Introduction

One illicit method of learning something about the other person is to read their mail. Now I know that there are many times when we read Paul’s epistles that we suspect he has been reading our mail. But Romans 15 and 16 is one occasion in which the Spirit of God enables us to read Paul’s mail, and personally I’m excited about it.

You may be a bit surprised by this, having been inclined to think just the opposite. Bible students remind us that at verse 14 we have passed the teaching portion of the epistle and have come to a few personal concluding remarks. At the surface of the matter, we are inclined to agree with the commentators and settle back for a brief rest until we come to another epistle, supposing introductions and conclusions to be formalities, about as meaningless as our casual greetings: “Hi!” “How’s it going?” or “Good to see you.”

But this is not the case with this concluding section of the epistle to the Romans from the pen of the great apostle, Paul. Not at all! You see, we learn about as much about Paul from reading the body of his epistles as we do about the preacher from hearing his sermons. What we all want to know is, what is he really like? You learn about the preacher by inviting him to your house for dinner, or by visiting him in his home. You and I can learn what made the apostle Paul tick by looking closely into these ‘personal’ sections of his epistles. Here, as I have already said, we are truly reading Paul’s mail. Here we will learn much about how great Christian doctrine is applied to the realities of life. This is where the rubber meets the road.

In chapters 1-3a, Paul has demonstrated the need for a God-kind of righteousness. This is because all men are sinners who do not seek God, and who have rejected and revised whatever knowledge they had of Him. The righteousness which is acceptable to God (and which man cannot earn or merit) has been provided by God through the life, sacrificial death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. This righteousness is appropriated by faith and not by works (Romans 3b-5). The new position of the Christian ‘in Christ’ demands a new kind of life, a life which cannot be lived in the power of the flesh (man’s natural abilities), but only through the provision of the Holy Spirit (Romans 6-8).

Somewhat parenthetical, but vital to the argument of Paul in this epistle, is an explanation for the failure of the Jews to come to salvation while religiously zealous, when the Gentiles are finding it, seemingly without even looking for it. Paul’s answer is that while Israel expected salvation by virtue of their ethnic origins and works, God grants salvation on the basis of mercy, not justice, and on the basis of faith, not works. Israel failed not only because God did not choose every Israelite, but because they did not choose Him. All of this was designed to bring salvation to the Gentiles, and by their conversion to provoke Israel to once again turn to their God (Romans 9-11).

In Romans 12:1 through 15:13 Paul deals with the Christian’s obligations to God and man in view of the divine mercy he has received. Our obligation to God is a sacrificial life of worshipful service. That service is to be manifested within the church by the exercise of our spiritual gift and within our human relations by the exercise of love (Romans 12). We are obligated to abide by the laws of the land and to live by the law of God (chapter 13). The law of love is exhibited toward our weaker brethren by allowing him to hold his own convictions on matters of Christian liberty, and by refraining from exercising any personal liberties which might occasion the stumbling of a less mature saint (chapter 14).

In the first 13 verses of chapter 15, Paul puts his finger on the central issue in the responsibility of the strong to the weak in the faith. He then gives three incentives for the strong Christian to give up his rights for the good of the weak. From verse 14 on, we are privileged to read Paul’s personal correspondence for great insight into that which makes a great man of God distinct from the ‘run of the mill’ Christian.

Final Words Concerning the Strong and the Weak
(15:1-13)

The Central Issue (vv. 1-2). Although 1 Corinthians was written to those who were obviously weak in their Christian faith, such is not the case in Romans, for here Paul speaks of himself and his readers as those who are ‘strong’: “Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just to please ourselves” (Romans 15:1).¹¹⁷

The central issue of these first two verses is that we must set ourselves upon pleasing our weaker brethren rather than ourselves. At the heart of the friction which exists between the strong and the weak is selfishness. Paul does not demand that the weak ‘shape up,’ but that the strong ‘put up’ with those who are less mature. More than this the strong must be willing to lay aside personal liberties which do not help the strong get stronger, but which do hinder the weak.

At the heart of the matter is the issue of self-discipline and self-denial. This is evident in the epistle of 1 Corinthians (cf. especially 9:24-27; 10:1-13). The only reason why a strong Christian would refuse to yield to the sensitive scruples of the weak is because he is bent upon his own satisfaction.

Now the surrender of our Christian liberties to the weaker brother is not necessarily unconditional. First of all, it is the surrender of Christian liberties, not of Christian liberty. That is, we are to surrender the use of our rights which cause a weaker brother to stumble, not to surrender the liberty we have from the Law to legalism which insists on salvation by faith plus works. Second, we are to endeavor to please our neighbor in that which is both for his good, and for his upbuilding or edification: “Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification” (Romans 15:2).

Just as a wise parent refuses to give in to every whim of their children, so the wise Christian refuses to surrender to every whim of the immature. Only when our surrender of liberties builds up the weaker brother and is for his ultimate good, do we give in to his weakness. Here, as in every area of Christian experience, there are no formulas for us to follow which tell us when to surrender and when to stand fast. It is a decision of faith for which we must ask divine wisdom.

Three Motivations for Christian Surrender

In verses 3-12, there are three specific motivations for the surrender of our personal liberties to our weaker brethren. In verse 3 there is the motivation we find in the example of our Lord. In verses 4-6 there is the motivation we receive in the exhortation of the Old Testament Scriptures. In verses 7-12 there is the motivation we find from the existence of a divine plan to save Gentiles as well as Jews.

(1) The example of Christ (v. 3). The first factor in Paul’s incentive program is a reminder of the example set by our Lord Jesus Christ.¹¹⁸ Our Lord did not choose to please Himself, that is, to satisfy fleshly appetites, but rather to suffer reproach and persecution of men in order to bless us with salvation. Most seem to emphasize the similarity of our situation with that of Christ. Thus, we are to choose to please others by our self-denial, just as the Lord Jesus Christ sought to please us by His self-denial.

Although this is certainly a valid emphasis, I would agree with Murray,¹¹⁹ that the emphasis here probably falls on the contrast inherent between our Lord’s self-denial and ours. Our Lord Jesus was willing to suffer the reproaches of dishonor toward God, reproaches totally unjust and unmerited. How can we even begin to compare the sacrifice of fleshly desires to that sacrifice of our Lord?

(2) The exhortation of the Old Testament Scriptures (vv. 4-6). Having just cited the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 69:9, Paul broadens his argument by insisting that it is precisely here where the value of the Old Testament Scriptures can be recognized.

That which we find in the Old Testament Scriptures is not without great importance in our own lives. It is not just a record of God’s dealings with men now long-departed, nor is it a reminder of the ‘long ago and the far away’; it is a great source of encouragement and hope: “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Romans 15:4).

How can the Scriptures produce hope? And even more perplexing, what relationship does hope have to the present matter of surrendering Christian liberties? First, we must begin by defining the word ‘hope.’ Webster says, in part, that hope is, “… desire accompanied by anticipation or expectation.”¹²⁰ Biblically, we would want to be more exact than this. Christian hope is the assurance of realizing a goal, yet future, but which is certain because it is promised by God and will be accomplished by Him.¹²¹

This assurance of future blessing is absolutely vital to the subject at hand. Paul is exhorting the stronger brother to forsake the enjoyment of certain liberties for the present time because it may cause a weaker Christian to stumble. Hope is what makes the Christian so distinct from those of the ‘now generation’ who suppose they ‘only go around once’ and thus must ‘grab all the gusto they can get.’ Christians don’t have to ‘grab for gusto’ as the television commercial suggests because we don’t go around only once. The confidence of greater blessing in the future enables us to forsake the relatively insignificant pleasures afforded by our Christian liberties. Just as the athlete has his attention fixed on the winning of a wreath and so denies himself of present luxuries, so the Christian with his eye fixed on the hope before him says no to what hinders his brother’s spiritual growth (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27).

Hope, then, is essential in forsaking the pleasures of certain Christian liberties in the present. But how does the Old Testament help to produce hope? Chapter after chapter of the Old Testament Scriptures remind us of the great men of faith who, because of the hope set before them, denied earthly pleasures in order to experience the hope promised by God.

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin; considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen (Hebrews 11:24-27).

It is little wonder that the little word hope is so frequently employed in this chapter. “Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:13). Hope fastens our attention on future blessings far greater than the passing pleasures of this age, and the Old Testament Scriptures rivet our attention on Christian hope.

With this assurance the apostle shifts from the exhortation of verse 4 to petition in prayer in verses 5-6. He prays that the God Who is the source of perseverance and encouragement would glorify Himself by the united praise brought forth as it were by one mouth, the united praise of the strong and the weak.

(3) The existence of a people of God from among the Jews and the Gentiles (vv. 7-12). In verse 7 we are brought back to the central theme introduced in chapter 14, the acceptance of one another by the strong and the weak. “Wherefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God” (Romans 15:7). The acceptance of individuals within the body of Christ should be no more exclusive than God’s acceptance of those who are His people. It is my personal ‘intuition’ (and no more than this!) that the real source of friction within the church at Rome had to do with differences which arose between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile believers. If there is any truth in this it would probably mean that the Gentiles tended to be the strong Christians (without any of the Jewish scruples about certain days or certain foods) while the weak, would be the Jews. Spiritual pride would then be mixed with racial pride and create a potential rift in Christian unity.

When Paul emphasizes the salvation of the Gentiles, in verses 8-12, he does so with a distinct purpose in mind. By reminding the ‘strong’ Gentile believers that God has chosen to save Gentiles he prompts a heart-felt sense of gratitude. But when Paul reminds these Gentiles that God’s primary purpose in history is to save Israel, he calls forth an attitude of humility. If the Gentiles wish to be proud of their being stronger than their weaker Jewish brethren let them remember that God’s primary interest has been in keeping His promises to the Jews. God has purposed that Jews and Gentiles rejoice in unison, so let them do so. “And again he says, ‘Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people’” (Romans 15:10).

Paul concludes this section with another prayer, a prayer for hope, for joy, for peace, from God through the Holy Spirit. “Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:13).

A Look Into the Life of Paul
(15:14-33)

Paul’s instructional task is completed with verse 13, but in the final half of chapter 15 we come to a much more intimate side of the apostle for here we get a personal look at Paul the missionary. In verses 14-21, we learn Paul’s philosophy of ministry. In verses 22-29 we read of Paul’s plans for ministry. In verses 30-33 we conclude with Paul’s petition for prayer for his ministry.

Paul’s Philosophy of Ministry (vv. 14-21)

(1) Paul’s evaluation of the Roman’s maturity (vv. 14-15). The Roman saints were much different from those in Corinth, for Paul has no words of rebuke for them, but a sincere commendation: “And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able also to admonish one another” (Romans 15:14). These Christians were mature and well-equipped for ministry. They were qualified to counsel and admonish one another.

Paul did not write to them because there was much revelation of which they were ignorant, but because they, like ourselves, were inclined to forget those truths so essential to practical Christian living. There is a real lesson here for many of us who are forever desiring to be taught some new truth, when God is concerned with our application of what we have previously learned.

(2) Paul’s evaluation of his own ministry (vv. 16-21). One of the things which Paul finds necessary to remind the Romans about is his own ministry and apostleship. His calling was to be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. Just as Paul had exhorted each of us to present ourselves to God as a sacrificial act of worship, so Paul sees his ministry as a priestly ministry, first of all offering himself to God in service, and then offering up the Gentiles (verse 16).

Paul was a man who knew how to handle success. There was much in his ministry of which to boast. Many Christian leaders today find much to boast about, but Paul’s boasting is of another kind. Paul knows that success is the result of divine grace. His ministry was marked by divine grace. He was accredited as an apostle by signs and wonders and miracles (v. 19), but this was the work of the Holy Spirit.

Paul’s ministry was characterized not by power alone, but also by great vision. Who of us could claim to have fully preached the gospel, even as far as Illyricum (our modern day nation of Yugoslavia). Paul’s vision was to be a pioneer, not to build upon other men’s foundations, but to blaze trails with the gospel of Jesus Christ. “And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man’s foundation” (Romans 15:20).

In doing this, Paul saw himself fulfilling that which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet: “They who had no news of Him shall see, And they who have not heard shall understand” (Romans 15:21; Isaiah 52:15).

Paul’s Plans for the Future (vv. 22-29)

The greatness of the apostle Paul can be seen by his burning zeal. He is not content to ‘rest on his laurels,’ but now desires to go to the west, to Spain, with the gospel. Paul could not be true to his philosophy of ministry and visit Rome while parts of his world were left unevangelized. But now that there was no region untouched with the gospel (v. 23), he could look to Spain, and on his way, he could visit the saints in Rome.

There was yet one task remaining which would keep Paul from Rome. Early in his ministry Paul had been exhorted by Peter, James and John to remember the poor (Galatians 2:10). The saints in Macedonia and Achaia, sensing their obligation to minister materially to those who had sent the gospel to them, delighted to make a generous contribution to those in Jerusalem and to send it with Paul (v. 26). As soon as this task was accomplished Paul would set out for Rome and then be sent on¹²² to Spain.

Paul’s Petition for Prayer (vv. 30-33)

We would naturally be inclined to suppose that the greatness of Paul’s ministry could be deducted from what we have already read. That is, Paul’s greatness was the result of the Holy Spirit’s dynamic manifestation through the apostle and also of the breadth and intensity of Paul’s missionary vision. But there is one additional factor which provides, to a great extent, the key to Paul’s success as a missionary statesman. That key is found in verses 30-33.

Paul is thoroughly convinced that his ministry would be a complete failure without prevailing prayer, and not just his own petitions, but those of the saints in various churches on his behalf. “Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me” (Romans 15:30).

These prayers were to be specific and directed toward Paul’s particular situation. He was well aware of the dangers ahead in Jerusalem, and especially of the strength of his Jewish opponents. Paul asks not only to be delivered from his opposition, but also to be effective in ministering to the saints (v. 31). If God spares Paul from the enemy and gives him a fruitful ministry among the saints he will arrive in Rome in joy, eagerly anticipating a refreshing stay with them (v. 32).

