Commentaria in II Regum (II Samuelis)
24. AND SHE BORE A SON, AND HE CALLED (not the mother Bethsabee, as Abulensis will have it, but the father David himself, Solomon, say Serarius, Cajetan and others, as is clear from the masculine verb, and by God’s command and oracle given through the prophet Nathan, 1 Paralipomenon chap. 22, verse 9) HIS NAME SOLOMON,—that is, peaceful, because David, already reconciled to God by penance, had received peace and pardon of his sin; hence as a sign of peace God had given him this son, who during the whole time of his reign was to be peaceful, and therefore a type of Christ, who is “our peace.” Again peaceful, that is, rich, happy and abounding in plenty of all things (for this peace signifies in Hebrew), say Abulensis, Pineda and others. Hear God, book I of Paralipomenon chap. 22, verse 9: “The son that shall be born to thee shall be a most quiet man; for I will make him rest from all his enemies round about: and for this reason he shall be called (Solomon, that is) Peaceable, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel all his days.” St. Jerome notes in the Traditions on Genesis chap. 17 [sic] that in the Old Testament four received their name from God before they were born, namely Ismael, Isaac, Solomon and Josias.
AND THE LORD LOVED HIM,—God prevented him with his grace and gifts, because he destined him to be David’s successor, the builder of the temple and a type of Christ. Hence God goes on in the place of Paralipomenon already cited: “He shall build a house to my name, and he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” See what is said at chap. 7.
25. AND HE SENT BY THE HAND OF NATHAN (that is, through Nathan: for hand signifies the means or instrument) THE PROPHET, AND CALLED HIS NAME, AMIABLE TO THE LORD.—In Hebrew Jedidiah, which Aquila, as Theodoret and Procopius attest, renders, in the Lord; Symmachus, set apart for the kingdom; but it is clear to those skilled in Hebrew that it signifies, amiable to the Lord, as our version, the Septuagint, Vatablus, the Chaldee, Pagninus and others render. Abulensis thinks this name is an appellative, Pineda a proper name, so that this boy had two proper names, namely Solomon and Jedidiah. Reconcile both by saying that Jedidiah is indeed a common name, but appropriated by God to Solomon.
Aptly Jedidiah, that is Solomon, was the son of David, as the beloved of the beloved; for David signifies beloved, but Jedidiah more, namely beloved of God or by God.
Note first: From this place, verse 24, it is clear that Solomon was born shortly after the death of the infant conceived in adultery, and succeeded him, to soothe and abolish his mother’s grief. Whence it follows that Solomon was the firstborn of David by Bethsabee. So Pineda, Salianus, Serarius and others.
Thou wilt say: Solomon is placed last among the sons of Bethsabee, book 1 of Paralipomenon chap. 3, verse 5, where it is said: “And there were born to him (David) sons, Simmaa, and Sobab, and Nathan, and Solomon; four of Bethsabee.” Some answer that the first three, namely Simmaa, Sobab and Nathan, were not sons of David, but of Urias her former husband, whom he had begotten of Bethsabee his wife. So Abulensis, Lyranus, Vatablus, Tornielli, Hugo and others. But this is contrary to the text, which has: “there were born to him,” namely to David, who has preceded. Likewise Luke deduces the genealogy of Christ, chap. 3, from David through Nathan; which would be false if Nathan were the son of Urias, not of David. Wherefore it must be said that there the order of time and of birth is not kept, as not elsewhere at times. For so in Genesis 49 the sons of Jacob are recounted and blessed by their father in another order than that in which they were begotten by him in Genesis 29 and 30. So also in the sons of Thare the order of generation is not kept, as I said at Genesis 11:26. So Theodoret, Procopius, Cajetan, Pineda, Salianus and others.
Note second: From this place Solomon was conceived immediately after the death of the infant. For verse 24 demands this, where it is said: “And David comforted Bethsabee his wife (mourning for the death of her infant), and went in unto her, and slept with her: and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon.” Wherefore some wrongly interpose a period of four years between the death of the infant and the birth of Solomon.
