The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
God’s Covenant with David
2 Samuel 7:1–17 — God’s Covenant with David. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
1After the king had settled into his palace and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·hî kî- ham·me·leḵ yā·šaḇ bə·ḇê·ṯōw Yah·weh hê·nî·aḥ- mik·kāl ’ō·yə·ḇāw lōw mis·sā·ḇîḇ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-it-came-to-pass, when sat the-king in-his-house, and-YHWH had-caused-rest-for-him from-round-about, from-all-his-enemies,”
Where the English smooths the original
The order is not chronological; for the words, Jehovah had given him rest from all his enemies round about (so the Revised Version, rightly), imply the successful termination, not of all wars necessarily, but certainly of something more than that with the Philistine invaders in the Rephaim valley.
but it is evident that this narrative is placed here, not because it followed chronologically, but because it is closely related in subject,
David being at rest in his palace, considered how he might best employ his leisure and prosperity in the service of God.
2he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ham·me·leḵ way·yō·mer ’el- nā·ṯān han·nā·ḇî rə·’êh nā ’ā·nō·ḵî yō·wō·šêḇ bə·ḇêṯ ’ă·rā·zîm wa·’ă·rō·wn hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm yō·šêḇ bə·ṯō·wḵ hay·rî·‘āh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“and-said the-king unto Nathan the-prophet: ‘See-now, I-myself am-dwelling in-a-house-of-cedars, and-the-ark of-the-God is-dwelling within the-curtain.’”
Where the English smooths the original
Cedar was the rarest and most valuable timber. The elegance and splendor of his own royal mansion, contrasted with the mean and temporary tabernacle in which the ark of God was placed, distressed the pious mind of David.
It gave him a concern that he should dwell in so magnificent a palace, and the ark of God should have so mean an habitation;
This is the word used in Exodus 26 and 36 for the covering of the tabernacle. The ark was not now within that, but in a similar temporary structure.Ellicott's point is text-critical and matters for the literal rendering: the noun is the tabernacle-word, yet the ark was not then under the Mosaic tabernacle (which stood at Gibeon) but under the tent David had pitched in ch. 6.
3And Nathan replied to the king, “Go and do all that is in your heart, for the LORD is with you.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
nā·ṯān ’el- way·yō·mer ham·me·leḵ lêḵ ‘ă·śêh kōl ’ă·šer bil·ḇā·ḇə·ḵā kî Yah·weh ‘im·māḵ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-said Nathan unto the-king: ‘Go, do all that-is in-thy-heart, for YHWH is-with-thee.’”
Where the English smooths the original
The design being pious, and the thing not forbidden by God, Nathan hastily approves it before he had consulted God about it, as both he and David ought to have done in a matter of so great moment.
The prophets, when following the impulse of their own feelings, or forming conjectural opinions, fell into frequent mistakes.
on the contrary, the Lord God revealed to the prophet that David was not to carry out his intention at all.K&D is arguing against Thenius and Bertheau, who softened the refusal into a matter of timing. His stronger reading (the intention itself is declined, not merely postponed) is a real interpretive claim, and vv. 12 to 13 give the counterweight: the work is transferred, not cancelled.
4But that night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ha·hū way·hî bal·lay·lāh də·ḇar- Yah·weh way·hî ’el- nā·ṯān lê·mōr
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-it-came-to-pass in-that the-night, and-came the-word-of-YHWH unto Nathan, saying:”
Where the English smooths the original
God did not desire a permanent Temple. If we may so say, He preferred the less solid Tabernacle, as corresponding better to the simplicity and spirituality of His worship.Maclaren presses this further than the text says: the oracle denies that God ever required a house, and defers the building to Solomon, but it does not say God preferred the tent. Read as a caution against stereotyped ceremonial, which is how Maclaren frames it, the reading is fair; read as a doctrine of divine preference it outruns v. 13.
Not every word of a prophet was inspired, and only a very few of the prophets, and those only upon great and solemn occasions, spake under the direct influence of the Spirit of God.
The unsettled condition of the nation had made a fixed sanctuary impossible hitherto, and even now the time for it was not yet fully come.
5“Go and tell My servant David that this is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build for Me a house to dwell in?
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lêḵ wə·’ā·mar·tā ’el- ‘aḇ·dî ’el- dā·wiḏ kōh Yah·weh ’ā·mar ha·’at·tāh tiḇ·neh- lî ḇa·yiṯ lə·šiḇ·tî
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘Go and-thou-shalt-say unto my-servant, unto David: Thus says YHWH: Thou, shalt-thou build for-Me a-house for-My-dwelling-in?”
Where the English smooths the original
Those wars had been necessary, under the circumstances in which he was placed, and had never been disapproved of God; still the mere fact that he had been a man of blood unfitted him for this sacred office.Ellicott is careful to say that this reason is not given here; he imports it from David's own later account in 1 Chronicles 22:8 and 28:3. The text before us assigns no reason at all, and Ellicott's own footnote warns against supplying one.
Thou is emphatic. The question of course is equivalent to a negative.
Meaning, he should not: yet Nathan speaking according to man's judgment and not by the spirit of prophecy permitted him.
6For I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt until this day, but I have moved about with a tent as My dwelling.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî lō yā·šaḇ·tî bə·ḇa·yiṯ lə·mî·yō·wm ha·‘ă·lō·ṯî ’eṯ- bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl mim·miṣ·ra·yim wə·‘aḏ haz·zeh hay·yō·wm wā·’eh·yeh miṯ·hal·lêḵ bə·’ō·hel ū·ḇə·miš·kān
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘For not have-I-dwelt in-a-house from-the-day-of my-bringing-up the-sons-of-Israel out-of-Egypt and-until this the-day; and-I-have-been walking-Myself-about in-a-tent and-in-a-dwelling.”
Where the English smooths the original
Implying the frequent moving of the tabernacle, in the times of the Judges, as opposed to a settled resting in one place.
