# comment

text:
<p>Maacah the wife of Machir bore a son, and she named him Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons were Ulam and Rakem- </p><p>"Peresh" means 'dung' (s:w. <a href='B:20 29:14'>Exo 29:14</a>; <a href='B:30 4:11'>Lev 4:11</a>). Here we have an example of how some names were birth names; and others, like this, were names which reflected life experience and character, and were what others called the person. Which is why people had multiple names.</p>


text:
<p>The son of Ulam: Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh- </p><p>This Bedan is perhaps the judge mentioned in <a href='B:90 12:11'>1Sa 12:11</a> about whom we do not read in the book of Judges.</p>


text:
<p>His sister Hammolecheth bore Ishhod, and Abiezer, and Mahlah- </p><p>We note the prominence given to this woman. Her name means 'Queen of Molech', the god to whom children were sacrificed. Her infamy is therefore noted, continuing the theme of the genealogies noting the widespread spiritual weakness of the people. But from her came Abiezer, from whom Gideon was descended. So we are again taught that a man can overcome bad background by response to God’s word and His love.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shemida were Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi, and Aniam-</p><p>Shemida appears out of context here, but <a href='B:60 17:2'>Jos 17:2</a> says he was also one of the male descendants of Manasseh. Seeing no other pedigree is given, perhaps Shemida was adopted into the tribe, maybe having been a Gentile.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, Bered his son, Tahath his son, Eleadah his son, Tahath his son- </p><p>Called Shuthelah, Becher, Tahan and Eran in <a href='B:40 26:35-36'>Num 26:35-36</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Zabad his son, Shuthelah his son, and Ezer and Elead, whom the men of Gath who were born in the land killed, because they came down to take away their livestock- </p><p>The men of Gath are recorded as slaying some of the men of Ephraim the largest tribe (<a href='B:130 7:21'>1Ch 7:21</a>), whereas the men of Benjamin, the smallest tribe, slew the men of Gath (<a href='B:130 8:13'>1Ch 8:13</a>). It is God’s way of showing how He works through the small and confounds the things which appear mighty.</p>


text:
<p>Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him- </p><p>It is unclear when this skirmish with the men of Gath occurred (:21). It could have been whilst Israel were living in Goshen. For their father Ephraim, the patriarch, was still alive, and his brothers. This means that the Israelites in Goshen were still not converted by their experience of Joseph's grace, and the great beneficence of Pharaoh towards them. They still hankered for more cattle, and raided southern Palestine in order to steal.</p>


text:
<p>He went in to his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, and he named him Beriah, because it went evil with his house- </p><p>Ephraim would have been very old by this point. Having a child in old age after the death of adult children... is absolutely psychologically credible. The inspired record is indeed credible at every point.</p>


text:
<p>His daughter was Sheerah, who built Beth Horon the lower and the upper, and Uzzen Sheerah- </p><p>The context of :23 suggests Sheerah was either the daughter or granddaughter of Ephraim the patriarch. This would confirm the suggestion on :22 that Israel in Egypt had more contact with Canaan than we might imagine. She apparently build settlements there.</p>


text:
<p>Rephah was his son, and Resheph, and Telah his son, and Tahan his son- </p><p>The "he" is either Ephraim himself or Beriah (:23). Rephah and Resheph are names with pagan god associations. But from this background was to come faithful Joshua (:27).</p>


text:
<p>Ladan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son- </p><p>Unusually for the genealogies, we have here probably a complete genealogy from Ephraim who entered Egypt with Jacob, to Joshua who came out of Egypt.</p>


text:
<p>Nun his son, Joshua his son- </p><p>"Nun" means "to sprout", so Joshua is presented as the shoot; which is a Messianic term in Zechariah. Joshua, with the same meaning as 'Jesus', could potentially have been a Messiah figure, but he failed to live up to the full potential.</p>


text:
<p>Their possessions and habitations were Bethel and its towns, and eastward Naaran, and westward Gezer, with its towns; Shechem also and its towns, to Azzah and its towns- </p><p>Gezer is not the more well known Gaza, which was in Judah not Ephraim.</p>


text:
<p>and by the borders of the children of Manasseh, Beth Shean and its towns, Taanach and its towns, Megiddo and its towns, Dor and its towns. In these lived the children of Joseph the son of Israel-</p><p>But Beth Shean was in Issachar (<a href='B:60 17:11-13'>Jos 17:11-13</a>; <a href='B:110 4:11-12'>1Ki 4:11-12</a>). Dor was in Asher (<a href='B:60 11:1-2'>Jos 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:60 12:23'>Jos 12:23</a>; <a href='B:60 17:11'>Jos 17:11</a>; <a href='B:70 1:27-28'>Jdg 1:27-28</a>). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, and Serah their sister- </p><p>The mention of women in this list is unusual. The names are of those who became heads of family clans within the tribes. So the mention of Serah would mean that she became a head of family; although rare or unknown in the world around them, this was not totally unheard of in the Jacob family and we see in this the respect of women amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Beriah: Heber and Malchiel, who was the father of Birzaith- </p><p>"Birzaith" is female, and may refer to a place name ["well of olives"]. "Father of" is used about founding cities in <a href='B:130 2:51-52'>1Ch 2:51-52</a>; <a href='B:130 4:4-5'>1Ch 4:4-5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Heber became the father of Japhlet, Shomer, Hotham and Shua their sister- </p><p>Shomer and Hotham of :32 are Shamer and Helem of :34,35.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Japhlet: Pasach, Bimhal and Ashvath. These are the children of Japhlet- </p><p>The apparently needless repetition of Japhlet as the father may be because as noted on :2,7,11, these names were produced at the time of David’s census of <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a>, and that meant that those numbered had to pay the temple tax or else plague would come. Japhlet perhaps paid the tax for the three sons, and this is stressed. Plague was chosen by God as the punishment for Israel at this time, because many refused to be counted as they didn’t want to pay the temple tax. Hence David took false guilt in feeling personally guilty for the plague. But it seems that some paid the tax for others, and so "sons" are counted to them who may not have been their literal sons. See on :11 for an example.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shemer: Ahi, Rohgah, Jehubbah and Aram- </p><p>Jehubbah ['hidden place'] and Aram ['upland'] appear more appropriate as place names than personal names.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Helem his brother: Zophah, Imna, Shelesh and Amal- </p><p>Shomer and Hotham of :32 are Shamer and Helem of :34,35.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Zophah: Suah, Harnepher, Shual, Beri, Imrah- </p><p>This list of 11 sons of Zophah may also include his grandchildren.</p>


text:
<p>Bezer, Hod, Shamma, Shilshah, Ithran and Beera- </p><p>Several of the names of the 11 "sons of Zophah" (:36) are known place names, or sound as if they are; e.g. "Bezer" means 'inaccessible place', more appropriate to a place than a person.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jether: Jephunneh, Pispa and Ara- </p><p>Here and in :39 we appear to have the mention of people (Jether and Ulla) of whom we have no background information. Perhaps they are also "sons of Zophah" of :36.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ulla: Arah, Hanniel and Rizia- </p><p>Ulla is a female name. Yet she was a household head and mighty soldier (:40). The genealogies are noted for their mention of significant women.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the children of Asher, heads of the fathers’ houses, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes. The number of them reckoned by genealogy for service in war was twenty-six thousand men- </p><p>In <a href='B:130 12:36'>1Ch 12:36</a> Asher's troops were 40,000, and even more in <a href='B:40 1:41'>Num 1:41</a>; <a href='B:40 26:47'>Num 26:47</a>. The smaller number here is because as explained on :33, this list was compiled at the time of the census of <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a>. Those numbered had to pay the temple tax or else plague would come. Plague was chosen by God as the punishment for Israel at this time, because many refused to be counted as they didn’t want to pay the temple ta.<X/p>


text:
<p>Benjamin became the father of Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third- </p><p>Although the Chronicles genealogies and record tends to focus upon the Levites, the genealogy of Benjamin is perhaps stressed here because it is to provide a backdrop to Saul, whom we will begin reading about when the narrative begins in 1 Chronicles 10. But that genealogy will begin specifically at :29. Here we are reading of the Benjamites who lived in Jerusalem (:28). Benjamin was originally in Benjamite territory.</p>


text:
<p>Nohah the fourth and Rapha the fifth- </p><p><a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a> says that Benjamin had ten sons when the Jacob family moved into Egypt, but here seven of them are in fact his grandsons. Benjamin was hardly a child when the brothers came to buy corn. He was in his 20s, and according to the Hebrew text he had ten sons already, and presumably some daughters; perhaps suggesting that his father’s favouritism and obsession with him had not been helpful morally, and had resulted in him having multiple relationships from a young age. However, the LXX lists only three sons, and makes the rest of the list the sons of Bela. And yet Benjamin would not have been old enough to have been a grandfather. So it could be that he had married a woman who had children of her own who became Benjamin's, or that he somehow adopted these children. There would have been a very large extended family around Jacob, and maybe these children were simply under the care of Benjamin. However, the genealogy in <a href='B:40 26:40'>Num 26:40</a> appears to support the LXX text here, with Ard and Naaman given as grandsons of Benjamin and not sons. We must remember that genealogies, numbers and dates are not used in Semitic languages in the strictly literalistic way in which they are in European languages. <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a> can therefore argue that Melchizedek blessed Levi because he blessed Abraham, and Levi was a descendant of Abraham, "yet in the loins of his father". And this establishes Melchizedek as greater than Levi, and in turn, the priests descended from him. That argument may appear very stretched and even technically inaccurate to European ears. But it had absolute validity in Hebrew thought. And so the grandchildren of Benjamin, yet unborn, could be listed as being in existence when Benjamin went into Egypt, and even be numbered amongst the group at that time. This is why the grandchildren of the maids are counted as if they are the direct children of the maids; see on <a href='B:10 46:9'>Gen 46:9</a>; <a href='B:10 46:18'>Gen 46:18</a>. We likewise read that Jacob brought his twelve sons out of Mesopotamia, including Benjamin (<a href='B:10 35:24'>Gen 35:24</a>; <a href='B:10 35:26'>Gen 35:26</a>). But Benjamin was born later, in Canaan. But on this basis of being counted as "in the loins of" an ancestor, Benjamin could also be presented as having come out of Mesopotamia. If this kind of thing were better appreciated by Bible readers, it would be better understood that there was no personal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus in actuality, although He is spoken of as existing prior to His birth.</p>


text:
<p>Bela had sons: Addar, Gera, Abihud- </p><p>The simple truth is that Benjamin, the "little one" (<a href='B:10 44:20'>Gen 44:20</a>), has more descendants listed to his name than any of the brothers. <a href='B:290 60:22'>Isa 60:22</a> clearly alludes to this- "a little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation". It is the theme of the patriarchal family; the firstborns are deposed, the elder serves the younger, the weak become strong, the little one becomes mighty.</p>


text:
<p>Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah- </p><p>These names of Benjamin's sons / grandsons recur in :7. Perhaps the sons of Ehud were named after those of Benjamin / Bela, as a sign of loyalty to the founding fathers of the tribe. There seems another example of this noted on :16. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>Gera, Shephuphan and Huram- </p><p>See on :4. These names, meaning "grain", "serpent like" and "white", hardly reflect much spirituality. Indeed the true Israel of God had very shaky beginnings, and their founding fathers were nothing at all to be proud of in spiritual terms. They were to be God’s people by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p>These are the sons of Ehud, who are the heads of fathers’ households of the inhabitants of Geba, and they carried them captive to Manahath- </p><p>This Ehud appears rather abruptly, and may be the same as "Abihud" of :3. But the judge of Israel, Ehud, was a Benjamite who was son of Gera (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>), and he sounds like the same person. So these men listed as "sons of Ehud" may&nbsp; actually simply be 'relatives of' Ehud, for "sons of" is a very vague phrase in Hebrew. In this case we would be learning that Ehud's family were carried captive to Manahath, a place in Moab. And this would explain his motivation in fighting to free Israel from Moabite domination:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Naaman, Ahijah and Gera. He carried them captive, and he became the father of Uzza and Ahihud- </p><p>See on :4. The idea may be that Ehud had two sons after his relatives had been taken captive to Moab. Their names, "strong" and "riddle", may refer to Ehud's being left-handed, and his slaying of Eglon by that strength. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Shaharaim divorced his two wives, Hushim and Baara. Later, when he lived in the country of Moab, he married Hodesh- </p><p>These records seem to stress the weakness and occasional strength of these children of God. This is one of the major lessons from Chronicles. Every now and then, the list of names is interrupted by a piece of information which indicates God’s awareness of their spirituality. For example, the fact some men had more than one wife or a wife from a nation other than Israel is often recorded (<a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:130 2:26'>1Ch 2:26</a>; <a href='B:130 2:35'>1Ch 2:35</a>; <a href='B:130 2:48'>1Ch 2:48</a>; <a href='B:130 4:18'>1Ch 4:18</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a>; <a href='B:130 8:8'>1Ch 8:8</a>). The way these interruptions occur in the lists of names stands out. This is surely to indicate two things: that many faithful men (e.g. Abraham and Caleb, <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:46'>1Ch 2:46</a>) made mistakes in this area of life, and secondly that all down the centuries God has not forgotten that they married out of the faith, or that they allowed the pressures of their surrounding world to influence them to break away from the ideal one man: one woman standard of Eden. These two facts provide us with both warning and comfort, in that although God is sensitive to failure, He is still able to justify men, to count them as if they are righteous for the sake of their covenant relationship with Him, even though (e.g.) their married life was not completely in order.</p><p>But the translation of this verse is very difficult and I suggest we may be intended to understand that Shaharaim ['double dawn'] went into captivity in Moab, and there he had many children. This would then connect with how when Ehud's relatives went into captivity in Moab, he had two sons and vowed to liberate Israel from Moab (:7)- which he did.</p>


text:
<p>his wife and had seven sons: Jobab, Zibia, Mesha, Malcam- </p><p>These children of his second marriage were a new beginning for Shaharaim, perhaps that is the sense of his name, 'double dawn'. But their names include the god Malcam of Ammon [which was likely also worshipped in Moab where they had been in captivity], which doesn't give the impression of much spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Jeuz, Shachia and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads of fathers’ households- </p><p>As noted on :9, these names all tend to have idol or apostate associations. Jeuz = 'departure / apostacy', Shachia = 'captivation', Mirmah = 'deceit'.</p>


text:
<p>By Hushim he became the father of Abitub and Elpaal- </p><p>But in :8 we read he had divorced Hushim. Perhaps he remarried her, an abomination under the law. Maybe that is also the reference of his name, 'double dawn'. The theme of spiritual weakness is again continued.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Elpaal: Eber, Misham and Shemed, who built Ono and Lod with its towns- </p><p>The Chronicles genealogies were rewritten for the exiles, to enable them to better locate themselves within Israel's history. These cities featured in the restoration (<a href='B:150 2:33'>Ezr 2:33</a>; <a href='B:160 7:37'>Neh 7:37</a>; <a href='B:160 11:35'>Neh 11:35</a>). The Targum adds “Which the children of Israel ravaged and burnt with fire, when they made war on the tribe of Benjamin in Gibeah”.</p>


text:
<p>and Beriah and Shema, who were heads of fathers’ households of the inhabitants of Aijalon, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath- </p><p>This appears in purposeful contrast to how the men of Gath are recorded as slaying some of the men of Ephraim the largest tribe (<a href='B:130 7:21'>1Ch 7:21</a>), whereas the men of Benjamin, the smallest tribe, slew the men of Gath (<a href='B:130 8:13'>1Ch 8:13</a>). It is God’s way of showing how He works through the small and confounds the things which appear mighty.</p>


text:
<p>and Ahio, Shashak, Jeremoth- </p><p>From :13,14 we appear to have a new list of Benjamite heads of families. The names from :14 - :27 are divided into five groups: the sons of Beriah (:16), Elpaal (:18), Shimei (:21), Shashak (:25) and Jeroham (:27).</p>


text:
<p>Zebadiah, Arad, Eder- </p><p>Arad, "fugitive / exile", is one of several examples of names which sound appropriate to the exiles; see on :18. The message of the genealogies was and is that God’s people had been in defeat, exile and captivity before, but had survived:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Michael, Ishpah and Joha, the sons of Beriah- </p><p>I suggested on :14 that this is a new list of Benjamite heads of families, separate to that which precedes it. But the names Beriah and Shashak repeat (:16,25) what is in :13,14. It could be the names simply repeat, as we saw on :4, where the sons of Ehud were named after those of Benjamin / Bela, as a sign of loyalty to the founding fathers of the tribe. Perhaps this was a tradition of the Benjamites. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>and Zebadiah, Meshullam, Hizki, Heber- </p><p>We wonder whether these are sons of the same Elpaal of :12. But as suggested on :16, to recycle personal names appears to have been a Benjamite tradition, as it has been in many tribes worldwide.</p>


text:
<p>Ishmerai, Izliah and Jobab, the sons of Elpaal- </p><p>These names again, as noted on :15, are examples of names which sound appropriate to the exiles. Ishmerai ("He who will be preserved"), Izliah ("Yah will draw out") and Jobab ("weeper", as the exiles wept by the rivers of Babylon). The message of the genealogies was and is that God’s people had been in defeat, exile and captivity before, but had survived.</p>


text:
<p>and Jakim, Zichri, Zabdi- </p><p>Names again pertinent to the exile; respectively, "He will raise up / He will remember / He will give".</p>


text:
<p>Elienai, Zillethai, Eliel- </p><p>Elienai is “My eyes look towards Jehovah", which was the feeling of the faithful captives in <a href='B:230 123:2'>Psa 123:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Adaiah, Beraiah and Shimrath, the sons of Shimei- </p><p>"Yah has adorned" (Adaiah) and "Yah has created" (Beraiah) state the parents' faith that what God had promised, to create (<a href='B:290 65:17'>Isa 65:17</a>) and adorn (<a href='B:300 31:4'>Jer 31:4</a>) a restored Israel, He had as good as done. For this is the essence of faith- to feel and believe that what is not yet fulfilled has in fact happened, so certain is God to come through with His purpose (<a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and Ishpan, Eber, Eliel- </p><p>Again we see the repetition of the name Eliel (:20). This confirms the suggestion on :4,16,17 that this chapter is not in fact hopelessly jumbled by various editors, but simply reflects a common tribal tradition of repeating names. We recall how Israel and Judah both had a king called Jehoram at the same time (<a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Abdon, Zichri, Hanan- </p><p>As noted on :22, many of these names repeat; another Zichri is in :19.</p>


text:
<p>Hananiah, Elam, Anthothijah- </p><p>Perhaps meaning a person from Anathoth, which was in Benjamin and was a priestly town, where Jeremiah was from (<a href='B:300 1:1'>Jer 1:1</a>). But the form in which it is here means 'Yah answers'.</p>


text:
<p>Iphdeiah, and Penuel the sons of Shashak- </p><p>I suggested on :14 that this is a new list of Benjamite heads of families, separate to that which precedes it. But the names Beriah and Shashak repeat (:16,25) what is in :13,14. It could be the names simply repeat, as we saw on :4, where the sons of Ehud were named after those of Benjamin / Bela, as a sign of loyalty to the founding fathers of the tribe. Perhaps this was a tradition of the Benjamites. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>and Shamsherai, Shehariah, Athaliah- </p><p>"Shehariah", "Yah has sought", has relevance to God’s seeking of His lost sheep at the restoration, as prophesied in Ezekiel 34 and often. But they had to seek Him (<a href='B:350 5:15'>Hos 5:15</a> uses the same word for "sought"); and the meeting of the searching God with the man searching for Him can be electric, the Father meeting the prodigal.</p>


text:
<p>Jaareshiah, Elijah and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham- </p><p>There is also a Zichri in :19,23; see on :22. "Elijah", 'Yahweh is the God', would be a challenge to Israel's common idea that they could serve Yahweh through serving the other gods. But their one and only God was to be Yahweh, and that left no space for worshipping any other god.</p>


text:
<p>These were heads of fathers’ households throughout their generations, chief men: these lived in Jerusalem- </p><p>This appears to begin the summary of the Jerusalem Levites and their division of labour which finishes in <a href='B:130 9:34'>1Ch 9:34</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In Gibeon there lived the father of Gibeon, whose wife’s name was Maacah- </p><p>The following genealogical information on Saul is to provide background for the historical narrative which will begin with the death of Saul in 1 Chronicles 10. And it begins with the point that Saul was grandson of the founder of Gibeon, or Gibeah of Saul. When he made out to Samuel that he was from an insignificant family, he was [like us when facing God’s call] making desperately untrue excuses.</p>


text:
<p>and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur, Kish, Baal, Nadab- </p><p>When a passage is repeated twice, surely God wishes us to perceive something. <a href='B:130 8:30-34'>1Ch 8:30-34</a> is repeated in 9:36-40. The reason seems to be that the name 'Baal' was used by the leaders of Israel. Gibeon's children included Kish and Baal, Kish's son was king Saul, Saul had a son called Eshbaal&nbsp; as well as Jonathan, David’s beloved friend; and Jonathan had a son called Meribbaal. These are not the names as recorded elsewhere; evidently the Chronicles record is highlighting the fact that there was a strand of weakness for idols in the family of Saul, including in Jonathan- who was a type of us in his friendship of David / Jesus. Surely this helps us to better relate to him; his love of David, his appreciation of David’s righteousness, his belief that David would have the future Kingdom, struggled against the fact that the worldly influence of his father and great-grandfather still rubbed off upon him.</p>


text:
<p>Gedor, Ahio and Zecher- </p><p>We note that none of the names of the sons of Kish feature the 'Yah' prefix or suffix. Saul didn’t come from a spiritual background, and yet the Spirit of God was strong enough to change him and give him "another heart". Just as it can transform secular, irreligious man today.</p>


text:
<p>Mikloth became the father of Shimeah. They also lived with their brothers in Jerusalem, over against their brothers- </p><p>The idea is that some of the family lived in Jerusalem, 'opposite', as it were, the family who remained in Gibeah. Jerusalem was originally in Benjamin's territory. Mikloth may refer to another brother of Saul. For the purpose of this genealogy is to introduce us to Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Ner became the father of Kish; and Kish became the father of Saul; and Saul became the father of Jonathan, Malchishua, Abinadab and Eshbaal- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 16:8'>1Sa 16:8</a>. <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 son of Jonathan was Merib Baal; and Merib Baal became the father of Micah- </p><p>Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>) 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. He is called "Mephibosheth" in <a href='B:100 9:6'>2Sa 9:6</a>, which 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>Tragically, we so often read of Yahweh's people carrying the names of Baal or other gods within their own names- e.g. Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>); Ishbaal (<a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a>); Baal-yada (<a href='B:130 14:7'>1Ch 14:7</a>); and perhaps worst of all, Baal-Yah (<a href='B:130 12:5'>1Ch 12:5</a>). Is our 'name' or personality before God the same tragic mixture of flesh and spirit?</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Micah: Pithon, Melech, Tarea, and Ahaz- </p><p>Micah may refer to another brother or son of Saul, or possibly to a child of Jonathan. For the purpose of this genealogy is to introduce us to Saul. "Melech", "king", may refer to the son or relative whom Saul favoured to succeed him, as kings often didn’t choose their firstborn sons to succeed them. In this case, it reflects his refusal to believe the reality of the fact that David was to succeed him. Men are all the time in denial of God’s word and all the evidence that it is going to come true, and act and plan as if sleepwalking or in amnesia, as if it will not.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz became the father of Jehoaddah; and Jehoaddah became the father of Alemeth, Azmaveth and Zimri; and Zimri became the father of Moza- </p><p>Jehoaddah is called Jarah in <a href='B:130 9:42'>1Ch 9:42</a>. "Jarah" is the very same word for "honeycomb" used in the record of how Jonathan ate of a honeycomb after his great victory over the Philistines, and his father Saul sought to kill him for it (<a href='B:90 14:27'>1Sa 14:27</a>). We are reading here of the relatives of Saul, so it may well be that this child was named in favour of and respect for Jonathan rather than Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Moza became the father of Binea; Raphah was his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son- </p><p>We may wonder this particular line of Saul's family is recorded. We note that unlike the names of Saul's brothers, the names of this branch generally speak of God or spiritual things. Perhaps the names carried significance to those for whom these genealogies were first prepared. Or maybe the idea is that those who are spiritually minded are the ones whose name is preserved.</p>


text:
<p>Azel had six sons, whose names are these: Azrikam, Bocheru, Ishmael, Sheariah, Obadiah and Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel- </p><p>As noted on :37, these are all generally Godly or spiritual names. The fact they are all such names is surely a signpost to the fact that Azel was a spiritual person. And yet Saul's branch of the family didn’t have such names. This may be to point up the way that God it seems willfully chose a person from an unspiritual background, when there were more spiritually qualified people even within his own wider family. Because He wished to declare His power of transformation in that man, through the work of the Spirit on his heart; even though Saul was to later refuse to cooperate. But this, it seems, was God’s potential plan for him.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Eshek his brother: Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second, and Eliphelet the third- </p><p>Ulam is twelfth from Saul, although generations are often skipped in these genealogies. So seeing that Hezekiah was thirteenth from David, we can conclude that it was Isaiah or Hezekiah who may have first ordered these genealogies to be drawn up, although they were rewritten at the times of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ulam were mighty men of valour, archers, and had many sons, and sons’ sons, one hundred and fifty. All these were of the sons of Benjamin- </p><p>Saul is likewise described as a "mighty man of valour" (<a href='B:90 9:1'>1Sa 9:1</a>). The impression is given that he was from a family which included many such people. And yet this would mean that Saul was making excuses when he attempts to turn down Samuel's call of him to kingship; for he therefore wrongly claimed that he was from a small and insignificant, unqualified family in Benjamin. We too can make all manner of dumb excuses and paint a quite wrong self image- in order to avoid God’s call.</p>


text:
<p>So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies - they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. Judah was carried away captive to Babylon for their disobedience- </p><p><a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a> records Judah being ‘reckoned by genealogies’, using the same Hebrew word which is the hallmark of the Chronicles genealogies (<a href='B:130 4:33'>1Ch 4:33</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 5:7'>1Ch 5:7</a>; <a href='B:130 5:17'>1Ch 5:17</a>; <a href='B:130 7:5'>1Ch 7:5</a>; <a href='B:130 7:7'>1Ch 7:7</a>; <a href='B:130 7:9'>1Ch 7:9</a>; <a href='B:130 7:40'>1Ch 7:40</a>; <a href='B:130 9:1'>1Ch 9:1</a>; <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a>). And in this context, <a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a> compares God’s ‘bringing out’ of Judah from Babylon with His ‘bringing out’ the stars by their individual names, all wonderfully known to Him. <a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a> had prophesied something similar about the restoration of Zion’s fortunes: “The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there”. The Kingdom of God was to be the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom- but they had to actually get on and restore it rather than wait for it to come.</p>