Note third: Hence it is probably gathered that Solomon was conceived in the 50th year of David’s age, which was the twentieth of his reign, and born in the 51st year of David’s age, which was the 21st of his reign. For David died in the 40th year of his reign. And Solomon, who was about twenty years old, then succeeded him, as is clear from the fact that he had already begotten Roboam his son, who succeeded him in the kingdom: for Solomon died in the 40th year of his reign, and Roboam succeeding him was then 41 years old, as is said in 3 Kings 14:21 [sic]. Wherefore it is necessary that Roboam was begotten by him one year before Solomon’s reign. So nearly Pineda, Salianus and others, though others think otherwise, and various persons variously. These things will be clearer at 3 Kings chap. 1.
Wherefore take this probable chronology of David of Salianus and others.
David in the 49th year of his age, which was the 19th of his reign, in summer sinned with Bethsabee, of whom in the following year in spring a son was born: who, dying after a few days, soon Bethsabee conceived of David Solomon, whom after nine months she bore in the 51st year of David, which was the 21st of his reign.
In the same year in which Solomon was born, a little after his birth, God, in punishment of David’s adultery, permitted his daughter Thamar to be violated by her brother Ammon, as we shall hear in the following chapter.
Two years after this violation, namely in David’s 53rd year, which was the 23rd of his reign, Ammon was slain by Absalom, own brother and uterine brother of Thamar, as is clear from chap. 13, verse 23.
Absalom, on account of his brother Ammon slain by him, fled to his maternal grandfather the king of Gessur, and abode with him in exile three years, namely until David’s 56th year, which was the 26th of his reign, as is clear from chap. 13, verse 38.
At the end of this 56th year of David, Joab reconciled Absalom to David by the Thecuite woman, but so that Absalom was not permitted to see his father’s face for two years, as is clear from chap. 14, verse 28.
After these two years, namely in David’s 58th year, which was the 28th of his reign, Absalom was brought by Joab to David, who by kissing him reconciled him to himself.
Absalom began, in the following year, which was David’s 59th, to aim at the kingdom, and to plot his father’s death; wherefore he courted and bound to himself the minds of very many through all the tribes: which done, in the next year, which was David’s 60th, the 30th of his reign, Absalom raised public war against his father, in which he himself was slain and hanged, and fell pierced by three lances by Joab, as will appear in chap. 18, verse 14. David afterwards lived and reigned ten years more; for he died in the 70th year of his age, the 40th of his reign; to whom succeeded Solomon in his twentieth year, who reigned 40 years, and died in his sixtieth year; younger than the others of that age, because lust had exhausted his body, so that he quickly grew old and failed.
27. AND THE CITY OF WATERS MUST BE TAKEN.—The Septuagint and the Chaldee have, and I have taken the city of waters. Hence Cajetan and Serarius suppose that there were two parts of the city of Rabbath, one inner, the other outer, which was called “the city of Waters,” which Joab took; but that he reserved the inner to be taken by David. But the Vulgate version, which has “must be taken” (and the Hebrew “vau conversive,” which is in velakadta, demands this; for this turns the past into the future), indicates the contrary, namely that Joab had taken nothing, but reserved the whole city to be taken by David; wherefore “the city of Waters” is none other than “Rabbath.” So Josephus, Lyranus, Hugo, Abulensis, Dionysius and others.
Thou wilt say, 1 Paralipomenon 20:1 says: “Joab smote Rabba.” I answer: “He smote,” because, as precedes a little before in the same place, Joab laid waste the whole region round about and slew many of the citizens of Rabba, and finally, having called David, took it. For all the credit and praise of the storming and wasting of the city of Rabba was due to Joab, though he out of modesty gave this praise to David; but why is “Rabbath” called “the city of waters”? Abulensis answers, because it is washed by the Tigris and Euphrates, as Haran or Charre in Mesopotamia and Babylon in Chaldea are washed by the same. But the Tigris and Euphrates are far from Philadelphia. Others answer otherwise with Lyranus, namely that this city was situated in marshy places, and therefore abounded in waters. But I say with Serarius, Salianus, Adrichomius and others, that the cause is that the torrent Jaboc flows round Philadelphia, which, rising in the mountains of Arabia, bounds the region of the Aramonites, and flows into the Jordan, as St. Jerome teaches in the Hebrew Places. Moreover the Ammonites, trusting in these waters, thought the city impregnable, and therefore despised Joab and the Hebrews besieging it, and sustained their siege for a year.