Jehovah gave two reasons why David's proposal to build Him a temple should not be carried out: (1) He had hitherto lived in a tent in the midst of His people; (2) He had not commanded any former prince or tribe to build a temple.
moving from place to place while in the wilderness, and since in the land of Canaan, first at Gilgal, then at Shiloh, afterwards at Nob, and now at Gibeon.
7In all My journeys with all the Israelites, have I ever asked any of the leaders I appointed to shepherd My people Israel, ‘Why haven’t you built Me a house of cedar?’
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
bə·ḵōl ’ă·šer- hiṯ·hal·laḵ·tî bə·ḵāl bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl dib·bar·tî hă·ḏā·ḇār ’eṯ- ’a·ḥaḏ šiḇ·ṭê yiś·rā·’êl ’ă·šer ṣiw·wî·ṯî lir·‘ō·wṯ ’eṯ- ‘am·mî ’eṯ- yiś·rā·’êl lê·mōr lām·māh lō- ḇə·nî·ṯem lî bêṯ ’ă·rā·zîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘In-all that I-walked-Myself-about among-all the-sons-of-Israel, a-word did-I-speak with one-of the-tribes of-Israel, whom I-commanded to-shepherd My-people Israel, saying: Why have-ye-not built for-Me a-house-of-cedars?”
Where the English smooths the original
Either therefore the tribes are here put synecdochically for the rulers of the tribes, as the word church is sometimes used for the governors of it;
The shepherd, in biblical language, is the ruler, and to feed is to govern, yet in a kindly way, going in front as the shepherd before his flock, to bear the brunt of danger, to clear the road, and to guide into the safe pastures.
God was the most proper judge what house was agreeable to him, and he never signified that he disliked his present, and desired a more stately habitation.Benson builds from this verse a general thesis that temples are witnesses to men and nothing to God, citing Acts 7 and 17 and Solomon's dedication prayer. The premise is the text's; the sweeping comparison with all other religions is his own eighteenth-century apologetic, not an exegetical result.
8Now then, you are to tell My servant David that this is what the LORD of Hosts says: I took you from the pasture, from following the flock, to be the ruler over My people Israel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·‘at·tāh kōh- ṯō·mar lə·‘aḇ·dî lə·ḏā·wiḏ kōh Yah·weh ṣə·ḇā·’ō·wṯ ’ā·mar ’ă·nî lə·qaḥ·tî·ḵā min- han·nā·weh mê·’a·ḥar haṣ·ṣōn lih·yō·wṯ nā·ḡîḏ ‘al- ‘am·mî ‘al- yiś·rā·’êl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘And-now, thus shalt-thou-say to-my-servant, to-David: Thus says YHWH-of-Hosts: I, I-took-thee from-the-pasture, from-after the-flock, to-be ruler over My-people, over Israel.”
Where the English smooths the original
this is said, not to upbraid him with his former meanness, but to observe the goodness of God unto him, and what reason he had for thankfulness, and to look upon himself as a favourite of God, who of a keeper of sheep was made a shepherd of men, to rule and feed them;
I took thee from the sheep-cote, to be ruler over my people; I advanced thee, and I do not repent of it.
In those meadows David had been formed for his high vocation; but he had returned from them to Bethlehem,Pulpit is reconstructing here: that David was formed in Samuel's schools at Ramah is an inference from 1 Samuel 19:18-24, not a statement of this text. The exegetical point about the pasture stands on its own without the reconstruction.
9I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make for you a name like that of the greatest in the land.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wā·’eh·yeh ‘im·mə·ḵā bə·ḵōl ’ă·šer hā·laḵ·tā wā·’aḵ·ri·ṯāh ’eṯ- kāl- ’ō·yə·ḇe·ḵā mip·pā·ne·ḵā wə·‘ā·śi·ṯî lə·ḵā šêm kə·šêm hag·gə·ḏō·lîm ’ă·šer gā·ḏō·wl bā·’ā·reṣ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘And-I-was with-thee in-all that thou-wentest, and-I-cut-off all thine-enemies from-before-thee; and-I-have-made for-thee a-great name, like-the-name of-the-great-ones who are-in-the-earth.”
Where the English smooths the original
The widespread conquests of David, and his great empire, were not for the sake of mere earthly dominion.Pulpit's typological frame is confessedly retrospective: he reads David's empire as a type of Messiah's reign because of what the Psalms and the New Testament later make of it, not because v. 9 says so.
a name for a mighty king, warrior, and conqueror, such as some mighty kings and great men
I have made you famous through all the world.
10And I will provide a place for My people Israel and will plant them so that they may dwell in a place of their own and be disturbed no more. No longer will the sons of wickedness oppress them as they did at the beginning
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·śam·tî mā·qō·wm lə·‘am·mî lə·yiś·rā·’êl ū·nə·ṭa‘·tîw wə·šā·ḵan taḥ·tāw yir·gaz wə·lō ‘ō·wḏ wə·lō- yō·sî·p̄ū ḇə·nê- ‘aw·lāh lə·‘an·nō·w·ṯōw ka·’ă·šer bā·ri·šō·w·nāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘And-I-have-set a-place for-My-people, for-Israel, and-I-have-planted-him, and-he-shall-dwell under-himself, and-he-shall-tremble no more; and-not shall-the-sons-of-wickedness add to-afflict-him, as-at-the-first,”
Where the English smooths the original
Beforetime refers to the beginning of the nation’s history in Egypt; since , &c. to the various oppressions they had suffered from the beginning of the period of the Judges down to the present.
Jehovah was not about to plant Israel in a place of their own, but had just done so completely.
The contrast between this and 2 Samuel 7:11 is that of the troubled, unsettled times of the Judges and the frequent servitudes of Israel in those times, with the settled prosperity and independence of the kingdom of David and Solomon.
provided they did not depart from the Lord, but abode by his word, worship, and ordinances, and obeyed his will; for it was by their obedience they held their tenure of the land of Canaan,Gill supplies a condition the verse does not state, and Benson and Poole do the same at v. 11, arguing it is implied because declared so often elsewhere. The bare text of v. 10 promises without condition. The honest report is that the qualification is inferred by the commentators, not read off this verse.
