2 Samuel Chapters 6,7,8,9,10 Commentary

Second Samuel Chapters 6-10 Chapter 6 Jerusalem would serve as both the political and religious capital in Israel.

In order to establish Jerusalem as the spiritual center of Israelite life, the presence of the ark was needed.

6:1-2 With a military escort of 30,000 men, David went to the city of Baalejudah (BAY uh leh Joo duah), which was otherwise known as “Kiriath Jearim” (1 Samuel 6:21-7:2; Joshua 15:9; 1 Chronicles 13:6). “Thus the story of the ark is now resumed in 2 Samuel 6. Since the ‘twenty years’ of 1 Samuel 7:2 perhaps refers to the period between the ark’s return from Philistia until the battle reported in 1 Samuel 7:7-13, or alternatively until the end of Samuel’s judgeship to the twenty years must be added at least the forty years of Saul’s reign, plus a few years into David’s reign, leading to a grand total of more than sixty years that the ark languished in exile” (Gaebelein p. 867). The distance from Jerusalem to this city was about ten miles. “Unlike Saul, David was intensely interested in the worship of Yahweh and gave attention to the Ark, which had been neglected during the reign of his predecessor” (Laney p. 95). Verse 2 tells us that the Ark represented the glorious reputation (“name”) and gracious presence (“enthroned”) of God in Israel. In addition, the word “enthroned” infers that the Ark, and specifically the mercy seat, represented the throne of God in heaven.

6:3 Unfortunately, David did not take the time to research the proper manner of transporting the ark. Placing the ark on a cart, even though it was new, was a violation of the Law. The Old Testament required that the Ark be carried by the sons of Kohath (Exodus 25:14-15; Numbers 3:30-31; 4:5-8 7:9). “In fact, David’s actions in this manner were more like those of the spiritually ignorant Philistines (cf. 1 Samuel 6:7,10)” (Bergen p. 329). The two sons of Abinadad, “Ahio” (a HIGH oh), and “Uzzah” (UHZ uh), accompanied the ark.

6:4-5 There was a tremendous celebration as the ark was being transported. The musical instruments included both stringed (harp and 1

lyre) and percussion instruments (tambourine, castanets (a type of rattle),and cymbal. 6:6 But when the oxen and the ark passed over the rough, rocky threshing floor of Nachon (NAY kon), Uzzah put forth his hand to steady the Ark. 6:7 The text says that Uzzah was struck dead by God because of his “irreverence”.

Some believe that good or sincere motives can make up for violating God’s will, but this text clearly proves the opposite. We are never justified in violating a command of God, regardless of the circumstances or the most sincere and well-meaning of motives. Uzzah wasn’t a priest, and touching the ark was a violation of the Law (Numbers 4:15). “Because of His holiness, God’s laws cannot be violated no matter how reasonable it would seem in a particular situation” (Laney p. 96). This text is an excellent place to demonstrate that every law of God is important. God commanded the death penalty against murderers and adulterers, and then personally executed Uzzah for a violation of what some would call a ceremonial law. Yet God doesn’t make a distinction between moral law and ceremonial law, rather, every law that He has given is equally important, simply because He is the author of that law. Observe that “God”, and not some impersonal force struck Uzzah. “John H. Stek observes that the fate of Uzzah brings to mind the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, Leviticus 10:1-2; Achan, Joshua 7; and Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:1-11; all of whom failed to take Yahweh’s rule seriously” (Gaebelein pp.

871-872). The theory of Situation Ethics does not fare well in this passage and many others. How many people today would argue that keeping the ark from falling is more important than the law which forbade nonpriests to touch it? How many people today would call God a legalist for killing Uzzah over such a “small” infraction? Consider how easily basic Scriptures can be forgotten, even by those professing to be His people.

The Law was clear on how the ark was to be carried and who could touch it. Putting the ark on a new cart, makes about as much sense as arguing that people are saved prior to baptism! (Mark 16:16) 6:8 The name “Perez-uzzah” (PIR iz UHZ uh), means “a breakthrough”.

David’s anger was probably directed more at himself, since what had happened could have been avoided, if he had only first consulted the Scriptures. Yet, David was afraid of God (1 Chronicles 13:12). Eventually David realized that the reason for this out-burst was human carelessness and that the word of God had been ignored on a very clear subject (1 Chronicles 15:13 “For we did not seek Him according to the ordinance”).

