1 CHRONICLES 20 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

The Capture of Rabbah

1In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, Joab led out the armed forces. He laid waste the land of the Ammonites and went to Rabbah and besieged it, but David remained in Jerusalem. Joab attacked Rabbah and left it in ruins.

BARNES, "This chapter, containing such other warlike exploits belonging to David’s reign as the writer of Chronicles thinks it important to put on record, is to be compared with the passages of Samuel noted in the marginal references.

CLARKE, "After the year was expired, at the time that kings go out tobattle - About the spring of the year; see the note on 2Sa_11:1.

After this verse the parallel place in Samuel relates the whole story of David and Bath-sheba, and the murder of Uriah, which the compiler of these books passes over as he designedly does almost every thing prejudicial to the character of David. All he states is, but David tarried at Jerusalem; and, while he thus tarried, and Joab conducted the war against the Ammonites, the awful transactions above referred to took place.

GILL, "See Gill on 1Ch_20:1, 2Sa_11:1, 1Ch_20:2, 2Sa_12:30, 2Sa_21:15, and 1Ch_21:1.

1

HENRY 1-3, "How the army of the Ammonites and their allies was routed in the field we read in the foregoing chapters. Here we have the destruction of Rabbah, the metropolis of their kingdom (1Ch_20:1), the putting of their king's crown upon David's head (1Ch_20:2), and the great severity that was used towards the people, 1Ch_20:3. Of this we had a more full account in 2 Sa. 11, 12, and cannot but remember it by this sad token, that while Joab was besieging Rabbah David fell into that great sin in the matter of Uriah. But it is observable that, though the rest of the story is repeated, that is not: a hint only is given of it, in those words which lie here in a parenthesis - But David tarried at Jerusalem. If he had been abroad with his army, he would have been out of the way of that temptation; but, indulging his ease, he fell into uncleanness. Now, as the relating of the sin David fell into is an instance of the impartiality and fidelity of the sacred writers, so the avoiding of the repetition of it here, when there was a fair occasion given to speak of it again, is designed to teach us that, though there may be a just occasion to speak of the faults and miscarriages of others, yet we should not take delight in the repetition of them. That should always be looked upon as an unpleasing subject which, though sometimes one cannot help falling upon, yet one would not choose to dwell upon, any more than we should love to rake in a dunghill. The persons, or actions, we can say no good of, we had best say nothing of.

JAMISON, "1Ch_20:1-3. Rabbah besieged by Joab, spoiled by David, and the people tortured.

at the time when kings go out to battle — in spring, the usual season in ancient times for entering on a campaign; that is, a year subsequent to the Syrian war.Joab led forth the power of the army, and wasted the country ... of Ammon — The former campaign had been disastrous, owing chiefly to the hired auxiliaries of the Ammonites; and as it was necessary, as well as just, that they should be severely chastised for their wanton outrage on the Hebrew ambassadors, Joab ravaged their country and invested their capital, Rabbah. After a protracted siege, Joab took one part of it, the lower town or “city of waters,” insulated by the winding course of the Jabbok. Knowing that the fort called “the royal city” would soon fall, he invited the king to come in person, and have the honor of storming it. The knowledge of this fact (mentioned in 2Sa_12:26) enables us to reconcile the two statements - “David tarried at Jerusalem” (1Ch_20:1), and “David and all the people returned to Jerusalem” (1Ch_20:3).

K&D 1-8he account of the siege of Rabbah, the capital, in the following year, 1Ch_20:1-3, is much abridged as compared with that in 2Sa_11:1; 2Sa_12:26-31. After the clause, “but David sat (remained) in Jerusalem,” in 2 Sam 11, from 2Sa_11:2 onwards, we have the story of David's adultery with Bathsheba, and the events connected with it (2 Sam 11:3-12:25), which the author of the Chronicle has omitted, in accordance with the plan of his book. Thereafter, in 2Sa_12:26, the further progress of the siege of Rabbah is again taken up with the words, “And Joab warred against Rabbah of the sons

2

of Ammon;” and in 2Sa_12:27-29 the capture of that city is circumstantially narrated, viz., how Joab, after he had taken the water-city, i.e., the city lying on both banks of the upper Jabbok (the Wady Ammân), with the exception of the Acropolis built on a hill on the north side of the city, sent messages to David, and called upon him to gather together the remainder of the people, i.e., all those capable of bearing arms who had remained in the land; and how David, having done this, took the citadel. Instead of this, we have in the Chronicle only the short statement, “And Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it” (1Ch_20:1, at the end). After this, both narratives (1Ch_20:2, 1Ch_20:3, and 2Sa_12:30, 2Sa_12:31) coincide in narrating how David set the heavy golden crown of the king of the Ammonites on his head, brought much booty out of the city, caused the prisoners of war taken in Rabbah and the other fenced cities of the Ammonites to be slain in the cruellest way, and then returned with all the people, i.e., with the whole of his army, to Jerusalem. Thus we see that, according to the record in the Chronicle also, David was present at the capture of the Acropolis of Rabbah, then put on the crown of the Ammonite king, and commanded the slaughter of the prisoners; but no mention is made of his having gone to take part in the war. By the omission of this circumstance the narrative of the Chronicle becomes defective; but no reason can be given for this abridgment of the record, for the contents of 2Sa_12:26-31 must have been contained in the original documents made use of by the chronicler. On the differences between 2Sa_12:31 (Sam.) and 1Ch_20:3 of the Chronicle, see on 2Sa_12:31. ַוָּיַׂשר, “he sawed asunder,” is the correct reading, and ַוָּיֶׂשם in Samuel is an orthographical error; while, on the contrary, ת ַּבְּמֵגר in the Chronicle is a mistake for ת ְּבַמְגְזר in Samuel. The omission of ַּבַּמְלֵּבן ָתם א ְוֶהֱעִביר is probably explained by the desire to abridge; for if the author of the Chronicle does not scruple to tell of the sawing asunder of the prisoners with saws, and the cutting of them to pieces under threshing instruments and scythes, it would never occur to him to endeavour to soften David's harsh treatment of them by passing over in silence the burning of them in brick-kilns.

