# comment

text:
<p>The king called the Gibeonites and said to them (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn to them: and Saul sought to kill them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah)- </p><p>Joshua 9 records how the Gibeonites had been promised security by Joshua, although they were Hivites who were to have been destroyed (<a href='B:60 9:7'>Jos 9:7</a>; <a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>). Saul's apparent zeal to obey part of God’s word whilst ignoring the covenant made by Joshua recalls how he murdered or expelled all witches (<a href='B:90 28:9'>1Sa 28:9</a>), in almost fanatic obedience to <a href='B:20 22:18'>Exo 22:18</a>; <a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a>. Saul's zeal to punish the apostate was really a classic case of psychological transference. He knew, subconsciously, that he was a sinner and deserved punishment for his sins. So he transferred those sins on to others, and punished them, revelling in it. But he was picking up verses from the Bible out of context, and with the witches, he himself used one. It was this attitude which was deeply displeasing to God. And the fact all Israel had known of this and done nothing to honour the covenant made in their name with the Gibeonites... meant that all Israel had to suffer the results of the famine.</p>


text:
<p>and David said to the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of Yahweh?- </p><p>"Atonement" is not used here in a religious sense but simply meaning a covering, which the Gibeonites understand as hinting at a financial payment (:4). For David personally had not sinned against them, and atonement in the religious sense was only appropriate towards God. But the Gibeonites like to use it in a religious sense, playing God by demanding that without the shedding of blood there could be no reconciliation with them.</p><p>"Atonement" translates a word which has the idea of expiation. And we will learn in :14 that God was entreated or, as it could be rendered, "appeased". But many questions are left open. To whom was expiation made in :3- to God or the Gibeonites? And :14 says that "After that God responded to the prayer for the land". If "appeased" is the idea, then how is God appeased by prayer, specifically, the prayer / blessing of the now appeased Gibeonites? Clearly He was not so much appeased by dead bodies on a tree as by prayer, and the wronged praying for those who wronged them. This clearly touches Him. We note the rains didn't come as soon as the men were slain, but some months afterwards. He clearly was not appeased by the physical slaying and blood of victims. So whilst the images of expiation and appeasement are possible, they seem to me to hang by a slender thread. </p><p>
However if we go for the idea of expiation and appeasement, we could conclude that indeed Yahweh was appeased by the death of Saul's descendants. But the implication is that David could have thrown the situation upon God's grace and direction, as he did his own blood guilt, and God could have forgiven the guilt some other way. "Wherewith shall I expiate..." was a question David ought to have known the answer to, had he remained aware of God's grace to him earlier. The answer was in an appeal to God, but he fails to do this.
</p>


text:
<p>The Gibeonites said to him, It is no matter of silver or gold between us and Saul, or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel-</p><p>The law of Moses forbad the payment of money as compensation for murder (<a href='B:40 35:31'>Num 35:31</a>). That David had apparently hinted at this possibility in :3 would therefore suggest that he was willing to break the letter of the law of Moses, a feature of David’s which was largely an outcome of his understanding so well the spirit of the law. And yet it was to lead him into the sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. And yet it has to be said that this was a difficult legal situation. God had shown that the sin of Saul needed some atonement, but Saul was dead. The Gibeonites were asking for blood as atonement, although they accept it is not within their power to execute this.</p><p>He said, Whatever you say, that will I do for you- </p><p>This was unwise, because David was to be asked to break the law. But he perhaps lacks the humility to pull out of this blanket promise he has now made. We think of Herod offering to do anything for Herodias' daughter. The law of Moses forbad money compensation for murder (Num. 35:31,32) because that would devalue the human life and the seriousness of taking it. But the David who had experienced God's grace in not taking his life for murder and adultery could surely have found a way to not agree with this. And surely David could have argued that killing Saul's descendants wasn't obedience to the principle that the shedder of blood must be slain. And Saul's death in battle could have been accepted as his judgment for all his sins. David's desire to placate the Gibeonites rather suggests he failed to appreciate the grace shown to him when it came to guilt for murder. And this was extreme guilt- making descendants suffer for murder committed by an ancestor. And leaving their bodies exposed for months, in disobedience to the law, all suggests that David judged and spoke far too quickly. And did so without grace. David doesn't throw himself upon God for direction and wisdom, although he does do so in the incident of the numbering of Israel. The same language of God being entreated for the land is in 2 Sam. 24:25; but only after David had placed himself in God's hands and cast himself upon His grace and direction. And that is what he ought to have done here. Perhaps he learnt there from his failure here.</p>


text:
<p>They said to the king, The man who consumed us, and who devised against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the borders of Israel- </p><p>This implies Saul's campaign against them had been widespread and systematic. See on :2. The lack of record of it was to match how David's sin with Bathsheba and Uriah had been supposedly in secret- but was having a delayed outcome of judgment just as Saul's 'secret' unrecorded sin.</p>


text:
<p>let seven men of his sons be delivered to us, and we will hang them up to Yahweh in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of Yahweh. The king said, I will give them- </p><p>One theme of the record is that David simply does what the Gibeonites ask, without any cavil nor attempt to negotiate with them nor with God. The Gibeonites say: “let them be given over to us” and David replies "I will give them over... The king took... The king handed them over” (:6-9).
</p><p> 
The Gibeonites' demand that the crucifixion of the victims be done in Gibeah, Saul's home town, shows again their desire for the worst possible judgment against Saul. Their description of Saul as "Yahweh's chosen" is surely ironic and shows again the depth of their hatred.
</p><p> Their allusion is to <a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>, where the bodies of the leaders in the worship of Baal were hung up to turn away Yahweh's anger (cp. :1). But the seven sons of Saul were not personally responsible for the sin. And David had solemnly vowed before Yahweh to Saul and Jonathan on at least two occasions that he would not destroy their seed. David’s acquiescence therefore was wrong, and like Herod and other kings trapped by their own pride to fulfil their promises, so David agrees to the death of Saul's sons. He ought to have said something like "I have vowed a vow not to do this, I believe in grace, and will not allow this to happen. I will throw myself down before Yahweh and beg for this situation to be resolved another way". But pride stops him. Yet David generally was humble in this kind of thing. So as with the sin with Bathsheba, I take this to be an out of character failing of David.</p>


text:
<p>But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of Yahweh’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul-</p><p>As noted on :6, David had made a similar oath before Yahweh to Saul (<a href='B:90 24:21-22'>1Sa 24:21-22</a>). But he seems to justify breaking that by arguing that he was honouring a similar oath he had made to Jonathan. I suggested on :6 what his response ought to have been.</p>


text:
<p>But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite- </p><p> David chose the sons of his ex wives Merab and Michal as the victims, however we read the text [Michal could have 'brought them up' for her sister as she herself remained childless until the day of her death]. And this reflects his bitterness towards them and desire to cut off any likely contenders for his throne after the Saulide rebellion under Sheba. David comes over as wrong all around in this matter. Michal was his former wife. He had broken up Michal's marriage with Paltiel even though Paltiel wept over it. And now he slays Michal's five sons. If this is the same Barzillai who was later so kind to David at the time of Absalom's rebellion, then we see that man's grace, forgiving David for slaying his five grandchildren. And it contrasts with David’s low estimate of the value of human life which we again see.</p><p>God sees to the end of a man’s history, indeed to the end of all and every human history, He weighs men, and weighs them up in grace. Further, we all likely struggle with the unspirituality of others against us. We ponder how brother X or sister Y can really be a Christian, can have any real relationship with God, because of how we see them act. This struggle over these kinds of issues is, in my experience, the number one reason why people leave Christian communities. The raw anger, hatred and viciousness they see in others disillusions them, and they walk. The pull of materialism, of false doctrine etc:, are actually not significant reasons in the majority of cases I know of where a believer has quit the community of believers. It’s nearly always personal disillusion with the evil side of their brethren. All I can say is, Consider David’s poorer side. Think of men like  the Philistines who became David's most loyal bodyguards and soldiers, Adriel and Phaltiel, women like Rizpah, the mothers of Moab and Edom, who all likely considered David a sadistic maniac- given their experience of him. And, of course, Uriah, who surely knew all along what was going on. They saw the weaker side of David. Thanks to the extent of Biblical revelation about David, we see a wider picture. And even if that wider picture remains invisible to us concerning brother A and sister B, try to imagine that they have a prayer life, read Scripture, are loved by God, and probably in some ways and to some extent do respond to that love… and leave the final analysis of human character to the God who judges, weighs and knows far deeper, more graciously, more hopefully, than we ever can in this life.</p><p>David had loved Jonathan's sister Michal, and she loved him; only for her to come to despise David’s spirituality, and to be unfaithful to him (<a href='B:100 21:8'>2Sa 21:8</a> implies she had even more relationships than just with Paltiel). But then David killed her five sons. She was part of the ineffable sadness of David’s personal life.</p><p>Michal has many similarities to Rachel in the book of Genesis. They each had an older sister who was set up to be their husband's wife. The fathers were both obsessive and unpleasant, and both fathers pursued after their husbands. Both women present as not very spiritual in that they had teraphim [household idols], which they both use to deceive their fathers to save their own skin, and to help their husbands save their lives from the murderous intent of their fathers. They both lie to their fathers. In the teraphim incident, Rachel claims to be sick and Michal claims David is sick. Both have husbands who work for their father, who deceives their husbands. Both had to chose their husbands over their fathers. Both had an older sister, Leah cp. Merab. The fathers of both women made an agreement with the sons in law [David and Jacob] to give them their daughters in marriage for a dowry [years of labour, killing Goliath], but deceived them. David effectively paid two dowries in order to marry Michal- slaying Goliath, and then 100 Philistine foreskins. Jacob also pays two dowries, each of seven years labour. Each woman had a time of infertility. In Michal's case this is recorded in 2 Sam. 6:23 "Michal, daughter of Saul, had no child to the day of her death". That could imply she had a child the die she died- she died in childbirth. Which would be another parallel with Rachel. This verse however stands in tension with 2 Sam. 21:8 "the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel" (NEV). The translations squirm around this by translating "bore" as "brought up for", or by appealing to a changed text which read "Merab" for Michal. But the Hebrew is simply as NEV- that Michal had five children by the man whom her older sister was married off to rather than David, and then she marries David. All spaghetti junction in terms of relationships, and all reminiscent of the Jacob-Rachel-Leah mess. All so mixed up and intertwining it's hard to get any mental map of it. Apparently both Michal and Merab were at one point married to the same man, Adriel. By the intrigue of their father. Just as with Laban and his daughters Rachel and Leah.</p><p>
Clearly Jacob, Laban and Rachel are reflected in David, Saul and Michal. All these connections cannot be mere coincidence. We naturally enquire why such similarities constantly occur between the lives of God's people. We see the same thing today, the deeper we engage with other believers and get to know them. The repeated circumstances occur over time [between us and earlier believers we meet in the Bible] and also horizontally between us and present believers whom we know. We see the same Divine hallmark and way of operating in our lives, as comfort that indeed man is not alone- not least because our apparently unique situations aren't in fact so unique. </p><p>Michal has many similarities to Rachel in the book of Genesis. They each had an older sister who was set up to be their husband's wife. The fathers were both obsessive and unpleasant, and both fathers pursued after their husbands. Both women present as not very spiritual in that they had teraphim [household idols], which they both use to deceive their fathers to save their own skin, and to help their husbands save their lives from the murderous intent of their fathers. They both lie to their fathers. In the teraphim incident, Rachel claims to be sick and Michal claims David is sick. Both have husbands who work for their father, who deceives their husbands. Both had to chose their husbands over their fathers. Both had an older sister, Leah cp. Merab. The fathers of both women made an agreement with the sons in law [David and Jacob] to give them their daughters in marriage for a dowry [years of labour, killing Goliath], but deceived them. David effectively paid two dowries in order to marry Michal- slaying Goliath, and then 100 Philistine foreskins. Jacob also pays two dowries, each of seven years labour. Each woman had a time of infertility. In Michal's case this is recorded in 2 Sam. 6:23 "Michal, daughter of Saul, had no child to the day of her death". That could imply she had a child the die she died- she died in childbirth. Which would be another parallel with Rachel. This verse however stands in tension with 2 Sam. 21:8 "the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel" (NEV). The translations squirm around this by translating "bore" as "brought up for", or by appealing to a changed text which read "Merab" for Michal. But the Hebrew is simply as NEV- that Michal had five children by the man whom her older sister was married off to rather than David, and then she marries David. All spaghetti junction in terms of relationships, and all reminiscent of the Jacob-Rachel-Leah mess. All so mixed up and intertwining it's hard to get any mental map of it. Apparently both Michal and Merab were at one point married to the same man, Adriel. By the intrigue of their father. Just as with Laban and his daughters Rachel and Leah. </p><p> Clearly Jacob, Laban and Rachel are reflected in David, Saul and Michal. All these connections cannot be mere coincidence. We naturally enquire why such similarities constantly occur between the lives of God's people. We see the same thing today, the deeper we engage with other believers and get to know them. The repeated circumstances occur over time [between us and earlier believers we meet in the Bible] and also horizontally between us and present believers whom we know. We see the same Divine hallmark and way of operating in our lives, as comfort that indeed man is not alone- not least because our apparently unique situations aren't in fact so unique. </p>


text:
<p>He delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before Yahweh, and all seven of them fell together. They were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, at the beginning of barley harvest-</p><p>That is, at Passover (<a href='B:50 16:9'>Deu 16:9</a>). At the time when David ought to have been celebrating God’s deliverance from death by grace, he was putting to death innocent young people, who may have been no more than children. Sacrificing them on the first days of barley harvest suggests they were going along with a pagan ritual- for human sacrifice on the eve of harvest is attested in Canaan. In Hittite and Ugarit myth, Mot was killed by Anat between the barley harvest and autumn rains and Mot's body was believed to have been dismembered and exposed. And so human sacrifice at the time of the harvest rains was practiced in Canaan. Again we get the impression that the Gibeonites were out to humiliate them at all costs. And David ought rather to have refused to go along with such paganism. We keep asking, why does David go along with this? It really does seem that he was politically motivated by allowing the deaths of his potential Saulide rivals. And refusing to show any grace.</p>


text:
<p>Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her on the rock- </p><p>To form a tent for her to live in whilst she protected the bodies day and night from wild animals.</p><p>From the beginning of harvest until water was poured on them from the sky- </p><p>The heavy rains usually came about six months after the beginning of harvest. The rain clearly meant that the famine had ended; God is presented as having been appeased by the deaths and so rain comes.</p><p>She allowed neither the birds of the sky to rest on them by day, nor the animals of the field by night- </p><p>The idea of blood sacrifice being required to bring rain suggests that the Gibeonites believed in a rain god. Yet when David is asked to give seven men of the family of Saul as a blood sacrifice to appease the rain god who was not sending rain, David agrees. He doesn’t make the Biblical argument that rain being withheld indicates the need for repentance before Yahweh, and that sacrificing humans is wrong and won’t change anything in this context. He gives in to the false understanding of the Gibeonites, breaking his undertakings to Saul and Jonathan by doing so, and selects seven men to be slain and hung up. We read of the mother of two of them, Rizpah, lovingly watching over the bodies of her sons day and night, with all the distraction of true love (<a href='B:100 21:10'>2Sa 21:10</a>). David didn’t have to do this. But he did. We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). He doesn’t seem to have cared for the mother’s feelings, nor for the lives of her sons. And note that David makes up the total of seven men by having the five foster sons of his own estranged wife Michal slain. Was this not David somehow hitting back at Michal, who had mocked him for his style of worship in 2 Samuel 6? And how did Adriel, the father of those five sons, feel? He wasn’t of the house of Saul, but because of David’s desire to placate someone else, he lost all his sons, just because his wife had died and Saul’s daughter had raised them. And yet this same David is recorded as saying soon afterwards: “I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his ordinances were before me; And as for his statutes, I did not depart from them. I was also perfect toward him; And I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to my cleanness in his eyesight” (<a href='B:100 22:22-25'>2Sa 22:22-25</a>).</p><p>To leave the bodies impaled was specifically disobedient to the Mosaic command that respect must be shown even to the executed- their bodies were not to be left hanging and were to be buried on the day of their execution (Dt. 21:22,23). And yet the bodies were left there from barley harvest to the first rains after the Summer (:10), about five months. This was downright humiliation. We can rightly assume that Rizpah dearly wanted to bury the bodies but was not permitted to. Indeed, leaving the bodies hanging was punishment for breaking covenant with Yahweh in Dt. 28:26: “And your corpse shall be food to all the birds of heaven, and to the animals of the earth; and no one shall frighten them away”. Rizpah frightening away the "birds of heaven" sounds therefore like her protest at this treatment. She was trying to show that her sons had not broken covenant. One purpose of this narrative may be to highlight the weakness of David. He knew God's law so well, or so he claims in Ps. 119. But he allows it to be flouted, and at best appears impotent to stop the Gibeonites abusing Saul's descendants. If the event is in chronological order, then we would have yet another example of David's impotence, culminating in the picture of his sexual and physical impotence in the closing scene of his life. The once so powerful is being progressively rendered powerless- not so much in simplistic judgment for the sake of it, but in order to coax and nudge him towards greater self understanding and repentance. </p><p>
This wasn't the first time David had slain men for bloodguilt and then displayed their bodies. He had done so when Ishbosheth was slain by his own men, and David in turn killed them for their bloodguilt and hung up their bodies: "When wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood [Heb. 'his blood guilt'] of your hand, and take you away from the earth? David commanded his young men, and they killed them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up" (2 Sam. 4:11,12). But David did this for political reasons, to try to prove his own innocence of slaying Saul's son, his rival to the throne. So when it happens again here with David granting the request of the Gibeonites, we likewise suspect David's motives are mixed. 
</p>


text:
<p>It was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done- </p><p>It seems it took David the six months alluded to in :10 to respond. He gathers up the bones of the men or boys, along with those of Saul and Jonathan, and gives them a decent burial.</p>


text:
<p>David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh Gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, in the day that the Philistines killed Saul in Gilboa- </p><p>David's burial of the bones of Saul and Jonathan right afterwards seems to me to have been politically motivated. He had allowed Saulide contenders for the throne to be cut off and publicly humiliated but now he seeks to wash his hands of any accusation of being against Saul. If he had trusted the earlier word to him, that he would replace Saul, then he need not have gone along with the Gibeonites' demands.
</p><p>The last mention of the David : Jonathan relationship is in <a href='B:100 21:12-14'>2Sa 21:12-14</a>, where we read that David personally ("he" cp. they" ) took and carried the bones of Saul and Jonathan to their final resting place. The love of David for Jonathan is apparent. We are invited to imagine David carrying the bones of his best friend, perhaps just the ashes of them (<a href='B:90 31:12-13'>1Sa 31:12-13</a>), cradling them (or the container) in his arms, weeping as he walked. How about this for pathos. The words of David’s lament in 2 Samuel 1 would have surely come to his mind. It is almost certain that David memorized them, seeing it was taught as a song of remembrance (<a href='B:100 1:18'>2Sa 1:18</a>). There would have been the restimulation of so much. So that is how the Spirit concludes the story, David walking off into the sunset with the bones of Jonathan. It should be remembered that this occurred after David’s disgrace with Bathsheba. The thought must surely have gone through his mind: It's a good thing dear Jonathan isn't here to see it. The very name of the prophet Nathan, the exposer of David’s sin, would have restimulated David. For 'Jonathan' means 'Yahweh-Nathan'. It is quite likely that in practice David would not have pronounced the 'Yah' prefix; he would have called Jonathan 'Nathan' (how many 'Jonathan's do you know whose name isn't abbreviated by their friends?). The reason why there is so much pathos in the story, so powerfully expressed, is to set us a standard of love and feeling towards Christ; for Jonathan represents us, and the love of David for him really is a reflection of the love of Christ for us. Truly do we sing that "Thou art far above / dearest of human love".</p><p>David's rush to publically bury and respect the remains of Saul and Jonathan is laboured in :12-14. Again we sense political thinking and motivation in David. Sheba was from the tribe of Saul and his rebellion had been more dangerous for David than Absalom's. Perhaps having allowed the family of Saul to be so humiliated, he now rushes to show respect to them. This was trying to ingratiate himself to the men of Judah by allowing the abuse of Saul's descendants, and then to the men of Benjamin by honouring the memory of Saul. David's motives as ever were mixed.</p>


text:
<p>and he brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son: and they gathered the bones of those who were hanged- </p><p>The extreme grief of Rizpah is intentionally contrasted with this symbolic gesture from David in at least giving the sons an honourable burial, although it took David six months to do so. He is presented as callous in the face of very genuine grief caused by his pride and refusal to honour his covenant before Yahweh that he had made with Saul.</p>


text:
<p>They buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father: and they performed all that the king commanded. After that God responded to the prayer for the land- </p><p>David was wrong in killing those seven men or boys. God is not appeased by blood sacrifice in that sense. It was the prayer of the Gibeonites that 'appeased' God and not the murder of those men.  After the horror of what he had done was brought to his attention, David buried the bones of Saul as if he felt he should have been more respectful to the house of Saul (<a href='B:100 21:12'>2Sa 21:12</a>) and only then God responded to the prayer for the famine to be lifted (:14)- as if He sought respect for the house of Saul and not the disrespect of killing seven random relatives of Saul's on the say-so of mere men. If indeed God wanted the sacrifice of those men, we would surely read that immediately after their murder He lifted the famine; but He did so only after David had subsequently shown respect to the house of Saul as a token of regret and repentance for what he had authorized.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines had war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines. David grew faint-</p><p>The material in 2 Samuel isn't chronological. The material we have now at the end of the book appears to be various cameos of the life of David which are for some reason not incorporated into the book as a whole. Perhaps the common theme in them all is that they mention David’s weaknesses in various ways. We now read of how David was "faint", physically weak during a battle. It is one of a number of hints that he did not enjoy good health. We think of him laying sick at Mahanaim during Absalom's rebellion, and the copious evidence in the Psalms that he had a breakdown of his health soon after the sin with Bathsheba. These events are located in&nbsp; <a href='B:130 20:4-8'>1Ch 20:4-8</a> immediately after the capture of Rabbah, which was again not David at his spiritually strongest.</p>


text:
<p>and Ishbibenob, who was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear was three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being armed with a new sword, was about to have slain David</p><p>We wonder therefore whether David’s faith failed him at this point, or whether he did not have the level of faith he showed when he triumphed over Goliath. David had mocked armour as a source of strength, and yet this suggests David almost perished because of the weaponry of this Philistine. I suggested on :15 that the cameos from the life of David which conclude 2 Samuel all have the common theme of David’s weakness.</p>


text:
<p>But Abishai the son of Zeruiah helped him, and struck the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David swore to him saying, You shall go no more out with us to battle, that you don’t quench the lamp of Israel- </p><p>The significance of this is that David is harking back to how he had not gone out to war with his armies at the time of <a href='B:100 11:1'>2Sa 11:1</a>, and it had led him into the sin with Bathsheba. At every point we find him repentant and playing along with how God too was referring him back to previous points in his life. It seems that after the sin, David insisted on going out with his troops to battle even when he was too old to effectively do so (<a href='B:100 18:2'>2Sa 18:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It came to pass after this, that there was again war with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was of the sons of the giant- </p><p>We note that the Rephaim had children like other human beings (<a href='B:100 21:16'>2Sa 21:16</a>; <a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a>; <a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a>), inhabiting an area known as the valley of Rephaim (<a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a>). The "giants" of <a href='B:10 6:2-4'>Gen 6:2-4</a> were therefore humans and not celestial beings. "Gob" is LXX Gath; see on :20 for the significance.</p>


text:
<p>There was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite’s brother, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam- </p><p>Elhanan was from the small village of Bethlehem, and therefore was likely a childhood friend of David’s. He like us with the Lord Jesus was inspired by David’s victory over Goliath. He saw what was potentially possible for man in faith, just as we are shown through the Lord's victory on the cross what is possible for men apparently saddled with human nature.</p>


text:
<p>There was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty four in number; and he also was born to the giant- </p><p>David fought the Philistines at Gath (see on :18), and yet we note that he lived with Achish at Gath for over a year, and some of his most loyal followers were Philistines from Gath like Ittai. His victories over them therefore elicited humility and faith from some of the Philistines there. They realized that David and his men won their victories not in their own strength, but because of Yahweh. And they humbly came into covenant relationship with the God of their enemies, and fellowship with their one time enemies and murderers of their friends and families. It is humility which is the critical requirement in coming to the true God, and no amount of apparently high powered intellectual argument and slick presentation can replace that.</p>


text:
<p>When he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimei, David’s brother, killed him- </p><p>Goliath's defiance of Israel is a major theme (<a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>; <a href='B:100 23:9'>2Sa 23:9</a>). David’s victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us. Jonathan was brother to the crafty Jonadab, who led Absalom into major sin by his subliminal suggestions. We see how faith and unbelief can exist within the same family.</p>


text:
<p>These four were born to the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants- </p><p>David took five stones to kill Goliath but used only one. Was he faithless and doubting that the first one would hit home? Or did he aim to use the other four on Goliath's four giant sons (<a href='B:100 21:16-22'>2Sa 21:16-22</a>)?&nbsp; Do those five stones represent the five books of Moses which Psalms 119 tells us was Christ's study all the day, it being through the word that Jesus overcame the mind of sin? If he did aim to use the other four on Goliath's four giant sons, that shows supreme spiritual ambition. In reality those four were killed later by David’s closest followers- and they must have their counterparts amongst us.</p>


text:
<p>David spoke to Yahweh the words of this song in the day that Yahweh delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul- </p><p>We naturally want to know when this time was, when David was delivered from Saul and all his enemies. Abner's words in 2 Sam. 3:18 seem relevant. He tries to persuade the elders of Israel to have David as king by arguing that "For the Lord promised David, ‘By my servant David I will rescue my people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and from the hand of all their enemies’". This may then be the moment at which David sung this. We note how Nathan quotes these words back to David at the time of the Bathsheba failure: "I anointed you king over Israel, and delivered you from the hand of Saul". This would again associate these words of David with his becoming king. </p><p> However there seems no reason to me to consider 2 Samuel 21-24 as anything but chronological. The day of David's deliverance from his enemies is only logically at the end of his life.  </p><p> 
As Abner recalled, God had promised David that He would use him to deliver Israel from their enemies: "For the Lord promised David, ‘By my servant David I will rescue my people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and from the hand of all their enemies'" (2 Sam. 3:18). But David adapts this, even twists it, to apply to his personal enemies. Possibly there is here a reflection of David's narcissism, and lack of appreciation that it was not all about him, but about the good he could do for others.</p><p> 
David doesn't see his deliverance from Saul as God saw it. Nathan has used the very words "saved / rescued out of the hand of Saul" in condemning David: "You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you from the hand of Saul”. God saw this fact as making David's sin with Bathsheba all the more shameful. David sees this fact as demonstration that he is of pure hands and was delivered because of his own righteousness.</p><p> 
Perhaps in this song David is alluding to things which had not been recorded or perhaps were generally unknown- like a great theophany to him, and Divine rescue of him from certain death at the hands of his enemies. Coming out in older age with such testimonial tributes to God's grace in earlier life is psychologically credible, and what many have done. This would be similar to how the previous chapter talks about a major sin of Saul's, and its consequences, which was unknown to the Biblical record. </p><p> 
We note the similarity between the Hebrew words for Saul and sheol, the grave, and indeed David now goes on to thank God for saving him from death on various occasions. And yet the greatest salvation from death he experienced was that from the death penalty for his sins with Uriah and Bathsheba.  But he makes no specific reference to this, unless we take his talk of being dramatically saved from some great death by a theophany, God coming down, as referring to that. And even then we wonder why he had to reference it in such an oblique and disguised manner. After all, he had vowed in Psalm 32 to publically tell the world of his salvation from the death penalty for those sins, and this song at the end of his life would seem the obvious place to do so. But he doesn't, at least not specifically.</p><p> 
This song quite rightly [on one level] celebrates how God had saved David from certain death in various military confrontations, and had given him great victories. But David is sanitizing his past, talking in terms of conflict-deliverance-glorious victory, just as many kings boasted. His references to God as a rock, tower and stronghold seem to have in view his deliverances from Saul; see on :49. Rocks and strongholds feature much in the record (at least ten references- 1 Sam. 22:4,5; 23:14,19,25–28; 24:1,3,23). But that was in his earlier life pre-Bathsheba, and he has little to say about the majority of his kingship after that. And David carefully omits to mention God's salvation of him from his greatest 'death'- the Divine death penalty mandated for his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband and other men to try to cover it. And he makes no more than passing allusion to the huge grace shown him in 2 Sam. 7, where he was promised a pretty well unconditional eternal salvation through resurrection to behold his future descendant reigning eternally on his throne. Like every man, David had a strong tendency to whitewash himself, assuming the passage of time had worked a kind of quasi atonement for his sins. And yet God, as predicted through Nathan at the time, worked constantly to jog and nudge David to realize the dimensions of his sin with Bathsheba and his subsequent sinful behaviour. In the hope he would come to a higher grade of repentance. All these failures in appreciation by David are a relevant challenge to all of us, especially those who have already walked many years in the Lord. 
</p><p> This is largely the material found in Psalms 18. The Psalm concludes with a reference to David as the anointed, so this could be a Psalm composed when Saul was slain and David was finally declared king, and his anointing came to fulfilment. It is a "song" but it has no strophes (unlike most of the Psalms), perhaps because it was intended for use at a procession. But quite possibly what was originally a song of thanks at David's declaration as king over Judah was then edited by him at the end of his life. Because parts of the song allude to the promises made to him in 2 Sam. 7, which was after this accession to the throne. Further 'his enemies and Saul' suggests he had many enemies but the greatest one was Saul. This is a style found elsewhere- e.g. "Nineteen men and Asahel" (2 Sam. 2:30); "Go spy out the land and Jericho" (Josh. 2:1); "King Solomon loved many foreign women and he loved the daughter of Pharaoh" (1 Kings 11:1).</p><p><a href='B:230 18:1'>Psa 18:1</a> adds "I love You, Yahweh, my strength". This bald statement "I love You" is intentionally startling, and is the only place where we read this; usually we read the word of God’s love to man. Here, David simply tells God "I love You"</p>


text:
<p>and he said, Yahweh is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer, even mine- </p><p>This is the language of rocky terrain, the type where Saul chased David and God saved him multiple times.</p><p>David’s description of how the cherubim acted in his life in 2 Samuel 22 is full of Angelic language:</p><p>v. 2 "My rock"- an Angel (<a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a>)</p><p>v. 3 "My shield"- the Angel who made the promises to Abraham (<a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a>)</p><p>v. 3 "My saviour"- as the Holy Spirit Angel was to Israel (<a href='B:290 63:8-10'>Isa 63:8-10</a>)</p><p>v. 7 "He did hear my voice out of His temple, and my cry did enter into His ears"- the language of Angelic limitation regarding the Angel who dwelt in the temple. </p><p>v. 9 "fire"- God makes His Angels a flame of fire (<a href='B:230 104:3-4'>Psa 104:3-4</a>). </p><p>v. 10 "came down " - God manifest in the Angels, as at Sodom and Babel. </p><p>v. 11 "a cherub. . did fly. . wings of wind". Gabriel could "fly swiftly"; the Angels are made "spirits"- winds. </p><p>v. 12 "darkness. . thick clouds"- the Angel dwelt over the darkness of the Most Holy and in the pillar of cloud; cp. the scene during the Angelic manifestation at Sinai. </p><p>v. 15 "arrows. . . lightning"- Angel cherubim language</p><p>v. 16 "the blast of the breath (spirit) of His nostrils":&nbsp; God’s spirit is manifested through Angels. </p><p>v. 17 "He sent from above, He took me"- the physical movement of the Angels from Heaven to earth to obey God’s word </p><p>v. 25 "Before His eyes"- Angels</p><p>v. 37 "Thou hast enlarged my steps. . so that my feet did not slip"- the Angel keeping David from sinning?</p><p>23:1 "God of Jacob"- an Angel</p><p>23:3 "the rock of Israel" (an Angel) inspired David- which is the work of Angels.</p>


text:
<p>God, my rock, in Him I will take refuge; my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge. My saviour, You save me from violence- </p><p>The "city of David" was not a city, it is defined in 2 am. 5:7 as a stronghold, and elsewhere the term is used specifically of the burial places of the Davidic kings: "David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David". It was a hill southeast of Jerusalem. In the wilderness Psalms, David so often talks of Yahweh as his stronghold, his fortified tower. And we think of 2 Sam. 22:1-3: "David spoke to Yahweh the words of this song in the day that Yahweh delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul: and he said, Yahweh is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer, even mine; God, my rock, in Him I will take refuge; my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge. My saviour, You save me". But once he settles in Jerusalem, we repeatedly read of the city / stronghold of David, the area he built a fortification around, the "milo". Again we see his spiritual decline once he settled down and we must beware of this. He himself and his fortified home foretress was his own stronghold rather than Yahweh.  </p><p> David sees that Yahweh will be a "high tower" or place of refuge at the day of future judgment (<a href='B:230 9:8-9'>Psa 9:8-9</a>, quoted about this in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a>). But David feels God has been like this to him in this life (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:230 18:2'>Psa 18:2</a>; <a href='B:230 46:7'>Psa 46:7</a>; <a href='B:230 48:3'>Psa 48:3</a>; <a href='B:230 59:9'>Psa 59:9</a>; <a href='B:230 59:16-17'>Psa 59:16-17</a>; <a href='B:230 62:2'>Psa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:230 94:22'>Psa 94:22</a>; <a href='B:230 144:2'>Psa 144:2</a>). He therefore sees a seamless experience in his relationship with God in this life, and at the future day of judgment. God saves us right now and is a refuge for us in countless life situations; and this is the guarantee that He will be likewise at the last day.</p><p>Truly David is our example. David was very much involved in Israel his people. He saw himself as their representative. "The God of my rock is my shield... he is a shield to all them that trust in him" (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:100 22:31'>2Sa 22:31</a>). “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>) reflects this. When he sung Psalms, he invited them to come and sing along with him (<a href='B:230 105:2'>Psa 105:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 111:1'>Psa 111:1</a>). And many of these Psalms of praise seem to have their origin in his experience of forgiveness regarding Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>I will call on Yahweh, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from my enemies- </p><p> We can render "derided, I called to the Lord; I called for help from my enemies", in which case the allusion is to his feigning madness before Achish, calling for help and being delivered (1 Sam. 21:14). As nearly always in this song, the reference is to the events of David's glory days in his 20s and not to the bulk of his life. He is sanitizing his past. </p><p>The tenses can be read as 'I kept on calling and kept on being saved'. David’s focus of all his praises upon Yahweh was what he wanted his people to follow (<a href='B:230 22:3'>Psa 22:3</a>). The implication of "worthy" could imply a contrast with other gods, as in <a href='B:230 96:4'>Psa 96:4</a> "He is to be feared / praised above all gods". This would confirm the hints we have that Saul was an idolater (see on <a href='B:230 18:31'>Psa 18:31</a>; <a href='B:230 12:8'>Psa 12:8</a>; <a href='B:230 16:4'>Psa 16:4</a>), and that idolatry was prevalent in Israel at the time.</p>


text:
<p>For the waves of death surrounded me. The floods of ungodliness made me afraid- </p><p><a href='B:230 18:4'>Psa 18:4</a> "the cords of death", ", alluding to Saul trying to ensnare David in a trap that will lead to his death (1 Sam. 18:21). The allusion is also to Saul calling David a "son of death", certain to die, in 1 Sam. 20:31. Always the allusions are to David's life in his 20s, his dramatic deliverances during his halcyon years. Never to his not so wonderful life post Bathsheba. It could be argued that David is writing or singing these words after he was made king and Saul was dead. But he still had many "enemies" to be saved from (:1), and the placement of this song at this point in the narrative surely suggests it was David doing what most kings of the time did at the end of their lives- recount the glory of their lives and thank their god for all their victories and deliverances. "The day" when God had delivered David from all his enemies (:1) is surely only the "day" of the end of his life. David felt as if he had been a sacrifice bound to an altar, as man drowning in water, and therefore about to be pulled into the grave (<a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a>). The allusion is to Isaac and his miraculous deliverance from such cords, thanks to the ram in the thicket whom David is later to understand as representative of the future Messianic saviour; for the Lord quotes David’s "My God, why have You forsaken me?" (<a href='B:230 22:1'>Psa 22:1</a>) as the Aramaic sabachthani, "entangled", the word used of the ram entangled in the thicket.</p><p>"Ungodliness" is 'ungodly men', 'men of Belial'. We think of Nabal, a man of Belial (1 Sam. 25:17,25). But he was saved from killing Nabal by God's grace to him through Abigail. David makes no reference to this. See on :27. But probably the reference is to large numbers of such men rising against David and almost killing him (:6), which would apply more naturally to the time of Absalom's rebellion. David's fear is not much hinted at in the record, but here he himself admits to it. </p>


text:
<p>The cords of Sheol were around me, the snares of death caught me- </p><p>"Cords" is literally the pangs, hence AV "sorrows" (as in Acts 2:24 "having loosened the pangs of death"). David saw even the death which he feared as the birth pangs to a rebirth in resurrection. Just as had been hinted at for him in the promises of 2 Sam. 7. But because he was saved out of imminent death, perhaps his focus on that future resurrection was diminished. See on :5. David felt he had come face to face with death, to the point that his salvation was effectively a resurrection. The response to this near death situation is described here, but it is hard to locate such an incident in the historical records. Perhaps there was a particular salvation from death at Saul's hands which isn't recorded, but David alludes to it here.</p><p>"Caught me" is <a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a> "Came on me", or literally 'went before me'. The same word is used in <a href='B:230 59:10'>Psa 59:10</a>: "My God will go before me with His grace". David was inside his house surrounded by his enemies (<a href='B:230 59:1'>Psa 59:1</a>), and escaped through a window. As he planned the escape, he believed that God’s grace would go before him. At the end of his life he appears to reflect upon this incident, glorying that although he was "compassed about" with the threat of death, seeing the house was surrounded by Saul's men intending to kill him; yet God’s grace had somehow gone before David and prepared a way of escape (<a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:230 18:18'>Psa 18:18</a> s:w:).</p>&nbsp;<p>The Ras Shamra texts speak of the insatiable appetite of Mot for dead people- he eats them ceaselessly with both hands. There are frequent parallels drawn between Mot / Mawet, and the grave: <a href='B:100 22:5-6'>2Sa 22:5-6</a>; <a href='B:290 28:18'>Isa 28:18</a>; <a href='B:350 13:14'>Hos 13:14</a>; <a href='B:220 28:22'>Job 28:22</a>; <a href='B:220 30:23'>Job 30:23</a>; <a href='B:230 6:5'>Psa 6:5</a>; <a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:230 89:48'>Psa 89:48</a>; <a href='B:230 116:3'>Psa 116:3</a>; <a href='B:240 2:18'>Pro 2:18</a>; <a href='B:240 5:5'>Pro 5:5</a>; <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>. The point is that Mot / Mawet doesn't exist, it is simply to be understood as the grave. For very often, language used about Mot in the pagan literature is applied to God in order to show Mot's effective non-existence. The significance of this point is that at times, the Bible refers to pagan ideas about 'Satan' like figures in order to deconstruct them, and show their effective non-existence in the light of the supremacy of the one true God.</p>


