Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 7:4
And it came to pass that night, that the word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying,
4. the word of the Lord came unto Nathan ] Observe the clear distinction between Nathan’s own judgment, which approved David’s resolution, and the divine message which he was commissioned to deliver to David.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
4 17. The Lord’s message to David
The connexion of thought in 2Sa 7:5-13 is as follows: “ Thou shalt not build a house for Me (5 7), but I, who have chosen thee to be the ruler of my people, will build an house for thee (8 11), and thy son shall erect an house for me” (12, 13). The reasons why David’s zeal was thus checked must be carefully considered. The unsettled condition of the nation had made a fixed sanctuary impossible hitherto, and even now the time for it was not yet fully come. The house of David must be firmly established and peace secured, before this great step in the history of the national religion could be advantageously taken. Again, David was not to build the house “because he had shed much blood, and had made great wars” (1Ch 22:8; 1Ch 28:3).
Thus personally David was not the fitting man to build the temple, though he is not blamed for wars which were a necessity of the time; and the very fact that he had to wage these wars, shewed that the time for building the temple had not come, because the kingdom was not yet firmly established.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
It came to pass that night: because Davids mistake was pious, and from an honest mind, God would not suffer him to lie long in his mistake, nor to disquiet his mind, or run himself into inconveniencies, in order to the work, before he gave a stop to it.
The word of the Lord came unto Nathan; that the same person who had confirmed David in his mistake, might now rectify it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4-17. it came to pass that night,that the word of the Lord came unto NathanThe command wasgiven to the prophet on the night immediately following; that is,before David could either take any measures or incur any expenses.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass that night,…. The same night following the day in which David and Nathan had had the above conversation, that neither of them might continue long in their error and mistake, and especially lest David, in his great zeal and warm affection, should take an hasty and improper step:
that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan; the word of prophecy, as the Targum; before he was not under a prophetic influence, but spoke in his own words, and had not the word of God; but now it came to him:
saying; as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The revelation and promise of God. – 2Sa 7:4. “That night,” i.e., the night succeeding the day on which Nathan had talked with the king concerning the building of the temple, the Lord made known His decree to the prophet, with instructions to communicate it to the king. , “Shouldest thou build me a house for me to dwell in?” The question involves a negative reply, and consequently in the Chronicles we find “thou shalt not.”
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| God’s Covenant with David. | B. C. 1042. |
4 And it came to pass that night, that the word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying, 5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me a house for me to dwell in? 6 Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. 7 In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me a house of cedar? 8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: 9 And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. 10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, 11 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. 17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.
We have here a full revelation of God’s favour to David and the kind intentions of that favour, the notices and assurances of which God sent him by Nathan the prophet, whom he entrusted to deliver this long message to him. The design of it is to take him off from his purpose of building the temple and it was therefore sent, 1. By the same hand that had given him encouragement to do it, lest, if it had been sent by any other, Nathan should be despised and insulted and David should be perplexed, being encouraged by one prophet and discouraged by another. 2. The same night, that Nathan might not continue long in an error nor David have his head any further filled with thoughts of that which he must never bring to pass. God might have said this to David himself immediately, but he chose to send it by Nathan, to support the honour of his prophets, and to preserve in David a regard to them. Though he be the head, they must be the eyes by which he must see the visions of the Almighty, and the tongue by which he must hear the word of God. He that delivered this long message to Nathan assisted his memory to retain it, that he might deliver it fully (he being resolved to deliver it faithfully) as he received it of the Lord. Now in this message,
I. David’s purpose to build God a house is superseded. God took notice of that purpose, for he knows what is in man; and he was well pleased with it, as appears 1 Kings viii. 18, Thou didst well that it was in thy heart; yet he forbade him to go on with his purpose (v. 5): “Shalt thou build me a house? No, thou shalt not (as it is explained in the parallel place, 1 Chron. xvii. 4); there is other work appointed for thee to do, which must be done first.” David is a man of war, and he must enlarge the borders of Israel, by carrying on their conquests. David is a sweet psalmist, and he must prepare psalms for the use of the temple when it is built, and settle the courses of the Levites; but his son’s genius will better suit for building the house, and he will have a better treasure to bear the charge of it, and therefore let it be reserved for him to do. As every man hath received the gift, so let him minister. The building of a temple was to be a work of time, and preparation made for it; but it was a thing that had never been spoken of till now. God tells him, 1. That hitherto he had never had a house built for him (v. 6), a tabernacle had served hitherto, and it might serve awhile longer. God regards not outward pomp in his service; his presence was as surely with his people when the ark was in a tent as when it was in a temple. David was uneasy that the ark was in curtains (a mean and movable habitation), but God never complained of it as any uneasiness to him. He did not dwell, but walk, and yet fainted not, nor was weary. Christ, like the ark, when here on earth walked in a tent or tabernacle, for he went about doing good, and dwelt not in any house of his own, till he ascended on high, to the mansions above, in his Father’s house, and there he sat down. The church, like the ark, in this world is ambulatory, dwells in a tent, because its present state is both pastoral and military; its continuing city is to come. David, in his psalms, often calls the tabernacle a temple (as Psa 5:7; Psa 27:4; Psa 29:9; Psa 65:4; Psa 138:2), because it answered the intention of a temple, though it was made but of curtains. Wise and good men value not the show, while they have the substance. David perhaps had more true devotion, and sweeter communion with God, in a house of curtains, than any of his successors in the house of cedar. 2. That he had never given any orders or directions, or the least intimation, to any of the sceptres of Israel, that is, to any of the judges, 1 Chron. xvii. 6 (for rulers are called sceptres, Ezek. xix. 14, the great Ruler is called so, Num. xxiv. 17), concerning the building of the temple, v. 7. That worship only is acceptable which is instituted; why should David therefore design what God never ordained? Let him wait for a warrant, and then let him do it. Better a tent of God’s appointing than a temple of his own inventing.
