Sketch of the Life and Character of David

SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF

DAVID

WHEN the historical books of the Old Testament were under consideration, I formed the resolution to say but little on those parts where the history of David is concerned, till I should come to the end of the Psalms, where, if I did not give a general history of his life, I might at least draw his character. But so many facts in David’s history were found to require illustration, I was obliged often to anticipate my design, and enter into discussions which I had hoped to be able to produce with good effect at the end of his writings. I must therefore refer back to several particulars in the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, that concern the history of this most extraordinary man; and the objections produced against his spirit and conduct by persons not friendly to Divine revelation.

Where I have found David to blame, I have not palliated his conduct; and though it is with me a maxim to lean to the most favourable side when examining the characters of men, yet I hope I have nowhere served the cause of Antinomianism, which I abominate, nor endeavoured to render any thing, morally evil, venial, because it was found in the conduct of a religious man or a prophet. Vice must never be countenanced, though individuals, on the whole highly respectable, suffer by its disclosure, which disclosure should take place only when the interests of religion and truth absolutely require it.

David, Dodd, or Daoud, dwd, the son of Jesse, of an obscure family in the tribe of Judah, and of the inconsiderable village of Bethlehem, in the same tribe, was born, according to the best accounts, A.M. 2919, B.C. 1085. He was the youngest of eight sons, and was keeper of his father’s sheep. David was descended from Jacob by his son Judah, in that line which united both the regal and sacerdotal functions; and in his own person were conjoined the regal and prophetic offices. It is supposed he was anointed by Samuel, about A.M. 2934, when he was but about fifteen years of age; and that he slew Goliath in A.M. 2942, when he was in the twenty-third or twenty-fourth year of his age. He became king of Judah after the death of Saul, A.M. 2949; and king of all Israel, A.M. 2956, when he was about thirty-seven years of age, and died A.M. 2989, B.C. 1015, when he was about seventy-one years old.

He is often mentioned by the Asiatic writers, and by Mohammed, in the Koran, in these words, “Daoud slew Geealout; (Goliath;) and God gave him a kingdom and wisdom, and taught him whatsoever he wished to know.”

Hussain Vaez, one of the commentators on the Koran, observes on the above passage: “That Goliath was of such an enormous size that his armour, which was of iron, weighed one thousand pounds; and that his helmet alone weighed three hundred; nevertheless David slung a stone with such force as to break through the helmet, pierce the skull, and beat out the Philistine’s brains.

“God gave him the gift of prophecy, and the Book Ziboor; (Psalms;) and taught him to make hair and sackcloth, which was the work of the prophets; and instructed him in the language of birds, which, with the stones of the field, were obedient to him, and iron was softened by his hands. During the forty days which he spent in bewailing his sins, plants grew where he watered the ground with his tears.”

The Mohammedans all allow that the Ziboor, or Book of Psalms, was given to David by immediate inspiration, and that it contains 150 sourats or chapters. His skill in music is also proverbial among the Mohammedans. Hence some verses in the Anvari Soheely, which are to this effect: “You decide the greatest difficulties with as much ease as Daoud touched the chords of his lyre when he chanted his Psalms.”

If we could persuade the Mohammedans that the Book of Psalms which we now possess was the real work of David, something would be gained towards their conversion. But they say the Jews have corrupted it, as the Christians have the Angeel, (Gospel,) and the book which they produce as the Psalms of David consists of extracts only from the Psalms, with a variety of other matters which have no relation either to David or his work. In the sacred writings David is presented to our view-1. As a shepherd; 2. A musician; 3. A skilful military leader; 4. A hero; 5. A king; 6. An ecclesiastical reformer; 7. A prophet; 8. A type of Christ; 9. A poet; and

