2 Samuel 5

2 Samuel 5:1-9

Subdivision 3. (2 Samuel 5:1-25; 2 Samuel 6:1-23; 2 Samuel 7:1-29; 2 Samuel 8:1-18; 2 Samuel 9:1-13.)David in the fullness of power and glory. What follows in the next subdivision, though most certainly a picture of a glorious day to come, is yet but a gleam of light also, and no more. What earthly history could furnish any more stable one of the reign of the divine-human King? If past or present could furnish more than this, it would not be the unique wonder and glory that it is. Ah, no! We may be sure that the clouds will soon return after the sun. And so it is.

The man after God’s own heart falls from his proud position, all the lower for the height from which he falls. Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah, become but the living contradiction of what their names express. And so all mere human glory passes, to leave only the harp of prophecy to take up the broken notes of songs that have been and weave them into a harmonious anthem of a joy that yet shall be. But let us seek to possess ourselves of what is here, remembering that even typically it is only half the story of that glorious reign, which we must go on to the books of Kings and Solomon to find completed. Here we have the establishment of the kingdom, there its after-character; here Melchizedek in the significance of his name as “king of righteousness,” there the “king of Salem, that is, king of peace”; here, therefore, the man of war, though far from being merely that. But as “judgment shall return to righteousness,” so, conversely, righteousness shall return to judgment. The kingdom will be a display of power such as the world has never witnessed; the king, the “lion of the tribe of Judah”; the sceptre, a “rod of iron.” And this indicates, indeed, the “regeneration” of the earth (Matthew 19:28), when righteousness shall reign; but not the “new” state, in which righteousness shall “dwell.” (2 Peter 3:13.) The millennium is the last of earthly dispensations, not the fixed eternal blessedness beyond. The millennium has an end; and that which has its end and passes away shows by that fact its imperfection. Still the hand that rules lacks no element of perfection; and the end of the millennium is the subduing of all things to God in such sort that the separate kingdom having attained its purpose, all things can be delivered up into the hands of God the Father, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28.) Section 1.There are three sections here: the first showing us the throne of David set up, in accord with and subjection to the divine throne (2 Samuel 5:1-25; 2 Samuel 6:1-23); the second, its establishment and growth under his hand (2 Samuel 7:1-29; 2 Samuel 8:1-14); the third, its internal administration and character (2 Samuel 8:15-18; 2 Samuel 9:1-13.). (1, a.) To pursue now the story here. What Abner was not permitted to accomplish is now done by the united voice of the people. All the tribes now, as that of Judah before, assemble at Hebron to make David king. They own at last what he had been to them even in Saul’s reign, and Jehovah’s promise concerning him, so that their acknowledgment of David is a return of heart to Jehovah also. He makes a covenant with them before Jehovah, -it would have spoiled the type to say that they made a covenant with him, -and they anointed him king over them. Thus it will be when they own Christ their King in days to come. David is thirty years old when he begins to reign, the time in His days on earth when Christ was anointed and thus came to His title, -“Christ” and “Anointed” being the same thing. It was the recognized time for entering on Levite and priestly service. This 30 Isaiah 10 x 3, the number of responsibility multiplied by that of divine manifestation. This is indeed what, whether as King or Priest, He assumes as His task, and nothing less could have accomplished anything for man. Forty years David reigns: for, as we know, the millennial reign he represents is not the eternal state, and is, therefore, as dispensational, a time of testing for man still. As to the other numbers I have no knowledge of their meaning. (b.) The taking of Zion follows immediately after the anointing; and Zion becomes the city of David, permanently associated with his name. Not only so, it is named in Scripture as the place of the divine choice and abode. David, as we find presently, brought the ark to Zion; and in Psalms 132:1-18, in answer to the prayer, “Arise, Jehovah, unto thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength,” the divine answer is, “Jehovah has chosen Zion: He hath desired it for his habitation; this is my rest for ever; here will I dwell, for I have desired it.” The royal throne and the divine throne are thus in the same place, although they may also be distinguished as by Micah, for whom Zion and the mountain of the house have their separate designation. (Micah 3:12.) The name Zion is generally given as “sunny”; but it may just as well signify “fixed.” Either sense may be quite appropriate; while the last connects more plainly with what the voice of the Lord has declared regarding it. In contrast with Ephraimitic Shiloh, and consequent upon the failure of the nation and the priesthood there, Zion with David himself are emphatically marked out as objects of Jehovah’s choice, in the seventy-eighth psalm: grace manifests itself thus amid the ruin, to the people of God. But again the Jebusite, the “treader-down,” has been at work, and the Lord used the term to express the condition of Israel’s city during the times of Gentile supremacy: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24.) Thus the Jebusite period has come back, and will last until the true David shall come in power. But what is that which has maintained Jebusite dominion over the place of Israel’s and Jehovah’s throne? But one answer is possible here: it is sin which alone can have done so, the sins of God’s people themselves. And so inveterate has sin proved in their case, that the Jebusite may seem justified in his taunt, “Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither,” as much as to say, “David shall not come in hither.” Here is, indeed, the real question. Blind has Israel been as to all God’s dealings with them: lame, for any walking in paths to which the voice of God for so many generations has been calling them! Well might it seem as if their doom were settled now, and their hope gone.