When people complain that we are spending too much time on “doctrine”, I think of the above example. Innocent people die (physically and spiritually) when doctrine is ignored. In addition, this fear turned out 2

to be a healthy thing. “His deepened respect for the Lord’s power and for His willingness to use it against anyone who would violate the Law caused David to ask, ‘How can the ark of the Lord ever come to me?’…..the fear generated by this event was positive, for when people are no longer awed, respectful, or fearful of God’s holiness, the community is put at risk” (Bergen p. 330).

6:9-10 The ark is for the time being placed in the care of “Obed-edom” (OH bed EE dum) the “Gittite” (GIT tight), a term which can refer to a native or inhabitant of the Philistine city of Gath, yet Obed-edom was a Levite (1 Chronicles 15:17-18,21, 24-25; 16:4-5, 38). 6:11-12 The blessing that came upon this household, evidently included fertility (1 Chronicles 26:5,8). Consider how God is providentially telling David that the ark can be safely kept and moved. It is so easy for people to say, “There is no way that a fallible human being can please God, properly interpret the Bible, or know the truth”. Yet such an excuse forgets that God’s instructions are perfectly suited for the man that God made (Ephesians 3:3-5).

6:12 David also is encouraged to move the ark, because he has learned why the first attempt ended in failure (1 Chronicles 15:13). Serving God acceptably is often as simple as taking the time to read the Scriptures and then acting (Matthew 7:21; Acts 17:11). 6:13 According the 1 Chronicles 15:3-15, this time the Levites are carrying the ark. After they cautiously moved the ark six paces, the procession stopped and David offered a sacrifice. Apparently at various intervals along the way the procession paused to offer similar sacrifices. 6:14-15 David was jubilant that all was going well. He enthusiastically led the procession with vigorous dancing.

“For this he had removed his royal robes and was wearing only an ephod, a short, sleeveless, garment” (Smith p. 343). “The removal of the Ark to Jerusalem was no small affair in the eyes of David. He was overwhelmed with emotion” (Davis p. 134). David was a man who could get very excited about serving and worshipping God. He gave God 100% of his energy, emotion, and dedication. Do we get this excited about serving God? 6:17 Since David was not a priest, it would appear that David directed the Levites to perform these sacrifices. David had prepared a place for the ark, for he had erected a special tent in Jerusalem. “According to 1 Chronicles 16:39-40, this was done without removing the tent in Gibeon, which was still used to house the remainder of the sacred tabernacle furnishings” (Bergen p. 331).

6:16,20-23 Michal, David’s wife and the daughter of Saul did not appreciate David’s enthusiasm. In verse 20 as soon as David returns 3

home, she accuses him of uncovering himself in the eyes of the servantgirls and behaving foolishly. “Implicitly she suggested that immoral sexual urges, not zeal for the Lord, had motivated his enthusiastic activities in the festivities of that day” (Bergen p. 333). It is interesting that Michal is not called David’s wife, but Saul’s daughter in this section (6:20). She seemed to be more impressed with regal splendor and pomp than humble service.

Evidently, she wanted David to act like a king like all the other nations.

“Perhaps her actions and attitude in this situation were more characteristic of her father than of her husband….Her displeasure, however, was more likely tied in with her insensitivity to the religious significance of this occasion. This brought a quick and decisive response from David in which he pointed out that he had no intention of changing his behavior purely on her behalf. As a result of this estrangement, Michal had no children until the day of her death (20:3; 1 Chronicles 15:29)” (Davis pp. 134-135). David rejects Michal’s slanderous accusations, that argues that “it was before the Lord”, and not the young women. His motives were completely pure. He also pointed out, “People of true faith, such as ‘these slave girls’ who attended the celebration, would interpret David’s actions for what they were---expressions of unrestrained, authentic faith; thus the king would be held in honor by people of faith…David was willing to risk being misunderstood and humiliated as he pursued a deeper relationship with God” (Bergen p. 334).

6:23 The Law often associated fertility with obedience (Exodus 23:26; Deuteronomy 7:14; 28:11). To those knowledgeable of the Law, Michal’s unproductive womb would have been interpreted as a curse sent against a disobedient wife and not as evidence of a husband’s neglect of a marital duty. “Michal’s lack of faith would mean that the house of Saul would be forever separate from Israel’s royal dynasty” (Bergen p. 334).

