CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES

2Sa. 5:1. Then, etc. The tenor of the history leads us to hold with Ewald that the recognition of David as king over all Israel occurred immediately after Ishbosheths death, against Sthelin, who thinks that there was an interval of several years after his death, during which all the tribes gradually came over to David. (Erdmann.) Thy bone, etc., i.e., thy blood relations descended from one common ancestor. The alliance of David with the Philistines had raised so painful a suspicion respecting his patriotic attachment to Israel, and his protracted residence within the Philistine territory had led to so widespread a belief that he had become a naturalised Philistine, as to have created powerful obstacles to the universal recognition of his claims to the throne. The people of Israel had, to a large extent, taken up this impression, and acted in opposition to him as a supposed alien. But time, as well as the tenor of Davids administration in Judah, had dispelled their doubts and proved him to their satisfaction to be in heart and soul an Israelite. (Jamieson.)

2Sa. 5:2. Leddest out, etc. Most expositors refer this to Davids military leadership The Lord said (see on 2Sa. 3:17) feed, or, shepherd, i.e., rule them. This is the first time we find a governor described in Scripture as pastor of the people; afterwards the name is much used by the prophets, particularly Eze. 34:23, and in many other places. (Patrick.) The designation is also used in Homer. Captain, rather leader, prince. The first and third grounds answer exactly to the precept in Deu. 17:15, Thou shalt make him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; out of the midst of thy brethren shalt thou make a king over thee. (Erdmann.) A league, etc. The relation of both parties to the Lord is indicated by the phrase before the Lord. (Erdmann.) There was probably gradually established among king and people some recognition of mutual rights and dutiesan unwritten, or, possibly in part, a written law. This would not be out of harmony with the theocratic conception of the government. Philippson points out some apparent indications (as 1 Kings 12) of such a law. (Transr. of Langes Commentary.) See also notes on 1Sa. 10:25. They anointed David. To which the chronicler adds (1Ch. 11:3) according to the word of the Lord by Samuel, an explanatory addition referring to the Lords command to Samuel to anoint David king over Israel. Davids anointing by Samuel is now confirmed by the anointing of the people, they having expressly and solemnly recognised his Divine call to be king over Israel. (Erdmann.)

2Sa. 5:4. Thirty years old. The age of David shows that the events related from 1 Samuel 13 to the end of the book did not occupy above ten yearsfour years in Sauls service, four years of wandering, one year and four months among the Philistines, and a few months after Sauls death. (Biblical Commentary.)

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 5:1-5

DAVID CHOSEN KING OVER ALL ISRAEL

I. Those who prove their right to rule by their conduct will in due time find subjects to maintain their sovereignty. The divine right of kings must be sought and found in what men are and in what they have done or can do. Those who claim to be leaders and rulers of men claim to be Gods vicegerents, and as such must produce their credentialsproofs of intellectual and moral worth. If no man can represent a human monarch without credentials, much more are they to be demanded when a man assumes the headship of a nation or a community and claims authority over it in the name of the King of kings. And those of character and ability are the only ones that will be accepted in the long run, and none but these will command an allegiance worth having. David had to wait long before the whole nation recognised his right to reign, but in all these years of waiting he was adding to his credentials, and by a series of brave and righteous deeds was increasing the strength of his claim to the throne until it became irresistible, and the whole nation was forced to acknowledge that he whom God had chosen to shepherd it was fully worthy of the high honour to which he was called. So it has ever been and will be. Although no prophet is sent to anoint the head of him whom God now calls to similar service, yet every divinely appointed king of men, possessing as he does these qualifications to rule, will in due time be placed upon a throne by willing subjects.

II. The special qualifications demanded by God in a king or ruler. God expresses His idea of the relationship of a king to His people by the use of the word shepherd, and thus entirely removes the office from that of the despot who uses his people for his own selfish ends instead of using his life for their welfare. We learn from the words of Jacob, in Gen. 40:23 sq., what were the duties of an Eastern shepherd, and how stern was the life he ledhow far removed his lot was from one of indolence and self-indulgence. This is the symbol which the Divine King uses when speaking of David, and repeats constantly in the Old Testament writings to show what He demands from those whom He calls to rule. Such a call does not mean exemption from care and toil, but a large increase of such burdens. In His eyes the honour is not in being served, but in rendering service, and the larger sphere and the more elevated position involve heavier duties and larger qualifications. Shepherds of men are expected to be willing to follow the example of the Great Shepherd, who proved Himself the true King of men by giving Himself for the flock. And for this work a special knowledge is also needed. As a man must be possessed of some special knowledge to be a successful shepherd, so a ruler of men must be possessed of special knowledge. Christ is the pre-eminent ruler of men because He knows thembecause He needs not that any should testify of any man whom He is shepherding. (Joh. 2:25; Joh. 10:14). And it behoves him who is called by God to be an under-shepherd to make men in generaland especially those under his carethe objects of his thoughtful study, that he may become acquainted with their dispositions and needs. To do this he must have also a loving sympathy with them. We are none of us strangers to the feeling of regard which often springs up in men towards animals dependent on them, and therefore we can imagine that a faithful shepherd has some affection for his sheep. This is indispensable in human shepherds, for to love men is to understand them, and to love them is to be willing to suffer for them, and will beget love in return in any men worthy of the name. The Great Shepherd had as much love for men as He had knowledge of them, and therefore all kings shall fall down before Him, all nations shall serve Him. (Psa. 72:11). Every elevation in life brings with the honour a due proportion of increased duties and responsibilities, and such an exaltation as that which David experienced was heavily weighted with them.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

2Sa. 5:5. During all this time he was sedulously engaged in completing the discipline of the rough men who had shared his desert fortunes, and preparing them for the higher service on which they were afterwards to enter. Can we imagine a position better adapted for this purpose? For was it not the most sacred place in the whole country? Was it not on that very ground that for more than two centuries their ancestors had guarded their high deposit, maintained the divine testimony, and manifested the divine order of human life? Did not the treasured sepulchre there, upon that hill, which was already ancient and worn, with the passing of eleven centuries over its covered surface, contain their dust?Drew.

Not all at once did David pass from the shepherd life of Bethlehem to the throne of Jerusalem. There was a long, and weary, and trying road to be traversed by him after his anointing by Samuel, before he reached the lofty elevation for which he was designated and consecrated by the prophets oil. He was not cradled in luxury, nor dandled in affluence, but his character was hardened by trial, and his judgment was matured by frequently recurring emergency. From the very first, indeed, he was prudent in matters, but such a history as his could not but stimulate and sharpen his natural abilities. His military genius, which was destined yet to show itself on many a glorious field as he extended his dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the land, had been quickened and developed by his experiences in the long war with the house of Saul; and his knowledge of human nature, an acquirement so needful for one who was to be a ruler of men, had been increased by his dealing with his followers in the hold, and with his enemies in diplomacy; while, best of all, his confidence in God had been strengthened by his manifold trials, in and through which he had been sustained by the divine grace, and out of which he had been delivered by the divine hand. But it is not different yet. Success is not usually a sudden thing, or, if it be so, it is not a whole-some thing. Generally speaking, it is a matter of time, and trial, and diligence, and study. The heat of the conservatory, which brings the flower rapidly to maturity, does also nurse it into weakness, so that its beauty is only short-lived; but the plant that grows in the open air is strengthened while it grows, and is able to withstand even the biting winters cold. Resistance is necessary to the development of power; and the greatest misfortune that can befall a youth is to have no difficulties whatever with which to contend. It is by overmastering obstacles that a mans character is mainly made. Hence, let no one be discouraged who is called in early life to struggle with adversity. He is thereby only making himself for his future life-work. Not in a day, nor in a year, nor in many years, do we reach the throne of our individual power, the sphere of our personal and peculiar labour. We graduate up to it through trial, and each new difficulty surmounted is not only a new step in the ladder upward, but also a new qualification for the work that is before us.
Nor does this principle hold merely of the early part of our earthly life as related to the later. It will be illustrated also in our earthly life as connected with a heavenly. If we be Christs, it is no doubt true that He is preparing a place for each of us; but it is just as true that, through the discipline of our daily difficulties, he is preparing each of us for our own particular place; and the characters we are forming here will find their appropriate employment and development in the work which in heaven will be assigned to us. Thus by the leverage of this principle we lift our earthly lives up to the very level of heaven itself; and every experience we are passing through now becomes a preparation for our eternal royalty at Christs right hand.Taylor.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

5. David Made King Over All Israel, 2Sa. 5:1-15.

David King Over All Israel. 2Sa. 5:1-5

Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.

2 Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.
3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed David king over Israel.
4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.

1.

By whom were the tribes represented at the anointing of David? 2Sa. 5:1

The tribes of Israel were represented at Davids anointing by the elders, the rulers of the tribes. David had previously been anointed by Samuel. At Hebron he had been anointed by the men of Judah.

Now David was anointed the third time. This time he was anointed by all the tribes and peoples of Israel. A fuller account of Davids being made king of Israel may be found in 1Ch. 12:23-40.

David was thirty years old when he began to reign. He reigned seven and one-half years at Hebron. He reigned 33 years at Jerusalem. In all the reign of David over Israel can be counted at forty years.

2.

Why was David anointed again? 2Sa. 5:3

Davids anointing at Hebron by the elders of Israel was the third time that he had been anointed. He was anointed secretly first, by Samuel (1Sa. 16:1 ff.). He was anointed over the tribe of Judah only soon after the death of Saul (2Sa. 2:4). The third anointing was performed by all the tribes and leaders of the people of Israel. A fuller account of Davids becoming king over Israel may be found in 1Ch. 12:23-40.

3.

What was the length of Davids reign? 2Sa. 5:5

David was thirty years old when he began to reign. He reigned seven and one-half years at Hebron over Judah only. He reigned thirty-three years over all the tribes of Israel. In all his reign was forty and one-half years. Reference is generally made to its being forty years in length, without counting the half year in addition. This was a joyous occasion for the chosen people of God. They came before David with a perfect heart, indicating that there was none to oppose this move. The people brought bread on asses, camels, and mules, an indication of the festivities connected with the occasion. This was the beginning of a glorious period in Israels history.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) All the tribes.Not only as represented by their elders (2Sa. 5:3), but by the large bodies of their warriors enumerated in 1Ch. 12:23-40. It is to be noticed, then, that the children of Judah (1Ch. 12:24), over whom David was already king, joined in the assembly, and that there were 4,600 Levites with Jehoiada as the leader of the priestly family of Aaron, while Zadok appears only as a conspicuous member of that family (1Ch. 12:27-28).

Thy bone and thy flesh.The Israelites, oppressed by the Philistines and their other enemies, and having seen the utter failure of the house of Saul and the death of their head, Abner, felt the necessity of union under a competent leader, and it is probable that this gathering to David, already prepared for by the negotiations of Abner, took place immediately after the death of Ish-bosheth. They assign three reasons for their action: (1) that they were of the same flesh and bone with David (comp. Gen. 29:14; Jdg. 9:2; 2Sa. 19:12)i.e., were of such common descent that it was unfitting for them to constitute separate nations; (2) that David, even in Sauls reign, had been their military leader, and hence they knew him and had confidence in his prowess and sagacity; (3) that the Lord had chosen him for their king. The exact language of the Divine promise quoted is not found in the record, but is either (as in the case of Abners words, 2Sa. 3:18) a summary of the communications made to David, or else some unrecorded language of one of the prophets.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

DAVID MADE KING OVER ALL ISRAEL, 2Sa 5:1-5.

1. Then came all the tribes The elders, as representatives of all the tribes. 2Sa 5:3. In accordance with the note on 2Sa 2:10, we hold that David was not recognised as king by all Israel immediately after the death of Ishbosheth. The connective ( , then,) with which this chapter begins, does not always imply immediate sequence, (Exo 2:2,) but may pass over an interval of years whose history it was not the purpose of the writer to record. If all the Israelites were confounded at the assassination of Abner, (iv, 1,) the alarm and astonishment were not likely to grow less with the similar death of Saul’s son, and it is every way probable that several years were allowed to pass before all the tribes agreed to submit to David.

Thy bone and thy flesh Thy blood relations, for we are all descended from Jacob, our common father.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

David Is At Last Anointed As King Over All Israel ( 2Sa 5:1-5 ).

This section began in 2Sa 2:1 onwards with David being anointed as king over Judah, and it now ends with David being anointed as king over all Israel. In all that went in between YHWH had been preserving David for this moment. And the important thing was that it was achieved without causing disharmony and bitterness. The whole of Israel were as one in wanting him as king.

Note the threefold reasons why they considered that David was a reasonable candidate for kingship:

1) He was a true-born Israelite (2Sa 2:1).

2) He had been a victorious war-leader as he had led them out and in (2Sa 2:2 a).

3) Above all YHWH had chosen him to be shepherd of His people (2Sa 2:2 b).

In other words he had the three important credentials. He was true-born, he was a successful war-leader, and he had been chosen by YHWH. The last, of course, crowned the other two.

Analysis.

a Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron, and spoke, saying, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh” (2Sa 5:1).

b “In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel” (2Sa 5:2 a).

b And YHWH said to you, “You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel” (2Sa 5:2 b).

a So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron, and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before YHWH, and they anointed David king over Israel. David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah (2Sa 5:3-5).

In ‘a’ all the tribes of Israel came to David recognising that he was one of them, a true Israelite, and in the parallel all the tribes of Israel come to make him king. In ‘b’ he was the war-leader who had led Israel out (to battle) and had brought them in, and in the parallel YHWH had established him to be the shepherd of His people.

2Sa 5:1

‘ Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron, and spoke, saying, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh.’

All the tribes then came to David at Hebron, possibly in the person of their elders (2Sa 5:3), although it could have been by the calling of a general assembly of the adult menfolk, although that would have drawn the unwelcome attention of the Philistines. And their first emphasis was on the fact that he was a true-born Israelite (Deu 17:15). He was of the same make-up as they were. This was certainly better than having a foreign king over them, and was in accordance Deu 17:15..

2Sa 5:2

‘ In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel, and YHWH said to you, “You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel.” ’

The next thing that they had brought to mind was how, when he was younger and Saul had been king, he had successfully and charismatically led them out against the Philistines. Thus he had demonstrated that he had the wherewithal to be a successful war-leader. But most important of all was that he had been sealed by YHWH.

Once again we are informed of a prophetic pronouncement which we have not come across previously. We are told that YHWH had said to him, “You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince (nagid=war-leader) over Israel.” The idea of the king as a shepherd was commonplace in the Ancient Near East, and was added to here by the fact that David had been a competent shepherd. To be nagid over Israel was to be YHWH’s deputy. YHWH was king, his representative was a nagid. This term had been used by Samuel of Saul (1Sa 9:16; 1Sa 10:1), and is later initially used of Solomon (1Ki 1:35). Such prophecies as this are required in order to explain why both Saul and Jonathan were so certain that David would one day be king.

2Sa 5:3

‘ So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron, and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before YHWH, and they anointed David king over Israel.’

The result was that the elders of Israel came to Hebron in order to make him king. We note that the kingship was not absolute. The terms were laid down in a covenant, the main requirements of which would be to serve YHWH faithfully and to act as their war-leader whenever the need arose. Then they anointed him as king. We note that while Ish-bosheth would also almost certainly have been anointed, there is no mention of such a thing for him, whereas in the case of David it is mentioned both times that he receives a kingship. This was because in the eyes of the writer he was the true anointed one of Israel (1Sa 2:10; 1Sa 16:13).

2Sa 5:4-5

‘ David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.’

We are then given the statistics of David and his reign as we had been previously with Ish-bosheth (2Sa 2:10), and will be in the case of future kings. He was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned for forty years. The forty years is then divided up into seven and a half years over Judah in Hebron and thirty three years over all Israel and Judah in Jerusalem. We should note how Israel and Judah are now seen as two separate groupings. This process had been going on ever since Judah had, along with Simeon, settled the southern part of the land, while Ephraim and the other tribes had settled the north. Until the rise of the Philistine empire each had had different enemies to contend with. And as neither Judah nor Ephraim would yield precedence to the other the result was that once strong kingship ceased the division would almost be inevitable.

David’s age when he began to reign (‘thirty years old’) is the same age at which the priests and Levites were seen as fully matured enough to take up full service with regard to the Tabernacle (Num 4:3; Num 4:23, etc). Interestingly it is the same age as that at which Jesus Christ Himself commenced His ministry (Luk 3:23). It contains the hint therefore that David was now seen as mature enough to act in the name of YHWH.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2Sa 5:5  In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.

2Sa 5:5 Comments – The reason why David changed cities is that he was the king of Judah in Hebron, but he was the king of Israel in Jerusalem.

2Sa 5:6  And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.

2Sa 5:6 Comments – Note that Jerusalem was near the border of Judah and the northern tribes. Therefore, it was an ideal location from which to rule all of Israel.

2Sa 5:17-25 David’s Campaign Against the Philistines 2Sa 5:17-25 describes the war that David had with the Philistines, a war which essentially subdued them under the hand of the nation of Israel. Many scholars suggest that the events recorded in the previous passage of 2Sa 5:6-10 take place after this war with the Philistines, believing the Philistines fought with David immediately after he took the leadership over the northern tribes of Israel. [44] Thus, it is possible that 2Sa 5:17-25 reaches back chronologically in order expand upon David’s new kingship by reflecting upon his victory over the Philistines after the previous passage of Scripture gives a brief summary of his rise to power.

[44] A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 11, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on “ 2 Sam 5:17-25.”

2Sa 5:17 But when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines came up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down to the hold.

2Sa 5:17 “But when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines came up to seek” – Comments – The Philistines seem to have initially accepted David as a leader in Hebron, understanding him to be their vassal with a small, ineffective cohort of men. This is possible from the fact that he offered to fight alongside the Philistines against Saul (1Sa 29:1-11). Once his power and influence expanded over all Israel, they interpreted this as a “declaration of independence.” [45] They decided it was time to subdue him, and the sooner the better; for the longer they waited, the stronger Israel might become. However, they underestimated David’s power and will be defeated by him.

[45] John Bright, A History of Israel, 3 rd edition (Philadlephia: Westminster Press, 1981), 198.

2Sa 5:18 The Philistines also came and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim.

2Sa 5:18 Comments – Bright understands 2Sa 5:18 to mean that the Philistines apparently decided to position themselves near the city of Jerusalem, now David’s stronghold, gathering just south of it in the valley of Rephaim in an effort to cut David off from the northern tribes of Israel. [46] The “Valley of Rephaim” is mentioned earlier in Jos 15:8, which according to ISBE, it is located to the southwest of Jerusalem. [47] Thus, most scholars associate it with this general location.

[46] John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd edition (Philadlephia: Westminster Press, 1981), 198.

[47] H. Porter, “Rephaim,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).

Jos 15:8, “And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward:”

2Sa 5:19 And David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? wilt thou deliver them into mine hand? And the LORD said unto David, Go up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into thine hand.

2Sa 5:19 “And David enquired of the LORD” – Comments – Anderson says David would have enquired of the Lord by either casting the lots or by using the ephod. [48] We know that Abiathar brought an ephod to David when he joined his band of men (1Sa 23:6). Afterwards, the Scriptures mention David using it to inquire of the Lord (1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7 , 2Sa 6:14, 1Ch 15:27). He was the only king to do so because He was a type and figure of the Messiah who would be King and Priest unto God.

[48] A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 11, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on 2 Samuel 5:19.

1Sa 23:6, “And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.”

1Sa 23:9, “And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod.”

1Sa 30:7, “And David said to Abiathar the priest, Ahimelech’s son, I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David.”

2Sa 6:14, “And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.”

1Ch 15:27, “And David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, and all the Levites that bare the ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah the master of the song with the singers: David also had upon him an ephod of linen.”

2Sa 5:20  And David came to Baalperazim, and David smote them there, and said, The LORD hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me, as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baalperazim.

2Sa 5:20 “Therefore he called the name of that place Baalperazim” Comments – PTW says the Hebrew name “Baalperazim” means, “lord of breaches.” Anderson says it probably refers to Mount Perazim mentioned in Isa 28:21, but is otherwise an unknown location near the Valley of Rephiam. [49]

[49] A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 11, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on 2 Samuel 5:20.

Isa 28:21, “For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.”

2Sa 5:24  And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself: for then shall the LORD go out before thee, to smite the host of the Philistines.

2Sa 5:24 “the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees” – Comments – This was the sound of the marching of angels, who were going before David and his men to fight (Note Psa 35:6). My mother and by brother have both had visions and seen the marching of heavenly angels.

Psa 35:6, “Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the LORD persecute them.”

Note other times that the angels of the Lord fought for God’s people:

2Ki 6:17, “And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.”

2Ki 7:6, “For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.”

2Sa 5:25 And David did so, as the LORD had commanded him; and smote the Philistines from Geba until thou come to Gazer.

2Sa 5:25 Comments – Bright believes 2Sa 5:25 says David did not end his defensive battles this first day against the Philistines, but turned to the offensive and entered the territories of the Philistines over a period of time in order to thoroughly subdue them. [50] Also, in 2Sa 21:15-22 David and his men would later fight the Philistines again, this time killing the brothers of Goliath.

[50] John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd edition (Philadlephia: Westminster Press, 1981), 198-199.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

David Anointed King over all Israel

v. 1. Then, after the death of both Abner and Ishbosheth, came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh, they were all kinsmen of blood by descent from a common ancestor, David not being a foreign usurper, a stranger coming into the country from elsewhere.

v. 2. Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel, 1Sa 18:13-16, he had been the most trusted leader in their military campaigns; and the Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed My people Israel, like a shepherd taking the most tender care of the sheep entrusted to him, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel, their prince in defending them from their enemies. This was the last and strongest ground for their proposal, the Lord’s immediate call, as based upon the word of God to Samuel, 1Sa 15:28; for the prophets of Naioth in Ramah undoubtedly made this fact known. Note that the king’s function as shepherd of the people is mentioned first, a hint for the rulers of all times.

v. 3. So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron, as the representatives of the tribes; and King David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord, a covenant in the presence of God, David accepting their promise of obedience and assuring them of a just and merciful reign. And they anointed David king over Israel, the anointing by Samuel, 1 Samuel 16, l. 12, being now confirmed by that of the entire people.

v. 4. David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

v. 5. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah. Cf 1Ch 29:27. After the long years of suffering, privations, and persecutions, David now enjoyed the fulfillment of God’s promise to him. In the midst of all tribulations and afflictions the believers still look up to God, knowing that they mill yet bless Him who is the help of their countenance and their God.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

2Sa 5:1

Then came all the tribes of Israel. As Ishbosheth reigned only two years, and David’s reign at Hebron lasted for seven years and a half, there is an interval of more than five years to be accounted for; and we have given reason for believing (see note on 2Sa 2:10) that it must be placed after the death of Ishbosheth. The treacherous murder of Abner, and the tragic fate of Ishbosheth following upon it so rapidly, must have filled all Israel with horror, and made them look upon David as “a bloody man” (2Sa 16:8). But gradually his innocence became clear to all except inveterate partisans, and as the prejudice against him passed away, the evident advantage of union under so able a ruler would force itself upon their attention, and their decision would be hastened by the advantage which the Philistines would be sure to take of their anarchy. How much they had profited by it we gather from the haste with which they endeavoured to crush David’s kingdom. The enormous gathering at Hebron to anoint David king proves not merely the unanimity of the tribes, but that his election was the result of long preparation and arrangement. We have fuller details of it in 1Ch 12:23-40, where we learn that the people assembled in large numbers, the total being computed in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary’ at 348,222; and it is remarkable that of this vast array only sixteen thousand nine hundred came from the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, which were situated in the neighbourhood of Hebron. On the other hand, the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes sent no less than a hundred.and twenty thousand men, and the three unimportant tribes of Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali mustered a hundred and eighteen thousand; while Issachar was content to send only two hundred, who were all, however, “men that had understanding and their brethren were at their commandment.” These words suggest the probable explanation of the disparity in the numbers, which to many seems so strange that they think they must be corrupt. Each tribe settled for itself in what way it would be represented, and the more distant sent a large proportion of their men of military age on what would be an enjoyable holiday. As they spent three days at Hebron, the expedition would occupy, even for those most remote, little more than a week; and it was well worth the while of the tribes thus to come together. It made them feel the value of unity, and gave them a knowledge of their strength. Their tribal independence during the time of the judges had made them too weak even to maintain their liberty; but now, welded by the kingly power into a nation, they soon, not only won freedom for themselves, but placed their yoke upon the shoulders of their neighbours. As for the difficulty of supplying them with food, all would bring victuals from home; and the neighbouring tribes showed great hospitality. Especially we read that those who were nigh unto Hebron, “even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, victual of meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep in abundance: for there was joy in Israel” (1Ch 12:40). It was a grand national festival, joyously kept because the people saw in the election of David an end to all their troubles; and so vast a gathering overbore all opposition, and gave both to them and their king the consciousness of their might. But while we find in the Book of Chronicles the account of this mighty multitude, it is here (1Ch 12:3) expressly said that it was the elders who made a league with David, and anointed him king. The people by their presence testified their joyful assent to what was done; but David’s election was made legitimate by the decision of the constituted authorities in each tribe. It would be most interesting to know the various steps taken, and how the agitation grew and spread from tribe to tribe, until all hesitation and resistance were overcome. But the object of this book is to show us the great qualities, the sin, the repentance, and the punishment of the man who added to the old routine of sacrifice bright services of song, and who was the author of that book of devotion which to this day best expresses the feelings of the heart, as well in the joys as in the sorrows of life. The manner of his election throws no light upon his character, and is passed over. Enough to know that in those five years after Ishbosheth’s murder David won the approval of all Israel, and that his appointment to the kingdom was by the free choice of the tribes, acting in a legitimate manner, and sending each their elders to Hebron to notify to David their consent; and that their decision was ratified by this joyful gathering of a mighty multitude from all parts of the land. Three reasons are given by the elders for David’s election, and we may be sure that they represent the arguments used in their popular assemblies. The first, that they were David’s bone and flesh. In other words, the tribes were all of one race, and united by the closest ties of relationship. For the descendants of a common ancestor to be at war with one another was both morally and politically wrong. The second, that David had been their actual leader in war even in Saul’s time. His personal qualities, therefore, justified their choice of him to be their deliverer from the evils which had overwhelmed the land after the disastrous defeat at Gilboa, when Saul had no longer the aid of David’s presence. The third, that Jehovah had by the mouth of his prophet given the throne to David. It is remarkable that the elders place this last. Their view probably was that the Divine command must be proved by outward circumstances, that so reason might confirm faith. So Saul’s public appointment by Samuel was ratified by the people only after he had shown himself worthy to be a king by the defeat of the Ammonites.

2Sa 5:2

Thou shalt feed. In biblical language the pastoral office is that of the civil and not of the spiritual ruler. Captain; Hebrew, nagid, prince; so the Revised Version (and see note on 1Sa 9:16). The word refers not to military matters, but to the civil administration. David had proved himself a competent leader in war when Saul was king. What Jehovah now gives is the government of Israel in time of peace. The Authorized Version renders “captain” from not perceiving that the Divine promise ensured to David far more than a military chieftainship.

2Sa 5:3

A league. The early kings of Israel were not invested with despotic power. Thus, on Saul’s appointment, “Samuel wrote in a book the manner of the kingdom”. The revolt against Rehoboam was the result of the too great extension of the royal power in the days of Solomon (1Ki 12:4). Though subsequently the kings seemed to have retained their supremacy, yet when the good and patriotic Jehoiada restored the family of David to the throne, he reverted to the old ways, and “made a covenant between the king and the people” (2Ki 11:17). Besides personal rights, the tribes, accustomed to their own leaders, and unused to yield obedience to a central authority, would certainly stipulate for a large measure of tribal independence, and the management of local matters by themselves. They anointed David king. This was the public ratification of Samuel’s anointing, and by it David became de facto, as well as de jure, king. The prophets could not give any right over the people without the consent of the people themselves. But all religious men would see in the Divine command an obligation upon their conscience to accept as their king the man whom the prophet had anointed; and Saul acted in an irreligious manner in seeking to frustrate God’s will. And this impiety culminated in his murder of the priests at Nob, which was the open avowal that he would trample all scruples of conscience underfoot.

2Sa 5:4

David was thirty years old. As David was probably about eighteen or nineteen years of age at the time of his combat with Goliath, the events recorded in 1 Samuel 17-31, must have occupied about ten or eleven years.

2Sa 5:6

The king and his men went to Jerusalem. This expedition took place immediately after David’s coronation, and probably he was moved to it by the presence of so large a number of the warriors of Israel. He had long foreseen the arrival of the time when he would be king of all the tribes, and must have debated in his mind the problem of his future capital. He could not remain in Hebron, as it was too far to the south, nor would haughty tribes such as Ephraim have consented to be merged into Judah. On the other hand, he could not move far away, as Judah was his main strength. But living in its neighbourhood, he must often have noticed the remarkable position of the city of Jebus, and admired its rock girt strength (Psa 48:2). Though the Jebusites had been conquered by Joshua (Jos 11:3), and Jerusalem captured (Jdg 1:8), yet, as the children of Judah did not occupy it, but “set the city on fire,” it seems to have been soon repeopled by its old inhabitants, who there maintained their independence, and, owing to the impregnable nature of its site, could not be treated as Saul treated the Gibeonite inhabitants of Beeroth. Even subsequently, the Jebusite chief who possessed what probably was Mount Moriah, still bore the titular rank of king; for the words in Jos 24:23 literally are, “All this did Araunah the king give unto the king.” The explanation of this long independence of the Jebusites is to be found not only in the feebleness of the tribes during the troubled times of the judges, but even mere in the conformation of the site of their stronghold. Jerusalem is situated on the edge of the precipitous wall which forms the western boundary of the valley of the Jordan, and occupies a promontory, on three sides of which are ravines so abrupt and steep that, were it not for their vast depth, they might seem to have been the work of man. On the north side alone it is open to attack, but even there, when the besieger has obtained an entrance, he finds the city divided by another ravine into two parts; whereof the western portion contains the strong citadel of Mount Zion, while the eastern and smaller portion contains the less elevated mountain of Moriah. Though actually raised above the sea level several hundred feet less than Hebron, it seems to the eye more emphatically a mountain-city; and being well nigh encircled by the valleys of Ben-Hinnom and Jehoshaphat, it seems to sit enthroned above the Jordan valley, compared with which it enjoys a cool and refreshing climate. To its inhabitants it was “beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth” (Psa 48:2, Revised Version); to the exiles it was “the city of God,” to which their hearts ever turned; to us Christians it is the type of Christ’s Church on earth, and of his kingdom in heaven. It was an act worthy of David’s genius to foresee the great future of the place, and to inaugurate his kingdom by its capture. We gather from Eze 16:45 that at the time when the Hittites were the dominant race in Syria, Jerusalem was one of their fortresses. The name is a dual, literally Yerushalaim, and probably the town was so called because it consisted of two partsthe upper and the lower city. Shalaim means the “two Salems,” thus carrying our minds back to the city of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18). In Psa 76:2 Salem is apparently contrasted with Zion, and so would be the lower town, containing Mount Moriah. Of the other part of the word, Yeru, numerous derivations are given, of which the only probable one is that which connects it with “Yehovah-yireh””God will see to it,” the name given to the spot where Abraham on this mountain offered a vicarious sacrifice for his son. We must, however, bear in mind that towns retain the names which they bore in primitive times, and that the name of a Hittite fortress belongs probably to the language of that people. Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither. These words have been a sore puzzle to commentators, and many strange explanations have been given. Rashi says that the blind meant Isaac, and the lame Jacob, and that the words referred to an old compact by which Abraham gave Jerusalem to the Jebusites, and that Isaac and Jacob had confirmed this agreement. Unless, then, David was prepared to violate this covenant, he must abstain from the attack. We get no help from 1Ch 11:5, as the words are there omitted, probably because they were not supposed to have any important meaning. The Orientals delighted in dark sayings, and possibly there was here some local reference which the people of Jerusalem would understand, but which is lost for us. But evidently it was a boastful defiance, and may mean that the Jebusites pretended that it would be enough to post only their feeblest men, the blind and the lame, for defense, and that David would try in vain to break through them. Thinking; Hebrew, to say; answering to our phrase “that is” It should be translated, “meaning.”

2Sa 5:7

The stronghold of Zion: the same is the city of David. Zion was the hill on the southwestern side of the city; but we learn from 2Sa 5:9 that the Jebusites had not occupied the whole of it, but a part only, which was their stronghold, round which there would be scattered dwellings, as the whole tribe dwelt there. The total area of the hill top was about sixty acres, and it was now quickly covered with houses, and called “the city of David,” after its captor. The view of Dr. Birch and others, that the stronghold of Zion was Ophel, is rendered untenable by the fact that this southern tongue of Mount Moriah is completely commanded by other parts of the hill. According to Gesenius, Zion means “sunny;” others render it “the dry hill;” others, “lofty;” and Furst, “the castle.” None of these derivations is of any real value, as the word is probably Hittite.

2Sa 5:8

Whosoever getteth up to the gutter. The word rendered “gutter” occurs elsewhere only in Psa 42:7, where it is translated “waterspout.” Josephus thinks that it was an underground passage or drain. Ewald argues that it was a precipice, and others that it was a dent or hollow in the rocky face of the ravine, which David had noticed and thought practicable. The view of Josephus, suggested to him probably by his knowledge of the way in which the site of Jerusalem is honeycombed by tunnels, has been wonderfully confirmed by the discoveries made by Sir C. Warren. At the northern end of the Pool of Siloam he found an arched passage gradually narrowing down from a considerable height, till finally there was a passage of only fourteen inches, and as there was a depth of ten inches of water, there were left but four inches of space for breathing. But through this his men struggled, and, at the end of four hours’ labour, they reached the light of day at the spring called the Virgin’s Fount. Beginning here on a subsequent day, they went along a passage sixty-seven feet in length, and came to a perpendicular shaft leading up through the solid stone of the hill; and, having scaled this, they next came upon a sloping passage, which finally conducted them to a spot on the hill of Ophel within the fortifications. Now, there are reasons for believing that this passage is older than the wall built by Solomon, and through it, or some such tunnel, Joab and a few men may have worked their way, and so have effected an entrance into the city, which otherwise was impregnable. It was probably the entrance near the Virgin’s Fountain which they had observed, and David’s words mean, “Whoever will undertake this dangerous enterprise, let him try this underground passage, and when he has entered the fortifications by its means, let him smite the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul,” because of the beast of the Jebusites, that their cripples were a match for his heroes. It must be noticed, however, that the K’tib, or written text, has “who hate David’s soul;” and as this is what the Jewish Massorites found in the manuscripts, it has more authority than their correction. These Jebusites had probably, in their boastful insult, spoken of David with contempt, and even said, like Goliath, that they would give his flesh to the vultures (1Sa 17:44). We learn from 1Ch 11:6 that David promised the office of commander of the host to the man who undertook this exploit; and when Joab had volunteered and succeeded, he regained thereby the post which he had forfeited by the murder of Abner. The blind and the lame shall not some into the house. The proverb is one of contempt for these poor cripples, and forbids the exercise of hospitality to them. Such people, if they took to mendicancy, were to meet with refusal, though at their own homes they were fit objects of charity. This way of describing tramps as “the blind and lame” arose, we are here told, from this Jebusite taunt.

2Sa 5:9

David dwelt in the fort. It was the stronghold or citadel of Zion which David took for his abode; but as he needed space for the dwellings of his mighty men, and for those who would soon flock for trade and security to the capital, David proceeded to fortify the whole of the summit. His works began from “the Millo,” rendered “the citadel” by the LXX. Many, deriving the name from a Hebrew root signifying to fill, think that it was a mound, but Nature had herself supplied fit heights for defence, and it is evident that the place was called “the Millo” when David captured the city. We find “Beth-Millo” also in Jdg 9:6, Jdg 9:20, where it signifies those who held the citadel of Shechem; and this Mills at Jerusalem was without doubt the old Jebusite keep, and the explanation of its name must be sought in the Jebusite language. As it formed one of the strongest defences of the city, it was rebuilt by Solomon (1Ki 9:24; 1Ki 11:27), and repaired by Hezekiah (2Ch 32:5) in preparation for the Assyrian attack. Probably it stood at a corner, whence the phrase, “round about from the Millo and inward,” or, as it is expressed in 1Ch 11:8, “from the Millo inward,” that is, starting from. the Millo, the walls enclosed the space behind it. In the parallel place (1Ch 11:8) we find an interesting addition to the narrative, namely, that “Joab repaired the rest of the city.” It appears from this that the Jebusites had occupied a good deal of the ground with their habitations, though probably the number of the tribe was not great; or possibly there remained old buildings which were the remains of the Hittite city, and which, being of massive construction, were easily made fit once again for human habitation. We see also proof of Joab’s great ability in peace as well as in war. He it was who had captured the stronghold, and it was now his office to arrange the streets and plan of the city, and to assign dwellings to David’s mighty men. This would be a work sure to cause jealousy and heart burnings, and no one but Joab, their old commander, could have satisfied them. We find that he assigned to one of them, Uriah the Hittite, a space of ground for a dwelling close to the royal palace. We may suppose, then, that David was now fully reconciled to the “hard sons of Zeruiah” (2Sa 3:39), and in the stern wars which followed David’s election, he needed and had the full benefit of their vigour and ability.

2Sa 5:10

David went on, and grew great. This is the Hebrew phrase for “David grew greater and greater.” In this and the six following verses (10-16) we have a summary of David’s reign, telling us how he increased in prosperity because of the blessing of “Jehovah God of hosts.” The birth of Solomon even is recorded in it, though it took place long afterwards. The insertion in this summary of Hiram’s acknowledgment of David proves that this event made a great impression upon the minds of the people.

