Volume I Part 9 (1/2)
Ver. 1. ”_And it happened when the king sat in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies round about._ Ver. 2.
_And the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See, now, I dwell in a house of cedar, and the ark of G.o.d dwelleth within curtains._”
The question here is:--To what time is the occurrence to be a.s.signed?
The answer is:--To the time not long after David had obtained the dominion over all Israel. To this opinion we are led by the position which the report occupies in the Books both of Chronicles and of Samuel. The supposition is so very probable, that nothing short of very cogent reasons could induce us to abandon it. A narrative, in which David's accession to the throne is followed by the conquest of Jerusalem, and this by the building of his palace,--and this again by the bringing up of the ark of the covenant,--and this, still further, by David's anxiety for a fixed sanctuary, evidently agrees with the order in which these events followed each other. We can the less entertain any doubt concerning it, because we are expressly told, that the wars and victories of David reported in chap. viii. were subsequent to what is reported in chap. vii.; compare viii. 1. That the conquest of Jerusalem and the [Pg 132] building of his palace belong to the period soon after his accession to the throne, is both evident, and generally acknowledged; but that David's anxiety for a fixed sanctuary was awakened in him soon after the completion of his palace, is expressly stated in 1 Chron. xvii. 1. Instead of ?? ??? in ver. 1 of our pa.s.sage, we find there ???? ???, ”when,” or ”as soon as” he dwelt.
We cannot well think of any later period, as David's zeal for the building of the house of the Lord was closely connected with the question regarding the duration of his own family, which was so readily suggested by the fate of Saul, and which must necessarily have engaged his attention at a very early period. If he obtained the divine sanction for the building of the temple, that question also was thereby answered. _Further_,--It appears from ver. 12, that Solomon was not yet born at the time when David received the promise. The circ.u.mstance, too, that there are so many allusions to it in the Psalms of David, proves that this promise had been already given to him at the beginning of his reign.--One circ.u.mstance only has been adduced against a.s.signing to it so early a period, viz., that the event is here placed within the time when the Lord had given David rest from all his enemies round about. But there is not one word which affirms that this rest was a definitive one; while, on the other hand, the contrary is alluded to by the circ.u.mstance that the Books of Chronicles make no mention at all of David's rest from his enemies, and is distinctly indicated by viii. 1.
In 1 Chron. xiv. 17 it is said, after the account of David's victory over the Philistines (on which event the Books of Samuel report previous to chap. vii., viz. in v. 17-25): ”And the name of David went out into all lands, and the Lord gave his fear upon all the heathen.”
This previous result was so much the more important, as the Philistines had been, for a long time, the most dangerous enemies of Israel, and David himself may have considered it as a definitive one,--may have imagined this truce to be a peace,--may not have been aware that he had yet to bear the burden of the most trying wars. Looking, then, to the pa.s.sage in Deut. xii. 10, 11--in which the choice of a place where the Lord will cause His name to dwell, is connected with the giving of rest from all enemies round about--he might think that the present circ.u.mstance formed a call upon him to erect a sanctuary to [Pg 133]
the Lord.[1] But the issue (compare viii. 1) soon made it manifest to him, that the supposition on which he proceeded was an erroneous one.
We have a tacit correction of David's mistake in 1 Kings v. 17, 18: ”Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the Lord his G.o.d, for the wars with which they surrounded him, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet. And now the Lord my G.o.d hath given me rest on every side, and there is neither adversary nor evil occurrence.” It was only under Solomon that the period provided for by Deut. xii. really arrived. (Compare 1 Chron.
xxii. 19.)
Ver. 3. ”_And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart, for the Lord is with thee._ Ver. 4. _And it came to pa.s.s that night that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying:_ Ver. 5. _Go and tell My servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build Me a house to dwell in?_”
In ver. 5 the question is stated, the answer to which is the point at issue. In ver. 6, the exposition begins with ??, which refers to the whole of it, and not merely to the clause which immediately follows.
