Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 Samuel 7:1 - 7:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Sa_7:1-29
1. David’s purpose to build the Lord a house, and the divine promise that the Lord will build him a house. 2Sa_7:1-16.
12And [om. and] when [When] thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be 14my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men. 15But my mercy shall not depart away from 16him, as I took it from Saul whom I put away [ins. from] before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established [stable] forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever.
25And now, O Lord [Jehovah] God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant and concerning his house, establish it [om. it] forever, and do as thou hast said. 26And let thy name be magnified forever, saying, The Lord [Jehovah] of hosts is the [om. the] God over Israel; and let the house of thy servant David be established before thee. 27For thou, O Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house; therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee. 28And now, O Lord God, [lord Jehovah], thou art that [om. that] God, and thy words be true [are truth], 29and thou hast promised [spoken] this goodness unto thy servant; Therefore [And] now, let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant that it may continue forever before thee; for thou, O Lord God [lord Jehovah], hast spoken it, and with thy blessing let [shall] the house of thy servant be blessed forever.
2Sa_7:1-3. David’s resolution to build the Lord a house is approved by the prophet Nathan. Comp. 1Ch_17:1-2.
2Sa_7:1. And when the king dwelt in his house (comp. 2Sa_7:11). What follows occurred not only after David had built his royal palace, but also after he, having secured external quiet, had taken up his permanent abode therein. The starting-point of David’s words in 2Sa_7:2 (like that of the narrative) is the “house” in which he dwelt [Philippson: Abarbanel refers to Deu_12:9-10 sq., supposing that David thought the condition there laid down to have now reached a fulfilment.—Tr.]—And the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies.—According to these words the following narrative cannot be put chronologically immediately after the Philistine war related in 2 Samuel 5, which view the position of this section after 2 Samuel 6 might seem to favor. Decisive against this is the phrase: “round about from all his enemies,” and 2Sa_7:9 : “I have cut off all thy enemies before thee.” The temporary quiet that David gained by that double victory over the Philistines he used to bring the ark to Zion; but he soon found himself involved in new wars begun by Israel’s enemies round about, first by the Philistines, according to the narration in 2 Samuel 8. Not till he had crushed all Israel’s pressing enemies could he wish to carry out his determination to build a house for the Lord. On account of its factual connection with the account of the ark the history of this determination is attached to 2 Samuel 6, the narrative throughout, indeed, not appearing to be strictly chronological, but bearing the impress of a grouping of the several sections according to certain principal points of view. (In chs. 8–12 the external wars, in 13–20 the internal difficulties, and in 21. sq. detached occurrences in David’s life are brought together without chronological sequence.) But it is not to be assumed that “our narrative is to be put in the last part of David’s life” (Then.), since, according to 2Sa_7:11, he had still other wars to carry on against the enemies of Israel, for which reason precisely, and because he had to be on his guard without, the peaceful work of temple building could not be executed (as Solomon also expressly affirms, 1Ki_5:17); and since the promise in 2Sa_7:12 refers to the seed, that will yet proceed from his body. The time of the words: “when the Lord had given him rest” (wanting in Chron.), is to be put after that of the wars in 2 Samuel 8, whereby David secured his throne against “enemies round about,” without being able thus to exclude further wars; his resolution to build a temple can be referred only to a temporary rest after his first victorious contests against all his enemies.—[Comp. the language in 2Sa_22:1 and Jos_23:1.—Tr.]
2Sa_7:2. David communicated this resolution to the prophet Nathan, who, according to this, stood in a confidential relation to him as counsellor, and this is confirmed not only by Nathan’s reproof after the sin with Bathsheba, but also by the fact (2Sa_12:25) that Solomon’s education was committed to him, and he with David’s approval anointed Solomon as successor to his father while the latter was still living (1Ki_1:34). [On Nathan see Erdmann’s Introduction and the Bible-Dictionaries.—Tr.]—David states to Nathan as the ground of his resolution the contrast that he dwelt in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God stood within the curtains, that is, simply in a tent (2Sa_6:15). The word here used ( äַéְøִéòָä ) means in Exo_26:2 sq. the inner cover composed of several curtains, that was spread over the board-structure of the tabernacle. The Plu. is used in Isa_54:2 as=“tent,” and in Son_1:5; Jer_4:20 as=“tents.” The “within” refers to the drapery formed by the curtains; Chron. has “under curtains.” David’s words express the pious, humble disposition in which his purpose was founded. The utterance of the purpose itself is not added to this statement of its ground, but is presupposed in Nathan’s approval [2Sa_7:3]. All that is in thy heart, that is, in this connection, what thou hast resolved on, comp. 1Sa_14:7; 2Ki_10:30. For the Lord is with thee, where the preceding “do” is based on the Lord’s leading, under which David, as theocratic king, stands. Nathan characterizes David’s purpose as one well-pleasing to the Lord. J. H. Michaelis: “out of his own mind, not by divine revelation.”
2Sa_7:4-16. The divine revelation to Nathan for David and his house.
a. 2Sa_7:4-7. Not David is to build the Lord a house.
