_DAVID KING OF ALL ISRAEL._
2 SAMUEL v. 1-9.
After seven and a half years of opposition,[2] David was now left
without a rival, and the representatives of the whole tribes came to
Hebron to anoint him king. They gave three reasons for their act,
nearly all of which, however, would have been as valid at the death
of Saul as they were at this time.
The first was that David and they were closely related--"Behold,
we are thy bone and thy flesh;" rather an unusual reason, but in
the circumstances not unnatural. For David's alliance with the
Philistines had thrown some doubt on his nationality; it was not very
clear at that time whether he was to be regarded as a Hebrew or as a
naturalized Philistine; but now the doubts that had existed on that
point had all disappeared; conclusive evidence had been afforded
that David was out-and-out a Hebrew, and therefore that he was not
disqualified for the Hebrew throne.
This conclusion is confirmed by what they give as their second
reason--his former exploits and services against their enemies.
"Also, in time past, when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest
out and broughtest in Israel." In former days, David had proved
himself Saul's most efficient lieutenant; he had been at the head of
the armies of Israel, and his achievements in that capacity pointed
to him as the fit and natural successor of Saul.
The third reason is the most conclusive--"The Lord said to thee,
Thou shalt feed My people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over
Israel." It was little to the credit of the elders that this reason,
which should have been the first, and which needed no other reasons
to confirm it, was given by them as the last. The truth, however, is,
that if they had made it their first and great reason, they would
on the very face of their speech have condemned themselves. Why, if
this was the command of God, had they been so long of carrying it
out? Ought not effect to have been given to it at the very first,
independent of all other reasons whatsoever? The elders cannot but
give it a place among their reasons for offering him the throne;
but it is not allowed to have its own place, and it is added to the
others as if they needed to be supplemented before effect could be
given to it. The elders did not show that supreme regard to the
will of God which ought ever to be the first consideration in every
loyal heart. It is the great offence of multitudes, even among those
who make a Christian profession, that while they are willing to
pay regard to God's will as one of many considerations, they are
not prepared to pay supreme regard to it. It may be taken along
with other considerations, but it is not allowed to be the chief
consideration. Religion may have a place in their life, but not the
first place. But can a service thus rendered be acceptable to God?
Can God accept the second or the third place in any man's regard?
Does not the first commandment dispose of this question: "Thou shalt
have no other gods before Me"?
"So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and King
David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord; and they
anointed David king over Israel."
It was a happy circumstance that David was able to neutralise the
effects of the murders of Abner and Ishbosheth, and to convince the
people that he had no share in these crimes. Notwithstanding the
prejudice against his side which in themselves they were fitted to
create in the supporters of Saul's family, they did not cause any
further opposition to his claims. The tact of the king removed any
stumbling-block that might have arisen from these untoward events.
And thus the throne of David was at last set up, amid the universal
approval of the nation.
This was a most memorable event in David's history. It was the
fulfilment of one great instalment of God's promises to him. It was
fitted very greatly to deepen his trust in God, as his Protector and
his Friend. To be able to look back on even one case of a Divine
promise distinctly fulfilled to us is a great help to faith in all
future time. For David to be able to look back on that early period
of his life, so crowded with trials and sufferings, perplexities and
dangers, and to mark how God had delivered him from every one of
them, and, in spite of the fearful opposition that had been raised
against him, had at last seated him firmly on the throne, was well
fitted to advance the spirit of trust to that place of supremacy
which it gained in him. After such an overwhelming experience, it was
little wonder that his trust in God became so strong, and his purpose
to serve God so intense. The sorrows of death had compassed him, and
the pains of Hades had taken hold on him, yet the Lord had been with
him, and had most wonderfully delivered him. And in token of his
deliverance he makes his vow of continual service, "O Lord, truly I
am Thy servant; I am Thy servant and the son of Thine handmaid; Thou
hast loosed my bonds. I will offer to Thee the sacrifices of praise,
and will call upon the name of the Lord."
We can hardly pass from this event in David's history without
recalling his typical relation to Him who in after-years was to
be known as the "Son of David." The resemblance between the early
history of David and that of our blessed Lord in some of its features
is too obvious to need to be pointed out. Like David, Jesus spends
His early years in the obscurity of a country village. Like him, He
enters on His public life under a striking and convincing evidence
of the Divine favour--David by conquering Goliath, Jesus by the
descent of the Spirit at His baptism, and the voice from heaven which
proclaimed, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Like David, soon after His Divine call Jesus is led out to the
wilderness, to undergo hardship and temptation; but, unlike David,
He conquers the enemy at every onset. Like David, Jesus attaches to
Himself a small but valiant band of followers, whose achievements
in the spiritual warfare rival the deeds of David's "worthies" in
the natural. Like David, Jesus is concerned for His relatives;
David, in his extremity, commits his father and mother to the king
of Moab: Jesus, on the cross, commits His mother to the beloved
disciple. In the higher exercises of David's spirit, too, there is
much that resembles the experiences of Christ. The convincing proof
of this is, that most of the Psalms which the Christian Church has
ever held to be Messianic have their foundation in the experiences
of David. It is impossible not to see that in one sense there must
have been a measureless distance between the experience of a sinful
man like David and that of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the Divinity of
His person, the atoning efficacy of His death, and the glory of His
resurrection, Jesus is high above any of the sons of men. Yet there
must likewise have been some marvellous similarity between Him and
David, seeing that David's words of sorrow and of hope were so often
accepted by Jesus to express His own emotions. Strange indeed it is
that the words in which David, in the twenty-second Psalm, pours out
the desolation of his spirit, were the words in which Jesus found
expression for His unexampled distress upon the cross. Strange,
too, that David's deliverances were so like Christ's that the same
language does for both; nay, that the very words in which Jesus
commended His soul to the Father, as it was passing from His body,
were words which had first been used by David.