10. A truly pious man.

1. David stands before the world in his history and writings as a private person destitute of ambition, apparently in a low, if not mean, situation in life, contributing to the support of a numerous family, of which he formed a part, by keeping the sheep of his father in the wilderness or champaign country in the vicinity of Bethlehem. In those times, and in such a rocky and mountainous country as Judea, this situation required a person of considerable address, skill, courage, and muscular strength. The flock must not only be led out and in to find the proper pasture, but their maladies must be skilfully treated, and they defended against the attacks of wild beasts, than which none could be more formidable for rapacity and strength than the lion and the bear. These were among the savage inhabitants of the country of Judea, and were the destroyers of the flocks, and the terror of the shepherds. The land was also infested with banditti, or lawless solitary rovers, who sought by depredations among the flocks to live at the expense of others. The office therefore of a shepherd was neither mean nor unimportant, as a principal part of the property of the Jews consisted in their flocks.

From the ancient history of all civilized nations we learn that the persons thought qualified for it were such as had a liberal education, good natural parts, and were highly trustworthy and courageous. These most evidently were all combined in the character of David. That his education was good, his language and skill in music prove; and that his mind was highly cultivated, the depth, sublimity, and purity of his compositions demonstrate; and that his courage and personal strength must have been great, his slaying the lion and bear that had attacked the flock under his protection, are the clearest proofs.

2. His skill in music was so great as to be proverbial. In this curious art he excelled all his contemporaries, so as alone to acquire the character of the sweet singer of Israel. His success in quieting the turbulent and maniacal spirit of Saul by his performances on the lyre stand strongly marked in his history; and the effects produced were equal to any mentioned in the now fabulous histories of Greece or Rome. The wondrous harp of Orpheus, by which beasts and birds were enraptured, and the very stones and trees moved in harmony together, so as to compose of themselves the celebrated city of Thebes, we may well leave out of the question, as the fable is too gross to be credited, unless we take the exposition of an ancient author, Philodemus, some fragments of whose works have been recovered from the ruins of Herculaneum, from which we learn that the fable of the building of Thebes by the melody of his lyre arose from the fact that he was a musician who attended the builders, played to them during their labour, by whose contributions he earned a competent support, and caused them to go so lightly through their work, that he was hyperbolically said to have built the walls of the city by the power of his music. Nothing can be more natural than this explanation, nor could any thing serve better for the foundation of the fable. Indeed it has been conjectured by one of David’s biographers, Dr. Delaney, that the history of David was the origin of that of Orpheus. The coincidence of the times and the other circumstances alleged by this entertaining writer, have not served to persuade me of the truth of his hypothesis. We can amply support the credit of the Hebrew musician without impairing the credibility of the history and identity of the person of the ancient Greek lyrist.

It is not likely, however, that David was a performer on one kind of instrument only. There were many kinds of musical instruments in his time that were all used in the ordinances of religion, and apparently employed in those parts of it where the compositions of David were used. Calmet and others have properly divided these instruments into three classes. 1. STRINGED instruments. 2. WIND instruments. And 3. Such as were played on by a PLECTRUM.

I. STRINGED instruments. 1. The nabla, or psaltery. 2. The kinnor. 3. The cythera or azur, an instrument of ten chords. 4. The symphony. 5. The Sambuck. 6. The minnim.

II. WIND instruments. 1. The chatsotserah. 2. The shophar, or trumpet. 3. The keren, or horn. 4. The ugab, a species of organ. 5. The mashrokitha, or syrinx. 6. The machalath, a species of pipe or fife. 7. The chalil, or flute.

III. Instruments which required a PLECTRUM. 1. The toph, a drum, tomtom, or tambarine. 2. The tseltselim, or sistrum. 3. The shalishim, or triangle. 4. The metsiltayim, a species of bell.

As all these instruments were used in the service of God, and most of them are mentioned in the Psalms, it is very likely that such a consummate musician and poet played on the whole.