2Sa 5:11

Hiram King of Tyre. At first sight it seems as if the Hiram who so greatly aided Solomon in the building of the temple was the same person as David’s friend (1Ki 5:10; 2Ch 2:3), but this identification is disproved by the express statement in 2Ch 2:13, and by the chronology. For granting that this account of Hiram’s embassy occurs in a general summary, yet David would not long defer the erection of a palace, and in the history of Bathsheba we find, as a matter of fact, that it was then already built (2Sa 11:2). But as Solomon was grown to manhood at his father’s death, David’s sin must have been committed not more than nine or ten years after he became king of all Israel. Now, we are told by Josephus (‘Contr. Apion,’ 1.18), on the authority of Menander of Ephesus, that Hiram reigned in all thirty years. But in 1Ki 9:10-13 we have an account of a transaction with Hiram in Solomon’s twentieth year. In another place (‘Ant.,’ 8.3. 1) Josephus tells us that Hiram had been King of Tyre eleven years when Solomon, in the fourth year of his reign, began the building of the temple. He would thus have been a contemporary of David for only the last seven or eight years of his reign. But the history of this embassy is given as a proof of David’s establishment in his kingdom, and cannot therefore be referred to so late a period in his lifetime, when it would have lost its interest. The improbability of two successive kings having the same name is not, after all, so very great, especially as we do not know what the word Hiram, or Haram, exactly means. Nor is Menander’s statement conclusive against it, where he says that Hiram’s father was named Abibal”Baal is my father.” This would probably be an official name, borne by Hiram as the defender of the national religion, or as a priest king. There is, therefore, no real reason for rejecting the statement in 2Ch 2:13 that Hiram, or as he is there called Huram, David’s friend, was the father of the Huram who was Solomon’s ally. Cedar trees. Cedar wood was greatly valued both for its fragrance and durability, owing to the resin which it contains preserving it from the attacks of insects. Its colour also is soft and pleasing to the eye, as may be seen in the Jerusalem Chamber in Westminster Abbey, the panels of which are of cedar. It did not grow in the Antilibanus, or eastern part of Lebanon, which belonged to Israel, but only in the western part, which belonged to Tyre. Cedar from the time of David became the favourite material at Jerusalem for the interior of houses (Jer 22:14), and Isaiah charges the people of Samaria with pride for not being content with the native sycomores which had satisfied their fathers, but substituting for it this costly foreign timber (Isa 9:10). Carpenters and masons. The necessity of importing “workers of wood, and workers of stone for walls,” as the words literally mean, proves how miserable was the social state of Israel in David’s time. Though they had been slaves in Egypt, yet at the Exodus the Israelites had men capable of working in the precious metals and jewelry, in weaving and embroidery, in wood carving, and even in the cutting of gems (Exo 35:30-35). During the long anarchy of the judges they had degenerated into a race of agricultural drudges, whom the Philistines had debarred from the use of even the simplest tools (1Sa 13:19). Possibly in Saul’s time there was a faint restoration of the arts of civilized life (2Sa 1:24); but when we find Joab killing Absalom, not with darts, but with pointed stakes (2Sa 18:14), the weapons probably of most of the foot soldiers, we see that not much had been done even then in metallurgy; and here earlier in his reign David has to send to Tyre for men who could saw a plank or build a wall. When, then, we call to mind the high state of culture and the magnificence of Solomon’s reign, we can form some idea of the vigour with which David raised his subjects from a state of semi-barbarism.

2Sa 5:12

And David perceived. We may well believe that David had many seasons of despondency and misgiving after he became king. His subjects were brave and energetic, but turbulent, unwilling to obey, and but half-civilized. His election had put an end to civil war at home, but only to arouse the hatred of the enemies who had long oppressed them. The tragical fate, too, of Saul, who, after so many heroic struggles, had seen the earlier glories of his reign fade away, and had sought deliverance from his misery by suicide; all this must have often depressed his spirits. But gradually his fears passed away; and when he had twice defeated the Philistines, and been able to establish his rule, and with it some degree of orderly government throughout the twelve tribes, David saw in all this, and in the embassies from foreign nations, the proof, not of his own ability, but of Jehovah’s purpose to exalt his kingdom for his people Israel’s sake. In this David was still a man after God’s own heart, in that he felt himself to be only an instrument for the doing, not his own will, but the purpose of his Divine Master.

2Sa 5:13

David took him more concubines. Thus with increase of power came also the increased gratification of David’s weakness and sin. Well for him would it have been if, like Saul, he had been content with one wife. But this enlargement of his harem was gradual, and the list includes all the sons born at Jerusalem. Of these four, namely, Shammuah, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. were his children by Bathsheba (see 1Ch 3:5, where the names are differently spelt). Besides a variation in the spelling, two sons are mentioned in Chronicles, Nogah and an earlier Eliphelet, whose names are not given here, perhaps because they died young. From 1Ch 3:9 we learn that only the names of the sons of wives are given in these tables.

2Sa 5:17

But when the Philistines heard. After the battle of Gilboa the Philistines became the virtual rulers of much of the country west of the Jordan, and probably even David and Judah paid them tribute. On its eastern bank, though Abner kept them from molesting Ishbosheth’s kingdom, yet the rule of Saul’s house in Ephraim and Benjamin must have been nominal only, and the Philistines would have seen him with pleasure wasting his strength in civil war. After Ishbosheth’s death they had tightened their grasp over the central districts of Palestine, though probably content with exacting tribute. They must now have seen with displeasure the consolidation of the tribes under one able ruler. Even in their divided state, the natural strength of the country and the bravery of the people had made it a task too great for the Philistine power entirely to crush Israel’s independence. But if they could destroy David before he had had time to establish himself in his kingdom, they would at least prolong indefinitely that feebleness of Israel which had made it so long subject to their dominion. Of this supremacy the Philistines have handed down a token forever in giving to the whole country the name of Palestine, the Philistines’ land. David went down to the hold. Many commentators identify the hold with the cave of Adullam, and certainly the account of the brave deed of three of David’s heroes, in breaking through the Philistine garrison of Bethlehem to bring him water thence, gives great probability to this view. For we read there that “the Philistines were encamped in the valley of Rephaim, and that David was then in the hold” (2Sa 23:13,2Sa 23:14, where note that the word “hold” has the definite article). There are, however, many difficulties connected with this view; for the cave of Adullam was in the valley of Elah, on the road from Hebron to Philistia (1Sa 22:1), but the valley of Rephaim is close to Jerusalem (Jos 15:8), abutting, in fact, upon the valley of Ben-Hinnom. Baal-Perazim also is in the same neighbourhood, being the rocky height which forms the border of Ben-Hinnom, and bounds the valley of Rephaim on the north. Still, the passage in 2Sa 23:13, 2Sa 23:14 seems too precise to be lightly set aside, and we must suppose, therefore, that the Philistines, alarmed by the gathering of half a million of men and women at Hebron, sent messengers throughout their country to assemble their warriors. It was the weakness of ancient warfare that its vast hosts of people melted away as rapidly as they had gathered. For provisions were soon spent, and the men had to return to their farms and their cattle. Thus David, having used some of that large concourse of strong men for the capture of Jerusalem, was left immediately afterwards with no other protection than that of his “mighty men.” Saul had endeavoured to have always round him three thousand trained men (1Sa 13:2), and David subsequently had probably quite as many (2Sa 15:18); but at this early stage he had probably not many more than he had brought with him from Ziklag to Hebron. He could not, therefore, make head against the Philistines coming with all the militia of their land; but, leaving his wives and the wives of his mighty men in the Jebusite stronghold of Jerusalem, we may well believe that he sped away to gather the warriors of Israel. But what seems strange is that he should have gone to the rear of the Philistines, especially as they had come in such vast numbers as to occupy the whole countrya garrison, for instance, being posted at Bethlehem, and doubtless at other fit spots. Still, this country was well known to David, and he could gather there old friends, whose bravery he had often tried before. And while thus waiting for the mustering of such as God would move to help him, in deep distress at so terrible a reversal following so quickly upon his exaltation, a strange longing for water from the well of his native town seized him. He was suffering apparently from fever of body as well as from distress of mind, and soon there was relief from both. For three of his heroes heard the words burst from his parched lips, and, hastening to Bethlehem, broke through the Philistine garrison, and filled a waterskin from the well at the gate of the city. Such an act naturally made a great impression upon David. What room was there for despair when he had such men around him? Pouring out, then, the water as a drink offering to Jehovah, his heart was now filled with hope, and inquiring of the Lord whether he might attack the Philistines, he received the assurance which he had already gathered from the exploit of his heroes, that God would deliver them into his hand.

2Sa 5:18

The valley of Rephaim. This fruitful valley (Isa 17:5) is about three miles in length, and two in breadth. Occupying it in vast numbers, the Philistines sent out bodies of men to plunder the whole country, while a sufficient force watched Jerusalem, intending to take it by famine. The Rephaim were an aboriginal race, first mentioned in Gen 14:5, and evidently in early times very widely spread in Palestine. The idea that they were giants has no more to be said in its favour than that they were ghoststhe meaning of the word in Isa 26:14, Isa 26:19. No sensible philologist will endeavour to explain the names of these primitive races and of their towns by Hebrew roots, though there has been too much of this craze in past times. The Rephaim seem. however, to have been physically a well-developed people, and several races of Canaan of great stature are described in Deu 2:11 as having belonged to them, as did Og, who was a man of extraordinary dimensions (Deu 3:11).

2Sa 5:20

Baal-Perazim; literally, possessor of breaches, that is, the place where the attack burst forth. It is called Mount Perazim, “the hill of breaches,” in Psa 28:1-9 :21, and as we have seen, it was the rocky height on the north of the valley of Rephaim. David must, therefore, have stolen round the army of the Philistines, creeping, probably by night, up to this ridge of Ben-Hinnom, and thence at the dawn of day have rushed down upon the camp. And his onset was sudden and irresistible, like the rush of the waters of some mountain lake when, swollen with rains, it bursts through the opposing dam, and carries hasty destruction to everything that lies in its way.

2Sa 5:21

They left their images. This is a further proof of the suddenness of the attack, and the completeness of the Philistine discomfiture. For images we find “gods” in the parallel place in 1Ch 14:12, and the word used here is rendered “idols” in 1Sa 31:9. As the Philistines supposed that these images of their deities would ensure their victory, they would set great store by them, as the Israelites did by the ark (1Sa 4:4), and the French by the oriflamme. Their capture, therefore, was a feat as great as the winning of the eagle of a Roman legion. David and his men burned them; Hebrew, took them away. This translation of the Authorized Version, made to force the words into verbal agreement with 1Ch 14:12, is utterly indefensible; and, like most wrong things, it is absurd. The Bible cannot be improved by frauds, and really the two narratives complete one another. David and his men carried off these images as trophies, just as the Philistines carried off the ark (1Sa 4:11). But the ark proved mightier than the Philistine gods, and in terror the people restored it to Israel. But no avenging hand interfered to rescue these gods, and, after being paraded in triumph, they were made into a bonfire.

2Sa 5:22

The Philistines came up yet again. Their first defeat had probably not been accompanied by much slaughter; for David’s men were few in number, though brave as lions. Retreating then to some distance, the Philistines called in their garrisons, and waited also for reinforcements from home, and then advanced again to the same spot. And as David was prepared to attack them in front, he also must now have gathered round him the chivalry of Israel.

2Sa 5:23

Thou shalt not go up. The attack in front is forbidden, and the answer shows that the priest with the ephod did more than give a mere affirmative or negative reply. For David receives full instructions. Taking advantage of the valleys, he is to creep round into the rear of the Philistines, and approach them under cover of a thicket of baca trees. Mulberry trees; Hebrew, baca trees. This suggests the idea that David’s place of attack was the Baca valley (Psa 84:6), and that there was such a valley, though this is not certain. For the Revised Version translates “valley of weeping,” concluding that baca is not there a proper name. By baca trees the LXX. and Vulgate “pear trees,” but as bacah means “to weep,” it is probably some balsamic shrub, from which a resin exudes. The Revised Version puts here in the margin, “balsam trees.” Dr. Tristram thinks it was a sort of aspen, but the authority of the.Vulgate is great in such matters, as Jerome obtained his information in Palestine itself.

2Sa 5:24

The sound of a going; Hebrew, a marching. Under the cover of this thicket David was to wait until he heard the sound as of the regular tramp of an army in the tops of the baca trees. It would be in the morning that the wind would shake the treetops, but the sound was to be something more than the soft whispers of a gentle breeze. A gale was to put them into sudden motion, and then the soldiers would know that their Jehovah had gone forth to battle, and David must immediately bestir himself. The enthusiasm of his men must not cool down, but as soon as the wind rustled he must charge the enemy, and his warriors, feeling that they were going with the host of God, would break down all resistance by their impetuous onset.

2Sa 5:25

From Geba until thou some to Gazer. In 1Ch 14:16 “Gibson” is substituted for “Geba,” and it is one of those corrections which a commentator is inclined to adopt, because it makes all things easy. For Gibeon lay directly on the road from the Rephaim valley towards Gazer, and the armies must have passed it in the fight. But if “Geba” be the right reading here, then the battle must have been most sternly contested. For it is the “Gibeah of Benjamin,” Hebrew, “Geba of Benjamin,” described in 1Sa 13:16. The Philistines had a garrison there in Saul’s time (1Sa 13:3), and had probably again occupied it as a military post after their victory at Gilboa. To reach it the line of retreat would go nine miles northward over difficult ground; but this was not disadvantageous to a retreating army as long as it remained unbroken, and the Philistines would expect to be able to make a successful defense at a strong citadel like Geba, held by a garrison of their own troops. But when driven by David’s “mighty men” from this fortified hill, being hemmed in by the defile of Michmash on the east, they would have no choice but to hurry down the valleys to the west, and, still passing by Gibson, so flee to Gazer. Thus the reading “Geba” implies a stout and long resistance ending in a most complete victory. And confessedly this was a decisive battle, fought with larger forces, and causing far larger loss to the Philistines than that at Baal-Perazim, where, attacked by only a few men, they were seized with panic, and saved themselves by a headlong flight. Gazer lay upon the border of Ephraim, and was one of the royal cities of the Canaanites, and so strong that it was left in the hands of its old possessors (Jos 16:3, Jos 16:10; Jdg 1:19). Subsequently Solomon fortified it (1Ki 9:17), as being the key of the defiles which led from Ekron and the plain of Philistia up to Jerusalem. We also find it mentioned as an important military post in the days of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 9:52). The pursuit would naturally stop here, as the fugitives would now be in their own country, and succour would be close at hand. Probably, too, the Canaanites who held the fortress were friendly to them, and gave them shelter.

HOMILETICS

2Sa 5:1-10

The facts are:

1. The tribes of Israel come to Hebron to formally acknowledge David as rightful king.

2. They assign three reasons for their united action.

(1) That David was of their kindred.

(2) That he had rendered valuable services in times of need.

(3) That God had expressed his will.

3. A solemn league being made between David and the tribes, they anoint him king over Israel.

4. The question of the crown being settled, David applies himself to the acquisition of Jerusalem as the seat of government.

5. Being proudly defied by the Jebusites, on account of the strength of their position, he challenges his officers to take the lead in the subjugation of the fortress.

6. Acquiring possession, he calls the place after his name, and extends the fortifications.

7. The continued favour of God ensures to him great prosperity.

The triumph of patient fidelity.

The first three verses bring into view the realization of David’s most cherished desires, the ripe consummation of all his wearying toils and cares. The goal on which Samuel had directed his eye (1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 16:1-13) was now attained. The wisdom of his self-restraint when persecuted, and of his trusting more to Divine care than to human weapons, was now fully justified. The historian places together the human popular view of the situation, and the Divine purpose that had to be effected. The being bone of their bone, and the great services rendered to Israel in days of trial, were the natural and political facts which warranted the great gathering at Hebron on that day; and the treasured up saying of the Lord that this very man should feed his people and be their captain, was the Divine declaration now seen by them to harmonize with the natural and political facts. There is here the language of expediency, and a kind of apology for past opposition to David; for the fact that God had so spoken ought from the first to have prevented all controversy and rendered the nation one in enthusiasm for the divinely chosen man. The acceptance of the authority of the declaration is not absolute, but because they now see what they profess not hitherto to have seenthat by nature and services he is fit to be the shepherd and captain of Israel.

I. GOD‘S APPOINTMENTS ARE BASED ON NATURAL PRINCIPLES. The selection of David out of the sons of Jesse was not a mere arbitrary act warranted by no considerations of propriety and fitness. He was the best of the family and of the nation for the specific purpose to be wrought out. His qualities were not bestowed after the call to the position though grace would abound for development of what was already possessed; they were in him by nature. God uses up what he has prepared in the working out of ordinary natural processes. When the people said, “We are thy bone and thy flesh,” they were referring to one prominent instance of natural fitness for the position of authority then assigned to David; his common kinship with them would ensure the sympathy which ought ever to exist between ruler and ruled. The Divine appointment rested, among other fitnesses, on this natural basis. The formal fitness lay in the fact of kinship; but God saw also that in the case of this man the sympathies natural to the fact of kinship were exceptionally strong and deep and broad. There was also a Divine recognition of those other natural qualities of statesmanship and valour and generosity, which would render a decree that he should be king but the formulation of a natural adaptation plus the information to men that the Supreme Being will so regulate affairs that this natural adaptation shall manifest itself. We may be sure that the same holds good of all that God ordains. He uses up what is best in nature for the ends in view. Abraham was the fittest man to be commissioned to found a family through which Messiah should come. The choice of Moses to lead the people out of Egypt, and administer law among a people hitherto without law, was evidently based on his natural and acquired qualities. That which may seem to be an exception to this rule is no exception, namely, the appointment of plain and unlettered men to first establish the kingdom of Christ after his ascension. For looking at the spiritual nature of the kingdom, that it is diffused by the spiritual renovation of men by the power of the Holy Spirit, it was befitting that men who had no brilliant gifts wherewith to dazzle others, and so induce the impression that the new cause was one in which human wisdom prevailed, should become the channels through which the power of God might assert itself (1Co 1:23-31; 1Co 2:4, 1Co 2:5). The most illustrious instance of the truth before us is that in the case of our Saviour. By condescending to become bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, made like unto his brethren, there is laid a natural fitness for his becoming the Feeder of his people and the Captain of our salvation. The sympathy of nature thus rendered possible sets forth the wisdom which appointed him to be a Prince and a Saviour. History reveals no exceptions to the rule.

II. THE EVIDENCE TO MEN OF DIVINE APPOINTMENT WILL LIE IN SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED. The original Divine appointment of David was prior even to his appearance before Goliath; for God’s purposes are not the product of changes in time, and the declaration by Samuel to David was only for his guidance and encouragement in view of the troubles that were coming. David had to act so as to render the words of Samuel credible to the people; he had to make his “calling and election sure” by a line of conduct that would destroy the supposition that possibly Samuel the prophet, in this instance, was mistaking the surmisings of his own mind for the purpose of God. Those long years from the day he left the sheepfold to the death of Ishbosheth, formed the period in which he was to bring out before men the great wisdom of God in his selection. As the other Anointed One later on lived among men in such a way as to show to them that he was from the Father, that he had a work to do for the people of God, and was, in fact, appointed to be the Redeemer of the race, so David had to justify all that Samuel bad said, and all that was implied in the prior Divine choice. It is a noble thing when a man believes that God has ordained him to a work in the world, and strives to so regulate his life that every act shall be a demonstration of the wisdom and fitness of the Divine appointment. How David did this, by sympathy with all classes, by carrying on his heart the sorrows of his people, by deeds of valour which broke asunder the chains of Philistine oppression, by gentle forbearance toward those who sought his life, by abstention from pride and acts of violence to further his interests, also by patient trust in the covenant keeping God during days of terrible suffering, as by wise administration among his own followers,the history of his early life fully records. However obstinate, for personal and political reasons, men were in refusing him as successor to Saul, they could not but yield at last to the force of evidence that he was the man for the position, and so far demonstrated to be the chosen of God. By a similar method, Christ is creating history which will be the vindication of his claim to be Lord of all. Likewise the Church, as the body of Christ, answers to her calling and duty only so far as she does deeds and manifests a spirit that will furnish unanswerable evidence of the Divinity of the Christian religion. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The test of salt lies in the presence of its peculiar savour.

III. THE REALIZATION OF GOD‘S PURPOSE THROUGH THE LOYALTY OF HIS SERVANTS IS ONLY A QUESTION OF TIME. It would have seemed that when Samuel made known the will of God it would have been enough at once to have secured the abdication of Saul and the hearty concurrence of the chosen race. But there was the same free way of dealing with Divine declarations, the same perversity of understanding, as in the days of Christ; so that men did not thoroughly accept and act upon what was said. Jonathan and a few elect souls read aright the Divine intent, and rejoiced therein; but the rest found reasons for doubt, as men always can when the spirit is not thoroughly humble and devout. Occasionally, as we have seen in the case of Abner (2Sa 3:9, 2Sa 3:10), there was a recognition of truth generally suppressed. A man of less faith than David would have despaired of witnessing the day when the whole nation would, by a solemn act of coronation, fall in with the purpose of God. But through the loyalty of David and the few devout men who were the companions of his heart, the issue was brought to pass. It was not a question of truth or falsehood, of national policy or individual striving; the word of God had gone forth, true and unchangeable, that so it was to be; whether scheming politicians fell in with it or not, the course of nature was the course of God. Time would prove to be the element for solving all. Faithfulness to God has the power, in a mysterious way, of winning over the forces of nature and society to its side. The hour came when all Israel simply met to do what God all along intended should be done. Herein do we see, on a small scale, what is yet to be illustrated on the grandest scale. It is a question of time. The hour is coming when every knee shall bow to the Anointed of the Lord, and every tongue confess that he is the Christ, to the glory of God the Father. The world will then simply recognize, as a whole, what now the faithful followers of Christ know to be true. In spiritual firings the world does not acquire truth; it simply comes to admit to be true what Christ’s people all along have affirmed is true. The Church is not outstripped; its conclusions are accepted.

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. We cannot fully estimate the cumulative force of Christian consistency in bringing about the final triumph of Christianity.

2. There is a parallel between our modern religious conflicts with unbelief and the struggle of many in Israel against the revealed purpose of God, and we may rest assured that the truth with us, long resisted, will in the end be accepted.

3. It behoves every Church and private Christian to consider how much the solution of our modern difficulties depends on our own faithfulness in daily life.

4. It is helpful to the observance of obligations that we recognize them with the solemn sanctions of religion, “before the Lord” (2Sa 5:3).

The acquisition and building up of Zion.

This narrative exhibits David as a new manfree from the old trials and embarrassments, and with a clear course before him to raise up the government which should embody the religious principles of the theocracy, and be prospective of a grand spiritual development in the distant future. As one relieved from great cares and conscious of vast unexpended energy, he at once applies himself to the adoption of the means which at that stage of affairs seemed most conducive to the attainment of ulterior issues. The principles on which he acted, while excellent for the circumstances of the time, admit of a wider application to human affairs, and with this in view we may indicate the wisdom of his conduct and the bearing of the narrative on other matters by a succession of single terms suggestive of both facts and principles.

I. INITIATION. All along, even in exile, David had learnt to regard his life as linked in the providence of God with some great events in the far distant future. His mission to the world and his own nation was understood to be the raising of his own people to such a position of social order and righteousness as should fit them to be most perfectly instrumental in hastening on the latter day glory. Now that he was made king, and had the confidence of the people, he devises those initiatory measures which, being well planned and executed, will render the attainment of remoter ends more probable. The record tells us of the facts, and we have to fill in the mental processes by which David was led to the particular course recorded. His work was great, far reaching, and, full of energy and faith and confidence, he makes a beginning in the work of consolidation and administration. The first movement was born of faith in his call to servicefaith in the bearing of his life’s work on the destinies of men, faith in the existence of a Divine purpose which had to be wrought out in connection with the chosen race, faith in the value of human labour in relation to Divine purposes, and faith in the presence and help of God in all undertaken in his service. How wisely and broadly the foundation was now about to be laid we may notice further on; the fact here to be noted is the laying of a foundation in deeds for subsequent efforts. All wise rulers and governments, when entering into recognized power, take initiatory measures as their wisdom may suggest. The first stages of action bear an important relation to what follows. The same holds good of other departments of human activity. This reminds us of the initiatory work of the kingdom of Christ; how his life, sufferings, death, and resurrection may be regarded as the initiation of that long course of activity by which the king in Zion will wondrously affect the destinies of the world. We know with what clear prevision, what sense of being sent of God, what faith in the value of human effort and in the presence and blessing of the Eternal, all that was done which constituted the beginning of the reign of the Anointed of the Lord.

II. CLEARANCE. In making a survey of the inheritance into which, as king, he had come, David saw that the presence of alien Jebusites, defiant of himself and worshippers of blind and lame idols, was an evil which ought at once to be got rid of. For such an alien element to occupy a stronghold in the very heart of the country was a most galling thought to one intensely patriotic and brave, and could not but have suggested to him the defective courage and faith of his ancestors in Israel, who allowed such a thing to be possible. It was no mere love of fighting, no desire to create a diversion on acceding to power, that induced him to challenge his best men to seize the position; it was statesmanship, regard for the purity of the national life, and the honour of him who originally gave the land to Israel for an inheritance. The people of God must be separate from the heathen. Powers of darkness must not dwell in the land of light. A beautiful example this to all who have an inheritance to hold for Christ. Our nature is a holy land, in which he alone is to be honoured, and it is a prime duty that we take strenuous measurescall upon the cooperation of our best powersto cast out the evil elements from the centre of our nature, so that there may be nothing within that defileth, or is an abomination, or that maketh a lie. The work may be difficult, the forces strong and defiant, and faint hearted rulers may suffer the evils to remain from sheer lack of courage and confidence; but their removal at an early stage of life is a condition of a prosperous government, in the name and service of God, of the powers that make up our human nature. In one respect also we see an analogy in our Lord’s work. His mission in its widest reach is to gather into one all things in himself (Eph 1:10), to sway a blessed sceptre over a perfected humanity, to maintain a kingdom of peace and righteousness that shall never end (Psa 72:1-20.); and his first work on ascending the throne is to seek the casting out from the heart and life of humanity of the alien spirit, the Jebusite, that so long has usurped the place of influence, and done serious injury to all. The work is now going on, and the Jebusite will be cast down from his stronghold, and the entire world won at last to the Prince of Peace.

III. CONSTRUCTION. In reformation and restoration there is a negative and a positive side. David had to clear out the foe of his people, and so secure free scope for their activities and their happiness. But a positive work had to follow the removal of the evil forces. Hence, in his sagacity, he resolved to construct on the site cleared of the alien a stronghold that should serve the important ends of commanding the entire country from an impregnable position, of giving local prominence to his seat of government, and of facilitating the administration of affairs. The possession of Zion, and the immediate development of its military advantages, were positive advances in the rearing of the stable state which was to stand out so markedly in contrast with the disintegration and weakness of Saul’s time. True wisdom is constructive. Evil is destructive and disintegrating. Men prove their capacity to lead and govern by what they can gradually build up. The aim and effort of David all through his reign evidently was to form a national life on solid foundations, and richly developed in all that constitutes true greatness. How truly typical of the Son of David, who, by supremely wise acts in the establishment of his kingdom, laid the foundation for a superstructure of human good which is ever going on toward perfection! How suggestive of the true wisdom of missionary enterpriselaying solid foundations, in central positions, with a view to bless whole lands with the peace and blessedness of the gospel, and then gradually adding to the first work by positive developments of the same stable character! Likewise in education and in individual self-culture in godliness, construction should be ever aimed at, ever going on, proceeding upon definite solid foundations of success, laid with care in the very centre of the heart and intellect. Hereby also do we learn the extreme importance of getting supreme mastery of those powerful central forces of our nature which are to the details and outward aspects of our personal life what the stronghold of Jebus was to the varied hills and valleys of the land of Israel.

IV. INSPIRATION. The step taken by David was the natural outflow of his own enthusiasm. The force was latent in him, and now came the occasion for its manifestation. It was a new thing for the tribes to see a man of spirit, conscious of a high destiny to work out and urged, as by a Divine inspiration, to dare deeds not dreamt of for many generations (Jos 15:63; Jdg 19:10-12). The man rose with his position. The consciousness of new and heavy responsibilities developed heroism. Even the barbarous occupants of the stronghold (2Sa 5:8) seemed surprised that any one should dream of touching them. The strong expression, “hated of David’s soul,” only reveals the high and all commanding spirit that could not brook the defilement of the holy land by idolatrous feet. But the infection of an enthusiastic spirit is rapid, and this action of the king at once raised the national tone. It made men feel that, as a people, they were entering on a new era; the possibilities of a great future opened before them; an ambition of a lofty kind was enkindled; the dismemberment of the nation, the low political status of Saul’s time, when they could scarcely hold their own against heathen tribes, must cease to be imagined, and the great ideas of Abraham and of Moses once more must become regnant in their minds. Possibly on that day of coronation, when the elders of the tribes would come into close conference with David, he would speak out from his own clearer vision of their function in the world as the people of God and his own strong faith in the presence of Jehovah, so that the deeds on Mount Zion would illustrate in impressive form words of power (Psa 40:9, Psa 40:10). Likewise the inspiration given to the Church in days of the founding of the kingdom of Christ has raised the tone and put a strong and masterful confidence in the heart of man. None can fully estimate the widespread and mighty influence exerted by the lofty spirit displayed by our Lord. It has raised new hopes, developed a bolder courage, fixed men’s eyes more steadily on the glorious future, and produced the feeling that the faithful are engaged in an enterprise not only sanctioned by God, but pervaded by the very life giving presence of the Lord of all power and glory. In so far as we each enter on our appointed work for Christ in the same spirit, we carry on the inspiration and swell the moral forces that are to win the world for God.

V. MEMORIES. David, as we know from his early experience and from the Psalms, was a man of much meditationone who was well versed in the memorials of his nation and deeply imbued with the spirit of devotion. Was it nothing to him that the seat of Melchizedek’s reign as King of Salem was possibly this spot where now the impious Jebusites dwelt? Could he forget that here it was Abraham displayed the marvellous faith which, more than anything, won for him the name ever to be cherished, “father of the faithful”? It was creditable to his religious instincts and to his sagacity that one of the first acts of his reign was to recover a place so sacred to the memory, and to gather the associations of the place around his own seat of government. Piety, poetry, and statesmanship are here combined. Great and hallowed associations tend to beget corresponding deeds; and doubtless it was with the fond hope that as king he might still further consecrate that sacred spot, that he made it the centre of his administration. History tells us how age after age memories clustered more and more richly and often sadly, yet instructively, around that holy hill, until the name of Zion has become, perhaps, more rich in pathetic story and suggestive splendour and bliss than any word in human languagenext, of course, to the one “Name that is above every name.”

“Glorious things of thee are spoken,

Zion, city of our God;

He whose Word cannot be broken

Formed thee for his own abode.”

2Sa 5:11-25

The facts are:

1. The King of Tyre, being friendly with David, supplies him with means of building his house on Mount Zion.

2. David regards the varied successes of his enterprises as confirmation of his belief that he was indeed appointed by God to reign over Israel.

3. He establishes a court on a larger scale, after Oriental style.

4. The Philistines, hearing of his accession to the throne, prepare for an attack upon him, whereupon he seeks guidance of God, defeats them at Baal-Perazim, and destroys their images.

5. Subsequently the Philistines come to a second attack, but on inquiring of God, David is not allowed to assail them in front.

6. Adopting the strategy recommended him, David secures the overthrow of the enemy unto Gazer.

Divine favour vouchsafed to imperfect men.

The Bible teaches that the hearts of kings and people are in the hands of the Lord, and that he turns them so as to advance the great purpose he is working out. The friendly attitude of so important a personage as Hiram must be regarded as a mark of God’s favour to David. To us the record makes clear that David was indeed called of God, and had the special help of the Almighty, and yet 2Sa 5:12 suggests that there were hours when he himself felt the need of confirmatory signs. Some of the Psalms indicate the same. He is here represented as overcoming any doubts and fears arising from his own deep consciousness of moral imperfection, by considering the unmistakable blessings wherewith his efforts so far were crowned. It was all of the Lord. He was not in error in supposing that he was in the path of duty. And yet the very next verses of the narrative (verses 13-16) tell us of a weakness in David’s characteran inferiority to much that later on was attained to by othersso that we cannot but note this conjunction of great and manifold favours conferred on one whose standard of moral and social life was, relatively to ours, very inferior. To the right understanding of this we have to observe

I. DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIPS ARE MATTERS OF POSITIVE ENACTMENT. Moralists distinguish rightly between obligations moral in their own nature and obligations created by precept. Obviously there is not the same kind of obligation for a man to have only one wife as there is to love God with all his heart. The one depends on considerations subsequent to the existence of more than one person; the other holds from the very nature of the feeling, and cannot but be the right thing. That it is wisest, best, most conducive to personal moral perfection and to social welfare that men should not have plurality of wives, is certain; but that arises from the constitution of society and the particular purposes God intends to work out by means of the domestic institution, and consequently the prohibition to have more than one wife partakes of the nature of a positive precept. Had man not been told what he should do, he would not have felt and known absolutely that only one wife must be taken. Had he not been told what he should do, he would nevertheless have felt and known that to love not God, to disobey God, to prefer vileness to purity, was wrong. David, left to himself, would see evil in aversion to God, but he would not so distinctly and certainly see evil in having many wives.

II. THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF LIFE IN ANCIENT TIMES WERE INHERITED. Inheritance does not make wrong right, but being over a long series of generations it tends to prevent those who are the subjects of it from seeing the evils which others fresh to the facts might soon discover. This applies especially to those forms of evil which are so in a secondary sense, being the opposite of what is termed good by positive precept. Polygamy was a custom very ancient, running through long generations of good men, and among sheiks and heads of nations it became one of the marks of distinction and an inevitable appendage of wealth. That, of course, does not make it useful or morally right, but it accounts for good men adopting it with as little compunction of conscience as others, in modern times, have bought and sold slaves, or sold drink, which are known to be the occasion of great evils.

III. THE MEANS OF EDUCATING MEN TO MORE PERFECT FORMS OF SOCIAL LIFE ARE GRADUAL IN OPERATION, AND THE FORCE OF PRECEPTS CONCERNING THEM IS NOT AT ONCE RECOGNIZED. No doubt monogamy was the will of Godthe common law from the beginning (Mat 19:4, Mat 19:5). The subsequent practice of polygamy by good men was tolerated, but it was the evident design of the Mosaic regulations to moderate and minimize it (Deu 17:17; Exo 21:10, Exo 21:11; Deu 21:11-17). The elevation of the people above the degrading practice was a slow process, and, according to the Talmudists, even the distinct precept (Deu 17:17) was understood in a non literal sense. It is possible, therefore, that David, inheriting practices straight from Abraham, should be disposed to anticipate the Talmudic interpretation, and understand “multiply” to refer to an “inordinate number,” and the reason assigned to be a matter of discretion. The same difficulty in educating men to rise to the full recognition, in social relations, of some of our Saviour’s precepts set forth in Mat 5:1-48. and 6; is obvious to us even now. In the case of Oriental polygamy in Old Testament times the difficulty was greater from the circumstance that the wife in chief held her place, and others improperly called in English “concubines” were secondary, and often served in court as “maids of honour” do now.

IV. IT IS THE METHOD OF GOD TO WORK BY IMPERFECT AGENTS UP TO A HIGHER FORM OF LIFE. All things in the earlier stages of constructive work are in an elementary condition, and in that sense inferior. Out of the elemental forms organisms arise, and from the lower organisms higher types have appeared. Out of our own imperfect mental condition there arises, by use of that imperfect condition, a superior form of mental life. The same holds good of our moral habits. By use of the weak and inferior, with a tendency upwards, there comes to pass a moral elevation that can never descend to the old conditions out of which it sprang. Likewise, in constructing a perfect human society on the purest and noblest gospel principles, it is God’s way to use men as he finds them, with their inherited notions and tendencies, and by precept and inspiration gradually raise them above themselves, and so make them instruments of raising others to a higher level of life. Had God waited till men became as clear in their conceptions of social proprieties and utilities and as strong in purity as Christ, nothing would have been done for the world. He is a Father who pitieth his children. He remembereth that we are but dust. It is, therefore, in unison with general principles of government that David, though a polygamist, was blessed, and for the same reason many a slave owner’s life has been attended with spiritual blessing. Were it not so, who of us dare hope for favour?

V. THE BLESSING OF GOD IS RESTRICTED BY OUR IMPERFECTIONS. Had David risen to the dignity of true monogamy, and, with clear vision and firm spirit, entered on a domestic life in keeping with gospel principles, he would doubtless have exerted a wider and more powerful spiritual influence. But as it was, the kind and measure of prosperity vouchsafed to him were proportionate to his imperfect domestic life. God’s blessing is only restrained by the channel through which it has to flow. The more we can anticipate the more holy and consecrated and enlightened future by our present elevation of life, the more surely will the blessing rest on us and our deeds. According to our faith and love, as seen in perfect conformity of feeling, perception, and action to the blessed life of Christ, so may we expect the favour and blessing of God.

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. It becomes us every now and then to make careful scrutiny of our lives, to see what elements there are in them derived from an ungodly inheritance and resting on mere fashion and custom.

2. The best light by which we may discover what is merely traditional and perhaps morally defective in our characters is that derived from a close study of the spirit that animated our Saviour and the ideal he set up for our model.

3. In our anxiety to know whether we are really accepted of God and are enjoying his favour, we may safely reckon prosperity in our calling, if only, like David, we are conscious of going forth in his Name and not for personal ends.

4. We may, like David, after seasons of long trial for the sake of Christ, well take courage when the tide of success flows freely in, and should be careful at such times to ascribe all to God.

5. We see how the essence of religion, namely, trust in God, desire to know and do his will, and maintenance of righteousness in all affairs according to the measure of light obtained, is distinguishable from the form of social morality which custom or tradition may have generated.