The passages parallel to the short appendix-like accounts of the valiant deeds of the Israelitish leaders in 1Ch_20:4-8 are to be found, as has already been remarked, in 2Sa_21:18-22. There, however, besides the three exploits of which we are informed by the chronicler in 2Sa_21:15-17, a fourth is recorded, and that in the first place too, viz., the narrative of David's fight with the giant Jishbi-Benob, who was slain by Abishai the son of Zeruiah. The reason why our historian has not recounted this along with the others is clear from the position which he assigns to these short narratives in his book. In the second book of Samuel they are recounted in the last section of the history of David's reign, as palpable proofs of the divine grace of which David had had experience during his whole life, and for which he there praises the Lord in a psalm of thanksgiving (2 Sam 22). In this connection, David's deliverance by the heroic act of Abishai from the danger into which he had fallen by the fierce attack which the Philistine giant Jishbi-Benob made upon him when he was faint, is very suitably narrated, as being a visible proof of the divine grace which watched over the pious king. For the concluding remark in 2Sa_21:17, that in consequence of this event his captains adjured David not to go any more into battle along with them, that the light of Israel might not be extinguished, shows in how great danger he was of being slain by this giant. For this reason the author of the book of Samuel has placed this event at the head of the exploits of the Israelite captains which he was about to relate, although it happened somewhat later in time than the three exploits which succeed. The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, has made the account of these exploits an appendix to the account of the victorious wars by which 3

David obtained dominion over all the neighbouring peoples, and made his name to be feared among the heathen, as a further example of the greatness of the power given to the prince chosen by the Lord to be over His people. For this purpose the story of the slaughter of the Philistine giant, who had all but slain the weary David, was less suitable, and is therefore passed over by the chronicler, although it was contained in his authority,(Note: Lightfoot says, in his Chronol. V. T. p. 68: Illud praelium, in quo David in periculum venit et unde decore et illaesus exire non potuit, omissum est.)

as is clear from the almost verbal coincidence of the stories which follow with 2Sa_21:18. The very first is introduced by the formula, “It happened after this,” which in 2nd Samuel naturally connects the preceding narrative with this; while the chronicler has retained ַאֲהֵרי־ֵכן as a general formula of transition, - omitting, however, ד ע (Sam.) in the following clause, and writing ד ָעַמד .ַוְּתִהי there arose,” instead of“ ,ַוַּתֲעמ in the later Hebrew is the same as קּום. The hypothesis that ותעמד has arisen out of ד ע ַוְּתִהי (in Samuel) is not at all probable, although עמד is not elsewhere used of the origin of a war. Even קּום is only once (Gen_41:30) used of the coming, or coming in, of a time. On ְּבֶגֶזרand ִסַּפי instead of ְּבֹנב and ַסף, see on 2Sa_21:18. ַוִּיָּכֵנעּו at the end of the fourth verse is worthy of remark, “And they (the Philistines) were humbled,” which is omitted from Samuel, and “yet can scarcely have been arbitrarily added by our historian” (Berth.). This remark, however, correct as it is, does not explain the omission of the word from 2nd Samuel. The reason for that can scarcely be other than that it did not seem necessary for the purpose which the author of the book of Samuel had in the first place in view. As to the two other exploits (1Ch_20:6-8), see the commentary on 2Sa_ֵאל .21:19-22 for ֵאֶּלה in the closing remark (1Ch_20:8) is archaic, but the omission of the article (ֵאל instead of ָהֵאל, as we find it in Gen_19:8, Gen_19:25, and in other passages in the Pentateuch) cannot be elsewhere paralleled. In the last clause, “And they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants,” that David should be named is surprising, because none of those here mentioned as begotten of Rapha, i.e., descendants of the ancient Raphaite race, had fallen by the hand of David, but all by the hand of his servants. Bertheau therefore thinks that this clause has been copied verbatim into our passage, and also into 2Sa_21:22, from the original document, where this enumeration formed the conclusion of a long section, in which the acts of David and of his heroes, in their battles with the giants in the land of the Philistines, were described. But since the author of the second book of Samuel expressly says, “These four were born to Rapha, and they fell” (2Sa_21:22), he can have referred in the words, “And they fell by the hand of David,” only to the four above mentioned, whether he took the verse in question unaltered from his authority, or himself added ֵאֶּלה In the .ֶאת־ַעְרַּבַעתlatter case he cannot have added the ְּבַיד־ָּדִוד without some purpose; in the former, the reference of the ְּבַיֶד־ָּדִוד in the “longer section,” from which the excerpt is taken, to others than the four giants mentioned, to Goliath perhaps in addition, whom David slew, is rendered impossible by ֵאֶּלה The statement, “they fell by the hand of .ֶאת־ַעְרַּבַעתDavid,” does not presuppose that David had slain all of them, or even one of them, with his own hand; for ְּבַיד frequently signifies only through, i.e., by means of, and denotes here that those giants fell in wars which David had waged with the Philistines - that David had been the main cause of their fall, had brought about their death by his

4

servants through the wars he waged.

BENSON. 2969. — B.C. 1035.A repetition of David’s wars with the Ammonites, and the taking of Rabbah, 1 Chronicles 20:1-3; with the giants of the Philistines, 1 Chronicles 20:4-8.NOTES ON CHAPTER 20.1 Chronicles 20:1. Joab led forth the army, and wasted, &c. — For this verse, see note on 2 Samuel 11:1; for 1 Chronicles 20:2-3, on 2 Samuel 12:30-31; and for the rest of the chapter, on 2 Samuel 21:15, &c. And came and besieged Rabbah — It was at this time, while Joab was besieging Rabbah, that David fell into that great sin in the matter of Uriah. And it is observable, that though the rest of the story be repeated here, that is not. The sacred writer, however, seems to have intended to give a hint of it, when he says, But David tarried at Jerusalem — This gave occasion to his sin. If he had been abroad with his army, he would have been out of the way of that temptation; but indulging his ease he fell into sin, and involved himself in many and great calamities, brought upon him and his house by a just and holy God. Now as the recording of his fall, and the circumstances of it in the former history, is an instance of the impartiality and fidelity of the sacred writers; so the avoiding the repetition of it here, when there was a fair occasion to speak of it again, is designed to teach us, that though there may be a just occasion to speak of the faults and miscarriages of others, yet we should not take delight in the repetition of them. Of those persons or actions of which we can say no good, we had best say nothing.

COFFMAN, "These verses are parallel with 2Sam. 11:1,2 Samuel 12:26,30-31; and our comments on what is written here are on pages 135,163-166. We might add here that this chapter marks a terrible turning point in David's life. Not only is there the matter of his torturing the Ammonites, but his adultery with Bathsheba, and his heartless murder of Uriah the Hittite and seventeen of his fellow-soldiers in a vain effort to hide his sin - all took place in connection with this siege of Rabbah. The bad days of David's life began right here.

ELLICOTT, "(1) The siege and storm of Rabbah. Completion of the Ammonite campaign (1 Chronicles 20:1-3). (2) A fragment, relating how three heroes of Israel

5

slew three Philistine giants (1 Chronicles 20:4-8).