3. That David was a skilful military leader, requires little proof. When for the safety of his own life he was obliged to leave the court of Saul, and become an exile in the wilds of a country so much indebted to his courage and valour, he was under the necessity of associating to himself men of desperate fortunes and of no character. These, to the amount of four hundred, he so disciplined and managed, as to soften their lawless disposition, and repress their propensity to plunder and rapine, so that they never went on any expedition that was not under his direction, and made no inroads but what tended to strengthen the hands of his countrymen, and weaken those of their enemies. Neither by day nor night, so complete was his authority over them, were they permitted to take even a lamb or a kid from the flock of any man, though they had frequent opportunities of doing so in countries so thinly inhabited, and where the flocks were numerous. On the contrary they were protectors of the different herds which were fed in those parts of the wilderness where they were obliged to sojourn. To have succeeded in disciplining such a description of men is highly to the credit of his address and skill, especially when we consider that they were composed of such as had run away from the claims of their creditors; from the authority of their masters; who were distressed in their circumstances, and discontented with the government, or their situation in life, 1 Samuel 22:2. I question much whether any of the heroes of the last or present century, from Peter and Frederick the Great down to Napoleon Bonaparte, destitute of all subsidiary authority, and without any other officer to assist them in the command, could have disciplined four hundred such men, brought them under perfect obedience, and prevented them from indulging their restless and marauding spirit with so many temptations before their eyes, while prey was so easy to be acquired, and their general privations rendered such supplies necessary.

4. As a hero, David appears very conspicuous, if we take this word in its general acceptation, a man eminent for bravery. And here his proffering to fight with Goliath, the famous Philistine champion who had defied and terrified all the hosts of Israel, is at once a proof of his bravery and patriotism. In very remote times, and down to a late period, military etiquette permitted feuds and civil broils to be settled by single combat. In the presence of the hostile armies, previously to the shock of general battle, a man either stepped out from the ranks, or by a herald bid defiance to any person in the hostile army, and stipulated certain conditions of combat, in order to spare the effusion of blood; to the exact fulfilment of which he pledged himself and his party. This was done very circumstantially in the case before us. When the Israelities and the Philistines had drawn up their forces in battle array at Ephes-dammim, a champion of Gath called Goliath, of gigantic stature and strength, came out of the camp of the Philistines, and stood and cried unto the armies of Israel: “Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? Choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me. If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants, but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us.” And concluded with defying the armies of Israel. Saul, though he was a man of great personal courage, and the whole Israelitish army, were greatly dismayed at this challenge; and the more particularly so, because no man dared to take it up, notwithstanding the king had offered “to enrich the accepter with great gifts, give him his daughter in marriage, and make his father’s house free in Israel;” 1 Samuel 17:1, &c. David had come to the camp with provisions for his brothers who were in Saul’s army; (for it appears that the Israelitish militia bore their own expenses when their services were requisite for the safety of their country;) and hearing the defiance of the Philistine, proposed to take up the challenge; and having obtained Saul’s consent, went forth, fought and slew the Philistine in the manner related in the chapter quoted above. On numerous occasions he signalized himself in the same way; his natural courage, heightened by his constant dependence on God, never forsook him, and was always invincible. He was the life of his kingdom, and the soul of his army, knew well how to distinguish and employ eminent abilities, had the ablest generals, and the address to form a multitude of heroes like himself.

He had a company of champions, or as they are generally termed worthies or mighty men, to the number of thirty-seven. The account given of these ( 2 Samuel 23:8-39) would almost render credible the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table; and it is probable that the first idea of that ancient romance was taken from the genuine history of David and his thirty-seven champions.

6. How David would have acquitted himself as a lawgiver we cannot tell; for God had taken care to leave nothing of this kind to the wisdom, folly, or caprice of any man. The laws were all made and the constitution framed by Jehovah himself; and no legitimate king of the Jews was permitted to enact any new laws, or abrogate or change the old. The faithful and constitutional king was he who ruled according to the laws already established, as well in religious as in civil matters; for although the Jewish theocracy was somewhat changed by the election of Saul, yet the monarch was considered only as the vicegerent of the Almighty; and David, taking care to abide by the laws as they then were, and governing his subjects accordingly, was said to be after God’s own heart, or a man after God’s own heart: and this is the sense in which this phrase is to be understood. And as David took great care that no innovation should be made in the constitution, that the law of God should be the law of the empire, and ruled according to that law, therefore he was most properly said to be a man after God’s own heart, to fulfil all his counsels; and by this faithful attachment to the laws he was contradistinguished from Saul, who in several respects changed that law, and made not a few attempts to alter it in some of its most essential principles. On these grounds God rejected him and chose David.