Conclusion and Applications

One final word on the strong and the weak. The attitude of the strong Christian is to be that of our Lord Jesus Christ, a willingness to set aside personal pleasure for the spiritual well-being of the weak. But our duty of Christian love is to avoid only what will cause one to stumble and to practice that which will edify and build up the weaker brother in the faith. We are not to treat the weaker Christian like a spoiled willful brat but as a weaker brother.

The Making of a Godly Ministry

I would like the thrust of our concentration to be upon those characteristics of Paul’s ministry which, humanly speaking, made him the man of God that he was, and his ministry the history-making effort the New Testament informs us it was.

(1) Paul had a ministry based upon biblical principles. It was a ministry that was biblically motivated. Paul viewed himself, as we all should do, as a priestly minister offering up his own life in service to God and offering up as well those whose lives he touched with the gospel as a sacrifice of praise to God (v. 16).

Furthermore, his was a ministry based upon biblical methodology. Over and over again today, I am faced by those in the ministry who are basing their ministry on pragmatism rather than on biblical principles. Paul had a biblical perspective of ministry. He knew that his ministry, as all things, was of God, through God, and unto God (Romans 11:36). His ministry was not of his own choosing—he was appointed as such by divine calling (vv. 15, 16). His ministry was through God, that is, it was carried out by the enabling power of God, by signs and wonders and the power of the Holy Spirit (v. 19). It was a ministry that was unto the praise of God. Paul did not boast in what he had done, but in what God had accomplished through him. The theme of Paul’s ministry was, to God be the glory.

(2) Because Paul’s ministry was a biblical one, it was also a balanced ministry. Paul ministered to both the Jews and the Gentiles. He ministered to both the strong and the weak. He ministered not only to the lost, but to the saved. He ministered not only to the spiritual needs of men, but to their material needs.

I must comment here that there is a great need for balance today in the matter of spiritual and material needs. Some today are telling us we should only seek to save the lost, while others, in seeking to tip the scales to a more even position, minister more to material needs. A biblical ministry will not exclude either ‘material’ or ‘spiritual’ ministry at the expense of the other.¹²³ This is not illustrated only by Paul and the apostles, but also in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(3) These verses reflect Paul’s philosophy of ministry. The apostle purposed to preach the gospel where it had not yet been proclaimed. He did not criticize others who did so, but he had the spirit of a pioneer. He was a trailblazer.

(4) Paul’s ministry was one of priorities. Not only did Paul have biblical principles and his own personal philosophy of ministry—he also had priorities. He would not go to Rome or to Spain until he had fully preached the gospel in the regions in his priority target area. When his heart tugged toward Rome and Spain, he would not go until he had delivered the gift of the Macedonians and the Achaians to Jerusalem.

(5) Paul’s ministry incorporated planning. Principles and priorities are of little value without a plan. And yet so many Christians today seem to equate the ‘leading of the Spirit’ with spontaneity. They feel that spiritual Christians must always ‘fly by the seat of their pants.’ Not so with the apostle Paul. He was a man with very definite plans. Now I must hasten to add that Paul’s plans were flexible and subject to change. Paul may or may not have reached Spain. Paul did not reach Rome as he had expected. It is not wrong to plan; it is wrong to be presumptuous about the future (cf. James 4:13ff.).

(6) Paul’s ministry was undergirded with prayer. No one believed in the sovereignty of God more than Paul, but Paul was also a fervent believer in human responsibility. It was God Who saved the elect and hardened the rest (Romans 9:15, 18, 22-23), but no one would be saved apart from hearing the gospel (Romans 10:14-15). So God’s eternal decree has long ago been determined, but God has ordained that His purposes should be achieved through human responsibility, and one such obligation is that of prayer.

Paul was a great man of prayer himself, but he coveted the prayers of the saints on his behalf. My friend, if the apostle Paul needed the prayers of the saints, we need them more today. Not only should you be praying for your own needs and the needs of those who minister at home and abroad, you also need the prayers of your fellow saints.

Here then are some earmarks of a successful ministry. It should be based upon biblical principles. It should be based upon a personal philosophy and guided by priorities. It should include planning and prayer. Most of all it must be dependent upon divine grace. May God enable each of us to minister in this way.

117 Cf. also Romans 15:14 where Paul compliments his readers on their progress in the faith.

118 Cf. also the parallel reminder in Philippians 2:1-8, esp. vv. 5-8.

119 “The frequency with which this Psalm is alluded to in the New Testament and its details represented as fulfilled in Christ marks it as distinctly messianic. The part quoted must be understood in the Light of what immediately precedes in the Psalm: “the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.” It is not our reproaches that are in view but the reproaches of dishonour leveled against God. These reproaches vented against God by the ungodly fell upon Christ. This is to say that all the enmity of men against God was directed to Christ; he was the victim of this assault. It is to this Paul appeals as exemplifying the assertion that Christ “pleased not himself.” We may well ask then: how does this feature of our Lord’s humiliation bear upon the duty of pleasing our neighbor in the situation which Paul has in view? It is the apparent dissimilarity that points up the force of Jesus’ example. There is a profound discrepancy between what Christ did and what the strong are urged to do. He “pleased not himself” to the incomparable extent of bearing the enmity of men against God and he bore this reproach because he was jealous for God’s honour. He did not by flinching evade any of the stroke. Shall we, the strong, insist on pleasing ourselves in the matter of food and drink to the detriment of God’s saints and the edification of Christ’s body? It is the complete contrast between Christ’s situation and ours that enhances the force of the appeal.” John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), II, pp. 198-199.

120 Webster’s New World Dictionary College Edition (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1957), p. 699.

121 “(c) NT hope is a patient, disciplined, confident waiting for and expectation of the Lord as our Saviour. To hope is to be set in motion by the goal ahead, awaiting in this movement towards the goal. It demonstrates its living character by the steadfastness with which it waits, … by the patient bearing of the tension between the now, as we walk (for the moment) …, by … faith (2 Cor. 5:7), and our future manner of life (cf. Rom. 8:25; 1 Thess. 1:3). This waiting is something active, for it involves overcoming. Although the waiting may be painful, this too is reckoned positively as “travail” which announces “rebirth” (Matt. 24:8). Therefore those who hope are comforted and confident (2 Cor. 5:8; 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 Thess. 4:18). Hoping is disciplined waiting. Therefore, in 1 Pet. 1:13 the warning, “set your hope fully upon the grace …,” is preceded by “gird up your minds,” i.e. be ready for the onslaught. To this context belongs the fundamental renunciation of all calculations of the future, the humble recognition of the limits set to our knowledge, the submission of our wishes to the demands of the battle for life to which we have been appointed. The goal of our hope calls us to “watch and pray.” The man who competes for an earthly … crown makes the necessary sacrifices (1 Cor. 9:25). Hope becomes the motive for personal purity (1 Jn. 3:3), spurs us on to strive for holiness (Heb. 12:14) without which no man can see God. Filled with the longing to return home to his Lord, the apostle seeks his glory in pleasing him (2 Cor. 5:8f.). Hope requires us to hold fast our confession of it without wavering (Heb. 10:23) and to be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us to give an account of our hope (1 Pet. 3:15). Finally, however, NT hope is a joyful waiting (Rom. 12:12) … It gives courage and strength. It protects the inner man as a helmet protects the head (1 Thess. 5:8). As a ship is safe when at anchor, our life is secured by hope which binds us to Christ, our great High Priest who has entered the sanctuary (Heb. 6:18f.).” E. Hoffman, “Hope,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, General Editor (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), II, pp. 243-244.

122 “This phrase, ‘brought on the way,’ or sent forward, refers to a semi-official custom of the apostolic churches in furnishing an escort to go some or all the way with a departing minister or missionary. Paul is here most likely asking that one or more of the Roman brethren be sent with him to Spain. (See Acts 15:3; 20:38; 21:5; I Cor. 16:6, 11; II Cor. 1:16; Titus 3:13; III John 6.) The original word is technical and is used only in reference to this custom.” James M. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1960), pp. 239-240.

123 To be biblically accurate, it is wrong to distinguish between ‘spiritual’ and ‘material’ needs. Why would the ‘deacons’ of Acts chapter 6 have to be such highly qualified men spiritually (cf. v. 3) if their ministry to the widows was just ‘material’?

Introduction

Our text in this first chapter of 2 Samuel reminds me of the story of a young accident-prone American pilot. Everything the young man did always seemed to go wrong. He was stationed aboard an aircraft carrier during World War II, and there was considerable doubt whether this fellow would be allowed to fly, since no one knew what might happen. One particular day he was given a mission, and everything seemed to be going his way. He spotted and sunk a Japanese warship; then he shot down several Japanese Zeros. Out of ammunition and nearly out of fuel, the pilot was trying to return to his aircraft carrier, but he couldn’t locate it. Suddenly the clouds opened up, and there below him was an aircraft carrier. For once, his landing was flawless. With the plane secured, he jumped out and rushed up to the commanding officer, eager to share the details of his successful mission. He reported he had sunk a Japanese warship and downed several fighters -- to which the commander responded, “Ha So!” His successful mission ended with his flawless landing -- on a Japanese aircraft carrier.

This fighter pilot reminds me of the young Amalekite messenger in 2 Samuel 1, who approaches David hoping for a commendation, and even a monetary expression of David’s gratitude. He comes bearing tragic news of Israel’s defeat, expecting David to look upon the deaths of Saul and Jonathan as a great windfall, an unexpected blessing, which rids him of his enemy (Saul) and his competition (Jonathan), and clears the way for him to become king of Israel. Never in the world would he have expected David to respond as he does. Deeply moved by the news of the death of king Saul and his son, Jonathan, David does not respond with a sigh of relief, grateful that Saul, his enemy, is dead, and pleased to assume his place on the throne in Saul’s place. David grieves greatly, and upon learning that this young man has put Saul to death, he has him executed.

The author of our text very skillfully employs contrast to arouse our curiosity and to communicate a very important message. The first half of the chapter depicts the way the Amalekite deals with Saul. The last half shows the way David deals with Saul. On the basis of this contrast, the author explains why David deals with the Amalekite as he does. The first part of our text draws our attention to the young Amalekite, who arrives with torn clothing and the evidences of mourning, along with a report of Saul’s death and the symbols of Saul’s authority as king (his crown and his bracelet). He is the one who bears tidings of Israel’s defeat, of the death of many Israelites, and specifically of the deaths of Saul and his son Jonathan. His report results first in the mourning of David and his men, and then in the sentence of death for the messenger, who took Saul’s life. The latter part of the chapter contains the psalm of mourning David writes, which he recorded so that it might be taught to the sons of Judah. The central thrust of the chapter seems to be the contrast between the Amalekite and David, as well as the key to the lesson it conveys to the reader. We will give this contrast considerable attention as we attempt to grasp the meaning and the message of our text.

As we approach our text, we hardly sense that we have moved from one book to another, from 1 Samuel to 2 Samuel. The transition seems virtually seamless, which in fact it is in the original text. In the original text, there are not two books, 1 and 2 Samuel, but just one book, encompassing both. This one book in the Hebrew text was later divided by the translators of the Septuagint. Since the division of the book by the Septuagint, all subsequent Bibles have followed this precedent, calling these two books 1 and 2 Samuel. It is therefore very natural for us to move from 1 Samuel to 2 Samuel without even realizing it.

Distressing News
(1:1-10)

1 Now it came about after the death of Saul, when David had returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, that David remained two days in Ziklag. 2 And it happened on the third day, that behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul, with his clothes torn and dust on his head. And it came about when he came to David that he fell to the ground and prostrated himself. 3 Then David said to him, “From where do you come?” And he said to him, “I have escaped from the camp of Israel.” 4 And David said to him, “How did things go? Please tell me.” And he said, “The people have fled from the battle, and also many of the people have fallen and are dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.” 5 So David said to the young man who told him, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?” 6 And the young man who told him said, “By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and behold, Saul was leaning on his spear. And behold, the chariots and the horsemen pursued him closely. 7 “And when he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I said, 'Here I am.' 8 “And he said to me, 'Who are you?' And I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite.' 9 “Then he said to me, 'Please stand beside me and kill me; for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me.' 10 “So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord.”

David and his men are certainly grateful for the defeat of the Amalekites and the recovery of their families and possessions. But this victory must be overshadowed by David’s concern for what is taking place in Israel. When David left Achish to return to Ziklag, the Philistines had mounted a massive fighting force to attack Israel. David knows very well how awesome this military effort was, because he and his men marched in review at the end of the procession. From the time he parted paths with the Philistines, David must have been greatly concerned for Saul and his beloved friend Jonathan, not to mention the rest of his countrymen. During his pursuit of the Amalekite raiding party and the ensuing battle, David has little time to think about how things are going back in Israel. Now, for three days David and his men have been back in Ziklag wondering how the war is going, or perhaps, how it has already gone.

It is his third day back in Ziklag when a young man rushes into David’s camp all out of breath because he has been running for several days. He must have run something like 100 miles to reach David at Ziklag. His clothing almost tells it all, for it is torn and dust is upon his head. It is a sign of mourning. The news is not going to be good. Reaching David, this young man falls on the ground before him, prostrating himself as though approaching royalty, as though he is in the presence of a king.

David immediately begins to question the young man, first wanting to know from where he has traveled. David probably assumes the worst, but he asks a question to determine whether this man has news about Saul. The young man responds that he has come from the camp of Saul.¹ Actually his words are more foreboding than this. He tells David he has escaped² from the camp of Saul. This does not bode well. David then asks how things went in the battle. The young man now reveals what David must have already surmised. Israel has been defeated -- badly. Many Israelite soldiers have been killed, and the rest fled. Included among those killed in battle were Saul and his son Jonathan.³

David is unwilling to accept this man’s report without some verification. Is the messenger absolutely certain that Saul and Jonathan have been slain? The young man goes on to explain. I am not certain that he originally intends to tell David what he now reveals. From all the details this man provides, I believe he was indeed there with Saul, and that he does kill him in his final moments of life. When combined with the facts of the previous chapter (1 Samuel 31), we can arrive at a fairly clear picture of what happened.

