Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Chronicles 11:1
Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we [are] thy bone and thy flesh.
Ch. 1Ch 11:1-3 (= 2Sa 5:1-3). David made King over all Israel
1. Then ] Render, And. Chron. has nothing here corresponding to 2 Samuel 1-4, chapters which cover a period of seven years (2Sa 5:5). David’s earlier coronation by the men of Judah (2Sa 2:4), the reign of Ish-bosheth over Northern and Eastern Israel ( ib. 2Sa 2:8 ff.), and the “long war” ( ib. 2Sa 3:1) with the house of Saul are omitted. Some reference to the civil war however occurs in 1Ch 12:23; 1Ch 12:29.
we are thy bone and thy flesh ] The phrase is not to be taken strictly as implying kinship, for only the tribe of Judah could say “The king is near of kin to us” (2Sa 19:42). The other tribes mean that they will obey David as though he were their own kin.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This chapter runs parallel with 2 Sam. 5 as far as 1Ch 11:9, after which it is to be compared with 2 Sam. 23:8-39 as far as 1Ch 11:40, the remainder 1Ch 11:41-47 being an addition, to which Samuel has nothing corresponding. Compare throughout the notes in Samuel.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XI
David is anointed king in Hebron, 1-3.
He wars against the Jebusites, and takes their city, 4-9.
An account of David’s three mightiest heroes; and particularly
of their hazardous exploit in bringing water from the well of
Beth-lehem, 10-19.
A list of the rest, and an account of their acts, 20-47.
NOTES ON CHAP. XI
Verse 1. Then all Israel gathered themselves to David] See 2Sa 5:1-10, for the history contained in the first nine verses of this chapter, and the notes there.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
All Israel, i.e. all the tribes of Israel, as it is expressed, 2Sa 5:1, i.e. their elders, as it is there said, 2Sa 5:3, and officers, and a great multitude of the soldiers and people.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Then all Israel gatheredthemselves to David unto HebronThis event happened on thedeath of Ish-bosheth (see on 2Sa 5:1).The convention of the estates of the kingdom, the public and solemnhomage of the representatives of the people, and the repeatedanointing of the new king in their presence and by their direction,seem to have been necessary to the general acknowledgment of thesovereign on the part of the nation (compare 1Sa11:15).
1Ch11:4-9. HE WINSTHE CASTLE OF ZIONFROM THE JEBUSITES BYJOAB’S VALOR.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The anointing of David to be king over the whole of Israel in Hebron; cf. 2Sa 5:1-3. – After Saul’s death, in obedience to a divine intimation, David left Ziklag, whither he had withdrawn himself before the decisive battle between the Philistines and the Israelites, and betook himself with his wives and his warriors to Hebron, and was there anointed by the men of Judah to be king over their tribe (2Sa 2:1-4). But Abner, the captain of Saul’s host, led Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, with the remainder of the defeated army of the Israelites, to Mahanaim in Gilead, and there made him king over Gilead, and gradually also, as he reconquered it from the Philistines, over the land of Israel, over Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and all (the remainder of) Israel, with the exception of the tribal domain of Judah. Ishbosheth’s kingship did not last longer than two years, while David reigned over Judah in Hebron for seven years and a half (2Sa 2:10 and 2Sa 2:11). When Abner advanced with Ishbosheth’s army from Mahanaim against Gibeon, he was defeated by Joab, David’s captain, so that he was obliged again to withdraw beyond Jordan (2 Sam 2:12-32); and although the struggle between the house of Saul and the house of David still continued, yet the house of Saul waxed ever weaker, while David’s power increased. At length, when Ishbosheth reproached the powerful Abner because of a concubine of his father’s, he threatened that he would transfer the crown of Israel to David, and carried his threat into execution without delay. He imparted his design to the elders of Israel and Benjamin; and when they had given their consent, he made his way to Hebron, and announced to David the submission of all Israel to his sway (2 Sam 3:1-21). Abner, indeed, did not fully carry out the undertaking; for on his return journey he was assassinated by Joab, without David’s knowledge, and against his will. Immediately afterwards, Ishbosheth, who had become powerless and spiritless through terror at Abner’s death, was murdered in his own house by two of the leaders of his army. There now remained of Saul’s family only Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth (2Sa 4:1-12), then not more than twelve years old, and lame in both his feet, and all the tribes of Israel determined to anoint David to be their king. The carrying out of this resolution is narrated in 1Ch 11:1-3, in complete agreement as to the facts with 2Sa 5:1-3, where the matter has been already commented upon. In ch. 12 23-40 there follows a more detailed account of the assembly of the tribes of Israel in Hebron. The last words in 1Ch 11:3, , are a didactic addition of the author of the Chronicle, which has been derived from 1Sa 16:13 and 1Sa 15:28. In 2Sa 5:4-5, in accordance with the custom of the author of the books of Samuel and Kings to state the age and duration of the reign of each of the kings immediately after the announcement of their entry upon their office, there follows after the preceding a statement of the duration of David’s reign; cf. 1Sa 13:1; 2Sa 2:10., 1Ki 14:21; 1Ki 15:2, etc. This remark is to be found in the Chronicle only at the close of David’s reign; see 1Ch 29:29, which shows that Thenius’ opinion that this verse has been omitted from the Chronicle by a mistake is not tenable.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| David’s Accession to the Throne. | B. C. 1055. |
1 Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2 And moreover in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel. 3 Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel. 4 And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus; where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of the land. 5 And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David. 6 And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief. 7 And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of David. 8 And he built the city round about, even from Millo round about: and Joab repaired the rest of the city. 9 So David waxed greater and greater: for the LORD of hosts was with him.
David is here brought to the possession.
I. Of the throne of Israel, after he had reigned seven years in Hebron, over Judah only. In consideration of his relation to them (v. 1), his former good services, and especially the divine designation (v. 2), they anointed him their king: he covenanted to protect them, and they to bear faith and true allegiance to him, v. 3. Observe, 1. God’s counsels will be fulfilled at last, whatever difficulties lie in the way. If God had said, David shall rule, it is in vain to oppose it. 2. Men that have long stood in their own light, when they have long wearied themselves with their lying vanities, it is to be hoped, will understand the things that belong to their peace and return to their own mercies. 3. Between prince and people there is an original contract, which both ought religiously to observe. If ever any prince might have claimed an absolute despotic power, David might, and might as safely as any have been entrusted with it; and yet he made a covenant with the people, took the coronation-oath, to rule by law.
II. Of the strong-hold of Zion, which was held by the Jebusites till David’s time. Whether David had a particular eye upon it as a place fit to make a royal city, or whether he had a promise of it from God, it seems that one of his first exploits was to make himself master of that fort; and, when he had it, he called it the city of David, v. 7. To this reference is had, Ps. ii. 6. I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. See here what quickens and engages resolution in great undertakings. 1. Opposition. When the Jebusites set David at defiance, and said, Thou shalt not come hither. he resolved to force it, whatever it cost him. 2. Prospect of preferment. When David proposed to give the general’s place to him that would lead the attack upon the castle of Zion, Joab was fired with the proposal, and he went up first, and was chief. It has been said, “Take away honour out of the soldier’s eye and you cut off the spurs from his heels.”
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
see note on: 2Sa 5:1
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.] The writer here passes by the 7 years of Davids reign over Judah, at which he had glanced in his introductory section (chap. 1Ch. 3:4), and hastens to the glorious period of his inauguration as king over the whole people of Israel. This, as we learn from 2Sa. 4:5, was at the death of Ish-bosheth, who succeeded Saul as king over all the tribes, except that of Judah [Speak. Com.].
1Ch. 11:1-4.David made king. Hebron, chap. 1Ch. 3:4, an ancient royal and priestly city (Jos. 12:10; Jos. 21:11); most mountainous, safest part of Judah, and divinely selected (2Sa. 2:1). 1Ch. 11:3. Covenant, league (2Sa. 5:3). By Samuel, (cf. 1Ch. 11:10). added by writer to mark divine origin of Davidic Monarchy, which he had not previously declared [cf. Speak. Com.]covenant, a solemn transaction before the Lord, united monarch and people in terms of government and obedience.
1Ch. 11:4-9.Zion taken from Jebusites. Jebuz (cf. Jos. 15:8; Jdg. 19:10). 1Ch. 11:5 Said abbreviates; full speech 2Sa. 5:6. Zion mentioned first in 2Sa. 5:7, meaning lofty, bare, rocky top, exposed to sun; Heb. a fortified place. City extended northward and southward; the royal residence and stronghold. 1Ch. 11:6. Chief head of government. Captain command of army. Prowess of Joab on this occasion, and the part which he took in building city of David, known only from this passagerepaired breaches made in siege, rebuilt houses, demolished and reconstructed old part of city occupied by Jebus. David built a new town.
1Ch. 11:9.Waxed. Literally, went on and grew great, as 2Sa. 5:10. Hosts. Sept., the Lord Omnipotent.
1Ch. 11:10-47.Davids mighty men (2Sa. 23:8-39). Strengthened, exerted themselves; assisted with all Israel in making David kingmargin, held fast with him in affection and obedience. 1Ch. 11:11. Number. In Hebrew a plural pronoun (these, and a singular noun. Moreover, the number not given; therefore read, These are the names [Speak. Com.]. Jash., called son of Zabdiel (ch. 1Ch. 27:2); hence grandson or Hachmoni (cf. ch. 1Ch. 27:32). Three, 800 in 2Sa. 23:8. One or other of these corrupt [Speak. Com.]. Some suppose he attacked 800 and slew 300 of them. 1Ch. 11:12. Eleazar and Jashobeam only two here; Shammah third in 2Sa. 23:11. 1Ch. 11:13. Pas. Place where Goliath slain, between Shoehoh and Azekah (1Sa. 17:1). 1Ch. 11:14. Parcel. This achievement given in detail (2Sa. 23:9-11). Eleazar had given up from fatigue, and then Shammah helped by his prowess to keep the field. These feats performed when David acted as general of Saul against Philistines. 1Ch. 11:15-19. Feat of three men of the thirty mentioned in 1Ch. 11:26-40. Rock (cf. 2Sa. 23:13). 1Ch. 11:17. Well (2Sa. 23:15-17). This feat performed by a second three, Abishai chief (1Ch. 11:20); not the three in 1Ch. 11:15-19. 1Ch. 11:21. Hon., yet not on a par with first three. 1Ch. 11:22. Kab. South of Judah (Jos. 15:21; Neh. 11:25). Many, three daring deeds given as specimens. Lionlike, two Ariels; literally, lions of God, great lions, or champions in Davids war with Moab (2Sa. 8:2). 1Ch. 11:23. Stature, i.e., measure, aspect, conspicuous for size. 1Ch. 11:24. Three mighties. The second three, of whom Benaiah held second place. 1Ch. 11:25. Guard. Ges. gives David took him into his privy council, as margin of 2Sa. 23:23. He was captain over Kerethi and Pelethi, a body-guard of the king. 1Ch. 11:26-47. The 48 men of war. Valiant men of the armies (cf. list in 2Sa. 23:24-38). Asahel (2Sa. 2:18). 1Ch. 11:27. Haroite, Harodite, a native of Harod (Jdg. 7:1). Heles the Paltite. 1Ch. 11:28. Tekoite of Tekoa (2Sa. 14:2). Antothite, of Anathoth (Jos. 21:18). 1Ch. 11:29. Sib., Mebunnai in Sam. Ili, Zalmon. 1Ch. 11:30. Mah., chief of detachment of guards (ch. 1Ch. 27:13). 1Ch. 11:39. Nah., armour-bearer to Joab. 1Ch. 11:41-47. These sixteen are a supplement to Samuel. Uriah, well known (2 Samuel 11); the others associated with places unknown, or connected with cities and districts on east of Jordan.
HOMILETICS
THE CHOSEN KING.1Ch. 11:1-4
After the death of Saul, country on east of Jordan, and in short time west also, with exception of province of Judah, over which David ruled in Hebron, was brought, by skilful generalship of Abner, to acknowledge Ishbosheth as king (2Sa. 2:8 seq.). Not till Abner and Ishbosheth were dead, and no one left belonging to house of Saul, but lame Meribosheth, who was then only twelve years old, that all the Israelites resolved to make David king. These verses an account of the assembly in which the resolution was carried into effect [Keil].
I. The reasons for the choice of a king. Not a rash, blind, and imprudent choice.
1. Blood relationship. We are thy bone and thy flesh. Close and affectionate relationship, which ensured deep interest and patriotism.
2. Military leadership. Thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in. Past services of value, who so likely in future to rule? Qualifications for leadership, inborn, called out by circumstances and cultured under a sense of responsibility. Prove men before you choose them for office. Let these also first be proved.
3. Divine appointment. The Lord thy God said. Samuel the seer, who anointed Saul, nominated his successor. David often designated, now chosen by the nation. Trial and patient waiting now rewarded. Time fulfilled, all things ready, and they anointed David king over Israel according to the word of the Lord.
II. The duties of the chosen king. Thou shalt feed my people Israel, &c. This first time, the king called pastor. The servant described as the master; the under-shepherds duty like that of chief-shepherd.
1. To rule. Not in pride and tyranny, but in love and humility; respecting liberty, property, and human life. He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God (2Sa. 23:3).
2. To feed. The true king a real shepherd to his people, watching over their interests, providing for them and defending them. This picture of a theocratic king invested with moral grandeur; should be copied by every servant of God, high or low in position; but only completely realised in Messiah. A Governor who shall rule (shepherd) my people Israel (Mat. 2:6).
III. The allegiance given to the chosen king. All Israel were assembled, united and represented by elders. For once vox populi vox Dei. In this ceremony king reminded of solemn responsibility and people of implicit obedience. In form a covenant, mutual agreement on both sides to be true and helpful one to another. Notice
1. Unity in the covenant. The unity introduced by Samuel, weakened by Saul, restored internally and externally on the theocratic basis. All Israel represented in the choice.
2. Loyalty in the covenant. Attachment to the person of the king, adhesion to his cause and determination to obey his word. Service is poor and cold in warmest subject without the glow of loyalty. Our Master deserves and seeks it in every servant. If ye love Me, keep My commandments.
3. Solemnity in the covenant. Before the Lord, acting in his sight. People and king jointly render unconditional obedience to the Invisible Ruler. King David made a league with them before the Lord; and they anointed David king over Israel (2Sa. 5:3).
THE CAPTURE OF THE STRONGHOLD.1Ch. 11:5-9
David now begins to act, seeks to establish his throne, and subdue his enemies. Zion the centre, chief stronghold, and boast of the Jebusites (2Sa. 5:6).
I. The taking of the city. The south and middle of Palestine unsafe, as long as this citadel unconquered. Its siege and capture a daring Acts 1. Taken against great opposition. Its natural position very strong. Built on a precipice, waterfalls and gorges round about. Thought to be impregnable. David cannot come in hither. Its defenders very courageous. Quarters very close; a matter of life or death; but except the Lord keep the city, builders and watchmen in vain.
2. Taken by personal valour. Joab scaled the rocks, led the assault, and captured the city. For this act of bravery he was promoted, confirmed in position, and increased in influence.
3. Taken in Gods strength. Valour, numbers, and resources avail not without this. Victory only when God vouchsafes it. All this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lords (1Sa. 17:47).
II. The repairing of the city. David built round about from the Millo (the mound) and inward (2Sa. 5:9); and Joab restored (revived) the rest of the city (cf. Neh. 3:34). Houses restored, fortifications reared, rebuilding regarded as restoration to life. No longer a dry, barren rock, but a place of beauty and strength. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion.
III. The royal residence in the city. David took up his abode, therefore it is called the City of David. It becomes the seat of government, the centre of festivities, the memorial of its founders name. Mount Zion becomes the city of the great king, a type of the royal seat and the dominion of Messiah. I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
DAVIDS PROSPERITY.1Ch. 11:9
The words, then David went, &c., indicate the point of time from which his becoming great first dates; then (from the conquest of Jerusalem) David became continually greater and greater [Keil]. Learn
I. God is the true source of prosperity. The Lord of Hosts was with him. Not fleets and armies, skill of captains and valour of soldiers; but from presence of God. Ascribe (by word and conduct, give) ye greatness unto our God (Deu. 32:3). Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty.
II. God determines the real nature of prosperity. Temporal, spiritual, or both. Regal qualities, prudent counsellors, faithful friends, and devoted subjects; crowns, capitals, and thrones; personal influence, religious privileges, gifts of any kind, progress of any degree, bestowed by God.
III. God fixes the exact time of prosperity. From conquest of Zion a turning-point in Davids fortunes. His life a series of successive stages and positions in which one prepared for the other. Even when Saul was king, David led out and brought in Israel. After he was anointed, he waxed greater and greater, went on growing and growing. Our lifes work fashioned by God, not by ourselves, may be long time and go through strange discipline in its attainment; but God appoints means and fixes seasons. My times are in Thy hands. Use the means, wait in faith and seek the aid of God for progress and position here and hereafter.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
1Ch. 11:1-2. Then.
1. Great honours often preceded by great trials. Through suffering to glory. II. Great trials often end with unexpected relief; or,
1. Men divinely designated, specially trained for position.
2. When specially trained, Gods providence fulfils Gods word in placing them in position.
3. When so placed by Gods providence, often an epoch in their own, and a blessing in history of others. Feed my people. The shepherd king. Evil rulers termed roaring lions, devouring wolves, &c. (Eze. 19:2). Teachers and prophets pastors of people (Eze. 34:23), to feed by procuring for them the wholesome food of the word, by going before them in good example, by driving away the wolf, by tending them, and tendering their good every way [Trapp].
1Ch. 11:3. David king. How he reached the throne.
1. By aspiring to it only because divinely appointed.
2. By deserving it (a) in what he did; (b) in what he refused to do.
3. By waiting for it: (a) continuing patient through a long course of trials; (b) using all lawful means in his power to gain it (e.g., 2Sa. 2:5; 2Sa. 3:20-36); (c) preparing for it consciously and unconsciously; learning how to rule men, and to overcome difficulties [Lange].
1Ch. 11:5. The Castle of Zion. Like the human heart, harder to take and keep for Christ than Khartoum. Pride, selfishness, and envy must be driven out. Like heaven, only gained by violence (Mat. 11:12), and under the leadership of the Captain of salvation. David dwelt (1Ch. 11:7). A type of Christ, who subdueth all our enemies, and openeth unto us the heavenly Jerusalem [Trapp]. 1Ch. 11:8. Joab repaired. Heb. revived vivificavit vel sanavit, as 2Ch. 24:13. City of David, as Constantine called Bizantium Constantinople after his own name; making it also the metropolis and seat of the empire [Trapp].
HOMILETICS
FAMOUS EXPLOITS.1Ch. 11:10-47
These are the heads, chiefs of Davids heroes, heroes among heroes, attached to his person, with whom he carried on the Lords war, and whose deeds are works of great deliverance.
I. The two mighties (1Ch. 11:10-14). The third, Shammah (2Sa. 23:11), not given here.
1. Exploit of Jashobeam (1Ch. 11:11). Chief of captains, riders (or knights, Sam.), bodyguard of king. He lifted up, brandished his spear time after time in strength and courage, and slew 300. In Sam. 800 givenattacked 800 and slew 300, or slew 300 at one time and 800 at another.
2. Exploit of Eleazar. A fugitive in the wilderness with David. (a) Stood when others fled in fear and disgrace. (b) Weary, yet would not quit the work; hand cramped round hilt of sword, but held the weapon. Faint, yet pursuing (Jdg. 8:4). (c) Advantage followed up, and victory gained. A great victory that day. Heb. in theocratic form of deliverance, salvation from God. Aided by Shammah (they set themselves) the parcel of ground preserved. (d) Then people returned for spoil and share honour. Many quit the field in danger, and hasten back for gain, willing to share the victory, not the fight. The men of Ephraim (Jdg. 8:1).
II. The three captains (1Ch. 11:15-19).
1. The chivalrous act they performed evinces enthusiasm and readiness for humblest wish of the king.
(1) A dangerous act. To force passage through garrison of the enemy at risk of life.
(2) A brave act. Fearless of results, glad to defy Philistines, and ambitious to serve their king. Be you ready, like Jesus, to comply with every intimation of God by his word and providence.
(3) An unselfish act. No thought for themselves, all for their sovereign and their fellows.
(4) A loyal act. Indicative of affection and loyalty. No command, no request; perhaps a wish overheard, and they spring into action. Service free and spontaneous, not pressed nor constrained. First; a willing mind, then it is accepted to what we can do.
2. The generous estimation of the act. The water refused, gained at peril of life, and too sacred to gratify a wish foolishly expressed. Poured it out as a libation (Gen. 35:14; Exo. 30:9; Jdg. 6:20). A practical acknowledgment of his error, an expression of sympathy with the bravery and devotion of the men; a check to impulse and rashness in future. The sacrifice to God of what we most desire gives the strength and earnest of future success.
III. The second couple (1Ch. 11:20-25).
1. Abishai, a man of repute, had a name, and renowned for valour; held high position, chief leader of his company; slew 300; but was excelled in heroic conduct by the three in 1Ch. 11:11 to 1Ch. 14:2. Benaiah, a valiant man, accustomed to danger, had done many acts (great of acts, lit.); commander of bodyguard (marg., privy councillor). (a) Slew three heroes. An Egyptian, terrible in height and appearance, well armed; thus displayed courage (only a staff), dexterity, strength, and skill by snatching the spear out of the giants hand and killing him with it (David and Goliath). Slew two lion-like mem, two sons of Ariel of Moab [Keil]. Ariel a title of honour given to King of Moab. A feat performed probably in war between David and Moabites (2Sa. 8:2). (b) Slew a lion (1Ch. 11:22), probably in a cave in which he took refuge from a snowstorm, and in which a savage lion would have its lair. This far greater achievement than if the monster had been previously snared in a pit. On a snowy day, when greater courage and hardship would be required. Benaiahs influence and fidelity known in Solomons time (1Ki. 1:8; 1Ki. 1:10; 1Ki. 1:44).
3. Ashael, chief of men historically unknown (2Sa. 23:24); captain of 4th division (1Ch. 27:7); slain by Abner (2 Samuel 2). After him, names in Samuel are thirty, and one over Uriah the Hittite. Some of the list are Gentiles, who cast their lot with Israel, and reminds of that service in which is neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, but all one.
DAVIDS CONDUCT IN REFUSING TO DRINK.1Ch. 11:19
I. An act of great unselfishness. Thought of others, not himself; appreciated the deed of the noble three, and felt that he had no right to claim the blood of others. Men do not exist for us, but we exist for them. Sir P. Sidney took the cup from his thirsty lips to give to the poor.
II. An expression of profound humility. He bowed before the Lord, laid the cup at his feet, through whom it was gained and to whom it belonged. None so fit to rule as those who stoop. Before honour is humility.
III. An estimate of the value of human life. Great regard for the worth of men. Soldiers not made for powder and shot. Blood, sacred and inestimable. Human life an opportunity, a power for service, must not be thrown away. Wellington valued the life of his men. Of every man will I require the life of man. Life is
No trifle, however short it seem;
And howsoever shadowy, no dream;
Its value what no thought can ascertain,
Nor all an angels eloquence explain [Cowper].
TRUE HEROISM.1Ch. 11:10-47
I. In its real nature. Not mere physical vigour and exuberant spirit. Not foolhardiness nor reckless waste of strength and life, but self-sacrificing love, which shuns no duty and braves all danger. Often seen in forbearance, in provocation, patience, in trial, tenderness towards others, and self-control in adversity and prosperity. It is the stuff of which martyrs are made, who refuse wealth, honours, and applause for conscience sake. Seen in EliotLion Eliot, that great Englishmanwho refused the bribes and defied the tyranny of Charles I.; in Savonarola, the Italian monk, a Reformer before the Reformation; in Luther, before the Diet at Worms; and in all brave men of old.