text:
<p>Now the first inhabitants who lived in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites and the Nethinim- </p><p>"First" here refers to importance rather than first chronologically. The sense is as in <a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a> "Now those who first returned from Babylon to dwell in Judaea, again, dwelt [not in Jerusalem, but] in their own cities; this did they all whether they were laymen, priests, Levites; or Nethinim". We note that the common "Israelites" are placed first rather than last. The Levites were themselves but servants, and we see here the importance God attaches to the rank and file.</p>


text:
<p>In Jerusalem lived of the children of Judah, of the children of Benjamin and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh- </p><p>The fact some of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh also lived there is omitted by Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 11:4'>Neh 11:4</a>). Perhaps Nehemiah recognized in his edited version that the prophetic intention of Israel and Judah reuniting in Zion hadn't come about as intended. There had been no repentance, and most of them preferred to remain in exile. So he didn’t even want to give the impression that the intended restoration had happened in this respect.</p>


text:
<p>Uthai the son of Ammihud, son of Omri, son of Imri, son of Bani, of the children of Perez son of Judah- </p><p>From :4-6 we see (as in <a href='B:40 26:20'>Num 26:20</a>) the threefold division of the tribe of Judah (into the children of Perez, Shelah and Zerah).</p>


text:
<p>Of the Shilonites: Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons- </p><p>Related not to the town of Shiloh, but to the descendants of Shelah in the line of Judah (<a href='B:40 26:20'>Num 26:20</a>). Shelah had a very shady beginning and might have seemed doomed to spiritual failure (<a href='B:10 38:5'>Gen 38:5</a>; <a href='B:10 38:11'>Gen 38:11</a>; <a href='B:10 38:14'>Gen 38:14</a>); he was half Canaanite. But from shaky spiritual beginnings, some do make good. And now we are reading of his descendants as those living in Jerusalem as the vanguard of the restoration of God’s Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Zerah: Jeuel, and their brothers, six hundred and ninety- </p><p><a href='B:160 11:6'>Neh 11:6</a> &nbsp;says that "All the sons of Perez who lived in Jerusalem were four hundred and sixty-eight valiant men". At this point the list in 1 Chronicles 9 gives the number of the sons of Zerah as 690. It is clear therefore that neither list is complete. But that is no contradiction.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Benjamin: Sallu the son of Meshullam, son of Hodaviah, son of Hassenuah- </p><p>Better “and Hodaviah the son of Hasenuah”, the same person as “Judah the son of Has-senuah” in <a href='B:160 11:9'>Neh 11:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and Ibneiah son of Jeroham, and Elah the son of Uzzi, son of Michri, and Meshullam the son of Shephatiah, son of Reuel, son of Ibnijah- </p><p><a href='B:160 11:8'>Neh 11:8</a> adds: "After him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred and twenty-eight". These are not mentioned here in the parallel <a href='B:130 9:8'>1Ch 9:8</a> where the chiefs of Benjamin inferior to Sallu are Ibneiah, Elah and Meshullam. There is no contradiction; it's simply that neither of the lists are exhaustive.</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers, according to their generations, nine hundred and fifty-six. All these men were heads of fathers’ households by their fathers’ houses- </p><p>"Brothers" is a vague term in Hebrew, and this would account for the slight difference in numbers with <a href='B:160 11:8'>Neh 11:8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Of the priests: Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, Jachin- </p><p>Those three are names of the priestly orders in <a href='B:130 24:7'>1Ch 24:7</a>. In Ezra 7, 15 names are listed between Ezra and Aaron- covering about 1000 years. Clearly many generations were omitted. We note there are 26 names listed between Zerubbabel (a generation or two before Ezra) and Nashon a contemporary of Aaron, in <a href='B:130 2:10-15'>1Ch 2:10-15</a>; <a href='B:130 3:1-19'>1Ch 3:1-19</a>. Some details of the omitted generations are found in <a href='B:130 9:10-11'>1Ch 9:10-11</a>; <a href='B:160 11:11'>Neh 11:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and Azariah son of Hilkiah, son of Meshullam, son of Zadok, son of Meraioth, son of Ahitub, the ruler of God’s house- </p><p>This might (<a href='B:140 31:10'>2Ch 31:10</a>; <a href='B:140 31:13'>2Ch 31:13</a>) or might not (<a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a>) refer to the High Priest.</p>


text:
<p>and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, son of Pashhur, son of Malchijah, and Maasai son of Adiel, son of Jahzerah, son of Meshullam, son of Meshillemith, son of Immer- </p><p>Compare this with <a href='B:160 11:13'>Neh 11:13</a>: "And his brothers, chiefs of fathers’ households, two hundred and forty-two; and Amashsai the son of Azarel, the son of Ahzai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son of Immer". AV: "Amashai (R:V. Amashsai) the son of Azareel (R:V. Azarel), the son of Ahasai (R:V. Ahzai), the son of Meshillemoth]". Compare the parallel in <a href='B:130 9:12'>1Ch 9:12</a>,&nbsp; "Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith". The same person is in view. Comparing the names we see how the Biblical genealogies omit some names and generations, and also how the same name is rendered slightly differently. This is partly because of the difficulty of transliterating letters from non-Latin languages, especially ancient ones. But there are also substantive differences. Names in non-literate societies were pronounced differently and spelt differently in different contexts.</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers, heads of their fathers’ houses, one thousand seven hundred and sixty; very able men for the work of the service of God’s house- </p><p><a href='B:160 11:14'>Neh 11:14</a> "mighty men of valour". Their "valour" was in their ability to serve. For this is the true bravery.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Levites: Shemaiah son of Hasshub, son of Azrikam, son of Hashabiah, of the sons of Merari- </p><p>Hashabiah is called "the son of Bunni" in Nehemiah 11, but a man could be the descendant of more than one person, understanding "son of" as 'descendant' rather than literally.</p>


text:
<p>and Bakbakkar, Heresh, Galal, and Mattaniah son of Mica, son of Zichri, son of Asaph- </p><p>The Hebrew words can be read differently, either as proper nouns with meanings, or words; hence <a href='B:160 11:17'>Neh 11:17</a> "Bakbukiah the second among his brethren".</p>


text:
<p>and Obadiah son of Shemaiah, son of Galal, son of Jeduthun, and Berechiah son of Asa, son of Elkanah, who lived in the villages of the Netophathites- </p><p>These villages were hamlets around Bethlehem (<a href='B:130 2:54'>1Ch 2:54</a>; <a href='B:160 7:26'>Neh 7:26</a>). Perhaps because of the long term influence of David, who was from there, this area became a source of faithful people (<a href='B:150 2:22'>Ezr 2:22</a>; <a href='B:130 27:13'>1Ch 27:13</a>; <a href='B:130 27:15'>1Ch 27:15</a>; <a href='B:160 12:28'>Neh 12:28</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The porters: Shallum, Akkub, Talmon and Ahiman, and their brothers (Shallum was the chief)- </p><p>The genealogy of the sons of Korah, the gatekeepers of the temple, is recorded in 9:17-19. It can be shown from the genealogies that they were brought up by their second cousin, Phinehas. They obeyed the command to leave the tents of their father Korah when he was consumed in the earthquake. <a href='B:40 16:27'>Num 16:27</a> mentions Dathan and Abiram's children standing outside their tents at this time, but there is the pointed omission of Korah's children; they had left the tents. We can therefore build up a picture of Phinehas as a zealot for the purity of God’s Truth (Numbers 25), yet mixed with compassion, as shown by the way he took those children of Korah under his wing, and brought them up soundly in the Truth, with the result that wrote at least 11 of the Psalms and protected the purity of temple worship. It should be noted that Samuel was a Korahite (6:33-38).</p>


text:
<p>who previously served in the king’s gate eastward: they were the porters for the camp of the children of Levi- </p><p>This was the gate specially built in the temple by which the king entered (<a href='B:120 16:18'>2Ki 16:18</a>; <a href='B:330 46:1-2'>Eze 46:1-2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, and his brothers, of his father’s house, the Korahites, were over the work of the service, keepers of the thresholds of the tent. Their fathers had been over the camp of Yahweh, keepers of the entry- </p><p>When Israel walked with God, “The hosts of the children of Levi” were actually called “the host / camp of Yahweh” (<a href='B:130 9:18-19'>1Ch 9:18-19</a> Heb:). If we each have a guardian Angel, it makes sense that the hosts of God’s people on earth are represented by Angelic hosts in the Heavens.</p>


text:
<p>Phinehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them in time past, and Yahweh was with him- </p><p>The allusion may be to how it was at the door of the tabernacle / tent of the congregation that Phinehas stopped the apostasy of Israel. It seems from <a href='B:40 25:6-8'>Num 25:6-8</a> that the Midianite woman and the Israelite were having sex within "the tent", the tabernacle. Phinehas was remembered for this by his descendants directing the guards at the door of the tent (<a href='B:130 9:19'>1Ch 9:19</a>). The actions of the couple were therefore intended to turn the holy place into a place where Yahweh was supposedly worshipped through sex with prostitutes, exactly the way of pagan religions, and which was a problem in the churches at Corinth and Ephesus.</p>


text:
<p>Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was porter of the door of the Tent of Meeting- </p><p>The "porters and singers" at the restoration were Levites (<a href='B:160 7:1'>Neh 7:1</a>). The use of Levites to guard the gates was a conscious attempt to restore the situation in Solomon's temple (<a href='B:130 9:17-22'>1Ch 9:17-22</a>; <a href='B:130 26:12-19'>1Ch 26:12-19</a>). We should also remember that the Levites and priests accounted for about half the population of Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:6-19'>Neh 11:6-19</a> cp. <a href='B:130 9:9-22'>1Ch 9:9-22</a>). According to <a href='B:330 44:11-14'>Eze 44:11-14</a>, the repentant Levites were to be the gatekeepers in the restored temple. But there is no evidence they did repent, indeed the record in Nehemiah shows they were on the side of the Samaritan opposition, intermarrying with them; and so the Kingdom situation possible at the restoration was precluded.</p>


text:
<p>All these who were chosen to be porters in the thresholds were two hundred and twelve- </p><p>Compare <a href='B:160 11:19'>Neh 11:19</a> "Moreover the porters, Akkub, Talmon, and their brothers, who kept watch at the gates, were one hundred and seventy-two". <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a> gives 212. It depends exactly what time 1 Chronicles 9 refers to. And guards of the gates may have included others who were not in this particular list of "porters", for as noted several times, neither of the lists are exhaustive.</p><p>These were reckoned by genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the prophet ordained- </p><p>This gives us an insight into David’s mind when he was fleeing from Saul:&nbsp; The last time that Samuel and David are seen together is when David fled for his life from his own house – before Saul was dead and David on the throne.</p><p>In their office of trust- </p><p>As any employer soon learns, delegation is a risk. We have been “entrusted with the Gospel” (<a href='B:630 1:3'>Tit 1:3</a> RV); and therefore the world God so wants to love, the world God is appealing to, may never see Him; for He makes His appeal through us, as Paul told the Corinthians. Those who did God’s work in the Old Testament temple were similarly given a “trust”, they were entrusted with God’s work.</p>


text:
<p>So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of the house of Yahweh, even the house of the tent, as guards- </p><p>This could imply that the holy and / or most holy place was still beneath a tent; or that it was still called this in recognition of the fact God didn’t really want a house at all, but preferred to dwell in a tent.</p>


text:
<p>On the four sides were the porters, toward the east, west, north, and south- </p><p>Further details are in <a href='B:130 26:14-18'>1Ch 26:14-18</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Their brothers, in their villages, were to come in every seven days from time to time to be with them- </p><p>Perhaps it is the villages of the Netophathites which are in view (:16; <a href='B:160 12:28'>Neh 12:28</a>). These were in Bethlehem, not so far from the temple.</p>


text:
<p>for the four chief porters, who were Levites, were in an office of trust, and were over the rooms and over the treasuries in God’s house- </p><p>See on :22. These chambers around the temple court were where the holy vessels and tithes were stored (<a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>; <a href='B:140 31:5'>2Ch 31:5</a>; <a href='B:140 31:11-12'>2Ch 31:11-12</a>; <a href='B:160 13:4-9'>Neh 13:4-9</a>). It could be to these rooms which the Lord Jesus alludes when He says that in God’s house / temple, there are many such rooms and He will go to die on the cross to prepare them for our use (<a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a>). As :33 shows, the Levites at times slept in them. He clearly has in view the temple as a spiritual house, comprised of people not bricks. The idea is that His death achieved for us not only salvation, but eternal service as priests within God’s "house", being about God’s work and business for the sake of others' salvation and implementing their relationship with God. This is what eternity will be about. And it is in this life which we develop our desire to do these things, so that the Kingdom will be a time when all the frustrations and barriers to such service are removed.</p>


text:
<p>They lodged around God’s house, because that duty was theirs. To them pertained its opening morning by morning- </p><p>"They" are the four chief porters of :26. We recall how Samuel as a non-Levite was charged with this work.</p>


text:
<p>Certain of them were in charge of the vessels of service; for by count were these brought in and by count were these taken out- </p><p>This could imply that things were at such a low ebb spiritually that there was the possibility of them being stolen, as they would have been made of precious metals.</p>


text:
<p>Some of them also were appointed over the furniture, and over all the vessels of the sanctuary, and over the fine flour, the wine, the oil, the frankincense and the spices- </p><p>These were specifically the things required for the daily sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>Some of the sons of the priests prepared the mix of the spices- </p><p>This was forbidden to any others on pain of death (<a href='B:20 30:33'>Exo 30:33</a>; <a href='B:20 30:35'>Exo 30:35</a>). This refers to the careful preparation of the incense (<a href='B:20 37:29'>Exo 37:29</a>), which represents how the Lord Jesus fuses together so many different factors in our prayers (<a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a>). For "we know not how to pray as we ought" (<a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a>), and He is the only priest who can put together all the surrounding dimensions which are what God sees as 'prayer'. For prayer before God is far more than the words we think or say.</p>


text:
<p>Mattithiah, one of the Levites, who was the firstborn of Shallum the Korahite, had the office of trust over the things that were baked in pans- </p><p>Zechariah is the firstborn of Shallum in <a href='B:130 26:2'>1Ch 26:2</a>. These may be the same person, as people often had more than one name. Or "Shallum" may refer not to an individual but to a family.</p>


text:
<p>Some of their brothers, of the sons of the Kohathites, were over the show bread, to prepare it every Sabbath- </p><p>Literally, "the pile"; the cakes were piled in two rows on the table of shewbread (<a href='B:30 24:5-8'>Lev 24:5-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>These are the singers, heads of fathers’ households of the Levites, who lived in the rooms and were free from other service; for they were employed in their work day and night- </p><p>These rooms were storerooms but were lived in by the Levites when on duty. As explained on :26, they were understood by the Lord Jesus to symbolize our eternal place in God’s purpose. We will therefore be eternally as Levites on duty, "day and night". It is in this life that we attain a taste for that work and a desire to be always about it. If we approach the Lord's service from a minimalist perspective, then such service being done eternally will not be something we really want.</p>


text:
<p>These were heads of fathers’ households of the Levites, throughout their generations, chief men. They lived at Jerusalem-</p><p>This appears to draw to a conclusion the summary of the Jerusalem Levites and their division of labour which began in <a href='B:130 8:28'>1Ch 8:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In Gibeon there lived the father of Gibeon, Jeiel, whose wife’s name was Maacah- </p><p>This genealogical information on Saul is to provide background for the historical narrative which will begin with the death of Saul in 1 Chronicles 10.</p>


text:
<p>His firstborn son Abdon, then Zur, Kish, Baal, Ner, Nadab- </p><p>When a passage is repeated twice, surely God wishes us to perceive something. <a href='B:130 8:30-34'>1Ch 8:30-34</a> is repeated in 9:36-40. The reason seems to be that the name 'Baal' was used by the leaders of Israel. Gibeon's children included Kish and Baal, Kish's son was king Saul, Saul had a son called Eshbaal&nbsp; as well as Jonathan, David’s beloved friend; and Jonathan had a son called Meribbaal. These are not the names as recorded elsewhere; evidently the Chronicles record is highlighting the fact that there was a strand of weakness for idols in the family of Saul, including in Jonathan- who was a type of us in his friendship of David / Jesus. Surely this helps us to better relate to him; his love of David, his appreciation of David’s righteousness, his belief that David would have the future Kingdom, struggled against the fact that the worldly influence of his father and great-grandfather still rubbed off upon him.</p>


text:
<p>Gedor, Ahio, Zechariah and Mikloth- </p><p>We note that none of the names of the sons of Kish feature the 'Yah' prefix or suffix. Saul didn’t come from a spiritual background, and yet the Spirit of God was strong enough to change him and give him "another heart". Just as it can transform secular, irreligious man today.</p>


text:
<p>Mikloth became the father of Shimeam. They also lived with their brothers in Jerusalem, over against their brothers- </p><p>The idea is that some of the family lived in Jerusalem, 'opposite', as it were, the family who remained in Gibeah. Jerusalem was originally in Benjamin's territory. Mikloth may refer to another brother of Saul. For the purpose of this genealogy is to introduce us to Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Ner became the father of Kish; and Kish became the father of Saul; and Saul became the father of Jonathan, Malchishua, Abinadab and Eshbaal- </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 son of Jonathan was Merib Baal; and Merib Baal became the father of Micah- </p><p>Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>) 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><p>Tragically, we so often read of Yahweh's people carrying the names of Baal or other gods within their own names- e.g. Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>); Ishbaal (<a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a>); Baal-yada (<a href='B:130 14:7'>1Ch 14:7</a>); and perhaps worst of all, Baal-Yah (<a href='B:130 12:5'>1Ch 12:5</a>). Is our 'name' or personality before God the same tragic mixture of flesh and spirit?</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Micah: Pithon, Melech, Tahrea and Ahaz- </p><p>Micah may refer to another brother or son of Saul. For the purpose of this genealogy is to introduce us to Saul. "Melech", "king", may refer to the son or relative whom Saul favoured to succeed him, as kings often didn’t choose their firstborn sons to succeed them. In this case, it reflects his refusal to believe the reality of the fact that David was to succeed him. Men are all the time in denial of God’s word and all the evidence that it is going to come true, and act and plan as if sleepwalking or in amnesia, as if it will not.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz became the father of Jarah; and Jarah became the father of Alemeth, Azmaveth and Zimri; and Zimri became the father of Moza- </p><p>"Jarah" is the very same word for "honeycomb" used in the record of how Jonathan ate of a honeycomb after his great victory over the Philistines, and his father Saul sought to kill him for it (<a href='B:90 14:27'>1Sa 14:27</a>). We are reading here of the relatives of Saul, so it may well be that this child was named in favour of and respect for Jonathan rather than Saul.</p>


text:
<p>and Moza became the father of Binea, and Rephaiah his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son- </p><p>We may wonder this particular line of Saul's family is recorded. We note that unlike the names of Saul's brothers, the names of this branch generally speak of God or spiritual things. Perhaps the names carried significance to those for whom these genealogies were first prepared. Or maybe the idea is that those who are spiritually minded are the ones whose name is preserved.</p>


text:
<p>Azel had six sons, whose names are: Azrikam, Bocheru, Ishmael, Sheariah, Obadiah and Hanan. These were the sons of Azel- </p><p><a href='B:130 8:38-39'>1Ch 8:38-39</a> says that Azel had a nephew called Ulam. Ulam is twelfth from Saul, although generations are often skipped in these genealogies. So seeing that Hezekiah was thirteenth from David, we can conclude that it was Isaiah or Hezekiah who may have first ordered these genealogies to be drawn up, although they were rewritten at the times of the exiles.</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.  </p>


text:
<p>The Philistines followed hard after Saul and after his sons; and the Philistines 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 hard against Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was badly wounded by the archers- </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 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 terrified. Therefore Saul took his sword and fell on it- </p><p>We need to realize that we have more influence upon others than we may think. It can be that an illiterate sister in a male dominated society can think that her attendance at ecclesial meetings cannot encourage anyone. It can be that the Christian stockbroker feels that it is impossible for him to influence those he works with. But we do have influence. Saul’s armour bearer would not kill him when he was mortally wounded. Although he was one of Saul’s men, in the anti-David camp, yet David’s example of not killing Saul must have deeply influenced him. We do make a difference. We have become so humiliated by a shame based society that we can underestimate the value and power of our own personhood.</p><p>"Terrified" 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- </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 all his family died 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 this or <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 all the men of Israel who were in the valley saw that they 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 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 in the parallel <a href='B:90 31:7'>1Sa 31:7</a>; 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. "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>It happened on the next day, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his 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 stripped him, and took his head, and his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines all around, to carry the news to 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>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 their gods, and fastened his head in the house of Dagon- </p><p><a href='B:90 31:10'>1Sa 31:10</a> adds: "They put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth Shan". <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.</p><p>
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 all Jabesh Gilead heard all that 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 took away the body of Saul, and the bodies of his sons, and brought them to Jabesh, and buried their bones under the oak in Jabesh, and fasted seven days- </p><p><a href='B:90 31:12'>1Sa 31:12</a> adds: "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". Cremation was not common amongst the Israelites, but perhaps they did this lest his body be abused further, seeing that they were under Philistine domination. 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.  But the bones were buried, 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>So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against Yahweh, against the word of Yahweh, which he didn’t keep; and also because he asked counsel of one who had a familiar spirit, to inquire- </p><p>"So Saul died for his trespass..." suggests the hand of God in it- "He killed him" (:14). But he committed suicide. Yet God's hand overruled that. It was of Him. 
</p><p>"The word of Yahweh" connects directly with 1 Sam. 15:2, where the same phrase "the word of Yahweh" refers to the divine order to exterminate the Amalekites. Because he didn't want to "hear" God's word in his life, he didn't get to hear it when he desperately wanted to at the end ("Yahweh didn't answer him", 1 Sam. 28:6). Just as with the foolish virgins and their oil. We reflect that "just" for two sins Saul was condemned. There were many others of course, not least his persecution of David or murdering the priests of Nob, which we might consider to have been his greatest sins. But they aren't mentioned. Why? Perhaps in order to again underline to us that "just" one sin warrants condemnation. Or because his disbelief in and disobedience to God's word was the root failing in all his other sins, e.g. in persecuting David. Or possibly because they were the first and last sins of his kingship.
</p><p>AV "a familiar spirit" is misleading, and many of the modern versions give something like "witch" or [ESV, GNB] "a medium". LXX has "a divining spirit". It doesn't mean she did actually have any such spirit; but that she was considered as having this. Such people were thought to be able to be possessed by the spirit of dead people, and to therefore speak in their name. But the Bible clearly teaches that the "spirit returns to God" (<a href='B:230 146:4'>Psa 146:4</a>; <a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>), and that death is unconsciousness. The spirit of dead persons don't enter other people. I would go so far as to say that the record of the witch at Endor, who supposedly had a "familiar spirit", is deconstructing this belief. For Samuel himself appears, and speaks directly to Saul, and not through the "medium". The woman therefore screamed in shock when Samuel actually appeared. He was resurrected, briefly, in order to give God’s final message to Saul. The people claiming to have "familiar spirits" lay on the ground and mumbled hard to understand words in a voice seeking to imitate the dead person (<a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a>) but Samuel appeared in person and spoke clearly to Saul, directly. We also note that Samuel appeared to Saul standing upright, because Saul bowed before him: "Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect" (<a href='B:90 28:14'>1Sa 28:14</a>). This was quite different to how the mediums lay on the ground and mumbled words into the dust.</p><p>&nbsp;David felt preserved by God from Saul and his other enemies (<a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; <a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>), because he had preserved or obeyed [s:w:] God’s ways (<a href='B:100 22:22'>2Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 22:24'>2Sa 22:24</a>; <a href='B:230 18:21'>Psa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 18:23'>Psa 18:23</a>); whereas Saul didn’t obey / preserve them and was destroyed (<a href='B:90 13:13-14'>1Sa 13:13-14</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Ch 10:13</a>). Hence <a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy".</p>


text:
<p>and didn’t inquire of Yahweh. Therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse- </p><p>Just before his final fight with the Philistines, "Saul enquired of the Lord (but) the Lord answered him not" (<a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>), and therefore he went to a witch. But in God’s final analysis of Saul, Yahweh says that He smote Saul because Saul sinned against God’s word by not enquiring of God, but of a witch (<a href='B:130 10:13-14'>1Ch 10:13-14</a>). But Saul did enquire of God (see <a href='B:90 14:37'>1Sa 14:37</a> s:w. <a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>), but God didn’t answer him (note how often in the records it is stated that David enquired successfully of Yahweh). The point is that although Saul prayed to God and enquired of His word on the surface, in his heart, he did nothing of the sort; and therefore his prayer and enquiry was reckoned never to have happened. And we must ask how much of our prayer and Bible study is seen by God as being only spoken and read on a surface level. This was exactly the problem of natural Israel. "They have not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled (in prayer) upon their beds" (<a href='B:350 7:14'>Hos 7:14</a>). "Though they called them to the Most High, none at all would exalt him" (<a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a>). We have here a powerful challenge to our prayer life. For we can enquire of God on a surface level, as a kind of formality, to soothe the religious conscience which is somewhere in every man. But this is not to really enquire of Him.</p>


text:
<p>Then all Israel gathered themselves to David to Hebron saying- </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>Behold, we are your bone and your flesh- </p><p><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a> alludes here and makes the amazing statement that even now, "We are 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, even when Saul was king, it was you who led out and brought in Israel. Yahweh your God said to you, ‘You shall be shepherd of My people Israel, and you shall be prince over My people 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 David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Yahweh; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of Yahweh by Samuel-</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 and all Israel went to Jerusalem (the same is Jebus). The Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, were there- </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>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 (2 Sam. 5:4). But I have suggested that Yahweh's command in 2 Sam. 2:1 was for David to be king in Hebron ["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"], but he chose Jerusalem [partly in Judah, partly in Benjamin] for political purposes and God went along with that.</p>


