36. § 4. David King Over Israel
§ 4. David King Over Israel
David’s first undertaking, after he had become king over all Israel at the age of thirty-seven years, was the conquest of Jerusalem. Hebron was well adapted for the capital of Judah, but not for the capital of the whole country. Jerusalem was admirably fitted for it: its firm fortress had remained invincible to the Israelites in Joshua’s time, and throughout the whole period of the judges. It was also very well adapted for the capital, because it lay immediately on the borders of Judah, and formed a part of the territory of this tribe; and yet it was not in Judah, but in Benjamin, so that the claims of Judah and the remaining tribes were alike satisfied. David enlarged and beautified the city. Saul had in reality been nothing more than commander-in-chief; David wished to be king in the full sense of the word; and for a well-ordered state, a large place of residence is indispensably necessary. From this time Jerusalem formed the focus of Israel’s spiritual life; connection with the principal town bound the separate tribes more closely together. Hiram, king of Tyre, sent experienced artisans for the erection of a magnificent citadel. David took more wives than before, making undue concession to the corrupt oriental custom according to which a full seraglio belonged to the royal position; he raised a body-guard, the Cherethites and the Pelethites, distinct from the heroes so often mentioned who formed the nucleus of his warlike power. The body-guard did not go to battle as a rule. He appointed such officers as were necessary for the enlarged and well-ordered state. The highest among these are reckoned up in 2 Samuel 8:15. Joab was commander-in-chief; Benaiah commanded the body-guard; Jehoshaphat filled the highest civil office, as
We have here combined the wars of David in one sketch, and must now treat of an event which belongs to a time previous to most of them, to the time immediately after the first two victories over the Philistines. David recognised how important it was that Jerusalem should be not merely the civil but the religious capital of the nation; and, besides, it was the fervent wish of his heart to have the sanctuary as near as possible. In consequence of the capture of the ark of the covenant by the Philistines at the end of the period of the judges, the ark of the covenant and the holy tabernacle were then separated from one another, the first being at Kirjath-jearim, the other at Gibeon. David made a beginning by bringing the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. This was the easiest to do, since no worship was connected with it, and no local interests were attached to the possession of it. He therefore wished to bring the ark of the covenant in solemn procession to Jerusalem; but here he committed the mistake of letting it be driven, instead of having it carried by the Levites as was enjoined by the Mosaic law. This gave occasion for the sin of Uzzah, the waggon-driver, who took hold of the ark in an irreverent way; and in the punishment of his sin David also was involved. From the severity here displayed, he thought himself justified in concluding that the time of resurrection for the ark of the covenant had not yet come; that God would not yet dwell among His people. The ark was therefore set down on the way, in the house of Obed-edom, a Levite, not far from Jerusalem. But David’s longing desire soon reasserted itself. A special blessing seemed to rest upon the house of Obed-edom from the time the ark of the covenant was with him, and thus the king perceived that the severity which he had experienced had been a consequence of his own indiscretion. The ark of the covenant was now brought to Jerusalem in safety. On this occasion David’s piety was strikingly manifested; and his light is enhanced by the shadow of Michal, the representative of the house of Saul. His humility is so great, that he completely lays aside the kingly attire, and enters the solemn procession in the simple dress of the Levites. 2 Samuel 6:21-22, gives us special insight into his heart, where he addresses the proud Michal, among others, in the words, “I will yet be more vile than this, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maid-servants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.” Several psalms were composed by David for this occasion, especially Psalms 23, “The Lord is my shepherd,” and Psalms 24. The expression of perfect trust in God in Psalms 23 he follows by a representation of the moral demands which God makes on His people, lest hypocrites should take to themselves what did not belong to them. Then follow Psalms 14 and Psalms 15, which stand in a similar relation to one another. David erected a new tent for the ark of the covenant. Already he occupied himself with the idea of building a permanent temple to the Lord, nor would he neglect the interests and attachments connected with the sanctuary at Gibeon in favour of a state which was simply provisional. Public worship was now performed in this Davidic tent, no less than in the Mosaic one at Gibeon, comp. 1 Chronicles 16:37 ff.; and hence it was necessary to inaugurate two high priests, Abiathar, who remained at Jerusalem with David, and Zadok, who was sent to Gibeon to the Mosaic tent, 1 Chronicles 16:39 ff. And just because David fully recognised