The renunciation of human strength and wisdom before God.

The historian is here fragmentary in his records. Having noted David’s first efforts towards consolidation of his power and his general prosperity, he refers to the troubles that arose in consequence of the assaults of the Philistines. These natural enemies of Israel had doubtless observed with satisfaction the gradual decay of Israel’s power during the reign of Saul, and probably were hopeful that the threatened civil war between the adherents of David at Hebron and the friends of Ishbosheth would still further place the people at their mercy. The seizure of Jebus was, however, so startling an event as to awaken the fear that the near settlement at Hebron and removal of the court to Jerusalem might be the beginning of trouble for themselves. The remembrance of the prowess of David in years gone by must have intensified this fear. It was therefore in accordance with the best human policy that they should bring all their forces together and seek to crush him by a single blow. It is interesting to observe the conduct of David under those circumstances.

I. THE STRONG AND SAGACIOUS MAN SEEKS THE GUIDANCE AND HELP OF GOD. That David was a man of courage, brave, hardy, and capable of great endurance, is the record of his life. Naturally he was capable of great things. Also his whole conduct revealed a remarkable sagacity, such as fitted him for military leadership and statesmanship. If there was one in Israel who, reckoning on personal qualities and acquired renown, was justified in facing the Philistines in sole dependence on his own gifts, David was the man, and yet, instead of that, he turns at once to his God, and seeks guidance and help of him. This was not an act of superstition; not the result of sudden change of character, in which fear took the place of courage and mental confusion the place of calmness. It was the product of enlightened pietya policy of profound wisdom, a sagacious estimate of all the facts and probabilities of the case. He was the servant of Jehovah, bound to carry out his purposes and cause his great Name to be reverenced in all human affairs. Therefore it was due to the ever present and ruling Lord to honour him by seeking to know his will and trusting in his aid. Past successes in his Name suggested the same. It was true then as now that the Eternal Spirit could act on masses of men and their leaders so as to change the course of events; and for aught David knew to the contrary, it might have been the Divine will to force them back by some other agency than by his arms. Prudence, reason, piety, all sound principles and sentiments, concurred in renunciation of all human powers before the Eternal, that his power might be manifest. This is the course pursued by every strong and wise man in whom piety is a force. The Apostle Paul was a notable instance of strong will and great general ability laid prostrate before Christ, that his power might work through human channels (2Co 4:6, 2Co 4:7). The more distinguished the man in natural gifts and in grace, the more thoroughly is God sought, as in the case of Augustine. Men of strong will and great force of intellect who refuse to depend on God are not strong and wise all round; they are morally weak and spiritually blind. The more perfectly the whole man is developed the more complete will be the turning to God for guidance and help.

II. THE STRONG AND SAGACIOUS MAN FOLLOWS THE LIGHT GIVEN. David learnt that it was God’s will that the national foe should be smitten, not by pestilence or sudden terror subjectively produced, but by the national arm; and in the two cases by different methods of procedure. Whatever was the method of learning the will of God, and whatever degree of distinctness the revelation, the fact to be noted is that David was not “disobedient to the heavenly vision.” His generalship was regulated thereby. We have no Urim to consult, no high priest to receive special communication for specific emergencies; but in our times of danger to business, domestic interests, Church affairs, and personal religious lifeto say nothing of national eventswe can seek God by prayer, by reading his will in the pure conscience, in the steady lines of providence, and in the principles of his written Word. It should be a cardinal truth with us that God is interested in our affairs, and has ways of making himself known to the earnest spirit. Especially does it behove each Christian and the Church as a body to seek guidance and help when assaults are being made on our holy faith, and the enemy threatens to deprive us of our goodly heritage. There are ways and methods of meeting the foe which God can reveal, and our success will depend on the care with which we adopt the methods approved of God. Infidelity and atheism are to be confronted or attacked in the rear on principles Divine, not on maxims of human expediency.

III. THE STRONG AND SAGACIOUS MAN IS WILLING TO LET GOD WORK, SO THAT THE HAND OF MAN SHALL NOT BE MOST CONSPICUOUS. David acquiesced in the front attack when enjoined, and equally in the restrained action of himself when (Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24) an unseen influence was brought to bear on the foe. In this lies the beauty of true godliness, that it is content, when God wills it, that man should not be seen if only the purposes of God are carried through. David cared not for military distinction if the finger of God could only be seen. His strategy in this case was Divine. He stood aside for Providence to work till the hour for human action arrived. This was the apostolic spirit in the early days of Christianity, based in its exercise on the truth that the living God was the great Worker on the souls of men. The same feeling and belief should ever actuate us in all our endeavours to subdue enemies to the cross. We are only instruments, and a true estimate of ourselves will lead us to rejoice in our being counted as nothing and lost sight of in the display of saving power straight from God. Perhaps there is less success because we want to appear in front of the “mulberry trees.”

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. We have to hold our own heart and our Church life against the inroads of our natural enemies, “the world, the flesh, and the devil,” and the remembrance of this should always make us watchful.

2. In times of great stress in this conflict we should make special requests to God, and not simply proceed on the prestige of former achievements.

3. In dealing with modern forms of attack on Christianity, we have need to ponder well the methods and principles of procedure; and the entire Church should make it a matter of special thought and prayer.

HOMILIES BY B. DALE

2Sa 5:1-3

(1Ch 11:1-3). (HEBRON.)

David anointed king of all Israel.

1. About twenty years had elapsed since David was anointed by Samuel, seven years and a half since he was anointed King of Judah; and at length, at the age of thirty-seven, his faith and patience were rewarded, every obstacle was removed out of his path, and the Divine purpose concerning his royal destination fulfilled. “In the fulness of time, at the right moment, in perfect vigour of mind and body, he grasped the supremacy which was offered to him, having passed through every outward stage of power and honour, and every inward test of heavy trial and varied strife” (Ewald).

2. His anointing (performed by prophet or priest) took place at the instance of the elders (2Sa 5:3) as the representatives of all the tribes (2Sa 5:1), in accordance with the former summons of Abner (2Sa 3:17, 2Sa 3:19, 2Sa 3:21), and doubtless after consultation in their national assembly (1Sa 8:4); now desirous and even eager (after long resistance) to accomplish the purpose of God, having “learnt by experience” the kind of king they needed, and being constrained by the pressure of circumstances.

3. “By his anointing by Samuel he acquired jus ad regnum, a right to the kingdom; and by his present anointing he had a jus in regno, authority over the kingdom” (A. Clarke). It was not merely a designation, but an inauguration to his office; a recognition and acceptance of his Divine appointment, as well as a symbol of his Divine endowment with all needful gifts (see 1Sa 10:1, 1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 16:12); and it distinguished his person as sacred (1Sa 24:6; 1Sa 26:11), inasmuch as he represented the authority and power of the Divine King of Israel. His anointing for the third; time marks one of the greatest days of Israel’s history (2Sa 2:4; 1Sa 9:1-27 :28; 1Sa 10:24; 1Sa 11:15); and, in connection with it, observe

I. THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE ELDERS FOR THEIR PROPOSAL.

1. His personal relationship. “Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh” (Gen 29:14), expressive of their claims upon him, and of his qualification to rule over them; to understand their wants, sympathize with their aspirations, and promote their welfare (Deu 17:15). “The elders speak as if they had not been very sure whether they were to regard David as a Hebrew, or as a naturalized Philistine; but now their doubts are gone, they dwell on his blood relationship to them as a conclusive evidence that he would be out and out a Hebrewthat, therefore, he was worthy of the Hebrew crown” (Blaikie). So “in all things it behoved” the Captain of our salvation “to be made like unto his brethren” (Heb 2:17).

2. His proved ability and eminent services (2Sa 5:2), indicative of his proper calling and the general esteem in which he was held (1Sa 16:5); “the bond of fellowship and love which had bound him to them, even under Saul, as leader in their military undertakings.”

3. His previous designation. “According to the word of the Lord by Samuel” (1Ch 11:3); making it their duty to seek his leadership as well as his to undertake it. “Why should they refer to God’s choice of David?

(1) Because, although they had known all along that David had been fore-appointed to the throne, they had yet been struggling against that arrangement; and so it was fitting now that they should express their repentance and declare their readiness to receive him in God’s name, and as from God’s hand.

(2) Because they wished to remind him and themselves that the royal king of their nation was Jehovah, and that he and they were in allegiance to him” (W.M. Taylor). He did not “take this honour unto himself” without being “called of God” and desired by the people. It sought him rather than he it. And the grounds of his acceptance of it were (as is not always the case with those who assume royal office) unselfish, patriotic, and devout.

II. THE COVENANT MADE BY THE KING WITH THE ELDERS. “And King David made a covenant with [to] them before the Lord” (2Sa 5:3). This covenant, agreement, or promise:

1. Expressed directly and chiefly an engagement, on his part, to rule over them according to the Divine will (Deu 17:16-20; 1Sa 10:25). He was by no means to be an absolute and irresponsible monarch, or “a king ruling arbitrarily as in heathen kingdoms, where at most a few nobles, the populace, or an imperfect oracular system limited his power;” but to be subject to the Law and to the voice of prophecy.

2. Involved the obligation, on their part, to obey him according to the same will (2Sa 3:21). “The Law of God was the rule and square of his government, whereunto both prince and people are sworn; which was a bridle against his absolute power or their rebellious manners” (Guild).

3. Was ratified in the most solemn manner”in a form in which the theocratic principle is distinctly recognized.” “The end and cause why God imprints in the weak and feeble flesh of man the image of his own power and majesty is not to puff up flesh in the opinion of itself; neither yet that he that is exalted above others should be lifted up by presumption and pride, and so despise others; but that he should consider he is appointed lieutenant of One whose eyes continually watch upon him and see and examine how he behaves himself in his office” (John Knox).

III. THE SPIRIT DISPLAYED BY THE PEOPLE, not only by the presence of the elders but also by that of the armed hosts, the flower of the nation, who marched to Hebron from all parts of the country, numbering (in addition to his “mighty men,” 1Ch 11:10-47; 2Sa 23:8-39; and those who had come to him during his exile, 1Ch 12:1-22) 339,600, with two hundred chiefs of Issachar “and all their brethren,” one thousand chiefs of Naphtali, and Zadok and twenty-two chiefs (1Ch 12:23 40). “All these men of war that could keep rank came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel; and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.”

1. Voluntary submission. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power” (Psa 110:3).

2. National unanimity; such as is celebrated in Psa 133:1-3. (written subsequently), ‘Brotherly love’

“Behold! how good and lovely it is
That (those who are) brethren should also dwell together!”

3. Enthusiastic devotion. “And there they were with David three days, eating and drinking; for their brethren had prepared for them,” etc.

4. Abonnding joy. “For there was joy in Israel.” This “gathering of the people” (Gen 49:10) was a most memorable one (verses 4, 5). In it the good hidden in their reprehensible desire for a king (l Samuel Psa 8:4 -22) becomes apparent; we see the fruit of past labour, conflict, chastisement, and the seeds of future enterprise, success, advancement. “The kingship, as administered by David, appears neither as a necessary evil nor an improved constitution, but as a new ethic potency”. “His career constitutes the culmination of that general advancement towards which the people of Israel had been aspiring with increasing energy for more than a century” (Ewald).D.

2Sa 5:2, 2Sa 5:10, 2Sa 5:12

(1Ch 11:2, 1Ch 11:9; 1Ch 14:2). (HEBRON.)

The shepherd king.

This is the first occasion on which we find the occupation of a shepherd made use of to describe the office of a king. Jacob, who had “fed Laban’s flocks,” spoke of “the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel” (Gen 49:24; Gen 48:15); Moses, who had “kept the flock of Jethro,” prayed that Jehovah would “set a man over the congregation” as his successor, so that they might not be “as sheep having no shepherd” (Num 27:7); here the elders declare that Jehovah said (through Samuel) to David, who “fed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem,” concerning his royal destination, “Thou shalt feed [raah, equivalent to ‘tend,’ ‘act as shepherd towards’] my people Israel” (2Sa 7:7; Psa 78:70-72; Isa 44:28; Jer 23:1-40.; Jer 50:5; Eze 34:1, Eze 34:23; Mic 5:4; Zec 13:7, etc.). “The business of a shepherd is a preparation for the office of a king to any one who is destined to preside over that most manageable of all flocks, mankind; for which reason kings are called shepherds of their people, not by way of reproach, but as a most especial and pre-eminent honour” (Philo, ‘Life of Moses’). “Shepherds are not owners of the sheep; but their office is to feed and govern: no more are kings proprietaries or owners of the people. ‘The nations,’ as the Scriptures saith, are ‘his inheritance;’ but the office of kings is to govern, maintain, and protect people. And that is not without a mystery that the first king that was instituted by God, David (for Saul was but an untimely fruit), was translated from a shepherd” (Bacon). What was said to David applies to every king, ruler, magistrate, master, in the sphere over which he has legitimate authority. Consider

I. THE DIVINE IDEA OF HIS OFFICE. It is an office in which authority and power:

1. Are entrusted by the ordination of God, the Proprietor, Ruler, Chief Shepherd of the people; not self-derived nor unlimited; yet investing every under shepherd with dignity.

2. Should be exercised according to the will of God (Psa 101:1-8.), in affectionate interest in the people; intimate acquaintance with them, guiding them, providing for them, defending them, restoring them, and, generally, seeking their welfare with diligence, considerateness, tenderness, patience, self-denial, and self-sacrifice. “Chrysostom writeth that the shepherds in Cappadocia have such love unto their flock, that sometimes for three days together, in following them, they are overwhelmed with snow, and yet they endure it; and in Lydia, how far they travel with the sheep for a month together in the waste deserts and parching heat of the sun; who herein do teach such as are shepherds of men that they should even not spare their own lives for the common good” (Willet).

3. Must be accounted for, as to their use, before the presence of God. “These sheep, what have they done?” (2Sa 24:17). “A king is a mortal god on earth, unto whom the living God hath lent his own name as a great honour; but withal told him he should die like a man, test he should be proud and flatter himself that God hath with his name imparted unto him his nature also” (Bacon).

II. THE DIVINE SOURCE OF HIS PROSPERITY. “And David went on going and growing” after the conquest of the stronghold of Zion, etc. (2Sa 5:6-10), which he achieved as captain, “leader and commander of the people” (as well as their shepherd) “waxed greater and greater” (2Sa 7:9) in power and fame; “and Jehovah the God of hosts” (1Sa 1:3) “was with him” (as his Shepherd, Psa 23:1, and Captain, 2Sa 22:35-37).

1. Approving of the manner in which he devoted himself to his calling. Fidelity is the necessary condition of the special favour of God; which is ever testified in the heart and conscience, and often shown by outward events (Gen 39:2, Gen 39:21).

2. Assisting him in the performance of the duties of his calling; strengthening, upholding, directing, protecting him.

3. Accomplishing the aim of his endeavours in his calling; for no skill nor effort, without Divine cooperation, can ensure success. “Except the Lord build the house,” etc. (Psa 127:1). While God was with him (1Sa 10:11) Saul prospered; when left to himself he lost his kingdom and his life.

III. THE DIVINE PURPOSE OF HIS EXALTATION AND ESTABLISHMENT IN HIS OFFICE. “And David perceived,” from the friendly aid of Hiram, the erection of his palace (2Sa 5:11), which he appears to have regarded as a pledge of the stability of his kingdom (Psa 30:1-12; inscription), and his continued prosperity, “that Jehovah had established him,” in accordance with his former choice, “king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom” (1Ch 14:2, 1Ch 14:17) “for his people Israel’s sake;” because he had chosen them to be his people, “the sheep of his pasture” (Psa 100:3), and sought their prosperity and exaltation, according to his faithful promises (2Sa 7:23) that through them all nations might be blessed, and the whole earth filled with his glory. A faithful servant recognizes in his successes:

1. An immediate purpose of good toward himself; beholding therein the hand of God and “the kindness and truth” by which it is directed; ascribing his prosperity, not to himself, but to the Lord.

2. An ulterior and larger purpose of good toward others, for whose benefit rather than his own he is exalted (2Sa 7:8, 2Sa 7:16).

3. A powerful incentive to thankfulness, hopefulness, and fresh consecration to the service of God and his people. “It was the successiveness, the continuity of the steps, in his history, which assured him that God’s hand had been directing the whole of it. Had David, instead of maintaining the crown, which circumstances pointed out to him as his, seized violently that which was not his, he would not have perceived that the Lord had made him King of Israel; he would have felt that he had made himself so, and would have acted upon that persuasion. The government which a man wins for himself he uses for himself; that which he inwardly and practically acknowledges as conferred upon him by a righteous Being cannot be intended for himself. And thus it is that the early and mysterious teaching of David while he was in the sheepfold bore so mightily upon his life after he became king.. The deepest lesson which he had learnt was that he himself was under government; that his heart and will was the inmost circle of that authority which the winds and the sea, the moon and the stars, obeyed” (Maurice).

REMARKS.

1. The lowliest occupation is often a preparation for the highest; and he who shows fidelity in the least is rewarded with opportunity for its exercise in the greatest.

2. The possession of authority and power severely tests men’s characters, and sometimes proves their destruction.

3. It is a good sign when one who is exalted shows more concern about performing the duties than enjoying the honours of his position.

4. God sends good rulers out of his regard for the welfare of the people.

5. The best rulers are those who sympathize most with the Divine purposes, and most humbly and faithfully “serve their generation.”

6. Even the best are imperfect, and often fail to attain their loftiest aims or fulfil their early promise.

7. In One alone do we behold the perfect Shepherd-King (Joh 10:14; Heb 13:20; 1Pe 5:4; Rev 7:17).D.

2Sa 5:6-9

(1Ch 11:4-9)

Jerusalem.

David’s first act after his anointing amidst the assembled tribes (1Ch 12:38-40) was to place himself at the head of his army, and march against Jebus, the capital of the Jebusites. With this place he was familiar from his boyhood, and often, perhaps, wondered why it was suffered to remain so long unsubdued (Jos 1:3, Jos 1:4). He perceived its advantages as a site for the capital of his kingdom, and the necessity of its reduction in order to the establishment and extension thereof. His enterprise, whatever may have been its immediate cause, was completely successful. Henceforth supreme interest centres in Zion, the city of David, Jerusalem (“foundation of peace”), beyond any other city mentioned in sacred history, poetry, or prophecy. “Jerusalem was destined to become the seat of the Hebrew government, and the scene of the most extraordinary events, and more strange and awful vicissitudes, than any other city of the universe, not excepting Rome” (Milman). Note

I. ITS PECULIAR SITUATION. In the heart of the country, remote from the great roads of communication with the East; on a mountainous table land, and entrenched on a cluster of hills, the highest of which was crowned with the stronghold, rock fortress, or acropolis of Zion (2Sa 5:7); on the borderline between Benjamin and Judah, belonging equally to both parts of the now united kingdom. Its selection was a striking proof of David’s military ability and political insight, and was probably determined by a higher wisdom (Deu 12:5; 2Ch 6:6). “God intended not Jerusalem for a staple of trade, but for a royal exchange of religion, chiefly holding correspondency with heaven itself, daily receiving blessings thence, duly returning praises thither; besides, God would not have his virgin people the Jews wooed with, much less wedded to, outlandish fashions” (Thos. Fuller).

II. ITS PREVIOUS HISTORY. As the city of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18; Psa 77:2; Josephus, ‘Wars,’ Psa 6:10), traditions of whose ancient greatness may have lingered around the spot, and fired the poet’s imagination (Psa 110:4); of Adonizedec the Amorite (Jos 10:1), a man of different character, lille Adonibezek (Jdg 1:7); smitten by Judah, occupied by Benjamin conjointly with the Jebusites (not, perhaps, driven out of their citadel), and afterwards entirely by the latter (Jos 15:63; Jdg 1:8, Jdg 1:21; Jdg 3:5-7; Jdg 19:10-12). “Joshua, and Deborah, and Samuel, and Saul, and David must have passed and repassed the hills, and gazed on the tower of the city, unconscious of the fate reserved for her in all subsequent time” (Stanley, ‘Sinai and Palestine’).

III. ITS HEROIC CONQUEST. David found little resistance in taking the lower city, in contrast With the upper city or citadel (Josephus), the defenders of which, relying on the strength of their position, said, derisively, that “blind and lame” were sufficient to repel his attack. But:

1. Self-confidence is fraught with danger. (1Sa 14:22.) “The enemies of God’s people are often very confident of their own strength, and most secure when their day to fall draws nigh” (Matthew Henry).

2. Scorn is a spur to a resolute spirit. “And David said on that day

‘Whoso smiteth a Jebusite (first),

Let him hurl down the precipice (watercourse)

Both the lame and blind,

Who are hateful to David’s soul.'”

And “he shall be chief and captain” (1Ch 11:6).

3. Great inducements procure great achievements.

4. The prize is sometimes won by those for whom it is least intended. “So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief,” his power, of which David bitterly complained (2Sa 3:39), being thereby confirmed.

5. The language of contempt comes back on those who employ it, to their lasting humiliation. It became a proverb: “The blind and lame [ironically applied to the over confident] shall not come into the house [succeed in anything].”

6. Severity should be joined with mercy. Although a hard fate befell some, yet most of the Jebusite inhabitants were incorporated into Israel (Zec 9:7), and one of them (2Sa 24:18) dwelt peacefully on an adjacent hill (2Ch 3:1).

7. One victory is often followed by many. The capture of a fortress by national and world-wide consequences.

IV. ITS PERMANENT OCCUPATION, STRENGTHENING, AND EXTENSION. “And David dwelt in the stronghold [of Zion], and called it the city of David”. “And David built round about from Millo [‘the citadel,’ LXX.] and inward” (verse 9). “And Joab restored the rest of the city” (1Ch 11:9). “The erection of the new capital at Jerusalem introduces us to a new era, not only in the inward holms of the prophet king, but in the external history of the monarchy” (Stanley, ‘Jewish Church;’ Ewald).

V. ITS THEOCRATIC RELATION, WHICH WAS ITS CHIEF DISTINCTION. AS the metropolis of the chosen people, the residence of the Lord’s Anointed (Messiah), the seat of government, the centre of religion and Divine service, the source of far-reaching influence, it was “the city of the great King” (Mat 5:35), where he dwelt, reigned, manifested his glory, and “commanded his blessing, even life forevermore.” So Jerusalem was described by psalmists and prophets, and won the passionate attachment of her children, in which love of country and home, devotion to God, and hope for the world were inseparably blended. “Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God”.

VI. ITS EXTRAORDINARY VICISSITUDES. “In the fifteen centuries which elapsed between those two points (Jdg 1:8; Luk 21:20), the city was besieged no fewer than seventeen times; twice it was razed to the ground; and on two occasions its walls were levelled. In this respect it stands without a parallel in any city, ancient or modern” (Smith’s ‘Dictionary’). What a scene did it present during these ages of military, political, religious strife, of prophetic activity and demoniacal wickedness, of mercy and of judgment (Amo 3:2)! With its rejection of “the Son of David” its lingering theocratic glory departed, and its walls became a desolate heap. “O Jerusalem!” (Luk 13:34; Luk 20:41-44).

VII. ITS SPIRITUAL FORESHADOWING. “In the progress of the city of God through the ages, David first reigned in the earthly Jerusalem as a shadow of that which was to come”; “Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22); the spiritual kingdom of which Christ is King, the general assembly and Church of which he is the Head; the lofty, free, mother city of us all (Gal 4:25, Gal 4:26); “the holy city, new Jerusalem” (Rev 21:1); glorious, unchanging, everlasting (Heb 11:10; Heb 13:14). “O holy Zion! where all is abiding, and nothing passes away!”

“O happy harbour of the saints!

O sweet and pleasant soil!

In thee no sorrow may be found,

No grief, no care, no toil.”

D.

2Sa 5:12

(1Ch 14:1)

Hiram, King of Tyre.

Hiram was another of those heathen princes with whom David stood in friendly relation (Achish of Gath; the King of Moab, 1Sa 22:3; Talmai of Geshur, 2Sa 3:3; Tel, or Tou, of Hamath, 2Sa 8:9; Joram, or Hadoram, his son, 1Ch 18:10; Nahash, the Ammonite king of Rabbah, 2Sa 10:1, 2Sa 10:2; Shobi, his son, 2Sa 17:27). He was king of “the strong (fortified) city, Tyre” (Jos 19:29); chief of those Phoenician cities “whose flag waved at once in Britain and the Indian Ocean” (Humboldt); celebrated alike for its maritime enterprise, commercial activity, and mechanical arts (Isa 23:8; Eze 27:1-36.). “Hiram, like David, had just established his throne securely upon the ruins of the rule of the shophetim, or judges, and raised the country to a position of power and independence which it had not previously enjoyed” (A.S. Wilkins, ‘Phoenicia and Israel’). Notice:

1. His political sagacity. In seeking to secure a “commercial treaty” with the King of Israel, by means of which his people might receive corn, oil, etc. (Act 12:20), in exchange for manufactured goods, Tyrian purple, articles of tin and bronze, weapons of war, jewellery, etc; and might not be prevented from continuing their commercial pursuits along the great caravan lines of traffic with Egypt, Arabia, Babylon, and Assyria, that ran through the country.

2. His peaceable disposition. In sending “messengers” with friendly communications, either of his own accord, or in response to an embassy. “How little David resembled the later Assyrian, Chaldean, and Persian disturbers of the world is most immediately and clearly shown by the fact that he did not, like these great conquerors, seize upon the Phoenician maritime towns, but always remained on the best terms with the little Phoenician states, which were entirely occupied in commerce and the productive arts, and readily sought peace with him” (Ewald).

3. His generous appreciation. Without jealousy or suspicion of David, of whom, doubtless, he had heard much, on account of his ability, energy, and integrity, confirmed by personal intercourse. “God knows how to incline toward pious rulers the minds of neighbouring princes and kings, that they may show them all friendly good will” (Starke).

4. His valuable assistance. With “cedar trees” (from Lebanon, as subsequently, 1Ki 5:1-18.), “and carpenters, and masons,” in building a “house of cedar” (2Sa 7:2; 2Sa 6:16 : 2Sa 9:13; 2Sa 11:2), or stately palace in Zion, the city of David; perhaps in erecting and adorning other houses in the city, and generally promoting the arts and industries of Israel (1Ch 22:2). The intercourse thus commenced was immensely beneficial, though it ultimately proved an occasion of evil. “Many have excelled in arts and sciences that were strangers to the covenants of promise; yet David’s house was never the worse nor the less fitting to be dedicated to God for its being built by the sons of the stranger” (Matthew Henry).

5. His steadfast friendship with David during his life, afterwards with Solomon, contributing to the maintenance of peace and the increase of prosperity among both peoples. “Hiram was ever a lover of David” (1Ki 5:1).

6. His reverential spirit. “Blessed be Jehovah,” etc. (1Ki 5:7). Without entirely renouncing the worship of “the Lord Melkarth [king of the city], Baal of Tyre,” he was drawn to the faith of Israel; and, to that extent, represented the gathering of the Gentiles to “the Desire of all nations” (Psa 45:12; Mat 15:27; Act 21:3-6). He was an extraordinary man, eminent in life, honoured in death (by the erection of “the tomb of Hiram,” Robinson, 2.456); and he will “rise in the judgment and condemn” the unfaithful under higher privileges (Mat 11:21).D.

2Sa 5:17-20

(1Ch 14:8-11). (THE VALLEY OF REPHAIM.)

Victory over the Philistines.

(References: 2Sa 8:1, 2Sa 8:12; 2Sa 21:15, 2Sa 21:18, 2Sa 21:19; 2Sa 23:9, 2Sa 23:11, 2Sa 23:13; 1Ki 2:39.) “Therefore he called the name of that place Baal-Perazim” (2Sa 5:20). So long as David reigned over a single tribe and was at war with the house of Saul, he was left unmolested by the Philistines (1Sa 29:1-11), whose suzerainty he, perhaps, acknowledged; but when they heard that he was chosen king over all Israel, that an immense army had gathered around him not far from their own border, and that the Jebusite “stronghold of Zion” had fallen before him, they took alarm, mustered all their forces, marched up “to seek [attack] David” (the chief object of their suspicion and fear), and “spread themselves in the Valley of Rephaim” (near Jerusalem). In the condition and conduct of David (as representing the servants of God in conflict with their adversaries) we observe

I. PERILOUS EMERGENCY, which:

1. Often occurs after unusual success and honour; being adapted to check undue self-confidence and self-security. “Lest I should be exalted above measure,” etc. (2Co 12:7).

2. Clearly manifests the spirit which men possess, whether of faith and courage, or of fear and cowardice (1Sa 17:11).

3. Makes personal effort indispensable. The conflict was forced upon David. It could not be avoided without disobedience (2Sa 3:18), dishonour, and destruction. And it is the same in other cases. “Ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies,” etc. (Deu 20:3).

II. PRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY. “And David heard of it, and went down to the hold,” the stronghold of Zion (2Sa 5:7), from his residence on the highest and safest part of the mountain ridge; or more probably the stronghold in the desert of Judah, where he had formerly found refuge (1Sa 22:5; 1Sa 24:22; 2Sa 23:14). It may be sometimes necessary to “sit still” and quietly wait for Divine deliverance; but we should:

1. Not remain inactive through sloth, vain-confidence, or presumption.

2. Nor rush into conflict rashly, or enter upon new courses unadvisedly.

3. But after due consideration adopt those measures which afford the fairest prospects of safety and success. “A prudent man,” etc. (Pro 22:3).

III. PRAYERFUL INQUIRY. “And David inquired of the Lord,” etc. (2Sa 2:1; 2Sa 16:23; 2Sa 21:1).

1. After the utmost thought and endeavour of our own, we often find ourselves in perplexity as to the course we should pursue.

2. Our best resource in perplexity is to seek Divine counsel; and those who have had experience of its efficacy will not fail to do so (1Sa 14:16-23; 1Sa 23:1-12).

3. Nor shall we fail to find adequate directions and encouraging promises if we seek it in a right manner. “Go up,” etc. “David did not seek Divine counsel (by consulting the Urim) whether to attack Jebus, apparently, because his mind was clear that the enterprise was advantageous. But when Ziklag had been burned by the Amalekites, and now when a dangerous army is at hand, he is glad of such advice. It would appear that he regarded it as a Divine aid in times of perplexity, but only to be sought for in such times. He had no idea of abdicating his duties as a military leader, and putting the movements of his army into the control of the priest. Hence, perhaps, it is that, as his confidence in his troops and in his own warlike experience increased, he ceased altogether to consult the sacred Urim, for we hear no more of it in his later wars “(F.W. Newman).

IV. PRACTICAL OBEDIENCE TO THE WORD OF THE LORD. “And David came,” etc. When. the path of duty is made plain, nothing remains but to walk therein with:

1. Humility, simplicity, alacrity; as a soldier at the word of command. The habit of immediate and absolute obedience to the will of God is essential to “a good soldier of Jesus Christ.”

2. Dependence on Divine strength and confidence in Divine promises.

3. Courage, concentration of purpose and energy in performance. “Do it with thy might.” David’s attack was made with such impetuosity that it was like the breaking forth of water, a torrent or inundation which bursts through, disperses and sweeps away whatever opposes its course.

V. PUBLIC THANKSGIVING AND PRAISE. “Jehovah hath broken forth upon mine enemies Therefore he called the name of that place Baal-Perazim.” i.e. properly, lord, master, possessor, and, tropically, place (which possesses or is distinguished by something) of breaches, inundations, dispersions, defeats (Gesenius).

1. The spirit in which success is really sought appears in the manner in which it is used. When sought by and for God it will be ascribed to him. “Not unto us,” etc. “His right hand and his holy arm hath gotten him the victory” (Psa 98:1).

2. The help which is graciously and openly vouchsafed by God should be gratefully and openly acknowledged by men (Psa 50:14, Psa 50:15).

3. Of Divine benefits a record should be made by those who receive them, for the instruction of “the generation to come” (Psa 78:4); and the place which is distinguished by them should become a permanent memorial of Divine power and goodness. This victory was long remembered. “For Jehovah will rise up as on the mountain of Perazim,” etc. (Isa 28:21). “The military stamp of the first part of David’s reign is the preindication of the military character of the whole of it. In the Psalms of David we hear the echo of this warlike and victorious theocracy. They are mostly songs of conflict and victory in praise of the God who saved his people from their enemies” (Erdmann).D.

2Sa 5:21

(1Ch 14:12). (BAAL–PERAZIM.)

The destruction of images.

The religion of the Canaanite people was “an apotheosis of the forces and laws of nature; an adoration of the objects in which those forces were seen and where they appeared most active” (Movers). The Philistines carried (probably on sacred carts) their images or gods (commonly regarded as identical) into battle, expecting victory by their aid; but so sudden was their defeat, and so hasty their flight, that they were compelled to leave them behind, and “David and his men took them away;” and “David gave a commandment, and they were burned with fire.” “When the ark fell into the Philistines’ hands it consumed them; but when these images fell into the hands of Israel they could not save themselves from being consumed” (Patrick). In their destruction we see:

1. A proof of the vanity of idols. These images (atsabim, equivalent to “things fashioned with labour”) were only “the work of men’s hands” (Psa 115:4-8), and “profitable for nothing” (Isa 40:19; Isa 41:7; Isa 44:9-20; Isa 46:6, Isa 46:7), disappointing completely the confidence reposed in them. Who could henceforth regard them or others with fear or respect?

2. A testimony to the power of Jehovah, the living and true God, the Holy One of Israel. It was against him that the Philistines fought in attacking his people; and by him they and their idols were overthrown, as aforetime (1Sa 5:3; 1Sa 7:7; 1Sa 17:38-54). Yet how persistent was their opposition (2Sa 5:22)!

3. An expression of abhorrence of idolatry, and zeal for the worship of God alone; the personal fidelity of David to the fundamental principle of the theocracy (Psa 16:4). During his reign idolatry found no place in Israel.

4. A fulfilment of the injunctions of the Law. “Thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images” (Exo 23:24), “and burn their graven images with fire” (Deu 7:5). Idolatry was a direct crime against the state, high treason against the Divine King of Israel, and might not be tolerated in any form.

5. A precaution against exposure to temptation, by the influence of their presence, forms, names, associations, on hearts always too prone to go astray. “Thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein,” etc. (Deu 7:25, Deu 7:26). No sacrifice was too great to avoid such a snare (Act 19:19). “Here, perhaps, the admirer of ancient sculpture will be ready to drop a tear of regret over the fine statues and other monuments of antiquity theft must have been destroyed in consequence of the Mosaic mandate; but he may safely dry it up, for the chef d’oeuvres of this period were not worth sparing” (Michaelis). Even if they had been the finest specimens of art, their preservation from the flames would have been an ill compensation for the moral evil which it would have induced.

6. A representation of the design of the true religion. “To destroy the works of the devil” (1Jn 3:8), and to maintain and extend the knowledge, love, and service of God; not, indeed, by force, but by the truth (2Co 10:4; see 1Sa 5:3).

7. A prophecy and an earnest of the complete demolition of idols (Isa 2:18-20), and the earth being “filled with the glory of the Lord” (Num 14:21). “Thou hast kept me to be head of the heathen,” etc. (2Sa 22:44, 2Sa 22:50).

“All nations whom thou hast made,
Shall come and bow themselves down before thee, O Lord;
And shall give glory to thy Name.”

(Psa 86:9; Psa 22:27; Psa 97:7; Psa 96:3, Psa 96:5, Psa 96:10.)

Conclusion. Those who are zealous in destroying the idols of others should not spare their own. What is an idol? That object which a man sets up before his face or in his heart, and which he thinks about, delights in, and relies upon, more than God. “Flee from idolatry!” (1Co 10:14; Col 3:5; Php 3:19; 1Jn 5:21).D.

2Sa 5:22, 2Sa 5:23

(1Ch 14:13, 1Ch 14:14). (THE VALLEY OF REPHAIM.)

Renewed conflict.

1. The life of a godly man on earth is a warfare which is perpetually renewed. Hardly has one conflict been passed through before another awaits him with old or new and more formidable foes: the world, the flesh, the devil; ignorance, idolatries, oppressions, sin and misery of all kinds (1Sa 17:1-11). Yea, each day the “good warfare” begins afresh. “The approach of duty is as a battlefield” (Essenian maxim). “On awaking in the morning, the first thing to be observed by thine inward sight is the listed field in which thou art enclosed; the law of the combat being that he who fights not must there lie dead forever” (Scupeli).

2. Signal success in one conflict does not ensure the like in the next; and it ought, therefore, to be always associated with humility, watchfulness, and prayer; from lack of which many a victory has been turned into a defeat, it was a motto of King Alfred (“Si modo victor eras,” etc.)

“If today thou be conqueror, beware of the fight of tomorrow;
If today thou be conquered, prepare for the fight of tomorrow.”

3. One victory affords ground for the confident expectation of another, when the latter is looked for in the same spirit as the former, with dependence on the strength of God, submission to his will, devotion to his glory and the good of his people. “David inquired of the Lord again.”

4. The special means to be employed in every new conflict must be adapted to the special circumstances of the case; and both the wisdom to perceive them and the might to make them effectual are from the Lord. “Thou shalt not go up” (directly, in front of them, as in the former conflict, and as he was about to do again); “go round about them to their rear, and come upon them opposite the mulberry trees” (a spot, probably well known to David and his men, where a cluster or grove of baca trees would favour their attack), etc. “The words teach us that in our own strength, and merely with the human weapons of reason and science, we are not to make war against the adversary. Success can only be calculated upon when the conflict is undertaken under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God breathed forth, and in the immediate blessed experience of the gracious presence of the Lord and of the truth of his Word” (Krummacher).D.

2Sa 5:24, 2Sa 5:25

(1Ch 14:15-17). (THE VALLEY or REPHAIM.)

Signs.