II. In its hidden source. Love to God, strengthened themselves with him (1Ch. 11:10). Acquaintance with David, loyalty to him prompted to arms and conflict. Great men attract and excite to enthusiasm. King Arthur had his knights, Cromwell his Ironsides, and David his heroes. Jesus Christ has followers devoted to him, led to victory by him. Through God we shall do valiantly.
III. In its noble achievements. Enterprises full of risks; leading a forlorn hope; a successful skirmish; a dashing charge and a splendid capture. In our hearts and lives, in the Christian church and the world, what have we done for God? Quit yourselves like men.
Let us go forth, and resolutely dare
With sweat of brow to toil our little day [Lord Houghton].
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
1Ch. 11:15. Cave of Adullam.
1. A place of exile.
2. A centre of attractiona great host, as the host of God, gathers round David.
3. A picture of Christs reign. Rejected, yet gathering those in spiritual debt and distress unto himself. Every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was bitter of soul, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them.
1Ch. 11:41. Uriah the Hittite (2Sa. 2:3). The mention of this name in list suggests
(1) a man of distinguished merit;
(2) an aggravation of Davids guilt towards him. He was a foreigner, a Hittite. But his name and manner of speech indicate that he adopted the Jewish religion.
Happy the people that has heroes who
(1) advance in Gods strength,
(2) courageously stake their life for Gods honour and the peoples welfare, and
(3) are counted worthy by God to work great deliverance for their people.
Hail to the throne that is encompassed by heroes who
(1) find their highest nobility in the real knighthood that roots itself in the true fear of God,
(2) with humble heroism defend altar and throne,
(3) seek their highest honour in being Gods instruments for the aims of his kingdom and for the revelation of his power and righteousness, and
(4) set the whole people an example of self-devoting love and fidelity and of unterrified courage [Lange].
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 11
1Ch. 11:4-8. During the wars of Nassau a council of officers debated whether to attack a certain town. A Dutch general had so much to say about the formidable guns mounted on the defences of the place that many grew discouraged and advised giving up the dangerous job. My lords, said Sir Horace Vere, a stout English baron, if you fear the mouth of a cannon you must never come into the field. Without the Christians courage it is useless to enter the Christians fight.
1Ch. 11:11. Lifted up. Courage mounteth with occasion [Shakespeare].
Do not for one repulse forego the purpose
That you resolve to effect.
1Ch. 11:18. Brake through the host.
He holds no parley with unmanly fears;
Where duty bids, he confidently steers;
Faces a thousand dangers at her call,
And, trusting in his God, surmounts them all [Cowper].
1Ch. 11:19. God forbid. That which especially distinguishes a high order of man from a low order of manthat which constitutes human goodness, human noblenessis surely not the degree of enlightenment with which men pursue their own advantage; but it is self-forgetfulness, it is self-sacrifice, it is the disregard of personal pleasure and personal indulgence, personal advantages remote or present [Froude].
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
LESSON FIVE 1112
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF DAVID AND HIS WARRIORS
2. THE REIGN OF DAVID
INTRODUCTION
The writer of Chronicles now comes to his principal theme, David and his kingdom. Joab, Abishai and Uriah play their roles in relation to David and his times. Davids ability to unify the kingdom is a highlight of these chapters.
TEXT
1Ch. 11:1. Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bond and thy flesh. 2. In times past, even when Saul was king, it was thou that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and Jehovah thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt be shepherd of my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over my people Israel. 3. So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Jehovah; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of Jehovah by Samuel. 4. And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem (the same is Jebus); and the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, were there. 5. And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come in hither. Nevertheless David took the strong-hold of Zion; the same is the city of David. 6. And David said, whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. And Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was made chief. 7. And David dwelt in the stronghold; therefore they called it the city of David. 8. And he built the city round about, from Millo even round about; and Joab repaired the rest of the city. 9. And David waxed greater and greater; for Jehovah of hosts was with him.
PARAPHRASE
1Ch. 11:1. Then the leaders of Israel went to David at Hebron and told him, We are your relatives, 2. and even when Saul was king, you were the one who led our armies to battle and brought them safely back again. And the Lord your God has told you, You shall be the shepherd of my people Israel. You shall be their king, 3. So David made a contract with them before the Lord, and they appointed him as a king of Israel, just as the Lord had told Samuel. 4. Then David and the leaders went to Jerusalem (or Jebus, as it used to be called) where the Jebusitesthe original inhabitants of the landlived. 5, 6. But the people of Jebus refused to let them enter the city. So David captured the fortress of Zion, later called the City of David, and said to his men, The first man to kill a Jebusite shall be made commander-in-chief! Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was the first, so he became the general of Davids army. 7. David lived in the fortress and that is why that area of Jerusalem is called the City of David. 8. He extended the city out around the fortress while Joab rebuilt the rest of Jerusalem. 9. And David became more and more famous and powerful, for the Lord of the heavens was with him.
COMMENTARY
Upon the overthrow of Saul and his house David was anointed king in Hebron. Davids tribe was Judah and Hebron was a principal city in that territory.[25] 1Ch. 11:1 says that all Israel gathered for this ceremony. The record in II Samuel indicated that Abner and Ishbosheth set up a rival government at Mahanaim out beyond the sea of Chinnereth to the east. This attempt was doomed to failure because it was Jehovahs will that David should rule over all Israel. The rebel forces lost their power when a quarrel arose between Abner and Ishbosheth with regard to a concubine. Ishbosheth was killed by two of his servants and Abner lost his life at the hands of Joab. So all Israel came under Davids authority.
[25] Spence, H. D. M., The Pulpit Commentary, I Chronicles, p. 143.
David had proved himself to be a powerful general. As Saul was plagued by an evil spirit, the spirit of Jehovah empowered David to accomplish Jehovahs will. The first anointing of David took place at Bethlehem (1Sa. 16:1; 1Sa. 16:3; 1Sa. 16:12-13). The second and third annointings were done at Hebron.
Once David had settled accounts with his rivals in the north and had all of Israel under his leadership, he sought out a place for the capital of his kingdom. Hebron was provincial and it was in the tribe of Judah. Jerusalem was more centrally located. It was on the border of the tribe of Benjamin and within the limits of that tribe. Jerusalem was set in a natural fortress of hills and it was very strategically elevated. Through all the years the Jebusites had occupied this city. They had not been displaced in Joshuas day. The tribe of Benjamin had not been able to dislodge them. These native peoples were so secure in their citadel that they taunted an enemy who would presume to overthrow them (2Sa. 5:6). The defiant attitude of the Jebusites did not alarm David. He offered the position of captain of the host to the man who would devise a way to take the city. Joab led a brave band of men through a water conduit (2Sa. 5:8) into the city. The Jebusites were smitten and David moved in, built up the city, fortified the walls and established this as his capital. Millo was a tower and an important part of the fortification of Jerusalem.[26] The establishment of Jerusalem was very important in the setting up of Davids kingdom.
[26] Schaff, Philip, Langes Commentary, Chronicles, p. 98.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(19) Parallel to 2Sa. 5:1-10.
(1) Then all Israel gathered themselves.Literally, and. Then is too definite a mark of time. The chronicler passes over the subsequent history of the house of Saul, and its decline under the feeble Ishbosheth, who reigned at Mahanaim as a puppet-king in the hands of Abner his powerful kinsman and general (2 Samuel 2-4).
All Israel.This proves that the allusion is not to Davids election by Judah (2Sa. 2:4).
Hebron, the burial-place of the patriarchs, was the capital of Judah, the tribe of David.
Thy bone and thy flesh.A proverb first of physical, then of moral unity (Gen. 2:23; Jdg. 9:2). It was not as if David were some valiant foreigner, like certain of his own heroes. Moreover, the affection and sympathy of the tribes were with him, whose life of struggle and success had marked him out as their divinely chosen leader.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1Ch 11:10-47 David’s Mighty Men – 1Ch 11:10-47 records David’s mighty men. This passage also notes his three chief men among those that were mighty. Jesus also had three of the twelve disciples that He considered close friends, and thus, mighty men.
1Ch 11:11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.
1Ch 11:11
2Sa 23:8, “These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.”
This slight variation is easily justified when looking at the Hebrew text. The first spelling has the definite article “the” attached to it, creating the pronunciation “Tachmonite,” while the second spelling leaves off the article, giving the pronunciation “Hachmonite.”
Hebrew ( ) the Tachmonite
Hebrew ( ) an Hachmonite
1Ch 11:11 “three hundred” Comments – 2Sa 23:8 reads “eight hundred.”
2Sa 23:8, “These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.”
Note the variant readings in the Hebrew text:
Hebrew ( ) “against eight hundred”
Hebrew ( ) “against three hundred”
Scholars offer a variety of explanations to reconcile these different texts in the parallel passages of Samuel and Chronicles:
1. A Copyist Error – A look at the Hebrew text shows that both numbers begin with the letter ( ), suggesting a copyist error, as many scholars believe is the cause of this discrepancy.
2. Adino the Eznite Fought Against 800, but Slew 300 – John Gill suggests that he fought against eight hundred, but slew only three hundred. He refers to the LXX reading to justify this interpretation. Brenton reads, “he drew his sword against eight hundred soldiers at once,” [26]
[26] John Gill, 2 Samuel, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on 2 Samuel 23:8.
3. A Reference to Two Different Battles – Another explanation says that there were two different battles fought by this same individual, once against eight hundred, and the other against three hundred.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
David King of all Israel
v. 1. Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, v. 2. And moreover, in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel; v. 3. Therefore came all the elders of Israel, v. 4. And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus, v. 5. And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, v. 6. And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. v. 7. And David dwelt in the castle, v. 8. And he built the city round about, v. 9. So David waxed greater and greater,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
1Ch 11:1
Upon the death of Saul, Abner, for a while espousing the cause of Ishbo-sheth, the only surviving son of Saul, “made him king over” a large proportion of the people, exclusive of Judah (2Sa 2:8-10). Already David had been anointed at Hebron by “the men of Judah, king over the house of Judah” (2Sa 2:1-4). And David continued “king in Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and six months” (2Sa 2:11; 2Sa 5:5; 1Ki 2:11; 1Ch 3:4). Notice the agreement of this date with the account of the six sons born to David in Hebron (2Sa 3:2-5). The explanation of the chronology for Ishbosheth affecting this period is not easy. It is said that he reigned over Israel “two years” (2Sa 2:10). Where was the difference of five and a half years lost? Our first verse here, with its apparently emphatic then, would seem to make it very unlikely that it was lost between the death of Ishbosheth and the kingship of David over “all the tribes of Israel” together with Judah. On the other hand, the interval in question might find its account in the “long war (2Sa 3:1, 2Sa 3:6, 2Sa 3:17-21) between the house of Saul and the house of David.” There is, however, still possible the supposition that the historian intends to give the intrinsically correct facts of the case, and means that, what with delay before getting the adhesion of the people to Ishbosheth, and what with the early decay of his sovereign power, he could not be said to have reigned more than two years. This verse, then, shows that the history proper of Chronicles purports to begin from the time of David’s rule over the entire and united people, at the exact date of seven and a half years after Saul’s death, while no mention is here made of his intermediate partial rule over Judah, or of Ishbosheth’s temporary rule over Benjamin and Israel. All Israel; i.e. “all the tribes of Israel” (2Sa 5:1), by their representatives, “the elders of Israel” (2Sa 3:17; 2Sa 5:3; as well as our 2Sa 5:3). The first nine verses of this chapter cover the same ground as the first ten verses of 2Sa 5:1-25. Unto Hebron. We learn how David came to be here from 2Sa 2:1. “And it came to pass after this” (i.e. after David’s “lamentation over Saul and Jonathan”) “that David inquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the Lord said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron.” Hebron was the “earliest seat of civilized life, not of Judah only, but of all Palestine.” It and Bethlehem are two of the most special memorials of David. An interesting sketch of the topography and natural features of this place, and a succinct Biblical history of it in Stanley’s ‘Sinai and Palestine,’ p. 164, from which comes the following quotation:”Hebron, according to the Jewish tradition, was the primeval city of the vine. Its name indicates community or society. It was the ancient city of Ephron the Hittite, in whose gate he and the elders received the offer of Abraham, when as yet no other fixed habitation of man was known in central Palestine. It was the first home of Abraham and the patriarchs; their own permanent resting-place when they were gradually exchanging the pastoral for the agricultural life. In its neighbourhood can be traced, by a continuous tradition, the site of the venerable tree under which Abraham pitched his tent, and of the double cavern in which he and his family were deposited and perhaps still remain. It was the city of Arba, the old Canaanite chief, with his three giant sons, under whose walls the trembling spies stole through the land by the adjacent valley of Eshcoh Here Caleb chose his portion when, at the head of his valiant tribe, he drove out the old inhabitants, and called the whole surrounding territory after his own name; and here the tribe of Judah always rallied, when it asserted its independent existence against the rest of the Israelite nation. It needs but few words to give the secret of this early selection, of this long continuance of the metropolitan city of Judah. Every traveller from the desert must have been struck by the sight of that pleasant vale, with its orchards and vineyards and numberless wells, and we must add, in earlier times, the groves of terebinths and oaks which then attracted from far the eye of the wandering tribes. This fertility was in part owing to its elevation into the cooler and the more watered region above the dry and withered valleys of the rest of Judaeaand commanding this fertile valley, rose Hebron, on its crested hill.” Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. This is a figurative expression, the pedigree and lineage of which it is interesting to note (see 2Sa 19:12; Jdg 9:2; Gen 29:14; Gen 2:23). The highest service to which it was promoted may be said to be reached, however, in Eph 5:30.
1Ch 11:2
Thou shalt feed my people Israel (so 2Sa 5:2; 2Sa 7:7; Psa 78:71). Thus to the servant is condescendingly vouchsafed the same description as the Master takes through the Spirit for himselfto the under-shepherd the same as the Chief Shepherd acknowledges; note same psalm, verse 72; Psa 23:1-4; Psa 100:3; 1Pe 5:4.
1Ch 11:3
Made a covenant before the Lord. A forcible use of this phrase occurs in Jdg 11:11. It implies that the engagement was ratified in the presence of a holy place, a holy vessel of the sanctuary, or a holy person (1Sa 21:6, 1Sa 21:7; Jos 18:8; Le Jos 1:5). Whether the tabernacle was now at Hebron is doubtful, but the two priests, Abiathar and Zadok, were. They anointed David. The first time of David’s being anointed (lSa Jdg 16:1, Jdg 16:13) Samuel the prophet officiated. The second time (2Sa 2:4) was when the “men of Judah” anointed him king over “the house of Judah.” This third time when David was anointed king over the united people, it was at all events at the special instance of “all the elders of Israel,” although who officiated on these two last occasions is not mentioned. According to the word of the Lord by Samuel. The sentence marks the complete fulfilment of what had been foreshadowed in 1Sa 16:12, 1Sa 16:13; and it may probably have been the more carefully introduced by the compiler of Chronicles, in consideration of the absence from his own work of previous details and of the previous anointings of David.
1Ch 11:4
Jerusalem, which is Jebus. This ancient name of Jerusalem, of Canaanitish date, is found only once beside, viz. in Jdg 19:10, Jdg 19:11; the Gentile form of the noun, however, Jebusi, is of more frequent occurrence, and sometimes it is found even as the name of the city (Jos 15:8, Jos 15:63; Jos 18:16, Jos 18:28). The derivation and meaning of the word are unascertained. Gesenius explains it to mean “a place dry or downtrodden like a threshing-floor.”
1Ch 11:5
Thou shalt not come hither. The inhabitants of Jebus added something beside (2Sa 5:6). They had said, “Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.” The castle of Zion. This fort became the site of the temple. It is the Acra of Josephus, and is different from the modern Zion. It was the eastern hill in the city, was the second highest elevation in the city, and up to the time of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem was uniformly named Zion, though from the time of Constantine it has been used for the name of the western hill, the site of Jerusalem. There is but little doubt of the identity of the hill of Moriah with the hill of Zion, though no individual passage of Scripture asserts it. The passage before us, however, with its parallel, tells us plainly enough that the city of David, and that which became the sacred hill of Zion are one; and many passages in the Psalms and the prophets both confirm this and point out the difference between Zion and Jerusalem.
1Ch 11:6
The name and fresh glory of Joab, as given here, are not given in 2Sa 5:3-10; and we could suppose that they were purposely withheld there. It is true that Joab already held high office, probably the first place as captain of David’s men, but Bertheau’s objection to the statements of this verse on such grounds easily yields to the considerationsfirst, that there can be no doubt Joab had fallen into disfavour with David and others, upon his slaying of Abner (2Sa 3:26-29, 2Sa 3:36, 2Sa 3:37); and further, that this was a great occasion, exceedingly favourable for evoking any very special ability of younger or unknown men, at present lost under the shadow of larger growths. The advantage which Joab gained now was one that confirmed his position and increased largely his influence; and an indication that he was not slow to avail himself of it is probably to be traced in the eighth verse, where it is said while “David built even from Millo round about, Joab repaired the rest of the city.”
1Ch 11:8
Millo. There is great uncertainty as to the derivation and the meaning of this word. It is probably not really of Hebrew extraction, but of the oldest Canaanitish origin. In the Hebrew it is always used with the article, and would presumably come from the Hebrew root “to fill.” Josephus seems to use, as synonymous expression for “David’s wall round Millo,“ this, viz. “buildings round about the lower city” (‘Jud. Ant.,’ 3.2, compared with 5; ‘Wars,’ 6.1, where he identifies those “buildings,” etc; with Acra). As the name of a family, it is mentioned in connection with Shechem, known specially as a place of the Canaanites (Jdg 9:6, Jdg 9:20). The Septuagint represents it by the word . In the remarkable passage, 2Ki 12:20, the word “Silla” is even a greater enigma, which, however, may designate the “steps from the city of David” (Neh 3:15), or “the causeway of going up“ to the west of the temple (1Ch 22:16). The likeliest view of Mille is that it was a very strong point of fortification in the surrounding defences of the hill of Zion (1Ki 9:24; 1Ki 11:27). In 2Ch 32:5 the otherwise unvarying translation ( ) of the Septuagint is superseded by , a word itself of doubtful signification. For while some would render it by the word “foundation,” Schleusner translates it “height.” Grove (in Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ 2:367) puts it in “the neighbourhood of the Tyropaean valley at the foot of Zion.” Some clue may lie in the word “inward,” applied to the building by David. Does it imply a covering by edifices of the space, or some portion of it, that lay between Zion and the rest of the city? (See also Keil on Kings, vol. 2:163.)
1Ch 11:10-25
This list of chiefs of David’s “mighty men’ finds a more appropriate position where it is placed here, than where it is found, after the close of the very dying speech of David, in 2Sa 23:8-23. It plainly belongs to the time of the establishment of David’s sway over the whole people. The different position of the list here is itself an indication of some force, that the writers of the work of Samuel and of Chronicles availed them- selves independently of the common source, and that the latter did not take through the former.
1Ch 11:11
This is the number. The Hebrew has, “These are the number.” The sentence should probably be, “These are the names” (2Sa 23:8). Jashobeam. In the parallel passage, this name is supplied by the words “The Tachmonite , Authorized Version, “that sat in the seat” (see the previous verse), probably in error for our (see Kennicott’s ‘Dissert.,’ 82). His immediate paternal ancestor seems to have been Zabdiel (1Ch 27:2). The only other notices of him are in 1Ch 12:6; 1Ch 27:2, in which latter passage he is mentioned as “over the first course for the first month and in his course were twenty and four thousand.” The chief of the captains. The Authorized Version follows the Keri (which is distinguished from the Chethiv by a yod in place of a vau), and translates captains. It seems better (1Ch 27:15, 1Ch 27:25; 1Ch 12:1, 1Ch 12:18; 1Ch 27:6) to abide by the Chethiv, and translate “the chief of the thirty.” He lifted up his spear. Notice the probable error in Samuel, occasioned by some similarity in the Hebrew letters. “The same was Adino the Eznite.” The number of Jashobeam’s victims is stated at “eight hundred” in the parallel passage (2Sa 23:8). (For analogous idioms, see Exo 7:20; Exo 20:25; Deu 27:5; Jos 8:31; Psa 41:9; Psa 74:5; Isa 2:4; Eze 26:1-21 :28.)
1Ch 11:12
Eleazar. Perhaps the same as Azareel in the list at 1Ch 12:6, in which Jashobeam is also found. Dodo. This name is found in three forms, the Chethiv being Dodi; the Keri, Dodo; and Dodai being found in 1Ch 27:4. He is mentioned in 1Ch 27:4 as “over the course of the second month in his course likewise twenty and four thousand.” The Ahohite. In the parallel passage (2Sa 23:9), for here, we find . Ahohite is the patronymic of the Ahoah, who (1Ch 8:4) was given among the sons of Bela, the firstborn of Benjamin. The three mighties. Who is the third? We have here but twoJashobeam and Eleazar. The parallel passage supplies the omission by the name of Shammah the Hararite (2Sa 23:11, 2Sa 23:33; comp. our 2Sa 23:27). And a careful comparison of the passages suggests how the omission came about, and that it was but part of a larger omission. Between the sentences, “and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle,” and “where was a parcel of ground full of barley” (in our next verse, 13) there is an hiatus of two verses (viz. those found in 2Sa 23:1-39, as latter half of 2Sa 23:9, 2Sa 23:10, and former half of 2Sa 23:11), and this hiatus was occasioned probably by the recurrence of the expression, “and the Philistines were gathered together,” in the remaining half of 1Ch 27:11 (see Kennicott’s Bible, and ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ in loc.).
1Ch 11:13
Pas-dammim. This word, , appears in 1Sa 17:1 as , and is supposed to mean, in either form, “the boundary of blood;” it was the scene of frequent conflicts with the Philistines, and was the spot where they were encamped at the time of Goliath’s challenge to Israel. It was near Shocoh, or Soech, in Judah, some fourteen miles south-west of Jerusalem. Full of barley. The Authorized Version reading in the parallel passage (2Sa 23:11) is “full of lentiles,” the Hebrew for “barley” is , for “lentiles” . Possibly the words should be the same, one being here spelt, by accident, wrongly for the other (so Kennicott). The first Bible mention of “barley” occurs in Exo 9:31, Exo 9:32, from which verses we learn that it, together with “flax,” was an earlier crop than “rye” and “wheat.” It was not only used for food for man (Num 5:15; Jdg 7:13; Eze 4:12), but also for horses (1Ki 4:28). That it was nevertheless of the less-valued grain, we have significant indications, in its being prescribed for the “jealousy offering” (Num 5:15, comp. with Le Num 2:1), and in its being part of the purchase price of the adulteress (Hos 3:2). Its derivation in the Hebrew, from a verbal root signifying “to bristle,” is in noticeable analogy with the Latin hordeum, from horreo. Gesenius’s observation, that the singular of the word given above in the Hebrew marks the “growing crop,” and the plural the “grain” itself, seems hardly corroborated by this single passage at all events. The lentile, on the other hand, was a species of bean, and used much for soup, of which Egyptian tomb-paintings furnish illustration (Gen 25:29-34; 2Sa 17:28; Eze 4:9). Sonnini, in his ‘Travels’ (translation of Hunter, 3:288), tells us that still the Egyptian poor eat lentile-bread, but, what is more apropos of this passage, that in making it they prefer to mix a little “barley” with it. This apparent discrepancy between the parallel accounts not only counts in itself for very little, but may easily be surmounted by supposing that, though it be written that the “parcel” of ground was “full of lentiles,” and again “full of barley,” the description may only amount to this, that such parcels were in close juxtaposition. But if not, our allusion above to the possible error in the Hebrew words will sufficiently explain the variation.
