# comment

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.</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.</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>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>


text:
<p>Then David said, This is the house of Yahweh God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel-</p><p>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>


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>


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>


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.</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>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>


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>


text:
<p>Now, behold, I have made a great effort in preparing for the house of Yahweh one hundred thousand talents of gold, one million talents of silver, and brass and iron without weight; for it is in abundance. I have also prepared timber and stone; and you may add to them- </p><p>"Made a great effort" is RVmg. "in my low estate". David makes a juxtaposition between his own lowness, and the super abundance of wealth he has given for the temple. He makes an appropriate distinction between his wealth and himself personally. However the figures seem so exaggerated and not literal. The more wealthy Solomon only received 666 talents of gold / year (<a href='B:110 10:14'>1Ki 10:14</a>), so 100,000 talents of gold is an unrealistic figure. Although if Chronicles was rewritten in exile, the talents may refer to Persian talents, which were far less than hebrew talents:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>There are also workmen with you in abundance, cutters and workers of stone and timber, and all kinds of men who are skilful in every kind of work- </p><p>Solomon however didn't begin the work until after David's death. David had prepared the workmen at this stage but it seems they were not used, and so when Solomon began the work, he had to seek such workmen again (<a href='B:140 2:7'>2Ch 2:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>of the gold, silver, brass and iron, there is no number. Arise and be doing, and may Yahweh be with you- </p><p>David makes no reference to how these things were to happen when he slept with his fathers (<a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>). Rather does he tell Solomon to get on and begin the building work immediately, now he had the commission. "Arise and be doing" is quoted in <a href='B:150 10:4'>Ezr 10:4</a> about the work of the restoration of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>David also commanded all the princes of Israel to help Solomon his son, saying- </p><p>This again sounds like David was asking them to give Solomon their immediate and instant support. David makes no reference to how these things were to happen when he slept with his fathers (<a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Isn’t Yahweh your God with you? Hasn’t He given you rest on every side? For He has delivered the inhabitants of the land into my hand; and the land is subdued before Yahweh and before His people- </p><p>David "subdued" the nations, using the word often used of the command to subdue the nations of Canaan (<a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a>; <a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a>; <a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a>). He is presented as a second Joshua, subduing the land as it ought to have been subdued, and therefore becoming what Adam ought to have been in Eden (<a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a> s:w:). This is another indication that the garden of Eden was effectively the eretz or land promised to Abraham.</p><p>However, David's presentation of himself and his kingdom being at peace is hardly accurate. He suffered rebellions, revolution, putsch and betrayal right to his death bed, where with his last breath he has to try to put down Adonijah's power grab, and he just about lived to see lifelong supporters like Joab turn against him politically in his closing days. He has in his mind the idea that peace is required for the temple to be built, and so he assumes that situation has now come. Such was his obsession and desire to see things coming true.</p>


text:
<p>Now set your heart and your soul to seek after Yahweh your God. Arise therefore, and build the sanctuary of Yahweh God, to bring the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and the holy vessels of God, into the house that is to be built to the name of Yahweh- </p><p>Indeed it is the state of the human heart which is critical. But David wrongly sees the natural outcome of a heart focused upon Yahweh as wanting to build the temple. Although God had forbidden it. God had clearly stated that the ark was where He wanted it- in a tent, behind curtains. And He did not want a brick house around it. And yet David urges people to enable the very opposite- to build a sanctuary in terms of a physical building, and to place the ark within it. The whole land was seen by God as a sanctuary / holy place s:w. <a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>). "Let them make Me a sanctuary" (<a href='B:20 25:8'>Exo 25:8</a>) uses a very general word for making / doing, whereas&nbsp; David is trying to localize and define the sanctuary / holy place and is implying God had no such holy place- until it had been built according to his plans. The Kohathites are described as carrying "the sanctuary" (s:w:, <a href='B:40 10:21'>Num 10:21</a>); it was the ark which was the essential sanctuary or holy place. But David speaks about the building he proposed around that ark as being the sanctuary. And so form had replaced content, the external the internal, as so often happens when the pole of religion overtakes that of spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Now David was old and full of days; and he made Solomon his son king over Israel-</p><p>The very language used of the death of the patriarchs, as if to show that David was directly their seed, and also in spirit. "Full of days" rather than full of years could mean that his days had been filled with significance, rather than living the same day over and over year after year. The term is clearly not the same as just meaning "old".</p>


text:
<p>He gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests and the Levites-</p><p>We now have four chapters describing the Levites, the 24 orders of priests and singers, and the divisions of the gatekeepers / porters. David's idea was that the Levites were to be divided up to do tasks and hold offices according to the various families which are listed in these chapters. They are effectively genealogies, and the idea was that the descendants of those families were to have specific roles. This was a level of division of labour which was not found in the law of Moses.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites were numbered from thirty years old and over: and their number by their polls, man by man, was thirty-eight thousand-</p><p>Joab had refused to do this earlier, although he was specifically counting the Levite soldiers, whereas this was a general census of Levites available for religious service (<a href='B:130 21:3-6'>1Ch 21:3-6</a>). David numbered the Levites from 30 years old (<a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a>), in accordance with the law which said Levites were to serve between the ages of 30 and 50 (<a href='B:40 4:3'>Num 4:3</a>; <a href='B:40 4:23'>Num 4:23</a>; <a href='B:40 4:35'>Num 4:35</a>; <a href='B:40 4:39'>Num 4:39</a>). But in <a href='B:130 23:24'>1Ch 23:24</a> we are told that David numbered the Levites from 20 years old. We note in <a href='B:40 8:23'>Num 8:23</a> that there appeared some flexibility within the Mosaic law; the Levites could be numbered from 25 years old. This is one of many examples of how the Mosaic law was not set in stone. It was principle and spirit rather than letter of the law, and within it there are examples of where one law overrode another, or one principle overrode letter of the law. The law was not designed as a simple test of obedience, for it was far more detailed than that. It was designed to inculcate a spirit of living which looked forward to the spirit of the Lord Jesus. And so David felt free to number the Levites from 20 years old, even though we also read that he numbered 'the Levites from 30 years old', suggesting that this was a technical term rather than a literal description. This would go toward explaining why 38,000 Levites were numbered by David in <a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a>, although "thousand" may mean a division rather than a literal 1000. At the time of <a href='B:40 4:47-48'>Num 4:47-48</a> there were only 8,580. And Levite males from a month old were 22,000 in Num. 3:39 and 23,000 at the time of <a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a>. This suggests a great increase in the number of Levites by David's time; or perhaps he more generously counted who was a Levite, because he wanted to have as many as possible involved in his grandiose plans for the temple services. There was no need for such large numbers of Levites in order to serve God effectively, for there were far fewer Levites at the time of the figures given in the book of Numbers, and the sanctuary and Divine service still continued.</p>


text:
<p>David said, Of these, twenty-four thousand are to oversee the work of the house of Yahweh; six thousand are to be officers and judges- </p><p>"Thousand" can not be a literal 1000 but rather a division. These 24 divisions may connect with the 24 orders of singers in 1 Chronicles 25. Solomon taught that if the ants can be so zealous, well why can’t the ecclesia of God be zealous [for it was ‘believers’ that he was teaching]. The ants scurry around, working as if there is no tomorrow, to build up something so precarious that is in any case so tragically short lived. Can’t we be yet more zealous, with a like loving co-operation, building the eternal things that we are (<a href='B:240 6:6-7'>Pro 6:6-7</a>)? And Solomon pressed the point further, in that ants are self-motivated; they need no “guide, overseer or ruler”. This was surely a reference to the complex system of overseers which Solomon had to place over Israel in order to build the temple and build up the Kingdom. The same Hebrew word for “overseer” is found in <a href='B:130 23:4'>1Ch 23:4</a>; <a href='B:130 26:29'>1Ch 26:29</a>:&nbsp; Yet ideally, he seems to be saying, every Israelite ought to be a zealous worker. <a href='B:240 12:24'>Pro 12:24</a> says the same: “The hand of the diligent [whoever he / she is] shall bear rule [in practice]” [s:w. <a href='B:240 6:7'>Pro 6:7</a> “ruler”]. And we must ask ourselves, whether for whatever reason the new Israel hasn’t slumped into the same problem, of lack of self-motivation, waiting to be asked to do something before we do it, over-relying upon our “overseers”. The ants aren’t like this. They see the job to be done, and naturally get on with it.</p>


text:
<p>four thousand are to be doorkeepers; and four thousand are to praise Yahweh with the instruments which I made for giving praise- </p><p>"Thousand" here may not be literally 1000, but may be a technical term for a division of people, similar to the "divisions" of :6. The "doorkeepers" were literally, the openers or dividers of the gates. The word is also translated "porters". To have so many suggests David envisaged his future temple as having many gates which were to be guarded. The instruments "made" can simply mean 'appointed', although note <a href='B:370 6:5'>Amo 6:5</a>, which implies David did indeed make the instruments. It all seems however rather narcissistic, the fantasy of an old man, all about himself and how he dreamed of things becoming in this temple comple.<X/p>


text:
<p>David divided them into divisions according to the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari- </p><p>I suggested on 1 Chronicles 22 that David arranged for everything to be ready for the temple to be built even during his lifetime, and urged Solomon and the princes of Israel to get on with it immediately, whilst he was still alive. Solomon however didn't begin the work until after David's death. David had prepared the workmen at this stage but it seems they were not used, and so when Solomon began the work, he had to seek such workmen again (<a href='B:130 22:15'>1Ch 22:15</a> cp. <a href='B:140 2:7'>2Ch 2:7</a>). And likewise it seems David had even prepared the Levites in great detail to actually start officiating in the new building. But it seems likely that all his careful plans regarding all the intended individuals weren't quite used by Solomon, or at least not for some time, by which time some of the individuals may have died. Solomon obeyed the general pattern, however (<a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a>; <a href='B:140 29:25'>2Ch 29:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of the Gershonites: Ladan and Shimei- </p><p>The idea was that those in David's time who were from these branches of the Gershonites were to serve in the new temple complex he had planned.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ladan: Jehiel the chief, Zetham and Joel, three- </p><p>Zethan and Joel were grandsons (<a href='B:130 26:22'>1Ch 26:22</a>), but "son of::." is a Hebrew phrase with very elastic meaning.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shimei: Shelomoth, Haziel and Haran, three. These were the heads of the fathers’ households of Ladan- </p><p>As this Shimei was from Ladan, he is not the Shimei of :7 but some other descendant of Ladan. The Shimei of :10 is that of :7.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shimei: Jahath, Zina, Jeush and Beriah. These four were the sons of Shimei- </p><p>This is the Shimei of :7, not the one of :9.</p>


text:
<p>Jahath was the chief, and Zizah the second: but Jeush and Beriah didn’t have many sons; therefore they combined to become a father’s house- </p><p>Heb. 'in one reckoning' or 'office' (:18). The descendants of these branches of the family were to have the same 'office' in David's planned temple. This could imply that all the other 'father's houses' also had a specific 'office' planned for them by David. He certainly made very detailed plans, to the point of obsession.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, four- </p><p>"Gershon" can mean 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn [he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn]. This is a theme of the Genesis record. But perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was sanctified, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons, forever, to burn incense before Yahweh, to minister to Him, and to bless in His name, forever- </p><p>This is alluded to by the Lord in <a href='B:500 17:17'>Joh 17:17</a>: "Sanctify them in the truth. Your word is truth". The reference is to how the Levites were sanctified. The Levites were initially consecrated in God's eyes by their zeal to rid Israel of apostacy; this is what constituted them Yahweh's "holy (sanctified) one" (<a href='B:50 33:8-9'>Deu 33:8-9</a>). They sanctified themselves to God, and He sanctified them. Through His allusions to this, the Lord was telling the disciples not to be frightened to stand alone from the Israelite community they knew; for it was deeply apostate. So often, the Lord is speaking of the development of a new Israel, with new Rabbis and Levites taken from the ranks of very ordinary and dysfunctional people who had believed in Him.</p>


text:
<p>But as for Moses the man of God, his sons were named among the tribe of Levi- </p><p>The sense is that the sons of Moses were not priests, but Levites, general servants of the priests. This was purposeful, because Moses was also descended from Amram and Kohath. His sons could have been priests, but God specifically didn't want any cult of pride or personality developing around the descendants of Moses, who was Israel's greatest leader. Perhaps the legendary meekness of Moses led he himself to insist upon this. He thereby showed his appreciation of servant leadership.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer- </p><p>In reading the genealogies we must be aware that people often had more than one name. They were given a birth name, reflecting their parents' hopes or situation at the time of the birth; and then later acquired a name which reflected their character and life experience. Some retained their birth name; "Gershom" was named by Moses in reflection of how he had been a stranger in a strange land. And his son apparently retained that name, as it would have also fitted his own life experience.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Gershom: Shebuel the chief- </p><p>"Shebuel", 'returned of God', would be an appropriate name for a child born in the wilderness who entered Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Eliezer were: Rehabiah the chief. Eliezer had no other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many- </p><p>We note from <a href='B:130 23:15-17'>1Ch 23:15-17</a> that there were descendants of Moses through Gershom and Eliezer in Israel at David's time, who could demonstrate their pedigree. They were given designated roles of service within David's plans for the new temple system; which is why they are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 23. So we can deduce from this that they did not remain in Midian but identified themselves with Israel. It seems that the marriage of Moses and Zipporah broke up, and she returned to her father in Midian with the two boys. But Jethro brought them all back to Moses (<a href='B:20 18:2-4'>Exo 18:2-4</a>). He advises Moses not to work so hard and to delegate more- perhaps in order to have more time for his wife and family. Moses agrees, and then Jethro returns home alone (<a href='B:20 18:27'>Exo 18:27</a>), the implication being that Zipporah and the boys now remained with Moses.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Izhar: Shelomith the chief- </p><p>Six family groups emerged from Amram but only one from Izhar. This could have been because of lack of commitment to their priestly calling; or quite simply the genealogical records were lacking:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Hebron: Jeriah the chief, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, and Jekameam the fourth- </p><p>These would have all been born in Egypt, and it is noteworthy that they all retain the Yahweh Name somewhere in their names. For it seems Israel generally turned away tot he gods of Egypt at that time, taking the gods of Egypt with them through the Red Sea (Ezekiel 20).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Uzziel: Micah the chief, and Isshiah the second-</p><p>Micah, 'who is like Yah?', was an appropriate name for a child born in a faithful family whilst Israel was in Egypt, surrounded by false gods which they largely accepted.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Mahli: Eleazar and Kish- </p><p>"Mahli" and "Mushi" mean 'sickly' and 'sensitive' respectively:&nbsp; This confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters only; and their brothers the sons of Kish took them as wives- </p><p>The levirate law of <a href='B:40 36:5-12'>Num 36:5-12</a> was that a man should marry his relative's widow to raise up children to keep the inheritance through in dead man's name. But the Levites had no inheritance. So they were obeying the spirit rather than the letter of the law. To take extra wives and have extra children was a financial burden, so they did this in obedience to the spirit of the law and respect for Eleazar. And that is recorded and remembered in the record to this day. See on :23 for another example.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Mushi: Mahli, and Eder, and Jeremoth, three- </p><p>Mushi has a son who has the same name as his brother, Mahli (:21); which meant 'sickly', so perhaps he died, and he raised up a son in his brother's name, seeing that Mahli's young son Eleazar died childless (<a href='B:130 24:28'>1Ch 24:28</a>). This may be as in the spirit of :22 (see note there).</p>


text:
<p>These were the sons of Levi after their fathers’ houses, even the heads of the fathers’ houses of those who were counted individually, in the number of names by their polls, who did the work for the service of the house of Yahweh, from twenty years old and over- </p><p>For the difference with :3 where they were apparently numbered from 30 years old, see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>For David said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, has given rest to His people; and He dwells in Jerusalem forever- </p><p>David had in his mind that he couldn't build the temple because he had been a man of war. But he wanted Solomon to build the temple, in his name, to get around God's prohibition of David building it. But this was all in David's mind. God's reasons for not wanting a temple were nothing to do with David's personal history. And so in line with this twisted thinking, David wishes to present Israel as being at rest. Even though the nation was in turmoil and David faced a putsch from his son Adonijah even on his deathbed. He also overlooks the conditional nature of God's promise to dwell "forever" in Jerusalem; as well as the fact God had said that instead of dwelling in a physical place, He would dwell in the hearts of His people, David's "house".</p>


text:
<p>Also the Levites will no longer need to carry the tabernacle and all its vessels for its service- </p><p>David was enthralled with the idea that the tabernacle would now not be carried but would have a permanent place. But this was at variance with God's explanation to him of why He didn't want such a permanent place; He was a God on a journey, as He always had been, mobile and forging forward. But David's religious pole quite blinded him to the spiritual pole of perceiving the dynamic nature of God. And we see that tendency in all His people.</p>


text:
<p>For by the last words of David the sons of Levi were numbered, from twenty years old and over- </p><p>This could be a different numbering from that of :3, which counted them from 30 years old. But see note there. Perhaps David was desperate to show he had an ever larger number of Levites, whom he could use in his various plans [fantasies?] for the new temple system. Even though the sanctuary had operated quite fine with a fraction of the numbers he was now claiming.</p>


text:
<p>Their ministry was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of Yahweh, in the courts, and in the rooms, and in the purifying of all holy things, even the work of the service of God’s house- </p><p>The number of Levites David claims as available for service was out of proportion to the number of priests. The whole scale of the new temple system was quite beyond the more humble set up of the tabernacle, which God's law had established. The danger was that the priests were elevated to a high position, effectively having thousands of servants, which was beyond what the law of Moses envisaged. The priests were to teach the people, but there is little evidence this happened in Solomon's temple. The focus was all upon offering far more sacrifices and doing far more rituals than the law of Moses stipulated. And David should have remembered the lesson taught through his sin with Bathsheba and his wilderness years away from the sanctuary- that sacrifice and offering were not really what God was looking for, but rather contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-7'>Psa 40:6-7</a>). And Solomon therefore totally failed to understand this.</p>


text:
<p>for the showbread also, and for the fine flour for a meal offering, whether of unleavened wafers, or of that which is baked in the pan, or of that which is soaked, and for all kinds of measure and size- </p><p>These things were all required under the law of Moses, but David envisaged setting up thousands of Levites and priests to offer them in the temple- rather than being out in the provinces, teaching the people. He clearly thought God would be better served by offering the required offerings but on a far grander scale- rather than teaching simple village folks about God's ways. We sense that David rather lost his spirituality at the end of his life, although he still died in faith.</p>


text:
<p>And to stand every morning to thank and praise Yahweh, and likewise in the evening- </p><p>These regular offerings would have been made by just a fraction of the number of Levites and priests which David now had in mind. So he presumably wanted to bring in all this extra labour to the temple because he imagined huge numbers of offerings being made, far beyond those required by the law.</p>


text:
<p>and to offer all burnt offerings to Yahweh, on the Sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the set feasts, in number according to the ordinance concerning them, continually before Yahweh- </p><p>"In number::." is misleading, because I have suggested above that the greater number of Levites and priests brought in to the temple was because David envisaged offering far greater numbers of sacrifices than stipulated. And Solomon began the temple dedication with huge numbers of offerings. The sense is rather as GNB "Rules were made specifying the number of Levites assigned to do this work each time".</p>


text:
<p>and that they should keep the duty of the Tent of Meeting, and the duty of the holy place, and the duty of the sons of Aaron their brothers, for the service of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The allusion is to the commands about the Levites assisting the priests in <a href='B:40 18:2-7'>Num 18:2-7</a>. But those commands repeatedly state that they were to assist in "the service of the tent" (LXX), or tabernacle. But David purposefully replaces "tent" with "house". And that is exactly out of step with God's reasons for not wanting a temple. He wanted a tent, and not a house. David was really obsessed with his own vision, rather than faith in the grace offered to him in the promise to build him a house of redeemed people.</p>


text:
<p>These were the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar-</p><p>This continues the major Biblical theme, that the firstborn is often not used by God and is replaced. This is His style, to exalt the under dogs.</p>


text:
<p>But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office- </p><p>Despite having gone up Sinai and witnessing the theophany of <a href='B:20 24:9'>Exo 24:9</a>, their desire to 'play God' for personal power had been stronger than their awe at God's presence and majesty. Visible acts of God are often desired by His servants, but they do not of themselves inculcate spirituality. The language here clearly alludes to <a href='B:40 3:4'>Num 3:4</a>: "Nadab and Abihu died before Yahweh::. and they had no children". But "Before Yahweh" is replaced with "before their father". Aaron was the manifestation of Yahweh and is thus spoken of as Him, just as the Lord Jesus can be spoken of likewise. The other references to their death repeatedly speak of it as being 'before Yahweh'. Why does Chronicles alone imply that Aaron was present with them when they made the offering? Perhaps it is to highlight the weakness of Aaron and indeed of the whole priesthood; for these genealogies were likely prepared whilst Judah were in captivity and the priesthood no longer functioned because of their sins.</p><p>"And had no children" may not be intended literally. The genealogy is speaking of the Levites who did Divine service, and the idea is that their children did not serve God. And so we see His perspective on family life over the generations of history- if our children don't enter into His service, it's as if we had no children.</p>


text:
<p>David with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in their service- </p><p>"According to their duties" (GNB). We are the new priesthood; each of us have specific duties or ministries intended for us. Man is never better than when he perceives his calling before God, and does it. Pray earnestly that you will realize what were the good works before ordained for you to do (<a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar. They were divided like this: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers’ houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight- </p><p>We must remember that we are reading here of how David wished to divide up the descendants of these family groups, so that they could perform certain duties in the new temple system he was planning. "There were::. found" would therefore refer to how at his time, there were found more of Eleazar than Ithamar. Perhaps not all were willing to participate in his grandiose plans, or maybe simply the genealogical records had been lost for some:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Thus were they divided impartially by drawing lots; for there were princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God, both of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar- </p><p>This may be one of several places in the Old Testament where the lines of Judah and Levi overlapped, so that these men were in fact king-priests. This is what we are designated in <a href='B:730 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a>. The Lord Jesus, although directly in the line of Judah, was likewise a king-priest. These historical points of overlap between the two tribes were surely to psychologically prepare the people for the coming of their king-priest Messiah. Our sensitive Father likewise seeks to prepare the way for us to accept things.</p>


