2 Samuel 7:18 - 9:13

2 Samuel — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

2 Samuel 10 - 12

00:00

2 Samuel 7:18 - 9:13

2 SamuelSteve Gregg

In this text, Steve Gregg discusses 2 Samuel 7:18-9:13, highlighting that God used David's lineage as a prediction of the coming of Christ, and that David wished to build a temple to dwell in, which later became a shadow of Christ's permanent residence. David's wars were not necessarily wrong, but rather God used him as an instrument of the state. David took Saul's domain and reached the Riviufreides, and David allowed Mephibosheth to eat at his table, despite the risk of allowing Saul's bloodline to survive.

Transcript

Alright, let's turn to 2 Samuel chapter 7. Last time we did not get all the way through. I'm sorry to say, I don't like to divide a lecture in the middle of a chapter and divide the chapter. But, the first part of 2 Samuel 7 is very important and we had to give it full attention and not hastily move on through it just so we could finish the chapter.

It's a major turning point in the Bible, not just in David's life, but in the Bible itself. That Nathan the prophet came to David and said that God would build him a house, meaning a dynasty. Because Jesus comes from the family and the lineage of David, and from the house of David, from the dynasty of David.

The understanding of the New Testament is that Jesus is sitting enthroned even now at the right hand of God, ruling as the heir to David's throne. So, the fact that God said that David would have an heir of his to sit on his throne forever is fulfilled in Jesus. Although this announcement was made a thousand years before the birth of Jesus, and therefore it's a very early and important prediction about the Messiah.

There are other predictions about the Messiah, but one of the most important predictions about the Messiah would be his connection to the line of David. Because David was the greatest ruler of Israel and the greatest hero, and it was under David that Israel became an empire, actually. As we shall see, especially in chapter 8, we will see that David conquers all the regions around him, so that they're all brought under tribute.

So, instead of just having Israel be set free from the Philistines and the other oppressors that have given them trouble, in addition to being set free, he's brought other nations under his control. And that makes Israel an empire. That empire dissolved after David's time, in the time of Solomon, and some of the people who David had conquered broke loose and became independent of Israel during Solomon's time.

And then in the time of Rehoboam, Solomon's son, things dissolved even more so, so that he even lost control of some of the tribes of Israel. So, this was the high point. David's career was the high point of Israel's history.

And it would be another one like David who would come, and would be the king that God would set up to rule forever as the Messiah. Now, the promise of this is found in chapter 7 of 2 Samuel, and it is sometimes referred to as the Davidic covenant. And it began with David asking, well, just talking to Nathan the prophet, and suggesting that he had it in his heart to do something toward building a temple.

He didn't mention a temple exactly, he just mentioned that it seemed an inequity that he himself, as the king, was living in a royal palace. But the Ark of the Covenant, which represented God's own presence among his people, was housed in an inferior structure, a mere tent. And the suggestion unstated, the implication was that David was thinking about building a big house, or a temple, for the Ark to be housed in as well.

And Nathan's initial reaction was positive. He said, do all that's in your heart, the Lord is with you. But Nathan had not consulted the Lord, he didn't speak in the name of the Lord, he just spoke as a private, pious person saying, I think God's in this.

But then the Lord did speak to Nathan, and Nathan did bring an oracle, and God's answer essentially was, did I ever ask you to build me a house? I've had the tabernacle in the wilderness, and the tabernacle's moved from place to place ever since you've come into the Promised Land. In David's day, that was now about 600 years, that the Ark had been traveling as part of the tabernacle structure, and had now settled in Jerusalem, because David had recently brought it there. But God is saying, I've been satisfied with that, I've not actually asked you to build me a house, so don't think that's necessarily what I'm interested in.

But he did say, I will build David a house, meaning a family, a dynasty. And God used this occasion to make that prediction about David's lineage producing the Messiah, and he said that David's son would in fact do what David had wished to do, his son would build a house for the Lord. It says that in verse 12 and 13, When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.

He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Now, this seed of David, this descendant that would come forward and build the house of the Lord, is most naturally seen as Solomon, because that's what Solomon did. Solomon was David's son.

When David died, Solomon sat on his throne, God established his kingdom, and he did build a house, he built the temple. But we know that this prophecy about David's seed has a double meaning. It means Solomon, but it also means that other seed of David, the Messiah.

He would sit on David's throne, he will rule over David's kingdom, God will establish his kingdom forever, as it says in verse 16. Verse 16 says, In your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you, your throne shall be established forever. That will be through the Messiah, the other seed of David.