But it does not concern us at present to look so much at the general
resemblances between David and our blessed Lord, as at the analogy in
the fortunes of their respective kingdoms. And here the most obvious
feature is the bitter opposition to their claims offered in both
instances even by those who might have been expected most cordially
to welcome them. Of both it might be said, "They came unto their own,
but their own received them not." First, David is hunted almost to
death by Saul; and then, even after Saul's death, his claims are
resisted by most of the tribes. So in His lifetime Jesus encounters
all the hatred and opposition of the scribes and Pharisees; and even
after His resurrection, the council do their utmost to denounce His
claims and frighten His followers. Against the one and the other the
enemy brings to bear all the devices of hatred and opposition. When
Jesus rose from the grave, we see Him personally raised high above
all the efforts of His enemies; when David was acknowledged king by
all Israel, he reached a corresponding elevation. And now that David
is recognised as king, how do we find him employing his energies?
It is to defend and bless his kingdom, to obtain for it peace and
prosperity, to expel its foes, to secure to the utmost of his power
the welfare of all his people. From His throne in glory, Jesus does
the same. And what encouragement may not the friends and subjects of
Christ's kingdom derive from the example of David! For if David, once
he was established in his kingdom, spared no effort to do good to his
people, if he scattered blessings among them from the stores which he
was able to command, how much more may Christ be relied on to do the
same! Has He not been placed far above all principality and power,
and every name that is named, and been made "Head over all things for
the Church which is His body"? Rejoice then, ye members of Christ's
kingdom! Raise your eyes to the throne of glory, and see how God has
set His King upon His holy hill of Zion! And be encouraged to tell
Him of all your own needs and the troubles and needs of His Church;
for has He not ascended on high, and led captivity captive, and
received gifts for men? And if you have faith as a grain of mustard
seed, will you not ask, and shall you not receive according to your
faith? Will not God supply all your need according to His riches in
glory by Christ Jesus?
* * * * *
From the spectacle at Hebron, when all the elders of Israel confirmed
David on the throne, and entered into a solemn league with reference
to the kingdom, we pass with David to the field of battle. The
first enterprise to which he addressed himself was the capture of
Jerusalem, or rather of the stronghold of Zion. It is not expressly
stated that he consulted God before taking this step, but we can
hardly suppose that he would do it without Divine direction. From
the days of Moses, God had taught His people that a place would be
appointed by Him where He would set His name; Jerusalem was to be
that place; and it cannot be thought that when David would not even
go up to Hebron without consulting the Lord, he would proceed to make
Jerusalem his capital without a Divine warrant.
No doubt the place was well known to him. It had already received
consecration when Melchizedek reigned in it, "king of righteousness
and king of peace." In the days of Joshua its king was Adonizedek,
"lord of righteousness"--a noble title, brought down from the days
of Melchizedek, however unworthy the bearer of it might be of the
designation, for he was the head of the confederacy against Joshua
(Josh. x. 1, 3), and he ended his career by being hanged on a tree.
After the slaughter of the Philistine, David had carried his head
to Jerusalem, or to some place so near that it might be called by
that name; very probably Nob was the place, which, according to an
old tradition, was situated on the slope of Mount Olivet. Often in
his wanderings, when his mind was much occupied with fortresses
and defences, the image of this place would occur to him; observing
how the mountains were round about Jerusalem, he would see how well
it was adapted to be the metropolis of the country. But this could
not be done while the stronghold of Zion was in the hands of the
Jebusites, and while the Jebusites were so numerous that they might
be called "the people of the land."
So impregnable was this stronghold deemed, that any attempt that
David might make to get possession of it was treated with contempt.
The precise circumstances of the siege are somewhat obscure; if we
compare the marginal readings and the text in the Authorized Version,
and still more in the Revised Version, we may see what difficulty
our translators had in arriving at the meaning of the passage. The
most probable supposition is that the Jebusites placed their lame
and blind on the walls, to show how little artificial defence the
place needed, and defied David to touch even these sorry defenders.