“The sound of a going” (as of footsteps, Jdg 5:4; 2Sa 6:13) “in the beginnings” (on the tops or at the entrance of the grove) “of the baca trees,” which David heard, was a sign appointed by God, occurring, either by his extraordinary and miraculous operation for a special purpose; or by his ordinary operation in nature and providence (the rustling of the leaves in a still season by a fresh breeze, such as, in the East, usually springs up about day dawn), and made use of by him for that purpose. It is not stated that it was intended for or perceived by any one else but David. To him it was “the sound of his Master’s feet” (2Ki 6:32); the “going out before him” of “the Captain of the Lord’s host” (Jos 5:14) at the head of legions of angels “to smite the Philistines,” and summoning him to follow. And the enemy, wrapped in slumber, and attacked at an unexpected time and place, was surprised and routed. Are there now no signs of a similar nature?

1. They are needed at certain seasonsin order to the proper understanding, enforcement, and application of the truths and duties contained in the written Word; especially when iniquity abounds, love waxes cold, labour is vain, and fear and perplexity prevail; when “we see not our signs” (Psa 74:9), nor receive “a token for good” (Psa 86:17).

2. They are afforded in various waysby a striking concurrence of events with the Word (1Sa 10:7) or their peculiar combination; by manifest tendencies, vivid impressions, spiritual suggestions, or an Unusual expectancy; sometimes with “a still small voice,” sometimes with “the sound of a trumpet,” “thunder and vain” (1Sa 12:17), or “a rushing mighty wind.” They are never wholly absent; but do we hear or see them?

“Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees takes off his shoes.”

(Mrs. Browning.)

Consider them as

I. PERCEIVED BY A VIGILANT OBSERVER. “When thou hearest the sound of a going,” etc. Having “inquired of the Lord,” and received the promise of aid, David watched for the sign thereof. “I will stand upon my watch,” etc. (Hab 2:1). Such a watchman:

1. Fixes his attention on the spiritual realities by which the world of sense is surrounded, supported, pervaded; and becomes conscious of what is hidden from others, whose attention is wholly absorbed in earthly things; hearing a voice they cannot hear, and seeing a hand they cannot see.

2. Relies upon the promises which have been graciously spoken by “him who is invisible.”

3. Looks for their fulfilment with fervent desire and unwearied patience, “more than they that watch for the morning” (Psa 130:5, Psa 130:6), until at length the sign and then the reality which it denotes are fully revealed. Everything depends upon a thoughtful, believing, waiting spirit!

“Signs summon not Faith: but they wait for her call;
For in her own right she holds nature in thrall.
Where sense sees a blank space, with nought to inspire;
She, seer-like, finds horses and chariots of fire.
Sense ransacks all space for the proofs of a God;
Faith finds them at home, at the end of her rod.
And he who complains of no God-prints below
Will find nothing but sense-prints where’er he may go.”

“There are chemical experiments, in which, if a certain condition be wanting, the element sought for cannot be elicited. It is present, waiting, ready to leap into activity the moment the condition is present. But as long as that is wanting, the element is imprisoned, separated by an impassable barrier, and might almost be said to be nonexistent. Similarly, the preoccupied mind might sleep at the very gate of heavenno celestial dreams would visit it. The worldly mind might final itself in the house of God, in the holiest of all; but the cloud of glory would sweep by it unnoticed. A mind keen after earthly objects, and engrossed by the interests of time, might live here three score years and ten, with the powers of the world to come all the time surrounding it, soliciting it, pressing in upon it; and yet never once recognize a single indication of the Divine presence. And he who finds nothing of heaven on earth would find nothing but earth in heaven” (J. Harris).

II. POSSESSING INVALUABLE SIGNIFICANCE. “Then will Jehovah go out before thee,” etc. The sign in itself is little; the thing signified, as it is revealed to the waiting soul, is great, inasmuch as it relates to the Lord of hosts, and includes:

1. His presence with us in a very special manner (2Ch 14:11; 2Ch 20:12; 2Ch 32:6-8). If a soldier is inspired with courage and strength by knowing that his commander is near and his eye upon him, much more should we be similarly inspired by the conviction of the Divine presence.

2. His working for us and in us. “The Lord is my Helper,” etc. (Heb 13:6).

3. His will concerning us, with respect, not only to our welfare, but also to our duty, the spirit we should cherish, the conduct we should pursue, the manner, place, and time of our activity. There is no greater joy to a faithful servant of God than to feel assured that he is where God would have him to be, and doing what God would have him to do. And this joy is his strength.

III. REQUIRING PERSONAL EXERTION. “Then bestir thyself; go out to battle. And David did so as Jehovah commanded him.” There is a time to work and fight as well as to pray and watch. As it is presumptuous and vain to stir before the signal for action is given, so it is slothful and ruinous to wait after it is received. “Wherefore chriest thou unto me? Go forward” (Exo 14:15; Jos 7:10). Divine assistance is not meant to supersede our exertion, but to quicken it. Because God works we must work, with a feeling of grateful obligation, reverence, and confidence (Php 2:12). “The Captain of our salvation” goes out before us that we may follow him (Rev 19:14) with:

1. Implicit obedience to his every direction and movement (see 1Sa 13:1-7).

2. Strenuous effort and whole-hearted devotion.

3. The utmost promptitude, Now or never. The opportunity, if allowed to slip, returns no more. “Consider that this day ne’er dawns again” (Dante).

“‘Charge!’ was the captain’s cry.
Theirs not to make reply;
Theirs not to reason why;
Theirs but to do or die.”

IV. CONDUCTING TO IMPORTANT ISSUES. “And he smote the Philistines,” etc. By such. a victory:

1. The imminent danger that threatened is removed.

2. The final overthrow of the enemy is assured (2Sa 8:1).

3. The firm establishment and wide extension of the kingdom are promoted.

It became possible to bring up the ark to Zion (2Sa 6:2) and to subdue surrounding adversaries. “And the fame of David went out into all lands,” etc. (1Ch 14:17). God fails not to fulfil his promises; disappoints not the trust that is placed in him; but makes the faithful “more than conquerors.”

APPLICATION. With reference to:

1. The individual.

2. The family.

3. The Church.

4. The nation.

“Can ye not discern the signs of the times?”D.

HOMILIES BY G. WOOD

2Sa 5:1-3

Tardy acceptance of a divinely appointed ruler.

Abner and Ishbosheth being dead, and Mephibosheth incapable from his lameness, the eleven tribes that for upwards of seven years had not only held aloof from David, but waged war with him, now come to the conclusion that it is best to become his subjects, and again be united with Judah in one kingdom. They accordingly make their submission to him and solemnly accept him as their sovereign.

I. THE GROUNDS OF THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF HIM.

1. Close relationship. “Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh” (comp. Eph 5:30). God has given to us a King who is one with us in nature. The Ruler of the Church, yea, of all things, is a Man; the throne of the universe is filled by a human form (see Heb 2:5, et seq.)a fact which endears the Christ to his willing subjects.

2. Previous service. (2Sa 5:2.) “In time past,” etc. In which service David had both displayed and increased his capacities for ruling men. With this may be compared Christ’s period of service when on earth, especially during his public ministry and last sufferings. By these he was trained and prepared for his throne (made “perfect through sufferings,” Heb 2:10); and it is in and by these that he reveals himself and attracts the hearts of men.

3. Divine appointment. (2Sa 5:2.) “The Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed [‘shepherd,’ ‘be the shepherd of’] my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain [literally, ‘foremost man, leader’] over Israel.” A king is to be as a shepherd to his subjects, not only ruling them, but caring for, watching over, protecting, guiding, uniting them; guarding and preserving the weak from violence and oppression, as a shepherd his lambs. The image was natural to the Hebrews, and runs through the Scriptures, extending even to the visions of heaven (Rev 7:17). The king was also to be leader in peace or war, ever “to the front,” worthy to be followed, first and foremost in all noble deeds, accepting courageously the perils of such a position. David was such a king, imperfectly; Christ is such a King, perfectly. Both were divinely designated to the office of Ruler of God’s people, Kings by Divine right in the strictest sense. As such David is here recognized at length by the tribes of Israel, as before by the tribe of Judah. As such the Lord Jesus is recognized by his followers. These reasons had existed and should have been as powerful immediately after Saul’s death; but they had not been allowed to operate. But the experience of these tribes whilst holding aloof from David, their present disorganized condition, possibly also their knowledge of the benefits of David’s rule to Judah, combined to open their eyes, and so impress these considerations on their hearts as to produce a general willingness to accept him whom they had been rejecting. And thus it is with many in respect to the great King. His claims are known, but other lords are preferred, until, after delay more or less protracted, they become convinced of their sin and folly, and surrender themselves to him. Let those who are thus procrastinating beware lest they become convinced too late.

II. THE SOLEMNITIES BY WHICH THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF DAVID, AND HIS OF THEM, WERE SIGNIFIED,

1. A mutual covenant. He engaging to rule them, and they to serve him according to the Law of God (Deu 17:14-20). In like manner, when men receive Christ as their King, promising loyalty and obedience, he on his part promises to be to them all that his gospel represents him. These Israelites, indeed, may have imposed special stipulations not expressed in the Law; but we, in accepting Christ, have simply to submit to the terms of the Divine covenant, as we are not in any degree independent parties.

2. The anointing of David as king. The third time he was anointedonce by Samuel, once by the tribe of Judah, and now by the rest of the tribes. For the people could in a measure give him authority over them. But our King Jesus can receive no authority from us. He is the Christ (the Anointed) of God; we have simply to recognize his Divine authority.

3. The presence of God was recognized. “Before the Lord.” This was fitting, as he was supreme Monarch, to whom both king and people were bound to submit, whose blessing was necessary to render the union happy; and an engagement made as in his sight would be felt as peculiarly binding. So should we, in accepting Christ, place ourselves in the presence of God, first in secret, then in his house, and at the Lord’s Table.

4. A joyful feast concluded the proceedings. (See 1Ch 12:39, 1Ch 12:40.) It was to the whole people a suitable occasion for rejoicing. They were again one nation. Their union would be cemented by eating and drinking together. They would the better retain the feeling of union when they had separated to their various localities and homes, and would be the better prepared to perform their common duties to the king and the nation. Thus also our Lord enjoins his subjects to eat and drink together in his Name, that they may recognize each other as his, rejoice together in their privileges, and be more closely united to him and the whole “Israel of God.”

In conclusion:

1. Happy is the nation whose rulers and subjects alike recognize God as the supreme Ruler over them, and his will as their supreme law; act as in his sight, and invoke his blessing.

2. Closer union amongst Christians must spring from more thorough acceptance of the royal authority of Christ. They are one in him, and they will become more completely, more consciously, and more manifestly one in proportion as they, all alike, renouncing merely human authorities, come to Christ himself, listen to him, and submit to his authority in all things.G.W.

2Sa 5:10

Desirable greatness.

“And David went on, and grew great, and the Lord God of hosts was with him.” The growing greatness of David was owing to the presence and favour of God, and was accompanied with them. It was, then

I. GREATNESS WELL–DERIVED. All greatness is in some sense from God; but all does not spring from his favour. “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction” (Psa 73:18). He that becomes “a great man” through unjust violence, the oppression and swallowing up of the weak, low cunning, unscrupulous ambition, insatiable avarice, or an absorbing activity of mind and bevy which excludes God from thought and life, cannot rightly attribute his success to the blessing of God. Such greatness is disastrous, and carries a curse with it. It is reached by serving Satan, and accompanied with slavery to him and participation of his doom. He was not altogether lying when he said (Luk 4:6, Luk 4:7) that the power and glory of the world were given by him to those who would worship him. The world abounds in instances of greatness so won. But the greatness which is a gift of God’s favour is reached by paths of truth and uprightness and piety; by the strenuous employment of all the powers, indeed, but in harmony with the Divine will; not so much, therefore, with the purpose to grow great as to be of service to others. It is rather accepted as a gift of God than sought; and is accepted “with fear and trembling,” lest the strong temptations which accompany all worldly greatness should become victorious. Such greatness is accompanied with a good conscience, and may be without serious peril to the soul. It may foster principles of godliness and benevolence. It qualifies for high service of others, and, so employed, enlarges the heart and elevates instead of degrading the character. It thus ministers to the truest greatnessthat which is spiritual and eternal.

II. GREATNESS WELL–ACCOMPANIED. Some, the greater they grow the less of God they enjoy; they gradually forsake him, and he at length abandons them. But there are those of whom it may be said, as they grow great in this world, still “the Lord God of hosts is with them.”

1. How the great may secure this blessing. By:

(1) Humility (Deu 8:13, Deu 8:14; Psa 138:6; Jas 4:6).

(2) Devotion of their enlarged powers to the service of God and of man.

(3) Constant prayer. On the other hand, pride, selfishness, and prayerlessness will separate them from God.

2. The benefits they will derive from it.

(1) The highest and purest enjoyment to which worldly honours and resources can minister.

(2) Preservation from the perils of their position.

(3) The power to gain the best kind of good. from it.

(4) And to do the most good by it.

(5) Greatness thus accompanied is likely to be lasting.

Finally, spiritual greatness combines in a pre-eminent degree the two excellences of being God derived and God accompanied. It springs from the favour of God, and secures its constant enjoyment. It consists in abundance of spiritual wisdom, holiness, and love, and consequent power for good; in the honour which these bring from God, and in the confidence, affection, and respect with which they inspire men. It has the advantage of being accessible to all, its conditions being, first, faith in Christ and God; and then the fruits of faith, such as love, humility (Mat 18:4), obedience to God (Mat 5:19), self-control (Pro 16:32), self-denying service (Mat 20:20-28). Such greatness is intrinsic and essential. It is best for ourselves and best for others. It is inseparable from the man himself, and, surviving all worldly distinctions, goes with him into eternity, and abides forever (see 1Jn 2:17).G.W.

2Sa 5:12

Perception of Divine agency and purpose.

These words are introduced after the narration of the taking of the fortress of Zion, the erection of additional buildings around it, and especially the building of a royal residence for David. It was the establishment of a metropolis for the whole kingdom, and both evidenced and promoted a settled state of things. David’s thoughts upon the matter are given in the text. He recognized that it was God who made him king, and that his exaltation was for the sake of God’s people Israel.

I. THE FACTS PERCEIVED.

1. The Divine operation. God had raised David to the throne and settled him on it. At every step the hand of God was clear; especially clear was that hand as the whole series of steps, their connection and issue, were regarded.

2. The Divine purpose. All was “for his people Israel’s sake.” Not for the sake of David and his family, that they might be rich, luxurious, and honoured; but for the good of others. That the tribes might be united and consolidated as one nation, free, settled, safe, prosperous, and glorious. That the people might be elevated in their moral and religious life; and that they might be better fitted to fulfil the great end of their election as God’s people, witnessing for him, maintaining his worship, preserving his truth, showing forth his praise, and promoting his kingdom in the world; and that ultimately from them might come the Saviour and salvation. Similarly, the Son of David is exalted, not for himself alone, but that he may deliver, “gather together in one” (Joh 11:52), teach, sanctify, elevate, and eternally save, the people of God. He is “Head over all things to the Church” (Eph 1:22). In like manner, all power, elevation, authority, etc; with which men are endowed are given to them for the sake of others, and ultimately for the sake of God’s people, to whom in Christ all things belong (1Co 3:21-23), that they may be blessed and be made a blessing to mankind.

II. DAVID‘S PERCEPTION OF THESE FACTS.

1. He recognized that his exaltation was from God. This would check pride and produce humility and gratitude.

2. He recognized that his exaltation was for the sake of the people. This would check selfish ambition and produce cordial devotement to the good of the nation. And thus should we seek to have a clear perception and deep impression of the agency and purpose of God in our lives. We should regard all we have of being, faculty, position, or possessions, temporal and spiritual alike, as from him; and all as given us, not merely or chiefly for ourselves, but for the sake of others, especially for their salvationthat they may become, if they are not, God’s people, and that as God’s people they may prosper, be united, victorious over all the foes of God and man, and powerful to bless mankind. For this is the Divine purpose, and as we make it our own we become intelligent coworkers with God, and our lives are filled with meaning, dignity, and worth, and a fitting preparation for the world where all are consciously, willingly, and habitually engaged in doing the will of God (Mat 6:10).G.W.

2Sa 5:19

Divine assurance of victory.

The enlargement and establishment of David’s kingdom, while a joy to Israel, was a grief to their old and formidable enemies, the Philistines. These came in great numbers into the territory of Israel, hoping to seize David himself (2Sa 5:17), as the shortest way of putting an end to the newly united state. So formidable was the invasion that the king found it desirable to leave his new city and go “down to the hold,” the fortress probably of Adullam, with such forces as he could collect; and when the enemy “spread themselves in the Valley of Rephaim,” he sought direction and promise of victory from God before attacking them, and received the answer, “Go up,” etc. Christians are called to a warfare with powerful enemies, who are the enemies of Christ and his kingdom; and it is their satisfaction that they have received Divine assurance of victory. They have to fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil, as they assail themselves and endanger their salvation, and as they prevail in the world and even invade the Church. They are powerful foes, with many resources at command, and their onset is at times alarming. As the Philistines with David, they may be expected to make specially violent assaults when special prosperity has been attained, but the results are not yet fully established. But it is the joy of Christ’s warriors that victory is certain. Each faithful soul shall successfully fight his own way to heaven, and the Church shall gain final and complete success in the battle with evil.

I. HOW THE ASSURANCE OF VICTORY IS IMPARTED. How does God assure us that we shall be successful in the Christian war?

1. By the intuitions of the soul. When we distinctly place before our minds the combatants, we cannot doubt which will ultimately be victorious. It is a conflict between good and evil, truth and error, right and wrong, holiness and sin, God and Satan. Evil is mighty, but good is almighty, because the living, true, and holy God is almighty.

2. By the promises and prophecies of his Word. These assure victory to every faithful soul in his own personal contest (see 1Co 10:13; Eph 6:10-13; Jas 4:7; Mat 24:13), and triumph to the Church in the conflict with error and sin in the world, notwithstanding the deep and firm hold they have upon men, their extensive prevalence, their long reign. These assurances abound throughout the Scriptures, culminating in the descriptions of the conflict in the Apocalypse, and of the victories of the great Leader and his forces, and summed up in the triumphant shout of the great voices in heaven: “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev 11:15).

3. By the mission and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. He came as our “Leader and Commander” (Isa 55:4), and, by his personal conflict, endurance, and conquests, not only led the way for his followers, but secured victory for them. “Be of good cheer,” he says, “I have overcome the world” (Joh 16:33; see also Heb 2:9, Heb 2:10, Heb 2:14-18; 1Co 15:24, 1Co 15:25).

4. By the victories already won. The gift of the Holy Spirit and his mighty operations in apostolic times and all through the Christian centuries. The victories over the old paganism; the Reformation; the revivals of religion at various periods; the successes of modern missions. Every true hearted Christian has in his own experience not only a pledge of final victory for himself, but an encouragement to seek the salvation of others.

II. THE EFFECT WHICH SUCH ASSURANCE SHOULD HAVE UPON US. “Go up.” Engage in the battle with evil; and do so with:

1. Confidence and courage.

2. Resolute zeal and determination.

3. Persistency, notwithstanding all delays, discouragements, and partial failures.

4. Songs of victory. Not only forevery advantage gained, but for the final and complete victory already to faith as good as won. If the hope of victory in other conflicts produces such effects, much more should the absolute certainty which the soldiers of Christ have. An altogether ill effect is that which the Divine assurances produce on some. They say that, as the battle is the Lord’s, and he is sure to conquer, their efforts are needless. As relates to a man’s own salvation, such a persuasion is fatal; for victory is promised only to the earnest combatant, and the assurance of Divine operation is made a reason why we should “work out our own salvation” (Luk 13:24; 1Ti 6:12; Php 2:12, Php 2:13). And as respects the spread and triumph of the kingdom of Christ, such a feeling indicates ignorance, indifference, indolence, and unfaithfulness, rather than faith in God. It is quite inconsistent with both Scripture and reason, and will deprive those who cherish it of all share in the joy of final victory, even if they are not utterly cast away as “wicked, slothful, and unprofitable” (Mat 25:26, Mat 25:30).G.W.

2Sa 5:24

Divine omens of coming victory.

“When thou hearest the sound of marching then is the Lord gone out before thee,” etc. (Revised Version). The Philistines were a brave and determined people, not easily beaten. Repulsed and scattered “as the breach of waters,” they reunite and return. David, inquiring of God, receives directions differing from those given him on the former occasion. He is instructed not to “go up” to the higher ground occupied by the Philistines, but to make a circuit to their rear, where was a plantation, and when he hears a sound as of marching on the tops of the trees, then to attack the foe with spirit and energy, knowing that God was gone before to give him certain victory. The enemies of the Christian and the Church are similarly persistent, and must be assailed and defeated over and over again. Indeed, the conflict is continuous. There are, however, certain times when we are specially to “bestir” ourselves, with assurance of conquest; and these are often indicated by special signs that the supernatural powers are “marching” on to lead us and give us success.

I. IN RESPECT TO THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN WARFARE AND WORK, THE SUPERNATURAL EVENTS BY WHICH OUR RELIGION WAS INAUGURATED MAY BE THUS REGARDED. In the incarnation of the Son of God, his supernatural revelations, the miracles of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, in the all-sufficient sacrifice he offered for sin, and in the descent and operations of the Holy Spirit, God went before his people to lead them on to victory. They were not for the men of that age only, but for all ages. We, recalling them to mind, may ever take courage in the assurance that we are following where God has led and still leads. Evermore they remain as calls to us to “bestir” ourselves with confidence of success; the eternal motives to energy and hope; the eternal armoury, too, from which we draw the offensive and defensive arms we need in the war.

II. IN RESPECT TO OUR OWN PERSONAL SALVATION, THERE ARE AT TIMES SPECIAL INDICATIONS THAT GOD IS GOING BEFORE US TO GIVE US SPECIAL HELP AND BLESSING. We ought not, indeed, to wait for these. The knowledge of our duty, the memory of Christ, the promise of Divine aid, the experiences of the past, constitute sufficient reasons for habitual diligence, prayer, and hope; and special inspirations may be most confidently expected by such as are thus ever “exercising themselves unto godliness,” ever striving against evil and for the attainment of greater good. But there are moments of peculiar sensibility which afford peculiarly favourable opportunities and special calls to “bestir” ourselves that we may secure the blessings which they promise. Startling events which deeply move the conscience and heart; personal afflictions which compel retirement and produce impressions favourable to religious exercises; bereavements which bring face to face with death; losses which make the uncertainty and insufficiency of earthly good felt; sermons which unusually touch the heart; earnest appeals of a friend which produce deep emotion; whatever, in a word, brings God and eternity, Christ and salvation, nearer, and creates a sense of their supreme importance, whatever excites a craving for a higher good, are signs that God is working for us, and calls to “bestir” ourselves by special meditation, prayer, etc. We may at such seasons obtain more spiritual blessing in an hour than at others in a month.

III. IN RESPECT TO THE WARFARE AND WORK OF THE CHURCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD, THERE ARE SIMILAR SIGNS FROM HEAVEN ADAPTED TO STIMULATE AND ENCOURAGE. Such are:

1. Remarkable openings made for the entrance of the gospel. The operations of Divine providence preparing a way for the operations of Divine grace. These may be on a small scale, laying open to Christian effort an individual, a family, or a neighbourhood; or on a large scale, opening a continent crowded with scores of millions of the human race. The discoveries of travellers, and the removal of barriers and obstacles by military conquests, are thus to be regarded. India, China, Japan, and Africa furnish instances of God going before his people, and calling on them to “bestir” themselves and follow whither he leads.

2. Impressions favourable to religion. In one person, or in a family, a congregation, a town, or a nation. Impressions by sickness, by war, pestilence, or other calamities; or by signal displays of the Divine goodness. By these God goes before, and prepares the way for his people to publish more diligently and earnestly the gospel, with good assurance of success.

3. Unusual religious earnestness in Christians themselves. Extraordinary emotions of love and zeal towards God and Christ and the souls of men, and of longing to rescue the perishing and enlarge the Church, however they may have been excited, are to be regarded as the yearnings of God’s Spirit in the Christian heart, and as calls and encouragements to exertion. The sign that God is working and leading his people to victory is more conspicuous when these emotions are shared by many.

4. Successes in the Christian war summon to new efforts and encourage the hope of new successes. They show that God is working, and assure us that he will continue to work with his faithful servants.G.W.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

THIRD SECTION
David becomes Sole Ruler over Israel

2Sa 4:1 to 2Sa 5:5

I. Murder of Ishbosheth. 2Sa 4:1-8

1And when [om. when] Sauls Song of Solomon 1 heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, [ins. and] his hands were [became] feeble, and all the Israelites [Israel] were troubled. 2And Sauls son had two men that were captains of bands. The name of the one was Baanah and the name of the other Rachab, the sons of Rimmon a Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin; for2 Beeroth also was reckoned to Benjamin. 3And the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were [have been] sojourners there until this 4day. And3 Jonathan, Sauls son, had a son that was lame of his feet. He was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel, and his nurse took him up and fled; and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth. 5And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon [and he was taking his midday-rest].4 6And they came thither5 into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched [fetching] wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib 7[in the abdomen]; and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped.6 For when they [And they] came into the house, [ins. and] he lay on his bed in his bed-chamber, and they smote him and slew him and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night. 8And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron,7 and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, which [who] sought thy life; and the Lord [Jehovah] hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul and of his seed.

II. Punishment of Ishbosheths Murderers by David. 2Sa 4:9-12.

9And David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said unto them, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, who hath redeemed 10my soul out of all adversity, When one [Hebrews 8 who] told me, saying, Behold Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidingsI took hold of him and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given [in Ziklag, to give him9] a reward for his tidings; 11How much more when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed? shall I not therefore now [and now, shall I not] require his blood of your hand, and take you away [destroy you] from the earth?10 12And David commanded his [the] young men, and they slew them and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over [at]11 the pool in Hebron. But [And] they took the head of Ishbosheth and buried it in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron.

III. David anointed King over Israel. 2Sa 5:1-5.

1Then came all the tribes of Israel [And all came] to David unto Hebron, and spake,12 saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest [led]13 out and broughtest [brought] in Israel; and the Lord [Jehovah] said to thee, Thou shalt feed my 3people Israel, and thou shalt be a [om. a] captain over Israel. So [And] all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron, and king David made a league [covenant] with them in Hebron before the Lord [Jehovah], and they anointed David king over Israel. 4David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and14 he reigned forty years. 5In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

I. 2Sa 4:1-8. Murder of Ishbosheth

2Sa 4:1. In consequence of the news of Abners murder, Ishbosheths hands became slack, the opposite of the strong () comp. 2Sa 2:7; 2Sa 16:21that is, he completely lost heart. And all Israel was troubled, because people knew Ishbosheths incapacity, and that Abner alone had been the prop of his kingdom (2Sa 3:6). [Things were generally in an unsettled state. Patrick: By Abners death the treaty with David was broken off, or there was nobody to manage it like Abner; Plato observes: when any calamity is about to befall a city, God is wont to take away (the) excellent men out of that city.Tr.]

2Sa 4:2. The son of Saul had15 two band leaders, Baanah and Rechab, sons of Rimmon.Noteworthy is the designation son of Saul for Ishbosheth, who is never called the Anointed of the Lord.The two band-leaders in Ishbosheths service were no doubt bold, adventurous men. The part that they play, as well as Abners conduct, suggests the supposition that the firm military organization that Saul had called into being had relaxed, and a disintegration of the army into separate bodies under adventurers and partisans was imminent, if it had not already occurred. Of the sons of Benjamin; for Beeroth also was reckoned to16 Benjamin.Beeroth, according to Rob. II. 345 sq. [Am. Ed. i. 451453, ii. 262] and Later Bibl. Researches 190 [Am. Ed. III. 289], the present village Bireh, seven miles north of Jerusalem in an unfruitful and stony region on a mountain, with old foundations, not far from Gibeon on the western border of Benjamin. Comp. Jos 9:17; Jos 18:25. As from its border-position, it might easily be reckoned to another tribe, it is here expressly mentioned as belonging to Benjamin, that there might be no doubt that these murderers were really Benjaminites, fellow-tribesmen of Sauls son.

2Sa 4:3. An explanatory statement about Beeroth with reference to the time of the narrator, when that Beeroth was no longer in existence. Not: they had fled (for at the time of Ishbosheths murder Beeroth no longer existed), but: they fled to Gittaim. They dwelt there as strangers () not protgs (against Ewald, Then.). Neither the reason for their flight, nor the position of this place is known to us. In Neh 11:33 a Gittaim is mentioned among the places inhabited by Benjaminites after the Exile. If that is the same with our Gittaim, we yet cannot certainly conclude that it belonged to Benjamin before the Exile; the contrary rather is probable. The word strangers points to the fact that the fugitive Beerothites dwelt there among non-Israelites. It was perhaps one of the places on the border of Benjamin belonging to the non-Israelitish Amoritic Gibeonites. [Patrick and Philippson suggest that Beeroth was abandoned by its inhabitants at the time of the Philistine invasion, 1Sa 31:7. Bib.-Com. (supposing the Beerothites to be Gibeonites) conjectures that the flight was occasioned by Sauls attack, 2Sa 21:1-2, and that the act of Baanah and Rechab was one of vengeance.But we know nothing certainly about it.Gittaim has been supposed to be the Philistine Gath (Then. and others) or Gath-Rimmon, Jos 19:45; Jos 21:24 (Wellh.).Tr.].

2Sa 4:4. A historical remark in respect to the then condition of Sauls house. Its only representative besides Ishbosheth was Jonathans son Mephibosheth, five years old at the time of the catastrophe at Jezreel, lame in both feet, helpless therefore, and neither a support to Ishbosheth nor fit to succeed him on the throne. In view of this the narrator here inserts this statement in order to make clear how, on the murder of Ishbosheth related below, the kingdom of Sauls house was necessarily extinguished. For further notices of Mephibosheth see 9, 2Sa 16:1 sq.; 2Sa 19:25 sq. Instead of this name we find (parallel with Eshbaal for Ishboshethsee on 2Sa 2:8) in 1Ch 8:34; 1Ch 9:40, Meribbaal = opponent, conqueror of Baal, and Mephibosheth17 also perhaps means exterminator of Baal. [This statement about Mephibosheth also prepares the way for the subsequent notices of him.Tr.].

2Sa 4:5. In the heat of the day the murderers came to Mahanaim where Ishbosheth dwelt, see 2Sa 2:8. He lay on the midday-bed, that is, in a quiet, remote, cool spot of the house. They chose this time of midday-rest as favorable to their purpose.

2Sa 4:6. And hither.18 The phrase fetching wheat explains how they could penetrate into the midst of the house, where Ishbosheth was lying; they came as persons that wished or were directed to fetch wheat. The Particp. is sometimes put for the Impf. as our Fut., as Exo 10:8, who are they that are going? (=that purpose going), and so in narration does the duty of the Pret., as Gen 19:14, marrying his daughter (=who were to or wished to marry). Ewald, 335 b. They came not as purchasers of wheat (Buns.), but as band-leaders, to get wheat for the support of their men, corn [grain] to divide out to their soldiers, which was kept in the middle of Ishbosheths house (Cler.). We need not suppose that this was merely a pretext; rather their entrance into the midst of the house is the more easily explained when we suppose that this was a usual practice in accordance with their military position, and that they had done it before. Thus without attracting attention they could slay Ishbosheth, and quickly make their escape.The Sept., departing completely from the Masoretic text, here reads: and behold, the portress of the house was cleansing wheat and had fallen asleep and slumbered; and Rechab and Baanah, the brothers, escaped (or, slipped by). Thenius restoration of the original text after the Sept. is rejected by Bttcher as frightfully far from the masoretic text, while Thenius disapproves Bttchers reading (which Ewald with some modifications adopts) as more circumstantial than his own. If the original text accorded with these conjectures, it is not easy to see how the present masoretic text (which differs from it so much) came from it, while it is easy to suppose that the Sept. (according to its custom), tried by an interpretation to explain partly how the two murderers could get into the house unopposed, partly the strange repetition of the account in 2Sa 4:7. The Vulg. (which, through the Itala on which it is based, is dependent on the Sept.) has the corresponding insertion: and the portress of the house cleansing wheat fell asleep, while in the rest of the verse it follows the masoretic text against the Sept. All the other ancient versions follow the Heb. According to the latter there is certainly a tautology in 2Sa 4:6-7, the entrance into the house and the murder being twice mentioned. But in the first place, it is to be observed that in the attempted restorations of the original text the phrase came into the house remains in 2Sa 4:5 and 2Sa 4:7. But we must further bear in mind a peculiarity of Heb. narration (referred to by Knigsfeld, Annot. ad post. libr. Sam., and Keil), by which a previously-mentioned fact is repeated in order to add something new. So in 2Sa 3:22-23 the coming of Joab, and in 2Sa 5:1; 2Sa 5:3 the coming of the Tribes is twice mentioned. Here the coming of 2Sa 4:5 is more fully described in 2Sa 4:6, and the slaying of 2Sa 4:6 is defined in 2Sa 4:7 as beheading, and this makes the transition to the account in 2Sa 4:8, that the murderers brought the head of Ishbosheth to David, having during the night traversed the Arabah or plain of the Jordan. Comp. 2Sa 2:29.

2Sa 4:8. To the king.Notice that David is always here so termed, while in respect to Ishbosheth the title is avoided. Behold the head of thy enemy, who sought thy life.The better to justify their deed, and to gain favor and reward from David, the risen star, they stigmatize Ishbosheth as one that sought after Davids life, thinking perhaps that the recollection of Sauls persecution and Abners hostility would give the color of truth to their false assertion. [Others hold less well that Saul is the enemy here meant.Tr.]. Nothing is said in the history of attempts on Davids life by Ishbosheth, and Davids designation of him as a righteous man, who was guilty of no evil deed stamps that assertion as a lie. They have the effrontery indeed to represent their crime as an act or judgment of God, the better to commend themselves to David, though they had committed the murder of their own accord without any commission at all.

II. 2Sa 4:9-12. Punishment of Ishbosheths murderers by David

2Sa 4:9. The words: Who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversityare therefore not a confirmation of the murderers assertion about Ishbosheth, but contain the thought that David is not obliged to free himself by crime from his enemies (Keil).

2Sa 4:10. He who told me thinking himself a messenger of gooda recapitulation of the history of the Amalekite (2 Samuel 1), here put in the absolute construction, and the words and I seized him follow as principal assertion, instead of: if I seized and slew him who told me (2Sa 1:15). In order to give him a reward for his tidings, that is, to inflict on him the punishment he deserved.19 [See Text. and Gram. The last clause of this verse is of the nature of biting ironyDavid gave the man a reward, and it was death.Tr.].

2Sa 4:11. How much more! ( ) the apodosis to the protasis in 2Sa 4:10. The words: wicked men on his bed are (as in 2Sa 4:10) proposed in absolute construction, instead of: how much more shall I require his blood from your hand, ye wicked men! The wicked men stands in sharp contrast with the righteous man. David characterizes Ishbosheth as a righteous man, that is, as one who had never done anything wicked (so Josephus). This judgment accords with the character given of Ishbosheth in chaps. 2, 3. (he was a good man, without falsehood and blameless), and is at the same time a decided refutation of the charge by which the murderers think to palliate their crime. David declares that Ishbosheth was blameless, having done nothing to occasion this end (Cassel). With the phrase and now David brings his speech to a close, pronouncing sentence of death, by the same royal authority as in 2Sa 1:14-15. The form of the thought is a progression from the less to the greater: If I executed in Ziklag him who avowed having killed at his own request on the battle-field my adversary Saul, under whose persecutions the Lord delivered me from all adversity, how much more must I demand at your hands the blood of this righteous man whom ye murderously slew in his house on his bed. On the phrase require blood, see Gen 9:5, according to which God Himself is the avenger of blood, comp. Psa 9:13. David recognizes himself as king in Gods service and His instrument, when he causes these criminals to be slain in expiation of intentional homicide. Comp. Num 35:31.Take away, destroy; the verb () is used of extermination by death, for example, in Deu 13:6 (5); not from the earth, but from the land (), since according to the law (Num 35:33), the murderer lost his abode in the land of promise.

2Sa 4:12. The order for execution is given and carried out. It is specially severe in two points: the dismemberment of the corpses by cutting off hands and feet, the deepest indignity, and the hanging up of the mutilated corpses at the pool in Hebron, a place where many persons came and went; this was for a public testimony to Davids righteous severity against such evil-doers, as well as his innocence of the murder, and for a terrible example, comp. Deu 21:21-22. [Hands and feet were cut off because these were the offending members (Abarb. in Philippson). This sort of punishment has always been common in the East.Tr.].David had Ishbosheths head buried in Abners sepulchre in Hebron on account of the relation that had existed between the two men.

III. 2Sa 5:1-5. David anointed king over all Israel.

2Sa 5:1. These incidents (the murder of Abner and that of Ishbosheth), which made a deep impression on the whole people, taken in connection with the growing inclination to David in all Israel, necessarily favored and hastened the attainment of the end after which Abner had striven in his negotiations with the elders (2Sa 3:17-18). The tenor of the history leads us to hold with Ewald that the recognition of David as king over all Israel occurred immediately after Ishbosheths death, against Sthelin, who thinks that there was an interval of several years after his death, during which the tribes gradually came over to David. [Here the Book of Chronicles again falls in with our history (1 Chronicles 11), and runs parallel with it in general (though with many differences) to the end of Davids life. The differences will be noticed as they present themselves.Tr.].Thus, then, appear at Hebron all the tribes of Israel, that is, the elders (2Sa 5:3) of all the tribes except Judah. The elders give three reasons (arranged in order of importance) for raising David to the throne over the whole nation: 1) Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.This expression denotes blood-relationship in the family, Gen 29:14; Jdg 9:2; it here refers to their common descent from one ancestor: we are thy kinsmen by blood, in view of which the enmity between us must cease.