Now, that other seed of David also is building a house. Solomon built a house as the temple for God to dwell in, and Jesus built a house. Remember when Jesus in John chapter 2 said, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.

The Bible says he was talking about the temple of his body. He was the word who tabernacled among us, according to John 1.14. He was the house of God on earth. The body of Christ is the house of God.

But of course, when Christ ascended, he became merely the head over a more complex body. A corporate body made up of many members. The body of Christ is still the temple of God, is still the temple of the Holy Spirit.

And Christ said, Upon this rock I will build my church. Christ will build a temple, a church. Not a church building, he's not talking about a cathedral or what we call a church building.

He's talking about his congregation, his people, his body, the church. And he said he's building it upon a rock, as a structure would be built on a rock. And so Paul says in 1 Timothy 3.15, The church is the house of God, and it is the pillar and ground of the truth.

But if I'm delayed, I write so you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. In Hebrews 3.6, the writer says that Christ is a son over his own house, whose house we are, if we hold fast the confidence of the rejoicing of hope firm to the end. We are the house of God, and we are therefore the temple of God.

In 1 Corinthians 3, it says in verse 16, Do you not know that you are the temple of God? You is plural, temple is singular. You the church, all of you combined, you are the temple of God. And the spirit of God dwells in you.

So the church collectively is the temple. It is also the body of Christ. Christ's body is the temple.

Christ still tabernacles among men in his body, which now includes us. We are his flesh and of his bones, the Bible says. And so Peter says, taking the image of a temple being constructed out of people, in 1 Peter 2.5, Peter says that we are all like living stones built up into a spiritual house, a holy temple.

And there's frankly other passages we won't have time to look into, but the point is that Christ came to build his church, which is also the temple. He also builds a house under the name of the Lord. And so Solomon, in building the original temple, was a type in a shadow of Christ who would build the permanent residence of God.

Jesus said to the disciples, I'm going away, I'll send the Holy Spirit to you, so I'm going to send you another comforter who will dwell with you forever. And he said, in my Father's house are many dwelling places. Now, the Father's house, according to the New Testament, is the church.

And in the Father's house are many dwelling places. Well, what is he referring to there? Now, Peter had referred to us individually as living stones being built up into a house. Jesus is referring to us each as dwelling places.

God dwells in each of us. This word dwelling places, which is sadly translated mansions in the King James and the New King James, in my Father's house are many mansions, it's a very bizarre translation. The word is monē, it's the noun form of the Greek word to abide, which is used a number of times in the book of John.

The Bible talks about abiding in Christ and him abiding in us. Abide means to dwell or to remain. And monē is the noun form of that verb, so it means a dwelling place or an abiding place.

And the word is found twice in the Bible, both times in the same chapter. In John 14, 2, he says, in my Father's house are many abiding places or dwelling places. Some translations say rooms.

And then, in verse 23, that word appears again, though it's translated differently in our Bibles. In verse 23 of John 14, it says, Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, the Father and I will come to that person, and make our abiding place with him. The word home there is the same word monē in the Greek.

Only twice in the Bible this word appears. John 14, 2 and John 14, 23. And so, every person who is a lover of God and obeys his commandments, God comes and makes that person into an abiding place of God.

See, the way it's been translated traditionally is, in my Father's house are many mansions. People say, well, the Father's house must be heaven, a mansion. That must be where I'm going to live.

I'm going to live in the mansion. And it's mistaking the whole idea. Jesus talked about sending his Holy Spirit to his disciples after his departure, so that he will abide in them, and they will be his house.

As he, Jesus, is the house. When Jesus said, destroy this house, he means his body. And I will raise it up again.

And so, his body is the house of God. And he's saying, now I'm going to heaven, and you're going to be my body. You're going to be the house now.

You're going to be the dwelling places of God. And my Father's house has many of these dwelling places. Every Christian is a dwelling place of God, and collectively, they make up his house.

The church. This concept is very often repeated in the New Testament, although Christians are often fairly unaware of it because of traditional translations, I guess, and misunderstandings. But, the idea here is that Jesus builds a house.

He's building his own body. He's building a dwelling place for God. And we are it.

We are the living stones. We are the dwelling places in the house. God dwells in each of us individually, and in the house collectively.

The house corporately. So, this is all implied also in this promise made to David. His son is going to build this house.

Solomon built the house, but it was a type and a shadow of Christ. Solomon is a type of Christ, therefore, as David is. And we know this also because it is said of this son of David in verse 14, 2 Samuel 7, 14, it says, I will be his father and he shall be my son.