This young man just happens to be on Mount Gilboa when he comes upon Saul. He does not really tell us what he is doing there. If I were to guess, I would say it was not to go down fighting to defend Saul from the Philistines, but rather to loot Saul’s post before the Philistines arrive. He certainly is not defending Saul from the Philistines. He comes across Saul while he is still alive.⁴ Saul is on the ground, or as the text reads, “he had fallen” (1:10). Saul’s body, riddled with Philistine arrows, is now run through by his own sword. Nevertheless, he is not yet dead. He seems to be propping himself up by leaning upon his spear, which probably relieves some pressure and pain from the arrows and the sword.

Looking around, Saul sees the young man arrive and size up the situation. Saul calls out to the fellow, and he responds, “Here I am.” He then asks this young man who he is. He may wonder if he is a Philistine, since they are pressing their attack and will soon be closing in on him (verse 6). The young man informs Saul that he is an Amalekite. Saul then appeals to this fellow to put him out of his misery.

I am indebted to the insight of my friend and fellow-elder, Hugh Blevins, at this point. Hugh points out that the author makes much of the fact that the young man is an Amalekite. Saul seems to take courage in this fact. He seems more confident to ask this fellow to kill him because he is an Amalekite. After all, he has just asked his armor bearer, who declines. An Amalekite will not have such scruples about killing the king of Israel. Indeed, when Saul ordered his servants to kill Ahimelech and the other priests, they declined, and so Saul turned to Doeg, the Edomite, who willingly complied with his orders (see 1 Samuel 22:16-19). Thus, even if an Israelite will not put Saul to death, the king feels relatively certain that an Amalekite will.

Saul asks the young man to come and “stand over” him and put him to death. The NASB renders it more generically: “Please stand beside me and kill me” (verse 9). The King James Version is more starkly literal when it renders these words, “Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. . . .” The young man then says, “So I stood upon him, and slew him” (verse 10, KJV). My point in emphasizing these words is that the young man must have “been there and done that” to be so precise in his description of Saul’s last few moments and death. Saul is lying on the ground, partially propped up by his spear (not his sword). Saul begs the young man to come and stand over him because he is on the ground, and the young man would have to do this to kill him. The young Amalekite obliges Saul by killing him. We are not told what weapon he uses or how he uses it to dispatch Saul. The irony is that Saul would have been dead in a few moments anyway. This “murder” (recounted as though it was a mercy killing) deprives Saul of but a few minutes of life. Nonetheless, it is murder.

The Amalekite confesses to killing Saul, and then rationalizes his actions in verse 10. He did stand over Saul and kill him, but this was because he knew that having fallen, Saul would never get up again. He would have died anyway, right there in that place. Besides this, he did for Saul exactly what Saul begged him to do. Saul wanted to be put out of his misery, and this young man obliged him. Isn’t this the compassionate thing to do? He thinks a reward might be given for this, but he ends up getting much more than he expected. He did what Saul wanted, and he did what he supposed David wanted. He believed he could not be faulted for doing what Saul and David desired. He removed the crown and bracelet from Saul’s corpse and rushed with them to David, his “lord” (verse 10). Is it not the time for David to assume his place as king?

Before we turn to David’s response to the Amalekite’s report, it might be helpful to sum up some of the key elements of this event:

(1) The messenger seems eager to make this journey to find David and tell him of the death of Saul and Jonathan. Like Ahimaaz in 2 Samuel 18:19-23, he seems to want to bring David the news because he expects David to be pleased with what he hears (see 2 Samuel 4:9-10). Also like Ahimaaz, he does not understand the depth of sorrow and sadness this news will bring to David.

(2) It appears he expects to be rewarded by David.

(3) He knows exactly where to find David.

(4) David questions the Amalekite thoroughly and seems to learn more from him than the messenger intends. Far from lying to David about Saul’s death or his role in it, this messenger seems to tell all.

(5) For some reason, the messenger makes a point of Jonathan’s death, but fails to mention that Saul’s other sons are also killed in battle.

(6) The messenger seems to assume that Saul and Jonathan are David’s enemies, obstacles to his ascent to the throne. He appears to believe that killing Saul is getting him out of David’s way, and thus believes he is doing David a favor (again, see 2 Samuel 4:9-10).

(7) The text emphasizes that this messenger is an Amalekite, which is no coincidence. Saul was to have killed the Amalekites (see 1 Samuel 15). It was Amalekite raiders who sacked Ziklag and kidnapped the families of David and his men. Only three days earlier David had returned to Ziklag, after pursuing these Amalekites and slaughtering them (2 Samuel 1:1).

(8) This messenger knows David is designated to be (or expected to be) Israel’s next king. He brings the crown and bracelet he took from Saul’s body and gives them to David, as the king.

(9) This man almost proudly admits to having killed Saul, God’s anointed.

David’s Response
(1:11-16)

11 Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so also did all the men who were with him. 12 And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and his son Jonathan and for the people of the LORD and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. 13 And David said to the young man who told him, “Where are you from?” And he answered,” I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite. “ 14 Then David said to him, “How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the LORD'S anointed?” 15 And David called one of the young men and said, “Go, cut him down.” So he struck him and he died. 16 And David said to him, “Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD'S anointed.'“

As I read this chapter in 2 Samuel, I am reminded of the old “good news, bad news” jokes. I’ll spare you any examples. I think the messenger is thinking in terms of “good news” and “bad news” when he reaches David. I believe he expected to come to David in this way:

“David, I’ve got some bad news, and I’ve got some good news. The bad news is that Israel has been defeated by the Philistines. Many men have been killed, and many more have fled from the battle, and even from their land and homes. The good news is that your enemy Saul is dead, and so is his heir, Jonathan. This means that you can now place this crown on your head and rule as king over Israel.”

For David, this is all bad news. He is grief-stricken over the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul. He is devastated by the death of his closest friend, Jonathan. Any thought of personal gain at the expense of others is cast aside.

As we read in the Book of Ecclesiastes, “there is a time to mourn” (Ecclesiastes 3:4b). David sets the pace in the mourning that occurs in response to the messenger’s words. His men promptly follow his lead. We can remember occasions when some of his men wanted to see Saul dead. Okay, so neither David nor they could kill Saul. Someone else has, and this might be seen as grounds for some kind of rejoicing but not while David is around! David tears his clothes, and so do the rest. They all mourn and weep and fast until evening. They mourn for the house of Israel, for king Saul, and Jonathan.

Now there is another matter which must be dealt with, a matter that can wait while David and his men express their grief over Israel’s defeat and the deaths of Saul, Jonathan, and many other Israelites. This messenger has confessed to putting Saul to death. This may not seem wrong to him, but it is an outrage to David. How many times has he refused to put Saul to death, even though he might have claimed self-defense? And yet this Amalekite had no reservations about finishing off Saul.

This Amalekite messenger has no idea of the situation into which he has gotten himself. I am reminded of my oldest daughter and a story she loved to tell as a little girl about a wide-mouthed frog. Mrs. Frog would go about asking other mothers what they fed their babies. She would ask one animal and then another. Finally, she came upon a snake, and she said to it, “Mrs. Snake, what do you feed your babies?” (It was here that my daughter Beth especially enjoyed the story, because she would open her mouth up very wide in an exaggerated expression.) Mrs. Snake responded, “I feed my babies wide-mouthed frogs.” Now, with lips pursed ever so tight, Beth went on to say for Mrs. Frog, “Oh, is that so?”

Mrs. Frog did not realize she was setting herself up for disaster, and neither does the Amalekite messenger. He speaks openly of being an Amalekite, without realizing what he is saying. He almost brags about killing Saul, with no sense of hesitation or impending danger. He also speaks lightly about the death of Jonathan, David’s dearest friend. This young man has put a noose around his own neck, and he never realizes it until it is too late.

The Amalekite messenger has said all that David needs to hear. He is already as good as dead. Nevertheless, David asks the young messenger where he comes from for the second time. I must admit being somewhat puzzled about why David asks virtually the same question twice. I may be starting to get the point. Often we ask someone the same question twice, not because we did not hear the answer, but because the answer catches us off guard and puzzles us. The first time David asks this young man, he answers that he has come from the camp of Saul (verse 3). Then, in his report of what happened on Mt. Gilboa, he includes his statement to Saul that he is an Amalekite (verse 8). During his time of mourning, David may have been saying to himself, “Now just how is it than an Amalekite can be among those in the camp of an Israelite king, especially when the Amalekites are an enemy of Israel?⁵ The messenger may just be starting to get the drift of David’s question, and so he at least seeks to clarify his answer by indicating that he is the son of an alien, who is an Amalekite.

But his answer is too little and too late to do him any good. No matter what his explanation might be, he has “stretched out his hand to kill the Lord’s anointed,” and then boasted of it. He is without excuse, condemned by his own words. David orders him to be executed. The Bible Knowledge Commentary makes an insightful comment here:

It is ironic that Saul lost his kingdom because he failed to annihilate the Amalekites, and now one who said he was an Amalekite died because he claimed to have destroyed Saul.⁶

The issues are clear and simple to David, and not as the young man sees them. The young man sees Saul as David’s enemy, an obstacle to his rise to the throne. He sees the death of Saul as good news to David. He sees killing Saul as “putting him out of his misery,” like shooting a horse with a broken leg. David sees it much more simply: he killed the Lord’s anointed. It does not matter that Saul would have died anyway -- it does not matter that he made David’s life hell. It does not matter that Saul was suffering. It does not matter that Saul wanted to die, or that Saul had only moments of life left. It does not matter that the Philistines may soon be upon him. This man killed the Lord’s anointed. And now David has him put to death.

How the Mighty Have Fallen
(1:17-27)

17 Then David chanted with this lament over Saul and Jonathan his son, 18 and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.

19 “Your beauty, O Israel, is slain on your high places! How have the mighty fallen! 20 “Tell it not in Gath, Proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon; Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult. 21 “O mountains of Gilboa, Let not dew or rain be on you, nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil. 22 “From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, The bow of Jonathan did not turn back, And the sword of Saul did not return empty. 23 “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, And in their death they were not parted; They were swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions. 24 “O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed you luxuriously in scarlet, Who put ornaments of gold on your apparel. 25 “How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. 26 “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women. 27 “How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war perished!”

Let’s face it, it is hard to know what to say or not to say at a funeral, especially if you are the preacher conducting the service. I have heard a lot of lies told at funerals, many of them by preachers. I have heard lies told about God (e.g., “This wasn’t God’s fault. He had no knowledge or control over what has happened.”), and lies told about the one who died. Usually, these lies about the departed tend to exaggerate the good things and deny the bad. I remember hearing the story of a preacher who was very honest at the funeral of a man who was a scoundrel. In the middle of the funeral service, the preacher looked straight at the widow of the man who had died and said something like, “Millie, you know Ralph was a worthless man. Now when you marry again, let’s pick a better man than this.” That’s honesty.

Even though I have conducted many funerals (and some of them were difficult), I think one the toughest funerals ever would be Saul’s. For example, what if you acted in accordance with the saying, “If you don’t have anything good to say about someone, don’t say anything.” What would you do, have 45 minutes of silence for Saul? In our text, it is David who conducts Saul’s funeral, or at least its counterpart. It is certainly not what I would have expected. I think it is safe to say that it is not what his young Amalekite messenger expected either. Since there is not sufficient time or space to carefully expound David’s eulogy (or dirge), let us focus on some overall characteristics.

This eulogy, or dirge, is a psalm of David, a special labor of his love. My father is a retired school teacher and has written poems for years. He has written them for friends who were retiring. He has written them for each of his children on their birthdays. Until there were too many grandchildren, he would write a poem for each of them on their birthday. I know what the Hallmark people say about their cards, but a poem from my father means a lot more than a Hallmark card. It is a labor of love. We know that he has taken the time to think about the one for whom he is composing the poem. We know that it is his way of telling us how much he loves us. That is what David’s eulogy is saying as well. He is expressing his love for Saul and Jonathan, in the finest manner available.

David’s eulogy is a psalm that mourns the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. David mourns over the defeat of Israel and the death of many Israelites, but this is not the focus of his psalm. His psalm expresses David’s sorrow over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The Amalekite messenger thinks the news of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan will be good news to David. He is wrong. This psalm tells us that David feels a deep sense of loss and sorrow because of their deaths. David genuinely grieves over the news he receives.

David’s eulogy says nothing negative about Saul. When David mourns the death of Saul, there is not even a hint of the mention of any of the evil or unkind things Saul did against David or others. How easy it would have been to include some of these details, to have indicated some kind of divine vindication, but David does not do so.

David’s psalm honors both Saul and Jonathan as fallen heroes. David not only restrains himself from speaking ill of the dead, he honors Saul and Jonathan as war heroes, as men worthy of respect and honor.

David’s psalm begins by focusing upon Saul and ends with the focus on Jonathan. While David has good things to say about his king, it is evident in this psalm that David has a deep love and commitment to Jonathan.⁷ What may have been somewhat private while Jonathan was alive, David now makes public. Here is something the Amalekite totally missed. He seemed to think that Jonathan was David’s enemy, not his closest friend.

David’s psalm appears to be an expression and consequence of the covenant between David and Jonathan. We have seen the covenant made between these two men (1 Samuel 18), implemented (chapter 19:1-7), and then extended and reaffirmed (chapters 20 and 23). By his eulogy, David is already blessing Jonathan and his descendants as he eulogizes him as a hero, whose memory is to be honored.

David’s psalm has been written for a much wider audience than David and his 600 men. The psalm is written and recorded in the “Book of Jashar.” We see this “book” referred to in Joshua:

12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel (Joshua 10:12-14).

In this text in Joshua, we read of the victory God gives Israel over the Amorites, assisted by causing the sun to stand still. This incident is so awesome and monumental it is recorded for later generations to read and to be amazed. Not only does David wish to honor Saul and Jonathan, he wants all of the “sons of Judah to join him” (2 Samuel 1:18), and thus instructs that this song be taught to them. I understand this to mean that not only this generation, but the generations to come are to learn this song and thus to honor Saul and Jonathan.