2Sa_7:4. In that night, following the day on which David held the above conversation with Nathan, came the word of the Lord to Nathan. Nothing is said here of a divine revelation through a dream (comp. Num_12:6; 1Ki_3:5), or through a vision and the hearing of a voice (comp. 1Sa_3:5; 1Sa_3:10; 1Sa_3:15), but the word of the Lord is described as having come to Nathan by night; that is, it is related that he received a divine revelation in the form and through the medium of the word, he receiving its content with the inner ear of the Spirit as a divine decision respecting that which was stirring his heart. Comp. Isa_21:10. By the conversation held with David during the day Nathan’s soul with all its thoughts and feelings was concentrated on David’s great and holy purpose; this was the psychological basis for the divine inspiration that forms the content of the following revelation, and not in inner contradiction with, but in distinction from his answer to David, informs him that the purposed temple-building is to be executed according to the Lord’s will not by David, but by his seed.
2Sa_7:5. Nathan receives the divine revelation that he may officially impart it to David.—Shouldest [or, shalt] thou build me a house to dwell in?—The question has a negative significance=thou shouldest [shalt] not. Chron., interpreting the meaning, has: “not thou.” Certainly Nathan’s assent to David’s thought that a house ought to be built for the Lord is not thereby set aside; but it is true that the opinion that David himself is to be the builder is corrected into this other, that this resolution is to be first carried out by his seed. Hengstenberg’s interpretation, therefore, that David is to build the house not personally, but in his seed [Christol., Eng. tr. I. 126], is forced and in contradiction both with his word and with Solomon’s interpretation (1Ki_8:15-21).
2Sa_7:6. The reason for the no. It is logically obvious that this reason must stand in some relation to the sense in which the “shalt thou?” is spoken. Not thou shalt build me a house, for: 1) “I have not dwelt in a house from the day when I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt to this day.” During this whole period, while the people had yet no secure, firm, unendangered dwelling-place, the symbol of the Lord’s presence and dwelling amid His people could also have no permanent abode. But I was a wanderer in tent and dwelling-place, that is, as the people was in constant movement and unquiet, so my abode was of necessity a movable tent, wandering from place to place; the allusion is to the necessary frequent change of place of the sanctuary, first in the wilderness, and then during the unquiet movements hither and thither in the land itself (Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon). Comp. 1Ch_17:5 : “and I was from tent to tent and from dwelling to dwelling.” There is no sufficient ground for distinguishing “tent” and “dwelling” as tent-frame and tent-cover (Then.); rather the “dwelling” is to be taken with Keil as explicative: in a tent, which was my dwelling.—[The word mishkan, rendered in Eng. A. V. “tabernacle,” sometimes means the whole structure built by Moses, as in Exo_35:11, where it includes the boards, the tent (ohel, the goatskin-curtain) and the covering (mikseh, the curtains of ram-skins and seal-skins). Elsewhere (as in Exo_40:18) it denotes the board-structure with the inner curtains of blue, purple and scarlet; and again it is used (Exo_26:6) apparently for the inner curtains alone. It seems clear that technically the ohel or tent signified the outer cloth of goat-skin, and the mikseh or covering the two protecting heavy cloths of ram-skin and seal skin, the mishkan proper denoting the rest of the structure; but it is not so probable that the technical distinction is introduced here; the interpretation of Keil seems better. Still, taking the somewhat different reading in Chron., we may suppose that each of the terms ohel and mishkan is put for the whole structure of which they formed a part, a variation of terms for the sake of filling out the conception, the former rather suggesting the wilderness, the latter the land of Canaan.—Tr.]
2Sa_7:7. 2. To the statement that the Lord had hitherto had no fixed dwelling, but had dwelt only in a movable tent, is appended a second, that in all this time He had never given command to build Him a fixed abode.—In all wherein I walked, that is, in my whole walk, during the whole time that I walked among all the children of Israel. These words are to be taken not with the preceding (2Sa_7:6), which form the adversative definition of the immediately preceding declaration, but with the following, and correspond in context with the statement of time in 2Sa_7:6 : “from the day. . . to this day.” The “walking” denotes the self-witness of the divine presence, might and help in the whole historical development of Israel up to this time. Spake I a word with any one of the tribes of Israel?—Instead of “tribes” ( ùׁáèé ) Chron. has “judges” ( ùׁôèé ), which is adopted by Ewald, Bertheau, Thenius, Bunsen, after 2Sa_7:11. But the “judges” are there mentioned in a totally different connection of thought; and if this were the original word, it would be impossible to explain the origination and general unquestioned acceptance of the difficult “tribes.” The reading of the text “tribes” is to be retained with Maurer, Böttcher, Keil, Hengstenberg. Maurer correctly remarks: “those tribes are to be understood that before the time of David attained the supremacy, as Ephraim, Dan, Benjamin. Böttcher gives a complete list of the tribes that successively attained the headship through the Judges chosen from them. [Abarbanel (quoted by Philipps.) renders “sceptres” = “judges,” but this is not admissible. On the text see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] The “feeding” (a figure derived from the shepherd, who goes before the flock, leads it to pasture and protects it) denotes the guidance and defence of the whole people, to which one tribe was called, and which it accomplished through the judge that represented it. The Chronicler had only the line of judges in mind; his alteration is a collateral text that serves very well to explain the main text. Why build ye not me a house of cedar?—That is, a permanent and costly sanctuary, worthy of my glory. Comp. 1Ki_8:16, where Solomon, with reference to these words, cites as the Lord’s word: “I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build me a house.” Psa_78:67 is in like manner elucidatory of this passage; for there the choice of David as prince, and of Zion as the place of the sanctuary, is represented as if it were the choice of the tribe of Judah after the rejection of Ephraim. [Synopsis Criticorum: In this discourse of God some things are omitted that are afterwards represented as having been said here, as in 1Ki_8:16; 1Ki_8:18; 1Ki_8:25; 1Ch_22:8-9; 1Ch_28:6; it is Scriptural usage not always to report the whole of a discourse, but sometimes to give a brief summary.—Tr.] Thus in 2Sa_7:6-7, looking at the whole past of the people, one side of the reason for the “shalt thou?” in 2Sa_7:5 is given: From the beginning of the history till now a permanent dwelling for the Lord, instead of the moving tent, had neither actually existed (because not possible under the circumstances), nor been divinely commanded. [There is no reproof to David in this.—Tr.]
