Month: <span>January 2016</span>

The Lord’s discipline upon David was both formative and punitive. When David was on the run from Saul, he had done nothing to warrant the treatment he received. In those days, the Lord trained David as His servant so that when David became king, he would be prepared to trust in the Lord and glorify Him. When David transgressed with Bathsheba, the prophet Nathan informed the king of the reprimand the Lord had issued against him: “The sword will never leave your house because you despised Me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to by your own wife” (2 Sam 12:10). Thus, beyond portraying a sordid moral picture of the royal family, the drama from the Bathsheba incident onward reveals a power struggle within the line of David. This too was part of the retribution David had earned from the Lord.

In 2 Samuel 20, the author records that David’s domestic political difficulties did not end with the death of Absalom. The king’s delayed return to the throne after the death of his son broke the fragile bond between the north and the south. The author wished to root his audience in the historical situation by using the temporal conjunction, “Now,” at the beginning of 2 Samuel 20. It was during that fragile period following Absalom’s death that “a wicked man, a Benjaminite named Sheba son of Bichri, happened to be there. He blew the ram’s horn and shouted, ‘We have no portion in David, no inheritance in Jesse’s son. Each man to his tent, Israel!’” (2 Sam 20:1). This was serious. As a result, “all the men of Israel deserted David and followed Sheba son of Bichri, but the men of Judah from the Jordan all the way to Jerusalem remained loyal to their king” (2 Sam 20:2). Though David set Amasa as commander of his troops, in an act of vengeance Joab killed Amasa while they were supposed to be fighting against David’s northern opponents. Thus, beyond having to endure difficulties with the northern tribes, David had to watch as his appointed military commanders in Judah engaged in their own civil war.

In 2 Samuel 21, the author records some of the final accomplishments of David’s administration. Ever concerned for justice and mercy, and prompted in this instance by the famine in the land, David sought to balance the scales in favor of the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites had been nearly exterminated by Saul (2 Sam 21:1-11; Josh 9:3-17). David demonstrated patriotism toward Israel, arranging for the proper burial of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam 21:10-14). Finally, David went out to battle (2 Sam 21:15-22). Forming an expansive bookend, the author recorded that David’s final battle experience was against Philistine giants. Although the Philistines boasted of several giants in this campaign, the outcome was no different from when David executed Goliath (1 Samuel 17); those on the Lord’s side were victorious.

These scenes of David’s life highlight again the magnificence of David as king of Israel. Nonetheless, with each passing day his strength was waning—as the author made clear in 2 Sam 21:15, saying, “The Philistines again waged war against Israel. David went down with his soldiers, and they fought the Philistines, but David became exhausted.” This points to the reality that although David had regained his prominence in Israel, he was a temporal king. Remember what the Lord had promised him through Nathan the prophet, saying, “When your time comes and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up after you your descendant, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom forever” (2 Sam 7:12-13). In the storyline of Scripture, this sets in bold the eternal reign of David’s greater Son, Jesus Christ. The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that Jesus would sit on David’s throne forever (Luke 1:30-33), anticipating Jesus’ resurrection. In the prologue of Romans, Paul wrote that the gospel he preached concerned Jesus Christ, a descendant of David according to the flesh and the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4).

David’s sin with Bathsheba was no minor offense. The Lord reprimanded David telling him that because of his sin with Uriah’s wife, the sword would never depart from his house (2 Sam 12:10). David had to endure some of the most difficult days of his life when Absalom sought to kill him. Though David was eventually restored to the throne, his over-sensitivity at the loss of his son cracked an already fragile alliance between the north and the south. David was the only thread holding the two houses of Israel together and when neither was satisfied with his reaction to Absalom’s defeat, they quickly remembered old wounds. David’s lust for the woman bathing on the roof ultimately fractured the unity of God’s people.

In 2 Samuel 18, the author moved from the general to the specific, recording first David’s military success then the fate of Absalom. Knowing that Absalom had amassed troops from all Israel and that Absalom himself was planning to lead them against him (2 Sam 17:11-14), David “reviewed his troops and appointed commanders of hundreds and of thousands over them” (2 Sam 18:1). David intended to march out with the forces but when the military leaders exhorted David to stay in Jerusalem, the king heeded their advice. When David dispatched the troops, he made a final strategic command to his military leadership—a word which was heard by all the people: “Treat the young man Absalom gently for my sake” (2 Sam 18:5). As usual, David’s forces were triumphant over their foes.

