# comment

text:
<p>Who will listen to what you say? The share of the one who goes down to the battle shall be the same as the share of the one who stays with the baggage; they shall share alike- </p><p>LXX "for they are not inferior to us". The reference to staying with the baggage corroborates with the word used in :10; the 200 remained 'standing', standing guard, and not slumped on the ground. Again we note the contrast with how David values his weak servants, compared to how the Amalekite discarded his Egyptian servant when he was too weak to continue marching. See on :22. The word for "share" in <a href='B:90 30:24'>1Sa 30:24</a> is that used in <a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a>, where the Levites were to have the same "portions" or "share". David’s language choice was setting up his men to see themselves as a new priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>From that day forward he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel to this day- </p><p>The law of Moses was added to in practical terms as situations arose in Israel's history. It was not seen as static, and this eased the way towards the idea that it could be amended and then abrogated by the Lord's work.</p>


text:
<p>When David came to Ziklag he sent some of the spoil to the elders of Judah, his friends, saying, Here is a present for you from the spoil of the enemies of Yahweh- </p><p>Note the intended contrast between friends of David and enemies of Yahweh. David is careful to show that Yahweh's enemies were the Gentile marauders of His people, and not Saul and his supporters. This matches the Lord's dividing up the spoils of His singular victory (<a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a>); see on :20,24.</p><p>This action reflects David's faith that he would soon become king; he was paving the way for his return to Judah as king after Saul's death. So he has recovered from his spiritual low point of 1 Sam. 27:1 when he is persuaded that Saul will kill him.</p>


text:
<p>He sent it to those who were in Bethel, Ramoth of the South, Jattir- </p><p>Some of these places may have been plundered by the Amalekites, since they had invaded the south of Judah (:14). The Hebrews of Judah would have received news of Saul's defeat and murder at the same time as they received news of David’s victory and evidence of it in the presents sent to them. The timing was clearly Divine; for David was thereby established as the logical next king of Judah. "Bethel" here is the small settlement near Ziklag (<a href='B:60 15:30'>Jos 15:30</a>; <a href='B:60 19:4'>Jos 19:4</a>; <a href='B:130 4:30'>1Ch 4:30</a>), not the well known Bethel in the tribe of Benjamin.</p>


text:
<p>Aroer, Siphmoth, Eshtemoa- </p><p>This is not the Aroer on the river Arnon, but some smaller settlement in southern Israel. “Shama and Jehiel the sons of Hothan the Aroerite” were amongst David’s mighty men (<a href='B:130 11:44'>1Ch 11:44</a>). Perhaps David hid in the area whilst on the run from Saul, and these two men went off with him. Eshtemoa was a priestly city; it would seem the priests were largely supportive of David when on the run from Saul, perhaps due to Samuel's influence (<a href='B:60 15:50'>Jos 15:50</a>; <a href='B:60 21:14'>Jos 21:14</a>). Siphmoth was the home town of Zabdi, who had charge of David’s wine cellars (<a href='B:130 27:27'>1Ch 27:27</a>). Those who supported him in his wilderness years, when he seemed a hopeless case, became exalted in his kingdom. And in the type, this is true of we who support the Lord Jesus in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Racal, the cities of the Jerahmeelites, the cities of the Kenites- </p><p>The record of these names may be in order to highlight the awful lie David had told Achish in <a href='B:90 27:10'>1Sa 27:10</a>, claiming he had turned his hand against his friends and supporters: "When Achish said, Against whom have you made a raid today? David would say, Against the South of Judah, or against the South of the Jerahmeelites, or against the South of the Kenites". Racal is LXX "Carmel".</p>


text:
<p>Hormah, Borashan, Athach- </p><p>Hormah ["devoted"] is the Canaanite Zephath ["watchtower"] of <a href='B:70 1:17'>Jdg 1:17</a>. The strength of the Canaanites was devoted to Yahweh, and they were supportive of David when on the run from Saul (<a href='B:90 30:30'>1Sa 30:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hebron and to those in all the places where David himself and his men used to stay- </p><p>The record has noted that some areas had betrayed him to Saul (we think of the men of Jabesh and Ziph); or like Nabal, refused to support him when in need. But clearly he had support amongst many in Judah, who had supported him over the years. And he remembered exactly who they were, and sent these presents to them- now sensing that Saul's end was near and he was to become king at least over Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines and fell down slain on Mount Gilboa- </p><p>It is really stressed that Saul and Jonathan "fell" on Gilboa (<a href='B:90 31:1'>1Sa 31:1</a>; <a href='B:90 31:8'>1Sa 31:8</a>; <a href='B:100 1:10'>2Sa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:100 1:12'>2Sa 1:12</a>; <a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a>; <a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a>), using a Hebrew word which is often associated with spiritual falling. The fact that "the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons" (<a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>) gives the impression of them fleeing from the Philistine soldiers. This sends the mind back to the Law's warning that an apostate Israel would flee before their enemies (<a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a>). Saul and Jonathan are described in terms representative of apostate Israel; see <a href='B:370 2:14-15'>Amo 2:14-15</a>; Micah 1, 2 and expositions there. But the fall of Israel was due to the fall of Saul (see on <a href='B:90 28:19'>1Sa 28:19</a>); instead of being the king who led to victory as Israel had hoped and as God had enabled, he led to shame and defeat.</p><p>Earlier the Philistines had 'fallen down slain' after David's victory over Goliath (same words in 1 Sam. 17:52). That victory had now been reversed; for Saul was the antithesis of David. And yet we have noted that David was spiritually weak at this time. All this was by grace alone, God's grace towards David, because He recognized that beneath all David's weakness there was a heart after His own. Fleeing before enemies and falling down before them is the language of Israel's punishment for breaking the covenant. But David deeply laments the falling down slain of Saul and Israel (2 Sam. 1:19,25 "the beauty of Israel is slain... how are the mighty fallen... how are the mighty fallen... O Jonathan, you were slain on your high places"). We enquire whether Jonathan had slipped away from the covenant, seeing he too fell down slain; he is strongly identified with Saul in 1 Chron. 10:6: "So Saul died, and his three sons; and all his family died together". The curious expression 'on your high places' suggests of course the idolatrous high places, as if Jonathan had been as it were sacrificed on the altar of his own preferred 'high place'. Ez. 6:4 sounds so similar, using the same words for 'falling down' and 'slain': "I will cast down [make to fall down] your slain men before your idols". We see here the danger of the Jonathan choice- to reject coming out for David / Jesus, and instead to choose to remain 'in the world' and appear as of the world, whilst speaking up for David / Jesus at times. It could sadly be that like many who have made the Jonathan choice, he was caught up in that world and suffered their judgment. Or it could be that we have here an example of how good men can suffer the results of others' breaking of covenant. Although surely it is far from God to slay the righteous with the wicked, as Abraham argued regarding Lot in Sodom. Whatever, David's lament for those judged for breaking covenant makes him even more a man after God's own heart- for the condemnation of the wicked grieves God deeply, and is never done with any smug self satisfaction or lashing out in punishment.  

1Sa 31:2 The Philistines followed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua, the sons of Saul- 
"Followed hard after" suggests the Philistines chased Saul. Just as he had chased David. We could see this as him reaping some poetic justice. Yet it could be that even in these last hours of his life, God was appealing to Saul to understand what he had done to David, and repent. Saul had chased David up a conical hill- and then the arrival of the Philistines had saved David. Now Saul was chased by the Philistines up a conical hill- to death. Saul was being reminded of this, but not as poetic justice for the sake of it, but as a nudge to repentance. For God doesn't give up with man until his last breath, and it's only over when it's over. Likewise we ponder why Saul's sons were slain first, and then he was hit by an arrow (:3). That isolating him alone, having lost his sons [he would have perceived, although wrongly, that all his sons were slain] and therefore all hope of his kingly dynasty continuing, was perhaps also a desperate appeal for his repentance and acceptance that his "kingdom", his dynasty", was not to continue. Or again, we ponder the word used for "archer" in :3. It is the word 'to point out', and is the word more commonly used for a "teacher". Samuel says in 1 Sam. 12:23 that he will not cease to "teach [s.w. "archer"] you the good and right way". Perhaps again there is a hint that even at that final stage, God was appealing for Saul to be teachable. So likewise we ponder how after Saul's sons are killed, he appears to be isolated alone with his armourbearer. And the only other mention of Saul's armourbearer is when we read that this was David's role earlier (1 Sam. 16:21). Was not this also a nudge towards thinking of David, and repenting of how he had abused David his armourbearer? We have no insight into the final psychological moments of those who die after falling away from God, but very likely His efforts with them likewise continue to the end of life. These are only hints, because God makes His appeals subtly and not in a way which would railroad man into repentance. For man is free, created free by God, and He ever respects that human freedom He has granted to man. To railroad to repentance is not His style nor His way in this world. </p>


text:
<p>The Philistines followed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua, the sons of Saul- </p><p>"Followed hard after" suggests the Philistines chased Saul. Just as he had chased David. We could see this as him reaping some poetic justice. Yet it could be that even in these last hours of his life, God was appealing to Saul to understand what he had done to David, and repent. Saul had chased David up a conical hill- and then the arrival of the Philistines had saved David. Now Saul was chased by the Philistines up a conical hill- to death. Saul was being reminded of this, but not as poetic justice for the sake of it, but as a nudge to repentance. For God doesn't give up with man until his last breath, and it's only over when it's over. Likewise we ponder why Saul's sons were slain first, and then he was hit by an arrow (:3). That isolating him alone, having lost his sons [he would have perceived, although wrongly, that all his sons were slain] and therefore all hope of his kingly dynasty continuing, was perhaps also a desperate appeal for his repentance and acceptance that his "kingdom", his dynasty", was not to continue. Or again, we ponder the word used for "archer" in :3. It is the word 'to point out', and is the word more commonly used for a "teacher". Samuel says in 1 Sam. 12:23 that he will not cease to "teach [s.w. "archer"] you the good and right way". Perhaps again there is a hint that even at that final stage, God was appealing for Saul to be teachable. So likewise we ponder how after Saul's sons are killed, he appears to be isolated alone with his armourbearer. And the only other mention of Saul's armourbearer is when we read that this was David's role earlier (1 Sam. 16:21). Was not this also a nudge towards thinking of David, and repenting of how he had abused David his armourbearer? We have no insight into the final psychological moments of those who die after falling away from God, but very likely His efforts with them likewise continue to the end of life. These are only hints, because God makes His appeals subtly and not in a way which would railroad man into repentance. For man is free, created free by God, and He ever respects that human freedom He has granted to man. To railroad to repentance is not His style nor His way in this world. </p><p><a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>; <a href='B:130 10:2'>1Ch 10:2</a> read "Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua", whereas <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a> has "Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua". "Ishvi" may be another name for Abinadab; or we may note that the word means "and the second...", which would make sense in <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a>. The genealogies of <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a> also mention Esh-Baal or Ishbosheth; perhaps his name mentioning the "Baal" compound was the reason for its exclusion. Having such a name reflects upon Saul's lack of total devotion to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The battle went badly against Saul, the archers overtook him and wounded him badly- </p><p>This was all such a reversal of fortunes. When the Philistines stopped the Israelites from having metal weapons, they honed their skills as slingers and archers. But now it was Philistine archers who wounded Saul. Tragically, David would use archers to slay Uriah. His words of Ps. 64:7 were being fulfilled: "God shall shoot at them [David's enemies] with an arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded". But when this happened, David weeps and laments over Saul.  The Hebrew for "wounded" may also be rendered “and he was sore afraid" [s.w. "be in anguish", Dt. 2:25] . This is the final end of the rejected. Fear. Alone with none to help. </p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to his armour bearer, Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through and abuse me!-</p><p>We see again the record present the demise of Saul and the rise of David. For David had earlier cut off the foreskins of 200 Philistines whom he has slain; “For
Saul devised to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines” (1 Sam. 18:25). But Saul now faces abuse [of his circumcision?] by the uncircumcised and will himself fall by their hand. </p><p>"Lest they mock / abuse me" were to be the very words of Zedekiah (<a href='B:300 38:19'>Jer 38:19</a>). The message for the exiles was that their leadership had indeed acted and been judged as Saul, but there was hope for restoration in a revived David figure.</p><p>But his armour bearer would not, for he was respectful. Therefore Saul took his sword and fell on it- </p><p>This man, although close to Saul, had been influenced by the spirit of David who would not lift up his hand against Yahweh's anointed. He may well have been near Saul on the two occasions David had come close to him and had chosen not to slay him. We learn from this that there may be people who think rightly in positions we would not imagine.  "Respectful" is literally "he feared", and David uses the word in 2 Sam. 1:10 in asking why the Amalekite did not "fear" to slay Saul as Saul requested. David appears aware of the faithfulness of Saul's armour bearer. </p><p>Saul was Yahweh's anointed, but he slew Yahweh's anointed- by killing himself. This was what he had attempted to do to David; and he ended up doing it to himself. And so is revealed a profound principle- that what we would wish to do to others, we ultimately do to ourselves. If we refuse to forgive them, we remain unforgiven. If we judge / condemn them and in our minds exclude them from God's Kingdom, we do the same to ourselves. If we wish our most difficult enemies salvation- we shall be saved. If we hate them and thereby kill them, as the Lord teaches- we hate and slay ourselves. </p>


text:
<p>When his armour bearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell on his sword and died with him- </p><p>Fair attention is given to this man. As noted on :4, he was like Jonathan and many, in that his loyalties were divided. He was personally loyal to Saul, feeling that Saul's death was his death; and yet also loyal to the spirit of David, in that he would not slay Yahweh's anointed, and respected him as that right up to Saul's hopeless end. We may well meet him in God’s Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>So Saul died, and his three sons and his armour bearer and all his men, that same day together- </p><p>To all die on the same day was tragic; and recalls the deaths of Eli and his sons at the hands of the Philistines. They died in fulfilment of prophecies that they must be replaced by a faithful priest, of whom Samuel was a potential fulfilment. The situation with the deaths of Saul and his sons was so similar. We see the same Divine hand at work.</p><p>"Many of the people" (<a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a>) is no contradiction with <a href='B:90 31:6'>1Sa 31:6</a>, where “all his men” refers to Saul’s immediate body-guard.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Israel who were on the other side of the valley, and those who were beyond the Jordan, saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook their cities and fled, and the Philistines came and lived in them- </p><p>We enquire who is in view when we read that "When all the men of Israel who were in the valley saw that they fled... they fled [also]" (1 Chron. 10:7). The reference to Saul being 'overtaken' in :3 and 1 Chron. 10:3 suggests it was Saul and his men who fled. This caused the men of Israel in the valley to flee; and then 1 Sam. 31:7 adds that the men of Israel "on the other side of the valley" [a separate group] fled, when they say that the "men of Israel" in the valley had fled. It was a collapse mentality, led by the fleeing of Saul. David in 2 Sam. 1 presents Saul as gallantly fighting to the end, but he was surely imputing goodness to Saul. True to a man who disobeyed the covenant, he fled before his enemies, according to the curse of the covenant. And this led his men to progressively flee. </p><p>The valley of Jezreel is in view; it was the most fertile part of Israel. The translation may be better "on the side of the valley". The forsaken cities appear to apply only to that valley in <a href='B:130 10:7'>1Ch 10:7</a>. "Beyond the Jordan" may mean 'on the river banks'. There is little archaeological evidence that the Philistines possessed the territory east of Jordan for very long. Soon after this, Abner proclaimed Ishbosheth as king at Mahanaim, about twenty miles east of the Jordan (<a href='B:100 2:8'>2Sa 2:8</a>). So these gains of the Philistines were short-lived, and they lacked the numbers of population to really settle all this territory. But the impression is given of a total Philistine victory in the north of Israel.</p><p>'Forsaken cities' is a term often used in the prophets of how Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were forsaken during the Babylonian invasion. The 1 Samuel record was surely written or edited as comfort to the exiles- that under David their prince, a glorious restoration was possible. </p>


text:
<p>The next day, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, they found Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount Gilboa-</p><p>The fact this was done the next day suggests the battle continued into the late evening, with Saul fighting literally to the end.</p>


text:
<p>They cut off his head, stripped off his armour and sent into the land of the Philistines all around to carry the news to the house of their idols and to the people- </p><p>This may well have been to allude to what David had done to Goliath many years before, placing his armour in the tabernacle; the sting of which remained with them. But the record mocks how they had to take the news to their idols; unlike Yahweh who sees and knows all things, and even before they happen.</p><p>We note they stripped his armour. His crown and bracelet was taken by the Amalekite looter whom we learn of in 2 Sam. 1. The man came to spoil the slain bodies, and finding the crown and bracelet, took them to David, hoping for a reward.</p><p>We note they stripped his armour. His crown and bracelet was taken by the Amalekite looter whom we learn of in 2 Sam. 1. The man came to spoil the slain bodies, and finding the crown and bracelet, took them to David, hoping for a reward. </p><p>If Saul was stripped, it means his royal robe was stripped off him. He had done this before when he was in the cave, and when he went to the medium. He should have stripped off those robes and given them to David, accepting God's word to him that this must happen. But he refused, and so it was done to him in his final condemnation. We either accept our condemnation now, or we will experience it at judgment day.  </p><p>
The death of Saul was 'published' (AV) by the Philistines. But David uses the word in saying "Publish it not" (2 Sam. 1:20). Perhaps he means that Israel were not to speak of this tragedy; hence he kills the Amalekite who 'published' the news to him (2 Sam. 4:10 s.w.).</p>


text:
<p>They put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth Shan- </p><p><a href='B:130 10:10'>1Ch 10:10</a> says that they fastened the head of Saul in Dagon's temple. <a href='B:130 10:12'>1Ch 10:12</a> adds the detail that the bodies of his sons were likewise fastened to the wall. Herodotus writes of a great temple to Venus in Ashkelon.  Clearly the Philistines had in memory how David had brought the head of Goliath to Jerusalem. They were seeking to as it were undo David's work and victory.</p>


text:
<p>When the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul-</p><p>They had been saved by Saul in 1 Samuel 11, maybe 40 years before (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>). They had total loyalty to Saul even now at the end, when surely it was clear that David was the king of God’s choice and Saul had sinned and failed. Perhaps they set a good example of appreciating the good a man once did or taught, even if in later life he turned away from God. As explained on <a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>, this was how David treated Saul.</p>


text:
<p>all the valiant men arose and travelled all night and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth Shan, and they went to Jabesh and burnt them there- </p><p>Cremation was not common amongst the Jews, but perhaps they did this lest his body be abused further, seeing that they were under Philistine domination. But the bones were buried (:13) so only the rest of the bodies were burnt. Or we can read "Burnt for them there", the burning referring to incense rather than the bodies. </p>


text:
<p>They took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted seven days- </p><p>We recall how it was beneath a tamarisk tree that Saul had ordered the massacre of the priests of Nob (<a href='B:90 22:6'>1Sa 22:6</a>). Now it is his bones which are beneath such a tree.</p>


text:
<e>2 Samuel: 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></p><p>It happened after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites- </p><p>Saul was empowered to smite or slaughter the Amalakites (<a href='B:90 15:3'>1Sa 15:3</a>; <a href='B:90 15:7'>1Sa 15:7</a> s:w:), but he didn’t completely do this. As often happens, God then passed on the job to another, in this case David. We can see His hand working in similar ways today. This seems to be the idea of <a href='B:190 4:14'>Est 4:14</a>. If she had not saved her people, then God would have pursued another plan to the same end.</p><p>And David had stayed two days in Ziklag- </p><p>Ziklag was about 90 miles from Gilboa where Saul had been slain (cp. <a href='B:90 27:6'>1Sa 27:6</a>). A fast messenger would have taken two or three days to cover that distance with the news. The record has every 'ring of truth' to it in the details. It is this internal, circumstantial evidence which is to me the greatest proof that the Bible is indeed God’s inspired word:&nbsp;</p><p><a href='B:100 1:2'>2Sa 1:2</a></p><p>it happened on the third day, that behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul- </p><p>LXX "From the people of Saul". We wonder whether the man was in fact as he claimed, an Amalekite who had been with Saul. For David had just been fighting the Amalekites (:1), and was near their territory. I wonder if in fact he was a local man who had heard or even guessed the news and had come with his own agendas. The record of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 contradicts the story of the Amalekite. But the Biblical record at times describes things as they appear to be. The NT language of demons is another example. However the fact the man had Saul's crown and bracelets (:10) would suggest that he was one of the wandering types who hung around battlefields eager for the spoil.</p><p>The three days journey from Gilboa to Ziklag has been noted on :1, but we note that David had travelled with the Philistines almost to Gilboa (<a href='B:90 29:1'>1Sa 29:1</a>), and had then been sent back to Ziklag, and it had taken them three days to get there (<a href='B:90 30:1'>1Sa 30:1</a>). The record has every circumstantial evidence of being true.</p><p>With his clothes torn and dust upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and showed respect-</p><p>Literally, he made obeisance, the word being used specifically for worshipping God. He was showing that he accepted David as the new king. We note that all arguments that "Jesus received worship, therefore Jesus is God" are flawed in that the words for Divine worship are also sometimes used about the worship of men; and this is a parade example.</p><p>The language here is that of <a href='B:90 4:12'>1Sa 4:12</a>, where a Benjamite has the same tokens of mourning when bringing the news of the disastrous defeat of Aphek. I noted above that the man came "from the people of Saul" (LXX). Perhaps he was an Amalekite associated with Saul. See on :4.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:3'>2Sa 1:3</a> David said to him, Where do you come from? He said to him, I have escaped out of the camp of Israel- </p><p>This suggests the Amalekite was on Israel's side, and I have suggested on :2,4 that he was effectively a Benjamite from Saul's tribe and close to Saul.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a></p><p>David said to him, How did it go? Please tell me. He answered, The people have fled from the battle, and many of the people also have fallen and are dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also- </p><p>"Many of the people" (<a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a>) is no contradiction with <a href='B:90 31:6'>1Sa 31:6</a>, where “all his men” refers to Saul’s immediate body-guard. The report of the bad news here is exactly that of <a href='B:90 4:16'>1Sa 4:16</a>, where a Benjamite reports a defeat in the same order: "The rout, the slaughter among the people, the death of the leaders, are mentioned in an ascending climax". This corroborates the suggestion on :2 that this Amalekite was in league with Saul quite closely.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:5'>2Sa 1:5</a></p><p>David said to the young man who told him, How do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?- </p><p>David is sceptical of the man from the start, but accepts what he says at face value and judges him accordingly.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:6'>2Sa 1:6</a></p><p>The young man who told him said, As I happened by chance on Mount Gilboa, behold, Saul was leaning on his spear; and behold, the chariots and the horsemen followed hard after him- </p><p>'Happening by chance' contradicts his story that he had escaped out of the camp or army of Israel (:3). But David doesn't challenge this obvious contradiction, but rather judges the man according to his own words and claimed positions. Leaning upon his spear meant suicide; the contradiction was that Saul was utterly alone, and hadn't managed to kill himself by leaning upon his spear.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:7'>2Sa 1:7</a> When he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. I answered, ‘Here I am’- </p><p>This contradicts the account of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31, and is a typical example of how a liar will fabricate details to try to make their story look first hand and credible.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:8'>2Sa 1:8</a></p><p>He said to me, ‘Who are you?’. I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite’- </p><p>Here we have another internal contradiction within the man's story. If Saul wished to die not at the hands of the uncircumcised, why then would he agree to being slain by an uncircumcised Amalekite.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:9'>2Sa 1:9</a></p><p>He said to me, ‘Please stand beside me, and kill me; for anguish has taken hold of me, because my life is yet whole in me’- </p><p>The man was perhaps aware of how David had spared Saul's life because he believed it was wrong to slay Yahweh's anointed. And so the man creates the story that Saul had all but killed himself by leaning on his own spear (:6), and the Amalekite had just helped him by putting him out of the agony of a bungled suicide. The story lacks credibility.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:10'>2Sa 1:10</a></p><p>So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he had fallen. I took the crown that was on his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them here to my lord- </p><p>As noted on :9, the man is trying to say that Saul was going to die anyway after having fallen upon his own spear in suicide (:6). In this case, there was no need to kill him, because Saul was going to die anyway in due course. The man's story is self contradictory. But David doesn't raise any of the obvious contradictions; like the Lord Jesus dealing with untruths told Him, he takes the words at face value and reasons with the man according to his own words. And this is a pattern for us, not to be so obsessed with "truth" that we demonstrate the contradictions in the words of others, but rather taking them at face value and drawing the conclusions from those words. In this case, despite all the contradictions, the man was saying that he had slain Yahweh's anointed, and that was the grounds of condemnation in David’s eyes.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:11'>2Sa 1:11</a> Then David took hold on his clothes, and tore them; and likewise all the men who were with him- </p><p>David accepted that the man's story was true insofar as Saul was dead, with the crown and bracelets being evidence of that.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:12'>2Sa 1:12</a></p><p>They mourned, wept and fasted until evening, for Saul and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of Yahweh, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword- </p><p>We enquire why David weeps so sincerely for Saul. I don't believe it was mere theatricism, nor purely politically motivated by a desire to get the house of Saul onside with him in his new kingdom. There was something evidently genuine about his grief.</p><p><a href='B:230 35:14'>Psa 35:14</a> is David’s comment about his grief for Saul both during Saul's life and also at his death: "I behaved myself as though it had been my friend or my brother. I bowed down mourning, as one who mourns his mother". This is one verse which to me is a cameo of the extent of the victory which David won against the mind of the flesh, against our massive tendency to repay sin with sin, bitterness with bitterness, anger with anger. If we take nothing else away from this, please focus your mind on this, and keep the memory: Here David protests his love for the one who was persecuting him (<a href='B:230 35:12'>Psa 35:12</a>) and is reflecting upon his attitude to Saul's death. "As one who mourns for his mother". This is surely one of the most powerful figures that could be employed. Picture a young man of say 24, in a dark blue suit, kneeling down at the graveside of his mother, surrounded by friends and relatives, bowing down heavily in his grief. Or picture a man of 34, 44, 54, hair greying and receding now, bowing himself down heavily. Or even 64, 74, alone in his grief, bowing down heavily to the green turf, muttering words about mum. Perhaps some of us haven't yet experienced this; many have. If you haven't, just imagine it. Surely it brings a lump to your throat. Now it was with this intensity of grief that David mourned the death or sickness of his persecutor. This is a wondrous reflection of his devotion, his true love, his triumph over bitterness and anger, over all the human actions that had been directed against him. The heavy bowing down of the Lord Jesus as he wept over Jerusalem, the city that hated and rejected him, whose leaders slew him, whose people screamed for his blood. David wept for Saul as if he was his friend or brother. Who was David’s friend and brother? Surely Jonathan his brother-in-law. But he wept for Saul, David says, as he wept for Jonathan. This is testified to historically by David’s lament of 2 Samuel 1. And still David sought out the house of Saul, “that I may shew the kindness of God” unto them (<a href='B:100 9:3'>2Sa 9:3</a>). It was the experience of Divine kindness that motivated David. As he hoped for fellowship at the King’s table in the future, so David delighted in inviting his former enemies to partake of his table, now he was king (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:11'>2Sa 9:11</a>; <a href='B:100 9:13'>2Sa 9:13</a>). And if we hope to share the Lord’s table in the Kingdom, we must share it with our weaker brethren now. I see in all this such a triumph for David, that a man should reflect the love of God to such an extent, to love in the face of such hatred, to not just love those who loved him.</p><p>The choice of a man mourning his mother, rather than a man his son, his father or his sister, was intentional. A man mourns for his mother because of the deep bond he feels now severed, and from feelings of guilt over ingratitude to her, lack of appreciation for her. And this was how David genuinely felt for Saul, despite all Saul's evil against him.</p><p>The deep sorrow of the Lord Jesus for Judas and all those who turn away is surely typified here. Right at the bitter end, the Lord still referred to him as His friend (<a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a>), even though a few hours before He had been speaking of how the faithful few were His friends, and how He would give His life for His friends (<a href='B:500 15:13-15'>Joh 15:13-15</a>). Throughout His ministry, the Lord had spoken of the faithful as His friends (<a href='B:490 14:20'>Luk 14:20</a>; <a href='B:490 11:8'>Luk 11:8</a>; <a href='B:490 12:4'>Luk 12:4</a>). This was the spirit of the Lord Jesus in His time of dying, this is what enabled Him to&nbsp; go through the mock trial, the intense degradation, the bitter pain of rejection, without bitterness and the sin of unholy anger. To be like David to Saul, like Paul to Corinth, like Christ to the Jews, like God to us, really is possible. If that's how we can live, we will truly be in the new life.</p><p>We must however compare this great love of David for Saul with the many bitter words of imprecation he says about him in his Psalms. See on :23. Perhaps one reason for David’s sadness was that he realized that his overhasty prayers had in a way been answered. We really must be careful what we pray for, in case we receive it. Many human relationships include an element of love and hate [hence women remain in physically abusive relationships with men who protest "love" for them], and here David’s love finally triumphs over the hate.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:13'>2Sa 1:13</a></p><p>David said to the young man who told him, Where are you from? He answered, I am the son of a foreigner, an Amalekite- </p><p>LXX "The son of an Amalekite sojourner". The man has already stated he is an Amalekite (:8), so the intention of David’s question was not in order to elicit this information. Rather is David implying that it was even more wrong for an uncircumcised Gentile to slay Yahweh's anointed king of Israel.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:14'>2Sa 1:14</a></p><p>David said to him, How were you not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy Yahweh’s anointed?- </p><p>We tend to be particularly judgmental in cases where we ourselves overcame a temptation. David could have used his hand to slay Saul and his own men urged him to do so, and would've done so; but David resisted (the same term for putting forth a hand upon the anointed is used in <a href='B:90 24:6'>1Sa 24:6</a>; <a href='B:90 24:10'>1Sa 24:10</a>; <a href='B:90 26:9'>1Sa 26:9</a>; <a href='B:90 26:11'>1Sa 26:11</a>; <a href='B:90 26:23'>1Sa 26:23</a>). And now he condemns to death a man who had done what he very nearly did, and what his own men wanted to do. And so the strongest condemnation for smokers comes from ex-smokers, and so forth. We need to be aware of this feature of human nature.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:15'>2Sa 1:15</a> David called one of the young men and said, Go near, and fall on him. He struck him, so that he died- </p><p>David had just slain the Amalekites with extreme brutality, slaying even their children so that none would be left alive to tell others that David’s men had slaughtered them. David perhaps felt justified in this by <a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>, but I consider this was not David at his best. David still had that blood lust in him at this time. His slaying of this Amalekite could have been to demonstrate that he really was in lamentation for Saul's death and was truly sad, and believed that any who slew Yahweh's anointed must die the death. But his motives were surely mixed. He wanted to make a political statement to the house of Saul; and he also had blood lust in him from the recent fight with the Amalekites (:1). Not for nothing was he precluded from building the temple because God considered he had shed too much blood.</p><p>It seems to me that this was an over the top reaction, and yet again betrays a lack of value and meaning attached to the human person. There was no attempt to convert the frightened young man to grace, to the God of Israel. The summary slaying of Rechab and Baanah has some similarities (<a href='B:100 4:12'>2Sa 4:12</a>). 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>).</p><p><a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sa 1:16</a> David said to him, Your blood be on your head; for your mouth has testified against you saying, ‘I have slain Yahweh’s anointed’- </p><p>As noted above, the man's story had various points of obvious internal contradiction within it. But David doesn't dwell upon these, although he may imply he considers the man is lying about the details, but rather judges the man according to his words and intentions. This looks forward to how the Lord Jesus will judge according to our words (<a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a> alludes here), by which men shall be condemned (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>). The need to respect Yahweh's anointed however continues to our day, for we too are anointed, in that we are "in Christ", the anointed one, and anointed (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>). This deep respect for all others "in Christ" should impart to relationships "in Christ" an altogether unique quality, a love so unusual that it is enough to convert the world (John 17).</p><p><a href='B:100 1:17'>2Sa 1:17</a></p><p>David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son- </p><p>David is careful to united Saul and Jonathan together; as noted on :12, he mourned "as though it [Saul] had been my friend or my brother" [Jonathan].</p><p><a href='B:100 1:18'>2Sa 1:18</a></p><p>(and he commanded them to teach the children of Judah the song of the bow- </p><p>Saul was slain by a bow, and this was to be memorialized in the title. Similarly <a href='B:20 3:1-22'>Exo 3:1-22</a> is called "The Bush" in <a href='B:480 12:26'>Mar 12:26</a>. Or the reference may be to Jonathan's fondness for archery (<a href='B:90 20:20'>1Sa 20:20</a>), and his gift of his own bow to David (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a>). David and Saul had a highly complex relationship, pointing forward to the complexity of relationship between Christ and Israel. Consider the&nbsp; way that Jewry initially accepted John's Gospel of Messiah, how soon after the resurrection thousands of the priests who had rejected Christ then accepted him, and how even a few hours before the crucifixion the people shouted out for Jesus of Nazareth to be their Messiah-king. These are some of many hints that there was a complex acceptance-rejection relationship between Israel and Christ. Saul and David likewise had a mutual love and respect for each other. After all Saul had done to David, David’s grief at his death in 2 Samuel 1 is deep indeed. David taught all Israel to regularly sing that song of grief for Saul, and his zeal to demonstrate his forgiveness to the house of Saul is outstanding. Saul's sons and family were also involved in the anti-David campaign.</p><p>Behold, it is written in the book of Jashar)- </p><p>Literally "the upright", showing how David imputed righteousness to Saul as an upright one. But this book has significantly not been preserved and was not Divinely inspired; because Saul is not ultimately in the book of God’s upright ones.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a></p><p>Your glory, Israel, is slain on your high places! How the mighty have fallen!- </p><p>LXX "Set up a pillar, O Israel, for the slain that died upon thy high places". Or the Hebrew for "glory" is that for "gazelle" and may refer to the swiftness of Jonathan. If the LXX is followed, we see David unafraid to break the spirit of the Mosaic law in <a href='B:30 26:1'>Lev 26:1</a>; just as David at times acted as a Levitical priest when he wasn't one. The reference to "high places" suggests idolatry, and there is the implication in the Psalms written against Saul that he was finally an idolater. The place of his death was therefore appropriate.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:20'>2Sa 1:20</a></p><p>Don’t tell it in Gath. Don’t publish it in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph- </p><p>But all these things did of course happen (<a href='B:90 31:9'>1Sa 31:9</a>). We must read this as David’s bitter regret that it happened.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:21'>2Sa 1:21</a></p><p>You mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew nor rain on you, neither fields of offerings- </p><p>LXX "Fields of firstfruits".</p><p>For there the shield of the mighty was shamefully cast away, The shield of Saul was not anointed with oil- </p><p>Shields were anointed with oil before going into battle (<a href='B:290 21:5'>Isa 21:5</a>). The idea may be that Saul's shield didn’t save him, he perished as if he had not anointed it with oil; but the implication is that his anointing as king of Israel hadn't saved him. He had been rejected, in favour of David.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:22'>2Sa 1:22</a></p><p>From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, Jonathan’s bow didn’t turn back. Saul’s sword didn’t return empty- </p><p>Jonathan and Saul's " bow... and sword" were used by them in the fateful battle on Gilboa. Does this mean that Jonathan was trusting in his human strength again? Psalms 44, which sounds very much like David’s meditation on Israel's defeat on Gilboa, includes the comment: "I (David) will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword&nbsp; save me" (<a href='B:230 44:6'>Psa 44:6</a>). Or does it mean that although Jonathan gave David / Jesus his human strength, his bow (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a>), but David gave it back to him, for him to use on his own initiative?</p><p>It is possible to Biblically reconstruct the battle of Gilboa, and thus to enter into the pathos of the whole scene yet more fully. Saul and Jonathan did not retreat / turn back, when the rest of Israel did (<a href='B:90 31:1'>1Sa 31:1</a>). Saul and his sons held their ground, slaying many Philistines. But then Jonathan was wounded by an arrow (the Hebrew word translated "slain" in <a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:100 1:22'>2Sa 1:22</a>; <a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a> means to pierce to death; crucifixion language), as was Saul. Yet they kept on fighting, until they were surrounded on all sides; they died "in the midst&nbsp; of the battle" (<a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a>); they "perished" (<a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a>), a Hebrew word also translated 'to have no way to flee'. They tried to flee, eventually throwing down their shields so that they could run faster (<a href='B:100 1:21'>2Sa 1:21</a>). Eventually Jonathan and his brothers, the cream of Israel, lay slain on Gilboa, and Saul then fell on his sword:&nbsp;</p><p><a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a></p><p>Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives- </p><p>LXX "Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the beautiful". Or, "loving and kindly". Saul had been anything but this, but it is part of love to impute righteousness to a person, to see them positively after their death; and this is why God’s love leads to His imputation of righteousness to us, as Romans 1-8 explains. The sense of this verse in the Hebrew is that "Neither in their lives nor in their death were they divided". But they were deeply divided in their lives. We see here David wishing by all means to impute righteousness to both Saul and Jonathan, even though he had suffered to terribly from Saul. We see here the measure of David. Despite his Psalms of imprecation against Saul, when Saul dies, he shows that in his heart he truly loved Saul and&nbsp; forgave him to the point of imputing righteousness to him. We must remember that when a man rails against another. The words are indeed sinful, for we shall be judged according to our words. But human nature is so contradictory that within there may also be a core love for the person being abused in hot blood. Thankfully God judges righteously, factoring in all the invisible things of the heart which man cannot; we cannot ultimately judge, and this inability is the reason why we must not judge.</p><p>In their death they were not divided. They were swifter than eagles. They were stronger than lions- </p><p>David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan is extremely positive, after the spirit of the way in which Christ looks upon his dead saints (cp. God’s positive comments on many of the kings after their death). Yet we know that Saul's death was in recompense for his dire apostasy. In that punishment, David observed, he and Jonathan "were not divided". This may suggest that in some sense Jonathan was too closely linked with his father, and was therefore implicated in his punishment. It can be shown that not all Saul's sons died on Gilboa; therefore there was special point to the fact that Jonathan died with his father in that way. David’s command that there should be no dew or rain upon the mountains (<a href='B:100 1:21'>2Sa 1:21</a>) was to be picked up years later by Elijah, when he made the same imprecation against an apostate Israel (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>).</p><p>Consider the following:</p><p>- The description of Jonathan as the son of Saul occurs a massive 23 times; the connection between them is certainly highlighted. </p><p>- Jonathan had Gideon as his personal hero. Yet there is ample evidence that Saul too saw Gideon in this light. Does this suggest that in his more spiritual days, Saul successfully imparted his spiritual enthusiasm for Gideon to his son in Sunday school lessons? </p><p>- Mephibosheth is called Saul's son (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:10'>2Sa 9:10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:24'>2Sa 19:24</a>), although he was actually Jonathan's son. This suggests that the son was brought up in Saul's house. This certainly does not give the impression that Jonathan separated himself from his father’s house.</p><p>- Jonathan was commander of the army (<a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>). When he gave "the robe that was upon him" to David (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a>), he was effectively making David the commander (cp. <a href='B:140 18:9'>2Ch 18:9</a>; <a href='B:140 18:29'>2Ch 18:29</a>). Thus when "Saul set (David) over the men of war" (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>), he was tacitly going along with Jonathan's wish, even though by this time he had already heard the women praising David more than himself, and his bitter jealousy against David had already begun (<a href='B:90 18:6'>1Sa 18:6</a>). This little point simply shows the external unity of action between Saul and Jonathan.</p><p>This closeness in Jonathan's relationship with Saul shows the emotional tangle which Jonathan was in on account of his relationship with David. If we truly love the Lord Jesus Christ, and if we are honest enough to come to terms with the pull of our own natures, we will be going through exactly the same. Our Lord seems to have seen in Jonathan a type of ourselves. In the context of warning us that loyalty to Him would mean confessing him before men and conflict between fathers and sons, he encourages us that not a hair of our head will perish (<a href='B:470 10:30'>Mat 10:30</a> cp. <a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a>). This is picking up the application of this phrase to Jonathan in <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:24'>2Sa 1:24</a></p><p>You daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet delicately, who put ornaments of gold on your clothing- </p><p>It was those daughters of Israel who had praised David more than they had Saul, and this had been the trigger for Saul's jealousy complex against David. Samuel had warned that Saul would make the daughters of Israel suffer, making them his slavegirls. But here again, David imputes righteousness to Saul, a sign of love. And that is the same outcome of the love of God for us in Christ.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a></p><p>How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places- </p><p>See on :22 for a reconstruction of the battle. I suggested on :23 that Jonathan died not at his spiritually best. The reference to his high places could imply that he died at the high places where he performed idolatry. We note the elements of idolatry in the names of his children.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:26'>2Sa 1:26</a></p><p>I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan. You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women- </p><p>"The love of Christ, that passeth knowledge" (<a href='B:560 3:19'>Eph 3:19</a>) is clearly prefigured in David’s feelings for Jonathan and the love of David for Jonathan. Despite many passionate relationships with women, experiencing the depth of human closeness more than many, David could sob: Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women". The Hebrew for " wonderful" has a root meaning 'separate'. This love of Jonathan was separate from all other love David had known:&nbsp; In this we see perhaps the first Old Testament foretaste of agape&nbsp; love, love beyond the phileo&nbsp;and eros. Emotionally and spiritually, Jonathan and David went way ahead of their time. David speaks of Jonathan's love in terms of male: female love. He describes him as "the beauty of Israel", "very pleasant hast thou been unto me"; and grammatically, "your love to me..." (<a href='B:100 1:26'>2Sa 1:26</a>) implies that the lover was female. These two brethren had a spiritual love for each other which totally transcended the gender division. In like manner, our Lord said that male believers could be His sister and mother. We are dealing with high things here. Yet the heights of the David: Jonathan relationship are set down here to challenge us to at least try to touch the sky, however briefly. And when David later wrote of how good and “pleasant” it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psalms 133), he surely had the pleasantness of his relationship with Jonathan in mind, and wished it to be shared by all his brethren.</p><p><a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a></p><p>How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!- </p><p>"The mighty"- see on <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>. David had refused those same "weapons of war" in his victory over Goliath, and he may imply that now Israel were to learn the lesson- and trust in Yahweh rather than weapons. Indeed "the mighty" is the term used for Goliath in <a href='B:90 17:51'>1Sa 17:51</a>. It's as if David sees this defeat as a reversal of his victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after this, that David inquired of Yahweh saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? Yahweh said to him, Go up. David said, Where shall I go up? He said, To Hebron-</p><p>David had been waiting to become king for very many years, if indeed Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>). To the credit of his humility, he didn’t immediately gleefully seize power. He asks God whether he should, and where in Israel he should make his base, presumably by using the urim and thummim in the breastplate which was then in his possession. He was then living in Ziklag, which was in Philistine territory and not then considered a city of Judah:&nbsp; We again get the impression that David's ascent of the throne was completely at God's behest, he did not at all grasp it, and as a result of his humbly accepting God's guidance. This contrasts with the declaration of Ishbosheth as king. His Psalms are full of requests to be guided, for God to teach him the way he should go in accordance with His word- and as discussed often on Ps. 119, I suggest that word is specifically the word of promise that he would be the king of all Israel. David inherited a situation where Israel had just been defeated by the Philistines, and there was apparently strong support for Saul's dynasty to continue amongst his tribe Benjamin and the northern tribes. Benjamites had been favoured by Saul and they didn't want to lose that. And David had vowed not to kill the descendants of Saul and Jonathan. Yet there were some amongst them who resisted his kingship and would use violence against him in this... Only by waiting on God's providential hand could this be resolved and he is to be commended for waiting some years for the hand of providence to remove Abner, Ishbosheth and then leave the only other contender against him to be the invalid Mephibosheth, who as a cripple was unable to lead the nation.</p><p>God's choice of Hebron is significant. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all left the land [as David did in a way by going to the Philistines] but all were led back by God to live at Hebron (Gen. 13:18; 35:27). Hebron was God's intended capital for David, but he fell in love with Jerusalem and then claims God has done so. God went along with David's choice, just as He allowed Israel to have a king and for a physical temple to be built.</p>