II. David is reminded of the great things God had done for him, to let him know that he was a favourite of heaven, though he had not the favour to be employed in this service, as also that God was not indebted to him for his good intentions, but, whatever he did for God’s honour, God was beforehand with him, 2Sa 7:8; 2Sa 7:9. 1. He had raised him from a very mean and low condition: He took him from the sheep-cote. It is good for those who have come to great preferment to be often reminded of their small beginnings, that they may always be humble and thankful. 2. He had given him success and victory over his enemies (v. 9): “I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, to protect thee when pursued, to prosper thee when pursuing. I have cut off all thy enemies, that stood in the way of thy advancement and settlement.” 3. He had crowned him not only with power and dominion in Israel, but with honour and reputation among the nations about: I have made thee a great name. He had become famous for his courage, conduct, and great achievements, and was more talked of than any of the great men of his day. A great name is what those who have it have great reason to be thankful for and may improve to good purposes, but what those who have it not have no reason to be ambitious of: a good name is more desirable. A man may pass through the world very obscurely and yet very comfortably.
III. A happy establishment is promised to God’s Israel, 2Sa 7:10; 2Sa 7:11. This comes in in a parenthesis, before the promises made to David himself, to let him understand that what God designed to do for him was for Israel’s sake, that they might be happy under his administration, and to give him the satisfaction of foreseeing peace upon Israel, when it was promised him that he should see his children’s children, Ps. cxxviii. 6. A good king cannot think himself happy unless his kingdom be so. The promises that follow relate to his family and posterity; these therefore, which speak of the settlement of Israel, intend the happiness of his own reign. Two things are promised:– 1. A quiet place: I will appoint a place for my people Israel. It was appointed long ago, yet they were disappointed, but now that appointment should be made good. Canaan should be clearly their own without any ejection or molestation. 2. A quiet enjoyment of that place: The children of wickedness (meaning especially the Philistines, who had been so long a plague to them) shall not afflict them any more; but, as in the time that I caused judges to be over my people Israel, I will cause thee to rest from all thy enemies (so v. 11 may be read), that is, “I will continue and complete that rest; the land shall rest from war, as it did under the judges.”
IV. Blessings are entailed upon the family and posterity of David. David had purposed to build God a house, and, in requital, God promises to build him a house, v. 11. Whatever we do for God, or sincerely design to do though Providence prevents our doing it, we shall in no wise lose our reward. He had promised to make him a name (v. 9); here he promises to make him a house, which should bear up that name. It would be a great satisfaction to David, while he lived, to have the inviolable assurance of a divine promise that his family should flourish when he was dead. Next to the happiness of our souls, and the church of God, we should desire the happiness of our seed, that those who come of us may be praising God on earth when we are praising him in heaven.
