Though we do not need to assume that David’s death took place immediately as he stopped speaking to Solomon, it does seem to be the case that it followed this exhortation after a relatively short time. The phrase slept with his fathers was a common way for the biblical writers to speak of the death of a king or other person of importance.

Many scholars treat it as a euphemism (a polite way of speaking of an unpleasant subject). There may, indeed, be some truth in the suggestion. Nonetheless, it carries with it an unmistakable idea that a person’s fathers have not gone out of existence entirely. We must not take the idea too far assuming that, when the phrase is used, it is assumed that the recently deceased share the same final destination as his ancestors. It was as true then as it is true now that …it is appointed to man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

1 Kings 2:11 gives us the length of David’s reign over Israel as forty years. Donald Wiseman suggests that this may not be an exact tabulation of years but a generalization equalling approximately one generation.¹ The problem with that suggestion is that the way the forty years are divided by place of residence shows what appear to be exactly forty years: seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem.

Yet it is noteworthy that the inspired writer speaks of all of David’s years as reigning over Israel when, at least during a portion of his time in Hebron, he was recognized as king only by the tribe of Judah. What is the explanation for this? Was his time as king of Judah not counted? (Note that the dividing line between the Hebron years and the Jerusalem years is simply the change of residence, and before David, Jerusalem had never been the capital of the kingdom of Israel.) Or is the explanation that the Scripture represents David as the legitimate ruler even though Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 2:10; 2 Samuel 4:5–12) claimed the throne until his death?

Of greater significance is the fact that these words become the way in which 1 Kings speaks of the reigns of all the subsequent kings of Israel and Judah of which it speaks. There is one difference that should be mentioned for later kings of the divided kingdom: the formulation is used at the time of the king’s introduction rather than at the conclusion of his reign.

Yet the most significant matter that needs to receive attention is the fact that from this point forward, the writer uses David as the standard to judge the future kings that will sit on his throne. The Scripture refers to David as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:4; Acts 13:22). In the Old Testament there is no other king who is superior to him and very few equal to him. The fact that the inspired writer speaks of him in this manner exhibits the typological relationship between David and his ultimate descendant, the Lord Jesus Christ.