text:
<p>The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, You shall not come in here- </p><p><a href='B:100 5:6'>2Sa 5:6</a> gives more detail: "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". "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.  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 (after <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>Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion. The same is the city of David- </p><p>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. </p><p>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, Whoever strikes the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was made chief- </p><p>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 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 in the parallel in 2 Samuel 5 reads 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; therefore they called it the city of David- </p><p>Jerusalem was particularly loved by David. He thereby moved the city into Judah's possession from Benjamin's; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p>He built the city all around, from Millo and all around; and Joab repaired the rest of the city- </p><p>Literally “the Millo” or "filling up”, referring to the defences of the citadel. Perhaps it refers to a place where armour was kept or a tower. "Repaired the rest" can be translated "spared / kept alive" (cp. <a href='B:20 1:17'>Exo 1:17</a>). Maybe the reference is to the Benjamites who lived there, as well as the remaining Jebusites (cp. <a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David grew greater and greater; for Yahweh of Armies was with him-</p><p>Yahweh's hosts of Angelic armies were with David’s armies on earth. 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 in the parallel <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 :6. We are all strange mixtures of spiritual strength and weakness.  And we need to remember that in our interactions with others at their points of weakness.
</p><p>2 Sam. 5:12 adds: "David perceived that Yahweh had established him king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake". 
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 1 Sam. 27:1). 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><p>2 Sam. 5:13 continues: "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". This is hard to read in a positive light spiritually; for Israel's king was not to multiply wives (Dt. 17:17). 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>


text:
<p>Now these are the chief of the mighty men whom David had, who showed themselves strong with him in his kingdom, together with all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of Yahweh concerning Israel- </p><p>Here we have an equivalent list to the "thirty" mighty men or "captains" of David in 2 Samuel 23. But there are more than 30 listed here. "Captains" is a form of the word translated "thirty" used in <a href='B:100 23:23'>2Sa 23:23</a>, and is evidence that the "thirty" are not to be read as a literal number; in any case, 37 names are given for the "mighty men" in 2 Samuel 23, not 30. And there are more here in the parallel record in Chronicles.</p>


text:
<p>This is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the thirty; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and killed them at one time- </p><p>As noted on :10, "the thirty" is not a literal number. Likewise "hundred" need not be taken literally as 100, rather like the term "legion", and can refer to a military group.</p>


text:
<p>After him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighty men- </p><p>He "defied" the Philistines (<a href='B:100 23:9'>2Sa 23:9</a>). "Defied" is the word used of how Goliath had defied Israel (<a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>). David’s victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us.</p>


text:
<p>He was with David at Pasdammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where there was a plot of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines- </p><p>It seems from <a href='B:130 11:13-14'>1Ch 11:13-14</a> that soon after the fight with Goliath, there was another skirmish with the Philistines at Pas-Dammim [RVmg. ‘Ephes-Dammim’- the same place where David fought Goliath]. Again, the men of Israel fled, but those who held fast were given a “great deliverance” [“salvation”, RVmg:], just as David is described as achieving. Those men who stayed and fought were doubtless inspired by David; just as we should be, time and again, by the matchless victory of our Lord on Golgotha. &nbsp;See on <a href='B:90 17:1'>1Sa 17:1</a>. "Plot of ground" is the same phrase used in <a href='B:80 2:3'>Rth 2:3</a>, and again, it was full of Barley. And Ruth and Boaz were the ancestors of David.</p><p>He defended the field of barley because it was valuable to the Israelites. And in this we have a corroboration of the record with how Absalom had burnt Joab's field of barley (2 Sam. 14:30). We may wonder why Joab slew Absalom. It could have been that to lose a field of barley was to lose food for many months or even a year. It was therefore a major loss to Joab. As Shammah defended a field of barley with his life, so Joab was so vengeful at the loss of his field of barley that he later slew Absalom. </p>


text:
<p>They stood in the midst of the plot, and defended it, and killed the Philistines; and Yahweh saved them by a great victory- </p><p>David’s men ‘delivered’ God’s land, and He delivered them (s:w:). There is a mutuality between God and man. Defended" or "delivered" is the word used for David’s victories (<a href='B:90 17:37'>1Sa 17:37</a>; <a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:18'>1Sa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>) which were clearly so inspirational to his men, as the Lord's victory should be to us. The record continually gives the glory to Yahweh for working through His willing workers. They did not achieve these victories in their own strength alone. The very phrase is used in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> describing how Yahweh gave David the great victory over Goliath. This was clearly inspirational to David’s men in their own battles, just as the Lord's victory on the cross should not be seen simply as a historical achievement for us, but an abiding inspiration to us to in essence do likewise.</p><p>Joab apparently murdered because his field of barley was burnt down, showing the value of the field. To lose it would mean starvation.</p>


text:
<p>Three of the thirty chief men went down to the rock to David, into the cave of Adullam; and the army of the Philistines were encamped in the valley of Rephaim-</p><p>Not literally thirty; see on :10. The giants of the Philistines were in the valley of the giants. And they even had a garrison in David’s home town (:16). They appeared insuperable. This refers to an incident during the campaign of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>and said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this! Shall I drink the blood of these men who have put their lives in jeopardy? For they risked their lives to bring it. Therefore he would not drink it. The three mighty men did these things- </p><p>Despite the intense personal loyalty which David inspired, he is to be commended for not allowing this to turn into a mere personality cult. He poured out that water to Yahweh, feeling unworthy to drink it. We note that water represented blood. This is a warning against being too literalistic in requirements concerning the elements of the breaking of bread service. David perceived the spirit of the law about drink offerings, and "poured [water] out to Yahweh" (:18) in a cave, not being a Levitical priest, and far from the sanctuary.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, had done mighty deeds- </p><p>Benaiah was one of David’s senior military commanders (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:130 27:5'>1Ch 27:5</a>), and the Hebrew of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> can be translated "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head", i:e. of a group of David’s mighty men. The Jehoiada in view as his father would therefore be Jehoiada the priest. The idea is that priests were also military leaders within David’s army, indeed it seems there were a large group of them as ordinary soldiers in <a href='B:130 12:27'>1Ch 12:27</a>. This shows how priesthood was not understood as abstract spirituality, but that spirituality was articulated in practice. And this, along with the hints in the names of the mighty men that some were Levites, is significant in that the Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>). But these chose to do it. See on <a href='B:100 24:5'>2Sa 24:5</a>.</p><p>He killed two lion-like men of Moab. He went down also and killed a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow- </p><p>Benaiah killed a lion in order to prepare him for killing two lionlike men. For other examples of repetition in Biblical narratives see <a href='B:120 7:9'>2Ki 7:9</a>; <a href='B:120 7:11'>2Ki 7:11</a>; <a href='B:120 7:16'>2Ki 7:16</a>; <a href='B:130 7:22'>1Ch 7:22</a> [cp. Jacob being comforted by his sons over the loss of Joseph]; Benaiah killed a lion in order to prepare him for killing two lionlike men (<a href='B:130 11:22'>1Ch 11:22</a>); Peter, James and John were asleep at the transfiguration, but became “fully awake” and therefore beheld the Lord’s glory (<a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a>)- they feel asleep in Gethsemane, and didn’t learn from the transfiguration experience.</p><p><a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> has: "He killed the two sons of Ariel of Moab: he went down also and killed a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow". Perhaps this incident occurred at this time of the campaign in <a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>. Although that campaign was not David and his men at their spiritual best; see note there. We see him following the path of David, whose victory over a literal lion gave him courage to fight Goliath. So Benaiah was inspired by David personally to kill a lion, and then kill two lion like men (AV) of Moab. The lion would have been driven by the cold from the forests, and was preyed upon people. Benaiah therefore risked his life for the sake of his people, and slew the lion. See on :46.</p>


text:
<p>He killed an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high; and in the Egyptian’s hand was a spear like a weaver’s beam; and he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and killed him with his own spear- </p><p>Again this is a repeat of the spirit of David’s victory over Goliath, coming to Goliath with a staff and sling, and slaying him with his own weaponry. The point is repeatedly made that like the Lord's victory on the cross, David’s over Goliath was programmatic for the inspiration of his followers to be like him.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada did these things, and had a name among the three mighty men- </p><p>As noted on :21, there seems to be the idea that some of these men were demoted. Thus Benaiah was both amongst the three, but didn’t attain / remain amongst them (:25). "The three" is likely not to be read too literally, but may be a technical term for a group office, like "the thirty"; see on :10,11.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, he was more honourable than the thirty, but he didn’t attain to the three; and David set him over his guard- </p><p>The numbers "three" and "thirty" are not necessarily to be taken literally. A form of the word for "thirty" is used of the "captains", see on :10,11, and of Pharaoh's captains (<a href='B:20 14:7'>Exo 14:7</a>; <a href='B:20 15:4'>Exo 15:4</a>); in any case, in 2 Sam. 23, 37 names are given for the "mighty men", not 30.</p><p>Heb. 'David appointed him to his audience', he was a member of David’s inner circle of advisers on the basis of his faith shown in personal life, and not because of any possession of only theoretical wisdom.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, Abiezer the Anathothite- </p><p>We get the impression that many of these men were living outside the territory of their native tribes. That could have been for various reasons, but perhaps we are to conclude that the men who supported David were [as with us and our loyalty to Jesus] those who had had non standard personal lives which left them isolated from their home areas. Anathoth was a priestly town in Benjamin. Perhaps he too was a priest; see on <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Sibbecai the Hushathite- </p><p>Mebunnai of <a href='B:100 23:27'>2Sa 23:27</a>. He was a descendant of Zerah of Judah (see also on :27) (<a href='B:130 4:4'>1Ch 4:4</a>; <a href='B:130 27:11'>1Ch 27:11</a>).</p><p>Ilai the Ahohite- </p><p>Zalmon the Ahohite of <a href='B:100 23:28'>2Sa 23:28</a>. There is only one Hebrew letter different. This would be an example of slight errors in copying which are found in the Hebrew text, although overall it is Divinely inspired.</p>


text:
<p>Maharai the Netophathite, Heled the son of Baanah the Netophathite- </p><p>This was near Jerusalem and the Levitical singers lived there after the exile (<a href='B:150 2:22'>Ezr 2:22</a>; <a href='B:160 11:28'>Neh 11:28</a>); so he too may have been a Levite living in Judah. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>Ithai the son of Ribai of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin- </p><p>He was from Saul's birthplace, and so would have rejected Saul for David, although David was not from his tribe. He did what was counter instinctive and countercultural, as all David’s followers did. And as do the followers of his greater Son.</p><p>Benaiah the Pirathonite- </p><p>Pirathon was in Ephraim (<a href='B:70 12:15'>Jdg 12:15</a>), and there was always antipathy between Judah and Ephraim. So here again was a man who stepped out from his surrounding cultural expectations in loyalty to David.</p>


text:
<p>Hurai of the brooks of Gaash, Abiel the Arbathite- </p><p>Beth Arabah was a small settlement right out in the desert (<a href='B:60 15:61'>Jos 15:61</a>; <a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), therefore also called Arabah (<a href='B:60 18:18'>Jos 18:18</a>). From such a poor and obscure place there arose a man who was attracted to David’s cause (<a href='B:100 23:31'>2Sa 23:31</a>), just as the Lord calls all manner of unusual people to Himself today.</p>


text:
<p>Azmaveth the Baharumite- </p><p>Coming from Bahurim, he would have been aware of David’s shameful behaviour there (see on <a href='B:100 3:16'>2Sa 3:16</a>) and yet he still followed David. He would have seen David’s actions to Michael and Paltiel as out of character with David generally, and didn’t allow his loyalty to be fazed by them.</p><p>Eliahba the Shaalbonite- </p><p>Eliahba was from Shaalabbin in Dan in the far north, very far from David’s origins (<a href='B:100 23:32'>2Sa 23:32</a>; <a href='B:60 19:42'>Jos 19:42</a>). But somehow he encountered David, and loyally followed him. We marvel at the extent of those who followed David; they were from all over Israel. In those days of limited communication, we wonder how he came to know David well enough to give his life to his cause. But it is the same marvel as we reflect how people are called to the Lord Jesus today.</p>


text:
<p>the sons of Hashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shagee the Hararite- </p><p>As explained on :35, "Jonathan the son of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite".</p>


text:
<p>Ahiam the son of Sacar the Hararite, Eliphal the son of Ur- </p><p>Compare with <a href='B:100 23:33'>2Sa 23:33</a> "Shammah the Hararite, Ahiam the son of Sharar the Ararite". To reconcile this with the record in Chronicles, we may need to read Shammah as one of the sons of Jonathan of the preceding verse. We could then read this verse along with the last part of <a href='B:100 23:32'>2Sa 23:32</a> as "Jonathan the son of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite".</p>


text:
<p>Hepher the Mecherathite, Ahijah the Pelonite- </p><p>"The Maacathite" (<a href='B:100 23:34'>2Sa 23:34</a>). Beth-Maachah was a town in Naphtali (<a href='B:100 20:14'>2Sa 20:14</a>), confirming the impression that David’s closest supporters were not just local family friends, but men providentially drawn to him from all over Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Hezro the Carmelite, Naarai the son of Ezbai- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:35'>2Sa 23:35</a>: "Hezro the Carmelite, Paarai the Arbite". </p><p>Arab is in Judah whereas Carmel is in northern Israel. The juxtaposition of the two confirms the impression that David’s supporters were from all over Israel. The way they were all united together around this man from Bethlehem is amazing, and points forward to the gathering of the disparate followers of the Lord Jesus around Him today."</p>


text:
<p>Joel the brother of Nathan, Mibhar the son of Hagri- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:36'>2Sa 23:36</a> has "Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah". Chronicles has "Joel the brother of Nathan" but Igal and Joel in Hebrew are very similar. Igal would have been a Syrian from Zobah, perhaps one of the soldiers who fought against David (<a href='B:100 10:6'>2Sa 10:6</a>) and then converted to him. The Gittites who followed David were likewise Philistines from Gath who were once his enemies but converted to his God, and devoted themselves zealously to Him. This is an incredible witness to the power of Yahweh to convert, because such willing defections of individuals to the people and God of their enemies, and being zealously committed to Him, was unheard of in their society.</p>


text:
<p>Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Berothite, the armour-bearer of Joab the son of Zeruiah- </p><p>As noted on :38, the one time enemies of David such as Zelek the Ammonite became his most committed followers. Or perhaps his conversion was a result of the one time friendship between David and Ammon, and the support for David by Shobi (<a href='B:100 17:27'>2Sa 17:27</a>). Likewise Naharai was from Beeroth, which although counted to Benjamin (<a href='B:100 4:2'>2Sa 4:2</a>) was inhabited by Gentile Gibeonites, whom Saul had persecuted.</p>


text:
<p>Uriah the Hittite, Zabad the son of Ahlai- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:34'>2Sa 23:34</a> adds "Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite". </p><p>Eliam was the father of Bathsheba, making Ahithophel her grandfather. We can more readily understand why he turned against David after his shameful behaviour with his granddaughter.</p>


text:
<p>Adina the son of Shiza the Reubenite, a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him- </p><p>This confirms the suggestion on :10,11 that "thirty" is not to be read as a literal number, but as a group of captains or some other military division.</p>


text:
<p>Hanan the son of Maacah, and Joshaphat the Mithnite- </p><p>The names in :43-47 don't occur in the list of mighty men of 2 Samuel 23. I suggest that many of them were Gentiles who converted to the cause of David and remained faithful to him; see on :38,39.</p>


text:
<p>Uzzia the Ashterathite, Shama and Jeiel the sons of Hotham the Aroerite- </p><p>This is not the Aroer on the river Arnon, but some smaller settlement in southern Israel, the one listed in <a href='B:90 30:28'>1Sa 30:28</a> as having supported David during his wilderness years. “Shama and Jehiel the sons of Hothan the Aroerite” were amongst David’s mighty men; we conclude that David hid in the area whilst on the run from Saul, and these two men went off with him. It has been observed that Ashterathite and Aroerite are Gentile nouns, Aroer being far east of Jordan (<a href='B:60 13:16'>Jos 13:16</a>; <a href='B:60 13:25'>Jos 13:25</a>), as if here we have more examples of Gentiles converting to David’s cause and remaining faithful, as suggested on :38,39.</p>


text:
<p>Jediael the son of Shimri, and Joha his brother, the Tizite- </p><p>The location of Tiza or Tits is unknown, but I suggested on :43 that these were Gentiles who converted to the cause of David and remained faithful to him; see on :38,39.</p>


text:
<p>Eliel the Mahavite, and Jeribai, and Joshaviah, the sons of Elnaam, and Ithmah the Moabite- </p><p>This Moabite would have been another case of former enemies converting to David’s cause (see on :38,39), impressed by the power of Yahweh. We note that one of David’s mighty men had killed Moabites (:22), so we have here in Ithmah a man who totally reoriented himself from his natural background towards that of God’s people. As all must do who are true converts to the Israel of God and the hope of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Eliel, and Obed, and Jaasiel the Mezobaite- </p><p>"Metsobajah", 'found of Yah', might confirm the above suggestions that this final group of names are of Gentiles who converted to the cause of David and remained faithful to him; see on :38,39.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are those who came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept himself in secret because of Saul the son of Kish; and they were among the mighty men, his helpers in war- </p><p>David was given Ziklag to live in by the Philistines, and he was there 16 months, hemmed in by Saul's men on the Israelite side of the border. The theme developed now is that in that apparently hopeless situation, living with his one time enemies the Philistines for fear of Saul- all manner of people came forward to identify with him. We can understand David at this time as in the position of the Lord Jesus now, before the establishment of His Kingdom. And we are the men who come out to Him, when His cause appears hopeless in a secular sense. He was hemmed in by Saul, but we will now read in :2 that Saul's own family came to support David.</p>


text:
<p>They were armed with bows, and could use both the right hand and the left in slinging stones and in shooting arrows from the bow. They were of Saul’s brothers of Benjamin-</p><p>This continues the theme developed on <a href='B:130 11:38-39'>1Ch 11:38-39</a>, that there was something in David and his cause which attracted his enemies to come over to his side. And so it is with the cause of the Lord Jesus in our age. The Philistine monopoly on iron and metalwork meant the Israelites had to become skilled in archery and slinging, just as David had. So there was an immediate sympathy between these men and David, who was known surely as the greatest Israelite slinger of all time, after his victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>The chief was Ahiezer; then Joash, the sons of Shemaah the Gibeathite, and Jeziel, and Pelet, the sons of Azmaveth, and Beracah, and Jehu the Anathothite- </p><p>These are the men of Saul (:2) who came over to David; some were from "Gibeah of Saul", the home town of Saul. But they were joined by men from the priestly town of Anathoth, and so develops the theme that David’s supporters were from widely different backgrounds, as are the Lord's followers, but cemented together around him and his cause of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>and Ishmaiah the Gibeonite, a mighty man among the thirty, and over the thirty, and Jeremiah, and Jahaziel, and Johanan, and Jozabad the Gederathite- </p><p>"The thirty" is not a literal number, as "captains" and "thirty" are similar words. "The thirty" of 1 Chronicles 11 and 2 Samuel 23 are not literally 30; there are more than 30 listed in 1 Chronicles 11. "Captains" is a form of the word translated "thirty" used in <a href='B:100 23:23'>2Sa 23:23</a>, and is evidence that the "thirty" are not to be read as a literal number; in any case, 37 names are given for the "thirty... mighty men" in 2 Samuel 23, not 30.</p>


text:
<p>Eluzai, and Jerimoth, and Bealiah, and Shemariah, and Shephatiah the Haruphite- </p><p>Tragically, we so often read of Yahweh's people carrying the names of Baal or other gods within their own names- e.g. Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>); Ishbaal (<a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a>); Baal-yada (<a href='B:130 14:7'>1Ch 14:7</a>); and perhaps worst of all, Baal-Yah ("Bealiah", <a href='B:130 12:5'>1Ch 12:5</a>). Is our 'name' or personality before God the same tragic mixture of flesh and spirit?</p>


text:
<p>Elkanah, and Isshiah, and Azarel, and Joezer, and Jashobeam, the Korahites- </p><p>These "Korahites" are not the Levitical ones, but rather the descendants of Caleb through a man called Korah (<a href='B:130 2:43'>1Ch 2:43</a>), and they would therefore have been men of&nbsp; Judah.</p>


text:
<p>and Joelah, and Zebadiah, the sons of Jeroham of Gedor- </p><p>Jeroham was a Benjamite (<a href='B:130 8:27'>1Ch 8:27</a>) living in Gedor of Judah (<a href='B:130 4:4'>1Ch 4:4</a>), perhaps because of his disagreement with the ways and cult of Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Gadites there separated themselves to David to the stronghold in the wilderness, mighty men of valour, men trained for war, that could handle shield and spear; whose faces were like the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes on the mountains- </p><p>David’s ecclesia in the wilderness had faces "like the faces of lions" (Angel-cherubim language?), being "a great host, like the host of God"- David’s host became increasingly in line with God’s Heavenly Hosts of Angels, the four living creatures. We are to reflect the court of Heaven on earth. The Gadites were marauders (<a href='B:10 49:19'>Gen 49:19</a>; <a href='B:130 5:19-22'>1Ch 5:19-22</a>), and exemplify the kind of rough people who came to David with their own agenda, and yet were transformed by him into men of the Kingdom; pointing forward to the work of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>This verse explains how the situation of :1 came about. These men were firstly with David in the wilderness, and then came to him in Ziklag. Coming to David, as with coming to Jesus, meant they had to "separate themselves". They left their tribal homeland east of the Jordan, and had come to "the stronghold", perhaps the cave of Adullam, or the place of <a href='B:90 23:14'>1Sa 23:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Ezer the chief, Obadiah the second, Eliab the third- </p><p>These names all have trust in God as part of their meaning. So the rough, marrauding types of Gad became known for their spirituality as a result of being with David.</p>


text:
<p>Mishmannah the fourth, Jeremiah the fifth- </p><p>Mishmannah, 'one who became fat', stands out from the others as not having a very spiritual name (s:w. <a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a>; <a href='B:160 9:25'>Neh 9:25</a>; <a href='B:300 5:28'>Jer 5:28</a>). It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these lists of names we read the birth names, at other times, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>Attai the sixth, Eliel the seventh- </p><p>"Eliel", 'God is God', could have come to this conclusion from experience with David; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Johanan the eighth, Elzabad the ninth- </p><p>These names surely reflect their experience with David; "Yahweh's grace" and "Yahweh has bestowed".</p>


text:
<p>Jeremiah the tenth, Machbannai the eleventh- </p><p>"Yahweh will raise up" (Jeremiah) shows faith in the future elevation of David and those who had taken his side in these outlaw years.</p>


text:
<p>These of the sons of Gad were captains of the army: he who was least was equal to one hundred, and the greatest to one thousand- </p><p>The similarity in language to <a href='B:30 26:8'>Lev 26:8</a>; <a href='B:290 30:17'>Isa 30:17</a> could suggest that they were in covenant relationship with God and therefore one of them chased a much larger group.</p>


text:
<p>These are those who went over the Jordan in the first month, when it had overflowed all its banks; and they put to flight all them of the valleys, both toward the east, and toward the west- </p><p>This was the month of the snow melt (cp. <a href='B:60 3:15'>Jos 3:15</a>). They had crossed from Gad, east of Jordan, to be with David in Ziklag. Those in the valleys who were loyal to Saul may have tried to stop their passage on the east to west route they were taking, but they put them to flight.</p>


text:
<p>There came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the stronghold to David- </p><p>David was naturally fearful that his ranks would be infiltrated by Saul's Benjamite supporters.</p>


text:
<p>David went out to meet them and responded to them: If you have come peaceably to me to help me, my heart shall be knit to you; but if you have come to betray me to my adversaries, since there is no wrong in my hands, may the God of our fathers look thereon, and rebuke it- </p><p>We sense David’s great mental unity with those who sincerely followed him. They would experience his heart, which was after God’s own heart, knit with theirs. And that is the promise of the spirit of Jesus to those who likewise sincerely come out to Him in this life. But he warns of the fearful consequences of conscious betrayal of him, after the pattern of Judas to the Lord Jesus. If we are not in that category, then we have the assurance of the gift of the spirit / heart of Jesus united with us.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Spirit came on Amasai, who was chief of the thirty, and he said, We are yours, David, and on your side, you son of Jesse. Peace, peace be to you, and peace be to your helpers; for your God helps you. Then David received them, and made them captains of the band- </p><p>This Amasai is likely “Amasa” (<a href='B:100 17:25'>2Sa 17:25</a>; <a href='B:100 19:13'>2Sa 19:13</a>). They had observed that God was really with David, having witnessed or heard of David’s amazing escapes from Saul, and how God was clearly preserving David for a purpose. Perhaps this protestation of sincerity was supported by some activity of the Spirit, so that David would no longer be sceptical of their professions of loyalty to him (see on :17).</p>


text:
<p>Of Manasseh also there fell away some to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle; but they didn’t help them- </p><p>To go and fight God’s people, specifically with Saul, Yahweh's anointed, was exactly against David’s previous principles. But because he had lied about fighting and killing Israelites, he was now told to go and do it. He was being taught that boasting about things you haven't done is still counted as if you have done them. And he was now being forced to a position where he has to quit his sinful situation.</p><p>For the lords of the Philistines sent him away after consultation, saying, He will fall away to his master Saul to the jeopardy of our heads- </p><p>The Philistines 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>This was the grace of Divine intervention. As discussed above, David got into it by his own weakness of faith. But God saved him from it now at the last minute by an unforeseen situation. The Philistines refused to have David and his men anywhere near the battle.</p><p><a href='B:90 29:5'>1Sa 29:5</a> adds: "Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, ‘Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands?’". If indeed Saul reigned literally 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>), this celebration would have been quite some time previously. But the memory of that great humiliation was still very much alive amongst the rank and file of the Philistines. Achish seems so out of touch with these feelings that we wonder if he was himself actually a Philistine, or some non-Philistine who had taken power.</p><p>David had 600 soldiers and their families with him- a large entourage of probably a few thousand people. He had apparently run a protection racket involving Nabal, guarding sheep and isolated farmsteads. He was a military force to be reckoned with, as shown by his behaviour whilst with Achish. Saul had 3000 men under his command, David had 600. We pause to enquire whether David was solely a pious shepherd boy who was fleeing from Saul's obsessive persecution. He was a considerable chieftain, with a strong military reputation. And we enquire whether as time progressed, he was not in some way thinking of taking the throne from Saul by force, whilst sparing Saul's life. And Saul correctly perceived this. Again we wonder at the contrast between this historical David, and the David of Ps. 119 and elsewhere who is waiting patiently in faith for God's word of promise to him to come true. At the same time as having that faith, he was certainly giving the appearance of trying to make it come true in his own strength. This may account for his self talk at this time, that Saul would one day win, and therefore he offered himself to Achish as a mercenary [rewarded, as mercenaries often were, with a land grant, of Ziklag]. There is further evidence from 1 Chron. 12 that David was joined by some of Saul's disillusioned warriors, and that David's intention was to use this large force "to make war against Saul": "The following joined David at Ziklag while he was still in hiding from Saul son of Kish; these were the warriors who gave support in battle; they were armed with the bow and could use both right hand and left hand to sling stones or shoot arrows with the bow; they were kinsmen of Saul from Benjamin... Of Manasseh also there fell away some to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle; but they didn’t help them; for the lords of the Philistines sent him away after consultation, saying, He will fall away to his master Saul to the jeopardy of our heads" (1 Chron. 12:1,2,19). This seems to imply that David was fully intending to go with the Philistines to attack and kill Saul, and then to be made some kind of vassal king of Judah on behalf of the Philistines. This was politics at its worst, and a far cry from the David who twice refused to slay Saul and instead wanted to wait for God's word of promise to come true.</p>


