2 Samuel 10:8

2Sa 10:8 And the children of Ammon came out, and put the battle in array at the entering in of the gate: and the Syrians of Zoba, and of Rehob, and Ishtob, and Maacah, [were] by themselves in the field.

Ver. 8. At the entering in of the gate,] viz., Of Medeba; {1Ch 19:7; 1Ch 19:9} for that bush they thought good to keep on their backs, however the day should happen; and that stake to have still in store, however the dice chanced to turn. But how wretchedly reckless was Pompey, who never considered into what place he should retire if beaten by Julius Caesar, as he was at the Pharsalian field.

Were by themselves in the field.] As not fit to be trusted near the town, being such a multitude of mercenaries, and, in reference to David, who had lately subdued them, a rabble of rebels.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2 Samuel

‘MORE THAN CONQUERORS THROUGH HIM’

2Sa 10:8 - 2Sa 10:19.

David’s growing power would naturally be regarded by neighbouring states as a menace. Success provokes envy, and in this selfish world strength usually encroaches on weakness, and weakness dreads strength. So it was quite according to the way of the world that David’s friendly embassy to the king of Ammon should be suspected of covering hostile intentions. Those who have no kindness in their own hearts are slow to believe in kindness in others. ‘What does he want to get by it?’ is the question put by cynical ‘shrewd men,’ when they see a good man doing a gracious, self-forgetting act.

But the Ammonite courtiers need not have rejected David’s overtures so insolently as by shaving half his ambassadors’ beards and docking their robes. The insult meant war to the knife. Probably it was deliberately intended as a declaration of hostilities, as it was immediately followed by the preparation of a formidable coalition against Israel. Possibly, indeed, the coalition preceded and occasioned the rejection of David’s conciliatory message. But, in any case, the Ammonite king summoned his Syrian allies from a number of small states of which we barely know the names, the chief of which was Zobah.

That state had apparently started into prominence under its king Hadar-ezer, as he is called in this chapter, which is obviously a clerical error for Hadad-ezer, as in 2Sa 8:3, etc. The name Hadad occurs again in Ben-hadad, and belonged to a Syrian god; so that the king of Zobah’s name, meaning ‘Hadad [is] help,’ may be taken as the banner flaunted in the face of the army of Israel, and as making the war a struggle of the false against the true God.

The war with the same enemies narrated in 2Sa 8:3 - 2Sa 8:13 is now generally supposed to be the same as that recorded in the latter part of this passage. It certainly seems more probable that there has been some dislocation of the text, than that so crushing a defeat as that retold in chapter viii. should have been followed by a revival of the same coalition within a short time. If, however, there was such a revival, it may remind us of the conditions of all warfare for God and goodness, either in our own lives or in the world. Sins and vicious institutions, once defeated, have a terrible power of swift recovery. The thorns cut down sprout fast again. Let no man say, ‘I have extirpated that sin from my nature,’ for, if he does, it will surprise him when he is lulled in false security. Hadad-ezer is not so easily got rid of. He does not know when he is beaten.

David took the bull by the horns, and did not wait to be attacked. It was good policy to carry the war into the enemies’ country, as it generally is. God’s soldiers have to be aggressive, and there is no better way of losing what they have won than by being contented with it. We must advance if we are not to retrograde. From I Chronicles we learn that the Ammonites had begun the campaign by besieging Medeba, a trans-Jordanic Israelitish city. The answer of Joab was to lay siege to Rabbath, the capital of Ammon, an almost impregnable fastness, perched on a cliff, and surrounded on all sides but one by steep ravines.

Apparently his bold strategy led to the abandonment of the attack on Medeba, and to the hurried march of its besiegers to relieve Rabbath. Probably the Syrian allies had been before Medeba, and suddenly appeared in Joab’s rear. Their advance led the besieged to attempt a sortie, so that Joab was between two fires. It was a difficult position. Whichever foe he attacked, his retreat was cut off, and another enemy was ready to hurl itself on his rear. There was no time for manoeuvring, and nothing for it but to face both assailants. So, without hesitation he made his dispositions. The new-comers, the Syrians, were evidently the more formidable, and Joab picked the best men to deal with them under his own command, while his brother Abishai was to give account of the Ammonites, who were pouring out of Rabbath. There is sometimes advantage in being ‘Mr. Facing-both-ways.’ We are often surrounded by allied evils or sins; for all our vices are kindred, and help each other, and all public or social iniquities are in league against the army of righteousness. We have to be many-sided in our attacks on what is wrong, as well as in our development of what is right.