Yet the very name of Zion is a perpetual reminder of promise that abides and which will be fulfilled yet in David’s victory. God has said of Zion, “Here will I dwell, for I have desired it”: it is the “fixed” place of His abode. The smiter of the Jebusite must smite, therefore, the blind and the lame, and reach the watercourse, the stream of living water. Let us note, however, that in the text the order of the two latter is inverted: the watercourse is the way of reaching the blind and the lame, as spiritually it surely is. It is remarkable that it has been found quite recently that by the watercourse (by its subterranean channel) the place of the citadel can yet be, though with difficulty, reached. Thus nature bears testimony with Scripture still. David, therefore, takes the stronghold and dwells in it, and builds it up anew. And he goes on and becomes great, for the God of hosts is with him: the higher kingdom and the lower are now united. Following this we have the first brief notice of Hiram, in which we find a Gentile power greeting and sending aid to the king of Israel. “The daughter of Tyre is” here “with a gift.” But this is to find more prominence and significance in the day of Solomon. (c.) There are still more marriages contracted by David, and sons and daughters born to him in Jerusalem. Eleven are named, but without mention of their mothers. There are but two of whom we find anything recorded afterwards, and only one in the present history. None the less must there be purpose in their enumeration here. Of these eleven sons, judging by their numerical significance, there are two series, 4 and 7; and this is confirmed by 1 Chronicles 3:1-24, where we find that the first four were all sons of Bathshua or Bathsheba: the latter means “daughter of the oath”; the former “daughter of salvation.” But the two are one, as Zacharias’ song declares: “the oath which He sware to our father Abraham, that He would grant unto us, that we being delivered from the fear of our enemies, might serve Him without fear.” Notice that, with one exception, the names of mother and children are practically here: —

1. Shammua, “heard,” or “obeyed”: -“might serve Him.”
2. Nathan, “he has given”: -“that He would grant unto us.”
3. Solomon, “peaceful”: -“that we being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear.” One name only remains unaccounted for in the song, and that the history accounts for fully. It is the second name, Shobab, “turning back,” which the cry of the Psalms acknowledges as God’s work: “Turn us again, O Lord God of hosts; cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved.” (Psalms 80:19.) Altogether it is clear, therefore, that these four names express, as Bathsheba’s sons should do, the fruits of the “covenant of promise”: and this is also what a first series, as such, might express. They show us Christ as “Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Romans 15:8), and that in the full character of One who has now “the government upon His shoulder.” (Isaiah 9:6.) All this is in perfect keeping. The remaining seven sons seem to give the testimony borne by that salvation which the people experience; and this is a great point: we are thus “in the ages to come” to show forth the exceeding riches of His grace, in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:7.) This reflex influence of His work is thus a ministry of grace to the whole universe; and the number of perfection, 7, is exactly the number to express this. We may be sure, however, that we shall be able but poorly to give even the outlines here. The first son now is Ibhar, “election ,” or “He chooses.” The fountain of all blessing is in God Himself, in His will alone. This is evidently the fundamental necessity, if He is to be glorified at all. What is merely casual, or what is otherwise produced, we cannot trace to Him, cannot glorify Him for: this needs no argument. The second son is Elishua, “my God is salvation”: the method as well as the will is from Him. It is the blessedness of the gospel that God is thus exalted in it. The third son, Nepheg, “sprout,” shows the activity of life, and therefore of the Spirit of life. Thus the subjective work in the soul is also His, -the internal work is a salvation, as well as the sin-bearing work of the cross. The fourth son, Japhia, is “lustrous, shining,” the creature clothed with the glory of the light, the reflection of that which has shone upon it. Christ Himself is the pledge and assurance of this, and by occupation with Him it is that it is produced. In it we are still in the weakness of creaturehood, receptive merely: the experience on our part is of what He is. And what a testimony to His grace that He can thus stoop, in the delight of His love, to glorify the objects of His choice! The next three names all speak directly of God: first — Elishama, “God heareth”: the creature, thus laid hold of by His love, is for Himself; and, having heard His creative voice, is privileged to respond and be heard again. Thus the joy of such intercourse begins, no more to end, and — Eliada, “God knoweth,” carries it on to full communion. For such “knowing” is approbation, as when the “Lord knoweth the way of the righteous; and hearing with such knowledge implies the victory found over the evil that has brought in distance between the soul and Him, as it does also the nearness bred of likeness. And of such victory the last name seems now to remind us — Eliphelet, “my God is escape,” or complete deliverance. How the complete end gained will emphasize that escape! All words are utterly feeble here. (2) We have next David’s conflict