text:
<p>Shemaiah the son of Nethanel the scribe, who was of the Levites, wrote them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the fathers’ households of the priests and of the Levites; one father’s house being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar-</p><p>"The king" is David. He took this division of the Levites very seriously, because his planned grandiose temple system required a huge amount of labour. "The alternate drawing here described could have lasted only for the first sixteen lots; in the last eight drawings the descendants of Eleazar must have drawn against each other only".</p>


text:
<p>Now the first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah- </p><p>According to <a href='B:150 2:37'>Ezr 2:37</a>, only four courses of priests returned from exile, when there were supposed to be 24 of them, namely Pashhur, Jedaiah, Immer, and Hardin (<a href='B:130 24:7-8'>1Ch 24:7-8</a>; <a href='B:130 24:14'>1Ch 24:14</a>). The priesthood had been deeply corrupt at the time of the exile, and it seems most of them preferred to remain in Babylon.</p><p>Joiarib was drawn to serve first in <a href='B:130 24:7'>1Ch 24:7</a>, but presumably the lots came out differently when they were drawn at the restoration, and in <a href='B:160 12:6'>Neh 12:6</a> he was drawn 17th out of 22 orders.</p>


text:
<p>the third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim- </p><p>The planned temple system required much labour, it was a glorification of works rather than faith, and so the Levites had to come and serve there for a certain amount of time each year. And the various jobs to be done likewise had to be split up. So there was a system of lots to arrange these things.</p>


text:
<p>the fifth to Malchijah, the sixth to Mijamin- </p><p>"Malchijah", 'Yah is king', was the name of 10 separate Israelites. It reflected an awareness amongst the faithful that the human system of kingship was not at all what God really wanted, and Yahweh was Israel's true king. As the generations went by, it would have been hard to retain this awareness; although it was revived by the removal of the royal line of kings at the exile.</p>


text:
<p>the seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah- </p><p>From whence came Zacharias, father of John the Baptist (<a href='B:490 1:5'>Luk 1:5</a>). If the temple records of the genealogies drawn up by David (:6) were destroyed when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, then what we are reading here in Chronicles may have been an inspired replacement for them, and it was clearly in usage in the time of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>the ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecaniah- </p><p>In <a href='B:160 10:4'>Neh 10:4</a>; <a href='B:160 12:14'>Neh 12:14</a> “Shebaniah”. It is easy in written Hebrew to confuse B and C, so we have here an example of where there may have been slight copying errors in the Divinely inspired text.</p>


text:
<p>the eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim- </p><p>'God will restore' and 'God will raise up', names appropriate to the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>the thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab- </p><p>These names are completely secular in meaning, and are a tacit reflection of the fact that the priesthood and Levitical service was largely seen as a merely secular job for much of Israel's history. The nation's apostacy can largely be blamed upon the spiritual failure of the priesthood in practice.</p>


text:
<p>the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer- </p><p>The descendants of Bilgah were some of the few faithful priests who returned at the time of <a href='B:160 10:8'>Neh 10:8</a>; <a href='B:160 12:5'>Neh 12:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>the seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Happizzez- </p><p>AV "Aphses", an Egyptian name, hinting (as noted on :13) at the corruption of the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>the nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezkel-</p><p>Or "Ezekiel". Perhaps these names of the orders were later changed when David's list was rewritten at the time of the restoration, to reflect faithful characters like Ezekiel.</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-first to Jachin, the twenty-second to Gamul- </p><p>"Gamul" means 'weaned' (s:w. <a href='B:10 21:8'>Gen 21:8</a>). This was the name given at birth, and in this case it stuck. It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-third to Delaiah, the twenty-fourth to Maaziah- </p><p>'Yah has delivered' and 'Yah has rescued / saved', names appropriate to the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>This was their ordering in their service, to come into the house of Yahweh according to the ordinance given to them by Aaron their father, as Yahweh, the God of Israel, had commanded him- </p><p>It is not defined here for how long each order of priests served. <a href='B:120 11:9'>2Ki 11:9</a> speaks of the priests 'coming in' and going out on the Sabbath, as if they served for a week at a time; Josephus supports this (Antiquities 7:14:7). Yet if there were 24 lots, perhaps they served for just over 2 weeks each. But the lots may also have been drawn with respect to what work they did, not only what time of the year they came to the temple to work.</p>


text:
<p>Of the rest of the sons of Levi: of the sons of Amram, Shubael; of the sons of Shubael, Jehdeiah- </p><p>Having listed the priests, we now read of the other Levites who were to support them in their work, although not themselves being priests. In 1 Chronicles 25 we have listed the musicians, in <a href='B:130 26:1-19'>1Ch 26:1-19</a> the doorkeepers, and in <a href='B:130 26:20-32'>1Ch 26:20-32</a> the scribes and guards of the treasures.</p>


text:
<p>Of Rehabiah: of the sons of Rehabiah, Isshiah the chief- </p><p>"Isshiah", 'lent to Yah', was perhaps named after the influence of Hannah (who was not a Levite), who considered her giving of Samuel to the Levitical ministry as a lending of him to Yahweh (<a href='B:90 1:28'>1Sa 1:28</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of the Izharites, Shelomoth; of the sons of Shelomoth, Jahath- </p><p>The four families arising from Kohath are listed in order, Amram (:20), Izhar (:22), Hebron (:23) and Uzziel (:24).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Hebron: Jeriah, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, Jekameam the fourth- </p><p>I discussed on :13,15 how and why some of the names in this list are completely secular. But these all have the name of God in them.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Uzziel, Micah; of the sons of Micah, Shamir- </p><p>Micah, 'who is like Yah?', was an appropriate name for a child born in a faithful family whilst Israel was in Egypt, surrounded by false gods which they largely accepted.</p>


text:
<p>The brother of Micah, Isshiah; of the sons of Isshiah, Zechariah- </p><p>"Isshiah", 'lent to Yah', was perhaps named after the influence of Hannah (who was not a Levite), who considered her giving of Samuel to the Levitical ministry as a lending of him to Yahweh (<a href='B:90 1:28'>1Sa 1:28</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Jaaziah: Beno- </p><p>"Mahli" and "Mushi" mean 'sickly' and 'sensitive' respectively:&nbsp; This confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Merari: of Jaaziah, Beno, and Shoham, and Zaccur, and Ibri- </p><p>"Merari" means "bitter"; from these rather unpromising beginnings were to arise those who gave their lives to the service of God and His people. And we see similar transformation in the lives of so many.</p>


text:
<p>Of Mahli: Eleazar, who had no sons- </p><p><a href='B:130 23:23'>1Ch 23:23</a> says that Mushi, brother of Mahli, had a son who has the same name as his brother, Mahli (<a href='B:130 23:21'>1Ch 23:21</a>); which meant 'sickly', so perhaps he died, and he raised up a son in his brother's name, seeing that Mahli's young son Eleazar died childless (<a href='B:130 24:28'>1Ch 24:28</a>). This may be as in the spirit of <a href='B:130 23:22'>1Ch 23:22</a> (see note there). We marvel at how the huge amount of data given in these lists contains no contradictions; which would only be possible in a Divinely inspired account.</p>


text:
<p>Of Kish; the sons of Kish: Jerahmeel- </p><p>"Jerahmeel" means "God will be compassionate", and that was how Jerahmeel was, reflecting God's compassion in hi own compassion. For we read in <a href='B:130 23:22'>1Ch 23:22</a> that "Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters only; and their brothers the sons of Kish took them as wives". The levirate law of <a href='B:40 36:5-12'>Num 36:5-12</a> was that a man should marry his relative's widow to raise up children to keep the inheritance through in dead man's name. But the Levites had no inheritance. So they were obeying the spirit rather than the letter of the law. To take extra wives and have extra children was a financial burden, so they did this in obedience to the spirit of the law and respect for Eleazar. And that is recorded and remembered in the record to this day.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Mushi: Mahli, and Eder, and Jerimoth. These were the sons of the Levites after their fathers’ houses-</p><p>Mushi seems to have had a son called "Mahli", the name of his brother, because the 'sickly' Mahli had died; see on :28.</p>


text:
<p>These likewise cast lots even as their brothers the sons of Aaron in the presence of David the king, and Zadok, and Ahimelech, and the heads of the fathers’ households of the priests and of the Levites; the fathers’ households of the chief even as those of his younger brother- </p><p>These lists have repeat the list of Levitical family groups found in <a href='B:130 23:6-23'>1Ch 23:6-23</a>, but omitting the Gershonites (<a href='B:130 23:6-11'>1Ch 23:6-11</a>). "Gershon" can mean 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn [he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn]. This is a theme of the Genesis record. Perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover, David and the captains of the army set apart for the service certain of the sons of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, stringed instruments and cymbals. The number of those who did the work according to their service was- </p><p>According to <a href='B:150 2:41'>Ezr 2:41</a>, of the singers, only 128 of the children of Asaph returned. This was very poor response. We note that apparently the famous singing families of Heman and Jeduthin didn't return (<a href='B:130 25:1'>1Ch 25:1</a>). "Captains of the army" could be "captains of the host", referring to the chiefs of the various family groupings now listed, and not referring to military captains. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Asaph: Zaccur, Joseph, Nethaniah and Asharelah, the sons of Asaph, under the hand of Asaph, who prophesied after the order of the king- </p><p>'Prophecy' refers to speaking forth God's word, not necessarily predicting the future. But it would seem great presumption on David's part to arrange 'prophets' who would speak God's word through the music they sung (:1). This would be after the pattern of <a href='B:90 10:5'>1Sa 10:5</a> and <a href='B:120 3:15'>2Ki 3:15</a>: "While the minstrel played, the hand of the Lord [i:e:, the spirit of prophecy] was upon him". Perhaps the idea was that they would only sing music which had been already given by Divine inspiration in the gift of prophecy. But now we read that they were to prophesy "after the order of" David. This could mean they would take it in order to prophesy according to the sequence or order which David had prepared. Or it could mean they would prophecy at David's order, suggesting he imagined he would still be alive when this new temple system had been built by Solomon, thus getting around God's order for him not to build it himself. Even if the "order" is the 'sequence', we are still left with an unpleasant tension between prophesy being from God's instigation and initiative; and David considering that it was to be done according to his 'order', either the sequence he commanded, or his direct command. His spirituality is getting edged out by his evident love of religion.</p>


text:
<p>Of Jeduthun; the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, Zeri, Jeshaiah, Hashabiah and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun with the harp, who prophesied in giving thanks and praising Yahweh- </p><p>They were known for prophesying in their praise. As discussed on :2, this could mean that the Spirit came upon them, and the songs they sung were directly inspired by God. But as discussed on :2, it was therefore inappropriate to demand that they did so only at a specific place in the program David had created. That was effectively trying to constrain the Spirit of God.</p>


text:
<p>Of Heman; the sons of Heman: Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shebuel, Jerimoth, Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti, Romamti-Ezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir and Mahazioth- </p><p>The meanings of these names forms an appropriate sentence: "Have mercy upon me, O Lord, have mercy upon me; I have magnified and exalted Your help; I spake of it sitting in affliction; grant us still Your visions". This would have been so relevant to the situation at the restoration, and perhaps the Divinely inspired editor of that time arranged the list in this order.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the sons of Heman the king’s prophet of the words of God, to lift up the horn. God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters- </p><p>This probably doesn't refer to the use of a literal horn in worship, but rather is it to be connected to the preceding reference to the gift of a large family to Heman. To life up the horn was a Hebraism for power and ability. Heman wanted to fulfill his calling, and God gave him a large and musically gifted family to enable him to do so.</p>


text:
<p>All these were under the hands of their father for the singing ministry in the house of Yahweh, with cymbals, stringed instruments and harps, for the service of God’s house: Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman being under the order of the king- </p><p>This could mean they would take it in order to prophesy according to the sequence or order which David had prepared. Or it could mean they would prophecy at David's order, suggesting he imagined he would still be alive when this new temple system had been built by Solomon, thus getting around God's order for him not to build it himself. Even if the "order" is the 'sequence', we are still left with an unpleasant tension between prophesy being from God's instigation and initiative; and David considering that it was to be done according to his 'order', either the sequence he commanded, or his direct command. His spirituality is getting edged out by his evident love of religion.</p>


text:
<p>The number of them, with their brothers who were instructed in singing to Yahweh, even all who were skilful, was two hundred and eighty-eight- </p><p>They were supposed to be prophets, receiving God's word and expressing that divine input in the words they sung under the influence of prophesy. But here we read that they were singing "to Yahweh". It is the same confusion as when David wants to build God a house, but God replies by saying that He will build David a house.</p>


text:
<p>They cast lots for their offices, all alike, as well the small as the great, the teacher as the scholar- </p><p>These Levites were to support the 24 orders of priests listed in chapter 24. They weren't to chose which order they wanted to support or serve together with- that decision was taken by lot. Otherwise, the cliquey spirit which characterizes so many of God's servants would have developed, and this is often the church's greatest disadvertisment.</p><p>The Hebrew could be "Lots for attendance", as if they were asked to come up from the provinces and serve at the temple at the times of year which the lot defined. But the lots could refer to the order in which they presented their music, which would require all to be present in Jerusalem all the time.</p>&nbsp;<p>Notice the stress on the equality of the priests and the studied irrelevance of their personal wealth (<a href='B:130 24:31'>1Ch 24:31</a>; <a href='B:130 25:8'>1Ch 25:8</a>; <a href='B:130 26:12'>1Ch 26:12</a>). The Law was geared around the assumption that the priests would be so caught up in Yahweh's work that they would never be rich (consider <a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a>), and the wonder of doing His work would compensate for their lack of physical possessions (<a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a>). The early church began by having all things common, in imitation of&nbsp; how the priests had "like portions to eat" (<a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a>). Yet the early church couldn't sustain the intensity of their initial realization of these things.</p>


text:
<p>Now the first lot of Asaph came forth to Joseph: the second to Gedaliah, he and his brothers and sons were twelve- </p><p>There were a total of 4000 Levites envisioned as making music (<a href='B:130 23:5'>1Ch 23:5</a>), so these would have been split up amongst these 24 orders.</p>


text:
<p>the third to Zaccur, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>The record reads as if the lots were cast at David's time. Yet this was before the temple had been built. But the scale of his grandiose plans for the temple required this huge number of Levites and singers. So we assume he was really running ahead of his time, as if quite obsessed, by working out the musical plans and actually drawing lots for who was going to serve when; although the temple hadn't been built.</p>


text:
<p>the fourth to Izri, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>None of the leaders of these 24 courses were firstborn sons. This confirms God's style of preferring to work with those whom man would place far down the list:&nbsp; 1. Joseph was the second son of Asaph. 2. Gedaliah the eldest son of Jeduthun. 3. Zaccur the eldest of Asaph. 4. Izri the second of Jeduthun. 5. Nethaniah the third of Asaph. 6. Bukkiah the eldest of Heman. 7. Jesharelah the youngest of Asaph. 8. Jeshaiah the third of Jeduthun. 9. Mattaniah the second of Heman. 10. Shimei the youngest of Jeduthun. 11. Azareel the third of Heman. 12. Hashabiah the fourth of Jeduthun. 13. Shubael the fourth of Heman. 14. Mattithiah the fifth of Jeduthun. 15. Jeremoth the fifth of Heman. 16. Hananiah the sixth of Heman. 17. Joshbekashah the eleventh of Heman. 18. Hanani the seventh of Heman. 19. Mallothi the twelfth of Heman. 20. Eliathah the eighth of Heman. 21. Hothir the thirteenth of Heman. 22. Giddalti the ninth of Heman. 23. Mehazioth the fourteenth of Heman. 24. Romamti-ezer, the tenth of Heman:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>the fifth to Nethaniah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>The groups of 12 relatives would have formed a small musical band, maybe a choir, or some instrumentalists and some choir.</p>


text:
<p>the sixth to Bukkiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>These names appear to refer to actual Levites living at the time of David who were chosen by lot to perform. We wonder what they did in the seven years [at least] between this time and the completion of the temple. Perhaps they did sing in the existing tabernacle in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>the seventh to Jesharelah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>Another name for Uzziel, son of Heman.</p>


text:
<p>the eighth to Jeshaiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Yah saves'. The words 'Yahweh' and 'saved' occur so often in the life of David and in his Psalms, and so we wonder whether this child had been named in memory of that fact.</p>


text:
<p>the ninth to Mattaniah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>Nearly all these names have God's Name within them. They were clearly all committed followers of Yahweh, at least in name.</p>


text:
<p>the tenth to Shimei, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>Shimei isn't mentioned in :2-4 in the Hebrew, but his name occurs there in the L.<XX/p>


text:
<p>the twelfth to Hashabiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Yahweh has imputed', perhaps reflective of how someone had perceived the wonder of Yahweh's imputation of righteousness by grace, as the basis of salvation. This had been taught to Israel by God's response to David's sin with Bathsheba. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>the fourteenth, to Mattithiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve-</p><p>'Gift of Yah', as in :16. This was the name given at birth, and in this case it stuck. It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>the fifteenth to Jeremoth, his sons and his brothers, twelve-</p><p>Keil observes: "The order of succession was so determined by lot, that the four sons of Asaph (:3) received the first, third, fifth, and seventh places; the six sons of Jeduthun, the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, and fourteenth; and finally, the four sons of Heman (first mentioned in :4), the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth places; while the remaining places, 15-24, fell to the other sons of Heman. From this we learn that the lots of the sons of the three chief musicians were not placed in separate urns, and one lot drawn from each alternately; but that, on the contrary, all the lots were placed in one urn, and in drawing the lots of Asaph and Jeduthun came out so, that after the fourteenth drawing only sons of Heman remained".</p>


text:
<p>the sixteenth to Hananiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'The grace of Yah'. Grace was and is the distinctive feature of the one true faith and God. David's sin with Bathsheba would have underlined it to all that generation. See on :19,25.</p>


text:
<p>the seventeenth to Joshbekashah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>This name stands out from all the others- 'stiffnecked liver'. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. This was surely one of the latter. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>the eighteenth to Hanani, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>I have noted on :19,23 the number of names from David's generation which allude to grace, and this is another one. God's grace to David would have gripped an entire generation of believers at that time.</p>


text:
<p>the nineteenth to Mallothi, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Speaker forth', an appropriate name for one who was to be involved in speaking forth God's praises. It is s:w. <a href='B:230 106:2'>Psa 106:2</a> "Who can utter / speak forth the mighty acts of the Lord'. All those who perform public service, especially in the area of worship, should be in the grip of a deep sense of inadequacy for their task before the wondrous spiritual realities they seek to articulate. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>the twentieth to Eliathah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'For the God who consents' would continue the same idea as in :26; a sense of awe that God has allowed us to be involved in His service.</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-first to Hothir, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Those caused to remain' would have been an appropriate name to speak to those at the time of the exile and restoration.</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-second to Giddalti, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'One made great' would perhaps reflect the repeated teaching of David from his own life, and which had affected that generation of believers, that it is God's grace / gentleness that makes any of us great (<a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a>).</p>


text:
<p>the twenty- third to Mahazioth, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Receiver of visions', an appropriate name for one whose music was to express the visions of God (see on :2,3).</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-fourth to Romamti-Ezer, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Raised up from a heap', a name encouraging to the exiles, and perhaps reflecting Hannah's awareness when she gave Samuel over to Levitical service, that such service is performed in gratitude for having been raised up like Job from the heap (<a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For the divisions of the doorkeepers: of the Korahites, Meshelemiah the son of Kore, of the sons of Asaph- </p><p>This would have had special relevance for the returned exiles at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, who had to guard the gates and new walls of the temple. The list of the names of the families who were to do this work in Nehemiah contrasts sharply with the list we find here-&nbsp; the Levites simply didn't all do that work, which was so vital during the period of rebuilding. Ezra 2 says that the Gentile nethinim, probably the Gibeonites, were pressed into service as porters / doorkeepers. And so Nehemiah was glad to use anyone willing to do it. We see here the principle of 'The end justifies the means' being put to the test. That principle cannot be applied universally; but we see how by the same token, legalistic obedience to command cannot be allowed to stop the essence of His work being done.</p>


text:
<p>Meshelemiah had sons: Zechariah the firstborn Jediael the second, Zebadiah the third, Jathniel the fourth- </p><p><a href='B:130 23:5'>1Ch 23:5</a> says that there were 4000 such porters or "gatekeepers". The Mosaic tabernacle had functioned without these huge numbers. But the scale of David's grandiose plans for the temple required this huge number of Levites and singers. He made the mistake which Solomon followed, in thinking that mere scale of worship was somehow pleasing to God; when instead David ought to have learned from his sin with Bathsheba that God looks upon the heart.</p>


text:
<p>Elam the fifth, Jehohanan the sixth, Eliehoenai the seventh- </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>), suggesting these huge numbers were not just to be porters but also literal defenders of the gates. 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>Obed-Edom had sons: Shemaiah the firstborn, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, Sacar the fourth, Nethanel the fifth- </p><p>Obed-Edom had faithfully cared for the ark when others, including David, didn't want to know about it and even considered it to bring cursing rather than blessing. But he is given no special reward for that spiritual maturity and all those years of quiet work. His family were made mere gatekeepers (<a href='B:230 84:10'>Psa 84:10</a>). And recognition of our quiet service will likewise not be in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peullethai the eighth; for God blessed him- </p><p>Eight sons was seen as a special blessing. God made Obed-Edom a 'house' because he had truly cared for the ark. David had failed to learn from this point. For God had told him that He didn't want this temple, but rather wanted to make David a house of people.</p>


text:
<p>Also to Shemaiah his son were sons born, who ruled over the house of their father; for they were mighty men of valour- </p><p>The great blessing of Obed-Edom's "house" or family is stressed; they were "mighty men of valour", "capable men" (:7). But "just" gatekeepers (<a href='B:230 88:10'>Psa 88:10</a>). As noted on :5, God blessed Obed-Edom by building him a house, just as He had promised to do to David. But David didn't seem interested in that, so fixated was he on his plan to build God the house which God didn't want.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shemaiah: Othni, Rephael, Obed and Elzabad, whose brothers were capable men, Elihu and Semachiah- </p><p>See on :6. We note all these names have God in them and are not at all secular. They reflect the abiding spirituality of Obed-Edom's family. And he himself was a mere Edomite ["Edom"] servant ["obed"].</p>