2Sa 5:2. 2) Before, when Saul reigned over us, it was thou that leddest Israel out and inthe same thing is said of Joshua in Num 27:17. The expression lead out and in does not refer to the affairs of Israel (Keil), but the people itself (Israel), and the whole people indeed. This is expressly affirmed in 1Sa 18:16 in the words: And all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and in before them, and that this going out and in is to be understood of military leadership is clear from 2Sa 5:5, 2Sa 5:13, and from the whole connection. The bond of fellowship and love, which had bound him to them (even under Saul) as leader in their military undertakings, is the second ground of their proposal.3) Their last and strongest ground is the immediate call by the word of the Lord to be shepherd and prince over Israel. And the Lord said to thee; on the word feed () see Psa 78:70-72, and on prince [captain] see 1Sa 25:30. No such word of the Lord, spoken immediately to David, is ever mentioned. The declaration of the elders is to be explained as Abigails in 1Sa 25:30, and Abners in 2Sa 3:9; 2Sa 3:18 [that is, as belonging to the circle of prophetic thought.Tr.]. It is perhaps based on the word of the Lord to Samuel, 1Sa 16:1-2, by which David was chosen to be king over Israel, comp. with 1Sa 15:28.The first and third grounds answer exactly to the precept in Deu 17:15 : Thou shalt make him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; out of the midst of thy brethren shalt thou make a king over thee. [Patrick: 2Sa 5:1. They were not overcome by the arms, but by the piety and justice of David, to acknowledge him their king.

2Sa 5:2. This is the first time we find a governor described in Scripture as pastor of the people; afterwards the name is much used by the prophets, particularly Eze 34:23 and many other places. Whence our Lord Christ is called the good Shepherd and the great Shepherd.Evil rulers are called roaring lions, hungry bears, and devouring wolves, etc., Eze 19:2.Comp. the Homeric epithet , and the emblematic animals in Dantes Inferno. Bk. I.Tr.].

2Sa 5:3. And the elders came to Hebronresumption of the words of 2Sa 5:1 with exacter definition of the expression tribes by the mention of their representatives the elders, for the purpose of further detailing the solemn covenanting of David with the people and his anointing as king of Israel. And king David made a covenant with them before the Lord.Comp. 2Sa 3:21, that they may make a covenant with thee. In this word of Abner is given one side of the covenant, namely, the obligating of the people to obey him as the king given them by the Lord; here the other side is given, namely, David promises in this covenant, in accordance with his divine choice and call to the throne, to rule the people according to the will of the Lord. Notice the expression of the Heb. made to them a covenant ( ), which does not permit us to regard this as a mere bargain, wherein both parties have equal rights and authority (hler, Herz. viii. 11). The relation of both parties to the Lord is indicated by the expression before. The view that an agreement was here entered into of the nature of a modern constitution [There was probably gradually established between king and people some recognition of mutual rights and dutiesan unwritten, or possibly in part a written law. This would not be out of harmony with the theocratic conception of the government. Philippson points out some apparent indications (as 1 Kings 12.) of such a law.Tr.]

(Then.), does not accord with the relation that the theocratic principle of the Davidic kingdom established between king and people in their common obligation to the Lord, the true king of His people. And they anointed David king over Israelto which the Chronicler adds (1Ch 11:3): according to the word of the Lord by Samuel, an explanatory addition referring to the Lords command to Samuel to anoint David king over Israel, 1Sa 16:1; 1Sa 16:12. Davids anointing by Samuel (1 Samuel 16) is now confirmed by the anointing of the people, they having expressly and solemnly recognized his divine call to be king of Israel (1Sa 15:28), made by Samuel and witnessed by Samuels anointing. The Chronicler, deriving his information from precise accounts, declares that there was a large attendance of military men from the whole nation at this royal festival (1Ch 12:23-40).

2Sa 5:4-5. The statement in 2Sa 2:11 is here resumed, and we have stated, 1) Davids age (30 years) at his accession to the throne; 2) the whole time of his reign (40 years), and 3) the time of his reign over Israel (33 years). See on 2Sa 2:11. These statements of time are given in 1Ch 29:27 at the close of Davids reign. [Bib. Com.: The age of David (30 years) shows that the events narrated from 1 Samuel 13 to the end of the book did not occupy above 10 yearsfour years in Sauls service, four years of wandering, one year and four months among the Philistines, and a few months after Sauls death.Tr.]

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

1. In the section 2Sa 4:1 to 2Sa 5:5 we have the completed fulfilment of the statement made in 2Sa 3:1 concerning the theocratically contrasted fortunes of Sauls house and David, up to the culmination of the latters rise and the uttermost point of the formers depression. The spiritual weakness, moral slackness and personal insignificance of Sauls heir on the throne, the unfaithfulness, ambition, selfishness, rude violence and dissolution of all discipline and order about the royal court, the increasing favor of the people to David and the entire absence of prospect for the physical maintenance of the kingdom in Sauls house, whose last scion was a crippleall this co-operated to bring about the fall of this kingdom before the eyes of the people and the fulfilment of the divine judgment on Sauls house, without Davids doing the slightest thing to produce the catastrophe or staining his hands with Ishbosheths blood, holding, as he did, to what he had sworn to Saul, 1Sa 24:22. Amid the affecting events that introduce the final fall of Sauls house, and the severe temptations with which he is beset to make a compact with sin, or at least to come in contact with crime in order to gain his end, David holds, as from the beginning, firm and unshaken to his stand-point of humble obedience to and complete dependence on the will and leading of the Lord, knowing himself to be in person and life and in his destination for the throne of Israel solely in the hand of God. The anger with which he repels self-commending crime [2Sa 4:8-11], appealing to the guidance of his God who had brought him through all adversity, is at the same time a positive witness to his determination to take all further steps also up to the attainment of his promised dominion only at the hand of his God, and to guard against all tainting of his divine mission by sin and crime. His way to the throne had hitherto been always the way of obedience to Gods will; it was ever the way of the fear of God and of conscientious fulfilment of duty, and with such crimes he had never had anything to do. How could he now defile himself with them! The execution of these two murderers was a testimony to all the people, what ways David went and wished further to go, and that whoever would avail anything with this king, must tread solely the path of godly fear and duty (Schlier).

2. Ishbosheths violent end is not to be regarded as a natural step in the fall of Sauls house, or as a necessary consequence thereof, but as a revelation of the divine justice against his guilt in permitting himself (by his good-nature and moral weakness) to be misused by his ambitious and high-aiming general Abner, to be made a rival king and seduced into hostile undertakings against David (2Sa 2:12). Such an end must Ishbosheths kingdom according to the divine justice have had, since it was founded on opposition to Gods will.

3. And so, in respect to Gods judgments on mens sins, the God-fearing man, like David, with all his holy anger against evil, which is a reflection of Gods holy anger, and with all his obligatory energy of punitive justice, must yet exhibit recognition of the good that exists in his neighbor who is smitten by the judgment of God, and especially cherish gentleness and forbearance where personal wrong has been done him.
4. The covenant, which David made with the people on his accession to the throne, is not to be thought of as a contract between two parties, who by negotiations and mutual concessions produce a constitutional relation, in which their mutual rights and duties are to be considered and carried out.This would be directly contradictive of the fundamental idea of Israels constitution, namely, that the God of the fathers, who had chosen the people, separated them to be His people, redeemed them from the bondage of Egypt, and made a law-covenant with them at Sinai, was their king, and that they owed Him obedience as their ruler according to the demands of His law. People and God-given king had to obey the Lord as their proper, true king; there is no contrasting of king and people, but both have to render unconditional obedience to the invisible God as their Lord and Ruler. See 1Sa 12:20-25. The conviction that David was called immediately by the Lord to be king of Israel had spread from Samuel and the prophets throughout the nation, and announced itself expressly in the formal and solemn recognition of David as king in accordance with the demand in Deu 17:15 : Thou shalt set as king over thee him whom the Lord thy God shall choose. This recognition of the divine call precedes the covenanting and the anointing. On the basis, now, of this recognized fact, the covenanting could include nothing but what followed necessarily from the principle of the theocratic kingdom, to govern the people in the name of the Lord, and according to the law that the invisible King of the people had given. David promised, in accordance with Deu 17:19-20, faithfully to perform the law given by the Lord for him as well as for the people, and not merely a constitutional law agreed on between him and the people; and the people promised to obey the Lord their God in His royal government, and to be subject to David as God-appointed instrument of the theocracy. [While this statement of the joint subordination of king and people to the divine law is perfectly just, so that there could not be in Israel a political constitution, political progress, or free institutions according to modern conceptions, we may still suppose that in carrying out the details of the government there came to be recognized certain principles (subordinate to the central principle) which controlled the customary action of sovereign and people, and were of the nature of Common Law or a Constitution.Tr.].

5. The establishment of David on the throne of Israel as an act of God (completed by the people, in the knowledge and recognition of Gods will, by the anointment as an act of choice and homage) restored externally and internally on the old deep theocratic basis, the unity of the people introduced by Samuel, which was gradually weakened under Sauls government, and after his death destroyed by the division of the nation into two parts and the establishment of two kingdoms, so that a recurrence of the disintegration of the Period of the Judges was imminent. The perfect unity of all the tribes shows itself at Davids anointment in Hebron, 1) in the avowal of the blood-relationship of the whole people with David through their common descent from one ancestor in contrast with the nations that were corporally foreign to them (comp. Deu 17:15); 2) in the recognition of Davids services to the whole nation even in Sauls time as military leader against foreign nations, and of the bond of love and confidence that consequently bound the whole people to him; 3) in the declaration that David was called by the Lord Himself to be king over all Israel (comp. Deu 17:15), and 4) in the covenant that the two, king and people, make with one another before the Lord as their King, on the basis of the law-covenant that God had made with His people (comp. Deu 17:19-20, with 1Sa 12:20 sq., and Exo 19:20.)

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

2Sa 4:1 sq. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, 1) Because of the frailty of all flesh and of all human supports, with which fall the hopes based on them. 2) Because of the faithlessness of men, in whom blind confidence is placed instead of putting all confidence in the faithfulness of the Lord. 3) Because of the danger of ruin of body and soul, to which one thereby exposes himself.

2Sa 4:8. How evil seeks deceitfully to clothe itself with the appearance of good, 1) by falsehood, in alleging something evil in others as a pretext to make itself appear right and good; 2) by hypocrisy, in representing itself as in harmony with Gods Word and will; 3) by the pretence of having promoted the interest of another.

2Sa 4:8-12. How the children of God should guard against the power of evil which presses upon them. 1) By repulsing every service of evil that is to their advantage, and pointing to the Lord who alone is their help. 2) By avoiding all participation in others guilt. 3) By energetically testifying, in word and deed, against evil.

2Sa 5:3. What kingdom is in truth a kingdom by the grace of God? That which, 1) is based on the solid ground of the word and will of God; 2) conducts its government only in the name and service of-the living God, fulfilling its office of shepherd and leader, and 3) strives after the welfare of the people only in the covenant of love and obedience towards the holy and gracious God.

2Sa 4:1. Starke: Let no one trust in men, Jer 17:5; for they are nothing, Psa 62:10 [9], and when they fall, all hope falls, too, Psa 146:3-4.S. Schmid: At last the will of God does come to pass, and His promises go on to their fulfilment, Rom 4:21; Heb 2:3.

[2Sa 4:2. Scott: Wretched indeed are they who are engaged in undertakings in which none can serve them without opposing the known will of God ! The more exalted their station, the greater is their danger; for the very men in whom they repose their chief confidence are destitute of principle, serve them only for gain, and will betray or murder them when their mercenary schemes require it.Tr.].

2Sa 4:2-3. Berl. B.: A true king is nothing else than the shepherd of the people, 2Sa 7:7; Psa 78:71-72. Accordingly God made David a shepherd of men, as Peter a fisher of men.

2Sa 4:3. Starke: God causes His own people, whom He wishes to exalt, first to come under the cross awhile, Pro 13:12.S. Schmid: Kings and princes must know that they stand under God, according to whose will and direction they have to judge themselves.Wuert. B.: Although God does not cause that which He has promised the pious, to come to them immediately, yet He does at least give it to them, and indeed the longer He delays the more glorious it becomes. So let men patiently wait for the right time.

2Sa 4:4. Osiander: What often seems most hurtful to us, must often be most helpful to us.Wuert. B.: When God with His grace turns away from a man or a whole race, there is then no more prosperity, but all gradually goes down.

2Sa 4:8. Cramer: Ungodly men boast of their trickery and villainy, and imagine they will thereby gain praise, and glory in their sin.Berl. B.: They wish, as it were, to spread the name of God and His Providence as a mantle over their knavery, as bad boys are wont to do.[Wordsworth: It has been often so in the history of the world and of the Church, where zeal for God is sometimes a color for worldly ambition, and an occasion for deeds of cruelty and treachery.Tr.].Schlier: Where is there a human heart that knows nothing of selfishness? O do let us recognize such an enemy in ourselves, and humble ourselves therefor, do let us all our days fight against the enemy with real earnestness! Either thou slayest selfishness or it slays thee, and plunges thee into sin and shame, and thereby into ruin and damnation. It was selfishness that made these two Benjaminites become murderers of their king.[2Sa 4:8. Scott: Many are conscious that they should be pleased with villainy, provided it conduced greatly to their profit: thus they are led confidently to conclude that others will be so too; and as numbers are rewarded for villainous actions, they expect the same.Tr.]

2Sa 4:9-11. To hate and avoid sin is to be prudent, to keep out of sneaking ways is to build ones fortune, and to put away from us even enticing offers that are not in accordance with duty and the fear of God is to be sensible for time and eternity.

2Sa 4:9. Cramer: True Christians should commit and commend all their affairs to God, who judges righteously; He can and will make all well, 1Pe 2:23; Psa 37:5

2Sa 4:10. Cramer: God-fearing rulers should not bring territory and people to them through treachery, assassination, unfaithfulness, apostasy from known truth, hypocrisy and such like villainous tricks; for to be pious and true will alone protect the king, and his throne is established by righteousness, Pro 20:28.

[2Sa 4:11. Henry: Charity teaches us to make the best, not only of our friends but of our enemies, and to think those may be righteous persons who yet in some instances do us wrong.2Sa 5:1. Wordsworth: And thus God overruled evil for good, and brought good out of evil. He made the crimes of Abner, Joab, and of the two Beerothites to be subservient to the exaltation of David, and the establishment of his kingdom over all Israel. Thus God will make all the sins of evil men to be one day ministerial to the extension and final settlement of the universal dominion of Christ.Tr.]

[2Sa 4:1. When the sudden death of one man completely disheartens a whole people, it shows that he was a great man, but also that the people were already in an evil condition. And this man who seemed the prop of everything, may have long been in fact delaying some grand Providential destiny.Tr.]

[2Sa 4:4. Sunday-school address, The little lame prince. His lameness was produced under very sad circumstances, was itself a sad calamity, and Seemed to cut him off from a great career. Yet it afterwards preserved his life, and brought him wealth and honor (2 Samuel 9.). Let us not conclude that the afflicted or unfortunate have no future. Let us remember how often Providence turns calamity into blessing.Tr.]

[2Sa 4:5-12. Sunday-school address, The assassins. Describe them walking rapidly all night along the plain of the Jordan, bearing the slain kings head. 1) Their foul deed, 2Sa 4:6-7; 2Sa 11:2) Their false pretences, 2Sa 4:8. 3) Their deserved and terrible fate, 2Sa 4:12. Reflections: The sacredness of human lifetrickery often failsit is a shame to claim Gods sanction for wickednessmen becoming immortal by their crimes alone.Tr.]

[2Sa 4:9. Memory of past deliverances by the Lord. 1) Inspiring gratitude. 2) Restraining from sin. 3) Cheering with hope. (Each may be richly illustrated by Davids circumstances when he uttered the text).Tr.]

[2Sa 5:4. How has David reached the throne? 1) By aspiring to it only because divinely appointed. 2) By deserving it a) in what he did; b) in what he refused to do. 3) By waiting for it, a) continuing patient through a long course of trials; b) using all lawful means in his power to gain it (e. g., 2.5; 2Sa 3:20; 2Sa 3:36); c) preparing for it, consciously and unconsciously, learning how to rule men, and to overcome difficulties.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[1][2Sa 4:1. Sept. (Jebosthe) and Syr. (Ashboshul) prefix the name Ishbosheth, and Sept. also in the beginning of 2Sa 4:2. Wellhausen thinks the omission due to the same feeling that led to the change of Eshbaal (or Ishbaal) to Ishbosheth, namely, repulsion to a bad (idolatrous) name. But the omission may naturally be explained as a breviloquence or ***, the context clearly fixing the reference to Ishbosheth; similarly the Sept. inserts in this verse after Abner the words son of Ner. Comp. 1Sa 22:7-9; 1Sa 22:12-13.Tr.]

[2][2Sa 4:2. The brackets of Eng. A. V. may just as well be omitted, since the Heb. regards this statement as part of the narrative, and 2Sa 4:4 is as much a parenthesis as 2Sa 4:3.Aq. improperly makes these men = .The notice 2Sa 4:2-3, is an archological or historical remark of the editor, not necessarily a marginal remark (Wellh.) that has gotten into the text.Tr.]

[3][2Sa 4:4. This verse is an explanatory historical remark; see the Exposition. It is too peculiar for a gloss (Wellh.).Made haste is not strong enough for , which contains the notion of terror, Sym. Erdmann: sie sich in der angst beeilte, Chald., Syr., Cahen, Philippson as Eng. A. V.The name Mephibosheth is written by Sept. Memphibosthe, by other Greek VSS. Memphibaal. For the first part of the name no satisfactory etymology has been found, and it is not improbably a corruption of Merib in Meribbaal, 1Ch 9:40.Tr.]

[4][2Sa 4:5. Lit.: sleeping the sleep of noon (example of cognate Ace.).Instead of about we may render at (or, in) the heat of the day.Tr.]

[5][2Sa 4:6. , hither, which Norzius (cited by De Rossi) declares to be the true reading. Some MSS. and printed Edd., together with Sept., Syr., Chald., read , behold. (So the Chald. text of P. de Lagarde; but others have the masc. pron. , they.)Instead of , some MSS. and EDD. have .Tr.]

[6][2Sa 4:6. Two points are to be noted in the criticism of the difficult text of 2Sa 4:6; 2Sa 7:1) the seeming repetition of the masoretic text, double account of the murder; 2) the divergence of the Sept. in 2Sa 4:6 especially from the Heb. The Vulg. agrees with Sept. in 2Sa 4:6 a; the Chald. and Syr. substantiate (with slight variations) the masoretic text.The view taken of the text will depend largely on the decision of the first point.Some hold the repetition in the Heb. of 2Sa 4:6 and 2Sa 4:7 to be unmeaning, and therefore adopt the Sept., out of which they endeavor to explain the MSS. text as a corruption (Ew., Bttch., Then., Wellh., who all differ somewhat in their restorations of the original text). Others regard the repetition as a characteristic of Heb. historical narration, and take the Sept. in 2Sa 4:6 as a corruption or an explanatory paraphrase (Keil [who cites Knigsfeld], Philipps., Erdmann, Bib.-Com.). A middle view seems preferable: the repetition seems unnecessary; but the corruption of the Sept. text into the masoretic is improbable. It is therefore more natural to suppose that the Heb. contains two different accounts of the same fact put together by the editor, and that the Sept. either represents a different text or is a corruption of the masoretic.The following are some of the restorations attempted. Thenius: and behold the female overseer of the door of the house was gathering wheat, and nodded [slumbered] and slept. And Rechab and Baanah his brother (came) unperceived (into the house). But the Greek has cleansing, not gathering wheat, and it is not easy to construct the masoretic text out of this. Bttcher: , and behold, the portress (was) within the house to cleanse wheat, and she had slumbered and slept; and Rechab and Baanah had slipped through. He introduces a verb , to purify, from the Arabic, and does not account for the Heb.: smote him in the underbody.Ewald adopts Thenius reading except that he puts for the Heb. , and instead of writes . Wellhausen: , and behold, the portress of the house was stoning wheat, where the makes a difficulty.If the suggestion made above be adopted, we may take the masoretic text as the original (though a blending of two contemporary accounts), and then with the help of these emendations explain the emergence of the Sept. text from itTr.]

[7][2Sa 4:8. Acc. of limit. Three MSS. prefix the prep. , in.Tr.]

[8][2Sa 4:10. Partcp. as preposed absolute Nominative.Tr.]

[9][2Sa 4:10. Lit.: who (or, which) for my giving to him [the reward of] tidings. Hence three renderings: 1) which (namely, the slaying him) was to give him; 2) to whom I should have given; 3) who thought that I would have given him. The first is simplest and strongest (so Bottch., Cahen, Philipps., Keil, Erdmann). The second is that of the Sept. and Vulg. The third is adopted by Chald. and Eng. A. V. The Syr. has (in the simplifying style it so often adopts): instead of giving him., good tidings, here stands for reward of good tidings.Tr.]

[10][2Sa 4:11. Or: from the land (Bttcher, Erdmann), a more distinctively Israelitish conception.Tr.]

[11][2Sa 4:12. in the sense of on, at ( with Dat.).Tr.]

[12][2Sa 5:1. Lit.: said, saying, at which repetition offence has been taken, but improperly, since it is genuine Heb. (though rare), comp. Exo 15:1; 2Sa 20:18.The first word is omitted in 1Ch 11:1 and in the Vulg.; the second by two MSS., Sept., Syr., Ar. After some MSS., Sept., Syr., Ar., insert , to him.Tr.]

[13][2Sa 5:2. Eng. A. V. is here ungrammatical. The sentence would now more naturally read: it was thou that leddest.Remove the final from , and prefix it (as Art.) to the following word, as the masoretic note suggests. Comp. 1Ch 11:2Tr.]

[14][2Sa 5:4. The and is found in several MSS. and VSS., a natural interpolation.Tr.]

[15]It is necessary to supply (but not ) before .

[16] = on to, to.

[17] for and from scatter (only Hiph., Deu 32:26, Sept. , and so Ar., Chald.)

[18]It is unnecessary (with Ges. 121, 6, Rem. 1) to take as Pron. fem. for masc.; we may render hither (Maur.), or point behold.

[19]The initial introduces the discourse. The in the last clause= (Ew. 338 b) introducing the following words.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This Chapter opens with a brighter prospect to David’s life and reign than any before. All the tribes of Israel now come to him, claiming relationship, and offering him the whole kingdom. David is anointed. He goeth forth to war; builds a city; receives from the king of Tyre both materials for building and builders; is established in his kingdom; takes to himself more concubines and wives; his children are increased; fights with the Philistines, and is encouraged by the Lord. These things are related in this Chapter.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

(1) Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. (2) Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel. (3) So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel.

The time was now arrived when all Israel, as one man, should set their eyes towards David as their king. Though David had been so long exercised with difficulties, yet there is a set time to favor every son and daughter of Zion. No doubt it seemed a long time to David to wait the fulfillment of the Lord’s promises concerning him. Reader! it appears thus to all the spiritual seed of David! How long, how long? is the fervent cry of the awakened soul amidst his sharp exercises! But depend upon it, in your instance, as well as David’s, the Lord’s time is the best time. Sooner than the Lord appoints, would neither answer your purpose, nor his glory. But is there not beside this, a beautiful representation of the advancement of our Jesus to his spiritual crown over all Israel, and indeed over every son and daughter of his Israel? From the first moment that he manifests his grace in the heart, and that promise, to make his people kings and priests to God and the Father, is revealed to the soul, is it not, like David, a long and tedious expectation before Jesus gains the entire sovereignty? Even like David, after being brought to Hebron, many of the provinces stood out, and set up their Ish-bosheth; so our hearts too long and too frequently rebel, set up rivals, and attempt to divide the empire with the Lord. But, blessed Jesus, grant that like all the tribes of Israel, thy people may at length all come to thee, to be under thy full government. And we would claim thy dominion over us by the same endearing argument as they did David’s; surely we are thy bone and thy flesh; thou hast taken our nature, and married us to thyself; thou hast fought our battles also; thou hast conquered sin, death, hell and the grave; and thou hast done all these things for us and our salvation; condescend then, dearest Jesus, to be our king and our God. For in thee we behold the precept given to Moses can only be fulfilled; thou art the king, which the Lord our God and Father did choose; thou art from among thy brethren, and not a stranger, therefore thou, and thou alone, are suited both by law and gospel to be our king. See Deu 17:15 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2Sa 5

1. Then camel all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.

2. Also in past time, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.

3. So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed David king over Israel.

4. David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

5. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.

6. And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away [Thou shalt not come hither; but the blind and the lame shall keep thee off] the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking [or saying, David shall not] David cannot come in hither.

7. Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.

8. And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said [say], The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.

9. So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward.

10. And David [ Heb. went, going and growing] went on, and grew great, and the Lord God of hosts was with him.

11. And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons [ Heb. hewers of the stone of the wall]: and they built David an house.

12. And David perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel’s sake,

13. And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

14. And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon,

15. Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia,

16. And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet 17. But when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines came up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down to the hold.

18. The Philistines also came and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim [Translated in Jos 15:8 , the valley of the giants].

19. And David inquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? wilt thou deliver them into mine hand? And the Lord said unto David, Go up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into thine hand.

20. And David came to Baal-perazim, and David smote them there, and said, The Lord hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me, as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baal-perazim [the place of breaches].

21. And there they left their images, and David and his men burned them [took them away].

22. And the Philistines came up yet again, and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim.

23. And when David inquired of the Lord, he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees.

24. And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself: for then shall the Lord go out before thee, to smite the host of the Philistines.

25. And David did so, as the Lord had commanded him; and smote the Philistines from Geba until thou come to Gazer.

David a Type of Christ

READING thus far in the second book of Samuel, we may be said actually to see the growth of David’s character. Hardly anything is left to the imagination. The history is rather a spectacle than aught else, a reality that appeals to the eyes as if it would say: Behold, this growth is sudden, yet sure visible; every one can see for himself how strong this man becomes day by day, how more beautiful in spirit, how diviner in consecration and purpose. We naturally, and not unreasonably, suspect growth that is so very rapid and almost visible. We found a proverb upon early ripeness. Yet history justifies us in affirming that the growth of David was not only a sudden and patent, but solid and abiding, increasing more and more in all beautifulness and fruition. We should have wondered about this, reading the history as it were contemporaneously, but now we can read it retrospectively. We know that David was one of the fathers of Christ, and that Christ did not disdain to be called the son of David. By the help of what we know now we can interpret many things in the life of David which would otherwise have been perplexing and bewildering. Yet there were great black spots in the noble character, great broad bars of darkness across a life that was often so snowy in its beauty and purity. Even there a mystery not wanting in edification may be discovered. We cannot solve these mysteries now: but was it not well that David, being the father of Christ, should also retain almost visibly and faithfully his relation to ourselves to the earth-state, to the world-school, that he should not be set away so high above us as to throw into utter discouragement all our aspirations and desires after the pure life? There we are upon perilous ground, yet we feel some need of being assured that David was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh a man like ourselves because we may be more encouraged by his weakness than we could have been by a strength which never failed, a vision which dared the sun. We may help one another not a little even by the weaknesses we struggle against.

We have seen how noble David was in the case of Saul; he is just as noble in the case of Ish-bosheth. The men thought they were doing a noble deed. They saw but one aspect of their action. They engaged in a venture; they thought themselves skilful, cunning, bold; within narrow limits they were so, but David looked upon the moral quality of the deed they had done, and hanged the perpetrators of the meanness. How difficult it is to see more than one aspect of a case and more than one feature of a character! How all but impossible to take in the whole situation and hold in vivid realisation all the elements that make up a character, a scene, a history! How the young men talked to themselves all night as they fled across the plain! How they almost added up the reward of their cunning bravery! How they put speeches into the king’s mouth, saying, When he beholds this head he will be in raptures; he will not know how to endow us; he will smile upon us and hold us in high esteem. Sustained by this bad inspiration, the night was short, the darkness fled behind them, and ere they had well time to know where they were the morning shone upon them and they were in the presence of the king. History tells us what happened.

What is the permanent lesson? The men who will do a mean deed for you will do a mean deed to you when it suits their purpose. Let us put this doctrine into every variety of expression, lest we lose its force and immediate application to our own position. Take it thus: the man who will tell a lie for you will one day tell a lie to you. The man is a liar. Without being such he could not have told the first lie in which he thought he was advancing your interests. When he told that lie he wrote himself in huge capitals LIAR. The man who tells lies in one direction must tell lies in all directions. Falsehood has no background that can be really trusted. The mean man will suit his own purpose, gratify his own ambition, and not consider your welfare when it comes to real crises. But this doctrine applied as David applied it would clear the world. Who would be left in business when every lying partner is turned out, when every false clerk is dismissed, when every hypocrite is displaced? Who would be left in the market-place? If we can answer that inquiry by a frank and honest reply to the effect that thousands of honest men would be left, then let us thank God for such a residue, and trace the miracle to his almightiness.

The men did not see that they were really dishonouring David. Who does see all round a deed? Their meaning was We have done for you what you could not have done for yourself; and David resented that with haughty consciousness of his ability to do more for himself by the help of God than any other man could do for him. David could have killed Saul; David could have put down his enemies. We do not want the help of officious intermeddling. A man may be able to handle his enemies, but he may be distressed and disennobled by his friends. David could not bear to be thus laid under obligation to these men. Observe his contempt for meanness: “How much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed?” (iv. 11). The action was cowardly, unsuited to the temper and quality of a king; there was in it no noble passion nothing in it but the basest cunning and treachery. What is the permanent lesson? Would David have any occupation nowadays? Are there any today who take advantage of weakness? Then they belong to the brood of Rechab and Baanah, the sons of Rimmon a Beerothite. Let their genealogy be clearly stated to them. Men love to hunt up a pedigree, to trace an ancestry: there can be no doubt in assigning them their coat-of-arms. They have a bad parentage, and they themselves are worthy of it. Are there any men today who would strike a man when he is down, when he is afflicted, when he is unable to look after his own interests, when he cannot attend to the markets and see that justice is done to himself? Are there any that would go up to his chamber and tell him lies, or avail themselves of a false pretence and strike him under the fifth rib? Is the brood dead? Are the black souls extinct? If so, then David would have no occupation today. The question burns. We may well think over it, and wonder very much. The men who brought the news to David were hanged. So are all mean men sooner or later. There is only one fate for them. Rechab and Baanah were hanged by the pool in Hebron, that is, in the most public place. All the inhabitants went to the pool for water, and in going to the pool for water they beheld the spectacle two mean men hanged for the crime of meanness. Such is the bad man’s fate. No one has a good word to say for him; no one owns the body: let strangers break the bones and hide the carcase in an unnamed grave; no one would claim the mean man. Let us be taught by history. It is wastefulness on our part to neglect the pressing lessons of daily life. “The candle of the wicked shall be put out;” “the triumphing of the wicked is short,” and “the joy of the hypocrite is but for a moment.”

Now we pass into another climate. In the fifth chapter David is made fully king. He has been, so to say, partially king; now his kingship is to be completed: “So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed David king over Israel” ( 2Sa 5:3 ). It is legitimate to inquire into the typology of the whole case. Being the father of Christ according to the flesh, it will be to our edification to ask where the lines coincide, where they become parallels, and where they again touch one another. The study will be at once interesting and profitable.

“David was thirty years old when he began to reign” ( 2Sa 5:4 ). How old was Christ when he entered into his public ministry? Was he not thirty years old? The full meaning of this it is impossible to find out; nevertheless the coincidence itself is a lesson: we stop, and wonder, and think. Providence thus reveals itself little by little, and we are permitted to take up the separate parts, bring them together, and shape them into significance.

“And they anointed David king over Israel” ( 2Sa 5:3 ). Is that the word which is used when men are made kings. Is there not another word which is employed usually? Do we not say, And they crowned the king? The word here used is anointed, a better word, a word with more spiritual meaning in it, and more duration. The oil penetrated; the oil signified consecration, purity, moral royalty. There was a crown, but that was spectacular, and might be lost. Was not Jesus Christ anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows? Have not we who follow him and share his kingship, an unction, or anointing, from the Holy One, through whom we know all things?

David reigned forty years. Forty is a perfect number. There are many numerals which represent perfectness, and forty the four tens is one of them. Or making the whole life seventy years we come again upon another aspect of perfectness: perfectness in the life and in the royalty: perfectness in both senses and in both aspects. And is not Jesus Christ to come to a perfect reign? Has he not his own forty and his own seventy his own secret number, which represents to him mysteriously the perfectness of his reign? He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

The Jebusites mocked David when he would go and reign in Jerusalem; they said, “Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither” ( 2Sa 5:6 ). In other words: If you can overcome the lame and the blind, you may enter into Jerusalem, but other soldiery we will not interpose: even they will be strong enough to break the arms of David. Has no defiance been hurled at the Messiah? Has he not been excluded from the metropolis of the world? Are there not those who have mocked him and wagged their heads at him? Are there not those who have spat upon his name, and said, We will not have this man to reign over us? Let history testify, and let our own conscience speak.

David advanced more and more. The tenth verse has a beautiful expression: “And David went on, and grew great” The words are short, but the meaning is boundless. David was a persistent man he “went on.” It is the man who steadfastly goes on, who enters the city and clears a space for himself, in all departments and outlooks of life. And is not Jesus Christ going forth from conquering to conquer? Is he not moving from land to land, from position to position: “And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth…. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” Go on thou mighty Son of God!

Then we read in the eleventh verse, “And they built David a house.” Even those who were averse to him came to this at the last. And is no house being built for Christ? Once he said, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Is it to be always so? or is not the whole earth to be the house of the living Christ, the sanctuary of the crowned Lord? This is the voice of prophecy; this is the testimony of all history: in this inspiration we pray our bolder prayer and utter our grander hope. Jesus shall reign, and a house shall be built for him, and it shall be called the house of God.

“But when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines came up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down to the hold” ( 2Sa 5:17 ). Christ has enemies today. There are Philistines who are banded against him: they want to deplete his name of all spiritual meaning, to take away from him all the glory of his miracles, to deny even his incarnation, to treat him as a myth, a vision, or a dream; but still he goes down to the hold, and still he advances his position.

Having overthrown the Philistines in one conflict, we read in the twenty-second verse, “And the Philistines came up yet again.” These words have modern meaning namely, the words “yet again.” The enemy is not easily foiled. One repulse is not enough. The victory is not secured until the enemy is under foot no truce, no compromise, no modification, no temporising, no living by mutual concession. David said, Shall I go up again as before? And the Lord said, No, let it. be otherwise: “Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees,” vary the method. Sometimes when you are not apparently working you may be working most and best of all: in fetching a compass you may appear to be running away from the enemy, but in reality you are laying a strong line far out beyond him which means his enclosure and destruction. The Church of the living God should be a skilful strategist: the Christian Church should be inventing methods; it should be adapting itself to the varieties of circumstances which mark the history of the current day; it should have a thousand plans. Herein is the weakness of the Church: we suppose that we must work only according to one method once stereotype a plan, and revert to that under all circumstances. The Lord says, No: vary your method, change your operation: sometimes there must be direct conflict, and sometimes the fetching of a compass, sometimes great tumult and shock of arms, sometimes long patient waiting, but always having in view the same purpose, marked by majestic steadfastness a complete, unchanging purpose to destroy the enemy. The Lord said a signal would be given: “And let. it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself” literally, then thou shalt be sharp, quick, eager; for a long time wondering if the sound has come, listening with the soul’s ear, wanting to hear the sound. We should be in an attitude of attention when we cannot be in an attitude of fighting. Soldiers should always be on the strain should always be earnest. So God signals to us from heaven. He signals to us through human events. He says, by this occurrence or by that, Now is the time to arise. If there is great discontent amongst the people, he says: You have an answer to that discontentment speak it. If there is great mental doubt, difficulty, unrest, the Lord says to the Church: You could hush the tempest and bring in a great calm not by argument, but by deeper consecration, by larger generosity, by tenderer love, by holier purity: work the miracle! May we have understanding of the times, and know when there is a sound in the tops of the mulberry trees, that we may not be working behind the event, or in front of it, but with it, having understanding hearts, and knowing what Israel ought to do.

Selected Notes

” King David made a league with them in Hebron ” ( 2Sa 5:3 ). Hebron is picturesquely situated in a narrow valley, surrounded by rocky hills. This, in all probability, is that “valley of Eshcol” whence the Jewish spies got the great bunch of grapes ( Num 13:23 ). Its sides are still clothed with luxuriant vineyards, and its grapes are considered the finest in Southern Palestine. Groves of gray olives, and some other fruit trees, give variety to the scene. The valley runs from north to south; and the main quarter of the town, surmounted by the lofty walls of the venerable Haram, lies partly on the eastern slope (Gen 37:14 ; comp. Gen 23:19 ). The houses are all of stone, solidly built, flat-roofed, each having one or two small cupolas. The town has no walls, but the main streets opening on the principal roads have gates. In the bottom of the valley south of the town is a large tank, one hundred and thirty feet square, by fifty deep; the sides arc solidly built with hewn stones. At the northern end of the principal quarter is. another, measuring eighty-five feet long, by fifty-five broad. Both are of high antiquity; and one of them, probably the former, is that over which David hanged the murderers of Ish-bosheth ( 2Sa 4:12 ). About a mile from the town, up the valley, is one of the largest oak-trees in Palestine. It stands quite alone in the midst of the vineyards. It is twenty-three feet in girth, and its branches cover a space ninety feet in diameter. This, say some, is the very tree beneath which Abraham pitched his tent; but, however this may be, it still bears the name of the patriarch.