with the Philistines, Israel’s constant enemies from the times of the judges, and who had given Saul his final overthrow. David, on the other hand, gains two great victories, each of which has surely its lesson for us. In each case they “spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim,” the giants with whom we find them so much associated, and who give a monstrous, satanic character to them. When man looms large, even heathenism imagines its God-defying Titans, if these are not rather the distorted traditions of true history. David, in meeting them, clings to God and to His word, and Jehovah breaks forth upon them like a water-burst. In truth that is the way in which the power of error is to be met. When the heavens are opened and pour down their spiritual floods, then the hosts of superstition and formalism are defeated, the blocked channels are cleared, and the barriers reared by ecclesiasticism swept away. David names the place Baal-perazim, the “place of breaches,” or “burstings forth”; and he and his men take away the images of the Philistines, thus returning upon them the captivity of the ark in Samuel’s day. But the dumb idols can be treated as the useless lumber that they are, and can make no reprisals. The second battle is still in the valley of Rephaim; but David is now commanded to make a circuit round the Philistines, and come upon them over against the baca-trees (trees of “weeping”), and the sound of marching in the tops of the trees would show him when to attack, Jehovah having gone out before him. The baca-trees are said to be so called from exuding a tear-like sap wherever a leaf is torn from them. Can these weeping trees be a symbol of how the life of Christ is manifested as to the present state of things in sorrowing, not rejoicing? -this thus revealing the Lord as against the world-church, which suffers not with Him, but reigns? These two battles would show us, then, the twofold controversy between Christ and the modern Philistinism which is against His Spirit in its dry form and externalism, and against His sympathies in its contentment with a world that crucified Him. Thus it cannot come into blessing, but must be swept away. David smites his enemies, therefore, from Geba to Gezer, as judgment from the Lord will come upon that which exalts itself and is in independence of Him. (See p. 66, n.) (3) And now we have the ark established in its place in connection with the throne in Zion; not, indeed, its full place, -the temple could not yet be built, nor by David: the reason of which we shall find in the next chapter. But the ark is the throne of the Lord; and it must be shown that the throne upon earth is in accord with and in subjection to the higher throne. Thus David becomes but a servant in the presence of the ark. Yet servant as he really desires to be, he makes a great mistake,which involves serious consequences. It is strange, indeed, that, in a matter such as he had now before him, David should neither inquire of God, nor think of the directions given in the law as to the carriage of that with which it was known that God had been pleased so intimately to connect the manifestation of His presence. It is stranger still, and reveals sadly the state of things in Israel, that of all those set apart to the service of the sanctuary, there was no priest or Levite to inform a well-intentioned king regarding the prescribed way of acting. Terribly had the Philistines suffered for dishonor done the ark. Terribly had the men of Beth-shemesh suffered. Yet the Philistines’ own expedient -confessedly only that -for ascertaining in the best way they knew whether it was Jehovah’s hand that had smitten them, is what David adopts in bringing the ark to Zion!

True it was that He had allowed the Philistines to get their lesson in this way; and this, there can be little doubt, encouraged the adoption of it: but there could be no justification of such imitation. God had spoken: there was the most shameful ignorance or carelessness as to it; and this just where, in the most solemn manner, they were professing to put themselves under His yoke! How could He. in this great object-lesson before the eyes of the whole nation, allow this to be as a precedent for the future, and make light of His own dishonor? They go beyond the Philistines even, as such imitators generally do. The Philistines had assumed, at least, that if Jehovah were God, the cattle would act obediently to Him without their guidance, and even in contradiction to their own natural instincts. But the Israelites, having committed the ark to the ox-cart, must have Uzzah and Ahio to guide the oxen. They had not faith in their own contrivance, and are already committed to the perilous work of trusting to their own management of difficulties that may arise. Alas, had they not learnt more in all the years that the ark had been in the house of Abinadab? And what, then, does this argue as to them? Yet all for a while goes well. There are rejoicings and abundant demonstrations of loyalty on the part of the people, till at the prepared threshing-floor the oxen stumble, and Uzzah puts forth his hand and takes hold upon the ark to steady it. Uzzah means strength”: he had not measured himself before God, nor learnt the source of strength. The act revealed what the ark was to him, the habit of a soul ignorant of God and of itself, while most self-conscious. He is smitten; and the “prepared” threshing-floor becomes Perez-uzzah, the “breaking of strength.” It is strange that in the service of the sanctuary one like David should be so more than dull; yet similar things abound with us