8<\/strong>. from the sheepcote<\/em> ] Rather, from the pasture.<\/strong> Cp. Psa 78:70-71<\/span>.<\/p>\n to be ruler<\/em> ] Cp. ch. 2Sa 5:2<\/span>, 2Sa 6:21<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2Sa 7:8<\/span><\/p>\n I took thee from the sheepcote.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Gods making of a life<\/strong><\/p>\n Though he was a born king by nature and character, David was not born a king. His father was a simple farmer, and his childhood was spent in the quiet scenes of a humble village. Jesus was born in the same Judean village-city, little Bethlehem. It is exactly thus that God ever carries out His mighty programme of action in creation, providence, and grace. The Rev. W. L. Watkinson says that, on visiting an art gallery recently, he noticed that some of the greatest pictures had not a splendid thing in them. The ordinary artist, when he wants to be effective, paints in a breadth of golden harvest, or be portrays a kingfisher or some other iridescent bird, or a tree in bloom, or that captivating thing, a rainbow. But you will notice that some of the greatest painters that ever lived never touch these things. They take common things–a railway cut, a ploughed field–no conspicuous object, only the black earth, the brown earth, the red earth; but their touch is a supreme touch, so that you can see the blossom in the dust and the rainbow in the cloud; and the picture, although it contains not a brilliant thing, is bathed in imagination, poetry, and beauty. So Christ can take the most common human plants in His garden and develop them into the most indescribable beauty and interest. God can take our poor humble lives and crown them with dignity and glory, as He honoured David the shepherd boy, if we fall into the royal line of the servants of righteousness. Before honour is humility. David was not a self-exalted king. He was called to rule, and he followed the Divine call wherever it led him, whether into the desert or into the palace.<\/p>\n Filling present limits<\/strong><\/p>\n If a man be not signally successful in his present field he cannot reasonably hope to be more successful in a larger field. He must first fill out to his existing limits before he will be able to expand into the area of larger boundaries. A man may indeed have abilities beyond the sphere he is in at present, but in every such case the first indication of this is his filling that sphere satisfactorily. If he lacks where he is, he ought not to feel that he could do better, or even as well, if he were in a larger place. It were folly to expect that there is milk enough for a gallon measure when it cannot fill a pint pot. (Great Thoughts<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n God the Giver of power<\/strong><\/p>\n That God is the Giver of power and dominion is a truth which has always been recognized in the unchangeable East. Thus, in the inscription of Darius on the rock at Behistun, the ninth paragraph reads: Says Darius the king:–Ormazd [the god] granted me the empire. Ormazd brought help to me so that I gained this empire. By the grace of Ormazd, I hold this empire. Substitute Jehovah for Ormazd, and David might truthfully have written that inscription. Again, in the Annals of Assurbanipal which are preserved on terra-cotta cylinders, now in the British Museum, it is said: I am Assurbanipal, the seed of [the gods] Assur and Beltis, son of the great king of the North Palace, whom [the gods] Assur and Sin the lord of crowns, raised to the kingdom, prophesying his name from the days of old; and in his birth have created him to rule Assyria. [The gods] Shamas, Vul, and Ishtar, in power most high, commanded the making of his kingdom. (Sunday School Times<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n From obscurity to eminence<\/strong><\/p>\n For purposes of sober illustration or intense appeal to the unselfish and heroic, nothing can surpass the life of David Livingstone, whom Florence Nightingale called the greatest man of his generation. The vision of the boy placing his book on the spinning-jenny and studying amid the roar of the machinery at Blantyre, or sitting contentedly down before his fathers door to spend the night, upon arriving after the hour for locking it; the old coat, eleven years behind the fashion, which he wore when he emerged at Cape Town after Kolobeng had been pillaged; the sadness of the scene when he buried his little daughter in the first grave in all this country, he wrote to his parents, marked as the resting-place of one of whom it is believed and confessed that she stall live again; his jocular letters to his daughter Agnes about his distorted teeth, so that my smile is like that of a hippopotamus; the meeting with Stanley when he was a mere ruckle of bones; the indomitable grit of the man whose last words in Scotland were, Fear God, and work hard–this life is full of such things as these, capable of use, inviting it. And when, before or since, has this world been swayed by eloquence comparable with that of his death? No pulpit has ever spoken with such power. The worn frame kneeling by the bedside at Ilala, pulseless and grill, while the rain dripped from the eaves of the hut, dead in the attitude of prayer, solitary and alone, sent a thrill through the souls of men which, thank God, is vibrating still, and is working out the redemption wrought once for Africa by the worlds Redeemer. (W. G. Blaikie.<\/em>)<\/p>\n 2Sa 7:8-17<\/span><\/p>\n Go, do all that is in thine heart.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Divine correction of a prophets mistake and Divine denial of a kings desire<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It is pleasant to glance at the circumstances which gave birth to Davids desire to build the temple. The regal position into which he passed on the death of Saul was no bed of roses. The land was still over-run by the Philistines, who held many of its strongest fortresses. Jerusalem was in the hands of the Jebusites. There was hard and long-lasting work to be done, but David gave himself to it with full purpose of heart; and his God who had called him to it did not suffer him to labour in vain. Victory after victory crowned his arduous struggles, until, at last, the Philistines were for ever banished; the Land of Promise was fully possessed by the Israelites; and Davids unresisted rule extended over all the twelve tribes. It was a happy time for the king and his people. Peace had come into the land, and prosperity was in her train. The king sat in his house, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies. We can scarcely enter into the joy which all this created, and the thankfulness it inspired; not because we know nothing of such circumstances, but because we have-always lived in them. Those who have never mourned on account of the deep darkness of midnight, cannot appreciate the beauty of the dawn and the splendours of the noon like men who through long hours of thick gloom have watched and waited for the morning. How can we estimate the blessedness of peace and security, as it was estimated by