text:
<p>In my distress I called on Yahweh. Yes, I called to my God. He heard my voice out of His temple. My cry came into His ears- </p><p> The reference to "my distress" could be to how David returned to find that the Amalekites had plundered Ziklag and taken his wives and children captive, and his men turned against him. "David was greatly distressed, for the men spoke of stoning him because they were grieved, every man for his sons and his daughters... David inquired of Yahweh" (1 Sam. 30:6-8). The theophany which is now described could possibly refer to some unrecorded events at the time when David pursued after the Amalekites and recovered the captives. The references to pursuing after a "troop" and overtaking them (:30,38) would then refer to this too. Likewise "You have delivered me from the contentions of my people" (:44) would refer to David regaining control of his mutinous men at this time. Another alternative is that the theophany refers to how David heard the cherubim "marching on the tops of the balsam trees" in 2 Sam. 5:24.</p><p>David imagines his prayers as coming into the heavenly throne room, and eliciting a response. His later obsession with building a physical temple for God was a departure from how he had earlier perceived God’s temple- as being in Heaven, and accessible by faithful prayer.</p>


text:
<p>Then the earth shook and trembled. The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken, because He was angry- </p><p>It is hard to locate such an incident in the historical records. Perhaps there was a particular salvation from death at Saul's hands which isn't recorded, but David alludes to it here. Or perhaps the language here is that of theophany and God manifestation; it may not literally describe things which happened, but the hand of God in saving David was no less than as if He had appeared as He did at Sinai. For the language of earth shaking and quaking is that of the Sinai theophany and the deliverance from Egypt.</p><p>The parallel Ps. 18:7 has "the mountains". David felt that the whole of Heaven was aware of him and his dramas; just as all the Angels rejoice every time one sinner repents.  <a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a>; <a href='B:100 22:8'>2Sa 22:8</a> speak as if Heaven / the sky rests on the mountains, from where earth seems to touch the heavens (<a href='B:290 13:5'>Isa 13:5</a>), with the stars stretched out in the north (<a href='B:220 26:7'>Job 26:7</a>). This reflected the geo-centric view held by people at the time. The point surely was that however people understood creation to have happened, God had done it, and in wisdom.</p></p><p>The theophany described in :8-16 clearly alludes to that at Sinai (Ex. 19:16-18; Jud. 5:4,5; and how David understood Sinai's events in Ps. 68:8; 77:16-18). David could be referring to some unrecorded amazing theophany and deliverance that he experienced; or he could be making the point that God's grace and salvation shown to him personally was as awesome for him as the vast outpouring of God's power, meaning, covenant, love, grace and awe on Sinai. Which is something we can relate to. The unrecorded amazing deliverance of David may be his way of describing his salvation from the Divine death penalties regarding Bathsheba and Uriah. For he makes no mention of this deliverance... which was the greatest deliverance.</p>


text:
<p>Smoke went up out of His nostrils. Fire out of His mouth devoured. Coals were kindled by it- </p><p>This sounds like the symbolic language of theophany and God manifestation, rather than describing actually observed events in literal terms. The allusion is clearly to what happened at the exodus and Sinai, which David felt had been repeated for him in essence; as it is for all in covenant relationship with the God who saves.</p>


text:
<p>He bowed the heavens also- </p><p>The same phrase used of Moses stretching out his hands toward the heavens, and God responding by delivering His people (<a href='B:20 9:22-23'>Exo 9:22-23</a>; <a href='B:20 10:21'>Exo 10:21</a>).</p><p>And came down. Thick darkness was under His feet- </p><p>As Yahweh came down at Sinai (<a href='B:20 19:11'>Exo 19:11</a> s:w:). The idea is that as God had miraculously intervened for the salvation of His people in history, so David felt He had in his life; although there is no historical record of such dramatic scenes as on Sinai and at the Red Sea. We likewise experience His interventions; they aren't as dramatic as in history, but none less dramatic in ultimate reality. This coming down in a saving theophany was what David had in fact prayed for in <a href='B:230 144:5'>Psa 144:5</a>. He asked for a theophany to save him, no less that what happened at Sinai (s:w. <a href='B:20 19:18-20'>Exo 19:18-20</a>), when again God had as it were made the mountains smoke by His touch. We marvel at David’s spiritual ambition, unafraid to ask for a similar theophany to save him. And here he reflects at the end of his life that this prayer was in fact answered. The relevance to the exiles is that Yahweh was prepared to "bow" (s:w. "stretch out") the heavens and "come down" to restore the exiles; but they chose not to make use of that huge potential (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:22'>Isa 40:22</a>; <a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a>; <a href='B:290 64:1'>Isa 64:1</a>).</p><p>God Himself is spoken of as coming, descending etc. when He ‘preaches’ to humanity (e.g. <a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a>; <a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a>; <a href='B:40 11:25'>Num 11:25</a>; <a href='B:100 22:10'>2Sa 22:10</a>). In <a href='B:300 39:16'>Jer 39:16</a>, the imprisoned Jeremiah is told to "go, tell Ebed-melech..." a word from the Lord about him. Jeremiah couldn't have literally left prison to do so- but the idea is that a person encountering the Lord's word has as it were experienced the Lord 'going' to him or her. And in this sense the message of the Lord Jesus (in its essence) could 'go' to persons without Him physically going anywhere or even existing consciously at the time (<a href='B:670 3:18-21'>1Pe 3:18-21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He rode on a cherub, and flew. Yes, He was seen on the wings of the wind- </p><p>"Wind" and "spirit" are the same words in Hebrew. The cherubim chariot are presented as God’s vehicle of manifestation, and this was language the exiles would've been familiar with through the visions of Ezekiel. Yet this is not to say that David also had such a vision. Rather did he perceive God’s huge cherubic activity through the various experiences of salvation and grace he had in his life. And this is the same for us.  The reference may simply be to God as it were riding on clouds in glory: "He makes the clouds His chariot, He walks on the wings of the wind" (Ps. 104:3).</p>


text:
<p>He made darkness pavilions around Himself: gathering of waters, and thick clouds of the skies- </p><p>All the scene at God’s manifestation on Sinai. The Old Testament describes Yahweh, the one true God, as riding through the heavens on chariots to the help of His people Israel (<a href='B:50 33:26'>Deu 33:26</a>; <a href='B:100 22:11'>2Sa 22:11</a>; <a href='B:230 18:10'>Psa 18:10</a>; <a href='B:230 104:3'>Psa 104:3</a>; <a href='B:290 19:1'>Isa 19:1</a>; <a href='B:420 3:8'>Hab 3:8</a>). But Baal was known as the rkb 'rpt, the one who rides upon the clouds; and he is here being deconstructed.</p><p>This could also be an allusion to the exodus. Rashi suggests: "He put [a protective] darkness around", alluding to how the pillar of cloud and the darkness separated between the Egyptians and Israelites (Ex.  14:20).</p>


text:
<p>At the brightness before Him, coals of fire were kindled- </p><p>The "coals of fire" speak of Divine judgment (<a href='B:230 140:10'>Psa 140:10</a>), and were part of the cherubim vision (<a href='B:330 1:13'>Eze 1:13</a>; <a href='B:330 10:2'>Eze 10:2</a>). Hail and thick clouds were the judgment threatened upon the Assyrians in Hezekiah's time (<a href='B:290 28:2'>Isa 28:2</a>; <a href='B:290 30:30'>Isa 30:30</a>). David’s experience becomes developed as relevant to the manifestation of God in salvation in other contexts.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh thundered from heaven, the Most High uttered His voice- </p><p><a href='B:230 18:13'>Psa 18:13</a> adds "hailstones and coals of fire", alluding to the destruction of Sodom. And yet there is no recorded incident of God consuming David’s enemies like this. But he felt that God had indeed come through for Him in no less powerful a way. And we can feel and experience the same.</p>


text:
<p>He sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and confused them- </p><p>This continues the thanksgiving that his prayer of <a href='B:230 144:6'>Psa 144:6</a> had been answered. He had asked for a saving theophany of the magnitude of what was seen at Sinai. Now at the end of his life, David was thankful that this prayer had in fact been answered. David rejoices that Divine "arrows" were sent to destroy his enemies (<a href='B:230 7:13'>Psa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:230 18:14'>Psa 18:14</a>; <a href='B:230 45:5'>Psa 45:5</a>; <a href='B:230 64:7'>Psa 64:7</a>; <a href='B:230 144:6'>Psa 144:6</a>), in fulfilment of God’s promise to do so to the sinful within Israel (<a href='B:50 32:23'>Deu 32:23</a>; <a href='B:50 32:42'>Deu 32:42</a>). But David had realized that those same arrows had been fired by God into him in judgment for his sin (<a href='B:230 38:2'>Psa 38:2</a>). But David appears unaware that he is rejoicing at the arrows fired at his enemies, when his sin with Bathsheba also merited Divine arrows to be fired at himself. This realization was perhaps to help David understand that his rejoicing in Divine arrows of judgment being fired at his enemies had not been mature; for he himself had to realize that he was worthy of the same.</p><p>"And confused them" is the language of God's enemies being destroyed (Ex. 14:24; Josh. 10:10; Jud. 4:15; 1 Sam. 7:10). Possibly there had been some supernatural intervention by God against Absalom's army, when we read that the forest consumed more of the enemy than did the sword. But there seems no other such example. </p>


text:
<p>Then the channels of the sea were exposed, the foundations of the world were laid bare by the rebuke of Yahweh, by the blast of the breath of His nostrils- </p><p>The opening word "then" is significant. As the channels of water were laid bare at the exodus, so God had acted for David. As discussed above, this section sounds like the symbolic language of theophany and God manifestation, rather than describing actually observed events in literal terms. The allusion is clearly to what happened at the exodus and Sinai; the essence of what God did then was experienced by David, just as it can be by us in our crises.</p>


text:
<p>He sent from on high and He took me, He drew me out of many waters- </p><p>The allusion is clearly to Moses, drawn out of the waters and thereby saved from death (Ex. 2:10). David is saying that the salvation he had experienced was no less than on the level and significance of what God did for Moses. We can look at His work in our lives likewise, and thereby cease considering that men like Moses had far more dramatic and significant experiences of God than we do.</p><p>"Waters" are usually symbolic of armies or nations. David felt he had been surrounded and faced with certain death, but had been as it were airlifted to safety by God. The language here says that God has done this, but it is parallel with David’s prayer for this to happen in <a href='B:230 144:7'>Psa 144:7</a>. This triumphant song is therefore praise for the prayer of Psalms 144 being answered. We cannot locate any particular historical incident of fulfilment; perhaps it was too personal and wonderful to be recorded. Just as a Christian man or woman might feel it inappropriate to record God’s most dramatic salvation of them when they write their autobiography.</p>


text:
<p>He delivered me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me, for they were too mighty for me- </p><p>That thanksgiving was because he had prayed for salvation from "those who hate me" in <a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a> (s:w:). We have here a direct example of gratitude for answered prayer. It seems Saul and his supporters were the initial reference of the "strong enemy" (see on :1). These words are an allusion to his prayer of <a href='B:230 69:14'>Psa 69:14</a>, asking to be delivered from "those who hated me" at the time of Absalom's rebellion. So we can reject the idea that this Song was written early in David's life; it is indeed his end of life reflection. Now at the end of his life David reflects that he has been delivered from those who hated him (s:w:). At the time, he wept bitterly for Absalom's death; but now in maturity he realized that this was in fact an answer to his prayers.</p><p>On one level, David's thanksgiving and gratitude is commendable. But his biggest and worst enemy was himself and his failure to recognize that reflects immaturity rather than spiritual maturity. We would far rather see a recognition that he had been his own worst enemy, but by grace he had been saved from himself. But we don't see that.</p>


text:
<p>They came on me in the day of my calamity, but Yahweh was my support- </p><p>The phrase "day of calamity" is consistently used of a day of Divine condemnation, especially of Judah at the hand of the Babylonians (<a href='B:50 32:35'>Deu 32:35</a>; <a href='B:220 21:30'>Job 21:30</a>; <a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a>; <a href='B:300 46:21'>Jer 46:21</a>). Perhaps the Psalm was reworked as comfort for the exiles, that they could be saved even out of the day of their condemnation. And maybe David has the idea that he had been worthy of Divine condemnation, and the judgment was being articulated at the hands of his enemies- but by grace alone, God saved him from it.</p><p>"Support" is literally 'my stay', a staff for David. Possibly the reference is to the time of Absalom's rebellion in Ps. 23:4 "Your rod and staff [the rod and staff that is You] comfort me".</p>


text:
<p>He also brought me out into a large place. He delivered me, because He delighted in me- </p><p>"Delighted" is the same word as in <a href='B:230 51:6'>Psa 51:6</a> "Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts":&nbsp; This is the word here used by David at the end of his life of how God desired or delighted in him. Perhaps this desire or delight was because of the "truth" in David’s heart in recognizing his sins and accepting God’s grace. He had left God to decide whether He delighted in him when he fled Absalom (<a href='B:100 15:26'>2Sa 15:26</a>), and now he triumphs that God had done so, by grace (<a href='B:100 15:25'>2Sa 15:25</a>). And yet we could equally argue that indeed, God delights in confession of sin when it is the "truth" in the inward parts, But at the point of this song, is this how David still understands it? He seems to reason that God delights in him because of his righteousness. And not because of his inner contrition, as he had earlier understood at the time of Ps. 51.</p><p>When the Lord’s mockers jeered "If he desireth him" (RV), they were alluding to the LXX of <a href='B:230 18:19'>Psa 18:19</a>; <a href='B:230 91:11'>Psa 91:11</a>. God cannot be tempted, otherwise He would have responded. 'If God likes Him', is what they were really implying.</p><p>Being brought out or escaping to freedom may be a reference to the night he escaped from his house with Michal's help.  Or he may have in mind the time when he was saved from effective captivity in Gath: "You have not shut me up into the hand of the enemy, You have set my feet in a large place'.</p><p>Being brought out or escaping to freedom may be a reference to the night he escaped from his house with Michal's help. Or he may have in mind the time when he was saved from effective captivity in Gath: "You have not shut me up into the hand of the enemy, You have set my feet in a large place'.</p><p>
At the time of Absalom's rebellion, David's critics mocked "Let Yahweh rescue him, if He delights in him" (Ps. 22:8). David himself considered God's delight in him to be open to question and over to God to prove: "he king said to Zadok, Carry back the ark of God into the city. If I find grace in the eyes of Yahweh, He will bring me again, and show me both it, and His dwelling place; but if He say thus, ‘I have no delight in you;’ behold, here am I. Let Him do to me as seems good to Him" (2 Sam. 15:25,26). David seems to now triumphantly consider that Yahweh does delight in him. But he does so on the basis that he considers that Divine delight in him to be a reward for his righteousness and clean hands (:21). Whereas the deliverance from Absalom was because Yahweh by grace alone 'delighted' in David.
</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh rewarded me according to my righteousness. He rewarded me according to the cleanness of my hands- </p><p>David seems to have in mind 1 Sam. 26:23 "Yahweh will reward every man for his righteousness and his faithfulness, because Yahweh delivered you into my hand today and I wouldn’t put forth my hand against Yahweh’s anointed". Likewise Saul says that David had "rewarded" him good when Saul had "rewarded" David evil (1 Sam. 24:18). He considers that he got saved from Absalom (see on :20) because of his good and gracious action towards Saul years before that. But that is salvation by works. He considers his hands were clean in relation to Saul and therefore this, he considers, saved him from the post-Bathsheba judgments. But those judgments were exactly because he did have blood on his hands. And the fact he didn't previously was no atonement or cleansing. Ps. 24:4 may suggest that David perceives 'cleanness of hands' to be a way of saying he hadn't worshipped idols (see on :24), as the ideas are paralleled: "He who has clean hands... who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood". </p><p> 
But from another angle, we recall how it was the wise actions of Abigail which saved David from getting blood on his hands by killing her and her kids, as David had intended to do. He was saved from having blood on his hands by grace, God's grace, working through Abigail (1 Sam. 25:30,31). But there is no mention of that now by David, rather a simplistic persuasion that he had pure guiltless hands and that is why he was preserved and delivered by God.
</p><p> David was yet to learn that he himself was a sinner and no man apart from the Lord has clean hands or total personal righteousness:&nbsp; Yet David twice repeats this self righteousness. If this were written at the end of his life, then he appears to have lost the intensity of contrition for sin he had at the time of his repentance about Bathsheba. We too can allow the passage of time to blunt our sense of wonder at God’s grace to us, and even reinterpret our sins as nothing major.</p><p>Verses 21-25 sound as if David is really commending himself. Possibly he was indeed too self congratulatory at this point. But his words clearly allude to the requirements for Israel's king in Dt. 17:18-20. If, as suggested on :1, he sung these words when he was first made king, he could be reflecting God's position that David was the king whom He had chosen in line with His requirements in Dt. 17:18-20: "When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he must write for himself a copy of this law in a book... It shall be with him and he must read from it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them. Thus his heart will not be raised up above his brothers, and he will not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, so that he may prolong his days in his kingdom".</p><p> Verses 21-25 sound as if David is really commending himself. Possibly he was indeed too self congratulatory at this point. But his words clearly allude to the requirements for Israel's king in Dt. 17:18-20. If, as suggested on :1, he sung these words when he was first made king, he could be reflecting God's position that David was the king whom He had chosen in line with His requirements in Dt. 17:18-20: "When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he must write for himself a copy of this law in a book... It shall be with him and he must read from it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them. Thus his heart will not be raised up above his brothers, and he will not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, so that he may prolong his days in his kingdom".</p>


text:
<p>For I have kept the ways of Yahweh, and have not wickedly departed from my God- </p><p>It would be hard to better describe David's sins with Bathsheba and Uriah than 'wickedly departing from God'.  If David at the end of his life could say that he was upright and had kept himself from his iniquity (<a href='B:100 22:21-24'>2Sa 22:21-24</a>). He could only say this by a clear understanding of the concept of imputed righteousness. Paul's claim to have always lived in a pure conscience must be seen in the same way. And yet it seems to me that David ought to have added what we would all add if saying this- that this is only by grace, and me a sinner being counted righteous.  </p><p>"Wickedly departed" is the word usually translated "condemn" (e.g. <a href='B:230 37:33'>Psa 37:33</a>). Those who depart from God condemn themselves. This is a major Biblical theme; that the condemned are more self-condemned rather than condemned by God. "We make the answer now". But later David was to realize that he too had wickedly departed from God, and confession of that was vital for salvation (s:w. <a href='B:230 106:6'>Psa 106:6</a>).</p><p>David felt preserved by God from Saul and his other enemies (<a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; <a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>), because he had preserved or obeyed [s:w:] God’s ways (<a href='B:100 22:22'>2Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 22:24'>2Sa 22:24</a>; <a href='B:230 18:21'>Psa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 18:23'>Psa 18:23</a>); whereas Saul didn’t obey / preserve them and was destroyed (<a href='B:90 13:13-14'>1Sa 13:13-14</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Ch 10:13</a>). Hence <a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy". And yet in all this David is without grace, thinking on the basis of human merit soliciting Divine response.</p>


text:
<p>For all His ordinances were before me. As for His statutes, I did not depart from them- </p><p>Depart or "Put away" (<a href='B:230 18:22'>Psa 18:22</a>) is the word used for how God departed from Saul because he didn’t keep God’s statutes (<a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>; <a href='B:90 18:12'>1Sa 18:12</a>; <a href='B:90 28:15'>1Sa 28:15</a>). David is therefore comparing himself favourably with Saul; for this is his triumph song after Saul has been slain (see on :1). And yet in essence, David and Saul did the same sins and David was preserved by grace thanks to his heart for God- and not because he sinned less than Saul. “And his statutes did I not put away from me” (Ps. 18:22). We think about his adultery, murders, lies... And especially in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah, be broke so many Divine statutes. “You shall not murder”, “You shall not commit adultery”, “You shall not steal” (2 Sam. 12:4,7–10) and “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife”.</p>


text:
<p>I was also perfect towards Him- </p><p>A true seed of Abraham, who were to walk with or before Yahweh blameless (s:w. <a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a>). David may be using 'perfect' in the sense of complete, undivided. In which case [as noted on :21] he may be protesting that the fact he didn't worship idols therefore made him somehow "perfect towards" Yahweh. And perhaps his lack of idolatry led to him thinking that lies, adultery, murder and family smashing were all quite legitimate because he didn't worship idols. </p><p>I kept myself from my iniquity- </p><p>This sounds like a boast in his iron willed self-control. He would never be able to boast like this after the sin with Bathsheba. It is God by His grace who keeps men from sinning (<a href='B:10 20:6'>Gen 20:6</a>), and not the rigid self-discipline of the deeply religious. "My iniquity" could suggest some specific temptation David had. He boasts that he kept himself from it. But yet he did so many other sins... Alternatively David may refer to how "my iniquity" lurks in every man but we are to keep ourselves from it, having recognized it as always being latently there. David surely alludes to his words to Jonathan that there is no "iniquity" in him (1 Sam. 20:1,8). But now at 70 years of age, it is not exactly of integrity to take those earlier words of youth, uttered in a specific context of having done no iniquity to Saul, and use them as explanation of why God had been so good to David throughout his life. God's goodness had been on the basis of grace, and not David's lack of iniquity towards Saul at an earlier point. He broke his promise to Saul not to slay his descendants, and as argued on 2 Sam. 21, this was a sin of David's and was from political reasons. So David would have been wrong to argue that he was totally blameless in his actions toward Saul. </p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to my cleanness in His eyesight-</p><p>David was yet to learn that he himself was a sinner and no man apart from the Lord has clean hands or total personal righteousness:&nbsp; Yet David twice repeats this self righteousness. In describing his feelings after the Bathsheba experience, David comments that he was "as a man that hears not [the taunts of others against him], and in whose mouth are no rebukes" (<a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a>). The pre-Bathsheba Psalms present David as a man who was so easily hurt by the taunts of others, and whose mouth was indeed full of rebuke of others. <a href='B:230 18:23-26'>Psa 18:23-26</a> has David describing his own uprightness before God, and how God only shows His grace to the pure and upright. How little did he understand grace! Worse still, he several times bids God judge men according to their sins (<a href='B:230 5:10'>Psa 5:10</a>). It is against this background that we must understand the significance of David’s statements that after Bathsheba, after how God did not deal with him according to his sin, there were no rebukes of others now in his mouth. Realizing the extent of his personal sin and the depth of God’s grace led David to not only be less reproachful of others; but also to be less hurt by their unkindness to him. And in these things we surely have a great lesson to ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>With the merciful You will show Yourself to have bowed the neck; with the perfect man You will show Yourself perfect- </p><p>We have here the mixture of spirituality and yet arrogance which we can often detect in ourselves. David recognizes his salvation has been through God’s mercy; but he sees himself as having earned this mercy by being "perfect". The same word is used of Job, but he had to be taught that that status was a case of having righteousness imputed to him by grace; and because David was unwilling to really learn this, he had to be taught it through the righteousness imputed to him after his sin with Bathsheba.</p><p>David especially recognized the humility of God. In&nbsp; <a href='B:100 22:26'>2Sa 22:26</a> he uses an unusual word to describe how God is "merciful" to His faithful people. The word only occurs elsewhere in <a href='B:240 25:10'>Pro 25:10</a> concerning 'bowing the neck' in shame or reverence. And this is what the Hebrew means: to bow the neck. This, David recognized in his time of spiritual maturity, was what God does in response to those who shew a truly spiritual attitude to their brethren.</p><p>"Merciful" can also be translated "faithful", as in GNB "you are faithful to those who are faithful to you". In this case, David would be alluding to his faithfulness to his covenant with Jonathan. His idea is that God has been faithful to His covenant with David in 2 Sam. 7 because David has been faithful to his covenant with Jonathan. This totally disregards the huge grace behind the covenant with David as commented upon on 2 Sam. 7. David significantly omits to accept he had not been faithful to the oath he made to Saul before Yahweh, not to harm his seed. For we have seen on 2 Sam. 21 that he did do so, and at several points appears to have tacitly ensured Saul's descendants were cut off if they appeared a potential threat to his throne. He was not a faithful covenant keeper, and was hardly faithful to Uriah and many others. David is certainly being selective about his past, and sanitizing himself.</p><p>
"The perfect man" could refer to David's idea that he has 'perfect' devotion to God in that he worships no idols. And God will match this by a similar focus upon us. Or the Hebrew could be rendered "the upright hero", which raises the ugly vista of David considering that his heroic victories as a young man made him somehow worthy of God's acceptance in later life. </p><p>
This verse is at the center of the song. There are 365 Hebrew words in the song, 182 on each side of the word "perfect". The centerpiece of David's argument is his innocence, rather than God's grace. And that says... not much for David's maturity and perception. On one hand, he was indeed made pure from his sin by grace, as he exalts in Psalms 32 and 51. But as ever with David, his spirituality is not pure. On one hand yes, he can rightly reason that God has treated him as justified, counted righteous, and had indeed cast David's sins behind His back. But if any of us were to tell the world of our spotless moral purity, we as convicted sinners would naturally add the rider that this is only by Divine grace through the Lord, seeing we eagerly confess that we of ourselves are sinners. But there is none of that here with David. Psalm 119, composed during his wilderness years on the run from Saul, has many references to his own sins. But that now seems far from him. And the spirit of Psalms 32 and 51, glorying in Divine grace and justification of sinners by grace alone, is likewise now far from him... As with Gideon and so many others, he reached pinnacles of understanding and spirituality which he spent the rest of his life receding from. And yet will still be ultimately saved. David is presented as the very opposite of what we might expect from a spiritual hero- progressively growing in grace until he faces his grave planks in gentle, calm spirituality and closeness to God. His final words recorded to Solomon breathed judgment and hated rather than any grace or personal expectation of future glory at the resurrection.
</p>


text:
<p>With the purified You will show Yourself pure, with the crooked You will show Yourself tortuous-</p><p>"The pure" connects with David's please for a pure heart to be restored to him after his sin with Bathsheba (Ps. 51:10). We could argue that he considered that he had been so cleansed of that sin that he was treated as pure. Or it could be that he simply forgot how he had been so impure in what he had done. </p><p> 
David's claim here is that God blessed the righteous and cursed the wicked, confirming each in their way. This may have some truth to it, but his claim is a tacit reflection of his failure to understand the grace shown to him. Theoretically he had grasped it in Ps. 32, staying that God counts as right those who are not right, by grace. But now he reasons as if he has no grasp of the grace concept. </p><p> 
"Tortuous" translates a Hebrew word 'pathel' which is very similar to the Hebrew for Ahithophel, David's one time confidante and counsellor, Bathsheba's grandfather, who betrayed him to Absalom. David was saved from Ahithophel's counsel by grace alone and by the loyalty of Hushai. But instead he appears to gloat over how God, as he saw it, had punished Ahithophel and justified himself. He appears to be oblivious to the fact that Ahithophel had good reason to be against him; and wishes all manner of curses upon him in the Psalms composed at this time. 
</p><p> David sees himself as the pure, and Saul as the crooked. Throughout David’s Psalms in Psalms 1-72, he repeatedly asks for torture upon the sinners and blessing upon himself as the righteous. He speaks of how sinners should be “contemned” in the eyes of the righteous (<a href='B:230 15:4'>Psa 15:4</a>), the gatherings of sinners should be “hated” and sinners should not be fellowshipped (<a href='B:230 26:4-6'>Psa 26:4-6</a>; <a href='B:230 31:6'>Psa 31:6</a>) and how God’s uprightness is shown to the upright and His judgment to the judgmental (<a href='B:230 18:25-26'>Psa 18:25-26</a>; <a href='B:230 33:22'>Psa 33:22</a>). He invites God’s judgment upon himself and others according to their and his works (<a href='B:230 28:4'>Psa 28:4</a>):&nbsp; Frequently he alludes to Saul as “the violent man”- even though David committed his share of violence- and asks judgment upon him (<a href='B:230 18:48'>Psa 18:48</a>). Only those with clean hands and pure heart like himself could have fellowship with God (<a href='B:230 24:3-4'>Psa 24:3-4</a>). Psalms 37 doesn’t indicate any desire to convert the sinners but rather an expectation of their judgment and destruction. God and David laugh at the wicked because their day is coming (<a href='B:230 37:13'>Psa 37:13</a>). There’s no spirit of grace here at all- perhaps that’s why <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a> specifically says that the spirit of grace will have to be poured out upon the house of David in the last days. This attitude changed after the sin with Bathsheba, but still something of the old self righteousness and judgmental attitudes are to be found in David in Psalms written after that.</p>


text:
<p>You will save the afflicted people, but Your eyes are on the proud, that You may bring them down- </p><p>Again David perceives Saul as proud, and Saul's initial apparent humility must therefore be considered in this context. Perhaps he became proud, or maybe he had always been that way, and only appeared humble. But the word "people" may have been added when the Psalm was used by the exiles, for salvation for "the afflicted people" was the prophetic message to them (s:w. <a href='B:290 49:19'>Isa 49:19</a>).</p><p>David may be alluding to how he had proclaimed his own humility in God's eyes in dancing before all when the ark came to Zion: "I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased [afflicted / brought down] in my own eyes" (2 Sam. 6:21,22). But humility is hardly something that a man self proclaims...</p>


text:
<p>For You are my lamp, Yahweh. Yahweh will light up my darkness- </p><p>The phrase is only used of the lighting of the lamps in the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 25:37'>Exo 25:37</a>; <a href='B:40 8:2'>Num 8:2</a>). I noted on <a href='B:230 17:8'>Psa 17:8</a> that David sees himself as located on the mercy seat, in the Most Holy place. "You will light my lamp" refers to his Messianic hopes for his family.</p>


text:
<p>For by You, I run against a troop. By my God, I leap over a wall- </p><p>Such victories were given to David against the Philistines; the idea is as in GNB "You give me strength to attack my enemies and power to overcome their defenses". "Troop" is the word used of the Amalekites whom David overcame (<a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:15'>1Sa 30:15</a>). The leaping over a wall may refer to the way that Zion was captured (<a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>As for God, His way is perfect. The word of Yahweh is tested. He is a shield to all those who take refuge in Him- </p><p>The word" specifically in view may be the prophetic word that David would be king and thereby overcome all of Saul's machinations (see on <a href='B:230 119:1'>Psa 119:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For who is God, besides Yahweh? Who is a rock, besides our God?- </p><p>David in his Psalms repeatedly alludes to the song of his ancestor Hannah. He effectively quotes <a href='B:90 2:2'>1Sa 2:2</a> here; although I argue throughout 1 Samuel 2 that Hannah's was apparently lifted up with pride and the vengeance of the underling who has overcome the oppressor. And there is reason to think that David had elements of this weakness too.</p><p>David perceives his victory over Saul as the vindication of Yahweh above other gods. This would confirm the hints we have that Saul was an idolater (see on <a href='B:230 12:8'>Psa 12:8</a>; <a href='B:230 16:4'>Psa 16:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>God is my strong fortress. He makes my way perfect- </p><p>A reference to his victory over Goliath without human armour, trusting completely in God (see on :34,35).</p>


text:
<p>He makes His feet like hinds’ feet, and sets me on my high places- </p><p>As in :35, this may be a reference to his victory over Goliath, which he saw as the epitome of all his victories. For he ran swiftly towards Goliath before releasing the stone which slew him. Or as mentioned on :30, getting his high places may allude to the conquest of Zion from the Jebusites.  </p>


text:
<p>He teaches my hands to war, so that my arms bend a bow of brass- </p><p>Perhaps alluding to how it was David’s dexterity of hand as a slinger which gave the victory over Goliath. But he recognizes that this was all of God. He is careful not to exalt as if his strength was his own.</p><p>This is another allusion to the song of Hannah (see on :32). Here, it is to "The bows of the mighty men are broken". Seeing children are as arrows (<a href='B:230 127:4-5'>Psa 127:4-5</a>), the bow may refer to the womb, in Hannah's mind. And she is now wishing her barrenness upon her enemies who had once mocked her. This is hardly the right attitude, and yet David applies it to himself. And there is reason to think that David had elements of this weakness too. He thought it was acceptable to be like this because Hannah had been. And that is the problem with setting bad examples.</p>


text:
<p>You have also given me the shield of your salvation. Your gentleness has made me great- </p><p>God’s gentleness, His humility / bowing down (Heb:) has made us great, lifted us up (<a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a>). And we respond to it by humbling ourselves. Paul's take on "the shield of your salvation" is that it means "the shield of faith" (<a href='B:560 6:16'>Eph 6:16</a>). If we enquire 'Faith in exactly what?', the answer is 'faith in salvation at the end of the day, that God will finally save me'. The Hebrew can mean gentleness but it has the idea of condescension, so the idea may be 'Your answers to my prayers for help'.
</p>


text:
<p>You have enlarged my steps under me. My feet have not slipped- </p><p>David in his earlier Psalms exalts and boasts to God that his feet have not slipped, indeed he was overly confident that his feet would never slip / "be moved" (<a href='B:230 17:5'>Psa 17:5</a>; <a href='B:230 21:7'>Psa 21:7</a>; <a href='B:230 55:22'>Psa 55:22</a>; <a href='B:230 62:2'>Psa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:230 62:6'>Psa 62:6</a>; <a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a>). His more mature reflection is that he had wrongly said "I shall never slip [AV "be moved"]" (<a href='B:230 30:6'>Psa 30:6</a>), and his feet had indeed slipped, not least over the Bathsheba incident (<a href='B:230 38:16'>Psa 38:16</a>; <a href='B:230 94:18'>Psa 94:18</a>). But now at the end of his life, he considers his feet haven't slipped. But David's feet did slip terribly in relation to the Bathsheba affair. But he looks back on his life and whitewashes himself. Solomon didn’t learn this lesson, for he likewise assumed that the righteous would never be moved / slip (<a href='B:240 10:30'>Pro 10:30</a>), although he appears to accept that even a righteous man like his father had indeed slipped (<a href='B:240 25:26'>Pro 25:26</a>). And Solomon himself did so, not learning the lesson from his father’s mistaken assumption that the righteous can never slip.</p>


text:
<p>I have pursued my enemies and destroyed them. I didn’t turn again until they were consumed- </p><p>This is written after God had subdued Saul and David’s other enemies (:1). He is taking this as a portent of future victory against all other enemies. But I will explain on :40-43 that David did not use all the potential authority and power of judgment which he was given. David pursuing his enemies alludes to David pursuing and overtaking a band of his enemies (1 Sam. 30:8). But again, David is alluding back to heroic deliverances and victories in his twenties. But human life isn't solely the halcyon years of youth. His life post Bathsheba was nothing to write home about. And he makes hardly any reference to it now at age 70 as he looks back on his life. In Ps. 18:37 “overtaken them", alluding to Ex. 15:9- again, David is saying that God's work for him was as dramatic as His salvation of Israel at the Exodus.</p>


text:
<p>I have consumed them, and struck them through, so that they can’t arise. Yes, they have fallen under my feet- </p><p><a href='B:230 18:38'>Psa 18:38</a> changes the tenses: "I will strike them through, so that they will not be able to rise. They shall fall under my feet". See on :38. This refers to the potential power of judgment David felt he had been given, but this is not to say he would use it.</p>


text:
<p>For You have armed me with strength for the battle. You have subdued under me those who rose up against me-</p><p>David reflects how his victory in battle by God’s strength meant that all was subdued under him (s:w. <a href='B:230 8:6'>Psa 8:6</a>), a Psalm about the victory over Goliath). The victory in battle which he had in view was supremely that over Goliath, his most major and applauded victory, where he stood over Goliath in triumph. But again, he is harping on about his halcyon days and not taking into account the majority of his adult life post Bathsheba. To a far greater extent, the victory of the Lord Jesus meant not simply the subjugation of Israel beneath Him, but of all creation, including the natural creation.</p>


text:
<p>You have also made my enemies turn their backs to me, so that I might cut off those who hate me- </p><p>Those who hated David surely refer to the house of Saul (:1). But David did not cut them off- even though he was given the opportunity of doing so. Literally, "I silenced those who hated me". The reference would then be to the defenders of Jebus / Jerusalem who hated David / were hated by David (2 Sam. 5:8). Perhaps his 'leaping over a wall' (:30) references his capture of the walled city of Jebus. </p>


text:
<p>They looked, but there was none to save; even to Yahweh, but He didn’t answer them- </p><p>A reference to God refusing to answer Saul just before he died (<a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>). David is enjoying making the point that his enemies had no salvation, Saul's shield was cast away and he died in battle: "the shield of the mighty was shamefully cast away, the shield of Saul was not anointed with oil" (2 Sam. 1:21). David rejoices that in contrast, "you gave to me the shield of Your salvation" (:36). David fails to realize that the historical record actually paints Saul and himself as sinning in parallel. If anything, David sinned worse than Saul. He was saved by Divine grace because he had a heart for God. But instead he here posits that God chose to save him and not Saul because he was somehow more pure and righteous than Saul. He totally misses the grace of God towards him.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God’s refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (<a href='B:100 22:42'>2Sa 22:42</a> = <a href='B:230 2:2-5'>Psa 2:2-5</a>). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake those who love Him (e.g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). We can therefore conclude that His desperate “Why have You forsaken me?” was because He was so intensely identified with our sins that in the crisis of the cross, He indeed felt forsaken because of sin. He did not sin, but felt like a sinner; He thereby knows how sinners feel.</p><p>In their extremity even the Gentiles cry for mercy to the “unknown God” of their enemies (as in 1 Sam. 5:12; Jonah 3:7); there are no atheists on a plane going down.</p>


text:
<p>Then I beat them as small as the dust of the earth. I crushed them as the mire of the streets, and spread them abroad- </p><p>I noted on :41 that David didn’t execute the judgments against the house of Saul which he could have done. The language of being "crushed" or "cast out" and being driven by the wind is that of Divine judgment. It could be that David intends us to understand that although he was given the opportunity of judging them ["that I might cut off...", :41], he didn’t- he left it to God’s judgment. The 'spreading abroad' may refer to him making Moabite captives lay down and be slain: "he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive" (2 Sam. 8:2). This was hardly David at his best, and surely is an example of how he shed blood indiscriminately. But he rejoices in it as if it were some special reward from God for his piety.</p>


