There is a related question here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/… We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots: > And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2 > Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8 > And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12 Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David: > And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5 And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David: > I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16 This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45). For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?

I hear this a lot between Jesus and David, both being shepherd. But how is Jesus the ultimate shepherd over David? Can you guys help me? I tried asking my pastors and they just say: "because He is God."

The first chapter of Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through his father Joseph back to King David through something like 18 generations. But as we know, Jesus was born through the agency of the Holy Spirit meaning that Joseph did *not* impregnate his mother, the Virgin Mary. How would Jesus have a bloodline back to King David? Was Mary a cousin (of some degree) to Joseph with similar bloodlines? If not, what doctrine would cause Jesus to be considered descended from King David? Or put another way, are there any sources that describe what bloodline Jesus actually had through Mary?

I would like to know when David, the king of Israel, was born.

In 2 Chronicles 2:17 we are told "Solomon took a census of all the foreigners residing in Israel, after the census his father David had taken; and they were found to be 153,600." Why was God not angry about this Census, yet furious with David for taking a Census?

In Chronicles, David took a census on the people of Israel. However, God became angry at this, and he proceeded to destroy about 70,000 people in result. >1 Chronicles 21:1-16 : 1Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel. 2So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Take a census of all the people of Israel—from Beersheba in the south to Dan in the north—and bring me a report so I may know how many there are.” 3But Joab replied, “May the Lord increase the number of his people a hundred times over! But why, my lord the king, do you want to do this? Are they not all your servants? Why must you cause Israel to sin?” > 4But the king insisted that they take the census, so Joab traveled throughout all Israel to count the people. Then he returned to Jerusalem 5and reported the number of people to David. There were 1,100,000 warriors in all Israel who could handle a sword, and 470,000 in Judah. 6But Joab did not include the tribes of Levi and Benjamin in the census because he was so distressed at what the king had made him do. > **Judgment for David’s Sin**
> 7 God was very displeased with the census, and he punished Israel for it. 8Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by taking this census. Please forgive my guilt for doing this foolish thing.” 9Then the Lord spoke to Gad, David’s seer. This was the message: 10“Go and say to David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I will give you three choices. Choose one of these punishments, and I will inflict it on you.’” > 11So Gad came to David and said, “These are the choices the Lord has given you. 12You may choose three years of famine, three months of destruction by the sword of your enemies, or three days of severe plague as the angel of the Lord brings devastation throughout the land of Israel. Decide what answer I should give the Lord who sent me.” > 13“I’m in a desperate situation!” David replied to Gad. “But let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great. Do not let me fall into human hands.” > 14So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel, and 70,000 people died as a result. 15And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But just as the angel was preparing to destroy it, the Lord relented and said to the death angel, “Stop! That is enough!” At that moment the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. > 16David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with his sword drawn, reaching out over Jerusalem. So David and the leaders of Israel put on burlap to show their deep distress and fell face down on the ground. But this passage does not state the reason for God doing this. What was so wrong about taking census of people of Israel?

The Gospel of Matthew starts by stating the names of ancestors of Jesus Christ. Does that have any significance other than to establish that Jesus was a descendant of King David?

In [Psalm 39 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039&version=NIVUK) starting with verse 12, David said: > "Hear my prayer, Lord, listen to my cry for help; do not be deaf to my weeping. I dwell with you as a foreigner, a stranger, as all my ancestors were. So he's asking God to hear his prayer, listen to his cry for help, and to not be deaf to his weeping. Then in verse 13, he says: > Look away from me, that I may enjoy life again before I depart and am no more." What is this supposed to mean? It sounds like he is contradicting himself.

**Royal Regulations** When God reluctantly gave permission for Israel to have kings, He laid down several stipulations: (1) Only a fellow "brother" Israelite could be chosen; no foreigner, (2) He shall not multiply horses, nor purchase horses from Egypt, (3) Neither is a king to "multiply wives" lest his heart be seduced by them, and (4) He shall not amass silver and gold in abundance, and (5) The king is to write out a copy of the Book of the Law, and read it continually! (Deuteronomy 17:15-20) David seemed to comply with these requirements...except for one! He multiplied wives and concubines. Abigail, Ahinoam, 1 Samuel 25:42-43
Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, 2 Samuel 3:3
Concubines and more wives, 2 Samuel 5:13. To these women were born over a dozen sons, as well as daughters. (And then, of course, there was Bathsheba and Solomon, with her other children.) **Flaunting and Flouting** Was this flaunting and flouting of the Royal Code an example in the conduct of David that indelibly impressed the thought life of his son Solomon so that he could not resist the same temptation? A Temptation that became the Fatal Flaw and downfall of the vast Solomonic Empire? What could have been done different by Solomon, in spite of David's example, that would have kept him on the straight and narrow? Maybe #5 in the Royal Code? Or was the stigma of being the son of an illegitimate marriage by his father too much for his psyche to handle? Solomon grew up, no doubt, knowing his mother's husband was murdered. And he gave up on ever being a holy person himself? Does Christian psychology have anything to speak into this situation? What could have broken this "cycle of abuse" and put Solomon back on to a righteous trajectory?

We read in 1 Kings 15:5 that King David had obeyed all the Commandments except in the case of Uriah the Hettite, during his lifetime. The circumstances leading to the death of Uriah in battle were meticulously executed by David who had coveted his wife Bathsheba against the 9th Commandment, after having slept with the married lady against the 6th Commandment. On the death of Uriah, David broke the 5th Commandment, by having consciously planned and staged the battle scene (2 Samuel 11). As such, the victims of David's sins were both Uriah and his widow Bathsheba. But the mention only of Uriah in 1 Kings 15, makes one wonder if David, in the capacity of King, was exempt from the 6th and 9th Commandments. **Question**: According to Catholic scholars, does 1 Kings 15:5 suggest that King David was exempt from following some of the Ten Commandments?