the Hebrews after nearly a life-time of constant disquiet and bloody strife, and well-grounded dread of national annihilation and of individual slavery or death? It may be asked, if David were so joyous and thankful, could he not have taken his harp of sweet and solemn sound, and have expressed his new-born praise in some new-born psalm? Doubtless he did this, but it was not enough to satisfy his gratitude. The truly thankful heart is glad to put on its singing robes, and lift its exultant strains to heaven; but it cannot be contented with words and music alone, even though another David should pen the hymn, and an inspired Handel should compose the melody. It will want to express its emotion in works, to put on the garb of a willing servant, and, in addition to saying great things about God, to do right and good and noble things for God. Let us be assured that if we know and believe the love that God hath to us–if His love have enkindled ours–we too shall be eager to embody our living thankfulness in deeds of truth, and kindness, and purity. The praise that expresses itself in action is not only the most acceptable to God, it is also the only praise which can give relief to the spirit burdened with a sense of what it owes to Him, whose mercy is like Himself–without beginning of days or end of years.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>We must turn from the origin and nature of Davids purpose to Nathans mistaken sanction of it. A sympathetic heart is a great quickener of the <\/strong>brain. If your spirit be in unison with that of another man, how readily you and he can understand each other. Half words are enough, and either of you can fully discern the others desire or purpose long before his language has fully disclosed it. It is this taw of our nature which makes it so much easier for a man to find out the Divine Will when his heart is brought into living sympathy with God. Then his faculty of discernment is so perfect that to him God can say, I will guide thee with Mine eye. Between Nathan and David there was this sympathy, so that the latter had scarcely begun to speak about his purpose before the former divined all that be intended. Here is a most instructive case of the fallability of an always good and ofttimes inspired man! It is frequently difficult to distinguish between the inclinations of our own wills and the guidance of Gods hand. It is so easy to mistake the bent of our own desires for the intimations of Providence; and when our own hearts are in favour of a thing it requires little argument to convince us that God is in favour of it too. No matter how wise or right any course may appear to be, if we would be always safe we must always distrust our own unaided judgments, and cherish the dependent and teachable spirit, which cries, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? Nathan went home to his evening prayer, and his nightly rest, and was speedily made aware of his error.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>We have now to look at the denial of Davids desire, and at the facts and promises which were set before him to reconcile him to his disappointment. There was neither disdain of his gratitude nor condemnation of his idea that the prospered nation ought to have a better house for holy service. The Lord in His great kindness was careful so to convey the denial that it could not possibly impair Davids faith in the Divine love, nor excite his hostility to the Divine plan. He testified that Gods gentleness had made him great. Of that gentleness he seldom had richer experience than on this occasion.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> The first words in the message were calculated to pacify Davids conscience, which had been troubled about the poverty of the place wherein God was worshipped. He was reminded that the matter which had distressed him had called forth no complaint from the Lord.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Having referred to the forbearance which others had met with, the Divine message proceeds to speak of what had been done for David. The Lord spake as if He feared that by thwarting Davids purpose He might expose His love to unjust suspicion; and therefore He was careful to show that He had already done so much for His servant that, whatever course He might see it best to pursue, His love ought not to be suspected for a moment. Surely He had placed that beyond the shadow of a doubt! The way in which Davids doubts were prevented is the way in which ours must be checked and cured. If Gods nay to our requests should tempt us to distrust His love, we must meet the temptation with memories of the many times and the manifold ways wherein He has heard our prayer and enriched us with His blessing. There is great significance in the fact that in refusing David the coveted honour of building the temple, the Lord reminded him of the glory as well as the mercy already bestowed upon him. Was it not telling David that the fame he had secured was enough for any one mans lawful ambition? Why should he want to add to that the glory of being the greatest temple-builder the world had seen? He must not aspire to that crown too. God would reserve it for another. Men righteously denounced Napoleon for his desire to make a French empire of all Europe. There is too often a Napoleonism in commerce which is not a whit more admirable. Instead of vigorously and contentedly pursuing their own proper business, men have sought profitable pecuniary connection with ten or twenty other totally distinct enterprises. In how many cases this vaulting ambition has overleaped itself!<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> From another part of the inspired history we learn that the character of Davids preceding work was given as one reason why the present purpose was to be laid aside. It should not be supposed that this implies censure of Davids warlike course. Had he not been qualified for it, and called be it, by God? Was it not a necessary work, and had he not Divine succour in it? It was both lawful and expedient; and yet it had unfitted him for the new kind of work to which he wanted to put his hands. In our present imperfect state, ability for one thing may involve disability for another thing. As no one man is intended to gain everything, so no one man is endowed with all the talents. Happy is he who finds out what he is fit for, and devotes himself to it; and is either so wise or so busy that he does not attempt numerous other achievements.