text:
<p>You also have delivered me from the strivings of my people. You have preserved me to be the head of the nations. A people whom I have not known will serve me- David expected in faith that now he was solidly established as Israel's king, the surrounding Gentiles would come to serve him and his God (see on :50). Verses 44-46 should all be past tenses, "served me" etc.  We could render "You kept me as head of the nations" in which case the allusion would be to how under Achish the Philistine he was made “keeper of my head” (1 Sam. 28:2). Again, an allusion to his pre Bathsheba life.
</p><p>"Let people serve you" was the blessing promised to Jacob in his moment of weakness, as he crouched before his father in fawning deception (<a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a>). And yet David applies this promised blessing to himself (<a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>).</p><p>David felt preserved by God from Saul and his other enemies (<a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; <a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>), because he had preserved or obeyed [s:w:] God’s ways (<a href='B:100 22:22'>2Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 22:24'>2Sa 22:24</a>; <a href='B:230 18:21'>Psa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 18:23'>Psa 18:23</a>); whereas Saul didn’t obey / preserve them and was destroyed (<a href='B:90 13:13-14'>1Sa 13:13-14</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Ch 10:13</a>). Hence <a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy".</p>


text:
<p>The foreigners will submit themselves to me. As soon as they hear of me, they will obey me- </p><p>David’s vision was that his kingdom would take the good news of Israel's God to the surrounding Gentiles (see on :50). Some of them would submit to David and his God, whereas others would not (:46). But if we read as past tenses, the reference would be to how at the mere rumour of David’s victories, Toi king of Hamath submitted to David (2 Sam. 8:9). But the Hebrew for "submit" is strictly 'to feign obedience'. This is exactly what happened with the Amalekite who lied about killing Saul (2 Sam. 1:2–16), coming kneeling to David; and Baanah and Rechab (2 Sam 4:5–12), who each came to David expecting a reward from him. Again we note these were all incidents pre-Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>The foreigners will fade away, and will come trembling out of their hiding places- </p><p>This may allude to how Saul's persecutors of David included "foreigners" such as Cush (see on <a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a>) and Doeg the Edomite (<a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>).  We should read in the past tense, "faded away", like plants scorched by the burning sun, which is the figure in Ex. 18:18. The idea repeatedly is that as God did for His people at the Exodus, so He had done for David. And so He does for us all.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh lives! Blessed be my rock! Exalted be God, the rock of my salvation- </p><p>David had earlier lamented that Saul "My enemy" (= Saul, <a href='B:90 18:29'>1Sa 18:29</a>; <a href='B:90 19:17'>1Sa 19:17</a>) was "exalted over me" (<a href='B:230 13:2'>Psa 13:2</a> s:w:). The David who had once triumphed over his enemy Goliath now felt that Saul was triumphing over him. This, in the bigger Divine picture, may have been to keep David from pride at the amazing victory and triumph. And he learned the lesson. David was indeed to triumph / be exalted over Saul (:49), but he saw it is God triumphing / being exalted. His praise Psalms are full of this word and idea- of the exaltation of God (<a href='B:230 57:5'>Psa 57:5</a>; <a href='B:230 57:11'>Psa 57:11</a>) and not himself.</p>


text:
<p>even the God who executes vengeance for me, who brings down peoples under me- </p><p>An allusion to how David had restrained himself from murdering Saul when he could have done, and instead had trusted in God to execute vengeance. Here David reflects that God had indeed cast down the peoples under him (<a href='B:100 22:48'>2Sa 22:48</a>; <a href='B:230 18:47'>Psa 18:47</a>); by saying this he considers that his prayer of <a href='B:230 56:7'>Psa 56:7</a> has been answered: "In anger cast down the peoples, God". Perhaps when he prayed it, he just wanted God’s anger to be poured out immediately, the day of judgment to come there and then, when the scales will be adjusted and men and nations cast down or lifted up. But he reflects that in a sense that had happened in his life, in that the peoples were cast down beneath him.</p><p>This is what Baanah and Rechab told David when they presented him with Ishbosheth’s head: "Behold, the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; thus, the Lord has given my lord the king vengeance this day on Saul and his descendants"  (2 Sam. 4:8). As ever, David is alluding to things in the pre-Bathsheba part of his life. And he is citing his own refusal to personally take vengeance on Saul (1 Sam. 24,26 ,"May the Lord judge between you and me, and may the Lord avenge me on you; but my hand shall not be against you" (1 Sam 24:13)) as the basis for God giving him the throne over the people, who had [so David claims] been brought down under him. David's response to Baanah and Rechab is to comment that "Yahweh... has redeemed my life from all distress" (2 Sam. 4:9). He alludes to how he had told Saul "so may my life be highly valued in the sight of the Lord, and may He deliver me from all distress (1 Sam. 26:24). Even at that point, he had the idea that his deliverances by Yahweh were because he had not taken vengeance upon Saul. Now apparently at the end of his life, he has the same attitude. Grace to him by God doesn't seem to be in his thinking. David also seems to have forgotten that he had intended taking vengeance on Nabal, but was stopped from this by God's grace through Abigail's wisdom urging David not to avenge himself with his own hand (1 Sam. 25:23–35). It was only because this stopped him taking vengeance that God took vengeance for him. But the grace of it all is lost upon David.</p><p>
We can read "who brought down the people [peoples could be an intensive plural for the great people, Israel] under me". The reference would be to his overcoming the internal opposition to his rule. But that opposition was because of the great disillusion with David because of his actions over Bathsheba and Uriah and his subsequent politically foolish moves. He ought to have resigned the kingship, but he didn't. Yet here he credits God for keeping him on the throne, leaving us to ponder whether he really appreciated God's undeserved grace in this... And again he is sanitizing how things were. The series of revolts against David in the later years of his reign rather question his claim that the people had been "brought down" beneath him. The cry of Sheba the Benjamite "To your tents O Israel! What portion have we in the son of Jesse?" was to be repeated at the end of Solomon's reign. Even on his deathbed, David had to deal with a rebellion by his son Adonijah, backed by Joab his own general. 
</p>


text:
<p>who delivers from my enemies. Yes, You lift me up above those who rise up against me. You deliver me from the violent man- </p><p>"Deliver" translates the word commonly used in the record of David's escape from Saul when his house was surrounded one night (1 Sam. 19:10,11,12,17,18). Again we see David harking back to his glory days and the deliverances when he was a young man- and glossing over the majority of his kingship. David's enemies were the Philistines and other nations, from whom God had given David "rest" at the time of 2 Sam. 7:11 ("Yahweh has given you rest from all your enemies"). But the term is also used of Absalom and his followers by Ahimaaz and the Cushite (2 Sam. 18:32 "the enemies of my lord the king [are] like the young man" Absalom). But God's deliverance of David from Absalom and his supporters was not at David's hand; he didn't go out to fight in the battle. The victory was because of Joab daring to disobey David's order not to kill Absalom. And Joab rightly mocks David for having more sympathy with his enemies than with his own men. This was hardly David at his most glorious and heroic on the battlefield, but he likes to spin it that way.</p><p>See on :47. The violent man was initially Saul (see on :1). The Hebrew word hamas [basically meaning 'physical violence arising from wicked plans'] is quite common in Scripture, and the usages speak of how God is provoked by hamas to bring judgment upon the enemies of His people (<a href='B:10 6:11-13'>Gen 6:11-13</a>; <a href='B:400 6:12'>Mic 6:12</a>; <a href='B:430 1:9'>Zep 1:9</a>) and also to intervene in order to save His people (<a href='B:230 18:49'>Psa 18:49</a>; <a href='B:230 72:14'>Psa 72:14</a>). How amazingly appropriate that an organization actually called hamas has arisen in these last days to do violence to Israel! If Biblical history means anything to us, clearly enough God’s intervention in appropriate judgment and salvation cannot be far off. Note how Hagar's persecution of Sarah- typical of the Arab-Jew conflict- is described as her hamas (<a href='B:10 16:5'>Gen 16:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I will give thanks to You, Yahweh, among the nations. I will sing praises to your name- </p><p>David was one of the few in the Old Testament who had a sense of taking the good news of Yahweh's covenant to the Gentiles. And he apparently did so through exporting his musical productions to the surrounding peoples, who may well have been able to understand David’s Hebrew.</p>


text:
<p>He gives great deliverance to His king, and shows grace to His anointed, to David and to his seed, for evermore-</p><p>"Deliverance" is 'salvation'. This could be a reference to how at the time of Absalom's rebellion people considered that "there is no salvation for him in Yahweh" (Ps. 3:3). It's good to see that David does end with gratitude for grace and that he does mention the eternity of the promises made to him in 2 Sam. 7. David's song is presenting himself as the ideal king of Israel, who loved Yahweh and His word, saved Israel and was eternally blessed. We as readers know this is a highly sanitized view of himself. But in his "last words" in 2 Sam. 23 David appears to admit that his "house" was "not so with God", and "he that rules over men must be just"- and he had not been that.</p><p>The Psalm concludes with a reference to David as the anointed, so this could be a Psalm composed when Saul was slain and David was finally declared king, and his anointing came to fulfilment. But the reference to eternal salvation for "his seed" could suggest it was composed after he had received the promises of 2 Samuel 7.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse says, the man who was raised on high says, the anointed of the God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel- </p><p>The words of David in 2 Sam. 23:1 are not "the last words of David" in that he spoke many other recorded words, both in 1 Kings 1 and in the 1 Chronicles record of his words to Solomon about the temple. But they are called "the last words of David". We conclude that "being a prophet", these are his last prophetic words. Words spoken by direct inspiration from God as revelation from God. Here is the difference between revelation and inspiration. All the Bible is inspired and a true record of what was said or done. But not all is revelation. And so if these are the last prophetic words of David, we can conclude that his words to Solomon about the temple were not by direct revelation from God. God had said He didn't want David to build a temple. But David is reported as saying God had told him to arrange for Solomon to build it. And he made these statements in the fortieth year of his reign, i.e. right at the end of his life (1 Chron. 26:31).</p><p> 
Summing up, we can read this as a dialogue:
</p><p> 
David [at the close of his song of self praise in 2 Sam. 22]: "He gives great deliverance to His king, and shows grace to His anointed, to David and to his seed, for evermore" [assuming he and his son were so pleasing to God that they were worthy of an eternal dynasty]</p><p> 
God [forcing David to utter the words through inspiration]: "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God [in contrast to David's rule]. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain" (AV).</p><p> 
David [struck by his own arrogance and the marvel of God's grace to him, arriving at a moment of truth]: "Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure! It is all my salvation and all my desire, that the wicked should not flourish" (LXX).  
God [responding to David's characteristic condemnation of others]: "All of the ungodly shall be as thorns to be thrust away, because they can’t be taken with the hand; but the man who touches them must be filled with iron and the staff of a spear. They shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place". </p><p> 
"The man who was raised on high" reflects his self glorifying argument of the previous chapter. David for the latter part of his life was unloved, disrespected, manipulated and hardly 'on top' of Israel, with all the rebellions against him. This was the situation right up to his death bed. He glories in his anointing, but Saul likewise was anointed- of itself, this meant nothing. Indeed God's take on David's anointing was that seeing "I anointed you king over Israel", his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah was the more culpable and reprehensible (2 Sam. 12:7). But David just fixates on the fact he had been anointed and saw that as part of his glory. David's self aggrandisement here is going to be cut short by God now forcing him to say words he wouldn't have wanted to say- that Messiah, God's son rather than his son, was God's King and the true anointed or Christ of God. David was not God's ultimate anointed or Christ. He here introduces himself as the anointed, the Messiah of Israel's God- and God then puts a word in his mouth that corrects this. It is David's great Messianic descendant who will fit this, and it is He who will judge the wicked- not David. We can note a juxtaposition here between David's self designations here, and the word God puts in his mouth seeking to humble and correct him.</p><p> 
If we accept the LXX, David's self congratulation is even worse: "Faithful is David the son of Jesse, and faithful the man whom the Lord raised up to be the anointed of the God of Jacob". He had hardly been "faithful".</p><p> 
His self designation as Israel's psalmist was perhaps akin to claiming to be the most popular pop star in the country. It was self claimed by him. And we note that Solomon wrote 1005 songs (1 Kings 4:32; and 5000 according to 1 Kings 4:39 LXX), far more than David. Or we could take "the sweet psalmist of Israel" to mean 'the one Israel considers sweet and sing psalms to', alluding to the women singing songs of praise to him after his murder of Goliath. Indeed ESV gives "the favourite" instead of "sweet", as does the French "favori des chants d'Israel". As noted throughout 2 Sam. 22, this would be a case of him continuing to focus upon isolated incidents from his halcyon glory years, and overlooking the fact that for all his life post Bathsheba he was not respected, indeed he was despised by Israel.
</p><p> <a href='B:100 23:1-5'>2Sa 23:1-5</a> gives quite some insight into the nature of David’s spiritual maturity at the end. He comes over as:</p><p>Sure of his salvation</p><p>Aware of his own failures and frailty, acknowledging that his family ‘was not so with God’</p><p>Deeply aware of God’s grace</p><p>Having a clear vision of Jesus the future Messiah, even foreseeing how He would be pierced with a weapon and slain by wicked men- in order to attain our salvation</p><p>Aware that his own rulership was pathetically inferior to that of the Lord Jesus</p><p>Appreciative that all these wonderful things are rooted in the covenant made to himself, which was all his salvation and desire.</p><p>These very same themes we find recurring in the lives of many other servants of God.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh spoke by me. His word was on my tongue-</p><p>This is a classic statement of Divine inspiration, putting His word upon the tongue of the inspired writers and speakers of His word. But the point is, having glorified himself in his self descriptions in :1, he now has God forcibly placing His words and perspectives into David's mouth, as he would now speak forth as a prophet, just as Balaam did. "David the son of Jesse says, and the man... says" matches "Balaam the son of Boer says, and the man... says" (Num. 24:15). I discuss on 2 Sam. 24:1 how there, David is again likened to Balaam. The idea here may be that the previous song of 2 Sam. 22 was David's words, his self perception, the recording of which is inspired but not necessarily the content- a classic case of the difference between inspiration and revelation. But now in these final words we have a direct prophecy from God which is in fact critical of David as king, showing his deficiency compared to God's requirements for kingship and leadership over His people. So 2 Sam. 22 was David's take on himself, and now 2 Sam. 23 is God's take on David. We see something similar in the book of Job, where men give their take on themselves, saying various things which aren't correct, and then God gives His take. The takes of Job on himself, of the satan, the friends and Elihu on Job... All this is in some way criticized and debunked by God in the final speeches. So those human takes on Job are recorded under inspiration, but are not all correct because God debunks them all.</p>


text:
<p>The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, ‘One who rules over men righteously, who rules in the fear of God- </p><p>This may have been spoken to David by Samuel when he was first anointed; or by special revelation to David when he first became king. <a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> alludes to this, saying that when the righteous rule, the people rejoice (s:w:). The king of Israel was to ever remember that God was the ultimate king; and was to rule therefore in respect of Him.</p><p>
But it seems to me that this is God's direct comment on the closing line of David's hymn in 2 Sam. 22:51: "He gives great deliverance to His king, and shows grace to His anointed, to David and to his seed, for evermore". God wants to demonstrate that "His king" is not in fact so much David, but the future Lord Jesus. And David's passing reference to the promises to him, right at the end of a hymn glorifying himself, rather missed the point. David was not "His king" in the Messianic sense, and neither would his son Solomon be. And we will see that the verses that follow appear to continue this idea of God and David in dialogue, with interjections from both sides.</p><p>
David post Bathsheba had not reigned justly over man; Absalom's complaint to the men of Israel that his father didn't give justice, he didn't judge / rule justly, had some currency and men were in agreement with that complaint. That's why they backed Absalom and others who offered an alternative to David. David was not just towards Uriah and Bathsheba; nor was he just in refusing to deal with the sins of his sons Amnon and Absalom, who committed rape and murder without David's direct judgment. He was manipulated by the cunning woman of Tekoah, and as discussed on 2 Sam. 21, he was unjust in allowing the seven descendants of Saul to be murdered when this was avoidable. He was likewise unjust to Michal and her husband Paltiel; and likewise to his concubines whom he forced into being prisoners of court with no possibility of sex, marriage nor children. By agreeing an 'equal guilt', 50/50 judgment between Ziba and Mephibosheth, David hardly judged justly; he was most unwise to initially totally believe Ziba. Likewise he promised Shimei immunity from judgment but then asked Solomon to murder him. He was hardly just or fair to Joab either, whom he clearly personally disliked although he was so dependent upon him. His final words of command to Solomon about murdering such people were hardly judging justly.  Joab rightly criticized David for unjustly being obsessed with Absalom and turning the victory for David's people into mourning.  </p><p>
Only David's greater son, Messiah, could be righteous or “just” in the fullest sense of the word, and this characteristic of Him is picked up in later Messianic prophecies (e.g. Jer. 23:5; Is. 11:2,3; Zech. 9:9). These words are repeatedly alluded to in later Messianic prophecies. There are so many allusions that it is as if the Spirit really wants to emphasize that David is here prophesying of s future Messianic figure and not himself nor his immediate children. David's hope was that Solomon would rule like this (Ps. 72:2), but these inspired "last words" appear almost a deconstruction of David's hopes for Solomon as expressed in Psalm 72. There are several connections with David's Psalm for Solomon in Psalm 72, which was his Messianic hopes for Solomon. Ps. 72:6 speaks of Solomon as coming down like rain upon mown grass. But David's insistence Solomon was the Messiah were misplaced and actually disobedient to God's promises to him. Here David is made to prophesy that Messiah would come after the rain, as the dawn after a cloudy and rainy night. The reigns of David and Solomon were that dark night. Not at all as David reasons in Ps. 72.
</p>


text:
<p>shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun rises, a morning without clouds, when the tender grass springs out of the earth, like the clear shining after rain’- </p><p>This suggests that the ruler in view was to be as the sunrise, after the clouds and darkness of the night have dispersed. This was indeed how David’s reign appeared after the reign of Saul. But the clouds returned in the course of David’s reign, and it looks ahead to the coming of David’s greater Son, the Lord Jesus, to arise as the dawn and re-establish David’s kingdom as God’s eternal Kingdom on earth (s:w. "sun rises" <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>). "Clear shining" is the word used for the "brightness" of the cherubim which were to return to Zion along with the exiles to establish eternal brightness there, with a restored Davidic king (<a href='B:330 1:4'>Eze 1:4</a>; <a href='B:330 10:4'>Eze 10:4</a>).</p><p>The reference would be to a cloudless morning, implying that all that preceded Messiah's reign [including those of David and Solomon] were reigns obscured by clouds. This of course contrasts with David's preceding song of self praise and congratulation about the glories of his reign in 2 Sam. 22. God is making David prophecy about a cloudless morning to come, a light that does not dim. The idea is that unlike David, the lamp or light of Israel that was now going out, the light of His greater Son would be a light that continues growing and increasing.</p><p>
The morning without clouds contrasts intentionally with David's boast that God had come down to him in thick clouds (s.w. 2 Sam. 22:12). Messiah's Kingdom would feature the direct revelation of God, not in clouds and darkness. Likewise the "brightness" of 2 Sam. 22:13 will be eclipsed by this bright (s.w. clear) shining without clouds. "You are not the man" is the message; the future Lord Jesus was to be the One. Truly it's all about Him and not about me. 
</p>


text:
<p>Most certainly my house is not so with God- </p><p>David is one of the major Old Testament types of the Lord Jesus. The words of David in Psalms 16 are quoted in <a href='B:510 2:25'>Act 2:25</a>; <a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a> concerning Jesus: “I have set the Lord always before me... He is at my right hand... You will not leave my soul in hell, neither will You suffer Your holy one to see corruption”. These are words describing David’s feelings about his own death and resurrection; and yet so identified was he with the Messiah, that they are quoted as being directly true of Jesus. But <a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a> also quotes these words with a slightly different spin- in that David saw the Lord Jesus always before him, and it was this sense that stabilized him. This could only have been true in that David understood all his feelings and present and future experiences [e.g. resurrection, not being suffered to corrupt eternally] as being typical of the Lord Jesus. He so understood himself as a type of the One to come that he saw this person as ever with him. This is the extent of the typology. <a href='B:130 17:17'>1Ch 17:17</a> in Young’s Literal has David saying: “Thou hast seen me as a type of the man on high” [i:e. Messiah]. David describes himself at ease with clearly Messianic titles such as ‘the Christ’, ‘the man raised on high’, and then goes on to speak of the Messiah who is to come on the “morning without clouds”, admitting that “verily my house is not so with God” (<a href='B:100 23:1-5'>2Sa 23:1-5</a>). This is only really understandable if we accept that David consciously saw himself as a type of the future Messiah.</p><p>This seems David's interjection, a "wow" moment when he realizes that indeed his house / family is not so with God. Yet that was foreseen by the promises of 2 Sam. 7. All eventualities were foreseen, even the falling away of the bearers of the covenant of God, so that such an event as this would not annul the covenant.</p><p>There is an intended ambiguity in the Hebrew text of <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>. The AV has: “Although my house be not so with God…this is all my salvation”; whilst the NIV and other translations suggest the opposite: that because his house was in order, therefore this was all his salvation and desire fulfilled. Solomon and David were sure that the house of David was “with God”, and yet from God’s perspective they weren’t, and the fulfilment of the promises would have to be in the future Messiah. We could translate: “Truly is not my house so with God? For He has made an everlasting covenant with me, ordered in all things, and secured; For all my salvation and all my desire, will He not indeed make it grow?”. In which case, David appears still not to have 'got it'. He sees his house / family as in order and the basis for that house eternally continuing.</p><p>Yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure, for it is all my salvation, and all my desire, although He doesn’t make it grow- </p><p>Gods covenant with David was "sure" or, to be kept, the same word David has just been using of how he had kept God's ways (2 Sam. 12:22,24). Even though David had not kept God's ways, God would keep His word to David. That is grace, being faithful to others when they are unfaithful to you.</p><p>David’s "desire / delight" was in God’s law (<a href='B:230 1:2'>Psa 1:2</a> s:w:) and also in the things of the future Kingdom of God (s:w. <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>); our "delight" in those things is reflected in our attitudes to God’s word. And we shall be finally judged according to our 'delights', our dominant desires (s:w. <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>; <a href='B:250 8:6'>Ecc 8:6</a>). The Lord Jesus was devoted to sharing Yahweh's "delight" (<a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>). We shall be judged according to what are our dominant desires.</p><p><a href='B:290 26:8-9'>Isa 26:8-9</a> parallels “the desire of my soul” with “my spirit”; it is the dominant desire of a man. For David, the salvation promised to him through Christ was “all my desire” (<a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>). The direction of his life was towards that end. Is our salvation all our desire and will? All who love his appearing will be saved. If salvation is our dominant desire, it will be granted.</p><p>
Or this could be God's interjection, to the effect that David's salvation was all His good pleasure or will. In this case we have God and David here in dialogue.</p><p>
The Hebrew is however difficult, and I suggest the idea is as follows:
David [struck by his own arrogance and the marvel of God's grace to him, arriving at a moment of truth]: "Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure! It is all my salvation and all my desire, that the wicked should not flourish" (LXX).  
God [responding to David's characteristic condemnation of others]: "All of the ungodly shall be as thorns to be thrust away, because they can’t be taken with the hand; but the man who touches them must be filled with iron and the staff of a spear. They shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place".
</p>


text:
<p>But all of the ungodly shall be as thorns to be thrust away, because they can’t be taken with the hand- </p><p>David's psalms are full of his relish at judging the wicked, and his preceding song of self glory in 2 Sam. 22 has much to say about them, almost gloating over them. God gives His perspective here. Messiah, and not David, is to be the sole judge and condemner- not David. David has had much to say in his previous song about the judgment of his enemies. Perhaps here we have God's response- that to condemn and judge others, the judge must be morally qualified. And therefore the only final judge will be Messiah and not David. Indeed the fact of His crucifixion, His piercing, would be the supreme qualification. The Lord said the same, that because He is Son of Man, He can therefore have all judgment given Him. "The ungodly" is "the sons of belial", who David has mentioned in 2 Sam. 22. I suggested there that he has Nabal in view. And God's comment is that such sons of Belial are judged by God and not David- and Nabal was a parade example, smitten by God not David.</p><p>The ungodly, like thorns, cannot be taken away by human hand. The sensitivity of the Lord Jesus constructed the parable of the wheat and weeds with the aim of showing the thoughtful how deeply inappropriate is their desire to root up the tares. He clearly had in mind the prophecy of Himself in <a href='B:100 23:6-7'>2Sa 23:6-7</a>: "The sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken by (human) hands: but the man that shall touch them (Christ) must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place (just outside Jerusalem) "where Christ was "fenced with iron". It isn't possible for us to uproot the tares because this can only possibly be done by the one who totally uprooted&nbsp; sin in Himself, dying to it on the cross. This association between Christ's right to judge and His victorious death is shown by the way the "tares" will be burnt in the same area as He was crucified in. Php_2:9-11 reasons along the same lines; because Christ died for us, He therefore has the right to have every knee bowing to Him at the judgment. On account of being "the Son of man" and yet also being our perfect Messiah, He has the right therefore to be judge (<a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a> cp. <a href='B:340 7:13-14'>Dan 7:13-14</a>). The Lord understood all this; and to the thoughtful, those who would grasp His allusion to 2 Samuel 23, He was saying: 'If you think you can root up the tares, if you think you have that wisdom to identify the tares, you are really insulting the greatness of what I achieved on the cross. It's only on account of that that I have the ability and right to divide wheat from tares, sheep from goats'.</p><p>But Adam Clarke understands this simply as "A metaphor taken from hedging; the workman thrusts the thorns aside either with his bill or hand, protected by his impenetrable mitten or glove, till, getting a fair blow at the roots, he cuts them all down. The man is fenced with iron, and the handle of his bill is like the staff of a spear. This is a good representation of the dubbing-bill, with which they slash the thorn hedge on each side before they level the tops by the pruning-shears. The handle is five or six feet long. This is a perfectly natural and intelligible image".</p>


text:
<p>but the man who touches them must be filled with iron and the staff of a spear- </p><p>See on :6. David recognizes that he had failed, that his house was “not so with God”, and yet through the future Messiah, “the light of the morning”, who would be pierced by a spear, the promises to him regarding his eternal future would indeed be fulfilled (<a href='B:100 23:4-5'>2Sa 23:4-5</a>; <a href='B:100 23:7'>2Sa 23:7</a>). The idea is that no human hands like David's could harvest and gather the thorns to burn them. It needed a man with a long pole to do so. But this man would be filled or pierced by that same pole / spear. And where he was pierced by it "in the same place", they would be burnt. At Gehenna just outside Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified on a pole. We are not to judge because it wasn't us who died on the cross, perfect and sinless. We will find all joy and peace through believing in this and thereby quitting judgment for all time. We are not to judge because we cannot.</p><p>They shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place- </p><p>This could mean that in the place where the Messianic seed was to be filled with the iron of a spear, those who did this to Him would be burnt. Perhaps they will be literally resurrected to judgment and burnt in the valley of Hinnom, near the place of the Lord's crucifixion. The burning up of the wicked as thorns or weeds at the last day by the Lord Jesus [not by David nor Solomon!] is a major theme (Mt. 3:10; 13:30; Lk. 19:27; Heb. 6:8.). The image of gathering thorns out of a field is applied by the Lord in perfect context. He taught that it is not for imperfect man to gather them out, but He will do at the last day. He alone is qualified to do so, and David's desire to do so was inappropriate. To root them out, or clean the ground of them, men do not lay hold of them with the bare hand; but only the Man who was killed by the same pole with which He would root out the thorns. Exactly because the Lord was crucified on the pole, as Son of Man, He is ultimately qualified to judge the other sons of men. This explains the many links in John's Gospel between the cross and judgment; "now is the judgment of this world" etc.</p>


text:
<p>These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb Basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite, who slew eight hundred at one time- </p><p>"Captains" is a form of the word translated "thirty" used in :23, and is evidence that the "thirty" are not to be read as a literal number; in any case, 37 names are given for the "mighty men", not 30. And there are more in the parallel record in Chronicles. Likewise "hundred" need not be taken literally as 100, rather like the term "legion", and can refer to a military group.</p>


text:
<p>After him was Eleazar the son of Dodai the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines who were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel had fled away- </p><p>"Defied" is the word used of how Goliath had defied Israel (<a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>). David’s victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us.</p>


text:
<p>He arose, and struck the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand froze to the sword; and Yahweh worked a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to take spoil-</p><p>We note that Yahweh worked a great victory through David over Goliath (same phrase in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>; see on :12), specifically without a sword. But this man was inspired by David and used in the same way, although his faith was perhaps weaker in that he used a sword, unlike David who turned down the offer of Saul's sword.</p>


text:
<p>After him was Shammah the son of Agee a Hararite. The Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines- </p><p>The Chronicles record says it was full of barley, so perhaps lentils were grown together with barley. Shammah defended the field of barley because it was valuable to the Israelites. And in this we have a corroboration of the record with how Absalom had burnt Joab's field of barley (<a href='B:100 14:30'>2Sa 14:30</a>). We may wonder why Joab slew Absalom. It could have been that to lose a field of barley was to lose food for many months or even a year. It was therefore a major loss to Joab. As Shammah defended a field of barley with his life, so Joab was so vengeful at the loss of his field of barley that he later slew Absalom.</p>


text:
<p>But he stood in the midst of the plot and defended it, and killed the Philistines- </p><p>"Defended" or "delivered" is the word used for David’s victories (<a href='B:90 17:37'>1Sa 17:37</a>; <a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:18'>1Sa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>) which were clearly so inspirational to his men, as the Lord's victory should be to us.</p><p>And Yahweh worked a great victory- </p><p>The record continually gives the glory to Yahweh for working through His willing workers. They did not achieve these victories in their own strength alone. The very phrase as in :10 of <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> describing how Yahweh gave David the great victory over Goliath. This was clearly inspirational to David’s men in their own battles, just as the Lord's victory on the cross should not be seen simply as a historical achievement for us, but an abiding inspiration to us to in essence do likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Three of the thirty chief men went down- </p><p>Not literally thirty; see on :23.</p><p>And came to David in the harvest time- </p><p><a href='B:130 11:15'>1Ch 11:15</a> "to the rock"; see on :14.</p><p>To the cave of Adullam; and the troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>The giants of the Philistines were in the valley of the giants. And they even had a garrison in David’s home town (:14). They appeared insuperable. This refers to an incident during the campaign of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>David was then in the stronghold; and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem- </p><p>The hideout of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>. The rock or hill of Adullam was surrounded by valleys fully viewable from the top of the hill, making it a strong position. Yet despite the obvious tactical advantages of the place, David’s Psalms repeatedly describe Yahweh as his rock, stronghold and fortress.</p>


text:
<p>David longed and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate!- </p><p>This has absolute psychological credibility. A leader of partisans sitting with his men in a cave, bitterly reflecting that the enemy have placed a garrison in his home village... would indeed make such a passing, under his breath comment like this.</p>


text:
<p>The three mighty men broke through the army of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but he would not drink of it, but poured it out to Yahweh- </p><p>We see here the intense personal loyalty to David which is a theme throughout the record. It looks forward to that which there is to be between the Lord Jesus and we who follow Him in these outlaw days of our generation.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Be it far from me, Yahweh, that I should do this! Isn’t it the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives? Therefore he would not drink it. The three mighty men did these things- </p><p>Despite the intense personal loyalty which David inspired, he is to be commended for not allowing this to turn into a mere personality cult. He poured out that water to Yahweh, feeling unworthy to drink it. We note that water represented blood. This is a warning against being too literalistic in requirements concerning the elements of the breaking of bread service. David perceived the spirit of the law about drink offerings, and "poured [water] out to Yahweh" (:16) in a cave, not being a Levitical priest, and far from the sanctuary.</p>


text:
<p>Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief of the three. He lifted up his spear against three hundred and killed them, and had a name among the three- </p><p>"Hundred", like "legion", need not be read literally; it could refer to a group or military subdivision. Again the idea of singularly attaining victory against a multitude is a replication in spirit of David’s victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>Wasn’t he the most honourable of the three? Therefore he was made their captain: however, he didn’t attain to the three- </p><p>This apparently means that he was demoted. This happened several times, as David considered that military valour was not the prime qualification for the post of army general, but rather perceiving grace and not shedding the blood of war in peace. Because Joab clearly failed to understand grace, David replaced him with Amasa- whom Joab later murdered out of jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds- </p><p>Benaiah was one of David’s senior military commanders (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:130 27:5'>1Ch 27:5</a>), and the Hebrew of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> can be translated "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head", i:e. of a group of David’s mighty men. The Jehoiada in view as his father would therefore be Jehoiada the priest. The idea is that priests were also military leaders within David’s army, indeed it seems there were a large group of them as ordinary soldiers in <a href='B:130 12:27'>1Ch 12:27</a>. This shows how priesthood was not understood as abstract spirituality, but that spirituality was articulated in practice. And this, along with the hints in the names of the mighty men that some were Levites, is significant in that the Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>). But these chose to do it. See on <a href='B:100 24:5'>2Sa 24:5</a>.</p><p>He killed the two sons of Ariel of Moab: he went down also and killed a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow- </p><p>Perhaps this incident occurred at this time of the campaign in <a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>. Although that campaign was not David and his men at their spiritual best; see note there. We see him following the path of David, whose victory over a literal lion gave him courage to fight Goliath. So Benaiah was inspired by David personally to kill a lion, and then kill two lion like men (AV) of Moab. The lion would have been driven by the cold from the forests, and was preyed upon people. Benaiah therefore risked his life for the sake of his people, and slew the lion.</p>


text:
<p>He killed an Egyptian, a goodly man- </p><p>Literally, a man to look at. This was because he was five cubits tall (<a href='B:130 11:23'>1Ch 11:23</a>).</p><p>And the Egyptian had a spear in his hand; but he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and killed him with his own spear- </p><p>Again this is a repeat of the spirit of David’s victory over Goliath, coming to Goliath with a staff and sling, and slaying him with his own weaponry. The point is repeatedly made that like the Lord's victory on the cross, David’s over Goliath was programmatic for the inspiration of his followers to be like him.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada did these things, and had a name among the three mighty men- </p><p>As noted on :19, there seems to be the idea that some of these men were demoted. Thus Benaiah was both amongst the three, but didn’t attain / remain amongst them (:23). "The three" is likely not to be read too literally, but may be a technical term for a group office, like "the thirty"; see on :23.</p>


text:
<p>He was more honourable than the thirty, but he didn’t attain to the three- </p><p>The numbers "three" and "thirty" are not necessarily to be taken literally. A form of the word for "thirty" is used of the "captains" in :8, and of Pharaoh's captains (<a href='B:20 14:7'>Exo 14:7</a>; <a href='B:20 15:4'>Exo 15:4</a>); in any case, 37 names are given for the "mighty men", not 30. And there are more in the parallel record in Chronicles.</p><p>David set him over his guard- </p><p>Heb. 'David appointed him to his audience', he was a member of David’s inner circle of advisers on the basis of his faith shown in personal life, and not because of any possession of only theoretical wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>Asahel the brother of Joab was one of the thirty; Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem- </p><p>Elhanan had also replicated David’s victory over Goliath; see on <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sa 21:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Shammah the Harodite, Elika the Harodite- </p><p>This Shammah was "Shammuth the Izrahite" of <a href='B:130 27:8'>1Ch 27:8</a>. "Izrahite" there could be "the Zarhite" a man descended from Zerah the son of Judah. But he was from Harod (<a href='B:100 23:25'>2Sa 23:25</a>), near mount Gilboa in the north. Perhaps he was given this name because he had done something valiant for Saul in the last fateful battle he fought in that area against the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>Helez the Paltite, Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite- </p><p>He is called a man of Ephraim in <a href='B:130 27:10'>1Ch 27:10</a>. But Beth-Palet [he was a "Paltite", <a href='B:100 23:26'>2Sa 23:26</a>] was a town in the tribe of Judah. We get the impression that many of these men were living outside the territory of their native tribes. That could have been for various reasons, but perhaps we are to conclude that the men who supported David were [as with us and our loyalty to Jesus] those who had had non standard personal lives which left them isolated from their home areas.</p>


text:
<p>Abiezer the Anathothite- </p><p>A priestly town in Benjamin. Perhaps he too was a priest; see on <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a>.</p><p>Mebunnai the Hushathite- </p><p>Sibbechai of <a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a>. He was a descendant of Zerah of Judah (see also on :25) (<a href='B:130 4:4'>1Ch 4:4</a>; <a href='B:130 27:11'>1Ch 27:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Zalmon the Ahohite- </p><p>Called Ilai in <a href='B:130 11:29'>1Ch 11:29</a>. There is only one Hebrew letter different. This would be an example of slight errors in copying which are found in the Hebrew text, although overall it is Divinely inspired.</p><p>Maharai the Netophathite- </p><p>This was near Jerusalem and the Levitical singers lived there after the exile (<a href='B:150 2:22'>Ezr 2:22</a>; <a href='B:160 11:28'>Neh 11:28</a>); so he too may have been a Levite living in Judah. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Heleb the son of Baanah the Netophathite- </p><p>See on :28.</p><p>Ittai the son of Ribai of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin- </p><p>He was from Saul's birthplace, and so would have rejected Saul for David, although David was not from his tribe. He did what was counter instinctive and countercultural, as all David’s followers did. And as do the followers of his greater Son.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah a Pirathonite, Hiddai of the brooks of Gaash- </p><p>Pirathon was in Ephraim (<a href='B:70 12:15'>Jdg 12:15</a>), and there was always antipathy between Judah and Ephraim. So as noted on :29, here again was a man who stepped out from his surrounding cultural expectations in loyalty to David.</p>


text:
<p>Abialbon the Arbathite- </p><p>Beth Arabah was a small settlement right out in the desert (<a href='B:60 15:61'>Jos 15:61</a>; <a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), therefore also called Arabah (<a href='B:60 18:18'>Jos 18:18</a>). From such a poor and obscure place there arose a man who was attracted to David’s cause (<a href='B:100 23:31'>2Sa 23:31</a>), just as the Lord calls all manner of unusual people to Himself today.</p><p>Azmaveth the Barhumite- </p><p>Coming from Bahurim, he would have been aware of David’s shameful behaviour there (see on <a href='B:100 3:16'>2Sa 3:16</a>) and yet he still followed David. He would have seen David’s actions to Michael and Paltiel as out of character with David generally, and didn’t allow his loyalty to be fazed by them.</p>


text:
<p>Eliahba the Shaalbonite, the sons of Jashen, Jonathan- </p><p>Eliahba was from Shaalabbin in Dan in the far north, very far from David’s origins (<a href='B:100 23:32'>2Sa 23:32</a>; <a href='B:60 19:42'>Jos 19:42</a>). But somehow he encountered David, and loyally followed him. We marvel at the extent of those who followed David; they were from all over Israel. In those days of limited communication, we wonder how he came to know David well enough to give his life to his cause. But it is the same marvel as we reflect how people are called to the Lord Jesus today.</p>


