The hour of crisis produces the man for its need. This was singularly the case for Israel at the time when David was, half in secret, anointed to be king. The need was great and the man also was truly great, not only in a topical sense, but in the larger context of Israel and of the whole world. Called from the lowly occupation of the youngest son of a not-significant family, of the smallest tribe of the nation, he rose to a fame which placed Israel on a parity with the great nations of the day and created a lasting good for humanity which has been reflected over three thousand years, and now reaches toward a consummation in the larger future. And it all came about, not merely because of the intrinsic qualities which made him personally great, but because in him dwelt the power of the Almighty, for God’s particular purpose.
The nation, recently emerged from the disorder of long centuries, needed a king of wider and surer abilities than Saul could command in order to organize the state and to sustain its cause against investing enemies. The man of destiny was found in the obscure house of Jesse at Bethlehem. As Samuel surveyed the magnificent sons, and approved each in turn, he was reminded by the Spirit that sees men in a different light; but when he looked upon the immature youngest son with his bright eyes and handsome face and calm assurance of a military bearing he glimpsed something of the character of the man to be and the Spirit instructed him, “Arise, anoint him, this is he”. From that moment the Spirit of God came mightily upon the youth. A member of Saul’s court later reported him to be skillful in playing, a man of valour, a man of war, prudent in speech, a man of good presence.
Samuel would bestow careful tutelage upon his protege and would commence a careful education in discipline and character building to train him for his kingly office. The normal course of daily duties also was directed to this same end, for out on the hillsides tending his father’s little flock he cultivated his natural talents for minstrelsy and poetry which later added lustre to his office through the Psalms which graced the Temple services; and the long night vigils while he guarded the fold and viewed the stars above awakened a profound reverence for the Omnipotent Creator; the rigors of the pastoral years endowed him with courage, endurance and a sense of responsibility —he had a trust to keep!
He served the king with loyalty and, though persecuted, would not raise his hand against the Lord’s anointed; the command of the six hundred insurgents in the wilderness taught him the control of violent men; the love between himself and Jonathan, with neither overweening ambition on the one side nor fierce resentment on the other, added to the quality of faithfulness; the clamour of the multitude, “Saul hath slain his thousands, but David his tens of thousands”, alerted him to the subtle influences of public relations and popular appeal which were to draw the people in submission around his throne; and his experiences in the army of the Philistines while he endured exile, gave him an insight into their superior military discipline and organisation which stood him in good stead when he came to reorganize the armies of the Lord of Hosts. Each one of these experiences added some particular virtue to the fullness of his years.
Of ruthless cruelty, self-indulgence and falsehood there is more than enough—they are the constant vices by which oriental monarchs maintained their authority and power; yet there always was about his person a grace and charm which made him beloved—his very name, David, meaning captain, darling, reflects the constant temper of his immense energy and natural gifts. He was born to be a king.
These virtues inspired the public loyalty to an extraordinary degree and made him to be the true founder of the monarchy, and indeed, in a wider sense, of Jewish nationalism. They produced the successful warrior who first of all, since the entering into the Land, extended the dominion of Israel to the limits which Moses saw in vision from the top of Mount Nebo as his glance ranged round the vista from the great river on the north to the river of Egypt on the south.
The guiding principles of his rule were doubtless derived from Samuel’s instruction and are reflected in the religious fervour of a number of his Psalms. He would, he declared, keep about him counsellors and courtiers who paid due reverence to God, the upright man who spoke the truth in his heart, who swore to his own hurt and did not change, who honoured those who feared the Lord. His intimate comrades were to have clean hands and a pure heart, they should not have lifted up their heart to vanity. And of himself he claims, “I will walk within my house with a perfect heart. . . . I will early destroy the wicked of the land”.
These principles he honored in his early years, while as yet the labor of establishing his kingdom kept his hands from mischief. He understood that “he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of the Lord,” and he trained himself to say with fervour, “How love I thy law, it is my meditation all the day. . . . Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way”. It was only when he attained the zenith of his power and sat at ease upon his throne that self-indulgence began to undermine his rule; at this point the instruction of Samuel failed in application he put his personal lusts above the law of God; and then, when these faults became public knowledge, they robbed him of disciplinary power over his court and even over his own family.