b. 2Sa_7:8-11. The other side of the reason lies in the history of the Lord’s dealings with David, which point to the fact that the Lord will build David a house before a house can be built to the Lord.
2Sa_7:8. The Lord’s first manifestation of favor to him was his elevation from the lowliness of the shepherd-life to the office and dignity of prince over Israel. “From the sheepfold” ( ðָåֶä ) see Psa_78:70. [Better: “from the pasture.” The word means “habitation,” which in reference to flock means, not where they spend the night (which is, as Thenius says, âְּãֵøָä ), but where they feed (see Isa_65:10, where Eng. A. V. has improperly “fold”), and this suits the context of our passage.—Tr.] To this was added the continuous revelation of His gracious presence: 2Sa_7:9.—I was with thee in all thy going.—These two facts, the elevation of David to be king and his constant attendance [by God] in all his walk, answer to the elevation of Israel to be his people, and the Lord’s walking with them (2Sa_7:6-7). The wars hitherto waged form the third stadium: I have cut off all thy enemies before thee.—These wars, however, were the wars of the Lord, waged by Him as king of his people (1Sa_25:28). On this plane of the Lord’s exhibition of power in wars and victories over enemies rises the glory of the great name that the Lord has made for him in the sight of the nations round about (comp. Psa_132:17-18; 1Ch_14:17).
2Sa_7:10. These gradually advancing manifestations of the Lord’s favor to David look to the wellbeing of the people of Israel: 1) He thereby prepared a place for them [Erdmann renders: “I prepared a place,” etc.; see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]; that is, by subduing their enemies made room for a safe, unendangered expansion in the promised land; 2) Planted them—that is, on the soil thus cleansed and made safe He established a firm, deep-rooted national life; 3) They dwell in their [own] place, their life-power unfolds itself within the limits secured them by the Lord; 4) They shall no longer be affrighted by restless enemies. In these words the discourse turns to the future of the people. The sense is: after all these manifestations of favor in the past up to this time, the Lord will for the future assure His people a position and an existence, wherein they shall no more experience the affliction and oppression that they suffered from godless nations. The “as beforetime” refers to the beginning of the people’s history in Egypt. The words in 2Sa_7:11 from “and as since” to “Israel” belong with the “beforetime” as chronological datum, and depend on the “as” in 2Sa_7:10. And from the time when I ordained Judges over my people Israel.—That is, not merely during the period of the Judges, but on from the time when the judges began to lead the people, since the Prep. “from” [Eng. A. V.: “since”] gives only the terminus a quo, and consequently the period of the continuous oppression of the people by surrounding nations in the time after the judges till now is not excluded. This glance at the history of Israel’s affliction and oppression from the beginning on answers to the glance at the Lord’s presence and walk with them during their long period of wandering. All this the Lord has done to the people through His servant David (comp. Psa_89:22-24). The usual connection of these words with the following: “and from the time that.… have I caused thee to rest” (so still Hengst. ubi sup. [p. 130]) is untenable—because: 1) we thus have the impossible statement that God gave David rest from the beginning of the period of the Judges on, and 2) the period of the Judges was any thing but a time of quiet. And I give thee rest from all thy enemies.—The verb (Perf. with Waw consec.) is to be understood of the future, as is usual with this form when, as here, a future precedes. “In the quiet progress of the discourse the Future here passes over into quiet description” (Ges. § 126, 6). It is also here to be considered that the Perf. refers to Future in asseverations and assurances. To take the verb in a Perfect sense [= I have given rest], the narrative concerning the past in 2Sa_7:9 being thereby resumed (De Wette, Thenius [Bible Commentary, Philippson]), is inadmissible, because the discourse has already in the preceding words turned to the future, and such a retrogressive repetition, considering the rapid advance elsewhere in all these words, would be intolerable. David’s present rest (2Sa_7:1) was only a temporary one—for the hostile nations were ever seeking opportunity to assault Israel. Although David’s wars and victories hitherto had so far firmly established Israel that the former times of “terror and distress” could not return, yet his reign was a constant war with the hostile nations around, in order to maintain the security that had been won, and to ward off the freshly inpressing enemies. To this continuing unquiet refers the first promise of the Lord to David: “I will give thee rest from all thy enemies.” The Chron. has (2Sa_7:10): “and I subdue all thy enemies, and tell it thee, and a house will the Lord build thee.” The second declaration is introduced by the words: “the Lord announces to thee” (not, has announced), “causes to be announced.” Thereby the promise itself: The Lord will