<\/p>\n (4)<\/strong> Another way in which the Lord sought to reconcile David to the denial of his desire was by promising that his purpose should not perish, but be carried out by his own son. It is no wonder that Gods message checked all murmuring all rebellion in Davids heart. He did more than cheerfully submit; he exulted in the decision and purpose of the Lord. Instead of weeping and wailing, because his plan had not been adopted, he broke out into an impassioned and sublime strain of thanksgiving. Let it be remembered to the honour of his piety that such was-his confidence in the wisdom and love and faithfulness of God that one of the most fervent songs he ever sung was inspired by the very message in which he was told he was not to do what he had asked to do. It ought to be easier for us to imitate Davids hearty acquiescence, because we know that subsequent events proved how wise it was. According to Gods promise, Solomon succeeded to the throne, and was in every way fitted for the task assigned to him. It was a magnificent testimony to the truth that Gods Nay and Gods Yea are only two different forms in which the same everlasting love and infinite wisdom are expressed. (C. Vince<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nathans mistake<\/strong><\/p>\n Davids proposal was so generous and so religious that the prophet Nathan didnt have a question that its prompting was from the Lord. He was ready to bid the king God-speed, without a doubt as to the propriety of the thing proposed. But the sequel showed that Davids plan didnt have the Lords approval. Nor was this the last time that a man of God made a mistake in supposing that because a proposition was a religious one it necessarily had the Lords approval. A young man comes to his pastor, and says that he has decided to give up everything else and study for the ministry. It doesnt follow that the minister ought to say, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the Lord is with thee. It is still a question whether this well-intentioned proposal is really of the Lord. So again, it may be, when a man comes with a proposition as to the use of his property, in establishing a local fund for the support of the ministry, in founding another college, or in building a new hospital. To show a religious purpose is one thing. To be sure that that purpose has the Lords approval, or that just as it is it deserves the approval of the Lords ministers, is quite another thing. Other men of God need to learn caution from the experience of Nathan. (H. C. Trumbull.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A noble purpose unrealised<\/strong><\/p>\n Our hearts the measure of our work<\/strong><\/p>\n Think much about intentions. Give, and it shall be given you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. After which Bengel acutely annotates that it is by our hearts that we both mete out to others and have it meted out to ourselves. It would have gone hard with-the poor widow if she, had only had a farthing meted out to her in her Lords judgment on her. But her Lord looked on her heart. And thus it is that she sits in heaven to-day among the queens who sit there on their thrones of gold, because she had such a queenly heart that day in the temple porch. Both from Davids intended temple, from the poor widows actual collection at the door of Davids temple, and from Bengels spiritual annotation let us learn this spiritual lesson, that our hearts are the measure both of our work and of our wages in the sight of God. You cannot build and repair all the churches and mission-houses and manses at home and abroad you would like to build and repair. You cannot endow all the chairs of sacred learning you would like: You cannot contribute to the sustentation of the Christian ministry as you would like. You cannot visit and relieve all the fatherless and widows in their affliction as you would like. You cannot stop all the sources of sin and misery in this world as you would like. You cannot make the reading, or the religion, or the devotional life of your people what your heart is full of. You wish you could. So did David. David had magnificent dreams about the temple. He built the temple every night in his sleep. And had he been permitted he would not have slept with his fathers till he had dedicated a most magnificent house to the name of the Lord. But it stands in Gods true and faithful Word, that it was all in Davids heart. And He who looks not so much on the action as on the intention, He saw in this also a man after His own heart. May all Davids good intentions, and generous preparations be found in all our rich people, and may all the widows love and goodwill be found in all our poor people. For the heart is the measure. And as we measure our good words, and good wishes, and good purposes, and good preparations, and good performances in our heart, so will it be measured back to us by Him who sees and weighs and measures the heart and nothing but the heart. (Alex. Whyte, D. D<\/em>.)<\/p>\n So shalt thou say unto my servant David:<\/B> lest David should be too much discouraged, or judge himself neglected and forsaken of God, as one thought unworthy of so great an honour, God here gives him the honourable title of his servant<\/I>, thereby signifying that he accepted of his service, and of his good intentions, which also was expressed at this time, as it may seem from 1Ki 8:18<\/span>, though not in this place. <\/P> I took thee from the sheep-cote, to be ruler over my people; <\/B>I advanced thee, and I do not repent of it. <\/P> <\/p>\n Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David<\/strong>,…. For it was taken well at his hands, in part, that it was in his heart, and he had a desire to build an house for God, though he was wrong in determining upon it without seeking the Lord; and lest he should be discouraged by the prohibition of him from building, the following things are observed to assure him it was not from disregard unto him, or displeasure at him, that he would not be employed in this service; since the Lord had given sufficient tokens of his favour to him, and with which he should be content, as having honour enough done him; it was enough that God had raised him up from a low estate to great grandeur and dignity:<\/p>\n thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel<\/strong>; for that was his employment, to keep his father’s sheep, before he was taken into Saul’s court, and married his daughter, when after his death he came to have the crown, of Israel: now this is said, not to upbraid him with his former meanness, but to observe the goodness of God unto him, and what reason he had for thankfulness, and to look upon himself as a favourite of God, who of a keeper of sheep was made a shepherd of men, to rule and feed them; so Cyrus is called a shepherd, Isa 44:28<\/span>; and Agamemnon, in Homer w, is called “the shepherd of the people”.<\/p>\n w Iliad. 2.