This verse is quoted in Hebrews chapter 1 and verse 5 as being about Jesus. So, even though everything else about the whole passage sounds like it's talking about Solomon, the writer of the Hebrews takes one line from it and says, now that's obviously Jesus. So, he sees Jesus in the whole passage, no doubt.

And therefore, we have a double meaning here. A short-term fulfillment in Solomon, who becomes a type of the long-term fulfillment who is Christ. And it says in verse 17, according to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

Now, there was apparently more. There's more that Nathan said at this time, or that God spoke to David. Perhaps David inquired off the record to God, why will you not let me build the house? Why must my son do it instead of me? In any case, he did have an answer, whether Nathan gave it to him at this time or God gave it to him at a later time.

We know that on a later occasion, when David is talking about his being passed over by God, as the one who would build God's house. In 1 Chronicles chapter 22, David was speaking to Solomon. And in 1 Chronicles 22, 7 and 8, David said to Solomon, my son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the Lord my God.

But the word of the Lord came to me saying, you have shed much blood and have made great wars. You shall not build a house for my name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest.

And I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. The name Solomon means something like a man of peace.

It comes from the word Shalom and is related to this word for peace. So God is saying, you are going to have a son whose name is a man of peace. You have been a man of war, and therefore your hands are stained with blood.

Now, this is interesting because David's wars were not necessarily wrong. David didn't necessarily sin, but it's clear that God considered that though David's vocation may have been a political one and a military one, and a legitimate one that God had given him to do, yet it was not the same as a religious vocation. Someone who had not conducted himself in those behaviors had to be the one to build the temple.

The early Christians believed that they should not fight in Rome's wars. And when they were criticized for that, for not participating, they said, well, the church has a different vocation. They believed that the state had a legitimate vocation in fighting wars.

They believed that the kings and the secular government had a legitimate thing to do to defend the nation against enemies and so forth. But they felt like the church was a priesthood, a kingdom of priests among the nations, and the priests were never sent out into the war. In Israel, the priests weren't even numbered among the fighting men.

The Levites weren't even numbered when the fighting men were numbered of the various tribes because the priests had a different vocation. It was not that one was better than the other. It was just that they were different callings.

And the early Christians believed that the government, the state, had the calling of fighting wars, enforcing justice, and doing things like that, but that the church had a different calling. It was the house of God. It was the priesthood.

It was not to shed blood. There was a different calling they had. And we see this different calling in Solomon and David, though they were both doing what God commanded them to do.

David was called to wage war. Solomon was called to build the temple and to establish worship in the land. So, it was recognized there was a difference.

And Paul seems to recognize that difference, too, in Romans chapters 12 and 13. Because at the end of chapter 12 of Romans, rather interesting, Paul says, Beloved, verse 19, Beloved, do not avenge yourselves. He tells Christians not to avenge themselves, but to give place to God's wrath.

But then in chapter 13, he says of the government rulers, it says in verse 4 that that ruler is God's minister for you for good, but if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. So, he says the government officials are ordained by God to execute wrath and to avenge wrongs. But Christians are told, Don't avenge yourselves.

That's not your calling. Leave it to God. And God uses his instrument, which is the state.

He said, Don't avenge yourselves, leave it to God to avenge you. And the state officer, he is God's servant to be the avenger of wrath, the avenger on those who do evil. So, it seems that Paul sees two different callings here, that of the Christian and that of the state.

And, of course, that was something that the early Christians had no trouble keeping distinct because the state was persecuting the church. The Roman emperors were all pagans and they were feeding Christians the lines. It wasn't hard for the Christians to see us and them.

You know, the state is them and we're us. Two different things. After Constantine was converted and Rome became a Christian empire, as it were, supposedly, then, of course, it became more confusing.

You know, the wars of Rome were fought by Roman soldiers, but the Roman soldiers were all baptized now. And they were all supposedly Christians. So, how do you keep the distinction in callings? Ever since that time, that's always been confusing.

The Anabaptist movement rose up in the mid-early 1500s and they felt that the early Christians were correct, that Christians had a different vocation than fighting in wars. And they used some of these arguments, some of these scriptures. And we do find that David was told by God that it was his activity in fighting war, though it was legitimate, that made him not the appropriate person to be building a temple and establishing worship in the land.

So, God did see a difference in the vocation of Solomon and David in this respect. How much that carries over into modern times and the role of the church vis-à-vis government and military activity and so forth obviously is something that people have to sort out pretty much for themselves, it seems to me. Because the Bible doesn't say that Christians should not fight in the military.