the provisional with regard to the sanctuaries, he made no attempt to limit the freedom which had arisen in this respect since the capture of the ark of the covenant by the Philistines. He allowed everything to remain as it was, regarding the complete re-organization of this relation as only appropriate to the time of the existence of a permanent temple. But from the beginning and onward, the sanctuary at Jerusalem remained in the background. The psalms of the Davidic time have nothing whatever to do with the tabernacle of the testimony in Gibeon, that shell without a kernel. Wherever the sanctuary of the Lord is mentioned in them, the reference is to that in Zion, to which everything that was present in Israel of higher life turned with love, while only idle custom formed a link of attachment to the sanctuary at Gibeon. This is the only important point in which the condition of religion in the Davidic period is not conformable to the Mosaic legislation, far less than in the period of the judges. In other respects the Mosaic law was observed, even to the smallest details. We learn, for example, from 2 Samuel 11:2, 2 Samuel 11:4, that the laws respecting purification were in force; and in 2 Samuel 12:6 we find a most remarkable reference to a very special Mosaic law, and one which bears an accidental character. David passes judgment on the rich man who had taken away the poor man’s sheep in the parable of Nathan, after he had declared him to be guilty of death, and at the same time states that he would willingly have subjected him to far more severe punishment if it had been in his power, as fourfold compensation. According to Ex. 21:37 (Exodus 22:1), when a man had stolen an ox, he was to restore five; if a sheep, four. In connection with David’s provision for the sanctuary are his efforts for the organization of the priestly and Levitical constitution. He divided the priests and Levites into twenty-four classes, who had each to perform the service for a week in succession. Sacred music was raised to a completely new step of development by David in conjunction with his three distinguished minstrels, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun. A company of 4000 Levites was devoted to it, the germ being formed by a select body of singers composed of members of the families of the three minstrels, which continued without interruption to the time of the return from captivity. This advance of sacred music, whose beginnings are coeval with the sanctuary of the Lord, had its foundation in the advance of sacred poetry, which was due to David. He was the true author of psalmody, with which we shall occupy ourselves more closely in the introduction to the Psalms.
We have already remarked that the arrangements made by David with respect to the ark of the covenant were only provisional. His real intention was to erect a permanent temple. This thought lay very near. The sanctuary, which had formerly been portable, was properly adapted to the condition of the nation only during the march through the wilderness. The dwelling of God in a tabernacle presupposes the dwelling of the nation in tabernacles. Only from the fact that the whole constitution during the period of the judges was provisional, can we understand how it was that the idea of erecting a permanent sanctuary was not conceived and carried out during that time. Now, when Israel was consolidated, circumstances seemed to present the most urgent demand for the building of a temple; and David recognised the demand with joy, and was anxious to carry it out as soon as possible. Nathan the prophet, to whom he disclosed his plan, judging from the standpoint of ordinary consciousness, gave his full consent at first, but was immediately afterwards taught by a divine revelation that the building of a temple by David himself did not lie in God’s plan. Ewald’s attempt to attribute to him the view that a temple was by no means necessary is quite absurd. Nathan’s first answer is correct in the main, only it is more closely defined and modified. David is to build the house, not personally, however, but in his seed. Yet, as a reward for his zeal, God will build David a house of eternal duration. This revelation is an epoch-making one for his inner life. It brought an entirely new element into his consciousness, which, as the Psalms show, moved him powerfully. He received the promise of the perpetual supremacy of his tribe, of the establishment of his kingdom amid the changing of all earthly things. How deeply David was affected by this promise we learn from his prayer of thanksgiving in 2 Samuel 7:18 ff. It has reference, not to the Messiah originally, but to an ideal person of the race of David; indirectly it contained an assurance that it would find its final fulfilment in the Messiah, since the eternity of a purely human kingdom is inconceivable. David saw this more and more clearly when he compared the promise with the Messianic idea which had been handed down from the fathers, and finally attained to perfect certainty by the further inner disclosures attached to this fundamental promise, with which he was occupied day and night. Psalms 2 and Psalms 110 afford special proof that such spiritual disclosures were really given him. The Messianic hope, which had experienced no further development since Genesis 49, now acquired much greater