Section (1) is parallel to 2 Samuel 11:1; 2 Samuel 12:26; 2 Samuel 12:30-31. The chronicler omits the long intervening account of David’s guilt in relation to Uriah and Bathsheba, not because he had any thought of wiping out the memory of David’s crimes (an object quite beyond his power to secure, even if he had desired it, unless he could first have destroyed every existing copy of Samuel), but because that story of shame and reproach did not harmonise with the plan and purpose of his work, which was to portray the bright side of the reign of David, as founder of the legitimate dynasty and organiser of the legitimate worship.Verse 1(1) After the year was expired.—Heb., at the time of the return of the year: i.e., in spring. (See 1 Kings 20:22; 1 Kings 20:26.)At the time that kings go out.—See 1 Kings 20:16. Military operations were commonly suspended during winter. The Assyrian kings have chronicled their habit of making yearly expeditions of conquest and plunder. It was exceptional for the king to “remain in the country.”Joab led forth the power of the army.—Samuel gives details: “David sent Joab and his servants (? the contingents of tributaries, 1 Chronicles 19:19), and all Israel” (i.e., the entire national array).Wasted the country.—An explanation of Samuel: “wasted the sons of Ammon.”Rabbah, or Rabbath Ammon, the capital. (See 2 Samuel 11:1; Amos 1:14; Jeremiah 49:2-3.)But David tarried (Heb., was tarrying) at Jerusalem.—While Joab’s campaign was in progress-In 2 Samuel 11:1 this remark prepares the way for the account which there follows of David’s temptation and fall.And Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it.—A brief statement, summarizing the events related in 2 Samuel 11:27-27. From that passage we learn that, after an assault which doubtless reduced the defenders to the last stage of weakness, Joab sent a message to David at Jerusalem to come and appropriate the honours of the capture. Our 1 Chronicles 20:2, which abruptly introduces David himself as present at Rabbah, obviously implies a knowledge of the narrative as it is told in Samuel, and would hardly be intelligible without it. Whether the chronicler here and

6

elsewhere borrows directly from Samuel, or from another document depending ultimately on the same original as Samuel, cannot certainly be decided.

COKE, "Joab takes the city of Rabbah. The Philistines are three times overcome by David and his servants.Before Christ 1037.REFLECTIONS.—While Joab conquered the country of the Ammonites, David stayed at Jerusalem: we learn, with grief, to how bad purpose, 2 Samuel 11. Here his crime is passed over. A veil should be drawn ever the sins which are repented of, and they should no more be mentioned to a man's shame.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 20:1 And it came to pass, that after the year was expired, at the time that kings go out [to battle], Joab led forth the power of the army, and wasted the country of the children of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried at Jerusalem. And Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it.Ver. 1. And it came to pass.] See 2 Samuel 11:1, {See Trapp on "2 Samuel 11:1"}But David tarried at Jerusalem.] And there committed adultery with Bathsheba; [2 Samuel 11:1-5] but the author of those two books speaks sparingly, as was before noted, of David’s and his son Solomon’s faults and failings.

PULPIT, "The contents of this chapter are all to be found in the work of Samuel, but woven in, in very different places. The cause of the first considerable difference of this kind is in connection with the occurrence of what would have seemed a mere casual detail of expression in our first verse, "But David tarried at Jerusalem," at which same statement, however, the writer of Samuel halts, to append all that then happened with David in the disastrous matter of Bathsheba and Uriah, occupying nearly two whole chapters—a history not recorded at all by the Chronicle compiler. Why David tarried at Jerusalem, and how far he did so legitimately and in harmony with the necessities of government, we know not, but certain it is, he was tempted to make the unhappiest use of his "tarrying at Jerusalem."

7

1 Chronicles 20:1

The fifteenth verse of the previous chapter stated that the discomfited Ammonites "fled… and entered into the city," i.e. into Rabbah. Hither we now learn that, by the command of David (2 Samuel 11:1), Joab, at the "return of the year," i.e. probably at the return of spring (Exodus 23:16; Exodus 34:22), brings the power of the army, and, after ravaging the country surrounding it, sits down to besiege Rabbah itself. The series of feasts, beginning in spring and ending in autumn, regulated the year. The sacred year began with the new moon that became full next after the spring equinox; but the civil year at the seventh new moon. This one verse illustrates in four several instances at fewest the advantage of having two versions of the same events, even though in this case in comparatively immaterial respects.

1. We here read that Joab wasted the country of the children of Ammon… and besieged Rabbah, in place of the less consistent reading of 2 Samuel 11:1, "destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah."

2. We have here in the Hebrew the right word for "kings" ( ַחְּמָלִכים ), instead of the word for "angels" ( חְמָלאִכים ), as in the parallel place.

3. While we read here that Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it, the parallel place, now shifted to 2 Samuel 29-12:27 , tells of Joab's generosity (if it were this, and not fear or possibly somewhat tardy obedience to strict commands given on his commission), in his message to David, to repair to the spot immediately and share the glory of the reduction of the city, or be its nominal captor.

4. And, once more, while we read here that Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it, and yet read in the parallel place of the delay and the visit of David (with which the very first clause of our 2 Samuel 12:2, "And David took," etc; is in perfect accord) and of David's nominal taking of the city, we find probably the just and inartificial explanation of all this in 2 Samuel 29-12:26 . There we read more particularly that Joab sent word he had taken the "city of waters," i.e. tie lower part of the city (where a stream had its source, and no doubt supplied the city with water), which

8

was very likely the key of the whole position,and called upon David to come up and "encamp against the city and take it," i.e. the city, or citadel, which stood upon the heights north of the stream. Glimpses of this kind may suffice to convince us how rapidly a text, really correct, would melt away for us a very large proportion of the whole number of the lesser obstacles which often impede our path in the historical books of the Old Testament. At the time that kings go out. It was no doubt the case that, even in Palestine, the winter was often a period of enforced inactivity. Rabbah. Tim punishment of Ammou for the treatment of David's well-intended embassy of condolence is now about to be completed. The familiar root of Rabbah signifies multitudinous number, and, resulting thence, the greatness of importance. It was the chief city of the Ammonites, if not their only city of importance enough for mention. In five passages its connection with Ammon is coupled with its name (Deuteronomy 3:11; 2 Samuel 12:26; 2 Samuel 17:27; Jeremiah 49:2; Ezekiel 21:20), "Rabbah of the children of Ammon." It has been conjectured to be the Ham of the Zuzim, or the Ashteroth Karnaim of the Rephaim (Genesis 14:5), of which latter theory there is some interesting evidence of a corroborating tendency at all events (see Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' 2:985). Rabbah is the proper spelling of the word, except when in a constructive state, as in the above phrase. The relations of Moab and Ammon with Israel are full of interest. After the overthrow of Og, King of Bashan (Numbers 21:33), "Moab and Ammon still remained independent allies south and cast of the Israelite settlements. Both fell before David—Moab, evidently the weaker, first; Ammon not without a long resistance, which made the siege and fall of its capital, Rabbah-ammon, the crowning act of David's conquests. The ruins which now adorn the 'royal city' are of a later Roman date; but the commanding position of the citadel remains; and the unusual sight of a living stream abounding in fish (2 Samuel 12:27; Isaiah 16:2) marks the significance of Joab's song of victory, 'I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters'".