text:
<p>All these were of the sons of Obed-Edom: they and their sons and their brothers, able men in strength for the service; sixty-two of Obed-Edom- </p><p><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".</p>


text:
<p>Meshelemiah had sons and brothers, valiant men, eighteen- </p><p>The reference to "valiant men" suggests that the work of being a "gatekeeper" indeed focused upon the defence of the gates, although the Hebrew word can equally mean "porter".</p>


text:
<p>Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons: Shimri the chief, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him chief)- </p><p>Again continues the theme so often noted in the Biblical record and these name lists, that the firstborn is rejected and others take his place.</p>


text:
<p>Hilkiah the second, Tebaliah the third, Zechariah the fourth. All the sons and brothers of Hosah were thirteen- </p><p>Hosah along with Obed-edom was one of those with the honour of carrying the ark (<a href='B:130 16:38'>1Ch 16:38</a>), but he is still made a humble gatekeeper (<a href='B:230 88:10'>Psa 88:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of these were the divisions of the doorkeepers, even of the chief men, having offices like their brothers, to minister in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The idea is that the chief men as well as their [lesser] "brothers" were all still brethren, and the experience of serving God was to level them. Notice the stress on the equality of the priests and the studied irrelevance of their personal wealth (<a href='B:130 24:31'>1Ch 24:31</a>; <a href='B:130 25:8'>1Ch 25:8</a>; <a href='B:130 26:12'>1Ch 26:12</a>). The Law was geared around the assumption that the priests would be so caught up in Yahweh's work that they would never be rich (consider <a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a>), and the wonder of doing His work would compensate for their lack of physical possessions (<a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a>). The early church began by having all things common, in imitation of&nbsp; how the priests had "like portions to eat" (<a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a>). Yet the early church couldn't sustain the intensity of their initial realization of these things.</p>


text:
<p>They cast lots, the small as well as the great, according to their fathers’ houses, for each gate- </p><p>This continues the theme discussed on :12, of all these men, of whatever secular standing, being united together in the Lord's service. And that is an abiding principle. True unity and brotherhood is found from serving together, and is never an outcome of merely theoretical agreement.</p>


text:
<p>The lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward- </p><p>David's temple envisaged the temple having four main gates, and presumably having a large square wall around it. For the gates he envisages are simply divided according to the points of the compass.</p>


text:
<p>To Obed-Edom southward; and to his sons, the storehouse- </p><p>"The gates of the stores", which apparently had two entrances to it (:17).</p>


text:
<p>To Shuppim and Hosah, westward, by the gate of Shallecheth, at the causeway that goes up, watch against watch- </p><p>'Shallecheth' means "sending or throwing down", and may mean that this was to be "the refuse gate". That is possibly the vision for the west gate behind <a href='B:330 46:19-20'>Eze 46:19-20</a>. However :18 seems to describe this west gate as having a colonnade and causeway. It could be that this was “the entering in of the house of the Lord". See on :18. It would have led up to the Temple either from Ophel on the south, or from the Western part of the city across the Tyropoeon Valley. Archaeologists have discovered remnants of two such causeways “Wilson’s Arch” and “Robinson’s Arch”.</p>


text:
<p>Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and for the storehouse two and two- </p><p>The storehouse gate was on the south (:15), so this refers to the south gate with two entrances, rather than the west gate, which is described in :18.</p>


text:
<p>For the colonnade on the west, four at the causeway, and two at the colonnade- </p><p>See on :16. It seems David envisaged the entrance as being from the west. But in fact in God's vision of the temple in Ezekiel 40-48, the east gate, the very opposite, is the entrance. The original word parvaim is Persian and means “lighted by the sun”, explaining why later these precincts became a place for sun worship (<a href='B:120 13:11'>2Ki 13:11</a> s:w:). AV "Parbar westward" became the name of a 1980s Christadelphian rock band, named after what they considered was one of the Bible's obscurest verses.</p>


text:
<p>These were the divisions of the doorkeepers; of the sons of the Korahites, and of the sons of Merari-</p><p>"Merari" means "bitter"; from these rather unpromising beginnings were to arise those who gave their lives to the service of God and His people. And we see similar transformation in the lives of so many.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Levites, Ahijah was over the treasures of God’s house, and over the treasures of the dedicated things- </p><p>We note from :26-28 that Samuel, Saul and Joab, as well as David, had dedicated spoils won in battle to the work of the sanctuary. Yet despite that generosity and all those victories, Joab and Saul apparently died unspiritual men and in condemnation. Saul certainly. So generous giving and victories for the Lord are no guarantee at all of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ladan, the sons of the Gershonites belonging to Ladan, the heads of the fathers’ households belonging to Ladan the Gershonite: Jehieli- </p><p>We note that both Moses and Aaron had sons called Gershon (<a href='B:20 2:22'>Exo 2:22</a>). Such repetition of names within families and in the same generation was quite common, and is one thing which makes the study of the genealogies difficult in places.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jehieli: Zetham and Joel his brother were over the treasures of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>These were "brothers" of Jehieli (<a href='B:130 23:8'>1Ch 23:8</a>), demonstrating how elastic are the Hebrew terms for "brothers" and "sons of".</p>


text:
<p>Of the Amramites, of the Izharites, of the Hebronites, of the Uzzielites- </p><p>That is, the Kohathites (<a href='B:130 23:12'>1Ch 23:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasures- </p><p>This is, I believe, the only reference to any direct descendant of Moses having any public role in the work and worship of Israel. The Bible is carefully against all nepotism, personality cults and inherited sense of spiritual leadership and worthiness. All are to serve God from their own experience and from forging their own personal relationships with Him.</p>


text:
<p>His brothers: of Eliezer, Rehabiah his son, Jeshaiah his son, Joram his son, Zichri his son and Shelomoth his son- </p><p>This could refer to four generations, but the idea was that the descendants of each of these families was to have a specific duty in the temple system. So probably these are all the sons of Rehabiah (<a href='B:130 23:17'>1Ch 23:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This Shelomoth and his brothers were over all the treasures of the dedicated things, which David the king, and the heads of the fathers’ households, the captains over thousands and hundreds, and the captains of the army, had dedicated- </p><p>The promises God makes involve a solemn commitment by Him to us- the serious, binding nature of His oath to us is easy to forget. God swore to David “by my holiness” (<a href='B:230 89:35'>Psa 89:35</a>). The Hebrew for “holiness” is the very same word translated “dedication”. David’s response to God’s dedication to him was to dedicate [s:w:] all the silver and gold which he had won from this world, to the service of God’s house (<a href='B:130 26:26'>1Ch 26:26</a>; <a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a>). Our response to God’s dedication to us should be a like dedication of what we have to Him. Covenant relationship with God requires much of both Him and us. The case of David is a nice illustration of the meaning of grace. David wanted to do something for God- build Him a house, spending his wealth to do so. God replied that no, He wanted to build David a house. And He started to, in the promises He gave David. And David’s response to that grace is to still do something- to dedicate his wealth to God’s house, as God had dedicated Himself to David’s house. This is just how grace and works should be related in our experience.</p>


text:
<p>They dedicated some of the spoil won in battles to repair the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This could refer to a separate fund set up for the long term maintenance or repairing of the house. The fund was evidently empty by the time of <a href='B:140 24:5'>2Ch 24:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>All that Samuel the seer, Saul the son of Kish, Abner the son of Ner and Joab the son of Zeruiah had dedicated, whoever had dedicated anything, it was under the hand of Shelomoth, and of his brothers-</p><p>Samuel, Saul and Joab, as well as David, had dedicated spoils won in battle to the work of the sanctuary. Yet despite that generosity and all those victories, Joab and Saul apparently died unspiritual men and in condemnation. Saul certainly. So generous giving and victories for the Lord are no guarantee at all of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Izharites, Chenaniah and his sons were for the outward business over Israel, for officers and judges- </p><p>Solomon taught that if the ants can be so zealous, well why can’t the ecclesia of God be zealous [for it was ‘believers’ that he was teaching]. The ants scurry around, working as if there is no tomorrow, to build up something so precarious that is in any case so tragically short lived. Can’t we be yet more zealous, with a like loving co-operation, building the eternal things that we are (<a href='B:240 6:6-7'>Pro 6:6-7</a>)? And Solomon pressed the point further, in that ants are self-motivated; they need no “guide, overseer or ruler”. This was surely a reference to the complex system of overseers which Solomon had to place over Israel in order to build the temple and build up the Kingdom. The same Hebrew word for “overseer” is found in <a href='B:130 23:4'>1Ch 23:4</a>; <a href='B:130 26:29'>1Ch 26:29</a>. Yet ideally, he seems to be saying, every Israelite ought to be a zealous worker. <a href='B:240 12:24'>Pro 12:24</a> says the same: “The hand of the diligent [whoever he / she is] shall bear rule [in practice]” [s:w. <a href='B:240 6:7'>Pro 6:7</a> “ruler”]. And we must ask ourselves, whether for whatever reason the new Israel hasn’t slumped into the same problem, of lack of self-motivation, waiting to be asked to do something before we do it, over-relying upon our “overseers”. The ants aren’t like this. They see the job to be done, and naturally get on with it.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brothers, men of valour, one thousand seven hundred, had the oversight of Israel beyond the Jordan westward, for all the business of Yahweh, and for the service of the king- </p><p>"Across Jordan westward" suggests this was written from the perspective of being on the Persian side, suggesting this was a Divinely inspired edit carried out when Chronicles was written up or rewritten in captivity. The context is of the temple service, so perhaps these people were not mere administrative officials, but responsible for gathering the tithes from those areas.</p>


text:
<p>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, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead- </p><p>That is, at the very end of David's life. He was active in making his plans right up to the end of his life. Even if building a temple was a case of misplaced ideals and obsession, we have to give him credit for zealously working and planning for the Lord's work right to the end of his days, even when he knew he would not live to see it coming to reality. "There were found" could suggest the problem with finding people according to the genealogical system worked out. Working out who actually were the living descendants of ancient families would not have been easy.</p>


text:
<p>His brothers, men of valour, were two thousand seven hundred, heads of fathers’ households, whom king David made overseers over the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of the Manassites, for every matter pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king- </p><p>David was clearly concerned that the tribes on the other side of Jordan might wander both spiritually and politically, and not pay their tithes to the temple. 2700 overseers in their territory was a lot. We note that their brief was to assist them firstly in things "pertaining to God". We can assume that as these were Levites, their duty was to teach these separatist tribes about God. We should be concerned firstly about the spiritual wellbeing of weaker, isolated brethren- and only secondly be concerned about their identity with our particular community. Solomon however abused this system by using this system of overseers to eventually whip the people with heavy taxes, which all went to him; even when he had turned away from Yahweh worship.</p>


text:
<p>Now the children of Israel after their number, the heads of fathers’ households and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and their officers who served the king, in any matter of the divisions which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year- of every division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Twelve groups of 24,000 men mean that David's total army numbered 288,000 men- probably the majority of the fit men of Israel. David's later desire to number the fighting men of Israel would rather suggest that this system didn't work that well in the longer term. If he could trust the leaders to rally their men, then he wouldn't have needed to number them. We have an idealized picture of David's Kingdom presented in Chronicles [hence the omission of his sin with Bathsheba]. This may be because it was understood by the time Chronicles was written that David was a prototype of Messiah. However it could be that the reference to David's numbering in :24 suggests that David sought to number all Israel- as if he felt the 288,000 soldiers weren't enough and wondered how many other men there were available in Israel. In this case he was acting like the wealthy man who counts up his investments and panics that he really needs more.</p>


text:
<p>Over the first division for the first month was Jashobeam the son of Zabdiel; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>"Jashobeam" was one of David's followers in the wilderness (<a href='B:130 11:11'>1Ch 11:11</a>). Indeed, nearly all of those mentioned in the list of army commanders here were with him then. Those faithful in the wilderness years were exalted to leadership in David's kingdom, and that is how it shall be with the loyal servants of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>He was of the children of Perez, the chief of all the captains of the army for the first month- </p><p>This massive system of rotating army service matched that described in previous chapters for serving in the temple. I am uncomfortable with the spiritual implications of all this. It was not envisioned in the Mosaic law, and smacks of the kind of centralized control which is political and religious, rather than spiritual. And as often mentioned, the tabernacle didn't require such huge amounts of labour; the whole temple system which did require it was of David's creation, not God's, although He worked through it.</p>


text:
<p>Over the division of the second month was Dodai the Ahohite, and his division; and Mikloth the ruler; and in his division were twenty-four thousand-</p><p>"Thousand" is often used not of 1000 literal persons but of an administrative or military division, and that may be the case here.</p>


text:
<p>The third captain of the army for the third month was Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, chief; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Those who followed David in his wilderness years became the senior officials in his Kingdom. There's a clear parallel with the Lord Jesus and we His followers. As a priest, he must have often been unable to fully achieve his priestly calling during the wilderness years. It could even be that Benaiah was not a priest (<a href='B:130 4:36'>1Ch 4:36</a> suggests he was a Simeonite), but functioned as one during the years of exile from the sanctuary. This may have led David to himself act as a priest when the ark was brought to Zion.</p>


text:
<p>This is that Benaiah, who was the mighty man of the thirty, and over the thirty; and of his division was Ammizabad his son- </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.</p>


text:
<p>The fourth captain for the fourth month was Asahel the brother of Joab, and Zebadiah his son after him; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Asahel was long dead at this time (<a href='B:100 2:23'>2Sa 2:23</a>), so the names of these 'captains' may not refer to living men, but rather to symbolic heads. At the very end of David's life, Joab was disloyal to him and Solomon slew him. So we wonder to what extent these detailed plans of David were in fact fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>The fifth captain for this fifth month was Shamhuth the Izrahite; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Izrahite means from the family of Zerah (<a href='B:130 2:4'>1Ch 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a>), meaning he was from the tribe of Judah.</p>


text:
<p>The sixth captain for the sixth month was Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>He too was from Judah if from Tekoah; these army captains are not evenly spread out throughout the 12 tribes, but many of them were from Judah, thus retaining national control in the hands of David and his immediate tribal and social circle.</p>


text:
<p>The seventh captain for the seventh month was Helez the Pelonite, of the children of Ephraim: and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>He is called a man of Ephraim here, but Beth-Palet [he was a "Paltite", <a href='B:100 23:26'>2Sa 23:26</a>] was a town in the tribe of Judah. See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>The eighth captain for the eighth month was Sibbecai the Hushathite, of the Zerahites; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>He too was from Judah, from the family of Zerah (<a href='B:130 2:4'>1Ch 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a>); see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>The ninth captain for the ninth month was Abiezer the Anathothite, of the Benjamites: and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Anathoth was a priestly town, so this may have been a faithful priest from Benjamin who would have been disillusioned with Saul's unspirituality.</p>


text:
<p>The tenth captain for the tenth month was Maharai the Netophathite, of the Zerahites; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>This is now the third person from the subdivision of Zerah in Judah. The choice of leaders was clearly not representative of all the tribes of Israel, but rather power was being concentrated in the hands of David's tribe and immediate circle.</p>


text:
<p>The eleventh captain for the eleventh month was Benaiah the Pirathonite, of the children of Ephraim; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Pirathon was in Ephraim (<a href='B:70 12:15'>Jdg 12:15</a>), and there was always antipathy between Judah and Ephraim. So as noted on :12, here again was a man who stepped out from his surrounding cultural expectations in loyalty to David.</p>


text:
<p>The twelfth captain for the twelfth month was Heldai the Netophathite, of Othniel; and in his division were twenty-four thousand-</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 :9.</p>


text:
<p>Furthermore over the tribes of Israel: of the Reubenites was Eliezer the son of Zichri the ruler: of the Simeonites, Shephatiah the son of Maacah- </p><p>Gad and Asher are omitted here- perhaps because they were not that loyal to David?</p>


text:
<p>of Levi, Hashabiah the son of Kemuel: of Aaron, Zadok- </p><p>This suggests the Levites had two 'rulers', perhaps one over the priests and another over the soldiers, or for the other Levites.</p>


text:
<p>of Judah, Elihu, one of the brothers of David: of Issachar, Omri the son of Michael- </p><p>In <a href='B:130 2:15'>1Ch 2:15</a>, David is placed seventh of seven sons, but elsewhere eighth of eight (<a href='B:90 14:10-11'>1Sa 14:10-11</a>; <a href='B:90 17:12'>1Sa 17:12</a>). Perhaps the eighth son was the Elihu of <a href='B:130 27:18'>1Ch 27:18</a>. Or perhaps one of the sons died without children, and is therefore not included in <a href='B:130 2:15'>1Ch 2:15</a>. LXX gives Eliab. Again we see the concentration of power in David's immediate circle (see on :9).</p>


text:
<p>of Zebulun, Ishmaiah the son of Obadiah: of Naphtali, Jeremoth the son of Azriel- </p><p>The only other mentions of Obadiah and Azriel in Chronicles refer to Levites. So these men may have been Levites from those areas. Which fits in with the suggestion on :9 that David was appointing a leadership which was loyal to him; for the priesthood was loyal to him, and so the Levites likely were too.</p>


text:
<p>of the children of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Azaziah: of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Joel the son of Pedaiah- </p><p>"Hoshea" is s:w. Joshua, who was also of the tribe of Ephraim (<a href='B:40 13:8'>Num 13:8</a>), and was likely named after him.</p>


text:
<p>of the half-tribe of Manasseh in Gilead, Iddo the son of Zechariah: of Benjamin, Jaasiel the son of Abner- </p><p>Jaasiel is the son of the Abner who was Saul’s cousin (<a href='B:130 9:36'>1Ch 9:36</a>; <a href='B:90 14:50'>1Sa 14:50</a>). This is a departure from the common theme in these lists of David concentrating power in his own circle (see on :9). It was perhaps a sign of David's abiding softness and kindness towards the house of Saul, which is all the more notable because David was an astute politician and was used to cementing his own power through political appointments.</p>


text:
<p>of Dan, Azarel the son of Jeroham. These were the captains of the tribes of Israel- </p><p>We note that many if not all of these leaders of the tribes, and their fathers, had Godly names.</p>


text:
<p>But David didn’t take the number of them from twenty years old and under, because Yahweh had said He would increase Israel like the stars of the sky- </p><p>This certainly seeks to present David positively. For his desire to take a census of Israel at the time of <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a> was a result of his lack of faith, and David himself took guilt over what he had done. We have an example here of God yet again imputing righteousness to David, as He did over the sin with Bathsheba. Or it could be that his refusal to number Israel under the age of 20 was indeed because of his faith that God would multiply Israel, yet at the same time he lacked faith in taking the census of all the fighting men. This co-existence of faith and unbelief in a person is quite typical; how many of us have prayed "Lord I believe, help my unbelief" (<a href='B:480 9:24'>Mar 9:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but didn’t finish; and there came wrath for this upon Israel; neither was the number put into the account in the chronicles of king David- </p><p>See on :1. The wrath came "upon Israel" because they sinned by not paying the temple tax due when they were numbered. The sin is presented as theirs, which is why they were punished. David was unwise in leading them into that sin, but he seems to have taken false guilt upon himself over the matter. Which is why they and not he were punished by God.</p>


text:
<p>Over the king’s treasures was Azmaveth the son of Adiel. Over the treasures in the fields, in the cities, and in the villages, and in the towers, was Jonathan the son of Uzziah- </p><p>This could imply that David had his own extensive personal wealth, including vineyards (:27), servants who worked the ground (:26). This was exactly what Samuel had warned Israel about; a human king would take Israel's men to till their ground, and would take their vineyards from them (<a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a>; <a href='B:90 8:14'>1Sa 8:14</a>). That all suggests that David slipped spiritually at the end of his life. For he came from a poor family, and to have all these things meant he had taken them for himself, and had ignored these warnings of his one time mentor Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Over those who did the work of the field for tillage of the ground was Ezri the son of Chelub-</p><p>See on :24. This clearly alludes to the warning of the misbehaviour of Israel's king in <a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a>, so Ezri's job was to ensure that this work was done. We note that the overseers over this (Ezri, Shimei in :27 and Baal Hanan in :28) don't have Godly names but rather secular names:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>And over the vineyards was Shimei the Ramathite. And over the increase of the vineyards for the winecellars was Zabdi the Shiphmite- </p><p>See on :25,26.</p>


text:
<p>And over the olive trees and the sycamore trees that were in the lowland was Baal Hanan the Gederite. And over the cellars of oil was Joash-</p><p>"The lowland" refers to the Shephelah, one of the five subdivisions of the territory of Judah. Baal Hanan may have been a Gentile (<a href='B:130 1:49'>1Ch 1:49</a>).</p>


text:
<p>And over the herds that fed in Sharon was Shitrai the Sharonite. and over the herds that were in the valleys was Shaphat the son of Adlai- </p><p>"Sharon" seems to refer to the pastureland between mount Carmel and Joppa.</p>


text:
<p>And over the camels was Obil the Ishmaelite. And over the donkeys was Jehdeiah the Meronothite. And over the flocks was Jaziz the Hagrite- </p><p>The Hagrites were Gentiles who had been defeated by Israelites (<a href='B:130 5:18-22'>1Ch 5:18-22</a>). There is quite a theme of the former enemies of David becoming converted to his God and firmly personally loyal to him. We think of the Gittites being so faithful to David, the very men of Gath whose champion he had killed. This kind of radical transformation of human relationships is a major testament to the real power of God in human lives.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the rulers of the substance which was king David’s- </p><p>This may mean that there was a difference between David's personal wealth, and that of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Also Jonathan, David’s uncle, was a counsellor, a man of understanding, and a scribe. Jehiel the son of Hachmoni was with the king’s sons- </p><p>Again as noted on :9, we get the impression that David installed his own tribe and personal circle as the leaders of Israel. This list was presumably an older list, and not written at the time the lists of the temple orders were written, which was at the end of David's life. And here we have a mention of David's uncle. But he could be David's nephew, see <a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Ahithophel was the king’s counsellor. Hushai the Archite was the king’s advisor- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:34'>2Sa 23:34</a> tells us that Bathsheba's father Eliam was "the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite". And he and Uriah were both amongst David's "mighty men". 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>and after Ahithophel was Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar. The captain of the king’s army was Joab- </p><p>Joab was given this role but had it removed at least twice. So this list is a snapshot of David's kingdom at some particular point, perhaps taken earlier in his reign.</p>