I am not sure we can grasp the significance of what David does here. Those who rise to the top position of power in a nation normally take all kinds of precautions to prevent any rival from overturning their administration and taking their place of power. This often means the execution of the entire family of the dynasty being ousted from power. It can mean rewriting history, so that this family is disgraced and despised. David does just the opposite. He honors Saul and Jonathan and assures that future generations will look upon these men as national heroes. He honors Saul and Jonathan among the “sons of Judah.” The “sons of Judah” are not Saul’s relatives;⁸ they are the kinsmen of David, the very group he would look to for support as their king. Indeed David does a most remarkable thing in the writing and preservation of this eulogy.

Conclusion

David’s response to the death of Saul is remarkable, but is it sincere? Is David simply gilding the lily here? Is he sweeping all of the evils Saul has committed under the rug? Is this hypocrisy on David’s part? I think we must conclude that David is completely sincere. There is no hypocrisy to be found in what David says or does here. I believe everything David says is true.

This leads to a very important principle which is frequently violated today: Being honest and truthful does not require telling everything that could be told, or everything we know to be true. David is honest and truthful, and godly, while not telling everything he knows to be true of Saul. One principle of pop psychology holds that we should “get it all out,” that every frustration should be vented, every grievance aired, every thought expressed. The Bible simply does not teach this. The Book of Proverbs, in particular, teaches that the wise man carefully chooses what he will say, and how and when he will say it. Some things ought not to be said at all. The New Testament contains a very important guiding principle which should govern what we say or do not say: “We should speak only that which edifies (builds up or benefits) the hearer(s)” (see 1 Corinthians 14:4-5, 17, 26). Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians teaches that the church is edified by our silence as well as by our speech. It is not a sin to refrain from saying what would prove to be unprofitable, even if it is true. David does not say anything about Saul that is untrue. He says only what is true. He tells no lies. Yet he does not tell all. That is the way it should be.

I should go on to say that in those instances in which Saul did sin, and in which David had to speak to Saul, he confronted him with this sin (see 1 Samuel 24 and 26). There is a time to speak to the sinner about his sin. But Saul is dead. David cannot benefit Saul by drawing attention to his sins. In speaking “ill of the dead,” David would only bring hurt and harm upon Saul’s descendants, whom he promised to bless.

We see then that David is right and righteous in not speaking of Saul’s sins at this time. People knew well enough about Saul and his sins. David wants Saul to be remembered and honored for the positive contribution he made to the Israelites over whom he reigned. But this raises an important question: “How does David do it? How does David manage to speak so well of Saul, after all the suffering he caused David to endure?”

There are several answers to this question. First, David trusts in the God whom he serves. David knows that his God is a mighty God. His God is in control of all things. Therefore, his God allowed Saul to pursue and persecute him. David trusts that God has allowed his suffering at the hand of Saul in order to instruct him in the way of righteousness. Saul is used of God to help prepare David for the leadership role he will soon to assume. His suffering was not in vain, and thus he need not feel badly toward Saul. As Joseph was able to be grateful for the hand of God in his life through his suffering (see Genesis 50:20), so David is able to do likewise.

Second, David seems to have already dealt with Saul’s sins against him by forgiving him. This is what seems to have freed Joseph to deal kindly with his brothers, in spite of their wicked actions toward him. I believe David has forgiven Saul, and thus he has no bitterness to suppress or to vent. It is a sad thing to harbor bitterness, because once a person is dead, it is a little bit late to forgive them.⁹ David does not have to dredge up the past because he keeps short accounts.

Third, from what I read I am forced to conclude that David thinks more highly of Saul than I do. I must confess that I do not like Saul very much. I want to think badly of him, and thus I am inclined to think the worst of him, rather than the best. I believe our author sides with David in thinking more highly of Saul than I may. This seems especially evident in his summation of Saul’s reign in chapter 14:

47 Now when Saul had taken the kingdom over Israel, he fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, the sons of Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah, and the Philistines; and wherever he turned, he inflicted punishment. 48 And he acted valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hands of those who plundered them (1 Samuel 14:47-48).

These verses seem almost out of place. They are a kind of eulogy or benediction, placed before Saul’s irrecoverable error in chapter 15, and also before the account of his death in chapter 31. I think the author is indicating to us that it is over for Saul, long before his life ends. But wherever in the text the evaluation of his reign might be placed, I must concede that Saul is spoken of much more positively than I would expect. I believe the author of 1 Samuel gives us this relatively positive assessment because we need to keep this in mind as we focus on a very narrow slice of Saul’s life in this book. The author chooses to focus on Saul’s failures to teach the reader some very important lessons. I believe the way Saul failed is the same way Israel failed. To press this a step further, the way Saul failed is also the way we fail today. The focus of 1 Samuel then is on Saul’s failures, those that brought about the end of his reign. In spite of these failures, Saul did many good things. In his eulogy, David dwells on these good things.

Fourth, David illustrates his obedience to a very important command, expressed clearly in Paul’s letter to the Philippians:

8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things (Philippians 4:8).

Truth is but the first test of what should occupy our hearts and minds and proceed from our mouths. This is the baseline test, but there are many other standards as well, as we see in this text. David has written a psalm to help Israelites of his day and of later generations to remember and honor Saul and Jonathan. If they remember Saul the way David portrays him in the last part of our text, they will most certainly “let their minds dwell on what is honorable, right, pure, lovely, and of good repute.” David will not have us dwell on Saul’s sins. Neither are we to overlook Saul’s sins. The author of 1 Samuel recorded them for us to learn from them.

These days there is a whole lot of emphasis on the wrongs which others, especially our parents, have committed against us. We think we have to dredge them all up, understand them fully, and then dwell upon them. I think David would differ with us on this point. If we have not forgiven our parents for the wrongs they have done against us, then we should do so, and then forget them. If we have not confronted sins that they still practice, we may need to confront them in a biblical manner. But there is no virtue in brooding over past wrongs against us. These are not things which should occupy our minds.

Fifth, David thinks of Saul in terms of his office and honors him in this light. We see this matter of honor mentioned in Philippians 4:8: “. . . whatever is honorable. . . .” But this principle is taught in a number of other contexts as well:

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you” (Exodus 20:12; see Matthew 15:4, etc.).

Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor (Romans 13:7).

Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king (1 Peter 2:17).

In these verses, God calls upon us to “honor” others due to their position. In most cases, this honor is clearly to those in a position of authority over us (parents, kings). As Christians, we should honor all men, not only because God created them, but because we are to put their interests above our own (Philippians 2:1-8). David provides us with an excellent example of how we are to honor others.

We should also recognize that honoring the king of Israel had special significance. The king held a very special position of honor. He was referred to as God’s “son” in this capacity (see 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7-9). In this sense, the Lord Jesus Christ was God’s “Son,” partly because He was God’s appointed King.¹⁰ The king was “God’s anointed.” This expression is first employed in 1 Samuel and is used in reference to Saul and then David. It also refers to future kings, especially the Messiah. The Hebrew word rendered “anointed” is the term transliterated “Messiah” in the English language. David honors Saul as “God’s anointed,” and in so doing, honors the “Anointed One” who was to come. As the Old Testament revelation progresses, this becomes more and more clear.

In his eulogy, David speaks of Saul as Israel’s beauty. This same word, translated “beauty” in our text, is employed in Isaiah to refer to Israel’s coming Messiah, who is Israel’s beauty and glory:

In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the survivors of Israel (Isaiah 4:2).

In that day the LORD of hosts will become a beautiful crown And a glorious diadem to the remnant of His people (Isaiah 28:5).

As David honors Saul as Israel’s beauty, he does so in the hope and expectation of seeing Israel’s perfect king, Messiah.

As we close, there is yet another lesson in our text which I dare not neglect to point out to you. It is a word of warning to any who may be trusting in his or her own righteousness for eternal salvation, who expects that God will surely welcome you with open arms though you have rejected His provision for salvation in the person of Jesus Christ.

The young Amalekite takes Saul’s life thinking he is doing Saul, David, and himself a favor. He supposes he is putting Saul out of his misery, that he is getting Saul out of David’s way, and that he is in the process of gaining David’s favor and gratitude, perhaps in the form of a reward. Instead of being rewarded, he kindles David’s wrath and is put to death. We are tempted to be more shocked that David had this young man killed than that the young man killed Saul. David was right to put this Amalekite to death, on more than one count. First, he could and should have killed him simply because he was an Amalekite (see 1 Samuel 15, 31). Second, he was obliged to execute him for killing God’s anointed. David was right to be angered by the Amalekite’s treatment of Saul, and he was right to put him to death.

Many people know that Jesus Christ claimed to be God incarnate, God’s Son. They know that He died on the cross of Calvary, and that He rose again from the dead. They know that He claimed to have died for their sins, and that He alone is the way to eternal life. In spite of all this, they reject Him as their Savior. They suppose there are other ways of salvation, in addition to the shed blood of Jesus Christ. They think that when they stand before God, He will accept them on the basis of their good deeds, or their faith in some other method of salvation. They expect God to receive them warmly into His kingdom and to reward them with eternal life. They are greatly deceived.

If David was right to be angry because a man had killed Saul, God’s anointed, how do you think God will deal with those who reject Jesus Christ, His anointed? If there was more than one way for God to save men from their sins, do you think He would have sent Jesus Christ to die an agonizing death on the cross of Calvary, as one option among others? Those who trust in any other way of salvation reject Jesus Christ as God’s anointed One. And those who reject Him as God’s anointed are as guilty of putting Him to death as those who stood before Pilate centuries ago, crying, “Crucify! Crucify!” How foolish to expect God’s approval and acceptance when one has rejected God’s only provision for salvation. As David dealt harshly with the Amalekite who slew Saul, so God will deal harshly with those who reject His Son, Jesus Christ. The way to receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life is to trust in God’s anointed One, Jesus Christ. He is God’s King, who will reign forever and ever. He is also the Lamb of God, who died for the sins of men. All who trust in Him will be saved. All who do not await God’s eternal wrath. If you have never acknowledged your sin and trusted in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ on your behalf, will you not do so today?

1 A number of scholars feel this young man is merely telling David a tale that he made up. I find this conclusion hard to accept, however. Our author tells us specifically that this young man “came out of the camp from Saul” (verse 2). Further, the young man’s description of Saul’s physical condition, of the closing pursuit of the Philistines, and of his request to be put to death (not to mention the fact that he has obtained Saul’s crown and bracelet), almost forces us to conclude that he was indeed there just as he said. Also, we must note that David takes his words at face value. David does not have this young man put to death for claiming to kill Saul, but for having done so. As David takes this man’s words at face value, so should we.

2 The NASB may overstate the matter by their use of the word “escaped,” but this is certainly what appears to have happened.

3 It is interesting to me that the messenger is never said to have mentioned Saul’s other sons, who were also killed at the same time (see 1 Samuel 31:2, 6). Is this because it was known to all that Jonathan was the heir apparent?

4 Some think this is inconsistent with the description of Saul’s death in chapter 31 of 1 Samuel. I do not. I believe that when Saul’s armor bearer hesitated (or refused) to kill his master, Saul fell on his own sword. The armor bearer did not stop to pronounce Saul dead, or even to wait for him to be completely dead. He knew Saul either was dead or would soon be. And so he quickly fell on his own sword, dying quickly and leaving Saul still alive. This is the point at which the young Amalekite seems to come on the scene.

5 The same question could have been asked of David, an Israelite who was in the camp of the Philistines. The four Philistine commanders did indeed ask it.

6 Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985, en loc.

7 While there should be no need to say so, I will say it again here. The “love” relationship between David and Jonathan was not a sexual one in any way. In fact, David makes it clear that his relationship with Jonathan was a higher and greater one than this (see verse 26).

8 Saul and Jonathan are from the tribe of Benjamin, not Judah. This is why the Messiah could not come through Saul.

9 I am not saying we should not forgive those who have hurt us, even after they have died; I am saying that it should have been done sooner -- better late than never.

10 This is not to deny or ignore the fact that He was God incarnate, the begotten One of God.

Introduction

The longest and most difficult delay of my life was waiting to drive . . . legally. My problem was that I started driving when I was about 12. Now before any of you that age get too excited, I must tell you that I grew up in the country where I could drive a great deal without ever getting on the highway. Even so, I could not enjoy the thrill of cruising down Shelton’s main streets, a town of about 6,000 people. I found waiting for this great moment in my life most difficult. When preachers spoke about the rapture and the “soon return of our Lord,” I was terrified -- not because I was a lost sinner -- but because I, as a believer, would be taken before I could legally drive.

I must confess I have not gotten a lot better about waiting. I am writing this sermon on a reasonably fast computer (though not as fast as I would like -- I can hardly wait to get a faster one). Because the main processor chip runs so fast, some of the other components cannot keep up; thus a certain number of so-called “wait states” are used. A “wait state” (in my limited grasp of the inner workings of the computer) is like having to “pass” in a card game when you have no card to play. When I buy ram (random access memory) for my computer, I will not accept 70 nanosecond memory; it must be 60 nanosecond memory. If not, it costs me a “wait state,” meaning a delay of a very small portion of a second.

Having admitted to you that I do not like to wait, I may now remind each of you that you don't like waiting either. Why do we have so many “fast food” chains? Why are microwave dinners so popular? It is all because we don't like to wait. Several years ago, someone had the bright idea of how congestion on North Central Expressway could be improved. They installed a computer system to monitor traffic flow, and then metered the entrances to the expressway. At the beginning of the entrance ramp was a little traffic light, which would turn green when you were allowed to enter the road. This had nothing to do with whether there was room to get on the expressway, only that the computer now thought the expressway could handle you. Those lights are not there today. There may be other reasons, like road construction, but I believe one reason was that people simply refused to wait. If the way was clear and the light was red, people entered the expressway anyway. How foolish to wait! We must all confess that we are not a nation of waiters.

As I study the life of David, I find he spent a great deal of his time waiting. David had to wait something like 15 years from the time he was first anointed by Samuel to the time he became king over Judah (as recorded in our text). It was another seven years before David was anointed king over all Israel. This means David waited over 20 years of his life to be made king. How David handled this more than two decade delay is the subject of this message. David's life during the days we have been studying can teach us a great deal about “waiting on the Lord.”