Chapter 7 7:1-2 The Phoenicians had built for David a beautiful palace of cedar, but David was bothered that the dwelling place of the ark was unimpressive. It was his desire that the ark should rest in a temple worthy of its importance. According to 1 Chronicles 29:29, Nathan, along with Gad, were the chroniclers of David’s reign. “His conscience bothered him that he dwelled in a house of cedar, i.e., a luxurious palace, while the ark of God resided in a tent” (Smith pp. 344-345). This is a far cry from the time of Haggai, when God’s own people will neglect the temple in order to decorate their own homes (Haggai 1:1ff). 7:3 Nathan’s encouragement for David’s building plans was premature. Since Nathan later received a word from God contrary to what he told David, it seems safe to assume

4

that Nathan spoke without first consulting God in this matter. 7:4-11 God now responds. First, God was the One who had originated the idea of the ark being surrounded by a tent, and a sophisticated temple had not been required up to this point, so why now? Secondly, had God ever asked for such a house? In addition, though there would some day be a Temple, David would not be the one to build it, because he had waged wars and shed blood (1 Chronicles 22:8; 28:3). Yet, God’s response to David wasn’t all negative: God then revealed His plan and purpose for David. He had blessed David in the past (7:8-9), so He would blessed him in the future (7:9-11). That future blessing included building David a great house, that is, a dynasty. God would make David’s name great and David and God’s people would enjoy a rest from their enemies such as they had not experienced since the days of the Judges.

7:12-17 Finally Nathan outlined the promises for David’s posterity. 1. God would establish a kingdom for one of the David’s direct descendants. 2.

This future ruler would build a house for God’s name. 3. This dynasty would last forever and this ruler would occupy the position of a son in relationship to God. The first application of these passages refers to Solomon. He did build the temple, God firmly established his kingdom, and he did commit iniquity (7:14). Yet the ultimate application, must be to Jesus. Jesus built a spiritual house or temple (the church, Matthew 16:18; Acts 20:28), over which He presently rules (Ephesians 1:22-23). The throne which Jesus presently occupies (Acts 2:29-31) and the kingdom which He rules, is eternal (Hebrews 12:28). Though Jesus never sinned, on the cross He experienced God’s wrath, not for His own sins, but for the sins of others.

Bergen notes, “The divine declarations proclaimed here through the prophet Nathan are foundational--major New Testament teachings about Jesus: that He is 1. The son of David (Matthew 1:1). 2. One who would rise from the dead (Acts 2:30; 13:23). 3. The builder of the house of God (Matthew 16:18; Hebrews 3:3-4). 4. The possessor of a throne (Hebrews 1:8; Revelation 3:21). 5. The possessor of an eternal kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:24-25. The Son of God (John 20:31). Premillennialists argue that all of this is still future, that the church isn’t the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15), and that Jesus does not presently rule on David’s (God’s throne) (Acts 2:30).

7:18-29 Here is David’s prayer in response to what God had revealed to him, and observe the humility (7:18 “Who I am?”) of David on this occasion. “Instead of complaining about the fact that he would be unable to build God a temple, David rejoiced in the promise of future 5

blessing and acknowledged God’s greatness” (Laney p. 99). David was not preoccupied or consumed by the one thing he could not do or have, rather, he was amazed at what God had done for him thus far, and the promises of a even brighter future! What a wonderful response to God’s will, what a great example of, “Thy will be done”. “Rather than mourning the loss of his well-conceived plans, David rejoiced in the promise of future blessing. David was also thoroughly convinced of the perfection with which God controls the affairs of men. The whole history of Israel up to this point was an evidence of God’s inerrant working among His people” (Davis pp. 136-137). David was also concerned about God’s name being magnified (7:26), rather than his own. David was always more concerned about God getting the credit, than David getting the credit. “Sitting before the Lord, David’s mind ran back to the beginning, to Samuel’s first visit to his father’s house. He was overwhelmed at the memory of all the good things which God had done from that day on to bring him to the throne in Jerusalem. One of our great temptations is to take the blessings of God for granted. It is good for our spiritual life to sit before God and remember how far He has brought us” (Chafin pp. 285-286).

“David’s spirit is revealed in the fact that he was willing to lay foundations on which others would ultimately have the privilege of building. The world has too many people who won’t plant trees unless they are going to be around to eat the apples. The church needs more people who are planning and praying with the future needs of the church in mind. There are many things we would like to do and can’t, but all of us can be part of laying the foundations for the future of our children” (p. 283).