It does not say that Christians should not serve in government offices, though it doesn't say they should either. And therefore, the question of whether that's appropriate or not becomes a matter of personal conscience, I think, for individuals. There were people who were in government posts who became Christians in the Book of Acts.

We don't know if they stayed in their office or not. We know one man was the city treasurer of Corinth and he apparently, when he became a Christian, Crispus, he left town. He apparently left his job and traveled with Paul because he was saying to be traveling with Paul later on.

Anyway, that may have nothing to do with this issue, but Christians who are trying to decide what their involvement should be or should not be with the military or with government definitely should not just assume that it's a simple matter. It's a complex matter and people should seek God about what His will is about those things, I think. God did use David and He blessed his military efforts and it was God's will for David to do that.

But it seems strange to us that God would then say, now because you've done that, you can't build my temple. But that just again points out there may be legitimate alternative callings that people have. Verse 18, Then King David went in and sat before the Lord.

This is after David heard the promises that Nathan, the prophet, communicated to him. And he said, Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house that you have brought me thus far? It would be something that would be amazing to a person like David who had been raised in a family that was a fairly large family but not necessarily a wealthier, important family in Bethlehem, a small town. He was the least important son in the family, so important in fact that it never occurred to them, never occurred to his father to bring him in when Samuel said, One of your sons is going to be anointed king.

So he brings in seven other sons and leaves David out. David was not a man whose early life looked like somebody marked for power and for prestige and for glory and yet in so short a time, a couple of decades probably, maybe less, he had risen from obscurity as a sheep herder to the ruler of a great nation and God says, I'm going to establish your throne forever and ever, an eternal throne. From just being a shepherd to being a king with an eternal dynasty is a pretty large distance to go in a few years' time.

And so he's stunned. He says, Who am I, O Lord, and what is my house that you have brought me this far? And yet this was a small thing in your sight, O Lord God, and you have also spoken of your servant's house for a great while to come. Is this the manner of man, O Lord God? In other words, men don't show that kind of magnanimity and that kind of generosity to little people like David.

He says, You're not like a man, God. You're not like anybody. Now, what more can David say to you? For you, Lord God, know your servant.

For your word's sake and according to your own heart, you have done all these great things to make your servant know them. Therefore, you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, nor is there any god besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

And who is like your people, like Israel, the one nation on earth, whom God went to redeem for himself as a people, to make for himself a name, and to do for you great and awesome deeds for your land, before your people, whom you redeemed for yourself from Egypt, from the nations and their gods. For you have made your people Israel, your very own people, forever. And you, Lord, have become their god.

And now, O Lord God, the word which you have spoken concerning your servant and concerning his house, establish it forever, and do as you have said. So let your name be magnified forever, saying, The Lord of hosts is the God over Israel. And let the house of your servant David be established before you.

For you, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, have revealed this to your servant, saying, I will build you a house. Therefore, your servant found it in his heart to pray this prayer to you. And now, O Lord God, you are God, and your words are true.

And you have promised this goodness to your servant. Now, therefore, let it please you to bless the house of your servant, that it may continue forever before you. For you, O Lord God, have spoken it, and with your blessing, let the house of your servant be blessed forever.

So he's basically saying, I'll receive this blessing. He does not make any mention in his prayer to the temple at all. It's the latter part of the promise that God made that he is entirely taken with.

That God has promised to do such a long-term thing for the house of David and to his seed. He says, who is a God like you? People don't treat people the way you treat me. People aren't that kind, are not that generous, not that gracious as you are.

He says, and who's like Israel? Now, when he says, who's like Israel, he's not really talking about how great Israel is, but what nation has received such generosity from their God as Israel. He says in verse 23, who is like your people? The one nation on earth whom God went to redeem for himself as a people. He's not saying that Israel had innate virtue better than other nations, but that they've had unique blessing.

That they've been the recipient of unusual kindness by God. And so this is essentially a prayer of marveling and also of accepting this gift that God has promised him. Now in chapter 8, we have a number of wars that David fights where he extends his power to the surrounding regions.

Many of these regions, they don't mean an awful lot to us. We're not that familiar with the geography and the peoples that he conquered for the most part are not there anymore. They're ancient peoples.

But the bottom line is that all the peoples that had been a threat to Israel ceased to be a threat, and David brought them under tribute so that he became the emperor of the region, really. And so we have a lot of these battles just given to us in chapter 8. After this it came to pass that David attacked the Philistines and subdued them and took Methag Amma from the hand of the Philistines. Now Methag Amma is not the known name of any city that the Philistines ever had or any location.