<\/p>\n After thus declining his proposal, the Lord made known His gracious purpose to David: “Thus saith Jehovah of hosts” (not only Jehovah<\/em>, as in 2Sa 7:5<\/span>, but J ehovah Sebaoth<\/em>, because He manifests himself in the following revelation as the God of the universe): “I have taken thee from the pasturage (grass-plat), behind the flock, to be prince over my people Israel; and was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and exterminated all thine enemies before thee, and so made thee, (perfect with vav consec.), a great name, … and created a place for my people Israel, and planted them, so that they dwell in their place, and do not tremble any more (before their oppressors); and the sons of wickedness do not oppress them any further, as at the beginning, and from the day when I appointed judges over my people Israel: and I create thee rest from all thine enemies. And Jehovah proclaims to thee, that Jehovah will make thee a house.” The words … are to be joined to , “as in the beginning,” i.e., in Egypt, and from the time of the judges; that is to say, during the rule of the judges, when the surrounding nations constantly oppressed and subjugated Israel. The plan usually adopted, of connecting the words with , does not yield any suitable thought at all, as God had not given David rest from the very beginning of the times of the judges; but the period of the judges was long antecedent to the time of David, and was not a period of rest for the Israelites. Again, does not resume what is stated in 2Sa 7:9<\/span>, and is not to be rendered as a preterite in the sense of “I have procured thee rest,” but as a perfect with vav consec.<\/em>, “and I procure thee rest” from what is now about to come to pass. And is to be taken in the same way: the Lord shows thee, first of all through His promise (which follows), and then through the fact itself, the realization of His word. refers to the future, as well as the building of David’s house, and therefore not to the rest from all his enemies, which God had already secured for David, but to that which He would still further secure for him, that is to say, to the maintenance and establishment of that rest. The commentary upon this is to be found in Psa 89:22-24<\/span>. In the Chronicles (1Ch 17:10<\/span>) there is a somewhat different turn given to the last clauses: “and I bend down all thine enemies, and make it (the bending-down) known to thee (by the fact), and a house will Jehovah build for thee.” The thought is not essentially changed by this; consequently there is no ground for any emendation of the text, which is not even apparently necessary, unless, like Bertheau, we misinterpret the words, and connect erroneously with the previous clause.<\/p>\n 2Sa 7:8-11<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> The connection between 2Sa 7:5-7<\/span> and 2Sa 7:8-16<\/span> has been correctly indicated by Thenius as follows: Thou shalt not build a house for Me; but I, who have from the very beginning glorified myself in thee and my people (2Sa 7:8-11<\/span>), will build a house for thee; and thy son shall erect a house for me (2Sa 7:13<\/span>). This thought is not merely “a play upon words entirely in the spirit of prophecy,” but contains the deep general truth that God must first of all build a man’s house, before the man can build God’s house, and applies it especially to the kingdom of God in Israel. As long as the quiet and full possession of the land of Canaan, which had been promised by the Lord to the people of God for their inheritance, was disputed by their enemies round about, even the dwelling-place of their God could not assume any other form than that of a wanderer’s tent. The kingdom of God in Israel first acquired its rest and consolation through the efforts of David, when God had made all his foes subject to him and established his throne firmly, i.e., had assured to his descendants the possession of the kingdom for all future time. And it was this which ushered in the time for the building of a stationary house as a dwelling for the name of the Lord, i.e., for the visible manifestation of the presence of God in the midst of His people. The conquest of the citadel of Zion and the elevation of this fortress into the palace of the king, whom the Lord had given to His people, formed the commencement of the establishment of the kingdom of God. But this commencement received its first pledge of perpetuity from the divine assurance that the throne of David should be established for all future time. And this the Lord was about to accomplish: He would build David a house, and then his seed should build the house of the Lord. No definite reason is assigned why David himself was not to build the temple. We learn this first of all from David’s last words (1Ch 28:3<\/span>), in which he says to the assembled heads of the nation, “God said to me, Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou art a man of wars, and hast shed blood.” Compare with this the similar words of David to Solomon in 1Ch 22:8<\/span>, and Solomon’s statement in his message to Hiram, that David had been prevented from building the temple in consequence of his many wars. It was probably not till afterwards that David was informed by Nathan what the true reason was. As Hengstenberg has correctly observed, the fact that David was not permitted to build the temple on account of his own personal unworthiness, did not involve any blame for what he had done; for David stood in a closer relation to the Lord than Solomon did, and the wars which he waged were wars of the Lord (1Sa 25:28<\/span>) for the maintenance and defence of the kingdom of God. But inasmuch as these wars were necessary and inevitable, they were practical proofs that David’s kingdom and government were not yet established, and therefore that the time for the building of the temple had not yet come, and the rest of peace was not yet secured. The temple, as the symbolical representation of the kingdom of God, as also to correspond to the nature of that kingdom, and shadow forth the peace of the kingdom of God. For this reason, David, the man of war, was not to build the temple; but that was to be reserved for Solomon, the man of peace, the type of the Prince of Peace (Isa 9:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2Sa 7:12-13<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> In 2Sa 7:12-16<\/span> there follows a more precise definition of the way in which the Lord would build a house for His servant David: “When thy days shall become full, and thou shalt lie with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, who shall come from thy body, and establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I shall establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” , to set up i.e., to promote to royal dignity. is not to be altered into , as Thenius and others maintain. The assumption that Solomon had already been born, is an unfounded one (see the note to 2Sa 5:11<\/span>); and it by no means follows from the statement in 2Sa 7:1<\/span>, to the effect that God had given David rest from all his enemies, that his resolution to build a temple was not formed till the closing years of his reign.<\/p>\n 2Sa 7:14-16<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> “I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me; so that if he go astray, I shall chastise him with rods of men, and with strokes of the children of men <\/em> (i.e., not ‘with moderate punishment, such as parents are accustomed to inflict,’ as Clericus explains it, but with such punishments as are inflicted upon all men who go astray, and from which even the seed of David is not to be excepted). But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I caused it to depart from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.”