In 1004 B.C. David became king of all Israel and Judah.50This was his third anointing (cf. 1 Sam. 16:13; 2 Sam. 2:4). The people acknowledged David's previous military leadership of all Israel as well as God's choice of him to shepherd His people as their king.
"In the ancient East, shepherd at an early date became a title of honor applied to divinities and rulers alike."51
This is the first time the Bible refers to a specific human ruler as a shepherd,52though as an analogy the term appears earlier (Num. 27:17) and with reference to God (Gen. 48:15; 49:24). The New Testament refers to David's greatest son, Jesus Christ, as the "Good Shepherd"(John 10:11, 14), the "Great Shepherd"(Heb. 13:20), and the "Chief Shepherd"(1 Pet. 5:4).
The fact that Samuel had anointed David when he was a youth was evidently now common knowledge in Israel. Therefore we should regard previous resistances to his assuming the throne after Saul's death as rebellions against the known will of God. The covenant (v. 3) was an agreement between the people and the king before God.53Probably it included a fresh commitment to the Mosaic Covenant.
"Thirty years old (v. 4) was regarded as an ideal age at which to take on responsibility (cf. Num. 4:3; Lk. 3:23)."54
Three prominent descendants of Jacob began their ministries at or near the age of 30: Joseph (Gen. 41:46), David (v. 4), and Jesus (Luke 3:23). The total years David reigned were 1011-971 B.C.
"[Verses] 6-16 highlight key events of David's entire reign and are followed by summaries of his experiences in the military (vv. 17-25), cultic (ch. 6), and theological (ch. 7) arenas."55
Jerusalem was an excellent choice for a capital. It stood on the border between Benjamin and Judah so both tribes felt they had a claim to it. It was better than Hebron in southern Judah far from the northern tribes, or Shechem, Shiloh, or some other northern town that would have been too far from the Judahites. Joshua had captured Jerusalem (Josh. 10), but shortly after that the native inhabitants, the Jebusites, retook it (Judg. 1:21). It seems to have remained in Jebusite control since then. Its elevated location made it fairly easy to defend. David may have chosen Jerusalem also because he appears to have seen himself as the spiritual successor of Melchizedek, a former king of Jerusalem in Abraham's day (Gen. 14; cf. Ps. 110:4-6).56One scholar estimated that the population of the city at this time was about 2,500 people.57
"Jerusalem is usually described as a city-state, and the position envisaged after its storming by David and his troops is that it remained a city-state; the coming of David meant only a change of city ruler. . . . The inhabitants remained, but their fortress had now become the personal possession of David and was under his control."58
The interchange concerning the blind and the lame (vv. 6, 8) seems to be "pre-battle verbal taunting"(cf. 2 Kings 18:19-27).59The Jebusites claimed that their town was so secure that even disabled inhabitants could withstand an invasion.60David countered by taking them at their word and applying "the blind and the lame"to all the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem. His hatred was for the Jebusites, using the figure that they themselves had chosen to describe themselves, not for literally blind and lame people. "The blind and the lame"evidently became a nickname for the Jebusites as a result of this event.
Joab captured the city for David, and from then on people referred to it as the City of David and Zion (1 Chron. 11:6).61The Millo (a transliteration of the Hebrew word, v. 9) probably consisted of terrace-like fortifications on the hill's east side. Some of the older commentators and others who did not have access to recent archaeological discoveries viewed the Millo as a large tower or castle.
"As was characteristic of all the great walled cities of Canaan, Jerusalem had a vertical water shaft connecting with a tunnel leading to an underground water supply outside the walls."62
It was through this secret passage that Joab took the city.63
"Two of the most significant events in world history now took place. The first was when David became king of a united Israel. The second was when he made Jerusalem the capital of his united realm."64
The writer identified the key to David's success in verse 10. The Lord chose David as His anointed by sovereign election. David had nothing to do with that. However, Yahweh continued to bless David because David related to God properly.
The information we have about Hiram, the king of Tyre, indicates that he reigned there about 980-947 B.C.65That would mean Hiram's reign coincided with only the last nine years of David's reign and the first 24 years of Solomon's reign. This information helps us see that David built his palace (v. 11) late in his reign. Verse 11 therefore evidently does not describe something that took place immediately after David captured and fortified Jerusalem (vv. 6-10). It was a later project. The writer probably mentioned it here because it illustrates another important evidence of David's control over all Israel.
"David has joined the nations. David is a practitioner of alliances and accommodations. . . . Jeremiah later sees that cedar and its accompanying opulence will talk Judean kings out of justice (Jer. 22:13-18). Verse 11 sounds like a historical report, but it is in fact an ominous act of warning."66
Verse 12 is key to understanding why David prospered as Israel's king. David realized that Yahweh was Israel's real sovereign. Saul was never willing to acknowledge this. He saw himself as the ultimate authority in Israel. In contrast, David regarded his own kingship as a gift from God. He realized, too, that God had placed him on the throne for the Israelites' welfare, not for his own personal glory. Saul failed here as well. David had a proper view of his role in Israel's theocratic government.
Second Samuel 5:10-16 is most likely a summary of David's entire reign followed by his military (5:17-25), cultic (i.e., formal worship; ch. 6), and theological (ch. 7) achievements. This pattern follows the conventional annalistic style of documenting the reigns of kings that was common in the ancient Near East.