text:
<p>As he went to Ziklag, there joined him of Manasseh, Adnah, Jozabad, Jediael, Michael, Jozabad, Elihu and Zillethai, captains of thousands who were of Manasseh- </p><p>These names generally have God’s name within them. It was the more spiritually minded who came over to David.</p>


text:
<p>They helped David against the band of rovers; for they were all mighty men of valour, and were captains in the army- </p><p>These "rovers" are the Amalekites who attacked Ziklag in 1 Saam. 30. "Band" is the same word used there in <a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:15'>1Sa 30:15</a>. "Were captains" is better "became captains". They were promoted for their valour at the time of the battle with the Amalekites. Even though at the time, the men had spoken of stoning David.</p>


text:
<p>For from day to day men came to David to help him, until there was a great army, like the army of God-</p><p>David’s host increased, until it became “a great host”, “like the host of God” (<a href='B:130 12:22'>1Ch 12:22</a> AV)- the parallel between David’s men and the Angelic hosts is clear. Significantly, the Angelic armies that destroyed the Syrians are called ‘a great host’ in <a href='B:120 7:6'>2Ki 7:6</a>. Asa and his army defeated the Ethiopians- and it’s described as them being “destroyed before Yahweh and before His host” (<a href='B:140 14:13'>2Ch 14:13</a>). Again, the hosts of Israel become the hosts of God. We too are the manifestation of God’s heavenly system upon earth.</p>


text:
<p>These are the numbers of the heads of those who were armed for war, who came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of Yahweh- </p><p>The word of Yahweh was that David would become king. The men who came to David to support him in this were therefore doing God’s will and word, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were acceptable with Him. For even wicked men can be used to fulfil God’s word.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Judah who bore shield and spear were six thousand eight hundred, armed for war- </p><p>This seems a relatively small number for Judah, who were David’s tribe. Perhaps initially it was a case of a prophet not being without honour, except amongst his own people. We note that the numbers of soldiers who came to David from the tribes in the north, and especially those from the tribes east of Jordan, are very high. The southern tribes, Judah, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin, total 25,200. But the men from Zebulun, Naphtali, Dan and Asher total 155,600. But later in David’s reign, an incomplete census of soldiers gave 800,000 "men who drew sword" (<a href='B:100 24:9'>2Sa 24:9</a>). David’s support base was perhaps driven at this stage by those who had been marginalized by Saul, who seemed to what to concentrate power with his tribe of Benjamin. And perhaps these more peripheral peoples had suffered economically from Saul's abusive reign. So as with those who come to Christ today, the push factors are sometimes initially greater than the pull factors and the 'matter of principle' issues.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Simeon, mighty men of valour in war, seven thousand one hundred- </p><p>The tribes are listed as from South to North.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Levi four thousand six hundred- </p><p>The Levites had soldiers and were not simply absorbed with religious matters.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada was the leader of the household of Aaron; and with him were three thousand seven hundred- </p><p>Benaiah was one of David’s senior military commanders (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:130 27:5'>1Ch 27:5</a>), and the Hebrew of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> can be translated "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head", i:e of a group of David’s mighty men. The Jehoiada in view as his father would therefore be Jehoiada the priest. The idea is that priests were also military leaders within David’s army, indeed it seems there were a large group of them as ordinary soldiers in <a href='B:130 12:27'>1Ch 12:27</a>. This shows how priesthood was not understood as abstract spirituality, but that spirituality was articulated in practice. Jehoiada was not high priest, but "leader" of the Levitical soldiers; the same word is used in <a href='B:130 9:11'>1Ch 9:11</a> of the “captain” of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>and Zadok, a young man mighty of valour, and of his father’s house twenty-two captains- </p><p>In :17 he appears to have the function of Jehoiada in :27. Perhaps he was his successor.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Benjamin, the brothers of Saul, three thousand; for hitherto the majority of them had kept their allegiance to the house of Saul- </p><p>AV "kept the ward of the house of Saul". The number of Benjamites is understandably small, as they still hoped to remain the kingly tribe even after Saul's demise.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Ephraim twenty thousand eight hundred, mighty men of valour, famous men in their fathers’ houses- </p><p>This is a very small number compared to the northern tribes, seeing Ephraim were likely the largest tribe at the time. Clearly support for David followed factors other than supporters per head of population. Support was highly localized.</p>


text:
<p>Of the half-tribe of Manasseh eighteen thousand, who were mentioned by name, came and made David king- </p><p>This appears to refer to the half of Manasseh on the west side of the Jordan river.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, their heads were two hundred; and all their brothers were under their command- </p><p>This is a small number, but they are defined as men who understood life, spiritually wise men (<a href='B:190 1:13'>Est 1:13</a>; <a href='B:130 29:30'>1Ch 29:30</a>; <a href='B:230 31:15'>Psa 31:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of Zebulun, such as were able to go out in the army, who could set the battle in array, with all kinds of instruments of war, fifty thousand, who could command and were not of double heart- </p><p>The idea seems to be, men old enough to handle weapons, rather than boys. But this is a rather sad contrast with the faith of David when fighting Goliath, who was considered too young to fight, and who apparently couldn't manipulate the armour and weaponry he was offered by Saul- but instead fought Goliath in faith. To not be "of double heart" meant to be "of one heart", for God and David in faith (<a href='B:140 30:12'>2Ch 30:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of Naphtali one thousand captains, and with them with shield and spear thirty-seven thousand- </p><p>This could suggest that they had "shield and spear", weaponry in abundance compared to the other tribes.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Danites who could set the battle in array, twenty-eight thousand six hundred- </p><p>Each tribe has a slightly different description for the nature of their soldiers. The idea here may be as in GNB "trained men", soldiers who had undergone military training.</p>


text:
<p>Of Asher, such as were able to go out in the army, who could set the battle in array, forty thousand- </p><p>GNB "ready for battle". Each group of soldiers is described differently.</p>


text:
<p>On the other side of the Jordan, of the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and of the half-tribe of Manasseh, with all kinds of instruments of war for the battle, one hundred and twenty thousand- </p><p>This appears to be a rough number, assuming 40,000 to each tribe, as 40,000 came from Asher (:36). Sometimes the Bible is very vague. 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 here <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”. Surely this is to show that God is God, not man, and as such He’s not on the back foot, writing under the fear of criticism. His word is not contradictory, but on the other hand, God has more spiritual culture than to sink down to the level of a man who wanted to foresee all criticism in writing something which could stand all petty criticism. He has a spiritual culture much higher than this. And this is the answer to many of the petty objections about ‘Bible contradictions’ which are raised by critics.</p>


text:
<p>All these being men of war, who could order the battle array, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel. All the rest of Israel were also of one heart to make David king- </p><p>The state of their hearts is twice emphasized, and this has always been of critical importance in the Divine record of men. It was David’s heart which is described with the term "a perfect heart" (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a> s:w:). The idea is that they were of one mind and spirit with David. And as noted on :17, David’s spirit was eager to be united with their spirit. It all speaks of the spiritual relationship between the Lord Jesus and His people. See on <a href='B:130 13:4'>1Ch 13:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They were there with David three days, eating and drinking; for their brothers had made preparation for them- </p><p>This was the kind of religious meal which ratified a covenant, as in <a href='B:10 31:46'>Gen 31:46</a>; <a href='B:10 31:54'>Gen 31:54</a>. It looks ahead to the breaking of bread meeting as a confirmation of the covenant between the Lord Jesus and those who have come out of this world to support His cause and Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover those who were near to them, as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on donkeys, and on camels, mules and oxen, food of meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine and oil, and cattle and sheep in abundance; for there was joy in Israel- </p><p>The religious meal of :39 was supported in spirit by those even in the far north, who sent food to be consumed at this feast. The provision of clusters of raisins [a form of wine] along with bread confirm the religious nature of the meal, and the way [as noted on :39] it looks ahead to the breaking of bread. The same was to be seen in <a href='B:90 25:18'>1Sa 25:18</a>; 1 Samuel 30; 1 Samuel 12; <a href='B:100 16:1'>2Sa 16:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>David consulted with the captains of thousands and of hundreds, even with every leader- </p><p><a href='B:100 6:1'>2Sa 6:1</a> says thirty thousand attended. "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>


text:
<p>David said to all the assembly of Israel, If it seems good to you, and if it is of Yahweh our God, let us send abroad everywhere to our brothers who are left in all the land of Israel, with whom the priests and Levites are in their cities that have suburbs, that they may gather themselves to us- </p><p>It seems the invitation was particularly to the Levites and priests wherever they were. We note that there had been obedience to the idea of the Levites not having inheritance but living in allotments from the other tribes. This was really an appeal for all the priests and Levites to assemble.</p>


text:
<p>Let us bring again the ark of our God to us; for we didn’t seek it in the days of Saul- </p><p>This was hardly David’s fault, as he had spent the majority of the "days of Saul" on the run from in exile. But he graciously speaks of "we" being at fault. We wonder at the unspirituality of the priesthood in Saul's time, and wonder why Samuel had not emphasized the need to have the ark in worship. Perhaps it had been kept somewhere out of sight, at Saul's command. It may even have become badly thought of, or feared.</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>All the assembly said that they would do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people-</p><p>We sense as discussed on <a href='B:130 12:38'>1Ch 12:38</a> that the people were of one mind with David, sharing his spirit and he theirs.</p>


text:
<p>So David assembled all Israel together, from Shihor the brook of Egypt even to the entrance of Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath Jearim- </p><p>This widespread support continues the impression we get from <a href='B:130 12:39-40'>1Ch 12:39-40</a>, where people from even the far north sent large numbers of men and much food to be consumed at the feast which celebrated a declaration of loyalty to David. The entering in of Hamath is a technical term for the Orontes river. The definition of the land between two rivers would be an appeal to the promises to Abraham, of a land with rivers as boundaries.</p>


text:
<p>David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath Jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of Yahweh God who dwells between the cherubim, that is called by the Name- </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>"David went up… &nbsp;to bring thence the ark of God the LORD that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it" (AV). The unusual phrase 'God the LORD' may imply 'the Angel the Yahweh', as if recognizing that the Angel had God’s Name, as we know the Angel which lead Israel was given by God. Thus in this context David goes on to say about the ark of the Lord "whose Name is called on it". When Uzzah died it is stated "there he died before God" (:10), as if he died in the presence of an Angel- i. e. the Angel present inside the ark which he touched. See on <a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a></p>


text:
<p>They carried the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drove the 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. 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><p>David was influenced by others' behaviour and treatment of the ark rather than God's word; he failed to learn from history. He surely reasoned that the Philistines had transported the ark on a cart, so why shouldn't he. 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>David and all Israel played before God with all their might, even with songs, harps, stringed instruments, tambourines, cymbals and trumpets- </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. We think of Eve taking the fruit having been deceived; the prophet of 1 Kings 13 who ate something; Ananias and Sapphira. Whilst otherwise God 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 Chidon- </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>Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark- </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. 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 oxen 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><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Uzza, and He struck him, because he put forth his hand to the ark; and there he died before God- </p><p>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>
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 Uzza; and he called that place Perez Uzza, 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>The Old Testament body of Christ was based around Israel, and thus when the Lord made a breach upon Uzzah, David could say that the Lord “made a breach upon us” (<a href='B:130 13:11'>1Ch 13:11</a>; <a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a>). Just as Saul's persecution of the body of Christ was persecuting the Lord Jesus personally.</p><p>However we could read this another way. David was angry, but he was afraid of Yahweh (:12). 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 God that day saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home 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 didn’t move the ark to him into the city of David, but 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 :1-5. 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 God remained with the family of Obed-Edom in his house three months; and Yahweh blessed the house of Obed-Edom, and all that he had- </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>Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and masons, and carpenters, to build him 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; for his kingdom was exalted on high, 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 (:3), 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 more wives at Jerusalem; and David became the father of more sons and daughters- </p><p>See on :2. 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 (:2). He did perceive this, but only on one level.</p>


text:
<p>These are the names of the children whom he had 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>).</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> mention two more sons than we find in <a href='B:100 5:15'>2Sa 5:15</a>, 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>Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet- </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 Elpelet 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>Nogah, 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.</p>


text:
<p>Elishama, Beeliada and Eliphelet-</p><p>Tragically, we so often read of Yahweh's people carrying the names of Baal or other gods within their own names- e.g. Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>); Ishbaal (<a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a>); Baal-yada (<a href='B:130 14:7'>1Ch 14:7</a>); and perhaps worst of all, Baal-Yah (<a href='B:130 12:5'>1Ch 12:5</a>). Is our 'name' or personality before God the same tragic mixture of flesh and spirit? We wonder whether the naming of Baal-yada ("Beeliada") was done by one of David’s wives who worshipped Baal; we know that Michal his wife also had pagan images in their home.</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistines heard that David was anointed king over all Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David. David heard of it, and went out against them- </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.  Yet David in his Psalms so often protests his own integrity, and how he wishes judgment upon those who lack integrity. He clearly failed to personalize the conviction of sin which is throughout God's word, and this is all the backdrop to his sin with Bathsheba. </p><p><a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a> says that David "went down to the stronghold". 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>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines had come and made a raid in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>The record of David’s battle with the Philistines here 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 God saying, Shall I go up against the Philistines? Will You deliver them into my hand? Yahweh said to him, Go up; for I will deliver them 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. He overcame the natural tendency to assume that we are doing what seems the logical way at the time, and meaning his request: "Teach me Thy way" (Ps. 27:11 etc.). Yet this commendable humility before God was at the same time as his quite wrong taking of many wives in Jerusalem noted earlier in this chapter. This spiritual schizophrenia is surely in all men, apart from the Lord. And yet David realized the need to serve Yahweh with our whole heart, as he states so often in the Psalms. We surely can all identify with him... wanting to serve with our whole heart and yet our self examination revealing that we still have both flesh and spirit active within us.</p>


text:
<p>So they came up to Baal Perazim, and David struck them there; and David said, God has broken my enemies by my hand, like the breach of waters. Therefore they called the name of that place Baal Perazim- </p><p>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 (:14). 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 gods there; and David gave commandment, and they were burned with fire- </p><p><a href='B:100 5:21'>2Sa 5:21</a> adds: "They left their images there; and David and his men took them away". Chronicles seem to present a far more positive take on the history, omitting all reference to the Bathsheba incident. They should have destroyed them immediately, 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. Possibly what happened is that they did take the gods away but later pulled back and repented, and burnt them. It's so hard to pull back from a wrong path, and David is to be commended for doing so. </p>


text:
<p>The Philistines yet again made a raid in the valley- </p><p>This was soon afterwards, implying David’s men hadn't slain that many of the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>David inquired again of God; and God said to him, You shall not go up after them. Turn away from them, and come on 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. God changed the method. But as noted on :11, 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. According to the curses for disobedience to the law, turning backs to the enemy was a sign of curse. David was being asked to act as if he had sinned; and it was that recognition of sin that led to his victory. This is what is so necessary in spiritual life: acceptance of our sinfulness and desert only of condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then you shall go out to battle- </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>"When thou (David) shalt hear a sound of going (like the noise of the Angel cherubim in Ezekiel 1?) in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then shalt thou go out to battle; for God (the Angels) is gone forth before thee to smite the host of the Philistines" (AV). So once the Angels had physically moved forward and David had heard them doing this, he too could move ahead in doing the human part in bringing God’s purpose about. David alludes to this as a regular experience when he speaks of God ‘going out’ with the hosts / armies of Israel (<a href='B:230 60:10'>Psa 60:10</a> RV). His hosts were as the hosts of God (<a href='B:130 11:22'>1Ch 11:22</a>)- he walked in step with the Angel Cherubim above him, as Ezekiel was to do later. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:730 21:12'>Rev 21:12</a>. We too are to "walk in step with the Spirit". </p><p>For God 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. "gone out"), rather than any human king or leader.</p>


text:
<p>David did as God commanded him; and they struck the army of the Philistines from Gibeon even to Gezer- </p><p>Gibeon 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>


text:
<p>The fame of David went out into all lands; and Yahweh brought the fear of him on all nations- </p><p>"Fame" is the word for "name". Names were reflective of achievement, life experience and developed character, with the Name of Yahweh being the parade example. They were developed, as God’s Name is, both over human history and within the experience of individuals.</p>


text:
<p>David made himself houses in the city of David; and he prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched a tent for it- </p><p>This uncomfortable parallel between building his own house, and simply pitching a tent for the dwelling of God... remained with David. And surely the thought began even at this stage to build a "house" for the ark, i:e. a temple. But that thought was not motivated so much by any sense of God’s glory, but rather guilt at his own extravagance in building a house for himself which became effectively an entire citadel, "the city of David". And this wrong motivation led to God’s disagreement with his suggestion.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said, No one ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites; for Yahweh has chosen them to carry the ark of God- </p><p>David had been "displeased" with God’s judgment of Uzzah for steadying the ark, and according to 2 Samuel, it took him quite some time to come to want to deal again with the ark. He finally accepts that he had been wrong to allow the ark to be carried as he thought best, rather than as instructed in God’s law.</p><p>And to minister to Him forever- </p><p>Perhaps David correctly reasoned that the Levitical priesthood had to end, and he liked to think that that time had already come, and therefore he could dispense with the commandments about the Levites carrying the ark. But now he accepts he had gone too far away from God’s stated word, in seeking to justify doing things as he wished and effectively creation a religion on his own terms rather than God’s.</p>


text:
<p>David assembled all Israel at Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of Yahweh to its place, which he had prepared for it- </p><p>David had done this before, and it had ended up as a showdown because Uzzah had been slain and God was clearly displeased rather than pleased. It had taken David a long time to live this down.</p>


text:
<p>David gathered together the sons of Aaron and the Levites-</p><p>The assembly of "all Israel" (:3) may have been in that the sons of Aaron represented "all Israel".</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Kohath, Uriel the chief, and his brothers one hundred and twenty-</p><p>The differing numbers for each branch of the tribe may have been reflective of how responsive the families were to David’s invitation.</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Merari, Asaiah the chief, and his brothers two hundred and twenty- </p><p>We note how most of these numbers are to the nearest ten. 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 here <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”. Surely this is to show that God is God, not man, and as such He’s not on the back foot, writing under the fear of criticism. His word is not contradictory, but on the other hand, God has more spiritual culture than to sink down to the level of a man who wanted to foresee all criticism in writing something which could stand all petty criticism. He has a spiritual culture much higher than this. And this is the answer to many of the petty objections about ‘Bible contradictions’ which are raised by critics. .</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Gershom, Joel the chief, and his brothers one hundred and thirty- </p><p>"Gershon" means 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn. He is mentioned first in some lists as if he was the firstborn, but in terms of the priestly work Kohath is usually mentioned before him. This replacement of the firstborn is a big theme in scripture.</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Elizaphan, Shemaiah the chief, and his brothers two hundred- </p><p>Elizaphan was son of Uzziel (:10; <a href='B:20 6:22'>Exo 6:22</a>) and yet is mentioned before him. It seems that this list is somehow graded in terms of importance, with Kohath mentioned first as the priestly division of the sons of Levi.</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Hebron, Eliel the chief, and his brothers eighty-</p><p>Hebron and Uzziel (:10) were sons of Kohath, but are mentioned independently because of the importance attached to the priesthood. Therefore Kohath, although not the firstborn, is mentioned first in this list.</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Uzziel, Amminadab the chief, and his brothers one hundred and twelve- </p><p>See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>David called for Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and for the Levites, for Uriel, Asaiah, Joel, Shemaiah, Eliel and Amminadab- </p><p>Zadok and Abiathar appear to have both been high priests at the same time, though Zadok and is always mentioned first and Abiathar was deposed by Solomon (<a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:100 15:29'>2Sa 15:29</a>; <a href='B:100 15:35'>2Sa 15:35</a>; <a href='B:100 19:11'>2Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:100 20:25'>2Sa 20:25</a>). To have more than one high priest was not in keeping with the spirit of the law of Moses but was not explicitly forbidden, and the dual priesthood shows how the law was open to a wide range of interpretation in practice.</p>


text:
<p>and said to them, You are the heads of the fathers’ households of the Levites. Sanctify yourselves, both you and your brothers, that you may bring up the ark of Yahweh, the God of Israel, to the place that I have prepared for it- </p><p>David’s bringing the ark to the place which he had prepared&nbsp; is the basis of the Lord’s words in <a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a>. Clearly the Lord saw David as Himself, and us as the ark. The ‘bringing up’ or ‘lifting up’ of the ark (<a href='B:130 15:12'>1Ch 15:12</a>; <a href='B:130 15:22'>1Ch 15:22</a> RVmg:) to a perpetual dwelling place has evident reference to the resurrection. And when the ark was finally brought or lifted up to Zion, David / Jesus dealt bread and wine to the people (<a href='B:130 16:3'>1Ch 16:3</a>). One practical encouragement from this typology is that the memorial feast is a celebration that in fact we, the ark, have in prospect already been brought or lifted up into the eternal place prepared for us in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>For 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- </p><p>Because David omitted to enforce the Law's requirements concerning the transport of the tabernacle, a man died. His commission of good didn’t outweigh his omission here (<a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a>). To omit to hate evil is the same as to commit it (<a href='B:230 36:4'>Psa 36:4</a>). The Jews were condemned by the Lord for building the sepulchres of the prophets without erecting a placard stating that their fathers had killed them.</p><p>The Old Testament body of Christ was based around Israel, and thus when the Lord made a breach upon Uzzah, David could say that the Lord “made a breach upon us” (<a href='B:130 13:11'>1Ch 13:11</a>; <a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a>). Just as Saul's persecution of the body of Christ was persecuting the Lord Jesus personally.</p>


text:
<p>So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>The sanctification would have been in terms of sacrifices and abstaining from contact with things which could have made them unclean.</p>


text:
<p>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-</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.</p>


text:
<p>David spoke to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brothers the singers, with instruments of music, stringed instruments and harps and cymbals, sounding aloud and lifting up the voice with joy- </p><p>Several of the Psalms (Psalms 96, 105, 106) and the text we have in 1 Chronicles 16 would have been sung at this time. Those texts recount the failures of Israel and triumph in God’s abiding presence and forgiveness. The "joy" was therefore the joy at forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>So the Levites appointed Heman the son of Joel; and of his brothers, Asaph the son of Berechiah; and of the sons of Merari their brothers, Ethan the son of Kushaiah- </p><p>These played some undefined role in the musical presentation of :16. The next verses define roles in more detail, so we assume that these names were those who led the service and procession, as the next in the list are "of the second degree" (:18).</p><p>Heman was Samuel’s grandson (a Kohathite; 1 Chron. 2:6). Samuel was faithful, his sons weren't, but his grandson was. So often faith skips a generation.</p>


text:
<p>and with them their brothers of the second degree- </p><p>This could imply that the names of :17 were of a 'first degree' status, but "second" can also mean that they were a mirror image of those of :17, they may have been a 'double' of them.</p><p>Zechariah, Ben, Jaaziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom and Jeiel, the doorkeepers- </p><p>Literally, the openers or dividers of the gates. The word is also translated "porters". The idea is that the ark was considered to represent an enthroned person. And that invisible person was Israel's God Yahweh. This was in stark contrast to the processions of other nations, who carried the idols representing their gods, enthroned on great decorated thrones. But Yahweh had just a throne, the humble small box known as the ark, which was carried. He Himself was to be imagined, by faith. This was the scene of <a href='B:230 24:7'>Psa 24:7</a> "Lift up your heads, O gates [gatekeepers]... you everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in". But that King of glory was invisible and His glory only perceived in the minds of thoughtful believers, just as today.</p>


text:
<p>So the singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were given cymbals of brass to sound aloud- </p><p>Ethan and Heman are mentioned together in <a href='B:110 4:31'>1Ki 4:31</a> as men whom Solomon's wisdom exceeded; and in <a href='B:130 15:19'>1Ch 15:19</a> they are both singers whom David appointed. We can assume that they were famed for their wisdom; but Solomon's wisdom exceeded theirs. And their wisdom was here expressed in their music.</p>


text:
<p>and Zechariah, Aziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah and Benaiah, with stringed instruments set to Alamoth- </p><p>Alamoth is the music title of Psalms 46. It means literally "the girls", and may refer to soprano parts.</p>


text:
<p>and Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom, Jeiel and Azaziah, with harps tuned to the eight-stringed lyre, to lead- </p><p>Or "on the sheminith" (as AV), which may have been a musical term as "alamoth" in :20.</p>


text:
<p>Chenaniah, chief of the Levites, was over the song: he instructed about the song, because he was skilful- </p><p>"Instructed" implies to teach by repeated repetition. All this would have been rehearsed many times, and he led the rehearsals.</p>


text:
<p>Berechiah and Elkanah were doorkeepers for the ark- </p><p>"Doorkeepers" can also mean "porters", so perhaps these were those who carried the ark, and those of :18 opened the gates for the ark. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Shebaniah, and Joshaphat, and Nethanel, and Amasai, and Zechariah, and Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, blew the trumpets before the ark of God. Obed-Edom and Jehiah were doorkeepers for the ark- </p><p>See on :18,23. They may have been either the porters of the ark, or those who opened the gates.</p>


text:
<p>So David, and the elders of Israel, and the captains over thousands, went to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the house of Obed-Edom 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. Several of the Psalms (Psalms 96, 105, 106) and the text we have in 1 Chronicles 16 would have been sung at this time. Those texts recount the failures of Israel and triumph in God’s abiding presence and forgiveness. The "joy" was therefore the joy at forgiveness:&nbsp; .</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when God helped the Levites who bore the ark of the covenant of Yahweh- </p><p>GNB "They sacrificed seven bulls and seven sheep, to make sure that God would help the Levites who were carrying the Covenant Box".</p><p>That they sacrificed seven bulls and seven rams- </p><p>If sacrifices were offered every six paces from the house of Obed Edom to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a>), the road to Zion would have been a stream of sacrificial blood, looking ahead to the way to Golgotha. I suggest on <a href='B:100 6:17'>2Sa 6:17</a> 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. <a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a> LXX "And seven choruses accompanied him, bearing the ark, and a calf and lambs as a sacrifice".</p>