Our first two messages on this text focused on two prominent leaders: (1) Abner, cousin of Saul and commander of the armies of Saul, of his son Ish-bosheth, and thus of Israel; and (2) Joab, nephew of David, brother of Abishai and Asahel, and eventually commander of David's army, the army of Judah. This message will focus upon David, upon the lengthy, often twisting, path to becoming king of all Israel, and upon his character and conduct as he awaited his time to rule as king of all Israel. Our previous lesson covered chapters 2 and 3 of 2 Samuel. This message covers these same chapters once again, but now with a focus on David. I have added one more chapter -- chapter 4 -- plus the first 5 verses of chapter 5, for it is in these additional chapters that David actually becomes king of all Israel.

From the Sheepfolds of Bethlehem to the City of Hebron:
A Brief Review of 1 Samuel 15:1--2 Samuel 1:27

God is finished with Saul. He has disobeyed for the last time. His kingdom is doomed. And so Samuel is dispatched by God to Bethlehem to anoint Saul's replacement. When Samuel arrives, David is not even present, because no one ever dreamed David was a contender for king. He was doing what young lads his age do -- tending a small flock of his father's sheep (1 Samuel 16:11; 17:28). When Samuel has David summoned and then anoints him, David must wonder how long it will be before he becomes king. The answer is that it is much longer than he imagines, and much more difficult, too.

We are still in 1 Samuel 16 when we read of David's selection as Saul's private musician and armor bearer (16:14-23). There he is in the king's palace. Surely he can't be far from ruling over Israel now. David is still too young to go to the front lines and fight Philistines, it seems, and so he continues to tend his father's sheep, as well as comfort Saul with his music. When the Philistines attack Israel, Goliath, their champion, dares any to fight him. He promises that the winner of this one-on-one contest will take all. So it is that David comes to stand up to Goliath and to kill him. This makes David an instant national hero. The people love David, and so does the king (16:21; 19:5). If it is David's music that calms Saul’s troubled spirit, it is other music, about David, which pushes Saul over the edge. After David's victory over Goliath, the women begin to sing this song:

“Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7).

At first Saul keeps his jealous rage to himself. He seeks to bring about David's death in a way that will make it look like an accident. He throws his spear at David, but people probably write this off to “temporary insanity.” Then Saul seeks to be rid of David by having him killed in battle.¹⁹ He appoints him commander of a thousand (18:13), thinking that the same zeal which prompts David to take on Goliath will cause him to engage in a military effort that is “over his head,” thus getting him (not to mention his men) killed. Everything Saul does to destroy David serves to elevate him in power and in popularity. Saul also offers David one of his daughters for a mere 100 Philistine foreskins. Instead of getting himself killed, David kills 200 Philistines, gains a wife who loves him (more than her father), and further admiration and respect from all but Saul.

Then Saul's jealousy becomes public. He gives orders to Jonathan and all his servants that David is to be put to death (19:1). Jonathan appeals to Saul and receives a short-term reprieve for David (19:2-7), but when another conflict with the Philistines arises and David once again finds great success in battle, Saul attempts to pin David to the wall with his spear (19:8-10). Then Saul sends men to arrest David in his own home, but his efforts are foiled, largely by his own daughter (19:11-17). From this point on, David keeps his distance from Saul, turning first to Samuel (19:18-24), and then to Jonathan (20:1-42).

It becomes evident to David that he must no longer attempt to get along with Saul, living and working beside him. He must flee and become a fugitive, until God brings about some remedy. And so David flees first to Nob, where he is given assistance by Ahimelech the priest (21:1-9). This act of kindness costs Ahimelech his life, along with the other priests and their families at Nob (22:6-19). David flees next to Gath, and then to the cave of Adullam, where family, friends, and other people out of favor with Saul join with him (22:1-5). David has a number of close calls, but God always delivers him from the hand of Saul. During these times, David twice puts himself at risk by attempting to reconcile with Saul. In spite of momentary repentance, Saul persists in pursuing David as an enemy. While Saul makes promises to David on these occasions that he does not keep, David makes a commitment to Saul that he will keep:

16 When David had finished speaking these words to Saul, Saul said, “Is this your voice, my son David?” Then Saul lifted up his voice and wept. 17 He said to David, “You are more righteous than I; for you have dealt well with me, while I have dealt wickedly with you. 18 “You have declared today that you have done good to me, that the LORD delivered me into your hand and yet you did not kill me. 19 “For if a man finds his enemy, will he let him go away safely? May the LORD therefore reward you with good in return for what you have done to me this day. 20 “Now, behold, I know that you will surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel will be established in your hand. 21 “So now swear to me by the LORD that you will not cut off my descendants after me and that you will not destroy my name from my father's household.” 22 David swore to Saul. And Saul went to his home, but David and his men went up to the stronghold (1 Samuel 24:16-22).

One might think that while fleeing from Saul, David is unable to serve his people, but this is not the case. David delivers the people of Keilah from the Philistines (23:1-5). During the days David spends at Ziklag, he continually carries out raids against the enemies of Israel. And David shares a portion of the spoils with the people of the cities of Judah (27:1-12; 30:26-31). It is no wonder that the people of Judah are the first to receive David as their king.

While it appears David may end up fighting for the Philistines and against his own people, God takes him out of the picture at the last moment (29:1-11). David returns to Ziklag to discover the city has been sacked by a band of raiders, their wives and families kidnapped, and their goods plundered. This takes David on a mission to the south, where he defeats the Amalekites and recovers all that is lost. It puts David and his men far to the South, while the Philistines wage war with Saul and the army of Israel far to the North. It is in this battle that Israel is defeated, and Saul and three of his sons are killed (30:1--31:13).

David and his men have been back in Ziklag for two days when a young Amalekite arrives, breathless from his journey from the camp of Israel, where he manages to escape the Philistines. He tells David the sad news of the defeat of Israel and of the death of Saul and Jonathan. When David presses this young man for more details, he claims he was the one who “mercifully” put Saul out of his misery. He presents David with Saul's crown and bracelet, expecting David to be most grateful and generous. After David and his men mourn over the defeat and death of their countrymen, David has this young man executed for raising his hand against the Lord's anointed (2 Samuel 1:1-16). David then composes a psalm of mourning, which memorializes Saul and Jonathan as heroes. It is a song which all the sons of Judah are to be taught, and which they are to sing in honor of their king and his son Jonathan (1:17-27).

David's Response to the Events of 2 Samuel 2:1--5:5

And so it is that David has been designated as Saul's replacement -- Israel's next king -- approximately 15 years before the events in our text. David has risen from a lowly shepherd boy, tending a few sheep his father owns, to a beloved member of Saul's own household and family, a man of great courage and military prowess. This does not quickly bring about the demise of Saul or the appointment of David as his replacement. David falls from Saul's favor, due only to his trust in God, his loyalty to his king, and his successes. David ceases to be the “rising star” in Israel with whom all are eager to be associated, and he becomes a fugitive with whom most Israelites are now afraid to associate lest they too incur Saul's wrath. David has gone through many different experiences, all of which will make him a better king for having endured them. He is now much better prepared to reign as Israel's king. But God is not yet ready to make him king. David is here a lot like Jacob, who rejoiced in obtaining his wife after laboring for Laban, only to learn that he still had seven years to serve before he could have all for which he had hoped. Even after David is anointed as king of Judah, he must wait a full seven years to be anointed king of all Israel. Let us consider the events leading to the fulfillment of Samuel's prophetic anointing, years earlier, and see how David has learned to “wait on the Lord.”

After nearly 15 years of waiting, most spent fleeing from Saul, David learns of Saul's death and the death of three of his sons. After mourning their deaths, David inquires of the Lord, seeking to learn what he should do in response to Saul's death. God indicates that David and his men should return to the city of Hebron in the land of Judah. It is there that the men of Judah anoint David king of Judah (2 Samuel 2:1-4a).

David's first recorded act as king of Judah is described in 2:4b-7. David may be seeking more information about Saul's battle with the Philistines and his death. One way or the other, it is reported to David that the men of Jabesh-gilead have acted courageously in retrieving the body of Saul and giving him a proper burial. David responds as a king should do. He responds by executing the Amalekite who, by his own admission, raised his hand against God's anointed. Now David responds by commending the men of Jabesh-gilead for honoring Saul, at great risk to themselves. Like the granting of a presidential medal of valor, the righteous deeds of noble men are rewarded.

I must also point out that David does include in his message to the men of Jabesh-gilead the fact that he has been anointed king over Judah by the people of Judah (2:7). This may well be an indirect way of indicating his availability to be anointed as king over Israel also. I doubt this thought is offensive to the people of Jabesh-gilead, or anyone else in Israel (except Abner -- see 3:17-19). But David is not about to try to make this happen, and indeed it does not.

The reason David is not anointed king of all Israel is Abner, the cousin of Saul, and commander of the armed forces of Israel (2:8-11). Abner's actions can hardly be justified. He knows God has designated David as the next king of Israel, and so do the people (3:8-10, 17-19). Abner is either attempting to avoid or to delay David's reign in the place of Saul (and his descendants). Abner installs Ish-bosheth as Saul's replacement. Few would argue the point with Abner, a man who is personally intimidating, not to mention that he has the armed forces under his authority. Who would dare oppose Abner or Ish-bosheth?

David does not oppose either of these men, not because he is afraid of them nor because he cannot do so. He does not oppose them because he will not, out of principle. Ish-bosheth is a descendant of Saul. David seems to embrace the principle laid down centuries later by the apostle Paul:

1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves (Romans 13:1-2).

One would be hard pressed to say Ish-bosheth has been installed as king over Israel by popular demand, or out of the godly motives and intentions of Abner. Abner seems to be seeking his own interests in appointing Ish-bosheth king. Nevertheless, David grants the fact that he is, indeed, king, and thus that it is God who ultimately put him in this position of power and authority. He will not resist the king, even to become king in his place. Furthermore, David made a promise to Saul, a promise not to cut off his descendants, and not to destroy his name from his father's household. David will not remove Ish-bosheth because he cannot do so and keep his word to Saul. Here is a man of principle, a man who will wait seven more years just to keep his word, just to wait on the Lord.

David is plainly absent in 2:12--3:11. His name may be mentioned, but he is not one of the central characters. The central characters are Abner, commander of Israel's armies, and Joab, one of David's men and one of the commanders of Judah's military force. These two men agree upon the “contest,” which not only gets the 24 contestants killed, but brings about open war between the people of Judah and the people of Israel. All appearances are that it is a senseless contest, a projection of the ego-centered competition of Abner and Joab. This war drags on, undermining the unity of Israel, causing needless suffering and death, and leading to the murder of Abner by Joab.

In many ways, it is a rather sordid story. The two sides met for a contest, and blood was shed, leading to all out war. In this fighting, Asahel, brother of Abishai and Joab, is hot on the heels of Abner. Abner does not wish to kill Asahel, but knows this young man is not about to give up the chase. Finally, after failing to talk Asahel out of his pursuit, Abner kills him. It is not murder, because it is an action which takes place during war. It is almost an act of self-defense, but Joab will never accept this. He is intent upon revenge.

The problem is that David and Abner ended the war. Abner has been getting more and more bold. He always was the real power behind the scenes, but he eventually casts aside all pretenses by taking Saul's concubine for himself. This act is symbolic, virtually announcing that he is taking over Saul's place (see 1 Kings 2:13-25; compare Genesis 35:22; 49:3-4). Ish-bosheth finds this action too much to handle, and so he works up the courage to confront Abner. When Abner is rebuked by Ish-bosheth, he blows up. He scolds Ish-bosheth for ingratitude and reminds him who is really in charge. He chooses this opportunity to change sides. The house of David is steadily prevailing over the house of Saul (3:1); in Abner's mind, it is time to switch to the winning side. He tells Ish-bosheth he is now going to throw his support to David, thus making him king. Abner, the king-maker, has made Ish-bosheth king; now he will make David king. Ish-bosheth is duly impressed and frightened. It is the last protest he will ever register with Abner (3:6-11).

Abner then approaches David with the offer to make him king. He claims to be “in charge,” that the land is really his. If David will but make a covenant with Abner, Abner will handle the rest. He promises to bring all Israel over to David. It seems that if he had lived, he would have done as he promised. Before his death, Abner meets with the leaders of both sides. There is an agreement in principle. All that has to be done is finalize it.

Abner's “untimely” death brings things to a screeching halt. What Abner promised David he would do, and what it looks like he almost finished doing, is suddenly interrupted by his own death. Abner comes to David with a delegation of men. The deal has been made. A truce has been declared, and the war between Israel and Judah is formally ended. Twice in our text we are told that Abner left “in peace” (3:22, 23). I understand this to mean that the war has ended. This means that Joab cannot kill Abner legally; to kill Abner now would be murder, because it is not in a time of war (see 1 Kings 2:5).

While David had been “making peace” with Abner, Joab has been out “making war.” He has conducted a very successful raid. We are not told who this raid is against, but it is certainly possible that Joab's raid is against Israelites. When Joab returns from this raid, he is told that Abner has been there, meeting with David, and that he has been sent away in peace. Joab is furious. How can David be so foolish to be taken in by Abner? Does he not know that this is a ploy? David does not give in to Joab, and when Joab leaves David, he secretly sends to have Abner brought back to him. Deceitfully, Joab manages to get Abner to a place where he can kill him, and this he does.

When David learns of the murder of Abner by Joab, he acts quickly and decisively. He publicly renounces the actions of Joab as reprehensible. There is no excuse for what he did. David condemns the murder and calls down divine judgment on Joab and his family (3:28-29). David then mourns the death of Abner, seeing to it that his burial is honorable, even if his death was not (he died the death of a fool). David not only walks behind the bier, weeping loudly and chanting a lament for Abner, he refuses to eat all day long. It is obvious to all that David has no part in the death of Abner. Everybody knows it and likes it (3:31-39). David's standing with the people continues to increase.

I am inclined to think God providentially removes Abner so that David will not become king thanks to Abner, the king-maker, but rather thanks to the King-Maker. Abner's reasons for switching his allegiance from Ish-bosheth to David are questionable. In some ways, Abner's approach to David seems similar to Satan's approach to our Lord in His temptation (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-12). Like Satan, Abner claims that the kingdom he offers is really his (compare 2 Samuel 3:12; Luke 4:5-7). Abner wants David to enter into a covenant with him (2 Samuel 3:12), but when David does become king of all Israel, he enters into a covenant with them (the people) “before the Lord” (2 Samuel 5:3). Somehow, I see Abner's offer as a shortcut, an easier path to what God wants to give David another way. If so, Abner's death and the resulting delay in David becoming king make sense.