Danger woke the best in Joab, Fierce and truculent as he often was, he had a hero’s mettle in him, and in that dark hour he flamed like a pillar of light. His ringing words to his brother as they parted, not knowing if they would ever meet again, are like a clarion call. They extract encouragement out of the separation of forces, which might have depressed, and cheerily pledge the two divisions to mutual help. What was to happen, Joab, if the Syrians were too strong for thee, and the Ammonites for Abishai? That very possible contingency is not contemplated in his words. Rash confidence is unwise, but God’s soldiers have a right to go into battle not anticipating utter defeat. Such expectation is apt to fulfil itself, and, on the other hand, to believe that we shall conquer goes a long way towards making us conquerors.

Does not Joab’s pledge of mutual help carry in it a lesson applicable to all the divisions of God’s great army? In the presence of the coalition of evil, is not the separation of the friends of good, madness? When bad men unite, should not good men hold together? The defeat or victory of one is the defeat or victory of all. We serve under the same banner, and, instead of shutting up our sympathies within the narrow limits of our own regiment, and even having a certain satisfaction at the difficulties into which another has got, we should feel that, if ‘one member suffer, all the members suffer with it,’ and should be ready to help all our fellow-soldiers who need help. Self-preservation as well as comradeship, and, above all, loyalty to Him for whom we fight, should lead to that; for, if Abishai is crushed, Joab will be in sorer peril.

His other word is equally pregnant. ‘Be of good courage’ is an exhortation always in season for Christ’s soldiers, for, whatever are their foes, ‘He that is with them is more than they that are with’ their enemies. One man with Christ to back him may always be sure of victory. Calculations of probabilities and of resources may often yield occasion for despondency if we calculate only what appears to sense, but if we bring Christ into the calculation we shall be of good cheer. ‘The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?’

We may note, too, the stimulating motive drawn from the thought of what Israel’s army fought for,-’Our people, and the cities of our God.’ Patriotism and devotion coalesced, and, like two contiguous flames in some duplex lamp, each made the other burn the brighter. So we may feel that we have the highest good of ‘our people,’ our brethren, in view, and that, in helping them and warring against evil, we are fighting for what belongs to God.

High courage, the effort to do their very best, and not to spare blood or life in the fight, blended nobly in Joab and his brother with recognition of God’s supreme determination of the event. Nothing can stand before men who live and fight in such a temper as that. The early conquests of Mohammedanism were secured by just such a blending of courage and submission. These were vulgar and poor, compared with the victories that would attend a Church which was animated by these principles in the higher form in which Christianity presents them.

The account of the victory is remarkable. It is surely not by accident that no word is said about fighting. Note that it was as Joab ‘drew nigh unto the battle’ that the Syrians fled as if in sudden panic, and infected the Ammonites with their terror. We hear nothing of men slain, or of any actual crossing of swords. Contrast 2Sa 10:18, which tells of a real fight. It is, perhaps, not pressing omissions too far to suggest that the narrative favours the supposition of a bloodless victory. The dangers that often appal Christ’s servants have a way of often disappearing when they are marched boldly up to. Like ghosts, they vanish when accosted.

So ended one campaign. But Hadad-ezer, the soul of the coalition, was not crushed, and the latter part of the passage tells of his renewed attempt. Partial defeat stirs up our foes to stronger struggles. The league was extended to include Syrian states farther east, and a still more formidable expedition was fitted out to attack this dangerous upstart king of Israel, who was casting his shadow so far. Such is always the case. We are never in more danger of fresh assailants than when we have won some victory over evil in ourselves or around us. David repeated his former tactics. Not waiting to be attacked, and to have the soil of Israel profaned and wasted by enemies, he crossed Jordan to meet the would-be invader, and, when he met him, struck hard, and crushed him and his host, slew the commander, and dispersed the thunder-cloud. The coalition broke down. Hadad-ezer’s tributaries were glad to shake off his yoke and transfer their allegiance to David.

‘Nothing succeeds like success.’ The alliances between worldly men banded against God’s soldiers are held together by self-interest, and, when that can be best secured by deserting a man when he is down, away go all the allies, tumbling over each other in their haste to be the first to desert and bring feigned submission to the conqueror. The jackals leave the sick lion. The Syrians had had enough of helping Ammon, and Rabbath might fall without their lifting a finger. So hollow are the world’s coalitions against God and His anointed!