During the battle, “the forest claimed more people than the sword” (2 Sam 18:8). The forest trapped Absalom by his hair. Joab was informed that Absalom was hanging from an oak tree. Despite the king’s order to protect Absalom, Joab killed him (2 Sam 18:14-15). When David was informed of Absalom’s death, “the king was deeply moved and went up to the gate chamber and wept…he cried, ‘My son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you, Absalom, my son, my son!’” (2 Sam 18:33).

David’s mourning was so severe that it nearly cost him the kingdom. David still had an opportunity to unify Israel and Judah and reestablish his rule over all the land. But David’s weeping over the loss of Absalom compromised his leadership. Weakened, David had to threaten the people of Judah to restore him to the throne (2 Sam 19:11-15). This provoked the people of Israel, because they had earlier sought to restore David but thought that the king had fled (2 Sam 19:8-10). David’s excessive mourning and delayed affirmation of the troops expanded the fissure between the north and the south, a division so severe that civil war would result (described in 2 Samuel 20). In the latter half of 2 Samuel 19, the author shined a spotlight on several individuals in the crowd who went to greet David as he prepared to cross the Jordan and reclaim the throne (2 Sam 19:16-39).

In Psalm 97, the author described the Lord’s reign over all the earth, a reality David knew and trusted in during his days of difficulty with Absalom. Even though Absalom had won over the hearts of the people of Israel (2 Sam 15:6), David knew that since God had made a covenant with him, he would be preserved and prosper (2 Sam 7:9-11). King David trusted in the Lord as his King. According to the word of the Psalmist, “the heavens proclaim His righteousness; all the peoples see His glory. All who serve carved images, those who boast in idols, will be put to shame. All the gods must worship Him” (Ps 97:6-7). This image of the Lord as the King of all nations and their gods implies that Israel’s God is the ruler of angels as well. A key feature of Israel’s religion is that the Lord rules the spiritual realm. The author to the Hebrews cited Ps 97:7 in Heb 1:6 to help his audience understand Jesus’ superiority to angels. Angels mediated the old covenant (Acts 7:38; Gal 3:19), but Jesus is God’s Son.

David endured great difficulty while he was on the run from Saul (1 Samuel 18-31). Yet, even after he was anointed king over all Israel (2 Samuel 5), he faced many challenges, perhaps none greater than when his own son Absalom attempted a coup and had relations with his concubines before all Israel. The Lord did not allow the king’s sin with Bathsheba to go unchecked (2 Sam 12:10-12). However, even in the midst of these very dark scenes, David was sustained by the Lord’s faithfulness as recorded in places like Psalms 3, 23, 64, and 69.

While David’s suffering in 2 Samuel 15-17 resulted from his sin with Bathsheba (see 2 Sam 12:10-12), it nevertheless provided a framework for understanding Jesus’ sufferings as the righteous son of God. Psalm 69 provides several intertextual links between David and Jesus. The author of Psalm 69 confessed that God caused his suffering (Ps 69:26). The psalmist stated that his hardships resulted from both his own sin and his commitment to God (Ps 69:5-12). He felt like he was drowning (Ps 69:1-2, 15) and lamented that he was parched because of his continual weeping (Ps 69:3). The psalmist cried out to God to destroy his enemies (Ps 69:19-28) and rescue him so that he could praise God to the next generation (Ps 69:13-18, 29-36). Jesus and the authors of the New Testament employed Psalm 69 to articulate Jesus’ suffering and the unfolding of salvation history in the church.

(1) In John 2:17, John wrote that when Jesus cleansed the temple, the disciples remembered Ps 69:9. In Ps 69:9, the psalmist wrote that his devotion to God caused his family members to reject him. John wrote that after Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, the disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house will consume Me” (John 2:17), referencing Ps 69:9. In the disciples’ collective memory of Psalm 69, Jesus devoted Himself to God and opposed the Jewish leadership. In the Gospel of John, for Jesus to be devoted to God required Him to oppose the Jewish leadership.

(2) In John 15:25, Jesus told His disciples that the Jews’ rejection of Him fulfilled Ps 69:4. During the Farewell Discourse in John 13-16, Jesus repeatedly told His disciples what was about to take place. He was about to complete the mission God had given Him and would return to the Father. After He ascended to the Father, He would send the Spirit to empower the disciples. The Spirit would remind the disciples of what Jesus had accomplished and invigorate them to seek the Father in prayer. Jesus’ blunt tone in the Farewell Discourse accorded the situation: the world hated Him, the Father, and the disciples as well. Jesus used Ps 69:4 to defend Himself and indict those who rejected His revelation of the Father. Jesus told His disciples that the world hated Him and the Father “So that the statement written in their law might be fulfilled: “They hated Me for no reason” (John 15:25).