PARKER, "Subduing Giants

HERE is a custom referred to as if it were quite a commonplace, yet it is associated with all that is devastating and tragical. Without any apology or explanation a time is indicated for conflict, murder, the overturning of one nation by another; the whole narration proceeds as if it were recording a very commonplace transaction. There is something pathetic in the time that is indicated, "At the time that kings go out to battle,"—the usual time, the well-known period, the occasion that needs no further indication, because it is so well known. What time was it that kings went out

9

to battle? It was the springtime, which surely God never meant to have associated with blood and sorrow, loss and pain. Is there not an intolerable irony here? The winter has been passed in reflection, regarding the best means of assailing enemies, and no sooner does the sun return and the days brighten than the hearts of kings are stirred towards battle. This is wrong; this is a discord in the process and issue of things; this is rough reading. There comes into the mind at a certain time of education a sense of the fitness of things. Sometimes we get round our difficulties rather than go straight through them; we have a way of twisting language to suit our purpose, and to take away some, of the more ghastly and revolting features of our policy. What cunning there is in the use of terms in this statement, "At the time that kings go out to battle"! Who could have sat down and plainly written in visible ink, "In the springtime, which is dedicated to the cause of war"? But by referring to the time anonymously we seem to be landed in the battle before we have opened the gate of the occasion. Since these lines were written, has the world advanced in civilisation? Are the seasons now married to appropriate duties and services? Has the springtime entered into living-association with better policies, healthier ideas, constructive arrangements, beneficent discipline and endeavour? Do men now long for the spring as they would long for a friend? Do we say, In the spring things will be better, brighter, cheerier for everybody; no sooner will the days lengthen than our hope will brighten, and all our attempts will become inspirations and successes? There should be a time when men go out to sing. Who can help singing in the vernal days, when all nature seems to be struggling into the utterance of praise? There should be a time when men go forth to holy war, to battle with all evil because it is evil, not to win a momentary or personal victory, but to rid the land of some giant enemy. There is a holy war, there is a sacred battle, there is a fighting on which God looks with approval: wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, and, clothed in that burning invincible panoply, go on to the victorious end. War can never be put an end to by argument. The case of war is now given up by all kings and statesmen so far as argument is concerned; they admit that little or nothing can be said in its favour. How, then, is war to be ended? By itself. All wickedness is suicidal. Whenever war goes forth it carries with it the weapon with which it will stab itself. The ages, guided by the benign spirit of peace and righteousness and harmony, will put an end to war: war will so swell with the vanity and idolatry of its own power as to burst and dissolve and pass away. All this is involved in the providence of God. Do not suppose that there is a single invention in the arsenal that is not adjusted by God. Do not imagine that wickedness has in any way got in advance of the divine kingdom, and is giving God more work to do than his omnipotence can undertake. Everything is under God"s control, and in his own time and in his own way he will cleanse the earth, and leave it without one corner in which putrescence can rot or evil can repeat its machinations. This seems to be a

10

long way off, simply because our vision is dull. We cannot see far, and because we cannot see clearly we blame distance: there is no distance with God; with God there is no time. "O rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him." Meanwhile, it is interesting and instructive to observe what men did in the olden days.

We read, "And Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it" in the springtime. Here is a specimen of what we know as condensation. The statement occupies but a line: but we should look into all these condensed statements with some idea of grasping the detail which is involved or hinted at. We are too off-handed in some of our summaries. A railway collision occurs, and fifty lives are sacrificed: so we speak hurriedly, with a cruel condensation. The fifty lives were but a small number in relation to the population of the country, but in relation to their own households, their own particular circles, to the hearts that looked to them for daily joy, to the mouths that turned to them for daily sustenance, how cruel, how irreparable the loss! How easy to say "And Joab destroyed it"! Thus it is but the end of an anecdote, an allusion, and on the story goes into broader paragraphs, or into fuller eloquence, dwelling upon more fascinating and entertaining themes. Do not overleap the tragedies of the world, and say there are none. Stop at this grave, and read the history that is there represented. The gravestone is always brief. We should write more on the gravestone; we should not crush our eloquence or our sympathy into terse epitaphs. Pause before that gravestone, and read, "Born...;" "died...." That is all. Yes, that is all that the stone knows, that the stone represents: but what lies between that "born" and that "died"? We should be more learned if we paid more attention to the opening out of terse and crude summaries, and went into the detail of human education and development. How easy to say the man "failed "! Who would not stop before that expression, and begin to wonder about the inner family suffering? How did the man fail? What suffering preceded his collapse, what stinging reproaches took away his sleep, what noble endeavours perished in abortion and futility, the world does not care to inquire; the world condenses the occurrence into a brief sentence, and passes on, merely saying the man "failed." How easy to say a man is "poor"; but who knows the meaning of the word "poor"? How easily it is said! Is there one man in ten thousand who knows the meaning of the word "poverty"? It may be questioned whether that proportion does exist. Most men know comparative poverty, the want of luxuries, and even the abridgment of necessaries: but that is not poverty. Nor is poverty mere destitution; a breadless cupboard, a fireless grate, a naked body, these are not the whole of poverty: there is the disabled influence, the infinite discouragement, the black despair, the awful shape that things take, and the awful voice that the shape assumes when it tells a

11

man to give up and die. The man himself is lessened in force and quality, and the last flickering spark dies: that is poverty. There is a point at which we can turn our hunger to advantage; there are circumstances under which destitution becomes a kind of blessed inspiration: but after that there comes a time when man"s poor frail strength turns into positive weakness, and the man himself crouches down by the wayside and says he must die unseen and unknown. We should look into this matter of poverty; it would be a blessed religious exercise to take that word to pieces and follow it in all its significations. When we have seen the destitution of other men, probably once as happily circumstanced as ourselves, with what gratitude should we contemplate our surroundings, and with what thankfulness eat our bread! We have been too crude in our summaries; we have passed on to better themes; we have said, after hearing some gloomy narration of poverty and sorrow and pain, "Change the subject, if you please." Who said so? No philanthropist, no hero, no saint. Philanthropist, hero, saint, would often say, "Change the subject," but that would be when the subject was one of frivolity, superficiality, a subject which ignores the poverty that gnaws and never dies, the tragedy that is never satisfied till the life it smites is out of sight. It should be the business of the Church to expand the summaries of a rude insensibility.

In the process of events we read, "And David took the crown of their king from off his head." The loss of a crown is much or nothing. The crown itself is a mere bauble, but it is full of significance as a token; we must look at the ideality and the sign of things. Every office points in the direction of supremacy. The doorkeeper is on the road to the highest seat; the man who sets himself in his little cottage in the obscure country village to master letters, has begun what may end in the British Museum. Look at idealised action. Let a man lie down in slothfulness, and give up the whole battle of life, and we know what his end will be; but no sooner does a young life resolutely take to letters and figures, and history and philosophy, and like it all, and long for the morning to come to resume the sacred pursuit, than there opens a vista, bright, charming, fascinating, through which the youth follows to the crown. Do not have a crown that anybody can take from you; men may steal your clothes, but they cannot steal your character. He is poor who has nothing but what he can handle. Sometimes a man can be inventoried all through and through, and there can be nothing belonging to him that is not in the inventory, either on the first page or the last, or somewhere between. Do not be one of such paupers. "A man"s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." Let no man take thy crown. Start your son with fifty thousand golden pounds, and he may lose it all, and want fifty thousand more: start him with a fine sense of honour, with a sound

