. V., but the construction, as it stands, is awkward and improbable. The simplest procedure seems to be that of Wellhausen, to omit àֶúÎòֶáֶã äַîֶּìֶêְ (though it is not easy to account for its insertion). Some (so Bib.-Com.) prefer the Vulg. rendering, on which see Erdmann in the Exposition. Related questions, such as the person of “the Cushite,” will there be referred to.—Tr.]