Chapter 8 This chapter is basically a summary of David’s military accomplishments.

8:1 While the wars of Saul were basically defensive in nature, David took the offensive. He defeated the Philistines and took their chief city, that being the city of Gath (1 Chronicles 18:1). 8:2 Remember that when David was hiding from Saul he had entrusted his parents with the Moabites (1 Samuel 22:3-4). Evidently, something had happened since then. “A Jewish tradition relates that the king of Moab betrayed his trust and murdered David’s parents” (Gaebelein p. 903).

8:2 “Verse 2 may be understood to mean that David spared the young Moabites (whose height was approximately one cord) and executed the adults (whose height was two cords). On the other hand, it may be that one out of three rows of soldiers was arbitrarily chosen to be spared from execution” (Laney p. 100). Evidently such men had committed such

6

notorious atrocities that David deemed the death penalty appropriate.

“The sparing of one third of the captives would have been viewed in the ancient world as a benevolent act” (Smith p. 346).

8:3-12 Having defeated enemies in the west and south (Philistines) and the east (Moabites), David now turns north. “Hadadezer” (HAD uh DEE zur), was the son of “Rehob” (REE hahb), who reigned in “Zorbah” (ZOE bah). This was a small territory west of the Euphrates River and NE of the city of Damascus. David’s victory here helped to secure the northern borders of Israel and provided a buffer zone from enemies further north.

God had promised Abraham that the northern boundary of the land promised to his descendants would be the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18). “The captives numbered 7000 cavalrymen, 1,000 chariots, and 20,000 foot soldiers. Since the Israelite army at this time had neither cavalry nor chariotry, David ordered all but a hundred of the chariot horses hamstrung (lamed). This action rendered the horses useless for military purposes” (Smith p. 347).

8:9 “Toi” (TOE eye), was the king who ruled over “Hamath” (HAY math), which included the city of Hamath, situated on the Orontes River about 125 miles north of Damascus. Much of the tribute, that being bronze and other precious metals that David received at this time, were used in the construction of the Temple. 8:12 David was receiving tribute from all the surrounding nations. 8:13 David’s reputation as a military genius was enhanced when he won a decisive victory in the Valley of Salt. The field commander in this operation was Abishai (1 Chronicles 18:12). The Valley of Salt was an area east of the Dead Sea, compare with Psalm 60. While this account calls the enemy, “Arameans”, the account in Chronicles labels them as “Edomites”. Bergen notes, “Perhaps this dispute can be resolved by recognizing that the King’s Highway, a major trade route that was controlled by Arameans farther to the north, also ran through this area. It is conceivable that Aramean troops had extended their control into traditionally Edomite territory in order to gain revenues from the caravans passing through the region. Thus after David took control of the caravan routes in the region of Damascus, he would have had to wrest control of the Aramean-dominated sections to the south as well” (pp. 350351).

8:15-18 Here we are given a description of David’s administration. Joab was David’s top general. Jehoshaphat was the recorder, i.e., charged with the responsibility of keeping the royal records. Zadok and Ahimelech shared the priesthood. Seraiah (sih RAY uh), was David’s personal secretary and penned the royal proclamations. Benaiah commanded a unity made up of mercenary Cherethites (KER ih thities) (1 Samuel 30:14) 7

and Pelethites (PEE leth ights)—peoples closely related to the Philistines, which served as the royal bodyguard (15:18; 20:7). Some scholars believe that these two groups respectively refer to Philistines and Cretans.

Benaiah was a military hero of legendary proportions (23:20-21), and was also the son of a priest (1 Chronicles 27:5). David’s selection of a priest over his personal body-guard, seems to reflect his concern to have Israelite military affairs conducted in accordance with the Lord’s guidelines. In addition, if this bodyguard was composed of loyal foreigners, then it infers that David was also concerned about the souls of these men, and had this priest teach them about God and His laws.

Chapter 9 9:1-13 In this chapter David fulfills his pledge of faithfulness and support he made to Saul as well as to Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:3; 20:42; 23:18; 24:2122). Through investigation, David learned that there was a surviving son of Jonathan. “Mephibosheth” (meh FIB oh shehth), had been only five years old when his father had died. As his nurse had fled with him, she had dropped him, and as a result he was lame in both feet (2 Samuel 4:4). He had been living in exile, with “Machir” (MAY kir), a powerful and wealthy man who lived in “Lo Debar” (low DEE bahar), a city just east of the Jordan, about five miles south of the Yarmuk River. Machir would become one of David’s most loyal supporters, standing by his side and financially supporting him when Absalom was seeking David’s life.