Hitherto, the Lord has not had a fixed temple (ver. 6), nor has any such been wished for or desired by Him (ver. 7). By the grace of G.o.d, David has been raised to be ruler over the people (ver. 8), and the Lord has helped him gloriously (ver. 9), and, through him, His people (ver. 10). This mercy the Lord had already bestowed upon him, that, since the beginning of the period of the Judges, it was through him, first of all, that the people had obtained rest from all their enemies round about; but to this favour the Lord is now adding another, by announcing to him that He would make him an house (ver. 11). When David dies, his seed shall occupy the throne, and be established in the kingdom (ver. 12). It is he who shall build an house for the Lord who will establish for ever the throne of his kingdom, vers. 13-16.
David's zeal for the house of the Lord is thus acknowledged (compare Ps. cx.x.xii. 1), and so also is the correctness of his supposition, that the building of the fixed temple is intimately [Pg 134] connected with his being raised to be ruler over Israel. The first answer of Nathan remains correct; it is only more distinctly and closely defined and modified. David is to build the house,--not, however, in his own person, but in his seed, and after the Lord has begun to fulfil His promise, that He would make him an house.
But why was it that David himself was not permitted to build the house to the Lord? In this pa.s.sage we obtain no answer. In Solomon's message to Hiram (1 Kings v. 17) an external reason only is stated--viz., that, by his numerous wars, David had been prevented from building a house to the Lord. There was a deeper reason than this; but the heathen could not comprehend it. It is contained in the words which, according to 1 Chron. xxviii. 3, David spoke to the people: ”And G.o.d said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for My name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood;” and in the words of the Lord which, according to 1 Chron. xxii. 8, David repeated to Solomon: ”Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build an house unto My name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight,”--a disclosure which David could have obtained only at a later period, and as a supplement to the divine communication which had been made to him through Nathan. For it is only after the revelation in 2 Sam. vii. that David had to carry on his most b.l.o.o.d.y wars. We must not, by any means, entertain the idea that these words express anything _blameworthy_ in David, and that the permission to build the temple was refused to him on account of his personal unworthiness. David stood in a closer relation to G.o.d than did Solomon. His wars were wars of the Lord, 1 Sam. xxv. 28. It is in this light that David himself regarded them; and that he was conscious of his being divinely commissioned for them, is seen, _e.g._, from Ps. xviii.: it was the Lord who taught his hands to war (ver. 35) and who gave him vengeance, and subdued the people unto him, ver. 48. The pa.s.sages 1 Chron. xxii. 8, xxvii. 3, do not, in themselves, contain one reproachful word against David. On the contrary, the words, _in My sight_, in the former of these pa.s.sages, rather lead us to suppose that David is, in his wars, to be considered only as a servant of the Lord (_Michaelis_: ”_In My sight_--_i.e._, who am, as it were, the [Pg 135] highest judge, and the commander”). The reason is rather of a symbolical character. How necessary soever, under certain conditions, war may be for the kingdom of G.o.d,--as indeed the Saviour also says that (in the first instance) He had not come to send peace, but a sword,--it is after all only something accidental, and rendered needful by human corruption. The real nature of the kingdom of G.o.d is peace. Even in the Old Testament, the Lord of the Church appears as the Prince of Peace, Is. ix. 5. According to Luke ix. 56, the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. In order to impress upon the mind this view of the nature and aim of the Church, the Temple--the symbol of the Church--must not be built by David the man of war, but by Solomon, the peaceful, the man of rest, 1 Chron.
xxii. 9.
Ver. 6. ”_For I have not dwelt in any house from the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt even to this day, and have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle._ Ver. 7. _In all that I have walked among the children of Israel, have I spoken one word with any of the tribes of Israel whom I commanded to feed My people Israel, saying.