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10:8 The Israelites had a double battle: against the Ammonites in front of their fortifications at the entrance of the city gate and against the Aramean army in the open fields.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

These were divers parts of the country of Syria, whereby appeareth that the Syrians served where they might have entertainment, as now the Sweitzers do.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 8. At the entering in of the gate] This was the city of Medeba, as we learn from 1Ch 19:7.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(8) At the entering in of the gate.—The Ammonites and their allies formed separate armies, the former taking their stand immediately before the city, the latter “by themselves” at some distance, where the ground was more favourable for the manœuvres of their chariots.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8. at the entering in of the gate] This is generally supposed to be the gate of the Ammonite capital Rabbah. But the account in Chronicles states explicitly that the Syrian mercenaries mustered at Medeba, which was nearly 20 miles south-west of Rabbah, and clearly implies that it was the city which the Ammonites occupied. Further it is evident from 2Sa_10:9, which describes Joab as in danger of being crushed between the two forces, that the Syrians were at no great distance from the city. And how came the Syrian force to march past Rabbah to Medeba, if the Ammonites meant to make their stand at Rabbah? or how could Joab possibly have advanced to Rabbah, leaving this huge Syrian force in his rear?

Medeba, the modern Mâdeba, was four miles south-east of Heshbon, on a rounded but rocky hill. It existed before the Israelite conquest (Num_21:30), was assigned to Reuben (Jos_13:9), and now seems to have been in the hands of the Ammonites. It is mentioned on the famous Moabite stone as having been recaptured by Mesha, and in the time of Isaiah was a Moabite sanctuary (Isa_15:2).

in the field] “The plain of Medeba” (Jos_13:9; Jos_13:16) would be an advantageous place for the manœuvres of a large army, especially with chariots and cavalry.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the children of Ammon came out,.... Either out of Rabbah their metropolis, as Josephus (u); or rather out of Medeba, as it seems from Ch1 19:7; a city that lay on the borders of their country, and was a frontier town, see Num 21:30;

and put the battle in array, at the entering in of the gate; of the city of Medeba; they were first within the city, but, upon the approach of Joab and his army, they came out and drew up in a line of battle at the gate of it:

and the Syrians of Zoba, and of Rehob, and Ishtob, and Maacah, were by themselves in the field; at some distance from the city, the Ammonites not choosing to trust: mercenaries in it; and perhaps they placed these ambush in the field, to get Joab between two fires, as we now express it.

(u) Antiqu. l. 7. c. 6. sect. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Came out - From their city, Rabbah Deu 3:11, Deu 3:15 or 20 miles from Medeba, where 1Ch 19:7 the Syrian army was encamped. Medeba (modern Madeba) was taken from Sihon Num 21:30, and fell to Reuben Jos 13:9, Jos 13:16; in the reign of Ahaz it seems to have returned to Moab Isa 15:2, and in the time of the Maccabees to the Amorites (1 Macc. 9:36, 37). In church history it was a bishop’s see.

In the field - i. e. in the plain below the round rocky hill on which the city stood.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ammon. David was disposed to have lived in peace with this nation: but they voluntarily provoked his arms, after he had made such havoc upon all the neighbouring idolaters, and thus draw down the scourge of Providence; who suffers those to be blinded whom he has resolved to punish. The preparations for this war seem to have been greater than usual, and it continued for a longer period, and in the end proved destructive to all. (Haydock) --- Gate of Medaba. (Paralipomenon) Besides the 33,000 auxiliaries (ver. 6) and the natives, 32,000 chariots of war were hired from beyond the Euphrates, 1 Paralipomenon xix. 7.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Of the gate, to wit, of Medeba, as it is expressed, 1Ch 19:7, which was a frontier city. See Num 21:30. This place they chose for the fight, that they might both defend that city and their country, whereof that was the entrance, and, if need were, might retreat into it. The Syrians were by themselves in the field; that by their numerous forces they might fall upon the Israelites on the other side. Which were the most valiant and expert soldiers.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

8. At the entering in of the gate — That is, most obviously, at the gate of their capital city, Rabbah.

Syrians… by themselves in the field — The record in 1Ch_19:7 is, they pitched before Medeba, a city some distance south of Rabbah, and in the tribe of Reuben. See on Jos_13:16.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Syrians... were by themselves in the field. We learn from 1Ch_19:7 that the rendezvous of the Arameans was at Medeba, a small town situated upon a hill in the Mishor, or treeless prairie land, called "the plain" in Jos_13:16. As it was four miles southeast ofHeshbon, and more than twenty miles distant from Rabbah, it is plain that they were marching northward, and that Joab was only just in time to prevent a junction of the two armies. The Ammonites, who were expecting their allies, and knew of their approach, had come outside of Rabbah, but had only posted themselves in fighting order "at the entering in of the gate."

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.