build thee a house is raised to its supereminent importance above all the preceding words. In it culminates the gradually rising line of the Lord’s exhibitions of favor to David, and through him to the people. The “house” is the royal authority in Israel, which is assured and established for his family. According to these words (2Sa_7:5-11) there are two principal grounds for the Lord’s negative answer to David’s determination to build him a house: 1) as the Lord could have no fixed dwelling-place amid His people, so long as they were wandering out of Canaan, and in Canaan were constantly disquieted by enemies and driven hither and thither, so also David’s rule, in spite of victories over enemies, was still too much disquieted by external enemies that had to be fought, he being especially called thereby to secure to the people a settled permanent existence for the future. Hence now also the dwelling-place of the Lord amid His people can have no other form than that of the tent, the symbol of Israel’s wandering, which was to be ended and quieted first by David’s battles and victories. 2) David had indeed declared that he wished to perform something for the Lord in the building of a house, but this human plan should and could not reach fulfilment except and before the Lord had completed His manifestations of favor to David and carried out His plan, which looked to confirming the royal authority for his house and family forever, and thereby assuring the well-being of the people. What the Lord had hitherto done for David, and through him for Israel, was only the beginning of this confirmation of his kingdom; it was by its assured connection for all the future with David’s posterity that the firm foundation was first laid, on which could be carried out the work of temple-building as the sign of the immovably founded kingdom of peace and of the theocracy that was to exhibit itself in undisturbed quiet in Israel. The meaning of the divine prohibition, therefore, is this: Thou canst not build me a house, for I must first build thee a house, before the building of a house for me is possible. This second principal ground is connected immediately with the first; for the promise could not be fulfilled, unless by the establishment of external peace the condition for the confirmation of David’s house was given. The first ground is more precisely defined in 1Ch_22:7-13; 1Ch_28:3 sq. by the statement that David was not permitted to build the temple on account of his wars: “because thou art a man of war and hast shed blood.” With this agrees Solomon’s word to Hiram, 1Ki_5:3 : “My father could not build a house to the name of the Lord for the wars that were about him.”
c. 2Sa_7:12-16. The wider expansion and exacter definition of the promise: “I will build thee a house.” 2Sa_7:12 starts from the end of David’s life; after his death the promise will be fulfilled. I will set up thy seed after thee.—The “set up” ( äֵ÷ִéí ) denotes not the “awakening” or bringing into existence, but the elevating the seed to royal rule and power. The “seed” is not the whole posterity, as is clear from the explanatory words in 1Ch_17:11 : “thy seed that shall be of thy sons,” nor merely a single individual, but a selection from the posterity, which will be appointed by God’s favor to succeed David on the throne. Which shall proceed (come) out of thy body.—The seed here spoken of was still in the future when this promise was made to David. We are not, with Thenius, to change “will proceed” ( éֵöֵà ) to “has proceeded” ( éָöָֹà ), as if Solomon were then already born. And I will establish his kingdom.—On the setting up and elevation to the royal dignity follows its confirmation to David’s posterity, which has been called to be bearer of the theocratical royal office. This promise was fulfilled in the first place in Solomon, who also expresses his consciousness of this fact in 1Ki_8:20; comp. 1Ki_2:12.
2Sa_7:13. He, this thy seed, will build a house for my name.—The name stands for God Himself, so far as He reveals Himself to His people as covenant-God and makes Himself known in His loftiness and holiness. “To build a house for His name” signifies therefore not simply “in His honor, or as a place to call on Him,” but “to establish a fixed place, which should be the sign and pledge of His abode in Israel.” To the shorter formula: “To the (or, for the) name of the Lord” (comp. 1Ki_8:17-20; 1Ki_8:48; 1Ki_3:2; 1Ki_5:17; 1Ch_22:7; 1Ch_22:19; 1Ch_28:3) answers the longer: “that my name may be there, my name shall be there” (1Ki_8:16; 1Ki_8:29; comp. 2Ch_6:5; 2Ki_23:27), or, “that my name may dwell there” (Deu_12:11; Deu_14:23; Deu_16:11; Deu_26:2; Neh_1:9), or, “that I may put my name there” (1Ki_9:3; 2Ki_21:7).And I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever.—The royal dominion will not only be one established in David’s house, but also one enduring forever, never to be severed from this house. It is not here the everlasting dominion of one king that is spoken of, but it is said: with the seed of David the kingdom shall remain forever (= everlastingly). The everlasting stay of the kingdom in the house of David is promised. Comp. 2Sa_7:25, where David so understands this divine promise. Comp. Psa_89:30; Psa_72:5; Psa_72:7; Psa_72:17.