today. The fact of good intention, of a thing, too, right in the main being before the soul, oft hinders even the need being felt of seeking the mind of the Lord or of testing everything by the word of God. If the thing sought be in itself good, why scrutinize methods so severely? How little do we understand the irreverence that lurks under the appearance of honest devotedness, where man’s wisdom is assumed competent to think for Him, or man’s strength competent to work His will! How often thus we have our Uzzahs smitten, just when we imagine our service must be accepted of Him! Then comes the reaction upon this vain confidence: “David was afraid of Jehovah that day, and said, How shall the ark of Jehovah come to me?” So we pass from one extreme to the other; and in proportion to the buoyancy of our first confidence is apt to be the depth of our despair. The consciousness of haying sought to do the Lord’s will in that which has turned out so unhappily shrouds His dealings with us in gloom and mystery. Where we expected to find the signs of gracious acceptance and approval, on the other hand we have been smitten by Him. And how shall we stand before a God like this? Yet the matter is simple, as we have seen. How could He accept the complete setting aside of His word, the adoption of Philistine methods and worse, where He had plainly intimated His will? -and this done in the most public way, and by the whole body of His people? “If thou shalt take forth the precious from the vile,” is the principle that applies here. The desire to serve Him is ever precious to Him, and yet there may be that in the service which He can only testify against. Oh that the church of God would listen to this voice today, amid the innumerable self-imagined plans whereby it is sought to serve God, but whereby His word is improved upon and supplemented until it is lost and set aside, and His name dishonored in the very offering we bring to Him. But can we define more closely the special form of evil that is presented here? What does the ark of God upon the ox-cart speak of precisely? The ark was the throne of God in Israel: He dwelt, or had His seat, between the cherubim; there the glory rested, and thence the voice of the Lord gave forth its utterances. The dictates of this throne were addressed to men, to a redeemed people, separated from the apostasies of the nations round to know and serve Him alone, as alone worthy to be served, His service not slavery but the most ennobling freedom. As His people they had been brought out of darkness into light, out of debasing impurity into “holiness of truth,” the reproach of Egypt rolled away from them. Hence the only suited carriage for the ark was upon the shoulders of the Levites, the willing yoke-bearers of His glorious chariot of salvation.

Redeemed men, subject to Himself alone, are still those who occupy a place of which that in Israel was but a type, a shadow. To these He has in His precious grace committed Himself, that their willing hearts may bear Him through the world. To them He still says, “Take my yoke upon you: my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” The ox-cart was a human invention, in place of this. It was dead machinery instead of living service. At least there was no intelligence, no moral principle, no spiritual consecration in it. The beast might and did, according to this idea, need a director; and this was proved in the most unhappy way in Uzzah: the man was more out of his place than the beast was; and the bolt of divine judgment fell on him. Directors and machinery are common enough today, whereby the work of the Spirit is assumed by those who heedlessly intrude into His place; and men, alas, oftentimes are compelled to become machines, their consciences subjected to other heads than Christ, their work made task-work, often the “burden” anything but “light.” Let honest hearts apply this, as they surely may. The ox is indeed the type of the laborer in the Word, as the apostle assures us (1 Corinthians 9:8-10); but the ox treading out the corn is a totally different thing from bearing the ark of the Lord. The substitution of beast for man is what is here in question; and thus the beast must be taken as beast, -as implying what, if man come into it, speaks of degradation for him. This is perfectly clear. And yet the very threshing-floor to which the apostle and the law in Deuteronomy refer is that which would appear to be the occasion of the catastrophe. The blind animal instincts cause the oxen to swerve aside. The leader, seeing no more than the machine, supposes all to be in danger; and now the judgment falls. Thus for the present the ark is not brought to Zion, but carried aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. The names here are so remarkable, both in themselves and in their connection, that one cannot but believe them to be designed to attract our notice and furnish a spiritual lesson. Obed-edom, as we see by the reference to the blessing on him elsewhere (1 Chronicles 26:4-5), was a Korahite Levite, and thus his house was not unsuited for the reception of the ark. Yet his name means “servant of Edom” (typically of the flesh), and his place of former residence or birth, most probably the latter, is Gath, the “winepress,” -type, as we know, of divine wrath.* That we were indeed “by nature children of wrath” is no strange thing to be told of any of God’s Levites; and the apostle adds (Ephesians 2:3), “fulfilling the desires of the flesh,” -we were Obed-edoms. Thus also we are now Korahites, saved as the children of Korah were in the wilderness, from their father’s penalty.