text:
<p>David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, and all the Levites who bore the ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah the master of the song with the singers; and David wore an ephod of linen- </p><p>I suggested on <a href='B:90 2:18-19'>1Sa 2:18-19</a> that the child Samuel, a non Levite from Ephraim, was doing the priestly work because Eli's family refused to do it, or perhaps just told him to do it. The Hebrew words for "robe" and "ephod" in there only occur together in the descriptions of the "robe of the ephod" worn by none other than the High Priest (<a href='B:20 28:4'>Exo 28:4</a>; <a href='B:20 28:31'>Exo 28:31</a>; <a href='B:20 29:5'>Exo 29:5</a>; <a href='B:20 39:22'>Exo 39:22</a>). The young Samuel apparently did the work of the High Priest. His example and spiritual ambition inspired David, who he was to anoint, to likewise wear such a robe and ephod (s:w:).</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>Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, sounding aloud with stringed instruments and harps- </p><p>David is portrayed as in religious ecstasy before the God whom three months before he had been furiously angry with (see on <a href='B:100 6:8'>2Sa 6:8</a>). 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 <a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a>), and the joy of good conscience resulting from that.</p>


text:
<p>As the ark of the covenant of Yahweh came to the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looked out at the window, and saw king David dancing and playing; 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 here. 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>


text:
<p>They brought in the ark of God, and set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it. They offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God- </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 <a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a> that the mass of animals sacrificed on the road to Zion were sin offerings.</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- </p><p>As noted and discussed on <a href='B:130 15:27'>1Ch 15:27</a>, this was again David acting as high priest, blessing the people in Yahweh's Name.</p>


text:
<p>He dealt to each one of Israel, both man and woman, to every one a loaf of bread, a portion of meat and a cake of raisins- </p><p>See on <a href='B:130 15:12'>1Ch 15:12</a>. <a href='B:130 16:8-22'>1Ch 16:8-22</a> is the Psalm written by David when the ark was brought to Zion, but it reappears within <a href='B:230 105:1-15'>Psa 105:1-15</a>, which is clearly an appeal for the exiles to repent so that God’s salvation history might continue with them. So we see how David’s original Psalms were reworked and reapplied in later contexts, under Divine inspiration. By the time of the exiles in Babylon, it seems the ark had been lost. But such external religious symbolism was unimportant; the essence was that the people of God were to come to Zion, just as the ark had done.</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 :1.</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 this passage, 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>He appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of Yahweh, and to celebrate and to thank and praise Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>The sense of the Hebrew behind "celebrate" is "to call to mind" or remember (<a href='B:130 16:12'>1Ch 16:12</a>). David wanted this occasion to be recorded. The production of psalms to be sung for perpetuity afterwards would be the equivalent of our taking photographs or video recordings of such an incident.</p>


text:
<p>Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, then Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-Edom and Jeiel, with stringed instruments and with harps; and Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud- </p><p>Asaph is particularly noted, although he was just one many recorded musicians in the company (<a href='B:130 15:19'>1Ch 15:19</a>). Perhaps special note is made of him because he was the author of some of the Psalms which the exiles were to sing at the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually, before the ark of the covenant of God- </p><p>Jahaziel is Eliezer of <a href='B:130 15:24'>1Ch 15:24</a>. People had more than one name. Perhaps one of these was his birth name, and the other that by which he became known. Benaiah was also one of David’s "mighty men". They would have had one trumpet each.</p>


text:
<p>Then on that day David led the giving of thanks to Yahweh, by the hand of Asaph and his brothers-</p><p>The idea is that David gave the following hymn into the hands of Asaph and his brothers to sing. Hence Adam Clarke: "David delivered first this psalm...".</p>


text:
<p>Oh give thanks to Yahweh! Call on His name. Make His deeds known among the peoples- </p><p>The first half of this song of praise (1 Chron. 16:8-22) recurs in Ps. 105:1-15, the second (1 Chron. 16:23-33) in Ps. 96:1-13, and the conclusion (1 Chron. 16:34-36) in Ps. 106:1; 106:47,48.</p><p>The Truth of the Gospel of the cross is the only way to come to salvation. All other religions apart from true Christianity will not give salvation nor a relationship with God. Realizing this, David pleads with his people to be a missionary nation: "Give thanks unto Yahweh, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people... for great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the people are idols; but Yahweh made the heavens" (<a href='B:130 16:8'>1Ch 16:8</a>; <a href='B:130 16:25-26'>1Ch 16:25-26</a>). The more we realize the pathetic fallacy of human religion, indeed the whole and utter vanity of life under this sun, the more we will preach Yahweh's Truth to a tragically wandering, aimless world.</p><p>This is an appeal to the Gentile "peoples" to hear about God’s work and praise Him; and to praise a deity in those days meant to accept that deity. Not because they were forced to by military conquest, but because they had considered God’s work which had now been told to them. <a href='B:130 16:8-22'>1Ch 16:8-22</a> is the Psalm written by David when the ark was brought to Zion, but it reappears within <a href='B:230 105:1-15'>Psa 105:1-15</a>, which is clearly an appeal for the exiles to repent so that God’s salvation history might continue with them. So we see how David’s original Psalms were reworked and reapplied in later contexts, under Divine inspiration. By the time of the exiles in Babylon, it seems the ark had been lost. But such external religious symbolism was unimportant; the essence was that the people of God were to come to Zion, just as the ark had done. And David wants to use the presence of the ark in Zion as a reason to invite the Gentiles to come and worship Yahweh before it.</p>


text:
<p>Sing to Him, sing praises to Him. Tell of all His marvellous works- </p><p>Heb. 'His wonders'. Wonder leads to worship, to that flame of praise which is the worship "in spirit and in truth" which the Father seeks. But wonder adds awe and reverence to that worship. And we have to ask how much of that there is in much popular worship today, be it in starchy hymns or rock music. <a href='B:130 16:9'>1Ch 16:9</a> makes the connection between wonder and worship quite plain: "Sing unto him, sing praises unto him; talk of all his wonders". Likewise <a href='B:230 9:1'>Psa 9:1</a>: "I will praise you O Lord; I will show forth all your wonders".</p><p>David was very much involved in Israel his people. He saw himself as their representative. When he sung Psalms, he invited them to come and sing along with him (<a href='B:230 105:2'>Psa 105:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 111:1'>Psa 111:1</a>). And yet this can also be read as an appeal to the Gentile peoples of :1 to hear of Yahweh's works, believe them, accept Him as their God, and then in turn tell others of "His marvellous works".</p>


text:
<p>Glory in His holy name. Let the heart of those who seek Yahweh rejoice- </p><p>The Bible continually stresses the critical importance of the heart, the mind. Our minds should glory in God’s Name which is His characteristics, as articulated in His "works" (:9) in history. And this leads us to "seek" Him and His face, which I suggest on :11 refers to repentance. Worship is a matter of the heart rather than musical ability. It's tragic that "praise and worship" has been made equal to musical performance. Praise is not necessarily music; the essence of praise and worship is in the heart.</p>


text:
<p>Seek Yahweh and His strength. Seek His face for evermore- </p><p>To seek Yahweh's face is an idiom for repentance (<a href='B:350 5:15'>Hos 5:15</a>), and is specifically used by Daniel in the context of the exiles (<a href='B:140 7:14'>2Ch 7:14</a>; <a href='B:340 9:3'>Dan 9:3</a>). This is therefore an appeal for the exiles to repent, so that God may continue to lavish His saving grace upon them, as He had upon their forefathers.</p><p>To seek Yahweh's face is to seek the unattainable in this life; although the end is that we shall see God's face as Revelation concludes. We therefore die not having achieved peak spirituality. Seeking Yahweh's strength refers to seeking unto or worshipping the ark, which is called "the ark of Your might / strength" (Ps. 132:8). The captivity of the ark is spoken of as God's might / strength going into captivity (Ps. 78:61). So David seems to be veering towards worshipping the ark of itself just as Judah effectively did later. A sad contrast with his attitude that he was dwelling beneath the cherubim wings when in the wilderness, thus obviating the need for any physical ark. Likewise in :31, David seems to reason as if Yahweh is reigning in that the ark is now on Zion. And he likes to imagine that therefore all the Gentiles are rejoicing. This is logically questionable, for the rulership or dominion of Yahweh was not contingent upon the ark being in Zion. His idea was that they would come to the ark and worship. </p>


text:
<p>Remember His marvellous works that He has done, His wonders, and the judgments of His mouth- </p><p>The Hebrew idea of 'remembering' is not necessarily related to 'remembering' as opposed to 'forgetting'; rather does it have the flavour of celebrating, and thus being aware of in gratitude and praise. As God was "mindful" of David and thereby all men in Israel through the victory granted over Goliath, so David urged that in response, they should be "mindful" of God (<a href='B:230 8:4'>Psa 8:4</a> s:w. <a href='B:130 16:12'>1Ch 16:12</a>; <a href='B:130 16:15'>1Ch 16:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>you seed of Israel His servant, you children of Jacob, His chosen ones- </p><p>David was clearly the "chosen one... My servant" (<a href='B:230 89:3'>Psa 89:3</a>), but these very terms are applied to Israel as a whole (<a href='B:230 105:6'>Psa 105:6</a>; <a href='B:230 105:43'>Psa 105:43</a>; <a href='B:230 106:5'>Psa 106:5</a>) and to the "servant" of later Isaiah, who refers to both Israel and their Messiah as their embodiment (<a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a>; <a href='B:290 45:4'>Isa 45:4</a>). David’s path of sin, repentance and restoration was intended to be that of all God’s people, as he himself recognizes in Psalms 32. But the exiles refused to repent and therefore their restoration was precluded. They were not therefore treated as His "chosen one".</p>


text:
<p>He is Yahweh our God. His judgments are in all the earth- </p><p>The exiles were to believe the prophetic word, that all the nations in the eretz promised to Abraham were to experience God’s judgments; the judgments of "our God", Yahweh, the God of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Remember His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations- </p><p>The parallel in Ps. 105:8 has "He has remembered". God remembers the covenant always and we are to always remember. This is the picture of relationship with God.
</p><p>The real import of the covenant-relationship with God which we have is brought out by David in <a href='B:130 16:15-18'>1Ch 16:15-18</a>: “Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance”. The covenant, the promise that God’s people really will inherit the land, becomes a law, a “word which he commanded”, something which should be thought about all the time. The sure promise of entering the Kingdom, the knowledge that by grace, according to the covenant, ‘we will be there’, cannot be accepted passively. The covenant-certainty of that great salvation becomes a command to action.</p><p>Jeremiah, Zechariah, Hosea and Ezekiel point out to Judah that they had broken the old covenant; their only basis of connection with God was therefore on the basis of the new covenant He was offering, which was based upon the promises to Abraham. That word of promise was unconditional, to all who wanted to believe it. It was therefore eternal, "to a thousand generations". It would therefore never be abrogated, unlike the old covenant based on the law of Moses.</p>


text:
<p>the covenant which He made with Abraham, His oath to Isaac- </p><p>The "oath to Isaac" must refer to the repetition of the promises to Abraham to Isaac in <a href='B:10 26:3'>Gen 26:3</a>, where the same word for "oath" is used. But the context of that repetition of the covenant oath to Isaac was in commanding him not to seek material prosperity in Egypt, but rather to remain in the famished land of Israel, then experiencing famine. This was relevant to the exiles, many of whom preferred to remain in Babylon, seeing that Malachi, Ezra and others record serious famine in the land of Judah at that time.</p>


text:
<p>He confirmed the same to Jacob for a statute, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant- </p><p>The "statute" doesn't refer to the law of Moses, but to the covenant with Abraham of :16. The covenant with Abraham was an unconditional offer of eternal inheritance of the land; all that was and is required is that this great salvation be believed. But it became and becomes a "statute" or "law" in the same way as grace reigns or is a ruler over us (<a href='B:520 5:21'>Rom 5:21</a>). If we believe in God’s unconditional covenant of salvation, then this becomes a law of our lives, the guiding principle in all our thinking, worldviews and perceptions. It is in this sense that "the grace of God... teaches us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and Godly lives" (<a href='B:630 2:11-12'>Tit 2:11-12</a>). Grace is grace, but the wonder of it, when believed, is such that it naturally elicits changed behaviour, and in this sense is a "statute" or law.</p><p>God wanted to make a covenant with David, by His grace, rather than demand gifts and obedience for the sake of obedience. Yet grace of itself means that we cannot be passive to it. The covenants with Abraham and Isaac are spoken of by David as a law, in the sense that they required certain things of those within those covenants (<a href='B:130 16:15-19'>1Ch 16:15-19</a>). And those same covenants are binding upon all baptized into Christ (<a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a>), and the hope of the Kingdom which they bring likewise becomes a ‘law’ governing our behaviour. <a href='B:330 20:37'>Eze 20:37</a> speaks of "the bond of the covenant"- and "bond" is literally a fetter, a tie that binds, that restricts. To be in covenant relationship therefore means that we are not free to do as we like; there is an element of regulation in our lives, but of course it has a purpose- to bring us to God’s Kingdom and keep us within the sphere of relationship with Him. But a covenant is a two way thing. This tie that binds applies to God too; hence the wonderful, oft-repeated idea of His chesed, His covenant faithfulness to us His people. He likewise carries a kind of responsibility to us.</p>


text:
<p>saying, ‘I will give you the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;’- </p><p>As discussed on :17, the promise of eternal inheritance of Canaan was unconditional, by grace. It just had to be believed.</p>


text:
<p>when you were but a few men in number, yes, very few, and foreigners were in it- </p><p>God rejoices to work with the small and feeble. The "few men" must refer to how Jacob's family only numbered about 70 people when they went into Egypt. The same phrase "few men in number" is exactly that used by Jacob in lamenting how very small his tribe was compared to the aggressive tribes amongst whom they lived in Canaan (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>). And it is the phrase used of how when Israel were to be judged for their sins in exile, they would be left "few men in number" (<a href='B:50 4:27'>Deu 4:27</a>). The exiles are being encouraged to see the similarities between them and Jacob's family in Egypt, the original 'Israel' at its first beginnings.</p>


text:
<p>They went about from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people- </p><p>This seems to refer, in the context, to the journeyings of the patriarchs amongst the peoples of Canaan, Philistia and Egypt. Although they suffered at the hands of those peoples, they were miraculously preserved; and so would God’s people be despite their current exile in Babylon / Persia.</p>


text:
<p>He allowed no man to do them wrong. Yes, He reproved kings for their sakes- </p><p>In this we see God’s absolute grace. For both Abraham and Isaac were rightly reproved by the Abimelech kings for lying about their wives, and yet God reproved those kings. He was openly showing His passionate love and preference for His people; they were rightly reproved by the kings (<a href='B:10 20:16'>Gen 20:16</a>), but those kings were reproved by God for their sins of ignorance. And it was this same grace which was available to the exiles. "Wrong" was indeed done to the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:300 50:33'>Jer 50:33</a>; <a href='B:350 5:11'>Hos 5:11</a>), as it was done to the historical Jacob; but the point is being made that it was not ultimately allowed because there was the final restoration of Jacob's fortunes, as there would be ultimately for God’s people- but in God’s own way and time.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t touch My anointed ones! Do My prophets no harm!- </p><p>This refers to how Abraham and Isaac were not harmed despite lying to Abimelech (see on :20). It definitely doesn't mean that God’s visible public servants are beyond criticism; for Abraham and Isaac most definitely are reproved for their actions in the Biblical record. The point is that they, weak as they were and deserving of "harm", were preserved from ultimate harm by God’s grace. And they are cited as an example to the exiles, who were all "anointed ones" (<a href='B:310 4:21'>Lam 4:21</a>), they had a special purpose before God; just as all in Christ, the anointed one, are likewise "anointed ones"&nbsp; (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>). So this doesn't give pastors or church leaders special privilege of being beyond criticism, as this verse is misused to teach.</p>


text:
<p>Sing to Yahweh, all the earth! Display His salvation from day to day- </p><p>This is the outcome of believing we will be saved according to the promises to Abraham- to display that salvation to all the earth. This certainty of salvation is the bassis of our witness. The LXX uses the word evangelion concerning how daily we should “show forth his salvation” (here and in <a href='B:230 96:2'>Psa 96:2</a>). Witness is therefore a daily feature in the life of those who have known salvation; it is not something done solely by attending an ecclesial gathering once per week. This explains why frequently Paul uses the word "Gospel" as meaning 'the preaching of the Gospel'; the Gospel is in itself something which must be preached if we really have it (<a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:520 1:9'>Rom 1:9</a>; <a href='B:520 16:25'>Rom 16:25</a>; Php_1:5 (NIV),12; 2:22; 4:15; <a href='B:590 1:5'>1Th 1:5</a>; <a href='B:590 3:2'>1Th 3:2</a>; <a href='B:600 2:14'>2Th 2:14</a>; <a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a>; <a href='B:620 2:8'>2Ti 2:8</a>). The fact we have been given the Gospel is in itself an imperative to preach it. </p><p>Many of the Psalms reflect David’s realization that confession of sin is the basis for powerful preaching. The LXX often uses the verb euangelizesthai to describe his preaching after the Bathsheba incident (<a href='B:230 96:2'>Psa 96:2</a>). Because God has mercifully forgive His people and His face shines upon them in renewed fellowship, His way is thereby made known upon earth to all nations (<a href='B:230 67:1-2'>Psa 67:1-2</a>). He utters forth the mighty acts of God with the preface: “Who can utter the mighty acts of the Lord, who can shew forth all his praise?” (<a href='B:230 106:2'>Psa 106:2</a>)- and then proceeds to do just that. He did so with a clear recognition of his own inadequacy. The Psalms of praise are full of this theme. David exhorts all those who have been redeemed to show forth God’s praise (<a href='B:230 107:2'>Psa 107:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 107:32'>Psa 107:32</a>). He wanted all Israel to be a joyful, witnessing people. And even though it seems God’s people didn’t respond, David went on undeterred. Time and again he fearlessly sets himself up as Israel’s example. He speaks of how he trusts in the Lord’s grace, and then appeals to Israel to do just the same (<a href='B:230 62:7-8'>Psa 62:7-8</a>). The strength of his appeal was in the fact that his sin and experience of grace was the bridge between him and his audience.</p>


text:
<p>Declare His glory among the nations, and His marvellous works among all the peoples- </p><p>In <a href='B:490 24:45-47'>Luk 24:45-47</a> we read how Christ explained to the disciples that their preaching of the Gospel "among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" was foretold in the Psalms and prophets. So the Bible student asks: Where&nbsp;in the Psalms and prophets? The Lord spoke as if the prophecies about this were copious. There do not seem to be any specific prophecies which speak of the twelve spreading the Gospel from Jerusalem in the first century. Instead we read of the Gospel being spread from Jerusalem in the Kingdom, and often the phrase "all nations" occurs in a Kingdom context, describing how "all nations" will come to worship Christ at Jerusalem (<a href='B:230 22:27'>Psa 22:27</a>; <a href='B:230 67:2'>Psa 67:2</a>; <a href='B:230 72:11'>Psa 72:11</a>; <a href='B:230 72:17'>Psa 72:17</a>; <a href='B:230 82:8'>Psa 82:8</a>; <a href='B:230 86:9'>Psa 86:9</a>; <a href='B:230 117:1'>Psa 117:1</a>; <a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a>; <a href='B:290 66:18'>Isa 66:18</a>; <a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a>; <a href='B:300 3:17'>Jer 3:17</a>; <a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a>; <a href='B:440 2:7'>Hag 2:7</a>; <a href='B:450 8:23'>Zec 8:23</a>). This selection of "Psalms and prophets" is impressive. Yet the Lord Jesus clearly interpreted these future Kingdom passages as having relevance to the world-wide spreading of the Gospel. "All nations" also occurs in many passages exhorting us to praise Yahweh among all the nations of this world. The reason for this is that God’s glory is so great it should be declared as far as possible by us. <a href='B:130 16:24-25'>1Ch 16:24-25</a> is typical of many such verses: "Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all nations. For&nbsp; great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised... for all the gods of the people are idols". World-wide preaching is therefore an aspect of our praise of Yahweh, and as such it is a spiritual work which is timeless.</p><p>A real sense of wonder becomes the base motivation for our witness. "Declare his glory among the gentiles, his wonders among the nations" (<a href='B:130 16:24'>1Ch 16:24</a>). And the Psalms are full of this, once we appreciate that in their primary context many of them were David’s preaching to the Gentile nations around him.</p>


text:
<p>For great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised. He also is to be feared above all gods- </p><p>David’s focus of all his praises upon Yahweh as alone "worthy" (Heb:; <a href='B:230 96:4'>Psa 96:4</a>) of praise was what he now wanted his people to follow (<a href='B:230 18:3'>Psa 18:3</a>; <a href='B:230 22:3'>Psa 22:3</a>). The implication of "worthy" could imply a contrast with other gods. This would confirm the hints we have that Saul had been an idolater (see on <a href='B:230 12:8'>Psa 12:8</a>; <a href='B:230 16:4'>Psa 16:4</a>), and that idolatry was prevalent in Israel at the time.</p>


text:
<p>For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but Yahweh made the heavens- </p><p>The gods / idols aren't in so many words criticized as not existing, but rather, Yahweh is so exalted above them as creator of all that even if they do exist, they are so relatively powerless that they are show to have no effective existence. It's the same with how the language of demons is used in the New Testament; the Lord's miracles demonstrated that God’s power was so infinitely greater, that effectively demons don't exist.</p>


text:
<p>Honor and majesty are before Him. Strength and gladness are in His place- </p><p>See on :28. This is a reference to the Most Holy Place; the reference to His "strength and beauty" going into captivity may refer to the ark (<a href='B:230 78:61'>Psa 78:61</a> s:w:). See on :28. David had now brought the ark to "His place" and was expecting the Gentiles to come to it, in line with the promises to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>Ascribe to Yahweh, you relatives of the peoples, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength!- </p><p>The very same Hebrew words used about how David personally felt he wanted to give glory and strength [honour] to the Lord (<a href='B:230 62:7'>Psa 62:7</a>). "Families of nations" or "relatives of the peoples" recalls the promises made to Abraham of his seed. He wished for the whole world to share his relationship with God. The radical nature of what is being suggested here and in Psalms 96 and many similar Psalms can easily be overlooked. The Psalmist is urging Gentiles to come and worship with Israel, proceeding into the tabernacle courts and thence into "the beauty of holiness" (:27 Heb:), i:e. the Most Holy Place ['holiness' being read there as a noun rather than an adjective- it is the same Hebrew word elsewhere translated "sanctuary" and related to the Hebrew word used for "sanctuary"]:&nbsp; The Psalmist is inviting Gentiles to come in to the worship of Israel and proceed where only the High Priest could venture once / year. It was the equivalent of proclaiming an open table policy in the most exclusive of churches.</p><p>The common assumption of expositors is that the Psalmist has in view the Kingdom age, but this seems precluded by his appeal to the Gentiles to come and worship exactly because of the good news that the Lord is coming to judge the earth in righteousness (:33)- which is quoted about the return of Christ to earth in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a>. The holiness boundaries taught by the Law were only teaching mechanisms, which is why they were removed by the open Christ. David for one got to this point well before most other Israelites did, acting as the High Priest (<a href='B:130 16:3'>1Ch 16:3</a>), entering the sanctuary when not a Levite (<a href='B:230 63:2'>Psa 63:2</a>) and experiencing forgiveness and salvation quite outside the Law rather than the Law's penalty of death.</p><p>David uses the words and spirit of this Psalm, especially about his vision of his outreach to the Gentiles, in the later Bathsheba Psalms, where he vows to tell the whole world of God’s grace. It's not that the experience of sin and forgiveness makes a person somehow weak and wishy washy acceptant of anyone and anything. The experience of God’s grace at close quarters leads us to realize how radical was His acceptance of us and thereby we should proactively seek to be acceptant of all those who are afar off. And so David perceived that God’s Name (His characteristics, of which grace is uttermost) deserved glory to be given to it- simply for what it was (:29). And that glory is "due" from all, including the Gentiles- and so they should be invited across all holiness boundaries to come with their offerings to God. Thus Yahweh's greatness above all other gods was what led David to appeal to "all you gods" [perhaps put by metonymy for the idol worshipping peoples] to come and worship before Yahweh (<a href='B:230 97:7'>Psa 97:7</a>).</p><p>The appeal was to be global and not just to Israel because David perceived that actually the truth of God is proclaimed by "the whole earth" and "heavens" (<a href='B:230 97:5-6'>Psa 97:5-6</a>). Of course, the call is for the Gentile idolaters to "come" to Yahweh's sanctuary, and not for God’s people to leave Yahweh and go to them. And they were to "bring an offering", to make a commitment to the God they were being invited to come close to (:29). <a href='B:230 98:3-5'>Psa 98:3-5</a> continues this radical appeal to the Gentile world, but it urges them to come and worship (which involved coming to the sanctuary in Israel) exactly because God has been so gracious to sinful Israel. Israel's extreme sin and God’s radical grace and patience with them for not being good witnesses to the Gentiles... was to serve as encouragement for the Gentiles to come to Israel's God and praise Him, confident that their sins too could be forgiven.</p><p>The same idea is found in <a href='B:230 99:1-5'>Psa 99:1-5</a> - because of God’s grace to Jacob / Israel, an undefined group are bidden come to Zion, to the very cherubim (in the Most Holy Place) to exalt and praise God at His footstool. This group, in line with the preceding Psalms, are surely the Gentile world. "Let them praise Your great Name" (<a href='B:230 99:3'>Psa 99:3</a>) would surely make most sense if it referred to the Gentiles, seeing that David or the Psalmist was Israelite. We see the same idea in <a href='B:230 97:1'>Psa 97:1</a>; it begins with an appeal to the islands of the Gentiles to 'rejoice' and 'be glad', but the same two Hebrew words are used in <a href='B:230 97:8'>Psa 97:8</a> about how Zion- those in the very temple mount- likewise rejoice and are glad. The very "ends of the earth" who saw God’s salvation of His people are invited to praise Him for it (<a href='B:230 98:3-4'>Psa 98:3-4</a>)- the invitation to join in praise was effectively an invitation to join in worship, and thereby to become part of God’s covenant people.</p>