12

practical education, with a love of Wisdom of Solomon , with a knowledge of things real, simple, practical, and of daily occurrence; start him as a practical man of sense, and not as a decorated Proverbs -nouncer of things that are useless; and he will be rich all the time: no man can rob his memory, no thief can break through and steal his beautiful simplicity, his sterling honour, his real determination to walk worthy of the influences which shaped and inspired him; alas, he himself may give way, but no thief can break through and steal. If any bankruptcy take place in that instance it takes place within, not without. Let no man take thy crown. When Carlyle was so poor as hardly to have a loaf, he was walking by the popular side of Hyde Park, and looking upon all that gay tumult, he said to himself, with what in another man might have been conceit, but what in him was heroic audacity, "I am doing what none of you could do;" that is to say, he was writing one of his profoundest and most useful books: there he was rich; in original conception, in powerful expression, in daring valour of mind, he was wealthy beyond all the banks in all their uncounted bullion. Let no man take thy crown. Have ideas, convictions, resolutions, ideals, and be faithful as a steward ought to be faithful, and it will never be written of thee that any man took thy crown. A man may throw away such a crown, a man may play the fool even in old age: call no man happy until he is dead. But the truth now to be inculcated is this, that no Prayer of Manasseh , or combination of men, can take away the moral crown, the spiritual diadem, the educational supremacy, without the man"s own consent.

Now we come to the subduing of giants —"And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines.... And there was war again with the Philistines.... And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant. But when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David"s brother slew him"—crushed him as if he had been a fly. An easy accommodation of the text, and an allowable one, will permit us to see several practical lessons here. Do not under-estimate the powers that are opposed to you; count their fingers, count their toes, measure their stature, take their weight, calculate them to a nicety as to what they can possibly do. He is a fool who calls a giant a dwarf. The powers of this world are not to be sneered at. When young men imagine that by a wave of the hand they can brush away all difficulties, they are in the state of intoxication which is worse than positive drunkenness. Be sober, be vigilant; for your adversary the devil goeth about—like a cripple? like a weakling? like a thing that may be despised? No—like a roaring lion; and no man has ever sneered at a lion. Men have been in awe of the beast, they have called him king of

13

beasts, they have written respectfully about him; it is not on record that any man ever sneered at a lion as a thing that he could handle easily, and dispose of with a thought,—your adversary goeth about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. It will be a great omission if you fail to add up the forces that are against you: sometimes they are blatant, sometimes they are undemonstrative; sometimes they give you warning, sometimes the net is spread in the sight of the bird, and the bird is treated with contempt; sometimes they are subtle, insidious, so that the wise man becomes a fool under the plying temptation; he walks forward, a singular feeling, as of the operation of a magical opiate overcomes him; he sees rainbows in the darkness, he beholds opening heavens at midnight, he calls the earth a paradise, and he walks on, not knowing whither, until he takes the last step and no more is heard of him. Understand that the world is full of pitfalls, snares, and Prayer of Manasseh -traps: that the devil never allows any man to get through his life easily if he can help it. Life is a battle, life is a daily conflict, life with the most of us is a tremendous struggle; if we get into heaven at all, it will be, as it were, by the merest hair"s-breadth, the door will just close upon us, there will be no margin within which we can take liberties as if heaven had been easily won. It is hard for some men to pray; it is all but impossible for others to believe; and there are men who would tell us, in a condensed expression that they would not willingly amplify, that life is a terrible unendurable conflict, and that oftentimes it seems as if this day would be the last, for their poor strength is dying out, and the enemy seems to grow by what he feeds on. The power is not in you, but it is in God. If we had to fight the enemy, a very short account might be made out, for our fight would end in defeat: but God is our inspiration and strength and confidence. They that be with us are more than they that can be against us; we are crucified with Christ; nevertheless, we live; yet not we, but Christ liveth in us; and the life which we now live in the flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us, and gave himself for us. Take unto you the whole armour of God, the sword, and the shield, and the breast-plate, and the girdle, and be shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. The panoply is provided: do not attempt to amend it. God"s grace is sufficient for us: do not attempt to add to it. The spiritual will eventually prove itself to be the omnipotent. Meanwhile, it cuts but a poor figure at certain stages in the development of human history. What is argument against a sword? The fool would say nothing; the wise man will tell you that an argument will by-and-by put an end to all swords, turning them into ploughshares. What is an argument against a vested interest? Why talk against institutions that have millions at their disposal? Why come with your puling Christian sentimental eloquence to plead against men who are entrenched behind countless gold? The argument will win, the prayer will succeed; the time will come when all that countless gold will change hands, and the men who trusted to it will be left without one refuge; yea, so destitute will they be as to ask those who were their

14

enemies in name, but their real friends, for quarter and asylum. What is an argument against a custom? The custom is centuries old; men have become used to it, they expect its recurrence, it is second nature, they have done this, and their families have done it for generations past. The argument will uproot the custom, will take every fibre out of the ground, and when the ground is cleansed of the upas root the argument will sow the ground with the seed of the kingdom, and even in that spot shall grow flowers beautiful in the sight of heaven. Have faith in spirituality, in conviction, in moral persuasion, in ideas. For a time we shall be called fanatics, enthusiasts. So Christ was called, so Paul was denominated. But it lies within the power of reason to comprehend the proposition that mind must be mightier than matter, and that conviction is a greater force in history than is mere prejudice, and that enthusiasm is but logic on fire, and that passion is the least sacrifice we can render to him whose symbol is the Cross.

BI 1-8, "And it came to pass, that after the year was expired.The capture of RabbahFrom its capture and punishment of its people we learn—I. That in spiritual warfare there must be no cessation. Rest gives advantage to the enemy, and may delay or frustrate the end in view. “Forwards, children, forwards”! urged Blucher, in meeting Wellington at Waterloo.

1. Make needful preparation.2. Be ready for every advantage. “The time to go out” must be discovered and seized.

II. That in conducting spiritual warfare opportunity is given for the display of virtuous qualities (2Sa_12:26-29). We must, transfer the glory of our conquests to our gracious “Commander and Leader.”III. That all things in spiritual warfare will be subdued under God’s power. (J. Wolfendale.)

And David took the crown of their king from off his head.The loss of a crownThe loss of a crown is much or nothing. The crown itself is a mere bauble, but it is full of significance as a token. Every office points in the direction of supremacy. The doorkeeper is on the road to the highest seat. Do not have a crown that any one can take from you. Men may steal your clothes, but they cannot steal your character. Start your son with fifty thousand golden, pounds, and he may lose it all, and want fifty thousand more; start him with a fine sense of honour, with a sound practical education, with a love of wisdom, with a knowledge of things real, simple, practical, and of daily occurrence, and he will, be rich all the time. Let no man take thy crown. When Carlyle was so poor as hardly to have a loaf, he was walking by the popular side of Hyde Park, and looking upon

15

all that gay tumult he said to himself, with what in another man might have been conceit, but what in him was heroic audacity: “I am doing what none of you could do”; that is to say, he was writing one of his profoundest and most useful books. There he was rich. Have ideas, convictions, resolutions, ideals, and be faithful as a steward ought to be faithful, and it will never be written of thee that any man took thy crown. A man may throw away such a crown, a man may play the fool in old age; but the truth now to be inculcated is this, that no man, or combination of men, can take away the moral crown, the spiritual diadem, without the man’s own consent. (J. Parker, D. D.)