fulness and life. It had a substratum for further development, hallowed by God Himself, in the kingdom which was already in existence, and especially in David’s personality and fortunes. The answer to the question why David was not allowed to build the temple himself, is given in 1 Chronicles 28:3, comp. 1 Chronicles 22:8. He had fought great battles and shed much blood. The reason is symbolical. War, however necessary it may be under certain circumstances for the kingdom of God, is only something accidental, the result of human corruption. The true nature of the kingdom of God is peace. The Lord appears to the Church as the Prince of peace already in Isaiah 9:5. According to Luke 9:56, the Son of man came not to destroy men’s souls, but to save them. In order to bring this view of the nature and task of the Church to mind, the temple, the symbol of the Church, could not be built by the warrior David, but only by Solomon the peaceful, the man of rest, 1 Chronicles 22:9. The long-continued fortune which David had enjoyed was now followed by a chain of misfortunes; and between these two experiences there lies an event which shows us how necessary it was that he should thus suffer affliction, and at the same time throws light on his long-continued former sorrows, viz. his adultery with Bath-sheba. It occurs soon after the last of the recorded successful wars, that against the Ammonites, who were no longer able to maintain themselves in the open field, and the conquest of whose principal town, Rabbah, David had left to his general Joab. This single act can only be regarded as an expression of his whole disposition of mind. Fortune in itself is difficult to bear, but especially fortune in war. The heart far too readily becomes unruly, and is even drawn into fellowship with the evil which has been subdued. We here see in a remarkable way how one sin begets another. The means which David took to extricate himself from the complications in which his adultery had involved him appeared well chosen; but there was one thing he had not taken into consideration, that he could not here, as in former embarrassments, confidently expect the assistance of God. It was God’s design that David’s sin should be fully manifested, for only in this way was perfect cure possible, and therefore He suffered the means to fail. Thus the king saw no other mode of extrication, and took the life of one of his thirty heroes, of Uriah. How Joab must have rejoiced when David sank down to his own level! Doubtless he had never executed any commission with so much pleasure. The melancholy state of David’s soul continued for a considerable time, for it was not until after the birth of Bath-sheba’s son that Nathan stepped forward reprovingly. His task was not to gain a confession, but only to facilitate it. He was appointed by God to await the time of the internal crisis in David. Calvin, on Psalms 51, has excellently depicted the character of this state. We are not to conceive of him as one who had quite fallen, nor as one spiritually dead, but as sick unto death. It is certain that he had not quite lost all desire after God, that he had not entirely given up prayer; doubtless there were still many fruits of faith perceptible in him, but his soul was checked in its flight towards God, a curse rested upon him, which made solitary communion with the Divine Being for any length of time intolerable, and moved him to seek distractions in order to escape the torment of conscience, and keep it from attaining to full life. In passing judgment on his sin, it ought never to be forgotten that he was a member of the old covenant, and that the same means of grace which we have were not at his command. His weakness cannot therefore serve as a palliation of our own; but his repentance is rather placed before us as a pattern. Let whoever is inclined to throw a stone at him first prove himself whether in this respect he is superior, or even equal with him. The plain and simple confession, “I have sinned against God,” is a great thing, if we remember how rich the corrupt human heart is in the discovery of excuses and apparent justifications, and that the king was assailed by one of his subjects with hard, unsparing rebuke. The narrative in the books of Samuel tells us scarcely anything of the greatness and difficulty of the repentance of David, nor of the length of time before he could fully appropriate the assurance of the forgiveness of his sins which he received through the prophets; but it is apparent from Psalms 32, Psalms 51, which have reference to this. As a circumstance which aggravated David’s sin, it is stated in 2 Samuel 12:14 that he made the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. This observation gives us a deep insight into the whole position of David. In him the good principle had attained to supremacy , the godless party had seen this with terror; and now they mocked piety in its representative, who, because he held this position, ought to have kept watch over his heart the more carefully, and afterwards made use of the first opportunity which presented itself to throw off the burdensome yoke. The great success which attended Absalom’s conspiracy is scarcely intelligible except from this position of David. At the first glance it may appear strange that everything with which he was threatened as a punishment for his