11and have done since the day I appointed judges over My people Israel. I will give you rest from all your enemies. The LORD declares to you that He Himself will establish a house for you.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ū·lə·min- hay·yō·wm ’ă·šer ṣiw·wî·ṯî šō·p̄ə·ṭîm ‘al- ‘am·mî yiś·rā·’êl wa·hă·nî·ḥō·ṯî lə·ḵā mik·kāl ’ō·yə·ḇe·ḵā Yah·weh kî- wə·hig·gîḏ lə·ḵā Yah·weh ya·‘ă·śeh- ḇa·yiṯ lə·ḵā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘and-from the-day that I-commanded judges over My-people Israel; and-I-will-cause-rest-for-thee from-all thine-enemies. And-declares to-thee YHWH that a-house will-YHWH-make for-thee.”
Where the English smooths the original
contains the deep general truth that God must first of all build a man's house, before the man can build God's house, and applies it especially to the kingdom of God in Israel.K&D credits the structural outline to Thenius and then dissents from him elsewhere in the same entry. The formula is his own summary, not a rendering of any clause in the Hebrew.
that whereas he was desirous of building an house for God, God would build up an house for him;
for thy good intentions to make him an house, he will make thee an house , to wit, a sure house , as is expressed, 1 Kings 11:38 , i. e. he will increase and uphold thy posterity, and continue thy kingdom in thy family.
12And when your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî yā·me·ḵā yim·lə·’ū wə·šā·ḵaḇ·tā ’eṯ- ’ă·ḇō·ṯe·ḵā wa·hă·qî·mō·ṯî ’eṯ- zar·‘ă·ḵā ’a·ḥă·re·ḵā ’ă·šer yê·ṣê mim·mê·‘e·ḵā wa·hă·ḵî·nō·ṯî ’eṯ- mam·laḵ·tōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘When are-fulfilled thy-days and-thou-shalt-lie-down with thy-fathers, then-I-will-raise-up thy-seed after-thee, who shall-come-forth from-thine-inward-parts, and-I-will-make-firm his-kingdom.”
Where the English smooths the original
But we have the direct authority of Peter Acts 2:30 for applying it to Christ the seed of David, and His eternal kingdom;
First Solomon, who recognises the fulfilment of this promise in his elevation to the throne ( 1 Kings 8:15-20 ); then the line of David’s descendants who succeeded him on the throne of Judah; and finally Christ, in whom the prophecy reaches its highest fulfilment.
But by a special ordinance and promise of God, his successor was to be a son born after this time; and the departure from the established usage of the East in fixing the succession, can be accounted for on no other known ground, except the fulfilment of the divine promise.JFB's argument runs from an assumed custom (that the eldest son born after accession succeeds) to a divine ordinance. The custom is asserted, not demonstrated, and the sons born at Jerusalem are listed at 2 Samuel 5:14-16. Treat the inference as suggestive rather than established.
But the same expression might have been used after Solomon’s birth, the future tense being merely an assimilation to the futures of the whole passage, and the point of the promise being that David’s son shall succeed to his throne.
13He will build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hū yiḇ·neh- ba·yiṯ liš·mî wə·ḵō·nan·tî ’eṯ- kis·sê mam·laḵ·tōw ‘aḏ- ‘ō·w·lām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘He shall-build a-house for-My-Name, and-I-will-make-firm the-throne of-his-kingdom unto everlasting.”
Where the English smooths the original
this is meant literally and immediately of Solomon, who alone did build the material house or temple; but mystically and ultimately of Christ, who is the builder
The Name of God signifies God Himself so far as He has revealed and manifested Himself to men.
The establishing of his house, his throne, and his kingdom for ever, can be applied to no other than to Christ and his kingdom:
Keil also well points out that the temple was a symbol of Christ's incarnation; for it meant the dwelling of God on earth.
14I will be his Father, and he will be My son. When he does wrong, I will discipline him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ă·nî ’eh·yeh- lōw lə·’āḇ wə·hū yih·yeh- lî lə·ḇên ’ă·šer bə·ha·‘ă·wō·ṯōw wə·hō·ḵaḥ·tîw bə·šê·ḇeṭ ’ă·nā·šîm ū·ḇə·niḡ·‘ê bə·nê ’ā·ḏām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘I will-be to-him for-a-Father, and-he will-be to-Me for-a-son: who, in-his-acting-crookedly, then-I-will-reprove-him with-the-rod-of men and-with-the-blows-of the-sons-of-Adam.”
Where the English smooths the original
The Divine word looks forward to a long succession of human prophets or heads of the theocracy who should for the time being, and as far as might be, fill the place of the true Prophet and King,
as Clericus explains it, but with such punishments as are inflicted upon all men who go astray, and from which even the seed of David is not to be excepted)K&D is here contradicting Clericus, and by implication Gill, Geneva and Benson, who all read the rod as deliberately gentle. We print both sides; the Hebrew phrase says only that the rod is the human one.
A warning that this high dignity will not exempt him from the danger of sin nor from its punishment.
this agrees only to Solomon and some others of David’s posterity; but not to Christ, who never committed iniquity, as Solomon did, who therein was no type of Christ and therefore this branch is terminated in Solomon; whereas in those things wherein Solomon was a type of Christ, the sense passeth through Solomon unto Christ.
15But My loving devotion will never be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ḥas·dî lō- yā·sūr ka·’ă·šer hă·si·rō·ṯî mim·men·nū mê·‘im šā·’ūl ’ă·šer hă·si·rō·ṯî mil·lə·p̄ā·ne·ḵā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘But-My-steadfast-love shall-not turn-aside from-him, as I-caused-it-to-turn-aside from-with Saul, whom I-caused-to-turn-aside from-before-thee.”