1Ch 11:14
This, as well as the latter half of the preceding verse, belongs to the account of Shammah the Hararite (2Sa 23:11), and in the parallel the verbs are accordingly in the singular number. In that same place Shammah is called the “son of Agee,” which probably answers to the “Shage” of the present chapter (1Ch 11:34), where our reading should rather be, “Jonathan the son of Shammah the son of Shage, the Hararite.” The word “Hararite” designates, according to Gesenius, “one from the hill-country,” i.e. the hill-country of Judah or Ephraim, and would be equivalent with us to such a description as “the mountaineer.”
1Ch 11:15
Three of the thirty. The thirty here alluded to have not been mentioned either in the Book of Samuel or here, except by implication of our 1Ch 11:11, where we might imagine the sense to be, “Now these are the names of the mighty men, in number thirty, whom David had, viz. Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the thirty.” Nor are we told in either place who were the “three” here spoken of. The article is absent in both places, or it would be convenient and natural to suppose that the three just mentioned are those intended, which cannot, however, be taken for granted. The language of 1Ch 11:20-22, 1Ch 11:25, might rather indicate that the three mentioned in those verses are those in question. The repeated uncertainty in which we are left on matters to which no intrinsic difficulty adheres seems evidence of injured manuscripts rather than of anything else. To the rock to David. This is the right reading, ; and that in the parallel passage (“to David in the harvest-time“) is not correct, . The cave of Adullam. Adullam, evidently a place of great antiquity (Gen 38:1-30 :l, 12, 20), is mentioned in Jos 12:15; Jos 15:35; it was the seat then of a Canaanite king. It afterwards lay in Judah, in that lowland (called often the Shephelah) that ran from Joppa to Gaza, near the Mediterranean Sea. It kept name and fame to the last (2Ch 11:7; Neh 11:30). The “rock” marks the limestone cliffs of the region. We read of it, as David’s refuge (1Sa 22:1, 1Sa 22:2). From our present passage, and its parallel we should have concluded that it could not have been far from Bethlehem. In this sense Dr. Thomson refers to the tradition that fixes the cave at a spot now called Khureitun, between Bethlehem and the Dead Sea, and says, “Leaving our horses in charge of wild Arabs, and taking one Arab for a guide, we started for the cave, having a fearful gorge below, gigantic cliffs above, and the path winding along a shelf of the rock, narrow enough to make the nervous among us shudder. At length from a great rock, hanging on the edge of this shelf, we sprang by a long leap into a low window, which opened into the perpendicular face of the cliff. We were then within the hold of David, and creeping half-doubled through a narrow crevice for a few rods, we stood beneath the dark vault of the first grand chamber of this mysterious and oppressive cavern. Our whole collection of lights did little more than make the damp darkness visible. After groping about as long as we had Lime to spare, we returned to the light of day, fully convinced that, with David and his lion-hearted followers inside, all the strength of Israel under Saul could not have forced an entrance, and would not even have attempted it.” The host. For this word “host” () the parallel (2Sa 23:13) has the “life of the Philistines” (but the Authorized Version, the “troop of”), i.e. the beasts and cattle of the Philistines. So also the Syriac Version translates, The Septuagint shows in this place , and in Samuel . The valley of Rephaim. The situation of this notable valley is not certain. Yet there can be little doubt, in spite of Furst (‘Handwortbuch,’ 2:383), who supposes a situation north-west of Jerusalem, that it must be near Bethlehem, and therefore south-west of the city. The word employed Here for “valley”.
1Ch 11:16
David was then in the hold. This statement may, perhaps, sufficiently identify this occasion with that of 2Sa 5:17, 2Sa 5:18; where it is expressly said that “David went down to the hold” ( being the word found there as here). Garrison. The Hebrew here says “officer” (), but the parallel passage has “garrison” (); yet, according to Gesenius, the former word has both meanings. He is right, certainly, if he means that it has received both translations, for see 1Ki 4:19 for the one, and our present passage supplies the other (1Sa 10:5; 1Sa 13:3).
1Ch 11:17
The well of Bethlehem at the gate. Nothing else is known of this well. No trace of it exists now, according to Dr. Robinson (‘Bibl. Res.,’ 1:473). The traditional well is half a mile distant, to the north of the town, and consists of a group of three cisterns, while the present town is supplied with water by an aqueduct.
1Ch 11:18
David poured it out to the Lord. This was done after the nature of a libation (1Sa 7:6; Jdg 6:20; Exo 30:9; Gen 35:14).
1Ch 11:19
My God forbid it me. Compare the Hebrew of this with that of the expression in the parallel (2Sa 23:17), where is found in the place of our . It is probable that the preposition nieni is lost from before “Jehovah.” Shall I drink the blood, etc.? i.e. the water which has been obtained at the imminent peril of the life of these three brave men (comp. Gen 4:10, Gen 4:11; Gen 9:4-6; Joh 6:53, Joh 6:54).
1Ch 11:20
Abishai was chief of the three. It is remarkable that again the name of one of the three is wanting, even if we take Benaiah of 1Ch 11:22 for the second.
1Ch 11:21
Than the two. The Hebrew () cannot be thus translated, but possibly the words may mark the second set of three.
1Ch 11:22
Benaiah, His father Jehoiada was chief priest (1Ch 27:5). Benaiah was, therefore, a Levite by tribe, though Kabzeel (Jos 15:21) was in Judah far south. He was “captain of the host for the third month and in his course were twenty and four thousand” (1Ch 27:5). When in our 1Ch 11:25 it is said that “David set him over his guard,” the allusion probably is to his uniform and prolonged command of “the Cherethites and Pelethites” (2Sa 8:18; 2Sa 20:23; 1Ki 1:38; 1Ch 18:17). His fidelity and influence remained into Solomon’s time (1Ki 1:8, 1Ki 1:10, 1Ki 1:32, 1Ki 1:38, 1Ki 1:44; 1Ki 2:35; 1Ki 4:4).
1Ch 11:23
Five cubits high. This height is not given in the parallel passage; it means seven feet six inches. A spear like a weaver’s beam (so 1Sa 17:7; 2Sa 21:19).
1Ch 11:24
The name. There is no article in the Hebrew.
1Ch 11:25
Over his guard. If the reference is not as above (see 1Ch 11:22), the margin of the parallel (2Sa 23:23) may be followed, which would translate “guard” as council. This Gesenius adopts, and translates “privy council.” There seems, however, no necessity for this, with the references before us above given.
1Ch 11:26-41
These verses correspond with 1Ch 11:24-39 in 2Sa 23:1-39; and with them the subject ends there, though not here. The list announced here as comprising “the valiant men of the armies,” is unannounced there, but, beginning with the same name, Asahel, it calls him “one of the thirty,” and suggests the inference that those who follow will make up the rest. The number that follows (coinciding in this respect strictly with our list here) is itself thirty, which, though one too many, may be considered satisfactorily accounted for in the fact of the untimely death of Asahel, already recorded (2Sa 2:23). Considering the exact crisis at which he died, it is very likely that his place should be compensated for, although his name were unremoved from the honourable list. Amid the difficulties that develop themselves in the contents of these lists, when compared, the comparison of them aids the conviction that, so far as they go together, they do stand for “the thirty” spoken of in both places, and that a sentence or two here and there, now lost or corrupted beyond recognition, would clear up the whole subject. The comparison also seems to make it clear that the compiler of Chronicles, meaning to go beyond an enumeration of the thirty, nowhere speaks of thirty after 2Sa 23:25. On the other hand, the writer of the account in Samuel carefully sums up all (2Sa 23:39) in the words, “thirty and seven in all“an addition which means either the actual thirty-one given and the two sets of three each; or the thirty, with the two sets of three each and Joab ever all. Our present chapter, however, goes on to the number forty-eight in all, verses 41-47, adding sixteen to the thirty-two which precede. Beside some minor differences, it must be said that at fewest three names, Hepher, Ahijah, and Mibhar, in Chronicles, resist identification with those that should (from position) correspond with them in the list of Samuel and with any others. And the same thing may be said of the same number in the list of Samuel (Elika, Eliam, Bani) when compared with the list now before us. The points of contact and clearest identification are, therefore, in so great a majority and are so uniformly distributed that, although it is left hard to decide the causes of them, these differences cannot throw any discredit upon the list as a whole. Perhaps the most probable suggestion to be offered is that the knowledge of the writer of the Book of Samuel enabled him to supersede the names of such as were soon lost to their brave career by death by other names; or, resting on the same fundamental reason, there may have been two different editions of the list, to one of which the writer of Samuel was indebted, and to the other the compiler of Chronicles.
1Ch 11:27
Harorite. The parallel passage has Harodite, the local identification of Shammoth, as from Hated, known for its spring (Jdg 7:1), by which Gideon encamped, where also the army was tested by its mode of drinking. Some think it the same with the fountain of Jezreel (1Sa 29:1). Izrahite seems to have been the family distinction of Shammoth (1Ch 27:8), from Zerah son of Judah. He is the fifth captain. In the parallel his name is followed by Elika, who is also called “the Harodite.” Helez the Pelonite. Though the parallel place has Paltite, the present form probably should hold its own. Helez is the seventh captain of division, and said to belong to the “sons of Ephraim”.
1Ch 11:29
Sibbecai; Ilai. Both of these names are conceivably reconcilable with the Mebunnai and Zalmon of the parallel place, through the very possible mistake and substitution of one Hebrew character for another. Sibbecai was the eighth captain; he was of the family of Zerah, and of the town of Hushah (1Ch 4:4).
1Ch 11:34
The sons of Heshem the Gizonite. This sentence is unmanageable as it stands, and is insufficiently assisted from its parallel But if from this latter we take the suggestion of the preposition “from” (Authorized Version) before “the sons” (which, however, is not in the Hebrew), and from the Alexandrian Septuagint, the suggestion of the name Gouni (), Guni, (1Ch 5:15) in the place of Gizonite (), we should obtain a coherent reading. But this would be mere conjecture suggested by the Septuagint, and “the Gizonite” offers the difficulty of the presence of the article, which would not subsist with the proper name Guni. Were it not that the word is found in both passages all difficulty would disappear with its disappearance. The remainder of this verse, in relation to 1Ch 11:32 and 1Ch 11:33 of the parallel, illustrates opportunely the uncertainties of the text. For, as seen above, Jonathan is the grandson of Shage (Agee, 2Sa 23:11), and son of Shammah, while (2Ch 23:1-21 :32, 33) the parallel reads “Jonathan,” with no connective word “son” at all, yet supplies the right name, “Shammah the Hararite” for the father, and omits all mention of Shage.
1Ch 11:35
Sacar Eliphal Ur. For these three names the parallel shows Sharar, Eliphelet, and Ahasbai respectively.
1Ch 11:36
Hepher the Mecherathite. Although this name is not found in the parallel passage, it is tolerably plain that the niche for it is left before the words (1Ch 11:34), “the son of the Maachathite,” which last word answers to our Mecherathite. Ahijah the Pelonite. This name cannot be identified with the “Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,” which answers to it in the parallel.
1Ch 11:37
Hezro appears as Hezrai in Samuel. (For Carmel, which lay south of Hebron, see Jos 15:55.) Naarai the son of Ezbai. The differences between these words and those of the parallel (1Ch 11:35), “Paarai the Arbite,” or Arab (Jos 15:52), are not formidable to reconcile.
1Ch 11:38
Joel. This name is also easily to be reconciled with the Igal of the parallel passage (verse 36), though there is nothing to evidence which should stand. Mibhar the son of Haggeri. For this we have in the parallel place (verse. 36) the names “Bani the Gadite;” but before these comes the last word of the previous clause, “of Zobab.” When these three words are compared with the three of our present passage, it is very possible to bring them into harmony (‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ in loc.). Zobah was a district of Syria in the time of Israel’s first three kings, stretching north-east and east towards the Euphrates (1Sa 14:47; 2Sa 8:7).
1Ch 11:39
Zelek the Ammonite, the Berothite. Among David’s great men were evidently numbered some foreigners, whose admiration and fidelity he must have won. Hence the mention (1Ch 11:38) of Zobah, and here of the Ammonite (2Sa 8:12; 2Sa 12:26-31), the Beerothite (Beeroth, originally a Hivite city, Jos 9:17, fell to the lot of Benjamin, Jos 18:25; to it belonging Rimmon and his two sons, Reehab and Baanah, possibly native Canaanites, the murderers of Ishbosheth, as above), and (1Ch 11:41) the Hittite. The armour-bearer. To be made armour-bearer was a sign of honour and attachment (1Sa 16:21; 2Sa 18:15).
1Ch 11:40
The Ithrite. One of the families of Kirjath-jearim (1Ch 2:53). Other similar colonists from Kirjath-jearim, and descended from Shobal, were the Puthite, the Shuma-thite, and the Izrahite. With this verse we count up, including the dropped-out Elika, the names of “thirty mighty men.” And we may understand Samuel’s thirty-seven to consist of these, increased by Uriah and the two parties of three each.
1Ch 11:41-47
These verses are assisted by no parallel, either in the Book of Samuel or elsewhere. Of the sixteen names which they contain,not a few are to be found elsewhere, yet not as designating the same persons. Also, while the Reubenite and the Gentile nouns Ashterathite and Aroerite are at once recognized, the Mithnite, Tizite, Mahavite, and Mesobaite are not traceable elsewhere, the plural form of the last but one being an additional source of obscurity.
1Ch 11:42
Thirty with him. The Hebrew preposition here translated “with” appears thus, , and will naturally translate “and in addition to him.” As he was a captain, this addendum may probably refer to those over whom he was captain, and whom he brought in his train, and who were possibly themselves officers. As the writer of Chronicles indicates no difference, nor any sense of a change of persons enumerated, when he has reached (1Ch 11:41) Uriah the Hittite, it would all the rather be consistent with his own superscription when (1Ch 11:26) he proposes to set forth simply “the valiant men of the armies” without confining their number to the “thirty.”
1Ch 11:44
The Ashterathite. Ashteroth was in East Manasseh (1Ch 6:71). The Aroerite. Aroer lay east of the Jordan (Jos 13:16, Jos 13:25).
1Ch 11:46
The Mahavite. It has been suggested that this word may stand for Mahanite, from Mahanaim.
1Ch 11:47
The Mesobaite. This name is entirely unknown, unless it may be the same as Mezobah.
HOMILETICS
1Ch 11:2.–The vicarious aspects of human life twofold-toward man and toward God.
In this verse two leading and very important phases of human life are brought to our remembrance. They may seem of unequal importance, the second being of higher character than the first. Yet, perhaps, they are more closely connected and even interwoven with one another than first thoughts might suppose. And so far-reaching and widespread are the issues of both, that it is needless to insist on much comparison between them to the prejudice of the former. The lesson, also, of both of them, charged though it is with serious responsibility, is, on the whole, of a cheerful, elevating kind. We might do well to separate them sometimes in our private meditation, simply in order to fix a more specific attention upon each. But it is not without valuable suggestion that they stand together here, nor shall they be divorced in the present consideration of them. They remind us
I. OF THE VICARIOUS PRINCIPLE THAT ENTERS SO LARGELY INTO HUMAN LIFE, PERVADING IT, ALMOST LEAVENING IT, IN MEN‘S MUTUAL RELATIONS. In the illustration of it now before us, it shows itself in the shape and the fact of one enjoying royal name and place, wealth and ease and dignity, while another incurs the risk and does the workwithout payof that place. The life that was lived as between Saul and David would no doubt produce many instances and forms of this, but the one mentioned in this verse, and mentioned as it would appear by many consentient voices at the same time, is enough to tell the tale. Those instances commenced from the time that David challenged, defied, and successfully overcame Goliath, the Philistine champion. But as time went on, they became systematized and almost the rule, rather than merely matter of frequent occurrence. The general fact is patent. It grows in the structure, it runs throughout and across the texture of human life and society. It is a phenomenon, often merely as such inviting, often provoking, the deep thoughtful study of those who are but onlookers at any time. But again, it is as a personal keen experience that it most commonly opens the eyes and wakens the aching inquiry of those who have first suffered many a pang and rasping mortification. The real inventor is often a very different man from the nominal one, the real workman another than he who carries off the praise. The hand of one takes the gain of what was wrought by the brain of another; and the smile of one has for its correlative the bleeding heart of another. The temples of the fortune and wealth and splendour of the very few are built on the excessive toil and wrecked health of vast numbers. And even in the natural order of things, the fame of the great rests on the substructure of millions of lives of the humble obscure, whose industry, honesty, endurance, are the staple and the strength of the whole community, and whose head and heart are often of the most superior. The edifice that towers the highest, in fact, must rest on the broadest base. These considerations may guide us to the following conclusions upon the general subject, suggested by the particular instance so naively expressed now before us:
1. There is, beyond doubt, a vast amount of gratuitous, unjust, cruel, vicarious suffering in the world, and found in men’s mutual relations.
2. There is also, beyond doubt, a vast amount of vicarious joy and advantage. The striving, the toil, the genius, the self-sacrifice of one often serve, not the private selfish advantage of some one other, but to a most beneficent degree they serve the advantage and help the joy of very many others.
3. Whether it be in the matter of suffering or of advantage and joy, this presence is by no means all due to the action, and mournful action, of human selfishness, error, greed. There is Divine design in it, Divine use for it. It is one of the strongest of the cohesive forces that contribute to hold together the conglomerate mass and yet very various fellowship of humanity. The entanglement that results from this unequal system of exchange and substitution (the particular instances of which are so intricate, often so inscrutable, apparently untoward) constitutes probably one of the most ubiquitous and unresting of the mutual attachments and attractions of human society.
4. Even within the experience of the very individual at whose expense awhile the vicariousness seems to take effect, there are not unfrequently large redeeming and compensating considerations. As for instance here:
(1) David had the opportunity given to him of learning, learning well, the profession of a king, learning it practically, “even when Saul was king“ in reality. If he were doing work and encountering risk, which formally did not belong to him, he was deriving untold advantages and the facilities of experience.
(2) He was being divinely permitted to mark himself out for the dignity when it should become vacant, in the eyes of all those with whom, ere long, the decision and gift of it would, under God, rest. How many men, in how many directions, would value just the corresponding opportunity above all things! How much would it be worth to one!
(3) Even during learning, education, and possibly much suffering, David was evidently, to the eye that could see deepest, to the heart that should beat truest, receiving the decoration of real honour. To a great mind, to a pure heart, it is sometimes the highest investment of honour which could be conferred, to be the one divinely selected to do the work, while others take the pay. This is not of man, nor by man, but God’s own chosen children recognize and value above everything else what are also his chosen methods of reward.
II. OF THE VICARIOUS PRINCIPLE THAT ENTERS SO LARGELY INTO HUMAN LIFE, IN ITS MOST DIRECT DIVINE RELATIONS. The latter part of the verse before us is of the highest and most precious significance to every Christian man, and certainly not least so to the Christian pastor and minister. “The Lord thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel.” Every servant of God from the first was set to be a witness of God and a witness for God, by word and deed before the world. And every Christian is called to be a witness of Jesus Christ and his truth, and a witness for these before the world, in all he says and does. We object to such an appellation as “vicar of Christ,” or “viceroy” of Christ, on behalf of the pope or of any other one man exclusively of others. But the description of the latter part of this verse applies accurately to all the pastorsthe under-shepherds of Christ’s fold and flocksand by inference, in their measure and degree, to all his people whomsoever. All of these have something to say, have much to do, “in the stead of Christ.” Nor should they repine when they may be called to bear and suffer in the Name and for the sake of Christ. The fact before us is just simply this, that David was entrusted by God and on behalf of God with a great work, which was and could be only the work of God himself in the last resort. The people are emphatically his; none could provide the food but he (Psa 23:1); none could find the wisdom to rule, “the wisdom profitable to direct,” the gift to “rule” but he. And he said, nevertheless, “Thou shalt feed thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel.” Out of the one simple but great fact before us we may select some special phases of it.
1. It is a very elevating reality of human life and work that it is not altogether shut off to a drudgery peculiar to itself, but that it is dignified by being called to similar work with that of Christ. The power, the wisdom, the love, the very thought of that work must first come from heavenly source, and be sustained by streams from the heavenly source; but then these should often betray their heavenly origin, and the human worker flash out tokens of the indwelling of Divine principle, gift, grace. It had been quite possible to suppose a hard-and-fast line drawn between the humblest of the Divine work amid men and the very highest of the human. But it is not so. It is far otherwise. And so soon as ever the clear pattern was shown on earth by Jesus himself, of what was to be and to be done, not a very few and a very picked band, but every one of his wide Church, was called to do similar workyes, to do it and to bear the burden of it, and that not with eye-service as to men, but “as the servants of Christ.”
2. It is a very elevating and encouraging fact in the renewed life of humanity that with such solemn responsibility attaching to it in work to be done, no less than Godlike in character, no less than Christ-like in execution, it is work not severed from Divine co-operation. Let us call it vicarious. Let us the rather prize it as such, and “love to have it so.” Yet is it not the cold vicariousness of so large a proportion of our earthly labourunwarmed by the presence, by the help, by the smile, by the reward of at least acknowledgment at the hands of those for whom we both do and bear much. No, indeed. It is work of co-operation, where in those co-operating extremes meetthe weakness, the poverty, the ignorance, the finiteness of us men, with the omnipotence, the wealth, the knowledge, and the infiniteness of God the Father; of Christ, the Shepherd of the sheep; of the Spirit of all grace and light. None work for God but his Spirit is with them. None work for Jesus but “lo, he is present in the midst” of their smallest group. Therefore it is plain that God does not so honour us as simply to devolve his work in Christ upon us, but rather to involve us in his doing, and lift us up into his sphere of work. The co-operating of Christ by his Spirit with his servants, when their work and their suffering shall seem most vicarious, is therefore a grand and most noteworthy fact as compared with our labour-relations and our suffering-relations, as fellow-creatures, to one another.
3. Over and above all other elevating and cheering thoughts suggested by this fact of God’s calling us to work for him, and yet uniting himself with us therein, there remains such a one as this. It is a token of a certain harmony of plan and thought between human society and the perfection of that above. It is some “shadow of things to come.” It is some foreshadowing of Divine goodness. The condescension and the grace are some indications of what shall be. They are not mere fictitious, tempting, beguiling persuasions of the way, for the “pilgrims of the night;” but they are rather snatches and earnests of the temper prevailing in the “city yet to come.” It is a large and far from ignoble principle, the vicarious principlecost what it may of smart, occasionally or systematically, among ourselves. But it is an indefinite extension, an immense expansion, it is a very glorification of the principle, when Christ enters on a similar footing and makes the circle henceforth a sacred circle. After doing and suffering all which he has done, “even unto death,” for his people, he not simply hallows by his own example the summons to us to work and to suffer for our fellow-creatures and for him, but also favours therein the thought, in its very highest development, of our being “one with him, even as he is one with” the eternal Father. In a word, to work or to suffer in the stead of Christ is some earnest of entering in clue time the society of which he is the Head.
1Ch 11:3-10.-The throne of justice and security.
These verses are morally and essentially connected with one another. They speak of one thingthe “making of David king.” And we may notice in them
I. THE FORM THAT REPRESENTED THIS. The most ancient Scriptures enrich us with the knowledge of the very earliest customs of men. Many of these may be obsolete. But two things are remarkable respecting them, viz.