We do know of the names of five cities of the Philistines and they are frequently mentioned in scripture, but there's never any reference anywhere neither in scripture nor archaeology to this Methag Amma. However, the words Methag Amma mean the bridle of the mother city. And some people think it's a reference to the city of Gath.

If Gath was ruling over the other cities, if it was a prominent city, there may have been a poetic name for it. Like we call New York the Big Apple. The Philistines may have referred to Gath as the bridle of the mother city.

No one knows for sure, but obviously the writer expects us to make sense of it somehow. So it's apparently a reference to a Philistine city, probably Gath. Then he defeated Moab, forcing them down to the ground.

He measured them off with a line. With two lines he measured off those to be put to death, and with one full line those to be kept alive. So the Moabites became David's servants and brought tribute.

He apparently killed two-thirds of the Moabites, probably two-thirds of their fighting men. It doesn't say necessarily that it was the whole population. It's very probably their soldiers.

And how he did this I'm not really sure. He kind of divided them up into three lines and killed off two of them and saved one. Now, we don't know why he dealt so harshly with Moab as this.

He had left his parents and brothers in Moab when he was fleeing from Saul. He left them there for safekeeping. Remember, David's great-grandmother, Ruth, was from Moab, and therefore they had some remote relatives there.

And when Saul was pursuing David and David was escaping, Saul could easily have simply arrested David's father or brothers and said, OK, David, turn yourself in or your father's going to get it. So David took his family and took them out of Saul's domain, took them to the king of Moab, and urged the king of Moab to protect them. There is a Jewish tradition.

I don't know if there's any historical basis for it, but the Jewish tradition is that the Moabites, the king of Moab, killed David's family, killed David's father and mother. And the Jewish rabbis say that's why David treated Moab this way, that he had delivered his family for safekeeping to them, and now he avenged them because they had been killed. Whether that is true or not, we may never know.

David also defeated Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his territory at the River Euphrates. Now, I'm not sure whether the one seeking to recover his territory at the River Euphrates was Hadadezer or David. In any case, it does suggest that David conquered territory as far as the River Euphrates.

When God first outlined the perimeters of the promised land that God was going to give to Abraham, it included the River Euphrates as one of the boundaries. Now, the River Euphrates is pretty far from modern Israel. Israel's boundary, its eastern boundary, is the River Jordan.

And its northern boundary is up in Lebanon. And the River Euphrates is quite some distance away to the north and the east of Israel. And never has really been a boundary of the nation of Israel.

However, it has been controlled by Israel. And David controlled that region that reached out to the River Euphrates. And so did Solomon.

It's mentioned in 1 Kings 4 that Solomon's reign extended to the River Euphrates. Now, that was only for a while. When Solomon lost his domain, or when Rehoboam lost it, I'm sure that the region that far away from Israel no longer served the Jewish kings.

It says, Now, hamstringing the horses, those of us who are sympathetic toward horses feel like that's an awfully cruel thing. They would cut the hamstring of the back leg of the horse, which would not kill it. It would actually just kind of make the horse lame.

And the horse would then be suited for farm use, pulling a plow or a cart or something like that. But it would not be suited for army. It would not be able to serve as a military vehicle anymore because it couldn't run.

And therefore, they didn't kill the horses, but they hamstrung them. Thus, the horses still remain useful for something, but not for military uses. He made the exception of 100 horses to pull 100 chariots.

Now, David had not had a chariot force before. Israel had not had chariot forces. Some of the people that they had been unable to defeat in the days of Joshua were formidable because they had chariots.

And Israel never really had horses until this time. The kings, or the judges, I should say, of Israel previously and Saul had not ridden horses. They rode donkeys.

They rode white donkeys, which might seem strange because a donkey doesn't seem like a really very dignified animal. But for some reason, that's what they rode. They didn't have horses.

And then horses were introduced by these conquests where he captured some of the horses. And he did have a chariot force. Now, Solomon had a much larger chariot force than David, although he never had to use it.

When the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer, king of Zobah, David killed 22,000 of the Syrians. They should have stayed home. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became David's servants and brought tribute.

And the Lord preserved David wherever he went. So it looks like David's doing a lot of this leading the armies himself, although he's king and has Joab as the head of his military, and Job's really quite competent. Joab's really great.

In fact, some of these battles could possibly have been fought with Joab at the head, and they're simply attributed to David. But when it says the Lord preserved David wherever he went, it sounds like David was out there in the fray himself, where he might have gotten killed, but didn't. We do know from later on, we hear stories of some of David's mighty men.