Where the English smooths the original
the sure mercies of David Isaiah 55:3 , i. e. unfailing, lasting mercies: mercies which are like streams of water that never dry up
He and his house were utterly and permanently set aside; David’s descendants will be punished for their sins, yet shall never be forgotten, and shall, ultimately issue in one who shall conquer sin and death for ever.
this should not be taken away from him, as it was from Saul, whom God rejected from being king; not him personally, but his posterity;
The three verbs belong to the same root. But there is perhaps some error in the text. 1 Chronicles 17:13 reads, “my mercy will I not take away from him, as I took it away from him who was before thee;” and the Sept. here has, “My mercy will I not take away from him, as I took it away from them that I took away from before me.Cambridge suspects an error in the Masoretic text here and prints both the Chronicles and Septuagint alternatives. We have translated the Masoretic reading and record his doubt rather than adopting his emendation.
16Your house and kingdom will endure forever before Me, and your throne will be established forever.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
bê·ṯə·ḵā ū·mam·laḵ·tə·ḵā wə·ne’·man ‘ō·w·lām lə·p̄ā·ne·ḵā ‘aḏ- kis·’ă·ḵā yih·yeh nā·ḵō·wn ‘aḏ- ‘ō·w·lām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“‘And-shall-be-made-sure thy-house and-thy-kingdom unto-everlasting before-thee; thy-throne shall-be established unto everlasting.’”
Where the English smooths the original
This was begun in Solomon, as a figure, but accomplished in Christ.
The thought is, that David is now made the head of the line in which shall be fulfilled the primeval promise “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” This was originally given simply to the human race ( Genesis 3:15 ); then restricted to the nation descended from Abraham ( Genesis 22:18 , &c); then limited to the tribe of Judah ( Genesis 49:10 , comp. Ezekiel 21:27 ), and now its fulfilment is promised in the family of David.
Before Me is probably the true reading in 2 Samuel 7:15-16 (if the rest of the text be sound), according to the analogy of Jeremiah 35:19 ; 1 Samuel 2:30 , 1 Samuel 2:35 ; and many other places; whereas the idea contained in the reading, before thee, is unparalleled.Barnes is proposing a textual emendation on the ground of usage elsewhere, and admits the qualification himself: if the rest of the text be sound. Ellicott takes the opposite view of the same evidence. We have translated the Masoretic reading.
17So Nathan relayed to David all the words of this entire revelation.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kên nā·ṯān dib·ber ’el- dā·wiḏ kə·ḵōl hā·’êl·leh had·də·ḇā·rîm haz·zeh ū·ḵə·ḵōl ha·ḥiz·zā·yō·wn
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“According-to-all these the-words, and-according-to-all this the-vision, so spoke Nathan unto David.”
Where the English smooths the original
And thereby manifested his integrity, not being ashamed to retract his own words when he was better taught of God.
God spoke to Nathan in a vision which he had in the night, i.e., not in a dream, but in a waking condition, and during the night;
Probably the word is taken from the fixed gaze, with which the seer looked into the far off world with unmoved eyes, yet seeing not with them, but with the spiritual sight within.
A word applied to any Divine communication, and not merely to that given in vision strictly so called.Ellicott deliberately loosens what Cambridge and K&D tighten. Their disagreement is about whether the narrator is classifying the mode of revelation or simply naming it.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The unit opens with a man at rest and a God still in transit. וַיְהִי (way·hî) sets the scene twice over: the king sat (H3427 yâshab) in his house, and YHWH had caused rest for him (Hifil of H5117 nûwach). Ellicott and Pulpit agree that the placement is topical rather than chronological, Ellicott because the historian wished to record David's further purposes in the same direction as ch. 6, Pulpit because the note of rest implies the successful end of something larger than the Philistine campaigns; K&D presses the same words further, arguing from v. 9 that David had by then fought and humbled all the enemies round about, so that the history cannot be in strict order. Cambridge holds both ends: after some of the wars of ch. 8, yet before the birth of Solomon (v. 12).
David's complaint is two participles of one verb. He is יוֹשֵׁב in a house of cedars; the ark is יֹשֵׁב within הַיְרִיעָה, the curtain. K&D's philological note is the sharpest thing said about the verse: the singular yᵉrîʻâh is the Exodus 26:2 word for the inner covering sewn of lengths of tapestry, so that “within the curtain” means surrounded by the tent-cloth. JFB supplies the material contrast, that cedar was the rarest and most valuable timber, and that the elegance of David's mansion against the ark's temporary shelter distressed his pious mind. Gill names the exact house: not the Mosaic tabernacle, which stood at Gibeon, but the tent David himself had pitched in ch. 6.
Then Nathan answers, and every commentator in the brief marks the same fault line. Henry: Nathan did not speak as a prophet, but as a godly man, encouraging David by his private judgment. Barnes: in v. 3 he spoke his own private opinion; in v. 4 this was corrected by the word of the Lord. JFB generalises it, that prophets following the impulse of their own feelings fell into frequent mistakes. Benson and Poole use nearly identical language about a pious design hastily approved before God was consulted. Geneva puts it in one clause: Nathan spoke according to man's judgment and not by the spirit of prophecy. K&D, quoting J. H. Michaelis, says he sanctioned it from his own feelings, and not by divine revelation. That is six independent witnesses to a single point: the office does not sanctify every sentence.
The correction arrives the same night. Gill and Poole both notice the speed and read it as mercy: God would not suffer either man to lie long in the error, nor let David incur expense on it; JFB says the command came before David could take any measures. Pulpit adds the caution that we are not told how the word came, only that v. 17 calls it a vision.