sin,—the entrance of the sword into his house to avenge the death of Uriah; the shame of his wives, as a punishment for his having allowed himself to lust after the wife of his neighbour; and, finally, the death of the child begotten in sin,—all these did actually take place, although he had found forgiveness. But in general the forgiveness of sins has only this result: punishment is changed into fatherly chastisement, the rod into the correction of love. Outwardly the consequences of sin remain the same, only their internal character is changed. If it were otherwise, the forgiveness of sins might too readily be attributed to caprice. The death of the child was the beginning. Then followed the murder of his son Amnon by Absalom, whose sister he had dishonoured,—a deed by which David was reminded in the most heartrending way, of the lust which had led him to commit adultery with Bath-sheba. Still greater evil was caused by the weakness which he showed in giving full pardon, at the instigation of the impure Joab, to Absalom, who had fled, and allowing him to return. This and many other things lead to the inference that David showed weak indulgence towards his children, and shut his eyes to their sins. But his own psalms, viz. Psalms 3, Psalms 4, Psalms 43, and Psalms 42, Psalms 43, Psalms 86, which the sons of Korah then sang out of his soul, show how David strengthened himself in God during that trying time of his life. At a later period, a new sin brought heavy affliction. This was the numbering of the people, 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. In 2 Samuel 24 the event is placed at the end of his life, and, on internal grounds also, it can only belong to an advanced period of it. The numbering, which required nearly a year, could only be undertaken in a time of rest from the enemies round about, and the victory already gained over these enemies formed the ground of temptation to which David succumbed. By the favour of God, the children of Israel were raised to supremacy in the south-west of Asia. In the striving of the human heart after more, it occurred to them to extend the limits still farther by their own hand. We cannot suppose that this happened in the very last days of David, when death was constantly before his eyes. At such a time men do not undertake these far-seeing plans. In what did his sin consist? There can be no doubt that the numbering was a military one, a kind of muster. It was proposed in the assembly of chief officers, and was carried out by Joab, the commander-in-chief, in conjunction with them. All the souls were not counted, but only “valiant men that drew the sword.” To facilitate the numbering, a camp was set up; this is expressly mentioned at the place where the numbering began, and we may assume that it was the same at the other places. The length of time occupied by the numbering, almost a year, shows that it was a difficult and complicated business; and its military character is apparent from the circumstance that Joab waited as long as possible before extending the measure to Benjamin, lest he should provoke the rebellious disposition of that tribe, who could not forget the supremacy they had enjoyed under Saul. But we cannot attribute any direct military object to the measure. That it was first intended only as a means of ascertaining the number of men capable of bearing arms, is shown by 2 Samuel 24:2, where “that I may know the number of the people “is given as the object; and also by the fact that, in consequence of the divine judgment, the number of males was not recorded in the annals of the kingdom, 1 Chronicles 27:24. This must therefore have been the original object. But warlike thoughts certainly stand in the background; if we fail to see this, we lose the key to the whole transaction, and the divine judgment is incomprehensible. David feeds his heart on the great numbers, on the thought of what his successors on the throne would be able to attain with such power. From its first origin, Israel was called to the supremacy of the world. Already in the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33:29) this assurance was given to Israel: “Thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.” David now thought that he could rise step by step to such elevation without the help of God, who had provided for the beginning. The records should bear witness to all time that he had laid a solid foundation for this great work of the future. Had his perception been clear, he would not have disregarded the special hint contained in the law respecting the danger connected with the numbering of the people. In Exodus 30:11 ff. it is ordained that on the numbering of the people every Israelite should bring a ransom, “that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.” By the ransom offered to God they would be released, as it were, from the death incurred by their proud arrogance. It reminded them of the danger of forgetting human weakness, so imminent where an individual feels himself the member of a large whole. The important lesson for all time is this, that even the smallest feeling of national pride is sin against God, and, unless there be a powerful reaction, calls down the judgments of God. With this feeling even the Romans presented offerings of atonement at their census. In 2 Samuel 24 the narrative is introduced with the