2Sa_7:14. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.—The relation of fatherhood and sonship will exist between the covenant-God of Israel and the seed of David. This denotes in the first place the relation of the most cordial mutual love, which attests its enduring character by fidelity, and demonstrates its existence towards the Lord by active obedience. But besides this ethical significance of the relation of David’s seed as “son” to God as “its father” (indicated by the Prep, “to”), we must, from the connection, note 1) the origin or descent of the son from the father; the seed of David, entrusted with everlasting kingly dignity, has as such his origin in the will of God, owes his kingdom to the divine choice and call, comp. Psa_2:7; Psa_89:27; Psa_28:2) In the designations “father and son” is indicated community of possession; the seed, as son, receives the dominion from the father as heir, and, as this dominion is an everlasting one, he will, as son and heir, reign forever in possession of the kingdom. The father’s kingdom is an unlimited one, embracing the whole world; so in the idea of sonship there lies, along with everlastingness, the idea of all-embracing world-dominion, on which the son lawfully enters. Comp. Psa_89:26-30; Psa_2:7-9. Whom, if he commits iniquity—that is, not hypothetically, “in case he sin,” but actually, when he sins (as cannot fail to happen); the seed, David’s posterity here spoken of is not exempted from the sin that clings to all men—I will chasten with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men.—That is, with such punishments as men suffer for their sins. David’s seed will be free neither from sin nor from its human punishment. “Grace is not to release David and the Davidic line from this universal human lot, is not to be for them a charter to sin” (Hengst.). Comp. Baur: Gesch. d. altt. Weissag. [Hist. of O. T. Prophecy] I. 392 sq. Such chastisement will not be set aside by the cordial relation of David’s seed as son to the Lord as father, but will rather follow David: The father will punish the son for his sins. The elevation of the latter to such glory above all the children of men is not to be a reason for making him an exception in respect to punishableness, but in this regard he will be equalled with all men before God’s righteousness. Clericus, against the connection, explains the “rod of men” to mean: “moderate punishments, such as parents usually inflict.” Wholly wrong is the rendering: “whom if any one offend, or, against whom if any one sin,” comp. Pffeiffer, Dubia Vexata, V. 2, l. 84, p. 390; Russ, De promissione Davidica soli Messiœ vindicata, Jen., 1713. In Psa_89:31-33 we have the further elucidation: “If his sons forsake my law and walk not in my judgments.… I will visit them with the rod of their sin and with the stripes of their iniquity.” Chron. omits this declaration in order to bring out the more strongly the following thought that the divine favor will, in spite of sin, remain with David’s seed (Hengst. ubi sup. [p. 135]).
2Sa_7:15. But my favor shall not depart from him.—It is presupposed that in his sinning he remains faithful to the Lord, not departing from Him, and that the chastisement leads him to repentance (comp. 1Ch_28:9; Psa_132:12). This is clear from the following words: as I took it from Saul whom I put away before thee.—Comp. 1Sa_15:23; 1Sa_15:26; 1Sa_15:28. “Before thee,” before thy face; Saul and his kingdom had to disappear before David, who, with his kingdom took their place, and with whose seed the kingdom will remain forever in spite of the sins that shall be found in the individuals of his posterity, “his sons” (Psa_89:31). “The contrast is that between the punishment of sin in individuals and the favor that remains permanently with the family, whereby the divine promise becomes an unconditioned one” (Hengst.).
2Sa_7:16. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be permanent, as the result of the permanent favor and grace assured to David’s seed (comp. Psa_89:29; Psa_89:38; Isa_55:3 [“sure mercies of David,” same word as is here rendered “established” in Eng. A. V.—Tr.]), and as the lasting fulfilment of the promise in verse 2 Samuel 12 : “I will raise up, lift up thy seed.” The word “before thee” is arbitrarily changed by Sept. and Syr. into “before me.” Böttcher explains: “in thy conception” (comparing 2Sa_7:26; 2Sa_7:29; 1Ki_8:50), and adds: “the reference is to the outlook of the living, not to a conscious participation still granted to the dead.” O. v. Gerlach: “David, as ancestor and beginner of the line of kings, is conceived of as he who passes all his successors before him in vision.” Thy throne will be firm forever.—This answers to the words in 2Sa_7:12 : “and I will confirm his kingdom,” as the continuous effect of this promise. In the “forever” (here twice given and resumed from 2Sa_7:13) in the promise of the everlasting kingdom connected with the house of David, the prophecy culminates. On the “firm” [ âָëåֹï , Eng. A. V.: “established,” different from the word so rendered in the former part of this verse, which = “sure,” “faithful.”—Tr.], comp. Mic_4:1, and on the “forever” comp. Psa_72:17; Psa_89:37; Psa_45:7; Psa_110:4; Psa_132:11-12. Comp. Joh_12:34.
2. David’s prayer.
2Sa_7:17-29.
2Sa_7:17. Conclusion of the preceding section and introduction to the following. According to all these words and according to all this vision.—The words, as the content of God’s revelation to Nathan, are distinguished from the vision as indication of its form and mode. To suppose a dream here (Thenius) because the revelation occurred at night (2Sa_7:4) is inadmissible—since nothing is said of a dream; for the vision ( çָæåֹï=çִæָּéåֹï ) is every where distinguished from the revelation by dream (Keil); and in Isa_29:7 the word “dream “is expressly added in order to indicate a “vision” that occurred in a dream. Our word signifies the view, vision, as the result of the looking or gazing of the prophets (who are called çֹæִéִí , gazers, seers) with the inner sense, whether in a waking state or in a dream. In the former case the “vision” may denote either collectively a number of divine revelations, taken as a whole (so Isa_1:1; Oba_1:1; Nah_1:1), or, a single revelation, as here (so Eze_7:26; Dan_8:1-2; Dan_8:15; Dan_8:17). But it is not the vision or view in itself that forms the essence and substance of the prophetic revelation, but rather the “word” or the “words” of the Lord, which as medium of the Spirit of God come to the prophetic spirit; the vision is the psychical form under which the revelation takes place. David’s answer to the Lord falls into three parts: Thanks for the exceeding abundant favor shown him and his house now in this revelation (2Sa_7:18-21), Praise to the Lord for the great things He has done for His people in the past (2Sa_7:22-24), and Prayer for the fulfilment of the promise in the future (2Sa_7:25-29).