(3) The Gospel writers cited Ps 69:19-21 to note that Jesus did not shy away from suffering during His crucifixion. When Jesus hung on the cross, He willingly suffered the full extent of physical pain that crucifixion would bring upon its victims. The psalmist wrote, “Insults have broken my heart, and I am in despair. I waited for sympathy, but there was none; for comforters, but found no one. Instead, they gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar” (Ps 69:19-21). The psalmist wanted some acceptable drink, but his opponents offered him only the sour, bitter drink that would remind him of his destitute condition. What the psalmist despised would have kept Jesus alive. When Jesus was on the cross, those standing by offered Him a wine mixture that would extend His life for a few moments and comfort Him in death. Jesus refused to drink it (Matt 27:34//Mark 15:23).

(4) In Rom 15:3, Paul cited Ps 69:9 to describe Jesus’ suffering and call his audience of Jews and Gentiles to suffer for unity in the fellowship of the church. The psalmist admitted that he committed foolishness and guilty acts that might have caused onlookers to turn from God (Ps 69:5-6). But the psalmist cried out that he also shared in God’s reproaches as those who insulted God also insulted him (Ps 69:7). In Ps 69:9 he said, “The insults of those who insult You have fallen on me.” Since Jesus did not seek to please Himself, Paul urged the Jews and Gentiles in Rome to follow suit saying, “Each one of us must please his neighbor for his good, in order to build him up” (Rom 15:2).

(5) In Rom 11:9-10, Paul took up Ps 69:22-23 as a description of the hardened state of Israel. In Psalm 69, the psalmist asked God to deliver him and destroy his enemies. He wanted God to rage against them, render a guilty verdict against them at the judgement, and erase their names from the book of life (Ps 69:24-28). What the psalmist wished for his enemies, Paul understood to be taking place in Israel. In Rom 11:9-10, Paul wrote, “Let their feasting become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution to them. Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent continually.” Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah demonstrated just how spiritually calloused the nation had become.

On the heels of David’s immorality with Bathsheba, the author of 2 Samuel overlooked other events that took place in Israel, recording that “some time passed” (2 Sam 13:1) between chs. 12 and 13. His intention was to immediately record the fulfillment of Nathan’s proclamation to David that “The sword will never leave your house because you despised Me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own wife” (2 Sam 12:10). This sad reality would take place in the lives of Amnon, David’s immediate successor; Tamar, the king’s daughter; and David’s son, Absalom.

The beginning of 2 Samuel 13 vividly articulates how Amnon felt about his sister: “Amnon was frustrated to the point of making himself sick over his sister Tamar because she was a virgin, but it seemed impossible to do anything to her” (2 Sam 13:1-2). With the element of conflict established, the remainder of 2 Samuel 13 records the sordid drama of David’s family. Enticed by his cousin Jonadab, “a very shrewd man” (2 Sam 13:3), Amnon raped his sister (2 Sam 13:1-19). Even though Tamar confronted her brother that to do this would humiliate both of them—and that if he were to ask David for her hand in marriage their physical union would not violate the standards commanded of Israel—he nonetheless violated her. Yet, in view of the Mosaic law (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29), sending Tamar away without paying the required sum to her father was “much worse than the great wrong” (2 Sam 13:16) Amnon had committed in violating her. The disgraced young woman went away weeping, in effect being told that she was not worth the price required for such an act. Tamar had to face social humiliation. Although Amnon’s actions infuriated the king, David took no retributive action against his son (2 Sam 13:21).

Absalom, second to his brother in line for the throne, took Tamar into his home and could not bring himself to say anything to Amnon. Absalom “hated Amnon since he disgraced his sister Tamar” (2 Sam 13:22). After two years, Absalom seized an opportunity and killed Amnon (2 Sam 13:23-33). Absalom, perhaps fearing his father’s retribution, fled to Geshur where he stayed three years (2 Sam 13:34-39). David mourned for Amnon “every day” (2 Sam 13:37) and in time the king “longed to go to Absalom” (2 Sam 13:39).

David’s countenance was so affected by the events in his family that even Joab was compelled to act. Perhaps remembering the effect of Nathan’s parable, Joab “sought to address the issue indirectly,” by employing a woman of Tekoa to approach David in dramatic fashion (2 Sam 14:3-20). However, while Joab’s plan worked and the king commanded that Absalom be brought back to his house in Jerusalem, David also declared, “he may not see my face” (2 Sam 14:24). Frustrated after waiting for two years without being summoned to the king’s court, or gaining any assistance from Joab, Absalom took the drastic step of setting Joab’s field on fire. He got Joab’s attention and an invitation to the king’s court (2 Sam 14:27-33). David’s prayer for deliverance in Psalm 13 expressed how the king would have felt when Absalom was on the offensive.