Such defiance David could not but have regarded as he regarded the
defiance of Goliath--as an insult to that mighty God in whose name
and in whose strength he carried on his work. Advancing in the same
strength in which he advanced against Goliath, he got possession of
the stronghold. To stimulate the chivalry of his men he had promised
the first place in his army to whoever, by means of the watercourse,
should first get on the battlements and defeat the Jebusites. Joab
was the man who made this daring and successful attempt. Reaping
the promised reward, he thereby raised himself to the first place
in the now united forces of the twelve tribes of Israel. After the
murder of Abner, he had probably been degraded; but now, by his dash
and bravery, he established his position on a firmer basis than
ever. While he contributed by this means to the security and glory
of the kingdom, he diminished at the same time the king's personal
satisfaction, inasmuch as David could not regard without anxiety the
possession of so much power and influence by so daring and useful,
but unscrupulous and bold-tempered, a man.
The place thus taken was called the city, and sometimes the castle,
of David, and it became from this time his residence and the capital
of his kingdom. Much though the various sites in Jerusalem have been
debated, it is surely beyond reasonable doubt that the fortress
thus occupied was Mount Zion, the same height which still exists in
the south-western corner of the area which came to be covered by
Jerusalem. This seems to have been the only part that the Jebusites
had fortified, and with the loss of this stronghold their hold of
other parts of Jerusalem was lost. Henceforth, as a people, they
disappear from Jerusalem, although individual Jebusites might still,
like Araunah, hold patches of land in the neighbourhood (2 Sam.
xxiv. 16). The captured fortress was turned by David into his royal
residence. And seeing that a military stronghold was very inadequate
for the purposes of a capital, he began, by the building of Millo,
that extension of the city which was afterwards carried out by others
on so large a scale.
By thus taking possession of Mount Zion and commencing those
extensions which helped to make Jerusalem so great and celebrated
a city, David introduced two names into the sacred language of the
Bible which have ever since retained a halo, surpassing all other
names in the world. Yet, very obviously, it was nothing in the
little hill which has borne the name of Zion for so many centuries,
nor in the physical features of the city of Jerusalem, that has
given them their remarkable distinction. Neither is it for mere
historical or intellectual associations, in the common sense of
the term, that they have attained their eminence. It would not be
difficult to find more picturesque rocks than Zion and more striking
cities than Jerusalem. It would not be difficult to find places more
memorable in art, in science, and intellectual culture. That which
gives them their unrivalled pre-eminence is their relation to God's
revelation of Himself to man. Zion was memorable because it was
God's dwelling-place, Jerusalem because it was the city of the great
King. If Jerusalem and Zion impress our imagination even above other
places, it is because God had so much to do with them. The very idea
of God makes them great.
But they impress much more than our imagination. We recall the
unrivalled moral and spiritual forces that were concentrated there:
the goodly fellowship of the prophets, the noble army of the martyrs,
the glorious company of the apostles, all living under the shadow of
Mount Zion, and uttering those words that have moved the world as they
received them from the mouth of the Lord. We recall Him who claimed to
be Himself God, whose blessed lessons, and holy life, and atoning death
were so closely connected with Jerusalem, and would alone have made it
for ever memorable, even if it had been signalized by nothing else.
Unless David was illuminated from above to a far greater degree than
we have any reason to believe, he could have little thought, when he
captured that citadel, what a marvellous chapter in the world's history
he was beginning. Century after century, millennium after millennium
has passed; and still Zion and Jerusalem draw all eyes and hearts, and
pilgrims from the ends of the earth, as they look even on the ruins of
former days, are conscious of a thrill which no other city in all the
world can give. Nor is that all. When a name has to be found on earth
for the home of the blessed in heaven, it is the new Jerusalem; when
the scene of heavenly worship, vocal with the voice of harpers harping
with their harps, has to be distinguished, it is said to be Mount Zion.
Is not all this a striking testimony that nothing so ennobles either
places or men as the gracious fellowship of God? View this distinction
of Jerusalem and Mount Zion, if you choose, as the result of mere
natural causes. Though the effect must be held far beyond the efficacy
of the cause, yet you have this fact: that the places in all the world
that to civilized mankind have become far the most glorious are those
with which it is believed that God maintained a close and unexampled
connection. View it, as it ought to be viewed, as a supernatural
result; count the fellowship of God at Jerusalem a real fellowship, and
His Spirit a living Spirit; count the presence of Jesus Christ to have
been indeed that of God manifest in the flesh; you have now a cause
really adequate to the effect, and you have a far more striking proof
than before of the dignity and glory which God's presence brings. Would
that every one of you might ponder the lesson of Jerusalem and Zion! O
ye sons of men, God has drawn nigh to you, and He has drawn nigh to you
as a God of salvation. Hear then His message! "For if they escaped not
who refused Him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape if
we refuse Him that speaketh from heaven."
FOOTNOTE:
[2] There is difficulty in adjusting all the dates. In chap. ii. 10,
it is said that Ishbosheth reigned two years. The usual explanation
is that he reigned two years before war broke out between him and
David. Another supposition is that there was an interregnum in Israel
of five and a half years, and that Ishbosheth reigned the last two
years of David's seven and a half. The accuracy of the text has been
questioned, and it has been proposed (on very slender MS. authority)
to read that Ishbosheth reigned _six_ years in place of two.