1. Some of these promises relate to Solomon, his immediate successor, and to the royal line of Judah. (1.) That God would advance him to the throne. Those words, when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, intimate that David himself should come to his grave in peace; and then I will set up thy seed. This favour was so much the greater because it was more than God had done for Moses, or Joshua, or any of the judges whom he called to feed his people. David’s government was the first that was entailed; for the promise made to Christ of the kingdom was to reach to his spiritual seed. If children, then heirs. (2.) That he would settle him in the throne: I will establish his kingdom (v. 12), the throne of his kingdom, v. 13. His title shall be clear and uncontested, his interest confirmed, and his administration steady. (3.) That he would employ him in that good work of building the temple, which David had only the satisfaction of designing: He shall build a house for my name, v. 13. The work shall be done, though David shall not have the doing of it. (4.) That he would take him into the covenant of adoption (2Sa 7:14; 2Sa 7:15): I will be his father, and he shall be my son. We need no more to make us and ours happy than to have God to be a Father to us and them; and all those to whom God is a Father he by his grace makes his sons, by giving them the disposition of children. If he be a careful, tender, bountiful Father to us, we must be obedient, tractable, dutiful children to him. The promise here speaks as unto sons. [1.] That his Father would correct him when there was occasion; for what son is he whom the Father chasteneth not? Afflictions are an article of the covenant, and are not only consistent with, but flow from, God’s fatherly love. “If he commit iniquity, as it proved he did (1 Kings xi. 1), I will chasten him to bring him to repentance, but it shall be with the rod of men, such a rod as men may wield–I will not plead against him with the great power of God,” Job xxiii. 6. Or rather such a rod as men may bear–“I will consider his frame, and correct him with all possible tenderness and compassion when there is need, and no more than there is need of; it shall be with the stripes, the touches (so the word is) of the children of men; not a stroke, or wound, but a gentle touch.” [2.] That yet he would not disinherit him (v. 15): My mercy (and that is the inheritance of sons) shall not depart from him. The revolt of the ten tribes from the house of David was their correction for iniquity, but the constant adherence of the other two to that family, which was a competent support of the royal dignity, perpetuated the mercy of God to the seed of David, according to this promise; though that family was cut short, yet it was not cut off, as the house of Saul was. Never any other family swayed the sceptre of Judah than that of David. This is that covenant of royalty celebrated (Psa 89:3; Psa 89:4, c.) as typical of the covenant of redemption and grace.
2. Others of them relate to Christ, who is often called David and the Son of David, that Son of David to whom these promises pointed and in whom they had their full accomplishment. He was of the seed of David, Acts xiii. 23. To him God gave the throne of his father David (Luke i. 32), all power both in heaven and earth, and authority to execute judgment. He was to build the gospel temple, a house for God’s name, Zec 6:12Zec 6:13. That promise, I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son, is expressly applied to Christ by the apostle, Heb. i. 5. But the establishing of his house, and his throne, and his kingdom, for ever (v. 13, and again, and a third time v. 16. for ever), can be applied to no other than Christ and his kingdom. David’s house and kingdom have long since come to an end; it is only the Messiah’s kingdom that is everlasting, and of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end. The supposition of committing iniquity cannot indeed be applied to the Messiah himself, but it is applicable (and very comfortable) to his spiritual seed. True believers have their infirmities, for which they may expect to be corrected, but they shall not be cast off. Every transgression in the covenant will not throw us out of covenant. Now, (1.) This message Nathan faithfully delivered to David (v. 17); though, in forbidding him to build the temple, he contradicted his own words, yet he was not backward to do it when he was better informed concerning the mind of God. (2.) These promises God faithfully performed to David and his seed in due time. Though David came short of making good his purpose to build God a house, yet God did not come short of making good his promise to build him a house. Such is the tenour of the covenant we are under; though there are many failures in our performances, there are none in God’s.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Nathan Brings God’s Message, 2Sa 7:4-11 AND 1Ch 17:3-10
Very promptly the Lord came to Nathan and informed him that his advice to David was not according to God’s will. Man’s thoughts are not God’s thoughts, and it is impossible for him to direct God’s will according to his ideas (Isa 55:8-9). David and Nathan had supposed God would want a house. They acted without consulting Him. They had not considered that He had been Israel’s God for many centuries, and He had never asked for a house of cedar. The old tabernacle had worn out and been replaced (1Ch 17:5), and the Lord had been pleased to accept each as His sanctuary. Had He desired a permanent house, such as David proposed He would surely have long ago advised its construction.
David was exhibiting some of the feelings of self-importance which had contributed to Saul’s undoing. He was forgetting his humble origin, a shepherd boy herding the sheep and penning them in the sheepcote. Here the Lord had found him and exalted him to be ruler over Israel. His fame and honor had come about by the aid of the Lord in leading him and giving him victory over his enemies. Now David was thinking of doing something for the Lord, in effect feeling sorry for the Lord dwelling in the old curtained tabernacle.
David desired to establish and strengthen Israel so that they would never be removed and so that the wicked, pagan nations around them would never again subject them. The Lord had Nathan to tell David that He will appoint a place in the earth for Israel and establish them permanently there. This is a constant promise made through all the prophets (e.g., Amo 9:11-15). And Nathan should tell David that the Lord will make David a house rather than David making God a house.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(4) That night.The night following Nathans conversation with David, when the prophets mind would have been full of what he had heard, and thus prepared for the Divine communication. That communication is distinctly marked as coming from a source external to the prophet himself, by its being in direct opposition to his own view already expressed.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(4) And it came to pass that night, that the word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying, (5) Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? (6) Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. (7) In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?