How beautiful it is to see that while David asks, in fear, “How shall the ark of Jehovah come to me?” the house of an Obed-edom can receive it,with nothing but blessing “Jehovah blessed Obed-edom and all his house.” How His grace rebukes our unbelieving fears with blessing! And once again David is encouraged to bring up the ark to the city of David; but there are now those that bear the ark: God’s word kept, everything prospers. Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are the due accompaniment, for without that which these signify there could be no dwelling of God with man. David himself, girded with a linen ephod, dances before the ark. He is now the link between Israel and God, and in glad subjection to the higher kingdom. At the end he blesses the people, therefore, in the name of Jehovah of hosts, and distributes to them all portions. We see the shadow of the Melchizedek king, the opposite of Saul and his independence, whom we find reproduced in the pride of his daughter. But Michal is therefore without children to the day of her death. The spirit of independence is, of necessity, barren: that of service is the truly royal spirit, as surely as “the less is blessed of the better.” Section 2.The next section shows us the establishment and growth of David’s kingdom: on the divine side, the promise of perpetuity to his line, -an absolute promise, in view of all human instability and failure; on the human side, its extension by the putting down of enemies on every side. The first is not that chronologically merely, but in importance, and the foundation of all the rest. (1) David is on his throne and in peace; he has rest from all his enemies round about. He dwells in his house of cedar, and thinks it an unseemly thing that Jehovah’s ark should dwell within curtains. We see once more how a man’s heart may be right with God, and his thoughts wrong. He discloses his mind to Nathan the prophet, and Nathan at first approves his purpose: “Go, do all that is in thy heart; for Jehovah is with thee.” But the word of God is something very different from the best thoughts of the best people; and Nathan has presently a very different word put into his lips by the Lord. Here too the Lord shows David that his thoughts are wrong, spite of all the piety of them, by this conclusive fact, that they had not been formed upon any previous intimation of His will. Can a man think for God?

Can we anticipate His mind? It is impossible: all that the most fervent spirit can rightly do is reverently to follow it. Hence David must be wrong, and every one else, who would add one jot or tittle to the perfect word of God. How easy, in this way, to decide at once concerning multitudes of thoughts that fill men’s minds today! And yet how little is such a principle accepted, even with the children of God! “Add not to His words, lest He reprove thee,” is as important as “do not diminish”: and, indeed, to do the former we must do the latter. Is Scripture able to furnish the man of God " thoroughly" and “to all good works”?

As surely as this is true, so surely must we refuse whatever even man’s piety may put forth, if the word of God is not the source of it. Thus Jehovah says: “Shalt thou build me a house to dwell in? for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, but have been walking in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all places wherein I have walked among all the children of Israel, spake I a word with any of the rulers of Israel whom I commanded to tend my people Israel, saying, Why build ye me not a house of cedar?” How fruitful a principle, if we would consider it! And not having its application, as so much else, to the cold and indifferent, for they are not the people who come forward of themselves to build a house to the Lord; but to the earnest and zealous-hearted. But this does not mean that the earnestness and zeal are not acceptable to God: they surely are. He goes on therefore here, while refusing the offer of David, to give Himself to David an assurance that what he had thought to do for Him, Himself would do for David: “also Jehovah telleth thee that He will make thee a house.” A son shall be raised up to him, in whom the kingdom shall be established, and who shall fulfill the desire now in David’s heart; and his line shall be continued, and his throne established forever. Solomon is first in view in this promise, as we know; but Christ the only One in whom it can be properly fulfilled, even to the building of a house for the Lord. The son near at hand is but the shadow of the greater One afar off; and the house made with hands only a brief anticipation of the glorious House against which the gates of hades never shall prevail. Thus we see how the instability of the mere human seed cannot avail to alter the word which has gone out of Jehovah’s lips. Chastening with the rod of men would as surely come as the need for chastening on their part; but the house and the kingdom abide forever, as sure as the pledged word that never fails can make it.