But as a civil magistrate David’s conduct was unimpeachable: his court was regulated according to the maxims of the Divine law; and the universal prosperity of his kingdom is a decisive proof that judgment and justice were faithfully administered in it. The strong did not oppress the weak, nor the rich the poor; and, although the empire was seldom at rest from war during his reign, yet it was so conducted that his subjects were neither oppressed nor impoverished. Many of his Psalms bear testimony to these matters, as they contain appeals to God relative to the sincerity of his heart, the uprightness of his conduct, and his impartiality in administering justice among the people. To David the cry of the distressed was never uttered in vain; and the curse of the widow and fatherless was never pronounced against him for a neglect of justice, or partiality in administering it according to the laws.

6. David, I think, may be fitly ranked among ecclesiastical reformers, for, although the grand body of the Jewish religion was so firmly fixed, that it could not be changed, yet there were several circumstances in the form of Divine worship that appear to have been left to the pious discretion of the Jewish prophets, priests, and kings, to improve as time and circumstances might require. That God might be constantly worshipped, that the Jewish ritual might be carefully observed, and all the Divinely appointed ecclesiastical persons have their proper share of the public service, David divided the thirty-eight thousand Levites into courses, assigning to each course its particular service, 1 Chronicles 23:2-6. He did the same by the priests, porters, singers, &c.; and appointed twelve captains to serve each a month, and have the rule and inspection of the different courses and orders, to see that the worship of God was properly conducted. The twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-seventh chapters of the first book of Chronicles, give a very detailed and circumstantial account of the improvements which David made in the form and execution of the different parts of public worship. Almost every pious king of Judah had matters of this kind to regulate and settle: but it appears that David’s plan was so perfect, that it became a standard; and when any decay took place in the form of public worship, the chief aim of the succeeding kings was, to reduce every thing to the form in which David had left it. This is a full proof of the perfection of his plan.

7. That David was favoured with the gift of prophecy, is, I think, universally allowed. And although there have been prophets pro tempore, who were not remarkable for piety, yet there never was one on whom the prophetic Spirit rested, that was not truly pious. All such had deep communion with God: their souls were upright, and their bodies became temples of the Holy Ghost. This was most assuredly the case with David: the prophetic Spirit overshadowed and rested upon him; in general he held deep communion with God; and even in his Psalms, we can scarcely say when he does not prophesy. Some learned and very pious men consider the whole Psalter as a tissue of prophecies concerning Christ and his kingdom; and in this way our Lord and his apostles quote many of them. Could we really ascertain which were David’s, perhaps we might find them all of this description; though the subjects to which they apply might not be so clearly distinct: but there were so many written before, at, under, and after, the Babylonish captivity, that are become so mixed with those of David, that it is difficult, and in some cases impossible, to ascertain them. Where he evidently prophesies of Christ and his Church, I have particularly remarked it in the notes. I have not gone so far as some learned and pious commentators have gone, in applying the Psalms to Christ and his Church, because I was not satisfied that they have such reference. Even those which are of David’s composition, and have reference to Christ, are so mixed up with his own state, that it is often impossible to say when the Psalmist prophesies of the Root of Jesse, and when he simply refers to his own circumstances: and, on the whole, I am only sure of those which are thus quoted by our Lord and his apostles.