While the author of 2 Samuel did not take David to task for his failure of family leadership, David’s faults cannot be hidden. In the storyline of Scripture, Jesus Christ was the “Son of David” (Matt 1:1; 21:9) and promised David’s throne (Luke 1:32) but Jesus differed from David. David sinned and David’s greater Son offered forgiveness for sin:

He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth; when reviled, He did not revile in return; when suffering, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to the One who judges justly. He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness; by His wounding we have been healed (1 Pet 2:22-24).

At this point in the life of David, one might think Israel’s king a prime example of covenant faithfulness—indestructible from without and within. Yet the latter portions of David’s life were marked by moral failure. While David would have to endure the consequences of adultery and murder, 2 Samuel 11-12 demonstrates that when those in covenant with God have repented, they can enjoy fellowship with Him through atonement of their sins.

Although many have taken the author’s statement, “In the spring when kings march out to war, David sent Joab with his officers and all Israel…but David remained in Jerusalem” (2 Sam 11:1) as an indictment against David, it may simply be a marker for the historical situation of Joab’s strength and the king’s age. Israel’s army may not have needed David for that battle. David did not initially go out against the Ammonite-Aramean coalition either (see 2 Sam 10:6-8, 17-19). Thus, the initial phrases of 2 Samuel 11 were not intended to condemn the king because he failed to go to battle, but because David saw Bathsheba bathing and sent messengers to get her from himself (2 Sam 11:2, 4a). David’s sin was not military laziness but moral license. The author was concerned only with the essential elements of the story. Bathsheba went home and later informed David that she was pregnant (2 Sam 11:4b-5). The lie of immorality is that “stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten secretly is tasty!” (Prov 9:17).

The bulk of 2 Samuel 11 records that after the affair with Bathsheba, David further shamed his legacy. The king tried to cover his tracks by arranging for Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, to come home from battle. David hoped the husband and wife would become intimate and all, except he and Bathsheba, would think the child a product of marriage (2 Sam 11:6-13). But Uriah was too loyal to David and to Israel’s army to spend the night with his wife. So, David arranged for Joab to be killed in battle (2 Sam 11:15). David brought Bathsheba to the king’s palace and married her, covering his sin. But “the LORD considered what David had done to be evil” (2 Sam 11:27).

The prophet Nathan confronted David by telling the king a parable of a greedy rich man who took the only possession of a poor subject. Upon hearing the story, David was furious, saying, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die!” (2 Sam 12:5). Nathan’s reply, “You are the man!” (2 Sam 12:7), pierced David’s soul. The author devotes several verses to Nathan’s condemnation of the king, concluding with the consequences the Lord would bring upon him (2 Sam 12:10-14). After the death of the child, David and Bathsheba consummated their marriage and Solomon was born (2 Sam 12:24-25).

In the storyline of Scripture, David’s sin with Bathsheba is remarkable for what it teaches about God’s justice. In Ps 51:4, David confessed that he had sinned and done evil in God’s sight saying, “So You are right when You pass sentence; You are blameless when You judge.” In Rom 3:1-8, Paul employed David’s confession to advance his argument that in salvation history God dealt justly with Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul’s concern was to establish God’s truthfulness despite Israel’s historical failure. In salvation history, Jews had a considerable advantage in that they received God’s instruction in the law. But, because of their fleshly nature, they disobeyed and were unfaithful, like David. Paul confronted any sarcastic opponents in his audience who might suggest that Israel’s failure had itself nullified the faithfulness of God. “Absolutely not!” Paul responded, “God must be true, but everyone is a liar, as it is written: That You may be justified in Your words and triumph when You judge” (Rom 3:4). Paul’s use of Ps 51:4 in Rom 3:4 implicitly places David as an exemplar of Israel and in so doing offers great hope for any who rely upon the trustworthiness of God. The Lord called David into a covenant and David failed. David had to endure the consequences of his failure, but David also knew of God’s mercy. Israel too failed—and in the remainder of Romans, Paul detailed God’s mercy in Christ to Jews and Gentiles alike.

In the Lord’s covenant with David, He told the newly crowned king that his place in the flow of redemptive history was to be a conqueror, one who would be used to destroy Israel’s enemies and give them rest from war (2 Sam 7:8-11). On the heels of this announcement, the author recorded several instances of military advance against surrounding pagan nations. David expanded Israel’s territory and solidified the nation’s place in the Promised Land. Couched in this record of David’s exploits is a picture of David’s mercy, this time to the house of Saul and his grandson Mephibosheth.