a. 2Sa_7:18-21. David’s thanksgiving for the Lord’s gracious manifestation in the great promise now received.—The words “David went in… before Jehovah” indicate the powerful impression that Nathan’s communication made on David’s soul; the divine revelation received compels him to betake himself to the sanctuary “into the presence” of the Lord, where he “remained” ( øַéֵּùֶׁá tarried [Eng. A. V. sat]) sunk in contemplation and prayer. It cannot be inferred from Exo_17:12 that David is to be thought of here as sitting; for Moses there sat from weariness after long prayer. The verb ( éָùַׁá usually “sit”) is often used in the general sense: “remain, tarry.” [Bib. Comm. correctly points out that, even if the verb be rendered “sat,” it is not necessary to suppose that David prayed sitting. He may have risen to pray after meditation. Yet sitting under such circumstances would be a respectful attitude, and elsewhere we have no proof in the Scriptures of a customary attitude in prayer; that Solomon (1Ki_8:22) and Ezra and the Levites (Neh_8:4; Neh_9:4) stood was due to the peculiar circumstances. It is not stated in what place David offered his prayer; it may have been in his own house or in some part of the tabernacle.—Tr.]—The content of this thanksgiving-prayer is like a clear glass, wherein we see into the innermost depths of David’s heart. His soul, wholly taken up with the divine revelation and promise, expresses itself in the following utterances, which follow one another quickly in accordance with the internal excitement of feeling: 1) The humble confession of unworthiness in respect to all manifestations of favor hitherto made to him and his house Who am I, Lord Jehovah, and what is my house? The words answer exactly to Jacob’s words in Gen_32:10 as the expression of the deepest humility and feeling of nothingness over against the greatness and glory of God. So in Psa_8:5; Psa_144:3 there is the contrast between the divine loftiness and human lowliness and nothingness. That thou hast brought me hitherto.—David reviews all the past leadings of God’s grace, in respect to which, as manifestations of the divine favor and love, he so feels his unworthiness and nothingness, and at the same time indirectly declares that he has hitherto submitted himself to the Lord’s guidance. 2) David, with like humility, thanks the Lord for this present supereminent manifestation of His favor in the promise relating to the future of his house.
2Sa_7:19. He gives the liveliest expression to his humble and joyfully excited feeling of the greatness and glory of God in the repetition of the preceding address, “Lord Jehovah” (2Sa_7:18), and (comparing the abundant fullness of grace in this present revelation with the former exhibitions of grace, which culminate in it) in the first sentence of this verse (from the beginning to “great while to come”). From the far future [Eng. A. V.: “for a great while to come”], that is, of my house; the promise refers to favors in the far future for his house. The sense is: if, looking at former undeserved favors, I must bow low with the feeling of unworthiness, much more in view of the promises made out of free grace to my house for the far future. The last sentence of this verse ( åְæֹàú úּåֹøַú äָàָãָí ) is as enigmatic as the parallel passage, 1Ch_17:17 ( åּøְàִéúַðé ëְּúåֹø äָàָãָí äַîַּòֲìָä ). At the outset it must be assumed as certain that this word torah [Eng. A. V.: manner] never=“manner, custom, mode of acting” ( îִùְׁôָּè , ç÷ ). Therefore the explanation (in itself very agreeable and easy): “and this (hast thou spoken) after the manner of men, thou actest with me, that stand so infinitely below thee, in human manner,—that is, in such friendly manner as men use with one another” (Grotius, Gesenius, Winer, Maurer, Thenius, and De Wette: “such is the manner of men”) is as untenable as Luther’s translation: “this is the manner of a man who is God the Lord,” which besides rests on the conception of this passage as directly Messianic (pointing to the incarnation of God in Christ), and incorrectly takes “Lord Jehovah,” which here as before and after is an address, as explanatory apposition to “man.” For the same reason the explanation of Clericus and others is to be rejected: “in human fashion—that is, thou hast cared for me and my family as men do for their children and grandchildren, looking out for their future,” especially as it assigns to David’s words the very trivial thought of caring for a family for the future. Ebrard (Herz. VI. 609) characterizes this expression, “the law of man, of the Lord Jehovah,” as a word of “presageful bewilderment,” and finds the explanation in 1Ch_17:17, where he renders: “Thou hast looked on me like the form of man, who is God, Jehovah above;” David, says Ebrard, saw that he himself was contemplated, but at the same time so that Jehovah appeared to him here as a man, who was also God and enthroned on high, recognizing the fact that the final point of the promised posterity was Jehovah Himself, but Jehovah as man and God.So already S. Schmidt, who (after Chron.) inserts “as” before torah, taking this last=“condition, state” ( úּåֹã ): “O Jehovah God, Thou hast looked on me.…Thou who, in the humble condition and infirm state of wretched, afflicted man, art in all things made like man.” Apart from the incorrect, direct Messianic interpretation, all these and similar expositions take torah in a sense that it never has. It means regularly law. Hence Dathe and Schultz render: “such is a law for men”—that is, so should my enemies act when they think to hurl my descendants from the throne. So Bunsen: “This (Thy promise) is an indication (law) for men—that is, Thou wilt make Thy will authoritative even among men.” But this explanation requires too much to be supplied in order that the words may be understood. The same thing is true of the rendering of Hengstenberg—which Keil adopts: “The law of man, the law that is to regulate the conduct of men (comp. the expression Lev_6:2 (9), the law of the burnt-offering; 2Sa_14:2, the law of the leper; 2Sa_12:7, the law of the woman that has borne a child), is the law of love to one’s neighbor, Lev_19:18; Mic_6:8; ‘this,’ namely, the Lord’s conduct to him in his love and faithfulness, answers to the law by which men are to be governed in their conduct to one another; when God the Lord so graciously and lovingly condescends to act towards poor mortals according to this law that holds among men, it must fill us with adoring wonder. To this answers the parallel passage in Chron.: and thou sawest me (visitedst me, dealedst with me) after the law of man ( úåֹøä = úåֹø ), that is, the law of love to one’s neighbor, thou height (!) Jehovah God.” Against this view is to be remarked 1) that it requires too much to be understood in connection with “this” and “law,” 2) that God’s acting according to the law of love (given by Himself) cannot be thus represented as in contrast with His greatness and glory, as if He stood above the conduct that men (according to this law) are to follow, and should therefore be worthy of the greater admiration if He condescended to such conduct.