How beautiful a view do these verses afford, of the Lord’s watching over his people. No doubt, the Lord inclined the heart of David to this intention, for the preparations of the heart are from the Lord. And by thus awakening in David’s heart this desire, it tended to open this gracious communication from God to him. The Lord was pleased with the intention, as we find it is recorded, 1Ki 8:18 , but would not allow the deed. The Lord had other work for his servant; he would permit him to make preparations for the temple, and the temple-service, in laying up gold and silver for the expenses of the building, and in composing psalms and hymns for the service; but his son Solomon, as a type of Jesus, was to be the builder. See Heb 3:4 . Observe, with what wonderful grace and condescension the Lord speaks of himself, in that the Ark, the symbol of his presence, had been within a poor tent and tabernacle. Reader! do not overlook the sweet and precious spiritual sense of this blessed truth. Our nature is indeed a poor and wretched tent and tabernacle; and yet Jesus made it his dwelling, when he came to tabernacle among us. Precious Lord! thou hast dwelt in no other; thou dost now dwell in no other; but in the heart of every poor sinner whom thou hast brought out of the spiritual Egypt of our fallen state. Lev 26:11-12 . compared with 2Co 6:16 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Sa 7:4 And it came to pass that night, that the word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying,
Ver. 4. And it came to pass that night. ] Post datum a Nathane intempestivum responsum. God will not suffer his dear children to lie long in error: but if in anything they be otherwise minded, he will reveal even this unto them. Php 3:15
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 Samuel
THE PROMISED KING AND TEMPLE-BUILDER
2Sa 7:4 – 2Sa 7:16
The removal of the ark to Jerusalem was but the first step in a process which was intended to end in the erection of a permanent Temple. The time for the next step appeared to David to have come when he had no longer to fight for his throne. Rest from enemies should lead to larger work for God, else repose will be our worst enemy, and peace will degenerate into self-indulgent sloth. A devout heart will not be content with personal comfort and dwelling in a house of cedar, while the ark has but a tent for its abode. There should be a proportion between expenditure on self and on religious objects. How many professing Christians might go to school to David! Luxury at home and niggardliness in God’s work make an ugly pair, but, alas! a common one.
Nathan approved, as was natural. But he knew the difference between his own thoughts and ‘the word of the Lord’ that came to him, and, like a true man, he went in the morning and contradicted, by God’s authority, his own precipitate sanction of the king’s proposal. Clearly, divine communications were unmistakably distinguishable from the recipient’s own thoughts.
The divine message first negatives the intention to build a house. In 1 Chronicles a positive prohibition takes the place of the question in 2Sa 7:5 , but that is only a difference of form, for the question implies a negative answer. From David’s last words 1Ch 28:3 we learn that a reason for the prohibition was ‘because thou art a man of war, and hast shed blood.’ His wars were necessary, and tended to establish the kingdom, but their existence showed that the time for building the Temple had not come, and there was a certain incongruity in a warrior king rearing a house for the God whose kingdom was in its essence peace.
The prohibition rests on a deep insight into the nature of Jehovah’s reign, and draws a broad distinction between His worship and the surrounding paganism. But the reason given in the text is very remarkable. God did not desire a permanent Temple. If we may so say, He preferred the less solid Tabernacle, as corresponding better to the simplicity and spirituality of His worship. A gorgeous stone Temple might easily become the sepulchre, rather than the shrine, of true devotion. The movable tent answered to the temporary character of the ‘dispensation.’ The more fixed and elaborate the externals of worship, the more danger of the spirit being stifled by them. The Old Testament worship was necessarily ceremonial, but here is a caveat against the stiffening of ceremonial into stereotyped formalism.
The prohibition was accompanied by gracious and far-reaching promises, designed to assure David of God’s approbation of his motive, and to open up to him the vision of the future and the wonders that should be. We need say little about the retrospective part of the message 2Sa 7:8 – 2Sa 7:9. God had been the agent in all David’s past, had lifted him from the quiet following of his sheep, had given him rule, which was but a delegated authority. Israel was ‘My people,’ and therefore he was but an instrument in God’s hand, and was not to govern by his own fancies or for his own advantage.
Every devout man’s life is the realisation of a plan of God’s, and we sin against ourselves as well as Him if we do not often let thankful thoughts retrace all the way by which the Lord our God has led us.
With 2Sa 7:9 the prophecy turns to the future. David personally is promised the continuance of God’s help; then a permanent, peaceful possession of the land is promised to the nation, and finally the perpetuity of the kingdom in the Davidic line is promised. The prophecy as to the nation, like all such prophecies, is contingent on national obedience. The future of the kingdom will stand in blessed contrast with the wild times of the Judges, if-and only if-Israel behaves as ‘My people’ should.