<\/em> It is very obvious, from all the separate details of this promise, that it related primarily to Solomon, and had a certain fulfilment in him and his reign. On the death of David, his son Solomon ascended the throne, and God defended his kingdom against the machinations of Adonijah (1Ki 2:12<\/span>); so that Solomon was able to say, “The Lord hath fulfilled His word that He spoke; for I have risen up in the stead of my father David,” etc. (1Ki 8:20<\/span>). Solomon built the temple, as the Lord said to David (1Ki 6:1<\/span>; 1Ki 8:15<\/span>.). But in his old age Solomon sinned against the Lord by falling into idolatry; and as a punishment for this, after his death his kingdom was rent from his son, not indeed entirely, as one portion was still preserved to the family for David’s sake (1Ki 11:9<\/span>.). Thus the Lord punished him with rods of men, but did not withdraw from him His grace. At the same time, however unmistakeable the allusions to Solomon are, the substance of the promise is not fully exhausted in him. The threefold repetition of the expression “for ever,” the establishment of the kingdom and throne of David for ever<\/em>, points incontrovertibly beyond the time of Solomon, and to the eternal continuance of the seed of David. The word seed<\/em> denotes the posterity of a person, which may consist either in one son or in several children, or in a long line of successive generations. The idea of a number of persons living at the same time, is here precluded by the context of the promise, as only one of David’s successors could sit upon the throne at a time. On the other hand, the idea of a number of descendants following one another, is evidently contained in the promise, that God would not withdraw His favour from the seed, even if it went astray, as He had done from Saul, since this implies that even in that case the throne should be transmitted from father to son. There is still more, however, involved in the expression “for ever.” When the promise was given that the throne of the kingdom of David should continue “to eternity,” an eternal duration was also promised to the seed that should occupy this throne, just as in 2Sa 7:16<\/span> the house and kingdom of David are spoken of as existing for ever, side by side. We must not reduce the idea of eternity to the popular notion of a long incalculable period, but must take it in an absolute sense, as the promise is evidently understood in Psa 89:30<\/span>: “I set his seed for ever, and this throne as the days of heaven.” No earthly kingdom, and no posterity of any single man, has eternal duration like the heaven and the earth; but the different families of men become extinct, as the different earthly kingdoms perish, and other families and kingdoms take their place. The posterity of David, therefore, could only last for ever by running out in a person who lives for ever, i.e., by culminating in the Messiah, who lives for ever, and of whose kingdom there is no end. The promise consequently refers to the posterity of David, commencing with Solomon and closing with Christ: so that by the “seed” we are not to understand Solomon alone, with the kings who succeeded him, nor Christ alone, to the exclusion of Solomon and the earthly kings of the family of David; nor is the allusion to Solomon and Christ to be regarded as a double allusion to two different objects.<\/p>\n But if this is established, – namely, that the promise given to the seed of David that his kingdom should endure for ever only attained its ultimate fulfilment in Christ, – we must not restrict the building of the house of God to the erection of Solomon’s temple. “The building of the house of the Lord goes hand in hand with the eternity of the kingdom” (Hengstenberg). As the kingdom endures for ever, so the house built for the dwelling-place of the Lord must also endure for ever, as Solomon said at the dedication of the temple (1Ki 8:13<\/span>): “I have surely built Thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for Thee to abide in for ever.” The everlasting continuance of Solomon’s temple must not be reduced, however, to the simple fact, that even if the temple of Solomon should be destroyed, a new building would be erected in its place by the earthly descendants of Solomon, although this is also implied in the words, and the temple of Zerubbabel is included as the restoration of that of Solomon. For it is not merely in its earthly form, as a building of wood and stone, that the temple is referred to, but also and chiefly in its essential characteristic, as the place of the manifestation and presence of God in the midst of His people. The earthly form is perishable, the essence eternal. This essence was the dwelling of God in the midst of His people, which did not cease with the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, but culminated in the appearance of Jesus Christ, in whom Jehovah came to His people, and, as God the Word, made human nature His dwelling-place ( , Joh 1:14<\/span>) in the glory of the only-begotten Son of the Father; so that Christ could say to the Jews, “Destroy this temple (i.e., the temple of His body), and in three days I will build it up again” (Joh 2:19<\/span>). It is with this building up of the temple destroyed by the Jews, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that the complete and essential fulfilment of our promise begins. It is perpetuated with the Christian church in the indwelling of the Father and Son through the Holy Ghost in the hearts of believers (Joh 14:23<\/span>; 1Co 6:19<\/span>), by which the church of Jesus Christ is built up a spiritual house of God, composed of living stones (1Ti 3:15<\/span>; 1Pe 2:5<\/span>; compare 2Co 6:16<\/span>; Heb 3:6<\/span>); and it will be perfected in the completion of the kingdom of God at the end of time in the new Jerusalem, which shall come down upon the new earth out of heaven from God, as the true tabernacle of God with men (Rev 21:1-3<\/span>).<\/p>\n As the building of the house of God receives its fulfilment first of all through Christ, so the promise, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,” is first fully realized in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the heavenly Father (vid., Heb 1:5<\/span>). 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 (Joh 3:35<\/span>). 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. So long as Solomon walked in the ways of the Lord, he ruled over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) to the border of Egypt (1Ki 5:1<\/span>); but when his heart turned away from the Lord in his old age, adversaries rose up against him (1Ki 11:14<\/span>., 1Ki 11:23<\/span>.), and after his death the greater part of the kingdom was rent from his son. The seed of David was chastised for its sins; and as its apostasy continued, it was humbled yet more and more, until the earthly throne of David became extinct. Nevertheless the Lord did not cause His mercy to depart from him. When the house of David had fallen into decay, Jesus Christ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, to raise up the throne of His father David again, and to reign for ever as King over the house of Jacob (Luk 1:32-33<\/span>), and to establish the house and kingdom of David for ever. – In 2Sa 7:16<\/span>, where the promise returns to David again with the words, “thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever,” the expression (before thee), which the lxx and Syriac have arbitrarily changed into (before me), should be particularly observed. David, as the tribe-father and founder of the line of kings, is regarded either “as seeing all his descendants pass before him in a vision,” as O. v. Gerlach<\/em> supposes, or as continuing to exist in his descendants.