I've looked at the discoveries of things like the Tel Dan Inscription or the Pilate Stone which testify to the existence of David and Pilate. I read that before such archeological discoveries, the existence of people like King David and Pontius Pilate was disputed. Now, it seems that most scholars accept the existence of David, and all accept Pilate existing from what I've seen. Apparently, starting from somewhere around the 17th century, scholars were arguing against Biblical figures existing. They also argued against the Philistines' existence. Every apologist I encounter who brings up these discoveries starts off by saying "Skeptics used to say 'x', but because of these discoveries, we have evidence that 'y' is true, so they agree with us now." But I cannot find many examples of skeptic scholars in the past who have denied the Philistines, David, Pilate, or many other people whose existence is disputed. Maybe I haven't done enough research. But these attacks on skeptics are found on basically all apologist websites defending the validity of the Bible. Here's one example of such a website from a good defender of the Word: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/a-brief-sample-of-old-testament-archaeological-corroboration/ Could someone point me toward some evidence that the scholars doubted the existence of David, Pilate, and the Philistines back in the day? Thanks.

It is my understanding that because he had been a soldier and shed human blood, God did not allow David to build His temple---but reserved that honor for his son, Solomon. QUESTION: In his lifetime, did Solomon ever physically fight as a soldier or shed human blood with his own hands? His reign seem to have been, unusually, a time of peace.

Heard one preacher teaching on 1 Samuel 16 that when the prophet came to annoint another king in the house of Jesse he actually tried to pour oil on David's brothers but it would not come out until he came to David KJV 1 Samuel 16 : 1 >And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Beth-lehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these. Tried to search for this information in 1 Samuel 16 but couldn't find it. Got me thinking whether this was from some extra biblical source. Could be someone has an idea on this source?

We read in Ex 21: 12-14 (NRSVCE): > Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. Now, 2 Samuel 11 narrates how King David got Uriah the Hittite killed in war in a deceitful manner so as to marry his would-be-widow Bathsheba. Of course, David repents at the intervention of prophet Nathan , and is punished by God with the death of his fist child born of Bathsheba ( 2 Sam 12). But the rule of death-for-death in Ex 21, which spared not even the priests, does not appear to have been implemented in the case of David. My question therefore is: **Why was King David spared of the death-for-death rule of Exodus 21?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

1 Kings tells us that, when David was elderly and impotent, Adonijah considered himself as heir-apparent and crowned himself, but Nathan the Prophet and Bathsheba approached David: > She said to him, “My lord, you yourself swore to me your servant by the Lord your God: ‘Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne.’ But now Adonijah has become king, and you, my lord the king, do not know about it. Why would David have chosen Solomon, the younger candidate, as a successor?

If Jesus is **not** the son of Joseph, but the Son of God, why is it said that Joseph is a descendent of David? If Jesus is the Son of God and the son of Mary, then the man who took care of Mary and her baby could be any man (a descendant of David or not). Hypothetically, if Mary would have been engaged with another man than Joseph, that wouldn't change Jesus, so why does it matter that the "adoptive father" (Joseph) was a descendant of David? In Matthew 1, it says that Jesus is the son of David, because Joseph is the son of David, not because Mary was a daughter of David, as it is stated clearly.

I wonder why does the unknown author of Hebrews attribute authorship of Psalm 95 to David, but in my bible it is not written that the author of it is David? Was it an error from the unknown author of Hebrews or an error from the spirit which inspired him or not an error at all? > Hebrews 4:7 > > Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in **David**, **To day, after so > long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden > not your hearts**. > > > Psalm 95:7-8 > > For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, > and the sheep of his hand. **To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden > not your heart**, as in the provocation, and as in the day of > temptation in the wilderness:

Christians have understood Psalm 2:7 as a reference to Jesus as the begotten Son of God. But how could this be if Psalm 2 is God speaking to the King of Israel? The response is typically that this verse refers to the Messiah *as well* as the King. But there are two questions that come to mind in regard to this answer: 1. How can this text be used to show that is Jesus unique in his sonship if it also applies to the King? 2. Hebrews 1:5 applies Psalm 2 to Jesus in order to establish Jesus' superiority over the angels. But wouldn't this also prove the King's superiority over the angels as well?

I was singing in a choir at [St. Patrick's Cathedral](https://www.cam.org.au/cathedral) in Melbourne, Australia. One of the lyrics was as follows: > God will give him the throne of David, his father. > The Lord swore an oath to David; He will not go back on his word: 'A son, the fruit of your body, Will I set upon your throne.' > For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for his dwelling: 'This is my resting place forever, Here have I chosen to live. > 'There David's stock will flower: I will prepare a lamp for my anointed. I will cover his enemies with shame, But on him my crown shall shine.' I felt bad for singing these lyrics without knowing what they meant, so my question is: **What do these verses mean?**

We are told David is dead. >For David, after he had served God’s purpose in his own generation, fell asleep, and was buried among his fathers and underwent decay Acts 13:36 We could include any of 'God's men and women of old' in this - Moses, the prophets etc. Whenever one of these OT servants is raised, we would assume they will be raised together. We also are told that Moses and Elijah were presented in a *vision* on the mount with Jesus and the voice of God and were not actually alive at this time. And as they are coming down from the mount, Jesus charged them, saying, 'Say to no one the vision, till the Son of Man out of the dead may rise.' Matt 17:9 Youngs, NASB, BLB Do we have firm indication that these servants before Jesus will be raised with the saints at his return?