But the main point of the prophecy is the promise to David’s ‘seed.’ In form it attaches itself very significantly to David’s intention to build a house for Jehovah. That would invert the true order, for Jehovah was about to build a house, that is, a permanent posterity, for David. God must first give before man can requite. All our relations to Him begin with His free mercy to us. And our building for Him should ever be the result of His building for us, and will, in some humble way, resemble the divine beneficence by which it has been quickened into action. The very foundation principles of Christian service are expressed here, in guise fitted to the then epoch of revelation.
But the relation of the two things, God’s building and Solomon’s, is not exhausted by such considerations. The consolidation of the monarchy in David’s family was an essential preliminary to the rearing of the Temple. That work needed tranquil times, abundant resources, leisure, and assured dominion. So the prophet goes on to promise that David shall be succeeded by his ‘seed,’ who shall build the Temple.
Further, three great promises are given in reference to David’s seed,- a perpetual kingdom, a personal relation of sonship to Jehovah, and paternal chastisement, if necessary, but no such departure of Jehovah’s mercy as had darkened the close of Saul’s sad reign. Then, finally, the assurance is reiterated of the perpetuity of David’s house and throne. The remarkable expression in 2Sa 7:16 , ‘established before thee’ that is, David, if it is the true reading, suggests a hint of the life after death, and conceives of the long-dead king as in some manner cognisant of the fortunes of his descendants. But the Septuagint reads ‘before Me,’ and that reading is confirmed by 2Sa 7:26 and 2Sa 7:29 , and by Psa 89:36 .
Now it is clear that these promises were in part directed to, and fulfilled in, Solomon. But it is as clear that the great promise of an eternal dominion, which is emphatically repeated thrice, goes far beyond him. We are obliged to recognise a second meaning in the prophecy, in accordance with Old Testament usage, which often means by ‘seed’ a line of successive generations of descendants. But no succession of mortal men can reach to eternal duration.
Apart from the fact that the kingdom, in the form in which David’s descendants ruled over it, has long since crumbled away, the large words of the promise must be regarded as inflated and exaggerated, if by ‘for ever’ is only meant ‘for long generations.’ A ‘seed,’ or line of perishable men, can only last for ever if it closes in a Person who is not subject to the law of mortality. Unless we can with our hearts rejoicingly confess, ‘Thou art the King of glory, O Christ! Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,’ we do not pierce to the full understanding of Nathan’s prophecy.
All the glorious prerogatives shadowed in it were but partially fulfilled in Israel’s monarchs. Their failures and their successes, their sins and their virtues, equally declared them to be but shadowy forerunners of Him in whom all that they at the best imperfectly aimed at and possessed is completely and for ever fulfilled. They were prophetic persons by their office, and pointed on to Him.
He has built the true Temple, in that His body is the seat of sacrifice and of revelation, and the meeting-place of God and man, and inasmuch as through Him we are built up into a spiritual house for an habitation of God. In Him is fulfilled the great prophecy of ‘My Servant the Branch,’ who ‘shall build the Temple of the Lord’ and ‘be a Priest upon His throne.’ In Him, too, is fulfilled in highest truth the filial relationship. The Israelitish kings were by office sons of God. He is the Son in ineffable derivation and eternal unity of life with the Father, and their communion is in closest oneness of will and mutual interchange of love. In that filial relation lies the assurance of Christ’s everlasting kingdom, for ‘the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand.’
The prophecy is echoed in many places of Scripture, and is ever taken to refer to a single person. The angel of the annunciation moulded his salutation to the meek Virgin on it, when he declared that her Son ‘shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
that night. After these words all the MSS. have a hiatus, marking a solemn pause, and pointing back to the corresponding night of Gen 15:12-17, thus connecting the two great unconditional Covenants. See note on 2Sa 7:1.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
that night: Num 12:6, 1Ch 17:3, Amo 3:7
Reciprocal: 2Sa 12:25 – Nathan 1Ch 17:4 – Thou shalt not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Sa 7:4-6. That night the word of the Lord came to Nathan Because Davids mistake was pious, and from an honest mind, God would not suffer him to remain long in it. Shalt thou build a house for me? That is, How is it that thou hast formed this design? Whereas I have not dwelt in any house, &c. I have not mentioned, nor has any one else thought of the building me one, from the time you have been a people. But I have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle I have been content with a moveable house, in which I was always present to conduct and lead my people from place to place. By the tent may be meant the curtains and hangings within, which were of curious work, and by the tabernacle the frame of boards to which they were fastened, with the coverings upon it.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
God’s purpose to honor David 7:4-17
The promises Yahweh made to David here are an important key to understanding God’s program for the future.