The answer is a question with the pronoun fronted: הַאַתָּה (ha·ʼat·tāh). Cambridge: “Thou is emphatic. The question of course is equivalent to a negative,” and K&D notes that Chronicles converts it into the flat “thou shalt not.” But the refusal is framed by the title my servant, and Ellicott, Cambridge and Poole all stress that this is a mark of honour used of Moses and Joshua, so that nothing of divine displeasure is conveyed. Ellicott's footnote is the most disciplined sentence in the whole brief: the two reasons commentators usually supply (that God must build David's house first, and that the kingdom was not yet settled) are not assigned in the divine word, and it is better to keep only to what is assigned. The reason David himself later gives, that he was a man of war who had shed blood (1 Chronicles 22:8; 28:3), Ellicott, Cambridge and Maclaren all import from elsewhere, and they say so.
What the text does give is a verb: מִתְהַלֵּךְ, the Hitpael of hâlak, God walking Himself to and fro in a tent and a dwelling. K&D turns it into an image: a tent is a traveller's dwelling, and so long as God's dwelling was a tent, He appeared as one going from place to place. Gill maps the journey onto real ground, Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon; Barnes hears the constant deliberate reference to the Exodus and the books of Moses. Then comes the cognate-accusative question, הֲדָבָר דִּבַּרְתִּי, “a word did I speak?”, which Poole renders “did I ever give any command about it?” K&D draws the two grounds together: God had lived in a tent in the midst of His people, and He had never commanded any former prince or tribe to build a temple, which proves not that David is presumptuous but that no earlier leader was negligent.
Here the unit meets its one hard textual problem. שִׁבְטֵי (tribes) stands where 1 Chronicles 17:6 has šōp̄ᵉṭê (judges), one letter apart. Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D keep “tribes,” explaining it of whichever tribe supplied the ruler of the hour (Ephraim under Joshua, Benjamin under Saul, Judah under David) and appealing to Psalm 78:67-68 and 1 Chronicles 28:4; K&D adds the decisive argument that if judges had been original, the rise of tribes would be inexplicable. Poole and Gill instead read the same consonants as “sceptres,” hence sceptre-bearers, as at Genesis 49:10. We record the dispute rather than resolve it.
K&D notes that the divine name expands exactly here, from YHWH (v. 5) to YHWH of Hosts, because from this point God speaks as God of the universe. And every clause of the retrospect has God as subject: I took, I was with thee, I cut off, I have made thee a name. Ellicott corrects “sheepcote” to “pasture” and Cambridge sends us to Psalm 78:70-71; Pulpit calls it the meadow. Gill hears no reproach in the reminder, only the observation of God's goodness, and recalls that Cyrus too is called a shepherd, and Agamemnon in Homer the shepherd of the people. Poole compresses the whole clause into a sentence of divine constancy: I advanced thee, and I do not repent of it.
Verses 10 and 11 are where the English tenses carry an interpretive decision. Ellicott, Barnes and Cambridge all insist there is no change of tense in the original and that the verbs should be read as perfects: I have appointed, I have planted, and they dwell in their own place. Barnes says this was already done by the consolidation of David's kingdom. Pulpit agrees and spells out the consequence, that Jehovah was not about to plant Israel but had just done so completely. Poole and Gill hold the other side, preferring a future and (in Gill's case) a still-unfulfilled restoration; Poole frankly says the past reading makes the promise redundant, since the work was already done. Benson and Poole both add the honest qualification the text leaves unstated, that the promise of never being disturbed again must be read with a condition, since Israel did notoriously forsake God. K&D takes yet another route through the syntax, joining “from the day I appointed judges” backward to “as at the beginning,” and reading וַהֲנִיחֹתִי as a true future, the rest still to be maintained rather than the rest already given in v. 1.
Then the pun lands. K&D, following Thenius, states it as a general truth: God must first build a man's house before the man can build God's house. Gill puts it pastorally, that whereas David was desirous of building an house for God, God would build up an house for him; Poole notes the exchange is a reward, “for thy good intentions to make him an house.” The Hebrew is precise about which verb goes with which subject. David is refused bânâh (v. 5); Solomon is granted bânâh (v. 13); what God does for David in v. 11 is ʻâsâh, make. Nobody in the brief says this, and we offer it as observation, not as a claim any of them endorsed.
On v. 12 the commentators divide neatly by temperament. Pulpit and K&D argue from the future tense that Solomon was not yet born, K&D adding that the mention of rest in v. 1 does not force a late date. Ellicott concedes the point may hold but warns that the future could be mere assimilation to the futures of the whole passage. JFB notices something the others do not: the succession went to a son born after this word, contrary to established usage, which he takes as evidence of a divine ordinance. Cambridge lays out the threefold reference without embarrassment: first Solomon, who himself recognises the fulfilment at 1 Kings 8:15-20; then the line of David's descendants; and finally Christ, in whom the prophecy reaches its highest fulfilment.
Verse 14 is the verse the New Testament quotes. Poole marks the limit exactly: the sonship passes through Solomon to Christ, but the clause “if he commit iniquity” terminates in Solomon, “who therein was no type of Christ.” Henry says the same in different words, that the committing of iniquity cannot be applied to the Messiah himself, but to his spiritual seed. Gill and Cambridge read the discipline as real and as fatherly, and K&D takes it in a harder sense. On the rod of men, Gill and Geneva and Benson read gentleness, chastisement such as fathers use; K&D explicitly rejects that, against Clericus, and reads punishments such as are inflicted on all men who go astray, from which even David's seed is not excepted. Geneva's marginal f and K&D's sentence are in flat disagreement, and we leave them so. The word for rod, שֵׁבֶט, is the same noun that stood for “tribes” in v. 7.
Verse 15 turns on one root used three times: יָסוּר (Qal) and הֲסִרֹתִי twice (Hifil). Cambridge sees it and says so: “The three verbs belong to the same root.” Barnes connects the promise to Isaiah 55:3, the sure mercies of David, mercies like streams of water that never dry up, and notes that the word rendered “established” in v. 16 is the same as Isaiah's “sure.” Ellicott's contrast is the sharpest: Saul and his house were utterly and permanently set aside, while David's descendants will be punished yet never forgotten. Gill makes the same distinction technical, that what was taken from Saul was taken from his posterity, not from his person.
