There is another reason for the mention of David besides the contrast that it presents to the spiritual evaluation of Abijam. Some might say that it is a reason more important than the first. The writer tells us that for the sake of David, the Lord gave him a lamp in Jerusalem.
What does the phrase a lamp in Jerusalem
mean? The text tells us that it consisted in allowing David’s descendants to rule the kingdom of Judah despite their personal failures and shortcomings.
The Holy Spirit wants us to see the promise of the Messiah, who is of the house and family of David. The necessity existed that the kingship should remain in the family of David at least until the Babylonian exile. Before that time, if a different family reigned, it most probably would have exterminated the Davidic line, thus threatening the coming of Jesus as the son of David.
The Babylonians, however, were not interested in replacing the ruling family but in swallowing up Judah into their empire. Thus, they (and their successors) could (and did) allow the family of David to remain intact until the coming of the Christ.
What I write suggests a meaning to the phrase for David’s sake.
It is for the sake of the promise made to David that one of his descendants would sit upon his throne forever (2 Samuel 7:16; Psalm 89:4, Psalm 89:29, Psalm 89:36).
The writer gives a reason why this promise was given to David: he was right in the eyes of the Lord
and did not turn away from following him. Yet, there is an exception that the writer mentions, the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
The reader who is familiar with the Bible might reply that the exception mentioned is fairly significant, since it included the sins of adultery, deception, and finally murder. In addition, the consequence of these sins brought terrible trouble on all of Israel. Even so, we are to understand that the Bible does not view this as the pattern of David’s life.
Some Christians are further troubled by the suggestion that no other sins that 2 Samuel lays at David’s doorstep are mentioned; for example, David seeking to number his people without the direction of God and others. Answering this difficulty is somewhat guesswork, but it may be valuable to consider the possibilities that the later sins of David are all related to the matter of Uriah the Hittite
in the sense that none of them would have taken place without that one. Would David's shortcomings in handling his children in the matter of the rape of Tamar have taken place, if his adultery had not? Would the rebellion of Absalom (that caused the deaths of many) have happened if the aforementioned rape had not occurred? Would David have requested the census if the armies of Israel and Judah had not been so depleted by that rebellion?
The sin surrounding David’s treatment of Uriah was a significant flaw. It also had certain catastrophic consequences. Nevertheless, it did not characterize David’s state before the Lord. David was generally faithful, and Abijam was not.
4 Mais à cause de David, l'Eternel, son Dieu, lui donna une lampe à Jérusalem, en établissant son fils après lui et en laissant subsister Jérusalem.