(1) how some of them remain, and with but slightly altered dress;
(2) how those that do not remain often embodied some principle to which all growth of time has shown a growing importance to belong. These earliest customs of men, recorded in Scripture, seem, further, not only to have embodied certain principles, but passed, as they often were, beneath the eye of God, we may feel that they did something morethey enshrined with a real sacredness and invested with a special honour the principle that was to last and to gain in significance when the outer shell of custom or form was withered to nothing. The ceremony which set forth the making of a king of Israel was that of anointing. This was the third time David had been anointed. But these successive acts of anointing were not vain repetitions. The first was his private anointing, by Samuel, according to God’s word and according to God’s private call (1Sa 16:1, 1Sa 16:12, 1Sa 16:13). The second was when David became king over Judah, and when the call and the willing consent of his fellow-men, and of those up to this time his fellow-citizens, were added to the Divine appointment (2Sa 2:4). And the third was on the occasion before us, when the heads of the whole people, with hearty unanimity, added the sanction of their presence and consent. Now, therefore, the anointing was finally performed. It was a ceremony, but not one destitute of meaning and of usefulness. It marked David to the eyes of all the nation as their “feeder and ruler,” appointed of God, accepted of themselves. And it reminded himself of the solemn responsibility laid upon him to fulfil his duty to men as under the commands of God.
II. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO IT. “David made a covenant with them before the Lord.” Beyond doubt, the choice and the call and the ordination of David were all of God. Beyond doubt, nothing could be safer or better for all the people than to accept his deed and appointment unquestioningly. But there are ever an earthly order and a visible sign of some kind for us men, answering to the Divine will These God does not only permit, but, as we believe, he enjoins them. It is another indication of the fact that God would ever be lifting our level nearer his own. The exact matter of the covenant is not here given us, nor in fact in any of the parallel places. Yet with very little hesitation we may say that we hear the echoes of it from the deathbed of David (2Sa 23:2-5). It consisted of a solemn mutual engagementhe “to rule just, ruling in the fear of God;” they to follow and obey. God’s covenants with man at any and every time are of the nature of free promises of mercy and grace, but of what in their very nature require the loving acceptance and use of them to impart availingness to them and to keep them availing, and this is the only kind of condition attaching to themno meritorious condition. But in the fact of this covenant being made, and in the fact of its being so explicitly recorded, we have an evidence of God’s condescending attention to our mutual relations. Though he it is who with sovereign right elects and with the right of a sovereign voice calls one and another to pre-eminent place and authority over us, yet he bids us see and watch the thing that is transpiring, and insist upon the right and just being done, and he submits his own choice to the verdict of the conscience of his people. We have a great ecclesiastical principle, in embryo, as we might suppose, an instance of God’s royal conge d‘elire, entrusted to the elders of all Israel, and not formally put into effect by these until his own chosen one has entered into a covenant with them.
III. THE MORAL SUPPORTS NECESSARY TO THIS KING–MAKING. Remarkable, and in some respects even unique, as was the raising of David to be king, in this final appointment and anointing of him, yet it follows the lines of any other high appointment to command of one man amongst his fellow-men. He is not really and for ever to be hedged in as a divinity, nor of divinity, except as this highest power works by human agency. The higher such a position is, the more necessary is it that it be not artificially dissevered from the aid, the approval, the moral influence of others. The exalted individual’s temptation to forget this, and even to override it, has very often been unceremoniously enough called to account and fiercely rebuked. The hierarchy that obtains in human society, in the human family, may be accepted as an incontestible fact, and, therefore so far forth as authorized of nature. But neither ought this to be strained or exaggerated. Much less are we to create, favour, or permit violent gaps between rank and rank, class and class. The most insensible gradations from rank to rank and class to class make the strongest, safest society. History proves, by instances almost innumerable, that to disbelieve and affront this principle is disaster, but to set it at nought and defy it is to court destruction, and that without remedy. We must not overlook the significance of the expression that “the chief of the mighty men whom David had” neither held themselves aloof from him nor were held at a distance by him in his new greatness. They stood near the throne. They helped to uphold its dignity and the authority of him who sat upon it. There is really no such thing as actual irresponsibility between man and man. None is so strong as to be able to beast himself independent of the help, the love, the good opinion of his fellow-men. Conscience only can claim for itself the prerogative of freedom to do and speak as though irresponsible to man, but even these noblest displays of human power and virtue do not practically deliver from the consequences and the patent fact of responsibility; while in all inferior attempts the power is weakness, and the travestie of the virtue is the licence of vice. But no, David’s mighty men strenuously held by him, and they were in turn seconded by the entire of an enthusiastic and faithful people. Their one combined aim was to put stability into his kingdom and to make him a strong and prosperous king. And it was all “according to the word of the Lord concerning Israel.” Happy king! happy people! David had not to pay the very common penalty of exaltedness and empire. The people were a willing people in the day of his power. Would that it may last, last to the endmust have been the ardent wish of every patriot that daythe humble prayer of every earnest, spiritual Israelite!
1Ch 11:15-19.-The bravery of David’s three mighty men, and the better bravery of himself.
The graphic narrative of these verses needs no interpretation in the sense of either criticism or explanation. It offers itself, as it were, exclusively to the use of instruction, and to the illustration of the possibilities of human character. In doing so, it brings to view something of the weakness, much of the strength; and not least what is of the Divine in that character. Lessons manifestly present themselves from the consideration of the conduct of the three brave warriors in the first instance, and then of that of David by himself. Let us notice
I. THE CONDUCT OF THE THREE WARRIORS.
1. Their courage. It was, perhaps, the least part of their excellence at this time. They were trained to deeds of dash and daring. They took pride in these. They were, by natural constitution and temperament, and now by some training and practice, predisposed to them. Their courage, therefore, must be somewhat the less reckoned to their praise, as containing but small measure of effort of any moral element. Possibly we ought even to deduct some little from it, as laying itself open in a degree to the charge of recklessness, on an occasion which was not one of absolute necessity in one aspect, nor of any moral necessity in another. Yet, nevertheless, if we cannot but admire the self-risking bravery, we shall not do wrong in crediting it with some intrinsic claim to commendation. For, to say the very least, how well it contrasts with the carefulness, the cautiousness, the lingeringness of cold self-calculation! And how well it illustrates how quality resides still in human nature which on occasionif only the occasion be an altogether worthy onecan achieve very great things!
2. Their utter unselfishness. At all events, there is not the slightest trace of selfishness in what they did. They ran not for a prize of honour or money. They expect no crown, no garland, for their achievement if they shall be successful. The pleasure of ministering to a master they serve and love is the only reward they appear to contemplate.
3. Their spontaneous service. They wait for no command, nor even for a request. They do not so much as hear a wish, so uttered that they could interpret it into the nature of an intended hint or suggestion. They overhear only, and what they overhear is the sighing out of a wish. And probably it was the naturalness and the homeliness of it which helped much to move themthe deep-drawn breath and the utterance of heart which was recognizable in it, though the expression but of a bodily appetite. What chords, strange to say, one sentence, one tone, of nature’s own voice will have efficacy to wake in the hearts of others, and, to the testimony of human goodness be it said, not least so when the voice is a voice of want! “God loves a cheerful giver,” a willing workman, an obedient servant; rarely indeed does he behold more than this. For we cannot anticipate his command, nor run before his thought, nor be freer than his will. Yet let us feel it thus, not as from man to God, but as from man to man. If it be part of his glory and not the least of the tokens of his pitiful mercy to us feeble, faltering, limping full oft, that he take the will for the deed, and accept the thought for the act, how well must the sight suit him as some sign of nature’s return, when he may see the deed of any one of us to a brother or sisters “swift to the thought or wish divined, swift to the sigh o’erheard.”
II. THE CONDUCT OF DAVID. And we note that it is marked:
1. By a mistake of the tongue. We may allow that there was everything that there could be under the circumstances to palliate the mistake of a great man and a good man. But for that very reason let it be the more closely scanned. The facts were simply these. Here is a man whose slightest word will be likely to go further far than the entreaty and the argument and the urgent, plaintive expostulation of others. His position, his character, the known character of those now around him, the crisis of the hour, which witnessed such flush of military excitement in the royal camp, all argue this. Then that was the greater reason why, amid many a thought within, and the glowing of feeling, a special guard be put on the tongue. Yet the wish itself was an innocent wish, the outcome of a most innocent appetite, universally allowed to be at the same time an imperious appetiteinnocent if gratified, agonizing if denied. Even Jesus, and on the cross, said, “I thirst.” But David’s was not a cry of mere thirst. It was not merely a sigh for the relief of thirst. If the thirst had been severer the evident probability is that it would not have been the water of Bethlehem’s gate, but some nearer and some more possible, which would have been invoked. Or, again, we may not grudge to take into account the praiseworthy class of feelings on which David’s mention of Bethlehem’s well drew. Home, and youth, and memory, and affectionate associations all contributed to it. Yet the “whole array” and complete circle of explanation and palliation constitute the happier condition for decisively settling the problem. These all, we are reminded, must under certain circumstances be “blown away.” They all must yield to facts. They only garland the victim if allowed to remain. It seemed harsh when once Jesus, of gentlest lip, said, “For every idle word that men shall speak” they shall be brought to judgment, and shall give account. How often, how genuinely, that has struck men, and good men, as “a hard saying”! But, after all, what is there like facts for “bringing men to judgment”? And the fact here is that “the word,” inopportunely sighed out with ever so much feeling, on the part of a good man and a great man, who hadn’t a wish or an idea of doing harm, produced effects immediately, at the very thought of which but a few hours after he himself shuddered again. It teaches us, great and small, how great is the peril of the tongue, and that the more pensive, tender, pathetic tone may be the more mischievous one. Born of the heart, it knows and exerts its energy to touch heart again, and its sphere is amid material the most dangerous because the most explosive.
2. By a noble, practical acknowledgment of the mistake. David shuddered to think of the narrow risk which had been just challenged, and, though it was now safely escaped, he refused to drink that water. How soon, by the way, mind can conquer body, conscience can master appetite, deep moral and religious feeling put to flight sentiment, and the flash of conviction scathe like lightning a whole host of excuses! This acknowledgment of mistake on the part of David was all the more noble:
(1) Because it was practical. “He would not drink of it My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy; for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it.” David does not underrate the moral aspects of what had been taking place, and which was distinctly due to himself. He does not allow the plea that, as the mischief has been done, the only thing now left was to make the best of it. There was great moral honesty in this, loyal and even severe fidelity to conscience and its upbraidings, when he at once determines that he can take no advantage of enjoyment or of use from that water. And from the midst of error there rises up with fragrance a pure testimony to the moral feeling and moral principle of the wrong-doer. The recovery and return from their mistakes of those who essentially desire and follow after the right and good, wonderfully contrast sometimes with the corresponding sequel in the case of others
(2) Because it had to run the gauntlet of some of the most painful of all kinds of misunderstanding. It lay itself open to a suspicion of ungratefulness, that would seem the greater in proportion to the greatness of the efforts which had been made and the risk run. The appearance of ingratitude at such an untimely Juncture, in presence of such devotion, was the appearance which a keen and noble sensibility would shrink from above everything else. How much man will do at one time to save appearances, at another to court appearances! but what a test of principle, of resolution, of moral bravery, it is when sometimes a man is called on to set at naught appearances, and confide himself to right alone and to present conviction alone.
(3) And lastly, because of the homage which David paid to a principle distinctly religious as well as moral. David did not throw the water away, he did not give it to another, he did not beg the heroes avail themselves of it, but he “poured it out to the Lord.” This was, no doubt, from his point of view and for his time of day an act of religion. That which was sacred with human life owns to one sovereign Proprietor alone. To him David took it, with faith in his existence, with faith in his watchful notice and oversight, with faith in his rewarding providence. It may be considered, indeed, open to possibility that David was permitted to feel in his own act the meaning of the blood of sacrifice. This, for the benefit of whomsoever it may be, must be poured out before the Lord God himself, if it is to have anything o! the efficacy of expiation and atonement. While for a moment we should think of it in this aspect, we may be taught, both for David and for ourselves, that. he who sacrifices to his God the thing he might most desire, shall find in the very midst of that sacrifice the principle, the earnest, the assured hope of life itself.
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON
1Ch 11:2.-A true leader.
David’s life was made up of several successive stages; and, as we read his biography and so trace his course, we see clearlywhat at the time he could not seehow one position, one experience, prepared for the next. His youth was a preparation for his manhood, his court life for the throne, exile for power, rule over Judah for sway over united Israel. The seven years during which Saul’s son ruled over the other tribes were the years of David’s reign over Judah. At the close of this period, upon the death of Ishbosheth, the elders of all Israel came to David at Hebron and offered him the crown. This was the occasion upon which they made the acknowledgment, “Even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel.” This was a recognition of the inborn qualities of true leadership, called forth by circumstances, and cultivated by responsibility and action.
I. HUMAN SOCIETY IS, ACCORDING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE, COMPOSED OF THE LEADERS AND THE LED. Whilst in government there is much which is artificial, there is a natural foundation for the relationships which subsist. Parents direct the course of their children; elder brothers to some extent that of the younger; the capable, the self-confident, the experienced, are the natural leaders of the timid and submissive. In all human communities there are born leaders of men. If all distinctions were abolished to-day, to-morrow they would be revived in other forms. There is doubtless injustice in many political and social arrangements; but whilst the unjust acquisition and use of authority is of man, the principle of authority is from God.
II. LEADERSHIP OFTEN CALLS OUT GREAT QUALITIES. The fact of a man being placed in a position of influence and authority is sure, if he be capable and strong and under the domination of high principle, to elicit his best and most useful qualities. Especially will such a position foster habits of sound judgment and quick decision, habits of self-control and self-reliance, a just discernment of character, and aptness in recognizing ability and trustworthiness in others. Thus it is that a high position is fitted to lead to one yet higher (see this admirably shown in Henry Taylor’s ‘Philip van Artevelde’). It was leadership which made of the shepherd son of Jesse the warrior and King of Israel. As in other departments of life, so here, exercise promotes strength and development. Let none shrink from the responsibility of guiding others when Providence calls him to this work; strength and wisdom shall be “as his day.”
III. IT IS FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE WHO ARE LED WHEN A SUITABLE AND CAPABLE LEADER IS PROVIDED BY THE DIVINE RULER. The power of “use and wont” is very strong. When men have been accustomed to be well led, their confidence in their leader grows with rapidity, and their attachment is consolidated by time. When the throne was vacant, the eyes of all Israel were turned to David. Their experience of his ability and valour, his designation by God’s prophet, were the indications to them that the son of Jesse was the right man to rule over them. Events proved that they were not mistaken. The sway of David made the chosen people one great nation, and fitted them for the work appointed for them by the theocratic governor. There is in this passage a lesson specially suitable to young men of ability, education, and position. For such God in his providence has assuredly a work to do. It is for them quietly and patiently to await the indications of Divine providence, in the persuasion that faithfulness and diligence in present duty are the best preparation for future responsibilities. It is God’s prerogative to train the workman and to provide the work.T.
1Ch 11:3.–David’s accession.
With this chapter commences another part of this Book of Chronicles, which, from this point onwards, is occupied with the reign, the character, and the exploits of David, King of Judah and Israel. His accession, related in this verse, occupies accordingly a position of interest and significance in the narrative. The point especially deserving notice in the language of this verse is the combination of Divine and human agency in the nomination of David to the throne. This combination, especially apparent in the history of theocratic Israel, is really discernible by the reflecting mind in all the events of life and history. Observe
I. THE HUMAN AGENCY which led to David’s accession to the throne. To many eyes no other than human agency was visible.
1. His own character and services marked David out as the one only ruler whom Israel could select and trust. Born a shepherd, he had yet within him the heart and the future of a king.
2. A popular election effected his elevation. It was the wish of “all Israel” that David should take the responsibilities of rule. In his election the old adage was verifiedVox populi vox Dei.
3. A senatorial requisition sanctioned and enforced the popular nomination. “All the elders of Israel” came to David, to express the general feeling and to prefer formally the national request. The appointment of the king was not the work of a moment of enthusiasm, was not the caprice of a mob; it was the deliberate act of the wisest and the noblest in the land.
II. THE DIVINE CAUSE of David’s appointment to the throne. This may not have been apparent to all, but it is acknowledged with justice by the sacred historian.
1. A Divine prediction led to David‘s accession. The language of the people is very noticeable: “The Lord thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel.”
2. A prophetic designation foreshadowed it. The appointment, so we read, was made “according to the word of the Lord by Samuel” The same inspired seer who anointed Saul was directed to nominate his immediate successor.
3. A religious covenant ratified the nomination of David. When he “made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord,” he acted in accordance with his religious convictions, but he acted also in a manner harmonizing with the theocratic position of Israel. Church and state were not merely allied, they were identical. Nothing more natural than that a sacred ceremony should accompany the public and political act. There is no trace of selfish ambition on David’s part. He acknowledged the tremendous responsibilities of reigning. And in the sight of Jehovah his subjects undertook to co-operate with the monarch in seeking the general good.
PRACTICAL LESSONS of great value are suggested by this passage.
1. In all human history and biography there is a blending of the human and the Divine. Worldly men are in danger of looking only to “second causes;” possibly religious men may sometimes overlook these in an exclusive regard to the one great Divine Agent. We should seek the Divine in the human.
2. Elevation to great power involves great responsibility: A man who can think only of his own pleasure or magnificence, when Providence raises him to an exalted station, is not merely irreligious, he is unreasonable and unreflecting.
3. Social and political duties can only be discharged aright when fulfilled in a devout and prayerful spirit. The more responsible our position, the greater our need of a sincere confidence in the supreme Lord who is the supreme Guide of man.T.
1Ch 11:7.-The city of David.
Hitherto the city which crowned the height overlooking the Kedren valley was known as Jebus, and was held by the “people of the land.” But from this time forth it was known as “the city of David,” and its stronghold, Zion, with Mille and the adjacent quarters, constituted the famous and historical capital of the united kingdomJerusalem. Observe the significant name here given to it. Jerusalem was called “the city of David because it was
I. THE TROPHY OF DAVID‘S VALOUR. It was his prowess and that of his captain, Joab, that wrested the stronghold from the hands of the heathen.
II. THE STRUCTURE OF DAVID‘S REGAL MAGNIFICENCE AND WARLIKE STRATEGY, Probably before this time it was nothing but a primitive fortress, strongly placed upon rocky heights. But David “built the city round about,” and “Joab repaired the rest of the city.” Henceforth “Jerusalem was a city compact together.”
III. THE SCENE OF DAVID‘S REIGN. Hebron was too far south to be a suitable capital for the united kingdom. Nature made Jerusalem for a metropolis. Here the king lived and ruled, prospered, sinned, suffered, and died.
IV. THE SEAT OF DAVID‘S LINE. His son Solomon and the successive occupants of the throne of Judah held sway in this city, and some of them added to its splendour and its strength. Amidst its varying fortunes, its sieges, its dismantlements, its rebuildings, its festivities, Jerusalem retained the imperishable interest conferred by its association with the great founder of the Hebrew monarchy and dynasty. It was itself a memorial of its founder’s name and life.
V. THE SCENE OF THE MINISTRY AND OF THE SEPULTURE OF DAVID‘S SON AND LORD. Many of our Saviour’s miracles were performed, many of Christ’s discourses were delivered, in Jerusalem. It was over this city that Jesus wept; it was this city that Jesus entered in his lowly triumph; it was in this city that he died, for “it could not be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem;” and after our Lord’s ascension, when his apostles preached his gospel, they were instructed to do so, “beginning at Jerusalem.”
VI. IN ITS DESOLATION AND DESTRUCTION IT FURNISHED AN EXAMPLE OF RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE EXECUTED ON DAVID‘S POSTERITY. David’s nation rejected David’s Lord, and, according to his own prediction, their unbelief involved their metropolis in ruin.
“It moves me, Romans!
It confounds the counsel of my firm philosophy,
That ruin’s merciless ploughshare should pass o’er
And barren salt be sown on yon proud city!”
T.
1Ch 11:9.–David’s greatness.
From the time that the king began to reign over all the tribes of Israel his fortunes began to improve. Dark days had he gone through before; now the sun of prosperity blazed upon his path.
I. THE ELEMENTS OF DAVID‘S GREATNESS. It consisted:
1. In warlike achievements. He was a man of war from his youth, and his manhood was occupied with the defence of his kingdom and the defeat of his foes.
2. In the valour of his captains. “Mighty men of valour” gathered around him, and contributed to his power and his fame.
3. In the prosperity of his people. That David’s reign was an era of material prosperity is evident enough. If nothing else proved it, it would be established by the munificent offerings which the princes and the people presented at the close of David’s reign towards the temple fund.
4. In the prevalence of religion. This appears from the establishment upon a grander scale of the Levitical and priestly orders, with the services, sacrifices, and festivals connected with the house of God. David’s own psalms, sung as they were by the Levitical choirs, at once evidenced and furthered the prosperity of true religion.
II. THE GROWTH OF DAVID‘S GREATNESS. He “waxed greater and greater.” His career was one of continually advancing prosperity. As with most men favourably circumstanced, so in his case, success and prosperity were the cause of their own increase. “He went growing and growing.”
III. THE EXPLANATION OF DAVID‘S GREATNESS. “The Lord of hosts was with him.” Cui adhoeres, praeest! the Lord God may better say than any earthly prince, He to whom I attach myself, he shall prosper. “The Lord of hosts was with David:”
1. To give him regal qualities.
2. To surround him with prudent counsellors, devoted friends, and faithful servants.
3. To give him favour with the people.
4. To reveal himself to his heart, as the Subject of praise, the Law of righteousness, the Lord of life.
LESSONS.
1. It is within the power of all Christians, by the use of the means of grace, to grow constantly in true excellence.
2. Only by the presence and aid of the Most High can we be justified in looking for progress and true prosperity.T.
1Ch 11:11.–Mighty men.
Great epochs and great leaders call forth great men- In most nations’ histories there are periods when greatness seems to spring forth spontaneously, and to display itself in all the departments of human activity. David had the powerdistinctive of true leadershipof evoking, as it were, capable, valiant, and devoted followers. In his day and in the early periods of many nations, warlike qualities were needed, and the recommendations of physical strength and courage were the highest of all. In more settled states of society and more civilized communities, gifts of mind are more prized than those of body. The qualities that are developed among nations are for the most part those which are demanded by the necessities of the times.
I. EXTRAORDINARY GIFTS OF BODY AND OF MIND ARE ALL FROM GOD. This is indeed true of all gifts. “We are his offspring.” “In him we live, and move, and have our being.” Yet how often is this truth forgotten in the presence of splendid endowments of strength and skill, genius and influence! Men take the praise to themselves for the powers which God has conferred, for the achievements which he has enabled them to accomplish. But it should ever be remembered that all human might is but a slight and evanescent glimmer of his glory.
II. EXTRAORDINARY GIFTS SHOULD BE EMPLOYED IN GOD‘S SERVICE. There is a notion that high station and great genius absolve men from allegiance to the ordinary laws of morality and religion. What is regarded as proper for the multitude is sometimes deemed inapplicable to the exalted few. There can be no greater error. Great men have great power for good or for evil, and in their case it is pre-eminently of importance that the “five talents” should be employed in the service of the Divine Lard, who has a rightful claim to their consecration. “Spirits are not finely touched but to fine issues.”
III. EXTRAORDINARY GIFTS MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR TO THEIR GIVER. There is nothing in the fact of their unusual number or magnitude that absolves from that responsibility which characterizes all moral and accountable natures. The Divine Judge will doubtless require a strict account at last. There is no principle more prominent in Christian teaching than this . “To whom much is given, of them much will be required.”
CONCLUSION.
1. Let those amply endowed with natural gifts beware of pride. There is nothing so unreasonable, nothing so spiritually disastrous, as is this sin.