text:
<p>Shammah the Hararite, Ahiam the son of Sharar the Ararite-</p><p>To reconcile this with the record in Chronicles, we may need to read Shammah as one of the sons of Jonathan of the preceding verse. We could then read this verse along with the last part of :32 as "Jonathan the son of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite."</p>


text:
<p>Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite- </p><p>Beth-Maachah was a town in Naphtali (<a href='B:100 20:14'>2Sa 20:14</a>), confirming the impression that David’s closest supporters were not just local family friends, but men providentially drawn to him from all over Israel.</p><p>Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite- </p><p>Eliam was the father of Bathsheba, making Ahithophel her grandfather. We can more readily understand why he turned against David after his shameful behaviour with his granddaughter.</p>


text:
<p>Hezro the Carmelite, Paarai the Arbite- </p><p>Arab is in Judah whereas Carmel is in northern Israel. The juxtaposition of the two confirms the impression that David’s supporters were from all over Israel. The way they were all united together around this man from Bethlehem is amazing, and points forward to the gathering of the disparate followers of the Lord Jesus around Him today.</p>


text:
<p>Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah, Bani the Gadite- </p><p>Chronicles has "Joel the brother of Nathan" but Igal and Joel in Hebrew are very similar. Igal would have been a Syrian from Zobah, perhaps one of the soldiers who fought against David (<a href='B:100 10:6'>2Sa 10:6</a>) and then converted to him. The Gittites who followed David were likewise Philistines from Gath who were once his enemies but converted to his God, and devoted themselves zealously to Him. This is an incredible witness to the power of Yahweh to convert, because such willing defections of individuals to the people and God of their enemies, and being zealously committed to Him, was unheard of in their society. See on :37.</p>


text:
<p>Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Beerothite, armour bearers to Joab the son of Zeruiah- </p><p>As noted on :36, the one time enemies of David such as Zelek the Ammonite became his most committed followers. Or perhaps his conversion was a result of the one time friendship between David and Ammon, and the support for David by Shobi (<a href='B:100 17:27'>2Sa 17:27</a>). Likewise Naharai was from Beeroth, which although counted to Benjamin (<a href='B:100 4:2'>2Sa 4:2</a>) was inhabited by Gentile Gibeonites, whom Saul had persecuted.</p>


text:
<p>Ira the Ithrite, Gareb the Ithrite- </p><p>The faithful Ithrites (<a href='B:100 23:38'>2Sa 23:38</a>) were from Kirjath Jearim (<a href='B:130 2:53'>1Ch 2:53</a>), perhaps converted to a more spiritual outlook by the long presence of the ark amongst them (<a href='B:90 7:2'>1Sa 7:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Uriah the Hittite: thirty-seven in all- </p><p>As noted on :20, the number "thirty" need not be read literally, Uriah is mentioned last to draw attention to him. His father in law was also one of the mighty men (:34), so the shame of what David did was felt very strongly in the ranks of his closest followers.</p>


text:
<p>Again- </p><p>I will suggest on :25 that there are similarities with the cursing of the land at the time of <a href='B:100 21:14'>2Sa 21:14</a>. So "again" may mean that this final cameo of Davidic history is another example as that of 2 Samuel 21, of where Yahweh's anger was against the land of Israel and He was then "intreated for the land" by repentance and sacrifice. And in both cases, David was at fault. The "again" further encourages us to view 2 Sam. 21-24 as chronological, following on from 2 Sam. 19 and before the death of David in 1 Kings 1; although 1 Chron. 21-27 describing David's words to Solomon about the temple appear to follow on from 2 Sam. 24. We see David forced to penitence in 2 Sam. 23 for his arrogant end of life speech in 2 Sam. 22; now he sins again in wanting to establish the Kingdom here and now, repents again, but slips back in his words to Solomon and his final deathbed scene in 1 Kings 1.</p><p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel- </p><p>This common phrase is typically used of God’s anger with Israel for idolatry, which was clearly a problem amongst them even at David’s time. He didn’t want to punish them. The census gave them the opportunity to pay a half shekel each for "atonement money" (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>), lest they be struck with plague. It seems God worked through David’s fear of an invasion or forthcoming battle with a 'satan'' / adversary, so that he took a census and the people had the chance to pay that atonement money in loyalty to Yahweh. But they didn’t- and so they were struck with plague. David’s feeling of guilt over the matter is understandable, but I will argue on :10 that it was more a case of false guilt.</p><p>The anger of Yahweh being again kindled reminds us of the Balaam narrative. And there are so many other similarities- an Angel, called a 'satan' (as in 1 Chron. 21:1), sword in hand, trying to rebuke a man who is pursuing a wrong path (Num. 22:31). I discussed on 2 Sam. 23:2 how the way God put a prophetic word in David's mouth is replete with allusions to Balaam. So it seems the parallel between Balaam and David continues. We naturally enquire, What was David's wrong path? Seeing it was not a sin to take a census. It was something pretty big, given the amount of judgment for it and his deep contrition. I suggest the wrong path was his desire to gather an army in order to establish his promised kingdom there and then by foreign conquests, and numbering Israel in the wider context of establishing a physical temple system and a workforce for Solomon to use in forcibly establishing some kind of Kingdom of God on earth. Unlike Balaam, David does repent. But it seems not for long, because he goes on to set up Solomon for building the temple and murdering his contenders.  </p><p>And He moved David against them saying, Go, number Israel and Judah- </p><p>This is an example of God’s Spirit moving people to do things, operating on their heart through circumstances- in this case, the 'satan' of some opposition which provoked David to take a census of his fighters. Or we can deduce that David's 'satan' (1 Chron. 21:1) was his obsessive desire to see the promises of 2 Sam. 7 fulfilled in himself, his immediate family and a physical temple designed by himself. This was confirmed by God in that He does lead into temptation by confirming man in the way he himself freely chooses. But in the bigger picture, God used this failure of David's to punish Israel for their sinfulness.</p><p>But comparing with the Chronicles account, this incident is followed by David's numbering the Levites and assigning certain numbers of Israelites to the various tasks of labour required for building the temple. So his numbering of Israel could be because of his old 'satan'- his internal desire to push ahead with glorifying his own family through his son building a physical house for God. When God had specifically stated that He didn't want that. Perhaps this is why David feels he has sinned, when taking a census was not of itself a sin. He so often is convinced of his sins, as he does as noted on 2 Sam. 23 and as he did after his conviction by Nathan... but slips back from these peaks of contrition and humility. But seeing David was so set upon this, God confirmed David in his misplaced desires and moved him to number Israel in this context. The numbering was therefore possibly not because of a military threat, but from David's desire to arrange the labour required to build and sustain the temple complex he envisaged his son building. This would fit chronologically- so that 2 Sam. 21-24 are not in fact random incidents put together at the end of 2 Samuel, but are strictly chronological. David's numbering of the Levites and making plans for numbers of workers were done in the fortieth year of his reign, i.e. right at the end of his life (1 Chron. 26:31 "In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found / numbered among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead. His brothers, men of valour, were two thousand seven hundred..."). This numbering was "for every matter pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king". </p><p>There is no sin in taking a census just as there is no sin in jotting down how much money you have in various bank accounts or investments, and working out your total net worth. It's the motive for doing so, and your attitude and feeling before and after which can be sinful. And so it was with David here. We recall Moses and Aaron taking the census without sin (Num. 1:4); indeed there were three censuses conducted in the wilderness, and David had numbered his men in 2 Sam. 18:1, as had Joshua (Josh. 8:10). Perhaps David's bad motives were the 'satan' in view, confirmed by God. We also must factor in that a census of Israel stands in direct contrast to the fact Abraham's seed would not be able to be counted for multitude (Gen. 13:16). The promises to David had spelt out how this would happen- after David's death, he would have a descendant who would be God's Son, who would have a house / family that would last eternally. And David would be resurrected to participate in that eternal age. By numbering Israel, David was ignoring that promise, with all the Divine grace implicit in it- and that was the essence of his sin here. The connections with Balaam continue, in that God also tried to teach Balaam the same in Num. 23:10: "Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel?". 
</p><p>The books of Samuel and Chronicles are parallel accounts of the same incidents, as the four gospels are records of the same events but using different language. <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a> records: “Yahweh... moved David against Israel” in order to make him take a census of Israel. The parallel account in <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Ch 21:1</a> says that “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David” to take the census. In one passage God does the ‘moving’, in the other Satan does it. The only conclusion is that God acted as or through a ‘Satan’ or adversary to David. He did the same to Job by bringing trials into his life, so that Job said about God: “With the strength of Your hand You oppose me” (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>); ‘You are acting as a Satan against me’, was what Job was basically saying. Or again, speaking of God: “I must appeal for mercy to my accuser (Satan)” (<a href='B:220 9:15'>Job 9:15</a> NRSV). The idea is sometimes used to describe our greatest adversary, i:e. our own sin, and at times for whole systems or empires which stand opposed to the people of God and personify sinfulness and evil. But it seems obvious that it is a bizarre approach to Bible reading to insist that whenever we meet these words 'Satan' and 'Devil', we are to understand them as references to a personal, supernatural being.</p><p>Perhaps the satan which moved David to number Israel was a Satan-Angel, as in the case of the righteous Angel involved with Balaam, acting as a satan / adversary, and with Job. The parallel with Balaam is that God sent a Satan-Angel against him because His anger was kindled against Balaam (<a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a>, the same phrase as in :1). The Angel may have acted directly on David’s heart to bring about a trial for both David and Israel. This is one of the many indications that the numbering of the people was not David’s sin. See on :10. But the adversaries to David and Israel were at that point the surrounding nations. Even if an Angel was involved, the immediate 'satan' would have been an approaching enemy army; and David wanted to know how many men he had to fight off that invasion. Or it could have been an extension of the gathering of troops made at the time of <a href='B:100 20:4'>2Sa 20:4</a>, when David wanted to know how many soldiers he could really count on after Absalom's rebellion. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Joab the captain of the army, who was with him, Now go back and forth through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the sum of the people- </p><p>The list of David’s mighty men just given in 2 Samuel 23 included men literally from Dan to Beersheba. I suggested on :1 that the occasion of this census may have been when David wanted to know how many soldiers he could really count on after Absalom's rebellion. It's possible that although out of chronological sequence, the catalogue of mighty men in 2 Samuel 23 was the result of this census. This would explain Joab's comment in <a href='B:130 21:3'>1Ch 21:3</a> "Are they not all my Lord's servants?", as if to say 'Loyalty to you is not in question, taking a census won't prove loyalty to you'.</p>


text:
<p>Joab said to the king, Now may Yahweh your God add to the people, however many they may be, one hundred times- </p><p>Joab is alluding to <a href='B:50 1:11'>Deu 1:11</a>. For all his unspirituality, he did also have a spiritual side. He was not unaware of the scriptures, and seemed to want to do what was genuinely best for Israel. Men with deeply mixed motives is quite a theme of the Bible's historical records; and that is because they are true to life. For that is how people are.</p><p>And may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king delight in this thing?- </p><p>"May the eyes..." implies 'May it happen in the king’s life-time', an allusion to the promises to David that his eyes would see his seed and house established. But that was to happen after David slept with his father's in death. Joab is surely repeating David's wrong interpretation of the promises to him.</p><p>The numbering of Israel was another weak moment for David (note <a href='B:100 24:3-4'>2Sa 24:3-4</a>; <a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>), leading to suffering for others. Yet this same David had written that “there is no king saved by the multitude of an host” (<a href='B:230 33:16'>Psa 33:16</a>). Perhaps this was an expression of repentance after this incident; or, if written before it, an example of David being over confident of his faith. “Why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?” (<a href='B:130 21:3'>1Ch 21:3</a>) suggests Joab suspected the people would not pay the half shekel required when a census was taken, and so would be led into sin. Although it was their fault, the situation was provoked by God Himself provoking David to take the census, because His anger was kindled against Israel (:1). This would then be an example of God confirming a sinful people in the way they wished to go.</p>


text:
<p>Notwithstanding, the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the army. Joab and the captains of the army went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel- </p><p>The army captains likewise agreed with Joab that the census was not a good idea. This incident is at a time when David’s word prevails against Joab and the generals, and we get the impression that this would not have happened after his sin with Bathsheba, after which Joab speaks and acts towards David in a belligerent manner. So the incident may be not in chronological order; indeed many argue that none of the cameos of Davidic history at the end of 2 Samuel are in chronological order. But see my arguments to the contrary on :1.
</p>


text:
<p>They passed over the Jordan, and encamped in Aroer, on the right side of the city that is in the middle of the valley of Gad, and to Jazer- </p><p>The list of cities given in this section is detailed, and if they just describe the itinerary and maximum extent of the route taken by the generals in making the census, we wonder why such detail is given. I suggest that the areas named were those where they found significant numbers of men loyal to David and willing to fight for him. For that was the purpose of the census. Jazer was a priestly city (<a href='B:60 21:39'>Jos 21:39</a>). Yet it was on the very borders of Hebrew territory, suggesting that Israel gave the Levites the remotest and very poorest of their cities, rather than the best. Yet we also see the theme discussed on <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> continued- that the Levites, although exempted from military service by the Law (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>), were often to be found amongst David’s most loyal soldiers.</p>


text:
<p>then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim Hodshi; and they came to Dan Jaan, and around to Sidon- </p><p>"Tahtim Hodshi" is unknown, so we can go with LXX "to the land of the Hittites to Kedesh". Sidon likewise was never really inhabited by the Hebrews (<a href='B:70 1:31'>Jdg 1:31</a>) but rather by the Phoenicians, who are therefore called the Zidonians. But the idea may be that in these Gentile areas, David had soldiers he could count on. Because it is a theme of the list of commanders in 2 Samuel 23 that David’s most loyal supporters were often Gentiles or from distant, isolated areas. This is often the case with the Lord's supporters in this life.</p>


text:
<p>and came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites; and they went out to the south of Judah, at Beersheba- </p><p>This could be simply defining the borders of the areas covered. But there is also the possibility that just as the mighty men of David were from various odd places, there were pockets of loyalty to David in various unusual places such as the city of Tyre- which was never generally inhabited by the Israelites. And likewise, the list of the mighty men in 2 Samuel 23 include Gentiles who had previously been David’s enemies. And so it is possible that amongst the Canaanites, there were groups of men loyal to David who could be counted as his loyal soldiers.</p>


text:
<p>So when they had gone back and forth through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days- </p><p>The maximum human gestation period may have been thus understood at the time. We can understand the concern of Joab and the generals; they were going to be scattered throughout Israel and this would leave the nation very weak and open to attack. We see the contradiction, the fear was of some 'Satan', some external group of attackers, and yet by the military leadership scattering amongst Israel to take the census, they were left even weaker before the threat. We wonder at what stage David was ever able to allow his army generals nine months to take a census. We get the impression that he was under constant military threat, especially after the sin with Bathsheba. So this incident may have occurred well before that.</p>


text:
<p>Joab delivered the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men-</p><p>According to <a href='B:130 21:5'>1Ch 21:5</a>, there were 1,100,000 “men that drew sword” in Israel. According to <a href='B:100 24:9'>2Sa 24:9</a>, there were 800,000 “valiant men” in Israel, according to the same census. One way to reconcile this is to focus on this distinction between "valiant men" and standard soldiers. The Samuel record is perceiving that there was a higher level of commitment amongst some who were numbered. There were the enthusiasts, and those who merely could draw a sword. They were all living on different levels.</p><p>The numbers are also difficult because the Hebrew word for "thousand" need not mean a literal 1,000, but it is at time used to refer to a military subdivision. And it can have different definitions in some areas and at some times and by some writers. That is likely the reason for the difference between the numbers presented in Samuel and Chronicles, rather than textual corruption. If taken literally, the numbers are unrealistic; nearly 2 million soldiers (according to Chronicles) in the combined kingdom would imply a huge total population. Even if there were six million population in the territory they then inhabited (about 11,000 square miles), this would give an average population density of 600 / square mile. It seems really doubtful that the country could have supported this.</p><p>The Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>), indeed Joab didn’t number Benjamin or Levi (<a href='B:130 21:6'>1Ch 21:6</a>) which would further heighten the total population.</p><p>"Drew the sword" is the same phrase used in <a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> of how the destroying Angel had a drawn sword in his hand. The idea seems to be that God’s Angelic power was more than a match for thousands of Israelites with their drawn swords. This would be an argument in favour of the idea that David did indeed sin at this time by trusting in his own swords, although the greater sin appears to have been with the people; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>David’s heart struck him after that he had numbered the people- </p><p>This phrase is used three times of David; his heart struck him concerning cutting off Saul's skirt (<a href='B:90 24:5'>1Sa 24:5</a> - false guilt), about Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a> - true guilt) and now about numbering the people (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>), which I suggest was a mixture of true and false guilt. Unlike with his sin with Bathsheba, David offers repentance before the judgment for his sin has been given. The grade of his repentance here does appear to be higher, but he still slips back from it in that he goes on to command Solomon to build the temple, prepares for it, and sets Solomon up to slay all potential rivals.</p><p>David said to Yahweh, I have sinned greatly in that which I have done-</p><p>The response is similar to that to the sin with Bathsheba, again before a prophet. Balaam also said the same words (<a href='B:40 22:34'>Num 22:34</a>), and again we find an Angel 'standing'. Although David did take false guilt, it seems there was some element of real failure.</p><p>But now, Yahweh, put away, I beg you, the iniquity of Your servant; for I have done very foolishly- </p><p>We are not told specifically what "iniquity" David had in view. For to take a census was not of itself a sin. Possibly David in mind his great iniquity, the specific iniquity, with Bathsheba and Uriah. He had not adequately repented of it, and now he realizes that. Or perhaps "the iniquity" was his general desire to see the promises of 2 Sam. 7 fulfilled in himself and his family immediately, with a physical temple instead of a house of believers in his future Messianic descendant. And I have suggested that it was this fundamental desire which may have been behind his desire to take Bathsheba. And all this is so typical of our experience. Incidents may trigger false guilt over something, but we are led by them to recognize our real guilt over another matter. </p><p>The allusion is to the foolishness of Saul (<a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>). He feels he is no better than Saul for his trust in human strength; see on :14. <a href='B:130 21:6-7'>1Ch 21:6-7</a> says that David’s "word" of command of the census was "abominable" to Joab, and also God was "displeased" with "this thing", the same Hebrew translated "word". Unless this refers to His displeasure with Joab for despising David’s word. Yahweh had likewise been "displeased" with David in the matter of Uriah (<a href='B:100 11:27'>2Sa 11:27</a> s:w:). But although David’s lack of faith wasn't good, it seems to me on balance that he was largely taking false guilt. Perhaps we are to read that God was displeased with Israel's lack of response to the word of command about the census, seeing Israel didn’t pay the half shekel required at the time. Indeed David’s trust in human numbers would not have been pleasing to God, it was a slip backwards. But we wonder whether he took false guilt in this matter. For it was allowable to take a census of Israel, although there was to be a half shekel tax paid at the time, which if not paid would result in plague (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>). Joab perhaps guessed that those numbered would not pay this and therefore the census would lead Israel into sin. This is why God chose the punishment of plague; not upon David, but upon Israel. Yet David perhaps realized all that, but knew that his lack of faith in wanting a census, his lack of consideration for the weakness of others, would lead them into sin and punishment. And therefore he felt guilty. It could be argued that his sacrifice atoned for himself and for the people, but they still suffered for not having paid the required "atonement money". But then we must balance against this the comment that "David had done that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (<a href='B:110 15:5'>1Ki 15:5</a>). No mention is made of the matter of the census. There is true guilt, the guilt we should take for our actual sins; and false guilt, the guilt put on us by others and the malfunctioning of the human conscience. In this matter of David’s guilt about the census, we may have an example of a man taking false guilt. The fact Israel and not David were punished with plague would rather confirm this. It may be impossible for us to sort out within us what is true guilt or false guilt, at least not be any intellectual process. But we can rest assured that all our guilt, of whatever kind, is met in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate guilt offering.</p>


text:
<p>When David rose up in the morning, the word of Yahweh came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying- </p><p>Gad was to write his record of these things (<a href='B:130 29:29'>1Ch 29:29</a>), so maybe his record has been incorporated here into 2 Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Go and speak to David, ‘Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things. Choose one of them, that I may do it to you’- </p><p>When given a choice, Ahaz declined to choose, and was condemned for it (<a href='B:290 7:11'>Isa 7:11</a>). David declines to choose, because he preferred to fall into God’s hands of grace than decide himself; and is not condemned. The same actions can be committed with different motives, and therefore only God can judge. But the invitation to "choose one of them" was for David’s education, to elicit his reflection as to whether it was appropriate that he were punished, or the people; or he be punished along with the people. God’s choice of plague was in accordance with the teaching of <a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>, that if Israel didn’t pay the atonement money at the time of a census, they would be punished with plague.</p>


text:
<p>So Gad came to David, and told him, and said to him, Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land?- </p><p>LXX "three years", in line with <a href='B:130 21:12'>1Ch 21:12</a>. As king, this would not have hurt David personally. He was asked to consider whether this was appropriate.</p><p>Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days of plague in your land? Now answer, and consider what answer I shall return to Him who sent me-</p><p>Fleeing before his enemies would have declared David not to be the king of Israel. For Israel had demanded a king to lead them to victory against their enemies. This option was tantamount to David accepting that he was not fit to be Israel's king; and indeed it seems to me that he should have resigned the kingship after the Bathsheba affair. We note that David nearly died in a battle and had to be rescued by his men (2 Sam. 21:15-17) and his men had asked him not accompany them into battle with Absalom lest he be slain (2 Sam. 18:3)- all hardly the picture of the invincible warrior leader. We may well ponder why we have in such detail the lists of David's warriors and their heroic deeds in 2 Sam. 21:15-22; 23:8-23. One answer is that the contemporary records of the end of a king's life list solely his heroic deeds; but the Divine record seems to give the honour to David’s warriors, as if to say that it was their heroic military deeds which saved Israel more than David's.</p><p>
Famine and plague were punishments for disobedience to the covenant; and David as a supposed man of God and self appointed priest of his people was supposed to be able to intercede with God to end them. All the options reflected his spiritual impotence. And yet God does in fact allow David to intercede and shorten the plague, :15 LXX  “from morning until dinner time”. It's as if once again, God's heart is touched by David's genuine heart for Him. Even though that was not His initial intention.
</p><p>Famine, war and plague are the three Divine judgments listed in <a href='B:330 14:21'>Eze 14:21</a> as coming upon Jerusalem at the time of the exile. David had already experienced war and famine (because of the Gibeonites, 2 Samuel 21). Now he was to experience plague. The lesson to the exiles was that these judgments had indeed come because of sin, but the experience of them could be cut short by intense prayer and repentance after the pattern of David. For Yahweh "relented" of the three days plague because of David’s prayer and sacrifice. See on :15. We see here the open ended nature of His purpose.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Gad, I am in distress- </p><p>The phrase "sore distressed" in <a href='B:130 21:13'>1Ch 21:13</a> is that used of Saul's great distress on the night of his final condemnation (<a href='B:90 28:15'>1Sa 28:15</a>). David felt he had been foolish as Saul had been (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a> = <a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>). David had replaced Saul because of Saul's apostacy, but he was being made to realize through this experience (even if it was all false guilt), that he too was a sinner and saved by his acceptance of grace, and not because he was intrinsically better than Saul.</p><p>Let us fall now into the hand of Yahweh; for His mercies are great. Let me not fall into the hand of man-&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>"His mercies are great" is the language of Ps. 51:1 about God's mercy to David at the time of his sin with Bathsheba. This confirms the suggestion that "the iniquity" brought to David's mind was the nexus of sins surrounding the Bathsheba incident and not merely taking a census.  David appealed to God’s mercy in the matter of Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>). Perhaps he learned from that, and chose to throw himself upon that same mercy. But the exact timing of this incident isn't clear. Perhaps it was because of learning about God’s grace through this incident that he later learned to throw himself upon God’s great mercy when he sinned with Bathsheba and against Uriah. David’s experience of God’s grace stayed with him when he faced up to the results of his errors in the future. From experience, he can ask to fall into the Lord’s hand rather than man’s, because “His mercies are great” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>)- using the same two Hebrew words he had used when Nathan came to him in <a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>: “Have mercy upon me… according unto the multitude [Heb. ‘greatness’] of thy tender mercies”. And so the experience of God’s gracious mercy over one sin fortifies us to believe in His grace when, sadly, we fall again; although, in passing, I think that in 2 Samuel 24, David himself didn’t really do so much wrong. Yet he perceived himself to have sinned, so the point is still established.</p><p>David's resignation of the choices seems to reflect genuine contrition at this time. Had he chosen war, his own personal safety was in no danger as he would only flee before his enemies and not be slain. Had he chosen famine, his own wealth would have secured his and his own family’s survival. This same point is made if we read all this as meaning that in fact David chose the option of plague. By asking to call into God's hand we can read David as saying that since pestilence comes directly from God, unlike the other options, he therefore chose that option. When this was the option that could affect him personally unlike the other ones.
</p><p>Truly David is our example. David was very much involved in Israel his people. He saw himself as their representative. "The God of my rock is my shield... he is a shield to all them that trust in him" (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:100 22:31'>2Sa 22:31</a>). “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>) reflects this. When he sung Psalms, he invited them to come and sing along with him (<a href='B:230 105:2'>Psa 105:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 111:1'>Psa 111:1</a>). And many of these Psalms of praise seem to have their origin in his experience of forgiveness regarding Bathsheba. The Lord based His parables of the lost sheep and the man finding the treasure of the Gospel in a field on the statements of David (<a href='B:230 119:162'>Psa 119:162</a>; <a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a>), as if He saw David as representative of all those who would truly come to Him. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven" (<a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a>), David wrote, after experiencing God’s mercy in the matter of Bathsheba. But Paul sees this verse as David describing "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works" (<a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a>). Each of us are in need of a like justification; therefore we find ourselves in David’s position.</p><p>God is kinder than men. It's better to be punished by Him than by men. This puts paid to the Catholic conception of God as a merciless torturer of wicked men. Clearly the doctrine of eternal torments was invented by men, not God.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh sent a plague on Israel from the morning even to the appointed time; and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men- </p><p>"The appointed time" could refer to the time of the evening sacrifice, which David was to offer on Araunah's property and not at the sanctuary [Cp. 1 Kings 18:29, 36; Dan. 9:21; Acts 3:1. This is supported by the explanation given in the Targum: “from the time of the slaying of the perpetual sacrifice until it is burned”]. Or the idea may be that there was an "appointed time" of suffering but it was not defined, because it was open ended- the terminus depended upon the intensity of David’s prayers and sacrifice. The three day period of plague (:13) was changed because "Yahweh relented" (:16)- because of David’s prayer shortening the stipulated time period. This is why there can be no prescriptive chronology of events in the last days, nor date set for the Lord's return. The appointed time is variable, depending upon factors such as human prayer, repentance and taking the Gospel to all the world.</p><p>LXX "So David chose for himself the mortality: and they were the days of wheat-harvest; and the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from morning till noon, and the plague began among the people". The death of 70,000 throughout Israel must have turned public opinion yet further against David, as the deaths would have been perceived to be David's fault- the people bearing the judgment for his sins. He died unloved and unlamented, contrary to other great leaders of Israel who were long lamented after their deaths. </p>


text:
<p>When the angel stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem to destroy it- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> says that the Angel had a "drawn sword" in hand, the same words used of the Angel before Balaam (<a href='B:40 22:23'>Num 22:23</a>; <a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a>). His donkey "turned aside", using the same word for "stretched out" here. The sin of Balaam was connected with idolatry, and I suggested on :1 that this was the reason for God’s anger being kindled against Israel. The sin of Balaam has connections with that of Israel, but not particularly with that of David. Again we get the impression the judgments were for the sake of the sins of the people, the anger of Yahweh was with them, rather than with David for wanting to take a census.</p><p>Yahweh relented of the disaster, and said to the angel who destroyed the people, It is enough. Now stay your hand. The angel of Yahweh was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite- </p><p>This could imply that Araunah's area was about to be destroyed. But it seems we have here an example of the summary being made, and then we read how that came about. Perhaps David was in Jerusalem, maybe praying at the sanctuary, and saw the Angel standing over the nearby hill of Jebus or Moriah. His prayer and obedient, urgent sacrifice then stopped the Angel right there. The Angel "stood" by the threshing floor (<a href='B:130 21:15'>1Ch 21:15</a>), as if the Angel's path of destruction was stopped right there by the sacrifice offered in that place.</p><p>The encouragement for the later generation of Jews was that the evil planned upon Jerusalem could be relented from; if there was genuine repentance. God’s hand here was "stayed", but the encouragement was that God would not "stay" His hand in His program of redemption; the same word is often translated "fail" in the assurance that God will not fail His people in ultimately restoring them.</p><p>This “destroying Angel” (<a href='B:130 21:15'>1Ch 21:15</a> RV) is surely “the destroyer” who operated in the wilderness. We see here one Angel having the ability to formulate a purpose and another blindly carrying it out until told not to- a scenario which we&nbsp; see repeated elsewhere (e. g. at the Passover and in Ezekiel 9). It was only David’s prayer which lead to “the destroyer” ceasing. Notice how the Angel repented and then encouraged David to offer a sacrifice so the Angel would be "intreated for the land" (:19,25). Similarly, the Angel repented of punishing Israel and wanted to restore them, and to enable this to happen He encouraged the people through Ezra to be spiritual. Thus Angelic repentance has to be confirmed by human action.</p>


text:
<p>David had spoken to Yahweh when he saw the angel who struck the people, and had said- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:17'>1Ch 21:17</a> adds “David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. And David and the elders, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces”.</p><p>Behold, I have sinned, and I have done perversely; but these sheep, what have they done? Please let Your hand be against me, and against my father’s house- </p><p>This was effectively asking God to abrogate the promises about his family of 2 Samuel 7. I suggested above that David's "iniquity" was not the census but his desire to force a fulfillment of the promises to him in terms of an immediate physical house and the declaration of Solomon as Messiah. Now, for a moment, he sees his failure; and says he recognizes that God's hand ought to be against his "house". But God by grace doesn't take up David's suggestion. Yet soon David has relapsed into his plans for temple building and his machinations for Solomon to be king and slay all possible other contenders for the throne.  David takes all the blame upon himself [although :1 is clear the people were also guilty], for his offence had been the immediate cause of the plague, and it is characteristic of true penitence to dwell exclusively on our own sin, without mentioning the complicity of others. So the grade of David's repentance does seem quite genuine, as it was regarding the Bathsheba affair. But again, he slipped away from that intensity. "These sheep..." may imply David saw himself as the shepherd or king, whose error has caused all this suffering for the sheep. In which case, he is accepting that he is a failure as a king.
</p><p>Thanks to David building an altar at his own expense and asking God to kill him and his family, God stopped the plague upon Israel (<a href='B:100 24:16-17'>2Sa 24:16-17</a> - the stretched out hand of God in destruction was what David asked to be upon him and his family). Israel were suffering the effect of their own sin, in not paying the temple tax (<a href='B:20 30:11-16'>Exo 30:11-16</a>); but&nbsp; in the spirit of Christ, David was willing to die for them. And his dominant desire was counted as if it had been done, and thanks to his self-sacrificial spirit, the people were saved when they personally were unworthy. The wrath of God can be turned away by the actions of those He is angry with (<a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>; <a href='B:50 13:15-17'>Deu 13:15-17</a>; <a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a>; <a href='B:390 3:7'>Jon 3:7</a>; <a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a>; <a href='B:300 21:12'>Jer 21:12</a>). And yet that wrath can also be turned away by the prayers of a third party (<a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a>; <a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>; <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). This means that in some cases, our prayers for others can be counted as if they have repented. We can gain our brother for God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a>), as Noah saved his own house by his faithful preparation (<a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a>). Through our personal dying to the flesh, the life of Christ is manifest not only in us, but is made available to others: “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you” (<a href='B:540 4:10-12'>2Co 4:10-12</a>). The life that is even now made manifest in us is also made available to work in others because death to the flesh has worked in us personally.</p>


text:
<p>Gad came that day to David- </p><p>At the direction of the Angel (<a href='B:130 21:18'>1Ch 21:18</a>).</p><p>And said to him, Go up, build an altar to Yahweh on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite- </p><p><a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a> implies David assumed that the spot where the Angel appeared to him in <a href='B:100 24:17-18'>2Sa 24:17-18</a> was where he should build the temple. It is another example of David’s tendency to wildly over interpret, which led him to a mistaken obsession about building the temple and assuming Solomon to be his Messianic seed.</p>


text:
<p>David went up according to the saying of Gad, as Yahweh commanded- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> says that David went along with the elders of Israel, clothed in sackcloth. David is always presented as totally obedient to the prophets in his life (Samuel, Nathan and Gad), unlike Saul who was consistently disobedient to God’s word through Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Araunah looked out- </p><p>From the place in the threshing area where he was threshing wheat, where he and his four sons had hidden from the presence of the Angel (<a href='B:130 21:20'>1Ch 21:20</a>). The records in Chronicles and Samuel perfectly fit with each other, although clearly focusing upon different elements of the scene; just like the gospel records.</p><p>And saw the king and his servants coming on towards him. Then Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground- </p><p>Chronicles has "saw the Angel". <a href='B:100 24:20'>2Sa 24:20</a> "saw the king". This may reflect the confusion between malak ["Angel"] and melek ["king"], especially as ancient Hebrew didn’t add the vowel points and the consonants of the two words are the same, m-l-k. Or it could be that Araunah saw David and also at the same time saw the Angel behind him in some form.</p>


text:
<p>Araunah said, Why has my lord the king come to his servant? David said, To buy your threshing floor, to build an altar to Yahweh- </p><p>The urgent thing required was sacrifice to God represented by the Angel hovering over the hill where both men were standing, about to slay the people of Jerusalem. We wonder why David firstly asks to buy the threshing floor, as this was a long process which Araunah may have needed to think carefully about as it was his home. Maybe this is a hint that Araunah was not a worshipper of Yahweh and therefore the land must be bought before an offering to another God could be made upon it. There is more evidence for that on :23. Or it may be that David wanted to offer the most genuine sacrifice, which was thought to be offered upon one's own property. He offered to buy the threshing floor "for the full price" (<a href='B:130 21:22'>1Ch 21:22</a>), the same phrase used of Abraham's purchase of property from the Canaanites in <a href='B:10 23:9'>Gen 23:9</a>. This confirms the impression that Araunah was a Canaanite and not an Israelite.</p><p>That the plague may be stopped from afflicting the people- </p><p>This is the very phrase of <a href='B:40 16:48'>Num 16:48</a>; <a href='B:40 16:50'>Num 16:50</a> and <a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a>; <a href='B:230 106:30'>Psa 106:30</a>, where the people of Israel suffered from plague because of their idolatry, and Aaron stopped it, standing between the living and the dead. David was in an identical position to Aaron, again acting as the High Priest. And again we have evidence that the essential sin being punished was not David’s taking of a census, but Israel's sin (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>Araunah said to David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him. Behold, the cattle for the burnt offering, and the threshing instruments and the yokes of the oxen for the wood- </p><p>Chronicles adds “and the wheat for the meat offering”. LXX "and the wheels and furniture of the oxen for wood". "The threshing instruments" may have referred to quite a major and expensive piece of equipment. But Araunah totally senses the urgency of the situation and is willing to offer even this as wood.</p>


text:
<p>all this, my king, does Araunah give to the king. Araunah said to the king, May Yahweh your God accept you- </p><p>AV "All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king". This could mean that Araunah ['the scarlet one', maybe hinting at royalty] was king of Jebus at the time; or had once been. The way Araunah speaks of "Yahweh your God", whereas David speaks of "Yahweh my God" (:24) could support the idea that he was a Gentile. But he was genuinely willing to give freely toward the offering of sacrifice to Yahweh. There are three different spellings of Araunah's name in the record, and this might suggest his name was unusual and a Gentile name, which could be legitimately be transcribed in different ways in Hebrew. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Araunah, No; but I will most certainly buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to Yahweh my God which cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver- </p><p>I have suggested that the historical records were in places edited and made relevant for the exiles; and given their mean attitude to offerings in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>; <a href='B:460 1:13-14'>Mal 1:13-14</a>, David’s example and principle would have been pertinent. And this is an abiding principle; sacrifice is to be costly, we are to be left "minus", rather than being without cost to us.</p><p><a href='B:130 21:25'>1Ch 21:25</a> speaks of 600 shekels for "the place", whilst <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a> mentions 50 shekels for the threshing floor and oxen. The entire area was later bought, in order to build the temple on that site (<a href='B:130 22:1'>1Ch 22:1</a>; <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David built an altar to Yahweh there, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So Yahweh heard the prayer for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel- </p><p>LXX "And the Lord hearkened to the land", as if His pity was stirred by the tragedy seen there. The idea is the same as in <a href='B:100 21:14'>2Sa 21:14</a>, that the sin had affected the land, but sacrifice meant that the land's suffering stopped once it had been repented of and atoned for. <a href='B:130 21:26'>1Ch 21:26</a> adds that God "answered him from the sky by fire on the altar of burnt offering". This is just the language of God justifying Himself over Baal at the time of Elijah. I have suggested throughout that the plague was essentially punishment for Israel's idolatry; see on :1. The Angel put the sword back into its sheath (<a href='B:130 21:27'>1Ch 21:27</a>) at Yahweh's command. We have here a visual representation of God’s sensitivity to human prayer and repentance. Burnt offerings always precede peace offerings (<a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>), because sacrifice is the principle upon which we can have peace with God. But David remained traumatized by the incident, fearing the sword he had seen (<a href='B:130 21:30'>1Ch 21:30</a>). This was a similar reaction by him to how he feared association with the ark for some period after the slaying of Uzzah (<a href='B:130 13:12-13'>1Ch 13:12-13</a>). The similarity in reaction is another indication that the record is true and the character portrayals absolutely consistent, as could only be true of a Divinely inspired record.</p><p>LXX adds "and Solomon made an addition to the altar afterwards, for it was little at first". The site was purchased for this; see on :24.</p><p>We reflect that God heard David's prayer and stopped the punishment. But if, as I have suggested, the sin was David's desire to accomplish the Kingdom by his own efforts... he returned to that sin. And God surely foreknew that. The quality of David's repentance was intense and sincere at the moment, as it was with the sin with Bathsheba. But it didn't remain at that level and he degraded from that level. But still God, at that moment, forgave. We conclude that God forgives, or deals with sin, in various ways. Sincere, lasting repentance is only one of them. He recognizes the sin exists, but can choose to overlook it or deal with it in various ways. As a Jewish writer puts it so well: "Remission can be accomplished in any number of ways: God can carry the sins away (compare the scapegoat ritual) so they are no longer connected to (and no longer have an effect on) the sinner; God can pay them no attention by passing them by; God can moderate God's anger, change God's mind, exercise compassion, and forgive or ameliorate punishment; God can wash away the sins, so they disappear like a laundered stain; God can throw them far away into the water, where they will have no impact. What a wonderful conflation of images for forgiveness, even when deserving of punishment".</p>