The catalogue of David’s triumphs over Israel’s foes begins in 2 Samuel 8. David defeated the Philistines (2 Sam 8:1), the Moabites (2 Sam 8:2), and Hadadezer, the king of Zobah who was assisted by the Arameans of Damascus (2 Sam 8:3-7). At the conclusion of this list the author inserted a literary framing device for the chapter: “The LORD made David victorious wherever he went” (2 Sam 8:6, 14). David reigned over all Israel, establishing justice and righteousness for all his people (2 Sam 8:15).

The author abruptly turned to domestic concerns in 2 Samuel 9. David asked, “Is there anyone remaining from Saul’s family I can show kindness to because of Jonathan?” (2 Sam 9:1). Ziba, a servant of Saul’s family, reported that Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth (who was lame in both feet according to 2 Sam 4:4), was yet alive and would be a candidate for the king’s compassion (2 Sam 9:2-5). When Mephibosheth was brought to David, he “bowed down to the ground and paid homage” (2 Sam 9:6). David’s reply displayed his magnanimous spirit toward Saul’s household. David enlisted Ziba as caretaker over the property that had been returned to Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:8-12). Yet, the author emphasized that Mephibosheth stayed near the king in Jerusalem, always eating at the king’s table as David had promised (2 Sam 9:13).

David’s mercy was not limited to those who remained from Saul’s house. Upon the death of the Ammonite king, David sent a delegation to console Hanun, the king’s son (2 Sam 10:2). The delegation was not well received; their beards were shaved and they were sent away half-naked (2 Sam 10:3-4). Shamed, the king sent the men to Jericho that they might recover there. David called for a military response to the Ammonite king (2 Sam 10:5-7). During the battle, Joab realized that he was flanked in front and rear (2 Sam 10:7-9). After he divided the troops to fight on both fronts, David’s military commander exhorted the troops, “Be strong! We must prove ourselves strong for our people and for the cities of our God. May the LORD’s will be done” (2 Sam 10:12). As the battle progressed, Joab’s strength initially proved too much for Israel’s foes. But after regrouping, they attacked Israel. David went out against them and was victorious (2 Sam 10:15-18).

The events of 2 Samuel 8-10 reveal that God was placing David’s enemies under his feet. The storyline of Scripture describes Jesus as the ultimate recipient of the Davidic promise of victory. While David enjoyed victory over his enemies almost immediately following his rise to the throne, the fullness of Jesus’ victory over His enemies has yet to be displayed. Paul told the Corinthians that Christ had no doubt defeated even the last enemy, death, but that the complete repercussions of that triumph would not be displayed for a time. There is thus a sense in which Christ’s victory, “when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor 15:24) and when “He puts all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor 15:25), has yet to be realized. John’s vision in the Revelation noted that Jesus’ victory will be recognized by all when He returns to earth to judge and make war in righteousness—the time when He will be recognized as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:11-16).

Taken together, 2 Samuel 7 and Psalms 2, 40, and 110 provide a window for understanding God’s redemptive plan. In the immediate historical context, these passages referred to God’s covenant with David and Solomon as kings of Israel. These texts cast a long shadow, fulfilled finally in the reign of Jesus Christ. Only Jesus could satisfy the language of power, dominion, suffering, and fellowship with God contained in these Old Testament passages.

In the New Testament, portions of 2 Samuel 7 and of Psalms 2, 40, and 110 were seen as indicative of something greater than the reigns of David or Solomon. Various New Testament authors arranged phrases from these passages to:

(1) Verify that Jesus was in the family line of David. Luke cited 2 Sam 7:12-13 in both his Gospel and in the book of Acts. Luke recorded that the angel Gabriel told Mary that her son would be named Jesus and that “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:32-33). When Paul testified concerning Jesus in Pisidian Antioch, he said that God raised up David the son of Jesse to be king over Israel. “From this man’s descendants,” Paul exclaimed, “according to the promise, God brought the Savior, Jesus, to Israel” (Acts 13:23).

(2) Identify Jesus as God’s Son. In light of Ps 2:7, the author of Hebrews wrote of Jesus’ superiority over the mediators of the old covenant saying, “For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father” (Heb 1:5). The remainder of the verse, “or again, ‘I will be His Father, and He will be My Son’” (Heb 1:5b), is rooted in 2 Sam 7:12-13. Further, the author of Hebrews understood from Ps 2:7 that Jesus “did not exalt Himself to become a high priest, but the One who said to Him, ‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father’” (5:5). Luke recorded that in Paul’s sermon in Pisidian Antioch, the apostle saw in Ps 2:7 a basis for understanding the resurrection. Paul said, “We ourselves proclaim to you the good news of the promise that was made to our forefathers; God has fulfilled this to us their children by raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father’” (Acts 13:32-33).