—As torah originally signifies teaching, instruction, both divine (Job_22:22; Psa_19:8) and human (Pro_1:8; Pro_3:1; Pro_4:2; Pro_7:2; Pro_28:7; Pro_28:9), it is possible to render: “and this is a (divine) instruction for (poor, abject) man, to whom Thou so condescendest, O Lord God,” or, to paraphrase with Bunsen: “Thou instructest me (makest disclosures to me) as one man another; so great is thy condescension.” But this rendering, contrary to David’s tone of feeling throughout this whole section, lays all the stress on a formal thing, namely, the fact that God condescends to speak to him, to make disclosures to him, while it must be the content of the Lord’s words about the future of his house that moves him to humble thanksgiving and praise. Not the fact that the Lord condescends to him with His word of revelation (which He has often done before), but what He has now spoken to him is the cause of his humble thanksgiving.—For the explanation of this obscure passage it is further to be considered that these words, uttered abruptly and in lapidary style, are from the connection evidently to be token 1) as the expression of a joyfully excited heart, and 2) as the exclamation of humble astonishment at the greatness and glory of the grace of God in the promise given to his house, in contrast with human lowliness, as is indicated by the word “man” over against the address “Lord Jehovah.” The content of the promise to David’s house for the future, to which David has just referred as the highest evidence of the divine favor, and to which the “this” must beyond doubt be referred, is the divine determination that the kingdom is to be one proper to his house and forever connected with it, and is thus to have an everlasting duration. This is the divine torah or prescription, which is to hold for a weak, insignificant man and his seed, for poor human creatures. In the exclamation “this,” David looks in astonishment and adoration at the glory and the everlastingness (imperishableness) that is promised his house. This kingdom is indeed the kingdom of God Himself, and since it is promised his house forever, divine dignity and divine possession is thus for the farthest future ascribed to this house by that “word of the Lord;” the “Lord Jehovah,” towards whom David already feels so humbled and lowly by reason of His former manifestations of love and favor, now condescends to attach His kingdom in Israel, His everlasting divine dominion forever to his house, to his posterity, that is, to insignificant children of men, by such a law, which is contained in that word of promise. Similarly O. v. Gerlach: “This is an expression of wondering admiration of the gracious condescension of God. Such a law Thou establishest for a man and his house, namely, that Thou promisest it everlasting duration.” Comp. Bunsen: “Of so grand a promise hast Thou, O Eternal One, thought a mortal man worthy.” [Eng. A. V., adopting the interrogative form with negative force, apparently takes the meaning of this sentence to be: “it is not thus that men act towards one another, but Thy ways, O Lord, are above men’s ways.” Against this is that the word torah does not mean “manner” (so Erdmann above), and that the sentence thus stands in no relation as to sense with the parallel passage, 1Ch_17:17.—Other interpretations (see Poole’s Synopsis) take àָãָí as the proper name Adam, and explain: “as Adam’s posterity rule the world, so shall mine rule Israel,” or: “as Thou madest a covenant with Adam and his posterity, so with me and mine;” but the proper name Adam occurs nowhere else in the Davidic period, and this interpretation does not suit the context, especially the sense of unworthiness expressed by David.—This word again is taken as =“a great man” (so Bib.Com. and Abarbanel), or as =“a mean man,” neither of which senses it can have by itself. We cannot therefore explain: “Thou dealest with me as is becoming (to deal with) a great man,” or: “this is the law (or prerogative) of a great man, to found dynasties that are to last into the far future” (Bib. Comm.), which interpretations (though agreeing somewhat with 1Ch_17:17) do not accord with the humility that characterizes the whole passage. Chandler’s rendering: “this is according to the constitution of men,” namely, that the crown should be hereditary (God graciously making it hereditary in David’s family), is somewhat far-fetched and unsuitable to David’s line of thought. The early English commentators mentators generally interpret the passage as directly Messianic; but the context does not permit this.—If our text be retained, the sentence must be rendered: “and this is the law of man,” that is, the promise given is the prescription made for the government of man, who, in comparison with God, is so low, so unworthy of such honor; and Dr. Erdmann’s explanation is the most satisfactory. But regard must be had to 1Ch_17:17, in which it is evidently intended to give the same thought as is given here, and which, as it now stands, is to be rendered: “Thou regardest me according to the line of men on high.” It is difficult to bring these two declarations into harmony. Moreover, the two texts have enough similarity and difference to suggest that one has been altered from the other, or that both are corruptions of the original text. The ancient versions give little or no aid in determining text or meaning; they mostly either render literally, or give paraphrases that cannot be gotten from the existing Hebrew, and that offer no fruitful suggestion. It is noticeable, however, that the Chald. in “Samuel” has: “and this is a vision of men,” while the Sept. in “Chronicles” renders: “Thou regardedst me as a vision of man,” and these translations favor the causative form of the verb in Chron. (Hiph. úַּøְàֵðé ), or else a reading øàé “vision” instead of úåֹøä or úåø .—Ewald (after Chron.) reads the Samuel text: åְäִøְàִúַðִé áְúåֹø äָàָãָí ìְîַòֲìָä “and Thou hast made me look on the line of men upwards,” that is, into the future; and Wellhausen changes úּåֹøָä (and úּåֹø ) into ãּåֹøåֹú “Thou hast made me see generations.”—Since none of the proposed amendments of the text are quite satisfactory (for it is not clear how our present text originated), we must be content to know the general idea of the passage (which does not essentially vary in the renderings of Erdmann, Ewald and Wellhausen), namely, that David here continues his humble acknowledgment of the divine favor.—Tr.]