text:
<e>1 Kings: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Now king David was old and advanced in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he couldn’t keep warm-</p><p>This is a legitimate translation but "keep warm" is a Hebrew term also used about procreation. There appeared to be some great desire that he should produce yet another child:&nbsp;&nbsp; Even if we understand his condition as simply being cold, losing body heat, we are given the impression of David at the end of his life as cold. He is never recorded as having loved anyone in his life, although many loved him... all Israel, Jonathan, Michal... Now he can no longer seek a lover, the womanizer can no longer pull a woman; this is not the classic parting scene of a hero with his children and admirers from old times around his bedside. Those around his bedside are full of intrigue as to who shall get the throne. There is no love for David apparent from anyone, neither is there any mention of him being mourned. Hypothermia in old age is a result of chronically poor blood circulation, and related to this would therefore have been erectile dysfunction. The picture is of the impotent David at the end, a man whose life had been largely wrecked by his sexual activities, all performed in a culture of sex as power. He ends his days powerless and isolated- in order surely to bring him to God and thoughts of his future seed the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore his servants said to him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin. Let her stand before the king, and cherish him; and let her lie on your chest, so that my lord the king may keep warm- </p><p>If indeed there were genuine health reasons for this (although see on :1), it seems morally questionable. Despite David’s undoubted faith and spirituality, his life leaves many abiding questions about his basic ethics and those of his immediate circle:&nbsp; The idea of a king was that he produced sons and heirs. If he was no longer capable of doing so, then he was not fit to remain on the throne- that was the thinking of the surrounding world. This explains why David's failure to be aroused by Abishag, his being confirmed as impotent, meant that immediately Adonijah started to reach for the throne. We see how David had failed to explain to his family the wonder of the promises to him- that the only seed worth having was the future Son of God, the Lord Jesus.  </p>


text:
<p>So they sought for a beautiful young lady throughout all the borders of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king- </p><p>"Abishag" is literally father / mother of the erring / astray. The language is so similar to <a href='B:190 2:2'>Est 2:2</a> that it indeed seems that a wife, of sorts, was being found for David. Some read "Shulamite", the word of <a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a> for Solomon's lover, a female version of the name "Solomon". In this case we can see some kind of manipulation going on to try to ensure that David’s final wife and possible child were within Solomon and Bathsheba's camp.</p>


text:
<p>The young lady was very beautiful; and she cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king didn’t know her intimately-</p><p>This could be read as meaning that she failed to bring him to heat in a sexual sense (see on :1), and so the comment here is to the effect that the plan didn’t work. Before David’s repentance he appears to have suffered with some kind of serious disease soon after it: "My loins are filled with a loathsome (venereal?) disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh" (<a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a>). It is even possible that David became impotent as a result of this; for we get the impression that from this point onwards he took no other wives, he had no more children, and even the fail safe cure for hypothermia didn’t seem to mean much to David (<a href='B:110 1:1-4'>1Ki 1:1-4</a>). Therefore "My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore" (<a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a>) must refer to some kind of venereal disease. The Hebrew word translated "lovers" definitely refers to carnal love rather than that of friendship. It may be that an intensive plural is being used here- in which case it means 'my one great lover', i:e. Bathsheba.</p><p>"Cherished" is literally to lay in the bosom, and is used of how Bathsheba lay in the bosom of Uriah (2 Sam. 12). And Bathsheba is present at the bedside scene later. We can read the term as implying there was an attempted sexual relationship, for the idea was that sexual arousal would cure David's hypothermia. But he was unable to achieve it. Adonijah's later request to marry Abishag was seen as a claim to the throne exactly because Abishag was now counted as some kind of wife or woman of David. It is quite likely that there was an agenda to this. It was a test of David's potency. If David was unable to produce children, he was incapable of being king; for a king was supposed to produce many children, and there is historical evidence for other kings being removed from the throne if in old age they were impotent. It's as if God was giving David another chance to resign the kingship, and to trust that his seed shall indeed be great- but not in his strength, but through God begetting a Son through one of his female descendants. All David was interested in was his male descendants forming an eternal lineage of kings after him. And so his deathbed impotence, demonstrated so publically to all as well as to himself, was to try to refocus him upon the promises to him in Christ. God tries with man right up to the end. David appears to have failed to get it- but still will be saved by grace. </p><p>
David's words and actions in :28-35 reflect a man who is lucid, aware and rational. This could contrast with his apparently senile, end of life position apparently presented in the opening verses. And chronologically, he will go on to make the plans for the temple and make speeches about Solomon as recorded in 1 Chron. 22-29. I suggest therefore that although he did have bad blood circulation, and probably did suffer from hypothermia related thereto, with the associated erectile dysfunction... this was all rather used by those around him. They wanted to prove that he was impotent and therefore incapable of continuing as king. Even his inner circle wanted him off the throne; whilst Israel were eager for Adonijah to become king. We recall how Jacob is presented as being at the end of his life when he goes on to live some years. Isaac likewise lived many years after his apparent death bed scene when he blesses Esau and Jacob. David goes on living through the maximum of 12 months covered in 1 Chron. 22-29.
</p>


text:
<p>Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, I will be king- </p><p>He was the oldest surviving son of David and therefore considered in line for the throne. "I will be king" is a future statement. We could read as him declaring his intention to become king after David's death, which at that point appeared imminent. As the next in line to the throne (see on :7) it could be argued that this was reasonable. In this case, it could be that Nathan and Bathsheba are exaggerating the situation in order to get David to declare Solomon as king. In which case we see a decline in the moral fibre in Nathan along with about everyone else present in these sad scenes.</p><p>Then he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him-</p><p>"Prepared" or "established" is a major theme in the promises of the eternal establishment of David’s throne (<a href='B:100 7:12-13'>2Sa 7:12-13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a> etc:), and Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a> s:w:). Solomon's contenders for the throne were all stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>; <a href='B:110 1:5'>1Ki 1:5</a>); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents in Proverbs between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.</p>&nbsp;<p>Absalom did the same (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>)"After this Absalom got himself a chariot and horses, and fifty men to run ahead of him”), and the similarities in the rebellions mean that David was intended to learn from them. Having horses and chariots was contrary to the command for the king of Israel not to have horses and chariots (Dt. 17:16). Solomon had even more, and so we are not to think that Adonijah was any worse than Solomon. </p>


text:
<p>His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why have you done so? And he was also a very handsome man; and he was born after Absalom- </p><p>We are immediately given the hint that he was of the same character and appearance of Absalom, and also similar to Saul (<a href='B:90 9:2'>1Sa 9:2</a>). Perhaps we are to understand that David had never disciplined him, unlike Solomon who in his Proverbs reflects upon David’s discipline of him. Or maybe the idea is more specifically that David had never forbidden his clear pretensions to the throne, despite his stated desire for Solomon to succeed him.</p><p>Possibly David later bitterly resented the rebuke of Nathan. And this was why he refused to rebuke his son Adonijah: “His father had never rebuked him by asking, ‘Why do you behave as you do?’ He was also very handsome and was born next after Absalom” (1 Kings 1:6). The usual line of interpretation is of course that David felt unable to rebuke anyone because of his sin, and he became willfully naive and deaf to political intrigue against him, and generally uncritical of others: "I am as a man who doesn’t hear, in whose mouth are no reproofs" (Ps. 38:14). That would be an understandable psychological reaction to his sin and the consequences. But in this case, David's refusal to discipline others because of his having been disciplined by Nathan is a reflection that he had not really repented and experienced total forgiveness. He says he has, in the penitential Psalms. But if this were so in a lasting sense, he would have felt able to discipline his sons.
The parallels with the spoilt, handsome Absalom are clear. As Absalom stole the hearts of Israel, so Adonijah claims "all Israel fully expected me to reign" (1 Kings 2:15), and implies David had once agreed for him to replace him ("You know that the kingdom was mine"). Adonijah had a fair chance of success- he had Joab, the head of the army, and the chief priest on his team- and the support of "all Israel". If indeed "all Israel fully expected me to reign" (1 Kings 2:15), then David would not have at this point declared Solomon as his successor. I suggest therefore that Bathsheba's rushing in to the king 'reminding' him that Solomon was to be the next king... was manipulation and probably untrue, at least there had been no public announcement to that effect. His repeated statements in 1 Chron. 22-29 that God had chosen Solomon may therefore have been made immediately after this time of Adonijah's rebellion. His claims there that God had specifically chosen Solomon by name are all reported speech, and I suggest in commentary on those chapters that this was merely David's narrative. He makes the claim that God had chosen and named Solomon so many times in the last months of his life. If this was, as he claimed, at the time of 2 Sam. 7, then we enquire why David had not previously stated this. He only makes these claims after Bathsheba's manipulation and claiming David had promised her [and not God promising David] that Solomon would be king. It's clear to me that he is 'protesting too much'. His claim that God had promised this and named Solomon as the seed is repeated so often and so suddenly that we are immediately suspicious as to the veracity of the claim David is making. It sounds like his wife and one time lover had manipulated him and he justifies his agreement by [falsely] claiming God had earlier said this. His last directly prophetic words are in 2 Sam. 23, and the rest of his reported speech is therefore not from God. Although he wrongly claims it is. I suggest that 2 Samuel is entirely chronological. After Adonijah's rebellion and Bathsheba's manipulation of David to pronounce Solomon as the next king, there is then the incident of numbering Israel. This is followed by David's final months spent numbering Israel in other ways, preparing for the temple and falsely claiming God has chosen Solomon by name; all in 1 Chron. 22-29. And then there is the final deathbed scene. A miserable end for David, who presents as weak and manipulated and obsessed with his own narrative about Solomon, egged on by Bathsheba. Who likewise possibly encouraged him to sleep with her at the start of his disastrous adultery with her. </p><p>
David therefore presents as compromised, weak, manipulated and fickle, having promised Adonijah the throne but also promised it to Bathsheba's son Solomon. We note the continuing dislike of David amongst his people, right to the end, and the lack of lamentation for him when he dies. In both the cases of Adonijah and Solomon, David set up his sons for spiritual failure. As he did all Israel by focusing them upon a physical temple and removing their focus upon God's future Son and onto his own immediate descendants. We note an alternative textual reading [and LXX] of 2 Sam. 13:21, that David would not punish Amnon because he was his beloved firstborn: "he grieved not the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn”. This is very similar to what we read here about Adonijah. David was a poor father, and he for a moment recognizes this when faced with the prophetic word that Messiah was to be Israel's eternal, glorious king- and not he and his immediate sons. He responds that "[indeed] my house is not so with God".  And yet despite being a poor father, he is clearly obsessed with the idea of his sons forming an eternal dynasty and his "house" being of eternal immediate fame in this life. He actually is typical of many fathers today... </p><p>
"He was born next after Absalom" (Heb.) suggests Adonijah was next in line as the oldest surviving son of David. Solomon tacitly accepts this when he chides his mother: "Ask for him the kingdom as well! For he is my elder brother…” (1 Kings 2:22). This is acknowledging that Adonijah’s status as elder brother gave him right to the throne. 2 Chron. 21:3 says of Jehoshaphat that “the kingdom he gave to Jehoram, for he was the firstborn”. Primogeniture was therefore assumed at the time, although the kingdom of Israel itself was in its infancy.
</p>


text:
<p>He conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest: they followed Adonijah and helped him- </p><p>That Joab David’s cousin, should turn away from David after a lifetime of loyalty is hard to understand. But we sense a personality conflict between the two of them, and indeed it seems that originally Joab had supported Absalom's idea of seizing power, but then fell out with him. David held Joab as too hard a man, not understanding grace; whereas Joab held David to be far too soft, and increasingly lacking strong leadership skills in his old age. The support for Adonijah was perhaps more because of disillusion with David than because Adonijah personally had much to offer.</p><p>Joab's backing of Adonijah may have been because like Ahithophel, he feared David would kill him. He had said after David's poor behaviour on Absalom's death that David wasn't really fit to be Israel's military leader, and he himself had been the one who had led Israel to battle- against Abner at Gibeon, against the Syrians, against Edom (Ps. 60:1 Joab killed 12000 Edomites in the valley of Salt), against Absalom, and notably against the Ammonites whilst David sat in Jerusalem having an affair with his soldier Uriah's wife. David's later claim that he couldn't build the temple because he had been fighting Yahweh's battles is a subtle hint that that he saw himself as Israel's military leader, when in reality that had been Joab's role. David simply basked in the victories of his earlier life. As Israel made clear when they first requested a king, Israel's king was to lead them into battle (1 Sam. 8:20). By word and example, Joab had shown David's disqualification for this post Bathsheba. Indeed on the basis of military leadership, Joab and not David was the logical replacement of David. So David's jealousy and fear of Joab as a rival was apparent. David had made clear his dislike of Joab on several occasions ["What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah?" 2 Sam. 16:5-10; 19:21,22. Bear in mind Joab was David's nephew. Joab is also missing in the lists of David's mighty men and their exploits, despite promising that whoever took Jebus would "come chief and commander"]. David thus comes to his end ungrateful, disloyal and with a reputation for graceless bloodthirstiness, jealousy, strong dislike of being shown weak and wrong and fear of any possible rival for his throne. Had he believed the promises of 2 Sam. 7, he need not have feared losing his throne in this life. The future promises more than compensated. </p><p>Abiathar's father and family had all been slain as a result of loyalty to David, and maybe decades later this remained as a source of bitterness to him. Or perhaps he was simply in a jealousy complex against Zadok, as it is unclear which of them was the high priest.</p><p>Abiathar’s defection may seem even more surprising than Joab’s. Possibly he had grown jealous of Zadok, the other High Priest at the time, and feared being supplanted by him. Fear is repeatedly presented in the record as the reason for otherwise out of character behaviour and that remains the same to this day. Yet faith in many ways is the counterpart to fear.</p>


text:
<p>But Zadok the priest, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, Nathan the prophet, Shimei, Rei and the mighty men who belonged to David, were not with Adonijah- </p><p>We see here the division between the two priests, Abiathar and Zadok, who had been so united in helping David survive Absalom's putsch. Perhaps there was jealousy between them because Abiathar was the priest in Jerusalem, whilst Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (<a href='B:130 16:39'>1Ch 16:39</a>; <a href='B:110 3:4'>1Ki 3:4</a>). "The mighty men" are those listed in 2 Samuel 23. If "Shimei" is the Shimei who cursed David, then we see his loyalty to David now; and that David should later order his murder is the more reprehensible.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah killed sheep and cattle and fatlings by the stone of Zoheleth, which is beside En Rogel; and he called all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah, the king’s servants-</p><p>This is another similarity with Absalom's revolt (see on :5), who began his revolt with a religious festival. It is alluded to by Solomon in <a href='B:240 21:27'>Pro 21:27</a>: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!". Solomon may have in view Saul's rejection from the kingship for his wrong attitude to sacrifice (<a href='B:90 15:21-22'>1Sa 15:21-22</a>). Likewise the attempts of Absalom and Adonijah to take the throne from David and Solomon involved the offering of sacrifices (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>; <a href='B:110 1:9'>1Ki 1:9</a>). What Solomon says in the Proverbs is true on one level, but he harnesses Divine truth to justify himself and his own agendas; just as we can.</p>


text:
<p>but Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he didn’t call-</p><p>As with Absalom's rebellion, sympathizers were invited to a religious feast, and this was used to declare the new king.</p>


text:
<p>Then Nathan spoke to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon saying, Haven’t you heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith reigns, and David our lord doesn’t know it?- </p><p>"Adonijah" means 'Yah is lord', although clearly he wasn't a spiritual man. Nathan refers to David as their 'Lord'. Perhaps this is intended to be another example of how faithful women like Sarah called their husbands "lord" (<a href='B:670 3:6'>1Pe 3:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore come, please let me give you advice, that you may save your own life, and the life of your son Solomon-</p><p>Nathan is in fact giving Bathsheba his advice, knowing that the usurper would typically slay the family of his rivals. But Nathan frames his approach as asking for her advice. Bathsheba was it seems the favoured queen. We wonder why Abigail had fallen out of favour; although mortality for women being so low in those times, she may well have died by this stage.</p>


text:
<p>Go in to king David and tell him, ‘Didn’t you, my lord, king, swear to your handmaid saying, Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne? Why then does Adonijah reign?’-</p><p>"Didn't you say this...?" can be a way of saying "Will you not do what I suggest". But quite possibly David at some point had made such a verbal promise to Bathsheba. It was God who had sworn to David that his "son" would reign on his throne, and Nathan was the prophet through whom he had been told this. But David seems to have assumed that he had some choice to make in directing God’s purpose, and had in turn sworn that Solomon should reign on his throne. The similarity of the wording suggests that he assumed Solomon was going to be the fulfilment of the promises to him of 2 Samuel 7. But this was in fact setting Solomon up for spiritual failure, as do many such parental assumptions. For those promises were conditional. And just as David refused to take full note of that, therefore neither did Solomon. He assumed he was the Messianic son of David and ignored the conditions, leading to his own spiritual shipwreck.</p>


text:
<p>Whilst you are talking there with the king, I also will come in after you, and confirm your words- </p><p>Literally, 'fulfil the words'. As discussed on :13, we sense that the words in view are those of the promises to David about his seed, which David had too quickly assumed must refer to Solomon. We note that Nathan too had too quickly assumed he knew God’s will and word in <a href='B:100 7:3-5'>2Sa 7:3-5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba went in to the king into the room. The king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite was ministering to the king- </p><p>We are naturally reminded of how she had first come in to the king when they committed adultery. And now she enters his bedroom uninvited, and finds a far younger woman trying to sexually arouse him (see on :1). The whole situation is indeed tragic, and the outcome of not going God’s way in moral matters.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba bowed, and showed respect to the king. The king said, What would you like?- </p><p>The single Hebrew word "what?" could suggest he was indeed so frail he could hardly speak beyond single words.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, My lord, you swore by Yahweh your God to your handmaid, ‘Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne’-</p><p>See on :13. She obediently repeats verbatim the words Nathan had put in her mouth. This continues the theme of David being manipulated by people and people being used as puppets by others.</p>


text:
<p>Now, look, Adonijah reigns; and you, my lord the king, don’t know it- </p><p>She calls David "lord" many times. We get the impression of deep and rightful respect for him, despite his failures. Perhaps this is intended to be another example of how faithful women like Sarah called their husbands "lord" (<a href='B:670 3:6'>1Pe 3:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He has killed cattle, fatlings and sheep in abundance, and has called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the army; but he hasn’t called Solomon your servant- </p><p>David’s heart must have slumped as he heard these words. He died with the pain of betrayal by Adonijah, Joab and Abiathar. It would be wrong to imagine him dying a happy man at peace. His life indeed had been full of such traumas ever since his sin of passion with Bathsheba. How bitterly he must have regretted it.</p>


text:
<p>You, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are on you, that you should tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him- </p><p>David apparently had not made any public pronouncement about his intentions for Solomon, although he had done so privately to Bathsheba and Nathan, the prophet who had first given him the promises about his "son". The lack of public pronouncement about his successor rather suggests that David had not at all decided Solomon should be king at this point. We therefore circumstantially have to disbelieve his subsequent claims in 1 Chron. 22-29 that God had specifically told him this at the time of the promises to him in 2 Sam. 7.</p>


text:
<p>Otherwise it will happen, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders- </p><p>Heb. "sinners". The idea may be that Bathsheba's marriage would be declared void because of David’s sin with her, and therefore Solomon pronounced an illegitimate son. David died with this reminder of that sin of passion which would have seemed so long ago, and, to the human mind, dealt with by the passage of time and the grief over Absalom. She fears that her sin with David may be raised against her as a reason why her son should not be king. The narrative is all about fear of possible consequences; Joab's support of the rebellion was likewise because he feared David may well kill him. And fear of possible futures accounts for so many sins.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, while she still talked with the king, Nathan the prophet came in-</p><p>Again, without invitation; David would have guessed this had all been set up. David makes no recorded response to Bathsheba's words, possibly because he was so frail (see on :16).  But probably more likely because he had not in fact made such a promise at least not on a serious, public level. Which gives the lie to his later claims in 1 Chron. 22-29 that God had told him that Solomon was to succeed him, and had even named Solomon as the promised seed at the time of the promises in 2 Sam. 7. </p>


text:
<p>They told the king, saying, Here is Nathan the prophet! When he had come in before the king, he bowed down before the king with his face to the ground- </p><p>Whilst this may have been mere formality, we do have the overall impression of deep respect towards David by his inner circle. They were mature enough to realize he had indeed been a man after God’s own heart, despite major failings which they accepted as out of character with him; and they did not focus upon those failures, but upon his overall life and character. And therefore respected him still very deeply. This is a good pattern for us in our attitudes to others. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p>Nathan said, My lord, king, have you said, ‘Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne?’- </p><p>Perhaps Adonijah was falsely claiming this, abusing his father’s frail state. Or maybe this was a device by Nathan to get the king to mutter some response, to provoke him to mental awareness in his weak state; see on :16,22.  Or quite possibly David had said this to Adonijah at some point, just as he apparently had made such a verbal promise to Bathsheba about Solomon. In which case we see his fickle ways, and his lack of integrity even to those nearest to him. And he dies with the consequences of it clearly before him. If only he had resigned as king and focused upon his future Messianic seed, all this argument about immediate succession would have been stillborn. </p>


text:
<p>For he is gone down this day, and has killed cattle and fatlings and sheep in abundance, and has called all the king’s sons, and the captains of the army, and Abiathar the priest. Even now they are eating and drinking before him and saying, ‘Long live king Adonijah!’-</p><p>To eat and drink before a king was a sign of support for him and his acceptance; and there is something of this in the meaning of the breaking of bread service.</p>


text:
<p>But he hasn’t called me, even me your servant, nor Zadok the priest, nor Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, nor your servant Solomon-</p><p>Nathan's respect of David comes out strongly- "me, even me your servant". See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Is this thing done by my lord the king, and you haven’t shown to your servants who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?-</p><p>Again this may be a device by Nathan to provoke the frail minded king to speak forth. Or perhaps indeed he had not openly stated his desire for Solomon to be king. "After him" again alludes to the promises about the "son" which Nathan had given David, and it seems he is again implying that David is to state now who is going to fulfil them. Again, as discussed on :13, their conditional nature is being ignored by everyone. And it led Solomon to do the same. The One who was promised to sit on David's throne "after him" was God's begotten Son, Messiah. But David has ceased perceiving those things about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.</p><p>
This can also be read as a genuine question: “Has this thing been brought about by my lord the king and you have not told your servants? Who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?”. Surely if David had publically stated that Solomon should reign after him, now would be the time for Nathan to remind him of that. But he doesn't. We can read it as a statement or question that implies David hadn't shown at that point who should sit on his throne. He had not at that point chosen the heir- even on his deathbed. This reflects a lack of real care for his family. Because it was all about him, David. </p><p>
According to 1 Chron. 22-29, David subsequently claims God told him that Solomon should be the next king, and that God made this clear to him, even naming Solomon, at the time of the promises given in 2 Sam. 7. The record is totally silent about this, and promises a future seed to reign on David's throne at a point after David's death and at his resurrection. If indeed David had declared Solomon as king previously, we would not expect Nathan's question or statement here [depending how we translate]. This is all tacit evidence that David was lying in his subsequent oft repeated claims (in 1 Chron. 22-29) that in fact God had told him that Solomon would be king after him, naming him by name before his birth. Rather is David fabricating God's word in order to go along with the manipulation of him by Bathsheba, who wanted her son Solomon to be the next king. This is a serious sin. David dies with it on his lips; yet by grace will still be saved. 
</p>


text:
<p>Then king David answered, Call to me Bathsheba. She came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king- </p><p>Perhaps Nathan left the room at this point (:32). "Call me Bathsheba" would have inevitably recalled to his mind how he had said those fateful words to his servants decades previously, and now he was still suffering the result of that sin.</p>


text:
<p>The king swore and said, As Yahweh lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity-</p><p>Earlier, David in the Psalms had so often asked God to redeem him, e.g. in <a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a>: "Draw near to my soul, and redeem it. Ransom me because of my enemies". God had already forgiven David, ransoming and redeeming him. But he was left to suffer the consequences of those sins, and because of that, in crisis he starts to wonder whether he has indeed been forgiven. And we can do the same so easily. The consequence of sin is death, and we can squirm against this when we or others face it... forgetting the wonder of the fact that we are indeed redeemed and ransomed from the power of the grave, although we must still take the consequences:&nbsp; At the very end of his life, David realized that he had in fact been redeemed (s:w. <a href='B:110 1:29'>1Ki 1:29</a>). He could give up his spirit to God in death, knowing that He was redeemed from the power of the grave (s:w. <a href='B:230 31:5'>Psa 31:5</a>; <a href='B:230 49:15'>Psa 49:15</a>). His sure hope in the resurrection of the body looked ahead to the attitude with which the Lord Jesus died.</p><p>These are the words of Jacob in <a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a> and also of David earlier, at <a href='B:100 4:9'>2Sa 4:9</a>. What Jacob only learnt at the end of his life, David learnt and applied during his life. And we should likewise not be experiential learners, but learn instead from Jacob:&nbsp;David stresses that Yahweh had redeemed him, and he had not needed to take vengeance himself. He repeats this in now; he was deeply aware of Yahweh's redemption of him by grace right to his last days.</p>


text:
<p>most certainly as I swore to you by Yahweh the God of Israel, saying, ‘Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne in my place;’ most certainly so will I do this day- </p><p>As discussed on :13, he wrongly assumes that he can pronounce Solomon as the fulfilment of the promises made to him. For he speaks in the language of the promises of 2 Samuel 7; and this refusal to accept their conditionality, and fulfilment by grace rather than his pronouncement, was what led Solomon to spiritual disaster in the longer term.</p><p>There is a tantalizing unclarity in the Hebrew behind "most certainly as I swore to you". It could as well be translated "If I indeed swore to you [that Solomon shall reign]... then so will I do". David's memory is functional, as he recalls the behaviour of Joab, Shimei etc. Yet David would appear unaware of promising Bathsheba that Solomon would reign. And it is never recorded in the Biblical record. This translation suggests Bathsheba in David's bedroom is manipulating him from her stronger position, just as he had done to her in the same bedroom years before. David dies powerless and being yet again deceived and manipulated, just as he did to Bathsheba and Uriah long ago. He hardly dies a glorious death, loved and adored by his family and people [in fact few of God's children died such a death, we think of Paul]. It was perhaps God's last ditch effort to lead him to fuller repentance even on his death bed. Truly God works with every man right up to his last breath.</p>


text:
<p>Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and showed respect to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live forever!- </p><p>To say this to a man on his deathbed is perhaps consciously intended to show the meaningless nature of this common phrase. Bathsheba presents as giving David meaningless respect. Likewise we note how Nathan and others bow to him and call him their "lord" when they were clearly manipulating him. Their respect was only on a surface level.</p>


text:
<p>King David said, Call to me Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. They came before the king- </p><p>Perhaps Nathan had left the bedroom when Bathsheba was summoned back (:28). Or perhaps this is yet another indication of the very weak mental state of David.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon-</p><p>The first mention of mules in the Bible is associated with Absalom's murder of Amnon his brother (<a href='B:100 13:29'>2Sa 13:29</a>). They were cross bred in disobedience to <a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a>. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God’s laws can just be ignored. David was fond of them, having his own mule (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>), and Solomon was willing to receive them as tribute (<a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>). Yet David boasts in Psalm 119 of how he studies God's law all the day and loves obedience to it... </p><p>
Anointing as king by a spring was in order to declare that the king and his line would reign eternally just as water keeps spouting from a spring. In this we see David's lack of faith and willful misunderstanding of the promises to him. His kingship and line would only be eternal through the Lord Jesus and not in terms of an eternal line of Kings in unbroken succession from David.
</p>


text:
<p>Let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel. Blow the trumpet, and say, ‘Long live king Solomon!’-</p><p>This anointing ought to have been done earlier, as it was with David. We wonder whether David had some slight doubts about Solomon's suitability, hence his lack of public pronouncement about Solomon being his chosen successor. Or perhaps David just wanted to hold on to personal power to the bitter end, and hadn't wanted to appoint anyone in his place through a public proclamation. There had not yet been any anointing or trumpet blowing for Adonijah, so this was in order to upstage that happening.</p><p>Saul and David were anointed on God's command. David had Solomon anointed at his own initiative, in a mistaken attempt to make Solomon the Christ. "Long live Solomon" may be an attempt to apply the promise of David's eternal seed to Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Then you shall come up after him- </p><p>Just as men had followed after Adonijah (:7).</p><p>And he shall come and sit on my throne; for he shall be king in my place. I have appointed him to be prince over Israel and over Judah- </p><p>On one hand we could read the usage of the word "prince" as reflecting how Yahweh was the ultimate king of Israel. Or we could read it as reflecting David’s dogged desire, typical of an old man, to hold on to his own kingly power until his last breath. Or we could see it as a Messianic term, as it is in <a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>, again showing that David thought he could make Solomon the fulfilment of the promises of a Messianic seed just by pronouncing it from his deathbed- ignoring all the conditional clauses which accompanied those promises.</p><p>Sitting upon David's throne is another allusion to the promises of 2 Sam. 7 which David is trying to force into a fulfilment in Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king and said, Amen. May Yahweh, the God of my lord the king, say so too-</p><p>This is a clear example of the meaning of the word "Amen". It is a statement that we believe in faith that God also wills to be so what we have said Amen to. His "Amen" is therefore our "Amen". There is a similar example in <a href='B:300 28:6'>Jer 28:6</a>. Benaiah is effectively asking that God confirm David's attempt to force fulfilment of God's will in terms of Solomon. The way he says "May Yahweh..." suggests perhaps that he is not aware of any Divine word about this, but he wishes that it "may" be so. </p>


text:
<p>As Yahweh has been with my lord the king, even so may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord king David-</p><p>Benaiah too is alluding to the promises to David, and stating his belief that they are to be fulfilled through Solomon- again ignoring all the conditional clauses which accompanied those promises. "So may He be" is Heb. "so shall He be". Having a throne greater than David again alludes to the promises of 2 Sam. 7 which Benaiah wanted to see coming true in Solomon.     </p>


text:
<p>So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites, went down and caused Solomon to ride on king David’s mule, and brought him to Gihon- </p><p>"Pelethite" is arguably a form of the word "Philistine". There is a theme in David’s life of his former enemies, even Gentiles against whom he had fought and slain their families, became his most loyal supporters and servants, right to the end of his days. This loyalty is a reflection not only of their respect of his personal integrity, despite some out of character failures; but especially of their conversion to Yahweh, David’s God.</p>


text:
<p>Zadok the priest took the horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. They blew the trumpet; and all the people said, Long live king Solomon!- </p><p>The horn of oil refers to the specific horn from which the holy anointing oil was poured upon the priests. Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (<a href='B:130 16:39'>1Ch 16:39</a>; <a href='B:110 3:4'>1Ki 3:4</a>), and so it is another example of correlation within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil with which to anoint Solomon (<a href='B:110 1:39'>1Ki 1:39</a>). Using this oil to anoint a king would therefore have presented Solomon as a king-priest.</p><p>The oil was from the tent of meeting, which was only used to anoint priests. This is an attempt to declare Solomon a king-priest. But this was done totally of human initiative and proved a failure because Solomon turned to idols. </p>


text:
<p>All the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth shook with their sound- </p><p>We can assume that there was mass popular support for Solomon, far greater than for Adonijah. And yet Adonijah says that all Israel were looking for him to be king: "the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign" (1 Kings 2:15). We see again the fickleness of the people, reflective of their dissatisfaction with the leadership options before them.  </p>


text:
<p>Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they finished eating. When Joab heard the sound of the trumpet he said, Why is this noise of the city being in an uproar?-</p><p>The feast would have taken some days; for the horn of priestly anointing oil had to be fetched from Gibeon (:39).</p>


text:
<p>While he yet spoke, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came: and Adonijah said, Come in; for you are a worthy man, and bring good news-</p><p>The record here repeats the coming in of messengers to David earlier in this chapter. Despite his revolt against his father David, he perhaps unconsciously repeats his father’s very words as he awaited news of the battle with Absalom. He could not ultimately throw off the ties that bind. We note that Jonathan had earlier run messages for David in the time of Absalom's revolt (<a href='B:100 17:17'>2Sa 17:17</a>); now he does so for Adonijah, and was perceived as a "worthy man", on Adonijah's side. All these things have the ring of psychological credibility to them. This is how life goes.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan answered Adonijah, Most certainly our lord king David has made Solomon king- </p><p>The hint could be that "most certainly" he did carry good news, that Solomon had been made king. Already even the messenger was seeking to cover himself against the inevitable repercussions of a failed power grab. Hence he calls David "our lord king David".</p>


text:
<p>The king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and they have caused him to ride on the king’s mule- </p><p>Jonathan is careful to report things exactly as they were and as had observed them in Jerusalem. He is bravely giving no intimation of continued loyalty to Adonijah and his own father Abiathar who was his main support.</p>


text:
<p>Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon. They have come up from there rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that you have heard- </p><p>Again we see that there was mass popular support for David’s choice of Solomon, and not so much for Adonijah.</p>


text:
<p>Also, Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom- </p><p>Solomon had literally been sat upon David’s throne, and Jonathan had seen it.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the king’s servants came to bless our lord king David saying, ‘May your God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and make his throne greater than your throne’; and the king bowed himself on the bed- </p><p>Again "our lord king David" shows that Jonathan's loyalties were now with David and Solomon again. The fickleness of human loyalty is a great theme of the records of David’s life.</p>


text:
<p>Also thus said the king, ‘Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, who has given one to sit on my throne this day, my eyes even seeing it’- </p><p>These words of David aren't recorded but there is no reason to doubt Jonathan's account of them. Those words are clearly allusive to the promises in 2 Samuel 7 that David’s eyes would see his Messianic son / seed enthroned, implying David’s resurrection. LXX adds "one of my seed", confirming this. But David instead assumed that they were true in his lifetime, and that Solomon was indeed the Messianic seed promised. David has strayed far from the things of God's Kingdom and the Lord Jesus; he clearly wishes to present Solomon as the fulfilment of the Divine seed, rather than accepting this was to be a Divinely begotten seed who would come after he had slept with his fathers. David became wedded to his own obsessive narrative rather than to what God's word had plainly said. A warning to us all. By this wrong assumption, David was ignoring the conditional aspects to the promises- that Solomon had to prove himself obedient to Yahweh. By doing so, David set Solomon up for spiritual failure, through merely assuming his acceptability to God regardless of his lifestyle; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>All the guests of Adonijah were afraid, and rose up, and each man went his way-</p><p>Again we see the fickleness of human loyalty, which is such a great theme of the records of David’s life.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah feared because of Solomon; and he arose, and went, and caught hold on the horns of the altar-</p><p>He must have somehow smuggled himself into the sanctuary, otherwise he would have been arrested and charged with treason well beforehand. He was treating the altar as a kind of talisman, just as the surrounding religions did. The horns of the altar were smeared with the blood of atonement (<a href='B:20 29:12'>Exo 29:12</a>; <a href='B:20 30:10'>Exo 30:10</a>), so he may have been assuming that he would somehow get forgiveness by doing this.  The allusion is clearly to Ex. 21:12-14: "One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death, but not if it is unintentional, but God allows it to happen: then I will appoint you a place where he shall flee. If a man schemes and comes presumptuously on his neighbour to kill him, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die". Adonijah hadn't killed anyone, although Nathan and Bathsheba claim he was scheming to kill Solomon and Bathsheba (:12,21). To use the horns of the altar in this way was therefore somewhat out of context, almost defying Solomon to desecrate the altar with the blood of a slain man. </p><p>
However we could read the allusion to Ex. 21:12-14 as Adonijah claiming his innocence, as if he had been falsely accused of murder- and I have suggested that quite possibly Bathsheba and Nathan did this, or at least accused him of intending to murder Solomon and Bathsheba. They did this in order to manipulate David to put Solomon on the throne. He had truly assumed that he would be king as he was next in line (see on :5, he asserts that he will in future be king but doesn't usurp David). There is no record of David ever having told him that he would not succeed to the throne. And I have argued that there had been no Divine word about Solomon being king or at least it had never been publicized. All Israel expected Adonijah to be king. And Solomon tacitly accepts this when he reminds his mother that Adonijah is after all his older brother. This raises the possibility that Nathan, Bathsheba and Zadok, and then David, are being less that fair to Adonijah. </p><p>
I suggested that Adonijah was not wrong to assume he as the remaining firstborn would be the next king. He fled to the altar because he felt Nathan and Bathsheba had wrongly accused him of intending to murder Solomon and Bathsheba. Joab likewise flees to the altar because he too is persuaded that he has killed nobody in order for Solomon to seek to kill him. Neither Adonijah nor Joab would have fled to the horns of the altar unless they believed they were innocent and would thereby be saved. They would have run away far from Solomon. Instead they run to the horns of the altar and remain there, a sitting target for Solomon. I suggest they both only did this because they were convinced of their innocence of murder, and that therefore Bathsheba's claim to David that Adonijah was likely to murder herself and Solomon was just manipulative- she wanted her son Solomon to be king, not Adonijah. It all presents a sad picture of deceit and low moral fibre in all concerned. 
</p>


text:
<p>It was told Solomon saying, Behold, Adonijah fears king Solomon; for, behold, he has laid hold on the horns of the altar, saying, ‘Let king Solomon swear to me first that he will not kill his servant with the sword’- </p><p>The idea was that if God had atoned for his sin of rebellion (see on :50), then Solomon should not carry out the death penalty. The whole process of reasoning was very twisted, and are in fact the words of an equally twisted Jacob to Esau in <a href='B:10 25:31'>Gen 25:31</a>; <a href='B:10 25:33'>Gen 25:33</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon said, If he shows himself a worthy man, not a hair of him shall fall to the earth; but if wickedness be found in him, he shall die- </p><p>Solomon is intentionally vague. Not a hair falling to the earth could be read as meaning that an intended punishment would not be carried out (<a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>; <a href='B:100 14:11'>2Sa 14:11</a>). "But if wickedness be found..." could be read as meaning 'If there is any more of this in future', or 'We will investigate the matter by judgment and the just penalty will be given in future'.</p>