text:
<p>David assembled all the princes of Israel, the princes of the tribes, the captains of the companies who served the king by division, the captains of thousands and hundreds, and the rulers over all the substance and possessions of the king and of his sons, with the officers and the mighty men, even all the mighty men of valour, to Jerusalem- </p><p>We note again that there was "all the substance and possessions of the king and of his sons". David came from poverty, but now at the end of his life he has personal ownership of substance and possessions. David had his own extensive personal wealth, including vineyards (<a href='B:130 27:27'>1Ch 27:27</a>) and servants who worked the ground (<a href='B:130 27:26'>1Ch 27:26</a>). This was exactly what Samuel had warned Israel about; a human king would take Israel's men to till their ground, and would take their vineyards from them (<a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a>; <a href='B:90 8:14'>1Sa 8:14</a>). That all suggests that David slipped spiritually at the end of his life. For he came from a poor family, and to have all these things meant he had taken them for himself, and had ignored these warnings of his one time mentor Samuel. We noted that the overseers over this (Ezri, Shimei in <a href='B:130 27:27'>1Ch 27:27</a> and Baal Hanan in <a href='B:130 27:28'>1Ch 27:28</a>) don't have Godly names but rather secular names.</p>


text:
<p>Then David the king stood up on his feet- </p><p>As if standing was now difficult for him, with reduced strength and faculties in his old age.</p><p>And said, Hear me, my brothers and my people! As for me, it was in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and for the footstool of our God; and I had prepared for the building- </p><p>See on <a href='B:230 132:8'>Psa 132:8</a>. The ark is called both the throne of God and also His footstool (<a href='B:230 94:5'>Psa 94:5</a>; <a href='B:230 132:7-8'>Psa 132:7-8</a>; <a href='B:130 28:2'>1Ch 28:2</a>). Above or sitting upon the cherubim, the pagan mind expected to see Israel's God. But there was (to their eyes) an empty throne. Yahweh had to be believed in by faith. And His supreme manifestation was through the blood of sacrifice. Cassuto gives evidence that the Egyptians and Hittites placed their covenant contracts in a box beneath the throne of their gods; and the tables of the covenant were likewise placed beneath the throne of Yahweh. This similarity begged the comparison yet stronger- Israel's God was not seated there. He had to be believed in by faith. Such a concept of faith in an invisible god was quite foreign to the pagan mind; and yet the whole tabernacle plan was designed to have enough points of contact with the pagan tabernacles in order to elicit this point in very powerful form: the one true God is invisible and must be believed in.</p><p>Or it could be argued that Yahweh was enthroned upon the cherubim, and the ark was His footstool. It was to the ark that Israel came to worship, although it was invisible to them, only visible to the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>But God said to me, ‘You shall not build a house for My name, because you are a man of war, and have shed blood’- </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 David 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>Shimei called David a "bloodthirsty man" (<a href='B:100 16:7-8'>2Sa 16:7-8</a> s:w:). And the same words are [supposedly] used by God about David. So we can wonder whether David was too quick in <a href='B:230 5:6'>Psa 5:6</a> to assume that the 'man of blood' was hated by God and was of course not him. But there is the possibility that God did say this, but it wasn't earlier recorded. So often in the psalms, David reveals a vicious desire for the blood of his enemies (see on <a href='B:230 21:11'>Psa 21:11</a>). Perhaps it was because of this bloodlust that David was precluded from building the temple because he had been a man of wars and had shed blood (<a href='B:130 28:3'>1Ch 28:3</a>). Solomon also shed blood as did many of God's servants, so that alone seems no reason why David couldn't build the temple. Perhaps it was his bloodthirsty attitude, albeit tinged with moments of great grace, forgiveness and gentleness, which led to God's prohibition.</p>


text:
<p>However Yahweh, the God of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever. For He has chosen Judah to be prince; and in the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel- </p><p>David is arguing that Judah had been chosen as the kingly tribe, and then the family of Jesse chosen, and then David. But there is no evidence for these statements. God chose Saul of Benjamin, and worked to provide him every potential to be the king of Israel. It was only because of his failure that God removed him, and then chose not Judah nor Jesse's family, but David personally. That calling was by grace, and in personal response to the spiritual heart which David had at that time. But David now repositions all that, because he is leading up to arguing that therefore Solomon has likewise been "chosen" in a sovereign way by God. But that too was really a forcing of God to fit the narrative which David had decided upon. David here misrepresented God as having chosen David on the basis of lineal descent, when that wasn't at all the case. But David does so because he wants to thereby justify Solomon as the chosen son on the basis of lineal descent.</p>


text:
<p>Of all my sons (for Yahweh has given me many sons), He has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of Yahweh’s kingdom over Israel- </p><p>David had many sons, but clearly Solomon was the favourite, the love child, effectively, of David's relationship with Bathsheba, the married woman he had become besotted with. It was this favouritism which no doubt provoked Absalom and his other sons to make the rebellions they did, no doubt deeply irked by prophecies like this in Psalms 72, which served the same function as Jacob's giving the priestly coat to Joseph. And it led Solomon to ultimate spiritual failure, because he came to assume that he would automatically fulfil the promises to David about a Messianic son. And so he came to consider himself spiritually inviolate, and came to live a life of debauchery rather than spirituality. David of course claimed that God had chosen Solomon out of all his sons (<a href='B:130 28:5'>1Ch 28:5</a>), but there is no record of that happening; rather do we suspect that David came to imagine that his own choice was in fact God's. Psalms 72 was David's declaration that he believed Solomon would be the Messianic ruler; but that was proven wrong, because Solomon did not reign with justice and turned away from Yahweh. The words will come true in the person of the Lord Jesus, but David was wrong to insist they must apply to Solomon.</p><p>So it was David who chose Solomon, but he is trying to make God be the one who preferred Solomon. As discussed on :4, David had misrepresented God as having chosen David on the basis of lineal descent, when that wasn't at all the case. But David does so because he wants to thereby justify Solomon as the chosen son on the basis of lineal descent. When Adonijah briefly seized power, David was forced to make a statement in support of Solomon; but beyond the reference to a personal comment to Bathsheba that he wanted Solomon to succeed him, David had never made his position on Solomon clear before that time. And there was no recorded word from Yahweh saying that Solomon was to succeed him.</p>


text:
<p>He said to me, ‘Solomon, your son, shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his father- </p><p>There can be no doubt that David was proud about his sons; his soppy obsession with Absalom indicates that he cast both spirituality and rationality to the winds when it came to them. The words of <a href='B:130 28:5-6'>1Ch 28:5-6</a> indicate this: "Of all my sons (for the Lord hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the Kingdom of the Lord over Israel. And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts&nbsp; : for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father". We have to ask: Is this what God actually said? The records of the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17 contain no specific reference to Solomon, nor do they speak of him building physical courts for God. The Davidic promise is fundamentally concerning David's greater household, rather than a physical house. So it seems that David became obsessed with the idea of Solomon being the Messiah, building a physical house for God, and being king over the eternal Messianic Kingdom. The words of <a href='B:230 110:1'>Psa 110:1</a> are applied by the NT to Jesus, but there is no reason to think that they were not primarily spoke by David with his eye on Solomon, whom he addresses as his Lord, such was his obsession: “The Lord saith unto my Lord…” (RV), and the rest of the Psalm goes on in the language of Psalms 72 to describe David’s hopes for Solomon’s Kingdom. ‘Solomon’ was actually called ‘Jedidiah’ by God through Nathan (<a href='B:100 12:25'>2Sa 12:25</a>). The ‘beloved of God’ was surely prophetic of God’s beloved Son. When God said “This is my beloved Son”, He was surely saying ‘Now this is the Jedidiah, whom I wanted Solomon to typify’. But David calls him Solomon, the man who would bring peace. I suggest that David was so eager to see in Solomon the actual Messiah, that he chose not to use the name which God wanted- which made Solomon a type of a future Son of God / Messiah. And this led to Solomon himself being obsessed with being a Messiah figure and losing sight of the future Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>I will establish his kingdom forever, if he continues to do My commandments and My ordinances as he does at this time’- </p><p>It is clear from :8 that David didn't understand "forever" as meaning 'eternal life' but rather passing on an inheritance down generations without end. But in his earlier Psalms, David had indeed understood the idea of life eternal at the resurrection of the body. He seems to have slipped from that in his old age. David recognizes the conditional nature of the promises to him about his seed, but then he seems to say that the condition of the seed's obedience will be met if the leaders are obedient (:8). All the time, David is wriggling out of the clear statements of God. He had told David not to build a temple for reasons quite other than David's personal history.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of Yahweh, and in the audience of our God, observe and seek out all the commandments of Yahweh your God; that you may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children after you forever-</p><p>The phrase for "inherit good" is used by Solomon in <a href='B:240 28:10'>Pro 28:10</a>, as the reward for the "blameless". But to describe the wise as "blameless" is an example of his over simplistic worldview. All have sinned, none are blameless (<a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a>), as David reflected in his Bathsheba Psalms. But Solomon had whitewashed his parents' sin, and knew nothing of the grace David had discovered at that time. The Lord's parables of the lost in Luke 15 may be seeking to deconstruct Solomon's attitude. The self righteous older son, who considered himself blameless, connects with the 99 sheep who "need no repentance". But "all we like sheep have gone astray", those 99 only thought they needed no repentance, and being so snug in their sheepfold actually only enhanced their sense of self righteousness, and that they were not in fact the lost. The phrase "inherit good" is only found again here in <a href='B:130 28:8'>1Ch 28:8</a>, where David says that this is to be the outcome for those who "seek" for obedience to God's ways. But 'seeking' is not being "blameless". None are blameless, but the spiritually minded seek for God's ways and will therefore "inherit good". Solomon totally lacked this humility and spiritual reality of David.</p>


text:
<p>You, Solomon my son, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; </p><p>To know God is to serve Him, and eternal life will be about knowing God, as it is now (<a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a>). Despite evidence for a spiritual slip in his old age, David quite rightly emphasizes the place of a willing and united heart in serving God. Although we wonder whether he had in mind the idea that Solomon would be literally "perfect". Solomon seems to have assumed that, as he clearly had no conscience of personal sin or possibility of spiritual failure. And this pride led to his undoing.</p>&nbsp;<p>For Yahweh searches all hearts, and understands all the imaginations of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever- </p><p>In :8, Solomon has directed the elders of Israel to seek God. And perhaps he is directing this sentence to them rather than Solomon, whom he liked to think would be "perfect" before God.</p>


text:
<p>Take heed now; for Yahweh has chosen you to build a house for the sanctuary-</p><p>God had clearly stated that the ark was where He wanted it- in a tent, behind curtains. And He did not want a brick house around it. And yet David urges people to enable the very opposite- to build a sanctuary in terms of a physical building, and to place the ark within it (<a href='B:130 22:19'>1Ch 22:19</a>). The whole land was seen by God as a sanctuary / holy place s:w. <a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>). "Let them make Me a sanctuary" (<a href='B:20 25:8'>Exo 25:8</a>) uses a very general word for making / doing, whereas&nbsp; David is trying to localize and define the sanctuary / holy place and is implying God had no such holy place- until it had been built according to his plans. The Kohathites are described as carrying "the sanctuary" (s:w:, <a href='B:40 10:21'>Num 10:21</a>); it was the ark which was the essential sanctuary or holy place. But David speaks about the building he proposed around that ark as being the sanctuary. And so form had replaced content, the external the internal, as so often happens when the pole of religion overtakes that of spirituality.</p><p>Be strong, and do it-</p><p>This is quoted in <a href='B:150 10:4'>Ezr 10:4</a> about the work of the restoration of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch of the temple, and of its houses, and of its treasuries, and of the upper rooms of it, and of the inner rooms of it, and of the place of the mercy seat- </p><p>This sounds as if David handed over to Solomon some architectural plans at this formal gathering, before all Israel (:1). The emphasis upon the porch must be noted. There was no such equivalent to this in the plan of the tabernacle; this was purely of David's grandiose device. Nor were there any "upper rooms" in the tabernacle. "The inner rooms" presumably refer to the holy and most holy places. Yet God had stressed that the ark, upon which was "the mercy seat", the lid of the ark where the cherubim were, was to dwell in "tents". This was His desire, but David speaks of "rooms" for it. If these plans were indeed from God, we would expect to read about the point when a prophet declared them by a "word of the Lord". But instead we have David presenting his plans and visions for the divisions of the Levites, and only then claiming that this was from God's revelation to him (:19).</p>


text:
<p>and the pattern of all that he had in mind for the courts of the house of Yahweh, and for all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of God’s house, and for the treasuries of the dedicated things- </p><p>The key phrase is that this was all that David "had in mind". He will later claim in :19 that God made him understand this. But that would require God to have totally reversed His reasons for not wanting a temple, which He clearly stated when David first had the idea. I suggest David wriggled around those reasons by assuming it was because he personally had shed much blood and Israel was not peaceful enough. He became obsessed with his plans, and assumed that these were in fact from God. When they were of his own device.</p><p>David seems to have become obsessed with preparing for the physical building of the temple in his old age. He truly commented: "The zeal of Your house has eaten me up" (<a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a>). The RV margin of <a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a> makes us wonder whether the dimensions of the temple were in fact made up within David’s own mind: “David gave to Solomon his son the pattern… the pattern that he had in his spirit&nbsp; [AV “by the spirit”] for the… house of the Lord”. There are several other examples of David wildly over-interpreting. See on <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>; <a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>.</p><p>The "surrounding rooms" were chambers around the temple court where the holy vessels and tithes were&nbsp; to be 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>). 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>also for the divisions of the priests and the Levites, and for all the work of the service of the house of Yahweh, and for all the vessels of service in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>We have been reading of these divisions in the previous chapters, and David is going to claim in :19 that all this was from God's direct revelation. Yet throughout those chapters we noted David's preference for appointing leaders not from all Israel, but mainly from Judah and his own inner circle. And some of the people mentioned, such as Asahel and David's uncle, had already died. So the schema needed revision. Yet David claims this whole packet of documentation was all directly inspired and revealed by God (:19), when instead, as noted on :12, it was all from David's mind and spirit.</p>


text:
<p>of gold by weight for the gold, for all vessels of every kind of service; for all the vessels of silver by weight, for all vessels of every kind of service- </p><p>This was indeed a measure of David's obsession, calculating the exact weight of gold for each vessel. Even though this was not specified in the commands for building the tabernacle. <a href='B:110 7:47'>1Ki 7:47</a> implies Solomon tried to calculate the total weight of all the vessels once they had been made, but the inventory was so huge that he left off. Yet so many vessels were not required by the tabernacle service. This was a completely different, grandiose religious system of David's own device; and in the end, all these vessels of mere religion were taken off into captivity (<a href='B:120 25:14-16'>2Ki 25:14-16</a> emphasizes this).</p>


text:
<p>by weight also for the lampstands of gold, and for its lamps, of gold, by weight for every lampstand and for its lamps; and for the lampstands of silver, by weight for every lampstand and for its lamps, according to the use of every lampstand-</p><p>See on :14. "The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but here David has decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, such was his obsession with mere religion.</p>


text:
<p>and the gold by weight for the tables of show bread, for every table; and silver for the tables of silver- </p><p>The table of show bread was to be made of acacia wood (<a href='B:20 25:23'>Exo 25:23</a>), but David planned to make it of pure gold, and even worked out the weight of gold required for it (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>). And Solomon indeed made it of gold (<a href='B:110 7:48'>1Ki 7:48</a>), leading to it being known as "the pure table" (<a href='B:140 13:11'>2Ch 13:11</a>). Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content. Likewise the "tables of silver" David ordered to be made (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>) do not feature in the tabernacle. He was missing the point- that God wanted His holiest symbols made of common, weak things like acacia wood. For His strength and glory is made perfect in weakness. David claims these plans were from God (<a href='B:130 28:19'>1Ch 28:19</a>), although as discussed on <a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>, they were in fact from his own mind. The way these things were taken into captivity, with no record of this golden table ever being returned, surely reflects God's judgment upon this kind of religious show. He prefers a humble house church in an inner city room, rather than a gold plated cathedral. The way some exclusive churches speak of 'maintaining a pure table' suggests they have made the same essential mistake as David did.</p>


text:
<p>and the forks, and the basins, and the cups, of pure gold; and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl; and for the silver bowls by weight for every bowl- </p><p>There was little point in making forks and basins of pure gold, a soft metal. This was all for religious show, and not at all stipulated in the Divine design for the tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p>and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot, the cherubim, that spread out, and covered the ark of the covenant of Yahweh- </p><p>Here we have a clear association between the cherubim and the idea of a chariot. The idea of the cherubim is that this is God in motion. And so we behold the contradiction. David wants this cherubim chariot fixed in one place; whereas God had told David that He didn't want a temple, because He was a God on the move. His ark and the associated cherubim had always been moving and therefore the ark was to be portable. But David was seeking to tie down the ever moving God in one place. This is what religion ever seeks to do to spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>All this, said David, I have been made to understand in writing from the hand of Yahweh, even all the works of this pattern- </p><p>In the previous chapters, we have David presenting his plans and visions for the divisions of the Levites, and only now claiming that this was from God's revelation to him. See on :11,12. If these plans were indeed from God, we would expect to read about the point when a prophet declared them by a "word of the Lord".</p>


text:
<p>David said to Solomon his son, Be strong and courageous, and do it. Don’t be afraid, nor be dismayed; for Yahweh God, even my God, is with you. He will not fail you, nor forsake you, until all the work for the service of the house of Yahweh is finished- </p><p>The "service" of Yahweh is never finished, and yet David speaks as if it will finish when the temple is built. This reflects his obsession with the project. But maybe the words of David to Solomon here came to the Lord’s mind in <a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a>: "My God (cp. "My God, My God") is with you::. He will not::. forsake you". Recognizing He had now been forsaken, the Lord Jesus agreed "It is finished". Indeed, from the moment He left the Upper Room&nbsp;the work&nbsp;was&nbsp;finished and therefore the presence of the Angel departed (<a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a> "I have finished the work::.").</p><p>Being "dismayed and terrified" 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 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>


text:
<p>Behold, there are the divisions of the priests and the Levites, for all the service of God’s house. There shall be with you in all kinds of work every willing man who has skill, for any kind of service. Also the captains and all the people will be entirely at your command- </p><p>The language of willing men with skill recalls that of the building of the tabernacle by skilled workmen (<a href='B:20 35:35'>Exo 35:35</a>), using materials supplied by willing hearts (<a href='B:20 35:5'>Exo 35:5</a>; <a href='B:20 35:21'>Exo 35:21</a>). But David was wrong to imply that this temple he had conceived was some kind of tabernacle. For on point after point, he goes against both the letter and spirit of the directions regarding the tabernacle. But he is shrouding his whole project in the language of the tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p>David the king said to all the assembly, Solomon my son, whom alone God has chosen, is yet young and tender- </p><p>"Whom alone::." is a political statement. David of course claimed that God had chosen Solomon out of all his sons (<a href='B:130 28:5'>1Ch 28:5</a>), but there is no record of that happening; rather do we suspect that David came to imagine that his own choice was in fact God's. Psalms 72 was David's declaration that he believed Solomon would be the Messianic ruler; but that was proven wrong, because Solomon did not reign with justice and turned away from Yahweh. The words will come true in the person of the Lord Jesus, but David was wrong to insist they must apply to Solomon.</p><p>So it was David who chose Solomon, but he is trying to make God be the one who preferred Solomon. As discussed on <a href='B:130 28:4'>1Ch 28:4</a>, David had misrepresented God as having chosen David on the basis of lineal descent, when that wasn't at all the case. But David does so because he wants to thereby justify Solomon as the chosen son on the basis of lineal descent. When Adonijah briefly seized power, David was forced to make a statement in support of Solomon; but beyond the reference to a personal comment to Bathsheba that he wanted Solomon to succeed him, David had never made his position on Solomon clear before that time. And there was no recorded word from Yahweh saying that Solomon was to succeed him.</p><p>And the work is great; for the palace is not for man, but for Yahweh God- </p><p>This is true on one level, but not on another. The greatness of God is not necessarily responded to by lavish decoration of buildings, as we see in the Orthodox churches. God dwells in the hearts of men and not in such buildings</p>


text:
<p>Now I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God the gold for the things of gold, the silver for the things of silver, the brass for the things of brass, the iron for the things of iron and wood for the things of wood; onyx stones and stones to be set, stones for inlaid work and of various colours, all kinds of precious stones, and marble stones in abundance- </p><p>The reference to precious stones would suggest that David was seeking to make new robes for the high priest, including a new breastplate. But the scale of the materials suggests David was going far beyond that, and instituting a new religious system with opulence everywhere, with "inlaid work" on fixtures which was not stipulated in the tabernacle plans. This was quite contrary to God's desire to live in the hearts of people; those hearts were precious stones to Him. And He specifically stated He wanted the ark to dwell in a tent. LXX "Parian marble"; the word is only used of the decadent palace of <a href='B:190 1:6'>Est 1:6</a>. The spiritually minded amongst the exiles would have observed the parallels.</p>


text:
<p>In addition, because I have set my affection on the house of my God- </p><p>"Affection" here is s:w. :17 of God's "pleasure" in righteousness. David assumes that God has pleasure / affection towards him because he has this obsession with building a temple- which God had said He didn't want. The whole story here is a parade example of where religion overtakes spirituality, and form eclipses content.</p><p>Since I have a treasure of my own of gold and silver, I give it to the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house- </p><p>What we have is not ours because we worked for it- although that, I know, is how it feels. It is ours on loan. Surely this of itself ought to mean that each of us leaves our property, if we own any, to the Lord's work, after the pattern of how David left all his personal wealth to the work of the temple, rather than to Solomon personally.</p><p>But as with Haman offering huge amounts of money, we wonder where exactly David acquired all this personal wealth from. David had his own extensive personal wealth, including vineyards (<a href='B:130 27:27'>1Ch 27:27</a>), servants who worked the ground (<a href='B:130 27:26'>1Ch 27:26</a>). This was exactly what Samuel had warned Israel about; a human king would take Israel's men to till their ground, and would take their vineyards from them (<a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a>; <a href='B:90 8:14'>1Sa 8:14</a>). That all suggests that David slipped spiritually at the end of his life. For he came from a poor family, and to have all these things meant he had taken them for himself, and had ignored these warnings of his one time mentor Samuel. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, with which to overlay the walls of the house- </p><p>This is a huge amount of wealth to now additionally offer, for the sake of rendering the temple with gold. This kind of opulence is quite opposed to the humble spirit of the tabernacle construction. The amount may be less if we recall that Chronicles was rewritten under Divine inspiration for the exiles, and "talents" may refer to Persian talents which were considerably less than Hebrew talents. But it may well be that David is wildly exaggerating, in order to elicit yet more such donations from other wealthy people. David boasts in <a href='B:130 29:4'>1Ch 29:4</a> that his gold is "of Ophir", whereas in reality Solomon covered the house with gold "of Parvaim" (<a href='B:140 3:6'>2Ch 3:6</a>). This suggests that David may not in fact have had in hand all the fantastic personal wealth he boasted of donating for the rendering of the house with gold.</p>