The declaration is so plain that there is little to be said about it in such interpretative notes as we are giving here. It is plain that we have such a full declaration of divine grace in a promise which, ministered through David, is the only hope of the world as well, that man’s self-righteousness so ready to manifest itself even in a saint, is abashed and humbled. David, from a would-be worker, is brought to sit before God in rest and adoration. Even his prayer is only now, “Do, Lord, what Thou hast said Thou wilt do!” He can suggest nothing, add nothing, to dim the glory of this abundant grace. (2) We are now shown the extension of David’s power over the nations round. However great, it is but the faint and passing image of what will be, when the King of glory comes. Still it is a type, and must be read as that; or what great interest is there for us in the list of these powers subdued? Nor is this to set aside the letter, which is only certified to us the more as we see the divine wisdom which has guarded and guided the historian. This verification of the outward fact by the manifestation of the inner spirit which gives it vitality and organic place in connection with the whole revelation of God, has been sadly lost sight of through the abuse and contempt of allegorization: that is, of the prophetic character of divine history. The first conquest is that of the Philistines: “David took the bridle of the metropolis out of the hand of the Philistines.” This cannot mean that he took away their dominion over Israel, which was certainly already at an end. It must speak, one would say therefore, of their internal self-government, one city having a controlling power over the rest. The loss of this would deprive them of their internal unity, of such coherence as would make them formidable. It is striking to find in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 18:1) that this metropolis was Gath, whose champion David had long before defeated. And what could have the place among the Philistine cities that Gath, the “wine-press” of wrath would have? Let Goliath be slain, their arms are defeated; let Gath be taken, their strength is prostrate. The second conquest is that of Moab: “and he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, making them lie down on the ground: and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive; and the Moabites became David’s servants, bringing gifts.” It is certain that mere profession (which Moab represents) will not come to an end at the appearing of Christ: “Strangers shall feign to me; as soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me: strangers shall fade away, and be afraid out of their close places.” So says, prophesying of Another, this very David (2 Samuel 22:45-46); and here there is a line to put to death and to keep alive; but the exposition of this naturally comes elsewhere. We have now, in the third place, the conquest of Syria, by which the empire of David is extended as far as the Euphrates. And indeed it seems to have been with him a deliberate purpose to take possession of the country as far as the limit of the promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:1-21). This seems the real meaning of what even the Revised Version gives as “went to recover his dominion at the River,” but which most certainly says nothing of the kind. It is literally “to extend his hand to the River.” I have merely substituted “power” for “hand,” as plainly its force. With this meaning it becomes clear that the expression would rather apply to David than to Hadadezer, as with the other it must read the reverse way. David had no dominion to recover at the River, while, on the other hand, the Syrian king’s territory was at least close by; and while Hadadezer’s extension of his territory northward to the Euphrates would hardly have brought him into conflict with David, whose kingdom was to the south, it is quite easy to see that David, coming north to the River, would find the kingdom of Zobah in his way. The occasion of the attack seems given later as arising out of the Ammonite war. Here we have but a general summary of conquest, hardly chronological. Whatever its historical significance, a spiritual one we have the amplest reason to expect. This career of subjugation and spoil, one can see indeed how another witness would be given in it, such as Egypt, the wilderness, and Joshua’s victories, had given before, to the power of one true God over the multitudinous and degrading deities of the heathen. A rude hand was needed to break these barriers to the reception of the truth, of which Israel was the divinely ordained depository; and the judgments inflicted by their means was a mercy, after all, which every thinking mind must recognize as that. Typically we have already traced, to some extent, what Aram or Syria represents (p. 198-200, n.). It is man, whom God has exalted in Christ, in His own gracious and wonderful way, but who, on the other hand, by self-exaltation debases himself to his own ruin. This last is what we are made to see in the historical Aram. The world is indeed ever illustrating it in different ways: “man’s day” is a day of human aggrandizement with that of which he has robbed God, and of self-exaltation by that with which God’s mercy has enriched him. And therefore the day of the Lord must be “upon all that is proud and haughty, and upon all that is lifted up, . . . and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be brought low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.” (Isaiah 2:12; Isaiah 2:17.) Aram, the “high,” seems even specifically to point out the various qualities of self-exaltation. Aram-naharaim, or Mesopotamia (Aram of the two rivers), like another Egypt, shows us, as already pointed out, that which is bred of the constant stream of mercies by which man is sustained, their continual flow unknown as from those far-off heavens from which they come: so that they can even say, at last, “My river is mine own, and I have made it.” Aram-Rehob or beth-Rehob, near akin to this, speaks of “enlargement,” growth of resources, influence, power; — Aram-Zobah, of establishment, “stability”; — Aram-Dammesek, Syria of Damascus, if we may accept Gesenius as to it, of “activity”; — Aram-Maachab, of “bruising,” oppression, the tyranny of power. There is no need to dwell upon these here. It is easy to understand that the world in this form must be brought down in the day of Christ, and be .compelled to yield what it has falsely claimed as its own. Its riches must be dedicated to the Lord; its glory pass to Him who is the “King of glory.” Hadad-ezer (in other places Hadarezer) is a worthy king of Zobah. The variation slight as it is in Hebrew (the lack of a mere shoulder to a “d” makes it “r,”), I cannot but believe to be designed. Hadar means “glory, honor,” and is the more common form; but Hadad is “shouting, noise”: vox et praeterea nihil, -sound, and nothing else. This kind of satire is often found in the changes in Hebrew names. Hadarezer means “glory is help,” the first word being perhaps the name of their sun-deity, while certainly there has been always abundant idolatry of this kind among men. He is the son of Rehob, “enlargement,” and has a plentiful following, and gold shields upon his servants; but his gold is this time no defense: it is sanctified to the Lord, with much brass from his towns Betah, “security,” and Berothai, “my hewings.” Nor can the Syrians of Damascus help: in Damascus itself David puts garrisons. How differently will the world’s “activity” manifest itself in the day that our David does this! Toi, king of Hamath, however, has been in conflict with Hadadezer, and has evidently suffered at his hand. Toi means “wanderer,” the very opposite of the stability of Zobah; Hamath is generally taken to mean “enclosure, fortress.” Joram, his son’s name, I cannot take as the mere equivalent of Jehoram: it signifies “caused to be exalted.” The consciousness of instability and wandering prepares the soul for the apprehension of the grace that exalts, and makes the enclosure of sheltering strength most needful to it. Thus the names combine easily, and we need not wonder to find Toi, the “wanderer,” seeking David. All the gifts and spoil of the world are consecrated to Jehovah by him: for the kingdom of Christ subdues all to God at last, “that God may be all in all.”