text:
<p>So king Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. He came and bowed down to king Solomon; and Solomon said to him, Go to your house-</p><p>This was not real forgiveness, because Solomon evidently considered it not politic to immediately slay Adonijah, but that was his intention. Perhaps he was reasoning that Adonijah's support base would be encouraged to repent if they saw that they were not going to all be slain. And Solomon probably didn’t feel he had the political strength at that point to slay men like Joab and Abiathar. And we must examine our own apparent forgiveness of others, to determine whether it is really just a matter of politics and prudence rather than true forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>Now the days of David drew near that he should die; and he commanded Solomon his son saying- </p><p>According to Josephus (Antiquities 7:14,7) the events of 1 Chronicles 28, 29 happened in the interval between the first anointing of Solomon and the death of David.  I would argue that the events related in 1 Chron. 22–29 had occurred between 1 Kings 1 and 2. The final events in David's life reveal all concerned to be egocentric, devious, manipulative, and yet also naïve, impulsive, and vulnerable. This is exactly what it is to be human. We have human nature here displayed... in a totally psychologically credible way.</p>


text:
<p>I am going the way of all the earth- </p><p>This is quoting the words of Joshua, as do the second part of the verse. David has Joshua in mind because he considers that Solomon is going to now inherit the Kingdom.</p><p>Be strong therefore, and show yourself a man- </p><p>As noted above, this is the language of Joshua (<a href='B:50 31:7'>Deu 31:7</a>; <a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a>; <a href='B:60 1:6-7'>Jos 1:6-7</a>). See on :3. "Show yourself a man" may refer to the fact Solomon was very young (<a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>) and needed to quickly act as an adult.</p><p>David seems to have theoretically recognized that the building of the temple was conditional on Solomon's spirituality, but he overlooked this in his enthusiasm for Solomon to be the Messiah, who may be the reference of "a man". He tells Solomon to show himself a man, and goes on in :4 to speak of how “a man” would eternally reign on his Messianic throne. He was encouraging Solomon to be and act like Messiah. Psalms 127 is "For Solomon" (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a> "beloved" = Heb. Jedidah), and warns him that his labour for the temple will be in vain unless God&nbsp;builds it. The Psalm basically says that God will build Solomon a house in the sense of a family centred in the beloved seed who would die [“sleep”] to enable it; and therefore Solomon should not be so sweating himself day and night to build God a house / temple. This is the very message which God had given David earlier. David and Solomon evidently shelved their knowledge of the fact that Heaven is God’s dwelling place. It would seem that Solomon particularly was guilty of a false humility; there is a gross contradiction within his words of <a href='B:140 6:2'>2Ch 6:2</a>; <a href='B:140 6:18'>2Ch 6:18</a>: "I have built an house of habitation for thee, and a place for thy dwelling for ever... But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built?". This is one of several hints that Solomon felt that the full fulfilment of the Davidic promises was to be found in him (cp. <a href='B:140 6:10'>2Ch 6:10</a>). He failed to look forward to the spirit of Christ, instead becoming obsessed with the achievement of his own works. He was largely encouraged in this by David, who seems to have felt that Solomon was the Messiah figure the promises spoke about. Thus Psalms 72 is dedicated to Solomon, and yet it speaks clearly of the messianic Kingdom. In the same way as David came to misquote and misapply the promises God made to him, Solomon did likewise. God told David that He did not want a physical house, because He had never commanded this to be done at any time in the past. Solomon misquotes this in <a href='B:140 6:5-6'>2Ch 6:5-6</a> to mean that God had never asked for a physical house in the past, but now he had asked David’s son to build such a house in Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>and keep the instruction of Yahweh your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances and His testimonies, according to what is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do, and wherever you turn yourself- </p><p>In <a href='B:240 29:14'>Pro 29:14</a> “The king that faithfully judges the poor, his throne shall be established for ever”, Solomon is clearly referring to the promises to David, which he assumed were about him. He thought that because he had judged the poor harlots wisely, therefore he would be the promised Messiah. And this was just what David his father had hoped and expected of him. David had even asked Solomon to “do wisely” i:e. to show wisdom, in order that the promises to him about Messiah would be fulfilled (<a href='B:110 2:3'>1Ki 2:3</a> RVmg:). So this was surely one of Solomon’s motives in giving them justice and being ‘wise’; he sought to live out his father’s expectations and to fulfil the requirements of the Messiah figure.</p><p>"That you may prosper" is s:w. "to make one wise" (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>). David’s desire was that Solomon would be "wise" just as David had been "wise / prospered" (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:90 18:14-15'>1Sa 18:14-15</a>), and so Solomon asked God for wisdom and wanted to be wise. But his subsequent life showed this was because he wanted to live out parental expectation rather than be personally wise. And so he later turned away from that wisdom in his personal life. The language of prospering continues the Joshua allusions (see on :2; <a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This is so that Yahweh may establish His word which He spoke concerning me saying, ‘If your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you’, He said, ‘a man on the throne of Israel’- </p><p>The "He said..." again shows us that David is reporting God's words, claiming this is what God said. But as discussed earlier, 2 Sam. 24 were the last prophetic words of David by Divine revelation. His various claims as to what God said about Solomon in 1 Chron. 23-29 are all reported by him, claimed by him, and in fact contradict what God actually said in 2 Sam. 7. David wanted Solomon to be that "man" (:2). Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn’t preserve or observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God’s ways, and replacing David his father’s simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p><p>Another example of Solomon misquoting God is in <a href='B:140 6:6'>2Ch 6:6</a>. Solomon claims that God said: “I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there”. God had chosen no resting place, although it would have been politically convenient for Solomon if the city of Jerusalem as a city was where God had chosen to dwell. And so he kept thinking that way until he persuaded himself that in fact this was what God had said. David had charged Solomon with the words which he claimed God had spoken to him about Solomon: “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul” (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>). But Solomon subtly changes this when he reminds God of how He had supposedly told David: “There shall not fail thee a man to sit on the throne of Israel; so that they children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me” (<a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a>). Two things become apparent here:</p><p>-&nbsp;The conditionality of the promise to David about Solomon is totally overlooked:&nbsp; “If thy children…” becomes “so that…”, with the implication that David would always have descendants on the throne who would walk obediently before God. The possibility of personal failure had been removed by Solomon from his own perception of God.</p><p>-&nbsp;God’s desire that Solomon should “walk before me in truth” was changed to “walk before me as thou [David] hast walked before me”. This defined walking before God personally as having the relationship with God which your father had. And so often we have made the same mistake. The call to personally follow the Lord has become displaced by a following Him through others.</p><p>Notice how Solomon says these words to God Himself. Solomon had persuaded himself that this truly was what God had asked of David and himself, and so he comes out with these words to God.</p><p>There was no sense in Solomon that he might have the possibility of failure, of rejection by God. The promises to David were conditional- David pointed this out to Solomon in <a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>: "If thy children take heed to their way...". But Solomon misquotes this in <a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a>: "Now therefore, O LORD, the God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that which thou hast promised him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way to walk before me as thou hast walked before me". Some translations offer paraphrases of the difficult "so that" phrase. But there's no getting around it. Solomon is saying 'Give me what you promised me, without conditions, so that I will fulfil those conditions... it's not possible for anyone to fulfil those conditions unless you first give them what you conditionally promised'. The logic is all upside down, and is very demanding upon God, implying that any failure to "take heed to the way" would be because God hadn't given what He promised. It's a telling insight into Solomon's mind. It was all about him, rather than all about God and glorifying Him.</p><p>Note that all this happened at the very start of Solomon's reign; it seems to me that he was always on the wrong track, rather than as it were 'going wrong' later on.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover you know also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me and what he did to the two captains of the armies of Israel, to Abner the son of Ner, and to Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war on his sash that was about his waist, and in his shoes that were on his feet- </p><p>The only person in David’s life whose belt is noted is Joab (<a href='B:100 20:8'>2Sa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:110 2:5'>1Ki 2:5</a>). But <a href='B:230 109:8'>Psa 109:8</a>; <a href='B:230 109:19'>Psa 109:19</a> wish curses upon the man who was well known for his belt. See notes there for the extent of David’s anger with Joab and his desire for the man's condemnation because of it- even though David was not himself perfect:&nbsp;Solomon's comment that Joab shed the blood of war in peace, perhaps meaning 'in the name of peace', may allude to how Joab killed Amasa whilst asking him whether "Is all well with you?", using the word shalom, "peace".</p><p>We see David's narcissism even at this final point in his life. He considers Joab had done evil "to me". Joab had in fact preserved David on his throne multiple times. But all that 'good' was forgotten beneath David's obsession with what he considered was 'evil' done to him. He also overlooks the fact that the murders of Abner and Amasa were [especially in Abner's case] for the good of David. I noted on 1 Kings 1 that it was effectively Joab who had led Israel in battle rather than David; and to lead the people in battle was the definition of what it was to be king of Israel. David dies with unbridled jealousy, leading him in his mind to turn a friend into a foe, to turn good into evil. What "evil" had Joab done David? He had told him the hard home truth that his soppy obsession for his worthless son Absalom would cost him his throne. He had backed Adonijah as future king rather than Solomon. But that was not "evil" to David. Or we can translate: "You know also what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me, how he dealt with the two commanders of the armies of Israel". David sees Joab's "evil" to him in slaying Abner and Amasa. But Joab was without doubt the best army commander David could have wished for. But as the classic narcissist, David wants to personalize this as if it had been done to him personally. And the irony is that Joab's murders of Abner and Amasa, especially of Abner, likely solidified David's power and despite Joab's personal motives for the murders, he was effectively establishing David in power. But David doesn't want to see that.</p><p>
We can read 'what Joab did to me' as David believing that the guilt for the blood of Amasa and Abner had been wrongly placed on him by Joab. David thus takes his false narrative about Joab yet further. Solomon bought into this when he tells Benaiah to "fall upon him [Joab] and bury him, and turn aside from me and from my father’s house the innocent blood that he has shed" (:31,32). The reasoning was that actually David had been falsely counted guilty of the blood of Amasa and Abner, and that could only be removed by the blood of Joab being shed. This of itself is false spiritual logic, because God would not count Solomon and his descendants guilty for supposed murders by David which David was genuinely innocent of. David overlooks that he was actually guilty of the blood of Uriah and the other soldiers. And that guilt had been removed by grace and not by any blood sacrifice. If that wonderful truth had remained his guiding light, he would not have expanded his false narrative about the "need" for Joab's blood to atone for his supposed guilt. And David ought to have learnt by this point in his life that the only blood guilt worth worrying about is that which God counts against a person. If others thought that David had been behind the murders of Abner and Amasa, that was their problem and the only thing that mattered was whether God counted David as guilty. In all this, David shows how far he has gone from the David of the penitential psalms. In Ps. 51:14 he prays "Deliver me from blood guiltiness, O God". He realizes he is saved from blood guilt by God's grace alone, and not by sacrifice, let alone the blood of Joab. But now at his end, he has pretty much cancelled all those lessons he had learnt. Earlier at the time Joab murdered Abner, David publically stated " 'I and my kingdom are forever guiltless ... for the blood [of Abner]" (2 Sam. 3:28). It could be argued that Joab killed Abner as permitted blood revenge for Abner's murder of his brother Asahel. And Abner was likely a threat to David at the time; and likely Amasa too, who strangely delays or fails to gather an army with which to put down Sheba's rebellion. Joab's murders were in support of David. But now he presents his political, ungrateful, faithless scheming to Solomon as "your wisdom" (:6), “you are a wise man; you will know what to do” (:9). It was nothing of the sort, despite David framing it against his command that Solomon be obedient to God's law (:2-4). There is a sharp and intended contrast between David's spiritual appeal in :2-4 and the harsh, unspiritual material which follows in the next verses. Justice was to be the characteristic of Israel's king (Dt. 17:17-20) and yet David shows no justice in his commands about Joab and Shimei, and sets up Solomon to be unjust. It all set Solomon up for spiritual failure. It would require him to perceive that his father's wisdom was not at all wisdom. And that is hard for any son whom his parents have set up in power.
David says that Joab "killed, and shed the blood of war in peace", he killed men who thought they were at peace with him. Yet this is exactly what David had done to Uriah and the other soldiers killed to cover up Uriah's murder. He dies with no sense of conviction for his sin against Uriah, hypocritically judging and condemning others to the death penalty which he himself had been spared from by grace. Earlier David had thanked God for His forgiveness of David, triumphing that God had brought him up from the grave, rather than allowing him to be brought down to it: "Yahweh, You have brought up my soul from Sheol. You have kept me alive, that I should not be brought down to the pit" (Ps. 30:3). But now he wants to bring others down to the grave. We have a powerful warning not to forget grace and forgiveness shown to us, and to live humbled by it literally all our days, and not just for a few days at the time. </p><p>
David is also arguing that just as Joab had murdered men he was apparently at peace with, so he might murder Solomon. And to just remove that possibility, he commands Solomon to take the initiative and kill Joab. Or he could be saying that as Joab has murdered two previous army commanders, he may also now murder Benaiah, whom Solomon appointed army commander (:35). Again, we see fear of possible consequence leading to murder, as it does so often in homicides today. But faith is the opposite of fear... and David appears to have little of it.
</p>


text:
<p>Do therefore according to your wisdom, and don’t let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace- </p><p>Solomon alludes to this in <a href='B:240 19:5'>Pro 19:5</a>; <a href='B:240 19:9'>Pro 19:9</a>: "A false witness shall not be unpunished; he who utters lies shall perish". See on :5. Solomon is alluding to his father David’s parting commandments to him to destroy all the opposition to him (<a href='B:110 2:6'>1Ki 2:6</a>; <a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). So whilst what Solomon writes is true, he is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p><p>Joab was David’s cousin, who had shown David a lifetime of loyalty. But we sense a personality conflict between the two of them, and indeed it seems that originally Joab had supported Absalom's idea of seizing power, but then fell out with him; and he supported Adonijah's. David held Joab as too hard a man, not understanding grace; whereas Joab held David to be far too soft, and increasingly lacking strong leadership skills in his old age. The support for Adonijah was perhaps more because of disillusion with David than because Adonijah personally had much to offer. Yet to order his death seems to me absolutely lacking in grace.</p>


text:
<p>But show kindness to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those who eat at your table; for so they came to me when I fled from Absalom your brother- </p><p>On balance, over a lifetime, Joab had shown David far more kindness than Barzillai. So it is so sad that David, who had experienced so much grace, at the end of his life was so lacking in it and so short termist in his view. After Solomon's ascension, there was judgment and reward; in the form of being able to eat at his table (<a href='B:110 2:7'>1Ki 2:7</a> cp. <a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:10'>2Sa 9:10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:28'>2Sa 19:28</a>):&nbsp; After Christ's return, the reward is to break bread with Him (<a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a>; <a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a>). Breaking bread with Him now is a sign of joyful fellowship with Him in anticipation of that; it shouldn’t therefore be a scary, worrying experience.</p><p>We note the inconsistency in David's reasoning. David had been saved from Absalom's revolt by Joab, whom he now commanded to be slain. But now he asks that Barzillai be rewarded for helping him with a nice meal at that time. There is no justice here, and justice was to be the characteristic of Israel's king (Dt. 17:17-20).</p>


text:
<p>Behold, there is with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjamite of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim; but he came down to meet me at the Jordan, and I vowed to him by Yahweh saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword’- </p><p>David had told Shimei "You will not die" (2 Sam. 19:23). But just as he twists God's promises to him, so he now again plays with words by iterating this as "I will not put you to death with the sword". As if his emphasis had been upon the word "I". David would not, but Solomon could. Yet his promise was "You will not die". Again we see David twisting the narrative to his own advantage [as he perceived it] and misquoting and twisting words. We note how David breaks his oath to Shimei, but all so as to keep his supposed [unrecorded] oath to Bathsheba that Solomon should reign. His morality and justice was highly selective.</p><p>David earlier forgave Shimei for cursing him. But he tells Solomon to bring down that old man’s white hairs to the grave with blood on them- a crude image for the murder of an old man (:9). And he uses the same awful turn of phrase to ask Solomon to do this also to his lifelong friend Joab (<a href='B:110 2:6'>1Ki 2:6</a>; <a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). Surely grace would’ve found another way? He was therefore barred from building the temple because of the amount of blood he had shed (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</p><p>David graciously overlooked Shimei's cursing, promising him that he would not die because of it (<a href='B:100 16:10-11'>2Sa 16:10-11</a>; <a href='B:100 19:23'>2Sa 19:23</a>). But he didn’t keep up that level of grace to the end: he later asked Solomon to ensure that Shimei&nbsp; was killed for that incident (<a href='B:110 2:8-9'>1Ki 2:8-9</a>). And one wonders whether it was Shimei’s words which so broke David’s heart that he later wrote: “Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man…as he loved cursing, so let it come unto him; as he delighted not in blessing, so may it be far from him. He clothed himself also with cursing as with a garment…” (<a href='B:230 109:16-18'>Psa 109:16-18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore don’t hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man- </p><p>This was not at all "wisdom". It was secular, not spiritual wisdom. Possibly Solomon's request to God for true wisdom was so thrilling to God because it reflected a tacit acceptance that his father's "wisdom" was not at all wise. And possibly his request for wisdom might reflect some regret for his murders of Joab and Shimei on his father's say so, cloaked as "wisdom".</p><p> It&nbsp;is&nbsp;significant&nbsp;that Solomon's&nbsp; spiritual life&nbsp; has&nbsp; more appearance&nbsp;of&nbsp;spirituality&nbsp;the closer we get back to David’s death:&nbsp;David had asked for wisdom (<a href='B:230 119:34'>Psa 119:34</a>), and even Solomon’s request for wisdom can be seen as rooted in a desire to live out parental expectation more than purely from his own volition. For David had told him: “You are a wise man” (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>), and Solomon wanted to live up to that expectation. In&nbsp; other words, David’s influence was extremely strong, but&nbsp; it&nbsp; decreased over the years. Yet even at the end, Solomon’s wisdom stayed with him in that some aspects of his upbringing stayed with him- he could never escape from it. When he says that he has never found a truly wise woman, but he did know one wise man (<a href='B:250 7:28'>Ecc 7:28</a>) he may well have had David in mind.</p><p>And you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down to Sheol with blood- </p><p>Solomon alludes to this in <a href='B:240 21:11'>Pro 21:11</a>: "When the mocker is punished, the simple gains wisdom. When the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge". This seems to be justifying David’s command for Solomon to punish the mocker Shimei, who had cursed him at the time of Absalom's rebellion. At the time, David had forgiven Shimei and forbidden his men to kill him. But at the end of his life, David didn’t maintain that level of grace, and commanded Solomon to ensure that he brought Shimei's grey hairs down to the grave with blood. And Solomon justified this collapse of forgiveness and grace by saying that it would give wisdom to others and instruct the wise.</p><p>Shimei was a wicked man who hated God’s servant David. God told him to curse David (<a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>). Afterwards, Shimei repents and acknowledges that by doing so he sinned (<a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a>). And although David recognized that God had told Shimei to curse him (<a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>), David tells Solomon not to hold Shimei "guiltless" for how he had cursed him (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). As with the evil spirit from Yahweh working upon Saul, a man is encouraged by God to do the sinful act in which he has set his heart.</p><p><a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a> had been David’s commentary about Shimei: "The trouble he causes shall return upon his own head, his violence shall come down on the crown of his own head". In the context of Shimei, whose cursing was the initial context of this Psalm (see on <a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a>), David sought himself to bring this about. He told Solomon to ensure that Shimei's head and grey hairs should be brought down with blood to the grave by him (<a href='B:110 2:8-9'>1Ki 2:8-9</a>). This unspiritual attitude of David was rooted in the way that at the earlier point, here in <a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a>, David rejoiced in the thought that Shimei would be condemned by God; and sets about to bring that condemnation about himself. This surely was a case of taking Divine judgment into his own hand in a way he should not have done, and quite overlooking the Divine desire for repentance (<a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David- </p><p>This idiom is clear evidence that the distinction in reward between good and evil people is not made at the point of death. Death is unconsciousness, and the eternal outcome of our lives will be at the resurrection and day of judgment.</p><p>There is a huge contradiction between the Bible later setting David as the gold standard of spirituality, and the historical record of David post Bathsheba. The contradiction is so laboured, so repeated and so huge that there has to be a point being made. And it surely is that God sees His beloved, His Davids, as wonderful. Because they are His beloved. And if they have a heart for him, despite all their major surface level weakness. It is apparently possible to have a heart for the Lord and yet still fail, in things great and small... And all this has huge meaning for we who are justified in Christ, declared to have His righteousness. David is a worked example of how this looks from God's side. Perhaps this is why in Chronicles we have such a sanitized view of David, omitting mention of his sin with Bathsheba and presenting him so positively- because this is how God saw him. Here are just some of the passages which set David as some gold standard of obedience, spirituality and devotion to Yahweh:
- Abijam: “His heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father” (1 Kings 15:3).
- Asa: “And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as David his father had done” (1 Kings 15:11).
- Amaziah: “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, yet not like David his father” (2 Kings 14:3).
- Ahaz: “And he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God, as his father David had done” (2 Kings 16:2).
- Hezekiah: “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done” (2 Kings 18:3).
- Josiah: “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (2 Kings 22:2)
- “Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father” (1 Kings 3:3). But later: "Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done” (1 Kings 11:4–6). "And if you will walk in My ways, keeping My statutes and My commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days” (1 Kings 3:14). “And as for you, if you will walk before Me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping My statutes and My ordinances, then I will establish your royal throne over Israel for ever, as I promised David your father” (1 Kings 9:4,5). 
- A similar conditional promise is made to Jeroboam: "If you will hearken to all that I command you, and will walk in My ways, and do what is right in My eyes by keeping My statutes and My commandments, as David My servant did, I will be with you, and will build you a sure house, as I built for David” (1 Kings 11:38). But later God tells Jeroboam: “I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you; and yet you have not been like My servant David, who kept My commandments, and followed Me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in My eyes” (1 Kings 14:8).
</p>


text:
<p>The days that David reigned over Israel were forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and he reigned thirty-three years in Jerusalem-</p><p>Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>); three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact:&nbsp; And <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.</p><p>We note there is no mention of any lament over David. Post Bathsheba, he was unpopular- and the many rebellions against his power each gained significant mass support, reflective of the disillusion of the masses with David. He died unloved, manipulated by those closest to him... </p>


text:
<p>Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established- </p><p>The language continues to allude to that of the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7. But the fulfilment of those promises was conditional; so we are being given here the impression which was externally given, and how Solomon himself perceived things. For Solomon and his kingdom were not the ultimate fulfilment of those promises. But God did establish his kingdom, and potentially enabled him to be that Messiah figure. And so his kingdom appears to be a type of that of the Lord Jesus. But in reality I would rather express it as saying that he was given the potential to have the Messianic kingdom, but only achieved a dim image of it.</p>


text:
<p>Then Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. She said, Do you come peaceably? He said, Peaceably- </p><p>She feared for her life, using the same term as in <a href='B:90 16:4'>1Sa 16:4</a>. We wonder why Adonijah would ask Bathsheba if he could marry Abishag. The fact he goes to her is a tacit reflection of the power Bathsheba had. She was a king maker. I suggested on 1 Kings 1 that she set up the situation between David and Abishag in order to prove David's impotence and thus disqualify him from actively reigning; instead pushing him thereby to make her son king. She presents as a powerful manipulator. And this influences our reading of her in the account of her adultery with David, where I suggested she was far from an innocent victim of power rape.</p>


text:
<p>He said moreover, I have something to tell you. She said, Say on- </p><p>He had come not only to ask for the hand of Abishag in marriage, but also to tell her something (:15). We can understand that Solomon therefore interpreted Adonijah's actions as a desire to usurp him.</p>


text:
<p>He said, You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign. However the kingdom is turned around, and has become my brother’s; for it was his from Yahweh- </p><p>This is a typical mixture of truth and untruth. Indeed the kingdom was Solomon's "from Yahweh" in that David had made that decision and sworn by Yahweh. It is however not so true that "all Israel" wanted him to be king, for when Solomon was pronounced king, there was ecstatic rejoicing amongst the people. And "the kingdom was mine" only in that he was the eldest surviving son of David; but being the eldest son didn’t at all mean that the throne was passed on to him, because kings typically chose one of their sons to reign rather than the throne passing automatically to the eldest son. And he quite overlooks the promises to David, which make being the true son of David conditional upon obedience to Yahweh. Adonijah is presumably quoting David's words "It was [Solomon's] from Yahweh", but I have elsewhere suggested that God didn't say this- this was merely David's claim. Adonijah clearly took it that way, for otherwise he wouldn't have tried to be king.</p>


text:
<p>Now I ask one petition of you. Don’t deny me. She said to him, Say on- </p><p>This again is manipulative. Perhaps "Say on" was too close to agreeing to grant a petition she had not yet heard; for perhaps from pride she asks Solomon to grant the petition, even though it was highly dubious.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Please speak to Solomon the king (for he will not tell you ‘no’), that he give me Abishag the Shunammite as wife- </p><p>Again Adonijah is playing with words and logic, arguing that Solomon cannot say no to his mother, and she cannot say no to him, Adonijah. Why did Adonijah want to marry Abishag? He surely knew it looked like a positioning of himself to unseat Solomon, which he had vowed not to do. The only obvious reason was sexual infatuation. Thus he followed his father's failure and lost his life for it. Possibly Bathsheba runs with his request because she foresees how her son Solomon would respond, and thus get rid of another possible competitor against her son.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba said, Alright. I will speak for you to the king- </p><p>Either she was naive, or she felt bound to ask because of her unwise response to him in :16. But I will later suggest she agrees to ask Solomon because she foresees Solomon's reaction, and wants to see the death of a potential rival to her son.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba therefore went to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. The king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself to her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand- </p><p>We sense here and in 1 Kings 1 the deep sense of respect for David and Bathsheba. Solomon speaks so highly of his mother in Proverbs, apparently modelling the "virtuous woman" of Proverbs 31 upon her. To sit on the right hand means to be second in command of power, so we can assume Bathsheba was a powerful political individual as David’s favourite surviving wife and mother of the son he had chosen as king.</p>


text:
<p>Then she said, I ask one small petition of you; don’t deny me. The king said to her, Ask on, my mother; for I will not deny you- </p><p>He repeats the same error she had made in :16, agreeing to a petition before knowing what it was. This seems a theme the Bible likes to raise, for we think of king Darius with Daniel, and Herod and the daughter of Herodias. She considers it a "small petition", but it was a very large petition because of its major political ramifications, which Solomon immediately perceived. We wonder therefore whether she was being simply naive rather than feeling railroaded because of her response in :16. </p><p>Bathsheba here comes over as manipulative. She makes a request with huge political implications, but passes it off to her son as 'just a small thing'. We wonder whether Abishag was under Bathsheba's control and manipulation. There is ample evidence from surrounding nations that the queen mother controlled the king's harem and it is in my view quite possible that Bathsheba was doing this with Abishag. I suggested on 2 Sam. 11 that Bathsheba may well have been far from an innocent victim in her affair with David. There likely was an element of manipulation in her, and this comes out clearly in her attitude to Abishag and getting her son Solomon declared the next king. Again we get the impression of an impotent David, unloved and surrounded on his death bed by people who were using and manipulating him, developing their own agendas regarding what would happen after his death. That loneliness at the end was surely to propel him towards final trust in God and His promises to David. And lonely final years and emotionally hard deaths are used by the Father to teach men the same lesson to this day.</p>


text:
<p>She said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as wife- </p><p>Perhaps she thought that Adonijah's only motive was his desire to marry a beauty queen. But as suggested on <a href='B:110 1:1'>1Ki 1:1</a>, Abishag was more than a carer for a man in a geriatric ward. She had had intimate sexual contact with David, although he had not succeeded in achieving intercourse with her. He was therefore to be considered as at least one of his concubines, and whoever married her was thereby strengthening their connection with David’s throne. The Hebrew is "Abishag... shall be given to Adonijah"; this and her description of this as a "small" favour (:20) again reveal Bathsheba as manipulative. Quite possibly Bathsheba is doing all this with some irony. She foresees her son's reaction and is in fact setting up Adonijah to be slain. Possibly she actually creates the whole story. It was after all in her interests to have the rightful claimant to the throne murdered, and her son Solomon thereby more firmly established as king.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon answered his mother, Why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah- </p><p>Solomon may well have been correct. But there is also the possibility that he wildly extrapolated from the fact Adonijah wanted to marry thus beautiful woman, and refused to give him credit for accepting that Solomon rather than himself was Yahweh's choice for the throne (:15). And from that, Solomon creates a conspiracy theory about Joab and Abiathar. He had threatened Adonijah that he had as it were a suspended death sentence which would be triggered if he committed any more "wickedness" (<a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a>). Adonijah's motives are left intentionally unclear in the record, to provoke our reflection. Whatever, it seems to me that Solomon was eager to perceive Adonijah as having broken the conditions of <a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a> so that he could kill him.</p><p>We may well ask: "Why does Solomon first promise to grant his mother's request, then attack her for making it, then switch his wrath to Adonijah?". Perhaps it all contributes to the overall impression of fickleness and people acting without principle. And also there is a theme here of people's behaviour being on one hand shrewd and on the other most unwise. Why did Bathsheba agree to Adonijah's request? Why did Adonijah even think of so quickly trying to position himself as Solomon's rival, when he has just been spared from death by Solomon and has sworn loyalty to him? This is all psychologically credible. We are being given the impression of a court family plagued by weakness, instability and unwisdom. </p>


text:
<p>Then king Solomon vowed by Yahweh saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life- </p><p>If Adonijah realized how Solomon would react, he surely wouldn't have gone ahead as he did in trying to marry Abishag. And as noted on :14-17, his reasoning was less than honest and deceitful, but again, we could put this down to his simple desire to marry the beautiful Abishag. It seems a rather strict interpretation of <a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a> to claim that the request for Abishag was "wickedness". We note that Solomon is going totally on the words of Bathsheba reporting what she says Adonijah said. He makes no effort to hear Adonijah's side of the story, and his murder of Adonijah for this reported request seems totally wrong. Likewise Benaiah was wrong for operationalizing it.  Solomon has come out of nowhere in 1 Kings 1, propelled to the throne by Bathsheba, and then his father David falling for that and making all kinds of false claims in 1 Chron. 22-29 about how God had in fact long ago named Solomon as next king. Solomon is set up as a man who was propelled to power in a putsch orchestrated by his mother, taking the throne from Adonijah. And who begins his reign with very poor, unspiritual behaviour. This sets the path; for after the account of his glory and apparent wisdom, we will then learn that he has no heart for God and turns away to idols, in one of the greatest cases of spiritual failure in the pages of Scripture.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore as Yahweh lives, who has established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as He promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death this day- </p><p>David’s belief that Psalms 72 applied totally to Solomon would have encouraged him Solomon to feel that the fact that he was the great Son of David and had had the promises made to him justified all his actions. This is an example. For as discussed on :22,23, his desire to murder Adonijah was not on any very Biblical basis from the law of Moses. The seed to be eternally established upon David's throne was one to be born after David slept with his fathers, and would be a Divinely begotten son. Solomon fulfilled neither of these requirements.</p><p>"Established" is the word used in the promises of the eternal establishment of David’s throne (<a href='B:100 7:12-13'>2Sa 7:12-13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a> etc:), and Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a> s:w:). Solomon's contenders for the throne were all stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>; <a href='B:110 1:5'>1Ki 1:5</a>); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents in Proverbs between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.</p><p>He felt that God “has made me an house, as he promised” to David. He felt that he was the fulfillment of the promises, and therefore the Kingdom had come; he failed to be awed by the greatness of the Christ to come, and abstracted and reduced His coming Kingdom into an effective nothingness. By doing so, he totally overlooked the highly conditional nature of the promises, and forgot his own proneness to failure, and the weakness of his nature. He failed to meditate upon the promises beyond what they seemed to offer him in the here and now; and the result was that he felt they were totally fulfilled in him (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24'>1Ki 8:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon sent by Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell on him, so that he died- </p><p>Benaiah must now have been an old man, so perhaps he arranged the murder through a proxy.</p>


text:
<p>To Abiathar the priest the king said, Go to Anathoth, to your own fields; for you are worthy of death. But I will not at this time put you to death, because you carried the ark of the Lord Yahweh before David my father, and because you were afflicted in all in which my father was afflicted- </p><p>One act of kindness to David during Absalom's rebellion, i.e. carrying the ark of Yahweh at that time, is seen as rationale for sparing Abiathar. But Joab had saved David from Absalom in battle... and that didn't figure at all in Solomon's logic.  As discussed on :22,23, there was no specific evidence that Abiathar had done anything worthy of death, nor that he was actually involved in any plot to establish Adonijah as king again. Perhaps it was as simple as Adonijah being in love with a beautiful woman and wanting to marry her. And Adonijah is being dogmatically condemned on the basis of conspiracy theory alone. We note that Abiathar carried the ark at the time of Absalom's rebellion (<a href='B:100 15:24'>2Sa 15:24</a>); but it is hard to prove that he was from the line of Levites who were allowed to do this. David had been taught through the death of Uzzah that the ark must be carried only according to the specific Mosaic legislation. But he apparently was so close to the spirit of the law that he realized even after that, that the letter of that law could be broken.</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest to Yahweh, that he might fulfil the word of Yahweh, which He spoke concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh- </p><p>But we get the impression God didn’t want that prophecy to have to come true. All Abiathar's family had been slain by Saul and Doeg for their loyalty to David. But Abiathar had been preserved, presumably because God hoped that somehow He would not have to fulfil that prophecy of destruction. For He hopes against hope, in the gap between the statement of condemnation and fulfilling it, for human repentance and persuasion of Him to change His mind. But Solomon knew none of that, and just wanted Abiathar destroyed because he was potentially disloyal to him. We may well enquire what right Solomon had to thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood; surely only God could ultimately do that. Perhaps Solomon quoted God’s words about the house of Eli. But his murder of Abiathar was inappropriate; for on that logic, David should have murdered Abiathar long ago just for who he was, a descendant of Eli. Solomon's spirituality was highly flawed and biased towards his own self justification, right from the beginning of his reign.</p><p>However we have to face a hard truth here. This claim is an intentional untruth. Abiathar was a descendant of the priests of Nob, not Eli. Just as David twists God's words to him in 2 Sam. 7, so he does here, falsely using scripture, as it were, to justify his own devious end. He does the same twisting of words as noted on :8.</p>


text:
<p>The news came to Joab; for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he didn’t turn after Absalom. Joab fled to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and caught hold on the horns of the altar- </p><p>This was a sad end for Joab, who was by now elderly. It seems David had a personality clash with Joab, frustrated at his refusal to understand grace and complaining that Joab was "too hard" for him. But it ended up with David’s son Solomon ordering Joab to be slain, despite all his loyalty, and I would consider this as the supreme example of intolerance of intolerance, showing a lack of grace to someone because they had not understood grace. David in the later part of his life had always refused to carry out legitimate death sentences, e.g. as demanded by the behaviour of Amnon and Absalom. But Solomon lacked that grace, because he failed to perceive his own sins and need for grace himself.</p>


text:
<p>It was told king Solomon, Joab has fled to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada saying, Go, fall on him- </p><p>It seems that Solomon didn’t really reflect on who his father really was. He had an ideal image of him, choosing to overlook his failures with women. David committed the sin of presumption with Bathsheba, and yet Solomon judges Joab for committing presumptuous sin without mercy (<a href='B:110 2:29'>1Ki 2:29</a> cp. <a href='B:20 21:14'>Exo 21:14</a>). LXX has Joab adding: “Because I am afraid of you I have fled to the Lord”. Like Adonijah, he is using Ex. 21:12-14: "One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death, but not if it is unintentional, but God allows it to happen: then I will appoint you a place where he shall flee. If a man schemes and comes presumptuously on his neighbour to kill him, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die". This offered salvation at the altar for those falsely accused of murder. I suggested that Adonijah was not wrong to assume he as the remaining firstborn would be the next king. He fled to the altar because he felt Nathan and Bathsheba had wrongly accused him of intending to murder Solomon and Bathsheba. Joab likewise flees to the altar because he too is persuaded that he has killed nobody in order for Solomon to seek to kill him. Neither Adonijah nor Joab would have fled to the horns of the altar unless they believed they were innocent and would thereby be saved. They would have run away far from Solomon. Instead they run to the horns of the altar and remain there, a sitting target for Solomon. I suggest they both only did this because they were convinced of their innocence of murder, and that therefore Bathsheba's claim to David that Adonijah was likely to murder herself and Solomon was just manipulative- she wanted her son Solomon to be king, not Adonijah. It all presents a sad picture of deceit and low moral fibre in all concerned. Solomon murders Joab on the basis that he can't legitimately take refuge at the altar because he has committed other murders. But so had David! And Solomon is willing to desecrate the altar with Joab's blood, a sign he has scant regard for Yahweh's holiness; for Ex. 21 says that the insincere seeker of asylum at the altar must be removed from the altar and only then slain: "thou shalt take him from my altar to put him to death" (Ex. 21:14 LXX). Solomon murders Joab, the army commander, for having murdered two previous army commanders. The hypocrisy is evident, and doesn't bode well for Solomon's long term spiritual path. He of course has been set up in this hypocrisy by David.    </p>


text:
<p>Benaiah came to the tabernacle of Yahweh and said to him, Thus says the king, ‘Come forth!’. He said, No; but I will die here. Benaiah brought the king word again saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me- </p><p>As discussed on 1 Kings 1, to grab hold of the horns of the altar was done by those under unfair persecution for blood guilt. Joab was utterly persuaded of his innocence and maybe that is why he insisted on dying there by the altar.  Perhaps Joab said this to still try to avoid death, reasoning that surely Solomon would have more respect for the tabernacle than to order him to be slain on the altar. Or perhaps Joab's spiritual side was eager to die as a sacrifice upon God’s altar. Or maybe he wanted to make Solomon unpopular with the people by ordering him slain on the altar. The narrative is purposefully open ended to provoke our reflections.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, Do as he has said, and fall on him, and bury him; that you may take away the blood which Joab shed without cause, from me and from my father’s house- </p><p>Solomon's reasoning was wrong in so many ways. To murder someone on the horns of the altar showed a lack of respect for Yahweh's holiness. Joab could easily have been removed and executed elsewhere. The blood shed by Joab "without cause" was no reason for his death at this stage; David himself had shed much blood without good cause.  The slaying of Shimei and Joab was in fact likewise "without cause". And Joab's guilt did not pass to David and Solomon. And murdering Joab did not somehow cleanse Solomon from some imagined guilt by association with Joab. Solomon wanted Joab dead because his father had told him to eliminate him. And so he was using any quasi spiritual reasoning which came into his head to justify it.</p><p>David's graceless attitude to bloodguilt was continued by Solomon, who uses the argument to justify slaying Joab in order to cleanse David's descendants from blood guilt for the murders Joab had committed (1 Kings 2:31-33). Solomon's argument here is weak; because as noted on 2 Sam. 21:1, David had been saved from his own blood guilt by grace, and he ought to have reflected that in turning down the request of the Gibeonites. But Solomon just repeats his father's political usage of blood guilt expiation, and wrongly reasons that he has to slay Joab lest David's family be charged with blood guilt seeing  that Joab was David's cousin, of the same blood family.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will return his blood on his own head, because he fell on two men more righteous and better than he, and killed them with the sword, and my father David didn’t know it: Abner the son of Ner, captain of the army of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the army of Judah- </p><p>This may have been true on one level. But David had slain men like Uriah who were more righteous and better than himself. And been forgiven by grace. The reasons given by Solomon are in fact a condemnation of his father rather than a justification of him. We note already an effective distinction between Israel and Judah; the division which was to come was only bringing into the open what had historically been developing for generations. God confirms men in the divisions they themselves wish to happen, and binds together those who wish to unify. David [in my view, falsely] claimed Yahweh precluded him from building the temple because he had shed much blood, and yet in the next breath he orders the death of Joab for shedding the blood of just two men. David shows here a total lack of remorse for the deaths of Uriah and the other soldiers who died in an attempt to cover that up. He goes to his graveplanks impenitent. Despite an earlier peak of penitence when confronted for his sin. And yet will still be saved by grace alone.
</p>