One of them spared David when he was almost killed by a giant. And so David was sometimes out there actually still fighting, even when he was king. And David took the shields of gold that had belonged to the servants of Hadadezer and brought them to Jerusalem to display them as trophies.

And since they were gold, they must have been quite attractive decorations as well. Also from Bitha and from Barothi, cities of Hadadezer, King David took a large amount of bronze. When Toi, king of Hamath, heard that David had defeated all the army of Hadadezer, then Toi sent Joram, his son, to King David to greet him and bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and defeated him.

For Hadadezer had wars with Toi. Although Hadadezer was a king of Arameans or Syrians, so was Toi, apparently a king of some Aramean groups, but they were different tribes that were at war with each other. And Toi decided to make peace voluntarily with David rather than fight him, and actually kind of appreciated David, because David had conquered Hadadezer, who had been also the enemy of Toi.

So he sends his son personally to bring gifts and probably to write some kind of a non-aggressions pact mutually between them to make some kind of a treaty. King David dedicated these to the Lord. Now all these gifts that came were worth a lot of money, but David didn't take them to himself.

He dedicated them to the Lord, which means that they would be given to the temple for its maintenance. Along with the silver and the gold that he had dedicated from all the nations which he had subdued. So whenever he subdued a nation, of course, he plundered them and took silver and gold from them.

So he had large amounts. Much of this was used by Solomon later on in building the temple. There are huge amounts of gold and silver used in the construction of the temple.

And these that David had dedicated to the Lord no doubt became the materials from which the temple would be built. From Syria, from Moab, from the people of Ammon, from the Philistines, from Amalek, and from the spoil of Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, the king of Zoba. These were the ones who he had gotten silver and gold from by conquering them.

And David made himself a name when he returned from killing 18,000 Syrians in the Valley of Salt. He also put garrisons in Edom. Throughout all Edom, he put garrisons.

And all the Edomites became David's servants, and the Lord preserved David wherever he went. Now the Edomites and these other nations, when David conquered them, he would establish a military presence. He would have military bases, garrisons, with his own soldiers stationed in these foreign countries to make sure there were no uprisings.

Just as the Romans later did in Israel in the days of Jesus. There were Roman garrisons in Israel trying to keep the peace there. So David at an earlier time had done.

Now the reference to doing this in Edom and saying that all the Edomites became David's servants is the fulfillment of the prophecy that was uttered when Esau and Jacob were still in the womb. In the 25th chapter of Genesis, when Rebekah was pregnant with the twins, Jacob and Esau, God told her that two nations were in her womb, and that the older would serve the younger. Now Esau was the older boy, and Jacob was the younger.

And this was never fulfilled in the persons of Jacob and Esau, nor was it intended to be taken that way. But the nation of Esau and the nation of Jacob, their destinies were in view. He said two nations are in your womb.

Two peoples shall be separated from between your feet. One shall be greater than the other, and the older shall serve the younger, he says. So the Edomites were from Esau, and Israel was from Jacob.

And here we see the fulfillment of that birth oracle that the Edomites, the children of Esau, come under the rule of the people of Jacob. And it says again, in the end of verse 14, And the Lord preserved David wherever he went, just as it said at the end of verse 6. Everywhere David went, he was like invulnerable. Everywhere he went, there was this protection around him.

So David reigned over all Israel, and David administered judgment and justice to all the people. Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was over the army. Jehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, was the recorder.

Zadok, the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, were the priests. We have not heard of Zadok previously, but in Samuel. Zadok is the one whose line replaced the line of Eli.

Eli, remember, was the old priest in the days of Samuel. And because of the evil of his sons, they were killed off in battle. And God said he was going to extinguish the line of Eli from being priests.

Well, that had not happened yet. Of course, David's life overlapped the life of Samuel, so it's not like a whole lot of time had elapsed. Or that there had been a lot of generations after Eli.

But Eli's house was not yet extinguished, because here Ahimelech, in verse 17, the son of Abiathar, is of Eli's lineage. But Ahimelech was later removed from office. He took the wrong side in one of the revolts against David.

And Zadok was the one whose descendants provided all the priesthood after that. And Zadok was not of the line of Eli. So both priests are in office here for some reason.

I don't know why there'd be two priests when they're not of the same line. But perhaps David was phasing Eli's line out. And so Ahimelech was maybe already the priest.

And God established Zadok in there too. So that once Ahimelech was removed, Zadok was already in position. Remember, there had been a prophecy given to Eli.

That God would destroy his family and raise up a faithful priest who would replace him. Most scholars would think that's a reference to Zadok, who replaced him in his line. And Saraiah was the scribe.

And Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, was over both the Cherithites and the Pelethites. And David's sons were chief ministers. Now, the Cherithites and the Pelethites were not Israeli.

They were mercenaries. They were mercenary bodyguards that were hired apparently from among the Philistines. The Cherithites are said to be Philistines.

I'm not sure about the Pelethites, but I think they may have been Philistines also. But David had conquered the Philistines. And now he had loyal Philistines serving him as bodyguard.

And that seems kind of strange. I mean, the king's bodyguard are the ones he's most vulnerable to if they wanted to make a plot against him. And yet, they were of his former enemies.

But remember, David had commanded in Gath before Saul died. He had commanded 600 of his own men. And apparently, Achish, the king of Gath, had also put some of his own men under David.

Because David had a large force that he led. And apparently, a number of Philistines had come to respect David during those days. And after he conquered the Philistines and brought them into subjection, they must have been genuine admirers of David so much so that he believed he could trust them with his life.

And he did. Actually, when Absalom revolted against David and David had to flee the city, these bodyguards went with him and endangered their lives with him as the majority of the armies of Israel were going to be following Absalom. These people stayed with David, so they were very loyal Philistines.

Now, it says that David's sons, the New King James says, were chief ministers. You might notice in the margin, it says literally priests. For some reason, the Masoretic text, the Hebrew text, says his sons were the priests.

However, we've already been told that Zadok and Ahitub were the priests. And it seems to be an error in the way that the Masoretic text has come down to us. It's because in the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 18.17, it says David's sons were chief ministers at the side of David.

This is in 1 Chronicles 18.17. It says, Benaiah was the son of Jehoiada, was over the Cherithites and the Pelethites, and David's sons were chief ministers at the king's side. The word priests is not used here. And it's obviously the parallel.

So it would seem likely that since the writer of Chronicles almost certainly used the books of Samuel as his source, at least one of his sources, that priests was probably not originally in that position of David's sons. They were not Levites. David was not a Levite.

His sons would not be Levites. Many of his sons were wicked people. But it's not realistic to think that David made them priests.

So the parallel in Chronicles is no doubt correct. They held government posts. That wasn't good enough for some of them.

Absalom wanted to be king, as we shall see. Chapter 9. Now David said, Is there still anyone who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan's sake? Jonathan was David's best friend and had died in battle with Saul. And David may have known there were survivors of the family.

I mean, he'd been king for some time now. It seems like he would have inquired into that earlier. He might have been asking it rhetorically in order to bring the subject up at this point in time.

And there was a servant of the house of Saul whose name was Ziba. So when they had called him to David, the king said to him, Are you Ziba? And he said, At your service. Then the king said, Is there not still someone of the house of Saul to whom I may show the kindness of God? Now this question could easily be seen as a very scary one to answer.

Because a king would not usually allow the descendants of his predecessor to survive. Especially if there had been dynastic change. Obviously, if a man was the son of the previous king, he'd let his brother survive.

But if a kingdom had shifted from one family to another, it was unthinkable to let the survivors of the old dynasty survive because there would be plenty of people in Israel who were, or in any kingdom that this would apply to, who would be loyal to the original royal family. And therefore, any survivors of the previous royal family would be potentially a threat. They could potentially, at any time, assert their claim to the throne and have the sympathies of a large number of the people.

So to prevent that, any time one king killed another and took his kingdom, he'd kill all his sons and all his offspring too. David might have been expected to do that. David was not a man of that type.

But even so, David was taking a risk by allowing any son of Saul to survive. In fact, Ziba, at a later time, when David has fled from Absalom, Ziba and Mephibosheth don't go with him. And there's some confusion as to why not.

And Ziba made the accusation that Mephibosheth had stayed in the kingdom to try to seize the throne again. Now, Mephibosheth apparently was innocent of the charge. Ziba seems to have lied to David about that.

But it was never settled whether Mephibosheth or Ziba were lying on that later occasion. But it was a realistic scenario that someone who was a scion of the earlier dynasty, especially when the present dynasty is falling out of favor with the people, would easily be in a position to start an alternative revolutionary uprising against the present king. And therefore, kings knew better than to let such people survive.

Now, for David to be asking Ziba, who had been a servant of Saul, the previous king, are there any descendants of Saul still living? Ziba didn't know what David might do. David said that I can show the kindness of the Lord to him, but hey, that's what Herod said to the wise men. Go tell me where you find him so I can go worship him too.