text:
<p>So David went up there, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite- </p><p>This notice seems to pave the way for the note in <a href='B:100 3:2-5'>2Sa 3:2-5</a>, that David took at least six other wives in the seven years he reigned in Hebron. We could get the impression that David’s spiritual life was in some areas in steady decline from the time he slew Goliath in his youth. And yet he died in faith.</p><p>The style of :2,3 is precisely that of the description of David, his wives and his men and their families going to Gath in faithless fear of Saul (1 Sam. 27:3). Perhaps the similarity in the records is to demonstrate how David's ascent to the throne was by grace. There are also many similarities with Jacob returning to his land after an exile, with his two wives. The Jacob-David parallels encourage us in seeing David as far from purely motivated, and being capable of living by grace and faith whilst also trusting in his own schemings.</p>


text:
<p>David brought up his men who were with him, every man with his household. They lived in the cities of Hebron- </p><p>Six hundred men with their families would have been a major group of people, too large to just settle in the existing city of Hebron itself. It has been estimated that the population of all Israel at the time was only 300,000 at the most, which meant that the 3,000 or so with David would have been the equivalent of a significant town.</p><p>We note these cities were "the places where David himself and his men used to stay / roam" (1 Sam. 30:31). The land of his wandering became his permanent abode; and there is some sense of that in the promise of the Kingdom to us. Just as there was for Abraham. And we wonder at Joshua being buried in the border of his inheritance, as if the idea was that he would rise again to inherit it. And we ask how it will be if the people of our suburb or village were to know that we shall eternally inherit that land... </p>


text:
<p>The men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah- </p><p>It was known that Samuel had anointed David king, nearly 40 years before (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>). This was therefore an act of showing that they were in step with God’s clear intentions for David, and we at times likewise have to make such demonstrations of being in step with the path God is clearly revealing.</p><p>They told David saying, The men of Jabesh Gilead were those who buried Saul- </p><p>It could well be that they told him this in disgust or warning, expecting David to take some sanctions against them. But David does the very opposite, and blesses his enemies. For a major theme of these chapters is his enthusiasm to show every grace possible to the supporters and house of Saul, although they were his enemies.</p>


text:
<p>David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead and said to them, Blessed are you by Yahweh, that you have shown this kindness to your lord, even to Saul, and have buried him- </p><p>The people of Jabesh knew there was a civil war going on between the supporters of Saul and those of David. They had consciously buried Saul as a statement of respect, which surely implied loyalty to the house of Saul. For who you officially buried was a major statement in those times. And they receive a message of blessing from David. This was an expression of grace by David which was unheard of in the hard world of those days.</p>


text:
<p>Now may Yahweh show grace and truth to you. I also will reward you for this kindness, because you have done this thing- </p><p>David sees himself as showing this grace in tandem with Yahweh. "Grace and truth" often refers to the covenant promises, and David wishes them to receive every blessing of the covenant, and on the basis of that covenant accept him as king. He is giving a spiritual dimension to the kingdom he wished to create, based around a common share in the covenant. And that indeed is the only true basis for unity. David however suggests in :7 that the "reward" he offers them is to come under his kingship. 'Reward' or 'doing' kindness / good is exactly the term David’s wife Abigail had used of what God would do to David on Saul's death (<a href='B:90 25:30'>1Sa 25:30</a> s:w:). David was influenced by his wife's perceptive words. And as he realizes he had been shown such grace by being made king, he wished to reflect that grace to others, even his political enemies; a principle for us to live by.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore let your hands be strong, and be valiant- </p><p>"Valiant" definitely refers to soldiers; it could be that David was inviting the men of Jabesh to join his army. This would have seemed a politically dangerous move, to invite his enemies to infiltrate his own military. But he acted according to his persuasion of grace and his desire to honour what he had promised to both Saul and Jonathan; and finally he was blessed for it.</p><p>For Saul your lord is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them-</p><p>Jabesh was in Gilead not in Judah, but on the basis of grace, David invites these people to as it were become Jews, and come under his rulership. The Lord Jesus, whom David looked forward to, operates likewise. But David's grace was not pure; it had an agenda. He hoped the men of Jabesh would join him, "be valiant" by joining his army, and hold the land of Gilead against the Philistines. But instead  Gilead became the base for Ishbosheth, so his grace at this time wasn't as it were successful.  </p>


text:
<p>Now Abner the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s army, had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim- </p><p>This was about twenty miles east of Jordan, and hardly the most central place from which to try to rule Israel. We get the impression that Abner was using Ishbosheth for his own ends. Mahanaim means "two camps". It was a nudge at Abner's conscience, that by trying to continue Saul's dynasty, he was effectively dividing Israel into two camps. And he appears to genuinely repent of this when he considers becoming king and starts to move towards it. </p>


text:
<p>and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin and over all Israel- </p><p>From Mahanaim, east of Jordan, Ishbosheth could not reign in practice "over all Israel", so we conclude that this was what Abner proclaimed him as, even if it had little meaning in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David- </p><p>If Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>), Ishbosheth was born at the start of his reign. His name is elsewhere Ish Baal, but here that has been played upon, making a word meaning literally 'man of shame'. This would suggest that Saul was a Baal worshipper at the start of his reign. He had never met Samuel nor attended his sacrifices to Yahweh. It had been God’s intention to turn around the heart of this secular Israelite to Himself, through the gift of His Spirit making him "another man" and giving him "another heart". He was clearly not chosen because of any spirituality, but in the hope he would become a parade example of God’s transforming grace.</p>


text:
<p>The time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months- </p><p>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. 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>). 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>


text:
<p>Abner the son of Ner, and the servants of Ishbosheth the son of Saul, went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon- </p><p>Gibeon was exactly half way between Hebron, David’s capital, and Mahanaim, the capital of Abner and his puppet Ishbosheth. It's about 26 miles from Gibeon to both the capitals. That Abner "went out" towards the territory of Judah (Gibeon is only six miles from Jerusalem) shows that he felt strong enough to try to engage David’s side in conflict.</p>


text:
<p>Joab the son of Zeruiah, and the servants of David, went out, and met them by the pool of Gibeon; and they sat down, the one on the one side of the pool, and the other on the other side of the pool- </p><p>The 'going out' as in :12 was to battle. The pool of Gibeon has been located, and it is in a valley. The two armies would have seen each other from the opposite sides of the valley, hence the suggestion to fight at the pool in the valley. Gibeon had a sanctuary of Yahweh, for it was here that Yahweh appeared to Solomon. Gibeon was where some kind of more permanent tabernacle was (1 Chron. 21:29; 2 Chron. 1:3). There was a "great stone" there, possibly an altar (2 Sam. 20:8). Possibly the pool or [Heb. 'fountain'] was for sanctification, a kind of laver before that altar. Perhaps the idea was that this battle was in God's presence and He would give victory to His side. But He is never present in this kind of division between His people.</p>


text:
<p>Abner said to Joab, Please let the young men arise and play before us! Joab said, Let them arise!- </p><p>We get the impression from this that Abner really didn’t want to see bloodshed within Israel as a result of the civil war he was now initiating; he therefore suggested that as with the battle against Goliath, the issue was resolved by a symbolic number of young men fighting each other in full view of both armies. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Then they arose and went over by number: twelve for Benjamin, and for Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David- </p><p>The choice of twelve could suggest that both sides saw themselves as the true Israel, and that all Israel, all 12 tribes, should be subservient to them. Abner's 12 men were chosen for their loyalty to their tribe; whereas David’s 12 men were simply his servants, their loyalty was to him and not to any tribe. They are therefore described as his servants, rather than men of Judah. See on :17.</p><p>David isn't mentioned here at the duel, nor in the battle that ensues. He remains at Hebron and Joab goes there after the battle to inform David what happened. I suspect this was because he knew that human force and conflict was not the way to become the promised king of all Israel. He kept out of it because he trusted in the fulfilment of God's word of promise at His time in His way. The duel involved seizing the head or rosh of the other. David knew he was set to be the head or rosh but this would not happen by human strength. He believed the words of Hannah, that by strength shall no man prevail. We recall how the heads of David's opponents were all removed by God's hand: Goliath (1 Sam. 17), Saul (1 Sam. 31) and Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 4).</p>


text:
<p>They each caught his opponent by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together- </p><p>This is proof for all time that conflict between brethren is only ever a lose-lose situation. 'Falling down together' is the language of Divine judgment (<a href='B:290 31:3'>Isa 31:3</a>; <a href='B:300 6:21'>Jer 6:21</a>; <a href='B:300 46:12'>Jer 46:12</a>). The conflict between brethren was not blessed by God and was His way of judging them all.</p><p>Therefore that place was called Helkath Hazzurim, which is in Gibeon- </p><p>"The field of the sharp knives".</p>


text:
<p>The battle was very severe that day: and Abner was beaten, and the men of Israel, before the servants of David-</p><p>As noted on :15, Abner's men are described in terms of their loyalty to their tribal grouping; whereas David’s soldiers were simply his servants, their loyalty was to him and not to any tribe. They are therefore described as his servants, rather than men of Judah. And this is the effect which personal loyalty to the Lord Jesus should have upon us. All human labels fade beneath that reality. See on :31.</p>


text:
<p>The three sons of Zeruiah were there, Joab, Abishai and Asahel: and Asahel was as swift of foot as a wild gazelle- </p><p>This family were from Bethlehem (:32), and would have known David well, as it was but a small village. We can imagine Asahel playing with David as a child. They would soon have been aware that David had been anointed in Bethlehem, and were supportive of him for almost a lifetime.</p>


text:
<p>Asahel pursued after Abner; and in going he didn’t turn to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner- </p><p>We get the impression that Asahel was enraged and obsessed in slaying Abner.</p>


text:
<p>Then Abner looked behind him and said, Is it you, Asahel? He answered, It is I- </p><p>The question was because he didn’t want to slay Asahel. As noted on :21, Abner is presented as wanting to minimize bloodshed in that he didn’t want to kill Asahel.</p>


text:
<p>Abner said to him, Turn aside to your right hand or to your left, and grab one of the young men, and take his armour. But Asahel would not turn aside from following him- </p><p>This was an invitation to a duel, with armour; presumably they were running past young men with armour and not running unobserved by others. But Asahel didn’t want a fair fight, he wanted to use his advantage of speed to somehow kill Abner by a blow to his back. Abner comes over as far more ethical in the conflict. He didn’t want the bloodshed of civil war and instead suggested a duel to resolve it (:14), and he now does the same to Asahel.</p>


text:
<p>Abner said again to Asahel, Turn aside from following me. Why should I strike you to the ground? How then should I hold up my face to Joab your brother?- </p><p>Again, Abner really doesn't want to kill Asahel. He is warning him, effectively, that he can just stop dead in his tracks and let Asahel run into his spear he is holding, with its point facing towards Asahel. The manner of death was really Asahel running into his own death rather than Abner consciously slaying him. Abner knows that Joab will then want to revenge Asahel's blood, and the city of refuge system was clearly not operative. And it seems Abner and Joab knew each other, and Abner wanted to forge a new relationship, face to face, with Joab; for this is how 'seeing the face' is used in <a href='B:100 3:13'>2Sa 3:13</a>. Abner accepted defeat, and wanted to now move on in relationship. But Asahel was obsessed with settling some old scores.</p>


text:
<p>However he refused to turn aside. Therefore Abner with the back end of the spear struck him in the body, so that the spear came out behind him; and he fell down there, and died in the same place. It happened, that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still- </p><p>Abner has just warned Asahel in :22 that he can just stop dead in his tracks and let Asahel run into his spear he is holding, with its point facing towards Asahel. This was how close Asahel was to Abner, and was about to strike him to death with a blow to the back. The manner of death was really Asahel running into his own death rather than Abner consciously slaying him. He "refused to turn aside", implying his death was largely his own fault.</p><p>We note that Asahel "pursued" Abner and then after Asahel was killed, all the people "stood still", Heb. "stopped". This is repeated in :28. The people pursued but then "stopped". We get the impression that those who were stopped in their tracks by the wallowing body of Asahel, a young man in his prime now in his death throes, were like the people as a whole. There was a desire to stop on all sides. This is seen in many wars and human divisions. The path of peace and unity is what man subconsciously wants. Just as eternity has been set in our hearts. Man has a sense intuitively and subconsciously of what is right and it is the call of the Gospel to actuate that. We note the parallels between the two sides in :29,32- the leaders and their men both marched all night until they came to their home base. Man is in parallel with his warring brother. Unity seeks what is common- and membership of Israel, the people of God, is the obvious reason to end all conflict within the body of Christ. "Aren't we all brethren in the same body?" ought to end every division.  </p><p>Asahel was struck "under the fifth rib" (AV, "in the body" NEV); so was Abner (2 Sam. 3:27 AV) and so was Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 4:6 AV). These murders, of which David had no responsibility, are all clearly connected. The connection is that the possible contenders for the throne [Abner and Ishbosheth] were all killed in a similar way. It was by God's overarching providence, rather than David's use of force and human strength. And the murder of Asahel by Abner was likewise of God, in that it marked Abner out for a revenge killing by Joab. Somehow impossible situations work out, by doing as David did and biding our time and reigning in our desire to use our human strength... and trusting in the fulfilment of His words of promise.</p>


text:
<p>But Joab and Abishai pursued after Abner: and the sun went down when they had come to the hill of Ammah, that lies before Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon- </p><p>The detail given is very detailed. There must have been some significance in it which is not apparent to us today; a reminder that the Biblical record was primarily written for its first audience and not for us. This means that there will be parts of it which appear hard to understand, or of less relevance to us than to the primary audience. Ammah and Giah mean “aqueduct” and “spring”, perhaps leading us back to how all this started in :13-17 where the two sides began fighting at a pool.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Benjamin gathered themselves together after Abner and became one band, and stood on the top of a hill- </p><p>This could have been an invitation to come and fight them. They were prepared to make one last stand on the hill top. I suggest Abner did this because he sensed Joab would not take up the challenge, and it corroborates the impression we have that he wanted the least bloodshed as possible. By offering to make a last stand, and fight to the death with no way of escape [as they were on a hilltop], he was really forcing Joab to either accept peace or more bloodshed.</p>


text:
<p>Then Abner called to Joab and said, Shall the sword devour forever? Don’t you know that it will be bitterness in the latter end? How long shall it be then, before you ask the people to return from following their brothers?- </p><p>Again, Abner comes over as urging as little bloodshed as possible, and reminds Joab that they are brothers. "Return" is the word usually used for repentance. Although Abner had initiated the conflict, he seems genuinely regretful of the bloodshed it had caused.</p>


text:
<p>Joab said, As God lives, if you had not spoken, surely then in the morning the people would have gone away, rather than each following after his brother- </p><p>Joab agrees that brother fighting brother is wrong. He agrees, but seems to want to save face by saying that he would have called an end to the bloodshed the next morning. Again, to save face, he may also be implying that if they had continued fighting, he would have slain all Abner's men by the next morning. Both sides agree that they are brethren and that fighting brethren is wrong (:26 "return from following their brothers" = :27 "each following after his brother"). Joab swears by God that he too was about to call a halt to the battle. We see here how unity is a question of both sides being honest about their deepest heart commitment to the same higher Divine principles. It is rarely achieved amongst God's people, but by the end of 2 Sam. 3 we have a rare example of where it seems genuine unity was achieved.</p>


text:
<p>So Joab blew the trumpet; and all the people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither fought they any more- </p><p>That is, at that time (cp. <a href='B:100 3:1'>2Sa 3:1</a>). In reading the Bible we must be aware that Semitic writing presents things as they are true at the immediate time, rather than in terms of what is true globally or in the future.</p>


text:
<p>Abner and his men went all that night through the Arabah; and they passed over the Jordan, and went through all Bithron, and came to Mahanaim- </p><p>Abner and his men walked all night along the Jordan valley, northwards towards Mahanaim; because they obviously distrusted the peace deal with Joab, and feared he would again attack them. All the way through, Abner is presented as having more integrity than Joab, leading up to the tragedy of Joab murdering Abner by dishonest means.</p><p>We note that much later, David fled to Mahanaim from Absalom's rebellion. It was seen as a pro-David place. Yet at this point it was the base for Abner and the pro-Saul, anti-David faction. So it does seem that David's extended grace towards Saul and his supporters did win them over to him.</p>


text:
<p>Joab returned from following Abner: and when he had gathered all the people together, there lacked of David’s servants nineteen men and Asahel- </p><p>We note the continued reference to David’s soldiers as his personal servants, rather than "men of Judah"; see on :17,31.</p>


text:
<p>But the servants of David had struck of Benjamin, and of Abner’s men, so that three hundred and sixty men died-</p><p>Again we note the contrast between "Benjamin", who were loyal to their tribe, and "the servants of David", who did not consider tribal labels as important as being servants of their king. See on :15,17. The 360 men may be a general figure, as it was the number of days in a Hebrew year.</p>


text:
<p>They took up Asahel, and buried him in the tomb of his father, which was in Bethlehem- </p><p>Zeruiah was a woman; the father is not named. She is mentioned so often that we assume she had a large part to play in forming the rather unpleasant characters of her sons.</p><p>Joab and his men went all night, and the day broke on them at Hebron- </p><p>The two sides are presented as both marching all night back to their respective capitals. They were brethren, living in parallel lives, but fighting each other. And this is true of all the divisions amongst God’s people.</p>


text:
<p>Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: and David grew stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker-</p><p>The inspired commentator presents the civil war as it was, a feud between two families, who came from opposite sides of Jerusalem, only about 20 km. from each other. As discussed on chapter 2, David was waiting for God's word to come through for him and was not using his own strength. Yet he was made stronger and stronger, in contrast to how Abner makes himself strong, in his own strength, for the Saulides (:6).</p>


text:
<p>To David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess- </p><p>We must recognize that there will be anomalies in the lives of our brethren- just as there are in the lives of us all (if only we would examine ourselves ruthlessly enough to see them). And in some ways at some times, God goes along with them. Thus He gave Saul’s wives to David (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>), which would’ve involved David being married to both a mother and daughter- for he had married Saul’s daughters. And this giving of Saul’s wives to David may not have occurred simply after Saul’s death. For David’s eldest son, Amnon, was borne by Ahinoam (<a href='B:100 3:2'>2Sa 3:2</a>), who was initially Saul’s wife (<a href='B:90 14:50'>1Sa 14:50</a>). Now this is not to justify sin. Adultery, taking another’s wife or husband, is all wrong. Let there be no mistake. But God at times sees the bigger, or longer, perspective, and tolerates things which we may quite rightly find intolerable. And if He loves us despite of our sin and failure- are we surprised that we are invited to show love to others in the face of their sin and failure toward us? A black and white insistence upon God’s standards being upheld in the lives of others, demanding their repentance for having hurt us, is what has caused so much division between believers. Whilst God alone will apportion the guilt for this, in the final, unalterable, ultimately just algorithm of Divine judgment, it’s worth observing that the fault for division isn’t always with the sinners, the wider thinkers, the freewheelers; but with the inflexible intolerance of those in power.</p><p>"Amnon" means 'faithful' and we might have expected him to be David’s logical successor. But one great theme of David’s personal life was his disappointment in his children and wives.</p>


text:
<p>his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite- </p><p>We would rather have expected Chileab as the son of David’s most spiritual wife to be his successor. But 'restrained by his father' might mean that David initially thought so too, and was so restrictive of Chileab that he didn’t work out that way at all.</p><p>The third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur- </p><p>Solomon&nbsp;wished to imitate his father David in every sense; his own&nbsp;real personality&nbsp; only really came out in the Ecclesiastes years,&nbsp;when he took to drink, materialism, women and idolatry. It&nbsp; took&nbsp; the&nbsp; influence&nbsp; of his parents many years to wear off. David&nbsp; had&nbsp; weaknesses&nbsp; for&nbsp; horses (<a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>) and many wives; and Solomon&nbsp; followed&nbsp; in&nbsp; these&nbsp; steps&nbsp; too. Note that David had six sons in seven years by six different women, including Gentiles (<a href='B:130 3:3'>1Ch 3:3</a>). For Geshur was one of the tribes the Israelites ought to have driven out of the land (<a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>), and Talmai was sufficiently against David to provide refuge for Absalom (<a href='B:100 13:37'>2Sa 13:37</a>). "Geshur" means "joining" and such a joining in marriage to these people is another example of David’s unwisdom with women.</p><p>And in addition to these, David had children by “the concubines” (<a href='B:130 3:9'>1Ch 3:9</a>). Doubtless Solomon reasoned, albeit&nbsp;&nbsp; deep&nbsp;&nbsp; within&nbsp; his&nbsp; psyche,&nbsp; that&nbsp; such&nbsp; behaviour&nbsp; was legitimate&nbsp; because&nbsp; David&nbsp; his father had done it. David&nbsp; seems to have over interpreted the promises made to him about Solomon and the temple, and assumed that&nbsp; his&nbsp; interpretation was certainly correct. And Solomon did exactly the same. The weaknesses of the parents all too easily are repeated by the children to an even greater extent.</p><p>This marriage with a Gentile was contrary to the spirit of the law (Ex. 34:16; Dt. 7:3; Josh. 23:12). It wasn't blessed, as his rebel son Absalom later took refuge in Geshur. The marriage was surely for political reasons, wanting an ally in the area of Ishbosheth’s capital. For Talmai’s kingdom was right next to Mahanaim (2 Sam. 15:8; Dt. 3:14). David had attacked, murdered and pillaged the people of Geshur (1 Sam. 27:8,9: "David and his men went and made a raid on the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites... David attacked the land and saved neither man nor woman alive; he took away the sheep, cattle, donkeys and camels and the clothing"). As with his living in Gath and serving Achish, we see how facile and shallow are human political alliances.</p>


text:
<p>the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital- </p><p>The contrast of this section seems to be intentional with the note in <a href='B:100 2:2'>2Sa 2:2</a>, that David arrived in Hebron from Ziklag with only two wives. We could get the impression that David’s spiritual life was in some areas in steady decline from the time he slew Goliath in his youth. And yet he died in faith.</p>


text:
<p>the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron-</p><p>The birth of six sons, although these were not all his sons, is perhaps presented as a point of continuity with faithful Hannah who also had six sons, the firstborn of which had been David’s mentor Samuel. Critics have raised the complaint that Eglah means "cow" and is an unusual Hebrew name for a king's wife. We wonder if this is a name that David gave her after a failed marriage or rejecting her as his wife. It's possible it is a name he gave Michal, who is otherwise unmentioned here. Although David's polygamy was less than ideal, his having children by his wives is contrasted favorably in this section with Abner's sleeping with one of Saul's concubines.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner made himself strong on behalf of the house of Saul- </p><p>The idea may be that Abner exalted himself to be the effective leader of the house of Saul, with a view to becoming their leader in place of Ishbosheth. He was after all Saul's cousin. But the narrative continues to show that having recognized he was losing militarily (:1), he wanted to seek peace with David. And he uses the argument about Rizpah as an excuse.</p>


text:
<p>Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine?- </p><p>This could have been seen as a an intentional challenge to Ishbosheth, for sleeping with a king's concubine was an effective statement of having taken the throne. This is what Absalom did to David during his rebellion. Abner was Ishbosheth's uncle and Saul's cousin (1 Sam. 14:50) and was the logical one to be king if Ishbosheth was incompetent. He is presented as sleeping at noon and generally weak, so Abner maybe thought he was doing the right thing for Saul's side by taking over as king. It seems he did indeed plan to take over the throne from Ishbosheth... but he re-thought and decided on loyalty to David, to God's word about David and the unity of Israel. And David accepted that, suspicious as it would've looked.</p>


text:
<p>Then was Abner very angry for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog’s head that belongs to Judah? Today I show kindness to the house of Saul your father, to his brothers and to his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David; and yet you charge me this day with a fault concerning this woman!-&nbsp; </p><p>See on :11. David had made it very clear that he would not slay any of the house of Saul. He had promised this to Saul and Jonathan, and was very careful to show absolute grace to them. But God worked so that despite keeping this oath, God all the same removed from the house of Saul all serious contenders for the throne. So Ishbosheth was not at any real risk of losing his life if Abner handed him over to David. It all seems to me as if Abner was orchestrating this falling out in order to provide himself with a face saving excuse to achieve unity with David, and as it were surrender power on good terms. It is not even clear if he did indeed sleep with Rizpah.</p>


text:
<p>God do so to Abner, and more also, if, as Yahweh has sworn to David, I don’t do even so to him- </p><p>Abner was aware of the promises to David. I have elsewhere suggested that the essence of the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7 had been made to him at a far earlier stage. See on <a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a>, where Abigail uses the terms of 2 Samuel 7 ["a sure / established house"]&nbsp; well before they are recorded as being given. Abner realizes that God’s promises require a man to be in step with them, and in a sense, to be the human channel of their fulfilment. And he is saying that he is willing to be that channel for their fulfilment. Abner consistently comes over, as noted often on 2 Samuel 2, as indeed seeking the throne for himself, but not wanting excessive bloodshed, and realizing that it would be better for all concerned if he resigned any pretensions to power. And here he demonstrates, despite his aggressive exterior, that he appreciates the promises to David and is not going to be like Saul and fight in vain to stop God’s word coming true.</p><p>It's possible that Abner is referring to the same unrecorded prophetic word mentioned by David's men in 1 Sam. 24:4,5- that David would have the kingdom instead of Saul. We note Abner was with Saul at that time in the wilderness. And yet as with David's men, we wonder whether Abner just imagined this word. Because if he indeed knew it, then why had he been disobedient to it by fighting against David for the kingdom not to be transferred from Saul to David? Of course it could be also that this is all a statement of repentance by Abner- that seeing God had said this, he was now going to be obedient to it. His defeats had made him realize that he was fighting against the fulfilment of God's word.</p>


text:
<p>to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba- </p><p>It was because David’s heart was 'turned away' from sin, that God 'turned away' the kingdom from Saul to David (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:37'>Psa 119:37</a>). As noted on :9, Abner realizes this and seeks to now work for and not against God’s purpose for Saul. For God had promised to set up / establish the throne of David, and Abner is now effectively repenting of fighting to stop that happening.</p>


text:
<p>He could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him- </p><p>I suggest Abner was loud mouthed and crudely spoken (:8), but beneath that rough exterior there was a genuine repentance, and always a desire to avoid excessive bloodshed between brethren, as noted throughout 2 Samuel 2. We too need to see through the surface level appearance of some brethren to their spiritual essence.</p>


text:
<p>Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf saying, Whose is the land? Make your alliance with me, and behold, my hand shall be with you, to bring all Israel around to you- </p><p>Although Abner controlled more land of Israel than David, the answer to his question, according to the law of Moses, was: "Yahweh" (Lev. 25:23 etc.). The land was God's. So they should not be fighting over who ruled it. It's similar to how the two sides in the battle of 2 Sam. 2 both realized at least subconsciously that brethren should not be fighting each other. Unity arguments are accepted in the hearts of all members of God's people, but it's a question of recognizing this in humility. </p><p>The idea seems to be 'The land is yours'. But he feared the consequences of his surrender, and wants there to be an agreement or alliance granting him personal safety. Saul had slain the priests of Nob because their hand was with David (s:w. <a href='B:90 22:17'>1Sa 22:17</a>); perhaps Abner wishes to say that now, he too was with David and disassociated himself from Saul's actions. He saw that Yahweh's hand was with David in order to make him king over all Israel, and Abner now wanted to be working with that hand, with his hand in God’s; and to cease resisting it.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Good; I will make a treaty with you; but one thing I require of you. That is, you shall not see my face, unless you first bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when you come to see my face- </p><p>We are left, intentionally, wondering what exactly were David’s motives here. He may have considered that Saul's daughter's marriage was going to mean that her husband Paltiel was a potential contender for the throne, and he wanted to remove that potential threat by breaking up their marriage. But that would have reflected a lack of faith in the promises that he would surely become king of Israel. Rather I suspect this was done from motives of personal bitterness. He had killed men in order to get Michal as wife, even though he ought to have been given her freely in return for slaying Goliath. That she had married another man was an intolerable insult for any Hebrew man, and it seems in weakness David acted like a secular person rather than a spiritual one.</p>


text:
<p>David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I pledged to be married to me for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines- </p><p>David was very astute and this nuances all his apparent grace to Saul's family. And yet the fact he was so sharply astute means that grace, which is so illogical, would have not come naturally to him. The desire to have Saul's daughter again as his wife was surely politically motivated. He was seeking to win over Saul's supporters, so resuming his marriage with Saul's daughter was going to help that. But David paid no attention to the pain he would cause her husband. Again we see his apparent grace to the house of Saul was nuanced by his undoubted political agenda. David may also have been looking for assurance that Abner really did have power in Benjamin and over the other tribes. If he could indeed bring Michal to David in relationship, then he would demonstrate that he had the power to bring all Israel to David. And knowing David's mixed motives, it's not to much to think that he wanted to hurt and punish both Michal and Paltiel. For to know your wife was sleeping with another man would've been hard for David to respond to in grace. David was clearly angry that he hadn't been given Michal as promised when he slew Goliath, and that even when he paid the required dowry and married Michal, Saul had given her to another man when Michal didn't go out to join her husband in the wilderness [cp. Abigail]. Paltiel's obvious love and affection for Michal is set up in contrast with David's heartless treatment of her, and him. We note that Michal loved David in 1 Sam. 18:20 but there is never any reference to David loving Michal. So it seems as David took Michal so Abner took Rizpah, likewise for political reasons. So although in 2 Sam. 2 David faithfully trusts in Yahweh and not his own strength, he now seems to fail and resorts to human tactics. It's typical of human faith that we can't seem to maintain it for long on a high level but always revert, at least temporarily, to the strength of our flesh. </p><p> As discussed on :13, it seems David felt bitterly the betrayal. He had actually paid 200 foreskins for her, and anyway Saul should have given her to him for slaying Goliath. Despite having many wives and children, he could not bear the thought that she was married to another man. And so he broke up an apparently loving marriage (:16) for the sake of his own pride and need for control. And he was to do the same with the marriage of Uriah and Bathsheba.</p><p>We note in 2 Sam. 3:1-16 David's bad treatment of Michal's husband, who follows his wife with tears in a most unmasculine but genuine response to David taking her from him. Paltiel walks behind her, when a woman in those days was supposed to walk behind a man [cp. Russian 'zamuzhem', behind a husband, to describe a married woman]. Paltiel was publically shamed; the way Abner abruptly tells him to stop following his wife and go home is as if Abner treats Paltiel as a dog. He did this when he already had at least six wives; the information about his wives and children precedes the narrative about him breaking up Michal and Paltiel's marriage. Although David calls Michal his "wife" [Heb. isshi], the record calls Paltiel her husband [Heb. 'ish]. This failure is then repeated by David when he takes Bathsheba and slays Uriah, breaking up a good marriage even though he had many "sheep". He was wrong in how he treated Paltiel. But his conscience didn't kick in. And so one sin led him to another sin, against Uriah, in essence the same but of far greater magnitude. We reflect how his taking of Abigail in 1 Sam. 25 also involved the displacement of her husband, Nabal- but by the hand of providence. It's as if David intentionally misread this as meaning that he had the right to remove the husbands of women he wanted. The progression is all so psychologically credible. David wanted to test Ishbosheth and Abner's loyalty [as Abner had formerly been Saul's general], and so he asked them to get Michal back to him as his wife. He clearly didn't love Michal; it was all for the sake of politics. We must be aware that sexual rights over a woman, especially the wife of another, were seen as a sign of political dominance and control; David lived in a culture where the politics of power were sexualized. We think of Absalom sleeping with David's wives publically. And we wonder whether his taking of Abigail was similarly motivated. This usage of women rather than loving them is what led him to the failure with Bathsheba. David is recorded as being loved by many people- Jonathan, Michal, Saul's servants, all Israel etc. But he is never recorded as loving anyone himself. Nathan's parable presents David as a man with many animals, representing his women- possibly suggesting this was how he saw his wives.
</p>