text:
<p>of gold for the things of gold, and of silver for the things of silver, and for all kinds of work to be made by the hands of artisans. Who then offers willingly to consecrate himself this day to Yahweh?- </p><p>David was almost covetous for the donations of others, and therefore appears to overstate his own voluntary donation (see on :5). This is all an example of how he was obsessed with the project. What God required was willingly consecrated hearts, not consecration to God through impressive material donations towards a project God didn't want anyway.</p>


text:
<p>Then the princes of the fathers’ households, and the princes of the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with the rulers over the king’s work, offered willingly- </p><p>As in :3, we wonder from where the leaders of Israel had such huge wealth. I noted on 1 Chronicles 27 and elsewhere that David had appointed leaders who were largely from his own tribe and personal circle. The impression we get now is that they had all enriched themselves at others' expense. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p>and they gave for the service of God’s house five thousand talents and ten thousand darics of gold, and of silver ten thousand talents, of brass eighteen thousand talents and of iron a hundred thousand talents- </p><p>The mention of darics, a Persian measurement, suggests this record was rewritten [under inspiration] in exile. See on :4. This would mean that "talents" may refer to Persian talents, which were considerably less than Hebrew talents.</p>


text:
<p>They with whom precious stones were found gave them to the treasure of the house of Yahweh, under the hand of Jehiel the Gershonite- </p><p>The only precious stones required were those for the breastplate and garments of the high priest. These were given by the rulers of the people (<a href='B:20 35:9'>Exo 35:9</a>; <a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a>). But we have the impression that a huge amount of precious stones was gathered from the leaders. Far more than the 12 stones of the breastplate. Again, the simple, humble nature of the tabernacle was being subverted by a mistaken idea that God is honoured by opulence- a lesson Pentecostalism has failed to learn.</p>


text:
<p>Then the people rejoiced, because they offered willingly, because with a complete heart they offered willingly to Yahweh: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy-</p><p>It is true that even if all this opulence was a case of misplaced idealism, genuine giving to God rather than retaining for ourselves is a source of personal joy. We will note on :14,18 that this attitude of heart was also given by God. But we wonder whether the record here, although inspired by God in its recording, was really the summary of the narrative David wished to believe. Because the language of the people rejoicing for their willing giving recalls the descriptions of the people willingly offering for the building of the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 25:2'>Exo 25:2</a>; <a href='B:20 35:21-22'>Exo 35:21-22</a>; <a href='B:20 35:29'>Exo 35:29</a>). But David was not building or rebuilding the tabernacle; he was building a grandiose religious system which in letter and spirit was out of step with the tabernacle specifications. And although the people in the wilderness offered so willingly, they were far from God in their hearts and turned back to Egypt. They were not justified by their apparent generosity.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore David blessed Yahweh before all the assembly; and David said, You are blessed, Yahweh, the God of Israel our father, forever and ever- </p><p>This public praise of God "before all" appears out of step with the real spirit of praise and worship. This prayer ends with the people prostrating themselves before David, which all seems so spiritually inappropriate for the man who was initially loved as the shepherd boy with a humble heart. See on :20:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Yours, Yahweh, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory and the majesty! For all that is in the heavens and in the earth is Yours. Yours is the kingdom, Yahweh, and You are exalted as head above all- </p><p>The common rubric found in the histories of the kings is that the "might" of a king was recorded at his death (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God's "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]::. but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p>


text:
<p>Both riches and honour come from You, and You rule over all; in Your hand is power and might; it is in Your hand to make great, and to give strength to all- </p><p>David appears to have himself in view, the one from a poor family who had been "made great" by God's gentleness and grace (<a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a>). Yet I suggested on :3 that David had really made himself great by taking wealth not intended for him. And we hear the same today, people praising God for having blessed them with what in fact they blessed themselves with, often by unethical means.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, our God, we thank You and praise Your glorious name- </p><p>David has used the same phrase in <a href='B:230 66:2'>Psa 66:2</a>; but the following context of the Psalm is of his praise of God's grace in redeeming and saving His unspiritual people. But now, David appears to be praising God for the works which he himself is able to do. This is the inverse image of how God had told David that He didn't want a temple built, but rather wanted to build David a house of people whom He had redeemed by grace.</p>


text:
<p>But who am I- </p><p>This was David's response when God first told him that He didn't want a temple, but rather would build a house for David from his descendants. David has totally misrepresented God's response as saying that He did in fact welcome the idea of a grandiose physical temple, and so by repeating his response at the time, he is surely guilty of a false humility.</p><p>And what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly as this?- </p><p>The idea is&nbsp; that even the desire to offer willingly was given by God, as well as the actual materials given. As will be noted on :18, God can give desires and motives to people, working directly on the human heart. And He can do so today, in the hearts of those open to the working of the Holy Spirit.</p><p>For all things come from You, and of Your own have we given You- </p><p>God insisted through Malachi (3:8-12), you are robbing me if you don't give back, or even if you don't give your heart to Him in faith. And will a man rob God? Will a man:::? We must give God what has His image stamped on it: and we, our bodies, are made in His image (<a href='B:470 22:21'>Mat 22:21</a>); therefore we have a duty to give ourselves to Him. We are not our own: how much less is 'our' money or time our own! Like David, we need to realize now, in this life, before the judgment, that all our giving is only a giving back to God of what we have been given by Him. The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we 'have'. When Eli and his sons kept part of God's sacrifices for themselves, he was condemned: "You trample upon My sacrifice and My offering" (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a> RVmg:). This is what we are doing by considering that anything that is God's is in fact ours- we are trampling upon that which is His.</p>


text:
<p>For we are strangers before You, and foreigners, as all our fathers were. Our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is no remaining- </p><p>David uses the language of Gentiles, appreciating that their Hebrew roots, in ethnic terms, were of no real value in achieving their salvation. Their inherent mortality as men, of whatever ethnic background, meant that they were saved by grace and not because of their ethnicity. Because we brought nothing into the world and can carry nothing out, i:e. because of our very nature, we shouldn't be materialistic and should be content (<a href='B:610 6:7-8'>1Ti 6:7-8</a>). In saying this, Paul is alluding to how Job faced up to the reality of our condition by saying that we entered this world naked and return naked (<a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>). Paul is saying that we are all in Job's position, facing up to the loss of all things, and should count it a blessing to have even clothing. David said that just because "our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding" , therefore he wanted to be as generous as possible in providing for the work of God's house (<a href='B:130 29:14-16'>1Ch 29:14-16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh our God, all this store that we have prepared to build You a house for Your holy name comes from Your hand, and is all Your own- </p><p>David sees the wealth which he and the leaders of Israel had offered as having come from God. But I explained on :3 that in fact they appear to have acquired that huge wealth by unGodly means. This kind of thing goes on often. Men build up wealth in their own strength, often by unGodly means; and then piously claim it is all God's blessing, and they are giving it back to God. This is far from just the tendency of the very wealthy; it applies to people on all levels of wealth.</p>


text:
<p>I know also, my God, that You try the heart, and have pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of my heart I have willingly offered all these things. Now have I seen with joy Your people, that are present here, offer willingly to You- </p><p>But David clearly advertised his own huge giving in order to elicit such donations from other wealthy people. So to then praise God for their willing hearts is somewhat less than truthful.</p><p>"Willingly offered" is LXX "with a single eye". Speaking in the context of serving either God or mammon, the Lord uttered some difficult words: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth:::the light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness:::how great is that darkness!" (<a href='B:470 6:19-22'>Mat 6:19-22</a>). All this is in the context of not being materialistic. The Lord is drawing on the OT usage of "an evil eye"- and consistently, this idiom means someone who is selfishly materialistic (<a href='B:240 22:9'>Pro 22:9</a>; <a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a>; <a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a>; <a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a>). The NIV renders some of these idioms as "stingy" or "mean". A single eye refers to a generous spirit (<a href='B:130 29:17'>1Ch 29:17</a> LXX), and a related Greek word occurs in <a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a>; <a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a>; <a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a> with the sense of "generous". So surely the Lord is saying that our attitude to wealth controls our whole spirituality. Whether we have a mean or generous spirit will affect our whole life- an evil [stingy] eye means our whole body is full of darkness.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh, the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Israel our fathers, keep this forever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of Your people, and prepare their heart for You- </p><p>NET: "Maintain the motives of your people and keep them devoted to you". This is a clear example of how God through His Spirit can work directly on the human heart, giving motivations and preparing minds. And this is really what we so earnestly need in our spiritual lives:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Give to Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies and Your statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for which I have made provision- </p><p>As noted on :18, David understood God to have the ability to work directly upon the human heart, and to make people obedient. This is the function of the Holy Spirit today. But as with Solomon, God will never force a person to be obedient if this is not in fact what they themselves truly want.</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. It seems David assumed his prayer was answered, and Solomon was somehow made righteous and even perfect. This would account for Solomon's lack of personal conscience of sin and possible failure, which was to be his spiritual undoing. We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p><p>Solomon keeps saying that his zealous&nbsp; work&nbsp; for the temple was the result of God's promise to David&nbsp; having&nbsp; fulfillment&nbsp; in him (<a href='B:110 8:24-26'>1Ki 8:24-26</a>), and to some extent&nbsp; this&nbsp; was true. David earnestly prayed for Solomon to be the Messianic King (e:g. Psalms 72), and therefore David asked for Solomon to be given a truly wise heart (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). These prayers were answered in a very&nbsp; limited&nbsp; sense-&nbsp; in that Solomon was given great wisdom, and his Kingdom was one of the greatest&nbsp; types of Christ's future&nbsp; Kingdom:&nbsp;Our prayers for others really can have&nbsp; an&nbsp; effect upon them, otherwise there would be no point in the&nbsp;&nbsp; concept&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; praying&nbsp; for&nbsp; others:&nbsp; But&nbsp; of&nbsp; course&nbsp; each individual&nbsp; has&nbsp; an&nbsp; element&nbsp; of&nbsp; spiritual&nbsp; freewill;&nbsp; we can't force&nbsp; others&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; spiritual&nbsp; by&nbsp; our&nbsp; prayers;&nbsp; yet&nbsp; on the other&nbsp; hand,&nbsp; our&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; can&nbsp; influence&nbsp; their&nbsp; spirituality. David's&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; for&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; the classic example of this. Those&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; were&nbsp; heard&nbsp; most definitely, in that God helped Solomon&nbsp; marvellously, giving him every opportunity to develop a superb&nbsp; spirituality; but he failed to have the genuine personal desire to be like this in his heart, in his heart he was back in Egypt, and therefore ultimately David's desire for Solomon to be the wondrous Messianic King of his dreams had to go unfulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>David said to all the assembly, Now bless Yahweh your God! All the assembly blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and prostrated themselves before Yahweh and the king- </p><p>Such prostration before David was surely inappropriate. David was really playing God, and the whole scene, although it includes many spiritual words and ideas, smacks of pride and inappropriate opulence.</p>


text:
<p>They sacrificed sacrifices to Yahweh, and offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, on the next day after that day, even one thousand bulls, one thousand rams and one thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel-&nbsp; </p><p>This was clearly out of step with what David had earlier been taught after his sin with Bathsheba; that God did not want thousands of sacrifices, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a>). And Solomon repeats David's failure in this, by again offering such huge numbers of sacrifices. Which, like the temple, God didn't want.</p>


text:
<p>and ate and drink before Yahweh on that day with great gladness. They made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him to Yahweh to be prince, and Zadok to be priest- </p><p>It seems that this was "that day" when David had made his public prayer. So Solomon was made king shortly before David actually died. "The second time" refers to how the first time, David had hurriedly pronounced Solomon king at the time of Adonijah's rebellion. We note that they anointed him to be king, whereas Saul and David were anointed by God to be king. Zadok was made high priest because the other high priest Abiathar had supported Adonijah's rebellion and had been demoted.</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him- </p><p>Solomon would only prosper if he was obedient to the Divine commandments (s:w. <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>). But he didn't do so, and so his prospering was in appearance.</p>


text:
<p>All the princes, the mighty men, and also all the sons of king David submitted themselves to Solomon the king- </p><p>Again the record appears to be reflecting the narrative which David and Solomon wanted to believe. For Solomon slew his brother Adonijah and any other potential competitors for his throne. Those who remained presumably only submitted themselves out of fear.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed on him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel-</p><p>Despite all the unspirituality of this situation, God was willing to work with what He had. He likewise worked through a human kingship system, although it was a rejection of Him; and He was to inhabit the temple, although He never wanted it built in the first place. Solomon, like Saul, was set up with the potential for being the Messianic seed / king; but he failed to use the huge potential given him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now David the son of Jesse had reigned over all Israel- </p><p>"All Israel" is stressed. The exiles for whom Chronicles was rewritten were commanded to participate in a renewed Davidic kingdom, which was intended to comprise the repentant remnants of both Judah and the ten tribes.</p>


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


text:
<p>He died in a good old age, full of days, riches and honour; and Solomon his son reigned in his place- </p><p>This again presents David from a very idealistic viewpoint, part of the narrative which David and Solomon wished to believe. For I discussed on :3 how his wealth was perhaps wrongly acquired. And he hardly died with universal honour, for the last years of his life, right up to Adonijah's rebellion when he was on his death bed, were characterized by discontent with him. The record of the words is inspired, but that is not to say that we are not reading a history written by someone who wished to justify the David-Solomon narrative.</p>


text:
<p>Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the history of Samuel the seer, in the history of Nathan the prophet and in the history of Gad the seer- </p><p>"The history" is literally 'the words':&nbsp; The reference may not be to the books of Samuel; the Hebrew title for The Books of Chronicles is "The words (or the acts) of the days". And that book may well be a compilation of the three sources listed here.</p>


text:
<p>with accounts of all his reign and his might, and the circumstances which he and all Israel experienced, and those of all the kingdoms of the surrounding countries- </p><p>"Circumstances" is "the times". But this history or "times" needs to be interpreted, as it was by those of <a href='B:130 12:32'>1Ch 12:32</a>. It seems from this that the histories of :29 included histories of the nations surrounding Israel, and it would appear that these are being referenced as if they existed somewhere. It seems that when Chronicles was rewritten under inspiration in exile, there developed a body of such literature, although the texts of :29 are not all preserved.</p>


text:
<e>2 Chronicles: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom, and Yahweh his God was with him, and magnified him exceedingly- </p><p>Despite all the unspirituality of this situation, God was willing to work with what He had. He likewise worked through a human kingship system, although it was a rejection of Him; and He was to inhabit the temple, although He never wanted it built in the first place. Solomon, like Saul, was set up with the potential for being the Messianic seed / king; but he failed to use the huge potential given him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Solomon spoke to all Israel, to the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and to the judges, and to every prince in all Israel, the heads of the fathers’ households- </p><p>Solomon sought to establish himself as king, so he invited all the leaders of the nation to come to a special sacrifice in Gibeon, a kind of inauguration ceremony. It seems they came to Jerusalem, and then travelled with him to Gibeon (:3) and then returned with him from there to Jerusalem (:13).</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon, and all the assembly with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the Tent of Meeting of God, which Moses the servant of Yahweh had made in the wilderness- </p><p>Solomon was fully representative of Israel (<a href='B:110 11:1'>1Ki 11:1</a>; <a href='B:110 11:5-7'>1Ki 11:5-7</a> cp. 33; 8:52; and note the ye::. thee confusion of <a href='B:110 9:4-7'>1Ki 9:4-7</a>); his prayer was their prayer (<a href='B:140 6:21'>2Ch 6:21</a>); his worship was theirs (<a href='B:140 1:3'>2Ch 1:3</a>; <a href='B:140 1:5'>2Ch 1:5</a>).</p><p>Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (<a href='B:130 16:39'>1Ch 16:39</a>; <a href='B:110 3:4'>1Ki 3:4</a>), and so it is another example of correlation within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil with which to anoint Solomon (<a href='B:110 1:39'>1Ki 1:39</a>). Solomon had replaced Abiathar with Zadok as chief priest, so perhaps his worship to Gibeon rather than Jerusalem [where Abiathar had officiated] was a nod towards Zadok.</p>


text:
<p>But David had brought the ark of God up from Kiriath Jearim to the place that David had prepared for it; for he had pitched a tent for it at Jerusalem- </p><p>The point is that the ark was not in the tabernacle at Gibeon (:3). The force of "But::." could be an implied criticism of this. I suggest on :5 that this was for political reasons, but the reality was that the sanctuary at Gibeon was without God's presence, for the ark was not there. It was spiritually hollow.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the bronze altar, that Bezalel the son of Uri the son of Hur had made, was there before the tabernacle of Yahweh; and Solomon and the assembly were seeking counsel there- </p><p>AV reads differently: "Moreover the brazen altar, that Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, he put before the tabernacle of the LORD: and Solomon and the congregation sought unto it". This may be read as an aside; at this point, Solomon went to Gibeon and sacrificed at the altar there, but this is as it were in brackets, telling us that in fact later, Solomon was to move the brazen altar from Gibeon to Jerusalem. We note that at this point, the ark is in Zion, but the altar of burnt offering is still at Gibeon (<a href='B:130 16:39-42'>1Ch 16:39-42</a>). 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. 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). This suggests that David's operation of two sanctuaries was politically motivated.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon went up there to the bronze altar before Yahweh which was at the Tent of Meeting and offered one thousand burnt offerings on it-</p><p>Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar- </p><p>This was clearly out of step with what David had earlier been taught after his sin with Bathsheba; that God did not want thousands of sacrifices, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a>). And Solomon repeats David's failure in this, by again offering such huge numbers of sacrifices. Which, like the temple, God didn't want.</p>


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


text:
<p>Solomon said to God, You have shown great grace to David my father, and have made me king in his place- </p><p>Solomon has it all the wrong way around in saying that Yahweh had showed grace to David because he had walked before Yahweh in truth (<a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>), and therefore Solomon had been made king. Solomon totally misunderstood grace. It is a pure gift from God, and not at all granted in response to our righteous walk.</p><p>These&nbsp; words&nbsp; are&nbsp; doubtless an allusion to the grace God showed David&nbsp; in his relationship with Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. But Solomon&nbsp; makes no mention of David's great faith in God's grace, and&nbsp; his&nbsp; subsequent&nbsp; appreciation&nbsp; that&nbsp; animal sacrifices were meaningless:&nbsp; These were David's real strong points, but Solomon is obsessed with David's public life of obedience ("according as he&nbsp;walked", <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>). He&nbsp; evidently saw his father as the epitome of spiritual&nbsp; good,&nbsp; faultless&nbsp; in God's sight. "Mercy" and "truth" both&nbsp; occur&nbsp; in&nbsp; <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>,&nbsp; and&nbsp; they&nbsp; often&nbsp; refer to the promises:&nbsp; Solomon seems to have seen the promises to David as a reward for David's good life, rather than an expression of God's unwarranted&nbsp; grace:&nbsp; David's&nbsp; reaction&nbsp; was&nbsp; "Who&nbsp; am&nbsp; I:::?" to receive&nbsp; such&nbsp; an&nbsp; honour:&nbsp; Solomon's&nbsp; feeling&nbsp; was&nbsp; that&nbsp; David deserved them because of his righteousness. So here is a feature of&nbsp; many&nbsp; parent : child&nbsp; relationships in the Lord. The children love&nbsp; and&nbsp; respect&nbsp; their parents spiritually, but often for the wrong&nbsp; reasons;&nbsp; they&nbsp; actually&nbsp; misunderstand their forefathers' spirituality:&nbsp; This&nbsp; is&nbsp; why their understanding of parental and community expectation is often wrong in the first place.</p>