(3) Validate Jesus’ royal status—even over that of King David. When Jesus questioned the Pharisees about the family heritage of the Messiah (Matt 22:42//Mark 12:35//Luke 20:41), Jesus answered His own question by quoting Ps 110:1, placing the Messiah in the family line of David. Jesus concluded His message to the Pharisees by claiming to be the Messiah, David’s Son by lineage and yet David’s Lord by position (Matt 22:44//Mark 12:36//Luke 20:42-43). Toward the end of his sermon at Pentecost, Peter quoted Ps 110:1 to explain Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to the place at God’s right hand, a reality David never experienced (see Acts 2:34-35). In 1 Cor 15:25, Paul directed the Corinthians to consider Ps 110:1 as a basis for understanding Christ’s resurrection and the climax of history, a reality that in itself guarantees the resurrection of all believers. In Heb 1:13, the author called his readers’ attention to Ps 110:1 to show Christ’s superiority over angels, those who mediated the old covenant. In Rev 12:5, John wrote that the woman he saw in his vision would give birth to a son who would rule the nations with an iron scepter, echoing Ps 2:9. In Rev 2:27, Jesus quoted Ps 2:9 and promised the church in Thyatira that those who endured in their confession of faith would reign with Him.

(4) Confirm that Jesus’ royalty included an eternally valid priesthood. According to Ps 110:4, David’s kingship included a priestly function—and since the Lord had promised that David’s throne would endure forever, then his priesthood would also be eternal. It is thus natural to understand why the author to the Hebrews found in Ps 110:4 grounds for his argument that Jesus, God’s Son, was the Priest of the new covenant—appointed to the position and serving there eternally according to the oath of the Lord (Heb 5:6, 10; 7:17, 21).

(5) Describe Jesus’ suffering in the language of what David endured. It may be that the second Psalm was composed to honor the victorious king of Israel either before or after a battle (see David’s victories in 2 Samuel 8-10). These triumphs may have been in the author’s mind when he wrote, “Why do the nations rebel and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers conspire together against the LORD and His Anointed One” (Ps 2:1-2). When the disciples were facing opposition in Jerusalem, they gathered in prayer and interpreted this text as ultimately referring to Jesus (Acts 4:25-26).

(6) Emphasize the significance of Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice for sin. The flow of Psalm 40 includes both praise for God’s deliverance and petition for the same. In the midst of this turbulence, the Psalmist confessed his piety before the Lord saying, “You do not delight in sacrifice and offering; You open my ears to listen. You do not ask for a whole burnt offering or a sin offering. Then I said, ‘See, I have come; it is written about me in the volume of the scroll. I delight to do Your will, my God; your instruction resides within me’” (Ps 40:6-8). In Heb 10:5-8, the author to the Hebrews saw in the Psalmist’s confession phrases that not only illustrated Jesus’ disposition in suffering and dying for sinners but also evidence for the shift in redemptive history. For centuries sacrifices were offered according to the Mosaic law but Jesus’ unique self-sacrifice fulfilled these sacrifices forever. The author inferred, “He (God) takes away the first to establish the second. By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all” (Heb 10:9b-10). According to Hebrews, the significance of Christ’s finished work can be seen in that after He offered Himself during His first advent, He “sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb 10:12) and is now “waiting until His enemies are made His footstool” (Heb 10:13) in fulfillment of Ps 110:1.

Established as king over Israel and victorious over the Philistines (2 Samuel 5), David thought it prudent to bring the ark from Baale-judah to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1). Someone who is following the flow of redemption history may be struck by the fact that David initiated moving the ark to Jerusalem. In the battle scenes that immediately precede, David set out only after inquiring of the Lord (see 2 Sam 5:19, 23). Should not David have sought God’s permission before moving the ark to Jerusalem? The ark was no ordinary object: “The ark is called by the Name, the name of the LORD of Hosts who dwells between the cherubim” (2 Sam 6:2). Yet when he left Baale-judah, “David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD with all kinds of fir wood instruments, lyres, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals” (2 Sam 6:5). Israel’s celebration encompassed musical worship as described in Psalms 149 and 150.

Yet, when the ark tottered on the cart, Uzzah reached out to stabilize it and was struck dead by the Lord (2 Sam 6:6-7). The parallel account in 1 Chronicles pejoratively attributes fault to both David and the Levites because the Levites did not carry the ark on their shoulders using poles (1 Chron 15:13, 15). David’s countenance quickly fell. He was both angry and afraid (2 Sam 6:8-9). David discontinued the celebration and sent the ark of God to Obed-Edom the Gittite (2 Sam 6:10).