<\/p>\n (8) Sheepcote.<\/strong>Better, pasture. Rather Than David Building Him A House, YHWH Would Build David A House Of A Very Different Kind ( 2Sa 7:8-17<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n YHWH then assured ‘His servant David’ that He had greater purposes than the building of houses of cedar. Rather He was intending to build David’s house (his descendants and dynasty) into an everlasting house that would rule over His everlasting kingdom for ever. This was the House that YHWH had in mind. There are three basic elements to His promise: <\/p>\n The first is that David himself will have a great name like the great ones of the earth (2Sa 7:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n The second is that David’s son who directly follows him will be adopted by YHWH as His son, and that YHWH will be faithful to him even if he strays (2Sa 7:14-15<\/span>). <\/p>\n The third is that He will establish through David’s seed an everlasting kingly rule that will never cease (2Sa 7:13<\/span>; 2Sa 7:16<\/span>). <\/p>\n There is also in 2Sa 7:13<\/span> possibly a hint that his son will also build a physical temple (of cedar) but the main emphasis is undoubtedly on the building of a perpetual dynasty which will finally result in an everlasting kingdom. <\/p>\n What David would think about this ‘everlasting kingdom’ in depth is, of course, open to question. Indeed it may well be that he did not think about it in depth. He would probably simply think of it as an everlasting kingdom on earth and not consider it any further. The impossibility of such an idea would probably not strike him. He would think in terms of the earth as permanent without speculating on the matter. But there is no doubt that the promise contained within it is of the idea of an everlasting ‘heavenly’ kingdom (as God would certainly be fully aware of), for even we know that that is the only possible way in which there could be an everlasting kingdom. Here we have the beginning of the way in which earthly descriptions are used by the prophets with the purpose of conveying the idea of eternal realities. They convey heavenly truth through an earthly medium because at that time speculation about heavenly existence in itself would have become confused with ideas about the lives of the gods found in other nations. These earthly descriptions are thus not always to be taken absolutely literally. Attention must be paid to what the deeper ideas are that are within them (compare Heb 11:10-14<\/span>). <\/p>\n Analysis. <\/p>\n a <\/strong> “Now therefore thus shall you say to my servant David (2Sa 7:8<\/span> a). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> “Thus says YHWH of hosts, I took you from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people, over Israel” – the CALL and FINAL PURPOSE of YHWH for DAVID (2Sa 7:8<\/span> b). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> “And I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you, and I will make you a great name, like to the name of the great ones which are in the earth” – the ACCOMPANYING PRESENCE, POWER and PURPOSE of YHWH with regard to DAVID (2Sa 7:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n d <\/strong> “And I will appoint a place for my people Israel” – the PURPOSE of YHWH for HIS PEOPLE <\/p>\n “and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more,” – the ACTIVITY of YHWH on behalf of HIS PEOPLE <\/p>\n “nor shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as at the first, and as from the day that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel,” – the PROTECTION of YHWH as regards HIS PEOPLE <\/p>\n “and I will cause you to rest from all your enemies” – the PROMISED FUTURE REST for DAVID on behalf of HIS PEOPLE (2Sa 7:10-11<\/span> a). <\/p>\n e <\/strong> “Moreover YHWH tells you that YHWH will make you a house” – the PROMISED FUTURE HOUSE for DAVID (2Sa 7:11<\/span> b). <\/p>\n d <\/strong> “When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will proceed out of your bowels,” – the INITIAL PURPOSE of YHWH for DAVID’S HOUSE <\/p>\n “and I will establish his kingly rule.” – the ACTIVITY of YHWH on behalf of DAVID’S HOUSE <\/p>\n “He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingly rule for ever” – the FINAL PURPOSE of YHWH for DAVID’S HOUSE (2Sa 7:12-13<\/span>). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> “I will be his father, and he will 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, but my lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you” – the ACCOMPANYING PRESENCE, POWER and PURPOSE of YHWH with regard to DAVID’S HOUSE (2Sa 7:14-15<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> “And your house and your kingly rule will be made sure for ever before you, your throne will be established for ever” – the FINAL PURPOSE of YHWH for DAVID’S HOUSE (2Sa 7:16<\/span>). <\/p>\n a <\/strong> According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak to David (2Sa 7:17<\/span>). <\/p>\n Note that in ‘a’ YHWH tells Nathan what he is to say to David, and in the parallel Nathan does so. In ‘b’ David is told that he was taken from the sheepcote to be ‘prince over YHWH’s people’, and in the parallel he is told that ‘his kingly rule and throne will be established for ever’. In ‘c’ David is told that YHWH has been with him wherever he went and in the parallel he is assured that YHWH’s lovingkindness will in the same way not depart from his children. In ‘d’ YHWH declares that He will appoint a place for His people Israel, and they will no more be afflicted, and in the parallel He declares that David’s son will build Him a house, and He will establish the kingly rule of David’s house over His people for ever. Central in ‘e’ is the fact that YHWH will make David a house in a much better sense than any physical house of cedar. <\/p>\n 2Sa 7:8<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n “<\/strong> Now therefore thus shall you say to my servant David, ‘Thus says YHWH of hosts, I took you from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people, over Israel,” <\/p>\n YHWH commences with an historical preamble. He reminds David that it was He Who had brought David from his sheepcote of rough wood to his palace of cedar. He had called him from his humble occupation as shepherd, an occupation which had been the consequence of his being the youngest son, in order that He might raise him to the exalted position of Prince and War-leader (nagid) over His people, over