text:
<p>Ascribe to Yahweh the glory due to His name. Bring an offering, and come before Him. Worship Yahweh in holy array- </p><p>David is inviting the Gentile world to come to the ark and worship. See on :28. This and the next verses confidently anticipated the coming of Messiah there and then, with :33 quoted about the second coming of Jesus in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a>:&nbsp;But that was to be delayed; for Israel and the Gentile world weren't going to respond to David’s invitation here. For he is asking the Gentiles to dress up as priests and come and worship Yahweh and even enter the most holy place (:28). David was way ahead of his time in thinking in these terms.</p><p>As it was God’s intention that Israel were to be a nation of priests to the rest of the world, so the new Israel likewise are to all discharge the priestly functions of teaching their brethren (<a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a> cp. <a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a>; <a href='B:730 1:6'>Rev 1:6</a>; <a href='B:730 5:9-10'>Rev 5:9-10</a>). Under the new covenant, we should all teach and admonish one another (<a href='B:580 3:16'>Col 3:16</a>). Indeed, God told Israel [unrecorded in the historical records]: “Ye are gods [elohim] and all of you are sons of the Most High” (<a href='B:230 82:6'>Psa 82:6</a> RV). Further, <a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a> makes the paradigm breaking statement that even the Gentiles could come before Yahweh of Israel in holy, priestly array- they too could aspire to the spirit of priesthood (<a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a> RVmg:). Moses spoke of how all Israel should pray that God would establish the work of their hands (<a href='B:230 90:17'>Psa 90:17</a>)- but this was in fact his special request for the blessing of Levi, the priestly tribe (<a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a>). <a href='B:230 135:19-20'>Psa 135:19-20</a> parallels all Israel with the priestly family: “Bless the Lord, O house of Israel: bless the Lord, O house of Aaron: bless the Lord, O house of Levi: ye that fear the Lord, bless the Lord... praise ye the Lord”. All Israel were to aspire to the spirit of priesthood. Indeed, the Psalms often parallel the house of Aaron (i:e. the priesthood) with the whole nation (<a href='B:230 115:9-10'>Psa 115:9-10</a>; <a href='B:230 115:12'>Psa 115:12</a>; <a href='B:230 118:2-3'>Psa 118:2-3</a>).</p><p>"Come before Him" in the parallel Ps. 96:8 becomes "come into His courts". Again David is moving towards seeing coming to God as coming into a religious place. He is moving away from his sense in the wilderness years of being in God's presence anywhere. Likewise "in holy array", AV "the beauty of holiness", becomes "in His glorious sanctuary" in the parallel 2 Chron. 20:21 and Ps. 96:9; again moving from the need for personal holiness to the need to come into a holy place.</p>


text:
<p>Tremble before Him, all the land. The world also is established that it can’t be moved- </p><p>The invitation to the entire eretz promised to Abraham to "tremble before Him" is an invitation for them to accept Yahweh as their God. The idea is that all of the planet, the sea representing the peoples (:32), would rejoice at the prospect of the coming of Israel's Lord in judgment (:33). This is not therefore speaking of the Kingdom; but rather of David’s desire that before the Lord's coming, the Gentile peoples would come to such relationship with Him that they rejoiced at the prospect of His coming in judgment, knowing by faith that they would not be condemned. And yet as will be discussed on :31, he seems to think that the ark as God’s throne meant that God was now king in Zion and the Gentile world should accept that. And he may be liking to think that this kingdom "can't be moved", when in fact it would be. For the kingdom was to be overturned. It was this wild over interpretation of the significance of his own kingdom which led him to wrongly assume that Solomon would be the promised Messianic king, and this led Solomon to have no sense of possible failure, so that he became proud and turned away from Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice! Let them say among the nations, Yahweh reigns!- </p><p>This again is an invitation to the Gentiles to accept Yahweh as their king and thus become His 'kingdom' before His final, open manifestation in the earth. And that is likewise our call. However in the immediate context, David sees the ark as God’s throne, and His reign as therefore now beginning in Jerusalem. It could be that David is seeing this as a foretaste of His future Kingdom coming on earth, based also in Jerusalem. But he could also be over interpreting, and seeing God’s Kingdom as fully come in his kingdom, rather than recognizing that this was but a foretaste of that which was yet to come.</p>


text:
<p>Let the sea roar, and its fullness! Let the field exult, and all that is therein!-</p><p>The sea is again a symbol off the Gentiles, and David sees the coming of the ark to Zion as the enthronement of God in the earth (:31), and therefore he is inviting the Gentiles to come and worship there. But there is no evidence any Gentiles did come to the ark in Zion and do so. David was overly obsessed with the material, religious aspects of worship, as he went on to be in relation to the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Then the trees of the forest will sing for joy before Yahweh, for He comes to judge the earth- </p><p>All the trees of the world will be clapping their hands when Jesus returns. Yet trees are symbolic of Gentile nations. There will be, therefore, a remnant everywhere looking out for the Lord’s return. But perhaps there is an element of literalism here. David perhaps also foresees the joy of the natural and spiritual creation of the last days as they sense the approach of the Lord (as in <a href='B:520 8:22'>Rom 8:22</a>).</p><p>But I suggest the reference to the trees is specifically to the ark, referring to the wood at Kirjath-jearim (the city of woods) where the ark was "found":  "we found it in the fields of the wood" (Ps. 132:6). The coming of the ark to Zion wsa seen by David as God's coming in judgment, and the praise of God and His grace (:34) was initially referring to the coming of the ark to Zion. No wonder God made that little gold box disappear so that men would focus instead upon Him in His essence. </p>


text:
<p>Oh give thanks to Yahweh, for He is good, for His grace endures forever- </p><p><a href='B:230 106:45'>Psa 106:45</a> connects this eternal grace with God’s covenant. The covenant in view is that with Abraham made in Genesis 15, which featured God making unilateral promises whilst Abraham was incapacitated and unable to do anything in response. Neither was there any clause added making it conditional upon his obedience. This is in sharp contrast with the law of Moses, the old covenant, and David seems to have seen beyond this. Jeremiah, Zechariah and Ezekiel all make the point to the exiles that they had broken the old covenant, and therefore they could only be saved by reaffirming their part in the new covenant. We take the cup of the new covenant to show how we have accepted this new covenant with us.</p>


text:
<p>Say, ‘Save us, God of our salvation! Gather us together and deliver us from the nations, to give thanks to Your holy name, to triumph in Your praise’- </p><p>Verses 35 and 36 are quoted in <a href='B:230 106:47-48'>Psa 106:47-48</a>. But the inspired Psalmist in <a href='B:230 106:47'>Psa 106:47</a> makes a slight change because he was using this Psalm in the context of the exiles wanting to be restored: "Gather us together and deliver us from the nations" is changed to "Gather us from among the nations". The ark was lost; it was the Jews themselves who were to come to Zion. The exile brought them to realize that the box called "the ark" was mere religion; the essence of it was that the dwelling place of God was no longer a box of acacia wood, but God’s own repentant people.</p>


text:
<p>Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, from everlasting even to everlasting. All the people said, ‘Amen’, and praised Yahweh-</p><p>See on :35. The people are asked to say "Amen!" to it all, recognizing their sinfulness as a people and as individuals; and yet with the confession, to also praise God for His abiding grace to His people. As noted on :35, these words are slightly adapted in <a href='B:230 106:48'>Psa 106:48</a>. The people were asked to understand that their return to Zion was to be like the return of the ark after a period in Gentile captivity. The dwelling place of God was no longer to be over a box of acacia wood, but over God’s own repentant people.</p>


text:
<p>So he left there, before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, Asaph and his brothers, to minister before the ark continually, as every day’s work required- </p><p>The idea is that Asaph and his brothers were now to be permanently stationed in Zion to perform the required rituals there every day. Although David presents as very spiritually minded, time and again we find within his worship aspects which are simply not Biblical. Deuteronomy had made it clear there should only have been one sanctuary. But he had one at Gibeon (:4, where Solomon is said to have later worshipped) and yet had the ark with him, in his back yard, at Jerusalem. It's hard not to think that the bringing of the ark to himself wasn't politically motivated, cementing both religious and political power in himself as king, as so many kings did. Hence David's use of linen garments in which to minister as a priest, when he wasn't a Levite- for linen garments were a symbol of royalty as well as being used by priests.</p>


text:
<p>and Obed-Edom with their brothers, sixty-eight; Obed-Edom also the son of Jeduthun and Hosah to be doorkeepers- </p><p>"Their brothers" may mean that Asaph and his brothers (:37) are in view. <a href='B:130 26:8'>1Ch 26:8</a> speaks of a group of 62 relatives of Obed-Edom, whereas <a href='B:130 16:38'>1Ch 16:38</a> speaks of 68. The extra six may refer to "Asaph and his brothers, who are referred to in the otherwise strange reference in <a href='B:130 16:38'>1Ch 16:38</a> to "Obed-Edom with their brothers". The preceding verse (<a href='B:130 16:37'>1Ch 16:37</a>) has spoken of "Asaph and his brothers":&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>and Zadok the priest, and his brothers the priests, before the tabernacle of Yahweh in the high place that was at Gibeon- </p><p>Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (<a href='B:130 16:39'>1Ch 16:39</a>; <a href='B:110 3:4'>1Ki 3:4</a>), and so it is another example of correlation within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil with which to anoint Solomon (<a href='B:110 1:39'>1Ki 1:39</a>).</p>


text:
<p>to offer burnt offerings to Yahweh on the altar of burnt offering continually morning and evening, even according to all that is written in the law of Yahweh, which He commanded to Israel- </p><p>We wonder whether these regular daily offerings had been made at Gibeon before this time. We note that at this point, the ark is in Zion, but the altar of burnt offering is still at Gibeon (:39). This seems rather typical of how David perceived the spirit of the law to such an extent that he apparently broke the letter of the law by allowing this situation to continue. For surely he ought to have united the sanctuaries of Gibeon and Zion. Perhaps he allowed it to continue because of the political difficult in deciding which of the two high priests to appoint as singular high priest (Zadok or Ahimelech). And so he allowed the two sanctuaries to continue, although this was contrary to the law's insistence upon one sanctuary. Hence Solomon sacrificed both at Gibeon and before the ark at Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 1:3'>2Ch 1:3</a>; <a href='B:140 1:6'>2Ch 1:6</a>). It was only when Ahimelech was deposed by Solomon that he brought the brazen altar from Gibeon to Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 1:5'>2Ch 1:5</a> AV; see note there). This suggests that David’s operation of two sanctuaries was politically motivated.</p>


text:
<p>With them were Heman and Jeduthun, and the rest who were chosen, who were mentioned by name, to give thanks to Yahweh, because His grace endures forever- </p><p>These were to serve in Gibeon (:39), offering praise at the times the daily burnt offerings were made (:40), whilst Asaph and his group did this in Jerusalem (:37).</p>


text:
<p>and with them Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should sound aloud, and with instruments for the songs of God; and the sons of Jeduthun to be at the gate- </p><p>LXX omits "and with them Heman and Jeduthun", making it read more smoothly with :41.</p>


text:
<p>All the people departed each man to his family; and David returned to bless his family- </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 <a href='B:100 6:16'>2Sa 6:16</a> may still have been an idolater and despised not only David but also Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that as David lived in his house, David said to Nathan the prophet-</p><p><a href='B:100 7:1'>2Sa 7:1</a> adds: "It happened, when the king lived in his house, and Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies all around". 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>Behold, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant of Yahweh is under curtains-</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>). Although the tabernacle was at Gibeon and the ark in Zion, David had apparently made another tabernacle for the ark in Zion. 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><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 David, Do all that is in your heart; for God 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 (:1), 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 God 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 :6.</p>


text:
<p>Go and tell David My servant, ‘Thus says Yahweh, You shall not build Me a house to dwell in- </p><p>This is very clear. David’s insistence upon pushing ahead with what became an obsession, and Solomon likewise, was a studied disregard of these simple words. 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 Israel to this day, but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tent to another- </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 (see on :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 Israel, did I speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to be shepherd of My people saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’’- </p><p>David desired to build God a physical house. But God’s response is 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?" in <a href='B:100 7:5'>2Sa 7:5</a>&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 accepts your works”. The Hebrew translated “accepts” 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, ‘Thus says Yahweh of Armies, I took you from the sheep pen, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over My people Israel- </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 have gone, 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", as he often celebrates in his wilderness Psalms. This connects with God’s own statement that He Himself had "walked continually" (:5,6; <a href='B:100 7:6'>2Sa 7:6</a>). 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>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 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. <a href='B:100 7:9'>2Sa 7:9</a> AV "I have made thee a great name" shows the intentional confusion of tenses. David had been made a great name, but that was just a foretaste of how great his name was to become through his future descendant and house.</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 waste them any more, as at the first- </p><p>This connects with how David had just 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 (see on :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 from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will subdue 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.</p><p>Moreover I tell you that Yahweh will build 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><p>There is a play on words with the Hebrew word bayith [‘house’]. It is used about David’s house / family (<a href='B:130 17:10'>1Ch 17:10</a>; <a href='B:130 17:16-17'>1Ch 17:16-17</a>; <a href='B:130 17:23-24'>1Ch 17:23-24</a>) and that of God (vv. 12,14). Our house is God’s house. He is, therefore, to be at the centre of family life.</p>


text:
<p>It shall happen, when your days are fulfilled that you must go to be 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>That I will set up your seed after you, who shall be of your sons- </p><p>"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>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 Me a house, and I will establish his throne 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>


text:
<p>I will be his father, and he shall be My son. I will not take My sure mercies away from him, as I took it from him that was before you- </p><p>“The sure mercies of David” result in the wicked man forsaking his way (<a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a>; <a href='B:290 55:7'>Isa 55:7</a>). The description of the promises to David as “sure mercies” (<a href='B:130 17:13'>1Ch 17:13</a>) may perhaps be with a reference to his sin with Bathsheba; his forgiveness in that incident is typical of that which we all receive (<a href='B:520 4:6-8'>Rom 4:6-8</a>). The very existence of the “mercies of / to David” therefore inspire us in forsaking sinful thoughts and wicked ways (<a href='B:290 55:7'>Isa 55:7</a>).</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><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>


text:
<p>but I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever. His throne shall be established forever’- </p><p>Solomon came to overlook the conditionality of the promises (which are more laboured in 2 Samuel 7) 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>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 :11,12 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>


text:
<p>Then David the king went in and sat before Yahweh; and he said, Who am I, Yahweh God- </p><p>It was because David was truly humble that he could immediately respond in genuine humility to God’s promises to him; whereas Solomon became proud because of them (<a href='B:130 17:16'>1Ch 17:16</a>: "David the king&nbsp; came and sat&nbsp; before the Lord, and said, Who am I…?" ). Despite the openness with God which we see in the Psalms, despite being able to break explicit commandments because he so finely appreciated the spirit behind them, despite being a man after God’s own heart, even in his true spiritual maturity towards the end of his life, David "could not go before (the altar) to enquire of God; for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of the Lord" (<a href='B:130 21:30'>1Ch 21:30</a>). Now this seems an eloquent essay in the true spiritual humility of that man David.</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 here, 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 a small thing in Your eyes, O God; but You have spoken of your servant’s house for a great while to come, and have respected me according to the estate of a man of high degree, Yahweh God- </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 here, where the promises to David are described as a “little / small thing”; the promises were so wonderful that David should not have allowed himself to fall into such sin. And us likewise.</p><p>David is one of the major OT types of the Lord Jesus. The words of David in Psalms 16 are quoted in <a href='B:510 2:25'>Act 2:25</a>; <a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a> concerning Jesus: “I have set the Lord always before me…he is at my right hand…thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption”. These are words describing David’s feelings about his own death and resurrection; and yet so identified was he with the Messiah, that they are quoted as being directly true of Jesus. But <a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a> also quotes these words with a slightly different spin- in that David saw the Lord Jesus always before him, and it was this sense that stabilized him. This could only have been true in that David understood all his feelings and present and future experiences [e.g. resurrection, not being suffered to corrupt eternally] as being typical of the Lord Jesus. He so understood himself as a type of the One to come that he saw this person as ever with him. This is the extent of the typology. <a href='B:130 17:17'>1Ch 17:17</a> in Young’s Literal has David saying: “Thou hast seen me as a type of the man on high” [i:e. Messiah]. David describes himself at ease with clearly Messianic titles such as ‘the Christ’, ‘the man raised on high’, and then goes on to speak of the Messiah who is to come on the “morning without clouds”, admitting that “verily my house is not so with God” (<a href='B:100 23:1-5'>2Sa 23:1-5</a>). This is only really understandable if we accept that David consciously saw himself as a type of the future Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>What can David say yet more to You concerning the honour which is done to Your servant?- </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- </p><p>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>Yahweh, for Your servant’s sake, and according to Your own heart, You have worked all this greatness, to make known all these great things- </p><p>David spoke of how God’s word and “own heart” are parallel; 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>Yahweh, 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 single nation in the earth is like Your people Israel, whom God went to redeem to Himself for a people, to make You a name by great and awesome things, in driving out nations from before Your people, whom You redeemed out of Egypt?- </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>For Your people Israel You made Your very own people forever; and You, Yahweh, became their God- </p><p>God had promised to establish 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 :21, 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, let the word that You have spoken concerning Your servant and concerning his house be established forever, and do as You have spoken- </p><p>David seems to feel the need to show his agreement with God’s plan (also in <a href='B:100 7:29'>2Sa 7:29</a>). 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 established and magnified forever, saying, ‘Yahweh of Armies is the God of Israel, even a God to Israel. The house of David Your servant is established before You’- </p><p>David believed in the fulfilment of these future promises, and so he expresses this in terms of them already having been fulfilled. For this is the essence of faith, to believe that we have receive that which is promised, even if it is not yet in our hands (<a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a>). And his response was in prayerful praise, which must be our response to having received in essence the same promises.</p>


text:
<p>For You, my God, have revealed to Your servant that You will build him a house. Therefore Your servant has found courage to pray before You-</p><p>David was so humbled that he felt that even to pray a prayer of thanks was something which required courage. He, the courageous warrior, was so humbled that he found it a challenge to find courage to even thank God for these promises. So greatly was he awed by God’s grace in these promises- promises which have in essence been made to us too, and which should elicit a similar response.</p>


text:
<p>Now, Yahweh, You are God, and 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 it has pleased You to bless the house of Your servant, that it may continue forever before You; for You, Yahweh, have blessed, and it is blessed forever- </p><p>David describes the promises as "blessing" (also <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- </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. 1 Chronicles 17 is included where it is to continue the theme of the ark and Zion which began before it. 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. The parallel <a href='B:100 8:1'>2Sa 8:1</a> 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>It happened that David struck the Philistines and subdued them, and took Gath and its towns out of the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>After David received the promises about the future Messianic Kingdom, he went out and established his Kingdom, attacking Israel's enemies and driving them out of the land (<a href='B:130 18:1-3'>1Ch 18:1-3</a>). Our response to the future Hope of the Kingdom, which we too have through the very same promises, should be to try to live the Kingdom life now, as far as we can.</p><p><a href='B:100 8:1'>2Sa 8:1</a> says that “David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines". But <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.</p>


text:
<p>He struck Moab; and the Moabites became servants to David, and brought tribute- </p><p><a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a> gives more detail: "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". 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. 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>). Perhaps the incident of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> occurred at this time.</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. 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>).</p>


text:
<p>David struck Hadadezer king of Zobah to Hamath- </p><p>Hadadezer = 'helped by Hadad', the sun god. 2 Chronicles 8 shows how Solomon sought to replicate what his father David did here. It describes the&nbsp; actions&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; in the 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 establish his dominion by the river Euphrates- </p><p>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 chariots, seven thousand horsemen and twenty thousand footmen; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them enough 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 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; deep&nbsp;&nbsp; within&nbsp; his&nbsp; psyche, that 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 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 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 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>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>


text:
<p>From Tibhath and from Cun, cities of Hadadezer, David took very much brass, with which Solomon made the bronze laver, the pillars and the vessels of brass- </p><p><a href='B:100 8:8'>2Sa 8:8</a> "From Betah". LXX Tebah, a son of Nahor the Syrian (<a href='B:10 22:24'>Gen 22:24</a>). As discussed on :7, these were likely brass [better, 'copper'] idols or idol paraphernalia which he would have been better destroying.</p>


text:
<p>When Tou king of Hamath heard that David had struck all the army of Hadadezer king of Zobah- </p><p>Hamath came under tribute to David (<a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a>), 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>he sent Hadoram 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 Tou); and he had with him all kinds of vessels of gold and silver and 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 the gold that he carried away from all the nations; from Edom, Moab, the children of Ammon, the Philistines and from Amalek- </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. 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>Moreover Abishai the son of Zeruiah struck of the Edomites in the Valley of Salt eighteen thousand- </p><p><a href='B:100 8:13'>2Sa 8:13</a>&nbsp; says that "David made himself a name when he returned from smiting the Syrians in the Valley of Salt, even eighteen thousand men". 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 1 Chronicles 17 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 :13 goes on to talk about Edom.</p>


text:
<p>He put garrisons in Edom; 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>


text:
<p>David reigned over all Israel; and he 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 son of Zeruiah was over the army; Jehoshaphat 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>Zadok son of Ahitub and Abimelech son of Abiathar were priests; Shavsha was scribe- </p><p>We notice that no high priest is nominated. David effectively acted as the high priest; see on :17. 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>


text:
<p>Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and the sons of David were chief around the king- </p><p><a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> has "David’s sons were chief ministers". 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.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after this, that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon died, and 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:130 18:1'>1Ch 18:1</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, because his father showed kindness to me. So David sent messengers to comfort him concerning his father. David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon to Hanun, to comfort him- </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>


text:
<p>But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun, Do you think that David honours your father, in that he has sent comforters to you? Haven’t his servants come to you to search, to overthrow, and to spy out the land?- </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, shaved them, cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away- </p><p><a href='B:100 10:4'>2Sa 10:4</a> says that half their beards were shaved. 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.</p>


text:
<p>Then there went certain persons and told David how the men were served. He sent to meet them; for the men were greatly ashamed. The king said, Stay 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 had made themselves odious to David, Hanun and the children of Ammon sent one thousand talents of silver to hire them chariots and horsemen out of Mesopotamia, and out of Arammaacah, and out of Zobah- </p><p>For "thousand" see on <a href='B:130 18:4'>1Ch 18:4</a>. 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 <a href='B:100 10:19'>2Sa 10:19</a>). 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>


text:
<p>So they hired for themselves thirty-two thousand chariots, and the king of Maacah and his people, who came and encamped before Medeba. The children of Ammon gathered themselves together from their cities, and came to battle- </p><p>Numbers 32 describes how Reuben and Gad didn’t want to venture West of Jordan, but wished to just wave goodbye to their brethren and settle on the land which looked good for their cattle on the East banks of Jordan. They asked permission to make booths for their cattle and towns for their children. God eventually agreed and made a compromise with them- but He repeats their words back to them in a different order. They were to make towns for their children, and booths for their cattle (<a href='B:40 32:16'>Num 32:16</a> cp. 24). Their order was cattle and kids; God’s desire was kids then cattle. And time and again one sees the same nexus of thought playing itself out- people put their cattle, their materialism, before their children. And God wants it the other way around. Working mothers, late working fathers, kids in day care from babyhood- all so the family can live here and not there, have this car rather than that one, holiday here rather than stay at home, have the latest toys and gadgets... all, of course, in the name of 'for the sake of the kids'; when it's actually cattle before kids. Interestingly, the names of the towns which Reuben and Gad built, the territory they so desired, only occur in later Scripture in the context of their being part of Gentile territories (<a href='B:290 15:4'>Isa 15:4</a>; <a href='B:290 16:8-9'>Isa 16:8-9</a>; <a href='B:300 48:2'>Jer 48:2</a>; <a href='B:300 48:45'>Jer 48:45</a>; <a href='B:130 19:7'>1Ch 19:7</a>). So they never ultimately kept hold of that for which they sacrificed the promised inheritance of Canaan. God in His total love and grace was willing to go along with their weakness- He compromised, as it were, by saying they could have that coveted territory if they helped their brethren totally inherit their possessions West of Jordan. Ultimately this never happened, as not all the Canaanite territory was possessed; yet still God allowed Reuben and Gad to have their part of the deal which they never fully kept. And there's great grace in the way that <a href='B:50 3:19'>Deu 3:19</a> records God saying to them at this time: "I know that you have much cattle". God knew their weakness. He knew they'd never even seen the wonders of the promised land, which was far more fertile than the land East of Jordan. But He went along with them, so much did He thirst for relationship with them. And so it is with our cattle-before-kids materialism. God may not cast us off because of it in itself. His grace and love is too strong for that. But by permitting us the compromise, we find ourselves in a far harder situation and a path which long term won't lead to permanent inheritance of the promised land, just as it didn’t for Reuben and Gad.</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 gate of the city. The kings who had come were by themselves in the field-</p><p><a href='B:100 10:8'>2Sa 10:8</a> adds: "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". "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>The rest of the people he committed into the hand of Abishai his brother; and they put themselves 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 :13, 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 are to help me; but if the children of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will 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. May Yahweh do that which seems good to Him- </p><p>As explained on :10, 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.</p><p>We ask ourselves whether this was faith or fatalism. Joseph&nbsp; held no grudge against his brethren, and would not be vindictive to them, because he understood something of predestination: “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (<a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a>). And because he understood that God’s good intentions were worked out through the evil intentions of others, Joseph was content to leave all in God’s hands, and on this basis he assures his brothers that given his understanding of this ‘predestination’, he wouldn’t hit back at them for what they’d done to him. The Lord spoke of the coming of His ‘hour’ of death as if it were somehow predestined of the Father. But His appreciation of this didn’t lead to a mere fatalism, but rather to a heightened sense of the importance of obedience, of playing His part in the Father’s drama to the best of His ability (<a href='B:500 7:6'>Joh 7:6</a>; <a href='B:500 7:8'>Joh 7:8</a>; <a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a>; <a href='B:500 12:27'>Joh 12:27</a>). Joab likewise may have had the same understanding, and this bred not fatalism but rather a zealous attempt to fight for the Lord, which God blessed with victory.</p>


text:
<p>So Joab and the people who were with him drew near before the Syrians to the battle; 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 his brother, and entered into the city. Then Joab 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.</p>


