2 Samuel 12:31

And he brought forth the people, &c.— This treatment of the Ammonites having shocked some unthinking readers, it will not be unseasonable to inform them, that the words will bear a milder interpretation. Literally, they may be rendered thus: And he brought forth the people, and placed them by, [במגרה וישׂם vaiiusem bamgerah,] or, more nearly, put them to the saw, and to iron harrows, or mines, and to axes of iron, and made them pass by, or to, the brick-kilns; i.e. made them slaves, and put them to the most servile employments; sawing, harrowing, or making iron harrows, or mining, and hewing of wood, and making of bricks. That the prefix ב beth, signifies to, in numerous places, may be seen in Noldius; and it does so in construction with this very verb במגרה bamgerah, in the place before us; let not the king [ישׂם iasem] put this thing [בעבדוע beabdo] to his servant; 1 Samuel 22:15 and in several other instances which might be mentioned. It may also be observed, that the Syriac and Arabic versions give a more favourable interpretation of this passage, and render it, he brought them out, and threw them into chains, and iron shackles, and made them pass before him in a proper measure, or by proper companies at a time. The version of the LXX is not so clear. He put them in, or to, the saw, &c. and made them pass by the brick-kiln, which may well be interpreted of his putting them to these servile employments. The words הברזל בחרצי bacharitzei habbarzel, rendered harrows of iron, signify iron mines; which will determine the meaning in this more favourable sense. Thus חרוצ charutz, signifies gold, as being deeply dug out of the mines, from חרצ cheretz, to dig; Proverbs 3:14. But what shall we say to the parallel place, 1 Chronicles 20:3 which our version renders, he cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes? Why, first, the verb does not agree in sense with the several punishments mentioned; for if נשׂר nasar be the root of ושׂיר vaiiasar, as our version makes it to be, it properly signifies he cut with a saw; and therefore cannot be applied either to the ax, or harrow, or mine. But though this be the original sense of nasar, yet it is used in the Arabic in a more general sense, to signify, he dispersed, divided, separated, and the place may be rendered, he divided or separated them to the saw, harrows, or iron mines, and axes; i.e. to these servile employments, some to one, and some to another. It may be farther observed, that the root ישׂר iasar, may be שׂור sur; the meaning of which is, he ruled, or governed them, viz. by the saw, the harrows, or mines, and axes; made them slaves, and condemned them to these servile employments. The word is thus rendered by Schmidius, he ruled by the saw, &c. And this interpretation is far from forced, agreeable to the proper sense and construction of the words, and will vindicate David from any inhumanity which can be charged upon him in this instance. The Syriac version is, he bound them with iron chains, &c. and thus he bound them all: and the Arabic, he bound them all with chains, killing none of the Ammonites. This account may be farther confirmed by the next clause, thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon: for, had he destroyed all the inhabitants by these or any methods of severity, it would have been an almost total extirpation of them: and yet we read of them as united with the Moabites, and the inhabitants of Seir, and forming a very large army to invade the dominions of Jehoshaphat. It may be added, that if the punishments inflicted on this people were as severe as our version represents them, they were undoubtedly inflicted by way of reprisals. Nahash the father of Hanun, in the wantonness of cruelty, would admit the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead to surrender themselves to him, upon no other condition than their every one consenting to have their right eye thrust out, that he might lay it as a reproach upon all Israel. If these severities of David were now exercised by way of retaliation for former cruelties of this nature, it will greatly lessen the horror which may be conceived on account of them, and in some measure justify David's using them, considering more especially the dispensation of grace under which he lived: and as the sacred writers, who have transmitted this history to us, do not pass any censure on David as having exceeded the bounds of humanity in this punishment of the Ammonites, we may reasonably conclude, either that the punishment was not so severe as our version represents it; or, that there was some peculiar reason which demanded this exemplary vengeance, and which, if we were acquainted with it, would induce us to pass a more favourable judgment concerning it; or, that the law of nations then subsisting admitted such kind of executions upon very extraordinary provocations, though there are scarcely any which can justify them.