But he really meant to kill him. And so Ziba could not possibly know if David was seeking to tear out a purge of the previous family. And yet Ziba is asked directly, and probably David knows the answer, so Ziba doesn't lie.

He says, there is still a son of Jonathan who is lame in his feet. So the king said to him, where is he? And Ziba said to the king, indeed, he is in the house of Macher, the son of Amiel in Lodebar. That would be on the other side of the Jordan.

That's where Ishbosheth and Abner had fled upon the death of Saul and where Ishbosheth had been set up temporarily as king of the northern tribes from the other side of the Jordan. That's where Mephibosheth was still living apparently. What few there were still of the house of Saul apparently had moved over to that side of the Jordan to escape whatever repercussions they might experience as a former royal family.

Now when Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, had come to David, he fell on his face and prostrated himself. Then David said, Mephibosheth? And he answered, here is your servant. Now realize, if you're Mephibosheth, you've been living all this time since the death of your father and your grandfather, and since another man has become king, and you're wondering how this is going to affect your fate.

And now you hear that the king has called for you to present yourself to him. I mean, the trip across the Jordan and down to Jerusalem to meet David must have been one where Mephibosheth wasn't really sure how this was going to end up. He would have every reason to suspect that David might arrest him and have him killed right there.

Not that he'd done anything wrong, but you didn't have to do anything wrong. You just had the wrong bloodline. You're a danger to the present royal family.

And so Mephibosheth is prostrating himself before David, apparently not knowing how things are going to go for him. So David said to him, do not fear, for I will surely show kindness for Jonathan your father's sake, and I will restore to you all the land of Saul, your grandfather, and you shall eat bread at my table continually. Then he bowed himself and said, What is your servant that you should look upon such a dead dog as I? And the king called Ziba, Saul's servant, and said to him, I have given your master's son all that belong to Saul and to all his house.

You therefore and your sons and your servants shall work the land for him, and you shall bring in the harvest that your master's son may have food to eat. But Mephibosheth, your master's son, shall eat bread at my table always. Now Ziba had 15 sons and 20 servants, so that was the 35-man workforce that David was giving to Mephibosheth to till all the new lands he'd been given, which had been all the royal lands before.

Now again, this was a risky thing for David to do, to leave a royal heir to the throne alive, and he would be the heir because Jonathan was the heir, and Jonathan, you know, Mephibosheth may have been the youngest son of Jonathan, we don't know, but the point is he was the only surviving son of Jonathan, it would appear. And therefore, if anyone could claim the throne based on hereditary dynasty from Saul, this man could, and now he's given him all the royal lands that had belonged to Saul, which would be another way that Mephibosheth, if he were so inclined, could sort of claim royal privileges in front of the people. See, I possess everything my father possessed, I'm his grandson, and therefore I'm the one that should be king, and that would play, that would play with a lot of people popularly, and he probably could do something with that, but he didn't, didn't try to, and David must have felt very secure in his popularity and his holdings and his military strength that he would even put himself at such a risk as to give these privileges to Mephibosheth.

And Ziba said to the king, according to all that my lord the king has commanded his servant, so will your servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he shall eat at my table like one of the king's sons. Mephibosheth had a young son whose name was Micah, and all who dwelt in the house of Ziba were servants of Mephibosheth.

So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem, for he ate continually at the king's table, and he was lame in both his feet. Now, we've been told many times he was lame in both his feet. Earlier when we were first introduced to him, we were told that it was because when Saul and Jonathan had been killed in battle, Mephibosheth was only five years old, and the woman who was caring for him, the nurse, grabbed him and tried to run to a place of safety, and she stumbled and fell.

Apparently he must have broken his ankles or something, which may not have healed upright. So he was lame all his life from that accident. But also the reason to continually mention it is because it becomes a factor in the question of whether he was disloyal to David later on.

Because at a later time, like I said, when David had to flee the city under Absalom, Mephibosheth did not join him. And when David met Ziba, he said, why has your master Mephibosheth not come with you? And he said, oh, well, he decided to seize the throne again if he could. He saw this as his opportunity to get the house of Saul back in power.

That's what Ziba said. But when David came back in peace after Absalom was defeated, and David met up with Mephibosheth and said, why didn't you come out? Mephibosheth said, my servant deceived me. I'm lame in my feet.

I was going to come and join you, but my servant took the donkeys and left without me, and I couldn't come. So the fact that he's often said to be lame in his feet becomes the thing that became his alibi, so to speak, his excuse at this later time, which is, I think, the last we ever hear of him in that later account. His lameness is a factor that's significant to the story, and therefore it's mentioned repeatedly.