Why build ye Me not a house of cedar?_”
According to several interpreters, these words are intended as a consolation to David for the delay in building the temple, and convey this sense: that G.o.d did not require the temple, that the building of it was of no consequence,--as sufficiently appears from the circ.u.mstance of His not having hitherto urged it. But such a view would ill agree with the great importance which David continues, even afterwards, to ascribe to the building of the temple,--with the grand efforts of Solomon towards it,--and with the exulting words which are uttered by the latter, in 1 Kings viii. 13, after the work has been accomplished: ”I have built Thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for Thee to abide in for ever.” A comparison of 1 Kings viii. 16-20 furnishes us with a clue to the right interpretation. In that pa.s.sage, the period before David is contrasted with that during which David lived. (Compare the ???, _now_, in ver. 8.) Hitherto, everything in the government had borne a provisional character, and, hence, the sanctuary also. But now that, after the unsettled state of things under [Pg 136]
the Judges and Saul, _the definitive government_ has been called into existence with David, to whom the Lord will make an house, the _definitive sanctuary_ also shall be built,--only, that it shall not be founded by David, but by his seed.[2] The words, _I have walked_--literally, I have been walking, I have continued walking--_in a tent and in a tabernacle_, indicate not only that the Lord dwelt in a portable sanctuary, but also, that the place of this sanctuary was oftentimes changed, from one station to another in the wilderness, then to Gilgal, s.h.i.+loh, n.o.b and Gibeon. This changing of the place of the tabernacle is still more distinctly pointed out, in the parallel pa.s.sage in 1 Chron. xvii. 5: ”And I have been from tent to tent, from tabernacle to tabernacle;” _i.e._, I went from one tent into the other, _e.g._, from the dwelling-place of s.h.i.+loh into that of n.o.b,--a mode of expression which pays no attention to the circ.u.mstance whether or not the tent was materially the same. Instead of, ”With any of the tribes of Israel,” we find in 1 Chron. xvii. 6, ”With any of the judges of Israel,”--a parallel pa.s.sage which very well explains the main text.
The tribes come into consideration through their judges, who, in the Book of Judges, always appear as judges in Israel, and procured a temporary [Pg 137] superiority to the tribe from which they proceeded.[3] The ????, which has been doubted, is rendered certain by 1 Kings viii. 16. (Compare, moreover, Ps. lxxviii. 67, 68.)--The reason why no such word came to any one of these tribes is, that the superiority of none of them was permanent; the election of all of them was merely temporary. The continuance of the tent-temple was intended to indicate that the state of things was, in general, provisional only, and that a new order of things was at hand. The creation of a settled sanctuary was to be coincident with the establishment of an abiding kingdom, to which the grace of G.o.d was vouchsafed. It was an evil omen for Saul that the erection of a fixed sanctuary was not even mooted under him. The close of Ps. lxxviii. likewise points out the intimate connection of the kingdom and the sanctuary.
Ver. 8. ”_And now, thus shalt thou say unto David My servant: Thus saith the Lord, of hosts, I took thee from the sheep-cote,_[4] _from behind the sheep, to be ruler over My people, over Israel._ Ver. 9.
_And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies from before thee, and have made thee a great name like unto the name of the great men that are upon the earth._ Ver. 10. _And I gave room unto My people Israel, and planted them, and they dwell in their place, and they shall no more be frightened, and the sons of wickedness shall afflict them no more as heretofore._”
Seven divine benefits are here enumerated,--one in ver. 8, which forms the foundation of all the others, and three in each of the two following verses,--in ver. 9, what the Lord has given to David,--in ver. 10, what, through him, He has given to Israel. These benefits are so many symptoms that a _definitive_ order of things has now taken the place of the _provisional_ one, and that, hence, the moveable sanctuary will now be soon followed by the settled one. In the first member of ver. 10, there is an enumeration of the benefits which the [Pg 138]
people have already received through David; in the second and third members, an enumeration of the benefits to be constantly bestowed upon them through him. A commentary upon it is formed by Ps. lx.x.xix. 22-24, in which it is said of David: ”With whom My hand shall be continually.
Mine arm also shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not exact upon him, nor the son of wickedness afflict him. And I crush his enemies before him, and will smite those who hate him.”
Ver. 11. ”_And since the day that I commanded judges over My people Israel, I have given thee rest from all thine enemies. And the Lord telleth thee, that the Lord will make thee an house._”
The first part of this verse comprehends all the benefits formerly enumerated;--the second adds another, which, however, is closely connected with the previous ones. The circ.u.mstance that the Lord first gave rest to David, and, in him, to the people, was a sign of his election which could not but manifest itself afterwards in the care for his house. The promise, ”The Lord will make thee an house,” was to David an answer to prayer, as is shown by Ps. xxi. 3, 5, lxi. 6, cx.x.xviii. 3. Even the thought of building the temple was a question put to the Lord, as to whether He would, in harmony with His past conduct, give a duration to his house, different from that of the house of Saul.
