CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.
2 Samuel 23:8. “Tachmonite” Rather, Ben Hachmoni, of the family of Hachmon, not as in 1 Chronicles 27:32, a son, because in 2 Samuel 23:2 of that chapter, Zabdiel is mentioned as his father. “Chief,” “not leader, but most distinguished.” (Erdmann.) “Captains,” or knights. (Erdmann.) “Eight hundred.” “This is not to be understood as signifying that he killed eight hundred men at one blow, but that in a battle he threw his spear again and again at the foe, until eight hundred men had been slain. The Chronicles gives three hundred instead of eight hundred; and as that number occurs again in 2 Samuel 23:18, it probably found its way from that verse into this in the book of Chronicles.
2 Samuel 23:9-11. There are some variations between the reading here and in the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 11, but many of the apparent discrepancies are easily accounted for when we remember that they may be independent records, and are not necessarily copied one from the other. “Only to spoil,” i.e., they had nothing to do but enter in and enjoy the fruits of the victory. Hararite, “perhaps the mountaineer.” (Wordsworth). A troop. Erdmann, Ewald, and Thenius translate this word as the name of the place, viz., Lehi. (See Judges 15:9). Lentiles. “In the Chronicles it is added there was barley there. Doubtless the field (or large plain) was sown with both; the independence of the two writers is thus shown.” (Wordsworth).
2 Samuel 23:13. Three of the thirty chiefs; or, the three chiefs of the thirty. The thirty are those enumerated at the end of the chapter. Thirty-one (or thirty-two) are there mentioned, and more in Chronicles, but this was evidently a name for a certain corps of men, which, as Kiel suggests, possibly at first numbered exactly thirty, but which would at times receive additions in the different wars in which David was engaged. Adullam. “According to the situation here described, this exploit occurred in the Philistine war, narrated in 2 Samuel 5:17, sq.” (Erdmann).
2 Samuel 23:15. Well of Bethlehem. “An ancient cistern, with four or five holes in the solid rock, at about ten minutes’ distance to the north of the eastern corner of the hill of Bethlehem, is pointed out by the natives as Bir-Daoud—David’s well. Dr. Robinson doubts the identity of the well; but others think that there are no good grounds for doing so. Certainly, considering this to be the ancient well, Bethlehem must have once extended ten minutes further to the north, and must have lain, in times of old, not as now on the summit, but on the northern rise of the hill; for the well is by, or (1 Chronicles 11:7) at the gate. (Jamieson). “I find in the descriptions of travellers that the common opinion is, that David’s captains had come from the south-east, in order to obtain, at the risk of their lives, the so much longed for water; while it is supposed that David was then himself in the great cave that is not far from the south-east of Bethlehem; which cave is generally held to have been that of Adullam. But (Joshua 15:35). Adullam lay in the valley”—that is, in the undulating plain at the western base of the mountains of Judea, and consequently to the south-west of Jerusalem. Be this as it may, David’s three men had, in any case, to break through the host of the Philistines in order to reach the well; and the position of Bir-Daoud agrees well with this. (Van de Velde). Dr. Thomson (Land and the Book) says that Bethlehem is now poorly supplied with water.
2 Samuel 23:17. “In jeopardy,” etc., for the price of their souls, i.e., at the risk of their lives. “The water drawn and fetched at the risk of their lives is compared to the soul itself, and the soul is in the blood. (Leviticus 17:11.) Drinking this water, therefore, would be nothing else than drinking their blood.” (Keil.)
2 Samuel 23:19. Chief among three. As the historian says further on that, neither Abishai nor Benniah attained unto the three (so the Heb.); it seems better to read here chief among thirty, i.e., they distinguished themselves among those heroes, but were not so renowned as those mentioned in 2 Samuel 23:8-12.
2 Samuel 23:20. “Lion-like men.” Literally, Ariels, or Lions of God. The Arabs and Persians so designate every remarkably brave men, and these were doubtless two celebrated Moabitish warriors. “Pit,” or Cistern. “The lion had been driven into the neighbourhood of human habitations by a heavy fall of snow, and had taken refuge in a cistern.” (Keil and others.)
2 Samuel 23:21. “An Egyptian.” Better The Egyptian, some well-known man, celebrated for his strength and stature. “A goodly man,” lit. a man of appearances or (as in Chronicles) a man of measure.
2 Samuel 23:22. “Three mighty.” Here also it seems necessary to read Thirty instead of Three. (See on 2 Samuel 23:19.)
2 Samuel 23:24-39. Most of these names are not further known. “Shammah.” Must not be confounded with the Shammahs mentioned in 2 Samuel 23:11; 2 Samuel 23:33. (Keil.) “Ittai.” “Must be distinguished from the Gathite.” (Keil.) “Eliphelet,” etc. Many Hebrew scholars consider that there is here a slight error, as there is no reason why the grandfather’s name should be given in addition to that of the father, and it better suits the grammatical form of some of the words to read—Eliphelet the son of Ur; Hepher the Maachathite, thus adding one to the list.