text:
<p>When the Syrians saw that they were defeated by Israel, they sent messengers, and drew forth the Syrians who were beyond the River, with Shophach the captain of the army of Hadadezer at their head- </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. 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, passed over the Jordan and came on them, and set the battle in array against them. So when David had put the battle in array against the Syrians, they 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 thousand charioteers, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the army- </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 the servants of Hadadezer saw that they were defeated by Israel, they made peace with David, and served him. From then on, the Syrians would not help the children of Ammon- </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>At the time of the return of the year, at the time when kings go out, Joab led forth the army, and wasted the country of the children of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem-</p><p>The record, typical of Chronicles, doesn't record the shameful incident of David sinning with Bathsheba as a result of remaining in Jerusalem. This is the classic example of the devil finding work for idle hands; in <a href='B:130 19:8'>1Ch 19:8</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. David 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>David stayed [AV "tarried"] at Jerusalem. 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>Joab struck Rabbah and overthrew it- </p><p>How the citadel fell is explained in <a href='B:100 12:27'>2Sa 12:27</a>. I suggest that 2 Samuel is thematic rather than chronological. This really picks up from 2 Samuel 10, where Syrian support for Rabbah had been cut off, and Rabbah was besieged by Joab. It is unlikely that the siege could have been maintained for a year or so. I suggest therefore that what we read of here happened some time after the sin with Bathsheba, and before David’s repentance. The harsh treatment of the captives and proud taking of the crown David hadn't fought for... is all the kind of behaviour to be associated with a man in bad conscience before God.</p><p>This may be alluded to in <a href='B:240 16:32'>Pro 16:32</a>: "One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty; one who rules his spirit, than he who takes a city". This may refer to the hot headed anger of Joab and the "sons of Zeruiah", who had opposed Solomon and sought the throne for themselves towards the end of David’s life. It was Joab who had taken the citadel of Zion and also the city of Rabbah, but this is dismissed by Solomon as cancelled out, as it were, by his hot headed lack of mental self control.</p>


text:
<p>David took the crown of their king from off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold, and there were precious stones in it; and it was set on David’s head; and he brought forth the spoil of the city, a great amount- </p><p>As explained on <a href='B:230 20:1'>Psa 20:1</a>; <a href='B:230 21:1'>Psa 21:1</a>, Psalms 20, 21 appear to be David’s prayers before going into battle against Ammon, and Psalms 21 is his thanksgiving for the victory. The setting of the gold crown upon his head is specifically referenced in <a href='B:230 21:3'>Psa 21:3</a>. This however was straight after his sin with Bathsheba (<a href='B:100 12:30'>2Sa 12:30</a>). So David’s joy in God’s salvation expressed in those Psalms was due to his sense that God had given him this victory by grace when he himself was a sinner. His thanks for giving him eternal life when he put the crown upon him (<a href='B:230 21:4'>Psa 21:4</a>) was therefore in the sense that he believed that despite his sin, he would be eternally saved, and he saw the victory against Ammon as a foretaste of that.</p><p>But another take is possible. Soon after the sin with Bathsheba, but before&nbsp; David’s repentance (see on <a href='B:100 12:26'>2Sa 12:26</a>), David went to join Joab in the battle for Rabbah- perhaps to give an impression of zeal to Bathsheba and the rest of his people. 'If brave Uriah died there, why, I'm not afraid to be with the boys on the front line either'. After the victory, David proudly placed the crown of Rabbah's king on his own head, pillaging the spoil of the city rather than burning it, and then&nbsp; cruelly tortured the Ammonites; "he (David personally) brought out the people... and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes" (<a href='B:140 20:2-3'>2Ch 20:2-3</a>). How true it is that one sin leads to another. David’s own bad conscience with God led him into this fit of bitterness, in which he so needlessly tortured people who at the most only warranted a quick death. One is left to imagine him making a great deal of how he was doing this in vengeance for the death of Uriah. Whenever we detect unreasonable behaviour, pride, materialism or bitterness within our own lives, we need to ask to what degree this is related to our own lack of good conscience with God.</p><p>The extent of David’s fall at this time may be indicated by the way he crowns himself with the 70 pound gold crown of the Ammonite state god Milcom. Whilst retaining his allegiance to Yahweh, this personal association with a pagan god seems inappropriate. See on <a href='B:100 12:26'>2Sa 12:26</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He brought forth the people who were therein, and cut them with saws, and with iron picks, and with axes. David did so to all the cities of the children of Ammon. David and all the people returned to Jerusalem-</p><p>See on <a href='B:100 12:26'>2Sa 12:26</a>. This harsh torture and judgment of others is of the same nature as his harsh judgment of the person in Nabal's parable, demanding the death sentence for a man whom the law of Moses didn’t punish with death for what he did. This is a classic case of transference. David is subconsciously transferring his sin and guilt onto others, and then punishing them heavily. This kind of psychological credibility of the narrative encourages us in our faith that it is indeed the inspired word of God.</p><p>It’s one thing to obey Divine commands about slaying enemies; it’s another to willfully torture them, Auschwitz-style. It was the same cruelty he showed in <a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>. 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>).</p>


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


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


text:
<p>There was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were twenty-four, six on each hand, and six on each foot; and he also was born to the giant- </p><p>David fought the Philistines at Gath (see on :4), and yet we note that he lived with Achish at Gath for over a year, and some of his most loyal followers were Philistines from Gath like Ittai. His victories over them therefore elicited humility and faith from some of the Philistines there. They realized that David and his men won their victories not in their own strength, but because of Yahweh. And they humbly came into covenant relationship with the God of their enemies, and fellowship with their one time enemies and murderers of their friends and families. It is humility which is the critical requirement in coming to the true God, and no amount of apparently high powered intellectual argument and slick presentation can replace that.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel- </p><p><a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a> says that this happened because Yahweh was angry with Israel. This common phrase is typically used of God’s anger with Israel for idolatry, which was clearly a problem amongst them even at David’s time. He didn’t want to punish them. The census gave them the opportunity to pay a half shekel each for "atonement money" (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>), lest they be struck with plague. It seems God worked through David’s fear of an invasion or forthcoming battle with a 'satan'' / adversary, so that he took a census and the people had the chance to pay that atonement money in loyalty to Yahweh. But they didn’t- and so they were struck with plague. David’s feeling of guilt over the matter is understandable, but I will argue later that it was more a case of false guilt.</p><p>The books of Samuel and Chronicles are parallel accounts of the same incidents, as the four gospels are records of the same events but using different language. <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a> records: “The Lord... moved David against Israel” in order to make him take a census of Israel. The parallel account in <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Ch 21:1</a> says that “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David” to take the census. In one passage God does the ‘moving’, in the other Satan does it. The only conclusion is that God acted as a ‘Satan’ or adversary to David. He did the same to Job by bringing trials into his life, so that Job said about God: “With the strength of Your hand You oppose me” (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>); ‘You are acting as a Satan against me’, was what Job was basically saying. Or again, speaking of God: “I must appeal for mercy to my accuser (Satan)” (<a href='B:220 9:15'>Job 9:15</a> NRSV). The idea is sometimes used to describe our greatest adversary, i:e. our own sin, and at times for whole systems or empires which stand opposed to the people of God and personify sinfulness and evil. But it seems obvious that it is a bizarre approach to Bible reading to insist that whenever we meet these words 'Satan' and 'Devil', we are to understand them as references to a personal, supernatural being.</p><p>Perhaps the satan which moved David to number Israel was a Satan-Angel, as in the case of the righteous Angel involved with Balaam, acting as a satan / adversary, and with Job. The parallel with Balaam is that God sent a Satan-Angel against him because His anger was kindled against Balaam (<a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a>, the same phrase as in :1). The Angel may have acted directly on David’s heart to bring about a trial for both David and Israel. This is one of the many indications that the numbering of the people was not David’s sin. See on :10. But the adversaries to David and Israel were at that point the surrounding nations. Even if an Angel was involved, the immediate 'satan' would have been an approaching enemy army; and David wanted to know how many men he had to fight off that invasion. Or it could have been an extension of the gathering of troops made at the time of <a href='B:100 20:4'>2Sa 20:4</a>, when David wanted to know how many soldiers he could really count on after Absalom's rebellion.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Nevertheless the king’s word prevailed against Joab. Therefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem- </p><p><a href='B:100 24:4'>2Sa 24:4</a> "and against the captains of the army". The army captains likewise agreed with Joab that the census was not a good idea. This incident is at a time when David’s word prevails against Joab and the generals, and we get the impression that this would not have happened after his sin with Bathsheba, after which Joab speaks and acts towards David in a belligerent manner. So the incident may be not in chronological order; indeed none of the cameos of Davidic history at the end of 2 Samuel are in chronological order.</p>


text:
<p>Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people to David. All those of Israel were one million one hundred thousand men who drew sword; and in Judah were four hundred and seventy thousand men who drew sword-</p><p>According to <a href='B:130 21:5'>1Ch 21:5</a>, there were 1,100,000 “men that drew sword” in Israel. According to <a href='B:100 24:9'>2Sa 24:9</a>, there were 800,000 “valiant men” in Israel, according to the same census. There is no contradiction- rather the Samuel record is perceiving that there was a higher level of commitment, as. There were the enthusiasts, and those who merely could draw a sword. They were all living on different levels.</p><p>The numbers are also difficult because the Hebrew word for "thousand" need not mean a literal 1,000, but it is at time used to refer to a military subdivision. And it can have different definitions in some areas and at some times and by some writers. That is likely the reason for the difference between the numbers presented in Samuel and Chronicles, rather than textual corruption. If taken literally, the numbers are unrealistic; nearly 2 million soldiers (according to Chronicles) in the combined kingdom would imply a huge total population. Even if there were six million population in the territory they then inhabited (about 11,000 square miles), this would give an average population density of 600 / square mile. It seems really doubtful that the country could have supported this.</p><p>"Drew the sword" is the same phrase used in <a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> of how the destroying Angel had a drawn sword in his hand. The idea seems to be that God’s Angelic power was more than a match for thousands of Israelites with their drawn swords. This would be an argument in favour of the idea that David did indeed sin at this time by trusting in his own swords, although the greater sin appears to have been with the people.</p>


text:
<p>But he didn’t count Levi and Benjamin among them for the king’s word was abominable to Joab- </p><p>Perhaps Joab reasoned that the Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>). But that was just a cover for the fact he didn’t want to obey the king's word, because he knew Israel would not pay the required temple tax and there would be plague because of it. And Benjamin, the tribe of Saul, were perhaps particularly opposed to being numbered by David.</p>


text:
<p>God was displeased with this thing; therefore He struck Israel- </p><p>Israel were struck as promised in the law, because they refused to pay the temple tax when they were numbered. We note therefore that God’s anger was with Israel rather than David, who took false guilt in this matter.</p>


text:
<p>David said to God, I have sinned greatly, in that I have done this thing. But now, put away, I beg You, the iniquity of Your servant; for I have done very foolishly- </p><p>The response is similar to that to the sin with Bathsheba, again before a prophet. Balaam also said the same words (<a href='B:40 22:34'>Num 22:34</a>), and again we find an Angel 'standing'. Although David did take false guilt, it seems there was some element of real failure. The allusion is to the foolishness of Saul (<a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>). He feels he is no better than Saul for his trust in human strength; see on :14. <a href='B:130 21:6-7'>1Ch 21:6-7</a> says that David’s "word" of command of the census was "abominable" to Joab, and also God was "displeased" with "this thing", the same Hebrew translated "word". Unless this refers to His displeasure with Joab for despising David’s word. Yahweh had likewise been "displeased" with David in the matter of Uriah (<a href='B:100 11:27'>2Sa 11:27</a> s:w:). But although David’s lack of faith wasn't good, it seems to me on balance that he was largely taking false guilt. Perhaps we are to read that God was displeased with Israel's lack of response to the word of command about the census, seeing Israel didn’t pay the half shekel required at the time. Indeed David’s trust in human numbers would not have been pleasing to God, it was a slip backwards. But we wonder whether he took false guilt in this matter. For it was allowable to take a census of Israel, although there was to be a half shekel tax paid at the time, which if not paid would result in plague (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>). Joab perhaps guessed that those numbered would not pay this and therefore the census would lead Israel into sin. This is why God chose the punishment of plague; not upon David, but upon Israel. Yet David perhaps realized all that, but knew that his lack of faith in wanting a census, his lack of consideration for the weakness of others, would lead them into sin and punishment. And therefore he felt guilty. It could be argued that his sacrifice atoned for himself and for the people, but they still suffered for not having paid the required "atonement money". But then we must balance against this the comment that "David had done that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (<a href='B:110 15:5'>1Ki 15:5</a>). No mention is made of the matter of the census. There is true guilt, the guilt we should take for our actual sins; and false guilt, the guilt put on us by others and the malfunctioning of the human conscience. In this matter of David’s guilt about the census, we may have an example of a man taking false guilt. The fact Israel and not David were punished with plague would rather confirm this. It may be impossible for us to sort out within us what is true guilt or false guilt, at least not be any intellectual process. But we can rest assured that all our guilt, of whatever kind, is met in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate guilt offering.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke to Gad, David’s prophet, saying- </p><p>Gad was to write his record of these things (<a href='B:130 29:29'>1Ch 29:29</a>), so maybe his record has been incorporated here.</p>


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


text:
<p>So Gad came to David and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Take your choice- </p><p>Although David was innocent, I suggest he was given the choices in order to develop his own self examination over the matter. Thus as king, famine would not have hurt David personally. He was asked to consider whether this was appropriate.</p>


text:
<p>either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days’ suffering the sword of Yahweh, even plague in the land, and the angel of Yahweh destroying throughout all the borders of Israel’. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to Him who sent me- </p><p>Famine, war and plague are the three Divine judgments listed in <a href='B:330 14:21'>Eze 14:21</a> as coming upon Jerusalem at the time of the exile. David had already experienced war and famine (because of the Gibeonites, 2 Samuel 21). Now he was to experience plague. The lesson to the exiles was that these judgments had indeed come because of sin, but the experience of them could be cut short by intense prayer and repentance after the pattern of David. For Yahweh "relented" of the three days plague because of David’s prayer and sacrifice. We see here the open ended nature of His purpose.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Gad, I am in distress- </p><p>The phrase is that used of Saul's great distress on the night of his final condemnation (<a href='B:90 28:15'>1Sa 28:15</a>). David felt he had been foolish as Saul had been (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a> = <a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>). David had replaced Saul because of Saul's apostacy, but he was being made to realize through this experience (even if it was all false guilt), that he too was a sinner and saved by his acceptance of grace, and not because he was intrinsically better than Saul.</p><p>Let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for His mercies are very great. Let me not fall into the hand of man- </p><p>David appealed to God’s mercy in the matter of Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>). Perhaps he learned from that, and chose to throw himself upon that same mercy. But the exact timing of this incident isn't clear. Perhaps it was because of learning about God’s grace through this incident that he later learned to throw himself upon God’s great mercy when he sinned with Bathsheba and against Uriah. David’s experience of God’s grace stayed with him when he faced up to the results of his errors in the future. From experience, he can ask to fall into the Lord’s hand rather than man’s, because “His mercies are great”- using the same two Hebrew words he had used when Nathan came to him in <a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>: “Have mercy upon me… according unto the multitude [Heb. ‘greatness’] of thy tender mercies”. And so the experience of God’s gracious mercy over one sin fortifies us to believe in His grace when, sadly, we fall again; although, in passing, I think that here David himself didn’t really do so much wrong. Yet he perceived himself to have sinned, so the point is still established.</p><p>Truly David is our example. David was very much involved in Israel his people. He saw himself as their representative. "The God of my rock is my shield... he is a shield to all them that trust in him" (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:100 22:31'>2Sa 22:31</a>). “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>) reflects this. When he sung Psalms, he invited them to come and sing along with him (<a href='B:230 105:2'>Psa 105:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 111:1'>Psa 111:1</a>). And many of these Psalms of praise seem to have their origin in his experience of forgiveness regarding Bathsheba. The Lord based His parables of the lost sheep and the man finding the treasure of the Gospel in a field on the statements of David (<a href='B:230 119:162'>Psa 119:162</a>; <a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a>), as if He saw David as representative of all those who would truly come to Him. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven" (<a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a>), David wrote, after experiencing God’s mercy in the matter of Bathsheba. But Paul sees this verse as David describing "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works" (<a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a>). Each of us are in need of a like justification; therefore we find ourselves in David’s position.</p><p>God is kinder than men. It's better to be punished by Him than by men. This puts paid to the Catholic conception of God as a merciless torturer of wicked men. Clearly the doctrine of eternal torments was invented by men, not God.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh sent a plague on Israel; and seventy thousand men of Israel fell- </p><p><a href='B:100 24:15'>2Sa 24:15</a> adds: "So Yahweh sent a plague on Israel from the morning even to the appointed time; and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men". </p><p>"The appointed time" could refer to the time of the evening sacrifice, which David was to offer on Araunah's property and not at the sanctuary. Or the idea may be that there was an "appointed time" of suffering but it was not defined, because it was open ended- the terminus depended upon the intensity of David’s prayers and sacrifice. The three day period of plague&nbsp; was changed because "Yahweh relented" (:15)- because of David’s prayer shortening the stipulated time period. This is why there can be no prescriptive chronology of events in the last days, nor date set for the Lord's return. The appointed time is variable, depending upon factors such as human prayer, repentance and taking the Gospel to all the world.</p><p>LXX "So David chose for himself the mortality: and they were the days of wheat-harvest; and the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from morning till noon, and the plague began among the people".</p>


text:
<p>God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was about to destroy, Yahweh saw, and He relented of the disaster, and said to the destroying angel, It is enough; now stay your hand. The angel of Yahweh was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite-</p><p>This could imply that Ornan's area was about to be destroyed. But it seems we have here an example of the summary being made, and then we read how that came about. Perhaps David was in Jerusalem, maybe praying at the sanctuary, and saw the Angel standing over the nearby hill of Jebus or Moriah. His prayer and obedient, urgent sacrifice then stopped the Angel right there. The Angel "stood" by the threshing floor (<a href='B:130 21:15'>1Ch 21:15</a> AV), as if the Angel's path of destruction was stopped right there by the sacrifice offered in that place.</p><p>The encouragement for the later generation of Jews was that the evil planned upon Jerusalem could be relented from; if there was genuine repentance. God’s hand here was "stayed", but the encouragement was that God would not "stay" His hand in His program of redemption; the same word is often translated "fail" in the assurance that God will not fail His people in ultimately restoring them.</p><p>This “destroying Angel” is surely “the destroyer” who operated in the wilderness. We see here one Angel having the ability to formulate a purpose and another blindly carrying it out until told not to- a scenario which we&nbsp; see repeated elsewhere (e. g. at the Passover and in Ezekiel 9). It was only David’s prayer which lead to “the destroyer” ceasing. Notice how the Angel repented and then encouraged David to offer a sacrifice so the Angel would be "intreated for the land" (<a href='B:100 24:19'>2Sa 24:19</a>; <a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>). Similarly, the Angel repented of punishing Israel and wanted to restore them, and to enable this to happen He encouraged the people through Ezra to be spiritual. Thus Angelic repentance has to be confirmed by human action.</p>


text:
<p>David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of Yahweh standing between earth and sky, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell on their faces- </p><p>This&nbsp; says that the Angel had a "drawn sword" in hand, the same words used of the Angel before Balaam (<a href='B:40 22:23'>Num 22:23</a>; <a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a>). His donkey "turned aside", using the same word for "stretched out" here. The sin of Balaam was connected with idolatry, and I suggested on :1 that this was the reason for God’s anger being kindled against Israel. The sin of Balaam has connections with that of Israel, but not particularly with that of David. Again we get the impression the judgments were for the sake of the sins of the people, the anger of Yahweh was with them, rather than with David for wanting to take a census.</p>


text:
<p>David said to God, Isn’t it I who commanded the people to be numbered? It is even I who have sinned and done very wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Please let Your hand, O Yahweh my God, be against me, and against my father’s house; but not against Your people, that they should be plagued-</p><p>This was effectively asking God to abrogate the promises about his family of 1 Chronicles 17. Thanks to David building an altar at his own expense and asking God to kill him and his family, God stopped the plague upon Israel (<a href='B:100 24:16-17'>2Sa 24:16-17</a> - the stretched out hand of God in destruction was what David asked to be upon him and his family). Israel were suffering the effect of their own sin, in not paying the temple tax (<a href='B:20 30:11-16'>Exo 30:11-16</a>); but&nbsp; in the spirit of Christ, David was willing to die for them. And his dominant desire was counted as if it had been done, and thanks to his self-sacrificial spirit, the people were saved when they personally were unworthy. The wrath of God can be turned away by the actions of those He is angry with (<a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>; <a href='B:50 13:15-17'>Deu 13:15-17</a>; <a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a>; <a href='B:390 3:7'>Jon 3:7</a>; <a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a>; <a href='B:300 21:12'>Jer 21:12</a>). And yet that wrath can also be turned away by the prayers of a third party (<a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a>; <a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>; <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). This means that in some cases, our prayers for others can be counted as if they have repented. We can gain our brother for God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a>), as Noah saved his own house by his faithful preparation (<a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a>). Through our personal dying to the flesh, the life of Christ is manifest not only in us, but is made available to others: “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you” (<a href='B:540 4:10-12'>2Co 4:10-12</a>). The life that is even now made manifest in us is also made available to work in others because death to the flesh has worked in us personally.</p>


text:
<p>Then the angel of Yahweh commanded Gad to tell David that David should go up, and make an altar to Yahweh in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite- </p><p><a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a> implies David assumed that the spot where the Angel appeared to him in <a href='B:100 24:17-18'>2Sa 24:17-18</a> was where he should build the temple. It is another example of David’s tendency to wildly over interpret, which led him to a mistaken obsession about building the temple and assuming Solomon to be his Messianic seed.</p>


text:
<p>David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spoke in the name of Yahweh- </p><p>David went along with the elders of Israel (:16), clothed in sackcloth. David is always presented as totally obedient to the prophets in his life (Samuel, Nathan and Gad), unlike Saul who was consistently disobedient to God’s word through Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Ornan turned back- </p><p><a href='B:100 24:20'>2Sa 24:20</a> "Araunah looked out", i:e. from the place in the threshing area where he was threshing wheat, where he and his four sons had hidden from the presence of the Angel. The records in Chronicles and Samuel perfectly fit with each other, although clearly focusing upon different elements of the scene; just like the gospel records.</p><p>And saw the angel; and his four sons who were with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat- </p><p>Chronicles has "saw the Angel". <a href='B:100 24:20'>2Sa 24:20</a> "saw the king". This may reflect the confusion between malak ["Angel"] and melek ["king"], especially as ancient Hebrew didn’t add the vowel points and the consonants of the two words are the same, m-l-k. Or it could be that Ornan saw David and also at the same time saw the Angel behind him in some form.</p>


text:
<p>As David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the threshing floor, and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground- </p><p>Clearly Ornan respected David, even though it seems he was a Gentile Jebusite, whose relatives may have been slain when David and Joab took Jebus at the start of David’s reign.</p>


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


text:
<p>Ornan said to David, Take it for yourself, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes. Behold, I give the oxen for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meal offering. I give it all- </p><p>LXX "and the wheels and furniture of the oxen for wood". "The threshing instruments" may have referred to quite a major and expensive piece of equipment. But Ornan totally senses the urgency of the situation and is willing to offer even this as wood.</p>


text:
<p>King David said to Ornan, No; but I will most certainly buy it for the full price. For I will not take that which is yours for Yahweh, nor offer a burnt offering without cost- </p><p>I have suggested that the historical records were in places edited and made relevant for the exiles; and given their mean attitude to offerings in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>; <a href='B:460 1:13-14'>Mal 1:13-14</a>, David’s example and principle would have been pertinent. And this is an abiding principle; sacrifice is to be costly, we are to be left "minus", rather than being without cost to us.</p>


text:
<p>So David gave to Ornan six hundred shekels of gold by weight for the place- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:25'>1Ch 21:25</a> speaks of 600 shekels for "the place", whilst <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a> mentions 50 shekels for the threshing floor and oxen. The entire area was later bought, in order to build the temple on that site (<a href='B:130 22:1'>1Ch 22:1</a>; <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David built an altar to Yahweh there, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called on Yahweh; and He answered him from the sky by fire on the altar of burnt offering- </p><p>Elijah in <a href='B:110 18:24'>1Ki 18:24</a> takes the language of God 'answering by fire' from this account of David’s intercession for the plagued, sinful people (same Hebrew words). Elijah saw himself as David, interceding to gain the forgiveness of impenitent third parties as a result of his sacrifice. And indeed there was an element of that. And in the final synthesis and unknowable equation of salvation, there is still a great role played by third parties in our salvation. This is just the language of God justifying Himself over Baal at the time of Elijah. I have suggested throughout that the plague was essentially punishment for Israel's idolatry; see on :1.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into its sheath- </p><p>We have here a visual representation of God’s sensitivity to human prayer and repentance.</p>


text:
<p>At that time, when David saw that Yahweh had answered him in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there- </p><p>Burnt offerings always precede peace offerings (<a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>), because sacrifice is the principle upon which we can have peace with God. But David remained traumatized by the incident, fearing the sword he had seen (<a href='B:130 21:30'>1Ch 21:30</a>). This was a similar reaction by him to how he feared association with the ark for some period after the slaying of Uzzah (<a href='B:130 13:12-13'>1Ch 13:12-13</a>). The similarity in reaction is another indication that the record is true and the character portrayals absolutely consistent, as could only be true of a Divinely inspired record.</p>