text:
<p>Now, Yahweh God, let your promise to David my father be established- </p><p>So&nbsp;very&nbsp;often&nbsp; does Solomon speak of "David my father",&nbsp; and&nbsp; that&nbsp; God&nbsp; had made him king "instead of David my father" (e:g. 1&nbsp; Kings&nbsp; 3:7). Thus he asks Hiram to deal with him just as he had done with David his father (<a href='B:110 5:2-7'>1Ki 5:2-7</a>; and cp. <a href='B:110 5:1'>1Ki 5:1</a> with <a href='B:100 5:11'>2Sa 5:11</a>). The number of times these phrases occur&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; records&nbsp; is&nbsp; so&nbsp; large&nbsp; that&nbsp; we&nbsp; simply have to recognize&nbsp; that&nbsp; God&nbsp; is&nbsp; pointing something out to us about the relationship&nbsp; between Solomon and David (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a>; <a href='B:110 2:26'>1Ki 2:26</a>; <a href='B:110 2:32'>1Ki 2:32</a>; <a href='B:110 2:44'>1Ki 2:44</a>; <a href='B:110 3:6-7'>1Ki 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>; <a href='B:110 5:3'>1Ki 5:3</a>; <a href='B:110 5:5'>1Ki 5:5</a>; <a href='B:110 6:12'>1Ki 6:12</a>; <a href='B:110 8:15'>1Ki 8:15</a>; <a href='B:110 8:17-18'>1Ki 8:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24-26'>1Ki 8:24-26</a>; <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:33'>1Ki 11:33</a>; <a href='B:140 1:8-9'>2Ch 1:8-9</a>; <a href='B:140 2:3'>2Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:140 2:7'>2Ch 2:7</a>; <a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a>; <a href='B:140 6:4'>2Ch 6:4</a>; <a href='B:140 6:7-8'>2Ch 6:7-8</a>; <a href='B:140 6:10'>2Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:140 6:15-16'>2Ch 6:15-16</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>). Solomon was raised a believer, and he lived out parental expectation; but in later life, he himself was revealed as having no real faith at all, and he turned away from Yahweh to idolatry. So often in his prayers to&nbsp; God does Solomon make reference to David; for example: "Thou hast&nbsp; showed&nbsp; unto&nbsp; thy&nbsp; servant&nbsp; David&nbsp; my&nbsp; father great mercy, according&nbsp;&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp; walked&nbsp;&nbsp; before&nbsp; thee&nbsp; in&nbsp; truth,&nbsp; and&nbsp; in righteousness,&nbsp; and&nbsp; in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast&nbsp; kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit upon his throne" (<a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>).</p><p>For you have made me king- </p><p>Solomon speaks about him being King in Jerusalem (<a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>; <a href='B:250 1:12'>Ecc 1:12</a>; <a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a>) as if this was the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic promises. Consider the implications of <a href='B:140 1:9'>2Ch 1:9</a>: "O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth::. give me now wisdom, that I may go out and come in before (i:e. lead) this people". Solomon was asking for wisdom because he thought that he was the Messiah, and he saw wisdom as a Messianic characteristic. He failed to realize that the promises to Abraham and David were only being primarily fulfilled in him (e:g. <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); he thought that he was the ultimate fulfilment of them (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a> states this in so many words). His lack of faith and vision of the future Kingdom lead him to this proud and arrogant conclusion (cp. building up our own 'Kingdom' in this life through our lack of vision of the Kingdom of God).</p><p>Over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude- </p><p>Solomon assumes that the promises to Abraham of an innumerable seed had been fulfilled in his kingdom, just as he assumes the promises to David of the seed were fulfilled in him. He has no perspective of the future Kingdom of God, nor does he factor in the conditional nature of those promises.</p><p>And so Solomon 'had&nbsp; the truth', he knew so deeply the true principles of&nbsp; Yahweh&nbsp; worship and the promises which formed the basis of the covenant. But like us, he scarcely considered the enormity of the gap between the theory he knew and the practice of it in his own heart and living. We too have a tendency to build up masses of Biblical and spiritual knowledge, and to let the mere acquisition of it stop us from practicing it. He flouted the explicit commandments&nbsp; not to get horses from Egypt, not to marry Gentile women,&nbsp; and&nbsp; not&nbsp; to multiply silver and gold (<a href='B:50 17:17-18'>Deu 17:17-18</a> cp. <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>):&nbsp; At&nbsp; the&nbsp; end&nbsp; of his days, he recognized that although&nbsp; he&nbsp; had&nbsp; loved&nbsp; the&nbsp; theory&nbsp; of wisdom, the image of a spiritual&nbsp; life, the wisdom of God had never really impacted his soul: "I said, I will be wise (referring back to his request for wisdom in 1 Kings 3); but it was far from me" (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). His request for wisdom had only been so that he could do the job of leading&nbsp; Israel, living out the parental expectation of his father, whom he admits in Proverbs 4 had taught him to ask for wisdom. In <a href='B:240 19:12'>Pro 19:12</a> he speaks as if his own wisdom was like the dew coming down- as if he felt that the mere possession of wisdom made him the Messiah figure which his father had so hoped for him to be in <a href='B:230 72:6'>Psa 72:6</a>). And he says as much in <a href='B:240 29:3'>Pro 29:3</a>: “Whoso loveth wisdom [exactly what Solomon was commended for doing] rejoiceth his father”. He saw his wisdom and knowledge as some sort of a reward in themselves: “the prudent are crowned with knowledge” (<a href='B:240 14:18'>Pro 14:18</a>). This is of course true in a sense, as all the Proverbs are. But Solomon surely had the idea that he, who was so renowned for his knowledge, was somehow thereby rewarded by having it. This assumption by Solomon was likely behind each of the many references he makes to the value of wisdom and the blessedness of the man who has it. It is rather like feeling that ‘we have the truth’ because somehow our correct understanding of doctrines is a reward for our righteousness, and mere possession of doctrinal truth means that we are acceptable to God.</p>


text:
<p>Now give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people; for who can judge this your people, that is so great?-</p><p>I suggest on <a href='B:230 119:169'>Psa 119:169</a> that David asked for the word of promise that he would become king to be fulfilled; and in that context he asked for "wisdom / understanding" in how to rule Israel. And this was likewise the prayer of Solomon when he became king; but his motives were less than pure because he was consciously seeking to imitate his father in this request.</p><p>Solomon in Proverbs presents wisdom as of great personal benefit, indeed it is "for yourself"; and folly likewise is to your loss. But this presents a somewhat selfish view of wisdom. Solomon had been granted wisdom not for himself, but because he wanted to know how best to rule God's great people. But once he has the wisdom, he becomes exalted by it, and concludes that wisdom is essentially for the personal benefit of those who have it, "you are wise for yourself" (<a href='B:240 9:12'>Pro 9:12</a>). Whatever truths are revealed to us are so that we might use them to the glory of God with others, and not to merely keep them for our own personal benefit.</p>


text:
<p>God said to Solomon, Because this was in your heart- </p><p>Prayer is largely carried out in the mind – how we ‘speak in the heart’ is effectively read as our prayer to God. We find the phrase used about how Abraham’s servant prayed, ‘speaking in his heart’ (<a href='B:10 24:45'>Gen 24:45</a>). Thus our self-talk merges into prayer; Hannah’s “prayer” appears to have been the same (<a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a>). Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is described by God as “in your heart” (<a href='B:140 1:11'>2Ch 1:11</a>). This close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a>: “Truly I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them”. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfillment of our prayers. Yet how often do we hit ‘send’ on our requests to God, like scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?</p><p>And you have not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of those who hate you- </p><p>This was in contrast to David, whose imprecatory Psalms certainly ask for that. And he asked for it at the end of his life, and Solomon operationalized it for David. So God is being very gracious here in commending Solomon for not asking for the lives of those who hate him. And He appears to be indirectly critical of David’s desire for just this.</p><p>God may be alluding to how David had asked long life and been given it (<a href='B:230 21:8'>Psa 21:8</a>). This allusion was seeking to show Solomon that he was not to merely live out the image of his father David, but to think independently and forge his own relationship with God. Likewise Solomon had not taken literally the invitation of <a href='B:230 2:8'>Psa 2:8</a> to Messiah to "ask of Me (s:w. :5) and I will give you the Gentiles". Instead he had asked for wisdom.</p><p>Neither yet have asked long life; but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself, that you may judge my people, over whom I have made you king- </p><p>Prayer is largely carried out in the mind – how we ‘speak in the heart’ is effectively read as our prayer to God. We find the phrase used about how Abraham’s servant prayed, ‘speaking in his heart’ (<a href='B:10 24:45'>Gen 24:45</a>). Thus our self-talk merges into prayer; Hannah’s “prayer” appears to have been the same (<a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a>). Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is described by God as “in your heart”. This close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a>: “Truly I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them”. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfillment of our prayers. Yet how often do we hit ‘send’ on our requests to God, like scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?</p>


text:
<p>wisdom and knowledge is granted to you-</p><p><a href='B:110 3:12'>1Ki 3:12</a> "Behold, I have already given you a wise and an understanding heart; so that there has been none like you before you, neither after you shall any arise like you". Solomon asked God for a wise heart- but he was told that God had already given him this. The process of educating Solomon in wisdom would have started long before; but it was released, as it were, by Solomon’s specific prayer. We likewise are to ask in faith believing that we already have the things we ask for. <a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>: "I have also given you that which you have not asked". We are not merely reading history here. God's word is living and engages with us in all generations. We too are given exceeding abundantly above all we ask (<a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a> alludes here)- if we put first the wisdom of achieving God's glory.</p><p>&nbsp;I will give you riches, wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had who have been before you; neither shall there any after you have the like-</p><p>"Riches" is s:w. <a href='B:240 14:24'>Pro 14:24</a> "The crown of the wise is their riches, but the folly of fools crowns them with folly". &nbsp;</p><p>It was Solomon who was the king and wore the ultimate crown in his society. And he implies that his fantastic riches were a result of his wisdom, and that his pattern should be followed by others. But he fails to remember that his desire for wisdom was recognized by God in that He gave Solomon riches. Those riches were a gift from God, by grace, and not acquired or generated by his own application of wisdom. He therefore misused his possession of wisdom and experience of grace to justify himself, and present himself as a self made man; when he was not that at all.</p><p>Solomon knew and warned that a little folly can destroy the man who is in reputation for wisdom and honour (<a href='B:250 10:1'>Ecc 10:1</a>). Solomon had “honour” [s:w:] to an unprecedented extent (<a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>). But in the same book he admits that he, the man famed world-wide for wisdom, gave himself to folly (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). He knew so well the error and folly of his ways, but he could only preach the lesson but not heed it. He “saw that wisdom exceedeth folly” (<a href='B:250 2:13'>Ecc 2:13</a>)- but so what::.</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon came from the high place that was at Gibeon, from before the Tent of Meeting, to Jerusalem; and he reigned over Israel-</p><p>It seems the elders of Israel (:1,2) came to Jerusalem, and then travelled with Solomon to Gibeon (:3) and then returned with him from there to Jerusalem (:13).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen: and he had one thousand four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, that he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem- </p><p><a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a> "Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen". </p><p>Solomon's enthusiasm for Egyptian horses is clearly chronicled (<a href='B:110 4:26-28'>1Ki 4:26-28</a>), although this was studied disobedience to <a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>. There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.</p><p>Solomon&nbsp;had obsessive tendencies. We know that he became addicted to finding pleasure in women, and Ecclesiastes 2 shows him racing down the road of obsession with architecture, alcohol, food, gold etc. The historical narratives so often mention his gold and silver (e:g. <a href='B:140 9:13-21'>2Ch 9:13-21</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24'>2Ch 9:24</a>; <a href='B:140 9:27'>2Ch 9:27</a>). This repetition reflects Solomon's obsession. The same fact explains the record's repetition of Solomon's enthusiasm for horses (<a href='B:110 10:25-29'>1Ki 10:25-29</a>; <a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a>; <a href='B:110 4:28'>1Ki 4:28</a>; <a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a>; <a href='B:140 1:14'>2Ch 1:14</a>; <a href='B:140 1:16-17'>2Ch 1:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:9'>2Ch 8:9</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24-25'>2Ch 9:24-25</a>; <a href='B:140 9:28'>2Ch 9:28</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The king made silver and gold to be in Jerusalem as stones- </p><p>Yet amassing of gold, silver and horses was explicitly forbidden for the King of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.</p><p>And cedars made he to be as abundant as the sycamore trees that are in the lowland-</p><p>This could mean that he planted cedars in Israel, perhaps transplanting them from Lebanon; for his wisdom included being given wisdom about plants. And that wisdom was for the sake of the blessing and wise leadership of God's people Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt and from Kue; the king’s merchants purchased them from Kue- </p><p>Solomon&nbsp;had obsessive tendencies. We know that he became addicted to finding pleasure in women, and Ecclesiastes 2 shows him racing down the road of obsession with architecture, alcohol, food, gold etc. The historical narratives so often mention his gold and silver (e:g. <a href='B:140 9:13-21'>2Ch 9:13-21</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24'>2Ch 9:24</a>; <a href='B:140 9:27'>2Ch 9:27</a>). This repetition reflects Solomon's obsession. The same fact explains the record's repetition of Solomon's enthusiasm for horses (<a href='B:110 10:25-29'>1Ki 10:25-29</a>; <a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a>; <a href='B:110 4:28'>1Ki 4:28</a>; <a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a>; <a href='B:140 1:14'>2Ch 1:14</a>; <a href='B:140 1:16-17'>2Ch 1:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:9'>2Ch 8:9</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24-25'>2Ch 9:24-25</a>; <a href='B:140 9:28'>2Ch 9:28</a>). Yet amassing of gold, silver and horses was explicitly forbidden for the King of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.</p><p>Solomon&nbsp;started off as a middleman in the horse trade, buying&nbsp;horses&nbsp;from Egypt&nbsp;and selling them to the Hittite and Syrian&nbsp;kings (2&nbsp; Chron. 1:16,17; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:29'>1Ki 10:29</a>); but he was playing with fire, and&nbsp; he&nbsp;soon came to flout the spirit of the command not to buy horses from&nbsp; Egypt. It’s rather like the brother who works in a video store starting to watch the blue movies which he handles daily. Solomon would&nbsp;have&nbsp; justified it initially by saying&nbsp; that&nbsp; the horses were not for himself; just as we saw he justified&nbsp; his&nbsp; Egyptian&nbsp; wife&nbsp; by&nbsp; the thought that Joseph also married&nbsp; an Egyptian girl.</p>


text:
<p>They brought out of Egypt a chariot for six hundred pieces of silver, and a horse for one hundred and fifty. They also brought them out for all the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of Syria- </p><p>The description of Solomon's trading with Egypt is described with an unusual phrase- he brought forth chariots and horses out of Egypt by his hand (<a href='B:110 10:29'>1Ki 10:29</a>). But the Hebrew phrase 'to bring forth by the hand' is used so very often to described how God's might hand brought forth His people from Egypt- destroying the horses and chariots of Egypt in the process (<a href='B:20 7:4-5'>Exo 7:4-5</a>; <a href='B:20 13:3'>Exo 13:3</a>; <a href='B:20 13:14'>Exo 13:14</a>; <a href='B:20 13:16'>Exo 13:16</a>; <a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a>; <a href='B:20 32:11'>Exo 32:11</a> and so often). This is such a major theme in Biblical history that the inspired choice of words is surely intentional and allusive in <a href='B:110 10:29'>1Ki 10:29</a> - for Solomon did the very opposite to what God did for His people. Solomon's hand brought forth and glorified the chariots and horses of Egypt, bringing them all the way from Egypt to Canaan. Solomon is thus being subtly set up as an anti-God figure- although apparently, all was well, the promises of blessing were being fulfilled etc.</p>


text:
<p>Now Solomon purposed to build a house for the name of Yahweh, and a house for his kingdom- </p><p>"The royal house" of <a href='B:190 1:9'>Est 1:9</a> is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh. Remember that Chronicles is history written up for the encouragement of the exiles. The perceptive amongst the exiles would have seen the similarity between Solomon's buildings and those of their captors.</p><p>Solomon states these words as his own in <a href='B:110 5:5'>1Ki 5:5</a>. Again this is a spin; because it was David who had purposed to build the temple, and had prepared for it. And again we see Solomon assuming that the promises of 2 Samuel 7 were totally fulfilled in him; whereas being the Messianic son of David was conditional. And the house to be built was more essentially the house of God's family which God was to build for David rather than any physical temple. But Solomon totally missed all this.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon counted out seventy thousand men to bear burdens, and eighty thousand men who were stone cutters in the mountains, and three thousand six hundred to oversee them- </p><p><a href='B:110 5:13-16'>1Ki 5:13-16</a> reveals that Solomon had&nbsp;153,000&nbsp; full&nbsp; time&nbsp; and&nbsp; 90,000&nbsp; part&nbsp; time male servants:&nbsp;Israel's&nbsp; complaint&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; had&nbsp; whipped them implies&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; treated them like slaves, with himself as the slave-driver. 600,000&nbsp; adults came out of Egypt (<a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a>), and assuming&nbsp; the&nbsp; population&nbsp;only&nbsp; rose&nbsp; slightly over the next 550 years,&nbsp;we&nbsp; have&nbsp; the picture of an Israel where almost half the males&nbsp; (i:e. probably the majority of the working population) were pressganged into slavery to a despotic King Solomon.</p><p>This huge number of men involved in quarrying and transportation of the stones was because of the obsession with building projects which Solomon admits he had in Ecclesiastes. Just as Solomon's abundance of wives led to having a few thousand mouths to feed, and Israel needed to provide for that; so his obsession with thousands of horses meant that there was a need for a huge amount of fodder for them (<a href='B:110 4:28'>1Ki 4:28</a>). And all Israel had to provide this- all for the sake of Solomon's obsessive desires. That he reigned for as long as he did was truly a sign of God's grace to him for the sake of his father David, and is a tacit reflection of how much God loved David despite all his failures.</p><p>The huge amount of labour required- 80,000 men hewing stone alone- was nothing more than Solomon acting like Pharaoh, using taskmasters to trample down / rule over the people to achieve his quotas and enable his building fantasies to become reality. The Hebrew word translated "bear rule over' (Heb. 'to trample down') in <a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a> is that which we find in the Law's prohibition of this in <a href='B:30 25:46'>Lev 25:46</a>: "But over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour". Solomon knew the Law, and he rambles on in Proverbs about the need to read, love and obey that law. And yet he thought that he could give that one a miss, 'because I am doing God's work and building His house'. And how many a believer has ended up missing the entire point of God's law, the very essence of Christianity, because of their obsession with serving God in a form which is effectively merely serving themselves, excusing their fantasies in the name of doing God service. It's the process of Solomon's apostacy which is so instructive; for he justified himself by saying that he was doing God's work. He didn't simply quit on God.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon sent to Huram the king of Tyre saying, As you dealt with David my father, and sent him cedars to build him a house in which to dwell, so deal with me- </p><p>Solomon was obsessed with living out the image of his father. As Hiram had sent messengers to David (<a href='B:100 5:11'>2Sa 5:11</a>), so Solomon sends to Hiram.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of Yahweh my God, to dedicate it to Him, and to burn before Him incense of sweet spices, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts of Yahweh our God. This is an ordinance forever to Israel- </p><p>Solomon reasons as if all these Mosaic rituals required a temple in which to perform them. But the Mosaic laws about the tabernacle required just a tent, and not at all the grandiose religious system which David had become so obsessed with designing. It could be that Hiram was some kind of proselyte, and therefore all the information about the Mosaic rituals was meaningful to him.</p>


text:
<p>The house which I build is great; for our God is great above all gods- </p><p>The deeper our realization of God's greatness, the higher our response. "My utmost for His highest". Thus Solomon built a "great" house for Yahweh, "for great is our God above all gods" (<a href='B:140 2:5'>2Ch 2:5</a> AV). Israel prayed to God but without meaning, "though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him" (<a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a>). They theoretically knew Him as "the most High" but in their hearts they failed to exalt Him. And so their prayers remained as empty words. And Solomon missed entirely the response of God to David's original desire to build this temple. God didn't want human works, but rather faith in His gracious desire to build David a house, through the work of His Spirit in human hearts.</p>


text:
<p>But who is able to build Him a house, since heaven and the heaven of heavens can’t contain Him? Who am I then, that I should build Him a house, except just to burn incense before Him?- </p><p>"Who am I?" is a quotation of David's words about the temple in <a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a>: "But who am I::?". But this in turn had been David's response when God first told him that He didn't want a temple, but rather would build a house for David from his descendants. David totally misrepresented God's response as saying that He did in fact welcome the idea of a grandiose physical temple, and so by repeating his response at the time, he is surely guilty of a false humility. Solomon quotes these words of apparent humility and applies them to himself. But just as we cannot sing words of humility in a Christian song or hymn and thereby be humble, Solomon failed to realize that humility is not a bought or inherited position. It has to come from the heart. And he had no sense of personal sin or possibility of failure, and therefore no humility.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore send me a man talented to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, purple, crimson and blue, and who knows how to produce engravings, to be with the talented men who are with me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father provided- </p><p>The impression David had given in his closing speech to Israel was that he had provided absolutely every resource, human and material, required to realize his temple plans. But this was evidently not the case, as Solomon has to order more materials and skilled labour to complete it. I noted on 1 Chronicles 28, 29 the hollowness and exaggeration in David's words at that point. </p>


text:
<p>Send me also cedar trees, fir trees, and algum trees, out of Lebanon; for I know that your servants know how to cut timber in Lebanon. My servants shall be with your servants- </p><p>Perhaps this was connected with the Divine wisdom about cedar trees which God had given Solomon (<a href='B:110 4:33'>1Ki 4:33</a>). "Fir" is LXX "pine", which would have created a pleasant smell in the temple.</p>


text:
<p>even to prepare me timber in abundance; for the house which I am about to build shall be great and wonderful- </p><p>The greatness and wonder of the house was a big theme with David and Solomon. But God's response to David's initial suggestion of a temple was that He is a humble God, and doesn't like grandiose structures; rather does He wish above all for men to allow Him to work according to His grace in building a house for His glory made out of contrite, responsive hearts. Form eclipsed content for Solomon, religion overtook spirituality, as has happened constantly in the history of God's people. "Great and wonderful" is a Hebrew phrase consistently used about what God does for men by His grace; and not what man can do for God (<a href='B:220 5:9'>Job 5:9</a>; <a href='B:220 9:10'>Job 9:10</a>; <a href='B:220 37:5'>Job 37:5</a>; <a href='B:230 86:10'>Psa 86:10</a>; <a href='B:230 136:4'>Psa 136:4</a>; <a href='B:300 32:17'>Jer 32:17</a>). In a time of greater humility, David had vowed not to exercise himself in this great and wonderful (s:w. <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a>). But now, Solomon is seeking to build a great and wonderful place for God, rather than allowing God to build that great and wonderful house of humbled human hearts.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will give to your servants, the cutters who cut timber, twenty thousand measures of beaten wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of oil- </p><p>The different figures in <a href='B:110 5:11'>1Ki 5:11</a> cp. <a href='B:140 2:10'>2Ch 2:10</a> could be because part of the amount was for Tyre generally, and part for Hiram's personal household. Twenty measure of pure oil (<a href='B:110 5:11'>1Ki 5:11</a>) appears relatively small; but it is the same word used for the oil of the tabernacle rituals (<a href='B:20 27:20'>Exo 27:20</a>), and as a proselyte Hiram may well have built his own kind of tabernacle system. I suggest on <a href='B:330 28:14'>Eze 28:14</a> that he indeed did so, but it turned into apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>Then Huram the king of Tyre answered in a writing which he sent to Solomon, Because Yahweh loves His people, therefore He has made you king over them- </p><p>These are identical words as in <a href='B:110 10:9'>1Ki 10:9</a>, of the queen of Sheba's response. We are given the impression that they became proselytes because they used the Yahweh Name; although polytheists could take the name of other gods, such as Yahweh, without it meaning they had accepted them as their own gods.</p>