words, “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.” The punishment falls upon the people, and on David only in so far as he made the sorrows of the nation his own. From this we see that the guilt belonged chiefly to the nation,—that they had infected the humble heart of the king with their own arrogance, which had been called forth by their success. The same thing appears from the fact that, when the punishment begins, he seeks the guilt in himself alone, and tries to excuse the nation. In 1 Chronicles 21:1, the determination to number the people is attributed to the influence of Satan on the mind of David, and, in 2 Samuel 24, to the influence of God. But we learn that this is not intended to exonerate him and the nation from participation in the guilt, from the fact that the punishment, which presupposed guilt, was accomplished on David and on the nation; and from the universal teaching of Scripture, which invariably attributes the first origin of sin to man, as James says, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God;” “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you;” and finally and specially, from Psalms 30, which has reference to this event. Here David himself describes the state of his mind, which offered a point of contact for the temptation, and gave rise to it: “And in my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved. Lord, by Thy favour Thou hast made my mountain (i.e. my kingdom) to stand strong: Thou didst hide Thy face, and I was troubled.” According to this, confidence was the melancholy root of sin, both in David and the nation. Soft indolence, says Calvin, had taken possession of his mind, so that he had no inclination for prayer, nor any dependence on the mercy of God, but trusted too much to his past fortune. Where this corrupt disposition is found in the soul, God’s influence, making use of Satan as its instrument, leads the corrupt germ to its development, rousing to action that which slumbers in the soul, in order to bring about the retributive judgment in which man, if otherwise well-intentioned, learns fully to recognise his sinful condition, and is moved to repentance. The question is not of simple permission on the part of God, but of a real action, and that of a nature which each one may still perceive in his own tendencies. Whoever once yields to his sinful disposition, is infallibly involved in the sinful deed which leads to retributive judgment, however much he may strive against it.
Even before the punishment, and still more decisively after it had begun, David’s better disposition reasserted itself, and the mercy of God, to which he had turned with humble supplication, checked the course of justice. The punishment had already begun its course in the metropolis, where some deaths had occurred, 1 Chronicles 21:15. On hearing of these deaths, David’s conscience was fully awakened; it had been powerfully affected even before the beginning of the judgment, immediately after the numbering was accomplished. The awakened conscience opened his spiritual eye, that he saw the angel of the Lord in his house, “by the threshing-place of Araunah the Jebusite,” 2 Samuel 24:16, “standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem,” 1 Chronicles 21:16. As in 2 Kings 6:17 the source of seeing the heavenly powers was in Elisha, and by his mediation the eyes of his servant were opened, so here the flight of David’s mind communicated itself to the elders of his retinue, whom he had collected about him; and, after he had repaired to the place where he saw the vision, was revealed even to the sons of Araunah. The event is also of importance in so far as it gave occasion for the determination of the site of the future temple. The Lord forgave David on condition that he would build an altar on the place where He had appeared; and at the dedication He hallowed it by fire from heaven, 1 Chronicles 21:26. By this means He made an actual declaration that this should henceforward be the place of His worship; and the king followed the declaration. Even at this time the place was made the national sanctuary, and was called the house of God, Psalms 30:1; 1 Chronicles 22 :1 Chronicles 22:1 : for David foresaw that the form would soon be superadded to the essence, and already perceived in the spirit the building which was to be completed by his son, and for which he made preparations with great zeal; comp. 1 Chronicles 22:2 ff. It is very remarkable that the pardoning mercy of God towards His own people, which David extols in Psalms 30, on the basis of this event, was virtually characterized as its spiritual foundation, even before the laying of the external foundation of the temple.
David’s last words form the keystone of his life, his prophetic legacy, 2 Samuel 23, to which the cycle of psalms, Psalms 138-145, must be regarded as supplementary. “No prince,” says Ewald, “can end his life with more blessed divine rest, and a clearer, more certain glance into the future.” He accompanies his own through the history, and offers them the anchor of salvation in the storms which, from his own life-experience, he knew that they had to encounter. He points to the fulness of salvation which the dominion of the righteous ruler will bring with it, after the affliction has been endured, and to the corruption which will then overtake the opposing evil.