text:
<p>Ishbosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Paltiel the son of Laish- </p><p>"Her husband" reflects God's view that Paltiel and Michal were married. David's argument that Michal was his wife originally wasn't really accepted by God, because He accepts second marriages.</p><p> The request was made from Ishbosheth, who was technically the king of Israel, in order to prove David’s authority over him. And it could be that Michal and Paltiel had fled from David to Mahanaim. But David’s resumed marriage with Michal wasn't blessed; it all seems a very personal and political thing.</p><p><a href='B:240 18:22'>Pro 18:22</a> LXX may allude to Michal: "He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly". This reading would then be a justification of how Solomon's father David had put away his wife Michal, Saul's daughter, who had then married Phaltiel, a relationship Solomon liked to see as adultery. Constantly Solomon uses his knowledge of Divine truths to justify himself and his father, just as God’s truth can likewise be abused today.</p>


text:
<p>Her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her to Bahurim. Then Abner said to him, Go! Return! And he returned- </p><p>Bahurim was about&nbsp; 20 miles from Mahanaim, near Jerusalem. We have the tragic image of the loving husband walking behind her weeping as she is led away from him. This was not only a breach of Mosaic law, but displayed a sad elevation of politics above others’ relationships and marriages. It may be significant that her renewed marriage with David wasn’t blessed with any children (<a href='B:100 6:23'>2Sa 6:23</a>). The record elicits our sympathy for Paltiel, and leaves us with the impression that David was heartless and callous when it came to others' relationships.</p>


text:
<p>Abner had communication with the elders of Israel saying, In times past, you wished for David to be king over you- </p><p>The northern tribes had been supportive of David, as all Israel had been after the victory over Goliath. But Abner seems to admit that it was he who had persuaded them otherwise. He is now showing the fruits of repentance by undoing the division he had created.</p>


text:
<p>Now then do it; for Yahweh has spoken of David saying, ‘By the hand of My servant David, I will save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies’- </p><p>This was the Divine intention for Saul (<a href='B:90 9:16'>1Sa 9:16</a>), but Abner recognizes that now it had all been transferred to David. The interests of the nation as a whole, who had recently been defeated by the Philistines at Gilboa, were better served by David than Abner. For David had God’s prophetic word on his side, and could bring deliverance. Abner had a number of options open to him; he could have fled to a neighbouring country, or sought some other way of resolving things with David. But he comes over as genuinely repentant, and honestly doing what he can, no matter at what loss of face, to bring Israel completely under David’s control. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>Abner also spoke in the ears of Benjamin: and Abner went also to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and to the whole house of Benjamin- </p><p>As noted on :18, Abner's repentance was genuine. Having persuaded the northern tribes to accept his 'unity with David' plan, he then worked on Benjamin, Saul's own tribe, his own tribesmen. He spoke in their ears, and it "seemed good" to Benjamin as well as the other tribes to accept David as king. There would have been hawks within Benjamin, who were not persuaded; and some of them emerge in later history in rebellion against David. But Abner must be credited with bringing about a remarkably quick agreement that in practice paved the way for David to rule all Israel. And it was only he, as the effective leader and army general, who could have achieved this. "All that seemed good" may be alluded to in the description of another unity process between brethren in <a href='B:510 15:25'>Act 15:25</a>; <a href='B:510 15:28'>Act 15:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him. David made Abner and the men who were with him a feast- </p><p>The feast was surely a sign of acceptance and reconciliation, an idea which is continued in the feast of the Lord's supper which we experience in our days. The twenty men would have been the escort for both Abner and Michal.</p>


text:
<p>Abner said to David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel to my lord the king, that they may make a covenant with you, and that you may reign over all that your soul desires. David sent Abner away; and he went in peace-</p><p>Abner had already secured the general agreement of the other tribes (:19), and now he wanted them to send representatives to make a covenant with David. This would have been a guarantee of their safety, and finally was achieved in <a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a>. The name "Abner" is stressed many times in :17-21, because this whole unity process depended solely upon him. His assassination was therefore all the more shameful.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the servants of David and Joab came from an engagement, and brought in a great spoil with them- </p><p>"An engagement" is literally "a raid" and connects with how the men who would assassinate Ishbosheth were also "captains of raiders" (2 Sam. 4:2). There is some thread of similarity being drawn by the record between these men and Joab. The point was that they were all used by God in order to one by one remove the contenders for the throne [i.e. Abner and Ishbosheth]; and so to providentially leave the way open for David to take the throne over all Israel. In this lies the significance of this otherwise irrelevant detail about Joab having just lead a raid. </p><p> Abner had rightly argued that God’s promise to deliver Israel from the Philistines was to now be fulfilled through David (:18). We presume this victory of Joab had been against the Philistines. We recently read of how David divided the spoil from the fight with the Amalekites amongst Judah in order to demonstrate in hard terms his ability to save them from their neighbours, and we wonder if he did likewise.</p><p>But Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace-</p><p>Here we have the hand of providence; for if Joab had been in Hebron when Abner was there, he would have surely murdered him and the whole peace process would have been majorly derailed, likely leading to more bitter civil war. We can note from this that unity between brethren is God’s will and He will work, within the confines provided by human freewill, to enable it.</p>


text:
<p>When Joab and all the army who was with him had come, they told Joab saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he has sent him away, and he is gone in peace- </p><p>The "they" were presumably those who like Joab considered that David was again being naive towards the house of Saul, and should have murdered Abner instead of making peace with him. Constantly we see David’s belief in grace and unity leading him to do things which harder minded individuals found more than annoying; they reacted against it in the harshest of terms. Three times we read that David sent Abner away in "peace" (:21,22,23). This strong emphasis suggests the "peace" was of forgiveness. Abner had repented and David had forgiven him. But this kind of grace was unheard of for the likes of Joab and society of those days. In their eyes, treason against a king was a capital offence, and grace didn't come into it. </p>


text:
<p>Then Joab came to the king and said, What have you done? Behold, Abner came to you. Why is it that you have sent him away, and he is quite gone?- </p><p>The implication is that David should have murdered him, and not let him go away in peace, with a guarantee of safe passage. We see the internal harmony of the record in that Joab's reaction here to Abner's being sent away in peace is in spirit so similar to his frustration with David over the death of Absalom (<a href='B:100 19:6'>2Sa 19:6</a>). We note the internal consistency in the record of Joab's character; another reason to believe these records are absolutely credible and inspired by God. See on <a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>You know Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive you, and to know your going out and your coming in, and to know all that you do-</p><p>Throughout the preceding verses, I have sought to demonstrate Abner's sincere repentance and genuine desire for unity under David. But Joab speaks as if he knows for sure that Abner is fake, and that David knows this too. Hatred of brethren leads to conspiracy theories about them being entertained, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And then those theories become perceived as not only absolute fact in the mind of those who have nursed them, but they reflect their positions on to others, claiming that others in their hearts know them to be true. These ancient histories speak directly to the situations we encounter in relationships today.</p>


text:
<p>When Joab had come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, and they brought him back from the well of Sirah; but David didn’t know it- </p><p>Joab's desire to personally murder Abner was premeditated, and he bears complete responsibility for it. He would have been given life in prison for this kind of behaviour today. But he was not demoted or disciplined much by David, because David himself, whilst strongly disagreeing with Joab's actions, failed to perceive the value of human life as he ought to have done. This is cited as a reason why he couldn't build the temple. And because of this, Joab went on to commit another such murder in <a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into the midst of the gate to speak with him quietly, and struck him there in the body, so that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother- </p><p>The language of striking in the body recalls how Abner had struck Joab's brother Asahel in the body (see note on <a href='B:100 2:23'>2Sa 2:23</a>), although as noted there, Abner did not wish to do this. The manner of death was really Asahel running into his own death at the spear point, despite Abner warning him about it, rather than Abner consciously slaying him. Joab is therefore presented as far less ethical than Abner. As Asahel had intended to kill Abner by a blow to his back as he fled from him, so his brother Joab slew Abner from behind. And Joab didn’t learn from this; he does the same to Amasa (<a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a> . See on <a href='B:100 4:6'>2Sa 4:6</a>.</p> <p> We surely have here the excuse Joab gave ["for the blood of Asahel"]. Abner had done all he could that Asahel not die and probably only intended to wound him with the blunt end of his spear. Joab's clear concern was that Abner would replace him as general and second in command. Joab's later murder of Amasa was from similar fears. </p><p> The other contenders for the throne all died "in the midst" of somewhere- Saul "in the midst of the battle" (2 Sam. 1:25), Abner killed in the midst of the gate, and Ishbosheth killed in the midst of his house (2 Sam. 4:6). The idea is that there was some common Divine hand in the removal of these men, all by His providence rather than David's own strength. </p>


text:
<p>Afterwards, when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before Yahweh forever of the blood of Abner the son of Ner-</p><p>I have sought to demonstrate so far that Abner consistently comes over as indeed having sought the throne for himself, but not wanting excessive bloodshed, and finally repenting. He realized that it would be better for all concerned if he resigned any pretensions to power. He demonstrates, despite his aggressive exterior, that he appreciates the promises to David and is not going to be like Saul and fight in vain to stop God’s word coming true. I therefore consider David’s grief for his murder as not at all theatrical, but genuine. And all Israel also realized this.</p>


text:
<p>Let it fall on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house. Let there not fail from the house of Joab one who has an issue, or who is a leper, or who leans on a staff, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks bread-</p><p>This was a stinging curse for one who had been so loyal to David, effectively wishing his exclusion from God’s people (<a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a>). And it was an age when curses were believed to have real power. But we note that David doesn't dissociate from Joab; he remains in power throughout David’s life. And this lack of real discipline means that he does the same to Amasa (<a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>). Disciplining others wasn't David’s strong point, and he paid for it. Like all of us, he was a mixture of softness and hardness.</p>


text:
<p>So Joab and Abishai his brother killed Abner, because he had killed their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle-</p><p>This was indeed the motivation, but additionally I suggest that Joab wanted to be seen as the king maker, and disliked the way that Abner was going to go down as the architect of Israel's unity because of his own repentance, humility and resignation of his own aspirations to power. "In the battle" is perhaps added to show that any attempt by Joab to appeal to the laws of avenging blood was totally inappropriate and out of context.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Joab, and to all the people who were with him, Tear your clothes, and clothe yourselves with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. King David followed the bier- </p><p>The fact David had to tell Joab to do this shows that Joab was not the least bit repentant.</p>


text:
<p>They buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept- </p><p>This continues the frequent theme of David and his people being at one, sharing the same feelings. It looks ahead to the unity of the Lord Jesus with His people (see on <a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The king lamented for Abner and said, Should Abner have died as a fool dies?-</p><p>We have here a lament song, composed and sung by David the musician, as he did over Saul and Jonathan. He sees Abner as a "fool" in that he had failed to perceive just how bad was Joab. Although Joab might have appealed to the laws about revenging slain blood, David clearly considered that they did not apply. For effectively, Abner had slain Asahel against his will and in self defence against a man literally aiming to stab him in the back. We could also translate "Should Abner die as Nabal died?". He insists Abner is not the type who had to be slain by Divine stroke.</p>


text:
<p>Your hands were not bound, nor your feet put into fetters. As a man falls before the children of iniquity, so you fell. All the people wept again over him- </p><p> His hands were free to fight and his feet free to run away; so he was killed by deceit. </p><p> The sons of Zeruiah, Joab and Abishai [who was also party to the murder, :30] are called not sons of Zeruiah but sons of iniquity. It is the phrase used for the Gentiles outside of covenant with God (<a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a>); another hint that David had been given many of those promises before the time when Nathan is recorded as presenting them to him. See on <a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a>. David laments that Abner was deceived into his death, assuming others had the same desire for peace which he had. He had been free to fight or run, but did not because he was deceived. Or David may mean that Abner had done nothing to deserve even prison; because David had forgiven him, and Abner had genuinely repented.</p>


text:
<p>All the people came to cause David to eat bread while it was yet day. David swore saying, God do so to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or anything else, until the sun goes down-</p><p>David strangely binds himself under the same curse as Saul had enforced upon the people in <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>. We wonder why this was. Perhaps it was simply that he truly loved Saul, and had him in mind at this time of hatred against the house of Saul; and so subconsciously he alludes to the words of Saul, although out of context. This again adds veracity to the record; this is typical of language usage at times like this.</p>


text:
<p>All the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as whatever the king did pleased all the people- </p><p>This means that the people also were persuaded that Abner was genuine in his repentance, and had been honestly trying to do his best to undo the division his power seeking had caused. Otherwise they would not have agreed with David.</p>


text:
<p>So all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to kill Abner the son of Ner- </p><p>In days of limited communication and the inevitable miscommunications this resulted in, it was quite an achievement to persuade all Israel that Abner's murder had not been orchestrated by David. The depth of David’s convictions about Abner's sincerity was so great that somehow it spread throughout the land.</p><p>Politically, the murder of Abner was a stroke of good fortune for David. Saul's son was weak, and now the only other leader of the opposition had been murdered. Had David proactively tried to kill Abner, the followers of Saul would not have naturally come under his control. And then an internal feud, apparently about money or wealth, leads to Ishbosheth the Saulide "king" being murdered by his own men (2 Sam. 4). This chain of events set David up to be king over all Israel. But David waited on God to fulfil the promise that he would be king of all Israel, even if it took seven years after Saul's death. Despite David's political astuteness, his trust in God's word is indeed admiral. With Abner's death and Israel's acceptance that David had no part in it, David was now the natural king of all Israel. David's attitude contrasts with that of Absalom and the others who later tried to grasp the Kingdom from David. David waited in trusting faith for the Kingdom and he received it, in good measure. The others tried to grasp it in their own strength and by their own device; and failed. Likewise the promise to David that his dynasty would continue to reign (2 Sam. 7) was given to him by grace and in love, and David accepted it in total humility. The very opposite to the grasping spirit of those who later tried to take his throne. David is likewise to be commended for not just grabbing Abigail from Nabal, but waiting for Nabal to die by God's hand. This highlights his later failure with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to his servants, Don’t you know that a prince and a great man has fallen this day in Israel?- </p><p>"Prince" suggests that David may well have considered elevating Abner to some position of senior rulership in the united kingdom. As captain of Saul's army, it may have been David’s intention to replace Joab [who was captain of David’s army] with Abner. This would have been another reason why Joab wanted to murder him. But the man's greatness was in his humility and desire for unity, built around the fruits of his very genuine repentance and hatred of bloodshed between brethren.</p>


text:
<p>I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me. May Yahweh reward the evildoer according to his wickedness- </p><p>This was the language and exact situation David had experienced when on the run from Saul. He was anointed king, but weak, and he had to leave Yahweh to reward Saul for his wickedness. But he now transfers all those feelings about Saul onto Joab. This was how strongly David viewed the hatred of Joab for Abner. "Weak" translates a word meaning humble or tender and which therefore has connections with Messianic prophecies- the same word is in Zech. 9:9, "Your king comes, meek...". David could be implying here that he is the Messianic king- the meek and "anointed king". Whereas the sons of Zeruiah didn't fit that description because they were not humble. They were "hard" just as Nabal had been "hard" (1 Sam. 25:3) but as noted on :33, they wrongly treated Abner as Nabal. When they were in fact the Nabal who deserved judgment. </p><p>
Or we can read this as David saying that now Joab had made it so much harder to achieve unity in Israel. How now could they all be coaxed under David's kingship, seeing David's man and nephew Joab had just killed Saul's cousin Abner? We are indeed weaker without all our brethren.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands became feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled- </p><p>I suggest on :7 that this fear was because they assumed David had killed Abner, and now would be coming to kill Ishbosheth and all his household. They totally failed to perceive David’s huge grace towards the house of Saul, even though they surely knew about it. Their fears of possible human judgment were stronger than their faith in grace, and that is the theme of this chapter; and it is such a typically human failure. The language here echoes that of Saul when told of his inevitable death the night before he dies (1 Sam. 28:21). They perceive that God's word about David will come inevitably true.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s son had two men who were captains of bands: the name of the one was Baanah, and the name of the other Rechab, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin (for Beeroth also is reckoned to Benjamin- </p><p>The point is being made that although these men may not have been ethnic Benjamites, they were counted as Benjamites, and thus there arose the shame of Ishbosheth being slain by men of his own tribe. We note that one of David's mighty men was a Beerothite (2 Sam. 23:37). One wonders whether although David claims non involvement in Ishbosheth's murder, these men from Beeroth were in fact acting in David's interests. They play a similar role to the Amalekite servant who claims to have slain Saul, and in any case brought Saul's crown to David. In all these incidents [the death of Abner too], David protests his genuine non-involvement. But clearly these things played into his hand politically. We are left to conclude that his trust in the prophetic word, that he would be king of [all] Israel, was repaid by God providentially arranging all the politics. David is to be commended for not getting involved in the politics. And church politics today can never be a game played by those who think this will enable them to do God's work. </p><p> "Captains of bands" is literally "captains of raiders". Joab had just returned from a "raid" when he slew Abner (2 Sam. 3:22). There is some thread of similarity being drawn by the record between these men and Joab. The point was that they were all used by God in order to one by one remove the contenders for the throne [i.e. Abner and Ishbosheth]; and so to providentially leave the way open for David to take the throne over all Israel.  </p>


text:
<p>and the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and have lived as foreigners there until this day)- </p><p>Beeroth was one of the Gibeonite cities which made peace with Joshua (<a href='B:60 9:17'>Jos 9:17</a>) and was then included within Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:25'>Jos 18:25</a>). But they had been persecuted by Saul (<a href='B:100 21:1-2'>2Sa 21:1-2</a>). The murderers of Ishbosheth were therefore counted as Benjamites, but they would have had an abiding bitterness toward Saul. Their murder of Ishbosheth was therefore from mixed motives, one of which may have simply been revenge. And this would fit the context of 2 Samuel 3, where Abner was murdered by Joab from the same wrong motive. The impression is given of the destruction caused when men refuse to reign in their desire for revenge.</p><p>Gittaim is the plural of Gath, and reflects Philistine influence in that area (<a href='B:90 31:7'>1Sa 31:7</a>). Again we see internal corroboration within the records, so detailed and constant that the entire history simply cannot be a forgery of men, but the inspired word of God.</p>


text:
<p>Now Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son who was lame of his feet. He was five years old when the news came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel; and his nurse took him up, and fled: and it happened, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame- </p><p>We wonder why this is mentioned at this point, as the narrative is about the murder of Ishbosheth. Perhaps the idea is that now that Ishbosheth is to be killed, the only other potential king in Saul's line was a 12 year old boy who was a cripple, who had suffered that fate as an indirect result of the defeat of Saul due to his apostasy. In the hand of providence, all credible alternatives to David as king had now been removed, although not by his hand.</p><p> The explanation of Mephibosheth's lameness is given in 2 Sam. 4:4 as being that "his nurse took him up, and fled: and it happened, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame". But as with the language of demon possession in the New Testament, we may have here an example of where an as then undiagnosed illness is blamed upon something that is mythical, or an imagined narrative. For there are reasons to think that Mephibosheth's lameness would have been a case of what we now know as poliomyelitis. To cause a five year old to have such spinal damage that both his legs were useless would require dropping the child from a great height. Casual dropping of a child of five years old is unlikely to cause this damage. And polio is often contracted by children around five years old.</p><p>  His name was Mephibosheth- </p><p>Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>). It could mean 'the shame of Baal', but there is evidence that Saul's daughter Michal had an idol and it is likely that even Jonathan was not free of idolatry. Idolatry has always been a besetting weakness amongst even the best of God’s people.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, as he took his rest at noon- </p><p>This might imply that he was physically weak, perhaps handicapped as was Mephibosheth (:4). As noted on :4, the impression is given that there were now no credible alternatives to David as king, although this was not by his hand.</p>


text:
<p>They came there into the middle of the house, as if they would have fetched wheat; and they struck him in the body: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped-</p><p>This striking in the body connects with what Abner did to Asahel, and what Joab did to Abner (<a href='B:100 2:23'>2Sa 2:23</a>; <a href='B:100 3:27'>2Sa 3:27</a>). We see the connection too with how Joab killed Abner in the middle of the gates of Hebron, between the outer and inner gates (<a href='B:100 3:27'>2Sa 3:27</a>). Although all these actions were the freewill choices of men, there was clearly a higher hand working through them all, in the same style. The apparent repetition of :5 is avoided by the LXX, which blames their entrance on a sleeping servant woman, as if Ishbosheth's power was so weak that his only guard was a sleeping woman: "And behold the portress of the house was cleaning wheat, and she slumbered and slept; and the brothers Rechab and Baanah came unobserved into the house. Now Ish-bosheth was sleeping on the bed in his chamber: and they smote him".  In this case the negligence of the servant girl in :4, resulting in Mephibosheth being unable to be king and continue Saul's dynasty, matches with the negligence of another servant girl leading to Ishbosheth's death. There are a number of such parallels, all showing that the resistance to David's rule was removed by the same higher Divine hand, rather than his own use of force.</p><p>"In the body" is Heb. "under the fifth rib"; see on 2 Sam. 2:23.</p>


text:
<p>Now when they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him, and killed him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night- </p><p>They did this presumably because they didn’t believe or understand the huge grace which David was eager to show towards the house of Saul. They assumed Abner had been slain by David, and that he was now going to slay Ishbosheth. And so they thought they could protect their own heads by doing this for David, thinking they would ingratiate themselves to him. And this is the reason for so many murders and acts of unkindness; a mistaken belief in the likely actions of others.</p><p>"Bed" is the same word as bier in 2 Sam. 3:31. The parallel deaths of these men reflects the hand if Providence, God's higher hand bringing about David's kingship over all Israel by removing all other contenders.</p>


text:
<p>They brought the head of Ishbosheth to David to Hebron, and said to the king, Behold, the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy- </p><p>The Philistines in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p><p>Who sought your life!-</p><p>Saul "sought" David, implying a great level of mental effort (<a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:14-15'>1Sa 23:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:2'>1Sa 24:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the type of Christ, the Jews sought to kill the Lord (<a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a>; <a href='B:480 11:18'>Mar 11:18</a>; <a href='B:480 12:12'>Mar 12:12</a>; <a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a>; <a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a>; <a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a>; <a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a>; <a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a>; <a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a>; <a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a>; <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>; <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>; <a href='B:500 7:25'>Joh 7:25</a>; <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:500 11:8'>Joh 11:8</a>; <a href='B:500 11:56'>Joh 11:56</a>; <a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a>; <a href='B:500 18:7-8'>Joh 18:7-8</a>). In the Psalms, David frequently imprecates judgment upon those who sought his life (s:w. <a href='B:230 35:4'>Psa 35:4</a>; <a href='B:230 38:12'>Psa 38:12</a>; <a href='B:230 40:14'>Psa 40:14</a>; <a href='B:230 54:3'>Psa 54:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:9'>Psa 63:9</a>; <a href='B:230 70:2'>Psa 70:2</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 86:14'>Psa 86:14</a>). He loved Saul, the life of Saul was precious in David’s sight, indeed the historical records seem to emphasize David’s patient love of Saul; and yet in the Psalms he gives vent before God to his anger with Saul and desire to see Saul punished and judged by God. This is absolutely true to human experience; we may act with great patience and apparent love toward those who abuse us, and yet within we fume about it. The lesson of David is that we are to pour out those feelings to God in prayer, leaving Him to judge.</p><p>Yahweh has avenged my lord the king this day of Saul, and of his seed- </p><p>They wrongly assumed that they could do Yahweh's work of vengeance, whereas the whole theme of David’s thinking was that it is not for man to avenge.</p>


text:
<p>David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, As Yahweh lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity- </p><p>Compare <a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a> with <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 <a href='B:110 1:29'>1Ki 1:29</a>; he was deeply aware of Yahweh's redemption of him by grace right to his last days.</p><p>David makes a similar oath in 1 Kings 1:29. He means that seeing he was under God’s protection, he had no need to commit such murder and assassination in order to redeem his own soul. And yet David lied and murdered during his time in Gath. As in the Psalms, he is far too quick to proclaim his total innocence. Not even the Bathsheba confession seems to have totally healed him of that tendency.</p>


text:
<p>when someone told me, ‘Behold, Saul is dead’, thinking to have brought good news, I took hold of him, and killed him in Ziklag, which was the reward I gave him for his news- </p><p>Surely the murderers knew of David’s great grace toward Saul. The point is that their fears of possible judgment for them were greater than their belief in the abundant evidence of David’s grace. And this remains a tragic feature of many people to this day.</p>


text:
<p>How much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house on his bed- </p><p>Saul and his family were hardly righteous, except Jonathan. But David imputes righteousness to them, by grace; and this was later to be his experience from God after his seen concerning Bathsheba.</p><p>Shall I not now require his blood of your hand, and take you away from the earth?- </p><p>David alludes to himself as the avenger of blood, as if he was the close relative of Ishbosheth, so closely did he feel towards Saul's family (<a href='B:40 35:33'>Num 35:33</a>; <a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a>; <a href='B:50 19:19'>Deu 19:19</a>). Again we marvel at his love and grace. But presenting himself as one with Saul's family was at the same time a political move, to win them over to him. We note that David slays men who killed a righteous man, Ishbosheth. But he doesn't kill Joab for killing Abner, whom he also considers a righteous man. Clearly he was not acting on pure principle, but with at least some political agenda.</p>


text:
<p>David commanded his young men, and they killed them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried it in the grave of Abner in Hebron- </p><p>It seems to me that David’s killing of the Amalekite in <a href='B:100 1:15'>2Sa 1:15</a> was an over the top reaction, and yet again betrays a lack of value and meaning attached to the human person. There was no attempt to convert the frightened young man to grace, to the God of Israel. The summary slaying of Rechab and Baanah has some similarities. 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>).</p><p>The way he buries Ishbosheth where he was then living is proof enough of his further desire to publically identify with the house of Saul. It was not mere theatricism, nor politically savvy behaviour; but a reflection of his genuine grace and love for them.</p><p>Yet always David's motives are mixed- genuine grace, but mixed with political agenda and expediency. As we noted concerning the analogous death of the Amalekite servant who claimed to kill Saul, David's murder of these men seems uncalled for. They were on his side or at least not against him, but he seems to feel the need to make a point to all Israel- that he was innocent of the murder of Ishbosheth. And so he murders others to make that point. This seems to reflect a lack of value of the human person, made as he is in God's image.</p>


text:
<p>Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron-</p><p>This was to enter the covenant which Abner had persuade them to make (see on <a href='B:100 3:21'>2Sa 3:21</a>). We noted earlier that God had told David to go up to Hebron and it seems that is where God intended David to be king from. But it was David who preferred Jerusalem and possibly transferred that desire onto God. </p><p>And spoke saying, Behold, we are your bone and your flesh- </p><p><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a> makes the amazing statement that even now, "We are of members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones". In a very detailed study of this language, Henricus Renckens concluded: "In Israel, in order to say that someone was a blood relation, one said: "He is my flesh and my bones" (<a href='B:10 29:14'>Gen 29:14</a>; <a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>; cp. <a href='B:10 37:27'>Gen 37:27</a>; <a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a>; <a href='B:100 19:13'>2Sa 19:13</a> ff:; <a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a>)". This is how close we are to the Lord Jesus- blood relatives. This language could in no way be justified if Jesus were God Himself in person.</p>


text:
<p>In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel. Yahweh said to you, ‘You shall be shepherd of My people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel’- </p><p>The mutuality between God and David is often brought out. Yahweh was his shepherd (<a href='B:230 23:1'>Psa 23:1</a>), and he was to shepherd Israel). All Israel recognized that David had always been Israel's saviour, and Saul generally had failed to experience the Divine potential for him to be this. The people may possibly be alluding to Gen. 49:10 "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs. To him will the obedience of the peoples be". And so the people gathered to David, the king chosen from Judah, the shepherd who had a staff. Although for them it now seemed so logical that a shepherd man from Judah should be their king, God's choice of Saul of Benjamin shows that He sees His purpose as capable of multiple different paths of outworking. This is why the interpretation of prophecy can never be conducted dogmatically, because there are various possible outcomes- depending upon human freewill response.</p>


text:
<p>So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Yahweh; and they anointed David king over Israel- </p><p>This is the covenant which Abner had engineered in <a href='B:100 3:21'>2Sa 3:21</a>, aimed at providing total amnesty and assurance to all those who had once supported Saul. David had already been anointed by Samuel, but this was stating that all Israel approved of that and wanted to work with God’s plan rather than against it. It was a covenant of amnesty and forgiveness, the past was to be the past. And this looks forward to the situation when the Lord is finally enthroned king at His return.</p>


text:
<p>David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years- </p><p>If Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>), this creates various chronological problems. Solomon, David and Saul are all stated to have reigned 40 years, and it may be a non literal number. Paul's argument in <a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a> seems to be seeking to draw a parallel between Israel's 40 years in the desert and Saul's reign. Numbers are simply not used in Semitic literature in the literalistic way that they are in the writings of other cultures. To this day an Arab may describe a hot day as being 100 degrees C, when it is not that literally. But the Arab is not lying nor deceiving; it's a case of using numbers within a different context of language usage. Beginning his reign at 30 may be intended to recall how the Levites began serving at 30 (<a href='B:40 4:3'>Num 4:3</a>), because David was set up to be the priest-king who would replace the high priesthood according to Hannah's song. And at times he clearly did act like this, although his failures meant that the potential was reapplied and reframed to fulfilment in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah- </p><p>Hebron was a priestly city and Jerusalem the kingly city, so maybe this is intended to present David as a king-priest, beginning his kingship at the same age as the priests began their service (:4). But I have suggested that Yahweh's command in 2 Sam. 2 was for David to be king in Hebron, but he chose Jerusalem [partly in Judah, partly in Benjamin] for political purposes and God went along with that.</p>


text:
<p>The king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David saying, Unless you take away the blind and the lame, you shall not come in here; thinking, David can’t come in here- </p><p>A person who feels they are somehow a nice guy and worthy of invitation will be the one who tends to consider others as unworthy of invitation to the Kingdom. He or she who perceives their own desperation will eagerly invite even those they consider to be in the very pits of human society. The lame, blind etc. were not allowed to serve God under the law (<a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a>), nor be offered as sacrifices (<a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a>), nor come within the holy city (<a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a>). The Lord purposefully healed multitudes of lame and blind (<a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a>), and allowed them to come to Him in the temple (<a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a>). His acted out message was clearly that those who were despised as unfit for God’s service were now being welcomed by Him into that service. The lame and blind were despised because they couldn’t work. They had to rely on the grace of others. Here again is a crucial teaching: those called are those who can’t do the works, but depend upon grace.</p><p>Defining the Jebusites as "the inhabitants of the land" may be another mark left by the inspired editing of these records for the exiles. Such explanatory notes would have been unnecessary for the primary readership. The encouragement to them was that restoration of Israel's fortunes was indeed possible, under a new David.</p><p>"Thinking, David can’t come in here" continues a theme in the Samuel records- that human thoughts are so significant to God. This is what they thought, and therefore from the abundance of their hearts, their mouths spoke.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David- </p><p>As often in the Hebrew Bible, we have a summary statement and then an explanation of how it came about. The contrast is with how Saul's tribe of Benjamin had failed to drive out the Jebusites (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). Jerusalem was originally in Benjamin, but David’s capture of the city made it "the city of David" and therefore in Judah. We see here how different potential futures could have worked out. If Benjamin had taken and inherited their possession and Saul had 'worked out' as he could have done, then Jerusalem would have been in Benjamin. We see here how God’s plans are flexible, reflective of His great respect of human freewill and initiative. The "city of David" was not a city, it is defined here as a stronghold, and elsewhere the term is used specifically of the burial places of the Davidic kings. 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 fortress was his own stronghold rather than Yahweh.  </p><p>It can be inferred that the Jebusites surrendered when the blind and lame were so cruelly slain. There is no mention of any battle; and Araunah the Jebusite is living and owning part of the future temple mount nearby at the time of 2 Sam. 24.</p>


text:
<p>David said on that day, Whoever strikes the Jebusites, let him get up to the watercourse, and strike the lame and the blind, who are hated by David’s soul. Therefore they say, The blind and the lame can’t come into the house- </p><p>See on :6. The Hebrew is difficult but seems to allude to how the Jebusites mocked the Hebrews, thinking that their high elevation was such that the bind and lame could repel any attackers. If David was indeed Jonathan's armourbearer in 1 Samuel 14, he would have seen how God had punished the pride of the Philistines when they thought likewise. For Jonathan had shinned up an almost vertical cliff, with the Philistines mocking him- and slew them. This inspired David with the possibility that someone of similar faith and bravery could climb up the sewer line into Zion and do the same. Jonathan's example, from some decades earlier, inspired faith in this later situation. And so will all Godly examples. The fact it was Joab who rose up to this example (see 1 Chron:) means that he must surely have had some faith as well as bravery, despite his rather unspiritual ways.</p><p>But the Hebrew of David’s words here read like a kind of song, which could be translated:</p><p>Whosoever smites the Jebusite,</p><p>let him hurl down the precipice</p><p>both the lame and the blind,</p><p>hated of David’s soul.</p><p>We sense here a bitterness and lack of respect of the human person, which maybe resulted in his not being allowed to build the temple later. To murder the handicapped was unethical, but David’s bitterness and desire for power led him to command it. Hence LXX "Whosoever smiteth the Jebusite, let him slay with the sword both the lame and the blind who hate David’s soul".</p><p>There are echoes of Saul's offer at the time of the fight with Goliath. Chronicles records: "Whosoever smites the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain". And thus Joab was restored to being chief of the army.</p><p>We note that the exclusion of blind and lame in Lev. 21:18-20 only applied to "the seed of Aaron" not being able to officiate with sacrifices. And lame and blind sacrifices weren't to be offered (Dt. 15:21). But this is being twisted by David's extremism and anger issues into a general prohibition of lame and blind people coming into sacred space. The Jebusites were making typical pre-battle taunts- and David falls deeply for it. The words lodged in him and he got furiously angry. But Lev. 21:21,22 was clear that disabled priests were allowed to eat the holy things although not to offer them: "he shall not come near to offer the food of his God. He shall eat the food of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy". That holy food was to be eaten in the holy place, beside the altar (Lev.  6:16,26; 7:6; 10:12,13; 24:9- all very different from the attitudes of other religions at the time which stigmatized disability and wouldn't have allowed any disabled priests). So David was quite wrong to demand that no disabled person come into the temple. The Lord healed the blind and lame and allowed them to enter the temple, as if undoing this whole law and principle (Mt. 21:14 "the blind and the lame came to him in the temple and he healed them"). Jacob was lame but Yahweh is so often stated to be his God. There is no grace in David's position, nor in those who upheld it. The reason is given that the lame and blind were hated of David's soul. Hardly a great basis morally. And yet, as ever, David's feelings are nuanced- because he shows huge grace to the lame Mephibosheth and has him live within his house and eat at his table (2 Sam. 9:13). We all have these contradictory feelings and positions, where anger struggles against grace. We think of his expressed hatred for Saul in the Psalms, and yet his love and grace to him in practice. This is not the same as hypocrisy, it is what it is to be a spiritually flawed human. And the promise of the new covenant is that specifically the blind and lame are those who will come to Zion: “I will bring them in from the northland, gather them from the ends of the earth—the blind and the lame among them, those with child together with those in labour—in a vast throng they shall return here” (Jer. 31:7). Indeed the law of Moses taught respect for the disabled- the deaf were not to be reviled, and no stumbling hazard placed where blind people were (Lev. 19:14), because "I am Yahweh". David's attitude is completely opposite to this; he is presented as plain wrong right from the get go of his establishment in Zion. But soon after he receives the amazing grace of the promises of 2 Sam. 7. Rather like directly after Abraham and Isaac are weak in faith regarding their wives- they receive the promises and material blessings.</p>


text:
<p>David lived in the stronghold, and called it the city of David. David built around from Millo and inward- </p><p>Jerusalem was particularly loved by David. He thereby moved the city into Judah's possession from Benjamin's; see on :7. Chronicles adds: “And Joab repaired the rest of the city".</p>


text:
<p>David grew greater and greater; for Yahweh, the God of Armies, was with him-</p><p>This is the same phrase as used in David’s protestation of humility in <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a>: "Nor do I concern myself with great matters, or things too wonderful for me". 'To go' ["concern myself"] with 'great things' is the phrase used of David here in <a href='B:100 5:10'>2Sa 5:10</a>; he "went on [s:w. "concern myself"] and grew great" [s:w. "with great matters"]. So the idea of <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a> may be that David didn’t pay attention to these things so as not to become proud. And yet this humility was mixed with the bitterness noted on :8. We are all strange mixtures of spiritual strength and weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, carpenters and masons; and they built David a house- </p><p>The way Solomon also used him, or probably another Hiram, for the same trees reflects again how Solomon sought to live out his father. But he had no real spirituality, and over time he revealed that he had no personal faith, turning away to idols in his old age and coming to the nihilism of Ecclesiastes.</p><p>Psalms 30 was written at the dedication of a house by David, and we assume it was this house. But that Psalm reveals David had been very ill. He seems not to have had robust health although he was physically strong and lived a long life. There is ample evidence for a breakdown of his health after the sin with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>David perceived that Yahweh had established him king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake- </p><p>He realized that the promises of Samuel so long ago had finally come true, despite all the times when it had seemed they could not come true (see on <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>). But this sense of fulfilment led him to take yet more wives (:13), which is surely to be read negatively in spiritual terms. Yet he realized that his establishment was located in a wider context than just for himself; it was for the sake of His people Israel.</p>