When David initially accepts Abner's offer of the kingdom, he agrees, but with one condition. That condition is that he be given back his wife, Michal (2 Samuel 3:13-15). Merab is first offered to David, but David does not accept this offer. He does, however, accept Saul's offer with regard to Michal. This woman was given to David, and this marriage was certainly consummated. Nevertheless, after David fell out of favor with the king and fled for his life, Saul took Michal and gave her to a man named Laish for a wife (see 1 Samuel 25:44).

Why is David so insistent about the return of his wife? First and foremost, I believe it is because she is his wife. David does not take Michal with him when he flees from Saul, but he has married her and lived with her as his wife. The fact that Saul has given her to someone else does not make her less than David's wife. David believes in the permanence of marriage. She is still his wife, and he wants her back. Secondly, David insists that Ish-bosheth give Michal back to him. His father, King Saul, has taken Michal away from David; let the one who rules in Saul's place right this wrong. Thirdly, as the “contest” between Abner's 12 men and Joab's 12 set a war in motion, so the reuniting of David and Michal will symbolically join the house of David with the house of Saul. David wants Michal back because she is still his wife and he loves her, but also because it is what is best for his own people.

With the death of Abner at the hand of Joab, Ish-bosheth loses all his courage. He is hardly able to stand up to Abner, let alone even think about standing up against David. Now Ish-bosheth is on his own, knowing that Abner has already set up David to rule in his place. As our author informs us, Ish-bosheth is “scared spitless” (as we say), and Israel is troubled. What will happen now?

Two men think they are the solution. These men are fellow members of the tribe of Benjamin and commanders of divisions of Israelite soldiers (4:2). Their names are Baanah and Rechab, both sons of Rimmon. To put the matter bluntly, Ish-bosheth is a lame duck. He cannot really rule on his own because Abner provides the brains and the brawn (soldiers) of this puppet-king's administration. But there he is, a token king who is a weak man, ruling an ever-weakening nation. David is destined to be the king of all Israel, and everyone knows it, but no one knows how to turn this situation around to make it happen. And so these trusted leaders come to the king's house in the middle of the day, pretending to get wheat. The king is taking his midday nap when the two enter his bedroom and kill him in his sleep. They then cut off his head and travel all night to reach David at Hebron. They proudly present the head of Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, “David's enemy.”

They do not understand at all. They do not understand David's submission to God and his refusal to raise his hand against God's anointed (or even one who has in some less noble way been made king). They do not understand David's love for Saul, or his commitment to protect the lives of his offspring and the honor of his name (1 Samuel 24:16-22). They do not learn from David's previous actions that David is not so eager to gain the throne that he will wink at the wickedness of those who seek to kill God's anointed.

9 David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, “As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life from all distress, 10 when one told me, saying, 'Behold, Saul is dead,' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and killed him in Ziklag, which was the reward I gave him for his news. 11 “How much more, when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood from your hand and destroy you from the earth?” 12 Then David commanded the young men, and they killed them and cut off their hands and feet and hung them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-bosheth and buried it in the grave of Abner in Hebron (2 Samuel 4:9-12).

Once again, David is no opportunist who will stoop to any means to gain the throne God has promised him. Neither will David look the other way when others do evil to facilitate his ascent to the throne. David is a man who understands what being God's king is all about:

A divine decision is in the lips of the king; His mouth should not err in judgment (Proverbs 16:10).

A king who sits on the throne of justice Disperses all evil with his eyes (Proverbs 20:8).

A wise king winnows the wicked, And drives the threshing wheel over them (Proverbs 20:26).

Take away the wicked before the king, And his throne will be established in righteousness (Proverbs 25:5).

In the first five verses of 2 Samuel 5, David is anointed king of all Israel, at last, at long last! It started many years before, when David must have been in his teens.²⁰ Much to the surprise of David and his family, he is anointed as the next king of Israel. It is around 15 years before David is anointed king of Judah, and another seven before he is king of all Israel. But now, at long last, David is king. In the final portion of this message, I would like to take a step back from all the details and look at the big picture given to us by the author in 1 Samuel 16 through 2 Samuel 5.

Lessons to be Learned from David's Delayed Kingdom

(1) We should begin by observing that the promise God made to Israel and to David (implied when David was anointed by Samuel) took a long time being fulfilled. David becomes king of Israel after a considerable delay, and with a great deal of adversity. That is what 1 Samuel 16:1--2 Samuel 5:5 is all about. This period of David's life can be summed up by two words: “time” and “trouble.”

(2) The delay in David becoming Israel's king is not unusual, but it is typical of the way God brings about His promises and purposes. Stated concisely, God is not in a hurry. God has all the time in the world. In fact, God is bigger than time and certainly not limited by time. Throughout the Bible I find God promising things men must wait to receive:

• God promised Abram and Sarai a child, but they had to wait 25 years to get him.
• God promised Noah there would be a flood, but it was a long time coming.
• God made Jacob wait 14 years to get the wife he wanted.²¹
• Joseph had to wait a considerable time to see his father and family, and he did not get back home until after his death (they carried his bones back to the promised land).
• The Israelites had to wait 430 years in Egypt, before returning to the promised land.
• The writer to the Hebrews tells us that all the Old Testament saints had to wait for us (Gentiles?) before they could see the promised kingdom (Hebrews 11:39-40).
• For 2,000 years, saints have been waiting for the Lord's return and the coming of His Kingdom.

Waiting is a part of the divine design of things. Waiting is no accident, it is purposed.

(3) It is in times of waiting for God that many have failed in their faith and obedience. Waiting is a form of adversity, a test of our faith and endurance.

13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16).

For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God (1 Peter 2:20).

Many of the failures we see in the Bible are failures related to waiting. I am inclined to believe this began at the very beginning, with Adam and Eve. The more I consider the story of the fall, the more I lean toward an interpretation that sees the temptation and the sin as that of taking a shortcut to a good thing. The knowledge of good and evil is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. If Adam and Eve would become “like God” in knowing good and evil, then how can knowing good and evil be bad? Is being like God bad? Is this not what God is doing in us now, conforming us to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29)? Will we not be “like Him,” when we “see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2)? David is commended for “knowing good and evil” (2 Samuel 14:17). Solomon prays for wisdom to discern between “good and evil” (1 Kings 3:9). Christians, by their obedience to God's Word, “have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14). I believe, therefore, that God wanted Adam and Eve to know good and evil, but not by the quick and easy way of stealing a piece of forbidden fruit. It was not wrong to know good and evil, but it was wrong to know it in a way God had forbidden. I believe God had a better, slower, way, but they chose the shortcut. They refused to wait on the Lord for such knowledge.

Abraham and Sarah had to wait for the promised son, and at least one of their failures was in the area of patience, of waiting on God to fulfill His promise. Is this not why Abram spoke of Eliezer of Damascus as his heir (Genesis 15:2)? Is this not why Abram gave in to Sarai's suggestion that they have the promised seed through Hagar, her handmaid (Genesis 16:1-2)?

The Israelites sinned in the making of the golden calf, as described in Exodus 32. Was their failure not a failure to wait 40 days for Moses to return from the top of Mt. Sinai? Was Saul's sin in 1 Samuel 13 not his failure to wait for Samuel to arrive? Were the disciples not constantly asking when the kingdom would come and trying to hurry up the plan? Did the 11 apostles and others not fail to wait when they went ahead to appoint Matthias as the replacement for Judas, when Jesus had instructed them to wait for “what the Father promised” (Acts 1:4)?

The church at Corinth had many problems. One of their problems was in the area of waiting. They could not wait for God to bring justice, and so they took one another to court (1 Corinthians 6). They could not wait for their brethren to arrive, so they went ahead with the meal, overindulging themselves with food and drink, and turning the Lord's Supper into a sham (1 Corinthians 11). They could not wait for the fulfillment of God's promises regarding full spirituality, and so they embraced teachers and teachings of triumphalism -- you can have it all now, not later.

No wonder our Lord devoted considerable time and attention to teaching His disciples how they should conduct themselves while they waited for His return:

40 “You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.” 41 Peter said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 “Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 44 “Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 “But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 “And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more (Luke 12:40-48).

(4) Satan often attacks by trying to capitalize on divine delays. Satan tries to put the unbeliever's mind at ease by pointing to divine delays as proof God either does not know, or does not care, when we sin:

1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. 3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:1-4).

Satan seeks to undermine the faith and obedience of God's children by deceiving us about God's goodness in divine delays. I believe he did this with Adam and Eve in the garden. I believe this is at the core of Satan's temptation of our Lord at the beginning of His earthly ministry. Satan was saying to our Lord, “Oh, sure. I know that you are God's King. But rather than deny yourself (by obeying God and being 40 days and nights without food), why not serve yourself? Why wait to eat? Why get to your kingdom through suffering? Why not worship me, and I will give you a kingdom now?” Isn't that the way Satan thinks and acts?

In times of waiting, Satan wants us to doubt that God's promises will ever be fulfilled. He seeks to get us to act independently of God to obtain these things on our own, rather than to wait for God to give them to us. He seeks to raise doubts about the goodness of God, as though He is withholding something good from us out of pettiness. He works at promoting distrust in God, and especially in His Word. He prompts us to disobey God and to follow our own judgment. He urges us to seize the moment, to use questionable means, to use others as means to our desired ends.

(5) Times of waiting on the Lord are designed to be those times when our faith is stretched and our intimacy with Him is enhanced. Have you ever noticed how many of the Psalms are written during times of waiting? The question, “How long. . .?” is found fairly frequently in the psalms, as is, “wait on the Lord.” David is often the author of such “waiting” psalms. Waiting on the Lord is good for us. It helps us to develop patience and endurance. It calls upon us to exercise faith in God's promises and to act on the basis of what God has said, rather than upon what we see. Waiting enhances our appetite for the good things God has in store for us. Waiting requires us to deny fleshly lusts and to set aside our desire for immediate gratification some easier way. Waiting is one of the ways that we “take up our cross and follow Him.”

(6) Waiting on the Lord is what sexual purity is all about. There is a lot of talk about “safe sex” today and very little about abstinence. This is because waiting for the pleasures of marital sex is taboo. Virginity is disdained as a curse, not a gift which one mate gives to the other. Waiting on God for the joys and pleasures of marital sex enhances the joy and pleasure of this gift, if and when God gives it. The point I wish to make here is that sexual purity is about waiting, and waiting is a good part of what the Christian life is about. Let us not look upon this matter as something God is cruelly withholding from us, but as a good gift, for which we are willing to wait upon the Lord so that we may enjoy it fully and without guilt.

(7) Some waiting is not pious. How often we are prone to wait when we should work and to work when we should wait. Waiting to do what we know to be right, what God has commanded us to do, is not pious; it is sin (James 4:17). Waiting to accept the offer of salvation and forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ is a most dangerous thing (Hebrews 3:12-15). The waiting which pleases God is when He has made a promise, which we cannot bring about ourselves apart from unbelief and disobedience to His Word.

(8) Waiting is not necessarily a time of passivity. Have you ever watched what people do while they are waiting? Some do absolutely nothing. But I notice that some people (not just men) may crochet or do needle work while they wait. There are constructive things to do while one waits. David waited over 20 years to reign over all Israel, but that was a very busy time in his life. David did much more than merely flee for his life. David delivered the people of Keilah (1 Samuel 23:1-5), and he did good to the people of Judah (1 Samuel 30:26-31). One of the things we can do while we wait is to praise God and to pray, as David and others did in the psalms. While we may not be able to do what we would most like to do, we can do what God has given us to do, while we wait on the Lord to fulfill His promises and purposes.

(9) Waiting is a significant part of each of our lives. When I was young, I could hardly wait to get to my 16^th birthday so I could drive a car, legally. I could not wait until I grew up and had all the privileges and liberties of an adult. When I was engaged, I could not wait until the day of our wedding. Every one of us is waiting for a number of things at this very moment. Let me mention just a few.

• Our youth are waiting to grow up and to enjoy the rights, privileges and responsibilities of adulthood. Teen-age rebellion and premarital sex are attempted short-cuts that often turn out to be a short circuit.
• Some couples are waiting for children. Most every parent has to wait at least nine months for a child, and a number of parents wait much longer.
• Many wait for recognition and rewards in their work, while others take short-cuts to get ahead.
• Almost every Christian has some form of pain or suffering, for which they await deliverance.
• All Christians have unsaved loved ones, relatives and friends, for whose salvation they wait.
• We all find ourselves waiting for God to change someone near, and perhaps dear, to us.
• All of us wait for the coming of our Lord and His kingdom.
• Strangely enough, a number of saints wait for death. There are those who will not wait for God's time, and choose suicide as the method for relieving pain. Others cannot bear to watch loved ones suffer, and choose euthanasia. We all know of circumstances where we wish the Lord would “take them” or “us,” but God calls on us to wait.

(10) Finally, be assured that God always makes it worth the wait. If you want to eat in a hurry, you can drive through McDonald's and buy a “Happy Meal.” But if you want a gourmet meal, you know you will have to wait a while. That is because great meals don't happen quickly, or easily, no matter what the TV commercials tell you. I have never once seen or heard of anyone putting food into a microwave oven because they thought that it would be tastier than something which comes out of the oven, or a crock pot. We make use of the microwave oven because we want to eat, fast. We use the oven when we want to eat well. God's plans and promises are not of the microwave variety. God slow cooks His plans and His people, to bring out the very best in them. You can almost always plan on the fact that God will make you wait for what is best. He is never late, but He is also seldom quick. But of this fact I can assure you: When God's plan is for you to wait, He will make it all worth the wait.

Let us learn from David that waiting is a part of the normal Christian life. We will be tempted to short-cut this waiting, but this would be sin. Others are often willing to help us with such short-cuts. But let us resolve in our hearts to be like David, and to wait upon the Lord to fulfill His purposes and promises in His good time. Let us be assured that while we wait, God is working in us to prepare us for the good things that lie ahead. Let us not doubt that we shall see them. And let us devote ourselves to doing the good we know to do and that we are able to do, while we wait.