God rejected David’s suggestion that he build a temple for the Lord and gave three reasons. First, there was no pressing need to do so since the ark had resided in tents since the Exodus (2Sa 7:6). The tent it currently occupied was the one David had pitched for it in Jerusalem (2Sa 6:17), not the tabernacle that stood then at Gibeon (1Ch 16:1; 1Ch 16:39; 1Ch 21:28-30). Second, God had not commanded His people to build Him a permanent temple (2Sa 7:7). Before God raised up Israel’s kings, He Himself had dealt with the tribes of Israel, during the judges period (2Sa 7:7). At that time the leaders of the tribes were responsible to shepherd the Israelites in their areas. [Note: See Patrick V. Reid, "Sbty in 2 Samuel 7:7," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37:1 (January 1975):17-20; and Donald Murray, "Once Again ’t ’hd Sbty Ysr’l in 2 Samuel 7:7," Revue Biblique 94:3 (July 1987):389-96.] Third, David was an inappropriate person to build a temple since he had shed much blood (2Sa 7:5; 1Ch 22:8; 1Ch 28:3). David had become ritually unclean because of all the killing he had been responsible for during his long reign. This was not true of Solomon (cf. 1Ki 6:1).
"Fine temples both hinder and help the worship of God; it all depends on the worshipper." [Note: Payne, p. 188.]
"The real issue is that both the initiative to build a temple and the choice of the person for the task must come from God and not from an individual king." [Note: Michiko Ota, "A Note on 2 Samuel 7," in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, p. 406. Cf. Carlson, p. 109.]
Notice that it was not because God was disciplining David or had rejected him that He prohibited David’s good intention. God was simply redirecting His servant. [Note: Charles R. Swindoll, David: A Man of Passion and Destiny, pp. 162-68.] He was to be a ruler (2Sa 7:8), not a temple builder. Similarly, God does not always permit us to carry out our desires to honor Him, such as becoming a pastor or missionary. He sometimes makes this impossible because He wants us to serve Him in other ways. A realization of this fact would relieve many Christians from false guilt and shattered dreams.
"The irony in 2Sa 7:6 must not be missed: Although God condescends to accompany his people on their journey with a tent as his dwelling (2Sa 7:6 b), a tent carried by them, all along they have in fact been carried by him (2Sa 7:6 a)." [Note: Youngblood, p. 887.]
God had blessed David in the past by choosing him as Israel’s shepherd-king, by being with him in blessing, and by cutting off all David’s enemies (2Sa 7:8-9 a). There are four promises: a great name or famous reputation for David (2Sa 7:9 b), a homeland for Israel (2Sa 7:10), undisturbed rest from all Israel’s enemies (2Sa 7:10-11 a), and an everlasting royal dynasty and kingdom for David and his heirs (2Sa 7:11-16). [Note: For a discussion of illeisms in the Old Testament (the use of third-person self-references), see Andrew S. Malone, "God the Illeist: Third-Person Self-References and Trinitarian Hints in the Old Testament," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52:3 (September 2009):499-518.] Some of God’s promises to David would find fulfillment during his lifetime (2Sa 7:8-11 a), and others would after his death (2Sa 7:11-16). [Note: Cf. Bruce K. Waltke, "The Phenomenon of Conditionality Within Unconditional Covenants," in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, p. 130.]
"The promise of a ’great name’ is reminiscent of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen 12:2), and suggests (though the word ’covenant’ nowhere appears in these verses) that the Davidic kingship is being incorporated into the Abrahamic covenant. This is reinforced by the reference to God’s people Israel dwelling in their own place, undisturbed by enemies (2Sa 7:10), a reference to Gen 15:18-21 and Deu 11:24. Moreover, the covenant word hesed, God’s ’steadfast love’ (v, 15), ensures the fulfillment of the promises, which are here unconditional, though the need for chastisement is foreseen." [Note: Baldwin, p. 36.]
David would have a seed for whom God would establish a kingdom (2Sa 7:12). God repeated to David at this time that his successor would be Solomon (cf. 1Ch 22:9-10). This son would build the temple David wanted to construct (2Sa 7:13). His right to rule, symbolized by the throne, would remain forever (2Sa 7:13).
"Up to this time, there had been no dynasty in Israel. Saul’s son had generously and spiritually submitted himself to David. Now God promised David an eternal seed and an eternal throne. One of David’s own sons would succeed him to the throne, and his throne, like David’s, would be established forever. Much of the rest of 2 Samuel deals with the identification of that son. . . . God’s sovereign choice of David’s line will never be abrogated even though discipline must come when disobedience takes place. This theme underlies much of the argument of 1 and 2 Kings." [Note: Heater, p. 119.]
Note the development of the similar theme of Abraham’s heir in Genesis 12-22. The importance of this promise of a house (i.e., dynasty) is apparent in that references to it frame the future hope (2Sa 7:11 a, 16).