2 Samuel 23:39. “Thirty-seven.” “This number is correct, as there were three in the first class (2 Samuel 23:8-12), two in the second (2 Samuel 23:18-23), and thirty-two in the third (2 Samuel 23:24-39), since 2 Samuel 23:34 contains three names according to the amended text.” (Kiel.) (See above on Eliphelet).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— 2 Samuel 23:8-39
THE MIGHTY MEN AND THE WELL OF BETHLEHEM
I. There is a loyalty in noble natures which seeks occasions of self-sacrifice. Satan very greatly belied even our fallen human nature when he said, “Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life” (Job 2:4). Here he shows either his ignorance or his malice, for millions of men and women have proved its falsity. No generation has ever lived upon the earth in which some have not been found willing to risk their lives, not merely in obedience to the voice of conscience, or out of gratitude to Christ and for the sake of spreading His gospel, but as David’s mighty men did here, with a devotion which seemed on the watch for an opportunity to manifest its depth. We should have good reason to admire these warriors if they had fought their way to Bethlehem’s gate to rescue their master from the hands of the Philistines, or to procure for him some necessary food or drink. Such a deed would have entitled them to receive the well-done of faithful servants and would have established their claim to David’s grateful love. But in braving death to gratify a passing wish of their king they went far beyond the strictest requirements of duty, and their conduct is a striking proof of the fact that the noblest natures find their purest gratification in self-sacrifice—in laying all that they have and are at the feet of another.
II. Those who are the objects of deep affection should be watchful of the claims they make upon it. David’s desire was perfectly natural and lawful, and it was not wrong to express it. But it was certainly somewhat inconsiderate, seeing that he must have known the kind of men who surrounded him. Probably, however, he did not dream that the utterance of his wish would have such a result, and we may well believe that his experience now made him more careful in the future when such brave and loving friends were near. It behoves all who are deeply and tenderly loved to be very mindful how strong such love is and how much it will do and bear for the object of its love. True it is that self-devotion raises and gladdens the soul that exercises it, but none but the utterly mean man could use this truth to excuse his own selfishness. Let such an one remember that he loses in proportion as the other gains, and let all be so anxious to find out and gratify the desires of those who love them as to have no room to express their own.
III. Heroic deeds have a tendency to beget others after their kind. It is quite possible that David’s mighty men became what they were through association with him. He had set them many noble examples of bravery and self-forgetfulness, and they had been apt pupils of a worthy master. And now their deed of loyal daring begets in him one of the same kind. When men thus seek to equal and out-do each other in bringing their lower nature into subjection to the higher, and in seeking who shall be the greater in acts of loving service, then, indeed, is a warfare carried on which is all gain and no loss, and where both sides gain a victory worth having.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
I. The three warriors must be surveyed as servants of David, men engaged to obey his commands and execute his will to the utmost of their power. And their conduct then appears very admirable, as far removed as can well be imagined from that calculating and niggardly obedience which betrays a disposition to do the least possible, to render as little to a master as that master can be prevailed on to accept.… David might have summoned the bravest of his battalions and bidden them attempt the forcing a passage to the well, but he simply uttered a wish, … and it was sufficient for the bold and true-hearted men.… There is an example set to every man who is called upon for obedience, which fits the history before us to be inscribed on our kitchens, our shops, and our churches. The example lies in their not having waited for a command, but acted on a wish, and there is no man to whom the term servant applies—and it applies to every man, at least with reference to God—who would not do well to ponder the example.… Consider men generally as the servants of God.… He dealeth with us as with children, rather not laying down an express precept for every possible case, but supposing in us a principle which will always lead to our considering what will be pleasing to Himself, and to our taking His pleasure as our rule.
… And the Christian should search for the least indication of God’s will, and give it all the form of a positive statute.… II. Then what care should there be that nothing may be said in joke which may be taken in earnest, nothing even hinted at as our belief or desire which we would not have acted upon by those who hear our words. It is specially to children that this remark applies; for they may be supposed to have all that submissiveness to authority and that willingness to oblige which distinguished David’s warriors, as well as the inability of discriminating a casual expression from an actual direction.… There may occur precisely what occurred with David’s servants. It is not that the monarch has commanded his warriors to dare death … or even wished them to undertake the rash and perilous enterprise. It is only that, without reflection or thought, he gave utterance to something that was passing in his mind, and that those about him overheard the inconsiderate expression. And do you mark that young person, who is devoting himself with uncalculating eagerness to some worldly pursuit.… The parent never wished him thus to squander his powers; the parent never thought that he would.… but was apt to give words to feelings which he would never have breathed, had he remembered the possibility of their being received as genuine, or interpreted as laudable.… III. But the genuineness of the repentance of David … is proved by his refusal to derive benefit from his sin … And we are now concerned with the question as to what is binding on a man, if, with the advantages, procured by a fault, lying at his disposal, the water from the well of Bethlehem sparkling before him, he become convinced of his fault?… Is he to drink of the water, to enjoy the advantages? It may often be a hard question, but we do not see how there can be any true penitence, where what has been wrongfully obtained is kept and used.… Let the case be that which is not unlikely to occur amid the complicated interests of a great mercantile community.… We cannot think it enough to give large sums in charity as an atonement or reparation.… Zaccheus made an accurate distinction between restitution and almsgiving; he would give alms of that only which had been honourably obtained; the rest he returned, with large interest, to those from whom it had been unfairly procured. And though it might be impossible for the trader to make restitution precisely to the parties who have been injured, we do not see how, with his conscience accusing him of having done wrong, he can lawfully appropriate any share of the profits any more than David could have lawfully drunk of the water procured at his ill-advised wish.—Canon Melville.
A knightly deed this! But was it not rather foolhardiness, if not downright servility, and was not this expending courage recklessly, and dealing wastefully with human life? This question resembles that with which Judas Iscariot presumed to censure the anointing of Mary at Bethany. True love has its measure in itself, and in its modes of manifestation puts itself beyond all criticism.—Krummacher.
In David’s conduct to the heroes that bring him water from Bethlehem at the risk of their lives are set forth these three things:—I. Noble modesty, which regards the love-offering of one’s neighbour as too dear and valuable for one’s self and declines to receive it. II. Sincere humility before the Lord, which lays the honour at His feet as He to whom alone it belongs. III. A clear view and tender estimation of the infinite moral worth of human life in men’s relations towards one another and towards God.—Erdmann.