8. That David was a type of Christ is proved by the Scriptures themselves, see Jeremiah 30:9: “They shall serve the Lord their God, and DAVID their king, whom I will raise up unto them;” Ezekiel 34:23: “And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant DAVID; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.” Ezekiel 34:24: “And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant DAVID a prince among them.’’ See also Ezekiel 37:24; and compare this with Jeremiah 23:4, 5; John 10:11; Hebrews 13:24; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:4; Hosea, Hosea 3:5, speaks in the same way: “Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and DAVID their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.” That none of these scriptures speak of David, son of Jesse, is evident from this, that Hosea lived three hundred years after David, Jeremiah four hundred and seventy-three, and Ezekiel four hundred and ninety-three. But in what was David a type of Christ? Principally, I think, in the name dywd David, which signifies the beloved one, that one more loved than any other; and this is what is expressed from heaven by God himself, when he says, This is my Son, Jo Agaphtov, en w eudokhsa, THE BELOVED ONE, in whom I have delighted. This is the genuine David; the man after my own heart. He was his type also, in being a royal prophet-one in whom the Holy Spirit dwelt, and one who was a truly spiritual king; a character that seldom occurs in the history of the world.

Were we to consult those who have laboured on the types, we might find all the following resemblances stated; and, in their way, wondrously proved! David was a type of Christ, 1. In his originally mean appearance.

2. In his mean education. 3. In his unction. 4. In his eminent qualifications.

5. In his various persecutions. 6. In his enemies. 7. In his distresses. 8. In his deliverance. 9. “In his victories and conquests. And, 10. In his taking to wife the adulterous woman, and thereby bringing guilt upon himself.” See Parkhurst. All the first nine particulars might be controverted, as not having any thing in them exclusively typical; and the tenth is horrible, if not blasphemous. No analogies, no metaphorical meanings can support this abominable position. I have already given my opinion: to elucidate the particulars above, I shall never attempt.

9. But the highest merit of David, and that which seems to have been almost exclusively his own, was his poetic genius. As a Divine poet, even God himself had created none greater, either before or since. In this science and gift he is therefore the chef-d’œuvre of the Almighty. Moses wrote some fine verses; Solomon two fine poems, an ode and an elegy. The prophets, particularly Isaiah, in several chapters of his prophecy; Jeremiah, in his book of Lamentations; and some of the minor prophets, in a few select verses, have given us specimens of a profound poetical genius; but we have no whole like that of David. The sublimity, the depth, the excursive fancy, the discursive power, the vast compass of thought, the knowledge of heaven and earth, of God and nature, the work of the Spirit, the endlessly varied temptations of Satan, the knowledge of the human heart, the travail of the soul, the full comprehension of the prosopopoeia or personification of the whole of inanimate nature, of every virtue, and of every vice, the immense grasp of thought embodying and arranging, and afterwards clothing in suitable language, the vast assemblage of ideas furnished by the natural and spiritual world; in a word, the spirit of poetry, the true genie createur, the tou poihtou poihsiv, framework of the framer, the poetry of the poet, not the fiction of the inventive genius; but the production of truth, hidden before in the bosom of God and nature, and exhibited in the most pleasing colours, with the most impressive pathos and irresistible harmonic diction: these qualities, these supramundane excellences, are found in no other poet that ever graced the annals of the world; they exist in their perfection only in David king of Israel. What is peculiarly remarkable in David is, he has succeeded to the very highest degree in every species of poetic composition that has for its object the glory of God and the welfare of man; and there is not one poet who has succeeded him, that has not failed when he attempted to sing of God, the punishment and rewards of the future world, and the unsearchable riches of Christ.

The hymns which he produced have been the general song of the universal Church; and men of all nations find in these compositions a language at once suitable to their feelings, and expressive of their highest joys and deepest sorrows, as well as of all the endlessly varied wishes and desires of their hearts. Hail, thou sweet singer of Israel! thy voice is still heard in all the assemblies of the saints.

In my notes on different places of the Psalter I have taken the opportunity of pointing out some of the beauties of these incomparable productions. But I must here state that the true excellence of this work will never be fully known, till it be translated according to its rythmical order, or hemistich plan, in which the harmony of its versification will be felt, and the whole be much more easily apprehended and practically understood. Had we a second Lowth to take up David, as the first did Isaiah, the Church of God would have the utmost reason to rejoice; and each devout penitent and believer would be enabled to sing more with the spirit and the understanding, than they can possibly do in taking up the best translation of the Psalms, whether metrical or prosaic, now extant.