On v. 16 the commentators split over one word, לְפָנֶיךָ, “before thee.” Cambridge calls the received explanation forced and follows the LXX in reading “before me,” appealing to vv. 26 and 29; Barnes says “before me” is probably the true reading and suspects textual corruption; Ellicott says the LXX changed it unnecessarily; Poole and Gill defend “before thee” as meaning David saw the beginning of it in Solomon and the end of it by faith in the Messiah. Then Nathan speaks, and Benson gives him his due: he manifested his integrity, not being ashamed to retract his own words when he was better taught of God, so that the correction of his fault was more remarkable than the fault itself.
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested, not an authority. The chapter is usually preached as a story about a man who wanted to do a good thing and was told to wait. Read from the Hebrew up, it is something stranger. One noun, בַּיִת (bayith), occurs eight times in these seventeen verses and changes hands three times: David's house of cedar (v. 1), the house the ark does not have (v. 2), the house David would build and the house God has never lived in (vv. 5, 6, 7), the house God will make for David (v. 11), the house the son will build for the Name (v. 13), and the house that will be made sure for ever (v. 16). And one verb, יָשַׁב (yâshab), is negated at the exact centre: David sat, the ark sat, and God says “I have not sat.”
The refusal, then, is not primarily about blood on David's hands. That reason exists, but David supplies it himself much later (1 Chronicles 22:8), and Ellicott warns us not to read it back into a text that assigns no reason at all. What the text assigns is a verb of walking. God's answer to a settled king is that He has never been settled, and that no one was ever asked to settle Him. The tent was not a deficiency waiting to be corrected; it was the shape of a God who accompanies. That is why the refusal costs David nothing: God does not decline the gift because the giver is unworthy, but because the premise is upside down. Houses are what God builds, not what God needs.
And the reversal is exact at the level of the verbs. David wanted to bânâh for God; God will ʻâsâh for David; and only the son will bânâh. What God makes is a lineage, and what the lineage builds is a place for a Name. So the promise runs past every person capable of receiving it. K&D saw this and said it plainly: no earthly posterity endures like the heavens, so the seed of David could only last for ever by running out in a person who lives for ever. That is an inference, not a quotation of this text, and we mark it as such. But it is the inference the text forces, and the New Testament writers made it before we did.
The line set apart with this reading is our own sentence, not a verse of Scripture.
The house you cannot build for God is the house God has already begun to build out of you.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
1 Chronicles 17 reproduces this chapter almost clause for clause, and the commentators in the brief use it constantly as a control text. The Verifier confirms a direct verbal overlap at the opening: נָתָן (Nâthân, H5416), אֶרֶז (ʼerez, H730) and נָבִיא (nâbîyʼ, H5030). The differences are what teach. K&D notes that Chronicles drops Nathan's “Go” as superfluous, converts the question of v. 5 into “thou shalt not,” has “judges” for “tribes,” and recasts the closing clauses of v. 11 as “I bend down all thine enemies”; Gill separately observes that at 1 Chronicles 17:5 the wandering of v. 6 becomes “from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another.” Cambridge and Barnes use the Chronicles reading to argue text-critical points at vv. 7, 15 and 16. This is not a parallel passage in the loose sense; it is the same speech transmitted twice.
1 Chronicles 17:1 · 1 Chronicles 17:3
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H5416 Nâthân (in 39 vv), H730 ʼerez (in 69 vv), H5030 nâbîyʼ (in 288 vv) at 1 Chronicles 17:1, and H5416 three times at 17:3. H5416 is rare enough (39 verses) to carry weight, and the two chapters are demonstrably one text in two recensions, as Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D all assume when they compare readings clause by clause.
At v. 7 the Hebrew has שִׁבְטֵי (šiḇ·ṭê, H7626, tribes); 1 Chronicles 17:6 has šōp̄ᵉṭê (judges), differing by a single similar letter. The commentators in the brief do not agree. Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge and Pulpit retain “tribes,” explaining it of whichever tribe supplied the leader of the hour and appealing to Psalm 78:67-68 and 1 Chronicles 28:4. K&D adds the strongest argument for retention: if “judges” had stood originally, the origin and general acceptance of “tribes” would be inexplicable. Poole and Gill take a third road, reading the same noun as “sceptres,” hence sceptre-bearers, as at Genesis 49:10. K&D separately rejects Thenius's proposal to read it as “shepherd-staffs.” BSB prints “leaders,” which quietly adopts the Chronicles sense. We flag this rather than pick a winner: the basis of any cross-reference built here is a disputed reading, not a settled one.
1 Chronicles 17:6 · Psalm 78:67-68 · Genesis 49:10
basis: Contested text. The link to 1 Chronicles 17:6 rests on a one-letter variant (šiḇṭê / šōp̄ᵉṭê) on which the brief's own commentators divide: Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D defend tribes; Poole and Gill read the consonants as sceptres. The Psalm 78 and Genesis 49 references are the commentators' supporting citations, not Verifier-computed lexeme matches, and are offered as their evidence rather than as independent bases.
Verse 17 closes the oracle with הַחִזָּיוֹן (ha·ḥiz·zā·yō·wn, H2384), and v. 4 had set it in the night, בַּלַּיְלָה (H3915). The noun is genuinely rare, occurring in only nine verses in the whole Hebrew Bible, and the Verifier finds it clustered in exactly the places one would expect: Job's vocabulary of nocturnal revelation (Job 4:13; 7:14; 20:8; 33:15, three of which also share layil), Isaiah's “valley of vision” (Isaiah 22:1, 5), Zechariah 13:4, and Joel's promise that old men shall dream dreams and young men see visions. Cambridge notes that chizzâyôn is built from the same root as chôzeh, one of the words for “seer,” and is distinguished as a mode of revelation from a dream; K&D insists on the same distinction, that Nathan received this in a waking condition during the night. Pulpit reads the word for its physical connotation, the fixed gaze of a man seeing with the inward sight. The shared vocabulary places Nathan's night among the classic Old Testament accounts of how God speaks in the dark.