” Except thou take away the blind and the lame ” ( 2Sa 5:6 ). Jebus possessed a secret supply of water, which enabled its inhabitants to stand out a siege of any length, probably in the form of subterranean access to perennial springs. It was absolutely necessary to cut this off, in order to take the strong castle. This seems to be alluded to in a peculiar term employed by the Scriptural narrative: “David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the tsinnor and smiteth the Jebusites and the lame and the blind, that one hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain” ( 2Sa 5:8 ). Now what may be the meaning of this term tsinnor , which besides occurs only in Psa 42:7 . where it is translated “water-spouts”? It has been explained by such various conjectures as “precipice,” “the cliff or portcullis which Joab climbed,” “the ravine by which the stronghold was girt,” “canals,” “outlet for water,” “trough,” “water-pipes,” or, according to The Speaker’s Commentary, “the water-course, the only access to the citadel being where the water had worn a channel some understand a subterranean channel.” Dr. Kennicott, however, seems to have given the best and most acute explanation, rendering the passage thus: David said, “Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites, and through the subterranean passage reacheth the lame and blind.” He adds: “Most interpreters agree in making the word signify something hollow, and in applying it to water, as we have in Josephus ‘subterranean cavities.’ Jebus was taken by stratagem. It seems to have been circumstanced like Rabatamana, in having also a subterranean passage.” Strangely enough, in the excavations made during the year 1867, Captain Warren, near the top of this eastern ridge and about opposite the Fountain of the Virgin, discovered a rock-cut passage descending from the surface by a series of pits, stairways, galleries, leading from the surface down to the water-level, at a point about fifty feet inward from the Fountain. At another time he penetrated from the Fountain inward to the same point, the bottom of a shaft not far from forty feet in depth. This the Rev. Mr. Birch seizes upon as the long-lost tsinnor of Jebus. Somehow, he thinks, David learned how the Jebusites obtained their supply of water.. Evidently there was no chance of taking the stronghold by assaulting its walls. Would any one try the desperate expedient of first pushing through the horizontal water-channel, at the imminent risk of being drowned, then of scaling the upright shaft, where a single stone dropped from above would bring certain death, and afterward of penetrating into the fortress through the narrow passage, which two or three men might readily hold against a hundred? The plan seemed desperate; but, as there was no alternative, David issued a proclamation to his followers that whosoever first got up through the tsinnor the name at that time of this subterranean rock-cut passage and smote the Jebusites should be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Birch suggests that Joab never could have performed the feat of penetrating to Jebus through the tsinnor , much less through the difficult passage discovered by Captain Warren, without aid from within the town. In other words some confederate among the Jebusites must have helped Joab in what otherwise would have been really an impossible undertaking. Who, then, was this confederate and, really, traitor to his people? With whom did Joab, whose craft was even greater than his prowess, negotiate for the secret betrayal of the stronghold of Zion, and on whom depend for aid in ascending the pits? What was the bakhshsh promised and given to the ally of the followers of David the king? He answers only by casting suspicion over a spotless name hitherto. Years after, near the close of David’s reign, we find a Jebusite of rank, by name Araunah, still in possession of the threshingfloor just outside the city of David: possibly he may have been the traitor, and retained this valuable possession as his reward. Josephus says: “Araunah was not slain by David in the siege of Jerusalem because of the goodwill he bore the Hebrews and a particular benignity and affection which he had to the king himself.” Had we a Jebusite account of the fall of the fortress, perhaps it might contain some story which would scarcely justify the noble and spotless character from a Jebusite standpoint we give him. Certain it is, even from our own standpoint, Araunah, who ought to have fallen in the defence of his fortress-town with his fellows, or have perished with the rest after its capture, was the only man who lost nothing when Jebus fell neither life, nor goods, nor lands, nor, in the estimation of David with his warriors, honour.

Prayer

Almighty God, we bless thee that the tabernacle of God is with men upon the earth. Thy house is in the midst of our houses. We would that our house might be as God’s house, every house a home, and every home a church, and every church growing in grace and wisdom and spiritual power. This being our desire, thou wilt assist in its realisation, if so be we work industriously, with burning zeal, with simple faithfulness. The Lord grant that such may be our state of mind and heart, that so we may attain the divine purpose in our life, and shew forth to men what it is to live in God and have our being in the Most High. Thou has comforted us by thy grace, and healed us, yea abundantly hast thou come unto us in the mercies of every day; because thy compassions fail not, we are spared unto this hour monuments of mercy, witnesses of grace, miracles of the love of God. We are what we are by thy grace, thou Living One, and not by our own skill; we are God’s workmanship, created anew in Christ Jesus, clothed with all beautifulness by the Spirit, and made heirs of the kingdom eternal by a mystery of love, which we can never penetrate, but which we feel and which we answer with rising gladness. We bless thee for the cross the cross of Christ, the greatest mystery of thy love and wisdom and power: the blood of Jesus Christ thy Son cleanseth from all sin; we need its ministry, we pray that we may realise its preciousness, and be found at last, not having on our own righteousness, which is a thing of the law and of form and mechanism, but having on the righteousness of Christ, wearing it as a garment, made anew in the image and likeness of thy Son. Let thy word continue to be precious to us a lamp in the night-time, a song in trouble, a great and glad hope when all other things darken around us with threatening; then may thy word magnify itself in our experience, speaking to us as we are able to bear it and to endure its judgments and its encouragements. For a word so living, so full, so gracious we bless thee; may it be hidden in our hearts, and may it dwell within us richly an answer to every temptation, a security in the time of danger. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XVII

DAVID MADE KING OVER ALL ISRAEL, AND THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM FOR A CAPITAL

2Sa 5:1-10 ; 1Ch 11:1-9 ; 1Ch 12:23-40

This section is short, but intensely important. Please observe the method of the harmonist in arranging the text of the reign of David into periods of war, rest, and internal dissensions. This arrangement is admirable for topical discussion, but does not follow a strict chronological order of events. It is a characteristic of the histories themselves to intersperse here and there in the details of the story a comprehensive summary extending far beyond the specific details which precede or follow for example, 2Sa 5:4-14 .

The first notable event of this section is that David is made king over all Israel, at Hebron. For this consummation David himself deserves unstinted praise. There was nothing in his own conduct while Saul lived or after his death to make it difficult for any surviving partisan of Saul’s house to come over to David. Under persecution he had been loyal; in opportunities for vengeance he had been merciful; in the hour of triumph his spirit was not arrogant but conciliatory; in the long postponement of the divine purpose he was not impatient, never seeking, as some of his ancestors had done, to hasten by his own meddling the ripening of Jehovah’s prophecies and promises. And when some of his too zealous or more vengeful partisans took short cuts toward the destined end on lines of their own passions, he made it evident by signal rebuke that he was not personally responsible for their wrong-doing. He never rewarded a traitor for assassinating a member of the house of Saul except with instant execution and with expressions of the most pronounced abhorrence of their crimes. In impassioned and evidently sincere elegy he bore high tribute to the merits of the dead, mingled with a matchless charity that was silent as to their demerits, while sending benedictions to those who befriended them. So the remnants of Saul’s following and family had no grievances against David to forget or to forgive.

When we place over against this conduct of David the conduct of Philip II of Spain, the contrast is awful. Philip openly and habitually offered large rewards to assassins who by any means would murder his enemies, and sang, Te Deum Laudamus when they succeeded. His nature was as cold as a frog, poisonous as a snake, treacherous as a coyote, cruel as a panther. In wholesale murder, arson, and confiscation he was the prince of criminals, eclipsing the infamy of both Nero and Herod, and in stark unctuous hypocrisy none in the annals of time might dare to claim equality with him, much less pre-eminence over him. He was the Monster of the centuries. It certainly must have caused Satan himself to put on a sardonic grin when hearing Philip called “His most Christian majesty.” Spain, at Philip’s accession, was the dominant world-power; he left it with none so poor to do it reverence. Judea, at David’s accession, was at the bottom place among the nations; he left it on top, the glory of the world. The contrast spells just this: David was a saint, Philip was a devil.

It is to be regretted that so little reason prompted those tribes, now eager for union, to promote the defection which this union healed. Under the dominant influence of a selfish leader they set up Ishbosheth against the known will of Jehovah. They warred in open aggression against the choice of Jehovah. They made no decisive effort toward pacification while they had a leg to stand on, and when they did come back into the union their expressed reasons for return, while evidently now sincere, were all equally strong against their making the original breach. Look at these reasons and see. They assign three reasons for their return: (1) “Behold we are thy bone and thy flesh.” (2) “In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was thou that leddest out and broughtest in Israel.” (3) “Jehovah said to thee, Thou shalt be shepherd of my people, and thou shalt be prince over Israel.” In view of these cogent reasons, one may well inquire, Why, then, a long and bloody war of division?

The steps of the national reunion were these:

1. An armed host of all the tribes came simultaneously to David at Hebron to make him king.

2. Their elders, as representatives, enter into solemn covenant with him before Jehovah.

3. They anoint him king over all Israel.

4. A three-day’s festival of great joy celebrates the event. All these steps were profoundly significant, and are worthy of comment.

Concerning the first step the gathering of the armed host to Hebron some remarks are pertinent:

1. The total number of armed men who came together simultaneously from all of the tribes was enormous. Apart from the captains, and with the contingent of Issachar not stated, the total is 339,000, but assuming Issachar’s contingent to be somewhat between Zebulun’s and Napthali’s say 40,000, and adding the captains which are enumerated, the total would be 380,221.

2. The very large contingent from the house of Aaron of both branches shows how thoroughly the priesthood which Saul had hated stood by David.

3. The contingents from the least prominent tribes, Manaseeh, Zebulun, Napthali, Asher, Reuben, and Gad, were all out of proportion greater than the near-by tribes.

4. The small contingent from Benjamin is explained by the fact that even yet the greater part were attached to the house of Saul, but the reason of Judah’s small number is not given. The trans-Jordanic two-and-a-half tribes send a third of the total.

5. The remark concerning the contingent of the western half Manasseh is that they came instructed to make David king.

6. The remark concerning the two hundred leaders of Issachar has been the theme of many a sermon: “Men that had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do.” Oh, that such men were multiplied in our day!

7. Concerning Zebulun’s 50,000, it is said they were “not of double heart.” May such men flourish in this unstable, twisting, and turning generation!

8. Indeed, concerning all of them, it is said, “They came with perfect heart to make David king.” It was quite in accord with the patriarchal and representative constitution of the nation that the princes and elders of the tribes should act for them in entering into covenant with David. It must have been an imposing sight, to see nearly half a million armed men in fifteen distinct corps waiting at Hebron, while their statesmen, prophets, priests, and generals deliberated on the terms of the covenant.

The Covenant. The covenant itself doubtless was based on the charter of the kingdom as defined by Moses and Samuel, which safeguarded the rights of all parties concerned, to wit: Jehovah, the king, the national assembly, the religion, and the people at large. It was an intensely religious act, seeing it was “before Jehovah.” Following this covenant came

The Anointing. David had already been twice anointed, first at Bethlehem privately by Samuel as an expression of Jehovah’s choice, and as a symbol of the Spirit-power that rested on him. A second time here at Hebron his anointing was expressive of Judah’s choice, but now this third more public and imposing anointing on such a grand occasion, following such a covenant, takes on a wider and most charming significance so appropriately expressed by David himself in Psa 133 that it seems to have been occasioned by this event: Behold, how good and bow pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, That ran down upon the beard, Even Aaron’s beard; That came down upon the skirt of his garments; Like the dew of Hermon, That cometh down upon the mountains of Zion: Fur there Jehovah commanded the blessing, Even life forevermore.

It is certain that never before nor since was there such a thorough and joyous unity of the nation, and such brotherly love among the Jews, nor ever will be until erring and dispersed Israel, long exiled from Jehovah’s favor, shall be gathered out of all nations and turn in one momentous day with such penitence as the world has never known to David’s greater Son, according to the prophecies of Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Paul. Then, indeed, in one sense, will the “Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” be “anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows” because he sees “the travail of his soul” concerning Israel and is satisfied. We might well look to a greater fulfilment when the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ, at which time more appropriately than ever before in the history may a redeemed and united world unite in singing the greatest human coronation hymn, Bring forth the royal diadem And crown Him Lord of all!

The festival. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the whole occasion is the provision made for entertaining a half million people for three days. Our text says, “And they were there with David three days, eating and drinking: for their brethren had made preparation for them. Moreover, they that were nigh unto them, even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, victual of meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep in abundance: for there was joy in Israel.” This great festival of joy not only reminds us of the sacrificial feast following the covenant at Sinai (Exo 24:1-11 ), but prefigures the one announced in later days by Isaiah thus: “And in this mountain will Jehovah of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that covereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He hath swallowed up death forever; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of his people will he take away from off all the earth,” Isa 25:6-8 , or that greater festival adverted to by our Lord when he said concerning the salvation of the multitudinous thousands of the Gentiles, “Many shall come from the East and the West, and the North and the South, and shall recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.”

The auspices for the nation were all propitious. They have a king over them, not like other nations, but a king after God’s own heart. The rights, powers, and privileges of all parties interested were all clearly defined and solemnized by imposing ceremonies of religion. Here was God’s choice of the man, the ratification by the national assembly, bonds of charter and covenant, the presence and concurrence of prophet and priests, to which may be added, in the words of our text, “And all the rest also of Israel were all of one heart to make David King.” The plan of the kingdom, and its start are perfect. If failure shall come in later days, as come it will, it will be no fault in the plan.

The taking of Jerusalem. David’s first act of royalty tends to promote and perpetuate the union, namely, the securing of a central capital, strong for defense or aggression, and not likely to promote tribal jealousy. It would not do to make Hebron, distinctly a city of Judah, the national capital, nor yet Gibeah of Benjamin, where Saul had reigned. It must be a new place which commanded the Arabah, the Negeb, the Mediterranean coast, and all the highways from north to south and east to west. To meet these conditions there was but one place, the city whose citadel was held by the Jebusites; part of it lay in Judah’s allotted territory and part in Benjamin’s, but neither had driven the Jebusites from the citadel which overawed the city.

Memories of the place. It had been the city of Melchizedek, king of peace and righteousness, priest of the Most High God, to whom Abraham had paid tithes, and type of our Lord, David’s greater son. There, also, on Mount Moriah, in the greatest typical act of the ages, Abraham came to offer up his well-beloved son, Isaac, the child of promise, and there, in a type of our Lord’s resurrection, was Isaac saved. The authority of Moses still cried, “Drive out these Jebusites,” so David called the united nation to arms.

The selection of a capital for a nation made up of varied and jealous constituencies calls for the highest wisdom and the broadest spirit of compromise. Every student of our national history will recall what a perplexing thing it was for our fathers to agree on the site of a national capital. Philadelphia, the continental capital, would not do, nor would Annapolis, where Washington returned his sword at the close of the war, nor New York, with its Wall Street, where Washington was inaugurated. A district, ceded by Virginia and Maryland as an inalienable national possession, was the compromise, just as here Jerusalem, lying partly in Judah and partly in Benjamin, becomes the capital, and yet to be conquered by united force of the nation, giving all a special interest in it. “For similar reasons,” says a fine commentator, “promotive of national union, we have seen Victor Emmanuel made king of a united Italy, change his capital, first from Turin in Lombardv to Florence in Tuscanv and then to Rome, the ancient imperial city.” So now, David the wisest and most prudent of monarchs, avails himself of the enthusiasm of a united nation and the presence of a great army to lead them to storm the citadel of the Jebusites.

Two incidents of that great victory are worthy of note: (1) the scornful greeting of the Jebusites, confident in the impregnability of their fortress: “Even with the blind and the lame to hold the walls he cannot come hither.” (2) David’s offer to reward the one who would scale the wall, the position of commander-in-chief of his army, won by his nephew Joab. Following the conquest comes the fortification.

Rapid fortification. He lengthened, strengthened, and connected the walls of the city. Indeed, there was reason for haste, as storms of war were gathering from every point of the horizon.

Two results follow the union of the nation under such a king, and the rapid conquest and fortification of such a capital: (1) David waxed stronger and stronger; (2) neighboring nations, jealous and alarmed, prepare to pour on him a tide of war.

And now, before we dip into the bloody pages of these wars, two remarks are timely: (1) Throughout David’s reign, every act of his administration is promotive of the national unity centered at Jerusalem; (2) Jerusalem from this date forward to the end of time and throughout eternity will be the world’s chief city, either in type or antitype. Its vicissitudes in subsequent history are the most remarkable in the annals of time. On account of David’s work and preparation it became in Solomon’s day the joy of the whole earth. The Psalms proclaim its glory in worship, and after its fall they voice the exile’s lament: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.” Babylon captured it; Persia restored it; Greece, through Alexander the Great, honored it; Antiochus Epiphanes defiled it, the Asmoneans took it; the Messiah heard its hosannabs one day and its “Crucify Him” another day; Rome destroyed it; the Saracens captured it; the Crusader re-captured it; the Turk holds it and Germany covets it: its desolation has lasted nearly 2000 years and will last until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. Its greatest glory is that its temple symbolized the churches of the living God, and the city itself symbolized the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of all the saints. [The author’s reference to Germany’s desire to acquire Jerusalem was written long before World War I which has witnessed the Germanic-Turkish alliance. The words seem prophetic. EDITOR.]

QUESTIONS

1. What was the method of the harmonist in arranging the text of David’s reign?

2. What is a characteristic of the histories themselves?

3. What is the first notable event of this section?

4. What credit was due David himself in this great consummation?

5. Contrast David’s course in this matter with the character and polity of Philip II of Spain.

6. What reasons are assigned by the tribes for their return to David, and the bearing of their reasons on their defection?

7. What are the several steps of this national reunion?

8. What are the notable particulars of the armed hosts who assembled?

9. What tare he representative act of the elders?

10. What of the covenant itself?

11. What of the anointing?

12. What of the three days’ festival?

13. What was the first kingly act of David to strengthen and perpetuate this national union?

14. What place was selected for the capital, its advantages, and memories?

15. What are the incidents of its capture?

16. What were the steps taken to fortify it?

17. What two results naturally followed this union of the nation under such a king in such a capital?

18. What is the position of Jerusalem henceforward among the cities of the world?

19. Relate some of its vicissitudes in subsequent history.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

2Sa 5:1 Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we [are] thy bone and thy flesh.

Ver. 1. Then came all the tribes, ] i.e., Great numbers out of all tribes: out of Zebulun only, fifty thousand. 1Ch 12:33 Josephus saith a that Zebulun came full and whole: and the Scripture saith that they were not of a double heart. Christ’s subjects are a willing people; Psa 110:3 they flee to him as clouds, and as doves to their windows, Isa 60:8 and he reeeiveth them graciously, Hos 14:2 though they had long stood out as these tribes had. Nimis sero te amavi. too slowly I had loved thee. b

Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. ] We may boldly say the same to Christ, claiming kindred, inasmuch as he is “bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh.” Eph 5:30 Heb 2:15-16

a Lib. vii. cap. 2.

b August.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2 Samuel

ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD

2Sa 5:1 – 2Sa 5:12 .

The dark day on Gilboa put the Philistines in possession of most of Saul’s kingdom. Only in the south David held his ground, and Abner had to cross Jordan to find a place of security for the remnants of the royal house. The completeness of the Philistine conquest is marked, not only by Abner’s flight to Mahanaim, but by the reckoning that David reigned for seven and a half years and Ishbosheth two; for these periods must be supposed to have ended very nearly at the same time, and thus there would be about five years before the invaders were so far got rid of that Ishbosheth exercised sovereignty over his part of Israel. It is singular that David should have been left unattacked by the Philistines, and it is probably to be explained by the friendly relations which had sprung up between Achish, king of Gath, and him 1Sa 29:1 – 1Sa 29:11. However that may be, his power was continually increasing during his reign at Hebron over Judah, and at last Abner’s death and the assassination of the poor phantom king, Ishbosheth, brought about the total collapse of opposition.

I. This passage deals first with the submission of the tribes and the reunion of the divided kingdom. A comparison of 2Sa 5:1 with 2Sa 5:3 shows that a formal delegation of elders from all the tribes which had held by Ishbosheth, came to Hebron with their submission. The account in I Chronicles is a verbatim copy of this one, with the addition of a glowing picture of the accompanying feasting and joy. It also places much emphasis on the sincerity of David’s new subjects, which needed some endorsement; for loyalty which has been disloyal as long as it durst, may be suspected. The elders have their mouths full of excellent reasons for recognising David’s kingship,-he is their brother; he was their true leader in war, even in Saul’s time; he has been appointed by God to be king and commander. Unfortunately, it had taken the elders seven and a half years to feel the force of these reasons, and probably their perceptions would still have remained dull if Abner and Ishbosheth had lived. But David is both magnanimous and politic, and neither bloodshed nor reproaches mar the close of the strife. Seldom has so formidable a civil war been ended with so complete an amnesty. Observe the expression that David ‘made a league with them. . . before the Lord.’ The Israelitish monarch was no despot, but, in modern language, a constitutional king, between whom and his subjects there was a compact, which he as well as they had to observe. In what sense was it made ‘before the Lord’? The ark was not at Hebron, though the priests were; and the phrase is at once a testimony to the religious character of the ‘league’ and to the consciousness of God’s presence, apart from the symbol of His presence. It points to a higher conception than that which brought the ark to Ebenezer, and dreamed that the ark had brought God to the army. Modern theories of the religious development of the Old Testament ask us to recognise these two conceptions as successive. The fact is that they were contemporaneous, and that the difference between them is not one of time, but of spiritual susceptibility. Who anointed David for this third time? Apparently the elders, for priests are not mentioned. Samuel had anointed him, as token of the divine choice and symbol of the divine gifts for his office. The men of Judah had anointed him, and finally the elders did so, in token of the popular confirmation of God’s choice.

So David has reached the throne at last. Schooled by suffering, and in the full maturity of his powers, enriched by the singularly varied experiences of his changeful life, tempered by the swift alternations of heat and cold, polished by friction, consolidated by heavy blows, he has been welded into a fitting instrument for God’s purposes. Thus does He ever prepare for larger service. Thus does He ever reward patient trust. Through trials to a throne is the law for all noble lives in regard to their earthly progress, as well as in regard to the relation between earth and heaven. But David is not only a pattern instance of how God trains His servants, but he is a prophetic person; and in his progress to his kingdom we have dimly, but really, shadowed the path by which his Son and Lord attains to His,-a path thickly strewn with thorns, and plunging into ‘valleys of the shadow of death’ compared with which David’s darkest hour was sunny. The psalms of the persecuted exile have sounding through them a deeper sorrow; for they ‘testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ.’ ‘No cross, no crown,’ is the lesson of David’s earlier life.

II. We have, next, the first victory of the reunited nation. Hebron was too far south for the capital of the whole kingdom. Jerusalem was more central, and, from its position, surrounded on three sides with steep ravines, was a strong military post. David’s soldier’s eye saw its advantages; and he, no doubt, desired to weld the monarchy together by participation in danger and triumph. The new glow of national unity would seek some great exploit, and would resent as an insult the presence of the Jebusites in their stronghold. The attack on it immediately follows the recognition of David’s kingship. It is not necessary here to discuss the difficulties in 2Sa 5:6 – 2Sa 5:8 ; but we note that they give, first, the insolent boast of the besieged, then the twofold answer to it in fact and in word, and last, the memorial of the victory in a proverb. Apparently the Jebusites’ taunt is best understood as in the margin of the Revised Version,’ Thou shalt not come in hither, but the blind and the lame shall turn thee away,’ They were so sure that their ravines made them safe, that they either actually manned their walls with blind men and cripples, or jeeringly shouted to the enemy across the valley that these would do for a garrison. The other possible meaning of the words as they stand in the Authorised Version would make ‘the blind and lame’ refer to David’s men, and the taunt would mean, ‘You will have to weed out your men. It will take sharper eyes and more agile limbs than theirs to clamber up here’; but the former explanation is the more probable. Such braggart speeches were quite in the manner of ancient warfare.

2Sa 5:7 tells what the answer to this mocking shout from the ramparts was, David did the impossible, and took the city. Courage built on faith has a way of making the world’s predictions of what it cannot do look rather ridiculous. David wastes no words in answering the taunt; but it stirs him to fierce anger, and nerves him and his men for their desperate charge. The obscure words in 2Sa 5:8 , which he speaks to his soldiers, do not need the supplement given in the Authorised Version. The king’s quick eye had seen a practical path for scaling the cliffs up some watercourse, where there might be projections or vegetation to pull oneself up by, or shelter which would hide the assailants from the defenders; and he bids any one who would smite the Jebusites take that road up, and, when he is up, ‘smite.’ He heartens his men for the assault by his description of the enemy. They had talked about ‘blind and lame’; that is what they really are, or as unable to stand against the Israelites’ fierce and sudden burst as if they were: and furthermore, they are’ hated of David’s soul.’ It is a flash of the rage of battle which shows us David in a new light. He was a born captain as well as king; and here he exhibits the general’s power to see, as by instinct, the weak point and to hurl his men on it. His swift decision and fiery eloquence stir his men’s blood like the sound of a trumpet. The proverb that rose from the capture is best read as in the Revised Version: ‘There are the blind and the lame; he cannot come into the house.’ The point of it seems to be that, notwithstanding the bragging Jebusites, he did ‘come into the house’; and so its use would be to ridicule boasting confidence that was falsified by events, as the Jebusites’ had been. It was worth while to record the boast and its end; for they teach the always seasonable lesson of the folly of over-confidence in apparently impregnable defences. It is a lesson of worldly prudence, but still more of religion. There is always some ‘watercourse’ overlooked by us, up which the enemy may make his way. Overestimate of our own strength and its companion folly, flippant underestimate of the enemy’s power, are, in all worldly affairs, the sure precursors of disaster; and in the Christian life the only safe temper is that of the man who ‘feareth always,’ as knowing his own weakness and the strength of his foe, and thereby is driven to that trust which casts out fear.

On the other hand, David’s exploit reads us anew the lesson that to the Christian soldier there is nothing impossible, with Jesus Christ for our Captain. There are many unconquered fortresses of evil still to be carried by assault, and they look steep and inaccessible enough; but there is some way up, and He will show it us. For our own personal struggle with sin, and for the Church’s conflict with social evils, this story is an encouragement and a prophecy.

Jerusalem was captured by a reunited nation with its king at its head. As long as our miserable divisions weaken and disgrace us, the Church fights at a disadvantage; and the hoary fortresses of the foe will not be won till Judah ceases to vex Ephraim, and Ephraim no more envies Judah, but all Christ’s servants in one host, with the King known by each to be with them, make the assault.

III. We have, lastly, the growth of the kingdom. I pass over topographical questions, which need not concern us here. The points recorded are David’s establishment in the stronghold, his additions to the city, his increasing greatness and its reason in the presence and favour of ‘the God of hosts,’ the special instance of this in the friendly intercourse with Hiram of Tyre and the employment of Tyrian workmen, and the recognition of the source and the purpose of his prosperity by the devout king. We see here the conditions of true success,-’The Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.’ We see also the right use of it,-’David perceived that the Lord had established him king.’ He was not puffed up into self-importance by his elevation, but devoutly and clearly saw who had set him in his lofty place. And, as he traced his royalty to God, so he recognised that he had received it, not for himself, but as a trust to be used, not in self-indulgence, but for the national good,-’and that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake.’ Whosoever holds firmly by these two thoughts, and lives them, will adorn his position, whatever it may be, and will be one of God’s crowned kings, however obscure his lot and small his duties. He who lacks them will misuse his gifts and mar his life, and the more splendid his endowments and the higher his position, the more conspicuous will be his ruin and the heavier his guilt.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

Behold. Figure of speech Asterismos. App-6.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 5

Then all of the tribes came to David there in Hebron, and they said, Behold, we’re of your bone, we’re of your flesh. In times past, when Saul was king, you were the one that led us out to victories over our enemies: and you, the LORD said to you, You are to feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel. So all ye elders of Israel came to the king in Hebron; and King David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel. And David was thirty years old when he began to reign, he reigned for forty years. Seven of those years there in Hebron and thirty-three years there in Judah, or Jerusalem over all of Israel ( 2Sa 5:1-5 ).

Now notice David was called to feed God’s people, and to be captain over them. God’s people always need feeding. Jesus said to Peter, “Lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep”( Joh 21:16 ). Peter later wrote “feed the flock of God that is among you”( 1Pe 5:2 ). In Jeremiah, God said, “I will give them shepherds who will feed them with the knowledge of God”( Jer 23:4 ). God’s people: the greatest need is that of feeding. David was a true shepherd called to feed God’s people.

So David and his men came to Jerusalem where the Jebusites were still there in a stronghold ( 2Sa 5:6 ):

Now the Jebusites figured that their city was impregnable. The Israelites had never been able to take Jebus, it was the ancient site of Jerusalem, but it was a walled city. It had excellent defenses, and no one had been able to take this city of Jebus.

And when David came, they said to him, Unless you can defeat our blind and our lame, you’re not gonna be able to take our city ( 2Sa 5:6 ):

In other words, they were saying to David, “Hey, we’re just gonna put the blind and the lame in to fight you, you’re not even able to overcome them.” They felt that their defenses, their walls, and all were that strong that they could actually man them with just blind and lame men.

Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: and the same became the city of David. And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smites the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be the chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. So David dwelt in the fort, and he called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward. And David went on, and he grew great, and the Lord God of hosts was with him. And Hiram the king of Tyre sent down cedars, and carpenters, and masons: and they built a palace for David. And David took more wives and concubines out of Jerusalem, when he was come from Hebron: and he had many more sons and daughters. [The list is some eleven more sons and daughters that were born to him there in Jerusalem.] Now when the Philistines heard that they anointed David the king over Israel, all of the Philistines came to seek David; and David heard of it, and he went down to the fortress. And the Philistines came and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim. And David inquired of the LORD, [Now again, David’s seeking counsel of God.] And he said, Shall I go up against the Philistines? will you deliver them into my hand? And the LORD said to David, GO up: for I will doubtless deliver the Philistines into your hand. And David came to Baalperazim, and David smote them there, and he said, The LORD has broken forth upon my enemies before me, as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of the place Baalperazim. [Which means, “the plain of breaches”.] And the Philistines left their images there, and David burned them with his men. And the Philistines came up the second time into the same valley. And David inquired of the LORD again, and the Lord said, Thou shalt not go up; but circle around behind them, and circle around and attack them from the rear. So wait over there until you hear the sound of the wind in the mulberry trees, and that’s the time to attack ( 2Sa 5:7-24 ).

So David is receiving directions from God, inquiring of the Lord, and God is directing him, and thus he is very successful, as is any man who will seek guidance from God.

And so David did so; and they smote the Philistines from Geba even to Gazer ( 2Sa 5:25 ). “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

At this point the second section in the first movement of the Book commences. David had won the heart of all Israel by his consistent justice and magnanimity toward those who stood in the way of his coming into full possession of the kingdom. He had mourned for Abner, recognizing his greatness. He had punished the murderers of Ish-bosheth.

It was enough. The people recognized the kingly qualities of the man against whom they had been fighting under the leadership of Abner, and so at last David commenced his reign over the whole nation.

His first victory was the taking of Jebus. The city was considered impregnable, and in taunt its inhabitants declared it to be defended by the blind and the lame, which, of course, we are not to suppose was actually the case. Against these so-called blind and lame Joab proceeded, and with great gallantry captured the fortress.

It was out of this incident that originated the story attributing to David hatred of the blind and lame. There is no evidence that he had any such hatred, as indeed his action toward Mephibosheth subsequently disproved.

An element of weakness in David manifested itself at this point when, having come into possession of the kingdom, he multiplied his concubines and wives. Of course, here, as always, his action must be measured by his times. This, however, does not prevent a glimpse of that side of his nature which eventually manifested itself in deadly sin.

Two victories were gained over the Philistines, and thus the position of the king was made more secure.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

David King in Jerusalem

2Sa 5:1-12

David was anointed thrice: by Samuel in his home, by the men of Judah, and here. So our Lord has been crowned in the Fathers purpose and by his Church. There awaits another day, when he will be recognized as King by the entire universe, Rev 11:15, etc. The reasons for Davids coronation apply equally to our Lord: (1) kinship; (2) power to lead; (3) Gods eternal purpose.

Because of its impregnable position, it was wise policy to secure Jerusalem as the site of the capital. Here was the beginning of new prosperity for Israel, and for Jerusalem as well, which was now to become the joy of the whole earth. See 1Ch 12:23, etc. Davids influence increased by leaps and bounds, 2Sa 5:10. There broke on his mind a perception of the divine purpose, 2Sa 5:12. Often we are unable to descry this in the earlier stages of our life. We see no meaning, no purpose. But as year is added to year, Gods great scheme begins to unfold. Only be sure that any position or opportunity is intended, not for us alone, but for his peoples sake.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

2Sa 5:12

I. Two memorable passages in the history of David,-the establishment of his capital, and the removal of the ark to the hill above it,-illustrate the principles upon which his kingdom stood, and show wherein it differed from the great Asiatic empires which were then contemporary with it. The civic life, the life of cities, was with other nations the beginning, with the Jews it was the result of a long process. In the first, you have a despotism, which becomes more expansive and more oppressive from day to day; in the other case, you have a struggle, sometimes a weary struggle, but it is the struggle of spirits, it is a struggle for life. The ark spoke to the Israelites of a permanent Being, of a righteous Being, always above His creatures, always desiring fellowship with them, a fellowship which they could only realise when they were seeking to be like Him. Their king ruled so long as his throne was based upon righteousness; the moment he sought for any other foundation, he would become weak and contemptible. All David’s discipline had been designed to settle him in this truth. He was the man after God’s own heart, because he so graciously received that discipline and imbibed that truth. The signal sin of his life confirmed it still more mightily for himself and for all ages to come.

II. The discipline which followed upon David’s sin was not for him more than for his people, nor for his people more than for all ages to come. That which enabled David, crushed and broken, to be more than ever the man after God’s own heart, was also that which fitted him to be a ruler,–by understanding the only condition on which it is possible for a man to exercise real dominion over others, viz. when he gives up himself, that they may know God and not him to be their sovereign. One of the best proofs that his schooling was effectual is this, that all his family griefs, his experience of his own evil, the desertion of his subjects, did not lead him to fancy that he should be following a course acceptable to God if he retired to the deserts instead of doing the work which was appointed for him. He found out the necessity of seeking God continually, because he learnt how weak he was, and how little he could be a king over men when the image of the Divine kingdom was not present to him.

III. We might have expected to see David’s sun setting in splendour, to be told of some great acts, or hear some noble words which would assure us that he died a saint. The Bible does not in the least satisfy this expectation. We must turn elsewhere than to the Old or New Testament for deathbed scenes. Its warriors fight the good fight. We know that in some battle or other they finish their course. When or how, under what circumstances of humiliation or triumph, we are not told. Not by momentary flashes does God bid us judge of our fellow-creatures, for He who reads the heart, and sees the meaning and purpose of it, judges not by these.

F. D. Maurice, Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, p. 53.

References: 2Sa 5:19.-F.W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 267. 2Sa 5:23.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 40. 2Sa 5:24.-S. Cox, Expositions, 3rd series, p. 441; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii., No. 147; Ibid., Morning by Morning, p. 30; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 406. 2Sa 6:5.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 233. 2Sa 6:6, 2Sa 6:7.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. vii., p. 281. 2Sa 6:14, 2Sa 6:15.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, pp. 280, 300. 2Sa 6:15.-J. Ker, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 162; T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii., p. 132. 2Sa 6:20.-G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 217; Parker, vol. vii., p. 234. 2Sa 6:20, 2Sa 6:21.-J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, vol. ii., p. 127. 2Sa 6:20-22.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 321. 2Sam 6-Parker, vol. vii., p. 117. 2Sa 7:1, 2Sa 7:2.-Plain Sermons by Contributors to the “Tracts for the Times” vol. ii., p. 41. 2Sa 7:2.-S. Martin, Rain upon the Mown Grass, p. 56. 2Sa 7:12-16.-J. G. Murphy, Book of Daniel, p. 32. 2Sa 7:18.-J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 454. 2Sa 7:18-20.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1166. 2Sa 7:19.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 235. 2Sa 7:25.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii., No. 88; Ibid., Morning by Morning, p. 15. 2Sa 7:27.-Ibid., Sermons, vol. xxiv., No. 1412; Ibid., My Sermon Notes, Genesis to Proverbs, p. 67. 2Sam 7-W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 169. 2Sam 7-8.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 128. 2Sa 8:6.-J. Irons, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 105. 2Sa 8:15.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 340; W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 180. 2Sa 9:1.-W. Walters, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 248. 2Sa 9:7.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 326. 2Sa 9:8.-Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 148. 2Sa 9:13.-Ibid., Morning by Morning, p. 148. 2Sa 9:2-7.-W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 196. 2Sam 9-Ibid., p. 169. 2Sam 9-Parker, vol. vii., p. 139. 2Sa 10:10.-Old Testament Outlines, p. 02.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

II. DAVID KING OVER ALL ISRAEL AND THE EVENTS OF HIS REIGN

1. David Anointed King over all Israel

CHAPTER 5:1-5

1. David anointed king over all Israel (2Sa 5:1-3)

2. Duration of his reign (2Sa 5:4-5)

The events of the reign of David over Judah had a beneficial effect upon all Israel. After Ish-bosheths death all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron. It is a blessed scene when they appear to anoint him King over all Israel. 1 Chronicles 12 should here be consulted. In that chapter the names of those are given who stood by David. In verse 38 we read: All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel; and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king. The coming of all Israel to Hebron was one of the most magnificent spectacles in the history of the nation. One only needs to take a pencil and add the numbers mentioned in 1Ch 12:24-37 to find what a great army had gathered to make David king. There were 1222 chiefs and 339,600 men. Here we see a united Israel swept by a tremendous enthusiasm. Now they own him as their own bone and flesh; the victories of the past are remembered as well as the divine promise that he, David the Bethlehemite, should be the shepherd of Israel as well as their captain.