2. Let such “great ones” remember to render to Heaven grateful acknowledgments, for to Heaven such acknowledgments are assuredly due. “What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Who hath made thee to differ?”T.
1Ch 11:14.-A great deliverance.
David, by the force of his character and the prowess of his arms, gathered around him many able, valiant men, who were a strength to himself and a protection to his kingdom. Of the thirty heroes most famous and mighty, some are recorded to have wrought great and memorable exploits. The passage before us relates a feat of arms performed probably by Shammah, one of these mighty men of valour. He attacked the Philistines, who were stationed in a field of barley or lentiles, routed and slew the enemy, and secured a victory for Israel. It is observable that, whilst the valour of the hero is celebrated, by which a defeat was turned into a victory, the result is ascribed to Jehovah, God of hosts: “The Lord saved them by a great deliverance.” This deliverance may be regarded as symbolical of that yet greater salvation which our redeeming and merciful God has wrought on behalf, not of Israel only, but of mankinda spiritual and everlasting deliverance.
I. THE LORD IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS SALVATION.
1. His mind designed it. The gospel is the good news of Divine compassion, and the expression of Divine wisdom. It bears the impress of his character. It witnesses to his attributes. It is his supreme word to the children of men.
2. His Son achieved it. The battle was fought when Jesus lived, was won when Jesus died. He is the Hero who girds his sword upon his thigh, and goes forth, conquering and to conquer.
3. His Spirit applies it. The deliverance has to be effected, not only for but in every ransomed and saved one who experiences the Saviour’s interposition and shares his conquest.
II. THIS SALVATION IS GREAT, BEYOND ALL COMPARISON, BEYOND ALL PRAISE.
1. To understand the magnitude of the salvation, consider from what the redeemed of the Lord are saved. Israel had been saved from the bondage of Egypt, and in this book it appears they were repeatedly saved from the thraldom of the Philistines. From how much worse a slaverya captivityare men redeemed by the grace of God our Saviour, which appeared in Christi The gospel announces release from the bonds of sin and the yoke of Satan.
2. Consider at what a cost we are redeemed. “Not with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.”
3. Consider the nature of the safetythe salvationwhich Christ secures for his people. It is not merely a deliverance from sin and death; it is a conferring of happiness, dignity, and joy; it is the impartation of the Divine favour, the bestowal of the Divine Spirit.
4. Consider its final, eternal character. It is a deliverance extending through time and into eternity, a salvation from which there is no return to bondage.
5. Consider for how great a multitude it is obtained. Many of all nations enjoy its benefits, and at last, “a great multitude which no man can number” shall join in the everlasting anthem ascribing salvation to God and the Lamb.
PRACTICAL LESSONS.
1. A great deliverance calls for great gratitude and great devotion from those who experience its blessings.
2. A great deliverance published is a great opportunity for the enslaved and oppressed. It is their privilege to accept the remission and the liberty proclaimed.T.
1Ch 11:16-19.-The well of Bethlehem.
This is one of the most touching and poetical incidents in the romantic life of the son of Jesse. It exhibits him in a light in which we cannot but discern both his amiability and his piety.
I. DAVID‘S DESIRE. He was, with his faithful band of valiant followers, in the stronghold upon the borders of the Philistine territory. The enemy were in possession of his native vale, the scene of his boyish happiness and youthful exploits. It was a position of danger and of privationthis which he occupied at this time. How natural, how human, his desire for a draught of the bright, cool water from the spring that gushed from the hillside near his father’s fields! It was a longing for home, it was a clinging to the associations of childhood, it was the unchanged heart, that prompted the desire that found utterance in his words, “Oh that one would give me,” etc.!
II. THE FEAT OF THE HEROES. The men David had around him were men ready for any daring exploitbold, fearless, and prompt. Yet they had tender hearts, that could sympathize with such a wish as that their chief expressed. It was a gallant and heroic feat, this which they performed, in breaking through the ranks of the Philistines, and bringing to David the draught of water his soul desired from the dear well at Bethlehem.
III. THE SELF–SACRIFICING AND PIOUS ACT OF THE LEADER. David appreciated the faithfulness, the sympathy, the bravery, of the noble three. He could not drink the water, for it seemed to him like the life-blood of the heroes. It was too precious for any but for Jehovah. Accordingly he poured it out in a pious libation before the Lord, giving his best to God.
LESSONS.
1. The sacredness and beauty of human feeling. The associations of childhood and of home are precious, and it is no sign of weakness to cherish them.
2. The beauty of self-sacrifice. What more admirable than the willingness to run all risks to serve, to make happy, those whom we honour and love?
3. The supremacy of the Divine claims. God has a right to our hearts and to all that is dear to them. Withhold not from him his own.T.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
1Ch 11:1-8. –Popular and royal wisdom.
All Israel now gave their adhesion to the person and house of David. The kingdom was knit together under one strong, wise leader (1Ch 11:1). In the act by which the national acceptance of David was declared and ratified we have a suggestive instance of
I. THE WISDOM OF THE COMMUNITY. All Israel:
1. Made their choice with discernment. The nation did not act precipitately, blindly, with a rash and ruinous impulsiveness. It had good reason for what it did. It elected to elevate David to the supreme post because
(1) he could claim very close relationship: “We are thy bone and thy flesh;” a fact which ensured his deep interest and patriotism;
(2) he had rendered valuable service in past days: “Thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel” (1Ch 11:2);
(3) Divine designation: “The Lord thy God said unto thee,” etc. (1Ch 11:2);three excellent reasons for their procedure.
2. Acted afterwards with wise precaution, Instead of trusting absolutely to the lasting virtue of a good man, they bound him to royal fidelity with a solemn pledge: they met the king in Hebron, and “he made a covenant with them before the Lord” (1Ch 11:3). This was most wise; they did not then know for a certainty what manner of monarch David would prove. It would have been blind and foolish on their part, in the last degree, to have committed themselves absolutely and without any guarantee into the new king’s hands. Here are lessons for all communities (nations, societies, Churches, etc.) for all time.
(1) Think well before taking an important step which involves large issues.
(2) Choose for a leader the man who is likely to cherish a real and living interest in the well-being of the community.
(3) Prefer the man who has given assurance, by past action, of integrity and ability.
(4) Make much of Divine indications.
(5) Have a distinct understanding, carefully and solemnly ratified, before actually entering on the new relationship. Let there be no possible mistake on either side as to what is expected.
II. THE WISDOM OF THE KING. David did two wise things on this occasion.
1. He commenced his reign over united Israel by an act of courage and patriotism (1Ch 11:4, 1Ch 11:5).
2. He gave prominence and power to the man who earned them by his merit (1Ch 11:6). Here are two lessons for leaders of all times.
(1) Strive to start well. To make a favourable commencement of a ministry, or of a government or office of any kind, is not everything; but it is much. It is a great step toward a real success; therefore, in beginning a new work with new workers, put forth the utmost energy and start promisingly.
(2) Show favour to the deserving. Let not kinship, nor friendship, nor the commendations of others, but personal merit shown in the face of duty and difficulty, be the condition of honour. Let the prize be to him who has won it. Partiality will soon destroy confidence and wear away affection. Impartiality will secure respect and love. Then as “David dwelt in the castle,” will the wise leader of the community dwell in the stronghold of the esteem and affection of the Church or the community.C.
1Ch 11:9.–God’s enlarging presence.
If God is with us in the sense in which he was “with” David, we also shall “wax greater and greater.”
I. HOW GOD‘S PRESENCE PROVED AN ENLARGEMENT TO THE KING. It resulted in:
1. An increase in his territory. God prospered him in war; his enemies were beaten; his dominion was enlarged, so much so that the prophecy of Gen 15:18-21 was fulfilled.
2. The growth of power and influence in his royal person. David became more and more established in the regard, the confidence, and the affection of Israel. The whole nation came to yield him a full and unhesitating allegiance.
3. The rise of national power and influence over neighbouring nations. The kingdom of Israel had been little or nothing to the surrounding peoples, Now, however, it acquired consideration. The potentates of the East were glad to make treaties, to be on amicable terms with Gen 2:4. The enlargement of his spiritual nature. We cannot say that David’s spiritual course was “the path of the just, shining brighter and brighter unto the perfect day.” It certainly suffered temporary eclipse, even if it did not, after a certain period, steadily decline. But we may indulge the belief that, for some time after his elevation to supreme power, it was not only in circumstance but in soul that he” waxed greater and greater.”
II. How GOD‘S PRESENCE IS AN ENLARGEMENT TO OURSELVES. If God be with us, with his Divine favour, with his providing and protecting care, with his Spirit’s influence, it may be that he will give us enlargement in the shape of:
1. Temporal prosperity. He may “set our feet in a large room” (Psa 31:8). We may be made by him to “wax greater and greater” (see 1Ti 4:8). It is certain God will grant us increase in:
2. Our views. We shall see, know, understand, more and more of himself, of ourselves, of the meaning and the capacity of our human life, of his holy will as revealed in his Word.
3. Our affections. He will “enlarge our heart” (Psa 119:32). We shall embrace more in our kindly sympathies. Our purer, nobler, more generous feeling will flow forth to all those who are the most necessitousto the “little ones” of Christ, to “them that are a far off.”
4. Our influence. We shall become more of a blessing to those with whom we have to do. As God teaches us, disciplines us, ennobles us, we shall have a gathering and growing power over our kindred, our associates, our neighbours.
5. Our hopes. These will be gradually withdrawn from the small circle of time, and reach forth into the vast amplitude of eternity; and they will become ever higher and nobler as immortal life presents itself to us less as a mere endless enjoyment and more as a ceaseless service.C.
1Ch 11:10-14, 1Ch 11:20-47.-The moral of the mighty men.
We may learn from this record of gallant exploits and of the names of David’s mighty men
I. THAT NO MAN, HOWEVER GREAT AND WISE, CAN DISPENSE WITH THE CO–OPERATION OF OTHERS. David’s elevation to the throne was largely due to his own character and to his own deeds. That was noble and winning; these were great and worthy. But he could not and would not have become king over all Israel, had not these mighty men “strengthened themselves with him to make him king” (1Ch 11:10). And though the power and glory of his long reign were, to a great extent, the product of the king’s own wisdom, valour, and loyalty to Jehovah, yet the deeds of his mighty men had much to do with the triumphs he won and the power he wielded. No Christian leader can accomplish great things without an active following on the part of brave and true men, who “strengthen themselves with him.” Around the illustrious men whose names are household words and who wrought great things for Christ and for the world, there were gathered others, less in moral and spiritual stature than they, whose names were unwritten or have faded from view, but whose co-operation ensured success. All who would accomplish much must know how to surround themselves with others who will second their work and sustain their hands.
II. THAT MEN MAY SERVE A GOOD CAUSE ANIMATED BY VARIOUS MOTIVES. It is impossible to suppose that all those who “strengthened themselves with David according to the word of the Lord” (1Ch 11:10) took their part, then and afterwards, solely on the ground that they were thus carrying out the Divine will. Doubtless they had their personal ambitions. The court at Jerusalem was not without its rivalries and jealousies. The mighty men were no doubt stirred to more daring deeds because they hoped to “have a name among the three” (1Ch 11:20, 1Ch 11:24), if not the “first three” (1Ch 11:21); or among “the thirty” (1Ch 11:25), if not the three; or to be counted among “the valiant men of the armies” (1Ch 11:26). In our Christian warfare we should be actuated by the very highest considerationsby the love of Christ and the love of man. we may also be affected, may let our zeal burn more steadily and brightly, by considerations less lofty than theseby the desire to gain the approval of our leaders, by the hope of a large reward, etc.
III. THAT MEN MAY DEDICATE THEIR PHYSICAL PROWESS TO THE SERVICE OF GOD AND OF THEIR KIND. The worthies whose deeds are here recorded were rendering a not unimportant service to their race. The reign of David had a certain serious bearing on the whole plan of Providence. It was, perhaps, an essential link in the whole redemptive chain. In this light the exploits of these heroes, who helped to place David in regal power and to sustain him on the throne of Israel, formed a contribution to the work of God and the redemption of man. The tendency of our nature is to overestimate such brilliant feats as those of this chapter (1Ch 11:11-14, 1Ch 11:20, 1Ch 11:22, 1Ch 11:23). But it is possible, by a reaction of thought, to under-estimate them, and even to deny them a place in the account of honourable service. Physical prowess has served and yet may serve the cause of truth, righteousness, wisdom.
IV. ‘THAT USUALLY IN OTHER WAYS THAN THESE GOD ASKS AND ACCEPTS OUR SERVICE. Now, in these Christian times, it is
(1) by moral rather than by physical courage;
(2) in obscurity rather than in distinction;
(3) with the sword of the Spirit rather than with the sword of steel, that we are to win victories and render service to our Lord.C.
1Ch 11:15-19.-A royal afterthought.
This is a beautiful and touching episode in the military career of David. It brings out both the weakness and the strength of the Hebrew monarch.
I. THE KING‘S MOMENTARY INCONSIDERATENESS. (1Ch 11:17.) David was not by any means thoughtless of his subjects. He was not made of the hard material of which some celebrated adventurers have been composed, which made them utterly heedless of the losses and sufferings of their followers. He had a warm and generous heart. But on this occasion he was betrayed into an inconsiderate act. When his thirst could not possibly be allayed without placing the lives of his men in the most imminent risk, he should have borne it in silence rather than have uttered his wish for water. He should have remembered that the wish of a sovereign would probably be interpreted as a command, or be seized upon as an occasion for distinction or a means of securing a large reward. To such default all men are liable. It requires unceasing prayer and sleepless vigilance to avoid being surprised and “overtaken in a fault.”
II. THE DEVOTED LOYALTY OF HIS FOLLOWERS. (1Ch 11:18.) Three of his mighty men no sooner heard his utterance of strong desire than they set out to gratify it. Daring the utmost danger, their life in their hand, they “brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well.” David had the rare faculty of attaching men to himself with enthusiastic devotion. He won, not only the fidelity, but the eager and loving devotion of his servants. Surely his “greater Son,” the Prince of Peace, is far more worthy of the unhesitating, uncalculating devotion of his subjects. Surely they should eagerly watch his eye, should spring to do his bidding, should joyfully run greatest risks and make largest sacrifices to fulfil the good pleasure of his will.
III. THE REDEEMING AFTERTHOUGHT. (1Ch 11:18, 1Ch 11:19.)
1. David disallowed his own selfishness. It is our habit to cover our wrong deeds with plausible pretexts. Our ingenuity is generally equal to the discovery of reasons which will extenuate or justify our errors and our sins. David might have done the same had he been less worthy than he was. But he took the nobler course. He rebuked himself and disallowed his deed, He shrank from the act of profiting by his own inconsiderateness. God forbid… shall I drink the blood of these won,” etc.? Well would it have been for this oppressed world of ours if its kings and rulers had always shrunk thus from “drinking the blood” of the people. In itself it is doubtless better not to err than to err and afterwards to withdraw, but it is difficult for us not to be glad that David was guilty of this momentary thoughtlessness, inasmuch as it was directly followed by this noble and most honourable afterthought, that he would not gratify his taste through an act which had imperilled the lives of his followers. It was the readiest and most practical way of rebuking himself.
2. He rose into the region of self-denial and devotion. He “poured it out to the Lord.” He made it quite impossible for him to drink, and, at the same time, he offered an oblation unto the Lord. Seldom does so unpromising a commencement issue in so excellent an ending. But for the profoundly religious character of David, it would not have done so. We learn that:
(1) Deep-seated principles of piety and virtue should correct a mistake into which we may be surprised.
(2) That self-denial and devotion are truer triumphs than military conquests. We do not think much of Jashobeam’s exploit (1Ch 11:11), but we shall never forget this penitential, self-sacrificing deed of David.C.
HOMILIES BY R. GLOVER
1Ch 11:1-3.-The promise fulfilled.
“They anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the Lord by Samuel.” David had a great promise given him. It was given him early in his life to inspire the noble purpose, and to make possible the necessary patience. You and I have great promises, given us, not when in sight of the longed-for good, but when it is yet distant and far away. Such promises are our morning stars, as they were David’s. Often, however, to David the fulfilment of its promise seemed an impossibility. Often to us the obstacles to the fulfilment of our promises seem many and insuperable. It is worth while to linger and to observe how calmly and straight God’s providence marched onward to the fulfilment of its promise in his case, and to gather thence some deepening of our confidence that it will march straight on to the complete fulfilment of every word on which he has caused us to hope. I confine myself to this one point, not dwelling on some important points likewise suggested here. Others may mark this to indicate the fact that ultimately the people are the source of all power in the state; or may single out the word “covenant” here, and dwell on the fact that David is the first example in history of a constitutional monarchy. We look above and beyond these things, to a Divine Giver fulfilling a long-despaired-of promise. That the precedent may have all its weight of consolation for the despairing inheritors of God’s promises, let us mark successively
(1) The seeming impossibility of this promise being fulfilled; and
(2) its blessed and complete fulfilment.
I. OBSERVE THE SEEMING IMPOSSIBILITY OF DAVID‘S PROMISE BEING FULFILLED. NOT many arguments are usually needed to drive us to despair. Many of us when all is brightest cannot believe the good word spoken to us. How much more David might have concluded that the fulfilment of this promise was utterly outside the reach of all possibility! Look at the arguments of despair with which Satan could assail him.
1. There was already a monarch established in his throne. The choice of the whole people. And at the time the promise was made to David everything indicated he was the worthy choice of Israel. He had the hold which popular election, Divine approval, a generous disposition, great physical courage and prowess, great natural kingliness, conspired to give him. Nor had he any lack of heirs. There were three conspicuous sonsJonathan; Abinadab, Melchi-shua, all worthy to succeed him. One of them, by his noble generosity and kindness, which blended with the noblest martial qualities, made him the darling and pride of the nation. There were other sons and grandsons. How was it possible that all these should be superseded and he made king? Especially impossible would this seem when he remembered that:
2. He did not belong to a tribe whose rulership would be acceptable to Israel, and did not even belong to the chief family of that tribe. Ephraim aspired to be the leading tribe of Israel. Her land centrally situate, she had been, from the days of Joseph downward, the leading tribe. They might as their first king accept a man of Benjamin, not caring to press their claims when they were securing one from a tribe always in friendliest alliance with their own, and too small to dream of rivalling them in importance. But would Ephraim ever admit Judah her rival to give Israel a king? And even if they were willing, would the great families of Judah accept that of Jesse as the royal house, when the family of Caleb was still found in Hebron? Yea, if they were willing, would his own family be? There were his brothers, great in warlike force; the eldest sufficiently kingly for Samuel to deem him the chosen of the Lord. There was his uncle Joab, probably no older than himself, and his brothers, all of them capable of ambition. Why should he be the one? Did his pride or legitimate complacency venture to go back to the great day at Ephes-dammim when he slew Goliath? There was Eleazar, who in the same conflict had supported David and won a great renown, and Jashobeam, who “slew three hundred at one time,” and half a score of others who had done deeds of romantic fame. So that even before the enmity of Saul broke out there was enough to make David despair of his ever seeing the promise fulfilled. Then next:
3. Saul with all his forces sets himself to destroy David. The insanity that overtook Saul seemed to leave David no hope. The enmity so persistent; the whole soldiery of the kingdom available and employed to seize and destroy him; the land a little landnot much larger than Yorkshire;what chance was there of surviving such a pursuit? The only defenders he could find were the rabble of outlawed people or men of broken character and fortunes, who could not lose by any change, but possibly might gain. Should he meet Saul in battle, his name would have a stigma of rebellion fatal to all kingly hopes. Should he avoid a battle, it was hard to see by what other means he could avoid the certain fate which seemed awaiting him. And when year after year this lasted, and David was “hunted like a partridge on the mountains,” how inevitably would all hope of the fulfilment of God’s promise fade from his soul I And yet the greatest difficulty of all remains to be noted. At last he cuts the knot of suspense, and, giving up all hope of the crown, he seeks to secure his life, and actually:
4. He enlists in the service of the enemies of Israel. We know not with what reservations he enters the service of Achish, whether he had intended the treason of fighting against Israel, or the treason of siding with Israel against the Philistines after receiving their hospitality and pledging faithfulness to them. Despair was working its usual folly and recklessness; and he had put himself in one of those false positions which are above all things to be avoided. And doing so, he not only abandoned for ever all thought of being king, but seemed to make the throne impossible. But even here God steps in, and, by raising up opposition on the part of the lords of the Philistines, saves him from the shame which would have dishonoured him whether he had fought against Israel or Israel’s enemies. But put all these together: the settledness of the dynasty of Saul; the disadvantages of David’s birth; the persecutions of Saul; his own break-down in faith;and would you in his circumstances have been ever able to hops for the fulfilment of this great promise? Would you not rather have looked back on it as the dream of a friendly nature and as nothing more? Are there more impediments to-day in the way of God’s promise to you being fulfilled than studded the way to the fulfilment of these? Yet observe, spite of all these impossibilities
II. THE COMPLETE AND BLESSED FULFILMENT OF ALL GOD‘S PROMISES. Consider how many things go to this.
1. There is the opportunity for making himself known to all Israel.
2. Then, by marvellous providential deliverances and by restraints on the heart of Saul, every effort to destroy David is frustrate.
3. Then, God saves him from himself, from the complications of his own despair, by keeping him entirely out of the war between Saul and the Philistines.
4. Then, Saul and his three sons fall together at Gilboa, and the only son of Saul remaining is one without any of the strength requisite for kingship. The house of Judah accepts him as the ruler fittest to secure them from the Philistines, one whose very name is itself worth an army. And Benjamin, nearest to the Philistines, is glad to do the same. Then, while the conflict with Ishbosheth has the minimum of slaughter that could be found in civil war, it daily made the eminence of David more conspicuous. And so it happens that, without any effort, toil, or solicitude on God’s part, all things are brought round so perfectly that at last all the tribes of Israel come and invite him to be king. And that at the right time, viz. as soon as he was fit for such a post. He reached it and held it forty years in the richest manner; his kingdom reaching dimensions and prosperity hitherto never dreamed of, and being transmitted to a long line of descendants, seventeen generations holding the throne before the Captivity broke the line. And even so, what is impossible with man ever proves to be possible with God. And the promise made to youof pardon of your repented sins, or of grace to conquer indwelling evil, or of answer to your prayer, or of perseverance to the end, or of daily bread, or of help in every time of troublehowever impossible its fulfilment may seem, will be perfectly, easily, richly fulfilled by him whose love and power know none of the limits within which we have to work.G.
Verse 10-12:40.-The groups of heroes.