text:
<p>David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he had come from Hebron; and there were more sons and daughters born to David- </p><p>See on :12. This is hard to read in a positive light spiritually; for Israel's king was not to multiply wives (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). He seemed to feel the need to prove himself established by having more wives and children, but this was itself a failure to appreciate that Yahweh had established him (:12). He did perceive this, but only on one level. David in Ps. 119 says that he studied God's law day and night. But he like us can miss the totally obvious and filter out the direct personal relevance. David was acting as monarchs did- having children by women from his chosen capital city, to establish his dynasty and establish himself as king there. Yet by doing this, David is breaking Divine principle by marrying multiple wives, for the sake of his political agenda rather than love marriage. And if the women were from Jerusalem, they were likely Gentiles / Jebusites as Jerusalem had not been in Israel's hands in recent times. </p><p>This is all the backdrop to God's statement to David in 2 Sam. 7 that He is going to establish David's dynasty eternally. Kings typically built a temple to their patron god and David also wanted to do this. But Yahweh wants none of that. He doesn't turn away from David over his human efforts to establish himself, but rather by grace He gives David amazing promises to show that He will establish David and his dynasty and kingdom ("Yahweh Himself will establish your house / family", 2 Sam. 7:11; "I will establish your descendants forever, and build your throne for all generations", Ps. 89:4.). And it will be God's Kingdom, not simply David's. We too face many temptations to legitimate and establish ourselves, to prove ourselves in society, especially with regard to family life and inheritances. People give their whole lives to establishing a 'successful' family, to own property, to prove yourself and show you have done something 'permanent' as you passed briefly through this world. Men name their lands and homes after themselves. But it is God who legitimates man, and He does so eternally and not through visible achievement in this life. Be it owning a property, or as in David's case, having wives and children from Jerusalem. Yahweh stresses He will make David's name great- not David nor any man making their own name great (2 Sam. 7:9). Man in his youth wants to legitimate himself by leaving the parental home, having his own property and family, carving out his own career and life path. And in later life, he seeks to create a family brand, and leave an inheritance to his well set up children. David was the same and he tried to do so on a large scale, involving being less than moral in his actions. The promises to him about God's legitimization of him and establishment of his "house" addressed all of this- he was to understand that God would legitimate him and establish him, not his own strength and wit. And like the promises to Abraham, which include the same things, they were given to David unconditionally without conditions nor any comment as to his worthiness to receive them. They came to him from out of left field. If his seed failed, the seed would be punished but the covenant would not be broken- love, chesed, the love and bond of the covenant, would not be withdrawn: "When / if he commits iniquity, I will punish him with the rod of humans, with floggings inflicted by people. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you" (2 Sam. 7:14-16). Likewise Ps. 89:31–34: "If they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with scourges; but I will not remove from him my steadfast love, or be false to my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant, or alter the word that went forth from my lips". The love would "never" [2 Sam. 7], not ever, be removed- and therefore the covenant was for ever eternal: "Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16). This is indeed amazing grace; an eternal unconditional commitment to David and his seed. David's seed were going to be a non negotiable part of God's purpose for ever. All this was way more than establishing David's family in the short term, as David had spent so much effort to do. We who all struggle to legitimate ourselves in this world are likewise hugely challenged by the same covenant grace. The language of the Davidic covenant mirrors by contrast the situation with Saul- who was given the covenant but it and the Spirit were withdrawn from him. Saul's sins led to the end of covenant relationship, but David's sins didn't. David realizes on one level that Yahweh alone by grace has established his kingdom (:12)- just as do those who pay lip service to God's grace and establishment of them. And yet at the very same time, he goes helter skelter to establish his kingdom in his own strength.</p>


text:
<p>These are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon- </p><p>These were the sons of Bathsheba. We note that they had a son called Nathan, perhaps in respect of the prophet of that name who had rebuked David for his sin with Bathsheba. And it was through him that the Lord Jesus was descended back to David (<a href='B:490 3:31'>Luk 3:31</a>). Birth "in Jerusalem" was seen as legitimizing a great man in his home city; we think of the similar comment in 2 Sam. 21:22 "These four were born to the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David". </p><p>
The account of bringing the ark to Zion is prefaced by this record of David's sons who were born in Jerusalem. But we read nothing further about them. This could all be read as part of David's attempt to establish his own dynasty in Zion, which God responded to in 2 Sam. 7 by saying that He would establish David's Kingdom in His own way, through David's seed, the Lord Jesus. Ps. 87:5 expresses David's misunderstanding that physical birth in Zion meant Yahweh's establishment: "Yes, of Zion it will be said, This one and that one was born in her; the Most High Himself will establish her". Likewise in Ps. 132:17 David puts words in God's mouth: "There [in Zion / Jerusalem] will I make the horn of David to bud". But the budding of David's horn was fulfilled by God in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the great "son of David", rather than in David having many sons in Jerusalem. The promises of Divine establishment of David's dynasty through the Lord Jesus were therefore a corrective to David's thinking about establishing his dynasty in his own strength.</p>


text:
<p>Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia- </p><p>We know nothing of these sons, nor indeed or most of David’s children. This would indicate perhaps that David was not a very good spiritual father to his children. And that, as noted above, his attempts at self-legitimization in Jerusalem were not at all spiritually blessed.</p>


text:
<p>Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet-</p><p>The lists in <a href='B:130 3:5-8'>1Ch 3:5-8</a>; <a href='B:130 14:4-7'>1Ch 14:4-7</a> also mention two more sons, Eliphalet or Elpalet and Nogah. Perhaps&nbsp; they are omitted here because they died in infancy, and that the second Eliphalet was named after his dead brother.</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down to the stronghold- </p><p>They must have felt bitterly betrayed by David. He had lived with them in Ziklag and Gath for some time and claimed he was on their side against Judah. His lack of integrity would have deeply riled them, and was a poor advertisement for the God of Israel.</p><p>The stronghold in view may have been the cave of Adullam (<a href='B:100 23:13-14'>2Sa 23:13-14</a>), where God had previously delivered David from Saul. Perhaps he went there to pray. It was at this time that he wished to drink of the water from the well in Bethlehem, and his men broke risked their lives to get it for him. We see the extent of their dominance, in that they had overrun Bethlehem, David’s home village, and placed a garrison in it (<a href='B:100 23:14'>2Sa 23:14</a>):&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p></p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines had come and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>The record of David’s battle with the Philistines in <a href='B:100 5:17-24'>2Sa 5:17-24</a> has certain similarities with the exploits of <a href='B:90 14:8-11'>1Sa 14:8-11</a>; as if, years later, David replicated Jonathan's early adventure of faith. This would be understandable if he had been Jonathan's armourbearer in that incident. Situations repeat in our lives; what we learn in youth becomes tested later on in life.</p><p>They perhaps chose the valley of the giants as the battleground because they still recalled his victory over Goliath, and wanted to reverse it.</p>


text:
<p>David inquired of Yahweh saying, Shall I go up against the Philistines? Will You deliver them into my hand? Yahweh said to David, Go up; for I will certainly deliver the Philistines into your hand-</p><p>This recalls how he asked Yahweh when Saul died whether he should go into Judah, and to which city there. A man of lesser humility and closeness to God would have just gone ahead with assumptions he was right. His questions also recall the questions he asked [and answers received] about the situation in Keilah (<a href='B:90 23:11-12'>1Sa 23:11-12</a>). He retained this desire for guidance, and showed he had learned from his previous experiences. "Teach me Your way" was definitely David's credo and reflects humility. For so often we read of David asking for guidance (1 Sam. 23:2; 2 Sam. 2:1). </p>


text:
<p>David came to Baal Perazim, and David struck them there; and he said, Yahweh has broken my enemies before me, like the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baal Perazim- </p><p>Perhaps there was a literal flash flood sent by God. This means the place of breaches. What happened has been explained as follows: "It was the rocky height on the north of the valley of Rephaim. David must, therefore, have stolen round the army of the Philistines, creeping, probably by night, up to this ridge of Ben-Hinnom, and thence at the dawn of day have rushed down upon the camp. And his onset was sudden and irresistible, like the rush of the waters of some mountain lake when, swollen with rains, it bursts through the opposing dam, and carries hasty destruction to everything that lies in its way". This means that just like the second attack, David circled around and came at the Philistines from behind (:23). But this is exactly how a dog attacks. David in his low moments had felt himself as a desert dog (<a href='B:90 17:44'>1Sa 17:44</a> LXX; 24:14). When we are weak, then we are strong. Perhaps God played along with David’s low feelings by saying that if he indeed felt as a dog, then He would use him to achieve victory as a dog does. This is not to justify David’s view of himself, but to show rather how God interacts with man in a mutual way.</p>


text:
<p>They left their images there; and David and his men took them away- </p><p>They should have destroyed them, according to the law of Moses which David professed such love for in Psalms 119. Perhaps they justified it by saying they were doing to the Philistines as they had done to the ark; for the Philistines took the ark as a sign they had triumphed over Israel's God. But Yahweh clearly punished them for that, and David’s men might have boasted that the Philistine gods didn’t do that to them. Such is the quasi spiritual reasoning of our flesh. <a href='B:130 14:12'>1Ch 14:12</a> however explains that finally, they were burnt.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines came up yet again, and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>This was soon afterwards, implying David’s men hadn't slain that many of the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>When David inquired of Yahweh, He said, You shall not go up. Circle around behind them, and attack them opposite the mulberry trees- </p><p>The Father and Son are constantly seeking to lead us in “newness of life”. David didn’t get victory by the mulberry trees the same way each time (<a href='B:100 5:23-24'>2Sa 5:23-24</a>). God changed the method. But as noted on :20, David was still to circle around and attack from behind, like a dog. "Mulberry" is Hebrew baca, and could refer to the valley of Baca, or weeping, of <a href='B:230 84:6'>Psa 84:6</a>. Hence RV "valley of weeping". Perhaps David was in depression at this time, and was being comforted that his weeping was to be his strength. For God loves to use the weak to achieve His victories.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then you shall stir yourself up- </p><p>This sound was the marching of the Angels. They are called Yahweh's hosts or armies, and the idea was that David’s army was a reflection on earth of the heavenly armies above him. This was necessary to teach that Israel were not winning these victories in their own strength, but by following the Angelic hosts above them.</p><p>"Stir up" is Heb. 'follow after'. The idea of ‘following after’ a man is a Hebrew figure for men following their leader / general into battle. There are many examples: <a href='B:60 3:3'>Jos 3:3</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>; <a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>; <a href='B:70 6:34-35'>Jdg 6:34-35</a>; <a href='B:70 9:4'>Jdg 9:4</a>; <a href='B:70 9:49'>Jdg 9:49</a>; <a href='B:90 17:13-14'>1Sa 17:13-14</a>; <a href='B:90 30:21'>1Sa 30:21</a>; <a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a> etc. In those early days, a general wasn’t a smart guy with a degree who directed the battlefield from his laptop; he was the one who went over the top first with his men behind him, knowing full well he was the one whom his enemies would go for above all others. It was his bravery which inspired the followers to go after him, and which, over the battles and wars, solidified their trust in him and willingness to give their lives behind him. And this figure of speech was well understood by the Lord when He bid us follow Him. Around Him were false prophets and rabbinic teachers, asking young men to follow them, adopt their interpretations of Torah, study the traditions, and get hyped up enough to take weapons in their hands and go forth to fight the infidel. The Lord was fully aware of this, and He frames His calling of men in the same terms. Indeed, when He speaks of leaving all and following after Him (<a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a>), He surely had in mind the well known story of Mattathias, who began the Maccabean revolt by saying: “Let every one who is zealous for the Law and supports the covenant follow after me… and they left their possessions behind in the town” (1Ma_2:27).</p><p>For then Yahweh has gone out before you to strike the army of the Philistines- </p><p>The people wanted a king to "go out before us and fight our battles" (<a href='B:90 8:20'>1Sa 8:20</a>), but they were disappointed in Saul ultimately. For it was effectively David who went out before the people to fight their battles (s:w. <a href='B:90 18:13'>1Sa 18:13</a>; <a href='B:90 18:16'>1Sa 18:16</a>). And David was only successful because he recognized that it was Yahweh who 'went out before' to fight his battles (s:w. <a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a>), rather than any human king or leader.</p>


text:
<p>David did so, as Yahweh commanded him, and struck the Philistines from Geba until you come to Gezer- </p><p>"Geba" is Gibeon (<a href='B:130 14:16'>1Ch 14:16</a>), which is directly on the road from the valley of Rephaim to Gaza. The continual consistency of the geographical references in the record is yet another reflection of the utter credibility of it as Divinely inspired. Any group of human writers would have made mistakes in this area, given the lack of detailed maps and geographical knowledge.</p><p>The significance of Gibeon [Geba] is that David had avoided having any part in the duel there between his men and the men of Saul. But he does fight there against Yahweh's enemies and wins. In the very place where divided brethren slew each other, David slays the Philistines. We note that Gibeon was in Benjamin, who had initially been on Saul's side during the civil war and against David. Whilst Gibeon was in their hands at the time of the duel, it seems it fell into Philistine hands soon afterwards- for David now drives the Philistines out of Gibeon. This is the fruit of divided brethren- the world comes in.  
We wonder why there was this victory over the Philistines inserted into David's experience here. He has established himself as king, and will build his own house and desire to build God a house in the next chapter. One reason may be that God is preparing David to receive the promises and covenant of 2 Sam. 7 which includes victory over enemies (2 Sam. 7:11 "I will cause you to rest from all your enemies"). God works progressively with His people, teaching them by experience [in this case, a carefully Divinely controlled victory over enemies] what He then tells them in words. For we are in the end empirical learners, and God knows this.</p>


text:
<p>David again gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand- </p><p>"Thousand" may refer to families or squadrons. They were "chosen" or 'shown as tested / approved'. It was a reunion gathering of all those who had been faithful to David over the years. This was a huge number of people to gather together, given the problem of providing food and lodging for them. This was why battles were fought swiftly in those days, for the men were needed on their farms, and the supply of food was difficult to arrange over longer periods. So this huge effort reflects the importance David attached to bringing up the ark.</p><p>This figure of 30,000 contrasts intentionally with how 30,000 Israelites had been slain at the beginning of the Samuel story (1 Sam. 4:10), and the ark had been lost. Now 30,000 come to witness the return of the ark, to Zion. </p>


text:
<p>David arose, and went with all the people who were with him, from Baale Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name, even the name of Yahweh of Armies who sits above the cherubim- </p><p>Baalah, or Kirjath-Baal, "the city of Baal" was the old Canaanite name of Kirjath-jearim (<a href='B:60 15:9'>Jos 15:9</a>; <a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>). David’s bringing up / going up / ascending of the ark (<a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a>) recalls how the ark did not go up into Canaan in <a href='B:40 14:44'>Num 14:44</a> (s:w:); for the land was not to be given to Israel. But when the time came, the ark was brought up into Canaan (<a href='B:60 4:16'>Jos 4:16</a>; <a href='B:60 4:18'>Jos 4:18</a> s:w:). And so now, the land was being given to them again. David felt as if he was as Joshua reconquering Canaan in fulfilment of the promises. This may explain why Paul in <a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a> parallels the 40 years wandering of Israel with the 40 year reign of Saul; and he may speak of Saul reigning 40 years because of this, even if it was not literally true. It creates big chronological problems if we read that 40 year reign of Saul literally. Solomon imitated David’s bringing up of the ark to Zion in <a href='B:110 8:1'>1Ki 8:1</a>; <a href='B:110 8:4'>1Ki 8:4</a>. He lived out his father’s faith and devotion, but only on an external level. He in due course was to turn away from Yahweh to idols, and descend into the nihilism of Ecclesiastes.</p><p>I have discussed on 1 Sam. 4:3 how there was always a tendency to use the ark as a talisman; and God was against that. The religious eclipsed the spiritual as regards the ark, several times in Israel's history. And I suggest David was not immune to this. He brings the ark to Zion without any Divine command to do so and without consultation with Him [David earlier asks God for guidance about his decisions in 2 Sam. 5, but not in the context of the ark];  and there was the disaster with Uzzah the first time he attempted it. This is to be compared to Israel's defeat when they took the ark with them into battle against the Philistines in the time of Eli. David clearly also veered towards seeing the ark as a talisman. It was almost as if he wanted to underwrite his own enthronement in Jerusalem by having Yahweh enthroned there also over the ark. Likewise David's desire to permanently locate the ark in a physical temple in Jerusalem can be seen as a desire to legitimate the enthronement of his dynasty in that city. But on the other hand, David often 'gets it' about the lack of need for the ark's physical presence. His psalms speak of how he lived permanently beneath the shadow of the cherubic wings, as if he lived on the mercy seat, on the sprinkled blood. In 2 Sam. 15:24-29 he flees from Absalom, and refuses the suggestion he take the ark with him. But, so true to real spiritual life, he also had tendencies towards needing the physical and religious when it came to the ark. Just as we pine for the religious at times, whilst also rejoicing in God's presence in our hearts quite regardless of religious context.  </p><p>David wrote at least two Psalms about bringing the ark to Zion, Ps. 68 and Ps. 132. Ps. 68 clearly expects God to bring victory to Israel because of the ark's presence in Zion, and Ps. 132 seems to reason that once the ark is in Zion it will be there forever. This wasn't to be the case. But we see in David's reasoning that he still considered the ark as some kind of physical guarantee of God's presence, and the legitimization of his own enthronement in Jerusalem- and that of his dynasty after him, as he imagined. He was proven wrong- the ark disappeared, his dynasty was cut off, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. But God's spiritual presence in human hearts continued and became the stronger after these things. We marvel at how God works through human weakness to achieve His wider purposes. The Chronicles record hints at political reasons for David's wanting the ark when we read David saying "let us lead the ark of our
God back to us" (1 Chron. 13:3). David wanted it firmly under his control and his motive for bringing the ark to Zion was clearly to centralize religious as well as political power in his chosen capital city. </p>


text:
<p>They set the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in the hill: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove the new cart- </p><p>There were very specific laws about the transportation of the ark. It was to be carried on poles on the shoulders of not just Levites but specifically the sons of Kohath (<a href='B:40 4:15'>Num 4:15</a>); and Abinadab's family were not the right people to carry it. David claims in Psalms 119 to have studied God’s law all the day whilst on the run from Saul, reciting it to himself. Perhaps he forgot these details. But I suggest because he came to see that God wanted the spirit and not letter of the law to be followed, he came to totally place himself above Divine law. We face the same temptation. And it was this which led David into his sin with Bathsheba. Shaving off bits and pieces of God’s laws and principles, on the basis that we are above His law, leads to the final catastrophe of David’s sin with Bathsheba. Instead of following God’s laws about the transportation of the ark, it seems David instead followed the pattern of the Philistines, who also transported the captured ark on a cart (s:w. <a href='B:90 6:10-11'>1Sa 6:10-11</a>). And considered that having built a new cart, never used before, he was in his own way showing respect to it. He was influenced by others' behaviour and treatment of the ark rather than God's word; he failed to learn from history. David here reflects his religious approach to the ark rather than a spiritual one. During the wilderness years, he felt that he was as it were dwelling on the mercy seat, between the cherubim, covered by the blood of atonement. But he has slipped down from that spiritual peak, now hankering for the physical ark, sliding back from the spiritual to the merely religious. In Saul's time, the ark was not enquired of ("let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we enquired not at it in the days of Saul", 1 Chron. 13:3).  Ps. 132:6 likewise hints at its obscurity: "Lo, we heard of it at Ephratah: we found it in the fields of the wood" (Baale-Judah, the woods of Judah). David is now looking to be religious, when he had been driven to personal spirituality by his exclusion from formal religion whilst on the run from Saul.</p>


text:
<p>They brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was in the hill, with the ark of God: and Ahio went before the ark-</p><p>Uzzah walked at the side, whilst Ahio went before the oxen to guide them. The Divine cameraman is zoomed in close upon the scene.</p>


text:
<p>David and all the house of Israel played before Yahweh with all kinds of instruments made of fir wood, and with harps, stringed instruments, tambourines, castanets and cymbals- </p><p>The actual fact of making music and praise to God doesn't necessarily mean our acceptability before Him; the very experience of music and its effect can lead us to think that our participation means our acceptability before God. But all this praise was made whilst God was extremely angry with them for how they were treating the ark.</p><p>Many of the brief Psalms exhorting all kinds of music to be used in praising Yahweh were probably composed at this time. This description is very similar to those of how holy objects / idols were brought on beds by the state treasurer to Sargon II of Assyria. Offerings and music were made in front of the objects in order to placate and please the god thought to be in the object. But of course the ark was not a god in itself; David and his people have veered towards the religious rather than the spiritual. Just as most kings once established built a temple to their patron deity, and David also wants to do this to Yahweh. Perhaps the huge punishment on Uzzah reflected God's anger at the religious dominating the spiritual, as if the ark as a box was being worshipped rather than Him.  The scene is also similar to that of Assurbanipal’s return of Marduk’s statue from Assur to Babylon: “Just as Assurbanipal’s army participated in the return of Marduk to his new sanctuary, so David’s army participated in the return of the ark of Yahweh. Just as Marduk’s journey was accompanied by music and rejoicing, so was the ark’s. Moreover, just as the Assyrians offered sacrifices every double mile from the quay of Assur to the quay of Babylon, so David offered an ox and a fatling after every six steps” (Miller & Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel, JHNES (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977)). </p><p>The death of Uzzah is one of a number of incidents studded throughout the Biblical record which remind us that sin is serious and a felt offence by God, and provokes His wrath and the necessary death penalty. Whilst otherwise He appears to tolerate sin, this doesn't mean that every sin isn't felt by Him. His feelings are those of Hosea regarding Gomer's continued unfaithfulness.</p>


text:
<p>When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon- </p><p><a href='B:130 13:9'>1Ch 13:9</a> has "the threshing floor of Chidon" and <a href='B:100 6:6'>2Sa 6:6</a> has "of Nacon". I suggest Nacon was the name of the owner, and Chidon was the location. A threshing floor has associations with Divine judgment, and this is what happened.</p><p>Uzzah reached for the ark of God and took hold of it- </p><p>We wonder if Paul has this in mind when he praises the Lord Jesus for not trying to grasp hold of equality with God (Php_2:6). In this case, Uzzah is being accused of playing God by what he did. And yet this appears to be a very harsh reading of motives into a quite simple and natural, well meaning reaction. But this is the point; we cannot judge or know human motivations or thoughts. Who knows what was really in Uzzah's mind. For all we know he was cussing the ark as it wobbled on the cart. He did what was instinctive to do- but doing what is naturally instinctive can lead to Divine condemnation. Here we see for all time that human action is not OK just because it seems and feels right, instinctive, obvious and logical to the human mind at the time. Only God knows, and we should respect His judgment and our own inability to judge. The other possible issue which arises from this is that we are to accept that there are huge implications to our apparently harmless, surface level sins. Only God can judge them. But He does extrapolate the implications of human thoughts and actions. The whole incident is a test of our humility before God, a test David initially failed.</p><p>For the cattle stumbled- </p><p>"Stumbled" is s:w. "threw down" (<a href='B:120 9:33'>2Ki 9:33</a>; <a href='B:230 141:6'>Psa 141:6</a>). It seems the ark itself was thrown down onto the ground, despite Uzzah trying to stop it.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Uzzah; and God struck him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God- </p><p>See on :6. Yahweh had likewise struck down (s:w:) those who had earlier failed to respect the ark (<a href='B:90 5:6'>1Sa 5:6</a>; <a href='B:90 5:9'>1Sa 5:9</a>; <a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a>). And they had imitated the transport of the ark upon a new cart. The failure of man to learn from Biblical history is one of the greatest tragedies. We may consider this incident as parallel with the sin of Adam and Eve in Eden, whereby an apparently small failure lead to huge consequences. But these incidents are placed in Biblical history to help us humble ourselves before God, and not to fall into the assumption that God is not serious about His principles. Yahweh's anger being kindled is a phrase used multiple times about His anger with Israel for breaking the covenant. The sin of Uzzah personified all that was wrong with Israel. They had assumed that they could serve Yahweh on their terms and not His, and that this was just a mere surface level failure which He should overlook. All this is so challenging for us, who are tempted to think in just the same way.</p><p>Samuel appears to have slept next to the ark, and in 1 Sam. 5:1 the Philistines manhandled it on a long journey of 60 km. Uzzah was slain but they weren't. Again we see how boundaries of holiness are relative, and God looks at the heart; something clearly was very wrong in Uzzah's heart, in a way it was not wrong in the hearts of the child Samuel or these Philistines. Attitude and heart are paramount in God's judgment of men.   </p><p>Samuel appears to have slept next to the ark, and in 1 Sam. 5:1 the Philistines manhandled it on a long journey of 60 km. Uzzah was slain but they weren't. Again we see how boundaries of holiness are relative, and God looks at the heart; something clearly was very wrong in Uzzah's heart, in a way it was not wrong in the hearts of the child Samuel or these Philistines. Attitude and heart are paramount in God's judgment of men.   </p><p>Samuel appears to have slept next to the ark, and in 1 Sam. 5:1 the Philistines manhandled it on a long journey of 60 km. Uzzah was slain but they weren't. Again we see how boundaries of holiness are relative, and God looks at the heart; something clearly was very wrong in Uzzah's heart, in a way it was not wrong in the hearts of the child Samuel or these Philistines. Attitude and heart are paramount in God's judgment of men.   </p><p>
Uzzah was a son or grandson of Abinadab (:3), in whose house the ark had been kept for some years (perhaps from 1 Sam. 7:1, where the ark is taken to the house of Abinadab, to 2 Sam. 6:3, where the ark is taken from Abinadab's house). Perhaps he felt he knew the ark well and had probably touched it before. But he was slain for the sin of familiarity with God leading to contempt. Perhaps he cursed the ark box as it fell. Or perhaps "he reached out his hand to the ark" [Heb.] or as in 1 Chron. 13:10 "he put his hand to the ark" was in fact part of a prearranged plan to grab the ark and make a sanctuary for it there at the threshing floor. Clearly there was far more going on that a simple breaking of Divine law. </p>


text:
<p>David was displeased, because Yahweh had broken forth on Uzzah; and he called that place Perez Uzzah, to this day- </p><p>David was “displeased” with God because He had slain a man who was trying to assist David’s pet project of bringing the ark to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:8-9'>2Sa 6:8-9</a>). Do we not again see the anger and irrational emotion of David flaring up? For the Hebrew for "displeased" really means "anger", and is the same word used of Yahweh's anger in :7. God was fiercely angry, and David was likewise fiercely angry with God for being angry. Whilst on one level this is a terrible example of human pride, David’s response could be argued to reflect a closeness with God which enabled him to feel like this. The exiles were warned that all who are "incensed" against God must be humbled and ashamed before the ark could, as it were, come to Zion and Israel be restored (s:w. <a href='B:290 41:11'>Isa 41:11</a>; <a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a>). The exiles, who were also angry with God for His anger with them, were to go through the humbling process David went through over the next three months.</p><p>However we could read this another way. David was angry, but he was afraid of Yahweh (:9). Possibly his anger was therefore with himself.</p><p>However we could read this another way. David was angry, but he was afraid of Yahweh (:9). Possibly his anger was therefore with himself. </p><p>
We note David's surprise at judgment for touching the ark, as with the men of Bethshemesh earlier when they opened the ark. Perhaps this was because the ark had been regularly touched earlier. For example, surely they manhandled the ark onto the wagon without incident; and how did Obededom handle it without being struck down? And now, it seemed, God was suddenly deciding to apply an applicable law which usually He seemed to disregard. David presents as the child who is shocked and hurt when for once, he isn't allowed to get away with regularly breaking a requirement or law. The law in Num. 4:15-20 was clear; the Kohathites were to deal with the ark and even they must handle it properly "that they may live, and not die, when they approach to the most holy things". The Chronicles record labours how the second attempt to bring the ark to Zion 'worked' because David was careful to follow the Mosaic precepts about handling the ark. And this perhaps is the point: All sin merits death and Divine wrath, but only occasionally is this truth revealed by God in practice. His grace operates in shielding man from His wrath, but this doesn't mean His wrath and sense of sin and infringement of His holiness isn't there. God's feelings about sin were reflected in Hosea's raging anger against Gomer, mellowed by his amazing love and grace for her. Or it could be that Uzzah cursed the ark as it fell, or had some hidden heart position about it which led to God's wrath. And the lesson in that case would be that the innermost private thoughts of man are seen and judged by God and provoke His wrath as well as His pleasure. </p>


text:
<p>David was afraid of Yahweh that day; and he said, How can the ark of Yahweh come to me?-</p><p>There is a similarity, surely intentional, with the situation in <a href='B:90 6:20'>1Sa 6:20</a>: "The men of Beth Shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God?". These were now David’s feelings when Uzzah was slain for also not being respectful to the ark. Circumstances repeated, and David failed to learn the lesson. We wonder if indeed David consciously repeated the words of the men of Beth Shemesh. I suspect he didn’t, but rather his words are recorded in a similar way, to show to us readers the similarity. We are intended to learn from history, even though so few do. This is why so much of the Bible is history.</p><p>"How can I bring the ark to me?" surely reflects poor motivation. David wanted the ark to come to himself. He has no concept of going up to Yahweh at the ark. It was starting to get all about him. He clearly saw the ark as something he personally could possess ("to me... to us") and which centralized political power in him.</p>


text:
<p>So David would not move the ark of Yahweh to be with him in the city of David; but David carried it aside into the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite- </p><p>This was a huge showdown, for David had assembled a huge number of people to this ceremony; see on :1. And now he was revealed as a man who had not paid due attention to the requirements of the God whom he had invited all Israel to come to worship. It was very humbling for him. We note he "carried it aside", having it carried on poles as the law required and not on a cart.</p>


text:
<p>The ark of Yahweh remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite three months: and Yahweh blessed Obed-Edom, and all his house- </p><p>As it took David some months to realize his sin with Bathsheba, so here it took David three months to humble himself before God, and to perceive that His blessing is related to obedience and respect of Him, and not assuming we can serve Him on our terms and ride roughshod over His principles. David and his house had also been promised blessings, but he was being taught that these blessings were related to obedience and respect of God. And the fact a Philistine from Gath, perhaps an Edomite, indeed an Edomite servant [for so his name means] received these blessings... was to teach him that his pedigree counted for nothing compared to humble respect of Israel's God.</p><p>The care of the ark was given over to the Levites. But Obed-Edom wasn't a Levite nor was he a Hebrew, he was a Philistine or Edomite servant from Gath. And he was blessed for caring for the ark. This contrasts sharply with the striking of Uzzah. It serves to point up the fact that Uzzah was not necessarily slain because he wasn't a Levite, nor specifically one of the sons of Kohath who were to carry the ark. That breach of Divine law wasn't the issue; likewise David acts as a priest with an ephod when he too wasn't a Levite. Rather it was a matter of the heart and attitude, which is a persistent theme in the record. For David and Saul sinned in parallel ways, but David's heart attitude was different. 1 Chron. 15:18,24 lists Obededom amongst the Levites who were porters and "doorkeepers for the ark". But he wasn't a Levite. Just as David wasn't. But they could act as Levites because of their attitude of heart. </p>


text:
<p>It was told king David saying, Yahweh has blessed the house of Obed-Edom and all that pertains to him, because of the ark of God. David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom into the city of David with joy- </p><p>True joy can only come from repentance and humbling ourselves before God. A prouder man would have just given up with this apparently over sensitive, hard to please God of Israel. But Yahweh is not really like that; but He rightly requires our humility to Him and His principles. It was the Edomite servant, Obed Edom, who taught David this. The record in 1 Chron. 15:11-15 stresses that this second time, David pays more attention to the Mosaic commands about the ark ["because you didn’t carry it at first, Yahweh our God broke out against us, because we didn’t seek Him according to the ordinance. So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of Yahweh, the God of Israel. The children of the Levites bore the ark of God with its poles on their shoulders, as Moses commanded according to the word of Yahweh"]. He insists afterwards that only the right Levites minister with the ark. And yet in 2 Sam. 8:18 he appoints his own sons as priests, when they weren't Levites ["David’s sons were chief priests", RV]! David's self proclaimed love of Yahweh's law was nuanced by his own political agenda.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that when those who bore the ark of Yahweh had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened calf- </p><p>David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (<a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>; and <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a> = <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. David had just been severely humiliated and punished for assuming he could put aside the letter of God’s law regarding the transport of the ark. That David should now act as a Levite when he was not one, again following the spirit and not the letter of the law, would therefore not have been done by him quickly. It would have required sustained reflection on the situation. His actions should therefore never be taken as a quick justification for disregarding Divine laws and principles. For in the context of what had happened three months previously, he would have considered this matter very seriously.</p><p>If sacrifices were offered every six paces from the house of Obed Edom to Zion, the road to Zion would have been a stream of sacrificial blood, looking ahead to the way to Golgotha. I suggest on :17 that these were sin offerings. It demonstrated the deep sense of sin and need for atonement which David felt. It was this true repentance which was the basis for his ecstatic joy. LXX "And seven choruses accompanied him. bearing the ark, and a calf and Iambs as a sacrifice".  One explanation of why "every six paces" is that there are six resting places of the ark in the Samuel record: Shiloh, Eben Ezer, Beth Shemesh, Kiriath Jearim, the house of Obed Edom, and now Zion. David perhaps saw the seventh rest for the ark, like the seventh day of creation, as being in the temple he envisaged building for it. In Ps. 132 he invites the ark and Yahweh to enter into the place of their rest in Zion. But he fails to perceive that in fact Yahweh's rest is in the Messianic kingdom, not David's immediate kingdom; the ark would come to nothing, Jerusalem would fall and Zion would be ploughed. The crown would be removed... until "He come whose right it is", the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Bulls and oxen were usually sacrificed as burnt and peace offerings (Lev. 1:4-6; 4:10; 9:4,18). And he made these two offerings when the ark arrived (:17,18). But usually they are preceded by the sin offering. Sin is dealt with, then the burnt offering of promised dedication to God, and then celebrating peace with God. But David makes no sin offering. He clearly felt he had nothing to repent of nor to be forgiven of; he considered Yahweh's striking of Uzzah to be wrong and that he had done no real wrong himself. Although the second time he does obey the required laws about handling the ark [the Chronicles record stresses this], he clearly has no real sense of failure. For all his spiritual insight, he still felt he was above God's law, despite his much proclaimed familiarity with it and love of it [see Ps. 119]. And this sets him up for his failure with Bathsheba. And so it is for all of us who realize we are saved without God's law and by grace, and who see to the essence and spirit of the law rather than the letter. This can lead us to the same failures as David through presumption, assumption and over familiarity with a holy God. </p>


text:
<p>David danced before Yahweh with all his might- </p><p>I suggested on :13 that the massive number of sacrifices personally offered by David reflected his sense of repentance and need for atonement for his sin three months previously. It was this which was the basis for his ecstatic joy at his forgiveness. Although note the comments on :13 that the reverse situation might be the case. "Might" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "Uzzah" who was slain for irreverence towards the ark. But David with his 'Uzzah' danced before Yahweh clothed as a priest when he wasn't a priest. Perhaps the purpose of the word play is to teach us that it was Uzzah's internal attitude that was wrong. David too infringed Yahweh's law but his 'Uzzah' was different because of the state of his heart, and he was saved and accepted. The Hebrew words for dancing with all the might are similar to the title of Ps. 88, mahaloth leannoth, which seems to actually apply to Ps. 87, which would then reflect David's feelings at the time of bringing the ark to Zion.  </p><p>And David was clothed in a linen ephod- </p><p>As we go through the life of David, it is evident he went along roads few others have travelled. For example, who else would offer his sacrifice upon the altar and then start strumming his harp in praise as he watched the animal burn (<a href='B:230 43:4'>Psa 43:4</a> Heb:)? This was a new paradigm in Israelite worship. Like Job, David had no precedents in past spiritual history from which he could take comfort (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>). David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (<a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>; and <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a> = <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. He knew that the ideal standard for married life was one man: one woman, and yet he was somehow able to flout this and still be a man after God’s own heart. He broke explicit Mosaic commandment by marrying Saul's wives and also his daughter, he airily waived the Mosaic law concerning bloodguiltiness (consider the implications of <a href='B:100 14:4-11'>2Sa 14:4-11</a>), and the need to stone rapists (<a href='B:100 13:21'>2Sa 13:21</a>). When others tried to do these kind of things, they were severely punished by a God who insisted upon serious obedience to His Law. Consider how Saul was condemned for offering sacrifice instead of a priest (<a href='B:90 13:10-13'>1Sa 13:10-13</a>); and Uzziah likewise (<a href='B:140 26:16-19'>2Ch 26:16-19</a>). When the woman of Tekoah basically suggested that the Mosaic laws about the rights of the revenger of blood be repealed, David seems to have agreed. When Amnon seeks to rape his sister Tamar, she suggests that he ask David to allow them to marry- and surely, she says, he will agree. Yet this too would have been counter to the spirit of the Law about marriages to close relatives. Yet David went beyond the Law so often; and it is this which perhaps led him to commit the sin of presumption in his behaviour with Bathsheba. Right afterwards he comments about the man who stole his neighbour’s sheep, that it must be restored fourfold; whereas the Law only stipulated double, David felt he so knew the spirit of the Law that he could break the letter of it- in any context. And this was his [temporary] downfall.</p>