Edom comes last for judgment, which, from our knowledge of its spiritual significance, is not difficult to understand. Edom, the old “Adam” nature in man, is the evil hardest and last of all to be subdued. In the barren valley of salt Edom is finally subjugated and garrisoned throughout; and the Edomites become David’s servants. As at the beginning we all were Edomites that now know Christ, there need be no difficulty about this. This is the end of the general sketch of the extension of the kingdom. “And God preserved David whithersoever he went.” Section 3.We come now to look at the kingdom internally; and we have first the administration of righteousness, and the order established for that; and then, at more length, its salvation-character, -of which Mephibosheth is a beautiful illustration. (1) United Israel is under his hand, and to all his people judgment and justice are dispensed. This is, above all, the character that David represents to us, as we have seen. Alas, that he fails signally at times in this, we know too; but it is the general character of his reign, and that which he stands for typically; the lessons of his failure we shall find in full elsewhere. Here, for the type’s sake, all this is excluded. As to detail here, we have but the names of those put in charge in their various departments; and if we have not skill to read the names, or refuse this “allegorizing,” these will be barren enough, nay, would lead us sometimes in an opposite direction. We already know, and shall more fully as we read on, how different might be the actions of the men from the beauty of their names. But the history is at this point purposely idealized, for it is Christ who is before the mind of the Spirit; and thus His inspired mouthpiece is kept from the intrusion of what would spoil the picture. Take, for instance, the very first name here in proof; a name of chief importance, if its position counts for anything: what is Joab, the son of Zeruiah, according to his acting in the history? Yet the thought represented by his name is exactly according to its foremost place in this catalogue. Joab means “Jehovah is Father,” and as the son of Zeruiah, “balm of Jah,” speaks, as we have seen, of the cross as the procuring cause of such relationship being enjoyed. It is striking that here is one of those double meanings which often confirm and throw light upon each other; for Zeruiah may also mean “straitened” or “distressed of Jah”: and so in both ways the Cross is indicated. Joab is over the host: for all the wars of the kingdom of Christ are governed by this one aim, to bring in the Father’s kingdom. The prayer that He taught His disciples was “Father, thy kingdom come!” The iron sceptre having done its work, He will “deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” Thus that which He bids them pray for He Himself accomplishes. For this He puts down all rule and all authority and power. “And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject to Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:24-28.) Joab is surely, then, without possibility of contradiction, “over the host.” Secondly: “Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder.” The office here intended is not certain, hut the word is literally “remembrancer,” which might be equivalent to or include that of historian; but would seem, first of all, to be that of king’s referee and counselor. Jehoshaphat means “Jehovah has judged,” and answers admirably to his office: Jehovah’s judgment thus being the rule for guidance at all times. But Jehoshaphat is himself the son of Ahilud, which means “the brother,” or “kin of the one born,” a blessed and wonderful thought; in this connection how tender an one! that as man is even naturally the “offspring of God,” so He is in that sense akin to the feeble creature He has made. His judgments are, indeed, the fruit of this kinship: He remembers this link of His own establishment in all His dealings with them. How should His judgments be thus endeared to us! Thirdly: we have the priesthood, twofold, embracing the lines of Eleazar and Ithamar both (see p. 298, n.), and Eleazar’s given the first place in Zadok, a fact which shows the ideal picture that is given us here: for Zadok really only acquired the first place in the beginning of Solomon’s reign, after Abiathar had joined the conspiracy of Adonijah. Yet for the type Zadok had to come first, -who, as the “righteous,” reminds us from this side of the Melchizedek character of priesthood in Christ. As heir of Eleazar’s line, he is also the true representative of the risen Priest; while a descendant of Ithamar would have been entirely out of place here. Zadok is the son of Ahitub, “brother of goodness,” as the Lord’s priesthood as the righteous One is yet the fruit of his human kinship with us assumed in love. In the line of Ithamar, where we expect to find “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech,” we find instead “Ahimelech the son of Abiathar,” and this is supported by 1 Chronicles 24:6, where the same inversion obtains. Fausset suggests that father and son had both names, which Mark 2:26 may in part confirm. Ahimelech means “brother of the king,” Abiathar, “father of excellence.” In the fourth place, the scribe’s name is Seraiah, “Jah rules.” In the fifth we find Benaiah