“These are the chief of the mighty men whom David had.” This roll of ancient chivalry is worthy of a little notice. Men of valour consecrating that valour to service of David and their country, emulating each other’s deeds and all abounding in service to their land, their numbers, association, prowess, has charmed many a reader and inspired through many generations a grand succession of heroic souls. As courage is a constant requisite in all directions, let us study this singular group of valiant men, and observe how
I. HEROES COLLECT ABOUT A HERO. There are few qualities which are not more or less contagious. Corruption corrupts, and strength invigorates others. Honour sets its fashion, and vice finds many to copy it. The bad man has to answer, not only for the harm he does, but for the harm that he leads others to do. The good man has the reward of his service, which is great, but of his example as well, which is greater still. Here we see that one hero makes a multitude. After one man has fought and slain a gigantic foe, Benaiah can do the same. And Jashobeam and Eleazar can do their marvellous deeds, slaying foes by hundreds who come against them. The nobility of David’s nature attracts and elevates kindred spirits. It attracts them; for even when an outcast and exile, they collect about him (see 1Ch 12:1-40.) in the cave of Adullam and in the land of the Philistines. All Saul’s authority as king and kinsman does not prevent many of the bravest of the Benjamites attaching themselves to David, even in Saul’s lifetime. A Moabite, and an Ammonite were among his chief captains; a Hittite, one of his thirty knights; from beyond Jordan many gather to him; and later on, from every tribe of Israel some are attracted to his standard. There is such an attraction about every great soul. The law of gravitation, I suppose, is true of souls, that they attract each other in the ratio of their masses; and if a nature be tenfold grander than another, it has tenfold more attraction. Great men cannot help attracting, and men less great from feeling the force of that attraction. And when the greatness is the rounded greatness in which generosity of nature meets with courage and with wisdom, there is no bound to the attraction exercised and the devotion yielded. If God has made you a kingly spirit, you need not be over-solicitous about the recognition of your claims. He whom God makes to be master is master by a law of gravitation, and finds his level as naturally as material things find theirs. Impatience to reach your throne only delays it. Be still, and if God means you to rule, there is nothing more certain than that you will. Meanwhile, as perhaps you have not that part to play, attach yourself as a learner and a follower to him whom you find better and wiser than yourself, and, sitting at his feet, you will, in the practice of obedience, learn the secret of command. David not only attracts, however, but elevates. Beneath the kindling inspiration of his valour all hearts grow brave. Courage seems so easy and fear so shameful that, with him as leader, each man is twice, ay, sometimes many times himself. A Bruce, a Cromwell, a Nelson, or a Wellington, will never lack brave following. “As iron sharpeneth iron, so does a man the countenance of his friend.” Valour in one makes many valiant. King Arthur had his knights of the Round Table, and David had his, and all brave men have theirs. Such a fact is worthy of notice, for we are apt to think evil a stronger thing than good; the fact being that good is the most omnipotent thing on earth, kindling similar goodness in others’ lives. Be brave and good, and you will not long be without companions.
II. A WISE KING CHOOSES BRAVE MEN FOR CAPTAINS, He did so because he recognized the validity of the principle we have just been considering. His valour infused into the captains; theirs would be infused into the men. In war an army wants brave leaders, not figure-heads. “Take the kings away every man out of his place, and put captains in their room,” said the sensible military critics of Benhadad, who had made his first invasion of Israel with thirty-two kings as leaders of his troops. But it is not only in military matters, but in all others that courage is wanted. From the teacher of a Sunday school to a prime minister, from a minister of religion to a town councillor, whoever is at the head of his fellows should be brave; wise as well, but brave. Prudence without some daring and enterprise will so shrink from difficulties and risks that it will take ofttimes the most dangerous course of alldoing nothing. There is always at hand, available for whoever can use it, abundance of power to work reforms, to render needed service to mankind, if only there be leaders for it. Are you in a position of influence of any sort, in Church or state, with few or many? Remember that David would have none but heroic men for leaders, and if you have not courage to lead men forward, you should give place to those who have. Happy the village Church, the Sunday school, the school board, the town council, the land, whose leaders have brave hearts that do not slacken with languor or shrink from danger! With such leading, the community, like Israel, will find safety, prosperity, blessing, in richer measure than languid hearts ever dare to dream of.G.
1Ch 11:22.-Benaiah the son of Jehoiada.
“Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done many acts; he slew two lionlike men of Moab: also he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a snowy day. And he slew an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high; and in the Egyptian’s hand was a spear like a weaver’s beam; and he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own spear.” I venture to treat of this hero, although far removed from any nineteenth-century characteristics. He was a priest, son of a high priest, yet a warrior. To find one like him in office and quality one has to go back to the fighting bishops of the Middle Ages. We do not read of his ministering at the altar. Yet we must not, therefore, imagine him some degenerate son of Aaron, affording warning rather than example. For there is something savoury in his brief story, which occurs twice in the Bible, and just because of its unusual combinations of characteristics it is worth our lingering on it. Let me urge some simple lessons which may be of use, at least to the more combative of our readers. Observe
I. THAT MANLINESS IS A GREAT DESIDERATUM IN A PRIESTHOOD. To make a true priest of God, the first and greatest thing required is godliness, and the second is like unto itmanliness; and on these two qualities hang all effective discharge of priestly duties. It may be objected that this remark does not necessarily spring from Benaiah, who, though of the tribe of Levi, might be an exception to rather than a specimen of the priestly order. And I should admit the relevancy of the remark were it not that the tribe of Levi seems, in Egypt, to have been conspicuous for its courage and leading qualities (for otherwise the eminence of Aaron before Moses received his commission would be inexplicable); that the tribe of Levi was called pre-eminently “the host,“ during all the encampments in the wilderness; that in David’s time the tribe of Levi seems to have afforded one of the monthly army corps of twenty-four thousand men (1Ch 27:5); that from the days of Phinehas to those of the Maccabees, and even later, the priesthood furnished many of Israel’s noblest warriors; so that, without pressing or straining anything, we have the fact clear that the manliness of the tribe of the Levites was one reason of its selection for the priesthood, or at least one characteristic of it. There is a vulgar manliness, loud, blatant, coarse, unfamiliar with any of the finer questionings or feelings of the soul. Far from all priestly work be such. But the noblest manliness is not coarse. It blends gentleness with courage, is a thing of force of spirit rather than of bodily strength, marked by vigour and truth, daring rather than any braggart delight in blows. And it should be remembered that weak and feeble spirits are nowhere more out of place than in the Christian ministry. To make a true minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ you want essentially, as the raw material out of which God makes himmanliness. Courage to avow the faith when all may be denying it; to stand alone; to resist all seduction to smother doubt and to repeat hearsay; to dare to do right; to have the inspiring power which nerves others to dare it as well; to rebuke; to warn; to count and accept the cost of faithfulness to principles; to be a leader and commander to the people;for these things is manliness not needed? is courage not supremely requisite? Peter said, Add to your faith manliness ( virtue in the Latin sense, not in the English). Christ said of Peter, “Thou art a rock, and on this rock I will build my Church.” In Heb 11:1-40, you could almost substitute the word “courage” for the word “faith,” so constantly and inseparably are they united. The great names of the Church are no less illustrious for courage than for spiritual insight. Paul, Athanasius standing “alone against the world,” Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Carey, Williams, Livingstone; you have just to go over the great names of the Church’s history to see that the names of those greatly good have been those pre-eminently of men greatly brave as well. Whatever your work, Christian, if you would be a true priest of God you must be brave. “Put on thy strength, O Zion.” Religion never enervates when it is the real thing, but uses and increases all the braver qualities of the spirit. Faith is a fight in all directions. We have sometimes fostered a piety too sentimental, phrasy, and self-conscious. From the manliness which God approved in in the old priesthood, and which Benaiah had in prime fulness, learn that godliness and manliness should meet to make a thorough character. Observe (what, indeed, flows from this)
II. THAT THE COMBATIVE QUALITY IN MAN, WHILE IT NEEDS HALLOWING, ADMITS OF IT. Man is very largely a fighting animal. His modes of attack come almost as instinctively as the various modes of assault used by the lower animals. The taste for conflict distinguishing all men, true religion does not destroy, but seeks to hallow it. The mental analyst will tell you that be needs some admixture of the combative element to produce some of the finest qualities of nature. It is that which gives hardness and a staying power to the man. There is no decision of character without it. We need the power of standing up against our enemies to stand up against ourselves. There is no pertinacity of purpose without it. He who has not a little of the combative element soon gives in. There is no conquest of difficulties without it. We shrink from every trouble, say a lion is in the street, if there is nothing of this quality in us. So that the combative quality is not one of nature’s mistakes that grace has just to weed out, but something it has to hallow; an edged tool, in learning the uses of which we often cut our fingers, but something not on that account to be thrown away. It may be hallowed, but it needs a good deal of effort to secure a thorough hallowing of it. It is apt to he a reckless quality, striking wildly; the weapon of the passions rather than of the reason; used by and intensifying animosity; the source of strife and confusion, and the “every evil work” which attend themshedding blood, devastating kingdoms, burdening conscience with guilt, running riotous in its wrong. When rightly used, one of the grandest blessings of life; when ill used, one of its great curses. If so valuable hallowed, so mischievous unhallowed, the question risesWhen is it hallowed, and truly and divinely used? And I think Benaiah’s case gives us, somewhat roughly, perhaps, but clearly, the true answer to the question. It is used rightly and hallowed when directed against the enemies of the public good. Sometimes against an Egyptian host mustered to battle, sometimes against the Moabites, and sometimes against the wild beasts. An evangelical generalization might not be far out of it which stated it that the combative clement is wisely employed when it operates against whatever injures our own character or our neighbour’s well-being. The man fights foolishly who does not begin the conflict by fighting with himself. It were vain to fight against Egyptians and Moabites, and then give in and let some lion destroy the power so valuablepower which might have done such splendid service. To say “No” to our own weaknesses, to protect the interests of others, to oppose whatever by its falsehood, sin, or mischief threatens the true well-being of our friends and neighbours. Oh, how much there is that needs fighting! how much of evil in our own hearts! how much in the world! How much of evil is daily assailing and destroying the happiness and well-being of multitudes, but for want of brave hearts that think of more than merely getting to heaven themselves, and that are willing to make some sacrifice of comfort and ease and to risk what is dearer than either! “Fight the good fight of faith; lay hold on eternal life;” and oppose whatever harms your brethren.
III. THAT THERE ARE A GOOD MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF ENEMIES TO BE TACKLED IN‘ THE COURSE OF OUR LIFE. Sometimes Egyptians; sometimes Moabites; sometimes lions; sometimes some other foe, like the Philistines encamped round Bethlehem, through whom Benaiah and two others broke to fetch David a draught of water from its well. Yes; there is more than one or two or even three sorts of enemies against which we have here to fight. Now it is a subtle whisper that denies there is any Providence here or heaven hereafter; now it is some passion that, rising up within us, clamours for mastery ever the reason and duty; now it is greed, which makes the fingers stick to the money they should part with; now it is one of what are called the minor faults, but which yet are capable of inflicting much pain and injury that needs to be put down; now it is the ignorance of the children of the people; now it is their vices, their drunkenness; now it is the system which is permitted to increase the wealth of individuals at the expense of corrupting the life of the people. Oh for a few Benaiahs, that in conflict with such evils will put forth a noble strength. Let us not live a merely private life. Rise and assail the foe which is injuring society, beginning, I must say again, with the enemies that fight in your own heartunbelief in Christ, unwillingness to follow him, indulgence of your own weakness. There are too many Reubens in every age who, when great issues are being fought out big with bliss or woe to generations, “abide” ignobly “among the bleating of the sheep.” Keener interest in all efforts of philanthropy and politics to further human well-being, is what is required at our hand. Lastly, observe that
IV. IN ALL FIGHTING, THE SOUL IS THE MAIN THING. Doubtless Benaiah had great muscular strength, but that was but a little of his equipment. The splendid audacity that engaged with the Egyptian, meaning to kill him with his own spear. The fine superiority to thought of consequences to himself of engaging with that hungry lion on a winter’s day, in close quarters, where neither could escape the other. It was that brave spirit in him which, never shrinking from attempts that seemed impossible, nor kept back by the discretion that seeks to save its skin, wrought its grand marvels. Oh, bow little of this grand courage marks us! How much solicitude we have about our name, our peace, what people may think of us, our money, the chance of failing] In this world the timid don’t always go most safely. It is the brave heart that comes best out of all its conflicts. Pluck up a little strength, and call to God for more, and venture bravely wherever duty calls you, and, like Benaiah, you will find fame, safety, usefulness, attendant on your steps.G.
HOMILIES BY F. WHITFIELD
1Ch 11:1-4.–David’s anointing.
This chapter properly follows the twelfth chapter. The union of heart to make David king is taken up at the commencement of this eleventh chapter. This event happened on the death of Ishbosheth (see 2Sa 5:1-3). The repeated anointings in the presence of the heads of the kingdom seem to have been necessary to the general acknowledgment of the sovereign by the nation. In David we are to see Christ. In the “oneness of heart” to make him king (see 1Ch 12:38), we see that love to Christ which constitutes all true subjects of the Saviour. It was simply love to himself which drew all these heroes around David. At his yearning for the water of the well of Bethlehem, it was this love that made them brave all danger, and, at the risk of their lives, “break through the host of the Philistines.” In all this we see the personal love of the Lord’s people to their King, Jesus. Love is the mighty bondlove to himself, love that will brave all dangers, love that will lay down its life for himthe reflection of his own shed abroad in their hearts. And the object of this great gathering was one, even as their hearts were one, viz. to make David king. Thus is it also the one desire of all the followers of Christthat he shall be King. They would cast every crown at his feet and say, “Thou art worthy,” and they long for the time when he shall be “King of kings and Lord of lords.” But while they were “of one heart” to make David king, he, on his part, made a covenant with them. In this covenant he made himself over to them as their leader and captain, and that they should partake of the reward of his victories and of his glory. All this would be included in that covenant. In this, again, we see Christ, our true David, engaging to his faithful people all covenant blessings. “I will give unto you the sure mercies of David.” His own wondrous love has bound them to himself, and that same love ensures to them, in a covenant that nothing can set aside, every spiritual and temporal blessing. “He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”W.
1Ch 11:4-9.–Capture of Jerusalem.
David and all Israel with him went to Jerusalem, then called Jebus, and in the possession of the Jebusites. But they would have none of him. David, however, took the castle of Zion, and Joab subsequently captured the city, and was rewarded for his bravery by promotion to the chief military rank. We have seen the anointed king and his subjects, and now we are presented to the royal residence. In all this Christ is again shadowed forth. We have seen the anointed King Jesus and those who are his faithful ones. He has gone into “the far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return;” and his people shall share in his glory when he shall return. “I go,” he said, “to prepare a place for you: and if I go and .prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” He has purchased Zion for his loved ones with his own precious blood, and they shall reign with him in his glory.W.
1Ch 11:10-25.–David’s mighty men.
Among the elders of Israel (1Ch 11:3) who came to anoint David king, there were mighty men of valour, who had in various ways distinguished themselves. These are referred to in these verses, and also in 2Sa 23:8-24. David formed a military staff out of this “great host” that had gathered around him. The “mighty men,” or “champions,” of this staff were divided into three classes. The highest was Jashobeam, the son of Hachmoni; the second, Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite; the third, Shammah the son of Agee, the Hararite. These were of the first class or highest rank. In the second class were first Abishai the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah; the second, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; the third, Asahel the brother of Joab. These were of the second rank. The third class were the thirty men enumerated in these chapters, of whom Asahel was the chief. There are thirty-one mentioned in the list, including Asahel, which, including the six of the two superior ranks, make thirty-seven. The first name in the chief rank, Jashobeam, was an office, or “seat” (2Sa 23:8). Adino the Eznite is said to have filled this office under Joab. The one who filled this seat was president of war. The three chief men who composed the ranks of each of the first two classes were chosen for their valour, and the remarkable manner in which they had distinguished themselves at, the time when David was Saul’s general against the Philistines. The two chapters give in detail the account of the exploits performed by Jashobeam, Eleazar, Shammah, Abishai, Benaiah, and Asahel. These were the men who had so distinguished themselves under David when acting as Saul’s general. Adino the Eznite is represented as sitting in Jashobeam’s seatprobably acting for him as the president of the council of war. Jashobeam is said to have slain eight hundred men with “his own spear.” The Philistines gathered together against David in a field of barley, or lentiles. There Eleazar met them, and fought “till his hand was weary,” and it “clave unto the sword.” The same battle was continued by Shammah after the exhaustion of Eleazar, and he, by his valour, preserved the field. To these two the Lord gave a great victory, and “the People returned after them only to spoil.” These were the exploits of the three chief men of David’s first rank. In his second rank, Abishai the brother of Joab slew with his own spear three hundred men. Benaiah the son of Jehoiada slew at one time two Moabitish giants; at another time, when snow covered the ground, he slew a lion in a pit; and at another an Egyptian giant with his own spear. Asahel, the third of the second rank, and brother also of Joab, is merely described as one of the valiant men. This “great host” had gathered to David in the cave of Adullam, situate within a few miles of Bethlehem. Drawn thither by personal attachment to himself, they preferred rejection and danger and every hardship of life. Let us learn a few spiritual lessons from this narrative. All those who are drawn around the true David, the Lord Jesus, are not only Christians but warriors. They are to be heroes in the Lord’s serviceto “fight the good fight of faith.” And as with these “mighty men,” according to their individual prowess will they be rewarded in the day of the true David’s glory, Many of the noble acts of valour which distinguished these “mighty men” were done in secret, and on their own special ground, never heard of till now, and on this account were they chosen as David’s “mighty men” now. Those who are fit to fight the Lord’s battles in public are those who have conquered in secret, on their own home ground, and where no eye has seen but God’s. The man who knows not, like David himself, what it is to have killed the “lion and the bear” in secret is not fit to stand in the public arena to contend with Goliath of Oath. Here we have the election of David to the throne by God, even while Saul was reigning. Just so is it now. The prince of this world reigns, but Jesus is God’s chosen One. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.” The anointing of David by God is brought before us in 1Sa 16:12, 1Sa 16:13. The election and anointing of David by the people is recorded in the chapter we are now considering. In these two passages we have the election of Jesus and his anointing by God shadowed forth in those of David, even while as yet the world’s king was reigning. In the mean time David, thus chosen and anointed of God, is rejected and cast out by the people of God and by the Gentiles. This is shadowed forth in the rejection by Saul and by Achish, King of Gath (1Sa 21:10-15). Thus Jesus, the Chosen and Anointed of God, has been rejected by Jews and Gentiles. “Away with him! Crucify him!” was the united cry of both. The rejected king David takes refuge in the cave of Adullam, and there “a great host as the host of God” gather round him, drawn to him by devoted love, and preferring to be identified with him in his rejection than to be in honour under Saul. How fully we see Christ in all this! As the rejected One, Jesus is now hiding from the view of the world, like David in the cave of Adullam. He has ascended on high, as the Chosen and Anointed of God. He is King, “set upon his holy hill of Zion.” And now “a great host, as the host of God,” is being gathered out of this world, “a multitude which no man can number,” drawn around this rejected Onedrawn by his love, and preferring rejection with him to “enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season.” The prince of this world is ruling still; but though in the world, his people are not of the world. Saul is not their king, but David; not Satan, but Jesus. “He is precious” to themthe “chief of ten thousand, the altogether lovely.” And just as there was great joy in this outgathered host of David (1Ch 12:40), so there is joy among the people of God. Jesus is their joy. He is coming to reign. They know it. And the joy which David’s outgathered ones had in him was indeed only a faint shadow of that joy which is theirs, for they have “his joy fulfilled in themselves.” And what was the character of those who were drawn to David as the rejected one in the cave of Adullam? “And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was bitter of soul, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them.’ Could any passage more accurately describe those who flocked round the standard of the Lord Jesus when on earth? “Publicans and harlots, sinners,” those out of whom had been east seven devils, the broken in heart, the out- cast, the blind and deaf and dumb, the naked and hungry and wretched,such were those who were drawn to the true David when on earthdrawn by his love, and, with his love constraining them, content to “count all things as dung that they might win Christ, and be found in him.” And such are they still who are drawn to the world’s rejected One. They are in “distress”they have nothing, and are full of want. Wearied with the mockery of a world that has ever cheated them, they have cast themselves, weary and heavy laden, on Jesus. Again and again they have uttered the cry, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” They are “in debt“debtors to a broken Law, with the sword of Divine wrath hanging over their heads on account of guilt and sin. They are “bitter of soul;” for sin has wounded them, the world has wounded them, Satan has pierced them through and through. They had “no hope, and were without God in the world.” They were “hateful and hating one another.” They were “dead in trespasses and sins.” Drawn to Jesus by his love, he is now their “All in all.” He has risen from the dead and has ascended on high. He has “become a Captain over them”the “Captain of their salvation, made perfect through sufferings.” The host thus gathering round the true David is indeed “the host of God.” It is increasing and shall increase till it becomes “a multitude that no man can number,” which shall come with Jesus when he shall return in glory, and shall reign with him, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” There is one very precious word in this narrative, “And David went on going and growing: for the Lord of hosts was with him”. What a word for each of us”going and growing”! Yes; they are inseparable! In your “walk” with God you must “grow.” Oh, how many are in the way to heaven, but standing still! Reader, are you growing? Are you “walking” with God? then you must grow; but not otherwise. Less each day in your own eyes, but more in his. Growth in grace is a going downa reversalto ourselves. Christ’s glory so rises till the soul is lost in it. “Going and growing”! And what was the secret of it? Not David’s natural prowess; not the numbers who were daily flocking to his standard. No; none of these: “for the Lord of hosts was with him.” Yes; God’s presenceabiding in Jesusis the secret of all “going“ and the secret of all “growing.” None without it.W.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
1Ch 11:1-3.–God’s providences fulfil God’s promises.
The fact is brought prominently before us in these verses that eventually, after long waiting and much trial of faith and patience, the promised throne was secured for David, and that in a most hopeful way, by the good will of the people and the providential removal of all possible rivals. It has been said that “They who wait on providence will never want a providence on which to wait.” But we must guard against making providence something operating distinct from God. It is really the living God working in the sphere of material things for the highest good of his people.
I. GOD‘S PROMISE OF THE THRONE TO DAVID. It had been made long years before, when David was but a youth (1Sa 16:13). It was made by the significant act of anointment, and by the inward witness of God’s Spirit. But it was not accompanied with any assurance of immediate fulfilment. God’s promises still may serve for years unto the culture of our dependence and trust, until he finds the fitting time for their realization. The Christian man now has the promise of the “inheritance undefiled,” but only the promise; yet to him “faith is the substance of things hoped for.”
II. WHEN THE PROMISE WAS GIVEN THE FULFILMENT SEEMED MOST UNLIKELY. Another king was actually seated on the throne. There were no outward signs of weakness in his rule; no perilous dissatisfactions among the people; and he was a strong, hale man, and likely to live and rule for many years. Moreover, this King Saul had a family, and, in the natural order of things, it would be expected that they should succeed him on the throne. And, as time advanced, Saul’s enmity against David could not fail to create such party feeling as would greatly hinder, if not absolutely prevent, his ever securing the full allegiance of the nation. Taking these things fully into account, any one, looking on from his youth-time to David’s future, would say that it was of all Possible things the most unlikely that he should ever occupy the royal throne. But one has skilfully said that “the unexpected is the thing that happens,” and the seemingly impossible often becomes the fact. A man who holds fast God’s promises need never be troubled by disadvantageous appearances. Following the Divine lead, a man’s way unfolds step by step.
III. THOUGH HE HELD FAST THE PROMISE, DAVID NEVER FORCED ITS FULFILMENT; herein setting us a most noble and pious example. He never tried to make a national party; he never pressed himself into high court positions; he never resisted the enmity of Saul; when his enemy was actually in his power, and a spear-thrust appeared to be the step on to the throne, he would not take matters into his own hands (1Sa 26:9-11). And even when Saul was dead, David did not press forward or attempt to seize the full kingdom. It may be urged that this was good policy, but it was really something far deeperit was that true piety, which finds its best expression in waiting on God and waiting for him. A common Christian sin is saying we trust God, yet taking life into our own hands.
IV. GOD MAKES HIS PROVIDENCES EVENTUALLY WORK OUT HIS PROMISES. We may conceive of all things and all events as under his control; and the hearts of all men are in his hands. He is the Divine Master of all man’s wilfulnesses. The long ages are his to work in. He can not only use forces, but fit forces together, and compel them to serve his ends. Perhaps the greatest marvel of human life is the way in which things unfold, and seemingly impossible issues are reached. In St. Paul’s thought, “All things work together for good.” Full illustration is found in the events which led David to his throne. What, then, becomes the duty of the child of the Divine promises? Simply thislet him do the right, so far as he knows it, and in dependence on God’s strength, day by day; and let him rest assured that the faithful Promise-keeper will find the fittings, and lead on to the final issues.R.T.