Ver. 12. ”_And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I shall cause thy seed to rise up after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom._”
The ???? does not signify the beginning of existence, but the elevation to the royal dignity. ???, _seed_, denotes the posterity, which, however, may consist of one only, or be represented by a single individual. In the parallel pa.s.sage, 1 Chron. xvii. 11, the words run thus: ”Thy seed which shall be of thy sons,” _i.e._, who shall be one of thy sons (Luther). The truth of the promise, ”I shall establish his kingdom,” became manifest, _e.g._, in the vain machinations of Adonijah. That the fulfilment of this promise must be sought in the history of Solomon, in whom the difference between the house of David and that of Saul first became evident (instead of, ”I establish,” in ver. 12, we find, in the second member of ver. 13, ”I establish for ever”), is seen from 1 Kings viii. 20, where Solomon says, ”And the Lord hath performed His word which [Pg 139] He spake; for I am risen up in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the Lord promised.” (Compare 1 Kings ii. 12: ”And Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was established greatly.”)
Ver. 13. ”_He shall build an house for My name, and I establish the throne of his kingdom for ever._”
The general establishment which was spoken of in ver. 12 precedes the building of the temple; the eternal establishment mentioned in ver. 13 follows the building of the temple, or is coincident with it. It is evident, that the first clause of the verse refers, in the first instance, to the building of the temple which was undertaken by Solomon. (Compare 1 Kings v. 19, where Solomon says, ”Behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my G.o.d, as the Lord spake unto David my father, saying. Thy son whom I will set upon thy throne in thy stead, he shall build the house unto My name.”) We shall not, however, be at liberty to confine ourselves to what Solomon, as an individual, did for the house of the Lord. The building of the house here goes hand in hand with the eternity of the kingdom. We expect, therefore, that the question is not about a building of limited duration. If a building of only a limited duration were meant, such, surely, might have been erected long ago, even in the period of the Judges. The contrary, however, is quite distinctly brought out in 1 Kings viii. 13, where, at the dedication of the temple, Solomon says, ”I have built Thee an house to dwell in, a fixed place for Thee to abide in _for ever_.” If, then, with the eternity of the kingdom of David's house the eternity of the temple to be built by him be closely bound up, the destruction of the latter can be only _temporary_, and the consequence of the apostasy and punishment of the Davidic race,--of which vers. 14 and 15 treat. Or, if it be definitive, it can concern the _form_ only. If the building of the temple fall into ruins, it is only the Davidic race from which its restoration can proceed; the local relation of the royal palace to the temple prefigured their close union. Hence, the building of the temple by Zerubbabel was likewise comprehended in the words, ”He shall build an house for My name.” It was impossible that the second temple could be reared otherwise than under the direction of David's family. But we must go still farther.
The essence of the temple consists in its being a symbol, an outward [Pg 140] representation of the kingdom of G.o.d under Israel. The real import of our pa.s.sage then is,--that henceforth the kingdom of David and the kingdom of G.o.d should be closely and inseparably linked together. As the third phase, therefore, in the fulfilment of our prophecy, John ii. 19 must come under consideration: ??sate t?? ?a??
t??t??, ?a? ?? t??s?? ???a?? ??e?? a?t??. (Regarding the sense of this pa.s.sage, and the symbolical meaning of the tabernacle and temple, compare ”_Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pent._” vol. ii. p.
514 ff.) ”House of G.o.d” is, in ver. 14 of the parallel text, used of the Church, and in parallelism with ”kingdom of G.o.d,”--a sense in which it occurs as early as in Num. xii. 7.[5] This _usus loquendi_ is quite common in the New Testament; compare 1 Tim. iii. 15; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Heb. iii. 6. In the first two phases of the temple of Solomon, the house consists in the first instance of ordinary stones,--although, even at that time, the _spiritual_ is concealed behind the _material_; but in its third phase, the material is altogether thrown off, and the house is entirely spiritual--consisting of living stones, 1 Pet. ii.