2 Samuel 8:1–18

8:2 David also defeats (nakah; v. 1) Moab to the east of the Dead Sea.² However, his harsh treatment of the Moabites (not recorded in 1 Chronicles 18) is surprising, since his great-grandmother was from Moab (Ruth 4:21–22), and the Moabites had granted asylum to his parents (1 Sam. 22:3–4). Jewish tradition claims his parents had been murdered in Moab.

The defeated army is forced to lie down on the ground, and two-thirds of them are killed. Sparing one-third of the captured troops rather than slaughtering them all would perhaps be viewed by contemporaries as an act of clemency. The surviving Moabites acknowledge David’s lordship and become his vassals, bringing regular tribute, probably of sheep and wool (cf. 2 Kings 3:4).

8:3 David also campaigns successfully in the north, where he defeats (nakah; v. 1) the king of Zobah,³ an independent Aramean kingdom in the northern part of the Beqaa Valley that boasts a mini-empire stretching north to and beyond the Euphrates (10:16, 19). Saul had already fought against it (1 Sam. 14:47) before being diverted by his obsessive pursuit of David.

“As he went to restore his power at the river Euphrates” refers to Hadadezer’s attempt to regain control over the kingdom of Hamath (2 Sam. 8:9) to his north. There is a difference of one consonant in the text of 1 Chronicles 18:3, which yields the translation “set up his monument” rather than “restore his power,” although the meaning is effectively the same. Taking advantage of Hadadezer’s forces’ activity to the north of Zobah, David attacks them from their rear.

8:4 “David took from him 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers.” The parallel passage records “1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers” (1 Chron. 18:4). Although there is no textual evidence to support a change here, it is probable that “chariots” was accidentally dropped from the text of Samuel and the two adjacent numerals subsequently merged. In any event David’s infantry wins a considerable victory over a force with superior equipment.

Aware that Mosaic regulations prohibit the king from acquiring many horses (Deut. 17:16), David complies with the precedent of the Lord’s command to Joshua to hamstring his enemy’s horses (Josh. 11:6). This is a simple operation that cuts a tendon in the hoof or knee and thus cripples an animal, leaving it fit only for agricultural work. However, David makes a slight exception in order to retain horses for one hundred chariots (i.e., at least one hundred animals—possibly as many as four hundred, depending on how many were allocated to each chariot). This may not break the prohibition against acquiring many horses, but it marks a first step toward it—a slide that becomes even more significant under Solomon (1 Kings 9:19; 10:28–29). He perhaps does so out of a temptation to trust in armaments rather than in the Lord (cf. 2 Samuel 24). The Lord’s people are to trust not in military resources for their national security but exclusively “in the name of the Lord our God” (Ps. 20:7; cf. Ex. 23:22; Deut. 20:1–4).

8:5 To reach Zobah David would have to pass through territory controlled by the Syrians of Damascus, a city 25 miles (40 km) south of Zobah. Since no mention is made of a king in Damascus, the city is possibly under the control of Zobah. At any rate its inhabitants, like those of Zobah, are descended from the Aramean tribes—Semitic peoples occupying the area between Galilee and Mesopotamia, an area later to become known as Syria. Because of their common background, they “came to help Hadadezer” and their kinsmen. This is an ironic juxtaposition of “help” (ʻezer) and “Hadadezer” (which means “Hadad is help”), whose name incorporates that of the storm god who was the chief deity among the Arameans. Evidently the god’s assistance must be supplemented, but David also strikes down (nakah; v. 1) 22,000 of those reinforcements.

8:6 David installs garrisons as military outposts from which he can monitor what is occurring in Aram of Damascus, the territory controlled by the Syrians (Arameans) of Damascus. These forces provide security along the trade routes of the region—and also oversee the collection of tariffs and taxes. As David’s vassals, the Syrians pay him for the protection he extends to them.

The statement that “the Lord gave victory to David” clearly attributes David’s military accomplishments to enablement. This is not a blanket endorsement of all that David does. “Gave victory” was earlier used of the deliverance of the Lord provided to Israel through the judges (“save” in, e.g., Judg. 2:16, 18; 3:9; 10:1), and here it denotes divine approval and empowerment of David.

8:7 David accumulates much booty through these conquests. He seizes and transports to Jerusalem “shields”—probably small, circular shields, not those used for protecting the whole body. Being made of gold, such shields would have been carried in ceremonial parades by Hadadezer’s personal attendants. The Septuagint and some ancient sources add that these items were later taken away by Shishak, king of Egypt, in the days of Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 14:25–26). This is not part of the text here and seems to be at variance with the reference to “shields that had been King David’s” in 2 Kings 11:10.