1Ch 11:6.–Joab, the military statesman.
Though this man, Josh, is introduced to us before (2Sa 2:13, 2Sa 2:26, etc.), yet, in order of time, this passage is his first appearance, and only here have we the account of his prowess in taking Jebus, and his part in the building of the city of David. He probably had been chief captain of David’s band of outlaws, but on this occasion he gained the position of general of the national army, and he became subsequently the great military statesman of the kingdom, and the chief king’s counsellor. Probably he may be regarded as the man who exercised most influence over the king, and the careful review of their relations produces a deep impression that the influence was seldom a good one. He became David’s master, and under his bondage David vainly writhed and struggled in his later years.
I. JOAB HIMSELF. The incidents by which he is made known to us are mainly the following:
1. Abner’s killing of Asahel, Joab’s brother (2Sa 2:12-32), filled Joab with purposes of revenge.
2. Joab treacherously slew Abner (2Sa 3:6-39), and David felt himself too weak to do more than denounce the murder; he dare not punish the murderer.
3. Joab took a leading part in the wars of the reign, especially distinguishing himself against the Ammonites (2Sa 10:6-14).
4. Joab connived at David’s sin in the matter of Bathsheba, and so gained the power over him which he so humiliatingly used afterwards.
5. Joab was faithful in the time of Absalom’s rebellion.
6. He directly and insultingly disobeyed his king and lord in slaying Absalom.
7. He showed his mastery and his control of the army by killing Amass, who had been appointed chief general in his stead.
8. He properly remonstrated with David against his self-willed scheme of taking a census.
9. But after David’s death he took the part of Adonijah, and was condemned by Solomon. He was strictly a man of the world, brave, daring, manly, generous, and persevering, but masterful, impatient of what he thought David’s hesitancy and weakness; a man who saw clearly an end to be aimed at, and was in no way particular about the choice of means by which to reach it. He was unscrupulous, having no quick sensitiveness of conscience to that which is wrong. He ordered his life by the rule of the expedient, not the rule of the right, and was heedless of the claims of others if they stood in his way. A man who was a type of a class still to be found in business and social spheres, who are all for self, and do not mind who they trample down as they go up. “His character was ambitious, daring, unscrupulous, yet with an occasional show of piety” (2Sa 10:12). Wordsworth says, “Joab is the personification of worldly policy and secular expediency, and temporal ambition eager for its own personal aggrandizement, and especially for the maintenance of its own political ascendancy, and practising on the weaknesses of princes for its own self-interests; but at last the victim of its own Machiavellian shrewdness.”
II. JOAB‘S INFLUENCE ON DAVID. Sometimes it was good. He skilfully aided in the restoration of the banished Absalom; and he properly roused the king from the excessive grief he felt at the death of his favourite son. Again and again, with statesmanlike genius, he enabled David promptly to seize the occasions that promised success; and he had religion enough, or insight enough, to see where David was wrong in the matter of the census. But, as a whole, Joab’s influence was bad. His unscrupulousness led David into crimes, and his masterfulness prevented David from properly punishing crimes. When conflict came between state necessity and religious duty, Joab gained the victory for mere policy, and so made David act in ways that were unworthy of one who was only Jehovah’s vicegerent. It is never good for us to come into the power of any fellow-man. We should be ever in God‘s lead, but refuse any fellow-man’s bonds. And no undue influence exerted by a fellow-man can ever relieve our responsibility before God. Craft, guile, policy, are no forces of blessing in any human spheres.R.T.
1Ch 11:9.–Success is guaranteed if God be with us.
It is stated that David “waxed greater and greater,” but we are not left in any uncertainty as to the real source of his prosperities. We are not permitted to limit our vision to merely favourable circumstances or unusual talents. The secret will go into a sentence: “The Lord of hosts was with him.” The introduction may be an account of the importance to David of securing the naturally impregnable city of Jebus for his capital; and of the energy with which both he and Joab set about fortifying and building and firmly consolidating the kingdom. There was an abundance of human energy.
I. THE OPEN AND APPARENT REASONS FOR HUMAN SUCCESS. We can so easily seeor fancy that we seehow they are due to human forces, such as exceptional talents; marvellous energy, such as that of the tradesman in Chicago, who raised a hut of the singed logs from his burnt warehouse, and put on it this sign, “All gone, save wife, children, and energy;” or a perseverance that will not yield to any hindrances or difficulties, that glories in triumphing over obstacles. Sometimes we say that success is due to a happy combination of circumstances, or good luck. And it does seem as if circumstances could favour individuals. Asaph, in the olden time, puzzled over the prosperity that seems to come so freely to bad men. And we may, with perfect propriety and full consistency with right religious feelings, recognize that human success is, as a rule, the appropriate reward of talent, and faculty, and perseverance, and good judgment. Success cannot be guaranteed as’ the response to these; but it is their ordinary and natural result, the proper issue toward which they tend. And even from our Christian standpoint, we properly urge a careful attention to all those ordinary conditions on which the prosperity of life depends. It is quite true that “the blessing of the Lord maketh rich; but it is also true that the blessing comes as a gracious using and sanctifying of all right and worthy human endeavour. God will give his best to no man unless the man will do his best. God blesses no man’s idleness and no man’s thoughtlessness. We may lay on God’s altar for acceptance only our best possible.
II. THE SECRET AND REAL REASONS FOR HUMAN SUCCESS.
1. Divine permission. God may withhold success. He may know that, in particular cases, it would not be the best thing; so “if the Lord will” must tone our very desire to win earthly prosperities.
2. Divine presence and blessing. “The Lord of hosts was with him,” not only in the sense of giving his presence and gracious help, but in the further sense of approving his schemes and aiding in their accomplishment. Of the first kind of Divine presence we may be always assured. Of the second kind we can be assured only when we so fully hold ourselves open to the Divine love and lead that what we plan and purpose is only and exactly what the Lord would have us do. Still, we must realize that, for us, our true life-success may not be that which we fashion for ourselves; it can only be that which God fashions for us. We may be a long time finding out what God’s success for us is. And it is so often difficult for us to read it aright and under- stand it worthily, because it often has this subtlety in itGod holds within it a design of personal culture, and that he counts to be the very highest form of life- success. The great thing to win is the “holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”R.T.
1Ch 11:17-19.–David’s drink offering.
This incident is narrated also in 2Sa 23:13-17. The “hold” that is mentioned is probably the frontier fortress of Adullam, on the Philistine border, “which, from its strength and position and the neighbourhood of the caverns, was judged by David to be the best place of defence against the invasions of the Philistines.” Robinson says, “There is no well of living water in or near the town of Bethlehem.” “There is, however, a cistern of ‘deep, clear, cool water,’ called by the monks David’s well, about three-quarters of a mile to the north of Bethlehem. Possibly the old well has been filled up since the town was supplied with water by the aqueduct.” Josephus speaks of the well as being near the gate. David would not drink of the water when it was brought him, for this reasonhe looked upon it, not as water, but as blood, seeing that it had been procured at the hazard of men’s lives; and, knowing that it was forbidden by the Law to drink blood (Le 2Sa 17:11, 2Sa 17:12), he poured it out upon the ground as a solemn offering unto the Lord, and as a thanksgiving for the preservation of their lives.
I. DAVID‘S HOME FEELINGS. In him there was strong family affection. This is seen in his relations with his grown-up sons. There was also strong attachment to his early home, the place of his youthful associations. Strong home feeling is usually found in the inhabitants of hilly and mountainous countries; as may be illustrated from the mal-du-pays, the characteristic sickness of the Swiss when away from their mountains. It does not appear that David did more than give utterance to a suddenly conceived wish. It was an impulsive utterance, which he did not mean should be taken as a command. Herein is given us a lesson on the importance of guarding carefully our speech, watching the door of our lips. He is not wise who utters all he feels. It is a great grace to be enabled to keep silence.
II. THE DEVOTION OF DAVID‘S FOLLOWERS. This is one of the most interesting features of the incident. It brings to view the relations between David and his men, and helps us to realize the fascination which David exerted. Some men have this power over their fellowsa gracious power, if they use it to lead their fellow-men to higher and holier things; a fatal power, if they make it the means of dragging others down to their own doom. It may be pointed out that special gifts ensure this kind of leadership. Of these, grace of body, generosity of disposition, a skill of getting on others‘ level, an absence of stir-assertive pride, and a winning geniality of manner, are important. If God gives grace of natural disposition, such as wins for us general favour, let us remember that this brings its holy burden of responsibility.
III. THE PROWESS IN WHICH DEVOTION FOUND EXPRESSION. Estimate it from a military point of view. It could but be regarded as a “foolhardy” enterprise; and yet the very suddenness and dash of it almost guaranteed its success. To gratify a wish these men would imperil their lives.
IV. THE PIOUS ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF LIFE. This tended to bind David’s followers yet more closely to him. Such considerateness for them showed his loving and thoughtful and pious character. It was worth while serving one who eared for them so tenderly. Compare Wellington’s personal interest in his soldiers, and the personal enthusiasm which he created. The sense of the value of human life is the very foundation of social morality, it stays man’s hand from being lifted up against his fellow-man. And respect for man’s best treasurehis lifefinds varied expression in respect for all his other treasures and possessions. We will not injure him, in his life, nor in taking anything that is his. Lead on to show how the value of life is enhanced when we add to it two considerations
(1) Man’s immortality;
(2) man’s salvation, through a sacrifice of infinite value.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
b. Davids Elevation to the Kingdom; Fixing of his Residence at Jerusalem; Wars and Numbering of the People.Ch. 1121
. The Anointing of David in Hebron, and his Removal thence to Jerusalem: 1Ch 11:1-9
1Ch 11:1 And all Israel gathered to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy 2bone and thy flesh. Also heretofore, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that led Israel out and in; and the Lord thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt 3feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over my people Israel. And all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David over Israel, according to the word of the Lord by Samuel.
4And David went and all Israel to Jerusalem, that is, Jebus; and there the Jebusites were the inhabitants of the land. 5And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither; and David took the castle of Zion: this is the city of David. 6And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain; and Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and became chief. 7And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of David. 8And he built the city around, from Millo to the 9circuit; and Joab repaired the rest of the city. And David became greater and greater; and Jehovah Zebaoth was with him.
. List of Davids Heroes: 1Ch 11:10-47
10And these are the chiefs of the heroes of David, who held fast to him in his kingdom, with all Israel, to make him king, by the word of the Lord concerning Israel. 11And this is the number of the heroes of David: Jashobam son of Hachmoni, the chief of the thirty;1 he lifted his spear against three hundred slain at one time. 12And after him Eleazar son of Dodo2 the Ahohite; he was among the three heroes. 13He was with David at Pas-dam-mim, and the Philistines were gathered there for battle,3 and there was a plot of ground full of barley; and the people fled before the Philistines. 14And they stood in the midst of the plot, and defended it, and smote the Philistines; and the Lord granted them a great salvation.
15And three of the thirty chiefs went down the rock to David, to the cave of Adullam; and the camp of the Philistines was in the valley of Rephaim. 16And David was then in the hold, and a post of the Philistines was then at Bethlehem. 17And David longed, and said, Who will give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, that is at the gate? 18And the three brake through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, at the gate, and took and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord. 19And said, My God, forbid it me that I should do this thing; shall I drink the blood of these men at the risk of their lives? for at the risk of their lives they brought it: and he would not drink it; these things did the three heroes.
20And Abshai, Joabs brother, he was chief of the three; and he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain, and had4 a name among the three. 21Above the three he was honoured among the two, and was their captain; but he attained not to the three, 22Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, son of Ish-hail, great in deeds, from Kabzeel; he smote two [sons] of Ariel of Moab, and he 23went down and smote a lion in a pit in a snowy day. And he smote the Egyptian, a man of stature,5 of five cubits; and in the hand of the Egyptian was a spear like a weavers beam, and he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear from the Egyptians hand, and slew him with his own spear. 24These things did Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and had a name among the three heroes. Before the thirty, 25behold, he was honoured; but he attained not to the three; and David set him over his guard.
26And the heroes of war were Asahel the brother of Joab, Elhanan the son 27, 28of Dodo of Bethlehem. Shammoth the Barorite,6 Helez the Pelonite. Ira 29the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, Abiezer the Antothite. Sibbechai the Hushathite, Ilai the Ahohite. 30Maharai the Netophathite, Heled the son of Baanah the Netophathite. 31Ithai the son of Ribai of Gibeah, of the sons of Benjamin, 32Benaiah the Pirathonite. Hurai of Nahale-gaash, Abiel the Arbathite. 33Azmaveth the Baharumite, Eliahba the Shaalbonite. 34The sons of Hashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shageh the Hararite. 35Ahiam the son of Sacar the Hararite, Eliphal the son of Ur. 36Hepher the Mecherathite, Ahijah 37, 38the Pelonite. Hezro the Carmelite, Naarai the son of Ezbai. Joel the brother of Nathan, Mibhar the son of Hagri. 39Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Berothite, the armour-bearer of Joab the son of Zeruiah. 40Ira the Ithrite, 41Gareb the Ithrite. Uriah the Hittite, Zabad the son of Ahlai. 42Adina the son of Shiza the Reubenite, a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him.7 43, 44Hanan the son of Maachah, and Joshaphat the Mithnite. Uzziah the 45Ashterathite, Shama and Jeiel the sons of Hothan the Aroerite. Jediaei 46the son of Shimri, and Joha his brother, the Tizite. Eliel the Mahavim,8 and Jeribai and Joshaviah the sons of Elnaam, and Ithmah the Moabite. 47Eliel, and Obed, and Jasiel of Hammezobaiah.9
EXEGETICAL
Preliminary Remark.In the history of David, the author dwells chiefly on the bright and prosperous side of the Davidic kingdom; the troubles and disorders of his glorious career, occasioned by misfortune and his own guilt, he passes over as much as possible (comp. Introd. 4, p. 11). Hence the mention of his anointing at Hebron, 1Ch 11:1-3, and yet the entire omission of the rival kingdom of Ishbosheth at Mahanaim, to which there is not even an indirect allusion in stating the seven years duration of Davids residence at Hebron. An account of the taking of Jerusalem, and the valour of Joab therein displayed, 1Ch 11:4-9, is then followed by a list of the other famous warriors of David, 1Ch 11:10-47, wherein again a shadow in the bright picture, the unprincipled and barbarous conduct of Joab (the murderer of Abner, Uriah, Absalom, etc.), is passed over in silence. And after this list, the appendix in 1 Chronicles 12, containing the heroes devoted to David during the reign of Saul, and the proceedings in his elevation to the throne at Hebron, makes no reference to the rival kingdom of Ishbosheth, though many occasions of doing so were presented; so that it appears almost as if the statement in 1Ch 10:6, that Saul and all his house together had fallen in the battle of Gilboa, were meant by the author to be literally true. But besides the conscious tendency to glorify as much as possible the kingdom of David, as the prototype of all theocratic excellence, his propensity to communicate long lists and mere enumerations, his statistical rather than historical mode of representation, also contributes more or less to the one-sidedness of his narrative. This method leads him to place the list of heroes, which in the books of Samuel (at least in its greater part; see 2Sa 23:8-39) stands at the end of Davids history, at the very head of it. Besides, not only this list, of which the closing verses only (4147) are peculiar to Chronicles, but also the account of the anointing at Hebron, has its parallel in the books of Samuel, 2Sa 5:1-10. The agreement between the two is tolerably exact; comp. 1Ch 11:1-3 with 2Sa 5:1-3, and 1Ch 11:4-9 with 2Sa 5:6-10. Yet the note of the length of Davids reign, 2Sa 5:4-5, is wanting in our text, not from an oversight of the Chronist (Then.), but because he preferred to introduce it at the end of his report, 1Ch 29:27.
1. The Anointing of David at Hebron: 1Ch 11:1-3.And all Israel gathered to David unto Hebron. The phrase all Israel (comp. Ezr 2:70) includes the northern and trans-jordanic tribes; it is therefore not the earlier anointing of David in Hebron by the tribes of Judah only, 2Sa 2:4, which is here reported, but that which was performed after the deaths of Abner and Ishbosheth by all the tribes together, 2Sa 5:1 ff., to which there is a still fuller reference in 1Ch 12:23 ff.Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh, thy relatives by tribe and blood; comp. Gen 29:14.
1Ch 11:2. Also heretofore, literally, yesterday and ere yesterday, that is, a long time since; comp., besides 2Sa 5:2, also Gen 31:2; 2Ki 13:5.That led Israel out and in, out to the battle, and home after the victory; comp, 1Sa 18:13; 1Sa 18:16.And the Lord thy God said unto thee, by the mouth of Samuel the prophet; comp. 1Sa 16:1-3; 2Sa 3:9; 2Sa 3:18, etc.
1Ch 11:3. And all the elders of Israel came, as the representatives of the people, to establish the rights of the kingdom (1Sa 8:11; 1Sa 10:25) by contract (by making a covenant or elective treaty).According to the word of the Lord by Samuel. These words, wanting in the corresponding place in 2Sa 5:3, appear to be an explanatory addition of our author; for it is not probable that they originally stood in the text of Samuel, and fell out by . (); comp. 1Ch 11:10 with 2Sa 23:8 (against Then.). On the absence of the date here appended in the parallel text 2Sa 5:4 f. as intentional on the part of the writer, who reserves it for 1Ch 29:27, comp. Preliminary Remark.
2. The Taking of Zion, and the Change of Residence to Jerusalem: 1Ch 11:4-9.To Jerusalem, that is, Jebus; and there the Jebusites were the inhabitants of the land. For this circumlocution 2Sa 5:6 gives more briefly: to Jerusalem, to the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land. That the latter reading has been obtained by corruption of the text from the former (Berth., Then.) it is by no means needful to assume; the after seems rather to be an addition of the Chronist, serving as a transition from Jerusalem to the Jebusites, which then further necessitates the insertion of the notice: and there the Jebusites were (properly, the Jebusite was); comp. Wellh. p. 162 f.
1Ch 11:5. And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Only the close of this threat, given in full in 2 Samuel, is here recorded, after the abbreviating manner of the author.
1Ch 11:6. Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first. Only these first words of Davids speech occur in 2Sa 5:8, where something quite different is given as spoken by him. The highly peculiar account in 2Sa 5:8, clearly resting on strictly historical recollection, is obviously the more original and exact. It may well be conceived that in other accounts of the conquest of Jebus, the great captain of David, Joab (in like manner as Othniel, Jdg 1:12 ff., in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher), was mentioned; and a celebrated saying of David in the siege was referred to Joab, not from clear recollection, but from a conjecture which might rest on the account of Joab in 1Ch 11:8. Thus two different accounts of this saying might arise; the simpler, presenting apparently no difficulties, found its way into Chronicles. Such is Bertheaus view, at all events more probable than that of Then, on 2 Samuel, who makes the Chronist complete a critically corrupt text on the ground of tradition by conjecture.And Joab the son of Zeruiah (comp. 1Ch 2:16) went up first and became chief. That this becoming chief is only a confirmation of Joab in his previous office is shown by 2Sa 2:3.
1Ch 11:7. And David dwelt in the castle., the same as in 1Ch 11:5; comp. 1Ch 12:8; 1Ch 12:16.Therefore they called it the city of David. According to 2Sa 5:9, David himself gave it this name; but the one does not exclude the other.
1Ch 11:8. And he built the city around, from Millo to the circuit, beginning from Millo, and returning to it in a circuit. Somewhat different is 2Sa 5:9 : around from Millo and inward; that is, from the circumference to the centre. For the fortress Millo, situated probably on the north-west corner of Zion, comp. Thenius and Bhr on 1Ki 9:11. The name signifies filling; that is, probably not wall or sconce, but a strong tower (bastion, castle); comp. , 2Ki 12:21 and 2Ch 32:5.And Joab repaired the rest of the city, properly, quickened, made alive; comp. in the same sense, Neh. 3:34, as the similar expression heal, 1Ki 18:30. On account of the supposed trace of ancient style contained in the use of for rebuild, Wellhausen, p. 164, declares this addition peculiar to the Chronist regarding Joabs co-operation in the building of Jerusalem, especially its fortification, to be not even historically credible. But that in this sense occurs only here and in Nehemiah does not prove the lateness of this usage; and the circumstance that Davids field-marshal took part in the fortification of the capital is so far from being improbable, that the statement seems a genuine trace of ancient history. Wherefore Kennicotts emendation, accepted by Thenius, is unnecessary: , and Joab became governor of the city.
1Ch 11:9. And David became greater and greater. The construction with is like that in Gen 8:3; Gen 8:5; Gen 12:9; Gen 26:13, Jdg 4:24; comp. Ew. 280, b. On b, comp. 1Ch 9:20. The general remarks of the verse prepare very suitably for the following list of the numerous heroes of David.
3. List of Davids Heroes: 1Ch 11:10-47; and first of Jashobam, Eleazar (and Shammah): 1Ch 11:10-14.And these are the chief of the heroes of David. By these words, peculiar to the Chronist (the parallel text 2Sa 23:8 opens the list merely with the clause: and these are the names of the heroes of David), the communication of the following list is justified, as standing in relation with Davids elevation to the kingdom and confirmation in it. Hence the designation: chiefs of the heroes, chief heroes, heroes of the first rank.Who held fast to him in his kingdom, who stood bravely by him (in common with him) during his reign. , as in Dan 10:21.To make him king. Rightly Keil: is not to be limited to the appointment to the kingdon, but includes also confirmation in it; for of the men named, heroic deeds are mentioned, which they performed in the wars which David as king waged with his foes, to maintain and extend his sway.By the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Comp. on 1Ch 11:2-3; for the same word of God in and by Samuel is meant here also, as there.
1Ch 11:11. And this is the number of the heroes of David. In 2Sa 23:8 : and these are the names of the heroes of David. The term instead of is not surprising, especially after the plur. . If be the original, the expression must mean: that these heroes at first formed a corps definite in number (the thirty) (Keil). Moreover, Bertheaus conjecture, for (and this is the choice, the lite, of the heroes), deserves all attention.Jashobam son of Hachmoni, the chief of the thirty. After the perhaps right reading here is to be corrected the corrupt 2Sa 23:8. It remains doubtful, however, in this respect, that Jashobam in 1Ch 27:2 is called son of Zabdiel, not of Hachmoni, and that the mss. of the Sept. differ surprisingly in the writing of the name, inasmuch as cod. Alex, presents ( or , 1Ch 27:2), but Vatic, the first time, 1Ch 11:11, , the second time, 1Ch 27:2, . Hence Wellhausen (p. 212) might possibly be right in his conjecture, that the true. name may have been Ishbosheth the Hachmonite , and that the of our verse is corrupted from , the well-known by-form or rather primitive form of the name Ishbosheth. The head of the thirty (see Crit. Note) is given as an epithet to Jashobam as leader of the thirty heroes of second rank who are set down by name in 1Ch 11:26 ff.He lifted his spear against three hundred slain at one time. The same heroic deed is recorded, 1Ch 11:20, of Abshai; whence Thenius, Keil, and Wellh., starting from the supposition that Jashobam was a greater hero than Abshai, wish to correct our passage after 2Sa 23:8, where the number of those slain at once by Jashobam is set down as 800 (otherwise Ew. Gesch. 2. p. 603, who defends the number 300 for both places; while Bertheau gives no decision).