They compromised his administration of the law, as for example, when his own sons committed crimes which were worthy of death, his own inconsistencies made him powerless to act. To his favourite sons he extended the fullest liberty, and it is recorded of one—Adonijah —that he never restrained him or questioned what he did. Not until they plotted insurrection did he rouse himself—to flee, in the case of Absalom, or to take preventive measures, in the case of Adonijah. But in both instances his own restraint from violent measures which might have split the kingdom showed his temperance and his respect for the people, for he could still think and act for their needs even in the bitterness of his own sorrow. This leniency which gave rise to palace intrigues also excited Ephraim’s jealousy against Judah on the occasion of his return to Jerusalem, and renewed the bitterness of Benjamin, which came to a head later when under Jereboam’s revolt the northern tribes separated permanently from the house of David.
Power unrestrained must inevitably corrupt the wielder of it, and in an age when the king could not be questioned, when by common consent he could do no wrong, it is only to be wondered that his crimes were as confined as they were.
It was a token of true humility when in this period of pride he could endure the parable of the poor man”s one ewe lamb spoken against him by the prophet Nathan, and tremble at his denunciation, “Thou art the man”, and make public his confession and repentance.
It was only natural in a way to the man himself that the fullness of his years should evoke the desire to build a house for God, but there was an element of pride in it at the same time, because it befitted the prestige of Israel. Yet he had “vowed unto the mighty God of Jacob, to enjoy no rest, or to close his eyes in sleep, until he found a place for the Lord”. He devoted the accumulated spoils of his wars against Israel’s enemies, and much of his own personal wealth also to that end. He had purchased out of his own pocket Oman’s threshing floor on Mount Moriah, to expiate a fault, refusing the Jebusite’s proffered gift he devoted the site to the future Temple.
Moreover, when the time came for him to abdicate the throne in favour of Solomon, he roused himself from his couch and from the lethargy of his old age, called the elders of the nation together, and “stood up upon his feet” and exacted a promise from his son that he would proceed without delay to implement the plan for the building of the House for the Lord. Had not the Lord declared, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne . . . he shall build a house for my name”, and this looked forward for a great while to come.
But these facts all represent the personal qualities of a man. We have to look wider afield. The greatest benefit he bestowed upon his people was to inspire them with a larger hope and a wider bound—he imparted to the people throughout their fluctuating loyalty to God a permanent vision of the Messiah. He seems to have had a clearer vision of the Messianic purpose than did the prophets themselves: “The Spirit of the Lord speaks in me”, he declared, “and his word is in my tongue, The God of Israel said, the rock of Israel spake.” He “opened his dark sayings upon the harp” because the Spirit of the Lord entered into him in music. Had not he himself been anointed with the consecrated oil? Had he not caused his successor to be anointed in similar fashion, and henceforward were not all the kings of Judah elevated into the messianic concept, which in after years was to find its fullest expression in Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Abraham, the son of David?
In most of what we have written so far we have been thinking of the personal achievements of a natural man; but to find the true fullness of the years we have to look beyond personal power and national glory, for the real greatness of his reign has to be sought in the Scion of the House of David who, it was foretold, “would not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears”, who on the contrary would execute judgement and justice on a higher level and extend it to the poor and meek of the earth. We must look toward the one who was “anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows”, who while being made a “little lower than the angels” was yet made so much better than them having obtained by inheritance a more excellent name than they, who was “crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace of God he should taste death for every man”, and was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by a resurrection from the dead.”
This hope reflects the fullness of the years which springs from the House of David. David’s failures point to the obvious fact that “it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps”, and that the great consummation of Messianism can come only through belief in “great David’s greater Son” whom David in his day saw in prospect being elevated to the Majesty on High, when God would take him to His Right Hand until such time as his foes should be made the footstool of his feet.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One