IT is worthy of remark how seldom God employs a soldier in any spiritual work, just for the same reason as that given to David; and yet there have been several eminently pious men in the army, who have laboured for the conversion of sinners. I knew a remarkable instance of this; I was acquainted with Mr. John Haime, a well known preacher among the people called Methodists. He was a soldier in the queen's eighth regiment of dragoons, in Flanders, in the years 1739-46. He had his horse shot under him at the battle of Fontenoy, May 11, 1745; and was in the hottest fire of the enemy for above seven hours; he preached among his fellow soldiers frequently, and under the immediate patronage of his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland, commander-in-chief; and was the means of reforming and converting many hundreds of the soldiers. He was a man of amazing courage and resolution, and of inflexible loyalty. One having expressed a wonder "how he could reconcile killing men with preaching the Gospel of the grace and peace of Christ," he answered, "I never killed a man."How can you tell that? were you not in several battles?"Yes, but I am confident I never killed nor wounded a man."How was this? did you not do your duty?"Yes, with all my might; but when in battle, either my horse jumped aside or was wounded, or was killed, or my carbine missed fire, and I could never draw the blood of the enemy."And would you have done it if you could?"Yes, I would have slain the whole French army, had it been in my power; I fought in a good cause, for a good king, and for my country; and though I struck in order to cut, and hack, and hew, on every side, I could kill no man." This is the substance of his answers to the above questions, and we see from it a remarkable interfering Providence; God had appointed this man to build a spiritual house in the British army, in Flanders, and would not permit him to shed the blood of his fellow creatures.

"This chapter is one of the most important in the Old Testament, and yet some of its most interesting verses are very improperly rendered in our translation; it therefore demands our most careful consideration. And as in the course of these remarks I propose to consider, and hope to explain, some of the prophecies descriptive of THE MESSIAH, which were fulfilled in JESUS CHRIST, among which prophecies that contained in this chapter is worthy of particular attention, I shall introduce it with a general state of this great argument.

"It having pleased God that, between the time of a Messiah being promised and the time of his coming, there should be delivered by the prophets a variety of marks by which the Messiah was to be known, and distinguished from every other man; it was impossible for any one to prove himself the Messiah, whose character did not answer to these marks; and of course it was necessary that all these criteria, thus Divinely foretold, should be fulfilled in the character of Jesus Christ. That these prophetic descriptions of the Messiah were numerous, appears from Christ and his apostles, (Luke xxiv. 27, 44; Acts xvii. 2, 3; xxviii. 23, &c.,) who referred the Jews to the Old Testament as containing abundant evidence of his being THE MESSIAH, because he fulfilled all the prophecies descriptive of that singular character. The chief of these prophecies related to his being miraculously born of a virgin; the time and place of his birth; the tribe and family from which he was to descend; the miracles he was to perform; the manner of his preaching; his humility and mean appearance; the perfect innocence of his life; the greatness of his sufferings; the treachery of his betrayer; the circumstances of his trial; the nature of his death and burial; and his miraculous resurrection. Now amongst all the circumstances which form this chain of prophecy, the first reference made in the New Testament relates to his descent; for the New Testament begins with asserting that JESUS CHRIST was the son of David, the son of Abraham. As to the descent of Christ from ABRAHAM, every one knows that Christ was born a Jew, and consequently descended from Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. And we all know that the promise given to Abraham concerning the Messiah is recorded in the history of Abraham's life, in Gen. xxii. 18.

Christ being also to descend from DAVID, there can be no doubt that this promise, as made to David, was recorded likewise in the history of David.

It is remarkable that David's life is given more at large than that of any other person in the Old Testament; and can it be supposed that the historian omitted to record that promise which was more honourable to David than any other circumstance? The record of this promise, if written at all, must have been written in this chapter; in the message from God by Nathan to David, which is here inserted. Here, I am fully persuaded, the promise was, and still is, recorded; and the chief reason why our divines have so frequently missed it, or been so much perplexed about it, is owing to our very improper translation of the 10th and 14th verses. "This wrong translation in a part of Scripture so very interesting, has been artfully laid hold of, and expatiated upon splendidly, by the deistical author of The Ground and Reasons of the Christian Religion; who pretends to demonstrate that the promise of a Messiah could not be here recorded. His reasons, hitherto I believe unanswered, are three: 1. Because, in 2 Sam. vii. 10, the prophet speaks of the future prosperity of the Jews, as to be afterwards fixed, and no more afflicted; which circumstances are totally repugnant to the fate of the Jews, as connected with the birth and death of Christ. 2. Because the son here promised was (ver. 13) to build a house; which house, it is pretended, must mean the temple of Solomon; and of course Solomon must be the son here promised. And, 3.

Because ver. 14 supposes that this son might commit iniquity, which could not be supposed of the Messiah. The first of these objections is founded on our wrong translation of 2 Samuel vii. 10, where the words should be expressed as relating to the time past or present. For the prophet is there declaring what great things God had already done for David and his people; that he had raised David from the sheepfold to the throne; and that he had planted the Israelites in a place of safety, at rest from all those enemies who had so often before afflicted them. That the verbs ytm�w vesamti, and yt[fnw unetati, may be rendered in the time past or present, is allowed by our own translators; who here (2 Sam. vii. 11) render ytjynhw vahanichothi, and have caused thee to rest, and also render dyghw vehiggid, and telleth; which construction, made necessary here by the context, might be confirmed by other proofs almost innumerable. The translation, therefore, should run thus: I took thee from the sheepcote; and have made thee a great name; and I HAVE APPOINTED a place for my people Israel; and HAVE PLANTED them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more. Neither DO the children of wickedness afflict them any more; as before-time, and as since the time that I commanded judges to be over Israel: and I HAVE CAUSED thee to rest from all thine enemies.