text:
<p>So shall their blood return on the head of Joab, and on the head of his seed forever. But to David, and to his seed, and to his house, and to his throne, there shall be peace forever from Yahweh- </p><p>The eternal peace upon David's throne would be achieved only through God's only begotten son bringing eternal peace with God. Solomon here states dogmatically that he is the eternally blessed seed of David, and his house and throne are to be blessed with eternal peace with God. But those promises were conditional upon his obedience, and he ignored those conditions. He was led into this by the assumptions and parental obsessions of his father, but all the same, it was this which led him to make shipwreck of his faith. This assumption that the Davidic promises were fulfilled in him led him to a lack of self examination and no humility arising from a sense of the eternal future he might miss if he turned away. See on :45.</p><p>Solomon may be alluding to how "it will go well with you" if the shedder of innocent blood is condemned to death (<a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a>). But he fails to realize that David was in exactly that situation, and had been saved by Divine grace alone. And he ought to have reflected that grace, even if David didn’t.</p>


text:
<p>Then Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up and fell on him, and killed him; and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness- </p><p>The 'going up' would have been by the steps which led up to the altar; unless the reference is to 'going up' to the mount Zion where the temple was.</p>


text:
<p>The king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his place over the army; and the king put Zadok the priest in the place of Abiathar- </p><p>Benaiah surely did the wrong thing by slaying Joab, without evidence for his wrongdoing, by the altar. Yet he is rewarded for his conscienceless behaviour by political promotion. All this doesn't sound the stuff of God’s Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The king sent and called for Shimei and said to him, Build yourself a house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and don’t go out anywhere from there- </p><p>The intention of making him move to Jerusalem from Bahurim (<a href='B:110 2:8'>1Ki 2:8</a>) was surely in order to set him up to be murdered. Solomon reveals a very calculating and callous side, typical of a man who (unlike David) had never been personally spiritually desperate, and had not known grace.</p>


text:
<p>For on the day you go out, and pass over the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall surely die: your blood shall be on your own head- </p><p>The limit of the Kidron was to ensure Shimei didn't return to Benjamite territory in order to stir up a Saulide rebellion against Solomon. Shimei didn't cross the Kidron when he went to Gath. Indeed, Shimei's journey there would've been in the steps of David who fled there from Saul and was saved there only by grace. But Solomon doesn't want to reflect that grace and jumps at the chance to slay Shimei for leaving home. There is no grace in Solomon, only fear and narcissism. Nor is there any perception in him of the grace shown to his father David.</p><p>Solomon may well have been present that terrible night when David and his family passed over the brook Kidron, and then encountered Shimei's cursing. And he therefore built this memory in to his punishment of Shimei. The Kidron was the river he would have had to cross were he to return to his home town of Bahurim, from whence he had been summoned to live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:110 2:8'>1Ki 2:8</a>). See on :40. We sense Solomon's playing of God by the manner in which he alludes to the curse in Eden, that "in the day" the brook was crossed, "you shall surely die"; see on :44.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei said to the king, The saying is good. As my lord the king has said, so will your servant do. Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days- </p><p>The description of the length of time periods in the Bible is relative; "many days" is three years (:39).</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath. They told Shimei saying, Behold, your servants are in Gath- </p><p>These slaves may have been Philistines who ran back home. David had twice fled to Achish king of Gath (<a href='B:90 21:10'>1Sa 21:10</a>; <a href='B:90 27:2'>1Sa 27:2</a>). But Solomon is unmoved by these associations with his father’s days of desperation and a life preserved by Divine grace.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei arose, saddled his donkey, and went to Gath to Achish, to seek his servants; and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath- </p><p>The road to Gath would not have involved crossing the Kidron; it was in the opposite direction. For Solomon to insist that Shimei had broken the spirit of his commandment about not crossing the Kidron was therefore very legalistic, and not a very solid basis upon which to murder a man whom David had assured of forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>It was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and had come again- </p><p>Shimei surely did this assuming that he was not liable for the death penalty because he had not crossed the Kidron (:37), as Gath was in the opposite direction; and he had kept the spirit of the agreement in that he had returned. Solomon comes over as very much lacking in integrity in now killing him.</p>


text:
<p>The king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him, Didn’t I adjure you by Yahweh and warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain, that on the day you go out, and walk abroad any where, you shall surely die?’. You said to me, ‘The saying that I have heard is good’- </p><p>There is no reference in the narrative to any such oath by Yahweh. This is not to say no such reference to Yahweh was made, but it also rather supports the impression we have of Solomon's lack of integrity and willingness to tell untruths; see on :40.</p>


text:
<p>Why then have you not kept the oath of Yahweh, and the commandment that I have instructed you with?- </p><p>Solomon is condemned for not keeping the covenant / oath of Yahweh and His commands (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>, which implies he was guilty of not doing so from his youth). His hypocrisy and lack of grace is so marked.</p>


text:
<p>The king said moreover to Shimei, You know all the wickedness which your heart knows full well, what you did to David my father. Therefore Yahweh shall return your wickedness on your own head- </p><p>Again, Solomon is playing God, as we saw him doing on :37. It was not Yahweh who was returning his wickedness upon him, but Solomon doing so. Shimei had apologized for his words of cursing, and David had forgiven him and given him assurances. Solomon's attitude is very wrong, and there was no Mosaic legal justification for the death penalty for cursing a man. And Shimei's stoning of David and calling him a "man of blood" had been justified, in that indeed David was worthy of death by stoning and was indeed a man of blood. To slate this as "wickedness" worthy of the death penalty is very severe judgment. And Solomon is choosing to respect his father’s senile words spoken from his deathbed, rather than his father’s earlier gracious forgiveness of Shimei.</p>


text:
<p>But king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before Yahweh forever- </p><p>Solomon saw himself as the Messianic Son of David, therefore he felt his kingdom was the Messianic Kingdom; and he here states dogmatically that he is the eternally blessed seed of David. But those promises were conditional upon his obedience, and he ignored those conditions. And in all this, of course, we see our warning. This may explain why he built his own house as a replica of God’s house - he felt that in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant his house was God’s house:&nbsp;Solomon's attitude to the Kingdom was that it was all here and now, and it was not so much the Kingdom of God as the Kingdom of Solomon:&nbsp; In this Solomon may seem far removed from our experience:&nbsp; But with eyes half closed, discerning only the general outline, Solomon is surely in a mind-set analogous to many of us:&nbsp; Solomon was so sure that because of his father’s righteousness, therefore God would establish him. “Mercy and truth preserve the king, and he upholdeth his throne by mercy” (<a href='B:240 20:28'>Pro 20:28</a> RVmg:) says as much- the promises (“mercy and truth” usually refer to God’s promises) had been given to David and just because of that, Solomon was sure that his throne and kingdom would thereby be upheld.</p>


text:
<p>So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he went out, and fell on him, so that he died. The kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon- </p><p>Clearly the kingdom was established in a secular sense, by Solomon's brutal murder of potential contenders for the throne. But this was not the same as the promised eternal establishment of David’s kingdom in the hands of his Messianic seed.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of Yahweh, and the wall of Jerusalem all around- </p><p>The opening account of Solomon's reign is negative about him. We know he will go on to have a vast harem of 1000 women; and in such a harem, the first wife is of huge influence. And that first wife is presented as being none other than a Gentile, and the daughter of Pharaoh, Israel's historical and idolatrous enemy. We note that the temple Solomon built was very similar to Egyptian temples, especially with the emphasis upon gold plating of everything [remembering that the king of Israel was not supposed to love gold, Dt. 17:18]. And his wife's palace was next to it. The first wife in African culture [and Egypt was African] usually chose the husband's subsequent wives- and she chose Gentiles. And Solomon went along with all this. It was a spiritually disastrous relationship. Solomon had a system of forced labour, and had 12 administrative districts [not following the 12 tribes] with 12 officers who each provided the king's food one month / year (1 Kings 4:7-20). All this was exactly how Egypt was organized under Amenhotep III and is surely the influence of having Pharaoh's daughter for his leading wife.  It has been noted that "She is mentioned more than any other wife. She is mentioned more than seven times among his foreign wives (1 Kings 3:1; 9:16,24; 7:8; 11:1; 2 Chron. 8:11; 1 Chron. 4:18). She is the only one that Solomon built a house for (1 Kings 9:24). She is the only one identified with her father, Pharaoh. The rest of the foreign wives are mentioned as Edomites, Ammonites" etc.</p><p> 
Remember that in Ecclesiastes he says that he just had an obsession with all manner of building projects. God's temple was just one of them. Building God's house is therefore mentioned together with all the other building projects.</p><p> 
Solomon's son Rehoboam was the son of Naamah from Ammon (1 Kings 14:31), with LXX adding "the daughter of Ana the son of Nahash". Possibly "Ana" is Hanun- who had been a bitter enemy of David. Solomon's marriage to his daughter may have been from a perverse teenage desire to rebel against his father, or to make peace with Ammon. Possibly the making of affinity with Pharaoh was similar. But it shows Solomon involved with women who were the historical enemies of God's people. Yet Bathsheba his mother, according to the Song of Solomon, crowned him with a crown on the day of his "espousal". Everything militated against Solomon being spiritual; his father projected unreal expectations onto him, requiring him to be the Messiah. And it seems his mother encouraged him in marrying a Gentile. His request for wisdom, when David had told him to murder Joab and Shimei according to "his wisdom", is therefore so pleasing to God. It's as if Solomon wanted to really know what God thought about it all. Yet he slumped back into following mere parental expectation.
</p><p> Solomon's failure with Gentile women therefore began right at the start of his reign. "Made affinity" doesn't have to mean this was because of an alliance, but the phrase can just mean 'became son in law to'. It is the word used in <a href='B:150 9:14'>Ezr 9:14</a> of how such "affinity" with Gentiles provoked God’s wrath. Rehoboam's mother was from Ammon, so the Egyptian wife was not his only Gentile woman. However we note that there are no Egyptian gods listed amongst those whom Solomon later worshipped. Perhaps Solomon justified this marriage by a legalistic reading of the verses which condemned marriage with Canaanite women; and Solomon may have argued that Egyptians weren't Canaanites (<a href='B:20 34:16'>Exo 34:16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:3'>Deu 7:3</a>). The fact he only allowed her to live in the city of David for a time could mean that he realized there was something wrong in having a Gentile wife living in David’s city. We get the impression that he gingerly committed this sin; but soon became used to it, and went on to marry hundreds of such women. Or the hint could be that after he had built his own house, which took 13 years, he then parted company with her. The Song of Solomon could be about his relationship with this Egyptian woman, and it ends in an unsatisfactory way with the couple splitting up:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>At that time the people sacrificed in the high places, because there was no house built for the name of Yahweh-</p><p>This surely reflects Solomon’s perspective- for God Himself didn’t need a built house in which sacrifice could be offered. The temple became such an obsession with Solomon that he came to think that no really acceptable worship could occur outside of the idea which he had so developed in his own mind. It’s rather like thinking that one must have a physical church building in which to be an ecclesia of the living God- who doesn’t dwell in buildings made with hands.</p><p>"Only" the people sacrificed in high places... and Solomon loved the Lord... only &nbsp;he sacrificed... in high places" (<a href='B:110 3:2-3'>1Ki 3:2-3</a>), highlights the contradiction between Solomon's love for God and his willingness to sacrifice in the "high places" which God detested - for the Law clearly spelt out that sacrifice could only be offered in the tabernacle, at the place where Yahweh's Name was placed (<a href='B:50 12:5-8'>Deu 12:5-8</a>; <a href='B:50 14:23-25'>Deu 14:23-25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon loved Yahweh, walking in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places-</p><p>The&nbsp;Divine&nbsp;assessment&nbsp;of&nbsp;Solomon's&nbsp; spirituality&nbsp; makes&nbsp; no reference&nbsp; to&nbsp;his&nbsp;obedience to God’s commands; rather "Solomon loved&nbsp;Yahweh (in that he) walked in the statutes of David his father"-&nbsp; rather&nbsp; than&nbsp; God’s&nbsp; statutes:&nbsp; This perfectly&nbsp; explains &nbsp;why Solomon blandly disobeyed God’s word in the&nbsp; very ways his father David did. Again, there are unpleasant similarities with our own position. Weaknesses&nbsp;which&nbsp;our forefathers&nbsp; and&nbsp; community&nbsp; have&nbsp; accepted&nbsp;without comment for generations are&nbsp;tolerated&nbsp; without&nbsp; a quibble; there are other issues,&nbsp;equally&nbsp;contrary&nbsp; to&nbsp; Divine principles, over which we create great&nbsp;complaint- simply because this is what parentally and communally&nbsp; we&nbsp; have&nbsp;been taught to react against. Yet the Gospel&nbsp;should&nbsp;&nbsp; be&nbsp;making&nbsp;us&nbsp;a&nbsp;new creation,&nbsp;standing independently&nbsp; of tradition and background conditioning. Knowing others&nbsp; who&nbsp; are&nbsp; doing&nbsp; the&nbsp; same&nbsp; should&nbsp; be&nbsp; the basis of our fellowship,&nbsp; rather&nbsp; than&nbsp; just&nbsp; belonging to the same community with the same background.</p><p>LXX "And Solomon loved the Lord, so as to walk in the ordinances of David his father". This suggests that Solomon's desire was firstly to walk in the path of his father, and his love of Yahweh was only in order to achieve that. It should have been the other way around, loving his father's way in order to love God. David idolized Solomon and projected unreal spiritual expectations onto him; and Solomon does the same to the image of David. This kind of club of mutual admiration, even between persons now dead, is unhealthy. It is by nature a closed system without God in it. </p><p>
"Only he sacrificed..." suggests that from the start, Solomon's spirituality was deficient. He followed his father David, but... there was a "but" to that. He also did what God's law forbad, worshipping on the hills, with their association with idol shrines. And we will later learn that it is on the hills / high places around Jerusalem that Solomon will build temples to other gods when he turns away from Yahweh. The point is being made that right from the start, he had begun the slide to that point. This is the repeated style of the record- to describe Solomon's external greatness with little footnotes, as it were, bringing out his fundamental spiritual weakness. Sometimes, as here, this is done explicitly; other times, implicitly. Thus the description of so much gold and silver being amassed and used by Solomon is an implicit contrast with Dt. 17:17, which commands the king of Israel not to hoard gold and silver. Solomon's own wisdom contrasted gold against wisdom (Prov. 3:14; 8:10,19; 16:16). But he sought to have both. Likewise Dt. 17 forbad the king of Israel to multiply horses and wives, but Solomon is recorded as amassing both. There is no explicit comment on this, but we are supposed to read the implicit contrast with the Dt. 17 passage. And so when we come to the condemnation of Solomon for his apostasy in 1 Kings 11, this is not in fact out of step with the overall presentation of Solomon throughout 1 Kings. 
</p>


text:
<p>The king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place. Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar- </p><p>Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (<a href='B:130 16:39'>1Ch 16:39</a>; <a href='B:110 3:4'>1Ki 3:4</a>), and so it is another example of correlation within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil with which to anoint Solomon (<a href='B:110 1:39'>1Ki 1:39</a>). Solomon had replaced Abiathar with Zadok as chief priest, so perhaps his worship to Gibeon rather than Jerusalem [where Abiathar had officiated] was a nod towards Zadok.</p><p><em>Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar-</em> 
This was clearly out of step with what David had earlier been taught after his sin with Bathsheba; that God did not want thousands of sacrifices, but rather broken, contrite hearts (Ps. 40:6-8). And Solomon repeats David's failure in this, by again offering such huge numbers of sacrifices. Which, like the temple, God didn't want. Solomon failed to understand that his parents, especially his father, had been saved by grace rather than sacrifice. He had not taken to hear his father's Psalm 51.


text:
<p>In Gibeon Yahweh appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, Ask what I shall give you- </p><p>This is the first and one of the few times that God has ever asked man what he wants. Godly men usually asked or enquired of God on their initiative, as David did (s:w. <a href='B:90 22:10'>1Sa 22:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:4'>1Sa 23:4</a>; <a href='B:100 5:19'>2Sa 5:19</a>). But Solomon had apparently merely offered ritual sacrifices, and had not engaged with God in personal relationship. Now he is encouraged to do so.</p><p>I have argued that Ecclesiastes is Solomon's self reflection, a kind of autobiography. It is also a rejection and renunciation of his faith, because he wrote it at the end of his life, when his heart had been turned aside from God (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>). I suggest it is this dream which is the reference of <a href='B:250 5:3'>Ecc 5:3</a>: "For as a dream comes with a multitude of cares, so a fool’s speech with a multitude of words". If we enquire what reference a "dream" may have to Solomon's historical life, we naturally think of this dream at the start of his life when he was offered whatever he wanted, and he chose wisdom. Several times in Ecclesiastes he appears to regret that choice, as he considers there to be no ultimate advantage to wisdom or going God’s way because death ends it all, and God, Solomon thinks, cannot resurrect the dead to judgment (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>). And so in <a href='B:250 5:3'>Ecc 5:3</a> Solomon seems to be saying that that dream was simply self induced, an outcome of his "multitude of cares", and the "multitude of words" of wisdom he had written in response to it was but "a fool's speech". Like many who have had the direct involvement of God in their lives in youth, he came to rationalize it as nothing at all Divine, considering his dream had just been some Freudian reflection of his own internal "cares". And this kind of rationalizing of the Divine over time is absolutely true to observed experience in those who turn away from God.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon said, You have shown to Your servant David my father great grace, according as he walked before You in truth, righteousness and in uprightness of heart with You. You have kept for him this great grace, that You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day- </p><p>Thus the eternity of God’s truth is paralleled with the eternity of His righteousness (as in <a href='B:230 119:142'>Psa 119:142</a>; <a href='B:230 119:160'>Psa 119:160</a>). David walked / lived "in truth and righteousness" (s:w. <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>; <a href='B:230 15:2'>Psa 15:2</a>), because this was how God is. The Messianic seed of David was to have this characteristic, ruling on David’s throne in truth and righteousness (s:w. <a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a>).</p><p>But Solomon has it all the wrong way around in saying that Yahweh had showed grace to David because he had walked before Yahweh in truth. Solomon totally misunderstood grace. It is a pure gift from God, and not at all granted in response to our righteous walk. David himself had seen Solomon's kingship as God’s greatest grace to him (1 Kings 1:48). Sadly, both David and Solomon failed to perceive that God's forgiveness of Solomon's parents for their sin was God's greatest mercy to them. Instead the liked to think that Solomon's kingship was the greatest mercy shown to David.  
</p><p>These&nbsp; words&nbsp; are&nbsp; doubtless an allusion to the mercy God showed David&nbsp; in his relationship with Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. But Solomon&nbsp; makes no mention of David’s great faith in God’s grace, and&nbsp; his&nbsp; subsequent&nbsp; appreciation&nbsp; that&nbsp; animal sacrifices were meaningless:&nbsp; These were David’s real strong points, but Solomon is obsessed with David’s public life of obedience ("according as he&nbsp; walked"). He&nbsp; evidently saw his father as the epitome of spiritual&nbsp; good,&nbsp; faultless&nbsp; in God’s sight. "Mercy" and "truth" both&nbsp; occur&nbsp; in&nbsp; <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>,&nbsp; and&nbsp; they&nbsp; often&nbsp; refer to the promises:&nbsp; Solomon seems to have seen the promises to David as a reward for David’s good life, rather than an expression of God’s unwarranted&nbsp; grace:&nbsp; David’s&nbsp; reaction&nbsp; was&nbsp; "Who&nbsp; am&nbsp; I…?" to receive&nbsp; such&nbsp; an&nbsp; honour:&nbsp; Solomon's&nbsp; feeling&nbsp; was&nbsp; that&nbsp; David deserved them because of his righteousness. So here is a feature of&nbsp; many&nbsp; parent : child&nbsp; relationships in the Lord. The children love&nbsp; and&nbsp; respect&nbsp; their parents spiritually, but often for the wrong&nbsp; reasons;&nbsp; they&nbsp; actually&nbsp; misunderstand their forefathers' spirituality:&nbsp; This&nbsp; is&nbsp; why their understanding of parental and community expectation is often wrong in the first place.</p>


text:
<p>Now, Yahweh my God- </p><p>See on :10.</p><p>You have made Your servant king instead of David my father. I am but a little child. I don’t know how to go out or come in- </p><p>Solomon was not that young. David had exaggerated Solomon's youth when he called him "young and tender" just before his death (1 Chron. 22:5; 29:1). Solomon views himself as his father had done. And he does the same in his false view of himself as the promised Messianic seed of 2 Sam. 7. David's perceptions of his son set that son up for spiritual failure. The only way for Solomon to break out of this would have been for him to see himself as himself, and as God saw him. But he took the easier and more natural path, of living out his father's expectation of him. And it was to his own destruction. Solomon's claim to be "but a little child" needing help is in sharp contrast to the ruthless, murdering, immoral Solomon we have just read of in 1 Kings 2. Yet despite his false humility, God seizes upon the positive- in that Solomon asks for wisdom. And James likewise alludes to this in urging us all to ask for wisdom.</p><p>
David considered Solomon a "wise man" (1 Kings 2:6,9). By asking for wisdom, Solomon was hereby recognizing that he did not in fact have the wisdom which his father claimed he had. This baby step movement to reject paternal expectation of him was strongly and enthusiastically welcomed by God.</p><p>
To 'go out and come in' means 'to lead'. It is used of David at the start of his career (1 Sam. 18:13,16); and again we have the impression that David is asking for this ability in order to mimic his father, whose expectations he clearly wanted to live out. But when he matured beyond that stage of life, Solomon was revealed as personally empty in spiritual terms.
</p><p>This is alluded to in <a href='B:470 18:3-4'>Mat 18:3-4</a>; become a child so you can rule the Kingdom; Christ was the greatest child as he will be the greatest ruler. This sets Solomon up as our example in this aspect. Notice how Sarah’s unspiritual comments “cast out the bondwoman…” and “my Lord being old…”are interpreted positively in the NT.</p><p>Ecclesiastes is in many ways Solomon's self-examination; and it was accurate. He indicates that the temple had actually made him stumble,&nbsp;and&nbsp;that&nbsp;his&nbsp;numerous sacrifices&nbsp;had&nbsp;been&nbsp;the sacrifices&nbsp;of&nbsp;a fool, rather than the wise man he had appeared to&nbsp; be (<a href='B:250 5:1'>Ecc 5:1</a>); and surely he was casting a sideways glance at himself when he spoke of the wise child (cp. Solomon initially, <a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>) being greater than the old and foolish king who would no&nbsp; longer&nbsp;be&nbsp;admonished&nbsp; (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>;&nbsp;even&nbsp;though Solomon had advisers,&nbsp; <a href='B:110 12:6'>1Ki 12:6</a>). Yet he chose to do absolutely nothing about this; once again, his accurate spiritual knowledge had no real practical influence upon him.</p><p>So&nbsp;very&nbsp;often&nbsp; does Solomon speak of "David my father",&nbsp; and&nbsp; that&nbsp; God&nbsp; had made him king "instead of David my father" (e.g. 1&nbsp; Kings&nbsp; 3:7). Thus he asks Hiram to deal with him just as he had done with David his father (<a href='B:110 5:2-7'>1Ki 5:2-7</a>; and cp. <a href='B:110 5:1'>1Ki 5:1</a> with <a href='B:100 5:11'>2Sa 5:11</a>). The number of times these phrases occur&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; records&nbsp; is&nbsp; so&nbsp; large&nbsp; that&nbsp; we&nbsp; simply have to recognize&nbsp; that&nbsp; God&nbsp; is&nbsp; pointing something out to us about the relationship&nbsp; between Solomon and David (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a>; <a href='B:110 2:26'>1Ki 2:26</a>; <a href='B:110 2:32'>1Ki 2:32</a>; <a href='B:110 2:44'>1Ki 2:44</a>; <a href='B:110 3:6-7'>1Ki 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>; <a href='B:110 5:3'>1Ki 5:3</a>; <a href='B:110 5:5'>1Ki 5:5</a>; <a href='B:110 6:12'>1Ki 6:12</a>; <a href='B:110 8:15'>1Ki 8:15</a>; <a href='B:110 8:17-18'>1Ki 8:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24-26'>1Ki 8:24-26</a>; <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:33'>1Ki 11:33</a>; <a href='B:140 1:8-9'>2Ch 1:8-9</a>; <a href='B:140 2:3'>2Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:140 2:7'>2Ch 2:7</a>; <a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a>; <a href='B:140 6:4'>2Ch 6:4</a>; <a href='B:140 6:7-8'>2Ch 6:7-8</a>; <a href='B:140 6:10'>2Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:140 6:15-16'>2Ch 6:15-16</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>). Solomon was raised a believer, and he lived out parental expectation; but in later life, he himself was revealed as having no real faith at all, and he turned away from Yahweh to idolatry. So often in his prayers to&nbsp; God does Solomon make reference to David; for example: "Thou hast&nbsp; showed&nbsp; unto&nbsp; thy&nbsp; servant&nbsp; David&nbsp; my&nbsp; father great mercy, according&nbsp;&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp; walked&nbsp;&nbsp; before&nbsp; thee&nbsp; in&nbsp; truth,&nbsp; and&nbsp; in righteousness,&nbsp; and&nbsp; in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast&nbsp; kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit upon his throne" (<a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Your servant is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen, a great people, that can’t be numbered nor counted for multitude- </p><p>Solomon assumes that the promises to Abraham of an innumerable seed had been fulfilled in his kingdom, just as he assumes the promises to David of the seed were fulfilled in him. He has no perspective of the future Kingdom of God, nor does he factor in the conditional nature of those promises.</p><p>And so Solomon 'had&nbsp; the truth', he knew so deeply the true principles of&nbsp; Yahweh&nbsp; worship and the promises which formed the basis of the covenant. But like us, he scarcely considered the enormity of the gap between the theory he knew and the practice of it in his own heart and living. We too have a tendency to build up masses of Biblical and spiritual knowledge, and to let the mere acquisition of it stop us from practicing it. He flouted the explicit commandments&nbsp; not to get horses from Egypt, not to marry Gentile women,&nbsp; and&nbsp; not&nbsp; to multiply silver and gold (<a href='B:50 17:17-18'>Deu 17:17-18</a> cp. <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>):&nbsp; At&nbsp; the&nbsp; end&nbsp; of his days, he recognized that although&nbsp; he&nbsp; had&nbsp; loved&nbsp; the&nbsp; theory&nbsp; of wisdom, the image of a spiritual&nbsp; life, the wisdom of God had never really impacted his soul: "I said, I will be wise (referring back to his request for wisdom in 1 Kings 3); but it was far from me" (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). His request for wisdom had only been so that he could do the job of leading&nbsp; Israel, living out the parental expectation of his father, whom he admits in Proverbs 4 had taught him to ask for wisdom. In <a href='B:240 19:12'>Pro 19:12</a> he speaks as if his own wisdom was like the dew coming down- as if he felt that the mere possession of wisdom made him the Messiah figure which his father had so hoped for him to be in <a href='B:230 72:6'>Psa 72:6</a>). And he says as much in <a href='B:240 29:3'>Pro 29:3</a>: “Whoso loveth wisdom [exactly what Solomon was commended for doing] rejoiceth his father”. He saw his wisdom and knowledge as some sort of a reward in themselves: “the prudent are crowned with knowledge” (<a href='B:240 14:18'>Pro 14:18</a>). This is of course true in a sense, as all the Proverbs are. But Solomon surely had the idea that he, who was so renowned for his knowledge, was somehow thereby rewarded by having it. This assumption by Solomon was likely behind each of the many references he makes to the value of wisdom and the blessedness of the man who has it. It is rather like feeling that ‘we have the truth’ because somehow our correct understanding of doctrines is a reward for our righteousness, and mere possession of doctrinal truth means that we are acceptable to God.</p>


text:
<p>Give Your servant therefore an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to judge this Your great people?- </p><p>I suggest on <a href='B:230 119:169'>Psa 119:169</a> that David asked for the word of promise that he would become king to be fulfilled; and in that context he asked for "wisdom / understanding" in how to rule Israel. And this was likewise the prayer of Solomon when he became king; but his motives were less than pure because he was consciously seeking to imitate his father in this request.</p><p>Solomon in Proverbs presents wisdom as of great personal benefit, indeed it is "for yourself"; and folly likewise is to your loss. But this presents a somewhat selfish view of wisdom. Solomon had been granted wisdom not for himself, but because he wanted to know how best to rule God’s great people. But once he has the wisdom, he becomes exalted by it, and concludes that wisdom is essentially for the personal benefit of those who have it, "you are wise for yourself" (<a href='B:240 9:12'>Pro 9:12</a>). Whatever truths are revealed to us are so that we might use them to the glory of God with others, and not to merely keep them for our own personal benefit.</p><p>Solomon's desire to know good and evil is one of several connections back to Adam and Eve in Eden. For he too was given 'dominion' over all in God's land / eretz. God's response to giving Solomon this knowledge is to tell him that 'length of days' is still conditional. Just as the tree of life was not available to Adam and Eve after they had eaten the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Again and again, we are invited to see Solomon at his finest, in all his glory, always presented as having something hollow and false to him. It is a challenge to self examination in every man.</p><p>
Solomon had been set up for failure by his father. David had commanded him to show "wisdom" in slaying Shimei and Joab (1 Kings 2:5,9). This was not true wisdom, and those murders were unnecessary and reflected David's total lack of appreciation of grace. The fact Solomon asks God for His wisdom is therefore commendable, and that is why God was so thrilled with this request. It was an attempt to break out of having been set up for failure by the wrong expectations of his parents.
</p>


text:
<p>The speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing- </p><p>David had wrongly told Solomon to 'do according to his wisdom' and slay Shimei and Joab. I have discussed previously how wrong this was, and how wrong Solomon was in the way he did it. Likewise in the way he treated his brother Adonijah. His request for wisdom, implying he didn't then have it, was therefore so pleasing to God. Despite having been set up for spiritual failure by his father, Solomon was genuinely asking for wisdom in order to know how best to lead God's people. God comments that Solomon had "asked for yourself understanding to discern justice". "For yourself" is the point. He was wanting to individuate from the expectations of his father and be independent before God. But he fell away from this, continued living out his father's expectations, and then was revealed for having no personal faith.</p><p>See on :11. We may wonder why adonai is here used for "Lord", and elohim in :11, rather than Yahweh. It could well be that this reflects the fact that Solomon was not really in covenant relationship with Yahweh, from His viewpoint. Although Solomon certainly speaks of "Yahweh my God" in :7, it could be that this was mere language he had picked up from David. For his subsequent life shows him to have been a man who acted as if he were outside of covenant relationship with Yahweh. But that is not to say that his choice was not deeply pleasing to Yahweh, and He wanted to work further with Solomon to bring him to Himself.</p>


text:
<p>God said to him, Because you have asked this thing, and have not asked for yourself long life, neither have asked riches for yourself, nor have asked the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern justice- </p><p>God may be alluding to how David had asked long life and been given it (<a href='B:230 21:8'>Psa 21:8</a>). This allusion was seeking to show Solomon that he was not to merely live out the image of his father David, but to think independently and forge his own relationship with God. Likewise Solomon had not taken literally the invitation of <a href='B:230 2:8'>Psa 2:8</a> to Messiah to "ask of Me (s:w. :5) and I will give you the Gentiles". Instead he had asked for wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>therefore I have done according to your word. Behold, I have already given you a wise and an understanding heart; so that there has been none like you before you, neither after you shall any arise like you- </p><p>Solomon asked God for a wise heart- but he was told that God had already given him this. The process of educating Solomon in wisdom would have started long before; but it was released, as it were, by Solomon’s specific prayer. We likewise are to ask in faith believing that we already have the things we ask for. And Solomon is every man: "If any of you lack wisdom [which we all do], let him ask of God, that gives to all men liberally... and it shall be given him" (James 1:5, clearly alluding to Solomon).</p>


text:
<p>I have also given you that which you have not asked- </p><p>We are not merely reading history here. God’s word is living and engages with us in all generations. We too are given exceeding abundantly above all we ask (<a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a> alludes here)- if we put first the wisdom of achieving God’s glory</p><p>Both riches and honour, so that there shall not be any among the kings like you, all your days- </p><p>"Riches" is s:w. <a href='B:240 14:24'>Pro 14:24</a> "The crown of the wise is their riches, but the folly of fools crowns them with folly". &nbsp;</p><p>It was Solomon who was the king and wore the ultimate crown in his society. And he implies that his fantastic riches were a result of his wisdom, and that his pattern should be followed by others. But he fails to remember that his desire for wisdom was recognized by God in that He gave Solomon riches. Those riches were a gift from God, by grace, and not acquired or generated by his own application of wisdom. He therefore misused his possession of wisdom and experience of grace to justify himself, and present himself as a self made man; when he was not that at all.</p><p>Solomon knew and warned that a little folly can destroy the man who is in reputation for wisdom and honour (<a href='B:250 10:1'>Ecc 10:1</a>). Solomon had “honour” [s:w:] to an unprecedented extent (<a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>). But in the same book he admits that he, the man famed world-wide for wisdom, gave himself to folly (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). He knew so well the error and folly of his ways, but he could only preach the lesson but not heed it. He “saw that wisdom exceedeth folly” (<a href='B:250 2:13'>Ecc 2:13</a>)- but so what...</p>


text:
<p>If you will walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days- </p><p>This is added as a foil to the grant of wisdom. Solomon was being reminded that the gift of wisdom didn't necessarily mean that he personally would walk in God's ways. And the wisdom incident comes right after we are introduced to Solomon's reign with the information that he married a Gentile. The narrative is signalling to us that possession of wisdom, and using it for others, isn't the same as personal spirituality. And God repeats this warning to Solomon (1 Kings 6:12,13). </p><p>
LXX "And if thou wilt walk in my way, to keep my commandments and my ordinances, as David thy father walked, then will I multiply thy days". This contrasts with David's statements in Ps. 72 that Solomon would live for ever. Here length of life is made conditional. God is patiently trying to undo the damage caused by David having set Solomon up with false images of himself.
</p><p>God counted David as having observed His statutes, even though he laments that he doesn't observe them as he wished (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:5'>Psa 119:5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:9'>Psa 119:9</a>). His desire to observe them was counted finally as if he had done so. Solomon was commanded to personally keep or watch over [s:w:] the commandments (<a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a> and often); but he seemed to think that possession of intellectual understanding would keep / watch over him and of itself keep him in the way (<a href='B:240 2:11'>Pro 2:11</a>). This is the temptation for all who pride themselves on possession of academic knowledge of Divine truth. God is here warning him against this, and reminding him of the conditional nature of the promises to him.</p><p>Like Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:27), Solomon could have prolonged his days as king over Israel if he walked in the ways of David (1 Kings 3:14), which we are specifically told he did not. Seeing Solomon reigned 40 years, this promise of prolonged days surely implied supernaturally prolonged life, beyond usual human lifespans. Indeed the term is used of how the Lord Jesus "prolonged his days" eternally (Is. 53:10). Hence Solomon twice uses the word to speak of how wise rulers could prolong their reigns (Prov. 28:2,16). He surely has himself in view; but failed to realize this potential. Indeed he cynically uses the word in Ecc. 7:15; 8:12 in claiming that it is the wicked and not the obedient who have their days prolonged. </p>


text:
<p>Solomon awoke; and behold, it was a dream- </p><p>We wonder why this detail is added, when it seems obvious. Perhaps later in the nihilism of Ecclesiastes he would come to think that he had merely had a dream about wisdom. For he reasons as if his wisdom is purely of himself, and acts and reasons as if he has had no relationship with Yahweh. Or maybe it is to highlight the fulfilment of <a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>: "He gives to His beloved (Jedidiah) in sleep".</p><p>Then he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and offered up burnt offerings, offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants-</p><p>Solomon had just offered before the sanctuary in Gibeon, and now he does so at Jerusalem, perhaps to indicate that he considered both shrines equally valid.</p>


text:
<p>Then two women who were prostitutes came to the king, and stood before him- </p><p>The "then..." suggests that now we have an example of Solomon's wisdom and ability to discern when judging God's people. The whole situation spoke of the kind of shameless prostitution which the Mosaic Law demanded should be punished by death. And yet prostitutes at the time typically worked in the idol shrines, rather than as it were randomly on the street corner. There was thereby even more legal need for them to be put to death. We note the unusual emphasis upon "in the house", mentioned four times in :18,19, as if this were a specific house, "the" house. Quite possibly an idol "house" is in view rather than a brothel. But the way of Divine wisdom in this case was not to automatically apply Divine law in condemning sinners. Instead, by cutting to the conscience within those women, and appealing to it, they were led to at least the possibility of repentance, transformation, salvation. Solomon’s wisdom was given him in order to know how to guide God’s great people. The way of wisdom is therefore sometimes not to press a point when someone’s in the wrong. We see this in all levels of relationships. There are weak points in relationships, fissure lines, which when pressed or brought under tension will cause earthquakes and destruction. It’s best not to press on them; and yet if they are ignored, then the quality of relationship suffers and descends into interacting only over ‘safe’ matters. So what are we to do? By not raising the obvious issue- you’re whores and must be put to death- Solomon showed grace, but he showed it in such a way that those women surely couldn’t have felt the same again; rather like the woman taken in adultery. The very fact she was not condemned by the One who could condemn her- meant that she went away indeed vowing to “sin no more”.</p>