2 David took the crown from the head of their king[a]—its weight was found to be a talent[b] of gold, and it was set with precious stones—and it was placed on David’s head. He took a great quantity of plunder from the city

CLARKE, "David took the crown of their king - off his head - See 2Sa_12:30.Precious stones in it - The Targum says, “And there was set in it a precious stone, worth a talent of gold; this was that magnetic stone that supported the woven gold in the air.” What does he mean?JAMISON, "David took the crown of their king ..., and found it to weigh a

talent of gold — equal to one hundred twenty-five pounds. Some think that Malcom,rendered in our version “their king,” should be taken as a proper name, Milcom or Molech, the Ammonite idol, which, of course, might bear a heavy weight. But, like many other state crowns of Eastern kings, the crown got at Rabbah was not worn on the head, but suspended by chains of gold above the throne.precious stones — Hebrew, a “stone,” or cluster of precious stones, which was set on David’s head.

16

ELLICOTT, " (2) The crown of their king.—Or, “of Milcom” or “Moloch,” their god. The Heb. malkâm, “their Melech” (i.e., king), occurs in this sense (Zephaniah 1:5. Comp. Amos 5:26.) The same title is applied by the prophets to Jehovah (Isaiah 6:5; Isaiah 44:6, “Jahweh, the king [melech] of Israel.” Comp. Zephaniah 3:15, and John 1:49; John 12:15; 2 Samuel 12:12; Psalms 5:2; Psalms 89:18; Isaiah 8:21; and Jeremiah 10:10). The LXX. here has “Molchom, their king”; Vulg., “Melchom”; Arabic, “Malcha, their god;” all confirming our rendering.A talent of gold.—The Arabic Version says one hundred pounds. Modern scholars consider the “talent of gold” as about one hundred and thirty-one pounds troy. If the weight was anything like this, the crown was obviously more suited for the head of a big idol than of a man.And there were precious stones in it.—Samuel includes their weight in the talent.And it was set (Heb., became) upon David’s head.—Vulg., “he made himself a crown out of it.” This may be the meaning; or else the weighty mass of gold and jewels may have been held over the king’s head by his attendants on the occasion of its capture.Exceeding much spoil.—Comp. the continual boast of the Assyrian conquerors: “spoils without number I carried off” (sallata la mani aslula).

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 20:2 And David took the crown of their king from off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold, and [there were] precious stones in it; and it was set upon David’s head: and he brought also exceeding much spoil out of the city.1 Chronicles 20:3 And he brought out the people that [were] in it, and cut [them] with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.Ver. 2,3. {See Trapp on "2 Samuel 12:31"}

PULPIT, "Found it to weigh a talent of gold. Two difficulties present themselves in this verse, viz. the reported weight of this crown, and the uncertainty as to what head it was from which David took it. Whatever was its weight, if David's head was

17

able to sustain it for a minute or two, the head of the King of the Ammonites might also occasionally have borne it. Yet it would scarcely be likely that the King of the Ammonites would have so ponderous a crown (calculated at a weight of a hundred and fourteen pounds Troy, or a little more or less than one hundredweight) as one of ordinary wear, or that he would have one of extraordinary wear on his head precisely at such a juncture. Both of these difficulties will remove if we suppose that the Hebrew ַמְלָּכם, instead of meaning their king, is the name of the Ammonitish and Moabitish idol (i.q. Moloch), and which we find (Authorized Version) in Zephaniah 1:5, and probably (though not Authorized Version) in Jeremiah 49:1, Jeremiah 49:3, and Amos 1:15 . The Septuagint treats the word thus. The point, however, cannot be considered settled.

3 and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes. David did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then David and his entire army returned to Jerusalem.

CLARKE, "He brought out the people - See this transaction particularly explained in the notes on the parallel places, 2Sa_12:30-31 (note).

JAMISON, "cut them with saws, etc. — The Hebrew word, “cut them,” is, with the difference of the final letter, the same as that rendered “put them,” in the parallel passage of Samuel [2Sa_12:31]; and many consider that putting them to saws, axes, and so forth, means nothing more than that David condemned the inhabitants of Rabbah to hard and penal servitude.

ELLICOTT, " (3) And he brought.—Better, “And the people that were in it he brought out, and sawed with the saw, and with the iron threshing-drags (Isaiah

18

41:15), and with the axes.”

Sawed.—The Hebrew is an old word, only found here. Samuel reads, by change of one letter, “set them in,” or “among,” the saws, &c.

With the axes.—So Samuel. Our Hebrew text repeats the word “saw” in the plural, owing to a scribe’s error. The two words differ by a single letter. Samuel adds, “and made them pass through the brick-kiln,” or “Moloch’s fire” (2 Kings 23:10).

Even so dealt David.—Literally, And so David used to do. These cruelties were enacted again at the taking of every Ammonite city. There needs no attempt to palliate such revolting savagery; but according to the ideas of that age it was only a glorious revenge. As David treated Ammon, so would the Ammonites have treated Israel, had the victory been theirs. (Comp. their behaviour to the Gileadites, Amos 1:13; comp. also the atrocities of Assyrian conquerors, Hosea 10:14; and of the Babylonians Psalms 137:7-9.)

PULPIT, "Cut them with saws (so Hebrews 11:37). We have here the very doubtful (so far as regards its real signification) Hebrew word ַוָּיַׂשר (and he cut) instead of ַוָּיֶׂשם (he put). Probably it is nowhere else used in the sense of "cutting," if it is here. Its ordinary sense is to rule or put into subjection. The parallel place (2 Samuel 12:31) corrects, in the word (Authorized Version) axes, our Hebrew text, which repeats the word for saw, though putting it in the plural, and which thereby shows ּוְבַמְגְזרֹות instead of ,ּוַבְּמֵגרֹות . This last word means "Axes" or "scythes," and is from the root ָגַזַר, to cut (2 Kings 6:4 ). It is found only in 2 Samuel 12:31, though it should appear here also. There is a fourth severity of punishment mentioned in the parallel place, that the people were "made to pass through the brick-kilns," a form of torture possibly suggested by the own familiar cruelty of the Ammonites in "making their children to pass through the fire to Moloch." However, in harmony with what is above said respecting the doubtfulness of the just signification of the verb ַוָּיַׂשר, much uncertainty hangs over the interpretation of this verse. Instead of severity and needless cruelty on the part of David, it may rather set forth that he subjected them to hard tasks in connection with the cultivation of the soil and with the making of bricks. The saws and harrows and axes (or scythes) were awkward and unlikely