text:
<p>Huram continued, Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel that made heaven and earth, Who has given to David the king a wise son, endowed with discretion and understanding, that should build a house for Yahweh, and a house for His kingdom- </p><p>This statement of faith that Yahweh was creator of heaven and earth would imply Hiram truly was a proselyte. For all the other nations had their various theories as to how their gods created heaven and earth. Hiram is repeating what Solomon had told him, in saying that this temple was a "house for Yahweh, and::. His Kingdom". God had made it clear that He could not be contained in a house, and His Kingdom "rules over all" and was not so geographically and spatially limited. The temple obsession was really bringing God down to a very human, limited level.</p>


text:
<p>Now I have sent a talented man endowed with understanding, of Huram my fathers- </p><p>This shows that there was more than one Hiram; it was likely a generic kingly name, like Pharaoh. However, we must compare this with <a href='B:110 7:13'>1Ki 7:13</a>: "King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre". This contrasts with how Solomon's communications with Hiram regarding the temple had been by messenger. But for the matters of building his own house, he wants him present in person. Again we see how more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God's house.</p><p>However I suggest that the actual Hiram king of Tyre is not necessarily in view, but a man called Huram (<a href='B:140 4:11'>2Ch 4:11</a>), of similar spelling, who is described as a "father" to Hiram the king (<a href='B:140 2:13'>2Ch 2:13</a>); in the sense in which Joseph was a father to Pharaoh (<a href='B:10 45:8'>Gen 45:8</a>), his leading official. Thus we read in <a href='B:140 4:16'>2Ch 4:16</a> that "the vessels thereof did Huram his father make for king Solomon". However the point is established that a leading political figure within Tyre, who was known for his craftsmanship, was summoned personally to work on Solomon's own house, whereas this wasn't done for the work of God's house.</p><p>Another possibility is that this craftsman was Hiram's own representative, and is therefore spoken of as being "Hiram".</p>


text:
<p>the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan; and his father was a man of Tyre, talented to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, timber, purple, blue, fine linen and crimson, also to engrave any kind of engraving, and to devise any device. Let there be a place appointed to him with your talented men, and with the talented men of my lord David your father- </p><p><a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a> says "Hiram" was "son of a woman of the daughters of Dan", whereas 1 King 7:14 says he was "the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali". Dan may refer to the town called Dan or Laish which was in the territory of Naphtali, but inhabited by Danites (<a href='B:60 18:27'>Jos 18:27</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7'>Jdg 18:7</a>). Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore the wheat and the barley, the oil and the wine, which my lord has spoken of, let him send to his servants- </p><p>Tyre as a small island state had a major problem in obtaining enough food for their affluent population, so these basic food supplies were valuable to them.</p>


text:
<p>and we will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as you shall need. We will bring it to you in floats by sea to Joppa; and you shall carry it up to Jerusalem- </p><p>1 Kings 5 says it was "fir", or LXX "pine", which would have created a pleasant smell throughout the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon numbered all the foreigners who were in the land of Israel, after the numbering with which David his father had numbered them; and they were found one hundred and fifty-three thousand six hundred- </p><p>This may connect with the 153 fishes which were caught in <a href='B:500 21:11'>Joh 21:11</a>, representing the ingathering of the Gentiles to the people of God (see note there). But despite the typical significance, Solomon was clearly abusing Gentile labour in order to satisfy his own obsession for architecture and building work. He admits in Ecclesiastes 2 that he had such an obsession, and indulged it in his search for meaning in his own life. But it was at a terrible cost to those thousands of individuals made to serve it. Instead of Israel being a blessing to the Gentiles, Solomon made them a huge disadvertisment for Israel's God. See on :18. David claimed to have already prepared all the resources necessary for the building of the temple. So this massive number of men involved in quarrying (:18) was an outcome of Solomon's obsession with architecture and building, rather than a genuine desire to glorify God.</p>


text:
<p>He set seventy thousand of them to bear burdens, and eighty thousand to be stone cutters in the mountains, and three thousand six hundred overseers to set the people to work- </p><p><a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a> has "three thousand and three hundred". The word for three in Hebrew, 'sls', can easily be confused with that for "six" ['ss']. The same confusion is found in <a href='B:140 8:10'>2Ch 8:10</a> cp. <a href='B:110 9:23'>1Ki 9:23</a>. This would appear to be one of the copying errors in these Divinely inspired records.</p><p>This levy of labour was evidently one of the reasons which led the next generation to complain that Solomon had chastised the people with whips (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; the happiness of the people which the Queen of Sheba observed in <a href='B:110 10:8'>1Ki 10:8</a> was therefore just an impression Solomon arranged for her to receive). Yet "this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised: in order to build the house of the Lord, and his own house::." (<a href='B:110 9:15'>1Ki 9:15</a>). Solomon justified his zest for power and control by saying it was in order to do the Lord's work, to build His house::. and yet had he listened to God's word more carefully, he would have realized that the true house of Yahweh was in fact people::. yet Solomon abused people in order to build a visible house for God. And so very often religious people have gone down the same path- devaluing the meaning and value of persons, because they want to be seen as achieving something visible for God, no matter how many people they abuse on the way. The ends simply don't justify the means; Solomon told himself that they did, and he ended up as bad as Saul and Pharaoh, who are alluded to in the records of his levy of slaves from Israel. And yet the 1 Kings record gives the impression of all happily working together to create a great temple for God. When we probe deeper, we find this was far from the case.</p><p>David had prophesied that his great son would "have dominion from sea to sea" (<a href='B:230 72:8'>Psa 72:8</a>). 'Have dominion' is&nbsp; the Hebrew word translated 'oversee' here, or 'rule over' in <a href='B:110 5:15'>1Ki 5:15</a>. David's vision of his Messianic son having a world-wide Kingdom, in which all people blessed him for his grace and beneficence, was abused by Solomon into justifying 'having dominion' over people as his personal slaves; and they certainly didn't bless him for it but rather complained (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). It's as if Solomon grabbed the word 'rule over / have dominion', wrenched it out of context, and used it to justify his actions, giving a quasi-Biblical justification to his pure selfishness. This is where knowledge of God's word can be a dangerous thing; leading people into a stronger self-justification than they would otherwise have had if they were guided by self-recognized greed alone.</p><p>This suggests that Solomon made the same mistake as Israel in earlier days- he was a satisficer, he himself married into those tribes, and he wasn’t obedient to the clear covenant of the land which was binding upon him. Solomon's motivation for now bringing the Canaanites into servitude was not spiritual. Rather, as with his borrowing of money from Hiram (see on <a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>), his obsession with his building plans was such that he needed huge amounts of money and resources to carry them through. And so he colonized the Canaanite areas and made them send him slaves to work on his quarrying and building projects (<a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon began to build the house of Yahweh at Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where Yahweh appeared to David his father, which he prepared in the place that David had appointed, in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite- </p><p>This 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. It seems reasonable to conclude that Isaac was offered on or near the hill of Calvary, one of the hills (Heb:) near Jerusalem, in the ancient “land of Moriah” (cp. <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>). The name given to the place, Yahweh-Yireh, means ‘in this mount I have seen Yahweh’. The events of the death and resurrection of the Lord which Isaac’s experience pointed forward to were therefore the prophesied ‘seeing’ of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He began to build in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign- </p><p>1 Kings says it was in the 480th year after the exodus. If it took Solomon four years to prepare all the materials, the claims of David to have prepared all the materials in advance are surely exaggeration. This is indicative of the obsession he had with the project in his mind; and it was zeal for an image of his own creation, rather than doing God's will. For God was clear that He didn't want the temple built.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the foundations which Solomon laid for the building of God’s house- </p><p>Or, "these are the things wherein Solomon was instructed".</p><p>The length by cubits after the first measure- </p><p>This alludes to the way there were two measurements of a cubit; that of about 17½ inches is called in <a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a> “the cubit of a man”; and then later the cubit was a measure of about 21½ inches, a handbreadth longer than "the first measure" (<a href='B:330 40:5'>Eze 40:5</a>).</p><p>Was sixty cubits and the breadth twenty cubits- </p><p>This was twice the size of the tabernacle. Psalms 127 is prefaced with the information that it is a Psalm for Solomon- perhaps given by some nameless prophet (Gad? Nathan?) to warn him of where he was going. Verse 1 reminds him that God must be the builder of any house, or else the builders labour in vain. There is good reason to think that Solomon utterly failed to appreciate this. The records stress time and again that Solomon&nbsp; built the temple (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>; <a href='B:110 6:14'>1Ki 6:14</a>; <a href='B:110 9:10'>1Ki 9:10</a>; <a href='B:110 9:25'>1Ki 9:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:4'>1Ki 10:4</a>; <a href='B:130 6:10'>1Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:130 6:32'>1Ch 6:32</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 8:12'>2Ch 8:12</a>; <a href='B:140 9:3'>2Ch 9:3</a>; <a href='B:510 7:47'>Act 7:47</a>); yet the house referred to in the Davidic promises was to be built by God, through David's Messianic Son, the Lord Jesus. Zechariah prophesied at the time of the rebuilding of the physical temple. It is significant, in this context, that <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a> reminds Israel that the true temple of God will be built by the Branch, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>The porch that was in front, its length, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and the height one hundred and twenty; and he overlaid it within with pure gold- </p><p>The height of the porch was 120 cubits, or 180 feet (<a href='B:140 3:4'>2Ch 3:4</a>). This is out of proportion to the length and breadth. Perhaps what is meant is that the height of each of the four walls has been added together, which would give a height of 30 cubits. See on :11. It's hard to know which kind of cubit is in view. If that of 18 inches, this would be&nbsp; a height of 180 feet; if 21 inches, then 210 feet. This would make the porch a kind of tower, probably in the form of a pyramid. The porch functioned as a kind of gateway to the temple. Layard's excavations of the palace of Khorsabad unearthed a gateway of very similar size and proportion. It's hard to know who copied who, but it could well be that far from these being Divinely given specifications, David and Solomon were imitating the architecture of the surrounding nations.</p>


text:
<p>The greater house he made with a ceiling of fir wood which he overlaid with fine gold, and ornamented it with palm trees and chains- </p><p>"Fir" is LXX "pine", which along with the huge amount of cedar would all have been brought from Hiram. Perhaps the reference was to David's imagery of the righteous flourishing like the palm tree (<a href='B:230 92:12'>Psa 92:12</a>). But Solomon had likened his Egyptian lover to a palm (<a href='B:260 7:7-8'>Son 7:7-8</a>), and the palm and open flowers feature in Egyptian architecture. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence, although mixing it with the imagery of the cherubim of Yahweh's manifestation. And that was to be a sad theme of this temple until its destruction:&nbsp; There are observable similarities with the decoration of Egyptian holy places. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence. And that was to be a theme of this temple until its destruction.</p>


text:
<p>He garnished the house with precious stones for beauty: and the gold was gold of Parvaim- </p><p>David boasts in <a href='B:130 29:4'>1Ch 29:4</a> that his gold is "of Ophir", whereas in reality Solomon covered the house with gold "of Parvaim" (<a href='B:140 3:6'>2Ch 3:6</a>). This suggests that David may not in fact have had in hand all the fantastic personal wealth he boasted of donating for the rendering of the house with gold.</p>


text:
<p>He overlaid also the house, the beams, the thresholds and its walls and its doors, with gold; and engraved cherubim on the walls- </p><p>The idea was that the glory and presence of God represented by the cherubim was not only in the most holy place, but extended beyond it. David had often perceived this in his Psalms whilst on the run from Saul. And yet I suggested on :5 that Solomon was influenced by the architecture of the surrounding nations. In this connection, we can note that there appears a connection with the winged bull of the Assyrian sculptures, called kirubu in Akkadian. And perhaps the precursors of this were known in the surrounding nations, and Solomon was imitating them, rather than solely giving glory to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He made the most holy place: its length, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits; and he overlaid it with fine gold, amounting to six hundred talents- </p><p>One talent is 26 kilograms (57 pounds). 1 kilogram of gold is currently worth about 40,000 US$ [2020], meaning the value was around 625 million US$ in current terms. But in the poor, subsistence farming economy of those times, this sum was far greater in real terms. But this was not even all the gold which came to Solomon in the course of one year (<a href='B:110 13:18'>1Ki 13:18</a>), so it was not particularly generous.</p>


text:
<p>The weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. He overlaid the upper rooms with gold- </p><p>Gold is hardly the best material for nails or "pegs" (Heb:). This is an example of practical function being overlooked in favour of external image and opulence. That same basic tension is there in all God's people and their organizations. It is the tension between spirituality and religion, form and content. David had prepared iron nails (<a href='B:130 22:3'>1Ch 22:3</a> s:w:), but Solomon replaced them with golden nails, in a bid to excel his father in religious opulence.</p>


text:
<p>In the most holy place he made two cherubim of wood; and they overlaid them with gold- </p><p><a href='B:110 6:23'>1Ki 6:23</a>: "Of olive wood, each ten cubits high". "Olive" is s:w. "pine", and may also have been brought from Gentile Hiram- to be worked into God's glory.</p>


text:
<p>The wings of the cherubim were twenty cubits long. The wing of the one was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house; and the other wing was five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub- </p><p>This style of recording dimensions is to be found in :4. The length of the wings of the cherubim is given as 20 cubits, but this was a way of saying that each of the four wings was five cubits long. We have another example in the way that the two pillars are said to be 18 cubits high (<a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>), but in <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a> they are 35 cubits high. What that means is that there were two cubits of 17:5 cubits high each, summarized as 18 cubits high in <a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The wing of the other cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house; and the other wing was five cubits, joining to the wing of the other cherub- </p><p>This means that the wings of the cherubim touched each other. There was a complete covering over the mercy seat, or top of the ark where the blood of atonement was sprinkled each year, and above that but below the wings of the cherubim the shekinah glory of God was seen. The ark and mercy seat were placed under the cherubic wings (<a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>). It was only a relatively small space.</p>


text:
<p>The wings of these cherubim spread themselves forth twenty cubits. They stood on their feet, and their faces were toward the house- </p><p>See on :11. In the tabernacle the wings were "spread out on high" (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 27:9'>Exo 27:9</a>), but here their wings touch each other. Although Solomon claims he built everything according to Divine revelation, we wonder whether in fact he felt free to liberally reinterpret the tabernacle features. And he changes wings uplifted to God's glory to wings which are closed in upon each other; the mercy seat, or cover of the ark, is no longer exposed to Heaven, as it were, but now closed over.</p><p>The ark and mercy seat were placed under the cherubic wings (<a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>). The ark was one and a half cubits high (<a href='B:20 25:10'>Exo 25:10</a>) and the cherubim were ten cubits high (<a href='B:110 6:26'>1Ki 6:26</a>). In this relatively small space, the shekinah glory of God was manifest. For God doesn't need much space in which to reveal Himself; which is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>He made the veil of blue, purple, crimson and fine linen, and decorated it with cherubim- </p><p>It could be argued that <a href='B:130 6:31-32'>1Ch 6:31-32</a> implies there were door of olive wood, engraved with cherubim, which divided the holy place and most holy. In this case we wonder whether the veil was draped over that structure, which would have been contrary to the spirit of the tabernacle. The veil represented the flesh of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a>), and also the fact that the way into the most holy place, representing God Himself in Heaven, was somehow barred. But when the Lord died, the veil was torn from top [by God] to bottom (<a href='B:470 27:51'>Mat 27:51</a>), and thus the way into direct personal fellowship with God was opened (<a href='B:650 9:8'>Heb 9:8</a>; <a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a>; <a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a>). This understanding was so radical for Jewish minds. For the high priest could only nervously enter the most holy place briefly, once every year on the day of atonement. But now the believer in Christ can enter into full and permanent fellowship with God Himself. This was all achieved through the Lord's flesh being torn. The fine linen speaks of His righteousness (<a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a>), the blue of His association with God in Heaven, the crimson of His blood, and the purple of His Kingship (<a href='B:500 19:2'>Joh 19:2</a>). All this was worked into the veil, and the overall product of it was glory to God, represented by the image of cherubim superimposed upon all this.</p>


text:
<p>Also he made before the house two pillars of thirty-five cubits high- </p><p>The two pillars are said to be 18 cubits high (<a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>), but in <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a> they are 35 cubits high. What that means is that there were two cubits of 17:5 cubits high each, summarized as 18 cubits high in <a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>. We have another example of this kind of reckoning in the way that the&nbsp;&nbsp; height of the porch was 120 cubits, or 180 feet (<a href='B:140 3:4'>2Ch 3:4</a>). This is out of proportion to the length and breadth. Perhaps what is meant is that the height of each of the four walls has been added together, which would give a height of 30 cubits. This style is to be found in <a href='B:140 3:11'>2Ch 3:11</a>, where the length of the wings of the cherubim is given as 20 cubits, but this was a way of saying that each of the four wings was five cubits long.</p><p>They were "fashioned" (<a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>), or as AV "cast", and reflects Egyptian influence. The paintings of Thebes show this casting being done in Egypt, and it clearly was copied by Solomon. In connection with his wife being Pharaoh's daughter, he likely visited Egypt several times.</p><p>The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (<a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>):&nbsp;Worst of all, Solomon's throne seems to have been built with allusion to Yahweh's enthronement upon the praises of Israel in the Most Holy.</p><p>And the capital that was on the top of each of them was five cubits- </p><p>The capitals were placed on the tops of the pillars, as in <a href='B:110 7:16'>1Ki 7:16</a>. "Tops" is "heads", and the Hebrew for "capitals" suggests "crown". The height of the capitals is given as three cubits in <a href='B:120 25:17'>2Ki 25:17</a>, but five cubits in <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a>. The difference would be whether the crowns ["capitals"] were measured to the peak of the highest spike of the crown, or the top of the rim of the crown. But the idea is that everywhere in his house, Solomon was glorifying his own kingship; forgetting that it was by grace, and conditional upon his obedience.</p>


text:
<p>He made chains in the oracle, and put them on the tops of the pillars; and he made one hundred pomegranates, and put them on the chains- </p><p>I consider that any attempt to find spiritual significance in the pomegranates used in Solomon's building is misplaced, because I don't think he was at all thinking in that way. Rather is this another example of his simply copying what he had seen in Egypt, from where his queen came from. For such pomegranate designs are common in Egyptian architecture of the time, and Egypt was famed for pomegranates (<a href='B:40 20:5'>Num 20:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He set up the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand, and the other on the left- </p><p>Comparing with 1 Kings, I suggest there were two sets of pillars, one before Solomon's house and another before the temple. But pillars before a temple was a reflection of pagan influence. "The Phoenicians used isolated metal columns as sacred ornaments, so that Hiram would be familiar with such a mode of ornamentation" (Rawlinson). "Whenever in coins or histories we get a representation of a Phoenician temple, it always has a pillar or pillars standing within or before it" (Stanley). It seems that the contact with Tyre had resulted in their religion coming to influence Solomon's design of the temple. And so it happens when we claim to serve God according to the religious ideas of pagans. This is another reason why I query whether in fact he did receive the designs of the temple from God as he claimed.</p><p>And called the name of that on the right hand Jachin, and the name of that on the left Boaz- </p><p>"Jachin" means "He will establish", and Boaz "in Him [God] is strength", which is the idea in <a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a>. They were a statement that God would establish the line of Solomon, and perhaps Boaz is also a reference to his ancestor of that name. But that establishment of the Kingdom was conditional upon Solomon's obedience, according to the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7. But Solomon liked to think that by building these pillars, he had himself established his dynasty, and shown it to be established. Putting the two names together, we have 'He will establish by strength’, and this seems to be deconstructed by the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>, given after these two pillars had been removed, never to be restored.</p>


text:
<p>Then he made an altar of brass, twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and ten cubits in height- </p><p>This was far larger than the altar of the tabernacle, which was 5 x 5 x 3. Clearly the idea was that far more animals were going to be offered. And yet David and Solomon were forgetting the lesson taught through the sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's mother; God doesn't want sacrifice, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a>). Just as God didn't want a physical house built to Him, but rather wanted to build a house of people with humble hearts open to the working of His Spirit. The altar was of brass, whereas that of the tabernacle was of common, weak acacia wood (<a href='B:20 27:1-2'>Exo 27:1-2</a>). This taught that the basis of acceptable sacrifice and approach to God is the recognition of our common weak humanity, and sacrifice is offered to God upon that basis. But Solomon had no recognition of his own moral frailty and humanity, and was convinced that as David's son and the Messianic seed [as he imagined], he was therefore perfect. And it seems David too somehow rationalized his sin with Bathsheba by the end of his life, and lacked grace and humility:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Also he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass; and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits encircled it- </p><p>This 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”. Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>); three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). This is not how we are used to history being written; but we are reading the Hebrew genre of history, not our own.</p>


text:
<p>Under it was the likeness of oxen which encircled it for ten cubits, encircling the sea. The oxen were in two rows, cast when it was cast- </p><p>There is no record of this huge laver ever being used in practice. The urgent requirement for true cleansing was turned into mere external ritualism, something which was to be seen and admired rather than personally participated it.</p>


text:
<p>It stood on twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south and three looking toward the east. The sea was set on them above, and all their back parts were inward- </p><p>This massive laver was therefore a political statement, implying the twelve tribes of Israel were only to be cleansed by this huge laver. I discussed on 1 Kings 4 how Solomon sought to bring all Israel under his personal control. He constantly mixes spiritual appearance with his own unspiritual agendas.</p>


text:
<p>It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was worked like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily. It received and held three thousand baths- </p><p>"Shushan" is the Hebrew word for "lily", which was iconicly associated with the Jerusalem temple (s:w. <a href='B:110 7:19'>1Ki 7:19</a>; <a href='B:110 7:22'>1Ki 7:22</a>; <a href='B:110 7:26'>1Ki 7:26</a>). Shushan was where the palace of Persia was (<a href='B:190 1:2'>Est 1:2</a>), and&nbsp; sets the scene for the impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have there a fake, imitation kingdom and temple of Yahweh. Remember that Chronicles was history written up especially for the exiles. But the spiritually minded exiles would have perceived that Solomon's temple had been designed as a secular architectural masterpiece, similar to the palace of their captors. We several times read of the lily motif in Solomon's building. But the word can as well refer to the lotus. And "the lotus was the religious flower of the Indian and Egyptian religions". So we have a case of Solomon allowing himself to be influenced by the pagan religions of his wives and those he traded with, and importing it into his own version of Yahweh worship.</p><p>The size of this laver was unrealistic if it were to be useful. The huge size was therefore for show, and not because Solomon really wished there to be cleansing in practice. Beneath the rim it has "buds", or AV "knops" (<a href='B:110 7:24'>1Ki 7:24</a>). "Buds" is a guess at translation, for the Hebrew word is very obscure, literally "wild gourds", a poisonous plant (s:w. <a href='B:120 4:39'>2Ki 4:39</a>). It is unlikely this plant is in view. But there are observable similarities with the decoration of Egyptian holy places. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence. And that was to be a theme of this temple until its destruction:&nbsp; .</p><p><a href='B:110 7:26'>1Ki 7:26</a> says it held 2000 baths, perhaps describing the quantity of water actually used, although it had the capacity to hold 3000.</p>