text:
<p>So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of Yahweh with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet-</p><p>David is portrayed as in religious ecstasy before the God whom three months before he had been furiously angry with (see on :8). This indeed reflects the almost bi-polar nature of David. But it also shows the power of true repentance and seeking to put things right with God (see on :13), and the joy of good conscience resulting from that.</p><p>We can too easily be blinded by the fact David was acting as a king-priest and was thereby a type of the Lord Jesus. The fact is, by presenting himself as a king-priest, David was cementing both religious and political power in himself and in his chosen capital city. Just as many other kings did at the time. And he was bringing the ark to a tent he had pitched for it in his own back garden [Solomon brought the ark from the
city or personal citadel of David to the temple]. When the ark had not been enquired of in Saul's time (1 Chron. 13:3) and he had to "find" it (Ps. 132). The visible symbols of religion suddenly became significant for him. On the other hand, on a spiritual level, he had become so in tune with the spirit of the law of Moses that he could break it by acting as priest, when others were condemned for doing so. The difference was that his heart was right with God. And yet beyond any doubt, his motives were mixed and he had other, political, human agendas. </p>


text:
<p>It was so, as the ark of Yahweh came into the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looked out at the window and saw king David leaping and dancing before Yahweh; and she despised him in her heart- </p><p>As Goliath despised David (<a href='B:90 17:42'>1Sa 17:42</a>), so did Michal. The same word is used (<a href='B:100 6:16'>2Sa 6:16</a>). God reads the heart and what He finds there is so significant to Him. That woman's silent thoughts have been recorded for millennia in the record, and they are still in God’s memory. We have a parade example here of the huge significance God attaches to our thoughts. Despising others for their spirituality is especially abhorrent to Him. We recall that Michal had an idol in her home soon after her marriage to David, and we wonder if it was Yahweh whom she also despised. And all this made her no better than Goliath.</p><p>Michal's complaint about David's parading his nakedness and possibly his genitals was valid. But as ever in the David record, it is all a matter of the heart. She despised him in her heart, whereas at this time it was in David's heart to make a temple for Yahweh. Although inappropriate, his heart was on better things: "It was in the heart of David my father to build a house for the name of the LORD God of Israel. And the LORD
said to David my father, ‘Inasmuch as it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you have done well, for it was in your heart" (1 Kings 8:17,18). Ps. 132 speaks of how he had vowed to not sleep until he had found a home for the ark and brought it to Zion.</p>


text:
<p>They brought in the ark of Yahweh, and set it in its place, in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before Yahweh-</p><p>The usual pattern for the offerings was sin offering, burnt offering [dedication to God on the basis of being reconciled from sin] and then peace offerings, celebrating the resultant peace with God. I suggested on :13 that the mass of animals sacrificed on the road to Zion were sin offerings. Although it could also be that he omitted offering the sin offering, hence there is no mention of it, because he was not deeply convicted of any personal wrongdoing over bringing the ark to Zion the first time.</p><p>The reference is not to the tabernacle tent, which was at Gibeon at this time. David pitched a tent in the back yard garden of his own house in Zion. And there he placed the ark. Whatever his spiritual motives, he was clearly concentrating both religious and political power in his own hands and in his own house.</p>


text:
<p>When David had made an end of offering the burnt offering and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of Yahweh of Armies-</p><p>As noted and discussed on :14, this was again David acting as high priest, blessing the people in Yahweh's Name.</p>


text:
<p>He distributed to all the people, even throughout the whole multitude of Israel, both to men and women, to each one a portion of bread, dates and raisins. So all the people departed each one to his house- </p><p>We see here an ancient anticipation of the bread and wine [raisins] of the breaking of bread meeting. That meeting is essentially a peace offering, a celebration of the peace with God achieved through the Lord's sin offering, our promise of dedication to Him in the burnt offering, and then the celebration of the resultant peace with God. See on :17.</p><p>There are various Psalms which probably had their origin in the bringing of the ark to Zion. The calls in many Psalms for shouting and joyful singing "before Yahweh" were all probably originally used at this time. Psalm 24 clearly speaks of the ark being brought to Zion after David's establishment as Israel's king. But he really labours the point that the great triumphant king is not him, but Yahweh enthroned between the cherubim: "Open wide the gates, open the ancient doors, and the great king will come in. Who is this great king? He is the LORD, strong and mighty, the LORD, victorious in battle. Fling wide the gates, open the ancient doors, and the great king will come in. Who is this great king? The triumphant LORD— he is the great king" (Ps. 24:7-10 GNB).</p><p> Psalm 68 is another psalm about the bringing of the ark to Zion and again David makes the point that Yahweh is the true king of Israel, not him: "O God, Your march of triumph is seen by all, the procession of God, my king, into His sanctuary. The singers are in front, the musicians are behind, in between are the young women beating the tambourines" (Ps. 68:24,25). Ps. 68:12 LXX has David, which means 'beloved', claiming Yahweh as his king: "The king of the forces of the beloved, of the beloved". </p><p> We note from Ps. 68:27 that David carefully puts Benjamin, Saul's tribe, first in the procession and his own tribe afterwards: " First comes Benjamin, the smallest tribe, then the leaders of Judah with their group". David is to be commended for his spirituality at this time, but political motives were always lurking there. And David now sees God as actually present over the ark, hankering for the visible and thus localizing God: "How awesome is God as He comes from His sanctuary—the God of Israel! He gives strength and power to his people. Praise God!" (Ps. 68:35). And David is seeking to force God to get on board with his own dream for Zion. Zion means dry hill, and so David announces that God will change that: "O God, thou wilt grant to thine inheritance a gracious rain; for it was weary, but thou didst refresh it" (Ps. 68:9 LXX). </p><p> Israel’s mixture of Yahweh worship with Baal worship is demonstrated by the reference to their being “lovers of raisin cakes” (<a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a>). According to <a href='B:100 6:19'>2Sa 6:19</a>, these cakes appear to have been part of the legitimate worship of Yahweh- and yet in <a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a> they are referred to as an aphrodisiac. There was a heady mix of Yahweh worship with participation in the sexual rituals of the Baal cult. It was this mixture which was so abhorrent to God- and time and again, in essence, we likewise mix flesh and spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Then David returned to bless his household-</p><p>David is to be commended for not simply blessing Israel, but turning his attention privately to his own private household, and wanting to hold a private ceremony with them. But it was this which elicited the angry retort of Michal, whom I suggested on :16 may still have been an idolater and despised not only David but also Yahweh.</p><p>Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious the king of Israel was today, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 31:6'>1Sa 31:6</a>. Perhaps she really loved her second husband Phaltiel as he loved her, and was bitter that David had broken up their marriage for political reasons. She disliked the way that David had put aside his royal robes to dance naked. She felt he ought to have always retained his royal dignity rather than apparently resign it before Yahweh as king. This would be why David responds that he is indeed the chosen king (:21). "Uncovered" does mean literally to make naked. We note the careful legislation about not revealing nakedness before Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:20 20:26'>Exo 20:26</a>). But David disobeyed the letter of this law to keep the spirit of it; and he did it at a time when three months before, he and Israel had been strongly punished for breaking the letter of the Divine law. His "uncovered" presence before Yahweh (<a href='B:100 6:21'>2Sa 6:21</a>) was not therefore done in the heat of the moment, but he would have carefully thought this through before doing it:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>There is ample evidence that kings in victory processions or enthronement carnivals did literally expose their private parts, as a sign that they intended their dynasty to continue. David is on one hand spiritually motivated, but on another, he is trying to establish his dynasty exactly as kings did in those days. Michal's accusation is specific- that David had exposed himself to other women, like an erotic dancer, to 'get himself glory'. David doesn't deny the allegation. Instead he justifies himself by saying it was all before Yahweh and he was very humble in his own eyes. Although Michal's accusation was apparently true, the record ends with Michal being barren. Again we are left to reflect on David's behaviour, intention and motivation. He acted as other kings did to establish their dynasty and flaunt their own power. But the Psalms relevant to the ark coming to Zion reflect David's humility and deep sense that it was Yahweh who was the true king to be glorified. We can only conclude that again we have a snapshot into a mind divided between flesh and Spirit. And in the final analysis, God accepted the presence of the Spirit in David and saved him. </p><p>
Saul had removed his royal robes and finally had them removed when he died. And thus had the kingship removed from him. David was aware of all the dramas involving Saul's kingly robe and perhaps is showing that he gladly would resign the kingship in order to simply serve God. And Michal despised such humility. </p>


text:
<p>David said to Michal, It was in the eyes of Yahweh, who chose me before your father and before all his house, to appoint me prince over the people of Yahweh, over Israel- </p><p>See on :20. Here is a good example of “before” meaning ‘before’ in importance rather than time. David tells his wife: “The Lord chose me before your father [Saul]”. Actually, in terms of time, God chose Saul well before He chose David. But God chose David above Saul in terms of importance and honour. This helps us understand the Lord Jesus being "before" Abraham, in importance not in time (<a href='B:500 8:58'>Joh 8:58</a>).</p><p>Michal was worried about what David looked like in the eyes of the young women; but David was totally focused upon his being in the eyes of Yahweh. Worry about what others think of us and all concerns about image evaporate before this sense- that we are in the eyes of Yahweh.</p><p>Therefore will I celebrate in the eyes of Yahweh- </p><p>When David danced “before / in the eyes of the Lord”, his wife mocked him, because he had embarrassed himself “before / in the eyes of Israel”. David’s response is that he had done this “in my own eyes” (<a href='B:100 6:20-22'>2Sa 6:20-22</a>). This play on the phrase “before / in the eyes of” is significant. David is highly perceptive here. He’s saying that if this is how he feels in his own eyes, then this is how he is before the eyes of God, and therefore this is how he will be before the eyes of Israel and the general public. David is saying: ‘Who I am, my real self, is the one God sees, and I’m not going to hide it from the world; let them see me how I see myself and how God sees me’. In this incident, there was no gap between the ‘real self’ of David and the image he projected to the world. There was complete congruence between how he felt about himself, how God saw him, and how the watching world saw him. And this incident ought to be programmatic for our entire lives.</p>


text:
<p>I will be yet more vile than this, and will be base in my own eyes. But of the handmaids of whom you have spoken, they shall honour me- </p><p>See on :21. This was true on one level, but it was a cruel thing for a husband to say to his middle aged wife; for it was to the effect that 'the attractive young women will think I'm wonderful and will give me the honour and respect a man craves from his woman, which you my wife don't give me'. Again we sense a harsher and quite unpleasant side in David, despite his softness and amazing grace. Such contradictions are sadly within us all.</p><p>David may mean that his servants would respect him for his humility, whereas Michal despised him for his humility. But we wonder whether this isn't David being proud of his humility... </p>


text:
<p>Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death- </p><p>God had prophesied that David's dynasty would last, and Saul's would die out. If Michal and David had had children together, then both dynasties would have arguably continued. Her punishment was therefore an appropriate way of ending Saul's dynasty. Again we see how God works through human sin and the judgment of it, and even through David's rather unreasonable attitude to her, for His greater purpose. </p><p> This may not have been judgment solely upon Michal. Once King, David decides to get back his ex-wife Michal, who was by now married to Phaltiel, who evidently loved her. Yet David takes her from Phaltiel, and we have the tragic image of the loving husband walking behind her weeping as she is led away from him (<a href='B:100 3:15-16'>2Sa 3:15-16</a>). This was not only a breach of Mosaic law, but displayed a sad elevation of politics above others’ relationships and marriages. It may be significant that her renewed marriage with David wasn’t blessed with any children (<a href='B:100 6:23'>2Sa 6:23</a>).</p><p>The statement that Michal loved David in 1 Sam. 18:20 is about the only example of love marriage in the Old Testament or a statement that a woman fancied a man. We note how by 2 Sam. 6:18 she watches David out of her window and "despising him in her heart". And she is punished for that by barrenness. She let him out of a window in loyalty to him (1 Sam. 19:12) but in 2 Sam. 6 she watches him from a window and despises him. The other women who watched from windows in the Bible are both bad- the bad woman of Proverbs 7 who watches a man from her window and goes out to seduce him; Jezebel (2 Kings 9:30-37) and Sisera's mother (Jud. 5:28,29). Infatuated love turned to hatred, and so again we see how psychologically credible are the Biblical histories. Her possession of teraphim and falsely telling her father that David had threatened to kill her... all suggest an unspirituality. We could assume that although her father was now dead by the time of 2 Sam. 6, Michal had moved from love of David to the love of her father Saul and what he stood for. Therefore in 2 Sam. 6:16 as she looks out from her window, Michal is described as being "Michal daughter of Saul". In the previous window scene she is called "David’s wife Michal" (1 Sam. 19:11). And again we see this so often- one partner with a mission becomes hated by the other partner when they no longer support the mission, and return to the loyalties of their youth. Both Michal and her brother Jonathan are described as loving David with the same Hebrew word ahab. But her love didn't abide the test of time; Jonathan's did. David may well have this in mind when he laments at Jonathan's death that Jonathan’s love was more wonderful to him than the love of women (2 Sam. 1:26).  </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 choose 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 the triangle of Jacob, Laban and Rachel is reflected in that of 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>It happened, when the king lived in his house, and Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies all around-</p><p>All his adult life, David had hardly slept more than a few nights in the same place. And he had always been surrounded by enemies who gave him no rest. Now finally he was living a stable life in his own house, with rest from his enemies. Instead of slumping into the mire of mediocrity in his spirituality, as many would have done, he reflects that he apparently has more than God, as it were. He has a nice house, whilst God’s house was a tent. This desire to use a stable existence in God’s service is a stellar example to God’s children of all ages.</p><p>The account here may not be chronological, because we read of more wars in 2 Samuel 8. I suggest this is included after the account of bringing the ark to Zion in order to continue the theme of David’s work for the ark. Or 2 Sam. 8 may be a summary of how David had been given rest.  But to be 'given rest' is the language of inheritance of the Kingdom (Heb. 4:1-11); the idea may be that a Messianic Kingdom could have been established at this point, had David accepted it. But instead, he laboured to build a physical temple rather than allowing God to effect this. </p><p>
David had lived a wandering life, but now was settled down- permanently, as he imagined. And he wants the same for God. This is a fascinating psychological insight- that man tends to assume that God is like him, creating God in man's image, rather than accepting that God created man in His image. And God's response here is effectively trying to tell David that the wandering life is actually, in essence, how He intends it for His people. And that is how He is, not tied down to one place nor tradition, but ever on the move. And man's tendency is to strive towards stability and static being- but this isn't the way of God's Spirit. God rebukes David for his desire to settle God down to one time and place, to one form and tradition; just as Uriah does indirectly, when he reminds David that God's ark dwells in tents, and so do His true people, in comparison to David's settled down life in Jerusalem with all the moral declension that went with it (2 Sam. 11:11). </p><p>
It seems on one hand David wanted to make God into His own image, by reasoning that because he was settled and secure in one place, so now should God be. David appears to allude to but misinterpret Dt. 12:9-11: "For you have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance that Yahweh your God is giving you. But you will cross the Jordan and live in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you to inherit, He will give you rest from all your enemies around, and you will live in safety. Then to the place that Yahweh your God will choose to make His name dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices". But David misinterprets this as meaning that there will be one place which Yahweh would choose geographically to make His permanent home base. God replies that He has always kept on the move, never choosing any geographical spot before, and thus He would prefer to continue. Yet David and Solomon simply forge ahead with the idea of a temple in Zion and David even retrojects his own choosing of Zion onto God, as witnessed in several of his Psalms which put this idea in God's mouth. In any case, 2 Sam. 8 goes on to describe more war, as does 2 Sam. 10. David and Israel are not in fact at rest at all. David is jumping ahead in his assumptions, because building a temple has become an obsession with him- he was likely on the autism spectrum. And yet we note that later in his life, during Absalom's rebellion, he was again separated from the ark and the sanctuary; and again he writes Psalms, or edits previous wilderness Psalms, which glorify his experience of Yahweh's presence without the ark or sanctuary.</p>


text:
<p>that the king said to Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within curtains- </p><p>Yahweh was seen as enthroned upon the ark, dwelling between the cherubim, and so David wanted to bring the ark to his back yard, "Zion", his citadel, and now build a house for it as he had built for himself. But Yahweh corrects this, or tries to. He doesn't dwell in a fixed physical location. He accepts David's desire to have his throne as the throne of Yahweh, even though David is acting politically on one hand, wanting to concentrate both religious and political power in himself as a person and in his physical location. God looks to David's better side of motivations, and says that indeed David's throne shall be His throne, but that shall work out through His purpose in His Son. David accepts that with grace, but goes on trying to 'establish / prepare' his own throne in a temple / physical house and location. And God graciously goes along with this by 'dwelling' in Solomon's temple. </p><p> Any disparity between our own life situation and that of the things of God... ought to concern us. David didn’t stop living in a house and instead live in a tent. Instead he did what he could to ensure that his abundance was not kept to himself. His motives were admirable throughout, and God saw that, but God was to use David’s desires to teach that He doesn't need works, but just wants to share the abundance of His grace with others.</p><p>The reference to "curtains" doesn't mean that David was concerned that God’s ark was under a tent, whilst he lived in a house. Rather is the reference to the ten curtains which comprised the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 26:1'>Exo 26:1</a>). David was assuming that he could change the Mosaic commandments about the tabernacle, and move God’s purpose forward to something more permanent. We see here how he didn’t consider the laws of Moses [of which the commands about the tabernacle were part] to be static. He saw them as open to interpretation and development. This was not a position he came to lightly, seeing he had been terribly punished for thinking he could flout the legislation about how the ark was to be transported.</p>&nbsp;<p>Many of the commands within the "law of Moses" were clearly only intended for the wilderness generation, indeed they could only have been obeyed by them then; and David wondered whether the entire commands about the tabernacle were in that category. Those today who claim that Mosaic legislation is eternally binding need to give this due weight. It's not just that the Mosaic law was abrogated by the Lord's death; but the whole nature of that law was that it was never intended to all be literally applied to every subsequent generation. And that meant that it was the spirit of it which was to be discerned and followed.</p>


text:
<p>Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in your heart; for Yahweh is with you- </p><p>Nathan wrongly assumed that Yahweh would naturally agree to David’s proposition to move on from the Mosaic idea of a tabernacle. David didn’t actually state what he intended to do (:2), but Nathan assumes he knows David’s intentions, and assumes he knows God will agree. Such assumptions are typical of human beings, and further adds psychological verisimilitude to the record. Nathan of course should have had the humility to first ask of God rather than assuming he knows God’s will. The assumption we know God’s will is a common problem amongst God’s people; effectively we are elevating our gut feeling to the level of God’s word.</p>


text:
<p>It happened the same night, that the word of Yahweh came to Nathan saying- </p><p>David’s plan to build a great house was met with the word of the Lord coming unto him “the same night”, telling him not to do this. There seems to be some allusion to this by the Lord Jesus when He spoke of the rich fool who wanted to build a greater barn being told the Lord’s word “that same night”. It could be that the Lord Jesus saw something material and very human in David’s desire to build a house for the Lord. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p>Go and tell My servant David, ‘Thus says Yahweh, Shall you build Me a house for Me to dwell in?-</p><p>Perhaps there was a pause after this statement. The emphasis was upon the words "you" and "Me". David had not given due thought to the magnitude and inappropriacy of what was in his mind; that he as a mere man could build a house for Yahweh to live in. He had failed to perceive the greatness of his God. Any idea of confining God within four walls was bizarre.</p>


text:
<p>For I have not lived in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have moved around in a tent and in a tabernacle- </p><p>Although this may primarily refer to the Angel, the point is that the God of the cosmos had intensely manifested Himself in the ark and the tabernacle / tent which enclosed it. This of itself revealed His humility. The idea is "I have walked continually"; like David up until this point (see on :1), He had been a wanderer. David had now ceased his years of wandering (:1), and was assuming that God was like himself, preferring a stable and sedentary life. But this assumption that God is like us at this moment and point of our lives is incorrect, and David later criticizes it (<a href='B:230 50:21'>Psa 50:21</a>). He is who He is, and not a god made in our image, as we are at this moment; rather are we made in His image, and not the other way around. It is for us to hear His voice in His word and accept Him as He is, rather than assuming He will think how we do at this point in our development. David earlier had appreciated the idea of God being a wanderer when he was a wanderer, as his wilderness Psalms indicate. But now he was settled, he assumed that this was how God would like to be.</p>


text:
<p>In all places in which I have walked with all the children of Israel, did I say a word to any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to be shepherd of My people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’’-</p><p>The mention of "tribes" may be a rebuke of David for wanting to concentrate religious power in his tribe by building a temple and locating the ark in his territory. God had been careful not to do this in the past but had kept the tabernacle moving around.</p><p> David desired to build God a physical house. <a href='B:100 7:7-11'>2Sa 7:7-11</a> records God’s response in clear enough language: God did not want a physical house because</p><p>1. It was not really possible for man to build God a house ("Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?"&nbsp;is surely rhetorical)</p><p>2. God had never asked Israel to build Him such a house before; indeed, it had been His expressed will that He should dwell among Israel in the temporary form of the tabernacle. God wanted a temporary abode to point forward to the fact that the reality was in Christ; thus the Law of Moses had features built into it which were intrinsically temporal, to point men forward to the stability and finality of Messiah. By building a permanent temple, Solomon reflects his lack of focus on the Messiah to come.</p><p>3. He would only have a permanent physical house when His people were permanently settled, never to be moved again (<a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a>), i:e. in the Kingdom. Yet Solomon perceived that his kingdom was in fact the final Kingdom of God. David made this mistake, in assuming in Psalms 72 that Solomon’s Kingdom would undoubtedly be the Messianic one…and Solomon repeated the error, yet to a more tragic extent.</p><p>4. God plays on the confusion between 'house' in the sense of household, and 'house' in the sense of a physical building. He says: 'You&nbsp; want to build me&nbsp; a physical house. But I&nbsp; am going to build you&nbsp; a household&nbsp; which will be my Kingdom'. The implication is that David’s desire for a physical house was altogether too human, and that there is an opposition between what man thinks he can physically do for God, and the fact that God wishes to do things for men. Yet Solomon went ahead with his works rather than grappling with the reality of sheer grace. He so wanted to do &nbsp;something. He betrays this when he writes in <a href='B:250 9:7'>Ecc 9:7</a>: “God now accepteth thy works”. The Hebrew translated “accepteth” means literally to satisfy a debt, and is elsewhere translated ‘to reconcile self’. He saw works as reconciling man’s debt to God, rather than perceiving that grace is paramount. He keeps on about David his father; and yet there was a crucial difference. David perceived the need for grace as the basis of man’s reconciliation with God; whereas Solomon thought it was works. David wrote that God wants a broken heart and not thousands of sacrifices; yet Solomon offered the thousands of sacrifices, but didn’t have the contrite heart of his father.</p><p>5. To desire a physical house for God is to overlook the promised Messiah- that was surely the implication of the promise of the Lord Jesus following right on from the statement that a physical house was not required. <a href='B:290 57:15'>Isa 57:15</a> and <a href='B:290 66:2'>Isa 66:2</a> explain why this is- because God does not live in what man builds, but will fully dwell in one man to whom He will look, one who would have a humble spirit towards Him. And this man was of course the Lord Jesus. Solomon’s obsession with the temple therefore reflected his deeper problem- of not being focused upon the Christ to come.</p><p>So it ought to be clear from all this that God’s response to the request to build a temple was negative; He did not want a physical temple. None of the four reasons for this listed above were just temporary considerations; they were reasons which were valid for all time. There can be no doubt that God’s response here is at the basis of <a href='B:290 66:1-2'>Isa 66:1-2</a>: "The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all these things hath mine hand made... but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word" . God is saying that it simply isn't possible to build Him a house; instead, He seeks to dwell in the hearts of men. Yet Solomon wasn’t interested in the personal spiritual mindedness which enables this to happen. This is the same spirit as God’s response to David: 'You can't build me a physical house, I will build my own household of believers'.</p><p>These words of Isaiah 66 are twice quoted in the New Testament. "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that&nbsp; He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands... as though He needed any thing" (<a href='B:510 17:24-25'>Act 17:24-25</a>). The reason for God not dwelling in temples is that He is Lord of heaven and earth. This reason does not change with time; He was Lord of heaven and earth at David’s time just as much as He is now.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore you shall tell My servant David this, ‘Thus says Yahweh of Armies, I took you from the sheep pen, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over My people, over Israel- </p><p>"Sheep pen" translates the word usually rendered "habitation". The idea is that Yahweh had taken David from his home and made him a wanderer in the desert, just as He had done to Israel in Egypt. This was to bring David and Israel to identify with Yahweh as their God seeing He too was ever mobile and had no geographical home. And David in his new stability was forgetting this and seeking to make God into his own current image.   </p><p> David was asked to reflect that his wandering around as a shepherd as a child and teenager had been to prepare him for leading Israel. But leading a people likewise involves an element of mobility, and God as the ultimate leader of Israel was likewise moving on and never static. Hebrew shepherds usually lead their sheep, but here David is described as being moved from following sheep, to going ahead as a leader. Here we have an example of where language and imagery is used in a way we might consider opportunistic; but this is the nature of Semitic writing and reasoning. A failure to appreciate the Hebrew nature of the Bible has led to so many misinterpretations of it.</p>


text:
<p>I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you- </p><p>David’s continual wandering up until the point of :1 had always been with God’s presence "with you wherever". This connects with God’s own statement that He Himself had "walked continually" (:6). Those years had been in order to get David to appreciate God’s own constant journeying. This is to be a feature of every believer's life. Even if we live and die in the house we were born in and never move 20 km. from our home village, life with God is a constant journey. And all within us will seek to turn it into the stability of mere religion, as David was seeking to do.</p><p>The next chapter details yet more victories over enemies, as if this showed David that the covenant was really in operation for him. </p><p>God encourages David to see himself as representative of Israel by saying this; they are words replete with reference to Israel in the wilderness and their establishment in the land. As David so loved his people and was their representative, for all they did to him, so with the Lord Jesus and His people. When God asked David “choose thee one of” three possible judgments, each of them involved the whole nation- e.g. “Shall seven years of famine come unto thee” (singular). David was their representative even in their time of failure.</p><p>I will make you a great name, like the name of the great ones who are in the earth- </p><p>This is now developed by God into saying that He will make David a house / family. That family was to bear David’s great name, but the "great name", the greatest in the earth [reading "great ones" as an intensive plural for a singular great name] was that of Yahweh. And this Name was to be carried by David’s house and particularly by the Messianic seed who was now to be promised. AV "I have made thee a great name" would refer to how God was to do this through David’s military victories (<a href='B:100 8:13'>2Sa 8:13</a>), indicating that 2 Samuel 7 is actually referring to events after 2 Samuel 8 and is not in chronological sequence.</p>


text:
<p>I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as at the first- </p><p>This can be translated "I will establish a place for My people Israel, and I will plant him, then he will dwell beneath it and will not tremble any more". The same Hebrew is found in Ez. 17:23 "every bird will dwell beneath it". The allusion is to David's previous perception [as reflected in his wilderness Psalms] that the faithful dwell under the shadow of the cherubic wings, as it were on the mercy seat, covered by the blood of atonement  (Ps 17:8; 36:8; 57:2; 73:8). David had been so eager to bring the physical ark to Zion and now to build a house / temple for it. But Yahweh's response is that He will bring all Israel to live permanently in His presence over the ark. And for ever. This is a picture of man's final salvation, through the promised Son of David, the Lord Jesus; and herein lies the significance of the promise of "presence" in the Comforter passages. The gift of the Spirit in the heart obviates all arks and temples. The presence of the physical ark or temple were irrelevant to this promise, and quite unnecessary. And that is perhaps why the ark vanishes out of the Biblical history without a trace or even a goodbye. These things were foreseen in Ex. 15:17 "You shall bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance, the place, Yahweh, which You have made for yourself to dwell in; the sanctuary, Lord, which Your hands have established". "The place" where Israel were to dwell was where Yahweh dwells. And in essence, that place is the human heart. It is not over an ark, in a temple, nor even in a geographical area. But David has slipped back to the religious rather than the spiritual. For in Ps. 132:5 we read of his desire to bring the literal ark to physical Zion, and thus to find "a place for Yahweh, a dwelling-place for the God of Jacob". The promises to David are correcting him, pointing out that Yahweh will find a "place" for Himself and His people, and that "place" ultimately is within the human heart, enabled and mediated by the Spirit of His Son. David bought "the place" from Ornan: "Give me the [sacred] place of the threshing floor so that I may build an altar to Yahweh on it... David gave Ornan 600 shekels of silver for the place" (1 Chron. 21:22,25). Whilst God was willing to place His Name and presence in Zion, the accent of the promises to David is that essentially God will seek out and find a place to dwell with His people. And later scripture explains that this will be through His Spirit in His Son. </p><p> As the promise stands in the standard translations, it never came true. Israel never dwelt securely for long, and were always soon afflicted by the children of wickedness. </p><p>This connects with how David had planted the ark in its "place" in Zion (<a href='B:100 6:17'>2Sa 6:17</a>). God is saying that His grace is such that He will do exceeding far above what we ever ask or think to do for Him. He would plant and place Israel in an eternal Kingdom, just as David had planted and placed the ark in Zion. As David personally had been given rest from his enemies (:1), so would Israel be granted rest.</p><p>These words would have been comforting to the exiles; ultimately they would not be afflicted as they had been by the Babylonians, and would return to their land permanently (<a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a> s:w. for "afflict" in <a href='B:450 10:2'>Zec 10:2</a>; <a href='B:430 3:19'>Zep 3:19</a>; <a href='B:310 3:33'>Lam 3:33</a>; <a href='B:310 5:11'>Lam 5:11</a>). The word used in <a href='B:130 17:9'>1Ch 17:9</a>, 'to waste', is also used of the Babylonian wasting of Judah (<a href='B:310 3:4'>Lam 3:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and as from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. I will cause you to rest from all your enemies- </p><p>The constant affliction Israel experienced at the time of the judges was because of their sins; they had no rest from their enemies because of their continual unfaithfulness to Yahweh. These promises are therefore tantamount to saying that God would somehow permanently establish His people, in a way not conditional upon their faithfulness because He would somehow make them faithful. This is the language of the new covenant offered to the exiles, and is achieved today through the work of the Holy Spirit keeping us from falling from the covenant. The "blessing" promised to Abraham is therefore interpreted in <a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a> as the power of God turning away His people's hearts from sin. And the same is implied in these promises to David.  I will note on :15 that God likewise promised to remain faithful to David's seed even if he sinned. This is grace upon grace.</p><p>The promises to David included the prospect of being given rest from his enemies (2 Sam. 7:11). We note however that in 2 Sam. 10-12 we will read of David's war with Ammon. He didn't have rest from his enemies. As with the promise that immediately follows, that he would have an eternal house / family, this was to be realized after David's death, in the time of his Messianic Son. The war with Ammon would have been intended by God to nudge David to realize that the promises were not about here and now. But he tries hard to make them about him; and the curse on him for the sin with Bathsheba was that enemies would arise from his own house, and the rest of his life was lived in anything but "rest" from enemies. In the bigger picture, this was to remind him that the promises to him were most definitely not being fulfilled in this life. He was intended to focus instead upon the future rest of God's Kingdom, at a point when his Messianic Son was set up / resurrected along with himself.  </p><p>Moreover Yahweh tells you that Yahweh will make you a house- </p><p>To what was God referring to when He told David that David’s son would build him a house? Firstly, we must bear in mind that in hundreds of places, the Hebrew word for "house" means 'household'. The eternal house promised to David is paralleled with the Kingdom; and a Kingdom is comprised of people. This is what is in view, not the building of any literal temple at the Lord's return. The Kingdom is the house of Jacob (<a href='B:490 1:33'>Luk 1:33</a>). That the house of David is the Kingdom is evident from <a href='B:100 7:13'>2Sa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a>; <a href='B:130 17:14'>1Ch 17:14</a> (cp. <a href='B:490 11:17'>Luk 11:17</a>). The Kingdom was taken from the house of Saul and given to the house of David (<a href='B:100 3:10'>2Sa 3:10</a>), but later the Kingdom was taken from the house of David because of Solomon's apostacy (<a href='B:110 14:8'>1Ki 14:8</a>). This is proof enough that at best the promises to David had only a tiny fulfilment in Solomon's Kingdom.</p><p>The New Testament is very insistent that the true temple of God is the body of Christian believers (<a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a>; <a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a>; <a href='B:650 10:21'>Heb 10:21</a>; <a href='B:670 4:17'>1Pe 4:17</a>; <a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a>; <a href='B:730 11:1-2'>Rev 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a>). This string of passages is quite some emphasis. Yet Christ was the temple; he spoke of the temple of his body (<a href='B:500 2:19-21'>Joh 2:19-21</a>; <a href='B:730 21:22'>Rev 21:22</a>). For this reason, the Gospels seem to stress the connection between Christ and the temple (<a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a>; <a href='B:480 11:15-16'>Mar 11:15-16</a>; <a href='B:480 11:27'>Mar 11:27</a>; <a href='B:480 12:35'>Mar 12:35</a>; <a href='B:480 13:1'>Mar 13:1</a>; <a href='B:480 13:3'>Mar 13:3</a>; <a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a>; <a href='B:490 2:46'>Luk 2:46</a>; <a href='B:490 21:38'>Luk 21:38</a>). Christ's body was the temple of God. By being in Christ, we too are the temple (<a href='B:530 3:16-17'>1Co 3:16-17</a>; <a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a>), our body is the temple of God (<a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a>). Yet Solomon was not Christ centred; he didn’t want to see this connection. And we too can have an over-physical view of the Kingdom, centred around a literal temple in Jerusalem etc:, rather than perceiving that the Kingdom / reign of God is, in its essence, over the hearts of men and women like us. The future political Kingdom will be the concrete articulation of the essence of the Kingdom principles which are now being lived out in the hearts of the people who are under the Lord’s present kingship.</p><p>In the person of Jesus, the essence of the Kingdom came nigh to men (<a href='B:470 10:7'>Mat 10:7</a>; <a href='B:470 11:4'>Mat 11:4</a>; <a href='B:470 12:28'>Mat 12:28</a>)- and this was why one of His titles is “the Kingdom”. The Kingdom of God is about joy, peace and righteousness more than the physicalities of eating and drinking. In this sense the Kingdom was “among” first century Israel. The Kingdom of God is not merely a carrot held out to us for good behaviour. It is a reality right now, in so far as God truly becomes our king. Even in the Old Testament, the word "temple" does not normally refer to the physical temple outside the records of Solomon's building of the temple. It is often stated that the house David’s seed was to build would be for the Name of Yahweh. His Name refers to His mental attributes. A physical house is inappropriate to express these.</p><p>If the house refers to a household of righteous believers, all becomes plain. This explains why <a href='B:100 7:13'>2Sa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:26'>2Sa 7:26</a> parallels God’s eternal name with the eternal house and Kingdom which was promised to David. Building a house was a common Hebrew idiom for developing a household (<a href='B:80 4:11'>Rth 4:11</a>; <a href='B:50 25:9'>Deu 25:9</a>). God’s promise to David about building him an eternal household was anticipated in His words to Eli: " I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind (i:e. David, <a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>): and I will build him a sure house", in contrast to God’s destruction of Eli's household (<a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a>). <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a> clinches the idea that this refers to David: "I will be with thee, and build thee a sure house as I built for David". In passing, note that these words to Solomon remind him that God will build him&nbsp; a house, in opposition to the way in which Solomon so frequently speaks about building God a house.</p>


text:
<p>When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers- </p><p>There is a strong sense that God has determined a number of "days" for our mortal life (<a href='B:230 23:6'>Psa 23:6</a>; <a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>), and David like all of us wished to know how many those days were for him, in order that he might live an appropriately humble life in response to realizing his frailty (<a href='B:230 39:4'>Psa 39:4</a>). But that predetermined number of days can be cut short (<a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a>; <a href='B:230 102:23-24'>Psa 102:23-24</a>) or extended (<a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>; <a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>). Hezekiah would be the parade example of this; his days were cut short (<a href='B:290 38:10'>Isa 38:10</a>), and then lengthened in response to prayer (<a href='B:120 20:6'>2Ki 20:6</a>). God is open to dialogue, His timetable in our personal lives is flexible according to our prayers; and He is also responsive to human behaviour. Like Job we should perceive our life as "my days" (he uses this term multiple times), so that we might use each of them for Him.</p><p>I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your body- "Set up" has a similar meaning to "establish". It is tempting to note that the Hebrew word is often translated "arise", and to wonder if there is here a hint that this seed will experience a bodily resurrection. The possible fulfilment in David’s family was precluded by his sin with Bathsheba and the resultant effects upon his "house"; the same word for "set up" is in <a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a> of how God would "raise / set up evil out of your own house". His house "was not so with God", as he concluded at the end of his life; and so he with us look for a fulfilment in his Messianic seed, the Lord Jesus, and the house of people being built up / established in Him.</p><p>The promise to David concerning Christ precludes his physical existence at the time the promise was made: “I will set up your descendant [singular] after you, which shall proceed out of your body... I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (<a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>; <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>). Notice the future tense used here. Seeing that God would be Christ’s Father, it is impossible that the Son of God could have already existed at that point in time when the promise was made. That this seed “shall proceed out of your body” shows that he was to be a literal, physical descendant of David. “The Lord has sworn in truth unto David... Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne” (<a href='B:230 132:11'>Psa 132:11</a>). Solomon was the primary fulfilment of the promise, but as he was already physically in existence at the time of this promise (<a href='B:100 5:14'>2Sa 5:14</a>), the main fulfilment of this promise about David having a physical descendant who would be God’s son, must refer to Christ (<a href='B:490 1:31-33'>Luk 1:31-33</a>).</p><p>The Hebrew for "body" here is usually translated womb / belly [AV "bowels"]. David is likened to the female and Yahweh to the male. This is incredibly intimate language to use. This was how close Yahweh felt to David, despite David being such a mix of flesh and Spirit. The promise came true in that Yahweh Himself made Mary [a descendant of David] literally pregnant, and the offspring was therefore His only begotten Son.</p><p>And I will establish his kingdom- </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>


