Read this quote in another thread:
For example, I accept the ruling on David as not being a King of Judah, even though I very much disagree from a scriptural perspective.
Has it truly been ruled that David is not considered a King of Judah? Does 2 Samuel 2 mean nothing to the ruling? The whole chapter is about how David ruled over Judah while Ish-bosheth ruled over Israel. Also, it states in 2 Samuel 5:
3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel.
This shows that David was already the king over Judah before the unity of the two. It also states:
5 At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years
This also states that he was the king of Judah before he became the king of Israel.
Also, a quote from the
Jewish virtual library:
Eventually, while David was out battling a tribe called the Amalekites, Saul and Jonathan were killed on Mt. Gilboa in a fight with the Philistines. David mourned, and then began a new stage in his life, as king of Judah. He moved to Hebron, along with his wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail of Carmel, and his followers. The people of Judea were grateful to David for saving them from desert raiders while he was in Ziklag, and they appointed David king.
So how is he not a king of Judah? Are we going to be so limited in our definition that we go against The Holy Bible as well as Jewish historians?
Edit: For some reason, the bolding and the last quote isn't formatting like I wanted it.