We have no less than four versions, two in prose and two in verse, given by public authority to the good people of this land. Of the former there is one in the public service of the Church, compiled out of various translations; and one by King James’s translators, in the authorized version of the Bible: the latter indescribably the better of this class. The two metrical versions are by Sternhold, Hopkins, and others, and by Brady and Tate. The former is the most just and literal: but none of them worthy of the subject. All these have already passed under review.

10. That there should have been any doubt entertained as to the piety of David appears very strange: most certainly, no man ever gave more unequivocal proofs of piety and devotedness to God than he gave. It was utterly impossible that any man could have written such Psalms as David has, whose soul was not deeply imbued with the Spirit of holiness; and this appears, not only in his writings, but in his general conduct. That in some cases he grievously departed from God, who would attempt to deny? His adultery with Bathsheba, and the consequent murder of the brave Uriah, were crimes of a very deep dye. I can say no more on these, than I have said already in my notes on 2 Samuel 11:1-27, and in the observations at the end of that chapter; { 2 Samuel 11:27;} and to these I beg to refer the reader. His pretended cruelty to the Ammonites has been adduced as a proof of a hard and wicked heart. See the notes on 2 Samuel 12:31, where this charge is shown to be unfounded. Whatever obliquities have been charged against him, from facts recorded in his history, have already been amply considered where the facts are mentioned. But all these, make the worst of them we can, are but insulated facts; they never existed in habit, they made no part of his general character; and his repentance on the account of that which was his great blot, was the deepest and most exemplary we have on record. If a man have fallen into sin, and made the speediest return to God by confession and repentance, he proves that that transgression is no part of his character. He does not repeat it; he loathes and abhors it. It requires malice against God’s book to say this crime was a part of David’s character. Adultery and murder were no part of the character of David; he fell once into the first, and endeavoured to cover it by the death of an innocent man; but who can prove that he ever repeated either? While it is granted that a man of God should never sin against his Maker, it must also be granted that, in a state of probation, a holy man may sin; that such may be renewed unto repentance, and sin against their God no more, are also possible cases. And it is not less possible that a holy man of God may fall into sin, continue in it, repeat it and re-repeat it, and rise no more. Of this dreadful possibility the Scripture gives ample proof. There are but few in the Church of God that have kept their garments unspotted from the world, and retained their first love: but it should have been otherwise; and had they watched unto prayer, they would not have fallen. I only contend for the possibility, not for the necessity, of the case. And I contend that, in the case of David, a life so long, so holy, so useful, and, except in these instances, so truly exemplary, entitles him to the character of a holy man of God; and, allowing but a little for the dispensation under which he lived, one of the holiest, if not THE holiest, that ever wore a crown, or wielded a sceptre. For the supposition that on his death-bed he retracted the promise of life to Shimei, see the notes on 1 Kings 2:9, where he is amply vindicated. On the whole, I can cheerfully sum up all in the words of Dr. Delaney: “David was a true believer, a zealous adorer of God, teacher of his law and worship, and inspirer of his praise. A glorious example, a perpetual and inexhaustible fountain of true piety. A consummate and unequalled hero, a skilful and fortunate captain, a steady patriot, a wise ruler, a faithful, generous, and magnanimous friend; and, what is yet rarer, a no less generous and magnanimous enemy. A true penitent, a Divine musician, a sublime poet, an inspired prophet. By birth a peasant, by merit a prince. In youth a hero, in manhood a monarch, and in age a saint.” The matters of Bathsheba and Uriah are almost his only blot. There he sinned deeply; and no man ever suffered more in his body, soul, and domestic affairs, than he did in consequence. His penitence was as deep and extraordinary as his crime; and nothing could surpass both, but that eternal mercy that took away the guilt, assuaged the sorrow, and restored this most humbled transgressor to character, holiness, happiness, and heaven. Reader, let the God of David be exalted for ever! Corrected for the Press, March 15th, 1829.-A. C.