8:8 Betah and Berothai (in 1 Chron. 18:8 Tibhath, a variant form of Betah, and Cun, respectively) are Syrian towns under the control of Zobah. From them David plunders a substantial quantity of “bronze,” an alloy of copper and tin that is stronger than mere copper.

8:9 Hamath on the river Orontes is located further north than Zobah, nearer the river Euphrates and 130 miles (210 km) from Damascus.⁴ When its king hears how David has “defeated [nakah; v. 1] the whole army of Hadadezer,” he considers it prudent to come to terms with him rather than attempting to fight.

8:10 Toi is diplomatically adroit in extending greetings to David and congratulating him on his success. He is genuinely relieved that David has removed the threat from Zobah, with whom Hamath has often been at war. Sending his son indicates the importance he attaches to the mission. Joram’s name (“Yahweh is exalted”) is given as Hadoram (“Hadad is exalted”) in 1 Chronicles 18:10, which is a more likely name for a pagan prince. It may, however, have been changed after the alliance with David as a gesture of respect. As Toi’s envoy to David, Joram brings a range of precious objects as tribute, all of which further enhance the resources available to David.

8:11 This statement is at the center of the narrative and incorporates the key lesson to be learned: “These also King David dedicated to the Lord.” David recognizes that the Lord is behind his victories and international prominence, and so he treats as sacred both the spoils of warfare and the tribute he receives. The vast amounts of silver and gold collected from “all the nations he subdued” (a synonym of the verb used in v. 1) are not consigned to the royal treasury but added to the resources David is amassing for his temple-building project (1 Kings 7:51; 1 Chron. 22:2–5).

8:12 The list of tributary nations reveals that David’s zone of influence extends from the Euphrates in the north to the border of Egypt in the south.⁵ He therefore dominates the three main trade routes from the south to Mesopotamia, which would generate considerable additional revenue. The list of nations included in David’s empire begins with “Edom.” Although most Hebrew manuscripts read “Aram” rather than “Edom” (in the original consonantal text the terms look very much alike; see also comment on 8:13), Edom is found in 1 Chronicles 18:11 as well as in the Septuagint and other ancient versions. The second nation, “Moab,” has already been mentioned in verse 2, while “Ammonites” anticipates 10:1–19; 12:26–31. “Amalek” probably looks back to 1 Samuel 30:16–20 while also making the point that the enemies of Israel whom Saul had failed to deal with properly (1 Samuel 15) are now subjugated by David.

8:13 Possibly David’s activities in the north have left the land vulnerable to attack from the south—an opening the Edomites exploit. “Edomites” is “Arameans” in the Hebrew text, but the references to Edom in verse 14 (as well as in 1 Chron. 18:12 and the LXX here) support reading “Edomites.” David “made a name for himself” (cf. 7:9, 23) by “striking down” (nakah; v. 1) a substantial Edomite force. He does not personally slay so many adversaries but rather commands the army that does. The “Valley of Salt” (also in 2 Kings 14:7) is located between Judah and Edom, probably at the southern end of the Dead Sea. In this campaign David is assisted by Abishai (1 Chron. 18:12), and the victory is followed by another in which Joab slays twelve thousand (Psalm 60, superscription) and then ruthlessly kills the male population over a period of six months (1 Kings 11:15–16).

8:14 “He put garrisons in Edom” is repeated for emphasis. As well as suppressing potential rebellion, these garrisons would control trade routes through the area and collect tariffs. But the narrator again draws attention to the true source of David’s success: “And the Lord gave victory to David wherever he went.” Cf. comment on 8:6.

8:15 This verse summarizes the whole course of David’s reign, with particular reference to the internal affairs of Israel. “Over all Israel” emphasizes that his rule is no longer confined to Judah. “David administered justice and equity” (lit., “David was doing justice and righteousness”) presents him as an ideal king. In “all his people” the possessive adjective refers not to God, as elsewhere, but to David himself. His administration is characterized by impartiality, unaffected by tribal affiliations or social status.

8:16 The list of six royal officials begins and ends with military figures. For “Joab,” cf. comment on 2:13. He is David’s nephew and the leading general or field marshal of David’s army, with David himself being commander in chief of his armies. Joab is not, however, in control of David’s bodyguard.