Job 4:13 · Job 33:15 · Joel 2:28 · Isaiah 22:1
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H2384 chizzâyôwn, a rare word occurring in only 9 verses in all, at Job 4:13, Job 7:14, Job 20:8, Job 33:15, Isaiah 22:1, Isaiah 22:5, Zechariah 13:4 and Joel 2:28; Job 4:13, 20:8 and 33:15 additionally share H3915 layil (in 223 vv) with 2 Samuel 7:4. A genuine verbal link on a rare lexeme, not a quotation of one text by another.
The prophet introduced in v. 2 has a career shaped like this chapter. The Verifier finds his name shared with 2 Samuel 12:7 (“Thou art the man”), with the superscription of Psalm 51, with 1 Kings 1:23 where he secures Solomon's succession, and with 1 Chronicles 29:29 and 2 Chronicles 9:29 where he is named as a writer of the history of both reigns. Barnes and Cambridge both assemble that dossier from these very references. The pattern is consistent: Nathan is the man who must contradict himself in public (here), contradict the king to his face (ch. 12), and then defend the line the king was promised (1 Kings 1). Benson draws the moral from v. 17, that the correction of his fault was more remarkable than the fault itself.
2 Samuel 12:7 · 1 Kings 1:23 · Psalm 51:1 · 1 Chronicles 29:29
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H5416 Nâthân (in 39 vv), with H5030 nâbîyʼ (in 288 vv) at 1 Kings 1:23, Psalm 51:1, 1 Chronicles 29:29 and 2 Chronicles 9:29. Deliberately tiered structural rather than verbal: the shared lexeme is a proper name identifying the same person, which establishes a real connection of subject but no quotation or verbal allusion between the passages.
Every major commentator in the brief reaches for Psalm 89 at some point in this chapter, and none of them does so arbitrarily. K&D calls Psalm 89:22-24 the commentary on v. 11, and quotes Psalm 89:30 (“I set his seed for ever, and this throne as the days of heaven”) to argue that “for ever” must be taken absolutely and not as the popular notion of a long incalculable period. Cambridge cites Psalm 89:22 on “sons of wickedness,” Psalm 89:26-27 on the Father-son formula, and Psalm 89:30-33 on the chastening. Barnes cites Psalm 89:29 and 36-37 on the endurance of the throne; Pulpit cites Psalm 89:27 to show that the Son there is the Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth, which Solomon was not. What none of them dwells on is that the psalm ends by throwing the promise back at God in protest (Psalm 89:38-51). That tension belongs to this chapter's afterlife and we name it as ours.
Psalm 89:19-37 · Psalm 89:3-4
basis: No Verifier-computed lexeme basis: Psalm 89 did not appear in the thread candidates for this unit, so this link has no shared-Strong's foundation recorded here. The recorded basis is instead the convergent citation of the brief's own commentators (K&D on vv. 11, 14, 16; Cambridge on vv. 10, 14; Barnes on v. 13; Pulpit on vv. 13, 14), plus Cambridge's own chapter heading, which lists Psalm 89:19-37 as the parallel to 2 Samuel 7. Tiered structural, and deliberately not verbal.
Verse 14 is cited in Hebrews 1:5, where it stands alongside Psalm 2:7 as proof that the Son is greater than the angels. Ellicott, Benson, Barnes, Poole, Gill and Cambridge all note the citation; Cambridge adds that Israel as a nation is called God's son (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Hosea 11:1) and that the king bears the title as the nation's representative, so that the relationship implies parental care on one side and loyal obedience on the other. Poole draws the boundary that the New Testament use requires: the clause “if he commit iniquity” terminates in Solomon and does not pass through to Christ, while the sonship itself does. Henry says the same, applying the iniquity to Christ's spiritual seed rather than to Christ. We tier this structural rather than verbal on principle: Hebrews is Greek and 2 Samuel is Hebrew, so no shared Strong's lexeme can be computed between them, and a verbal badge would claim a basis we do not have, even though the citation itself is explicit and undisputed.
Hebrews 1:5 · Psalm 2:7 · 2 Corinthians 6:18
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew): no shared Strong's numbers are computable, and none is claimed. The recorded basis is an explicit New Testament citation of this verse at Hebrews 1:5, named independently by Ellicott, Benson, Barnes, Poole, Gill, Cambridge and K&D in the brief. Not tiered verbal, per the cross-Testament rule, despite the citation being undisputed.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
Verse 13 gives the son a task David was refused: הוּא יִבְנֶה־בַּיִת לִשְׁמִי, “He shall build a house for My Name.” Cambridge explains the phrase exactly: the Name of God signifies God Himself so far as He has revealed and manifested Himself to men, so that to put His Name in a place is to be present and revealed there (1 Kings 8:29; 9:3). The commentators in the brief are unanimous that the promise begins in Solomon and does not end there. Poole: meant literally and immediately of Solomon, who alone built the material temple, but mystically and ultimately of Christ, who is the builder of God's spiritual house (Hebrews 3:3, 6; 1 Peter 2:5). Gill sends the reader to Zechariah 6:12, where the Branch builds the temple of the LORD. Barnes lists John 1:12, Ephesians 1:20-22, 1 Timothy 3:15, Hebrews 3:6 and Zechariah 6:12-13. Henry: he was to build the gospel temple, a house for God's name, the spiritual temple of true believers. JFB says it was meant of David's Son of another nature (Hebrews 1:8).
⚙ What the Hebrew adds to their case is the distribution of verbs. Bânâh is withheld from David (v. 5), granted to the son (v. 13), and never used of what God does for David; the divine act in v. 11 is ʻâsâh. So the building is always the son's work and never the father's, and Pulpit's observation completes the arc: Christ calls his own body the temple (John 2:19, 21), raises it at the Resurrection, and now indwells the believer (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19). The house built for the Name turns out to be a body, and then a people.