When David heard that the Lord blessed Obed-Edom’s family and household “because of the ark of God” (2 Sam 6:12), he gave orders for it to be brought to Jerusalem. David was rejoicing and dancing as the ark entered Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:12, 14), “and the whole house of Israel were bringing up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of the ram’s horn” (2 Sam 6:15). Upon setting the ark in the tent David had prepared, he offered burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to the Lord and blessed the people, even distributing “a loaf of bread, a date cake, and a raisin cake to each one of the whole multitude of the people of Israel, both men and women” (2 Sam 6:19). There was one amongst Israel who did not share such a passion for God’s presence and the arrival of the ark into the city of David. When Michal looked down from her window and saw her husband “leaping and dancing before the LORD” as the ark was entering Jerusalem, “she despised him in her heart” (2 Sam 6:16). David was vindicated by a clear conscience saying, “I will celebrate before the LORD, and I will humble myself even more and humiliate myself” (2 Sam 6:21b-22a). The Lord dealt with Michal by preventing her from having children (2 Sam 6:23).

The events of 2 Samuel 6 emphasize the significance of the ark of the covenant at this point in Israel’s history. As the storyline of Scripture progresses, the prominence of the ark both waxes and wanes. The eminence of the ark reached its zenith at the dedication of Solomon’s temple when the priests placed it beneath the cherubim and the Lord filled the temple with glory (1 Kings 8:10-11//2 Chron 5:13-14). As grand and wonderful as the ark was, the author to the Hebrews pointed out that its magnitude was limited in that it was man made. He considered it part of the old order, inadequate for true worship. Contrasting the inferiority of the old in light of the new, he wrote, “Now the Messiah has appeared, high priest of the good things that have come. In the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation), He entered the holy of holies once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11-12).

The initial chapters of 2 Samuel reveal that David had concern for a reputation of purity as he established his reign over all Israel. David was a man of great integrity. He knew that since God had promised him the throne (see 1 Sam 16:12), he need not scheme and assassinate his rivals. Even foreign leadership recognized David’s greatness, which David demonstrated in leading Israel’s army against Israel’s enemies.

On the heels of the assassination of Abner, Ish-bosheth was distraught “and all Israel was dismayed” (2 Sam 4:1). Perhaps this was in part because Abner was of greater prowess than Ish-bosheth (see 2 Sam 3:6-11). Further, the only other rightful claimant to the throne was Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth, who had been crippled from childhood (2 Sam 4:4-5). Two men, Baanah and Rechab, leaders of raiding parties in Israel, assassinated Ish-bosheth and brought his head to David in Hebron (2 Sam 4:5-8). Just like David had responded to the man who brought him the head of Saul (2 Samuel 1), David replied to Ish-bosheth’s assassins saying, “Should I not require his blood from your hands and wipe you off the earth?” (2 Sam 4:11). He did: “David gave orders to the young men, and they killed Rechab and Baanah. They cut off their hands and feet and hung their bodies by the pool in Hebron” (2 Sam 4:12).

When the tribes of Israel gathered at Hebron, they surrendered themselves to Judah’s king and swore allegiance to David (2 Sam 5:1-2). One of the psalmists, reflecting on David’s greatness, wrote that the Lord “chose David His servant and took him from the sheepfolds; He brought him from tending ewes to be shepherd over His people Jacob—over Israel His inheritance. He shepherded them with a pure heart and guided them with his skillful hands” (Ps 78:70-72). Psalm 78 is a reminder that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a storyline recounting God’s acts of redemption for Israel and in Christ.

(1) Matthew cited Ps 78:2 in Matt 13:35 to explain Jesus’ use of parables. The Psalmist began his poem by telling his readers that he was declaring from them wise sayings, mysteries of God’s past work handed down from their fathers (Ps 78:2). The pinnacle of the former may have been the reign of David over all Israel, inaugurated in 2 Samuel 5. One should observe the flow of redemptive history from the exodus (Ps 78:12) to the time of David’s reign (Ps 78:70). The author of the Psalm was concerned that Israel remember God’s acts and teach them to their children, so that they might trust in God and keep His commandments—unlike their forefathers who were stubborn and rebellious (Ps 78:7-8). The psalmist acted as teacher in Psalm 78, instructing his readers through his poem. Matthew noted that Jesus also taught in wise sayings (parables) to instruct His audience. Like the psalmist, Jesus wanted His audience to heed instruction but knew that some among them were stubborn and unbelieving. Parables ensured that those who could hear would receive His teaching and that the hard-hearted would be further sealed in their unbelief.