text:
<p>The one woman said, Oh my lord, I and this woman live in one house. I gave birth with her in the house- </p><p>Solomon alludes to himself at this point in <a href='B:240 18:17'>Pro 18:17</a>: "He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him". This is the language of the courtroom, and is advice to judges. But the average Israelite was not a courtroom judge. And so Solomon, as so often, has himself in view as the parade example of what he means. And the implication is that his judgments were perfect and beyond question, apart from by fools.</p>


text:
<p>It happened the third day after I gave birth, that this woman gave birth also. We were together. There was no stranger with us in the house, just us two in the house- </p><p>Neither woman had assistance in giving birth. No family were present- they were prostitutes, the very lowest of Hebrew society, cut off from their extended families. See on :16. Presumably the first woman is claiming that she recognized her baby because it was three days older than the other woman's baby. The claim is that the incident occurred on the third day after the first woman gave birth- i.e. the night that the second woman gave birth. Would a woman who has just given birth just go to sleep straight after childbirth and not pay attention to her immediately needy first born? They apparently both say the same. There is immediately a lack of credibility in the stories.</p>


text:
<p>This woman’s child died in the night, because she lay on it- </p><p>"This woman..." enables us to play Bible television with the record, and imagine it all happening right before our eyes. See on :22. The question arises as to how she knew the cause of death if she was herself asleep. </p>


text:
<p>She arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while your handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom- </p><p>The story lacks credibility, although they both apparently repeated it. If the other woman was awake at midnight and saw the guilty woman arising, then why did she allow her to swap over the babies? But the way of wisdom and justice (see on :28) is not to always point out the glaring inconsistencies within the narrative or beliefs of others. But to act on a higher level. We see this kind of thing so often in the way the Lord responded to questions. Likewise the statement of :19 that the other woman's child died "because she lay on it" is an assumption, seeing the claimant also claims she was asleep at the time.  Despite it being night and the woman supposedly being asleep, she claims precise knowledge of the other woman's movements: "she arose at midnight and took my son from my side… and laid him at her breast… and her son who died she laid at my breast". They both say the same- the story is just not credible. "There was no one else (literally “no stranger”) except the two of us in the house” is a strange claim to make whilst on the other hand claiming to having been fast asleep. How did she know there was no other party involved? The whole story is an obvious contradiction that any legal team or judge would pick upon. These women present as none too smart, they are both lying about what happened, although indeed the child of one of them did die. And they were lying to the king, the highest court of appeal. They could have been slain for false witness, apart from being prostitutes. But Solomon "executed justice" (:28) and not the women, as legally he was supposed to do. Solomon's wisdom and justice involved not picking on the obvious errors in others' narrative, and 'absolute truth claim' groups need to learn that lesson. Prostitutes were renowned for being liars; this was part of what it was to be labelled a prostitute. The account presents them as true to type; Solomon can have no idea what actually has gone on. But his wisdom is in showing grace rather than trying to establish some agreed version of actual events. And that is to be seen in how we judge with grace. The total inversion of human conceptions of justice, integrity and logic is the essence of God's grace. And we likewise show this when we forgive and in other ways reflect our experience of His grace.</p>


text:
<p>When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, it was dead; but when I had looked at it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, whom I bore- </p><p>The first "morning" would be the twilight of dawn, but then when the sun arose she realized it was not her son. As noted on :20, the story line of both women has internal contradictions. But the way of wisdom and justice was not to point these out. For the argument is unrealistic- that she needed the light of day to recognize whether it was her baby or not. The fact they both seem to have said the same makes it clear that whatever had really happened, they were both lying.</p>


text:
<p>The other woman said, No; but the living is my son, and the dead is your son. The other said, No; but the dead is your son, and the living is my son. Thus they spoke before the king- </p><p>The repetition of the phrase "the other" invites us to first listen and look at one woman making her case, and then swivel our attention to the other. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said, The one says, ‘This is my son who lives, and your son is the dead’; and the other says, ‘No; but your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one’-</p><p>As noted on :20,21, there were internal contradictions in their stories which a judge would typically have picked up on and explored further, in order to elicit whose story was more credible. The women come over as simple, and it would not have been hard through a series of questions to get closer to the truth. But the way of wisdom and justice (:28) is not like this nor does it treat people in that forensic manner. And it was this which so impressed the observing audience. All this was the primary fulfilment of Palm 72, David's prayer for Solomon, that he would judge the poorest of the people with wisdom and justice. And yet justice is not served in a technical sense. And that is the true wisdom in all this. It's rather like Paul's argument in Romans, that sinners must die, we are all sinners- but yet with utter integrity and justice, we are counted as righteous as Jesus, our advocate for the defence turns out to be our judge... God's view of "justice" is therefore presented as not being ours. This is what Paul marvels at- that His integrity in counting us righteous, when we are sinners, is a mystery. To be accepted with gratitude, even though it is inexplicable within human paradigms of integrity, logic and justice.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Get me a sword. They brought a sword before the king-</p><p>The phrase for bringing a sword is that used of the punishment for breaking the covenant (<a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a>; <a href='B:30 26:36'>Lev 26:36</a>). Solomon was aware that his parents' first child had died as a result of judgment upon their immorality, and that God had earlier summoned a sword upon David’s family because of it. It is as if he is saying that judgment was appropriate upon these prostitutes. But the way of true wisdom and justice was not to do so. And he had learned that by observing how God’s sword of judgment had now been withdrawn from his own family, by grace.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other- </p><p>This was not Solomon's intention, as he stresses "in no way kill it" (:27). It was done to elicit the psychological reaction of the women, and this was to be the basis of discerning truth. Likewise truth is arrived at in ways other than forensic examination of evidence and argumentation. This is the way of the Spirit and true wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman whose the living child was spoke to the king, for her heart yearned over her son, and she said, Oh my lord, give her the living child, and in no way kill it! But the other said, It shall be neither mine nor yours. Divide it- </p><p>The instinctive gut reaction of the true mother said it all and showed her for who she was. It may be that when the one said "Let (the baby) be neither mine nor yours, but divide it", this is the Spirit's description of her inner attitude, rather than the literal words she spoke. But her inner thoughts were counted as her words (careful re-reading and reflection make this seem most likely here). "Heart" is literally 'womb', giving us the impression of deep connection between the woman and the child. The woman who agreed "Divide it" was acting in a psychologically credible way; she had lost her child, and wanted the other woman to also lose her. That is surely why she was willing for the king to kill the child.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king answered, Give her the living child, and in no way kill it. She is its mother- </p><p>Solomon repeats verbatim the words of the real mother in :26, thereby identifying with her- even though her story was palpably untrue on some points. Having determined who the real mother was, Solomon could have had the other woman executed for false witness and kidnapping a child. But he doesn't. And the very fact he bothers personally judging between two low life women reflects his primary fulfilment of Psalm 72 describing how the Messianic king will bother judging even the lowest; all are significant to Him.  The law's requirement that he whore be put to death is shown to be inappropriate as we imagine the poor infant in the presence of these low life women. To save its life but then execute its mother would have been wrong. True wisdom and justice (:28) saw far beyond this letter of the law. And this is the pattern for us today.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do justice- </p><p>But as noted on :16, that "justice" was not the judgment which the law required for prostitutes. "The wisdom of God was in the midst of him" (<a href='B:110 3:28'>1Ki 3:28</a> AVmg) looks ahead to the description of the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a>. On one hand Solomon was a type of Christ, but in reality it was rather that he had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon a failed, marred reflection of Him.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon was king over all Israel-</p><p>The unity of Israel is associated with its glory. Israel's maximum point of glory under Solomon was also its historically most united period.</p>


text:
<p>These were the princes whom he had: Azariah the son of Zadok, the priest-</p><p>Azariah was therefore a king-priest (cp. <a href='B:730 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a>). The kingdom of Solomon can indeed be viewed as a type of the future kingdom of the Lord Jesus. The twelve deputy rulers (:7) correspond with <a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a>; the provision of food each month (:27) corresponds with <a href='B:290 66:23'>Isa 66:23</a>; <a href='B:330 47:12'>Eze 47:12</a> and <a href='B:730 22:2'>Rev 22:2</a>. But in reality it was rather that Solomon had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed with a Messianic kingdom as promised to David, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon and his kingdom as a failed, marred reflection of Him.</p>


text:
<p>Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder- </p><p>Shisha was the Shavsha of <a href='B:130 18:16'>1Ch 18:16</a>, the Sheva of <a href='B:100 20:25'>2Sa 20:25</a> and the Seraiah of <a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>. Jehoshaphat would have now been elderly (<a href='B:100 8:16'>2Sa 8:16</a>; <a href='B:100 20:24'>2Sa 20:24</a>); see on :4.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the army; Zadok and Abiathar were priests-</p><p>This is only a description of things as they initially were. For Abiathar was soon deposed by Solomon, and Benaiah was by now an old man who would not have lived long into Solomon's reign.</p>


text:
<p>Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers; Zabud the son of Nathan was chief officer, the king’s friend- </p><p>Solomon alludes to this in <a href='B:240 27:9'>Pro 27:9</a>: "Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart; so does earnest counsel from a man’s friend". This is true, but Solomon may be using Divine truth to justify himself; for he had appointed the son of Nathan the prophet, loyal to David his father, as "the king's friend".</p>


text:
<p>Ahishar was over the household; and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to forced labour- </p><p>The emphasis upon the forced labour brigades is significant (<a href='B:110 5:13-14'>1Ki 5:13-14</a>; <a href='B:110 12:18'>1Ki 12:18</a>), and it was Solomon's brutal treatment of his people which led to the complaint after his death that he had whipped the people and abused them. This was exactly as Samuel had warned the people would happen if they chose a human king rather than God as their king; for God is kinder than men. We see therefore that Solomon was no better than Saul. All his wisdom failed to make him value the meaning f the human person. It was therefore only held by him in theory not in practice.</p><p>1 Sam. 8:11-18 had warned Israel that their king would not be good, and would enslave them and make them serve his whims. The people groaned beneath him, as they told his son Rehoboam. And so exactly was fulfilled the threat: "You will cry out for relief from the king, but Yahweh will not hear’ (1 Sam. 8:16,17). The taxes which Samuel warned Israel of are described in 1 Kings 4:7,22,23,27,28. Solomon is being presented as exactly this king. This is to demonstrate that the positive descriptions of his kingdom in :20,25 are just a surface appearance. The point is made within otherwise apparently positive descriptions of his kingdom. This is to create the desired effect of giving the impression that Solomon's apparently wonderful kingdom was underlaid by a very unspiritual, unGodly foundation. As noted on :7 and 1 Kings 3:1, Solomon's wife likely influenced Solomon to use the Egyptian system of forced labour. But that was the very system that had been used to abuse Israel in Egypt. And Solomon uses it for his building projects, just as the Pharaoh of the Exodus did, also building treasure cities etc.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided food for the king and his household: each man had to make provision for a month in the year-</p><p>See on :2. This implies a huge amount of food was required by Solomon to feed his extended family. His 700 wives and 300 concubines would have produced many children who all required feeding. Solomon's indulgence of every sexual whim came at a cost, which he forced his people to meet; and it gave him no family happiness, but rather led him to the cynical reflection of <a href='B:250 5:11'>Ecc 5:11</a>.</p><p>Solomon had a system of forced labour, and had 12 administrative districts [not following the 12 tribes] with 12 officers who each provided the king's food one month / year (1 Kings 4:7-20). All this was exactly how Egypt was organized under Amenhotep III and is surely the influence of having Pharaoh's daughter for his leading wife.  See on 1 Kings 3:1.</p>


text:
<p>These are their names: Ben Hur, in the hill country of Ephraim- </p><p>It could be argued that Solomon's taxation system was effectively taxing the other tribes apart from Judah. Yet the tax from the other tribes paid for Solomon's extensive building projects, which were all in Judah (the temple, the palace, the Millo and wall of Jerusalem, Ezion-Geber, the copper mines, Debir, etc.). This was not so much wisdom but a cunning establishment of the dominance of his own tribe and throne.  For the twelve administrative districts exclude Judah:</p><p>1. Mount Ephraim </p><p>2. Makaz </p><p>3. Arubboth </p><p>4. Naphath-dor </p><p>5. Taanach and Megiddo </p><p>6. Ramoth-gilead </p><p>7. Mahanaim </p><p>8. Naphtali </p><p>9. Asher and Zebulun </p><p>10. Issachar </p><p>11. Benjamin </p><p>12. The land of Gad (<a href='B:110 4:7-19'>1Ki 4:7-19</a>) </p><p></p><p>This organization was not strictly according to the tribal divisions but was more geographically based. Thus group 2 was from both Dan and Ephraim; group 3 from both Manasseh and Ephraim. Perhaps this was an intentional attempt to undermine tribalism, which Solomon saw as a potential threat to his power base. If he had been obedient to God, he could have been quietly assured that God and not his cunning would establish and eternally maintain his kingdom. And yet the regional governors imposed by Solomon were largely from Judah or somehow related to David’s "old guard". This group 9 was ruled by the son of David’s advisor Hushai (<a href='B:100 15:32-37'>2Sa 15:32-37</a>). Group 8 by Solomon's son in law Ahimaaz (<a href='B:110 4:15'>1Ki 4:15</a>). Group 5 was ruled by a connection with the priest Zadok, and possible by the brother of David, and Solomon's scribe Jehoshaphat (<a href='B:110 4:3'>1Ki 4:3</a>). Abinadab of group 7 was probably the son of Iddo who had been one of David’s men (<a href='B:130 27:21'>1Ch 27:21</a>). Abinadab who ruled Group 4 was Solomon's son in law (<a href='B:110 4:11'>1Ki 4:11</a>).</p><p>All this was an attempt by Solomon to establish the kingdom in his own strength. The regional governors were not locals, but rather under the direct control of Solomon in Jerusalem and appointed on the basis of loyalty to him. No wonder that after his death, the other tribes wanted to break free from Judah.</p><p>We note that the geographical extent of these areas was not that great. It covered central and northern Israel but nothing much further south of Judah; and some areas just over the Jordan river into Moab and Ammon. Clearly enough Solomon was not receiving tax tribute from a very large area. This fact therefore counterbalances the descriptions of his kingdom as stretching from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. That may have technically been the case, but not for long and his control was not strong enough to make them pay tribute to him. Time and again, the apparently glowing descriptions of his kingdom are found to be surface level only. We note too that the tax subdivisions did not generally follow the boundaries of the tribes which God had given. Solomon was trying to break down tribal unity so that the north would be less unified in opposing him. This is not in line with how God wanted Israel organized. The tribal leaders were unimportant; they were effectively replaced by the men of Judah or pro-Solomon men who were over the new tax districts Solomon had created.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Deker, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth Shemesh, and Elon Beth Hanan- </p><p>These were in Dan (<a href='B:70 1:35'>Jdg 1:35</a>). Beth Shemesh was a priestly city (<a href='B:60 21:16'>Jos 21:16</a>), but Solomon still required them to pay taxes to him in Jerusalem, contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic law.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Hesed, in Arubboth (to him belonged Socoh, and all the land of Hepher)- </p><p>I suggest this Socoh is the one in Manasseh and not the one in Judah; see on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Abinadab, in all the height of Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon as wife)- </p><p>- See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Baana the son of Ahilud, in Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth Shean which is beside Zarethan, beneath Jezreel, from Beth Shean to Abel Meholah, as far as beyond Jokmeam-</p><p>The brother of Jehoshaphat (:3), again reflecting how the rulers of the regions were not local men but part of Solomon's inner circle, or their relatives. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Geber, in Ramoth Gilead (to him belonged the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; to him belonged the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, sixty great cities with walls and bronze bars)- </p><p>They had begun as small towns (<a href='B:40 32:41'>Num 32:41</a>) but had grown since then. But they were all to pay their taxes to Jerusalem; see on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Ahimaaz, in Naphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon as wife)- </p><p>- See on :8. As no father’s name is mentioned we could conclude that the well-known son of Zadok the priest is meant, who helped David was fleeing before Absalom (2 Sam. 15:27).  A pro house of David loyalist was chosen in order to get the tax sent back to Solomon in Jerusalem, and Solomon was his father in law.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin- </p><p>Although Judah and Benjamin were always connected, as explained on :8, Solomon expected Benjamin to pay taxes to him in Jerusalem. We note at this point the clear omission of Judah as a taxable area.</p>


text:
<p>Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan; and he was the only officer who was in the land- </p><p>"Only" could mean "the greatest", and "the land" may refer to the territory on the east of Jordan. "Officer" translates a military term; the idea may be that he was the only garrison officer stationed in that area, which had many Gentiles in it.</p>


text:
<p>Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry- </p><p>The taxation system just described became heavy for Israel, took men away from food production at home, was biased to make the north provide labour and material resources for Judah, had administrators who were pro Judah, undercut the tribal cantons and made Judah tax free. It set up the complaint of Israel against Rehoboam that Solomon abused them, and led to the division of the kingdom. But the result is apparently that they were all well fed and merry. Apparently, the promises to Abraham of a seed "many as the sand" had been fulfilled. But here again we see how the statements describing a glorious kingdom are in fact glosses over a much less pleasant reality. And this was the nature of Solomon and his kingdom- a good surface appearance hiding much that was deeply wrong beneath it. </p><p>This is alluded to by Solomon in <a href='B:240 14:28'>Pro 14:28</a> GNB: "A king's greatness depends on how many people he rules; without them he is nothing". Solomon is again justifying himself, for the people at his time are described as very many at his time (<a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>). Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p><p>We must remember that baptism means that we are now the seed of Abraham, and the blessings of forgiveness, of all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, and God’s turning us away from our sins are right now being fulfilled in us (<a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a>). Israel were multiplied as the sand on the sea shore (<a href='B:100 17:11'>2Sa 17:11</a>; <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>), they possessed the gates of their enemies (<a href='B:50 17:2'>Deu 17:2</a>; <a href='B:50 18:6'>Deu 18:6</a>)- all in antitype of how Abraham's future seed would also receive the promised blessings in their mortal experience, as well as in the eternal blessedness of the future Kingdom.</p><p></p><p>"Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry" combines allusions to two different passages:&nbsp;Clearly there is reference to the fact that the Abrahamic promises had a primary fulfillment at this time:&nbsp; But the final phrase refers back to Israel's idolatry with the golden calf:&nbsp; It is as if the dualism within Solomon at this time - in being the primary fulfillment of the seed, and yet also being apostate - was fulfilled in Israel. We see elsewhere several indications that Solomon and Israel were closely connected (cp. Christ and the church).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life- </p><p>Israel was at its largest extent in Solomon's Kingdom; lost land was restored, and the borders re-established (<a href='B:140 9:26'>2Ch 9:26</a>; <a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a>&nbsp; cp. <a href='B:60 16:3'>Jos 16:3</a>; <a href='B:60 16:5'>Jos 16:5</a>); it was also at its political strongest; nations submitted to Solomon (<a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); Israel was the chief of the nations and the nations brought "presents" (s:w. sacrifices) to him&nbsp; (<a href='B:110 4:21'>1Ki 4:21</a>). All this looked ahead to the Messianic Kingdom; but see on :25. But again we have a surface appearance only. For as discussed above, Solomon only received tax revenue from a very small part of the area mentioned here. The "tribute" mentioned here would have been only at one time. He had no effective 'rule' over the kingdoms or else they would have been brought within the tax administration system described earlier in the chapter. It was only for a brief period, and even then, not very powerful "rule". We note from 1 Kings 9:15-19 that Solomon built fortified military bases around the borders of his territory- and clearly his territory didn't effectively stretch from the Euphrates to Egypt. Otherwise the location of his fortifications would have been different. And if indeed the image of peace were so true, why Solomon's huge number of chariots and war horses?  And it is rather overlooked that David had taken Damascus (2 Sam. 8:6), but it was taken over by Solomon's enemy Rezon and never recovered by him (1 Kings 11:23-25).</p><p>Further, there is ample evidence within the record that throughout Solomon's reign, there were other kings within the area of the land promised to Abraham. And with some of them Solomon traded, disagreed with, or suffered their rebellions against him: King Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 5:1), Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:14), King Hadadezer of Zobah (1 Kings 11:23), the kings of the Hittites and Aram (1 Kings 10:29), and the kings of Arabia (1 Kings 10:15). These significant areas were not exactly ruled over by Solomon. Indeed Solomon sells the cities of Cabul to Hiram. We therefore have to probe deeper the statement that he ruled so extensively. One possibility is that this is how Solomon perceived things; it was the impression he wanted to give. And the Biblical record presents things as he wanted to see them, yet giving the actual facts of the matter which contradicted Solomon's perception. And thereby shows the fallacy and surface nature of the impression Solomon had and gave. He was convinced he was ruling in the Messianic kingdom according to his father's projections and expectations; when the reality was so far from that. We note that such exaggerated claims of dominion are found in the records of other kings, especially of Egypt, Babylon and Assyria. Indeed the 'glorious kingdom' passages regarding Solomon's kingdom are very similar to the self descriptions of other kings broadly contemporary with Solomon. We therefore lean towards the possibility that the Biblical descriptions are a case of focalization; the focus is upon Solomon and his perception of himself and his kingdom. But the Biblical record gives ample reason to perceive that his perceptions were false or at best, incomplete.
</p>


text:
<p>Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and sixty measures of meal- </p><p>Solomon in <a href='B:240 23:3'>Pro 23:3</a> warned not to desire huge meals. But Solomon clearly revelled in his food, and speaks in Ecclesiastes of how he tried to find fulfilment in gluttony. He knew God’s truth, but "it was far from me" personally, as he laments in Ecclesiastes. There mere possession of Divine truth can in fact lead a man to think it doesn't apply to him. This is why the word must be made flesh in us, as it was in the Lord.</p><p>From the amount of flour used each day, it could be guessed that there were 14,000 people / day being fed. If Solomon had 1000 wives and children by them, this would make sense. </p>


text:
<p>ten head of fat cattle, twenty head of cattle out of the pastures, one hundred sheep, besides harts, gazelles, roebucks and fattened fowl- </p><p>"Fattened fowl" has been translated as geese or swans. Not all these animals were clean food, but Solomon (according to Ecclesiastes) wanted to experiment with all human experience.</p>


text:
<p>For he had dominion over all on this side of the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza, over all the kings on this side of the River: and he had peace on all sides around him-</p><p>In the context of this chapter, the "dominion" in view may mean that all had to pay taxes to Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Judah and Israel lived safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon-</p><p>Clearly this language, and the great fertility of the land implied by :22-28, is the language of the Messianic kingdom (<a href='B:400 4:4'>Mic 4:4</a>; <a href='B:330 34:28'>Eze 34:28</a>; <a href='B:290 35:1-2'>Isa 35:1-2</a>). But in reality it was rather that Solomon had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed with a Messianic kingdom as promised to David, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon and his kingdom as a failed, marred reflection of Him. I suggested above that this "living safely" and at peace was a facade, as the record continually alludes to how Solomon is breaking the commands of how a king should be (Dt. 17:17,18). Here in :25 likewise we have the idea of safety, but this was perhaps because of the vast number of chariots and horses Solomon accumulated as mentioned in the next verse. Yet this was brazen disobedience to the command for Israel's king not to have chariots and horses. And trusting in chariots means not trusting in Yahweh's Angel chariots (Ps. 20:7; Is. 2:7,8; 22:18;31:1; Mic. 5:10).  Samuel mentions chariots three times when warning about the corruption of Israel's desired king (1 Sam. 8:11,12).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen- </p><p>Solomon's enthusiasm for Egyptian horses is clearly chronicled (<a href='B:110 4:26-28'>1Ki 4:26-28</a>), although this was studied disobedience to <a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>. There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.</p>


text:
<p>Those officers provided food for king Solomon, and for all who came to king Solomon’s table, every man in his month- </p><p>“He that loves silver (as Solomon did, <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecclesiastes 2); nor he that loves abundance (s:w. used about the abundance of Solomon’s wives, <a href='B:140 11:23'>2Ch 11:23</a>) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, <a href='B:110 4:27'>1Ki 4:27</a>)” (<a href='B:250 5:10-11'>Ecc 5:10-11</a>). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. He preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit. </p><p></p><p>They let nothing be lacking- </p><p>Heb. ‘they let nothing be missing'. This is in the context of describing the taxation system, whereby taxation was enforced and the taxes were indeed gathered to Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Barley also and straw for the horses and swift steeds brought they to the place where the officers were, each man according to his duty-</p><p>Just as Solomon's abundance of wives led to having a few thousand mouths to feed, and Israel needed to provide for that; so his obsession with thousands of horses meant that there was a need for a huge amount of fodder for them. And all Israel had to provide this- all for the sake of Solomon's obsessive desires. That he reigned for as long as he did was truly a sign of God’s grace to him for the sake of his father David, and is a tacit reflection of how much God loved David despite all his failures.</p>


text:
<p>God gave Solomon great wisdom and understanding, and very great perception, according to the sand which is on the seashore- </p><p>His wisdom was to guide Israel, but it concerned the natural creation; as if his expositions concerning this were teaching spiritual lessons (<a href='B:110 4:29'>1Ki 4:29</a>; <a href='B:110 4:32-33'>1Ki 4:32-33</a>)- as the Lord's parables. The "largenss of heart" (AV) was to be experienced by all Israel, whose largeness of heart was to lead to the Gentiles flowing to them (<a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>). Paul's appeal to allow the Holy Spirit to enlarge our hearts could be seen as alluding to the gift given Solomon (<a href='B:540 6:11'>2Co 6:11</a>; <a href='B:540 6:13'>2Co 6:13</a>).</p><p>The description of the "largeness" of heart in <a href='B:110 4:29'>1Ki 4:29</a> uses the&nbsp; same word used about the largeness of the land of Israel in <a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a>; <a href='B:160 9:35'>Neh 9:35</a>; his wisdom was "as the sand that is on the sea shore",&nbsp; as Israel were described in <a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a>. He wanted wisdom, but so as to teach it to others, not to personalize it. Even&nbsp;in&nbsp;his&nbsp;spiritual&nbsp; collapse&nbsp; at the time of Ecclesiastes, Solomon still&nbsp; taught&nbsp; Israel&nbsp; true&nbsp; wisdom,&nbsp; and organized his wisdom into more accessible books (<a href='B:250 12:9-12'>Ecc 12:9-12</a>), giving himself the title koheleth (‘the preacher’). And yet he himself tried alcohol, wealth, women, indeed every addiction, in order to “see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven” (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). And yet he knew from childhood the conclusion of the matter- man’s duty is to fear God and be obedient (<a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a>). He who had been given wisdom started out in a search for it… showing clearly enough that what he knew was so much theory, but never touched his own heart. Solomon taught wisdom to the youngsters, but he gave himself over to search for some kind of vague philosophical truth outside of God.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt- </p><p>If this is simply God’s comment, then it would be axiomatic that Solomon's Divinely given wisdom was better than that of the Gentiles. So we should rather read this as stating how his wisdom was perceived amongst the Gentiles. Despite having greater wisdom than "all the wisdom of Egypt”, Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter. And yet Egypt gave sanctuary to his rival Jeroboam and also let Jeroboam marry into the royal family. About five years after his death, Egypt invaded Judah in the reign of his son Rehoboam. So the point is made that despite possessing far more wisdom than them, he allowed them to morally corrupt him. He likely thought [wrongly] that the mere possession of such superior truth would preserve him from such personal failure.</p>


text:
<p>For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman- </p><p>Ethan and Heman are mentioned together in <a href='B:110 4:31'>1Ki 4:31</a> as men whom Solomon's wisdom exceeded; and in <a href='B:130 15:19'>1Ch 15:19</a> they are both singers whom David appointed. We can assume that they were famed for their wisdom; but Solomon's wisdom exceeded theirs.</p><p>Calcol, Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all the nations all around-</p><p>Calcol and the other names mentioned in <a href='B:110 4:31'>1Ki 4:31</a> as wise men are all mentioned in <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a> as sons of Zerah, men of Judah. The idea of <a href='B:110 4:30-31'>1Ki 4:30-31</a> is that Solomon's wisdom exceeded that of famous Gentile wise men, and also of the wise men of Judah:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He spoke three thousand proverbs; and his songs were one thousand and five- </p><p>LXX says 5000 songs. David was famed as Israel's psalmist, and his songs were distributed to the surrounding nations, appealing for them to turn to Israel's God. Solomon's obsession with writing songs can be seen as an attempt to live out his father’s image.</p>


text:
<p>He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of animals, birds, creeping things and fish- </p><p>We note that the things mentioned here refer more to knowledge and science, than to the wisdom required to judge God's people with grace and justice.</p><p>The greatest of trees in Palestine, the cedar, is contrasted with the smallest, the hyssop; the idea being that Solomon spoke of the entire range of plant life. But later Solomon sadly reflects in <a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a> LXX that "a man will not be able to speak of them". And yet Solomon had spoken of all things by the wisdom given him (<a href='B:110 4:32-33'>1Ki 4:32-33</a>), but now he says that the vanity of all human experience is beyond speaking of. Whilst Solomon retained his wisdom, he felt that it was not the full answer to the mystery of life; and the answer was, so far as he could see it, that all things are vain and wearisome. Life is not therefore particularly worth living. This is the attitude which arises when we fail to personalize wisdom, and refuse to accept that this life is not God’s Kingdom; that is yet to come. This wisdom about plants and animals was given Solomon for the sake of God’s people Israel. It was intended to boost their agriculture. See on <a href='B:110 5:6'>1Ki 5:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p>There came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom- </p><p>The repetition of the two phrases gives the impression that they heard of his wisdom, and so they came to hear his wisdom. As exemplified by the visit of the Queen of Sheba, it is one thing to hear wisdom; but there is a natural desire to hear the word made flesh. This principle is so true for our witness today. The presentation of God’s truth as words on a screen is far less persuasive than hearing them as a word made flesh, from a live person. And that is why God did not leave His word as it was, but made it flesh in the Lord Jesus; so that He speaks to us "in His Son".</p>


text:
<p>Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the place of his father: for Hiram had always admired David- </p><p>So&nbsp;very&nbsp;often&nbsp;does Solomon speak of "David my father",&nbsp; and&nbsp; that&nbsp; God&nbsp;had made him king "instead of David my father" (e.g. <a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>). Thus he asks Hiram to deal with him just as he had done with David his father (<a href='B:110 5:2-7'>1Ki 5:2-7</a>; and cp. <a href='B:110 5:1'>1Ki 5:1</a> with <a href='B:100 5:11'>2Sa 5:11</a>). The number of times these phrases occur&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; records&nbsp; is&nbsp;so&nbsp; large&nbsp; that&nbsp; we&nbsp; simply have to recognize&nbsp; that&nbsp; God&nbsp;is&nbsp;pointing something out to us about the relationship&nbsp; between Solomon and David (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a>; <a href='B:110 2:26'>1Ki 2:26</a>; <a href='B:110 2:32'>1Ki 2:32</a>; <a href='B:110 2:44'>1Ki 2:44</a>; <a href='B:110 3:6-7'>1Ki 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>; <a href='B:110 5:3'>1Ki 5:3</a>; <a href='B:110 5:5'>1Ki 5:5</a>; <a href='B:110 6:12'>1Ki 6:12</a>; <a href='B:110 8:15'>1Ki 8:15</a>; <a href='B:110 8:17-18'>1Ki 8:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24-26'>1Ki 8:24-26</a>; <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:33'>1Ki 11:33</a>; <a href='B:140 1:8-9'>2Ch 1:8-9</a>; <a href='B:140 2:3'>2Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:140 2:7'>2Ch 2:7</a>; <a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a>; <a href='B:140 6:4'>2Ch 6:4</a>; <a href='B:140 6:7-8'>2Ch 6:7-8</a>; <a href='B:140 6:10'>2Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:140 6:15-16'>2Ch 6:15-16</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>). Solomon was raised a believer, and he lived out parental expectation; but in later life, he himself was revealed as having no real faith at all, and he turned away from Yahweh to idolatry. So often in his prayers to God does Solomon make reference to David; for example: "Thou hast&nbsp;showed unto thy servant&nbsp; David&nbsp; my&nbsp; father great mercy, according as he walked before&nbsp; thee&nbsp; in&nbsp; truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit upon his throne" (<a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon sent to Hiram saying- </p><p>As noted on :1, Solomon was obsessed with living out the image of his father. As Hiram had sent messengers to David (<a href='B:100 5:11'>2Sa 5:11</a>), so Solomon sends to Hiram.</p>


text:
<p>You know how that David my father could not build a house for the name of Yahweh his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until Yahweh put his enemies under the soles of his feet-</p><p>Solomon had a way of spinning things, even God’s word, in his own selfish way. David had insisted that God had told him that he couldn’t build the temple because he had shed so much blood in war (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). But Solomon just slightly spins this when he asks Hiram to come and help him build the temple, because, he says, his father David hadn’t had the time to get around to the job because of being busy fighting wars (<a href='B:110 5:3'>1Ki 5:3</a>). He says nothing about David shedding blood; the moral aspect of it all is nicely ignored by Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>But now Yahweh my God has given me rest on every side. There is no adversary nor any evil occurrence- </p><p>Solomon's argument is that his father David had not been given rest from his enemies, but he had been given rest, therefore it was for him to build the temple. But that is exactly the opposite of what we are told. David had rest from his external enemies (2 Sam. 7:1) and therefore wanted to build a temple. God replied that indeed He had given David rest from His enemies (2 Sam. 7:11), but He didn't want a temple. The same word for "rest" is used throughout. </p><p>
As is typical of the Solomon record, this lack of adversary was true in Solomon's mind and self-presentation, but not in reality. For 1 Kings 11:14,23,25 list Solomon's adversaries, using the same word. We likewise have to doubt, therefore, the veracity of his claims in :3.
Solomon imagines that his kingdom is the promised "rest" of the Messianic kingdom promised to David. But his degree of "rest" was only in his imagination. For he had various adversaries on the borders, Hadad, Rezon and others (<a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a>; <a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>). So again, Solomon is spinning things to fit his narrative.</p><p>The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> ["turns against us"]; the sons of Zeruiah (<a href='B:100 19:22'>2Sa 19:22</a>), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (<a href='B:110 5:4'>1Ki 5:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a>; <a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I purpose to build a house for the name of Yahweh my God, as Yahweh spoke to David my father saying, ‘Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, he shall build the house for My name’- </p><p>Again this is a spin; because it was David who had purposed to build the temple, and had prepared for it. And again we see Solomon assuming that the promises of 2 Samuel 7 were totally fulfilled in him; whereas being the Messianic son of David was conditional. And the house to be built was more essentially the house of God’s family which God was to build for David rather than any physical temple. But Solomon totally missed all this. We note he speaks of "the" house, not "a house". He saw the promised "house" to be built as solely and exclusively fulfilled in his temple. The idea of Messiah building a house of people for God's Name was far from him. And he was hardly the promised begotten son of God, to be born after David "slept with his fathers".</p><p>
Jer. 32:31 states that God's anger and fury were against the temple from the day it was built until the day He destroyed it, it was a provocation of His anger. Just as He gave Israel a king in His anger and took him away in His wrath. But He patiently and even desperately tried to work with Israel through both the temple and the kingship. His glory entering the temple was therefore a concession to their weakness. Solomon was provoking God to wrath by building the temple and we must bear this in mind as we read the record of his apparently zealous building of it. And remember that in Ecclesiastes he says that he just had an obsession with all manner of building projects. God's temple was just one of them.</p><p>
2 Chron. 2:4 adds the detail that Solomon said: "The temple that I am going to build will be great, for great is our God beyond all the gods". He is alluding [as always] to the words of his father David in Ps. 135:5: "For I am certain that Yahweh is great and great is our Lord beyond all gods". It is Yahweh who is great. But Solomon turns this into a statement that therefore the temple he builds must be "great" and greater than any temple built to other gods. This explains why the style of the temple is so similar to that of other temples from the time- it's just bigger and more lavish. Solomon reduces the greatness of Yahweh, and His infinite superiority over the other gods, to the simple term of having a greater temple than the other gods. Any purely religious approach to God diminishes His true greatness, which is in His grace. Solomon reduces the unique greatness of Yahweh to the uniqueness of the temple he is going to build Him. A temple Yahweh never wanted anyway. He fails to see Yahweh's greatness as being in terms of His grace and eternal salvation, which He had demonstrated for all time in His salvation of David regarding his affair with Solomon's mother Bathsheba. David made the same mistake in confusing the greatness of his projected temple with the greatness of Yahweh Himself. He says in 1 Chron. 29:11 "To you, Yahweh, belong the utmost greatness, might, distinction, eminence, and splendor- yes all that is in heaven and on earth" but then in 1 Chron. 22:5 "The temple I am about to build for Yahweh must become utterly great, for fame and distinction throughout all lands". </p><p>
2 Chron. 2:6 fills out what Solomon told Hiram: "But who is able to build Him a house, since heaven and the heaven of heavens can’t contain Him? Who am I then, that I should build Him a house, except just to burn incense before Him?". "Who am I?" is a quotation of David's words about the temple in 1 Chron. 29:14: "But who am I..?". But this in turn had been David's response when God first told him that He didn't want a temple, but rather would build a house for David from his descendants. David totally misrepresented God's response as saying that He did in fact welcome the idea of a grandiose physical temple, and so by repeating his response at the time, he is surely guilty of a false humility. Solomon quotes these words of apparent humility and applies them to himself. But just as we cannot sing words of humility in a Christian song or hymn and thereby be humble, Solomon failed to realize that humility is not a bought or inherited position. It has to come from the heart. And he had no sense of personal sin or possibility of failure, and therefore no humility. Solomon claims that he solely wanted to build a temple in order to offer incense and sacrifice. But the obvious counter to that is that God only asked for an altar roughly made of earth or at best, unhewn stones, in order for man to offer sacrifice. A grandiose temple wasn't required for sacrifice. </p><p>
2 Chron. 2:9 further fills out Solomon's words to Hiram:  "for the house which I am about to build shall be great and wonderful". The greatness and wonder of the house was a big theme with David and Solomon. But God's response to David's initial suggestion of a temple was that He is a humble God, and doesn't like grandiose structures; rather does He wish above all for men to allow Him to work according to His grace in building a house for His glory made out of contrite, responsive hearts. Form eclipsed content for Solomon, religion overtook spirituality, as has happened constantly in the history of God's people. "Great and wonderful" is a Hebrew phrase consistently used about what God does for men by His grace; and not what man can do for God (Job 5:9; 9:10; 37:5; Ps. 86:10 "You are great, and do wondrous things"; 136:4 "Him who alone does great wonders; for His grace endures forever"; Jer. 32:17 "by Your great power... there is nothing too wonderful for You, who show loving kindness to thousands" of sinners). In a time of greater humility, David had vowed not to exercise himself in anything great and wonderful apart from to marvel at God's grace (s.w. Ps. 131:1 "nor do I concern myself with great matters, or things too wonderful for me"). But now, Solomon is seeking to build a great and wonderful place for God, rather than allowing God to build that great and wonderful house of humbled human hearts.
</p>