19

weapons to be employed for the purpose of inflicting torture, when the ordinary weapons of battle and warfare were close at hand. This view, however, is contrary to the verdict, so far as the above Hebrew verb is concerned, of Gesenius's 'Thesaurus,' p. 1326, and of Thenins, on this and the parallel passage. When such punishments were of the nature of torture, the cruelty was in some cases extreme. "The criminal was sometimes sawn asunder lengthwise; this was more especially the practice in Persia. Isaiah, according to the Talmud-isis, was put to death in this wise by King Manasseh, 'Sanhedrin,' p. 103, c. 2; comp. Justin's dialogue with Trypho". With saws. The word in the original is not in the plural. It occurs again only in the parallel place (2 Samuel 12:31 ) and in 1 Kings 7:9, both times in the singular. The teeth of Eastern saws then and now usually incline to the handle instead of from it. With harrows of iron. The only harrow known to have been used at this time consisted of a thick block of wood borne down by a weight, or on which a man sat, drawn over the ploughed land by oxen (Isaiah 28:24, Isaiah 28:25; Job 39:10; Hosea 10:11), and the root of the Hebrew word expresses the idea of crushing or levelling the land. But our present word is very different, and is found only here and in the parallel place, with the word "iron" accompanying it, so as to be equivalent to a compound word, and appears to mean "sharp instruments of iron," or sharp threshing instruments. The use of the former part of this phrase (1 Samuel 17:18) for cheeses is the only other instance of its occurrence. Saws should be "axes," or "scythes," as stated above, though it is not any of the three more ordinary words for "axe" (see Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' 1:142).

War With the Philistines

4 In the course of time, war broke out with the Philistines, at Gezer. At that time Sibbekai the Hushathite killed Sippai, one of the descendants of

20

the Rephaites, and the Philistines were subjugated.

HENRY 4-8, "The Philistines were nearly subdued (1Ch_18:1); but, as in the destruction of the Canaanites by Joshua the sons of Anak were last subdued (Jos_11:21), so here in the conquest of the Philistines the giants of Gath were last brought down. In the conflicts between grace and corruption there are some sins which, like these giants, keep their ground a great while and are not mastered without much difficulty and a long struggle: but judgment will be brought forth unto victory at last. Observe, 1. We never read of giants among the Israelites as we do of the giants among the Philistines - giants of Gath, but not giants of Jerusalem. The growth of God's plants is in usefulness, not in bulk. Those who covet to have cubits added to their stature do not consider that it will but make then more unwieldy. In the balance of the sanctuary David far outweighs Goliath. 2. The servants of David, though men of ordinary stature, were too hard for the giants of Gath in every encounter, because they had God on their side, who takes pleasure in abasing lofty looks, and mortifying the giants that are in the earth, as he did of old by the deluge, though they were men of renown. Never let the church's friends be disheartened by the power and pride of the church's enemies. We need not fear great men against us while we have the great God for us. What will a finger more on each hand do, or a toe more on each foot, in contest with Omnipotence? 3. These giants defied Israel (1Ch_20:7) and were thus made to pay for their insolence. None are more visibly marked for ruin that those who reproach God and his Israel. God will do great things rather than suffer the enemy to behave themselves proudly, Deu_32:27. The victories of the Son of David, like those of David himself, are gradual. We see not yet all things put under him; but it will be seen shortly: and death itself, the last enemy, like these giants, will be triumphed over.

JAMISON, "1Ch_20:4-8. Three overthrows of the Philistines and three giants slain.war at Gezer — or Gob (see 2Sa_21:18-22).

COFFMAN, "There was not merely one Goliath (or giant); there was an entire family of them; and there is no reason whatever to question the accuracy of what the Chronicler has written here. (See my comments further on the Giants of Gath in my commentary on 2Samuel, pp. 302-303.) Critical objections to the Chronicler's report here are grounded in their prior hatred of the witness borne in the Chronicles to the authenticity of the Books of Moses. The Chronicler did not

21

"create" this record of several giants; he merely reported the truth.

ELLICOTT, " (3) And he brought.—Better, “And the people that were in it he brought out, and sawed with the saw, and with the iron threshing-drags (Isaiah 41:15), and with the axes.”Sawed.—The Hebrew is an old word, only found here. Samuel reads, by change of one letter, “set them in,” or “among,” the saws, &c.With the axes.—So Samuel. Our Hebrew text repeats the word “saw” in the plural, owing to a scribe’s error. The two words differ by a single letter. Samuel adds, “and made them pass through the brick-kiln,” or “Moloch’s fire” (2 Kings 23:10).Even so dealt David.—Literally, And so David used to do. These cruelties were enacted again at the taking of every Ammonite city. There needs no attempt to palliate such revolting savagery; but according to the ideas of that age it was only a glorious revenge. As David treated Ammon, so would the Ammonites have treated Israel, had the victory been theirs. (Comp. their behaviour to the Gileadites, Amos 1:13; comp. also the atrocities of Assyrian conquerors, Hosea 10:14; and of the Babylonians Psalms 137:7-9.)

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 20:4 And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, [that was] of the children of the giant: and they were subdued.Ver. 4. {See Trapp on "2 Samuel 21:18"} &c.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 20:4For the Gezer ( ֶגֶזר ) of this verse, the parallel place (2 Samuel 21:18) shows Gob גֹוב ) ), a name not known, but which careless transcription may have easily made out of the former. The Syriac Version, however, as well as the Septuagint, has Gath in that verse as well as in the two verses following (2 Samuel 20-21:18 ), another name also easily interchangeable in Hebrew characters with Gezer. The "yet again" of our 1 Chronicles 20:6 would well accord with the supposition that the conflict with the Philistines was at Gath, or at the same place, each of the three times. Gezer belonged to Ephraim, and was situated to the north of Philistia (1 Chronicles 7:28; 1Chronicles 14:16). Sibbechai (see also 1 Chronicles 11:29; 1 Chronicles 27:11).

22

Sippai. In the parallel place spelt Saph. It is remarkable that, in the Peshito Syriac, over Psalms 12-143:1 , is found the inscription," Of David, when he slew Asaph, the brother of Gulyad, and thanksgiving that he had conquered." Of the children of the giant. The Hebrew word for "giant," rapha (always in these verses spelt with a final aleph, but in the parallel verses always with he final), is here (Authorized Version) translated. "The Rapha, a native of Gath, was the forefather of the Canaanitish Rephaim, mentioned as early as Genesis 14:5; Genesis 15:20; Deuteronomy 2:11; Deuteronomy 3:11; Joshua 12:4; Joshua 15:8; Joshua 17:15. The slaying of Ishbi-benob (2 Samuel 21:16) is not here given. It is also to be observed that the lengthy account of Samuel, respecting Absalom and his rebellion (2 Samuel 21-13 .) is not found here.

5 In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.

CLARKE, "Elhanan the son of Jair - See the note on 2Sa_21:19. The Targum says, “David, the son of Jesse, a pious man, who rose at midnight to sing praises to God, slew Lachmi, the brother of Goliath, the same day on which he slew Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver’s beam.”