text:
<p>He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever- </p><p>Ultimately, as shown above, this refers to the building up of the house of believers to be the throne of the seed's eternal kingdom. The Lord Jesus will reign upon us, "whose house are we" (<a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a>); we are His throne, the basis of His Kingdom. And that house and throne are being built up now, although it will only be more materially and physically articulated at His second coming and the establishment of His literal Kingdom upon earth. This process of building up is achieved by the colossal work of the Lord Jesus through His Spirit, calling, converting and transforming His people to be His house. This is how the New Testament alludes to these ideas of building and establishing (<a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:520 16:25'>Rom 16:25</a>; <a href='B:590 3:13'>1Th 3:13</a>; <a href='B:600 2:17'>2Th 2:17</a>; <a href='B:600 3:3'>2Th 3:3</a>; <a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a>). <a href='B:230 89:4'>Psa 89:4</a> says that this building up of the throne goes on in "all generations". The idea is that the house and throne of the seed is built up from people of all generations. The light never went out for God’s Truth and true people. In every generation there were some. This has big implications for those who consider that a very specific theology, especially one based upon 19th century revelations of truth, is required for salvation and membership of God’s people.</p><p>The fact is that God did&nbsp;dwell, temporarily, in Solomon's temple. His glory entered it, and later left it in Ezekiel's time. This is the classic example of the way in which God will go along with men in their mistaken enthusiasm, working with them, even though this is contrary to His preferred way of doing things. A similar example is found in the way God forbad Israel to have a human king, because to do so would be a denial of His superiority and of their covenant relationship with Him. And yet Israel had a king. God did not turn a blind eye to this. Instead He worked through this system of human kingship. Or take marriage out of the faith. This is clearly contrary to God’s ideal wishes. And yet in some cases He is prepared to work through this, in order to being about His purpose. There is even the possible suggestion in <a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a> that God was ‘tempted’ to re-instate the law of Moses, or parts of it, in the first century, seeing that this was what so many of the early Christians desired to keep. That God is so eager to work with us should in itself be a great encouragement. Yet we must not come to presume upon God’s patience, assuming that He will go along with us.</p><p>In any case, <a href='B:140 7:12'>2Ch 7:12</a> says that God accepted the temple only as a place of sacrifice, i:e. a glorified altar (cp. <a href='B:100 24:17-18'>2Sa 24:17-18</a>). And yet- God didn’t really want sacrifice (<a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a>; <a href='B:650 10:5'>Heb 10:5</a>). "Now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever" (<a href='B:140 7:16'>2Ch 7:16</a>) is a conditional promise, followed by five verses of conditions concerning Solomon's spirituality which he overlooked. Like Solomon, we too can fix upon promises without considering their conditionality. There is good reason to think that communally and individually we are increasingly shutting our eyes to the possibility of our spiritual failure and disaster. God constantly warned Solomon about the conditionality of the promises, before the building started (<a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>), during it (<a href='B:110 6:11-13'>1Ki 6:11-13</a>) and immediately after completing it (<a href='B:110 9:2-9'>1Ki 9:2-9</a>). Note, too, that Solomon had the idea that if sinful Israel prayed towards the temple, they would somehow be forgiven because of this. God’s response was that if they sought Him wherever they were and repented, then He would hear them- the temple was not to be seen as the instrument or mediatrix of forgiveness which Solomon envisaged. Likewise, Solomon’s implication that prayer offered in the temple would be especially acceptable was not upheld by God’s reply to him about this (<a href='B:140 6:24-26'>2Ch 6:24-26</a> cp. God’s response in <a href='B:140 7:12-13'>2Ch 7:12-13</a>).</p><p>David's desire to build a physical house is responded to by God, in that His Son would build a house for His Name. His Name is His characteristics. The Lord Jesus is building a house of persons who reflect the characteristics of the Yahweh Name (Ex. 34:4-6). This is achieved through His Spirit working in human hearts and not any physical building. For in what physical sense can a Name dwell in a physical house? The presence of Yahweh over the ark is to be realized in human hearts where the Spirit dwells, as per the promise of the Comforter. And as David experienced in the wilderness. </p><p>
God's promise to eternally establish David's "house" and Kingdom were because of His Son, who would also be David's son. There are many inscriptions from Babylon and Assyria that reference the belief of the new king that his house and kingdom would last eternally. Thus Nabopolassar stated his belief that his god Marduk would make his house and dynasty last eternally. David clearly had the same hope. But God is correcting and adjusting his vision, in explaining that indeed this would happen- but through the Messiah and not through building any temple to Him. Ps. 110:2-4 connects the eternal rule from Zion with this seed being a king-priest who would reign forever: "Yahweh will send forth the rod of your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies!... Yahweh has sworn, and will not change His mind: You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek". The promise to David is here interpretted as being fulfilled in the Son of David reigning eternally as a king-priest from Zion. This was not predicated upon any temple there. Nor is the fulfilment seen in terms of an unbroken line of Davidic kings "forever". </p><p>
The eternal nature of the Kingdom and dynasty of David was to be through the eternity of his great son and seed, Messiah. Is. 9:7 is clear about this interpretation: "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it, with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even For ever”. Jer. 33:15-17 is likewise clear that the eternal dimension of David's promised seed and kingdom is realized only through the Lord Jesus, the branch from David: "I will cause a Branch of righteousness to grow up to David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name by which it shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness. For thus says Yahweh: David shall never want a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel". Jer. 23:5,6 says the same: “I will raise up for David a righteous Branch. . . and this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD our righteousness'”. The various complaints that Yahweh had failed to keep the covenant to David (e.g. Ps. 89) are all therefore a misunderstanding of the covenant as meaning there would be an unbroken line of kings from David. Even if that was a possibility in God's mind, His intention was that the eternity of David's "throne" would be through the eternal rulership of the Messianic son of David. Indeed David and his seed would be so closely identified that Ez. 37:24,25 could prophesy "David my servant will be their prince for ever". But like David and Solomon, people wanted to see the fulfilment in their times and in visible literal physical terms. </p><p> 
But David's thanksgiving for the promises to him seems to focus on how his house or dynasty would be preserved eternally, and it seems he misunderstood this as meaning there would be an unbroken line of kings from him. But that isn't what is promised. As many today, David chose to misunderstand God's word because of his own desire for things to be as he ideally imagined they would and could be. Yet on another hand, David did understand the promises as God intended, i.e. as concerning the singular seed, Messiah. For Peter tells us (Act 2:30) concerning David "that being a prophet, and Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ". </p><p> Verse 13 promises that the throne and kingdom of the seed would be established forever. Verse 16 promises that thereby David's throne and kingdom would be established forever. The eternity of the promise was therefore to be realised in the seed, not in an eternal line of royal descendants. David appears to misunderstand these things when he says that these promises meant that God had established Israel as His eternal people (:24). But God was to later disown them and tell them "You are not My people". Those in the seed would alone be the eternal people. Solomon likewise too quickly assumed that he was that eternal promised seed (1 Kings 2:24) as did David (1 Kings 2:45). And David reverts from the promises by seeking to establish / prepare (s.w.) for a physical temple (1 Chron. 22:3,5,14; 28:2; 29:2,3,16,19) and 'preparing' a place for the temple at Araunah's threshing floor (2 Chron. 3:1). All this reflects a refusal to accept the promise that Yahweh was preparing his Kingdom. </p><p> David three times used the word for "established" in bringing the ark to the place had prepared / established for it (1 Chron. 15:1,3,12). God's response is that He will establish David's kingdom and "house". </p>


text:
<p>I will be his father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men- </p><p>This clearly applies to the Lord Jesus, born of a woman in the direct line of David and yet with God as His Father. But the words are quoted also about all believers in 2 Cor. 6:18: "And I will be to you as a father, and you will be to me as sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty". Every man and woman in the seed becomes as the Lord Jesus. The unconditional promises are in that sense made to us. The context of the 2 Cor. 6 quotation is of being holy and acting appropriately as the temple / house of God: "What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16). To be "in Christ" means we are to consciously try to act as Him, so that we may be that eternal house promised to David by God. This explains why "I will be his father, and he shall be My son" is reflected in the terms of the new covenant: "I will be their God and they shall be My people" (Jer. 31:33).</p><p> It seems that if the Lord had sinned God's love would not have been withdrawn from Him and after punishment He would still have reigned eternally in some form. He would have been punished as a man is punished by a father ["rod of men... stripes of the children of men"], although Son of God (Prov. 23:13). In this case, our salvation would have been disabled. But a loving Father God would not have rejected His beloved Son on the basis of a 'One strike and you're out' attitude. Knowing this would've made it so easy for the Lord to have given in, knowing His own eternity was ultimately assured. His endurance against sin to the end was therefore motivated by His love for us and desire for our salvation through His perfect sacrifice. This argument is powerful, and disproves the theology that the Lord's sacrifice was for His own eternal salvation as well as for ours. </p><p> Often the promises about the seed in the singular (the Lord Jesus) are applied to us in the plural (e.g. <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a> cp. <a href='B:230 89:30-35'>Psa 89:30-35</a>). Those seminal promises to Abraham hinged around what would be realized in, not "by", his seed. All that is true of the Lord Jesus is now true of us, in that we are in Him. Baptism is not an initiation into a church. It isn't something which just seems the right thing to do. And even if because of our environment and conscience, it was easier to get baptized than not- now this mustn't be the case. We really are in Christ, we are born again; now we exist, spiritually! And moreover, we have risen with Him, His resurrection life, His life and living that will eternally be, is now manifest in us, and will be articulated physically at the resurrection.</p><p>There are connections between the promises to David about Jesus, and the later commentary upon them in Psalms 89 and Isaiah 53, with reference to the crucifixion.</p><p><strong>2 Samuel 7 If he [Jesus] commit iniquity = Psalms 89 If his children [us] forsake my law = &nbsp;Isaiah 53 The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all</strong></p><p>2 Samuel 7 I will chasten him with the rod of men = Psalms 89 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod = Isaiah 53 For the transgression of my people was he stricken</p><p>2 Samuel 7 And with the stripes of the children of men = Psalms 89 And their iniquity with stripes = Isaiah 53 With his stripes we are healed.</p><p>The point of all this is to show how our sins were somehow carried by the Lord Jesus, to the extent that He suffered for them. But how was this actually achieved? It is one thing to say it, but we must put meaning into the words. I suggest it was in that the Lord&nbsp;so identified with us, His heart so bled for us, that He felt a sinner even though He of course never sinned. The final cry “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” clearly refers back to all the many passages which speak of God forsaking the wicked, but never forsaking the righteous. The Lord, it seems to me, felt a sinner, although He was not one, and thus entered into this sense of crisis and fear He had sinned. He so identified with us. In the bearing of His cross, we likewise must identify with others, with their needs and with the desperation of their human condition… and this is what will convert them, as the Lord’s identification with us saved us.</p><p>It is unthinkable that God has any possibility of sinning. The seed of David promised in <a href='B:100 7:12-16'>2Sa 7:12-16</a> was definitely Christ. Verse 14 speaks of Christ’s possibility of sinning: “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him”. Christ was chastened with the rod of men "and with the stripes of the children of men", i:e. Israel (<a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a>; <a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a>; <a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a>), in His death on the cross. But punishment with rod and stripes was to be given if Messiah sinned (<a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>). Yet Christ received this punishment; because God counted Him as if He were a sinner. His sharing in our condemnation was no harmless piece of theology. He really did feel, deep inside Him, that He was a sinner, forsaken by God. Instead of lifting up His face to Heaven, with the freedom of sinlessness, He fell on His face before the Father in Gethsemane (<a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a>), bearing the guilt of human sin.</p><p>"Chasten" is the word used by Solomon when he speaks of the need to accept "reproof" in <a href='B:240 15:12'>Pro 15:12</a>: "A scoffer doesn’t love to be reproved; he will not go to the wise". David had spoken of the house of Saul as scoffing at him (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:51'>Psa 119:51</a>). And the line of David had been chosen to replace Saul because he had refused Samuel's reproof. David had accepted reproof and was open to it, notably from Nathan the prophet (<a href='B:230 38:1'>Psa 38:1</a>; <a href='B:230 141:5'>Psa 141:5</a>); and so again Solomon's Proverbs are true, but he harnesses them to the justification of himself and his father. But Solomon was only to remain the prophetic son of David if he accepted reproof (s:w. <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>); and he didn’t. He refused to personalize his own wisdom, as we can.</p><p><a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a> had warned the son of David that if he sinned, he would be punished "with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men". I take this as meaning that he would be punished like ordinary men are punished- and the implication could be that Solomon would have a tendency to think that he was more than human, somehow above the possibility of failing and being punished as an ordinary man, because he might think that he was somehow 'God', or at least, that what happens to all humanity would somehow not happen to him. This tendency to assume that we are somehow different to the rest of humanity, that we can sin in a certain way but they can't, that somehow for us it will all be OK... is as alive in us as it was in Solomon.</p><p>The promise to David himself is unconditional. Subsequent kings could be punished for their disobedience, but God would not remove His grace (:15). The dynasty of David wouldn't be rejected as that of Saul was (:15). This was to come true through the "Son of David" reigning eternally on David's throne- not a literal chair or seat, but reigning as David, literally in Zion / Jerusalem. After 400 years or so, David's dynasty was overturned and the crown removed- "until he come whose right it is", the Son of David, the Lord Jesus. This is how the eternal promise was to be fulfilled. But David hankered to interpret it as meaning that a line of kings from his body would literally be eternal. His warning to Solomon implies this misunderstanding: "Then the Lord will fulfill the promise that He made concerning me: If your descendants are scrupulous in their conduct, and walk
before Me faithfully, with all their heart and soul, your line on the throne of Israel shall never end!" (1 Kings 2:4). David here makes the unconditional conditional. Be balked at the grace of the covenant and returned to salvation by works, just as so many do. God explained to Solomon that if indeed he was obedient, then he could be the Messianic king and this become the fulfilment of these words about eternal kingship. He failed, but the Lord Jesus didn't: "As for you, if you walk before Me as your father David walked before Me, wholeheartedly and with uprightness, doing all that I have commanded you [and] keeping My laws and My rules, then I will establish your throne of kingship over Israel forever, as I promised your father David, saying, ‘Your line on the throne of Israel shall never end'" (1 Kings 9:4,5). Whenever the Davidic covenant is quote or interpreted as conditional, it is in the context of a king having the conditional, potential possibility to become the eternal king through perfect obedience. But they all failed- until the Lord Jesus. This is why some of the kings felt upset that the covenant had as it were been broken with them: "Yet You have rejected,
spurned, and become enraged at Your anointed. You have repudiated the covenant with Your servant; You have dragged his dignity in the dust. You have breached all his defenses, shattered his strongholds" (Ps. 89:39–41). The covenant itself was not broken because it was intended to be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus. But for those who felt it was to be fulfilled in them, it appeared broken. Even after David's ruling dynasty had come to an end with the Babylonian exile, God was insistent that despite that, the covenant to David would not be broken. He had in view how it would be fulfilled through the Lord Jesus and those in Him: "If you could break My covenant with the day
and My covenant with the night, so that day and night should not come at their proper time, only then could My covenant with My servant David be broken – so that he would not have a descendant reigning upon his throne... Like the host of heaven which cannot be counted, and the sand of the sea which cannot be measured, so will I multiply the offspring of My servant David, and of the Levites who minister to Me" (Jer. 33:20-22). In this way, Jacob's words also come true: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet; so that tribute
shall come to him and the homage of peoples be his" (Gen. 49:10). This doesn't refer to an unbroken line of kings from Judah; it means that one from Judah, i.e. the Lord Jesus, would reign eternally.</p>


text:
<p>but My loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you- </p><p>It was God’s Spirit which departed from Saul and came upon David. Yet that Spirit is here called God’s grace or loving kindness, and the New Testament makes the same connection between the grace / gift of God and the Holy Spirit. The formation of the seed, both collectively and individually in the Lord Jesus, was through the work of the Spirit. And that Spirit would abide fully and eternally upon the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:500 3:34'>Joh 3:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you- </p><p>The translations tend to add "in your presence", implying David’s resurrection to behold it. But the grammar is indeterminate. It could as well mean in God’s presence, and this is how David interprets it in <a href='B:230 61:7'>Psa 61:7</a>. The parallel in 1 Chron. 17:14 says "I will confirm him in My house". We assume God said both these things, and thus paralleled "Your house... My house". David's house / kingdom was to be eternal because it was to become God's house / Kingdom; the promised Son of David was also to be Son of God.  </p><p>Solomon came to overlook the conditionality of the promises because his father had done the same. David on his deathbed speaks of how “God has given one to sit on my throne this day, my eyes even seeing it” (<a href='B:110 1:48'>1Ki 1:48</a>). He forgot how those promises more essentially spoke of his house “for a great while to come”, and how only after “you shall sleep with your fathers” would David see “your house and your kingdom established for ever before you” (<a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a>), thus implying David’s resurrection. He lost this focus in his enthusiasm for Solomon, and it seems that Solomon followed suite.</p><p>Your throne shall be established forever’- </p><p>Abigail quotes the promise of a priest being raised up with a "sure house" (<a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a>), imagining that David was to become a Messianic king-priest; and to have blood on his hands would preclude that. Abigail's phrase "a sure / established house" (<a href='B:90 25:28'>1Sa 25:28</a>) is used in the promises to David (<a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a>; <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>). It's as if she was so in tune with God’s ways that she had some premonition of His intentions with David, although she saw these as conditional upon David not shedding the innocent blood of her family. Or perhaps the promise of <a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a> about a priest with a "sure house" had already been developed by Samuel in relation with David, and Abigail was aware of that. The promises to David which mention a sure house for him would therefore only be confirming what had already been promised.</p><p>I suggested on :13 that this establishment of the throne was a process of building up and establishing God’s people over the generations, coming to full term in the establishment of the Lord Jesus on David’s revived throne in Jerusalem at His second coming. <a href='B:230 89:4'>Psa 89:4</a> says that this building up of the throne goes on in "all generations". The idea is that the house and throne of the seed is built up from people of all generations. The light never went out for God’s Truth and true people.</p><p>"Established" is literally "shall be made sure". This is alluded to in Is. 55:3, “the sure mercies of David”. The sure mercies of David are offered to all men (Is. 55:2,3). We too can have this eternal assurance of a sure, established Kingdom. If we are in the seed, the Son of David. </p><p>
The promise that David's eternal kingdom would be "before you" meant in his presence (:16). He would be resurrected to see this eternal reign of his seed upon his throne. But on thanking God for this, David changes this to thanks that it would be established for ever "before You" (:29). He didn't grasp the implications for himself because he preferred to interpret God's words according to his own preconceived narrative of wanting his descendants to be kings in an eternal unbroken line of succession. This didn't happen neither was it God's offer here. Those who later lamented the end of the Davidic line of kings likewise failed to listen carefully to what God was saying here. Likewise in :24 David wrongly reads the promise that his house would be eternal as meaning that Israel as a nation would continue or 'be established 'for ever. This is David's take on the promise to eternally "establish" his house, kingdom and throne in :12,13,16. But Israel didn't continue eternally, for this promise of eternity was for David's house which would be the house of his Divine seed, "which house are we", Paul says to the Hebrew Christians, ethnic Jews, if we hold fast in Christ. David makes the same mistake in Ps. 102:28 "The children of Your servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before You" (likewise God's words are reported this way in Ps. 89:4). The eternal establishment was to be before or in the presence of a resurrected David, and it was the Kingdom of his singular seed which would be established. No unbroken line of descendants was promised, but because this was what David was hoping and fantasizing about, he interpreted God's promise like that. And again, David likes to think that Zion, his personal citadel, would be established for ever ("The Highest Himself shall establish her", Ps. 87:5). But Zion was ploughed as a field, and many of Jeremiah's lamentations and consternation about this would've been unnecessary had David and others listened to God's promises and not conflated them with their own fantasies about an eternal Zion, temple and blood line of Davidic kings. The temple and kingdom of David will only be established eternally at Christ's return "in the last days" (s.w. Is. 2:2; 16:5; 9:6 s.w. "to order it... For ever"). The only alternative seems to be that if this was God's intention, then He changed it because of their behaviour. But this would contradict the unconditional nature of the promises to David about his seed. For the assurance was that even human failure by the seed would not stop the seed eternally reigning at some point.</p>


text:
<p>According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David-</p><p>Nathan faithfully relayed the vision he received in these words to David. This is in contrast to how he had over hastily assumed to know God’s word and will in the matter the day before.</p>


text:
<p>Then David the king went in and sat before Yahweh; and he said, Who am I, Lord Yahweh- </p><p>The promises to David are described as the mercy of God (<a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a>; <a href='B:230 89:33-34'>Psa 89:33-34</a>). God having a son is the sign of His love for us, and this must elicit a response in us. David himself marvelled that such mercy had been shown to him: "Who am I... and what is my house… You know Your servant" (<a href='B:100 7:18-20'>2Sa 7:18-20</a>). And yet in the very next chapters, we read of how David made a renewed attempt to show mercy to the house of Saul. Mephibosheth says that he is "thy servant… what is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such… as I am?" (<a href='B:100 9:8'>2Sa 9:8</a> AV). Mephibosheth is using the very words which David used to God; David is showing mercy to Mephibosheth in the very way in which the promises of God to him were the "mercies" shown to David. Appreciating that the promises concern us personally, and that they reveal such loving grace from the Father, can only lead to a similar response in showing love and grace through entering into the lives and destinies of others.</p><p>And what is my house, that You have brought me thus far?- </p><p>"I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and of all the truth which thou hast shewed unto thy servant" (<a href='B:10 32:10'>Gen 32:10</a>) was spoken by Jacob on that night of destiny, in recognition of how he was morally unworthy to receive the promises which God had given him (see context). David picked this up in <a href='B:100 7:18'>2Sa 7:18</a>, where he comments on his unworthiness to receive the promises to him, which were an extension of those Jacob received.</p>


text:
<p>This was yet a small thing in Your eyes, Lord Yahweh; but You have spoken also of Your servant’s house for a great while to come; this is not the way of men, Lord Yahweh!- </p><p>Such is the wonder of God’s promise to us that we really have no excuse to sin. Every sin is in a sense a denial of His promises. God told David that he had no excuse for what he did with Uriah and Bathsheba, because he had given him so much, “and if that had been too little, I would have added unto you…” (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>). “Too little” sends the mind back to <a href='B:100 7:19'>2Sa 7:19</a>, where the promises to David are described as a “little thing”; the promises were so wonderful that David should not have allowed himself to fall into such sin. And us likewise.</p>


text:
<p>What more can David say to You?- </p><p>In view of all God had said to David, he had nothing to say to God, and the implication is that he would now not say to God his plans of building a house for God. His later desire and insistence upon doing so would suggest he lost this intensity of understanding and awareness.</p><p>For You know Your servant, Lord Yahweh- </p><p>See on :18. David is expressing what we often do to God; that we cannot express our gratitude enough in words or praise, we can only ask God to know us, and know how we feel.</p>


text:
<p>For Your word’s sake, and according to Your own heart, You have worked all this greatness, to make Your servant know it- </p><p>David spoke of how God’s word and “own heart” are parallel (<a href='B:100 7:21'>2Sa 7:21</a>); God’s mind / spirit is expressed in His word, although David may here more understand the "word" as referring to God’s purpose (as in <a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a>) rather than the scriptures. David was sure the promises would come true; he speaks in the past tense of how God had worked already these great things.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore You are great- </p><p>LXX continues from :21: "that he may magnify You". The purpose of God’s expression of grace through the promises is so that we who receive them might magnify Him. The Psalms which praise Yahweh's greatness were therefore manifestations of this sense of gratitude for the promises (<a href='B:230 35:27'>Psa 35:27</a>; <a href='B:230 40:16'>Psa 40:16</a>; <a href='B:230 48:1'>Psa 48:1</a>).</p><p>Yahweh God. For there is none like You, neither is there any God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears- </p><p>What characterizes Yahweh as the one and only God is His grace, which David has just experienced poured out. Divine grace is the defining feature of the one true faith; no other god, idol or religious system comes close to it.</p>


text:
<p>What one nation in the earth is like Your people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem to Himself for a people, and to make Himself a name, and to do great things for You, and awesome things for Your land, before Your people, whom You redeemed to yourself out of Egypt, from the nations and their gods?- </p><p>Israel had been redeemed from the gods of Egypt. Yet they took those gods with them through the Red Sea, and carried the tabernacle of Moloch and Remphan through the wilderness along with that of Yahweh (<a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a>). The LXX here brings out this point: "so that thou shouldest cast out nations an their tabernacles from the presence of thy people, whom thou didst redeem for thyself out of Egypt". That Israel carried these tabernacles and gods with them suggests that this was a redemption refused. And David, having experienced the grace which can only come from Yahweh, is resolved to only serve Him and root out all such idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>You established for Yourself Your people Israel to be a people to You for ever; and You, Yahweh, became their God- </p><p>God had promised to established David’s seed, God’s true people, as His throne and people for ever. David recognizes that what had been promised to him had already been offered to Israel; although as noted on :23, they had refused this through their idolatry and failure to be God’s exclusive kingdom / people, rejecting Him as their God. It was similar to God’s thought of rejecting His people and working instead through Moses and his seed. God had been persuaded against that, but now David perceives that God is going to work not through Israel as a whole but through him and his seed. The allusion is to <a href='B:50 32:6'>Deu 32:6</a> where Israel act as the most foolish nation in rejecting the God who established them as a nation.</p>


text:
<p>Now, Yahweh God, the word that You have spoken concerning Your servant, and concerning his house, confirm it for ever, and do as You have spoken- </p><p>David seems to feel the need to show his agreement with God’s plan (also in :29). This may be because he perceived the similarity with Moses, who was also offered to have God working not with Israel but with him and his seed. And Moses hadn't agreed. But David agrees.</p>


text:
<p>Let Your name be magnified for ever, saying, ‘Yahweh of Armies is God over Israel; and the house of Your servant David shall be established before You’- </p><p>David invites the faithful to join him in praising God for His plan of salvation revealed in these promises; and the Psalms which magnify Yahweh's Name are therefore motivated by these promises.</p>


text:
<p>For You, Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel, have revealed to Your servant saying, ‘I will build you a house’. Therefore Your servant has found in his heart to pray this prayer to You- </p><p>The idea of the Hebrew is that David speaks of being bold in his prayer of praise for the promises made to him ("Therefore hath thy servant been bold to pray this prayer", RVmg:). Yet <a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a> encourages us to be bold in prayer. He was our pattern in prayer.</p><p>Literally, "found his heart". To find the heart maybe means that he found his true self, he was in touch with his very heart, and he knew that truly he believed these things and was thankful for the grace expressed, beyond words. </p>


text:
<p>Now, O Lord Yahweh, You are God, and Your words are truth, and You have promised this good thing to Your servant- </p><p>The idea is "You are the one and only God". The context is Israel's idolatry, and how God is now working through David and his seed as His Kingdom, rather than through an Israel who rejected Him as the only true God.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore let it please You to bless the house of Your servant, that it may continue for ever before You; for You, Lord Yahweh, have spoken it. Let the house of Your servant be blessed for ever with Your blessing- </p><p>David describes the promises as "blessing" (<a href='B:100 7:28-29'>2Sa 7:28-29</a>), a word normally used in the context of forgiveness. So David was aware of the grossness of sin, of the need for self-examination, to ensure that his technical breaches of the Law of Moses were truly a reflection of his friendship with God rather than an indication of spiritual weakness. For David’s house&nbsp;to become God’s eternal Kingdom would require their blessing with forgiveness in order to be immortalized.</p>


text:
<p>After this it happened that David struck the Philistines and subdued them: and David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>"After this" may not be strictly chronological, because <a href='B:100 7:1'>2Sa 7:1</a> was at a time when David had rest from his enemies. 2 Samuel 7 is included where it is to continue the theme of the ark and Zion which began in 2 Samuel 6. The promised king of Israel would save Israel from the Philistines and their other enemies; Saul had failed in this, but David succeeded as the truly intended king. LXX implies that until this time, Israel were still paying tribute to the Philistines: "David took the tribute from out of the hand of the Philistines".</p><p>But the parallel <a href='B:130 18:1'>1Ch 18:1</a> says that “David took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines”. Gath would be the ‘mother-city’, and the word translated “towns” literally means daughters. We note that David had earlier lived in Gath under the protection of Achish and had lied to the people how many Israelites he had slain in his apparent hatred of Saul. They would have considered him a hypocrite. David had on two occasions gone to Gath for refuge from Saul and 'made up' with them, promising them his loyalty. Each time he had been lying through his teeth. And yet he proclaims his utter integrity and truthfulness so often in his psalms. Although he had a heart after God's, refusal to accept his sinfulness was a major feature of his character. This is one outcome of having endured false accusation. His stellar sin with Bathsheba was perhaps used by God in the bigger picture to help with correct this, and yet such psalms continue at the time of Absalom's rebellion. 
The victory over Gath was not very long lasting because in Solomon's time there was an independent king there (1 Kings 2:39).  The conquest of Edom (:14) was after a great defeat and only by God's grace, as explained in Psalm 60. And Edom was soon back independent of David. Psalm 60 speaks of this campaign- there was a great defeat of Israel because they had broken the covenant, and then a victory once they turned to God pleading His [mercy and] truth as their battle banner, i.e. the covenant. The extent of the initial defeat may be hinted at in 1 Kings 11:15,16: "When David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the army was gone up to bury the slain, and had struck every male in Edom (for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom)". This seems to say that Joab went to bury the slain of Israel, and at that slain in a great defeat, and at that time he remained six months subduing the Edomites with the victory which Psalm 60 later celebrates. Much of Psalm 60 is repeated in Psalm 108 as a victory song. Likewise in Psalm 44. The war with Edom clearly had a far larger dimension than the simple note in 2 Samuel 8 that David defeated Edom. He did, but after a stunning defeat, and an amazing victory by God's grace alone, for which David gave ample thanks in at least three Psalms, 44,60 and 108. </p><p> But that is all rather overlooked here; the record is giving an impression of positive victory everywhere for David. In all these conquests of David there was a hollowness to them, for all the subdued nations very quickly broke free from Israelite rule. And the victory over Syria was hardly permanent because the history of the subsequent kings is full of multiple wars with Syria. We get the impression that David is seeking to set himself up as his own promised son with a Messianic kingdom, but it was all so hollow and temporary. He made himself a name rather than believing God would make His Name great in a living temple of people. On one level, David's conquests can just be read as a type of Christ's future Kingdom. But I suggest in reality he was making a hollow attempt to have that kingdom now with himself as king. But that perhaps was on the level of deep inner psychology and he still had a heart for God.</p>


text:
<p>He struck Moab, and measured them with the line, making them to lie down on the ground; and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive. The Moabites became servants to David, and brought tribute- </p><p>David made the captives lay down in three lines. He arbitrarily chose one line to keep alive, and killed the other two lines. This can’t be justified as some careful obedience to some Mosaic law. It reads like something out of the Holocaust, an arbitrary slaying of some in order to exercise the whim of one’s own power. No wonder David was barred from building the temple because of his attitude to bloodshed. Yet those words are possibly David's reported speech to Solomon; he refused to accept God's reasons for not wanting a temple, and goes ahead with the plan, imagining in his own mind that his blood shedding was the reason. And he repeated that narrative until he believed it, and thought it was indeed God's narrative. But he did clearly have a conscience about his needless blood shedding, and this would have been an example of him doing so. And this was the worse because his parents had been given refuge there (<a href='B:90 22:3-4'>1Sa 22:3-4</a>); again we get the sense of David using people with no conscience. And his ancestor Ruth was a Moabitess who had come to dwell under the protective shadow of the wings of Israel's God. We wonder whether despite having received the promises about his Messianic son in 2 Sam. 7, David somehow wanted to be the center of them. And so he smites Moab because this is what the Messiah is prophesied as doing in Num. 24:17: "A star will come out of Jacob, a scepter will rise out of Israel, and shall strike through the corners of Moab". In this case he would be rather like Nebuchadnezzar, who initially humbly accepts the dream of Dan. 2 with himself as the head of gold who is to be replaced by others. But then in Dan. 3 he builds an entire statue of gold, as if wanting himself to be the permanent center of God's purpose. Perhaps the incident of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> occurred at this time of <a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>.</p><p>Likewise when Rabbah is captured, David proudly puts the crown of the king on his head, grabs their spoil for himself (not following Abraham's example), “and he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon” (<a href='B:100 12:31'>2Sa 12:31</a>). Now all that is torture. Today it would be classified as a war crime. It’s one thing to obey Divine commands about slaying enemies; it’s another to willfully torture them, Auschwitz-style. These incidents reveal David at his worst. And again- did he really have to ensure that every male in Edom was murdered (<a href='B:110 11:15-16'>1Ki 11:15-16</a>)- was that really necessary? What about the mums, wives, sisters left weeping, and the fatherless daughters, left to grow up in the dysfunction of a leaderless Middle Eastern home? Those men were all somebody’s sons, brothers, fathers, grandfathers. Was David really obeying some Divine command here, or was this the dictate of his own anger and dysfunctional bloodlust? 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>). We think likewise of his breaking up of Michal's marriage and the weeping husband walking behind her, and his genocide of the villages around Gath lest anyone tell the Philistines that in fact David was not attacking villages in Judah as he had falsely claimed.</p>


text:
<p>David struck also Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah- </p><p>Hadadezer = 'helped by Hadad;, the sun god. 2 Chronicles 8 is a passage&nbsp; which especially makes this point, in that it describes the&nbsp; actions&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; very&nbsp; language which is used earlier about David.</p><p><a href='B:140 8:3'>2Ch 8:3</a> “Solomon went to Hamath Zobah” = <a href='B:100 8:3'>2Sa 8:3</a> “David smote also Hadadezer the son of Rehob king of Zobah”; <a href='B:140 8:3'>2Ch 8:3</a>&nbsp; "and prevailed" = same&nbsp; word <a href='B:90 17:30'>1Sa 17:30</a>; <a href='B:140 8:8'>2Ch 8:8</a> Those “whom the children of Israel consumed not, did Solomon make to pay tribute” = <a href='B:100 8:6'>2Sa 8:6</a>&nbsp; “David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts”; <a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a> “He appointed according to the ordinance of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their charges… for so had David commanded” = <a href='B:130 24:1'>1Ch 24:1</a>; <a href='B:140 9:15-16'>2Ch 9:15-16</a> = <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a> “David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer and brought them to Jerusalem”.</p><p><a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a> clearly states God’s opinion that Solomon was not like David: "his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was&nbsp; the&nbsp; heart&nbsp; of David his father... (he) went not fully after the&nbsp; Lord, as did David his father". This double stress, bearing in&nbsp; mind inspiration's economic use of words, is really making a point. Yet the records of Solomon seem to be framed to show that externally,&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was indeed following David; he was obsessed with living out parental expectation, and perhaps the expectation of his society, rather than forging his own relationship with God.</p><p>As he went to recover his dominion at the River- Grammatically, the subject of the sentence is Hadadezer, and the reference is to the battle of&nbsp; <a href='B:100 10:15-19'>2Sa 10:15-19</a>. Again we see that the records are not chronologically but thematically arranged.</p>


text:
<p>David took from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen and twenty thousand footmen: and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for one hundred chariots- </p><p>See on :3. Notice how both David and Solomon dealt with the matter of chariots and horses. Solomon’s weakness for horses was perhaps traceable to David’s. Solomon unashamedly amassed horses and chariots, in direct disobedience to Divine command (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>). When David his father had captured 1000 chariots and horses, he hamstrung 900 of them and retained 100 of them (<a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>). He had a conscience about the matter, but thought that 90% obedience wasn’t bad. And the hamstrung horses were likely used for agricultural work and especially for breeding- breeding yet more chariot horses. David’s 90% obedience lead to his son’s 100% disobedience in this matter of chariot horses.</p><p>Solomon&nbsp; wished&nbsp; to imitate his father David in every sense; his own&nbsp; real&nbsp; personality&nbsp; only really came out in the Ecclesiastes years,&nbsp; when he took to drink, materialism, women and idolatry. It&nbsp; took&nbsp; the&nbsp; influence&nbsp; of his parents many years to wear off. David&nbsp; had&nbsp; weaknesses&nbsp; for&nbsp; horses (<a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>) and many wives; and Solomon&nbsp; followed&nbsp; in&nbsp; these&nbsp; steps&nbsp; too. Note that David had six sons in seven years by six different women, including Gentiles (<a href='B:130 3:3'>1Ch 3:3</a>). And in addition to these, David had children by “the concubines” (<a href='B:130 3:9'>1Ch 3:9</a>). Doubtless Solomon reasoned, albeit&nbsp;&nbsp; deep&nbsp;&nbsp; within&nbsp; his&nbsp; psyche,&nbsp; that&nbsp; such&nbsp; behaviour&nbsp; was legitimate&nbsp; because&nbsp; David&nbsp; his father had done it. David&nbsp; seems to have over interpreted the promises made to him about Solomon and the temple, and assumed that&nbsp; his&nbsp; interpretation was certainly correct. And Solomon did exactly the same. The weaknesses of the parents all too easily are repeated by the children to an even greater extent.</p><p>There are apparently different numbers given in <a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>; <a href='B:100 10:18'>2Sa 10:18</a> and <a href='B:130 19:18'>1Ch 19:18</a>. I see no real problem here once we appreciate that the Hebrew word "thousand" used when giving numbers like this rarely means 1,000 as a number. It is also translated regiment, brigade, family, squadron etc. And to Israelites looking at the Syrian army, it could be described in various ways. There many regiments, families, groups, squadrons, but these subdivisions of an ancient army are all called a "thousand". Depending how one looks at the army and its subdivisions. A modern army would be subdivided into two to four corps, a corps has at least two divisions or legions, a division has two four brigades or regiments, a brigade has two or more regiments, a regiment has&nbsp; two or more battallions, a battallion has a number of companies, a company has a number of platoons, a platoon has a number of squads or fireteams. The problem is that the Hebrew Bible uses the same word for all such military subdivisions, and it is translated "thousand" in many Bibles. Hence the apparently contradictory numbers.</p>