2Sa_7:20. David here affirms 3) the inexpressibleness and exceeding abundance of the divine favor bestowed on him, and the consequent impossibility of setting forth in words the thankfulness that he feels in his heart. And what shall David say more to thee?—Language fails; silence is here the most eloquent thanks. And thou knowest thy servant, Lord Jehovah.—As in 2Sa_7:19 the exclamation “Lord Jehovah!” formed a sharp contrast to the “man,” so it does here to “thy servant,” answering to the humble consciousness of the endless distance between him and his God, with which, however, is connected the childlike consciousness of immediate cordial community with God: for, as he often elsewhere appeals to God, who knows the heart, for consolation and justification against man, so he does here in respect to his thankful heart, since he is sure of having the testimony of the Omniscient for him (see Psa_40:6; Psa_40:10 [5, 9]).
2Sa_7:21. For thy word’s sake and after thy heart hast thou done all these great things to make them known to thy servant; the concrete “great deeds” is here meant, not the abstract “greatness,” see Psa_71:21; Psa_145:3. The word “this” [Eng. A. V. “these”] shows that the great things here referred to are the splendid promises that the Lord announced through Nathan to Him, his servant. Looking, now, at all the great things that the Lord has done for him in this revelation, David declares 4) the supernatural, superhuman eternal ground and origin of these new great manifestations of favor (which exceed all preceding ones) in “the word” and in “the heart” of God, that is, in His free gracious will, which is independent of all human merit. For Thy word’s sake. Chron. 2Sa 2Sa_5:19 : “for thy servant’s sake,” that is, because Thou hast chosen and called me to be king of Israel. “For David does not boast before God that his own merit had gained him these things” (Cler.). According to this point of view “the word” is perhaps that word of choice and destination given in 1Sa_16:12 (“the Lord said, Arise, anoint him, for this is he”), as Hengst. supposes. It is possibly, however, the old prophecy concerning the Tribe of Judah in Gen_49:10; “for that David recognized the connection between the promise given him through Nathan and the prophecy of Gen_49:10, is shown by 1Ch_28:4, where he represents his choice to be king as the result of the choice of Judah to be prince” (Keil). [It does not appear from this passage in Chron. that David means more than that the tribe of Judah had been now selected in his person as the royal tribe.—Tr.]. “And according to thy heart,” that is, according to the love and grace by which thy heart is filled, from thy loving will. Clericus: “From the spontaneous motion of thy mind, without external incitement.” Comp. Exo_34:6; Psa_103:8. Over against “God’s heart” as the source of the great favor received David sets his heart as filled with humble thanks therefor; but his word of thanks must stand dumb before the clear Yea and Amen and the earlier words of promise of God, the Yea and Amen of which is this exhibition of favor. In thus deriving it from God’s faithfulness to His promise, and from His heart-love, he adds the positive thought to the negative “who am I?” of 2Sa_7:18, and so leads the conclusion of this thanksgiving back to its beginning. [“To make thy servant know,” or, as in Chron. (2Sa_5:19) “to make known all (these) great things.” God not only in His sovereign mercy determined great things for David, but further for his consolation and strengthening made them known to him through His prophet.—Tr.]
b. 2Sa_7:22-24. Praise of the Lord’s greatness and incomparable glory as manifested by this highest exhibition of favor, in accord with the great deeds whereby in times of old He made Himself known to His people as their God.
2Sa_7:22. Therefore, because Thou hast done so great things for me, on the ground of this experience of Thine abounding favor, thou art great, Lord God; comp. 2Sa_7:26 : “and Thy name will be great,” not: “considered great” (Luth.), nor: “be Thy name praised by me” (5. Gerl., Then.), but it is an assertion of greatness manifested objectively in facts. The factual confession “great is the Lord” (comp. Psa_35:27; Psa_40:17 (16) is precisely praise to God. —Now follows the ground for this praise of the Lord’s greatness: For there is none like thee—this declares God’s incomparableness. Comp. Exo_15:11 “who is like thee, etc.?” Deu_3:24. And there is not a God beside thee, declaration of God’s aloneness and exclusiveness, comp. Deu_4:35; 1Sa_2:2. According to all that we have heard with our ears; David here passes from the co