2Sa 7:12 poses a chronological problem. It seems to say that Solomon had not been born yet. However, if God gave the Davidic Covenant late in David’s reign, Solomon must have been alive, since he began ruling shortly after this as an adult. The solution lies in the meaning of the Hebrew word zera translated "descendant." This word means seed. Zera and "seed" are both collective singulars in their respective languages and can refer to either one descendant or many descendants (Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8; cf. Gal 3:16). Part of what God promised David here pertained to Solomon, part to all David’s posterity, and part to Jesus Christ (cf. Mat 3:17). In 2Sa 7:12 it seems to be David’s posterity that is in view as coming forth from him. [Note: See Driver, p. 275.]
"In the Old Testament the relation between father and son denotes the deepest intimacy of love; and love is perfected in unity of nature, in the communication to the son of all that the father hath. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand (John iii. 35). Sonship therefore includes the government of the world. This not only applied to Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, but also to the seed of David generally, so far as they truly attained to the relation of children of God." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, pp. 348-49.]
One writer concluded that God only spoke of the king as His son in an adoptive sense. [Note: Gerald Cooke, "The Israelite King as Son of God," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73:2 (June 1961):202-25.] This was true of Israel’s kings who preceded Messiah, but God spoke of Messiah as His Son in a real sense (Mat 3:17). Another writer noted that the sonship of the Davidic king was apparently linked with three overlapping concepts: adoption, covenant, and royal grant. [Note: Anderson, p. 122.]
If David’s son sinned, God would discipline him, but He would never remove the right to rule from him (2Sa 7:14-15; cf. Heb 12:5-11). Thus David’s house (dynasty), his kingdom (the people of Israel and their land), and his throne (the right to rule) would remain forever. These three promises constitute the Davidic Covenant: a house for David, a kingdom for David, and a throne for David-and all these would remain forever. Walter Kaiser Jr. described these promises a bit differently as a house for David, a seed for David, a kingdom for David, and a Son of God for David. [Note: Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology, pp. 149-52.] It seems to me that the Son of God promise was really part of the seed promise.
"In general terms the line would not fail. Yet in particular terms, benefits might be withdrawn from individuals." [Note: William J. Dumbrell, Covenants and Creation, p. 150.]
"YHWH irrecoverably committed himself to the house of David, but rewarded or disciplined individual kings by extending or withholding the benefits of the grant according to their loyalty or disloyalty to His treaty [i.e., the Mosaic Covenant]." [Note: Waltke, p. 135. Cf. Gordon, p. 240.]
"The failure of the kings generally leads not to disillusion with kingship but to the hope of a future king who will fulfill the kingship ideal-a hope which provides the most familiar way of understanding the significance of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ coming in his kingdom." [Note: John Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament, p. 70.]
Note that God did not promise that the rule of David’s descendants would be without interruption. The Babylonian captivity and the present dispersion of the Jews are interruptions (cf. Romans 9-11). Indeed, Jesus taught that the Jews would experience domination by Gentile powers during "the times of the Gentiles" (Luk 21:24), namely, from the time Gentiles assumed sovereignty over Israel’s affairs (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.) until Jesus Christ restored sovereignty to Israel (i.e., when He returns to rule at His second advent). Even though the present State of Israel enjoys a limited measure of sovereignty, Gentiles still dominate its affairs, and a Davidic king is not leading it. However, the privilege of ruling over Israel as king would always belong to David’s descendants.
"This promise, generally described as the Davidic covenant, is technically in the form of a royal grant by which a sovereign graciously bestowed a blessing, usually in the form of land or a fiefdom, upon a vassal. This may have been in return for some act performed by the vassal in behalf of his lord, or it may have been simply a beneficence derived from the sheer love and kindness of the king. [Note: Weinfeld, pp. 184-203, esp. 185-86.] The latter clearly is the case here, for the promise of eternal kingship through David had been articulated long before the birth of David himself. From the beginning it was the purpose of God to channel his sovereignty over his own people (and, indeed, over all the earth) through a line of kings that would eventuate in the divine Son of God himself. That line, David now came to understand, would begin with him." [Note: Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., p. 275. Cf. Psalms 2:2, 7-9; 18:43, 50; 45:7; 72:8-11, 17; 101:5-8; 110:1-2, 4-7. See also Matitiahu Tsevat, "The House of David in Nathan’s Prophecy," Biblica 46 (1965):353-56.]