(2) The New Testament authors described Jesus as a shepherd, echoing 2 Sam 5:2 and Ps 78:71. The pinnacle of Psalm 78 is the Lord’s call of David to provide stability for Israel as he shepherded the people with a heart true to God. Toward the end of his life, Moses asked the Lord to provide a new leader for His people so that they would not be like sheep without a shepherd (Num 27:15-17). The Lord called David from shepherding the flocks to be the shepherd of His people, a role confirmed upon David in 2 Sam 5:2. When Jesus proceeded through the towns of Galilee, He felt compassion for the people because they were spiritually oppressed by the teaching of the Pharisees and rampant disease. They were like sheep without a shepherd (Matt 9:36). After the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus intended to get away with His disciples in private but when the crowds followed, Jesus gave His attention to them because they were like sheep without a shepherd (Mark 6:34). In John 10:1-21, Jesus described Himself as the Good Shepherd who would lay down His life for the sheep. The author of Hebrews concluded his epistle by describing Jesus as the great Shepherd who had been raised with the blood of the everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20). In John’s vision in Revelation, one of the elders told him that the Lamb would shepherd those who had been martyred, compassionately guiding them to springs of living water and wiping away every tear from their eyes (Rev 7:17).

The flow of 2 Samuel 3 is dramatic. After the author described the gravity of the initial situation between the house of David and the house of Saul, there was a ray of hope for unity when Abner stated a desire to transfer Israel to David’s reign. But in the end, Joab’s revenge over the murder of Asahel his brother caused David further woe—and delayed his rule over a united kingdom.

The author wasted no words in describing the situation in Israel. He wrote, “The war between the house of Saul and the house of David was long and drawn out, with David growing stronger and the house of Saul becoming weaker” (2 Sam 3:1). During the war, Abner grew stronger, making Ish-bosheth, the king of Israel, a puppet for Abner’s wishes (2 Sam 3:1-6). When the king accused Abner of immorality, the latter snapped. Abner swore allegiance to David and initiated a plan to hand Saul’s territory over to David (2 Sam 3:9-10). David responded favorably to Abner’s request for peace, desiring only that Michal, Saul’s daughter and his first wife, be returned to him (2 Sam 3:13-16). Abner, showing the sincerity of his heart, labored for a diplomatic transfer of power to David, meeting face-to-face with Israel’s leaders and David himself (2 Sam 3:17-21). All seemed well.

But with the mention of Joab, the tone of the text immediately becomes abrasive. When Joab heard of the king’s covenant with Abner he was livid, saying, “What have you done? Look here, Abner came to you. Why did you dismiss him? Now he’s getting away” (2 Sam 3:24). Straightaway, Joab, without David’s knowledge, instigated a ruse to eliminate the threat posed by Abner. He sent messengers to bring Abner back to Hebron (2 Sam 3:26). Joab pulled Abner aside “as if to speak to him privately, and there Joab stabbed him in the stomach” (2 Sam 3:27). Joab’s assassination of Abner was more personal vengeance than political calculation.

David replied to Joab’s aggression by prophesying, “May the house of Joab never be without someone who has an infection or leprosy or a man who can only work a spindle or someone who falls by the sword or starves” (2 Sam 3:29). This attitude would characterize David’s reign. In Ps 25:3, David wrote, “Not one person who waits for You will be disgraced; those who act treacherously without cause will be disgraced,” and in Ps 55:23, “You, God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction; men of bloodshed and treachery will not live out half their days.” David “ordered Joab and all the people who were with him” to mourn over the death of Abner (2 Sam 3:31). David’s lament in Ps 120:6-7, “I have lived too long with those who hate peace. I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war,” illustrates his demeanor upon the death of Abner.

In 2 Samuel 3, David was concerned for all to know that he had nothing to do with the assassination of Abner. As the newly anointed king of Judah, David did all that he could to unify the north and the south, establishing his rule over all of the descendants of Jacob. David worked to establish peace in Israel, exemplifying what Jesus would teach in the Sermon on the Mount when He said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God” (Matt 5:9). Nevertheless, David’s early rule also has points of contrast with that of Jesus, a contrast formative in the storyline of Scripture. David was set on unifying the territories of Judah and Israel; Jesus recognized that His very presence would bring division. When Jesus sent the twelve to preach the good news of His kingdom, He told them that He did not come to bring peace but division. He said that those who wished to follow Him might even be opposed by members of their own family, requiring that disciples have a greater commitment to Him than any relationship or personal pursuit. (Matt 10:34-38//Luke 12:51-53).