"Objection the second is founded on a mistake in the sense. David indeed had proposed to build a house for God, which God did not permit. Yet, approving the piety of David's intention, God was pleased to reward it by promising that he would make a house for DAVID; which house, to be thus erected by God, was certainly not material, or made of stones, but a spiritual house, or family, to be raised up for the honour of God, and the salvation of mankind. And this house, which God would make, was to be built by David's SEED; and this seed was to be raised up AFTER David slept with his fathers; which words clearly exclude Solomon, who was set up and placed upon the throne BEFORE David was dead. This building promised by God, was to be erected by one of David's descendants, who was also to be an everlasting king; and indeed the house and the kingdom were both of them to be established forever. Now that this house or spiritual building was to be set up, together with a kingdom, by the Messiah, is clear from Zechariah; who very emphatically says, (Zech. vi. 12, 13,) Behold the man whose name is The Branch; HE SHALL BUILD THE TEMPLE of the Lord. Even HE SHALL BUILD THE TEMPLE of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his THRONE, &c.

Observe also the language of the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians iii. 9-17, St. Paul says, Ye are God's BUILDING- Know ye not that YE are the temple of God-the temple of God is holy, which temple YE are. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have his eye upon this very promise in Samuel concerning a son to David, and of the house which he should build; when he says, (Heb. iii. 6,) CHRIST, AS A SON OVER HIS OWN HOUSE, WHOSE HOUSE ARE WE.

"As to the third and greatest difficulty, that also may be removed by a more just translation of ver. 14; for the Hebrew words do not properly signify what they are now made to speak. It is certain that the principal word, wtw[hb behaavotho, is not the active infinitive of kal, which wouid be wtw[b , but tw[h from hy[ is in niphal, as twlgh from hlg . It is also certain that a verb, which in the active voice signifies to commit iniquity, may, in the passive signify to suffer for iniquity; and hence it is that nouns from such verbs sometimes signify iniquity, sometimes punishment. See Lowth's Isaiah, p, 187, with many other authorities which shall be produced hereafter. The way being thus made clear, we are now prepared for abolishing our translation, if he commit iniquity; and also for adopting the true one, even in his suffering for iniquity. The Messiah, who is thus the person possibly here spoken of, will be made still more manifest from the whole verse thus translated: I will be his father, and he shall be my son: EVEN IN HIS SUFFERING FOR INIQUITY, I shall chasten him with the rod of men, (with the rod due to men,) and with the stripes (due to) the children of ADAM. And this construction is well supported by Isa. liii. 4, 5: He hath carried OUR SORROWS, (i.e., the sorrows due to us, and which we must otherwise have suffered,) he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. See note, p. 479, in Hallet, on Heb. xi. 26. Thus, then, God declares himself the Father of the Son here meant; (see also Heb. i. 5;) and promises that, even amidst the sufferings of this Son, (as they would be for the sins of others, not for his own,) his mercy should still attend him: nor should his favour be ever removed from this king, as it had been from Saul. And thus (as it follows) thine house (O David) and thy kingdom shall, in Messiah, be established for ever before ME: (before GOD:) thy throne shall be established for ever. Thus the angel, delivering his message to the virgin mother, Luke i. 32, 33, speaks as if he was quoting from this very prophecy: The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob FOR EVER: and of his kingdom there shall be no end. In 2 Sam. vii. 16, �ynpl lephaneycha, is rendered as ynpl lephanai, on the authority of three Hebrew MSS., with the Greek and Syriac versions; and, indeed, nothing could be established for ever in the presence of David, but in the presence of God only.

"Having thus shown that the words fairly admit here the promise made to David, that from his seed should arise Messiah, the everlasting King; it may be necessary to add that, if the Messiah be the person here meant, as suffering innocently for the sins of others, Solomon cannot be; nor can this be a prophecy admitting such double sense, or be applied properly to two such opposite characters. Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of HIMSELF, or of SOME OTHER man? This was a question properly put by the Ethiopian treasurer, (Acts viii. 34,) who never dreamed that such a description as he was reading could relate to different persons; and Philip shows him that the person was Jesus only. So here it may be asked, Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of Solomon, or of Christ? It must be answered, Of Christ: one reason is, because the description does not agree to Solomon; and therefore Solomon being necessarily excluded in a single sense, must also be excluded in a double. Lastly, if it would be universally held absurd to consider the promise of Messiah made to Abraham as relating to any other person besides MESSIAH; why is there not an equal absurdity in giving a double sense to the promise of Messiah thus made to DAVID? "Next to our present very improper translation, the cause of the common confusion here has been-not distinguishing the promise here made as to Messiah alone, from another made as to Solomon alone: the first brought by Nathan, the second by Gad; the first near the beginning of David's reign, the second near the end of it; the first relating to Messiah's spiritual kingdom, everlasting without conditions, the second relating to the fate of the temporal kingdom of Solomon, and his heirs, depending entirely on their obedience or rebellion, 1 Chron. xxii. 8-13; xxviii. 7. Let the first message be compared with this second in 1 Chron. xxii. 8-13, which the Syriac version (at 1 Chron. xxii. 8) tells us was delivered by a prophet, and the Arabian says by the prophet GAD. This second message was after David's many wars, when he had shed much blood; and it was this second message that, out of all David's sons, appointed Solomon to be his successor.

John Gill's Bible Commentary

Original Hebrew