Zechariah 6:12-13 · John 2:19-21 · Hebrews 3:3-6 · 1 Peter 2:5
Verse 14 puts two clauses together that later theology has always had to hold apart: “I will be to him for a Father, and he shall be to Me for a son,” and “when he does wrong, I will reprove him.” Hebrews 1:5 takes the first clause as spoken of Christ. Poole draws the line with unusual precision: in those things wherein Solomon was a type of Christ, the sense passes through Solomon to Christ, but the clause about committing iniquity terminates in Solomon, who therein was no type of Christ. Henry places the same clause on Christ's spiritual seed, who have infirmities for which they must expect to be corrected, though they are not cast off. Gill says both, that Christ was made sin by imputation though He knew none, and that the chastening belongs to His offspring whom He represented as head and surety.
⚙ The Hebrew of v. 15 is where the promise is made unbreakable. One root, סוּר (çûwr, to turn aside), carries all three verbs: My ḥesed shall not turn aside from him, as I caused it to turn aside from Saul, whom I caused to turn aside from before thee. Cambridge notices the triple root; Barnes ties the promise to Isaiah's “sure mercies of David” (Isaiah 55:3) and observes that “established” in v. 16 is Isaiah's “sure,” the Nifal of אָמַן, the root behind “amen.” Ellicott reads the whole as a chain of narrowing promise: the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), then Abraham's nation, then Judah's tribe, and now David's family. K&D's conclusion is the one the apostles reached first, that the posterity of David could only last for ever by running out in a person who lives for ever. We mark that last step as inference from “for ever,” not as a statement this chapter makes in its own words; Luke 1:32-33, which Cambridge, Benson, Barnes and Poole all cite, makes it in the angel's.
Hebrews 1:5 · Luke 1:32-33 · Isaiah 55:3 · Acts 2:29-31
⚙ This reading is more contested and we mark it as such. Verses 6 and 7 refuse the temple on the ground of a verb: God has been מִתְהַלֵּךְ, walking Himself about, in a tent and a dwelling (mishkân, H4908, from shâkan, to reside or tabernacle). Pulpit draws the line forward, observing that when John writes that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), the verb he chooses is literally “tabernacled,” a comparison between Christ's life on earth and God's dwelling in the tent of meeting; Pulpit credits Keil with the underlying point that the temple was a symbol of the incarnation, since it meant the dwelling of God on earth.
What makes this more than wordplay is the logic of the refusal itself. The objection to a house is not that God is too great for one but that God has been travelling with His people; the tent is the form of divine accompaniment. If that is right, then the incarnation is not the abolition of the tabernacle principle but its extreme case: God pitching in the middle of the camp, in a dwelling that can be taken down. We mark this novel, and the distinction matters. The tabernacle reading of John 1:14 is ancient and well attested, and Pulpit, crediting Keil, applies it to this chapter at v. 13. But grounding it in the verb of vv. 6 and 7, the God who walks Himself about, rather than in the temple of v. 13, is our own move, and the connection between mishkân and John's Greek is a resonance of sense, not a lexical identity that any Verifier could confirm.
John 1:14 · Exodus 25:8 · Revelation 21:3
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text. This unit carries three places where the Masoretic text and the parallel at 1 Chronicles 17 diverge, and the brief's commentators do not agree on any of them. (1) v. 7, שִׁבְטֵי (tribes) against Chronicles' šōp̄ᵉṭê (judges), one letter apart; Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D retain tribes, Poole and Gill read the noun as sceptres, and BSB prints “leaders,” which follows the Chronicles sense. (2) v. 15, where Cambridge reports that the Septuagint reads “as I took it away from them that I took away from before me” and suspects an error in the Hebrew, while Barnes notes the quite different Chronicles reading “as I took it from him that was before thee” and infers the text here may have been corrupted. (3) v. 16, לְפָנֶיךָ (“before thee”): Cambridge calls the received explanation forced and follows the LXX in reading “before me”; Barnes agrees that “before me” is probably the true reading; Ellicott says the LXX changed it unnecessarily; Poole and Gill defend the Masoretic reading. We have translated the Masoretic text throughout and recorded the disputes rather than resolving them.
Parse. At v. 3 the interlinear parses עִמָּךְ as a second person feminine singular suffix where the sense requires the masculine. We report the parse as the brief gives it and build nothing on it; the form is best understood as pausal or orthographic, not as a change of addressee.
Chronology. Nothing in the unit dates itself. Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D all agree the chapter stands here for topical rather than chronological reasons, but they differ on how much of the warfare of ch. 8 and ch. 10 precedes it, and on whether Solomon was already born (K&D and Pulpit say no, from the future tense of v. 12; Ellicott allows the future may be mere assimilation to the surrounding futures). We have not adjudicated.
Tense. The rendering of vv. 10 and 11 as past or future is an interpretive decision with real consequences. Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge and Pulpit read perfects (I have appointed, I have planted); Poole and Gill prefer futures and, in Gill's case, a still-future restoration of Israel. Our literal rendering follows the BSB verse division and keeps the Hebrew conjunctive perfects visible so the reader can weigh the choice.
Sources. Twelve public-domain commentators are quoted verbatim by anchor: Ellicott, Benson, Henry, Barnes, JFB, Gill, Geneva, Cambridge, Pulpit, K&D, Poole and Maclaren. Maclaren appears in the brief only at v. 4 and his entry is capped; the portion we quote is within the supplied text. Several K&D and Gill entries are repeated across verses in the source and are quoted once each. Where a commentator supplies a reason the text does not state (most often the shedding of blood, from 1 Chronicles 22:8 and 28:3), we have said so at the point of use.
What is ours. Every observation marked ⚙ is machine synthesis and fallible: the tracking of bayith and yâshab through the unit, the distribution of bânâh against ʻâsâh between David, God and the son, the link between shêbeṭ as “tribes” in v. 7 and as “rod” in v. 14, and the reading of the tent as the form of divine accompaniment. None of these is asserted by a named commentator in this brief. They are offered to be tested against the text.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)