the son of Jehoiada over the Cherethites and Pelethites, or, probably, as Gesenius says, “executioners and couriers.” Here again divine names are prominent: Benaiah, “Jah has built”; Jehoiada, “Jehovah knows.” Do they show us that the execution of judgment is controlled by His purpose to build up and bless, this building up being the fruit of His own perfect knowledge? All these names, it is evident, speak as with one consent of righteous, wise, and beneficent government; and when it is added that “David’s sons were chief rulers” -cohanim, the same word as for “priests,” but here applied to the representation of another in civil affairs, as the priest in sacred (see vol. 1. p. 227, n.) -we have only to turn back to the meanings of these sons’ names (2 Samuel 3:1-5; 2 Samuel 5:13-16, n.) to find a host of witnesses to the character of the kingdom represented here. As has been said, the history is carefully idealized that the type may not be marred. When we come to the details of actual history, things will be seen far otherwise; but the Spirit will not be hindered from presenting to us this view of a perfect kingdom, which Christ alone will actually consummate. That to which Scripture uniformly looks on is the glory of Christ. (2) But Christ’s kingdom is not simply a reign of righteousness; it is emphatically for salvation. As in the grand picture of Psa 72:1-20 : “He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. . . . He shall deliver the needy when he crieth, the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy.” This salvation side of the kingdom must now be represented in the picture, or it would not be an adequate representation at all. What worthy idea of God but must take in His grace? And so it is, accordingly: we have one of those touching exhibitions of what David himself calls “the kindness of God,” with which all Scripture is full. May it wake up our hearts to praise! “And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” How had the house of Saul collapsed, when it was necessary even for David to ask such a question! But a few years since, Saul was the king of Israel, able to speak of his power to give fields and vineyards to his followers, and to make them captains of hundreds and of thousands. Now his own place knows him no more; and the one who sits on his throne, and desires to do kindness to his house, does not know where to find a member of it! Saul had been the enemy and bitter persecutor of David, and this desire is the expression of grace indeed, although, as he says, there is one for whose sake he acts, and to whom he had pledged himself in covenant. But this covenant itself was the fruit of love alone. Jonathan had made no great sacrifice for David, -had not shared his fortunes, nor procured for him any mitigation of his sufferings. But David is faithful to his oath and to his love: he could not have been in any wise the figure even of our David, had he not been so. His question elicits a reply from a certain Ziba, a servant of Saul’s house: “Jonathan has yet a a son who is lame of his feet.” And in answer to further inquiry, he learns that he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel in Lodebar. Thus Mephibosheth is introduced to us. Mephibosheth, in perfect harmony with what we hear from him on this occasion, means “shame out of the mouth.” He is the picture of one convicted and self-condemned, impotent and corrupt, as his own figure is, “a dead dog.” His impotence is still further emphasized in his lameness, -lame of both feet. In his infirm and solitary condition, he is a perfect contrast with the servant Ziba, with his fifteen sons and twenty servants, but who is still himself, as is the legalist ever, a servant only; and with that curious ambiguity about his name, which Scripture uses so often and so forcefully; for this may mean “planted,” or as two words, “drought comes”: and this is the legal contingency. Mephibosheth is of the house of the failed Saul, and yet the son of Jonathan, whose name, “Jehovah has given,” reminds us of the unrepenting call and gifts of God, who calls still the “weak things of the world,” yea, the base, the despised, and “things that are not,” so that he “out of whose mouth” is the confession of his “shame” is still the Mephibosheth, the heir of the covenant of grace. He is found in the house of Machir, “one who recollects,” (and so comes really to himself) the son of Ammiel, of “the people of God,” in Lodebar, where “the word is his”* -applies itself, and comes home to him. Brought into David’s presence, he hears the word of restoring grace that enriches him, and bows his heart in gratitude. His place is henceforth to be at the king’s table, as one of his sons. This is the communion to which God brings us as His people; while the mere servant remains the servant. How beautiful in its simplicity is the repetition at the close of this story, “Mephibosheth dwelt at Jerusalem: for he did eat continually at the king’s table; and he was lame in both his feet.” Thus are saved the poor and needy; thus David shows the “kindness of God”; of which, however, all these things are but the faintest shadows. Yet they remind us of that by which, in the ages to come, He shall “show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”
The Books of the Kings. F. W. Grant.