text:
<p>He made also ten basins, and put five on the right hand and five on the left, to wash in them. Such things as related to the burnt offering they washed in them; but the sea was for the priests to wash in- </p><p>The massive laver described above was for show, it was too large to realistically be used for ritual cleansing; in practice, the ten smaller lavers would have to be used. But even they were far more than the single laver of the original tabernacle. This was because David and Solomon envisaged offering huge numbers of animals for offerings, requiring far more priests than did the tabernacle system of worship. David and Solomon were forgetting the lesson taught through the sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's mother; God doesn't want sacrifice, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He made the ten lampstands of gold according to the command concerning them; and he set them in the temple, five on the right hand and five on the left- </p><p>"The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a> David had decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, such was his obsession with mere religion. "According to the command" may therefore refer to David's command rather than God's. Or perhaps Solomon carefully made each of the ten lampstands according to the specification for the one lampstand.</p>


text:
<p>He made also ten tables, and placed them in the temple, five on the right side and five on the left. He made one hundred basins of gold- </p><p>The table of show bread was to be made of acacia wood (<a href='B:20 25:23'>Exo 25:23</a>), but David planned to make it of pure gold, and even worked out the weight of gold required for it (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>). And Solomon indeed made it of gold (<a href='B:110 7:48'>1Ki 7:48</a>), leading to it being known as "the pure table" (<a href='B:140 13:11'>2Ch 13:11</a>). And he made "tables" plural, as he made candlesticks (:7), although the law only required one candlestick. See on :19. Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content. Likewise the "tables of silver" David ordered to be made (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>) do not feature in the tabernacle. He was missing the point- that God wanted His holiest symbols made of common, weak things like acacia wood. For His strength and glory is made perfect in weakness. David claims these plans were from God (<a href='B:130 28:19'>1Ch 28:19</a>), although as discussed on <a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>, they were in fact from his own mind. The way these things were taken into captivity, with no record of this golden table ever being returned, surely reflects God's judgment upon this kind of religious show. He prefers a humble house church in an inner city room, rather than a gold plated cathedral. The way some exclusive churches speak of 'maintaining a pure table' suggests they have made the same essential mistake as David did.</p><p>So many vessels were not required by the tabernacle service. This was a completely different, grandiose religious system of David's own device; and in the end, all these vessels of mere religion were taken off into captivity (<a href='B:120 25:14-16'>2Ki 25:14-16</a> emphasizes this).</p>


text:
<p>Furthermore he made the court of the priests, and the great court, and doors for the court, and overlaid their doors with brass- </p><p>The "court of the priests" is that of <a href='B:110 6:36'>1Ki 6:36</a>; <a href='B:110 7:12'>1Ki 7:12</a>: "He built the inner court with three courses of cut stone, and a course of cedar beams". This would be the "higher court" of <a href='B:300 36:10'>Jer 36:10</a>. Perhaps it was made "higher" by the three layers of stone and the cedar decking placed upon it. Perhaps the idea was that the people in the outer court could see what the priests were doing:&nbsp;We wonder however what exactly was the “middle court” (<a href='B:120 20:4'>2Ki 20:4</a>). The brass doors contrast with the "hangings for the court of fine twined linen" (<a href='B:20 27:9'>Exo 27:9</a>), representing righteousness (<a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a>). Yet brass can represent the flesh. The desire to make the temple solid and permanent meant that the fine symbolism of the tabernacle was crudely overlooked.</p>


text:
<p>He set the sea on the right side of the house eastward, toward the south- </p><p>This confirms that the right side was the south. The description is as of a person standing facing the temple from the west side of it. But this was not where the entrance was. Solomon was describing it from his perspective and not that of a worshipper entering the temple from the east.</p>


text:
<p>Huram made the pots, the shovels and the basins. So Huram made an end of doing the work that he did for king Solomon in God’s house- </p><p>This gives the lie to David's confident statements that he had all the human and material resources prepared for the temple. He was in the grip of obsession, and convinced he had empowered and resourced the temple to go ahead. But in reality, Solomon needed more materials and the workmen provided by David, or those he had in mind, were in fact apparently not used in making the finer work for the temple.</p>


text:
<p>the two pillars, and the bowls, and the two capitals which were on the top of the pillars, and the two networks to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the top of the pillars- </p><p>We now have a summary of all the work done, as if Solomon itemized it all and boasted in the inventory. This glorification of human works and achievement revealed so much about his lack of true spiritual perception; see on :14.</p>


text:
<p>and the four hundred pomegranates for the two networks; two rows of pomegranates for each network, to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the pillars- </p><p>There were 100 in each row (<a href='B:110 7:20'>1Ki 7:20</a>), but on one row there were 96 facing the courts, meaning the other four were at the corners (<a href='B:300 52:23'>Jer 52:23</a>). The internal corroboration between records written hundreds of years apart is impressive, and reflects Divine inspiration of the entire Old Testament.</p><p>I consider that any attempt to find spiritual significance in the pomegranates used in Solomon's building is misplaced, because I don't think he was at all thinking in that way. Rather is this another example of his simply copying what he had seen in Egypt, from where his queen came from. For such pomegranate designs are common in Egyptian architecture of the time, and Egypt was famed for pomegranates (<a href='B:40 20:5'>Num 20:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He made also the bases, and the basins he made on the bases- </p><p>There is much stress upon all the 'making' of things and the "work" done (<a href='B:110 7:40'>1Ki 7:40</a>; <a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>). Solomon had quite missed the lessons learned by his father David [and his mother Bathsheba], that God wants broken, contrite hearts more than works and sacrifices. He wanted to build a house of people, rather than have a house built for Him.</p>


text:
<p>one sea, and the twelve oxen under it-</p><p>We wonder whether David and Solomon saw in this huge laver some kind of representation of their power, with all twelve tribes of Israel subservient to them. There was no equivalent of this huge laver in the tabernacle, and in practical terms, the ten smaller lavers would have been used. In 18 out of 21 occurrences, the Hebrew word translated "scaffold" in <a href='B:140 6:13'>2Ch 6:13</a> is translated "laver". The huge podium or "laver" from which Solomon proudly addressed Israel was perhaps basin shaped. This confirms the suggestion here that the laver with the 12 oxen beneath it was really a statement of Solomon's power over the 12 tribes of Israel, with them serving him and being his power base. Spiritual functionality was therefore replaced by a political, religious agenda- as happens so often in the history of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>Huram his father also made the pots, the shovels, the forks, and all its vessels for king Solomon for the house of Yahweh of bright brass- </p><p>The idea is of polished copper.</p>


text:
<p>The king cast them in the plain of the Jordan, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zeredah- </p><p>"The king cast them" suggests Solomon's personal involvement with the work. This reflects how he admits in Ecclesiastes that he followed his obsession with building and architecture to a degree not possible for most men. His zeal was therefore more an expression of his own personality type and personal interests, than true love for God.</p><p>Zarethan where Solomon cast the lavers for the temple with their pagan motifs (<a href='B:110 7:46'>1Ki 7:46</a>) is called Zaredathah in <a href='B:140 4:17'>2Ch 4:17</a>, which is a form of Zeredah (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>), the birthplace of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It doesn't therefore have good connections. We wonder if the golden calves were cast there too.</p>


text:
<p>Thus Solomon made all these vessels in great abundance; for the weight of the brass could not be estimated- </p><p>As noted on :12, Solomon itemized his work and boasted in the inventory. But he gave up weighing all the brass vessels. This glorification of human works and achievement revealed so much about his lack of true spiritual perception.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon made all the vessels that were in God’s house, the golden altar also, and the tables with the showbread on them- </p><p>This confirms that there was no longer one table for the showbread but in fact ten tables. There were therefore presumably also more loaves of showbread used than stipulated under the Mosaic law for the tabernacle. See on :8. Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content.</p>


text:
<p>and the lampstands with their lamps, to burn before the oracle according to the commandment, of pure gold- </p><p>"The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a> David had decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, such was his obsession with mere religion. "According to the command" may therefore refer to David's command rather than God's. Or perhaps Solomon carefully made each of the ten lampstands according to the specification for the one lampstand.</p>


text:
<p>and the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold (perfect gold)- </p><p>Pure gold as a soft metal was not the right metal for tongs, but the concern was clearly religious show and opulence, rather than functionality in the true service of God. The "flowers" may refer to the "knops" of <a href='B:110 7:24'>1Ki 7:24</a> and elsewhere, called "buds" in the NEV. "Buds" is a guess at translation, for the Hebrew word is very obscure, literally "wild gourds", a poisonous plant (s:w. <a href='B:120 4:39'>2Ki 4:39</a>). It is unlikely this plant is in view. But there are observable similarities with the decoration of Egyptian holy places. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence. And that was to be a theme of this temple until its destruction:&nbsp; .</p>


text:
<p>and the snuffers, basins, spoons and fire pans, of pure gold. As for the entry of the house, the inner doors of it for the most holy place, and the doors of the main hall of the temple were of gold- </p><p>The inventory here is similar in style to that of the vessels of the tabernacle on Exodus 25-30. It seems Solomon wished to present what he had done in terms of building a new tabernacle, with himself thereby presented as Moses. And yet we have seen hints throughout the record that he built it with pagan influences throughout it.</p>


text:
<p>Thus all the work that Solomon did for the house of Yahweh was finished. Solomon brought in the things that David his father had dedicated, even the silver and the gold, and all the vessels, and put them in the treasuries of the house of God-</p><p>There is much stress upon all the "work" done (:40,51). Solomon had quite missed the lessons learned by his father David [and his mother Bathsheba], that God wants broken, contrite hearts more than works and sacrifices.</p><p>These vessels were those taken in <a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a>. They were devoted to God's service by David and then Solomon dedicated them to the temple. 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><p>The promises God makes involve a solemn commitment by Him to us- the serious, binding nature of His oath to us is easy to forget. God swore to David “by my holiness” (<a href='B:230 89:35'>Psa 89:35</a>). The Hebrew for “holiness” is the very same word translated “dedication”. David’s response to God’s dedication to him was to dedicate [s:w:] all the silver and gold which he had won from this world, to the service of God’s house (<a href='B:130 26:26'>1Ch 26:26</a>; <a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a>). Our response to God’s dedication to us should be a like dedication of what we have to Him. Covenant relationship with God requires much of both Him and us. The case of David is a nice illustration of the meaning of grace. David wanted to do something for God- build Him a house, spending his wealth to do so. God replied that no, He wanted to build David a house. And He started to, in the promises He gave David. And David’s response to that grace is to still do something- to dedicate his wealth to God’s house, as God had dedicated Himself to David’s house. This is just how grace and works should be related in our experience.</p><p><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a> is perhaps the clearest basis for the words of <a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a>. This describes how Moses "reared up" the tabernacle, representing us (<a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a>); "So Moses finished the work" God had given him to do. <a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a> likewise speaks of Moses finishing the work. The Hebrew for "reared up" is also used in the context of resurrection and glorification / exaltation. As our Lord sensed His final, ultimate achievement of the Father's glory in His own character, He could look ahead to our resurrection and glorification. He adopted God's timeless perspective, and died with the vision of our certain glorification in the Kingdom. This fits in with the way Psalms 22, 69 (which evidently portray the thoughts of our dying Lord) conclude with visions of Christ's "seed" being glorified in the Kingdom. There are a number of passages which also speak of the temple (also representative of the ecclesia) being a work which was finished (e:g. <a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a>). In His moment of agonized triumph as He died, the Lord Jesus saw us as if we were perfect.</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers’ households of the children of Israel, to Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion- </p><p>Solomon imitated David's bringing up of the ark to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</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>


text:
<p>And all the men of Israel assembled themselves to the king at the feast, which was in the seventh month- </p><p>This would have been the feast of tabernacles, which began on the 15th day of the seventh month and lasted seven days (<a href='B:30 23:34'>Lev 23:34</a>). The building finished in the eighth month of Solomon's 11th year of reigning (<a href='B:110 6:37'>1Ki 6:37</a>), so he waited almost a year before this ceremony of dedication. Perhaps for some reason he wanted to combine it specifically with the feast of tabernacles.</p>


text:
<p>All the elders of Israel came. The Levites took up the ark- </p><p><a href='B:140 5:4'>2Ch 5:4</a> says that the Levites took up the ark, whereas <a href='B:110 8:3'>1Ki 8:3</a> says that the priests did. Both were true; for Levites weren't allowed into the most holy place (<a href='B:40 4:20'>Num 4:20</a>). So the Levites did carry it, according to the law; but the priests carried it into the most holy place. Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.</p>


text:
<p>and they brought up the ark, and the Tent of Meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tent; these the priests the Levites brought up- </p><p>The priests took these things on the final part of their journey, into the most holy place; as the Levites were forbidden from doing so (<a href='B:40 4:20'>Num 4:20</a>). But the Levites took them the first part of their journey; see on :4.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled to him, were before the ark, sacrificing sheep and cattle, that could not be counted nor numbered for multitude- </p><p>He offered huge numbers of sacrifices when the ark was brought into the temple (<a href='B:110 8:63'>1Ki 8:63</a>), just as David had sacrificed as the ark was brought to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a>). Yet he failed to feel and know the truth of David’s conclusion that God doesn’t essentially want sacrifice (<a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a>). David had been forced to learn that lesson through the shame of his sin with Bathsheba- Solomon was so sure of his own righteousness that he never was driven to see the inadequacy of animal sacrifice in itself, and the need in the end for the direct receipt of God’s grace.</p><p>Solomon offered sacrifices “that could not be told nor numbered for multitude”. This is evidently to be connected with the language of the promises to Abraham about the multiplication of the seed of Israel. It could be that Solomon thought that his generosity in giving of his wealth was what had brought about the fulfilment of these promises- he almost forced God to fulfil them, at least in his own mind, by his generosity.</p>


text:
<p>The priests brought in the ark of the covenant of Yahweh to its place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim- </p><p>See on :5,8.</p>


text:
<p>For the cherubim spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubim covered the ark and its poles- </p><p>In the tabernacle the wings were "spread out on high" (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 27:9'>Exo 27:9</a>), but here their wings touch each other. Although Solomon claims he built everything according to Divine revelation, we wonder whether in fact he felt free to liberally reinterpret the tabernacle features. And he changes wings uplifted to God's glory to wings which are closed in upon each other; the mercy seat, or cover of the ark, is no longer exposed to Heaven, as it were, but now closed over.</p>


text:
<p>The poles were so long that the ends of the poles were seen from the ark before the oracle; but they were not seen outside- </p><p>This may reflect a design fault in the lengths of the staves. Although we are assured that a person looking from the outer sanctuary would not have seen them even when the entrance to the holy place was open. This kind of design fault would not have been present if indeed, as Solomon claimed, the specifications were given by God. I suggest this was just his claim, and he built the temple according to his own desire to have a go at architecture and building- which he admits in Ecclesiastes had been his passion and obsession, for a time. See on :64 for another possible design fault.</p><p>It is there to this day- </p><p>This indicates that this record was written some time before the exile ["to this day"]. But other parts of the history suggest it was written after the exile. This means that some parts were rewritten or edited, under Divine inspiration, but others weren't.</p>


text:
<p>There was nothing in the ark except the two tables which Moses put in it at Horeb, when Yahweh made a covenant with the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt- </p><p>Inside the ark was intended to be "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded" (<a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a>; <a href='B:20 16:34'>Exo 16:34</a>; <a href='B:40 17:10'>Num 17:10</a>). They had apparently been lost; so although they remained with the symbols of the covenant, they were lacking in the things which spoke of new spiritual life and the resurrection.</p>


text:
<p>The priests came out of the holy place, (for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves, and didn’t keep their divisions- </p><p>These divisions are the courses of the priests (1 Chronicles 24). but the work was so great, as there were so many sacrifices, that the division on duty that day or week couldn't cope, so all the priestly divisions sanctified themselves and did the work. This may be a hint that David's careful plans had some design faults within them, as noted on :9. Because they were all of man and not God.</p>


text:
<p>also the Levites who were the singers, all of them, even Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and their brothers, arrayed in fine linen, with cymbals and stringed instruments and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them one hundred twenty priests sounding with trumpets)- </p><p>Clearly in imitation of David's praise when the ark was brought to Zion in <a href='B:100 6:5'>2Sa 6:5</a>. As noted on :2, Solomon 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. For personal faith is not the same as living out parental expectation.</p><p>It could be argued that standing "at" the east end may mean facing toward the east. In this case they were looking toward Solomon to impress him, and turning their backs on the sanctuary, which is the huge sin of <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking Yahweh; and they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised Yahweh, saying, For He is good; for His loving kindness endures forever! Then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of Yahweh- </p><p><a href='B:20 40:34-35'>Exo 40:34-35</a> uses the same terms for God's acceptance of and dwelling in the tabernacle. For all the pagan undertones in the temple, and Solomon's unspirituality, God was eager to still dwell within this structure; even though it was not what He wanted. Just as He had used the human kingship, when it was deeply offensive to Him.</p>


text:
<p>so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud; for the glory of Yahweh filled God’s house-</p><p>This was as at the erection of the tabernacle. The idea was that Yahweh's glory was far above the mere religion of the temple system.</p>


text:
<p>But I have built You a house of habitation, and a place for You to dwell in forever- </p><p>Solomon totally misses the point of God's response to David's desire to build Him a house; God would build David a house, involving Him dwelling in the "place" of the humble human heart. And "forever" was conditional upon the obedience of David's son / seed. But here Solomon effectively dictates to God that those promises are now fulfilled in him- because he has built a temple for God.</p><p>Psalms 127 is "For Solomon" (v:2 "beloved" = Heb. Jedidah), and warns him that his labour for the temple will be in vain unless God&nbsp; builds it. The Psalm basically says that God will build Solomon a house in the sense of a family centred in the beloved seed who would die [“sleep”] to enable it; and therefore Solomon should not be so sweating himself day and night to build God a house / temple. This is the very message which God had given David earlier. David and Solomon evidently shelved their knowledge of the fact that Heaven is God's dwelling place. It would seem that Solomon particularly was guilty of a false humility; there is a gross contradiction within his words of <a href='B:140 6:2'>2Ch 6:2</a>; <a href='B:140 6:18'>2Ch 6:18</a>: "I have built an house of habitation for thee, and a place for thy dwelling for ever::. But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built?". This is one of several hints that Solomon felt that the full fulfilment of the Davidic promises was to be found in him (cp. <a href='B:140 6:10'>2Ch 6:10</a>). He failed to look forward to the spirit of Christ, instead becoming obsessed with the achievement of his own works. He was largely encouraged in this by David, who seems to have felt that Solomon was the Messiah figure the promises spoke about. Thus Psalms 72 is dedicated to Solomon, and yet it speaks clearly of the messianic Kingdom. In the same way as David came to misquote and misapply the promises God made to him, Solomon did likewise. God told David that He did not want a physical house, because He had never commanded this to be done at any time in the past. Solomon misquotes this in <a href='B:140 6:5-6'>2Ch 6:5-6</a> to mean that God had never asked for a physical house in the past, but now he had asked David's son to build such a house in Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>The king turned his face- </p><p>From God to the people. The rest of this chapter is therefore Solomon praying facing the people rather than God. He was effectively praying to himself, praying to be seen of men. The Lord's criticism of such prayers seems to have in mind Solomon's example here.</p><p>And blessed all the assembly of Israel; and all the assembly of Israel stood- </p><p>This blessing of Israel suggests Solomon was acting as the high priest, although he was not of the tribe of Levi. David had done this kind of thing, but from careful reflection upon the spirit of the law, whose letter he says in Psalms 119 he studied constantly. And David came to this sense through careful reflection upon God's grace to him, and through the experience of Uzzah's death as a result of taking 'living the spirit of the law' too far.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Blessed be Yahweh the God of Israel, Who spoke with His mouth to David my father and has with His hands fulfilled it saying- </p><p>As discussed above, the promises to David were not at all totally fulfilled at that point, just because Solomon had built a temple. They were conditional upon Solomon's obedience to the law, which from a young man he had not shown. We think of his marriage to Rehoboam's Ammonitess mother, and to Pharaoh's daughter</p>


text:
<p>Since the day that I brought forth My people out of the land of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build a house in, that My name might be there; neither chose I any man to be prince over My people Israel- </p><p>This is a typical misrepresentation of God's word. What God had said through Nathan was that He had not chosen anywhere for a temple to be built, but had lived as it were a mobile life in the tent of the tabernacle. And therefore, God would build David a house in the sense of a family of believers sharing David's faith.</p>


text:
<p>But I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name might be there; and have chosen David to be over My people Israel- </p><p>Solomon claims that God said: “I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there”. God had chosen no resting place, although it would have been politically convenient for Solomon if the city of Jerusalem as a city was where God had chosen to dwell. And so he kept thinking that way until he persuaded himself that in fact this was what God had said. David had charged Solomon with the words which God had spoken to him about Solomon: “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul” (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>). But Solomon subtly changes this when he reminds God of how He had supposedly told David: “There shall not fail thee a man to sit on the throne of Israel; so that they children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me” (<a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a>). Two things become apparent here:</p><p>-&nbsp;The conditionality of the promise to David about Solomon is totally overlooked:&nbsp; “If thy children…” becomes “so that…”, with the implication that David would always have descendants on the throne who would walk obediently before God. The possibility of personal failure had been removed by Solomon from his own perception of God.</p><p>-&nbsp;God’s desire that Solomon should “walk before me in truth” was changed to “walk before me as thou [David] hast walked before me”. This defined walking before God personally as having the relationship with God which your father had. And so often we have made the same mistake. The call to personally follow the Lord has become displaced by a following Him through others.</p><p>Notice how Solomon says these words to God Himself. Solomon had persuaded himself that this truly was what God had asked of David and himself, and so he comes out with these words to God.</p>