19 One cannot help but wonder if David’s dealings with Uriah were not patterned after Saul’s attempts to kill him.

20 This occurs to me now, a little late, but perhaps better said late than never. I have wondered why Saul reneges on his first offer to give one of his daughters to the one who would fight Goliath. I attributed Saul’s not doing so to his character. Is it possible that the reason David is not given one of Saul’s daughters at that time is that he is thought too young to marry? Later on, Saul makes the offer specifically to David, and David is willing to accept the offer of Michal. Anyone big and strong enough to kill 200 Philistines (I take it they would not give up their foreskins voluntarily.) must be old enough to marry.

21 I remember from my seminary days that some scholars attempt to show that Jacob didn’t have to wait the full additional seven years to get Rachel. Our efforts to try to shorten Jacob’s time of waiting may only betray our problem in waiting, or watching others wait. On the face of it, Jacob had to wait an additional seven years before getting Rachel as his wife.

Introduction

One of my favorite movies is “Crocodile Dundee,” and one of my favorite scenes is when Dundee is in New York City walking down the street with his girl friend. Suddenly, from out of the shadows, a gang of thugs emerges. One of the hoodlums brandishes a knife and demands that Dundee hand over his possessions. Calmly, Dundee looks at the thugs before responding, “That's not a knife . . . this is a knife!” And he pulls out an incredibly large knife, which makes the would-be mugger’s switchblade look like a penknife as the thugs flee for their lives.

This scene reminds me of our text. David has just completed the construction of his palace. He looks out and sees the ark of the Lord, housed in a tent, and then begins to wonder. . . . A plan begins to formulate in his mind. Why not build a house for God, a temple? So David calls his friend and confidant, Nathan the prophet, and outlines his intentions. Nathan hastily consents, thinking that David's plans for such a “house” will be pleasing to God. But that night, Nathan is corrected by God, and he has to return to David with his revised prophetic evaluation. Through Nathan, God speaks to David. It is as though God were looking down at the blueprints which David had drawn up for God's “house.” God then looks at David and says, in effect, “David, that's not a house, . . . this is a house.” If David thinks he can build a house for God, he is wrong. It is God who plans to build a “house” for David. And what a house that will be. Let us listen carefully to the words of our text and learn what kind of a house God will build for David, and how it surpasses the temple-house David wants to build for God.

This is a very crucial text in the Old Testament. One can hardly over-estimate its importance not only for David, but for Israel and all mankind.

“Walter Brueggemann identifies this David and Nathan story as 'the dramatic and theological center of the entire Samuel corpus . . . one of the most crucial texts in the Old Testament for evangelical faith.'“²⁵

Our text contains what theologians have come to call the Davidic Covenant, one of the great covenants of the Bible. We shall seek to explore the meaning and significance of this covenant in this message.

David's Plan and a Prophetic Approval
(7:1-3)

1 Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the LORD had given him rest on every side from all his enemies, 2 that the king said to Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains.” 3 Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in your mind, for the LORD is with you.”

David has come a long way from his sheep-tending days as a young lad. It has just begun to dawn on David that God has established him as king over Israel (2 Samuel 5:12). The Philistines have twice sought to overthrow him, and twice David has defeated them. The enemies around Israel are, for the time being, at peace with David. With the help of Hiram, king of Tyre, David has completed his own palace, and he is now living in royal splendor. David now has the time to devote to other enterprises.

After a failed first effort, the ark of God has been successfully brought to Jerusalem, housed in a tent. David may have been looking out from the rooftop of his palace, his eyes fixed on the tabernacle-tent in which the ark was kept. Somehow it seems inappropriate for David to live in such splendor, while the ark of God is kept in such plain and seemingly provisional surroundings. The idea comes to him that he can build another house; this second house will be a temple in which the ark can be kept in far more fitting surroundings.

It is settled in David's mind. That is what he will do. And so David confides in Nathan the prophet, who seems also to be a friend and confidant of the king. How can such a generous gesture possibly be wrong? Why shouldn't God have a more fitting dwelling place? And so, without consulting God, Nathan gives David the go ahead. In effect, Nathan says to David, “Sounds good to me, and I'm sure it will be okay with God as well.” In biblical terms, Nathan says, “God, do all that is in your mind, for the LORD is with You” (verse 3).²⁶

A Vision and a Revision
(7:4-7)

4 But in the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying, 5 “Go and say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD, “Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? 6 “For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle. 7 “Wherever I have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?””

I remember years ago when I was a part of the administration of a small college. Actually, there were two schools. One was a college, and the other was a remedial educational program, designed to bring educationally handicapped young people up to a college level. I was not a part of the college program, but of the remedial program. When the college needed a teacher, I thought I had the perfect candidate. The problem was that the dean of the college had already made his decision. Unwisely, I spoke to the president of both schools, and he encouraged me to go to the dean with my idea. That was not a good thing to do. The dean's response to my suggestion caught me completely off guard. “Mr. Deffinbaugh,” he responded rather hotly, “who is running this school, you, or me?” Oops. I was in trouble. By the way, he was right. My idea was just that, and I was not the one running the school.

Nathan could surely identify with how I felt that day. In the middle of the night, God gives Nathan a direct revelation, which he is to convey to David. In a way, it put both Nathan and David in their place. Like me, David had a bright idea, but it did not correspond with God's plan. The question which God asks David sets the tone for what is to follow: “Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in?” Oops. I like the way Eugene Peterson puts it:

“But there are times when our grand human plans to do something for God are seen, after a night of prayer, to be a huge human distraction from what God is doing for us. That's what Nathan realized that night: God showed Nathan that David's building plans for God would interfere with God's building plans for David.”²⁷

Before we go any further, it is time for me to point out a couple of significant details. Note that in verses 1, 2, and 3 David is referred to as the king, but when God refers to David, He calls him My servant David (verse 5). I think it is safe to suggest that David is a little too conscious of his position as king. Now in relation to all the people of Israel (and those outside Israel for that matter), David is the highest authority in the land. But in relation to God, David is merely a servant. David is living in a palace, and God is living in a tent, at least in David's mind. David almost appears to be wanting to give God a helping hand. It would be like me, wearing a tuxedo, sending Ross Perot a gift certificate to buy himself some decent clothes. It is for this reason, I believe, that God appears to put David in his place, first by referring to the king as His servant, and second by saying to him, “Who are you to be building Me a house?”

We should note yet another detail here. This very issue of the value of a temple, as opposed to the tabernacle, is addressed by Stephen in Acts 7:

44 “Our fathers had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as He who spoke to Moses directed him to make it according to the pattern which he had seen. 45 “And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David. 46 “David found favor in God's sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 “But it was Solomon who built a house for Him. 48 “However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says: 49 'HEAVEN IS MY THRONE, AND EARTH IS THE FOOTSTOOL OF MY FEET; WHAT KIND OF HOUSE WILL YOU BUILD FOR ME?' says the Lord, 'OR WHAT PLACE IS THERE FOR MY REPOSE? 50 'WAS IT NOT MY HAND WHICH MADE ALL THESE THINGS?'“ (Acts 7:44-50).

Stephen had been brought before the Sanhedrin on trumped up charges, one of which was that he spoke against the temple (Acts 6:13). Stephen did not deny the charge brought against him by false witnesses. Instead, he defended himself by pointing out from the Old Testament Scriptures that God was not nearly as impressed with the temple as the Jews were. He argued that God gave Israel the tabernacle, and that the temple was David's idea. He then went on to show that the God who created all things surely cannot be confined to a dwelling made by human hands. In short, God did not need a temple, and He did not ask for one. He allowed David's son to build the temple because David wanted it. It wasn't wrong; it just wasn't God's idea. God did not need a temple, and for some, a temple would convey the wrong message.

Second Samuel 7 is in agreement with Stephen's argument. In verses 6-11a, God explains to David why He does not need a temple made by him. The first reason is given in verse 6 and can be summed up in these words: “If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it.” Think about it. Why buy a new car if your present car performs perfectly? When God gave the law to Moses, He instructed him as to how a tabernacle should be constructed. Throughout Israel's history, from Mt. Sinai to the reign of David, the tabernacle had functioned flawlessly. God was with His people as the ark was kept in the tabernacle. And when the people moved from one place to another, the tabernacle and the ark went with them. God was with His people wherever they went. He gave them victory over their enemies. He gave them the possession of the promised land. Israel's history bore testimony to the fact that there was nothing to fix; the tabernacle did the job very adequately. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

In verse 7, God gives yet another reason for there being no real need for a temple: “I didn't ask for one.” On Mt. Sinai, God gave Israel the law through Moses, and in this law, He specified how the tabernacle was to be constructed, how it was to be moved, and who was to care for it. God instructed the Israelites to build the tabernacle; He did not even ask for a temple. If a temple were needed, surely God would have asked for one, and since He did not ask, we must conclude it was not necessary.

In verses 8-11a, God gets to the heart of the matter. I want you to notice how often the pronoun “I” is found. This section is very clearly God-centered. I like the way Peterson puts it:

The message that Nathan delivers to David is dominated by a recital of what God has done, is doing, and will do. God is the first-person subject of twenty-three verbs in this message, and these verbs carry the action. David, full of what he's going to do for God, is now subjected to a comprehensive rehearsal of what God has done, is doing, and will do for and in David. What looked yesterday like a bold Davidic enterprise on behalf of God now looks picayune.²⁸

Does David want to offer God a helping hand by building Him a better house in which to live? God reminds David Who is taking care of whom. Would David do something great for God, like build Him a temple? History would remind David (and us) that it has always been God helping us, not us helping God. David, God's servant, should recall that it was He who took him out of the pasture, from following (not leading) the sheep, and made him ruler of all Israel (verse 8). God has been with David, wherever he went, and it was He who gave David's enemies into his hand, resulting in his fame and reputation. It is God who has always come to man's aid, and not man who rescues God.

In verse 10, there is a significant change in the tense of the verbs. Previous verbs are in the past tense, referring back to what God has done in the past. Now, in verse 10, the verbs become future. After pointing out all that He has done for David and Israel in the past, God goes on to say something like: “David, My servant, you have not seen anything yet. The best is yet to come.” God promises to appoint a place for His people where they will be planted. They will have a place of their own (as David intended to give God a “place of His own”), and they will dwell in peace there because the wicked will no longer afflict them. It won't be like it used to be, from the time of the judges till the present. God will give David rest from all his enemies.²⁹ Would David dare to think he could do something for God? It was God who gave David all that he had, and it was God who would give him yet even more.³⁰

The question must arise: when are these promises to David fulfilled? It is clear that they were not yet fulfilled, for they are expressed as a future reality. Some might think they are fulfilled in the next three chapters (8-10), when David prevails over all his enemies who surround Israel. I don't think we can see a complete fulfillment in David's lifetime or even in that of his son Solomon. I believe these promises to David are fully realized only in the coming Kingdom of God, when the Lord Jesus Christ subdues all His enemies and establishes His kingdom on the earth. It is that time spoken of in the last chapters of the Book of Isaiah. These promises are given to David here because they pave the way for the promise God is about to make to David in the following verses, the promise to build a “house” for him.

The House God Will Build For David:
The Announcement of the Davidic Covenant
(7:11b-17)

11 . . . The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. 12 “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 “He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15 but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 “Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.””' 17 In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

The story of this chapter begins with David's intention to build a house (a temple) for God. God gently rebukes David for this heady plan. David has taken the wrong posture, of helping out God, rather than being the one who has constantly been helped by God. God did very well in taking care of His people when He associated Himself with the ark and the tabernacle. God did not ask for a temple, because He did not need one. God has been behind all of David's successes, and now He is promising even greater glory. And now God returns to the subject of a “house.” Would David build a house for God? No, he will not, though his son will. But God now announces to David that He is going to build a “house” for him. The details concerning this “house” are laid out in verses 12-17.

This prophecy, like many others, has a near and a distant fulfillment. On the near end is Solomon, David's second son by Bathsheba. It is he who will take David's place and reign over Israel after his death. We know that Nathan's words must refer to Solomon because they include the fact that David's “son” will sin, and that God will correct him. This statement cannot be made of the Messiah, the Son of David who will come to take away the sins of the world and to sit on the throne of His father, David. Unlike Saul, whose dynasty was taken away, David's “house” (his descendants) will be a dynasty, and will reign over Israel.

The descendants of David -- his “house” -- will enjoy a very unique and privileged relationship with God. It is described as a father/son relationship, or should I say a Father/son (and Father/Son) relationship. In the Bible, to be a “son” sometimes means much more than just being the physical offspring of one's father. The term “son” is employed to refer to one who rules in the place of another (the father). Adam was the “son of God” in the sense that he ruled over God's creation as His agent (see Luke 3:38). Satan and the angels are also referred to as “sons” of God in this same sense. Here, Solomon (David's descendant) is also referred to as enjoying a Father/son relationship with God.

In this sense, one does not become a “son” at one's birth; a king becomes a “son” of God when God installs him upon the throne:

4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. 5 Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying, 6 “But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.” 7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. 9 'You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware”' (Psalm 2:4-9, emphasis mine).

This is exactly what God announces to our Lord Jesus Christ. God calls our Lord His “Son” at His baptism (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22) and at His transfiguration (Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). Peter makes mention of these words, linking these words to the transfiguration (2 Peter 1:17). The writer to the Hebrews also makes use of these words as proof that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah (1:5; 5:5). In 5:5, the author of Hebrews specifically refers to our text in 2 Samuel 7:14 as having been fulfilled in Christ. In Acts 13:33, Paul turns to these words in Psalm 2 as having been fulfilled in Christ, particularly in relationship to His resurrection from the dead.

This word “son” or “sons” is also used of those who have come to faith in Jesus Christ. When we are saved by faith, we become the “sons” of God. This term “sons” not only means we become a child of God, but that we become those who will reign with Him:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body (Romans 8:18-23).

When Christ returns to this earth and we are raised from the dead, we are adopted as sons in Christ, and we shall reign with Him for all eternity.