Evidently, Ziba had been living high-on-the-hog in managing Saul’s estate (9:10). David ordered Ziba, his sons and servants to farm the land that had originally belonged to Saul and bring in the crops for Mephibosheth.

In response, Mephibosheth is extremely appreciative and humbled by David’s generosity. I am really impressed by this son of Jonathan (who is a lot like his father). There is no resentment, self-pity or bitterness. Finally, David’s family and one from the family of Saul are once again eating together in peace! “Ziba, whose destiny had also been changed by the king’s imperial edict (evidently Ziba planned to simply take over Saul’s estate), had no choice but to accept the new assignment…However, when the opportunity presented itself, Ziba apparently tired to manipulate David to issue a different, more favorable edict (16:2-4)” (Bergen p. 355).

Chapter 10 10:1-2 As in the above chapter, David here is trying to repay some old debts. Saul had defeated Nahash in battle (1 Samuel 11:1-11), but evidently Nahash had been a supporter of David. Some feel that this

8

Nahash is the son or grandson of the man who Saul had engaged in battle, seeing that the time period between this chapter and 1 Samuel 11 is at least 50 years. “When David was a fugitive, he evidently was able to find asylum and protection among the Ammonites under Nahash” (Davis p. 140). David now attempts to secure peaceful relations with the son of Nahash, “Hanun” (HAY huhn).

10:3-4 Yet David’s actions are cunningly rebuffed by a group of influential men who surrounded the new Ammonite king. Hanun believed the paranoid or sinister report and really humiliated David’s messengers.

Cutting off their garments at the hips, left such men indecently exposed.

And shaving off a person’s beard is still regarded by the Arabs today as a great indignity. Such men were probably ridiculed all the way from Rabbah to Jericho. Rabbah (modern Amman) is about twenty miles east of the Jordan River. 10:5 Consider here David’s sensitivity for his men. He personally met them at Jericho and he knew what they were going through. “King David’s deep concern for the interests and concerns of his soldiers, as well as his military brilliance both tactically and in the heat of battle, are displayed in this chapter. The biblical writer portrays David here as a man who was willing to put significant national resources at risk in order to uphold justice” (Bergen p. 357). 10:6-7 The Ammonites immediately hired Aramean mercenaries, 33,000 in all. David put everything on the line and dispatched Joab with an army to attack the Ammonite capital of Rabbah. It just seems to me, that this is what the Ammonite advisors to the king were wanting, that is, war with Israel.

The First Battle 10:8-14 “The Ammonites formed their battle ranks at the entrance of their capital. The Aramean mercenaries were strategically positioned nearby in the open field, probably out of sight. Their assignment was to attack Joab from the rear once the Israelite army launched a frontal attack on the Ammonites. The Israelites apparently marched into a trap at Rabbah.

Joab was forced to divide his army. He quickly selected some of the better units to lead personally against the Arameans…When the Ammonites saw that their allies had fled, they retreated behind the walls of their capital” (Smith p. 352). Joab was a sharp commander, evidently he reasoned that any country which has to hire soldiers to fight its battles doesn’t have the stomach to fight by themselves. If he and his elite units could rout the Arameans, the Ammonites would quickly lose heart.

The Second Battle

9

10:15-19 The Arameans probably feared military reprisals from David for their role in the failed Ammonite attempt. So they decided to hit David, before he could hit them. An Aramean coalition regrouped to mount a preemptive military strike. For this second operation Hadadezar, bolstered the regional troops with Arameans east of the Euphrates. David knew what was going on and quickly led his army across the Jordan to “Helam” (HEE luhm), a site slightly more than thirty miles east of the Sea of Galilee.

“David’s influence over the Arameans forced these kingdoms to cancel the mutual-assistance treaties they had previously established with the Ammonites; they now became ‘afraid to help the Ammonites anymore’” (Bergen p. 361). The commander in charge of the Aramean forces was named “Shobach” (SHOE bak).

“Chapters 9 and 10 show God’s blessing on David’s demonstration of loyal love. David expressed covenant loyalty to God (chapters 6-7), his fellowman (9), and to a foreigner (10), which resulted in God’s blessing on his rule. That is remarkable in contrast to the judgment on David’s sin beginning in chapter 11” (Laney p. 103).

10