Commentaria in II Regum (II Samuelis)
14. AND DAVID WAS THEN IN A HOLD,—that is, in a fortified place, namely in the citadel and cave of Odollam, of which there was discourse before, though Josephus and Abulensis understand by the hold Jerusalem and the citadel of Sion, to which Bethlehem is near.
15. O THAT SOME MAN WOULD GIVE ME A DRINK OF THE WATER OUT OF THE CISTERN THAT IS IN BETHLEHEM!—Hear Josephus: “David said to his men: O what good water we have in my country, especially in the cistern near the gate! O that someone would bring it to me! I would certainly prefer this to receiving much silver.” For all love the springs and goods of their country: and David’s country was Bethlehem. But David’s desire, as of a wise-hearted king, tended more to Bethlehem itself than to its water; doubtless he wished his country to be wrested from the hands of the Philistines, and restored to him and to Israel. Furthermore, the three valiant men, hearing this desire of David, to show their fidelity and promptness toward him, without his knowledge and, as soon appeared, against his will, brought him this water through the midst of the enemy.
BUT HE WOULD NOT DRINK, BUT OFFERED IT TO THE LORD,—that by drinking the water he might not seem to drink and draw up the sweat and blood of his heroes, by which it had been procured, and lest he should put into the thirsting soldiers a desire of seeking the same water, but that, himself thirsting, he might teach them to bear thirst with him. Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great did the same, as Curtius witnesses, book 7, who in want of water, and the common thirst of the soldiers, would not drink water offered to him.
“Then,” says Curtius, “the full cup being returned as it was offered. I cannot bear,” he said, “to drink alone, nor can I divide so little among all.” So also Cato says to his soldiers in Lucan, book 9:
Make trial of your dangers by my fate; let whoever sees me drinking thirst.
And a little before:
You to whom one salvation was pleasing, who followed my camp, to die with unbroken neck, compose your minds for the great work of valour, and the highest labours.
Wherefore David here elicited a heroic act not of one, but of many virtues. First, of mortification: for, as Angelomus says, “the water poured out was turned into a sacrifice to the Lord, because he slew his concupiscence by the penalty of his own rebuke.” Secondly, of satisfaction for sins. For, it was lawful for him to drink, if he wished; but because he remembered having done unlawful things, he laudably abstained from lawful ones. And he who before for his guilt had not feared that the blood of dying soldiers should be shed, afterwards, if he drank the water, judged that he had shed even the blood of living soldiers, saying: Shall I drink the blood of these men that went, and the peril of their lives? Thirdly, of good edification and example. For, as Eucherius says: “He overcame nature, so that thirsting he did not drink, and gave an example of himself, by which the whole army might learn to bear thirst.” St. Ambrose adds, Apology of David, chapter 7: “He also trained his subjects to the duty of virtue, that even through dangers the soldiers might willingly obey the royal command. But that he would not drink, he declared that he had commanded for the sake of proving the soldiers, not overcome by the necessity of thirst; and that he had also foreseen that no kings might seek the use of drinking at others’ peril. Finally, he deprecated a wound of conscience pious, because water sought with the blood of so many men could not have the sweetness of drinking, which was bought with the horror of proposed death.”
St. Ambrose assigns the allegorical cause in the same place: “David thirsted,” he says, “not for water from the pool that is in Bethlehem, but he foresaw in spirit Christ to be born of a virgin. He wished, therefore, to drink not the water of a river, but the drink of spiritual grace: that is, he thirsted not for the element of waters, but for the blood of Christ. Finally he did not drink the water offered, but offered it to the Lord, signifying that he thirsted for the sacrifice of Christ, not the stream of nature: that sacrifice in which would be the remission of sins; that he thirsted for that eternal fountain, not one sought at others’ perils, but one that would repel others’ perils.” Eucherius, Bede and Angelomus have the same from Ambrose and transcribed it. Wherefore Methodius, oration on the Hypapante, addresses the Mother of God thus: “Thou art that Bethlehemitic cistern, which as the refresher of life David desired, from which the cup of immortality flowed forth to all!”