The Davidic Covenant is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 12:7). [Note: For an excellent discussion of the Davidic Covenant, see J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come, pp. 140-55. See also Cleon L. Rogers Jr., "The Promises to David in Early Judaism," Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993:285-302; and idem, "The Davidic Covenant in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 150:600 (October-December 1993):458-78; and 150:601 (January-March 1994):71-84. See also Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 59-80.] There God promised a land, seed, and blessing to the patriarch. In time God gave further revelation regarding each of these promised blessings (cf. Deu 30:1-10; 2Sa 7:5-16; Jer 31:31-34). The Davidic Covenant deals with Abraham’s descendants primarily and God’s provision of leadership for them specifically. In Deuteronomy 30 God explained the land aspects of His promise more fully, and in Jeremiah 31 He expounded the blessing promise. These are the major revelations that clarify God’s promises to Abraham, but they are not the only ones.
"The Davidic Covenant is the centerpiece of Samuel and Kings. David, as a type of the ideal king (both in position and often in practice), appears ’between the lines’ in chapters 1-15 and dominates the lines in chapters 16-31. Seeing the centrality of the Davidic Covenant enables the reader to pick up the argument of 1 Samuel and to see how it moves inexorably toward 2 Samuel 7." [Note: Heater, p. 120.]
"After the conquest of Canaan when Israel’s loyalty to YHWH lapsed, YHWH’s protection of his people also lapsed. By the time of Samuel and Saul, the Philistines threatened the very existence of Israel. The institution of the Davidic covenant, vested in a vassal [the Davidic king] loyal to the suzerain [Yahweh], constituted an earnest of protection, vouchsafed but virtually impossible to realize in the Sinaitic covenant. The suzerain-vassal model as a legal framework for both the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants validated the basis on which YHWH’s protection was to be obtained. There now existed no provision for national protection other than within the framework of a suzerain-vassal type of relationship with YHWH. But the Davidic covenant did away with the necessity that all Israel-to a man-maintain loyalty to YHWH in order to merit his protection. In the analogy of suzerain-vassal relationships, David’s designation as YHWH’s ’son’ and ’firstborn’ (2Sa 7:14; Psa 2:6-7; Psa 89:27) legitimized him as Israel’s representative-as the embodiment of YHWH’s covenant people, also called his ’son’ and ’firstborn’ (Exo 4:22). With regard to Israel’s protection, the Davidic covenant superseded the Sinaitic covenant, but only because of Israel’s regression in her loyalty toward YHWH (compare 1Sa 8:7). Henceforth, the king stood as proxy between YHWH and his people." [Note: Avraham Gileadi, "The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection," in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration, p. 160. For similarities between the Davidic Covenant and Hittite and Neo-Assyrian suzerain-vassal agreements, see Weinfeld; Philip J. Calderone, Dynastic Oracles and Suzerainty Treaty; and F. Charles Fensham, "Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament," Vetus Testamentum 13:(1963):133-43.]
The descendant of David through whom God will fulfill His promises completely is Jesus Christ. [Note: For the Jewish view that the nation of Israel, not a personal Messiah, would fulfill these promises, see Matitiahu Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel," Hebrew Union College Annual 34 (1963):71-82.] In view of what God said of Him in Luk 1:32-33, there are five major implications of the Davidic Covenant for the future. God must preserve Israel as a nation. He must bring her back into her land. Jesus Christ must rule over her in the land. His kingdom must be earthly, and it must be everlasting. [Note: J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 114-15.]
"All conservative [Christian] interpreters of the Bible recognize that the promise has its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. Again the amillennial and premillennial differences in explaining eschatology come to the fore, however. The amillennial position is that Christ is now on the throne of David in heaven, equating the heavenly throne with the earthly throne of David, whereas the traditional premillennial view is that the Davidic throne will be occupied at the second coming of Christ when Christ assumes his rule in Jerusalem." [Note: John F. Walvoord, "The New Covenant," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 192-93.]
"The difficult questions that separate dispensational and non-dispensational interpreters relate to how many of the covenant promises have been fulfilled in Christ’s first coming and present ministry and how many remain for the future. Two key elements of the covenant promise stand at the center of the controversy: (1) a royal dynasty or house, and (2) a kingdom with universal blessing." [Note: Saucy, p. 66. ]
Dispensationalists believe that these two things will be fulfilled in the future through Israel, whereas non-dispensationalists believe they are being fulfilled in the present through the church. David and Solomon both understood the promise of a kingdom to refer to a literal earthly kingdom for Israel (2Sa 7:18-29; 2Ch 6:14-16). Therefore we (dispensationalists) look for the fulfillment to be a literal earthly kingdom for Israel.
God did not condition His promises to David here on anything. Therefore we can count on their complete fulfillment.
"The overriding theological principle is that Yahweh’s word is infallible." [Note: Dennis J. McCarthy, "2 Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History," Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):136.]
"Sometimes life’s greatest blessings flow out of its profoundest disappointments. . . . Our willingness to do what little we can for Him will be repaid many times over by the outpouring of His lavish and surprising acts of grace both now and in the ages to come." [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, "2 Samuel," in The Old Testament Explorer, p. 233.]