But there is coming for Israel a greater day than the day in Hebron, when they anointed David king. It foreshadows but faintly the glorious day when their long rejected King-Messiah, the Son of David, comes again. Then they will own Him and He will own them. They will also know and remember all God has done through Him. He will then indeed be the Shepherd and King of Israel. All this and much more is foreshadowed in Davids coronation and his reign. David is the type of the coming reign of our Lord as King of Righteousness while Solomon and his reign typify Him as King of Peace. And David made a covenant with them in Hebron as the Lord Jesus will enter into covenant with the nation in the day of His return.

Then the duration of Davids reign is given. Seven years and six months he reigned over Judah and over all Israel and Judah 33 years. The record here does not speak of the great feast which was made at Hebron. We find this also mentioned in 1Ch 12:39-40. It is typical of the time of joy and rejoicing in Israel and throughout the world, when the true King has come. Then the great feast of which Isaiah speaks will take place (Isa 25:6-10).

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

came: 1Ch 11:1-3, 1Ch 12:23-40

we: 2Sa 19:13, Gen 29:14, Deu 17:15, Jdg 9:2, Eph 5:30, Heb 2:14

Reciprocal: Gen 2:23 – bone Gen 35:27 – Mamre Deu 33:7 – let his hands Jos 10:36 – Hebron Jos 21:11 – is Hebron 2Sa 2:1 – Hebron 2Sa 2:32 – went 2Sa 3:12 – my hand 2Sa 6:1 – General 2Sa 16:18 – General 2Sa 19:12 – my bones 2Sa 19:42 – Because 2Sa 19:43 – ten parts 2Sa 22:44 – delivered Psa 18:38 – General Psa 18:43 – from Psa 60:6 – divide Psa 118:10 – All nations Psa 141:6 – they shall hear

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Subdivision 3. (2Sa 5:1-25; 2Sa 6:1-23; 2Sa 7:1-29; 2Sa 8:1-18; 2Sa 9:1-13.)

David in the fullness of power and glory.

What follows in the next subdivision, though most certainly a picture of a glorious day to come, is yet but a gleam of light also, and no more. What earthly history could furnish any more stable one of the reign of the divine-human King? If past or present could furnish more than this, it would not be the unique wonder and glory that it is. Ah, no! We may be sure that the clouds will soon return after the sun. And so it is. The man after God’s own heart falls from his proud position, all the lower for the height from which he falls. Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah, become but the living contradiction of what their names express. And so all mere human glory passes, to leave only the harp of prophecy to take up the broken notes of songs that have been and weave them into a harmonious anthem of a joy that yet shall be.

But let us seek to possess ourselves of what is here, remembering that even typically it is only half the story of that glorious reign, which we must go on to the books of Kings and Solomon to find completed. Here we have the establishment of the kingdom, there its after-character; here Melchizedek in the significance of his name as “king of righteousness,” there the “king of Salem, that is, king of peace”; here, therefore, the man of war, though far from being merely that. But as “judgment shall return to righteousness,” so, conversely, righteousness shall return to judgment. The kingdom will be a display of power such as the world has never witnessed; the king, the “lion of the tribe of Judah”; the sceptre, a “rod of iron.” And this indicates, indeed, the “regeneration” of the earth (Mat 19:28), when righteousness shall reign; but not the “new” state, in which righteousness shall “dwell.” (2Pe 3:13.) The millennium is the last of earthly dispensations, not the fixed eternal blessedness beyond. The millennium has an end; and that which has its end and passes away shows by that fact its imperfection. Still the hand that rules lacks no element of perfection; and the end of the millennium is the subduing of all things to God in such sort that the separate kingdom having attained its purpose, all things can be delivered up into the hands of God the Father, that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:24-28.)

Section 1.

There are three sections here: the first showing us the throne of David set up, in accord with and subjection to the divine throne (2Sa 5:1-25; 2Sa 6:1-23); the second, its establishment and growth under his hand (2Sa 7:1-29; 2Sa 8:1-14); the third, its internal administration and character (2Sa 8:15-18; 2Sa 9:1-13.).

(1, a.) To pursue now the story here. What Abner was not permitted to accomplish is now done by the united voice of the people. All the tribes now, as that of Judah before, assemble at Hebron to make David king. They own at last what he had been to them even in Saul’s reign, and Jehovah’s promise concerning him, so that their acknowledgment of David is a return of heart to Jehovah also. He makes a covenant with them before Jehovah, -it would have spoiled the type to say that they made a covenant with him, -and they anointed him king over them. Thus it will be when they own Christ their King in days to come.

David is thirty years old when he begins to reign, the time in His days on earth when Christ was anointed and thus came to His title, -“Christ” and “Anointed” being the same thing. It was the recognized time for entering on Levite and priestly service. This 30 is 10 x 3, the number of responsibility multiplied by that of divine manifestation. This is indeed what, whether as King or Priest, He assumes as His task, and nothing less could have accomplished anything for man. Forty years David reigns: for, as we know, the millennial reign he represents is not the eternal state, and is, therefore, as dispensational, a time of testing for man still. As to the other numbers I have no knowledge of their meaning.

(b.) The taking of Zion follows immediately after the anointing; and Zion becomes the city of David, permanently associated with his name. Not only so, it is named in Scripture as the place of the divine choice and abode. David, as we find presently, brought the ark to Zion; and in Psa 132:1-18, in answer to the prayer, “Arise, Jehovah, unto thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength,” the divine answer is, “Jehovah has chosen Zion: He hath desired it for his habitation; this is my rest for ever; here will I dwell, for I have desired it.” The royal throne and the divine throne are thus in the same place, although they may also be distinguished as by Micah, for whom Zion and the mountain of the house have their separate designation. (Mic 3:12.)

The name Zion is generally given as “sunny”; but it may just as well signify “fixed.” Either sense may be quite appropriate; while the last connects more plainly with what the voice of the Lord has declared regarding it. In contrast with Ephraimitic Shiloh, and consequent upon the failure of the nation and the priesthood there, Zion with David himself are emphatically marked out as objects of Jehovah’s choice, in the seventy-eighth psalm: grace manifests itself thus amid the ruin, to the people of God.

But again the Jebusite, the “treader-down,” has been at work, and the Lord used the term to express the condition of Israel’s city during the times of Gentile supremacy: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luk 21:24.) Thus the Jebusite period has come back, and will last until the true David shall come in power. But what is that which has maintained Jebusite dominion over the place of Israel’s and Jehovah’s throne? But one answer is possible here: it is sin which alone can have done so, the sins of God’s people themselves. And so inveterate has sin proved in their case, that the Jebusite may seem justified in his taunt, “Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither,” as much as to say, “David shall not come in hither.” Here is, indeed, the real question. Blind has Israel been as to all God’s dealings with them: lame, for any walking in paths to which the voice of God for so many generations has been calling them! Well might it seem as if their doom were settled now, and their hope gone. Yet the very name of Zion is a perpetual reminder of promise that abides and which will be fulfilled yet in David’s victory. God has said of Zion, “Here will I dwell, for I have desired it”: it is the “fixed” place of His abode.

The smiter of the Jebusite must smite, therefore, the blind and the lame, and reach the watercourse, the stream of living water. Let us note, however, that in the text the order of the two latter is inverted: the watercourse is the way of reaching the blind and the lame, as spiritually it surely is. It is remarkable that it has been found quite recently that by the watercourse (by its subterranean channel) the place of the citadel can yet be, though with difficulty, reached. Thus nature bears testimony with Scripture still. David, therefore, takes the stronghold and dwells in it, and builds it up anew. And he goes on and becomes great, for the God of hosts is with him: the higher kingdom and the lower are now united.

Following this we have the first brief notice of Hiram, in which we find a Gentile power greeting and sending aid to the king of Israel. “The daughter of Tyre is” here “with a gift.” But this is to find more prominence and significance in the day of Solomon.

(c.) There are still more marriages contracted by David, and sons and daughters born to him in Jerusalem. Eleven are named, but without mention of their mothers. There are but two of whom we find anything recorded afterwards, and only one in the present history. None the less must there be purpose in their enumeration here.

Of these eleven sons, judging by their numerical significance, there are two series, 4 and 7; and this is confirmed by 1Ch 3:1-24, where we find that the first four were all sons of Bathshua or Bathsheba: the latter means “daughter of the oath”; the former “daughter of salvation.” But the two are one, as Zacharias’ song declares: “the oath which He sware to our father Abraham, that He would grant unto us, that we being delivered from the fear of our enemies, might serve Him without fear.” Notice that, with one exception, the names of mother and children are practically here:

1. Shammua, “heard,” or “obeyed”: -“might serve Him.”

3. Nathan, “he has given”: -“that He would grant unto us.”

4. Solomon, “peaceful”: -“that we being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear.”

One name only remains unaccounted for in the song, and that the history accounts for fully. It is the second name, Shobab, “turning back,” which the cry of the Psalms acknowledges as God’s work: “Turn us again, O Lord God of hosts; cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved.” (Psa 80:19.) Altogether it is clear, therefore, that these four names express, as Bathsheba’s sons should do, the fruits of the “covenant of promise”: and this is also what a first series, as such, might express. They show us Christ as “Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8), and that in the full character of One who has now “the government upon His shoulder.” (Isa 9:6.) All this is in perfect keeping.

The remaining seven sons seem to give the testimony borne by that salvation which the people experience; and this is a great point: we are thus “in the ages to come” to show forth the exceeding riches of His grace, in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” (Eph 2:7.) This reflex influence of His work is thus a ministry of grace to the whole universe; and the number of perfection, 7, is exactly the number to express this. We may be sure, however, that we shall be able but poorly to give even the outlines here.

The first son now is Ibhar, “election ,” or “He chooses.” The fountain of all blessing is in God Himself, in His will alone. This is evidently the fundamental necessity, if He is to be glorified at all. What is merely casual, or what is otherwise produced, we cannot trace to Him, cannot glorify Him for: this needs no argument.

The second son is Elishua, “my God is salvation”: the method as well as the will is from Him. It is the blessedness of the gospel that God is thus exalted in it.

The third son, Nepheg, “sprout,” shows the activity of life, and therefore of the Spirit of life. Thus the subjective work in the soul is also His, -the internal work is a salvation, as well as the sin-bearing work of the cross.

The fourth son, Japhia, is “lustrous, shining,” the creature clothed with the glory of the light, the reflection of that which has shone upon it. Christ Himself is the pledge and assurance of this, and by occupation with Him it is that it is produced. In it we are still in the weakness of creaturehood, receptive merely: the experience on our part is of what He is. And what a testimony to His grace that He can thus stoop, in the delight of His love, to glorify the objects of His choice!

The next three names all speak directly of God: first

Elishama, “God heareth”: the creature, thus laid hold of by His love, is for Himself; and, having heard His creative voice, is privileged to respond and be heard again. Thus the joy of such intercourse begins, no more to end, and

Eliada, “God knoweth,” carries it on to full communion. For such “knowing” is approbation, as when the “Lord knoweth the way of the righteous; and hearing with such knowledge implies the victory found over the evil that has brought in distance between the soul and Him, as it does also the nearness bred of likeness. And of such victory the last name seems now to remind us

Eliphelet, “my God is escape,” or complete deliverance. How the complete end gained will emphasize that escape! All words are utterly feeble here.

(2) We have next David’s conflict with the Philistines, Israel’s constant enemies from the times of the judges, and who had given Saul his final overthrow. David, on the other hand, gains two great victories, each of which has surely its lesson for us. In each case they “spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim,” the giants with whom we find them so much associated, and who give a monstrous, satanic character to them. When man looms large, even heathenism imagines its God-defying Titans, if these are not rather the distorted traditions of true history. David, in meeting them, clings to God and to His word, and Jehovah breaks forth upon them like a water-burst. In truth that is the way in which the power of error is to be met. When the heavens are opened and pour down their spiritual floods, then the hosts of superstition and formalism are defeated, the blocked channels are cleared, and the barriers reared by ecclesiasticism swept away.

David names the place Baal-perazim, the “place of breaches,” or “burstings forth”; and he and his men take away the images of the Philistines, thus returning upon them the captivity of the ark in Samuel’s day. But the dumb idols can be treated as the useless lumber that they are, and can make no reprisals.

The second battle is still in the valley of Rephaim; but David is now commanded to make a circuit round the Philistines, and come upon them over against the baca-trees (trees of “weeping”), and the sound of marching in the tops of the trees would show him when to attack, Jehovah having gone out before him. The baca-trees are said to be so called from exuding a tear-like sap wherever a leaf is torn from them. Can these weeping trees be a symbol of how the life of Christ is manifested as to the present state of things in sorrowing, not rejoicing? -this thus revealing the Lord as against the world-church, which suffers not with Him, but reigns?

These two battles would show us, then, the twofold controversy between Christ and the modern Philistinism which is against His Spirit in its dry form and externalism, and against His sympathies in its contentment with a world that crucified Him. Thus it cannot come into blessing, but must be swept away. David smites his enemies, therefore, from Geba to Gezer, as judgment from the Lord will come upon that which exalts itself and is in independence of Him. (See p. 66, n.)

(3) And now we have the ark established in its place in connection with the throne in Zion; not, indeed, its full place, -the temple could not yet be built, nor by David: the reason of which we shall find in the next chapter. But the ark is the throne of the Lord; and it must be shown that the throne upon earth is in accord with and in subjection to the higher throne. Thus David becomes but a servant in the presence of the ark.

Yet servant as he really desires to be, he makes a great mistake,which involves serious consequences. It is strange, indeed, that, in a matter such as he had now before him, David should neither inquire of God, nor think of the directions given in the law as to the carriage of that with which it was known that God had been pleased so intimately to connect the manifestation of His presence. It is stranger still, and reveals sadly the state of things in Israel, that of all those set apart to the service of the sanctuary, there was no priest or Levite to inform a well-intentioned king regarding the prescribed way of acting. Terribly had the Philistines suffered for dishonor done the ark. Terribly had the men of Beth-shemesh suffered. Yet the Philistines’ own expedient -confessedly only that -for ascertaining in the best way they knew whether it was Jehovah’s hand that had smitten them, is what David adopts in bringing the ark to Zion! True it was that He had allowed the Philistines to get their lesson in this way; and this, there can be little doubt, encouraged the adoption of it: but there could be no justification of such imitation. God had spoken: there was the most shameful ignorance or carelessness as to it; and this just where, in the most solemn manner, they were professing to put themselves under His yoke! How could He. in this great object-lesson before the eyes of the whole nation, allow this to be as a precedent for the future, and make light of His own dishonor?

They go beyond the Philistines even, as such imitators generally do. The Philistines had assumed, at least, that if Jehovah were God, the cattle would act obediently to Him without their guidance, and even in contradiction to their own natural instincts. But the Israelites, having committed the ark to the ox-cart, must have Uzzah and Ahio to guide the oxen. They had not faith in their own contrivance, and are already committed to the perilous work of trusting to their own management of difficulties that may arise. Alas, had they not learnt more in all the years that the ark had been in the house of Abinadab? And what, then, does this argue as to them?

Yet all for a while goes well. There are rejoicings and abundant demonstrations of loyalty on the part of the people, till at the prepared threshing-floor the oxen stumble, and Uzzah puts forth his hand and takes hold upon the ark to steady it. Uzzah means strength”: he had not measured himself before God, nor learnt the source of strength. The act revealed what the ark was to him, the habit of a soul ignorant of God and of itself, while most self-conscious. He is smitten; and the “prepared” threshing-floor becomes Perez-uzzah, the “breaking of strength.”

It is strange that in the service of the sanctuary one like David should be so more than dull; yet similar things abound with us today. The fact of good intention, of a thing, too, right in the main being before the soul, oft hinders even the need being felt of seeking the mind of the Lord or of testing everything by the word of God. If the thing sought be in itself good, why scrutinize methods so severely? How little do we understand the irreverence that lurks under the appearance of honest devotedness, where man’s wisdom is assumed competent to think for Him, or man’s strength competent to work His will! How often thus we have our Uzzahs smitten, just when we imagine our service must be accepted of Him!

Then comes the reaction upon this vain confidence: “David was afraid of Jehovah that day, and said, How shall the ark of Jehovah come to me?” So we pass from one extreme to the other; and in proportion to the buoyancy of our first confidence is apt to be the depth of our despair. The consciousness of haying sought to do the Lord’s will in that which has turned out so unhappily shrouds His dealings with us in gloom and mystery. Where we expected to find the signs of gracious acceptance and approval, on the other hand we have been smitten by Him. And how shall we stand before a God like this?

Yet the matter is simple, as we have seen. How could He accept the complete setting aside of His word, the adoption of Philistine methods and worse, where He had plainly intimated His will? -and this done in the most public way, and by the whole body of His people? “If thou shalt take forth the precious from the vile,” is the principle that applies here. The desire to serve Him is ever precious to Him, and yet there may be that in the service which He can only testify against. Oh that the church of God would listen to this voice today, amid the innumerable self-imagined plans whereby it is sought to serve God, but whereby His word is improved upon and supplemented until it is lost and set aside, and His name dishonored in the very offering we bring to Him.

But can we define more closely the special form of evil that is presented here? What does the ark of God upon the ox-cart speak of precisely? The ark was the throne of God in Israel: He dwelt, or had His seat, between the cherubim; there the glory rested, and thence the voice of the Lord gave forth its utterances. The dictates of this throne were addressed to men, to a redeemed people, separated from the apostasies of the nations round to know and serve Him alone, as alone worthy to be served, His service not slavery but the most ennobling freedom. As His people they had been brought out of darkness into light, out of debasing impurity into “holiness of truth,” the reproach of Egypt rolled away from them. Hence the only suited carriage for the ark was upon the shoulders of the Levites, the willing yoke-bearers of His glorious chariot of salvation. Redeemed men, subject to Himself alone, are still those who occupy a place of which that in Israel was but a type, a shadow. To these He has in His precious grace committed Himself, that their willing hearts may bear Him through the world. To them He still says, “Take my yoke upon you: my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

The ox-cart was a human invention, in place of this. It was dead machinery instead of living service. At least there was no intelligence, no moral principle, no spiritual consecration in it. The beast might and did, according to this idea, need a director; and this was proved in the most unhappy way in Uzzah: the man was more out of his place than the beast was; and the bolt of divine judgment fell on him. Directors and machinery are common enough today, whereby the work of the Spirit is assumed by those who heedlessly intrude into His place; and men, alas, oftentimes are compelled to become machines, their consciences subjected to other heads than Christ, their work made task-work, often the “burden” anything but “light.” Let honest hearts apply this, as they surely may.

The ox is indeed the type of the laborer in the Word, as the apostle assures us (1Co 9:8-10); but the ox treading out the corn is a totally different thing from bearing the ark of the Lord. The substitution of beast for man is what is here in question; and thus the beast must be taken as beast, -as implying what, if man come into it, speaks of degradation for him. This is perfectly clear. And yet the very threshing-floor to which the apostle and the law in Deuteronomy refer is that which would appear to be the occasion of the catastrophe. The blind animal instincts cause the oxen to swerve aside. The leader, seeing no more than the machine, supposes all to be in danger; and now the judgment falls.

Thus for the present the ark is not brought to Zion, but carried aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. The names here are so remarkable, both in themselves and in their connection, that one cannot but believe them to be designed to attract our notice and furnish a spiritual lesson. Obed-edom, as we see by the reference to the blessing on him elsewhere (1Ch 26:4-5), was a Korahite Levite, and thus his house was not unsuited for the reception of the ark. Yet his name means “servant of Edom” (typically of the flesh), and his place of former residence or birth, most probably the latter, is Gath, the “winepress,” -type, as we know, of divine wrath.* That we were indeed “by nature children of wrath” is no strange thing to be told of any of God’s Levites; and the apostle adds (Eph 2:3), “fulfilling the desires of the flesh,” -we were Obed-edoms. Thus also we are now Korahites, saved as the children of Korah were in the wilderness, from their father’s penalty.

{* Gath-rimmon has been suggested, as being a Kohathite city of the tribe of Dan; but why should he not have been born in Gath, the Philistine city? This, while surely possible, would be much more likely to mark him as an individual.}

How beautiful it is to see that while David asks, in fear, “How shall the ark of Jehovah come to me?” the house of an Obed-edom can receive it,with nothing but blessing “Jehovah blessed Obed-edom and all his house.” How His grace rebukes our unbelieving fears with blessing! And once again David is encouraged to bring up the ark to the city of David; but there are now those that bear the ark: God’s word kept, everything prospers.

Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are the due accompaniment, for without that which these signify there could be no dwelling of God with man. David himself, girded with a linen ephod, dances before the ark. He is now the link between Israel and God, and in glad subjection to the higher kingdom. At the end he blesses the people, therefore, in the name of Jehovah of hosts, and distributes to them all portions. We see the shadow of the Melchizedek king, the opposite of Saul and his independence, whom we find reproduced in the pride of his daughter. But Michal is therefore without children to the day of her death. The spirit of independence is, of necessity, barren: that of service is the truly royal spirit, as surely as “the less is blessed of the better.”

Section 2.

The next section shows us the establishment and growth of David’s kingdom: on the divine side, the promise of perpetuity to his line, -an absolute promise, in view of all human instability and failure; on the human side, its extension by the putting down of enemies on every side. The first is not that chronologically merely, but in importance, and the foundation of all the rest.

(1) David is on his throne and in peace; he has rest from all his enemies round about. He dwells in his house of cedar, and thinks it an unseemly thing that Jehovah’s ark should dwell within curtains. We see once more how a man’s heart may be right with God, and his thoughts wrong. He discloses his mind to Nathan the prophet, and Nathan at first approves his purpose: “Go, do all that is in thy heart; for Jehovah is with thee.” But the word of God is something very different from the best thoughts of the best people; and Nathan has presently a very different word put into his lips by the Lord. Here too the Lord shows David that his thoughts are wrong, spite of all the piety of them, by this conclusive fact, that they had not been formed upon any previous intimation of His will. Can a man think for God? Can we anticipate His mind? It is impossible: all that the most fervent spirit can rightly do is reverently to follow it. Hence David must be wrong, and every one else, who would add one jot or tittle to the perfect word of God. How easy, in this way, to decide at once concerning multitudes of thoughts that fill men’s minds today! And yet how little is such a principle accepted, even with the children of God! “Add not to His words, lest He reprove thee,” is as important as “do not diminish”: and, indeed, to do the former we must do the latter. Is Scripture able to furnish the man of God ” thoroughly” and “to all good works”? As surely as this is true, so surely must we refuse whatever even man’s piety may put forth, if the word of God is not the source of it.

Thus Jehovah says: “Shalt thou build me a house to dwell in? for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, but have been walking in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all places wherein I have walked among all the children of Israel, spake I a word with any of the rulers of Israel whom I commanded to tend my people Israel, saying, Why build ye me not a house of cedar?”

How fruitful a principle, if we would consider it! And not having its application, as so much else, to the cold and indifferent, for they are not the people who come forward of themselves to build a house to the Lord; but to the earnest and zealous-hearted.

But this does not mean that the earnestness and zeal are not acceptable to God: they surely are. He goes on therefore here, while refusing the offer of David, to give Himself to David an assurance that what he had thought to do for Him, Himself would do for David: “also Jehovah telleth thee that He will make thee a house.” A son shall be raised up to him, in whom the kingdom shall be established, and who shall fulfill the desire now in David’s heart; and his line shall be continued, and his throne established forever.

Solomon is first in view in this promise, as we know; but Christ the only One in whom it can be properly fulfilled, even to the building of a house for the Lord. The son near at hand is but the shadow of the greater One afar off; and the house made with hands only a brief anticipation of the glorious House against which the gates of hades never shall prevail. Thus we see how the instability of the mere human seed cannot avail to alter the word which has gone out of Jehovah’s lips. Chastening with the rod of men would as surely come as the need for chastening on their part; but the house and the kingdom abide forever, as sure as the pledged word that never fails can make it.

{*2Sa 7:23. In the Hebrew text, “for you,” -a difference of one letter from “for them”.}

The declaration is so plain that there is little to be said about it in such interpretative notes as we are giving here. It is plain that we have such a full declaration of divine grace in a promise which, ministered through David, is the only hope of the world as well, that man’s self-righteousness so ready to manifest itself even in a saint, is abashed and humbled. David, from a would-be worker, is brought to sit before God in rest and adoration. Even his prayer is only now, “Do, Lord, what Thou hast said Thou wilt do!” He can suggest nothing, add nothing, to dim the glory of this abundant grace.

(2) We are now shown the extension of David’s power over the nations round. However great, it is but the faint and passing image of what will be, when the King of glory comes. Still it is a type, and must be read as that; or what great interest is there for us in the list of these powers subdued? Nor is this to set aside the letter, which is only certified to us the more as we see the divine wisdom which has guarded and guided the historian. This verification of the outward fact by the manifestation of the inner spirit which gives it vitality and organic place in connection with the whole revelation of God, has been sadly lost sight of through the abuse and contempt of allegorization: that is, of the prophetic character of divine history.

The first conquest is that of the Philistines: “David took the bridle of the metropolis out of the hand of the Philistines.” This cannot mean that he took away their dominion over Israel, which was certainly already at an end. It must speak, one would say therefore, of their internal self-government, one city having a controlling power over the rest. The loss of this would deprive them of their internal unity, of such coherence as would make them formidable. It is striking to find in Chronicles (1Ch 18:1) that this metropolis was Gath, whose champion David had long before defeated. And what could have the place among the Philistine cities that Gath, the “wine-press” of wrath would have? Let Goliath be slain, their arms are defeated; let Gath be taken, their strength is prostrate.

The second conquest is that of Moab: “and he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, making them lie down on the ground: and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive; and the Moabites became David’s servants, bringing gifts.” It is certain that mere profession (which Moab represents) will not come to an end at the appearing of Christ: “Strangers shall feign to me; as soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me: strangers shall fade away, and be afraid out of their close places.” So says, prophesying of Another, this very David (2Sa 22:45-46); and here there is a line to put to death and to keep alive; but the exposition of this naturally comes elsewhere.

We have now, in the third place, the conquest of Syria, by which the empire of David is extended as far as the Euphrates. And indeed it seems to have been with him a deliberate purpose to take possession of the country as far as the limit of the promise to Abraham (Gen 15:1-21). This seems the real meaning of what even the Revised Version gives as “went to recover his dominion at the River,” but which most certainly says nothing of the kind. It is literally “to extend his hand to the River.” I have merely substituted “power” for “hand,” as plainly its force. With this meaning it becomes clear that the expression would rather apply to David than to Hadadezer, as with the other it must read the reverse way. David had no dominion to recover at the River, while, on the other hand, the Syrian king’s territory was at least close by; and while Hadadezer’s extension of his territory northward to the Euphrates would hardly have brought him into conflict with David, whose kingdom was to the south, it is quite easy to see that David, coming north to the River, would find the kingdom of Zobah in his way.

The occasion of the attack seems given later as arising out of the Ammonite war. Here we have but a general summary of conquest, hardly chronological. Whatever its historical significance, a spiritual one we have the amplest reason to expect. This career of subjugation and spoil, one can see indeed how another witness would be given in it, such as Egypt, the wilderness, and Joshua’s victories, had given before, to the power of one true God over the multitudinous and degrading deities of the heathen. A rude hand was needed to break these barriers to the reception of the truth, of which Israel was the divinely ordained depository; and the judgments inflicted by their means was a mercy, after all, which every thinking mind must recognize as that.

Typically we have already traced, to some extent, what Aram or Syria represents (p. 198-200, n.). It is man, whom God has exalted in Christ, in His own gracious and wonderful way, but who, on the other hand, by self-exaltation debases himself to his own ruin. This last is what we are made to see in the historical Aram. The world is indeed ever illustrating it in different ways: “man’s day” is a day of human aggrandizement with that of which he has robbed God, and of self-exaltation by that with which God’s mercy has enriched him. And therefore the day of the Lord must be “upon all that is proud and haughty, and upon all that is lifted up, . . . and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be brought low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.” (Isa 2:12; Isa 2:17.)

Aram, the “high,” seems even specifically to point out the various qualities of self-exaltation. Aram-naharaim, or Mesopotamia (Aram of the two rivers), like another Egypt, shows us, as already pointed out, that which is bred of the constant stream of mercies by which man is sustained, their continual flow unknown as from those far-off heavens from which they come: so that they can even say, at last, “My river is mine own, and I have made it.”

Aram-Rehob or beth-Rehob, near akin to this, speaks of “enlargement,” growth of resources, influence, power;

Aram-Zobah, of establishment, “stability”;

Aram-Dammesek, Syria of Damascus, if we may accept Gesenius as to it, of “activity”;

Aram-Maachab, of “bruising,” oppression, the tyranny of power.

There is no need to dwell upon these here. It is easy to understand that the world in this form must be brought down in the day of Christ, and be .compelled to yield what it has falsely claimed as its own. Its riches must be dedicated to the Lord; its glory pass to Him who is the “King of glory.”

Hadad-ezer (in other places Hadarezer) is a worthy king of Zobah. The variation slight as it is in Hebrew (the lack of a mere shoulder to a “d” makes it “r,”), I cannot but believe to be designed. Hadar means “glory, honor,” and is the more common form; but Hadad is “shouting, noise”: vox et praeterea nihil, -sound, and nothing else. This kind of satire is often found in the changes in Hebrew names. Hadarezer means “glory is help,” the first word being perhaps the name of their sun-deity, while certainly there has been always abundant idolatry of this kind among men. He is the son of Rehob, “enlargement,” and has a plentiful following, and gold shields upon his servants; but his gold is this time no defense: it is sanctified to the Lord, with much brass from his towns Betah, “security,” and Berothai, “my hewings.”

Nor can the Syrians of Damascus help: in Damascus itself David puts garrisons. How differently will the world’s “activity” manifest itself in the day that our David does this!

Toi, king of Hamath, however, has been in conflict with Hadadezer, and has evidently suffered at his hand. Toi means “wanderer,” the very opposite of the stability of Zobah; Hamath is generally taken to mean “enclosure, fortress.” Joram, his son’s name, I cannot take as the mere equivalent of Jehoram: it signifies “caused to be exalted.” The consciousness of instability and wandering prepares the soul for the apprehension of the grace that exalts, and makes the enclosure of sheltering strength most needful to it. Thus the names combine easily, and we need not wonder to find Toi, the “wanderer,” seeking David. All the gifts and spoil of the world are consecrated to Jehovah by him: for the kingdom of Christ subdues all to God at last, “that God may be all in all.”

{*2Sa 8:13. In the Hebrew copies here, “Aram,” (Syria,) a difference only of the shoulder of a “d,” which if lost would make it “r.” Syria was not near the valley of salt, which is at the south end of the Dead Sea. The Septuagint reads, “Edom,” and 1Ch 18:12, and Psa 60:1-12, title, evidently speak of the same event.}

Edom comes last for judgment, which, from our knowledge of its spiritual significance, is not difficult to understand. Edom, the old “Adam” nature in man, is the evil hardest and last of all to be subdued. In the barren valley of salt Edom is finally subjugated and garrisoned throughout; and the Edomites become David’s servants. As at the beginning we all were Edomites that now know Christ, there need be no difficulty about this. This is the end of the general sketch of the extension of the kingdom. “And God preserved David whithersoever he went.”

Section 3.

We come now to look at the kingdom internally; and we have first the administration of righteousness, and the order established for that; and then, at more length, its salvation-character, -of which Mephibosheth is a beautiful illustration.

(1) United Israel is under his hand, and to all his people judgment and justice are dispensed. This is, above all, the character that David represents to us, as we have seen. Alas, that he fails signally at times in this, we know too; but it is the general character of his reign, and that which he stands for typically; the lessons of his failure we shall find in full elsewhere. Here, for the type’s sake, all this is excluded.

As to detail here, we have but the names of those put in charge in their various departments; and if we have not skill to read the names, or refuse this “allegorizing,” these will be barren enough, nay, would lead us sometimes in an opposite direction. We already know, and shall more fully as we read on, how different might be the actions of the men from the beauty of their names. But the history is at this point purposely idealized, for it is Christ who is before the mind of the Spirit; and thus His inspired mouthpiece is kept from the intrusion of what would spoil the picture.

Take, for instance, the very first name here in proof; a name of chief importance, if its position counts for anything: what is Joab, the son of Zeruiah, according to his acting in the history? Yet the thought represented by his name is exactly according to its foremost place in this catalogue. Joab means “Jehovah is Father,” and as the son of Zeruiah, “balm of Jah,” speaks, as we have seen, of the cross as the procuring cause of such relationship being enjoyed. It is striking that here is one of those double meanings which often confirm and throw light upon each other; for Zeruiah may also mean “straitened” or “distressed of Jah”: and so in both ways the Cross is indicated.

Joab is over the host: for all the wars of the kingdom of Christ are governed by this one aim, to bring in the Father’s kingdom. The prayer that He taught His disciples was “Father, thy kingdom come!” The iron sceptre having done its work, He will “deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” Thus that which He bids them pray for He Himself accomplishes. For this He puts down all rule and all authority and power. “And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject to Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1Co 15:24-28.) Joab is surely, then, without possibility of contradiction, “over the host.”

Secondly: “Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder.” The office here intended is not certain, hut the word is literally “remembrancer,” which might be equivalent to or include that of historian; but would seem, first of all, to be that of king’s referee and counselor. Jehoshaphat means “Jehovah has judged,” and answers admirably to his office: Jehovah’s judgment thus being the rule for guidance at all times. But Jehoshaphat is himself the son of Ahilud, which means “the brother,” or “kin of the one born,” a blessed and wonderful thought; in this connection how tender an one! that as man is even naturally the “offspring of God,” so He is in that sense akin to the feeble creature He has made. His judgments are, indeed, the fruit of this kinship: He remembers this link of His own establishment in all His dealings with them. How should His judgments be thus endeared to us!

Thirdly: we have the priesthood, twofold, embracing the lines of Eleazar and Ithamar both (see p. 298, n.), and Eleazar’s given the first place in Zadok, a fact which shows the ideal picture that is given us here: for Zadok really only acquired the first place in the beginning of Solomon’s reign, after Abiathar had joined the conspiracy of Adonijah. Yet for the type Zadok had to come first, -who, as the “righteous,” reminds us from this side of the Melchizedek character of priesthood in Christ. As heir of Eleazar’s line, he is also the true representative of the risen Priest; while a descendant of Ithamar would have been entirely out of place here.

Zadok is the son of Ahitub, “brother of goodness,” as the Lord’s priesthood as the righteous One is yet the fruit of his human kinship with us assumed in love.

In the line of Ithamar, where we expect to find “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech,” we find instead “Ahimelech the son of Abiathar,” and this is supported by 1Ch 24:6, where the same inversion obtains. Fausset suggests that father and son had both names, which Mar 2:26 may in part confirm. Ahimelech means “brother of the king,” Abiathar, “father of excellence.”

In the fourth place, the scribe’s name is Seraiah, “Jah rules.”

In the fifth we find Benaiah the son of Jehoiada over the Cherethites and Pelethites, or, probably, as Gesenius says, “executioners and couriers.” Here again divine names are prominent: Benaiah, “Jah has built”; Jehoiada, “Jehovah knows.” Do they show us that the execution of judgment is controlled by His purpose to build up and bless, this building up being the fruit of His own perfect knowledge? All these names, it is evident, speak as with one consent of righteous, wise, and beneficent government; and when it is added that “David’s sons were chief rulers” -cohanim, the same word as for “priests,” but here applied to the representation of another in civil affairs, as the priest in sacred (see vol. 1. p. 227, n.) -we have only to turn back to the meanings of these sons’ names (2Sa 3:1-5; 2Sa 5:13-16, n.) to find a host of witnesses to the character of the kingdom represented here. As has been said, the history is carefully idealized that the type may not be marred. When we come to the details of actual history, things will be seen far otherwise; but the Spirit will not be hindered from presenting to us this view of a perfect kingdom, which Christ alone will actually consummate. That to which Scripture uniformly looks on is the glory of Christ.

(2) But Christ’s kingdom is not simply a reign of righteousness; it is emphatically for salvation. As in the grand picture of Psa 72:1-20 : “He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. . . . He shall deliver the needy when he crieth, the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy.” This salvation side of the kingdom must now be represented in the picture, or it would not be an adequate representation at all. What worthy idea of God but must take in His grace? And so it is, accordingly: we have one of those touching exhibitions of what David himself calls “the kindness of God,” with which all Scripture is full. May it wake up our hearts to praise!

“And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?”

How had the house of Saul collapsed, when it was necessary even for David to ask such a question! But a few years since, Saul was the king of Israel, able to speak of his power to give fields and vineyards to his followers, and to make them captains of hundreds and of thousands. Now his own place knows him no more; and the one who sits on his throne, and desires to do kindness to his house, does not know where to find a member of it!

Saul had been the enemy and bitter persecutor of David, and this desire is the expression of grace indeed, although, as he says, there is one for whose sake he acts, and to whom he had pledged himself in covenant. But this covenant itself was the fruit of love alone. Jonathan had made no great sacrifice for David, -had not shared his fortunes, nor procured for him any mitigation of his sufferings. But David is faithful to his oath and to his love: he could not have been in any wise the figure even of our David, had he not been so.

His question elicits a reply from a certain Ziba, a servant of Saul’s house: “Jonathan has yet a a son who is lame of his feet.” And in answer to further inquiry, he learns that he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel in Lodebar. Thus Mephibosheth is introduced to us.

Mephibosheth, in perfect harmony with what we hear from him on this occasion, means “shame out of the mouth.” He is the picture of one convicted and self-condemned, impotent and corrupt, as his own figure is, “a dead dog.” His impotence is still further emphasized in his lameness, -lame of both feet. In his infirm and solitary condition, he is a perfect contrast with the servant Ziba, with his fifteen sons and twenty servants, but who is still himself, as is the legalist ever, a servant only; and with that curious ambiguity about his name, which Scripture uses so often and so forcefully; for this may mean “planted,” or as two words, “drought comes”: and this is the legal contingency.