The second and fifth individuals are connected with the administration of the realm. As the “recorder,” Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud is perhaps responsible for organizing the business of the court and keeping records of public business.

8:17 The two central figures in the list are priests. “Zadok” was a descendant of Aaron through Eleazar (1 Chron. 6:4–8). He has not been mentioned previously, and his antecedents are somewhat of a mystery. While critical scholars attribute a Jerusalemite origin to him and allege that he is subsequently integrated into Israelite religion by being given an honorary pedigree, it may be that he originated in Hebron or elsewhere in southern Judah and so had escaped Saul’s massacre of the priests at Nob. Possibly he is to be identified with the Levitical warrior of 1 Chronicles 12:28. Zadok will support Solomon as successor to David (1 Kings 1:38–39), and his line continues to hold the high priesthood until the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

The reference to “Ahimelech the son of Abiathar” is problematic. If this were the only place with the names given in this order, it might be readily supposed that scribal error has accidentally reversed them, because elsewhere Abiathar is presented as Ahimelech’s son (1 Sam. 22:20; 23:6; 30:7) and acts in conjunction with Zadok (2 Sam. 15:24, 29, 35–36; 17:15; 19:11; 20:25). However, in 1 Chronicles 18:16 and 24:6, as well as here, Ahimelech is named as Abiathar’s son. It seems that there were perhaps two Ahimelechs, with one named after his grandfather—a common priestly practice—and the older Ahimelech being the younger brother of Ahijah (1 Sam. 14:3).⁶ Since the younger Ahimelech is named in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles as priest during the time of David, but Abiathar is once again listed as priest at the end of David’s reign and the beginning of Solomon’s in 1 Kings, perhaps at one stage Abiathar resigned as high priest in favor of his son Ahimelech. When for some reason the younger Ahimelech could not continue with these duties, Abiathar could have resumed his original role.

Abiathar had escaped Saul’s massacre of the priests at Nob and attached himself to David (1 Sam. 22:20) and had acted as David’s priest throughout his wilderness wanderings (1 Sam. 23:9; 30:7). He was descended from Aaron through Ithamar (1 Chron. 24:3) in the line of Eli. However, when the succession to David is in dispute, Abiathar supports Adonijah (1 Kings 1:7–8) and is subsequently expelled from office by Solomon (1 Kings 2:26–27).

The fifth name in the list is that of another administrator: “Seraiah was secretary.” “Secretary” may also be rendered “scribe” and was a distinguished position, equivalent to a modern-day secretary of state, possibly in charge of communications with foreign powers. It may be that Seraiah is the same figure as Sheva (2 Sam. 20:25) and Shisha (1 Kings 4:3). As his father’s name is not recorded, the variations in his name may indicate its foreign origin.

8:18 “Benaiah” was from Kabzeel (see 2 Sam. 23:20–23 for more details about him). “Was over” is added to the text here on the basis of 20:23 and 1 Chronicles 18:17. The “Cherethites” (cf. comment on 1 Sam. 30:14) and the “Pelethites” (cf. 2 Sam. 15:18) were mercenary soldiers, generally assumed to be of Cretan and Philistine extraction, respectively, who formed David’s personal bodyguard. The use of mercenaries in this way was a common practice in the ancient Near East. Certainly they remain loyal to David during the rebellion of Absalom (15:18) and later that of Sheba (20:7). In the succession crisis, they support Solomon rather than Adonijah (1 Kings 1:38, 44).

Tagged to the end of the list is the obscure and controversial statement “and David’s sons were priests.” This does not specify which of David’s sons are in view. In the Septuagint, “priests” is rendered “chiefs of the court,” that is, chief administrators, and the parallel text in 1 Chronicles 18:17 states they were the “chief officials in the service of the king.” It has therefore been supposed that here the term “priest” (Hb. kohen) has an earlier, broader meaning. Certainly David’s sons did not possess the qualifications for Levitical priesthood. Later, in another list of court officials (2 Sam. 20:23), they are not mentioned, while Ira the Jairite is named as David’s priest (20:26). A similar doubt pertains to the role of Zabud in respect to Solomon’s officials (“priest and king’s friend”; 1 Kings 4:5). See comment on 2 Samuel 6:14 for the proposal that David himself was a priest. It seems, however, that the annotation may mean no more than that these men acted as domestic chaplains to the court. There is no reason to suppose that their duties overlapped those of the Levitical priesthood. Priestly and royal lines were kept separate in Israel.