David will have sons, and these sons will become “sons” of God in that they will rule over Israel. But there will come one very special “son,” and through Him all of the promises God has made here and elsewhere (pertaining to the Kingdom of God) will be fulfilled, either in His first coming, or in His return to the earth. David will have many sons, who will reign after him, and he and his sons will become “sons” of God. But the greatest promise of all is that a very special “son” will come, who is a descendant of David, and His kingdom will be eternal. It is in this “Son” that all of David's hopes, all of Israel's hopes, all of our hopes are fulfilled. And this is the essence of the Davidic Covenant. God will give David sons who rule in his place, but God's promises will be fully and finally fulfilled in that special “Son” who is yet to come.

These words, spoken by Nathan, are the very word of God. They are given to Nathan in the vision, which necessitates a “revision” of the permission he has given David to build a house for God. God thus speaks to David through Nathan. These are the sure word of God.

David's Response
(7:18-29)

18 Then David the king went in and sat before the LORD, and he said, “Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that You have brought me this far? 19 “And yet this was insignificant in Your eyes, O Lord GOD, for You have spoken also of the house of Your servant concerning the distant future. And this is the custom of man, O Lord GOD. 20 “Again what more can David say to You? For You know Your servant, O Lord GOD! 21 “For the sake of Your word, and according to Your own heart, You have done all this greatness to let Your servant know. 22 “For this reason You are great, O Lord GOD; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears. 23 “And what one nation on the earth is like Your people Israel, whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people and to make a name for Himself, and to do a great thing for You and awesome things for Your land, before Your people whom You have redeemed for Yourself from Egypt, from nations and their gods? 24 “For You have established for Yourself Your people Israel as Your own people forever, and You, O LORD, have become their God. 25 “Now therefore, O LORD God, the word that You have spoken concerning Your servant and his house, confirm it forever, and do as You have spoken, 26 that Your name may be magnified forever, by saying, 'The LORD of hosts is God over Israel'; and may the house of Your servant David be established before You. 27 “For You, O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, have made a revelation to Your servant, saying, 'I will build you a house'; therefore Your servant has found courage to pray this prayer to You. 28 “Now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are truth, and You have promised this good thing to Your servant. 29 “Now therefore, may it please You to bless the house of Your servant, that it may continue forever before You. For You, O Lord GOD, have spoken; and with Your blessing may the house of Your servant be blessed forever.”

We should pay attention to the principle of proportion in this chapter. Two verses are devoted to David's expressed desire to build a house for God (1 and 2). One verse is devoted to Nathan's hasty response (3). Verses 4-17 record the vision which Nathan receives and his communication of this revelation to David (14 verses in all). The last 12 verses record David's response to this revelation. David now has his “house” in order. He sees things from God's point of view. These closing verses of chapter 7 are David's response to the Davidic Covenant. I contend that they provide us with a pattern for our worship as well.

Verses 18-21 are an expression of David's regained humility, of his realigned self-appraisal. Here is the kind of self-esteem that ought to characterize every Christian, especially (but by no means exclusively) in worship. At the beginning of chapter 7, David is a little too full of himself. Three times he is called “the king” in the first three verses. He is also referred to as “the king” in verse 18, but only to highlight the change in David's thinking from earlier in the chapter. It is not found again in this chapter.

Is David impressed with his position and power, with being the king? Does David think more in terms of what he can do for God than in terms of what God has and will do for him? Well, he has it right now, at least for the moment. Instead of finding the word “king” three times in verses 18-21, we find the word “servant.” Are we surprised? That is what God calls David in verse 5. David now stands in awe of the fact that God takes him, a man of no status or standing, and makes him king of Israel. This too is what God has reminded David through Nathan (see verses 8 and 9). David sees his standing and status as Israel's king as the result of God's sovereignly bestowed grace, and not as the recognition of his potential greatness. It is amazing how pride and arrogance distort our thinking. No wonder humility is the starting point, the prerequisite, for wisdom (Proverbs 11:2; 15:33; 18:12; 22:4; 29:13).

David is now starting on the right foot. He sees himself as he really is in God's eyes. He recognizes his weakness, his insignificance. He is struck with awe and wonder that God would choose to use him. He is not puffed up with his power as king of Israel, but humbled by the awareness that God uses him as His servant. Now, in verses 22-24, David thanks and praises God for who He is, as demonstrated by His marvelous works on behalf of Israel and David in the past. Verse 22 encapsulizes that self-revelation of God in Israel's past. God is God alone. There is no other god; there is no God like Him. He is a great and awesome God. This is in accord with all that they have heard of Him and from Him.

God has done great things for David, but these were not done for David. God has worked in David and through David, to bring about the fulfillment of His promises to the nation Israel. Verses 23 and 24 recount the greatness of God as revealed in His acts on behalf of His people, Israel. These verses sound remarkably similar to the words of God through Moses in Deuteronomy:

7 “For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him? 8 “Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today? . . . 32 “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and inquire from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything been done like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it? 33 “Has any people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire, as you have heard it, and survived? 34 “Or has a god tried to go to take for himself a nation from within another nation by trials, by signs and wonders and by war and by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm and by great terrors, as the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? 35 “To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him. 36 “Out of the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; and on earth He let you see His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire. 37 “Because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them. And He personally brought you from Egypt by His great power, 38 driving out from before you nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in and to give you their land for an inheritance, as it is today” (Deuteronomy 4:7-8, 32-38).

David sees himself as Israel should have seen herself. It is not due to her greatness, not due to her size, not due to her merits, that God chose to bless her. It is His sovereignly bestowed grace, apart from works or merit:

10 “Then it shall come about when the LORD your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build, 11 and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you eat and are satisfied, 12 then watch yourself, that you do not forget the LORD who brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 13 “You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name” (Deuteronomy 6:10-13).

10 “When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you. 11 “Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; 12 otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, 13 and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, 14 then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 15 “He led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water; He brought water for you out of the rock of flint. 16 “In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end. 17 “Otherwise, you may say in your heart, 'My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.' 18 “But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day” (Deuteronomy 8:10-18).

David has fallen into the very trap that God warned Israel to avoid. He has begun to take credit for what God has done. He begins to think of God as dependent upon him, rather than to worship God as a dependent creature. When David sees life from God's point of view, he sees life clearly, as it is. He sees life as Israel was supposed to view it. Now he is thinking clearly, and when he does, he recognizes that both he and Israel are great by the grace of God and nothing else. And for this David humbly praises God.

In verses 8-10, God reminds David of His blessings in the past. In verses 10-16 God promises David even greater blessings for himself and for the nation Israel in the future. In verses 22-24, David praises God for His grace in the past. Now, in verses 25-29, he will petition God to do as He has promised, and at the same time he worships and praises God for the things He will yet do. David picks up on the promises which God has just made, on the Davidic Covenant, which He has just made, and makes this the basis for his petitions. In short, David prays for what God has promised.

David is not just repeating God's promise back to Him; he is now putting this promise and its fulfillment in its proper perspective. David was wrong to think in terms of his successes. God reminds him that all of his apparent successes were really gracious gifts from His hand (see verses 8-9). And so too the things which God promises David in the future are gracious gifts (see verses 10-16), for which He is to be praised. And so David now petitions God to fulfill these promises, not so that David's name will be exalted, but in order that God's name may be magnified (verse 26).

Through Nathan, God gently rebukes David for his arrogance in thinking he could build a suitable dwelling place for God, that he could better assess the need for one than God. This kind of rebuke tends to cause one to wish to hold his tongue indefinitely. Have you ever said something very stupid, with a whole lot of folks listening to you do so? If you have, then you know the urge never to speak again in public. David has that same feeling, but God's promise of an eternal house gives David the courage to ask God for the fulfillment of this very promise (verse 27).

Verses 28 and 29 continue the petition, reminding God of His promise, and asking Him to fulfill it. The reason for David's confidence is God, and not himself. The presumptuous self-confidence that characterizes David in the early verses of this chapter is gone, replaced by a humble confidence, based in the God who made it. God has promised this good thing to His servant (not, to the king). The promise is clear, and it is made by God. Any promise made by God is a sure thing, and thus David petitions God for its fulfillment. May the promise be fulfilled by the blessing of David's “house,” and may this blessing come from the God of all blessings. Finally, David prays that this blessing will be eternal. Such blessings can only be God's blessings.

Conclusion

The first lesson I learn from our text is that even our highest, most noble ambitions and goals are flawed by sin. David's desire to build a house for God is so lofty even Nathan is taken in by it. Who could fault David for wanting to build God a glorious house? God could and did. And the reason is that David's motives and his ambitions fall far short of what God intended. David seems to have become a little too caught up by his recent successes, by his own position and power, and even by the splendor of his own palace. God's response to David most certainly contains a rebuke to David's arrogance: “Who are you to be building Me a house?” No matter how pious my plans for God and His work appear to be, they fall far short of the purity of thought and motive God requires. In the final analysis, there is nothing we can do for God in our own strength. It is God who must accomplish great things through us, and very often in spite of us.

Related to this first lesson is yet a second lesson: No matter how high and lofty our goals and plans may be, God's plans are greater. Paul put it this way:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:33-36).

But just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND WHICH HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Does David plan to build a house for God? David could not even imagine the “house” that God was going to build for him. God's “house” far surpasses David's proposed “house.”

Third, the greatness and glory of God's presence and power are not to be interpreted in the light of how spectacular the surroundings and setting are. Long ago Elijah was taught that God's presence was not to be assumed in the midst of spectacular phenomenon (although sometimes He does employ the spectacular -- see Exodus 19, 34). God was not present in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but in a still, small voice (1 Kings 19:11-13). The disciples to some extent, and the Jews in large measure, expected the Messiah to be revealed by means of the miraculous and the spectacular, and thus the frequent demand for a sign. The Corinthians of the New Testament came to regard those with style and sensationalism as the most spiritual, while at the same time they came to despise those who were less spectacular, like Paul and the other true apostles (see 1 Corinthians 4; 2 Corinthians 4-6). Our Lord Himself did not come in a blaze of glory and sensationalism. He came with his glory veiled (see Isaiah 53:1-3; John 1:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8), and thus many failed to recognize Him as the Messiah. The second temple was not nearly as spectacular, but in God's eyes, it was glorious. The true glory comes not in the external surroundings, but in the fact that God Himself is among us, indwelling us, His body. We should learn from David and from others in the Bible that God's glory is to be found where God is present, and not necessarily where we see the spectacular.

Does David suppose that God will be more present in a spectacular temple than in a tent? He is about to be reminded that God is “enthroned upon the praises of His people” (Psalm 22:3). God has chosen to dwell in a very different “temple” these days; it is the “temple” of His body, the church:

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).

4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:4-5).

In the eternal kingdom of God, there will be no “temple” as such, for our Lord Himself will be the “temple”:

“And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (Revelation 21:22)

Fourth, we see that David does not need a temple nearby in order to worship His God. In fact, David is drifting away from worship when he proposes the construction of a temple. It is after David has been reminded that all he is and all he accomplishes is of God that he begins to worship in the right manner. He then begins to acknowledge his own insignificance and to praise God for His greatness, power, and presence in his life. This is where all true worship begins, not in a spectacular building, but in focusing on the greatness and the grace of our God.

There is a great deal of emphasis these days on the planting and building of churches, great churches. Planting churches is a good thing, and the building of large churches is not necessarily evil. But let us be on guard against the false assumption that larger and more impressive buildings are proof of God's presence and power. We need to be on guard against prideful thoughts of our own contribution to the kingdom of God, of thinking that God really needs us. It is always He who will be carrying us, rather than us carrying Him. How easily we begin to focus on what we have done and can do for God, rather than on all He has done and will do for and through us.

Fifth, David's divine rebuke should serve as a lesson to every Christian. Have you not thought that if you could ever grow up, ever gain maturity and wisdom as a Christian, that you would somehow become exempt from temptation, and protected from sin? Growth, maturity, and success do not insulate us from sin; often, these things can easily become new temptations for us to sin. David is in more danger in his palace than he was fleeing from Saul and hiding out in some cave. Too often we take our “successes” far too seriously. We should be reminded that there is no success that we can honestly claim as our own, for every spiritual success is a gift of God's grace:

For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7).

Finally, I am once again reminded that the greatest blessings of our lives are not the result of our labors, but always the result of God's work, and often as He uses our failings and shortcomings. David is rebuked for requesting to build God a temple, and yet out of this request, God promises to build a house far greater than David could ever imagine. David is wrong when he commits adultery with Bathsheba and kills her husband, but in spite of this, she becomes David's wife and the mother of Solomon, the next king of Israel. David is wrong to number Israel, but as a result of this sin, the property on which the temple is to be built is procured by David.

What a wonderful and awesome God we serve! We cannot thwart His purposes and promises. And even our efforts to thwart His purposes only serve to advance His kingdom. Let us rejoice that God no longer dwells within a tent or a temple, but in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His body, the church. We are God's house if we have trusted in Jesus Christ.

25 Walter Brueggemann, I and II Samuel (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), p. 253, as cited by Eugene H. Peterson, Leap Over A Wall: Earthly Spirituality for Everyday Christians (Harper San Francisco, 1997), p. 166.

26 We should not be overly surprised at Nathan’s response, or the fact that he did not directly consult God. While prophets did speak directly for God from time to time, often they taught from God’s Word and gave their judgment about the application of the Law to real-life situations. They did not seek a direct divine response for every question they answered, so far as I see in the Scriptures. In this case, however, Nathan judged wrongly, and God directly responded to correct his judgment.

27 Eugene H. Peterson, Leap Over A Wall: Earthly Spirituality for Everyday Christians, p. 160.

28 Eugene H. Peterson, p. 161.

29 The “you” here is singular, not plural. While God will give Israel rest from their enemies, this is not God’s point. He made David the king of Israel. He protected David and gave him the victory over his enemies. Likewise, in the future, God will give David (“you” singular) rest from his enemies. It was God who gave David what he had gained. It was God who would give David what God promised him for the future.

30 This is virtually the same argument we see in 12:7-8. Do we see the roots of David’s problem in chapters 11 and 12 here?