Mephibosheth is of the house of the failed Saul, and yet the son of Jonathan, whose name, “Jehovah has given,” reminds us of the unrepenting call and gifts of God, who calls still the “weak things of the world,” yea, the base, the despised, and “things that are not,” so that he “out of whose mouth” is the confession of his “shame” is still the Mephibosheth, the heir of the covenant of grace.

He is found in the house of Machir, “one who recollects,” (and so comes really to himself) the son of Ammiel, of “the people of God,” in Lodebar, where “the word is his”* -applies itself, and comes home to him. Brought into David’s presence, he hears the word of restoring grace that enriches him, and bows his heart in gratitude. His place is henceforth to be at the king’s table, as one of his sons. This is the communion to which God brings us as His people; while the mere servant remains the servant. How beautiful in its simplicity is the repetition at the close of this story, “Mephibosheth dwelt at Jerusalem: for he did eat continually at the king’s table; and he was lame in both his feet.”

Thus are saved the poor and needy; thus David shows the “kindness of God”; of which, however, all these things are but the faintest shadows. Yet they remind us of that by which, in the ages to come, He shall “show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”

{*2Sa 9:4. Lo-debar is given in the lexicons as “no pasture,” and might translate the word in 2Sa 17:27, but not here, if we allow the ordinary reading, where twice over the “lo” means “to him” or “his.” The spiritual meaning seems to agree with this.}

The Books of the Kings.

F. W. Grant.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

2Sa 5:1. Then came all the tribes to David That is, elders, deputed as ambassadors from every tribe, sent by a common agreement among them; saying, Behold, we are bone of thy bone, &c. Abner and Ish-bosheth being dead, whose authority had swayed the Israelites against their duty, they now acknowledged Davids divine right to the crown; they remembered that he had every qualification requisite for a rightful king of Israel, according to Gods own limitations, Deuteronomy chap. 17.; that he was one of their brethren, and that he was chosen of God. They called to mind his valour, and various merits toward Israel, the many deliverances which he had wrought out for them, and Gods express declaration in his favour, that he would make him the shepherd and captain of his favourite people. And when they had thus considered his undoubted title and merits, and their own duty, they immediately came together to crown him.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Sa 5:2. Thou shalt feed my people. Probably the highpriest, or a prophet, delivered a short coronation charge, as Samuel had already done. This divine promise is made the final reason why they came to place David on the throne of all Israel.

2Sa 5:6. Went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites. This city is called Jebus, Jdg 19:10; and Salem, Gen 14:18. Psa 76:2. The lower part of it, falling to the lot of Judah, was taken and burnt; but the upper part falling to the lot of Benjamin, and being always deemed impregnable, had never been taken.

2Sa 5:9. Millo. It was wise to take the stronghold of the Jebusites, that the centre of his kingdom might have an impregnable fortress.

2Sa 5:18. Rephaim. The LXX read, the titanes or the giants; they had once, it would seem, lived there. Gen 15:20. They are called Aseans in the Samaritan. From this name Asia, or the land of giants, is supposed to be derived.

2Sa 5:24. The sound of a going. The Lord caused the Syrians to hear the sound of chariots and horses, and in so terrific a manner that they fled precipitately from the siege of Samaria. 2Ki 7:6. Isaiah 7. Xenophon wittily makes Cyrus, when going to battle on the plains of Babylon, and on hearing a peal of thunder on his right, say, We follow thee, oh Jupiter.

REFLECTIONS.

The house of Saul being extinct, and the nation now exonerated from the oath made to that family, hasted to anoint and receive David for their king. This was done by a deputation of military captains and elders from all the tribes, who gladdened the occasion by a feast of three days in Hebron. The arguments they used were highly becoming the occasion. First, that David was their own flesh; and being no stranger, he would seek the good of the empire. Secondly, they conferred on him the crown as the reward of his former victories. They had farther in view in the offer of the crown, that David should feed the people by preserving and exemplifying the true religion, and defending the country against all its enemies. And with these views Christ reigns at the right hand of God.

The first great design which the hero of Bethlehem formed, after his full inauguration to the throne, was to carry the fortress of Zion, and to fix the seat of empire in the more central and commodious city of Jerusalem. But the reduction of this strong place being found impracticable by open assault, Joab won the chief command by forcing his way through the subterranean gutter. This was a most laudable action in a martial view; for the enemy had boasted, on being summoned to surrender, that the blind and the lame were competent to its defence. So Satan, long seated in the sinners heart, boasts of his impregnable fort. He has inspired the man of sin to mock at conscience and deride danger. Our temporary and irresolute efforts to besiege him in his fort, have been so often assayed, and so often abandoned, that he already boasts of his invincible hold; but emboldened by the presence of the true David, let us make another and a successful effort to vanquish sin in the strength of our God. Armed with the might of his Spirit, all things are possible to the believing soul; the strong man of sin shall be destroyed at a stroke, and by the breath of the Lord.

David, after taking the fortress by storm, purged it of idols, adorned it with splendid buildings, made it his residence, the palace also and the seat of the divine glory. So will Jesus do in the faithful and victorious soul. He will cleanse us from all our idols, and from all our filthiness, as David cleansed his Zion; yea he will put his laws in our heart, and write them in our inward parts. Surely the Jebusites possessing the fortress, while Israel possessed most of the city, may convey much instruction and reproof to those lukewarm and indolent souls, who have long been enlightened by the gospel, but who to this day are controlled by unbelief and the carnal mind. How long shall sin insult the soul, as the enemy insulted David, by saying that the blind and the lame would keep him out. Let us make efforts: like Caleb, or like Joab, let us go up at once and possess it, for we are well able to overcome it. So will the Lord give us purity of heart, and make us his temple and the habitation of his glory for ever.

The hero of Israel having defeated the enemy within, next opposed the enemy without. Twice did the Philistines conspire against him; and twice in the counsel and might of the Lord he routed them without much apparent loss. But the second defeat was the most remarkable. The Lord bade him make a circuitous approach, which on one side cut off their retreat. He next bade him wait till he heard a going of wind on the top of the mulberry trees, or otherwise the going of an army at the entrance of the mulberry trees. Then, confident of victory, he smote them to the gates of their capital, because they had dared to trouble him a second time. Oh what enmity is stirred up in the hearts of the world, to see Messiah triumphant! But while the wind of Pentecost blows on Zion, let her fear neither the multitude nor the enmity of all her foes. Animated by the power of faith and the comforts of the Holy Spirit, we have the pledges of victory; and those hallowed pledges which cannot fail in the day of combat.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Sa 5:1-16. David Becomes King of united Israel and Judah. He Captures Jerusalem (J). (Cf. p. 282.)Two notes have been added to this section (2Sa 5:4 f. and 2Sa 5:13-16), of the same character as 2Sa 2:10 a, 11, 2Sa 3:1-5, and probably by the same hand.

2Sa 5:1-3. On the basis of terms, a covenant, agreed upon between him and the elders, or Sheikhs, of Israel, David is anointed king over Israel, thus becoming king of both Israel and Judah. This act brought Judah into organic union with the other tribes, for the first time, at any rate since the Settlement in Canaan. The looseness of the bond is shown by the ease with which it was broken at the death of Solomon.

2Sa 5:4 f. A chronological note, accepted, for the most part, as substantially correct.

2Sa 5:6-12. David takes Jerusalem, in spite of the boast of the Jebusites that the place was so strong that it could be successfully defended by the blind and lame. 2Sa 5:8 is unintelligible, and the text is hopelessly corrupt. The corresponding verse (1Ch 11:6) runs, And David said, Whoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. And Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was made chief. Possibly Ch. preserves the original text; the corruption would be due to the introduction of glosses, and perhaps also to the desire to give David, and not Joab, the credit for the capture. Zion is usually held to have occupied part of the eastern of the two hills covered by the modern city (1Ki 8:1*). Millo here is apparently some part of the fortifications of the citadel of Jerusalem (EBi) (cf. 1Ki 9:15*). There was a Millo at Shechem (Jdg 9:6).

By the establishment of the capital at Jerusalem, a fortress of exceptional strength, David did much to secure the permanence of the Jewish state, and the continuity of Revealed Religion.

David is encouraged by the friendship of the king of Tyre. His name is given as Hiram, i.e. Hiram I, the ally of Solomon; but the other data show that Hiram I cannot have been reigning so early in Davids reign. Either the name of the familiar Hiram has been substituted for that of his less-known father, Abibaal, or the incident is transferred from the time of Solomon.

2Sa 5:13-16. Note on Davids family. Eliada is a variant of Baaliada (cf. 1Sa 14:49).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Yet the sovereign wisdom of God has been over all these matters, and David’s way becomes clear without his fighting for it. God’s time had now come for the voluntary submission of the other tribes to David’s dominion. They came to him at Hebron, presenting three reasons for their recognizing him as king (v.2). First, they were related to him as Israelites; secondly, thy knew his reputation, even while Saul was king, that it was David who was really the leader of Israel’s forces; and thirdly, they knew that the Lord had promised the kingdom to David. The last of these three was conclusive, though they had been slow to recognize it in their allowing Abner to dominate them.

David willingly made a league with them, and they anointed David king there in Hebron. This is the third time we read of his being anointed; first by Samuel in 1Sa 16:13; secondly in Hebron by Judah (2Sa 2:4); and in this case by all Israel. This is a picture of God’s having first anointed the Lord Jesus at the river Jordan when He was baptized by John (Mat 3:16), then of His eventually being recognized by Judah as King (Zec 12:7-10), and afterwards by the rest of the tribes (Eze 37:21-22) when they will be joined together with Judah after centuries of separation.

The years of David’s preparation for reigning were not lost. He took the throne at the age of 30, the same age as the Lord Jesus was when He began His public ministry (Luk 3:23). It may seem that those 30 years of quiet obscurity are out of proportion to the short 3 years of the public ministry of the Lord Jesus. But God’s ways are not ours. Private life is far more important than we often think. Yet David reigned for forty years altogether, dying at 70 years of age. In Hebron he reigned 7 years, then 33 years in Jerusalem.

Though Israel had anointed David king, when he went to Jerusalem the inhabitants (Jebusites) were quite haughty in refusing him entry into the city. They told him that the blind and the lame would have sufficient power to drive them away (v.6). There is a lesson here typical of the future establishing of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus. The spiritual blindness and lameness of many in Israel will seem to be in formidable opposition to the blessed Lord of glory. Will it be so great that the true King of Israel cannot overcome it? When He came in grace to Israel, He showed His living power in healing the blind and the lame. Will He be any less capable when He comes in great power and glory? Jerusalem’s opposition was nothing to David. He took the city and from that day it has been called “the city of David” (v.7).

In the N.A.S.B. verse 8 is translated “And David said on that day, Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him reach the lame and the blind, who are hated of David’s soul, through the water tunnel.” When the gates were barred, the watercourse was a way of entering the city that the Jebusites overlooked. How true is this typically also. The fresh water supply is typical of the living word of God. If we attack evil in the vital power of God’s word, it cannot withstand us. The blindness of Israel to the truth of God, and their lameness as to walking in the paths of righteousness have been great obstacle to the blessing of the nation. If the blind and the lame of Israel will not bow to the authority of the Lord Jesus in order to be healed, then the opposers, remaining blind and lame will be “hated of his soul,” and bear their well deserved judgment. “Therefore they say, The blind or the lame shall not come into the house.” While many in Israel will be saved in the coming day of the Lord’s glory, yet two thirds, remaining in unbelief, “will be cut off and die” (Zec 13:8). They will never know the blessing of the house of God.

David then dwelt in Jerusalem, called “the stronghold” and “the city of David,” and built up the city, evidently to strengthen its defenses. “The Millo” is mentioned here, which was evidently a citadel or tower in the city which was of significant importance. From this time David’s greatness increased (v.10), only a faint type of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, of whom we read “There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace” (Isa 9:7).

Verse 11 tells of Hiram, King of Tyre, sending messengers to David and supplying cedar trees, carpenters and masons in order to build David a house. Tyre was famous as a merchant city, always on the alert for profitable business.

By this time David recognized that the Lord had established his kingdom, all Israel being subject to him (v.12). In fact, his rule was for the sake of God’s people Israel: they were blessed by having such a king. The nations surrounding Israel were not yet subdued, as they would be eventually, but the unity of Israel under David was a vitally important prerequisite to this end.

However, David could not rightly bear the greatness of the glory given to him. He took advantage of his greatness to take more wives and concubines, though he already had seven wives (ch.3:2-5; 13-16). From the very first of Israel’s history of the kings, we see this sad fact, that neither Saul nor David, nor any kings that followed, could rightly bear the glory that comes with exalted authority. There is only One, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will be able to properly bear the great dignity of ruling over men. “He shall build the temple of the Lord; and He shall bear the glory” (Zec 6:13).

Added to David’s six sons born in Hebron are the eleven born in Jerusalem (vs.14-16). There were daughters also born to him, but we are not told how many. Some of his sons caused him great sorrow, however, and he had to confess how great was the contrast of his own house to that of the promised Messiah: “My house is not so with God” (2Sa 23:5).

As soon as he was anointed king over Israel, the animosity of the Philistines was freshly awakened. These were their closest neighbors, and their most constant enemies. Their name means “wallow,” and they are typical of those who merely “wallow” in Christianity, those who have the forms and language of the Christian “religion,” but not the vital, personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus. For this reason images and idols are prominent among them, as we know is true of various companies one of the most persistent enemies of true Christianity, and just as David found it necessary to be continually on guard against the attacks of the Philistines, so such formalistic religion calls for our constant watchfulness and spiritual energy in withstanding this persistent enemy of our Lord.

When David heard of the Philistine advance, he “went down to the hold,” evidently going toward the Philistines rather than remaining in Jerusalem, which was also called “the hold,” but it was not “down.” It is an interesting expression, that the Philistines “spread themselves” in the valley of Rephaim. They like at least a show of taking possession But David sought the face of the Lord as regards guidance. Should he go and meet the Philistines? Would God give him the victory over them? The answer from God is positive. He is to go with thorough confidence that God would deliver the enemy into his hand. The exercise of waiting in dependence on God will always bring an answer from God that will give confidence in acting on it.

David’s victory is there complete (v.20). He give the Lord the credit for breaking forth upon his enemies as the breach of waters, as though a dam was breached and the flood waters overwhelmed the enemy. He therefore named the place “Baal-Gerazim,” meaning “Lord of the breaches.” The Philistines had brought their images with them even into battle. But the images were no help, and in their haste to retreat they left them behind. David and his men did not take them, nor the materials of which they were made, but burned them (v.21).

However, religious zeal does not easily die out of man’s heart. The Philistines later returned to the same location and with the same display of strength (v.22). It is good to observe that David did not rely on his past experience in meeting this fresh attack. The same circumstances do not always call for the same method of meeting them. In every case we must depend on the Lord Himself. David again inquired of Him, and received different instruction. This time they are not to attack as before from the front, but to circle around behind the enemy near to a group of baca trees. Then they would hear the sound of marching in the tops of the baca trees, which would be the signal for them to attack the Philistines, for the Lord would go before them to accomplish the victory (v.24). Whatever spiritual significance there is in the baca trees, at least we are to learn that when we discern the evidence of the Lord’s leading we may go forth in confidence. the details of the victory are not necessary to be told us, except the distance they pursued the Philistines in defeating them, from Gibeon to Gazer, about 20 miles.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

5:1 Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we [are] thy {a} bone and thy flesh.

(a) We are of your kindred and closely related to you.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

3. David’s acceptance by all Israel 5:1-12

In 1004 B.C. David became king of all Israel and Judah. [Note: See Merrill, p. 243.] This was his third anointing (cf. 1Sa 16:13; 2Sa 2:4). The people acknowledged David’s previous military leadership of all Israel, as well as God’s choice of him to shepherd His people as their king. Thus David’s kingship stood on two legs: his divine election and his human recognition.

"In the ancient East, shepherd at an early date became a title of honor applied to divinities and rulers alike." [Note: New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s. v. "Shepherd," by E. Beyreuther, 3:564.]

For example, King Hammurabi of Babylon (ca. 1792-1750 B.C.) referred to himself as the shepherd of his people. [Note: See James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 164-65, 177-18.] This is the first time the Bible refers to a specific human ruler as a shepherd, [Note: Patrick, p. 368. Cf. Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 3:15; et al.] though as an analogy the term appears earlier (Num 27:17) and with reference to God (Gen 48:15; Gen 49:24). The New Testament refers to David’s greatest son, Jesus Christ, as the "Good Shepherd" (Joh 10:11; Joh 10:14), the "Great Shepherd" (Heb 13:20), and the "Chief Shepherd" (1Pe 5:4).

The fact that Samuel had anointed David when he was a youth was evidently now common knowledge in Israel. Therefore we should regard previous resistances to his assuming the throne after Saul’s death as rebellions against the known will of God. The covenant (2Sa 5:3) was an agreement between the people and the king before God. [Note: P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel, p. 131; Brueggemann, p. 239.] Probably it included a fresh commitment to the Mosaic Covenant.

"Thirty years old (2Sa 5:4) was regarded as an ideal age at which to take on responsibility (cf. Num 4:3; Luk 3:23)." [Note: Baldwin, p. 195.]

Three prominent descendants of Jacob began their ministries at or near the age of 30: Joseph (Gen 41:46), David (2Sa 5:4), and Jesus (Luk 3:23). The years David reigned were 1011-971 B.C., a total of 40 years.

"[Verses] 6-16 highlight key events of David’s entire reign and are followed by summaries of his experiences in the military (2Sa 5:17-25), cultic (ch. 6), and theological (ch. 7) arenas." [Note: Youngblood, p. 853.]

Jerusalem was an excellent choice for a capital. It stood on the border between Benjamin and Judah so both tribes felt they had a claim to it. It was better than Hebron in southern Judah, far from the northern tribes, or Shechem, Shiloh, or some other northern town that would have been too far from the Judahites. Joshua had captured Jerusalem (Joshua 10), but shortly after that the native inhabitants, the Jebusites, retook it (Jdg 1:21). The Jebusites were descendants of Jebus, the third son of Canaan (Gen 10:16; 1Ch 1:14). It seems to have remained in Jebusite control since then. Its elevated location, surrounded on three sides by valleys, made it fairly easy to defend. David may have chosen Jerusalem also because he appears to have seen himself as the spiritual successor of Melchizedek, a former king of Jerusalem in Abraham’s day (Genesis 14; cf. Psa 110:4-6). [Note: See Eugene H. Merrill, "Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif," Bibliotheca Sacra 150:597 (January-March 1993):58.] One scholar estimated that the population of the city at this time was about 2,500 people. [Note: F. E. Peters, Jerusalem, p. 11.]

"Jerusalem is usually described as a city-state, and the position envisaged after its storming by David and his troops is that it remained a city-state; the coming of David meant only a change of city ruler. . . . The inhabitants remained, but their fortress had now become the personal possession of David and was under his control." [Note: Gwilym H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives, p. 135.]

The interchange concerning the blind and the lame (2Sa 5:6; 2Sa 5:8) seems to be "pre-battle verbal taunting" (cf. 2Ki 18:19-27). [Note: Ibid., p. 125.] The Jebusites claimed that their town was so secure that even disabled inhabitants could withstand an invasion. Another view is that the Jebusites meant that they would fight to the last man. A third option is that the expression refers to the custom of parading a blind and lame woman before the opposing army as a warning of what would befall treaty-breakers. This view assumes David had previously made a treaty with the Jebusites. [Note: See Gordon, p. 226.] David countered by taking them at their word and applying "the blind and the lame" to all the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem. His hatred was for the Jebusites, using the figure that they themselves had chosen to describe themselves, not for literally blind and lame people. "The blind and the lame" evidently became a nickname for the Jebusites as a result of this event.

Joab captured the city for David, and from then on people referred to it as the City of David and Zion (1Ch 11:6). [Note: See the map "Wars during the Reign of David" in Baldwin, p. 222. ] The name "Zion" (meaning unknown) appears only six times in the historical books of the Old Testament, though it occurs over 150 times in the Old Testament. It was a popular poetic name for Jerusalem. The Millo (a transliteration of the Hebrew word, 2Sa 5:9) probably consisted of terrace-like fortifications on the site’s east side. [Note: See Anderson, p. 85.] Some of the older commentators and others who did not have access to recent archaeological discoveries viewed the Millo as a large tower or castle.

"As was characteristic of all the great walled cities of Canaan, Jerusalem had a vertical water shaft connecting with a tunnel leading to an underground water supply outside the walls." [Note: Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., p. 236.]

It was through this secret passage that Joab took the city.

"Many scholars have identified the snwr [water supply] with the shaft discovered by Sir Charles Warren in 1867 (see Vincent, R[evue] B[iblique] 33 [1924] 257-70; Simons, Jerusalem, 45-67). This shaft connected the Spring of the Steps or the Spring of Mary (i.e., the ancient spring of Gihon) with the settlement or stronghold on the southeastern hill. It is often thought that this tunnel may have been the proverbial Achilles’ heel of Jerusalem in that David’s soldiers were able either to penetrate the city through this shaft or, more likely, to cut off the water supply from the Jebusites. The former alternative would be a formidable task even if the Jebusites had neglected this weak spot in their defenses (see Mazar, The Mountain of the Lord, 168). However, there is no proof that this shaft was the Jebusite snwr [water supply] (see J. Shiloh, "The City of David: Archaelolgical Project: Third Season-1980," B[iblical] A[rchaeologist] 44 [1981] 170)." [Note: Anderson, p. 84.]

"Two of the most significant events in world history now took place. The first was when David became king of a united Israel. The second was when he made Jerusalem the capital of his united realm." [Note: Payne, p. 177.]

The writer identified the key to David’s success in 2Sa 5:10. The Lord chose David as His anointed by sovereign election. David had nothing to do with that. However, Yahweh of armies continued to bless David because David related to God properly, generally speaking.

The information we have about Hiram, the king of Tyre, indicates that he reigned there about 980-947 B.C. [Note: Frank M. Cross, "An Interpretation of the Nora Stone," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 208 (December 1972):17. William F. Albright had previously dated his reign from about 969-936 B.C. in The Archaeology of Palestine, p. 122.] That would mean Hiram’s reign coincided with only the last nine years of David’s reign and the first 24 years of Solomon’s reign. This information helps us see that David built his palace (2Sa 5:11) late in his reign. 2Sa 5:11 therefore evidently does not describe something that took place immediately after David captured and fortified Jerusalem (2Sa 5:6-10). It was a later project. The writer probably mentioned it here because it illustrates another important evidence of David’s control over all Israel.

"David has joined the nations. David is a practitioner of alliances and accommodations. . . . Jeremiah later sees that cedar and its accompanying opulence will talk Judean kings out of justice (Jer 22:13-18). 2Sa 5:11 sounds like a historical report, but it is in fact an ominous act of warning." [Note: Brueggemann, p. 246.]

2Sa 5:12 is key to understanding why David prospered as Israel’s king. David realized that Yahweh was Israel’s real sovereign. Saul was never willing to acknowledge this and viewed himself as the ultimate authority in Israel. In contrast, David regarded his own kingship as a gift from God. He realized, too, that God had placed him on the throne for the Israelites’ welfare, not for his own personal glory. Saul failed here as well. David had a proper view of his role in Israel’s theocratic government.

"From the previous events it appears that David’s kingdom was what could be described as a constitutional monarchy (cf. Halpern, Monarchy in Israel, 241). There is also a hint of a democratic concept of kingship since the exaltation of the king was for the sake of Israel. Therefore the kingship should be for the benefit of the people and not vice versa." [Note: Anderson, pp. 86-87.]

2Sa 5:10-16 is most likely a summary of David’s entire reign followed by his military (2Sa 5:17-25), cultic (i.e., formal worship; ch. 6), and theological (ch. 7) achievements. This pattern follows the conventional annalistic style of documenting the reigns of kings that was common in ancient Near Eastern historiography (history writing).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER VI.

DAVID KING OF ALL ISRAEL.

2Sa 5:1-9.

AFTER seven and a half years of opposition,* David was now left without a rival, and the representatives of the whole tribes came to Hebron to anoint him king. They gave three reasons for their act, nearly all of which; however, would have been as valid at the death of Saul as they were at this time. (*There is difficulty in adjusting all the dates. In chap. 2:10 (2Sa 2:10), it is said that Ishbosheth reigned two years. The usual explanation is that he reigned two years before war broke out between him and David. Another supposition is that there was an interregnum in Israel of five and a half years, and that Ishbosheth reigned the last two years of David’s seven and a half. The accuracy of the text has been questioned, and it has been proposed (on very slender MS. authority) to read that Ishbosheth reigned six years in place of two.)

The first was that David and they were closely related – “Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh;” rather an unusual reason, but in the circumstances not unnatural. For David’s alliance with the Philistines had thrown some doubt on his nationality; it was not very clear at that time whether he was to be regarded as a Hebrew or as a naturalized Philistine; but now the doubts that had existed on that point had all disappeared; conclusive evidence had been afforded that David was out-and-out a Hebrew, and therefore that he was not disqualified for the Hebrew throne.

This conclusion is confirmed by what they give as their second reason – his former exploits and services against their enemies. “Also, in time past, when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel.” In former days, David had proved himself Saul’s most efficient lieutenant; he had been at the head of the armies of Israel, and his achievements in that capacity pointed to him as the fit and natural successor of Saul.

The third reason is the most conclusive – “The Lord said to thee. Thou shalt feed My people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.” It was little to the credit of the elders that this reason, which should have been the first, and which needed no other reasons to confirm it, was given by them as the last. The truth, however, is that if they had made it their first and great reason, they would on the very face of their speech have condemned themselves. Why, if this was the command of God, had they been so long of carrying it out? Ought not effect to have been given to it at the very first, independent of all other reasons whatsoever? The elders cannot but give it a place among their reasons for offering him the throne; but it is not allowed to have its own place, and it is added to the others as if they needed to be supplemented before effect could be given to it. The elders did not show that supreme regard to the will of God which ought ever to be the first consideration in every loyal heart. It is the great offence of multitudes, even among those who make a Christian profession, that while they are willing to pay regard to God’s will as one of many considerations, they are not prepared to pay supreme regard to it. It may be taken along with other considerations, but it is not allowed to be the chief consideration. Religion may have a place in their life, but not the first place. But can a service thus rendered be acceptable to God? Can God accept the second or the third place in any man’s regard? Does not the first commandment dispose of this question: “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”?

“So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and King David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David king over Israel.”

It was a happy circumstance that David was able to neutralize the effects of the murders of Abner and Ishbosheth, and to convince the people that he had no share in these crimes. Notwithstanding the prejudice against his side which in themselves they were fitted to create in the supporters of Saul’s family, they did not cause any further opposition to his claims. The tact of the king removed any stumbling-block that might have arisen from these untoward events. And thus the throne of David was at last set up, amid the universal approval of the nation.

This was a most memorable event in David’s history. It was the fulfillment of one great installment of God’s promises to him. It was fitted very greatly to deepen his trust in God, as his Protector and his Friend. To be able to look back on even one case of a Divine promise distinctly fulfilled to us is a great help to faith in all future time. For David to be able to look back on that early period of his life, so crowded with trials and sufferings, perplexities and dangers, and to mark how God had delivered him from every one of them, and, in spite of the fearful opposition that had been raised against him, had at last seated him firmly on the throne, was well fitted to advance the spirit of trust to that place of supremacy which it gained in him. After such an overwhelming experience, it was little wonder that his trust in God became so strong, and his purpose to serve God so intense. The sorrows of death had compassed him, and the pains of Hades had taken hold on him, yet the Lord had been with him, and had most wonderfully delivered him. And in token of his deliverance he makes his vow of continual service, “O Lord, truly I am Thy servant; I am Thy servant and the son of Thine handmaid; Thou hast loosed my bonds. I will offer to Thee the sacrifices of praise, and will call upon the name of the Lord.”

We can hardly pass from this event in David’s history without recalling his typical relation to Him who in after-years was to be known as the ”Son of David.” The resemblance between the early history of David and that of our blessed Lord in some of its features is too obvious to need to be pointed out. Like David, Jesus spends His early years in the obscurity of a country village. Like him, He enters on His public life under a striking and convincing evidence of the Divine favour – David by conquering Goliath, Jesus by the descent of the Spirit at His baptism, and the voice from heaven which proclaimed, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Like David, soon after His Divine call Jesus is led out to the wilderness, to undergo hardship and temptation; but, unlike David, He conquers the enemy at every onset Like David, Jesus attaches to Himself a small but valiant band of followers, whose achievements in the spiritual warfare rival the deeds of David’s ”worthies” in the natural. Like David, Jesus is concerned for His relatives; David, in his extremity, commits his father and mother to the king of Moab: Jesus, on the cross, commits His mother to the beloved disciple. In the higher exercises of David’s spirit, too, there is much that resembles the experiences of Christ. The convincing proof of this is, that most of the Psalms which the Christian Church has ever held to be Messianic have their foundation in the experiences of David. It is impossible not to see that in one sense there must have been a measureless distance between the experience of a sinful man like David and that of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the Divinity of His person, the atoning efficacy of His death, and the glory of His resurrection, Jesus is high above any of the sons of men. Yet there must likewise have been some marvellous similarity between Him and David, seeing that David’s words of sorrow and of hope were so often accepted by Jesus to express His own emotions. Strange indeed it is that the words in which David, in the twenty-second Psalm, pours out the desolation of his spirit, were the words in which Jesus found expression for His unexampled distress upon the cross. Strange, too, that David’s deliverances were so like Christ’s that the same language does for both; nay, that the very words in which Jesus commended His soul to the Father, as it was passing from His body, were words which had first been used by David.

But it does not concern us at present to look so much at the general resemblances between David and our blessed Lord, as at the analogy in the fortunes of their respective kingdoms. And here the most obvious feature is the bitter opposition to their claims offered in both instances even by those who might have been expected most cordially to welcome them. Of both it might be said, ”They came unto their own, but their own received them not.” First, David is hunted almost to death by Saul; and then, even after Saul’s death, his claims are resisted by most of the tribes. So in His lifetime Jesus encounters all the hatred and opposition of the scribes and Pharisees; and even after His resurrection, the council do their utmost to denounce His claims and frighten His followers. Against the one and the other the enemy brings to bear all the devices of hatred and opposition. When Jesus rose from the grave, we see Him personally raised high above all the efforts of His enemies; when David was acknowledged king by all Israel, he reached a corresponding elevation. And now that David is recognized as king, how do we find him employing his energies? It is to defend and bless his kingdom, to obtain for it peace and prosperity, to expel its foes, to secure to the utmost of his power the welfare of all his people. From His throne in glory, Jesus does the same. And what encouragement may not the friends and subjects of Christ’s kingdom derive from the example of David! For if David, once he was established in his kingdom, spared no effort to do good to his people, if he scattered blessings among them from the stores which he was able to command, how much more may Christ be relied on to do the same! Has He not been placed far above all principality and power, and every name that is named, and been made “Head over all things for the Church which is His body”? Rejoice then, ye members of Christ’s kingdom I Raise your eyes to the throne of glory, and see how God has set His King upon His holy hill of Zion! And be encouraged to tell Him of all your own needs and the troubles and needs of His Church; for has He not ascended on high, and led captivity captive, and received gifts for men? And if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, will you not ask, and shall you not receive according to your faith? Will not God supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus?

From the spectacle at Hebron, when all the elders of Israel confirmed David on the throne, and entered into a solemn league with reference to the kingdom, we pass with David to the field of battle. The first enterprise to which he addressed himself was the capture of Jerusalem, or rather of the stronghold of Zion. It is not expressly stated that he consulted God before taking this step, but we can hardly suppose that he would do it without Divine direction. From the days of Moses, God had taught His people that a place would be appointed by Him where He would set His name; Jerusalem was to be that place; and it cannot be thought that when David would not even go up to Hebron without consulting the Lord, he would proceed to make Jerusalem his capital without a Divine warrant.

No doubt the place was well known to him. It had already received consecration when Melchizedek reigned in it, “king of righteousness and king of peace.” In the days of Joshua its king was Adonizedek, “lord of righteousness” – a noble title, brought down from the days of Melchizedek, however unworthy the bearer of it might be of the designation, for he was the head of the confederacy against Joshua (Jos 10:1; Jos 10:3), and he ended his career by being hanged on a tree. After the slaughter of the Philistine, David had carried his head to Jerusalem, or to some place so near that it might be called by that name; very probably Nob was the place, which, according to an old tradition, was situated on the slope of Mount Olivet. Often in his wanderings, when his mind was much occupied with fortresses and defenses, the image of this place would occur to him; observing how the mountains were round about Jerusalem, he would see how well it was adapted to be the metropolis of the country. But this could not be done while the stronghold of Zion was in the hands of the Jebusites, and while the Jebusites were so numerous that they might be called “the people of the land.”

So impregnable was this stronghold deemed, that any attempt that David might make to get possession of it was treated with contempt. The precise circumstances of the siege are somewhat obscure; if we compare the marginal readings and the text in the Authorized Version, and still more in the Revised Version, we may see what difficulty our translators had in arriving at the meaning of the passage. The most probable supposition is that the Jebusites placed their lame and blind on the walls, to show how little artificial defense the place needed, and defied David to touch even these sorry defenders. Such defiance David could not but have regarded as he regarded the defiance of Goliath – as an insult to that mighty God in whose name and in whose strength he carried on his work. Advancing in the same strength in which he advanced against Goliath, he got possession of the stronghold. To stimulate the chivalry of his men he had promised the first place in his army to whoever, by means of the watercourse, should first get on the battlements and defeat the Jebusites. Joab was the man who made this daring and successful attempt. Reaping the promised reward, he thereby raised himself to the first place in the now united forces of the twelve tribes of Israel. After the murder of Abner, he had probably been degraded; but now, by his dash and bravery, he established his position on a firmer basis than ever. While he contributed by this means to the security and glory of the kingdom, he diminished at the same time the king’s personal satisfaction, inasmuch as David could not regard without anxiety the possession of so much power and influence by so daring and useful, but unscrupulous and bold-tempered, a man.

The place thus taken was called the city, and sometimes the castle, of David, and it became from this time his residence and the capital of his kingdom. Much though the various sites in Jerusalem have been debated, it is surely beyond reasonable doubt that the fortress thus occupied was Mount Zion, the same height which still exists in the south-western corner of the area which came to be covered by Jerusalem. This seems to have been the only part that the Jebusites had fortified, and with the loss of this stronghold their hold of other parts of Jerusalem was lost. Henceforth, as a people, they disappear from Jerusalem, although individual Jebusites might still, like Araunah, hold patches of land in the neighbourhood (2Sa 24:16). The captured fortress was turned by David into his royal residence. And seeing that a military stronghold was very inadequate for the purposes of a capital, he began, by the building of Millo, that extension of the city which was afterwards carried out by others on so large a scale.

By thus taking possession of Mount Zion and commencing those extensions which helped to make Jerusalem so great and celebrated a city, David introduced two names into the sacred language of the Bible which have ever since retained a halo, surpassing all other names in the world. Yet, very obviously, it was nothing in the little hill which has borne the name of Zion for so many centuries, nor in the physical features of the city of Jerusalem, that has given them their remarkable distinction. Neither is it for mere historical or intellectual associations, in the common sense of the term, that they have attained their eminence. It would not be difficult to find more picturesque rocks than Zion and more striking cities than Jerusalem. It would not be difficult to find places more memorable in art, in science, and intellectual culture. That which gives them their unrivalled pre-eminence is their relation to God’s revelation of Himself to man. Zion was memorable because it was God’s dwelling-place, Jerusalem because it was the city of the great King. If Jerusalem and Zion impress our imagination even above other places, it is because God had so much to do with them. The very idea of God makes them great.

But they impress much more than our imagination. We recall the unrivalled moral and spiritual forces that were concentrated there: the goodly fellowship of the prophets, the noble army of the martyrs, the glorious company of the apostles, all living under the shadow of Mount Zion, and uttering those words that have moved the world as they received them from the mouth of the Lord. We recall Him who claimed to be Himself God, whose blessed lessons, and holy life, and atoning death were so closely connected with Jerusalem, and would alone have made it forever memorable, even if it had been signalized by nothing else. Unless David was illuminated from above to a far greater degree than we have any reason to believe, he could have little thought, when he captured that citadel, what a marvellous chapter in the world’s history he was beginning. Century after century, millennium after millennium has passed; and still Zion and Jerusalem draw all eyes and hearts, and pilgrims from the ends of the earth, as they look even on the ruins of former days, are conscious of a thrill which no other city in all the world can give. Nor is that all. When a name has to be found on earth for the home of the blessed in heaven, it is the new Jerusalem; when the scene of heavenly worship, vocal with the voice of harpers harping with their harps, has to be distinguished, it is said to be Mount Zion. Is not all this a striking testimony that nothing so ennobles either places or men as the gracious fellowship of God? View this distinction of Jerusalem and Mount Zion, if you choose, as the result of mere natural causes. Though the effect must be held far beyond the efficacy of the cause, yet you have this fact: that the places m all the world that to civilized mankind have become far the most glorious are those with which it is believed that God maintained a close and unexampled connection. View it, as it ought to be viewed, as a supernatural result; count the fellowship of God at Jerusalem a real fellowship, and His Spirit a living Spirit; count the presence of Jesus Christ to have been indeed that of God manifest in the flesh; you have now a cause really adequate to the effect, and you have a far more striking proof than before of the dignity and glory which God’s presence brings. Would that every one of you might ponder the lesson of Jerusalem and Zion! O ye sons of men, God has drawn nigh to you, and He has drawn nigh to you as a God of salvation. Hear then His message! “For if they escaped not who refused Him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape if we refuse Him that speaketh from heaven.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary