Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: September 15
Today is: Friday, April 19th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of September: (Show All Months)
1Sa_8:3-12
Hadadezer king of Zobah—by which we are, perhaps, to understand the Zobathites, as no such place as Zobah is known—had established a great power in Syria, which extended into northern Mesopotamia, if indeed it did not originate there, and spread thence westward. This power was achieved apparently by the subjection of the various small states which lay between Lebanon and the Euphrates. It is questioned where the metropolitan seat of this power lay. The Syrian writers, followed by Christian commentators, say, it was at Nisibis, beyond the Euphrates; while the Jews place it at Helbon, the modern Haleb or Aleppo—Damascus was absorbed in this realm, but was not its metropolitan seat. The object of this conquering and aggressive power must have been to push westward to the sea, and that being done, the south-west—forming the dominion of David, would not long have been left unmolested. Against this westward progress, were opposed the double chain of the Lebanon mountains, and the arms of Toi, king of Hamath. The city of Hamath which gave name to this kingdom, still known by this name, was, in a later age, called by the Greeks Epiphania. It lay away north upon the river Orontes, about midway between Aleppo and Damascus—but the dominion extended southward through the great plain, called the Hollow Syria (Coelesyria), which lies between the ranges of Lebanon and Ante-Lebanon. Its southern frontier thus touched the northern frontier of the Hebrew dominion, the limit of which, in this direction, is often described as being at “the entrance of Hamath.” Hence Israel and Hamath were neighboring powers, though their capitals lay far apart; and they had a common interest in repressing the inroads of the king of Zobah. The name of Toi does not, indeed, occur till after David’s expedition has been recorded; but from the nature of the case, they had probably acted together from the first; and as the king of Hamath’s danger was more immediate than that of David, it is highly probable that the latter engaged in this war upon his representations. It must have been clear to David that Hadadezer and himself must come eventually into conflict, and it could not but appear to him wiser to act at once, than to wait until the power of the king of Zobah should be strengthened by the acquisition of Hamath. In any case, he mast have seen the better policy of supporting Hamath, as interposed between him and this aggressive power, than of remaining quiet until its territories impinged upon his own frontier.
The forces of Hadadezer consisted chiefly of chariots of war—which, however well suited to the warfare in which he had hitherto been engaged upon the high plains of Syria, were but ill suited for action in such mountainous territories as those of David and Toi. Hence the power of infantry—of which the Hebrew army entirely consisted, against chariots in such regions; and the good policy of the law which discouraged the use of horses, and therefore compelled the chosen people to rely upon the kind of force best suited to the nature of the country. On the other hand, this infantry was ill suited to conflict with chariots in the open plains; and as David was too experienced a general to throw away any advantages, it is probable that he sought in his repeated engagements with this new kind of force, to meet them on ground unsuited to their operations. Matters eventually crime to the decision of a great battle, in which Hadadezer was totally defeated, and his power for the time broken; and Damascus, with the other small states to the great river, which beheld in the event merely a change of masters, received without any visible repugnance the king of Israel as a conqueror. Thus were realized for the first time the ancient promises, that the dominion of Abraham’s seed should extend to the Euphrates.
The troops of Hadadezer seem to have brought something like Assyrian magnificence from beyond the Euphrates. There were not only the chariots and horses, but some of the troops had golden shields, which of course came into the hands of David. He found also valuable spoils of brass in some of the captured cities. All this, as well as the metallic spoils of his other wars, David appropriated, not to his own enrichment, but to the object he had most at heart—the future temple of the Lord. He was forbidden to build it himself, but there was nothing to prevent him from gathering materials for it; and this he did to such an extent—not only by the treasure he accumulated, but by leaving a plan of the building, and by organizing the sacred ministrations—that a careful consideration of the matter may leave it doubtful, whether much more of the credit of the undertaking is not due to him than to Solomon.
To the same object were appropriated the costly presents which king Toi sent by his own son Joram (for the greater honor) in acknowledgment of the essential services which had been rendered to him, amounting to little less than the preservation of his kingdom. These presents consisted of various articles in gold, silver, and brass—which last we find now continually mentioned along with the precious metals. Some kinds of it were probably little inferior in value to silver, and we know that some qualities of brass were even more precious than gold. Thus, even under David, began that influx of precious metals, which came to its height in the next reign. This must have wrought a great change in the land, where these metals had hitherto been scarce. This we may appreciate by the great changes which have been produced in Europe by the discovery of the South American mines, and the consequently great abundance of the precious metals. We do not afterwards find any apparent scarcity of such metals in Palestine. We must consider that all the wealth acquired in these wars, was not locked up for the future temple. David was not the man to take from his soldiers their fair share of the spoil. What he dedicated to the Lord, was such as accrued to him as king; this was a large share, no doubt—perhaps a tenth, besides which, there were probably certain articles of spoil which were in all cases considered to belong to the crown—and the men themselves certainly devoted a portion of what they obtained to the same object. But still a large proportion of the metallic spoil must have belonged to the soldiers, and soon passed from their hands into the general circulation of the country thereby producing the effects at which we have hinted.
David was not unmindful of the law against the multiplication of horses in the hands of the king; and his clear military judgment could not but appreciate the reasons on which this prohibition was founded. He had now a large spoil of horses and chariots; but he caused the former to be destroyed, and burned the latter. He reserved a hundred of the chariots, with a proper number of horses—but as this was for state purposes, and not for use in war, the measure seems not to have deserved any blame, nor did it incur any.