text:
<p>For the tabernacle of Yahweh, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt offering, were at that time in the high place at Gibeon- </p><p>The wrong and unsatisfactory nature of having two sanctuaries is commented upon on <a href='B:130 16:40'>1Ch 16:40</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But David couldn’t go before it to inquire of God; for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of Yahweh-</p><p>"Afraid" is the word used of how the evil spirit from Yahweh troubled Saul. We could therefore read this as a slip backwards for David; his wrongful fear of God was confirmed by God. For this is the way He works with His Spirit. I suggested on :28 that this means that David remained traumatized by the incident, fearing the sword he had seen.</p><p>There was no revelation from God that the temple must be built there. David assumes that because he saw that the Lord had answered him there, and because he could not go to Gibeon, where the tabernacle was standing, to seek the Lord there, on account of the sword of the angel, i.e., on account of the plague.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said, This is the house of Yahweh God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel-</p><p>"Then..." suggests this was David's proclamation of the site he had just bought from Ornan as the only acceptable place for sacrifice. But this was David's own decision. The Law states that sacrifice would be offered at a location Yahweh would choose. David makes that choice for God; there is no word from God stating He had decided upon Jerusalem. David elsewhere claims God chose the place, but clearly it was his choice, and he was trying to railroad God into accepting it. Yet God graciously goes along with this without directly challenging it. His Son was later to teach that it was not in Jerusalem but in the hearts of men, in spirit and truth, that God sought worship. But that was in fact ever the case.</p><p> Or we could reason that the certainty of God’s foreknowledge is reflected in the sureness of His word. Biblical Hebrew has a ‘prophetic perfect’ tense, which uses the past tense to describe future things which God has promised. Thus David said, “This is the house of the Lord God”, when as yet the temple [as David understood it] was only promised by God. Such was his faith in that word of promise that David used the present tense to describe future things. Scripture abounds with examples of God’s foreknowledge. God was so certain that He would fulfil the promises to Abraham, that He told him: “Unto your seed have I given this land..." (<a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a>) at a time when Abraham did not even have a seed. During this same period before the seed (Isaac/Christ) was born, God further promised: “A father of many nations have I made you” (<a href='B:10 17:5'>Gen 17:5</a>). Truly, God “calls those things which be not as though they were”.</p><p>"Then" leads us to interpret the following chapters as following on from 1 Chron. 21 and 2 Sam. 24, David's disastrous numbering of Israel and his repentance for doing so. I have argued on 2 Sam. 24 that this was at the end of David's life. He is still wedded to his insistent desire to make the promises of 2 Sam. 7 come true in his building of a physical temple through Solomon, whom he has decided is the promised Messiah. He was seriously wrong on these things, and was in a way denying the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. His numbering of Israel was, I suggested, a result of his giving in to this 'satan' within him, confirmed by God pushing him down that bad path. He was seeking to establish his kingdom by human strength. But then like Balaam he is arrested in his ways, and repents- for the moment. </p><p>
His last words in 2 Sam. 23 are, I argued there, his last prophetic words, the last words he spoke under direct Divine inspiration in the form of revelation. They cannot be his literal last words because the majority of David's recorded words are chronologically after that point, recorded in 1 Chron. 21-29. David in his last prophetic words was made to say that "He who rules over men must be just", and that was not him... and the kingdom of God was not going to be established through him nor his son at that time. He again repents for a moment, "My house is [indeed] not so with God", and again he marvels at God's grace. His remaining recorded words are recorded by inspiration, but they were not of Divine revelation. They contradict God's own statements in 2 Sam. 7. These recorded words of David were not prophetic words, not spoken by Divine revelation. That's why his claims as to what God had actually said to him about Solomon and the temple contradict what God Himself said in 2 Sam. 7 / 1 Chron. 17. And yet God reluctantly went along with the temple cult, just as He did with the idea of human kingship. </p><p>
What we see in 1 Chron. 22-29 is therefore a case of David imagining a narrative and then expanding its envelope to a quite wrong extent. He set Solomon up for spiritual failure. And finally God's wrath came to its climax in His furious destruction of the temple and ending of the Davidic line of kings in Zedekiah's time. In the prophecies about those things we sense God's wrath with the temple.  1 Chron. 22-29 just skim read gives the impression of a lot of numbering of Levites and others, and organizing them into a massive system of service- both to the temple, and to the Davidic kingdom based in Jerusalem. And a gathering together of massive resources to enable the building of the temple. All this was done in the very last months of David's life: "Of the Hebronites was Jerijah the chief, even of the Hebronites, according to their generations by fathers’ households. In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for / numbered, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer", and we go on to read how many (1 Chron. 26:31). This was all a studied denial of what David had learnt for a moment after the disastrous attempt to number Israel in 1 Chron. 21. The sin was not in the census of itself, but in his attitude. He realized that- at the time. He offered sacrifice, the three days plague was reduced to just a few hours... But now in  1 Chron. 22-29 he returns to the essence of those sinful attitudes. And dies like it, with the pathetic bedside scene of 1 Kings 1 as the close of a life not well lived at the end. He died unlamented. And yet for all this failure at the end, by grace will still be saved. Not only was David's failure in numbering everything... the numbers of Levites, how many sons the leaders of the shifts had, the weight of the temple vessels, ensuring there were ministers to count and manage the number of his animals, olive trees and other wealth sources. David's sin was also in trusting in all this human strength and supposing that it was required to worship God. The temple built was not that large, 90 ft. × 45 ft. × 30 ft. But he arranges thousands of people to serve it and a million talents of gold [so he claims] to overlay the walls with gold. This is all out of proportion, and quite against the spirit of the God who said He liked living in a goatskin tent. 
</p>


text:
<p>David gave orders to gather together the foreigners who were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to cut worked stones to build God’s house- </p><p>It certainly looks appropriate in the type for us to see Gentiles working towards building up the house of God. But the reality was that this was a form of racism, using foreigners to do dogs body work; the more shameful if indeed they were as LXX "proselytes". It was repeated by Solomon. We also marvel at David’s pointed disobedience to God’s statement that "You shall not build Me a house to dwell in" (<a href='B:130 17:4'>1Ch 17:4</a>).</p><p>This marshalling of labour is the same essential sin David committed when he numbered Israel in the previous chapter. He repents, is forgiven, but slips from that level of intensity. And returns to the essence of the sin, and in this case, dies in that mindset. Yet will be ultimately saved! Solomon used 150,000 of these people as labourers and stone-cutters (1 Kings 5:15; 2 Chron. 2:16.). This reflects the ridiculous scale of David's self created narrative. This again shows how once we create and feed a false narrative, that narrative expands in size. The person who after twenty years saw their partner drunk on two occasions develops the narrative over the years to proclaim their partner an alcoholic... we see this going on all the time. As John's Gospel makes clear, the death of the Lord Jesus, His cross, His salvation and real forgiveness for us... is a call to absolute, radical truth. All the way through, David is living in denial of the actual commandment to him not  to build a temple: ""Shall you build me a house for me to live in? (2 Sam 7:5)... You shall not build me the house to live in" (1 Chron. 17:4), and God's laboured redefinition of what a "house" for Him must be- a group of people, hearts indwelt by His Spirit. Not a building. And God's insistent grace, that He will build a house for David, and not David building for Him. David is simply trying to get around this by vicariously building the house through Solomon; he made the plans for it [wrongly claiming they were given by God], and makes huge efforts to virtually build it. And we see here the vicarious nature of so much modern sin; not murdering, fornicating or whatever, but doing these things vicariously through the experiences we choose in our screen life.</p>


text:
<p>David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the couplings; and brass in abundance without weight- </p><p>David prepared for the temple right down to the nails and hinges. He was obviously reasoning that he could 'get around' the prohibition against building a temple by getting Solomon to do it after his death. Or it could even be that David was planning to get Solomon to build it once Solomon was old enough to do so, even within David’s lifetime. The reasons given as to why God didn’t want a temple built were relevant for all time, and not just to David.</p>


text:
<p>and cedar trees without number; for the Sidonians and Tyrians brought cedar trees in abundance to David- </p><p>David’s own house was built of cedar (<a href='B:130 17:1'>1Ch 17:1</a>), and there was a very good spiritual reason God’s dwelling place was not in cedar but beneath tents (<a href='B:130 17:3-6'>1Ch 17:3-6</a>). But David was driven by guilt because of his cedar house; and instead of trusting God to remove that guilt, he wanted to build God a cedar house. And the same kind of quasi spiritual psychologies go on in Christian minds today.</p>


text:
<p>David said, Solomon my son is young and tender, and the house that is to be built for Yahweh must be exceedingly magnificent, of fame and of glory throughout all nations. I will therefore make preparation for it. So David prepared abundantly before his death-</p><p>"David said" may mean that he said this in his heart (as in <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>). He speaks of how "the house is to be built for Yahweh", but totally misses the point- that God rejected that and instead offered to build a house for him. But the grace of it all seemed too much, and he wanted to instead do works. God had promised that He would build up Israel, the faithful community, the house of David, to have "fame and glory" in the Gentile world (<a href='B:50 26:19'>Deu 26:19</a> s:w:). But David wanted to make a building of bricks and mortar which would have "fame and glory". He is totally missing the point. "Fame" is the word for "name"; and it was Yahweh's Name which was to be made glorious through His people's manifestation of that Name in their characters (s:w. <a href='B:290 63:12'>Isa 63:12</a>; <a href='B:290 63:14'>Isa 63:14</a>; <a href='B:300 13:11'>Jer 13:11</a>). This was to be the witness to "all nations", and not a magnificent building in Jerusalem.</p><p>After conviction of his sin with Bathsheba, David had vowed to take the message of God's grace to the Gentile world, based on his example. He never did that. Instead now he focuses on the idea that a grandiose temple will attract the surrounding nations to Jerusalem. He has slipped from spirituality to mere religion, and died like that- to be saved ultimately by grace. God's promise was that He would build David a house. But David is now obsessed with building God a house. He shied away from the huge grace shown to him in the promises made to him.</p>


text:
<p>Then he called for Solomon his son, and commanded him to build a house for Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>This sounds as if David asked Solomon to do this during David’s lifetime. He was clearly seeking to 'get around' God’s forbidding of himself to do it, by getting it done in Solomon's name. But that was to miss the point of all the reasons given as to why God didn’t want a temple built.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Solomon his son, As for me, it was in my heart to build a house to the name of Yahweh my God- </p><p>God’s response to this had been to tell David that He would build David a house for His Name to dwell in; the idea being of a community of people who would manifest the characteristics of that Name (<a href='B:100 7:13'>2Sa 7:13</a>). God’s Name was already dwelling in the sanctuary (<a href='B:50 12:5'>Deu 12:5</a>), and David had been wrong to suggest that this Name would dwell in a physical building. But he ignores God’s perspective on this, and claims that God was "for" his project, but just had some hang ups about David doing it. This is a misrepresentation of the reasons God gave for forbidding David to build the temple (<a href='B:130 17:4-7'>1Ch 17:4-7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But the word of Yahweh came to me saying, ‘You have shed blood abundantly, and have made great wars. You shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight- </p><p>Given the fact that David has willfully misrepresented God’s response to him and the prohibition of <a href='B:130 17:4-7'>1Ch 17:4-7</a>, I suspect this was not what God said. It was David’s attempt to justify God’s refusal of his plan.God had said that David would not build a house because He was going to build a house and place David and his Messianic Son in it, eternally- at some point after David had died, thereby implying resurrection at the last day. David has twisted that just as folk today, taking a word or two of a Bible verse out of context and building an entire narrative upon it. And that narrative directly contradicts the spirit and essence of God's revelation. In 1 Kings 5:3 Solomon tells Hiram that David couldn't build the temple because he was busy fighting Yahweh's wars. Again the envelope has expanded. Once you start a false narrative, others repeat it and take it as gospel truth, but in their turn add to it and twist and transform it. David falsely claims that God debarred him from temple building because he had shed much blood. There is no ethical reason why blood shedding of itself precluded from building a temple. David twists this narrative further to say that therefore no iron weapon or tool must be used on the stones of the house. His false assumptions led to more wrong and at best irrelevant thinking. Solomon in turn twists this narrative to say that it was because David had fought Yahweh's battles that he couldn't build a temple. False narratives always gets expanded, and the expansion is likewise false.
</p><p>But taking what he said as being actually some unrecorded revelation of God to him, there does seem some appropriacy in the reasons given. Although in this case, it seems therefore inappropriate for David to tell Solomon from his deathbed to shed the blood of all his potential competitors. It seems that David’s revelling in the blood of the condemned, as so often seen in his Psalms (e.g. <a href='B:230 58:10'>Psa 58:10</a>) is out of step with the God who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (<a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a>). It was perhaps because of David’s attitude to "blood" rather than simply his shedding of blood which disqualified him from building the temple; God was not pleased with this attitude. See on :9:Many have struggled to reconcile the statement that David was a man after God’s own heart (<a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>) with the fact that his life contains many examples not only of failure, but of anger and a devaluing of human life. He was barred from building the temple because of the amount of blood he had shed (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). The figure of ‘shedding blood’ takes us back to the incident with Nabal, where David three times is mentioned as intending to “shed blood” (<a href='B:90 25:26-33'>1Sa 25:26-33</a>), only to be turned away from his sinful course by the wisdom, spirituality and charm of Abigail. David started out as the spiritually minded, humble shepherd, full of faith and zeal for his God. Hence Jehoshaphat is commended for walking “in the first ways of his father David” (<a href='B:140 17:3'>2Ch 17:3</a>). It seems to me that the comment that David was “a man after God’s own heart” refers to how he initially was, at the time God chose him and rejected Saul. But the trauma of his life, the betrayals, jealousies and hatred of others, led him to the kind of bitterness which so often surfaces in the Psalms and is reflected in several historical incidents where he lacks the value of others’ lives which we would otherwise expect from a man who walked so close with his God.</p><p>Consider the collective force of some of those incidents:</p><p>- When told to slay 100 Philistines, he slays 200 for good measure (<a href='B:90 18:25'>1Sa 18:25</a>; <a href='B:90 18:27'>1Sa 18:27</a>)</p><p>- David’s eager taking of the sword of Goliath (<a href='B:90 21:9'>1Sa 21:9</a> - “There is none like that; give it me”) contrasts sadly with his earlier rejection of such weapons in order to slay Goliath. And David later reflects how he knew that his faithless taking of that sword and the shewbread would lead to the death of Abiathar’s family ((<a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>). But still he did it.</p><p>- His anger with Nabal and desire to slay all “that piss against the wall” who lived with “this fellow” ((<a href='B:90 25:21-22'>1Sa 25:21-22</a> AV) is expressed in crude terms; and he later thanks Abigail for persuading him not to “shed blood” and “avenging myself with mine own hand” ((<a href='B:90 25:33'>1Sa 25:33</a>)- the very things he elsewhere condemns in his Psalms (e.g. <a href='B:230 44:3'>Psa 44:3</a>). Time and again in the Psalms, David uses that Hebrew word translated “avenging myself” about how God and not man will revenge / save him against his enemies, for God saves / avenges the humble in spirit not by their strength and troops but by His. But in the anger of hot blood, David let go of all those fine ideas. He had some sort of an anger problem. </p><p>- David says that the servants of Saul are “worthy to die” because they fell asleep as a result of “a deep sleep from the Lord” which fell on them, and therefore didn’t protect Saul (<a href='B:90 26:12'>1Sa 26:12</a>; <a href='B:90 26:16'>1Sa 26:16</a>). Were they really that guilty of death for this? There doesn’t appear to be any Biblical command David was quoting. </p><p>- “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul” is surely a collapse of faith (<a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>). And it led to the way in which David deceived Achish by pretending he was attacking Jewish towns, when in fact he was going out and attacking the Amalekite settlements, killing all men, women and children in them so that nobody was left alive to tell that it was David who had attacked them (<a href='B:90 27:8-10'>1Sa 27:8-10</a>). Innocent people were slain by David’s sword for the ‘political’ reason that he had to keep Achish ‘in the dark’ about what he was really up to. And so in case a 5 year old say something incriminating later, David simply killed the little boy. 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>). Indeed, when Achish later says that David would be best not to go with him to fight Saul, David hypocritically says: “But what have I done? And what have you found in your servant so long as I have been with you unto this day, that I may not go fight against the enemies [i:e. Saul] of my lord the king?” (<a href='B:90 29:8'>1Sa 29:8</a>). This was hardly an example of the “integrity” and “uprightness” which David glorifies in his Psalms, and which he insisted he was full of (<a href='B:230 25:21'>Psa 25:21</a>). Indeed he claims that his integrity is the basis of his acceptance by God (<a href='B:230 26:1'>Psa 26:1</a>).</p><p>- It’s recorded that in the ethnic cleansing which David performed, he took the spoil of those settlements for himself (<a href='B:90 27:9'>1Sa 27:9</a>). Indeed when he destroyed Ziklag, he took away their herds “and said, This is David’s spoil” (<a href='B:90 30:20'>1Sa 30:20</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>- When Saul is killed, a young Amalekite hopeful comes to David with the story that he had killed Saul, trying to curry favour with David and secure his own release as a prisoner of war. David executed him (<a href='B:100 1:15'>2Sa 1:15</a>). 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>). </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 (<a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>). 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. 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. 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?</p><p>- David’s murder of Uriah and his sin with Bathsheba again reflects this same lack of value of the human person, even of his faithful friends.</p><p>- When David is asked to give seven men of the family of Saul as a blood sacrifice to appease the rain god who was not sending rain, David agrees. He doesn’t make the Biblical argument that rain being withheld indicates the need for repentance before Yahweh, and that sacrificing humans is wrong and won’t change anything in this context. He gives in to the false understanding of the Gibeonites, breaking his undertakings to Saul and Jonathan by doing so, and selects seven men to be slain and hung up. We read of the mother of two of them, Rizpah, lovingly watching over the bodies of her sons day and night, with all the distraction of true love (<a href='B:100 21:10'>2Sa 21:10</a>). David didn’t have to do this. But he did. We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). He doesn’t seem to have cared for the mother’s feelings, nor for the lives of her sons. And note that David makes up the total of seven men by having the five foster sons of his own estranged wife Michal slain. Was this not David somehow hitting back at Michal, who had mocked him for his style of worship in 2 Samuel 6? And how did Adriel, the father of those five sons, feel? He wasn’t of the house of Saul, but because of David’s desire to placate someone else, he lost all his sons, just because his wife had died and Saul’s daughter had raised them. And yet this same David is recorded as saying soon afterwards: “I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his ordinances were before me; And as for his statutes, I did not depart from them. I was also perfect toward him; And I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to my cleanness in his eyesight” (<a href='B:100 22:22-25'>2Sa 22:22-25</a>).</p><p>- David seems to glory in how he destroyed his enemies- “I might destroy them that hate me… then did I beat them as small as the dust of the earth, I did stamp them as the more of the street, and did spread them [i:e. their body parts] abroad” (<a href='B:100 22:41-43'>2Sa 22:41-43</a>). Can this really be justified as obedience to Divine commands? Is this not the expression of blood lust and anger? And isn’t it therefore self-righteous to style himself “the anointed of the God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel” (<a href='B:100 23:1'>2Sa 23:1</a>)? Was he really “sweet”? </p><p>- David earlier forgave Shimei for cursing him. But he tells Solomon to bring down that old man’s white hairs to the grave with blood on them- again, a crude image for the murder of an old man. And he uses the same awful turn of phrase to ask Solomon to do this also to his lifelong friend Joab (<a href='B:110 2:6'>1Ki 2:6</a>; <a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). Surely grace would’ve found another way?</p><p><a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>; <a href='B:130 28:3'>1Ch 28:3</a> are reported speech by David. We wonder if he wasn’t imagining this. Why should it be morally objectionable for David to build the temple because he was a man of war? Yahweh is a man of war, yet He was to build David’s house. We only learn about God’s objection to David building the temple from the passages where David reports what God apparently told him, and from Solomon repeating this. If God did actually say this, then there is a logical contradiction between this and His statements about not wanting a house at all. If He was saying 'I want a physical house, but not built by David', then this appears irreconcilable with the reasons He is actually recorded as giving David for not wanting a house (see on <a href='B:100 7:7-11'>2Sa 7:7-11</a>). Either God wanted a house or He didn’t. See on <a href='B:130 28:5-6'>1Ch 28:5-6</a>.</p><p>Solomon's take on this is in <a href='B:110 5:3'>1Ki 5:3</a>: "You know how that David my father could not build a house for the name of Yahweh his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until Yahweh put his enemies under the soles of his feet". Solomon had a way of spinning things, even God’s word, in his own selfish way. David had insisted that God had told him that he couldn’t build the temple because he had shed so much blood in war (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). But Solomon just slightly spins this when he asks Hiram to come and help him build the temple, because, he says, his father David hadn’t had the time to get around to the job because of being busy fighting wars (<a href='B:110 5:3'>1Ki 5:3</a>). He says nothing about David shedding blood; the moral aspect of it all is nicely ignored by Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies all around; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days- </p><p>"Solomon" is what David and Bathsheba named him, seeking to make him a "man of peace" so that he might fulfill the promise that the Son of David would be a man of peace. But 2 Sam. 12:25 is clear that God named him not Solomon but Jedidiah: "The LORD loved the boy and commanded the prophet Nathan to name the boy Jedidiah, because the LORD loved him" (GNB, CEV; ISV "she [Bathsheba] bore a son whom he [David] named Solomon. The LORD loved him, and sent a message written by Nathan the prophet to call his name Jedidiah"). David named the child Solomon because he so itched for the promise to him to be fulfilled in his lifetime. God corrected him on this point, rather seeking to redirect David's attention to His love and grace to that child. But David had fed and nursed his own narrative and now he claims that God had commanded him to name the child Solomon- when in fact the opposite was the case. He named him Solomon and immediately afterwards he gets a message from Nathan to name the child not Solomon but Jedidiah- a name David never once used for the child. There was not peace in Solomon's reign- as the Kings record makes clear, there was much unrest from within and without his kingdom (1 Kings 11:14,23,26). And if indeed David is correct and Solomon was God's named fulfillment of the Messianic "man of peace"... how ever can it be explained that Solomon went so badly wrong and was not at all the Messiah figure? Solomon was really set up for spiritual failure by David. For he assumes that he is the Christ, the Messiah, "the anointed one" (O Lord God, do not reject Your anointed one", 2 Chron. 6:42). </p><p> 
David claimed about Solomon: "Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies". But these words are alluded to and applied to the Lord Jesus: "For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom" (Is. 9:6,7). Clearly God's view is that David was simply wrong to insist upon Solomon as the candidate for His begotten Son, according to His promise to David. The Son was to be the Lord Jesus; He was to be the man / prince of peace, the Son born and given. And David was intended to figure this out. But his obsession with his own narrative led him to depart from the things of the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. 
</p><p> I wonder whether God did in fact say :8,9, or whether they are David’s assumptions of what he thought God had said. We are told in Is:66:1 that it is not possible to build God a house; and we have seen above that the house God wants is a household of believers, built by Himself through Christ. So we have to conclude that David was deeply puzzled as to why he couldn't build God a house, and he concluded that it must be because he had shed so much blood; and therefore he eventually came to the conclusion that God had actually said this to him. It is quite likely that David was paranoid about being guilty of the blood of Saul's house (<a href='B:100 3:28-29'>2Sa 3:28-29</a>; <a href='B:100 4:11-12'>2Sa 4:11-12</a>; <a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sa 1:16</a> cp. 16:8); see how aware of this he felt in <a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:90 24:5'>1Sa 24:5</a>; <a href='B:90 26:9'>1Sa 26:9</a>:&nbsp; This would not be the first time Yahweh's servants have done this kind of thing- speculating upon what they wish God had said, until they come to the conclusion that this is actually what He wants. Nathan initially told David to build the temple, sure that this was what God would say- but not so. The sad thing is that Solomon took this as Scripture. David’s immediate response to the promises to him says nothing about Solomon building the temple; rather does David praise God for His plan of salvation in Christ. One wonders how accurate was David’s account of the promises in <a href='B:130 22:9'>1Ch 22:9</a>: "A son shall be born to thee... I will give him rest from all his enemies [without mentioning any conditions]... his name shall be Solomon". Due to his apostacy, Solomon did not have rest from his enemies (<a href='B:110 5:4'>1Ki 5:4</a>):&nbsp;Note that the fact the record is undoubtedly inspired does not mean that all inspired words are factually accurate- the speeches of Job’s friends are recorded under inspiration, as are the claims of Sennacherib, but what they say is criticized within Scripture as being inaccurate.</p>


text:
<p>He shall build a house for My name; and he shall be My son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever’- </p><p>This again is a misrepresentation of what God said. He said that David need not build any physical temple, but He would build for David a house, and this would be achieved through a special Messianic descendant of David. But the record in 2 Samuel 7 was clear that the achievement of this was to be conditional upon the obedience of that special Davidic seed. The essential contradiction with the letter and spirit of the actual promises is such that I conclude that here we have David stating his assumptions as God’s word. This is a basic human failure we see going on all the time.</p><p>"I will establish the throne of <em>his</em> kingdom" contrasts with what God said in 1 Chron. 17:14: "I will settle him in <em>My</em> house and in My kingdom forever". David is no longer focused upon the kingdom of God, because his narrative has conflated it with Solomon's kingdom. </p>


text:
<p>Now, my son, may Yahweh be with you and prosper you, and build the house of Yahweh your God, as He has spoken concerning you- </p><p>David liked to imagine that Solomon would "prosper" because he built the temple (<a href='B:130 22:11'>1Ch 22:11</a>); but such prosperity was conditional. The exiles wanted the "prosperity" of the Kingdom immediately (s:w. <a href='B:230 118:25'>Psa 118:25</a>); but this prosperity was conditional upon their obedience to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a>); they would never "prosper" whilst disobeying it (s:w. <a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a>), nor could they "prosper" to enter the land as intended whilst faithless (<a href='B:40 14:41'>Num 14:41</a> s:w:). The faithful minority amongst the exiles believed God would prosper them in rebuilding Solomon's temple (<a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>), and He was indeed eager to do so (<a href='B:290 55:11'>Isa 55:11</a>); but this was not to be, because the majority were faithless. This prosperity was to finally only be through the work of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>), seeing Solomon and the later potential 'servant' figures of the restoration all failed (<a href='B:290 48:15'>Isa 48:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>May Yahweh give you discretion and understanding, and put you in charge of Israel; that so you may keep the law of Yahweh your God- </p><p>The conditionality of the promises is rather skirted around here. David thinks that his prayer can result in God giving Solomon the wisdom required to be obedient to His law. Solomon's personal volition in that obedience doesn't seem to figure. And therefore God had to specifically appear to Solomon and warn him about this. He went wrong exactly because he assumed that as David’s chosen son, he could not go morally wrong.</p>


text:
<p>Then you will prosper, if you observe to do the statutes and the ordinances which Yahweh gave Moses concerning Israel. Be strong and courageous. Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed- </p><p>Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn’t preserve of observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God’s ways, and replacing David his father’s simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>). Being "afraid and dismayed" is the term used of how Israel generally were terrified of Goliath, whereas David by faith wasn't (<a href='B:90 17:11'>1Sa 17:11</a>). David in turn uses it to his son Solomon (<a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:130 28:20'>1Ch 28:20</a>). He was thereby urging Solomon not to worry if he was out of step with all Israel; if they were dismayed and terrified, he was still to walk in faith as David had done at the time of the Goliath crisis. It is also used to urge the people toward the spirit of David rather than that of Israel in <a href='B:140 20:15'>2Ch 20:15</a>; <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>. The same phrase is also used in urging the people of Judah in Hezekiah's time to consider the Assyrians to be as a Goliath which they like David could vanquish (<a href='B:140 32:7'>2Ch 32:7</a>). The exiles likewise were urged not to be dismayed and terrified at the reproach of men (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>), very clearly making the history with Goliath relevant to their times.</p><p>David's speech is filled with allusion to the need to keep the law of Moses (Dt. 7:11; 11:32); and the exhortation to be strong and of good courage alludes to God telling His people likewise in exhorting them to be faithful to the covenant (Dt. 31:6; Josh. 1:7,9). Again we see the wrong expansion of the envelope in David's thought- he came to see his own narrative as being that of God, and obedience to it was obedience to God's law. He hijacks Bible verses and pressgangs them into the service of his own narrative. Just as people do all the time.</p>