text:
<p>When the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of Zobah, David struck of the Syrians twenty two thousand men- </p><p>Again we must note that "thousand" refers to regiments / families and is not necessarily to be taken as literally 1,000.</p>


text:
<p>Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus; and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought tribute. Yahweh gave victory to David wherever he went- </p><p>This was short-lived, because Solomon's adversary Rezon established himself at Damascus (<a href='B:110 11:23-25'>1Ki 11:23-25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem- </p><p>"Hadad" was the god of the sun, "Hadadezer" had not been 'helped by Hadad' as his name means, and so David brought these golden imitations of the sun to Yahweh's temple. It is perhaps questionable whether David should have brought idols into Jerusalem; we note that later Judah worshipped sun gods. David’s actions here were not blessed, for the LXX adds “And Susakim [i:e. Shishak] king of Egypt took them, when he went up to Jerusalem in the days of Roboam the son of Solomon”. Likewise <a href='B:110 14:26'>1Ki 14:26</a> LXX mentions that David took golden spears from Hadadezer: “And the golden spears which David took from the hand of the servants of Adraazar king of Soba and carried to Jerusalem, he took them all”:&nbsp; These would not have been used as real spears, but were part of the worship of the golden sun which was the main religion in Syria at the time. He would have been better destroying them, rather than bringing idol paraphernalia into Jerusalem. For it later contributed towards the freedom Judah felt to worship sun gods.</p><p>Verse 11 suggests that these were dedicated to the future temple. But Song 4:4 speaks of "David's tower... whereon a thousand shields hang". So what David dedicated to the temple ended up being used for "David's tower". The king of Israel was not to multiply silver and gold "to himself" (Dt. 17:17), and David presumably got around that by arguing that he was dedicating this wealth to some future project for Yahweh. But in fact he ended up keeping the gold for himself, for his very own tower, and so in fact his apparent dedication of his wealth to God was once again a case of very mixed motives. And of course this can be so relevant to us all- seeking wealth under the self persuasion that this some day will be 'for the Lord's work' when in fact it effectively is for ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>From Betah- </p><p>LXX Tebah, a son of Nahor the Syrian (<a href='B:10 22:24'>Gen 22:24</a>).</p><p>And from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass- </p><p>As discussed on :7, these were likely brass [better, 'copper'] idols or idol paraphernalia which he would have been better destroying. LXX adds "Therewith Solomon made the brazen sea, and the pillars, and the lavers, and all the vessels", confirming what is stated in 1 Chron. 18:8, "wherewith Solomon made the brazen sea, and the pillars, and the layers, and all the vessels". So right after the grace of God in declining David's offer of building a temple, David gets right on with planning for it and amassing materials for it. The wonder of pure grace in Messiah, the future Christ, soon wore off- as it does for so many, and they too revert to legalism and salvation by works and wanting to see it all in this life.</p>


text:
<p>When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had struck all the army of Hadadezer- </p><p>Hamath came under tribute to David (:10), and Solomon, ever seeking to re-live the work of his father David, made a point of building forts there (<a href='B:110 4:24'>1Ki 4:24</a>; <a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a>). But this external imitation of the faith and works of his father wasn't the same as real spirituality; and this is a warning to all those raised as believers. For when he finally individuated as his own man, Solomon had no faith in Yahweh and turned to idols.</p>


text:
<p>then Toi sent Joram his son to king David, to greet him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and struck him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass- </p><p>These vessels were devoted to God’s service by David and then Solomon dedicated them to the temple (<a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>). The same phrase "of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used of the vessels taken from Egypt and dedicated to the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a>; <a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a>; <a href='B:60 6:19'>Jos 6:19</a>; <a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a>; <a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>). The generosity of others in Biblical history, their right perspective on the wealth taken from this world, was to inspire other believers in later history. And this is how the body of Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>King David also dedicated these to Yahweh, with the silver and gold that he dedicated of all the nations which he subdued- </p><p>See on :10. David "subdued" the nations, using the word often used of the command to subdue the nations of Canaan (<a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a>; <a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a>; <a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a>). He is presented as a second Joshua, subduing the land as it ought to have been subdued, and therefore becoming what Adam ought to have been in Eden (<a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a> s:w:). This is another indication that the garden of Eden was effectively the eretz or land promised to Abraham.</p><p>Dt. 17:17 warns Israel's king not to multiply gold and silver "to himself". On one hand, we could argue that David obeyed this by dedicating his multiplied gold and silver to Yahweh's work. But on the other hand, this gold and silver was dedicated to David's own obsession- that his son Solomon should use it to build a magnificent temple. When Yahweh had said he didn't want this. So again it would seem David's motives were mixed. </p><p> As discussed on :8, the LXX for :8 specifically says that the dedicated materials were used for building the temple. So again we see an element of poor thinking in David at this time. He has just been told not to build a physical temple, and to quietly trust that Yahweh will build him an eternal "house" through the work of the Messianic Son of David. But he immediately sets about gathering materials for the physical house which he had been told not to build. </p>


text:
<p>of Syria, Moab, the children of Ammon, the Philistines and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah- </p><p>There is no record of David fighting Amalek again, so the spoil in view may be that taken in <a href='B:90 30:16'>1Sa 30:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>David made himself a name when he returned from smiting the Syrians in the Valley of Salt, even eighteen thousand men- </p><p>This demonstrates that a "name" in Hebrew thought is not just a lexical item. David made his name; it involves personal history, character, reputation etc. These are all what the Yahweh Name is all about. This is the reference of <a href='B:100 7:9'>2Sa 7:9</a>, indicating that 2 Samuel 7 is actually referring to events after 2 Samuel 8 and is not in chronological sequence. Chronicles has&nbsp; “And Abishai the son of Zeruiah smote Edom in the valley of salt, (to the number of) eighteen thousand men". Perhaps Edom and Syria were confederate; or we should read with LXX, which had "Edom" here rather than "the Syrians". We note that :14 goes on to talk about Edom.</p><p>Or we can read this comment that David made himself a name as a criticism of him for not accepting the promises of 2 Sam. 7. Yahweh would make David and Israel a name (2 Sam. 7:23), and that name was to be part of Yahweh's Name; Yahweh would make a house of people where that Name would dwell. But David relapses to the physical, visible and religious rather than the spiritual, as seen in his continued efforts to establish / prepare a physical house for God. Rather than accepting Yahweh was going to establish / prepare that house in spiritual terms through Messiah, as a house of persons manifesting His Name. In contrast, David makes himself a name rather than being devoted to manifesting Yahweh's Name. This may well be reflected in the style of the narrative- for the word "David" occurs 21 times in the 18 verses of 2 Samuel 8. It was all about his name. The same phrase is used of the Babel builders who said "let us make us a name" (Gen. 11:4). Soon after that we read that in contrast, Yahweh would make Abraham's name great (Gen. 12:2 s.w.). </p>


text:
<p>He put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all the Edomites became servants to David. Yahweh gave victory to David wherever he went-</p><p>This is framed in such terms as to show that Esau / Edom was indeed now subject to Jacob as predicted in (<a href='B:10 27:37-40'>Gen 27:37-40</a>), and Balaam’s prophecy (<a href='B:40 24:17-18'>Num 24:17-18</a>).</p><p>See on :1. </p>


text:
<p>David reigned over all Israel; and David executed justice and righteousness to all his people- </p><p>David was motivated in doing this by realizing that this is how Yahweh reigns (<a href='B:230 33:5'>Psa 33:5</a>), and that by doing so he would help live out the spirit of the promises to him, that his throne would be eternally established; for that throne was all about justice and righteousness (<a href='B:230 89:14'>Psa 89:14</a>). And so David’s throne or way of rulership becomes the basis for how his seed, the Lord Jesus, eternally reigns (<a href='B:290 9:7'>Isa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:290 32:1'>Isa 32:1</a>; <a href='B:300 23:5-6'>Jer 23:5-6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the army; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder- </p><p>The men who had been faithful to David during his long wilderness years, when he seemed a lost cause with Saul certain to win against him (<a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>), were the very ones who were the rulers in his kingdom. Despite the very evident weaknesses of men like Joab. And in the type this looks ahead to we who shall be king-priests in the Lord's eternal kingdom (<a href='B:730 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a>), having been loyal to Him and His cause in these apparently hopeless wilderness years.</p>


text:
<p>and Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were priests; and Seraiah was scribe- </p><p>We notice that no high priest is nominated. David effectively acted as the high priest; see on :18. The "scribe" or historian was a senior advisor in the Hebrew court (<a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:120 18:18'>2Ki 18:18</a>; <a href='B:120 18:37'>2Ki 18:37</a>; <a href='B:140 34:8'>2Ch 34:8</a>) because of the huge value attached to history in the Hebrew mind, and as reflected in the Bible being largely history. Advice on how to act was to be based upon historical, or as we would now say, "Biblical", precedent.</p><p>The question of there being two High Priests is probably because Zadok served at Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:39) and Abiathar at Jerusalem. This again suggests that David was playing fast and loose with Divine law. He wanted to cement religious and political power in his own backyard, quite literally, in his citadel at Zion. So he brought the ark there, made tents for it and appointed a High Priest for it. But the actual tabernacle remained at Gibeon. This assumption that he could act as he wanted with God's law sets the scene for his failure with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David’s sons were chief ministers- </p><p>David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (:17; <a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>; and <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a> = <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. As ever, David presents as mixed in his motives. On one hand, he loved God's law and understood the spirit of it to the point that he could break it technically. Although the Uzzah incident was to reign him in about this. However on the other hand, he was doing what monarchs did at the time- concentrating both religious and political power in his own hands. This is also shown by his taking the ark to his own back yard in his citadel of Zion, rather than to the tabernacle in Gibeon, and seeking to build a temple for it there- on his own property. His setting up his sons as priests [Heb. kohen] likewise- and we note that nothing more is ever heard about this, because clearly they were spiritual failures. This contributes to the overall impression of this chapter- that David's apparent achievements were hollow. This is not to say he had no spirituality, for we see him showing grace to Mephibosheth, but after he was given the amazing promises, we see nothing but a downward spiral in his life overall. </p>


text:
<p>David said, Is there yet any who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?- </p><p>These words may have been said in David’s heart, or perhaps as a nationwide announcement. David sought to show all grace to the house of Saul, in response to the grace he had received from God. And he didn’t let the opportunities to show grace just meet him along life's way, but rather proactively sought them out. And this is a pattern to us. The fulfilment of God’s promises is His showing kindness to us (s:w. <a href='B:10 24:12'>Gen 24:12</a>; <a href='B:10 24:14'>Gen 24:14</a>); to show kindness is to respond to grace or something done for us (s:w. <a href='B:10 40:14'>Gen 40:14</a>; <a href='B:60 2:12'>Jos 2:12</a>; <a href='B:70 1:24'>Jdg 1:24</a>; <a href='B:70 8:35'>Jdg 8:35</a>; <a href='B:80 1:8'>Rth 1:8</a>; <a href='B:100 10:2'>2Sa 10:2</a>). Nothing good had been done to David by the house of Saul; but God had done David so much good. And he reflected that by showing grace to those who had not shown it to him. See on <a href='B:100 10:1'>2Sa 10:1</a>. As ever, David presents as mixed in his motives. On one hand, he loved God's law and understood the spirit of it to the point that he could break it technically. Although the Uzzah incident was to reign him in about this. However on the other hand, he was doing what monarchs did at the time- concentrating both religious and political power in his own hands. This is also shown by his taking the ark to his own back yard in his citadel of Zion, rather than to the tabernacle in Gibeon, and seeking to build a temple for it there- on his own property. His setting up his sons as priests [Heb. kohen] likewise- and we note that nothing more is ever heard about this, because clearly they were spiritual failures. This contributes to the overall impression of this chapter- that David's apparent achievements were hollow. This is not to say he had no spirituality, for we see him showing grace to Mephibosheth, but after he was given the amazing promises, we see nothing but a downward spiral in his life overall. </p>


text:
<p>There was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba, and they called him to David; and the king said to him, Are you Ziba? He said, Your servant is he- </p><p>As noted on :1, this is an example of proactively seeking out opportunities to show grace. David was apparently unaware of Jonathan's lame son (:3) or else he would have shown this grace earlier. Perhaps Ziba and Mephibosheth didn’t quite believe David could show so much grace to the house of Saul after what they had done to him. We take from this the principle that it is always hard to believe real grace. On the other hand, it is a fair question as to why only now David was seeking to show such grace. And seeing he had undertaken to his best friend Jonathan to be faithful to Jonathan's family, we wonder whether it really could be the case that David was ignorant of Mephibosheth's existence. He was five when Jonathan died and David became king, and now Mephibosheth is old enough to have had a child himself. So we wonder why David hadn't shown any interest in Mephibosheth for at least 10 years. And thus begins our suspicion that David's apparently amazing grace was in fact not as amazing as it seems. God's grace is pure, and our response to it should be to show pure grace. But our grace is often compromised and far less than pure. </p><p>
Ziba had been "a servant" of the house of Saul; but he now presents himself as David's servant [LXX "I am your servant"]; and again in :11. But David and the record repeatedly stress that Saul was still his "master" and he was therefore in his heart a servant of Saul (:9,10). Later, at the time of Absalom's rebellion, Ziba would turn against David and seek to get the kingdom back into the hands of the house of Saul. So David is correct to be cynical of Ziba. David's awareness of the current of support for a revived Saulide kingdom means that his grace to Mephibosheth may have not been so pure, but also politically motivated- see discussion on :13.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may show the kindness of God to him? Ziba said to the king, Jonathan has yet a son, who is lame of his feet- </p><p>See on <a href='B:230 35:14'>Psa 35:14</a>. David wept for Saul as if he was his friend or brother (<a href='B:230 35:14'>Psa 35:14</a>). Who was David’s friend and brother? Surely Jonathan his brother-in-law. But he wept for Saul, David says, as he wept for Jonathan. This is testified to historically by David’s lament of 2 Samuel 1. And still David sought out the house of Saul, “that I may shew the kindness of God” unto them. It was the experience of Divine kindness that motivated David.</p><p>The allusion is to Jonathan's request that David "show the kindness [hesed, grace] of Yahweh" to him even after his death (1 Sam. 20:14). But David goes beyond the letter of the law, the strict terms of his agreement with Jonathan, to enquire if he could show God's kindness to any of the whole family of Saul. David's mercy to the "house" of his enemy reflects God's promised grace to David's "house" in 2 Sam. 7, just as we likewise should reflect our personal experience of God's grace to others. The same phrase is used by David of Saul when he says that Saul had not remembered to "show mercy / kindness" (Ps. 109:16). But all the same David shows grace to him. So David's response to God showing him grace was to show grace to those who didn't show grace. Our response should be likewise. In 2 Sam. 22:51 David reflects that in those promises, Yahweh "showed mercy / kindness to David and to his seed for ever more". The same phrase for 'showing kindness' is found also in 2 Sam. 10:2, where it seems David again wanted to just reflect God's grace / kindness to others even outside the family of Saul. But we ponder whether David is remembering how the men of Jabesh 'showed kindness' to Saul and therefore were shown kindness by Yahweh (2 Sam. 2:5,6). We ponder whether David was motivated by wanting blessing in a transactional sense if he showed such kindness to Saul's house. Sadly Solomon considered that God had only 'shown kindness / grace' to David because he had been obedient to God's laws (1 Kings 3:6). By saying this Solomon showed his complete lack of understanding that grace is grace, undeserved, and not given as a reward for works. </p><p> We reflect on how "the blind and the lame" were "hated of David's soul" in 2 Sam. 5:6 and it seems he had them thrown down the water shute of Zion once the stronghold was captured. I noted there that this was inappropriate anger and blood lust by David, so perhaps here we have some kind of repentance. Or we can simply look at it as David, true to all men, having an inconsistency in approach. He could be very angry against the lame and then very gracious towards one of them.  </p><p> The explanation of Mephibosheth's lameness is given in 2 Sam. 4:4 as being that "his nurse took him up, and fled: and it happened, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame". But as with the language of demon possession in the New Testament, we may have here an example of where an as then undiagnosed illness is blamed upon something that is mythical, or an imagined narrative. For there are reasons to think that Mephibosheth's lameness would have been a case of what we now know as poliomyelitis. To cause a five year old to have such spinal damage that both his legs were useless would require dropping the child from a great height. Casual dropping of a child of five years old is unlikely to cause this damage. And polio is often contracted by children around five years old. </p><p> Be that as it may, lameness was typically seen as a punishment for sin, and so David's grace to the man reflects his own desire to show grace to a sinner. He indeed showed "the kindness of God" to him.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, Where is he? Ziba said to the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, in Lo Debar- </p><p>"Lo Debar" is literally 'place of no pasture'; we can assume it was therefore an impoverished area. Machir supported David at the time of Absalom's rebellion (2 Sam. 17:27) and so it could be that David's amazing grace paid off, and former supporters of his enemies came around to his side. </p>


text:
<p>Then king David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, from Lo Debar- </p><p>It could be that David personally did this, hence LXX "David went, and took him out of the house of Machir". He was so eager to personally do the hard work of showing grace.</p>


text:
<p>Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David- </p><p>"Mephibosheth" is apparently a name which would have arisen from changing his original name, Meribbaal 'man of Baal' (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>), to something which means 'the dispeller of shame'. i:e. Baal. The suffix 'baal' could suggest that even Jonathan was closer to idolatry than we would like, and at least he didn’t use the 'Yah' suffix in the name of his children. But Mephibosheth had perhaps repented of this, renouncing Baal as shameful, and yet still struggled to believe in the extent of Yahweh's grace to him through David.</p><p>And fell on his face, and showed respect. David said, Mephibosheth. He answered, Behold, your servant!- </p><p>The record gives us the tragic picture of a fearful (:7) lame man now fallen flat on his face before the powerful king David. And David shows him every grace. Falling on the face is usually associated with begging for mercy. Mephibosheth assumed he had been summoned in order to be executed but instead found an amazing grace. He represents us all, who sit at the Lord's table. "Behold your servant" suggests something in the spirit of "Behold the man...". 'Look at me, useless and hopeless as I am. Maybe just have pity on me rather than slay me'. </p>


text:
<p>David said to him, Don’t be afraid; for I will surely show you kindness for Jonathan your father’s sake, and will restore to you all the land of Saul your father. You shall eat bread at my table continually- </p><p>David is offering to give Mephibosheth land that belonged to Saul, his grandfather, in honour of the covenant David had made with Jonathan. He is using law not as a leash or chain, but as a springboard to greater grace, as Boaz did with the laws about allowing gleaners and raising up seed to a dead brother. </p><p>
The Lord surely had this incident in mind when He seems to apply this situation to each of us, no better than Mephibosheth:  "That you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom" (Lk. 22:30). Mephibosheth's fear reflects the difficulty we all have in accepting grace. Indeed faith in the gospel is effectively a climbing of this mountain, to believe in grace. See on <a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>; <a href='B:230 35:14'>Psa 35:14</a>. As he hoped for fellowship at the Messianic King’s table in the future, so David delighted in inviting his former enemies to partake of his table, now he was king (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:11'>2Sa 9:11</a>; <a href='B:100 9:13'>2Sa 9:13</a>). And if we hope to share the Lord’s table in the Kingdom, we must share it with our weaker brethren now. I see in all this such a triumph for David, that a man should reflect the love of God to such an extent, to love in the face of such hatred, to not just love those who loved him. The deep sorrow of the Lord Jesus for Judas and all those who turn away is surely typified here. Right at the bitter end, the Lord still referred to him as his friend (<a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a>), even though a few hours before he had been speaking of how the faithful few were his friends, and how he would give his life for his friends (<a href='B:500 15:13-15'>Joh 15:13-15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He bowed down, and said, What is your servant, that you should look on such a dead dog as I am?-</p><p>This was how David had felt about himself (<a href='B:90 17:17'>1Sa 17:17</a> LXX; 24:14 cp. <a href='B:100 9:8'>2Sa 9:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>). As he, the dead dog, had been shown grace, so he was determined to show it to other dead dogs. And this is how we should feel towards apparently hopeless cases; for there but for God’s grace went I. The image of a dog is that of loyalty; but Mephibosheth felt his loyalty was useless, yet still he was willing to offer it.</p><p>The promises to David are described as the mercy of God (<a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a>; <a href='B:230 89:33-34'>Psa 89:33-34</a>). God having a son is the sign of His love for us, and this must elicit a response in us. David himself marvelled that such mercy had been shown to him: "Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house… You know Your servant" (<a href='B:100 7:18-20'>2Sa 7:18-20</a>). And yet in the very next chapters, we read of how David made a renewed attempt to show mercy to the house of Saul. Mephibosheth says that he is "Your servant… what is your servant, that you should look upon such… as I am?" (<a href='B:100 9:8'>2Sa 9:8</a>). Mephibosheth is using the very words which David used to God; David is showing mercy to Mephibosheth in the very way in which the promises of God to him were the "mercies" shown to David. Appreciating that the promises concern us personally, and that they reveal such loving grace from the Father, can only lead to a similar response in showing love and grace through entering into the lives and destinies of others.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king called to Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said to him, All that pertained to Saul and to all his house have I given to your master’s son- </p><p>It's not clear whether the "master" of Ziba refers to Jonathan, or whether his master was Mephibosheth and Ziba being told that the inheritance is going to go to Mephibosheth's son Mica (:12). We get the impression that Ziba had abused Mephibosheth's handicap and somehow manipulated to get the land of Saul and Jonathan given to him and his family as an inheritance. It is impressive that David had apparently not taken over Saul's land for himself, as most victors would have done. Perhaps he recognized the Mosaic principle that inheritance should not move between the tribes. David could also have argued that seeing Saul's sons were dead, his inheritance passed to his daughter Michal and thus to David as she was his wife (Num. 27:8); and in any case there is the comment that all Saul's house had been given to David by God (2 Sam. 12:8). But David was willing to give this back to Mephibosheth. This is all definitely a "plus" for David.</p>


text:
<p>You shall till the land for him, you, and your sons, and your servants; and you shall bring in the harvest, that your master’s son may have bread to eat: but Mephibosheth your master’s son shall eat bread always at my table. Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants- </p><p>The LXX brings out the contradiction: "Thou shalt bring in bread to the son of thy lord, and he shall eat bread: and Mephibosheth the son of thy lord shall eat bread continually at my table". Ziba was to bring all the bread from the lands of Saul to Mephibosheth, but David was going to give Mephibosheth "bread" from his own table. Here we get suspicious that all this apparent grace was to make Mephibosheth a kind of "prisoner of the court". The "bread" from Saul's lands was not to be given for the economic benefit of anyone apart from Mephibosheth; but it was to be brought to him to Jerusalem and thus effectively come under David's control. See the discussion on David's motives on :13. We likewise note that soon we will be reading of someone else getting food from David's table and being urged to eat it- Uriah, to whom David sent food from his own table (2 Sam. 11:8) and who ate and drank with David at his table ("David had called him, he ate and drink before him" 2 Sam. 11:13). Again we are invited to ponder the sincerity of David's invitation to men to eat at his table. For the only other person given this honour [Uriah] was not given it sincerely. </p><p> David had done likewise to Saul's daughter Michal; he took her from her second husband and kept her in his court but apparently didn't kill her. But she was under his control. He does the same later with Absalom, bringing him to Jerusalem but for some time refusing to meet him. Solomon does the same to Shimei, possibly following David's advice. He told Shimei: "Build yourself a house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and don’t go out anywhere from there. For on the day you go out, and pass over the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall surely die" (1 Kings 2:36,37). Shimei was effectively a prisoner of the court. Possibly there was something similar going on here in 2 Sam. 9 in the control of Mephibosheth Saul's grandson, the Saulide heir to the throne. </p><p> There could be here the implication that Ziba had used Saul's land for his own enrichment, and not always given Mephibosheth enough to eat. Mephibosheth is called Saul's son (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:10'>2Sa 9:10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:24'>2Sa 19:24</a>), although he was actually Jonathan's son. This suggests that the son was brought up in Saul's house. This certainly does not give the impression that Jonathan separated himself from his father’s house, even though he strongly disagreed with Saul. There was no fear of guilt by association with Bible characters, but rather a standing up for Godly principle in whatever situation they were in.</p><p>The invitation to eat at David’s table is emphasized (:7,11,13). Likewise 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> "show kindness to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those who eat at your table" 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>


text:
<p>Then Ziba said to the king, According to all that my lord the king commands his servant, so your shall servant do. So Mephibosheth ate at the king’s table, like one of the king’s sons- </p><p>This eating at table with David is stressed three times (:7,11,13). Whom you shared your table with was significant; and the handicapped were often kept out of public view. David’s grace is shown by how he opened his table to the otherwise hopeless and obscure. The Lord Jesus did the same, and so should we.</p>


text:
<p>Mephibosheth had a young son, whose name was Mica- </p><p>See on :9 for the significance of this mention. Mephibosheth was quite young- he had been five when David became king (2 Sam. 4:4). David was taking a risk by showing such grace to Saul's direct descendants; for living in the palace, the thought of restoring Saul's kingdom would have been suggested to their minds. The chances of this happening would've been far less if David left them living in poverty and obscurity far from Jerusalem. But grace does indeed take such risks. </p><p>All that lived in the house of Ziba were servants to Mephibosheth- </p><p>The idea is perhaps that Ziba had abused Mephibosheth's handicap, and had become wealthy as a result; for her had many sons and servants (:10). But now that is all changed around, in the spirit of grace. Now the crippled Mephibosheth is made the master and Ziba and his family become Mephibosheth's servants.</p>


text:
<p>So Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem; for he ate continually at the king’s table. He was lame in both his feet- </p><p>It was common in those days for the handicapped to be isolated from society and not placed in public view. But grace inverted all of that. The lameness of Mephibosheth is emphasized, and juxtaposed against the fact he ate always at David’s table, as if they were family. His eating at David's table is five times recorded: 2 Sam. 9:7,10,11,13; 19:28. On one hand this was indeed David's grace. But quite possibly he feared the Saul faction still wanting to have a Saulide king. And so he brought the next king in Saul's line to live under his control and observation in Jerusalem, right in his own house. Making an enemy a "prisoner at court" was a known way of dealing with potential opposition. See the discussion on :10 on David's controlling the agricultural output of Saul's lands by using Mephibosheth as a proxy, and the notes on :2 about Ziba's support for the house of Saul. As ever, we are left to ponder whether David's motives in showing grace were pure, just as we must ponder our own motives for grace and apparent generosity. Or it could be argued that David showed total grace to Mephibosheth, but the providentially arranged result of it was that he ended up having the potential Saulide king under his thumb and constant observation in Jerusalem, rather than far from him in obscure Lodebar in northern Israel.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his place- </p><p>"After this" can signal a change of subject rather than being chronologically significant. The same phrase is used in <a href='B:100 8:1'>2Sa 8:1</a>, although the preceding chapter refers to events after and not before that time.</p>


text:
<p>David said, I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me. So David sent by his servants to comfort him concerning his father. David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon- </p><p>This continues the theme discussed on <a href='B:100 9:1'>2Sa 9:1</a>, where the same phrase is used. David was proactively seeking to show grace to all and sundry. It was as if he was looking for an excuse to show grace by saying that Nahash king of the Ammonites had been kind to David; for Saul and David had had conflict with them (<a href='B:100 8:12'>2Sa 8:12</a>). But he fails to maintain that intensity; for when his grace is now abused, he reacts very harshly. Whereas when he abused God’s grace, e.g. over Bathsheba, God was gentle with him. We note that he likewise shows grace to Shimei, and then finally asks Solomon to ensure that Shimei is slain. It is one thing to show grace or forgiveness in a moment, but to maintain that position long term, or when it is abused and rejected, is far harder. But that is what imitating God’s grace is all about it.</p><p>Or it could be that Nahash was bitter after Saul's defeat of him, and had been supportive of David on the basis that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'.</p>


text:
<p>But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun their lord, Do you think that David honours your father, in that he has sent comforters to you? Hasn’t David sent his servants to you to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?- </p><p>Perhaps they were aware of the Mosaic command not to seek the peace of Moab nor Ammon (Dt. 23:6). David's desire to show grace therefore overrode Mosaic legal commands. And yet the princes were not without reason, given how David had just abused the Moabites in 2 Sam. 8:1-3, and David would treat the Ammonites with similar brutality in 2 Sam. 12; and how Saul had slain the king of Ammon in 1 Sam. 11:1. We note how repeatedly deceptive David had been to the people of Gath. There was no reason to believe he was showing pure grace. His previous apparently amazing grace to Mephibosheth we saw was not in fact so amazing neither was it pure. One wonders, given the back story to David and Israel's relationship with Ammon, whether the sending of comforters was not in fact to provoke a spying accusation and start a war. </p><p> Again, as with Mephibosheth's struggle to believe David’s grace, these men couldn't believe David’s grace, just as struggle to believe that of the Lord Jesus. Their logic is presented here as being exactly that of Joab in his angry, suspicious interpretation of Abner's visit to David (<a href='B:100 3:24-25'>2Sa 3:24-25</a>). Joab was wrong in his interpretation, and so were these princes. It is quite a theme of the historical records that kings are badly advised by their courtiers. We think also of Rehoboam's advisers. Perhaps this is to highlight how the only true interpretation of events and advice for action comes from God and not men.</p><p>David sent messengers to Nabal meaning well to him, and they were rudely rebuffed, resulting in his anger which only Abigail’s grace and wisdom saved him from (1 Samuel 25). And yet the same situation repeated in its essence when he sent messengers to Hanun who were likewise misinterpreted and rebuffed (<a href='B:100 10:3'>2Sa 10:3</a>). Again, David got angry- but there was no Abigail to restrain him, and he did get into an impossible fight… from which by grace God delivered him. Could it not be that David failed to learn from his previous experience…? Circumstances repeat within our lives and between our lives and those of others in Biblical history; that we might learn the lessons and take comfort from the scriptures, that man is not alone.</p>


text:
<p>So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away- </p><p>Having a beard was then seen as a sign of being a free man; to have a half shaved beard was a sign of servanthood. Doing this was a direct provocation and effective declaration of war, claiming the Hebrews were their servants. Garments cut to the buttocks meant they were prisoners of war who had been released, as in Is. 20:4 "the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt... with buttocks uncovered". </p><p> We see in all this history how fickle are men. We saw it in Samuel's record of David's relationship with Gath and the Philistines, with both sides willing to live and work together despite having betrayed each other's trust and having sought to murder each other. Here too we reflect how later in 2 Sam. 17:27 "It happened, when David had come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon" came to support and assist him. Hanun's brother Shobi was to come onto David's side. Or perhaps he always was with David, and possibly Hanun himself was at this point overridden by his princes (:3), just as the princes of the Philistines earlier overrode the position of Achish regarding David. We wonder whether David's later refusal to go to the war against Ammon, just delegating the job to Joab, was perhaps because he realized this was a political issue and had no heart for the fight. Absalom chased David up to the Jabbok river, the border with the Ammonites, suggesting David fled there for refuge (2 Sam. 17:26). We note how later Zedekiah was allied with the Ammonites (Jer. 27), and Solomon married an Ammonitess; for 2 Chron. 12:13 says that the mother of Rehoboam was Naamah the Ammonitess. </p><p> The books of Samuel also show how people, especially kings, are led into terrible situations by listening to their advisors. Hanun is an example. David by contrast repeatedly refuses to do what his men urge him to [in killing Saul or Shimei] and listens to good advice [from Abigail and Samuel]. But the other kings are presented as taking bad advice. </p>


text:
<p>When they told it to David, he sent to meet them; for the men were greatly ashamed. The king said, Wait at Jericho until your beards have grown, and then return- </p><p>We note David’s ability to be very sensitive to the situation of others. And yet the same man shed blood abundantly, took no care for the feelings of Michal and Paltiel when he split their marriage up, let alone cared for Uriah... And yet this is the strange mixture of spirituality and unspirituality which we experience in ourselves and in others all the time.</p>


text:
<p>When the children of Ammon saw that they were become odious to David, the children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians of Beth Rehob, and the Syrians of Zobah, twenty thousand footmen, and the king of Maacah with one thousand men, and the men of Tob with twelve thousand men- </p><p>They paid 1000 pieces of silver for the Syrians (<a href='B:130 19:6'>1Ch 19:6</a>). For "thousand" see on :18. This fearsome confederacy was all part of God’s purpose, for the subsequent victories resulted in these smaller kings becoming subservient to David (see on :19). And this is how God uses our worst crises, ultimately towards our blessing. <a href='B:100 23:36'>2Sa 23:36</a> speaks of a Syrian man from Zobah being one of David’s loyalest men:&nbsp; 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.</p><p>"Maacah" is LXX "Amalek", and we immediately recall that Yahweh was at war with Amalek from generation to generation.</p>


text:
<p>When David heard of it, he sent Joab, and all the army of the mighty men- </p><p>We wonder why David didn’t go himself, although he does personally lead the army to the even greater battle with the Syrians which this one provoked. Perhaps this is to prepare us for the statement in <a href='B:100 11:1'>2Sa 11:1</a> that David’s remaining in Jerusalem led to his sin with Bathsheba. And we wonder whether that relationship had not already started at this time, with Uriah away at the front so much.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Ammon came out, and put the battle in array at the entrance of the gate: and the Syrians of Zobah and of Rehob, and the men of Tob and Maacah, were by themselves in the field- </p><p>"By themselves" could mean that they had planned to combine with the Ammonite forces at Medeba (<a href='B:130 19:7'>1Ch 19:7</a>), about 20 miles from Rabbah of the Ammonites. It seems Joab marched at top speed to engage with them before the Ammonites and Syrians met up with each other as one large force. The Ammonites assembled their battle lines at the entrance to Rabbah, but it seems they didn’t engage with the Israelites. They were waiting for the Syrians to arrive and combine their forces. When Joab makes the Syrians flee, the Ammonites fled back into their city gate.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Joab saw that the battle was set against him before and behind, he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array against the Syrians- </p><p>He saw the Syrians as a greater strength than the Ammonites. He placed himself between the two armies before they had time to join up with each other. This meant the Israelites would be sandwiched between them. It was a daring but dangerous move, which could easily have led to the annihilation of the entire Israelite army.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the people he committed into the hand of Abishai his brother; and he put them in array against the children of Ammon- </p><p>That Joab took the most dangerous part of the engagement speaks much of his bravery. But as we will note on :12, bravery and passing mention of God are not the same as faith and true wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>He said- </p><p>The idea is, that he planned or thought. The Bible continually stresses that the thought is the word spoken. And the essence of Biblical spirituality is upon the heart, the thinking.</p><p>If the Syrians are too strong for me, then you shall help me; but if the children of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will come and help you- </p><p>This is playing on the name "Hadadezer" (:16), which means 'Helped ['ezer'] by Hadad', the sun god. We might have preferred to see Joab alluding to Yahweh being their help; but instead he thinks of help in terms of human strength.</p>


text:
<p>Be courageous, and let us be strong for our people, and for the cities of our God; and Yahweh do that which seems good to Him- </p><p>As explained on :9, this was a very daring maneuver by Joab. We wonder whether he had real faith in Yahweh, or whether his words here express fatalism rather than faith. There is a significant difference, and often what appears to be faith can be mere fatalism. There is so much ambiguity in these records, especially in the upcoming account of David and Bathsheba; and I suggest that is intentional, to provoke our reflection and attempt to enter into these histories.</p>


text:
<p>So Joab and the people who were with him drew near to the battle against the Syrians: and they fled before him- </p><p>So often the Israelite victories were humanly speaking achieved by surprise attack from an unexpected angle, using unexpected and unusual tactics. It could be that this was due to Divine guidance, telling them to do what was unusual and against secular wisdom. For this is always God’s path to victory, thereby demonstrating that victory and success are of His grace rather than human strength.</p>


text:
<p>When the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians had fled, they likewise fled before Abishai, and entered into the city. Then Joab returned from the children of Ammon, and came to Jerusalem- </p><p>We get the impression that Abishai didn’t attack the Ammonites; the Syrians fled when Joab attacked them, and the Ammonites withdrew into Rabbah when they saw that. This is all providing context for the Bathsheba incident. 2 Sam. 11:1 speaks of the time when kings go forth to war, so we can conclude that "the city" here is Rabbah, and Joab didn't try to take Rabbah because it was Winter and conditions weren't good for a siege. He returned to Jerusalem to winter and go forth in the spring to attack Rabbah.</p>


text:
<p>When the Syrians saw that they were defeated by Israel, they gathered themselves together-</p><p>They were mercenaries, and the fact they had failed to achieve what Ammon hoped for didn’t require them to fight again. They did so, it seems, because of wounded pride. And this again (as noted on :13) is a feature of God’s amazing victories. The pride of Gentile armies is brought down by smaller armies of Israelites using unusual, unexpected tactics because they were guided by Yahweh. Always pride is presented as the great weakness of man.</p>


text:
<p>Hadadezer sent, and brought out the Syrians who were beyond the River: and they came to Helam, with Shobach the captain of the army of Hadadezer at their head- </p><p>To gather soldiers from beyond the river Euphrates was a huge effort; and now the best general, as they thought, was placed over them. And it all arose from hurt pride and the desire by all means to defeat Israel in vengeance for Joab and his small army putting their army to flight previously, when they had been paid money to defeat Israel.</p>