ELLICOTT, " (5) There was war again.—Samuel adds, “in Gob.” The proper name is probably a transcriber’s repetition; the Syriac and Arabic there are without it.

Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.—The Hebrew text and LXX. of Samuel have the very different statement: “And Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite slew Goliath the Gittite.” There are good critics who maintain that we must recognise here a proof that popular traditions fluctuated between David and the less famous hero Elhanan as slayer of Goliath: an

23

uncertainty, supposed to be faithfully reflected in the two accounts preserved by the compiler of Samuel (1 Samuel 17; 2 Samuel 21:19). Other not less competent scholars believe that the text of Samuel should be corrected from the Chronicles. As regards the name Jaarê-oregim (forests of weavers—an absurdity), this is plausible. Whether we proceed further in the same direction must depend on the general view we take of the chronicler’s relation to the Books of Samuel. It is easy, but hardly satisfactory, to allege that he felt the difficulty, which every modern reader must feel, and altered the text accordingly. The real question is whether he has done this arbitrarily, or upon the evidence of another document than his MS. of Samuel. Now, it is fair to say that (1) hitherto we have observed no signs of arbitrary alteration; (2) we have had abundant proof that the chronicler actually possessed other sources besides Samuel. There is no apparent reason why “Lahmi” (i.e., Lahmijah) should not be a nomen individui. (Comp. Assyrian Lahmû, the name of a god, Tablet I., Creation Series.) It is, however, quite possible that Elhanan is another, and, in fact, the original name of David. The appellative David. “the beloved” (comp. Dido), may have gradually supplanted the old Elhanan in the popular memory. Solomon we know was at first named Jodidiah, and it is highly probable that the true designation of the first king of Israel has been lost, the name Saul (“the asked”) having been given in allusion to the fact that the people had ashed for a king. We may compare, besides, the double names Jehoahaz-Shallum, Mattaniah-Zedekiah, and perhaps Uzziah-Azariah. The Targum on Samuel partly supports this suggestion (see the Note there). I would add that Jaare in Hebrew writing is an easy corruption of Jesse; so that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 may have been, “And Elhanan the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” &c. In that case, the reading of Chronicles must be considered an unsuccessful emendation, due probably to the compiler whose work the chronicler followed.

PULPIT, "Elhanan the son of Jair. In Samuel Jair appears as Jaare. This Elhanan is probably different from him of 1 Chronicles 11:26. There is a strange confusion in the reading of this and its parallel verse. If our present verse is to stand corrected by accepting from its parallel "the Bethlehemite" in place of our Lamhi, then either we have no name given for the brother of Goliath, the Gittite; or, if we drop the word "brother" (changing the ֲאחי of Chronicles into the ֵאת of Samuel), and make Goliath the Gittite the man slain by Elhanan, then of such a Goliath we know nothing, and it is a most unlikely coincidence of name with the conquered of David's sling.. Kennicott's seventy-eighth dissertation is occupied, and ably, with the pros and cons of this question; and the curiosities of Jerome on the passage may be found in his 'Quaestiones Hebraicae.' There seems no sufficient reason to depart from our

24

reading here, to which it were preferable to adjust the reading in the parallel place, which exhibits almost certainly a glaring corruption of text in another respect.

6 In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha.

CLARKE, "Fingers and toes were four and twenty - See the note on 2Sa_21:20.

ELLICOTT, " (6) Man of great stature.—See Margin. Samuel has a slightly different form.Whose fingers . . .—The Authorised Version here agrees with the Hebrew text of Samuel. The Hebrew text of Chronicles is abridged: “And his digits six and six—twenty and four.”Was the son of the giant.—Was born to the Rephaite: i.e., the clan so named.

PULPIT, "A man of… stature. The Hebrew text is ִמָּדה, as also in 1 Chronicles 11:28 ; and (in the plural) in Numbers 13:32. An eccentric and probably corrupt form appears in the parallel place. Pliny ('Nat. Hist.,' 2:43) speaks of the Sedigiti, and places them in the family of Forli, among the Himyarites.

25

7 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimea, David’s brother, killed him.

BENSON 20:7. When he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea slew him — None are more visibly marked for ruin than those that reproach God and his Israel. God will do great things rather than suffer the enemy to behave themselves proudly, Deuteronomy 32:27.

PULPIT, "Jonathan (see 1 Samuel 13:3, 32; 1 Chronicles 27:32 (comp. also 1 Chronicles 2:13), where it is probable that" nephew" should be read for "uncle"). It is to be noticed that the name of this child of the giant, of twelve fingers and twelve toes, is not mentioned. We are not compelled, therefore, to regard it as remarkable that he of the fifth verse should not be named.

8 These were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.

CLARKE, "These were born unto the giant in Gath - “These were born להרפא leharapha, to that Rapha in Gath, or to Arapha.” So the Vulgate, Septuagint, and Chaldee.

26

The compiler of these books passes by also the incest of Amnon with his sister Tamar, and the rebellion of Absalom, and the awful consequences of all these. These should have preceded the fourth verse. These facts could not be unknown to him, for they were notorious to all; but he saw that they were already amply detailed in books which were accredited among the people, and the relations were such as no friend to piety and humanity could delight to repeat. On these grounds the reader will give him credit for the omission. See on 1Ch_20:1 (note).

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 20:8. They fell by the hand of David, and of his servants — The servants of David were quite too hard for the giants of Gath in every encounter, because they had God on their side, who takes pleasure in abasing the lofty looks, and humbling the pride and haughtiness of the giants of the earth. Never let the church’s friends be disheartened by the power and pride of the church’s enemies. We need not fear great men against us, while we have the great God for us. But let it be observed that, as David’s victories, so those of the Son of David, are gradual. We do not yet see all things put under him; but we shall see this shortly, and death itself, the last enemy, like these giants, shall be subdued and triumphed over.

ELLICOTT, " (8) These (’çl), a rare word, found eight times in the Pentateuch with the article, here only without; perhaps an error of transcription. Samuel, “these four.” The chronicler has omitted one giant. (See 1 Chronicles 20:4.)The giant.—The Rephaite: that is, the clan or tribe of Rephaim. They need not have been brothers.

PULPIT, "These were born unto the giant in Gath. The parallel place reads, "These four," etc. The first of the four in view there is not mentioned here. The account is given in 2 Samuel 21:15-17. And as it was in that encounter that David himself played the chief part (though, apparently, it was Abishai who dealt Ishbi-benob the fatal blow in "succouring" David), the notice of it would have seemed necessary to complete fully the sense of the following clauses, "They fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants." Still this, it may justly be argued, may have been the very reason of the form of expression here chosen, coupling David's work and that of his servants. This brief summary in the last verse of this chapter, as also in the last verse of the corresponding chapter, just serves to reveal to us the nexus that bound together the three or four exploits for narration. It consisted in the common

27

descent of the four giant victims.

Footnotes:

1 Chronicles 20:2 Or of Milkom, that is, Molek 1 Chronicles 20:2 That is, about 75 pounds or about 34 kilograms

28