Israel. Without YHWH David would still have been watching sheep. <\/p>\n 2Sa 7:9<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n “<\/strong> And I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you, and I will make you a great name, like to the name of the great ones who are in the earth.” <\/p>\n And He had been ‘with him wherever he went’, whether following the sheep (2Sa 7:8<\/span>), serving Saul at court, commanding a military unit, hiding out in the wilderness, establishing his kingship, building up his empire or ruling over Israel. All had been under the hand of YHWH, and He had been present with him in them all. Sometimes it might not have seemed like it. But even in his darkest hours it had been so. <\/p>\n And He ‘had cut off all his enemies from before him’, whether the lion and the bear, Goliath, the Philistines generally, Saul or any other enemies. Furthermore He would continue to be with him, for it was His intention to make him a great name, similar to the great ones who are in the earth. In other words because of his faithfulness to YHWH, and because YHWH had purposed it in the carrying forward of His will, He would ensure that he became a ‘world’ figure, inferior to none. <\/p>\n 2Sa 7:10-11<\/strong><\/span> a <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n “And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more, nor shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as at the first, and as from the day that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and I will cause you to rest from all your enemies.” <\/p>\n It is now emphasised that all this was not, of course, for David’s benefit alone. It was all tied up with YHWH’s overall purposes for His people. Indeed from start to finish David’s calling was to be in order to benefit the people of God. Thus the covenant grant is to YHWH’s people. That is always God’s purpose in blessing anyone, for to become His servant is to become committed to being a source of His blessing to His people. So through David he would appoint a secure and permanent place for His people and would plant them so that they could dwell securely in a place that was their own, and not have to live in fear of being moved on, or of being afflicted by their enemies. <\/p>\n In general terms all this did, of course, happen under David and Solomon. During their reigns God’s people were firmly established and made secure in a way that they had never been before. But careful thought will indicate that what God actually had in mind was a better kingdom, a place of perfect bliss, permanence, harmony and security. In the end therefore it could only be fulfilled under a perfect King and in an eternal kingdom from which all sinners had been removed. Thus the promise had a near and a far view. <\/p>\n “As at the first, and as from the day that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel.”<\/strong> The idea here is that the people had known continual affliction from the children of wickedness in Egypt, and they had then known further similar affliction in the time of the judges, but that it would be so no more, for YHWH would cause David to rest from all his enemies. Alternately we might see it as referring to the periods of rest they had enjoyed, first under Joshua after their deliverance (Jos 11:23<\/span>; Jos 21:44<\/span>; Jos 22:4<\/span>; Jos 23:1<\/span>), and then under the judges once their enemies had been overthrown by them (Jdg 3:11<\/span>; Jdg 3:30<\/span>), with the rest promised under David being similar but more permanent. Either way the promise is of future rest. <\/p>\n 2Sa 7:11<\/strong><\/span> b <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n “Moreover YHWH tells you that YHWH will make you a house.” <\/p>\n It is now emphasised that rather than David building a house for YHWH, YHWH will build a house for David. There is a clear play on words here, for the house to be built for David is not one of cedar but of successive heirs. The promise is that from David will come a particular seed, Solomon, and then a continual seed who will make up ‘the house of David’ in coming generations, a seed whom YHWH will watch over and to whose hands He will commit His people, leading on to One who will rule over His people everlastingly, a final fulfilment of 1Sa 2:10<\/span>; Gen 49:10-12<\/span>. <\/p>\n Sadly, as we know from the books of Kings and Chronicles, the intermediate members in the chain (even beginning with Solomon) regularly failed, but it would not hinder the going forward of God’s purposes, for God’s purposes were God-determined (compare e.g. Rom 8:29-30<\/span>; Eph 1:3-14<\/span>) and would in the end prevail. <\/p>\n All this emphasises the important principle that there could be no permanent Temple until David’s house was firmly established, for it was the strength or otherwise of the house of David that would keep things on the right track, not the existence of a permanent Temple. Thus the establishing of David’s house must be seen as having priority over the building of a house for YHWH, because it was David’s house that was to be YHWH’s true house. And indeed it was finally because the house of David would fail, that the Temple would also fail. The Temple is always secondary. The warning is thus given that we cannot look to our particular religious ritual for help unless our spiritual foundations are first sure and secure. It is the spiritual life within that saves, not the outward form. As Stephen would later make clear, it was the coming of the Righteous One, not Solomon’s Temple, that would determine the future of God’s people (Act 7:47-53<\/span>). <\/p>\n 2Sa 7:12<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n “<\/strong> When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingly rule.” <\/p>\n These next three verses specifically refer to Solomon (note the singular ‘his kingly rule’), the seed who will proceed from David’s bowels, in other words will result from his impregnation. YHWH promises that He will establish his kingly rule using covenant terminology (‘father’ and ‘son’ and covenant warning). Thus the dynasty is guaranteed to continue, at least in the short term. At a time when succession was uncertain, and often resulted in war and the survival of whoever won, this was an important promise. David could now be sure that the son of his flesh would succeed him and would be established in the kingship. <\/p>\n 2Sa 7:13<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n “<\/strong> He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingly rule for ever.” <\/p>\n The opening phrase here is two-edged. In context the emphasis is on ‘house’ as referring to descendants, and this interpretation can be seen as supported by verse 16, and by the whole context. Thus it was clearly being promised that his son also (Solomon as it will turn out) would establish a permanent house for YHWH’s Name, that is, would ‘build a dynasty’ for the sake of His Name. <\/p>\n However, in the wider context (1Ki 5:5<\/span>) we cannot avoid the thought that there is here also a double entendre, and at least a hint of the