text:
<p>It was told David; and he gathered all Israel together, and passed over the Jordan, and came to Helam. The Syrians set themselves in array against David, and fought with him- </p><p>The parallel is drawn between the Syrians coming from the other side of the Euphrates (:16) led by Shobach, and David and his men coming from the other side of the Jordan.</p>


text:
<p>The Syrians fled before Israel; and David killed of the Syrians seven hundred charioteers and forty thousand horsemen, and struck Shobach the captain of their army, so that he died there- </p><p>There are apparently different numbers given in <a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>; <a href='B:100 10:18'>2Sa 10:18</a> and <a href='B:130 19:18'>1Ch 19:18</a>. I see no real problem here once we appreciate that the Hebrew word "thousand" used when giving numbers like this rarely means 1,000 as a number. It is also translated regiment, brigade, family, squadron etc. And to Israelites looking at the Syrian army, it could be described in various ways. There many regiments, families, groups, squadrons, but these subdivisions of an ancient army are all called a "thousand". Depending how one looks at the army and its subdivisions. A modern army would be subdivided into two to four corps, a corps has at least two divisions or legions, a division has two four brigades or regiments, a brigade has two or more regiments, a regiment has&nbsp; two or more battalions, a battalion has a number of companies, a company has a number of platoons, a platoon has a number of squads or fire teams. The problem is that the Hebrew Bible uses the same word for all such military subdivisions, and it is translated "thousand" in many Bibles. Hence the apparently contradictory numbers.</p>


text:
<p>When all the kings who were servants to Hadadezer saw that they were defeated before Israel, they made peace with Israel, and served them. So the Syrians feared to help the children of Ammon any more- </p><p>This meant that the smaller kings like Tob, Rehob and Maacah now paid tribute to David rather than to Hadadezer.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, at the return of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah- </p><p>This is the classic example of the devil finding work for idle hands; in <a href='B:100 10:7'>2Sa 10:7</a> David had already skipped one battle in this campaign. His remaining in Jerusalem was the set up for David’s sin with Bathsheba. That he was lying down on his bed in the late afternoon rather than working would exemplify the same thing. He appears to recognize his attitude problem in <a href='B:230 30:6'>Psa 30:6</a>: " In my prosperity I said, I shall never be (spiritually) moved" . In the lead up to the sin, God had given him victory after victory- leading him to think that he must therefore be spiritually OK because of his many physical blessings (<a href='B:130 18:6'>1Ch 18:6</a> RV). His conscience had been blunted. Uriah may have cleverly alluded to this when he comments that the ark was abiding in a tent, and therefore he would not go down to his house (<a href='B:100 11:11'>2Sa 11:11</a>). The tension between a tent and a house is surely intended to take David back to his words in <a href='B:100 7:2'>2Sa 7:2</a>, where he laments as unacceptable the fact that he lives in a house but the ark is in a tent. And David was ‘tarrying’, living in a settled way, in a house in Jerusalem now.</p><p>But David stayed at Jerusalem- </p><p>Or AV "tarried". This uses a Hebrew word which does not mean to wait, but rather to permanently dwell. It is also translated 'to marry'. The next verse continues "And it came to pass...", indicating that his permanent residence at Jerusalem was connected with his sin. Are we to infer that David remained at Jerusalem because of his relationship with Bathsheba? Even though they had probably got nowhere near consummating it, subconsciously this was behind David’s motive in remaining. The word for "tarried" being the same for 'marriage' could imply that David was still actively married to his other wives who were there in Jerusalem.</p><p>David "tarried" or lived (:1) in his "house" (:2), just as he was in 2 Sam. 7 when better thoughts came to him about God's house. Now he was thinking of building up his own house- for human behaviour is multi dimensional, and whilst his behaviour was indeed lustful, he also had some political agenda in the Bathsheba "thing". Saul likewise was "sitting" in his house when an evil spirit came upon him and he wanted to kill David (1 Sam. 19:9 s.w.). Again we see Saul and David parallel in their sins. The difference was that David had a heart for God and was repentant. It wasn't that their amounts of sin differed. It was their attitude to them. When he didn't have a stable house, David had correctly focused upon living or tarrying in Yahweh's house for ever (s.w. Ps. 23:6; 27:4). But having his own stable house led him away from that focus.  </p><p>
This not going out to fight is in contrast to the peoples' expectation that their king was to “go out before us and fight our battles” (1 Sam 8:19). Indeed, David's masculinity is under question here. When kings went to war, David didn't. And we are to read that he effectively fell in love and was compromised by this, whereas powerful men of the time were supposedly never compromised by their love affairs. David is never recorded as loving anyone, but his evident deep love for Solomon suggests Bathsheba was in fact his favourite woman out of many. Uriah disobeys David's command to go down to his wife and sleep with her- his disobedience to David is categorically stated, and David has lost control of the situation so that he cannot do anything about a disobedient servant. Uriah by contrast presents as the consummate male by being a brave soldier and wanting to fellowship the sufferings of his men rather than taking special privileges.  </p><p>
Possibly David didn't go to the war because he wanted to try to self fulfil the promise about having rest from his enemies. See on 2 Sam. 12:10.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at evening, that David arose from off his bed, and walked on the roof of the king’s house- </p><p>In the parable, the rich man had his many flocks (i.e. David’s wives) with him in the city, of Jerusalem. Walking upon the roof of his house connects with several passages which associate the roof top with a place of idolatry: <a href='B:120 23:12'>2Ki 23:12</a>; <a href='B:300 19:13'>Jer 19:13</a>; <a href='B:300 32:29'>Jer 32:29</a>; <a href='B:430 1:5'>Zep 1:5</a>. It may be that David regularly worshipped the idol of Bathsheba in his mind, upon the bed which he had on the house top. David’s sin with Bathsheba is therefore not such a momentary slip. Significantly, it was in that very place where Absalom later lay with his wives in retribution for what he had done (<a href='B:100 16:22'>2Sa 16:22</a>). From this we could infer that David lay with Bathsheba in that same place on the roof top. This is significant insofar as it shows how exactly the thought leads to the action. David’s thoughts in that spot were translated into that very action, in precisely the same physical location. The roof top is also the place of prayer, and in this we see the schizophrenic nature of David’s spirituality; he went to pray, and then stood at the edge of the roof in order to view Bathsheba, with his hands on the railing around the roof which surely he would have erected, in obedience to the Law. And he realized that it was evening, and that in accordance with the Law a menstruating woman had to wash and be unclean until the evening. But now, he reasoned, she’s clean, and I can sleep with her. He lay with her “for”, just because, she was now purified. In this we see the mixing of flesh and spirit which is at the root of most of our failings.</p><p>And from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful to look on- </p><p>David rightly perceived that what a man thinks alone on his bed is a litmus indicator of his essential spirituality, and he condemns Saul for plotting sin on his bed (<a href='B:230 4:4'>Psa 4:4</a>; <a href='B:230 36:4'>Psa 36:4</a>; <a href='B:230 149:5'>Psa 149:5</a>). And yet the same phrase "on his bed" is used for how David plotted the sin with Bathsheba on his bed (<a href='B:100 11:2'>2Sa 11:2</a>). David was surely taught by his sin that he had been too quick to condemn others for their wicked thoughts upon their beds. Again we see how in essence Saul and David did the same sins, but David was saved for his heart position and repentance. </p><p>Bathsheba was "very beautiful to look upon". And David did just that. Our Lord surely had his eye on that passage when he spoke about him that "looks upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already" (<a href='B:470 5:28'>Mat 5:28</a>). But it is not just in that specific sin that we can share David’s experience; <a href='B:660 1:14-15'>Jas 1:14-15</a> speaks of the process of temptation and sin, in any matter, as looking lustfully upon a woman, with the inevitable result of actually committing the sin. In this he may be interpreting David’s sin as an epitome of all failure. David is our example. Likewise the Lord’s list of the 12 evil things that come out of the heart: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness, evil thoughts…all seem to describe the completeness of David’s sin with Bathsheba. It incorporated all these things, and was not just a one time, lustful failure of the moment.</p><p>David and Bathsheba knew each other well, and would have developed a close spiritual relationship. Having only known Uriah, both as a father and husband (<a href='B:100 12:3'>2Sa 12:3</a>), Bathsheba would have been strongly attracted to David, yearning for a relationship with someone other than Uriah. David would have been an alternative father figure to her, and also the same age as her husband Uriah . He would have become her physical and spiritual hero. David must have allowed his feelings for her to grow, until the sight of her quiet obedience to the Law, artlessly exposing her beauty against the setting sun, was just too much. With her husband far away, kidding himself there was a spiritual motive, David shrugged off the voice of conscience. What happened to David’s family was related to David’s sin. The obsessive love of Amnon for Tamar may have similarities with David’s for Bathsheba (<a href='B:100 13:2'>2Sa 13:2</a>).</p><p>David viewed Bathsheba from the roof (2 Sam. 11:2), and this was matched by the roof on which Absalom slept with David's wife, and the way the watchman sees the two messengers running with news of Absalom's death (2 Sam. 18:24), and it was on a roof that David lamented his son (2 Sam. 18:33). Uriah is killed by a man from a height above him, thus equating David with the enemy soldier who slew his faithful man, rather than with his men. </p><p> We note throughout the similarities with Ahab's coveting of Naboth's vineyard in 1 Kings 21. David likewise was in the king's house when he covets that which belongs to his neighbour (2 Sam. 11:2). He tries to get Bathsheba by offering Uriah a "present"- "there followed him a present from the king" (2 Sam. 11:8). Uriah's "I will not do this thing" (2 Sam. 11:11) matches Naboth's refusal. David summons Uriah and makes him eat and drink, just as it seems there was some kind of feast when Naboth was set on high amongst the people. David's plan to set up Uriah's death so he could take what was personally Uriah's [his wife] matches the plan of Ahab to get Naboth executed. The report sent to Jezebel that Naboth had died (:14) is recorded in the same manner as the report to David that Uriah had died (2 Sam. 11:18,24). Ahab takes possession of that which is Naboth's, just as David takes Bathsheba- and then they are both rebuked by a prophet, and both genuinely repent, although the resulting Divine judgment involved the suffering of their sons and family going forward. The similarities are intentional. We see here that the process of sin is as it were standard- whether in the slip of a righteous man [David], or yet another sin in the long catalogue of sins in a sinner like Ahab. God works to some kind of template with man, but it is also so that man passes through the same broad process of temptation and failure.  </p><p>David viewed Bathsehba from the roof (2 Sam. 11:2), and this was matched by the roof on which Absalom slept with David's wife, and the way the watchman sees the two messengers running with news of Absalom's death (2 Sam. 18:24), and it was on a roof that David lamented his son (2 Sam. 18:33). </p><p>
We note throughout the similarities with Ahab's coveting of Naboth's vineyard in 1 Kings 21. David likewise was in the king's house when he covets that which belongs to his neighbour (2 Sam. 11:2). He tries to get Bathsheba by offering Uriah a "present"- "there followed him a present from the king" (2 Sam. 11:8). Uriah's "I will not do this thing" (2 Sam. 11:11) matches Naboth's refusal. David summons Uriah and makes him eat and drink, just as it seems there was some kind of feast when Naboth was set on high amongst the people. David's plan to set up Uriah's death so he could take what was personally Uriah's [his wife] matches the plan of Ahab to get Naboth executed. The report sent to Jezebel that Naboth had died (:14) is recorded in the same manner as the report to David that Uriah had died (2 Sam. 11:18,24). Ahab takes possession of that which is Naboth's, just as David takes Bathsheba- and then they are both rebuked by a prophet, and both genuinely repent, although the resulting Divine judgment involved the suffering of their sons and family going forward. The similarities are intentional. We see here that the process of sin is as it were standard- whether in the slip of a righteous man [David], or yet another sin in the long catalogue of sins in a sinner like Ahab. God works to some kind of template with man, but it is also so that man passes through the same broad process of temptation and failure.  </p><p> We note in 2 Sam. 3:1-16 David's bad treatment of Michal's husband, who follows his wife with tears in a most unmasculine but genuine response to David taking her from him. Paltiel walks behind her, when a woman in those days was supposed to walk behind a man [cp. Russian 'zamuzhem', behind a husband, to describe a married woman]. Paltiel was publically shamed; the way Abner abruptly tells him to stop following his wife and go home is as if Abner treats Paltiel as a dog. He did this when he already had at least six wives; the information about his wives and children precedes the narrative about him breaking up Michal and Paltiel's marriage. Although David calls Michal his "wife" [Heb. isshi], the record calls Paltiel her husband [Heb. 'ish]. This failure is then repeated by David when he takes Bathsheba and slays Uriah, breaking up a good marriage even though he had many "sheep". He was wrong in how he treated Paltiel. But his conscience didn't kick in. And so one sin led him to another sin, against Uriah, in essence the same but of far greater magnitude. We reflect how his taking of Abigail in 1 Sam. 25 also involved the displacement of her husband, Nabal- but by the hand of providence. It's as if David intentionally misread this as meaning that he had the right to remove the husbands of women he wanted. The progression is all so psychologically credible. David wanted to test Ishbosheth and Abner's loyalty [as Abner had formerly been Saul's general], and so he asked them to get Michal back to him as his wife. He clearly didn't love Michal; it was all for the sake of politics. We must be aware that sexual rights over a woman, especially the wife of another, were seen as a sign of political dominance and control; David lived in a culture where the politics of power were sexualized. We think of Absalom sleeping with David's wives publically. And we wonder whether his taking of Abigail was similarly motivated. This usage of women rather than loving them is what led him to the failure with Bathsheba. David is recorded as being loved by many people- Jonathan, Michal, Saul's servants, all Israel etc. But he is never recorded as loving anyone himself. Nathan's parable presents David as a man with many animals, representing his women- possibly suggesting this was how he saw his wives.</p><p>However we have to note that David saw Bathsheba close up enough to perceive her beauty. Her house was very close to David's. She was clearly well known to him. And again the issue is raised as to why she would bathe in the open air knowing she was in full view of David's roof where he was wont to rest and walk. The close proximity of Uriah's house to David's betrays the favoured relationship he once enjoyed with David. Five times we read of him 'going down to his house' (:8-13) as if David's house was higher but Uriah's was adjacent. As discussed on :4, this washing may not have been at all related to her period. We wonder about the parallel with Ruth [David's ancestor] in Ruth 3:3, who washes herself, does herself up pretty, and goes to lay with Boaz and thereby manipulate him [quite possibly having sex with him]. We reflect too how David washes himself before having sex with Bathsheba the second time (2 Sam. 12:20,24). </p>


text:
<p>David sent and inquired after the woman- </p><p>There can be no doubt that David knew exactly who Bathsheba was. His enquiring after her may therefore have been to summon her to his private audience, with all that this implied in the context of a monarch. We think of Saul asking about who David was- when David already lived at his court as court musician. The question 'Whose son / daughter is this?' was meant as a way of laying claim to the person as yours. And in this we have another parallel between David and Saul. The question, with regard to taking a woman, is that of Boaz regarding Ruth when he enquires 'Who is this?' (Ruth 2:8). The exclamation of the messenger " Is not this Bathsheba…the wife of Uriah?" was therefore tantamount to saying 'Surely you aren't going to? She's the wife of your faithful friend Uriah" . When experiencing temptation, the flesh can become extraordinarily blind to reason. The next verse continues: " And David sent (other) messengers, and took her…and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness" . This may imply that David set up an irrelevant spiritual pre-condition for himself: 'If she's unclean, then I must take that as a sign, and not sleep with her, because that would be against the Law'. The Law often stipulated that having washed, the person would be "Unclean until even" . David had seen her washing " in an eveningtide" . By the time she came in to him, the sun would have set; she would have been fully purified from her uncleanness. It was because of this that David lay with her; he must have reasoned 'Now that she's clean, even the Law says that I'm allowed to sleep with her! That's a sign from God'. As with us, his spiritual judgment did not completely depart in this crisis of temptation; but it became seriously warped to the point that it was no use. It is significant , in the light of this, that the statement that " David…enquired after the woman" uses a Hebrew word which is often used about enquiring of God; as if David asked God whether it was right to go ahead or not.</p><p>One said, Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?- </p><p>"One said" can be translated “he said to himself,”. Of course David knew who she was. In his self talk he accepted who she was and cold heartedly went ahead with his lust and possibly other, political agenda. Because she was very well connected politically within David's network of power, just as were some of his other wives. In this case we note that David firstly identifies Bathsheba as daughter of her father, before being Uriah's wife. Eliam and his father Ahithophel may have been the family David wanted to get in with. For although it was a sin of lust, it seems to me there were also political motivations for both David and Bathsheba. All the same, David rode over red lights of warning into disastrous sin. </p><p> Or perhaps some anonymous servant tries to stop David in his tracks, as if to say "You surely can't do this to the wife of your faithful servant who lives in the house next door!". The question 'Who is this?' as asked by Boaz of Ruth (<a href='B:80 2:8'>Rth 2:8</a>)&nbsp; is to be understood as a statement of intended action and not read on face value. The same kind of question is asked by David about Bathsheba, even though he knew who she was because she lived next door to him and was the wife of his close friend.  Eliam, son of David's adviser and familiar friend Ahithophel, was one of David's mighty men just as Uriah was (2 Sam. 23:34). David was Bathsheba's hero figure, and she and David knew each other well. Likewise when Saul enquires about who David is after his victory over Goliath (<a href='B:90 17:56'>1Sa 17:56</a>), it is not because he doesn't know him. For David had been already at the court of Saul. The question 'Who is this?' means that the questioner wants to do something for the person being enquired after.</p><p>The Samuel scroll from the Judean Desert (4Q51, formerly known as 4QSam) adds the detail: "Joab’s armour-bearer". The LXX follows this. In this case, David's usage of Joab to slay Uriah, his own armour bearer, was dragging yet someone else into sin and breaking up yet another relationship.  </p>


text:
<p>David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in to him, and he lay with her- </p><p>It takes two, and Bathsheba's compliance seems to be recognized by David when he prays: "Against You, You only have I sinned" (<a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a>). There is no hint in the psalms of David’s regret for having sinned against an innocent Bathsheba. Her child had to die; the retribution did not just come upon David. The incident is referred to as "the matter of Uriah" (<a href='B:110 15:5'>1Ki 15:5</a>); her name does not figure in those sinned against. "She came in unto him, and he lay with her" (<a href='B:100 11:4'>2Sa 11:4</a>) is an odd way of putting it; it reverses the usual Biblical reference to intercourse as a man coming in to the woman. The reason for this inversion seems to be to balance the blame. Robert Alter notes that in the Hebrew Bible "When the verb "come to" or "come into" has a masculine subject and "into" is followed by a feminine object, it designates a first act of sexual intercourse. One wonders whether the writer is boldly toying with this double meaning, intimating an element of active participation by Bathsheba in David's sexual summons". Bathsheba offers no resistance nor attempt to persuade David against his intentions, in contrast with Tamar when she faced rape in 2 Sam. 13:12,13: "She answered him, No, my brother, do not force me! For no such thing ought to be done in Israel. Don’t you do this folly. I, to where would I carry my shame? And as for you, you will be as one of the fools in Israel". "He lay with her" rather than 'he came in to her' could also suggest that the sex act was not at all forced [hardly "power rape"] but consensual. </p><p> We note that the same words are used for David 'sending' and 'taking' his ex wife Michal from her second husband, Paltiel (2 Sam. 3:14,15). This was a cruel thing to do as Paltiel so loved her; and David kept her as a ward of court for political reasons, apparently not sleeping with her. Nathan specifically condemned David for "taking the wife of Uriah". There was no repentance from David about this and it led to his greater sin at this time. His crude, crass hatred of the blind and lame in 2 Sam. 5 was tacitly repented of in his grace to the lame Mephibosheth in 2 Sam. 9. But there had been no such hint of repentance about his actions towards Michal. And so if sin isn't repented of, it leads to greater failure. We also wonder however if his sending and taking Bathsheba didn't also likewise have a political motive, possibly to remove Uriah as a potential threat to his throne. </p><p> And there seems an evident similarity between the way the sin occurred within the city, and the way <a href='B:50 22:24'>Deu 22:24</a> says that in cases of adultery both parties were to be stoned if the sin occurred within a city and the woman didn’t cry out. Bathsheba doesn’t seem to have cried out- and so she bears equal blame, it would seem. This makes Bathsheba more of a sinner than a saint. This said, Nathan's parable describes David as killing the sweet lamb (Bathsheba); if she was partly guilty for the actual act, this may suggest a killing of her spirituality by David, at least temporarily:&nbsp;And so we are left with the question of interpretation- Bathsheba: saint or sinner? The record leaves it intentionally open ended, to provoke our reflection upon the text. We learn from Nathan's parable that Uriah was older than her and more of a father figure than a husband. There is no mention of her having had children. It could be that she was trapped in a fruitless relationship with Uriah, a Gentile, and felt she had no chance to make it as a woman in Israel. Her public naked bathing within David's line of vision certainly raises questions- because married women are portrayed in scripture as looking out from behind windows or lattices and such washing would not usually be done in the open air, in a place in full view of the neighbour's roof. So we can never discount the possibility that she was more than complicit in the matter. And this fits with another theme in this whole story- that there is so much ambiguity. Why didn't David go out to war? Why was Bathsheba bathing outside, and in David's line of vision? Why didn't Uriah sleep with his wife? Was Bathsheba purified from her period, or does the text say she purified herself after she had sex with David? Was Bathsheba raped or was she looking for this outcome to become queen? Why the strange expression "she came in to him"? Was this a simple sin of male lust or were there other, political, reasons why David wanted to marry yet another powerful, well connected woman [like Michal, Abigail, Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, and Ahinoam]? And so many other open questions. Summed up in the comment that "the thing" David did displeased Yahweh. But the exact components of "the thing" aren't listed. Surely the record is written to provoke our reflection. David clearly bears the blame. But the ambiguities surrounding Bathsheba suggest to me that whilst her blame was far less than his, she was also not completely the innocent victim, especially if she had not had children by Uriah and was more of a daughter to him than a wife, as suggested by Nathan's parable. The ambiguities are intentional, I suggest, because human motivation and actions are so impossibly complex to analyze. </p><p>For she was purified from her uncleanness; and she returned to her house- </p><p>Bathsheba's washing of herself which exposed her nakedness would have been in obedience to the Law. David "lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness" adds weight to this. However, the Law didn’t actually state that the woman must wash herself after menstrual uncleanness; but the man who touched her must. So it could be that she had gone beyond the Law in washing herself; such was her spiritual perception, which was a factor in David’s attraction to her. The law in Lev. 18:19,20 taught that there could only be sex after a woman was cleansed from menstrual uncleanness, and goes straight on to warn about sleeping with your neighbour's wife- as if speaking directly to David: "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness. You shall not lie carnally with your neighbour’s wife". </p><p> David confessed that he had sinned against God (<a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a>), using the very language of faithful Joseph who refused ongoing temptation with these words (<a href='B:10 39:9'>Gen 39:9</a>). Could this not imply that Bathsheba wife of Uriah was similar to Potiphar’s wife?&nbsp;</p><p>However it's possible to translate: "He lay with her; she purified herself from her uncleanness and returned to her house". This gives no impression of rape but rather of a calm interaction between the two. She doesn't return to her home and wash, she does it at David's home. We again note the interplay between spirituality and sexuality, and the strange relationship between flesh and Spirit. In this case we note she was obedient to the law in washing after intercourse (Lev. 15:18). Possibly David alludes to this when in the penitential Psalms he begs to be washed clean by God; he reflected that washing after this act of sex had not cleansed his heart. This alternative translation avoids the problem that the legislation about women ending their periods in Lev. 15 doesn't actually state that she must wash in water at the end of her period. Throughout Lev. 15 it is commanded no less than 12 times that after certain bodily emissions a person but must bathe in water after their uncleanness. But this is specifically absent when talking about a woman who has come to the end of menstruation. Women were commanded to wash in water after sex, not at the end of their period cycle. I am inclined to conclude that there is [again] a purposeful ambiguity in the text here. Was Bathsheba's washing after her period, going beyond the letter of the law in this case; or after her sex with David? The ambiguity is to provoke us to exercise herself as to whether or to what degree Bathsheba was guilty of anything in this encounter. And the exercise helps us in our own self examinations.  </p>


text:
<p>The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, I am with child- </p><p>It is possible to infer that for all their spiritual closeness, David and Bathsheba experienced a falling out of love immediately after the incident- as with many cases of adultery and fornication. In contrast to their previous close contact, she had to send to tell him that she was pregnant. In addition, 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. We have commented earlier how Amnon's obsessive love for Tamar was an echo of David’s relationship with Bathsheba. There may be a parallel in the way in which afterwards, "Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he loved her" (<a href='B:100 13:15'>2Sa 13:15</a>). All this would have been yet another aspect of the emotional trauma which David went through at this time; to fall out of love with the woman for which he had almost thrown away his eternal salvation. And in addition to this, all Israel would have got to know about what had happened- with a fair degree of exaggeration thrown in, we can be sure.</p><p>Bathsheba was liable to execution for adultery. So she informs David from various motives, not least to save her own life. Again we have an example of ambiguity in the record, an invitation to reflection... upon with what spirit she informed David of her pregnancy. </p>


text:
<p>David sent to Joab, Send me Uriah the Hittite. Joab sent Uriah to David- </p><p>The record stresses how much David and Bathsheba relied on sending messages through the servants (<a href='B:100 11:3-6'>2Sa 11:3-6</a>; <a href='B:100 11:19'>2Sa 11:19</a>; <a href='B:100 11:23'>2Sa 11:23</a>; <a href='B:100 11:27'>2Sa 11:27</a>)- and remember that Bathsheba probably couldn't read, necessitating verbal communication. The palace servants would have gossiped and chatted about little else. When Uriah "slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord" after an evening with them in the bar, there can be no doubt that he came to know the score. He must have guessed the contents of the message which he took back to Joab; and when the command came for him to go on a suicide mission against Rabbah, he went in conscious loyalty to a master whose every intrigue he knew perfectly. This would explain why he refused to go and sleep with Bathsheba; he knew what David was up to. And David would have known that Uriah almost certainly knew what had happened.</p><p>David goes to such lengths to try to cover up Bathsheba's pregnancy by him. This rather factors against the idea that David wanted Bathsheba as his wife and that he had political reasons for taking her, as he did in his taking of previous women. There was definitely an element of lust involved and hot headed action. But again we note the ambiguity of it all; for the evidence that Bathsheba somehow wanted the encounter cannot easily be pushed aside. Why the lack of communication between Uriah and Bathsheba during his return to Jerusalem? Uriah had a "gift" from David in his hand but he apparently never goes a very short distance to his own house. He just kips on the floor in the guardhouse at David's place. Why? Was he somehow angry with Bathsheba? If all was well in the relationship, it would be normal to visit and comfort her and at least ask her the truth of all the gossip. If indeed she had clearly been raped, would he not have wanted to comfort his beloved wife? Was he not angry with her too? Because of... ?</p>


text:
<p>When Uriah had come to him, David asked of him how Joab did, and how the people fared, and how the war prospered- </p><p>For an individual soldier to have been recalled from the front for a personal interview with David was highly unusual. And on the way back, Uriah surely suspected what had happened or would happen, more or less. David’s apparent interest in the war and his troops is presented here as so hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Uriah, Go down to your house, and wash your feet- </p><p>Their houses were next to each other, perhaps "go down" referred to a path between the two properties. "Feet" are used as a euphemism; the idea clearly was "And have sex with your wife" (Is. 6:2; Ez. 16:25). </p><p>Uriah departed out of the king’s house, and a gift from the king was sent after him- </p><p>It was now clear to Uriah what had happened. David was trying to buy his silence, and to get him to sleep with his wife so that it would appear any resulting child would be his and not David’s.</p>


text:
<p>But Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord, and didn’t go down to his house-</p><p>Uriah realized clearly what had happened, and was angry. He would rather sleep with the servants than sleep with his wife. He didn’t go to see his wife because he was apparently angry with her too- suggesting he suspected she was a willing party to the affair. The servants would have been aware of what had happened; see on :6. And that evening as he purposefully slept with them and they chatted as men do, he would have been confirmed in his guesses. The "gift" sent after him (:8) would have been still in his hand as he slept the night with the servants. They all knew what had happened.</p>


text:
<p>When they had told David, saying, Uriah didn’t go down to his house, David said to Uriah, Haven’t you come from a journey? Why didn’t you go down to your house?- </p><p>The degree to which David acted in a coolly thought out way is brought out by a few hints in <a href='B:100 11:10-12'>2Sa 11:10-12</a>. His comment to Uriah surely implied 'You've been away a long time- and you don't want to have sex withyour wife? Well, you must have been unfaithful then, like most of you soldier boys'. Remember that this was David talking to a man who had risked his life for him during the wilderness years. How sin totally ruins loving fellowship! See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>Uriah said to David, The ark, Israel, and Judah, are staying in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field. Shall I then go into my house to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing!-</p><p>See on 2 Sam. 7:1. It could be argued that soldiers on duty had to be sexually abstinent, as any personal emission of semen made them unclean (Dt. 23:10) and we note David's claim that his warriors had not touched women in 1 Sam. 21:5. So although not at the battle front, Uriah felt he was still on duty and therefore would not lie with his wife.  </p><p> Uriah lets David know that he knows what's going on; for he uses no euphemisms nor indirect hints, but states plainly he will not be sleeping with his wife. He was clearly very angry with David.</p><p>Uriah doesn't swear as Yahweh lives, as is commonly found in the Bible, but by David’s own life. Perhaps he felt that Yahweh was no authority to David to make an oath by. We note that this way of swearing by the life of the person being spoken to [rather than by Yahweh] is used of men to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:55'>1Sa 17:55</a>), by Uriah to David when he knew David had slept with his wife (<a href='B:100 11:11'>2Sa 11:11</a>) and by Hannah to Eli (<a href='B:90 1:26'>1Sa 1:26</a>). In every case the implication is that the speaker didn’t think that the person being addressed really feared Yahweh.</p><p>We can discern in <a href='B:230 132:3'>Psa 132:3</a> an allusion to the words of David’s faithful friend Uriah whom he effectively murdered: "Surely I will not come under the roof of my house, nor go up into my bed...". He refused to go up to his bed nor come under the roof of his own house because he preferred identity with God’s suffering people, His "house".  If indeed Ps. 132 was written later, then David later remembered these words, and alludes to them when he thinks of arranging the building of the temple. The words of Uriah haunted him, and he commendably vows to follow his noble example. In this we see David’s humility and repentance.</p><p>But there is another take on the connection with Ps. 132. We note that Uriah mentions that the ark, along with David's troops, is in a tent and not in a house, and so Uriah will not go down to his house. Uriah will not sleep in his house whilst the ark of God isn't in a house; he is alluding to David's similar oath which David hadn't kept. For this is clearly to be connected with David's vow that "I will not enter my house or get into my bed; I will not give sleep to my eyes or slumber to my eyelids' until I find a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for the mighty one of Jacob" (Ps. 132:3-5). The ark was still in a tent; and David was in his house, he had got into his bed- whilst the ark was still in a tent. Uriah's mention of the ark surely alludes to this situation. This is Uriah criticizing David and asserting his own greater fidelity to Divine things. We note too his point blank refusal to be obedient to David's command to go down to his house. </p><p> So David's sin gives the lie to his apparent passion for the ark. God had responded to his "vow" by telling David that God didn't want this. Instead, God would build him an eternal family through his Messianic Son, and he would [by implication] be resurrected to witness this. But instead of rejoicing in that, instead David was just involving himself in opportunistic sex and thus showing no regard for the great promises made about his family. For David was hardly paying any attention to his family and seed by casually sleeping with another man's wife and getting her pregnant. In this we see the progression of theme in 2 Samuel. David's refusal to accept God's grace in the covenant made with him led him to still want to build a temple, and this lack of focus upon the grace to be shown to his own "house" or family led him to the sin with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Uriah, Stay here today also, and tomorrow I will let you depart. So Uriah stayed in Jerusalem that day, and the next day- </p><p>"Depart" uses a word translated 'to put away' in <a href='B:460 2:16'>Mal 2:16</a>. divorce was only possible for adultery:&nbsp; The implication was 'Tomorrow you can divorce her and there'll be no problem- and I bet you've been unfaithful yourself while away on duty!'. The man after God’s own heart had truly fallen from Heaven to earth- knowing what he was doing.</p>


text:
<p>When David had called him, he ate and drink before him; and he made him drunk. At evening, he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but didn’t go down to his house- </p><p>That David could see into the back yard of Bathsheba's house shows that they were almost next door neighbours in Jerusalem. Nathan's parable emphasized this: "There were two men (David and Nathan) in one city (Jerusalem)" (<a href='B:100 12:1'>2Sa 12:1</a>). That Uriah "didn’t go down to his house" after meeting David in Jerusalem could imply that it was just at the end of David’s back garden. Even when drunk, he retained his deep inner sense of purpose. To be made drunk is also a figure for being extremely angry (<a href='B:290 63:6'>Isa 63:6</a>). Those who make others drunk are cursed in <a href='B:420 2:15'>Hab 2:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah- </p><p>Was David literate? Probably not. We think of how Jeremiah in Jer. 36:1,4 is told to "take yourself a scroll and write" but in fact he calls Baruch to write it. David may well have learned to write in order to produce his Psalms, but now he puts that skill to an evil use. Or maybe he got someone else to write it, which again meant that the story would have continued to seep out to the public. To give Uriah the letter would suggest Uriah travelled alone. He surely guessed what it said. He could have destroyed it, but just as he refused to lay with his wife, so he goes along with David’s evil plan. He preferred to die than lose his integrity. We likewise wonder whether Joab was literate, and in this case, why did David write a letter? Presumably to avoid giving the message to a messenger who would travel with Uriah back to the battle front. Again we see David's maximum efforts to keep the "thing" secret, when in fact, everyone knew- including Uriah himself.</p>


text:
<p>He wrote in the letter saying, Send Uriah to the forefront of the hottest battle, and retreat from him, that he may be struck, and die- </p><p>As noted on :18, David wrote a letter in order to avoid giving a message to a servant to deliver verbally. But literacy levels in ancient Israel were very low, especially for village boys like David and Joab, both from Bethlehem rather than anywhere bigger. David’s attempt to cover what he had done would have probably required Joab to get someone to read the letter to him anyway. All attempts to cover the sin led to it becoming ever more well known.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Joab kept watch on the city, that he assigned Uriah to the place where he knew that valiant men were- </p><p>Joab's part in all this should not be overlooked. He had argued back against David over Abner and had himself gone and killed him, and he would later remonstrate with David over Absalom. He could likewise have refused to be a part in all this. It was likely his spiritual jealousy of David which led him to be such an eager participant in the scheme, wanting to bring David down spiritually to his own level. We see here the same articulations of human nature which are in our own lives.</p>


text:
<p>The men of the city went out, and fought with Joab. Some of the people fell, even of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also- </p><p>David was therefore guilty of more than one murder in all this, and as a soldier himself ought to have known how wrong it was. True soldiers never abandon their wounded, let alone betray their own side to death. David’s actions were going to infuriate just about everybody in Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joab sent and told David all the things concerning the war- </p><p>"The things concerning the war" appears to be a technical term for a standard military report (:19). It was apparently delivered verbally rather than in writing, so David’s letter to Joab was a vain attempt to not risk telling a messenger what to say verbally. But it is doubtful whether Joab could read well, and so Joab was in any case unlikely to have been the only person to know David’s command about Uriah.</p>


text:
<p>and he commanded the messenger saying, When you have finished telling all the things concerning the war to the king-</p><p>This continues the theme noted on :6, that the extensive use of messengers and exposing them to the intrigues was sure to mean that what had happened would become well known. Hence the significance of Uriah refusing to go to his home but sleeping and hanging out with the servants. The more men seek to cover sin themselves, the more it is made apparent. That is the lesson for us all. David appears desperate and foolish in trying to cover his sin by getting Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba and then getting Uriah killed, even requiring other men to be killed in order to make Uriah's death appear nothing specific. And yet the record stresses how many messengers were involved in the whole "thing". All attempts to cover sin will ultimately come to nothing in that the day of judgment will reveal all "the secrets of men" to all. David clearly has the belief that what he has done is secret when in fact it obviously isn't; and that is the mentality of all sinners. And that is exactly God's point in 2 Sam. 12:12 "For you did it [so David thought] secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel". </p>


text:
<p>it shall be that, if the king’s wrath arise, and he asks you, ‘Why did you go so near to the city to fight? Didn’t you know that they would shoot from the wall?- </p><p>David was known for how his emotions flared up. Despite his undoubted physique stamina, David was a broken man, even quite early in his life, prone to fits of introspection; dramatic mood-swings (cp. <a href='B:90 24:14'>1Sa 24:14</a> with 25:6,22,34;), sometimes appearing a real 'softie' but hard as nails at others (consider <a href='B:230 75:10'>Psa 75:10</a> and the whole of Psalms 101); easily getting carried away: be it with excessive emotional enthusiasm for bringing the ark back, in his harsh response to Hanun humbling his servants, his over-hasty and emotional decision to let Amnon go to Absalom's feast when it was obvious what might well transpire, his anger "flaring up" because of incompetency (<a href='B:100 11:20'>2Sa 11:20</a> NIV),&nbsp; or in his ridiculous softness for Absalom.</p><p> We note how there are three accounts of the engagement in which Uriah was killed. The actual account; Joab's account of it which he told the messenger to tell David; and then what the messenger actually tells David. We see how covering sin leads to dishonesty and catches up so many others in the web of dishonesty. The transparent life before God involves humility and the associated immediate confession and repentance, and thus avoids all this. And all this lying stands in hard contrast to the David of the Psalms, who so loves to protest his integrity and honesty compared to others. One function of the sin with Bathsheba was to lead David to self knowledge and recognition that he failed to rightly perceive his own sinfulness. </p>