18. ABISAI ALSO, THE BROTHER OF JOAB, THE SON OF SARVIA, WAS CHIEF AMONG THREE VALIANT MEN,—of the second grade and order. For in the first order and triad, the first three most valiant were Jesbaam, Eleazar and Semma. To whom no other attained, as follows. Here, then, are described the three valiant men of the second order, next to the first mentioned; the second triad of the valiant, then, was made up of Abisai, Banaias and Jonathan: of Abisai it is certain, 1 Paralipomenon 11:20. For Banaias was mighty in strength as well as counsel, whence he was set over the legions of Cerethi and Phelethi, and was David’s secretary, as is plain from verse 23. Of the third, Jonathan, there is doubt. For Abulensis, Question 26, thinks the third is Asael the brother of Joab, of whom verse 24, for he is placed first there among the thirty, that is, stronger and more excellent than the other thirty valiant men. But Serarius thinks the third is Joiada the father of Banaias: for Joiada, verse 20, is called “a most valiant man.” Others think it is Sobochai of whom chapter 21:18. Others, Joab, from verse 24. Better our Salianus and Sanchez think the third is Jonathan the son of Samaa, David’s brother. For he killed one giant, nay two, as was said in chapter 21, verses 19 and 21, if we believe the Hebrews, who say that Jonathan is the same as Adeodatus; but it is truer that he is different. For Elehanan, that is, Adeodatus, is placed not among the three, but among the thirty valiant men, 1 Paralipomenon 11:26, as also Sobochai in verse 29; wherefore Jonathan alone remains from chapter 21, verse 19, who with Abisai and Banaias makes up the second triad of the valiant, and is therefore different from Jonathan the son of Sage the Ararite, who likewise is numbered among the thirty valiant men in 1 Paralipomenon 11:34. Furthermore, the Hebrews in St. Jerome in the Traditions, Rupert, book 2, chapter 37, and Lyranus think that these three valiant men of the second order are those three who killed three, nay four giants, chapter 21, namely Abisai, Sobochai and Adeodatus or Jonathan; for they think that these last two were not two, but one and the same. For Jonathan in Hebrew is the same as Adeodatus in Latin, which opinion is probable, but the former more probable; for Adeodatus is called in Hebrew Elehanan, not Jonathan, and was the son of Jaare, that is, of the Forest, as is said in chapter 21:19. But Jonathan was the son of Samaa, as is said there.
BUT HE ATTAINED NOT TO THE FIRST THREE.—as if to say: Abisai was not of the first triad of the valiant, but of the second, and in it he was first.
Mystically, David’s three valiant men are his three eminent virtues, namely wisdom, humility and fortitude, which we heard celebrated in verse 8. So Angelomus. Whence Rupert, book 2, chapter 36, expounds “he attained not to the first three” thus, as if to say: “Although Abisai was the more noble among David’s three valiant men, and their chief, yet neither his fortitude could be equalled to David’s fortitude, nor his wisdom to David’s wisdom, nor his humility to David’s humility,” much less can the holiness of the Saints be compared to the holiness of Christ, from whom it flows.
Furthermore, David is not numbered here because he is king; nor Joab, because he is leader of the soldiers and valiant men, though Rupert, book 2, chapter 37, thinks that Joab, though most valiant, is not named because he unjustly killed Abner and Amasa. So also Abulensis.
20. HE (Banaias) SLEW THE TWO LIONS OF MOAB,—for the lions of Moab are stronger and fiercer than the Indian, as are the Punic, as Gesner teaches from Albert and Avicenna, treatise On the Lion, book 1. Hence in the Hebrew these lions are called Ariel, that is, lions of God, that is, great, vast and savage; for the things of God are great. Some understand by the two lions two most valiant leaders, who are called lions of Moab because they brought help to the Moabites when they were attacked by David, 2 Kings 8:2. So the Hebrews in St. Jerome, Josephus, the Gloss, Lyranus, Cajetan.