fact that Solomon would actually build a physical house for YHWH (a house of cedar), or at least that the writer (and Solomon) saw it in that way (all would by then know that that had happened). For ‘building a house for His Name’ would tie in with the idea with which the chapter commenced, of building for Him of a house of cedar, and with the fact that the Ark, which would go into such a Temple, is called by ‘the Name’ (2Sa 6:2<\/span>). Thus there is undoubtedly a play on the two ideas. The important emphasis, however, is not on Solomon building a physical temple (even though Solomon saw it in that way – 1Ki 5:5<\/span>), but on his establishing a seed who will rule over God’s people, for the prevailing thought is that YHWH is through him to ‘establish the throne of his kingly rule for ever’. The idea then is that that physical Temple, when built, will be a symbol of the greater House which is to be built, culminating in the everlasting King. Had no Temple ever been built we could still have seen the prophecy as fulfilled in his descendants (which we might have expected in view of the introductory comments in 2Sa 7:5-7<\/span>). For that is the main emphasis of the whole passage. Jesus similarly saw it this way, for He saw Himself as the true Temple of YHWH (Joh 2:19-22<\/span>) and as of the house of David. <\/p>\n “And I will establish the throne of his kingly rule for ever.” This was not the guarantee that there would be no breaks in the physical rule of those who sat on his throne, but a promise that, whatever happened, in the final analysis the throne of his kingly rule would prevail so that in the end it would be established for ever. It would prevail against all odds, and would finally result in an everlasting kingdom. <\/p>\n That the line of Solomon continued, and continued to be identified, comes out in Mat 1:7-17<\/span>, until at last there came One Who could supremely be called ‘you Son of David’, a title which probably had Solomon in mind as much as David. It was the supreme Son of David Who would establish His throne in Heaven (Mat 19:28<\/span>; Mat 28:18-20<\/span>; Eph 1:19<\/span> to Eph 2:7<\/span>; Heb 1:3<\/span>), and exercise His earthly rule through those who would sit on subsidiary ‘thrones’ presiding over His church, now seen as the true ‘twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 19:28<\/span>; Mat 21:43<\/span>; Joh 15:1-6<\/span>; Gal 3:29<\/span>; Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>A conception of a noble purpose. It was a great thought that came to David. It was in part suggested by the exigencies of the situation. After the ark had come to its new home, Asaph and others had been appointed to celebrate, and thank, and praise the Lord, and minister before Him (1Ch 16:4-37<\/span>); and it is supposed that, at this period, the twenty-four courses of priests were appointed, an arrangement which lasted to the time of our Lord. It is thus, especially in young life, that great conceptions visit the soul; ideals of surpassing beauty cast a light forward upon the future; resolves of service for God and man brace the soul as the air from the glaciers does the dwellers in the plains; and all life assumes a nobler aspect, and is set to a higher key. Secretly that lad resolves to be a preacher, missionary, or philanthropist; and that girl, to be queen in an ideal home, or to go far hence to the zenanas of India. I will do this great thing for God, the young heart says to itself, altogether heedless of sacrifice, tears, blood. The bugle-notes of lofty purpose ring out gladly, summoning the soul to noble exploit; and it is saved from the low levels which satisfy others by the immortal hope that has already gone forward to occupy the future. Young people, never surrender your ideal, nor act unworthily of it, nor disobey the heavenly vision. Above all, when you come to the house of cedar, and God has given you rest, be more than ever careful to gird yourselves, and arise to realize the purpose that visited you when you kept your fathers sheep.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The ideal is not always realized. There is no definite No spoken by Gods gentle lips. He presses His promises and blessings upon us, and leads us forward in a golden haze of love, which conceals this negative. The plant is conscious of a great possibility throbbing within it; but somehow the days pass, and it does not come to a flower. The picture which is to gain immortality is always to be painted; the book which is to elucidate the problem of the ages is always to be written; the immortal song is always to be sung. The young man is kept at his desk in the counting-house instead of going to the pulpit; the girl becomes a withered woman, cherishing a faded flower; the king hands on to his son the building of the house.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>God explains his reasons afterwards. What we know not now, we shall know hereafter. The blood-stained hand might not raise the temple of peace. It would have wounded David needlessly to have been told this at the time. It was enough to wrap up the Divine No in a promise of infinite blessing; but, as the years passed, the reason for Gods refusal grew clear and distinct before him. Meanwhile, David possessed his soul in patience, and said to himself: God has a reason, I cannot understand it; but it is well.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>An unrealized conception may yet be fraught with immense blessing. Solomon completes the story. David was a better man because he had given expression to the noble purpose. Its gleam left a permanent glow on his life. The rejected candidate to the missionary society stands upon a higher moral platform than those who were never touched by the glow of missionary enthusiasm. For a woman to have loved passionately, even though the dark waters may have engulfed her love before it was consummated, leaves her ever after richer, deeper, than if she had never loved, nor been loved in return. God will credit us with what we would have been if we might. In the glory David will find himself credited with the building of the temple on Mount Zion.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>Do the next thing. The energy which David would have expended in building the temple wrought itself out in gathering the materials for its construction. If you cannot have what you hoped, do not sit down in despair and allow the energies of your life to run to waste; but arise, and gird yourself to help others to achieve. If you may not build, you may gather materials for him that shall. If you may not go down the mine, you can hold the ropes. There is a fact in nature known as the law of the conservation of force. The force of the accumulating velocity of the falling stone passes into heat, of which some is retained by the stone, the rest passes into the atmosphere. No true ideals are fruitless; somehow they help the world of men. No tears are wept, no prayers uttered, no conceptions honestly entertained in vain. (F. B. Meyer, B. A<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n