1Ch 11:12. And after him Eleazar son of Dodo the Ahohite. is the correct reading, as appears from 1Ch 27:4, not 2Sa 23:9. Whether the name is to be changed, with the Sept. (as in 1Ch 27:4), into appears less certain.He was among the three heroes, among the three warriors of the first rank, Jashobam, Eleazar, and Shamma, of whom the name of the third has fallen out of the middle of 1Ch 11:13, as the parallel 2Sa 23:11 shows. On the surprising but still grammatically admissible combination instead of (comp. 1Ch 5:19), see Berth., who justly rejects as unnecessary the emendation of Thenius: , among the knights (Shalishim) of the heroes.
1Ch 11:13. He was with David at Pas-dammim, and the Philistines. These words refer still to Eleazar; see 2Sa 23:9. Pas-dammim, or Ephes-dammim, 1Sa 17:1, is a place between Socho and Azekah, not otherwise known; in 2 Samuel 23 the name is wanting, from the great corruption of the text, which is otherwise fuller than our text here, as it describes more exactly the heroic deed of Eleazar. It is there said, 1Ch 11:9-10, at the close of the sentence and the Philistines were gathered there for battle: and the men of Israel were gone away (to the mountain, fleeing before the Philistines); and he stood and smote the Philistines, until his hand was weary and clave unto the sword; and the Lord wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil. And after him was Shammah the son of Age the Hararite ; and the Philistines were gathered for battle, etc. This not inconsiderable gap in our text, by which that which follows in 1Ch 11:13 b and 1Ch 11:14 seems to be a description of a heroic deed, not of Shammah, but of Eleazar, appears to have been occasioned by the eye of the transcriber wandering from , 2Sa 23:9, to , 1Ch 11:11.And there was a plot of ground full of barley. For barley () in 2Sa 23:11, the plot is said to be full of lentiles () which is the original reading it is hard to decide, but it may be a mere slip of the pen (Movers, Wellh.).And they stood in the midst of the plot. More correctly 2 Samuel 23 : and he stood, namely, Shammah. The two following verbs also, defended and smote, are to be changed into the sing., as, according to 2 Samuel, the one Shammah clearly achieved the successful defence of the plot. The three plurals have come into our text after the lines referring to Shammah had fallen out.
4. Continuation. The Three Heroes who fetched Water to David from Bethlehem: 1Ch 11:15-19 (comp. 2Sa 23:13-17).And three of the thirty chiefs went down: three other than those already named. The thirty chiefs or captains are those mentioned 1Ch 11:11 and given by name in 1Ch 11:26 ff.The rock to David, to the cave of Adullam. This cave must have been either in the rock itself or in its immediate neighbourhood. On the rock itself, however, stood the hold () mentioned 1Ch 11:16. The valley of Rephaim (valley of giants, ; Joseph. Antiq.vii. 4. 1), mentioned as the camping ground of the Philistines, lies, according to Robinson, between the present convent Mar-Elias and Jerusalem; is wide, bounded on the north by a small ridge of rock, that forms the margin of the valley of Hinnom, and sinks gradually to the south-west (Winer, Realwrterb. ii. 322); comp. Jos 15:8; Jos 18:16; 2Sa 5:18; 2Sa 5:22.
1Ch 11:16. And a post of the Philistines was then at Bethlehem, which is therefore to be conceived as not far from Adullam and the valley of Rephaim.
1Ch 11:17. Of the well of Bethlehem, at the gate. On the dried-up cistern situated one-quarter hour north-east of Bethlehem, which tradition gives as the well of our passage, see Robinson, ii. 378, and Berth.
1Ch 11:18. And the three brake through the camp of the Philistines, namely, not through the main camp, but that of the post before Bethlehem.But poured it out to the Lord, made a libation to God by pouring it on the ground; comp. 1Sa 7:6.
1Ch 11:19. My God forbid it me. The same construction as in 1Sa 24:7; 1Sa 26:11, 1Ki 21:3, etc.Shall I drink the blood of these men at the risk of their lives, literally, in their souls; comp. Gen 4:4; Lev 3:17; Lev 7:26; Lev 17:10 ff; Lev 19:26 ff., especially 1Ch 17:14. As blood and soul are here made equal, the blood as the seat and bearer of the soul, the soul as moving in the blood, so David, according to our report of his words, makes the water which those heroes had brought at the price (or risk) of their souls equal to their souls, and the drinking of the water brought by them equal to the drinking of their souls, and the souls equal to the blood, in order to express his abhorrence of such drinking. So that we may express the meaning thus: Should I drink in the water the souls, that is, the blood, of. these men; for they have fetched the water at the price of their souls? (Keil). Moreover, appears to be put down twice only by an oversight; in the parallel 2Sa 23:17 it stands only once, which is perhaps the original form of the text. That David pours the water out instead of drinking has its ground in this, that it was become blood in his eyes; for blood, if it cannot be put on the altar, must be poured on the earth as water, Deu 7:16 (Berth.). With the Levitical prohibition of the use of blood, the saying of David has evidently nothing to do.
5. Abshai and Benaiah: 1Ch 11:20-25 (comp. 2Sa 23:18-23).And Abshai, Joabs brother, he was chief of the three. Abshai or Abishai (2 Samuel), one of the three sons of Zeruiah (1Ch 2:16), is here designated as chief, and in the following verse as captain, of the three, while it is said of him: but he attained not to the three. This enigmatical saying has been explained in various ways: 1. So that two groups or classes of three are distinguished: those mentioned 1Ch 11:15-19, whose head or ruler Abshai may have been, and the three heroes, Jashobam, etc., mentioned before in 1Ch 11:11-14, to whom he was not so related (so in particular the ancients, and Starke). 2. So that it is sought to unite both, the being chief of the three and standing after them (in bravery), as possibly co-existent, though the same three, Jashobam, Eleazar, and Shammah, are still referred to; that is, Abshai has taken, along with Joab the field-marshal, the first place among Davids captains ; is therefore, as having a higher command, the chief and leader of the three heroes, while they excel him in personal bravery and famous deeds (Keil). 3. So that in 1Ch 11:20-21 is taken in two different senses, in that of the number three (so 1Ch 11:21), and in this of the abstract substantive, body of thirty, Sheloshah-company (so the three first times),a sense that necessarily results from the comparison of 1Ch 11:21 with 1Ch 11:25, and of 2Sa 23:19 with 2Sa 23:23 (Berth.). We shall have the choice between these three modes, unless we prefer the three first times (1Ch 11:20 and 1Ch 11:21 a) to read the pl. , for as Wellhausen (supported by the numerous cases in which these like numbers are exchanged; see pp. 20, 81, 214 ff. of his work) declares to be necessary in the parallel 2 Samuel 23And he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain; comp. on 1Ch 11:11.
1Ch 11:21. Above the three he was honoured among the two. These enigmatical words in the present form can neither be explained, with the Vulg.: Of the three of the second class (inter tres secundos), nor, with the Sept.: Of the three, above the two was he honoured ( ). If the is to be retained as genuine, it must be taken, with Ewald (Lehrb. 269, b) and Keil, in the sense of twofold, doubly, and so rendered: above the three doubly honoured, he became their chief (Keil). Or we may read, with Berth., , for according to 2Sa 23:19 (comp. 2Sa 9:1; Gen 27:36; Gen 29:15), and render: Among the Sheloshah-company certainly he was honoured, and became their captain.
1Ch 11:22 ff. Benaiahs Heroic Deeds (comp. 1Ch 18:17, 1Ch 27:6).Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of Ishhail. So, if we retain before . There is much, however, for its erasure (Berth., Wellh., Kamph.), in which case the sense comes out: Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, a valiant man of great deeds. For the home of this Benaiah, Kabzeel in the south of Judah, comp. Jos 15:21; Neh 11:25.He smote two (sons) of Ariel of Moab, the king of Moab, who bore the epithet , lion of God, as a title of honour. Before is to be inserted, with the Sept., ; comp. Then, and Wellh., 2Sa 23:20.And he went down and smote a lion. This feat of Benaiah, which happened on a snowy day, and therefore in winter, may have been performed during the great war of David with the Moabites, 2Sa 8:2.
1Ch 11:23. And he smote the Egyptian, a man of stature, or probably, according to the Sept., a man of repute. The following particulars of the successful combat of Benaiah with the giant nearly coincide with those of the conflict of David with Goliath, though the differences are not to be overlooked (there a Philistine, here an Egyptian; there a stature of six cubits and a span, here of five cubits; there the weapons are a staff and a sling, here only a staff ; there the slaying of the fallen with his own sword, here with his own spear). if, with the Sept., in 2Sa 23:21 be substituted for the weavers beam a bridge-beam ( ), as an object of comparison to show the thickness of the spear, the difference of the two narratives would be still greater. But even without this, the similar feats are only so related as Shamgars heroic deed to that of Samson (comp. Jdg 3:31 with 1Ch 15:15), or as Jashobams valiant deed (with the right reading 800 in 1Ch 11:11) to that of Abshai.
1Ch 11:24-25. For among the three heroes and above the thirty Berth, would in both cases read among the Sheloshah-company; comp. on 1Ch 11:20.And David set him over his guard, literally, over his obedience, that is (abstr. pro concr.), over his obedient, his trusty men; comp., besides 2Sa 23:23, also 1Sa 22:14; Isa 9:14. According to Bertheaus not improbable conjecture, by this guard of David is meant the corps of the Cerethi and Pelethi (see 2Sa 8:18), from which, however, a second troop of guards, that of the 600 Gibborim (or Gittites, 2Sa 15:18), 2Sa 16:6; 2Sa 20:7, etc., were no doubt different. Commander of the former was Benaiah, according to our passage and 2Sa 8:18 ; over the 600 Gibborim, on the other hand, may have been placed the often named thirty, so that one of the thirty was leader to every twenty of the 600. This assumption of a difference of the Cerethi and Pelethi from the Gibborim is not certain; for as Benaiah, 2Sa 8:18, appears as commander of the Cerethi and Pelethi, he is also, 1Ki 1:10, connected with the Gibborim (Benaiah and the heroes).
6. The Forty-eight Warriors: and first the thirty-two enumerated in 2 Samuel 23.: 1Ch 11:26-41 a. On the sixteen added by the Chronist, 1Ch 11:41 b47, see No. 7.And the heroes of war were, or more precisely: And heroes of war were; for the phrase without the article is a general superscription. The article before constitutes no real difference from 7:5, 7, 11, 40, or from ,1Ch 11:2; 1Ch 11:9, etc. [?] Here, as there, are meant: heroes in action, valiant heroes, not leaders of the divisions, as Berth, (appealing to 2Ki 15:20, 1Ch 12:8, etc.) thinks.Asahel the brother of Joab. For him, comp. 1Ch 2:16; for his murder by Abner, 2Sa 2:19 ff. The parallel text 2Sa 23:24 adds to his name , among the thirty.Elhanan the son of Dodo, different from Elhanan son of Jair, 1Ch 20:5.
1Ch 11:27 Shammoth the Harorite. In 2 Samuel 23. this hero is called Shammah the Harodite, but in 1Ch 27:8, Shamhuth the Izrahite. In the gentilic. there appears at all events to be an error, which is to be corrected by of Samuel; for in Jdg 7:1 a Jewish place is expressly mentioned. After the name of this Harodite Shammoth must have fallen out that of a second Harodite Elika (), as 2Sa 23:25 shows.Helez the Pelonite. So 1Ch 27:10, whereas in 2Sa 23:26 this Helez is originally designated as a Paltite (of Beth-pelet, , Jos 15:27, Neh 11:26),
1Ch 11:28. Ira and Abiezer; comp. 1Ch 27:9; 1Ch 27:12.
1Ch 11:29. Sibbechai the Hushathite. By the name the suspicious of 2 Samuel must be corrected. Inversely, Ilai () must be amended after the of Samuel.
1Ch 11:31. Ithai the son of Ribai of Gibeah, of the sons of Benjamin. For the situation of this Gibeah of Benjamin (near Ramah), comp. the expositor on Jos 18:28 and on Jdg 14:19 ff.; for that of the following Pirathon (that occurs also, Jdg 12:13-15, as the home of Abdon), Zeitschr. der Deutschen morgenl. Gesellsch. 1849, p. 55, and particularly Sandreczky in Ausland, 1872, No. 5, p. 97 ff.
1Ch 11:32. Hurai (so read also 2 Samuel for ) of Nahale–gaash. This place, occurring only here (and 2Sa 23:30), properly, valleys of Gaash, is at all events to be sought near Mount Gaash in the Ephraimite range, not far from which was Joshuas grave; comp. Jos 24:30; Jdg 2:9.Abiel the Arbathite, of Beth-haarabah, Jos 15:6; Jos 15:61; Jos 18:18; Jos 18:23. The name is in 2 Samuel , which form Berth. takes without ground to be original, while Wellh. rejects both forms, and makes the original to be .
1Ch 11:33. Azmaveth the Baharumite, that is, he of Bahurim (read ); comp. 2Sa 16:5; 2Sa 19:17.The following gentilic. is to be referred to , Jdg 1:35, 1Ki 4:9 (or , Jos 19:42), and so to be written .
1Ch 11:34. The sons of Hashem the Gizonite. before appears to owe its origin to a repetition of the last three consonants of the foregoing gentilic. ; and thus originally there was only Hashem the Gizonite, after which 2 Samuel is to be amended: likewise in the following word the corrupt reading there is to be altered into our Jonathan the son of Shageh the Hararite; comp. Wellh. p. 216.
1Ch 11:35. Eliphal the son of Ur. 2Sa 23:34 : Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai. The original was perhaps (comp. Then, and Berth, on the passage): Eliphelet the son of Ur.
1Ch 11:36. Hepher the Mecherathite; perhaps the Maachathite (2 Samuel); as also Ahijah the Pelonite (comp. 1Ch 11:27) must perhaps be changed, as in 2 Samuel, into Eliam, son of Ahithophel the Gilonite.
1Ch 11:37. Naarai the son of Ezbai. For 2 Samuel has for ,, which is perhaps to be preferred on account of , Jos 15:52.
1Ch 11:38. Joel the brother of Nathan. If Nathan the prophet were meant, the , brother, by the side of the usual , would lose its strangeness. But in 2Sa 23:36 we find a Nathan of Zobah. Hence is perhaps to be changed into ; and might possibly be more original than our .Mibhar the son of Hagri. for these words 2Sa 23:36 has Bani the Gadite. may have there fallen out; but it may also have been corrupted from . In (if this, and not , is to be read) may possibly lie the name of the prophet Gad (Wellh.), so that here two relatives of prophets, a brother (son ?) of Nathan and a son of Gad, may be named together.
1Ch 11:40. Ira the Ithrite, Gareb the Ithrite. The family of the Ithrites was enumerated, 1Ch 2:53, among those of Kiriath-jearim.
1Ch 11:41. Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba, 2Sa 11:3 ff. Here follows in 2Sa 23:39 the closing subscription: thirty and seven in all, as, according to the correct text, actually thirty-seven heroes are there enumerated, namely, twenty-nine others besides the eight mightiest heroes named in 1Ch 11:8-23 (Jashobam, Eleazar, Shammah, etc.). These twenty-nine should in the view of the author of the books of Samuel represent those thirty warriors (named in 1Ch 11:25); whence he breaks off his enumeration after Uriah (or perhaps after Gareb, as Wellh. seeks to render probable), although most probably the same list, containing forty-eight names in all, lay before him, which our author has continued from this verse to the end. Moreover, for the criticism of both lists running parallel as far as our verse, the facts brought out by Wellh. (p. 215 f.) are to be considered:1. That the heroes are placed in pairs, and often every two from the same city (two Bethlehemites, 1Ch 11:26, two Netophathites, 1Ch 11:30, two Ithrites, 1Ch 11:40); 2. That the adjective of descent is always added, but not regularly the fathers name, to the name of the hero; 3. That thorough corrections are only possible, if we have first collected the whole material of the proper names in the O. T. along with the variants in the Sept., and then elaborated them. The last rule applies also to the criticism of the following names preserved by the Chronist alone, which in this arrangement have no parallel.
7. The last Sixteen of the Forty-eight Warriors, whom the Chronist alone enumerates: 1Ch 11:41 b47.
1Ch 11:42. Adina … a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him, or besides him. So, according to the Masoretic reading, ; but Berth, prefers that of the Syriac version (see Crit. Note), and so gets the sense: leader of the Reubenites over thirty, that is, commander of the thirty captains or heroes of the Reubenites, to which may be compared the thirty leaders of the Benjamites, 1Ch 22:4.
1Ch 11:44. Uzziah the Ashterathite, from Ashteroth (Karnaim) or Beth-Eshterah, a city of East Manasseh, 1Ch 6:56. Whether the Aroerite points to Aroer in the tribe of Reuben (Jos 13:16), or in that of Gad (1Ch 11:25), is doubtful.
1Ch 11:46. Eliel the Mahavim. We should probably read the Mahanaimite (Jos 13:26); comp. Crit. Note.
1Ch 11:47. Eliel, and Obed, and Jasiel of Hammezobaiah. The unmeaning , that by its form cannot be a gentilic., is either to be changed by omitting the article and the penult consonant into , from Zobah (comp. 2Sa 23:36) (so Bertheau), or to be regarded as corrupted from a longer name, such as (a place, according to Rabbinic tradition, not far from Hebron), not, however, as a contraction or abbreviation of this name, as Reland (Pal. p. 899). Moreover, the Rabbinic Migdol Zebuiah could scarcely be contemplated, because almost all the sixteen names of our section, from 1Ch 11:41 b on, belong to heroes from the east of Jordan. The Syrian Zobah would suit better in this connection.
Footnotes:
[1]For the Keri , the Kethib is to be retained; comp. 1Ch 11:15; 1Ch 11:25; 1Ch 12:4; 1Ch 12:18; 1Ch 27:6.
[2]For the Sept. seems to have read ; comp. 1Ch 27:4.
[3]For the not unimportant gap here, see Exeg. Expl.
[4]For is to be read , one of the fifteen cases in which this form occurs in the Masoretic text, as Exo 21:10, Isa 63:9. etc.
[5]For must apparently be read, with the Sept. ( ), .
[6]Instead of read, 2Sa 23:25, , and as there, supply . For the further conjectural corruption of the text till 1Ch 11:41, comp. Exeg. Expl.
[7]The Sept. and Vulg. appear to have read , like the Masoretic text, but Syr. ; for it renders thus: and even he (Adina) was a prince over thirty heroes.
[8]For the Sept. gives , the Vulg. Mahumites. The corruption of the name, under which, perhaps, is concealed. seems indubitable.
[9] is at all events corrupt. Sept. , Vulg. de Masobia; comp. Exeg. Expl.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
As the preceding Chapter related to us the account of the death of Saul, this takes up the immediate part which follows in that history, in the elevation of David to the throne. The Chapter closeth with an account of the names of David’s worthies.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
I refer the Reader to the parallel history, 2Sa 5:1-10 , and to the Commentary upon it in that Chapter. But in addition to the observations there, I would call upon the Reader to remark with me, what the Lord God had said to David in times past concerning this kingdom to which he was now to be advanced on the death of Saul. The Lord thy God said to thee, thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt rule over them. Reader! do you not behold David in this a type of David’s Lord? Did not God the Father promise to his son, that he should both reign and feed his people? And doth not Jesus do this in the present hour? Is he not the Lamb in the midst of the throne above, leading the Church triumphant to fountains of waters, and feeding them eternally? And is he not the portion of his church militant below, in coming down into his garden to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies. Son 6:2 ; Rev 7:17 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Ch 11:22
This was one of the exploits of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel. The historian is endeavouring to draw for our instruction the character of men who surrounded David at the time when Israel offered him the throne.
I. This exploit of Benaiah may be looked upon as a parable. It contains some suggestions which we may find useful. I would suggest that the day was unpropitious. It was a snowy day a day when one would be greatly tempted to stay at home in ease and comfort. The snowy day has often come into our religious history. Let us take one or two instances. Since my text is associated with David, we might take our first instance from his life.
( a ) That was a snowy day when he fled from the face of Saul, and dwelt in the cave of Adullam.
( b ) It was a snowy day when David’s Son was nailed to His Cross.
( c ) It was a snowy day when John Wycliffe sent forth his Bible in our mother tongue and sent forth his teachers to read it in the churches and marketplaces.
How marked is all this in the pathway along which the Church has come. And the snowy day, the unpropitious hour, is with us still. Benaiah went forth on a snowy day to slay a lion. In this unpropitious day a lion lurks. It is a true parable of our daily life. The very temptation to suppress one’s convictions, to steer a middle and compromising course against one’s conscience, is, in itself, a grave peril. But he who would sally forth on such a day must count the cost. In the snowy day there lurks the lion, but it is just such a lion which makes a man. Man is not made by sunny hours. Strong men are made by shadows not by sunshine, by storm and not by calm. It may be the lion of drink, or the lion of lust, or the lion of ungoverned temper. The longer that lion lies lurking within unslain the stronger and the more ferocious he will become.
II. Who will deny that in the society of today there lurks many a lion ready to destroy the peace of the people? There is that hydra-headed monster known as ‘Vested Interest’. There are many wrongs, crying, grievous wrongs which are permitted to remain; there are reforms, reforms in which may be heard the cry of the poor, which are delayed from year to year, until the heart grows weary with hope deferred, and all because those wrongs and those reforms touch vested interests. It would seem that this monster gathers up into himself all the evils of our day. The drink evil, the gambling evil. It lies at the root of the unemployed problem, the problem of the housing of the poor, the education problem. I am persuaded that what is more required in Church and State today than anything else is the disinterested spirit of men like this Benaiah who are prepared to set aside all personal interests and seek to slay the lion which threatens the life of the defenceless people. God is not unmindful of our unselfish work. There is no deed wrought in His name He does not note. He who in the unpropitious day, the unfavourable hour, the inconvenient moment slays the lion, first within himself, which threatens to destroy his own life, and then in the midst of the people which menaces the peace, comfort, happiness of men, shall receive even in this world a thousand fold and in the world to come life everlasting.
J. Gay, Common Truths from Queer Texts, p. 25.
References. XI. 22. A. G. Brown, Penny Pulpit, No. 1068. XI. 23. G. A. Sowter, From Heart to Heart, p. 37. XII. 5. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, vol. iv. p. 279. XII. 16-18. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx. No. 1770. XII. 32. D. Burns, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvii. p. 68. H. A. Thomas, Sermons by Welshmen, p. 107. J. Baldwin Brown, Old Testament Outlines, p. 85. XIII. 12. H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2308. XIII. 14. J. H. Holford, Memorial Sermons, p. 139. XVI. 4. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxii. No. 1308.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
1Ch 11:1-4
1. Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.
2. And moreover in time past [ Heb., both yesterday and the third day], even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the Lord thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed [ or, rule] my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel.
3. Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the Lord by [ Heb., by the hand of] Samuel.
4. And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus; where the Jebusites were the inhabitants of the land.
The Election of David
THIS is the instance in which David’s election was not made by Judah only ( 2Sa 11:4 ). Hebron was the birthplace of the patriarchs, and was the capital of Judah, of which tribe David came. Why should all Israel come to one man? Is not this an inversion of an obvious and rational mode of procedure? Would it not have been better had one man come to all Israel, seeking the protection of an innumerable host? How is it that God again and again in human history, apart altogether from any special ideas of inspiration as associated with the Bible, has indicated that one man or another in every department of life has been leader and chief? It would seem as if throughout the ages the whole series of events has been running up into the personality of One man. Christians believe that all these initial and intermediate movements have culminated in the person and reign of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of man, the embodied ideal of humanity. Have all the ages been groping for the true king? There have been stopping-places indeed, and places which have for the moment afforded considerable security and contentment; but even in those cases time has developed some higher instinct or intenser yearning, and soon the age has moved on towards another and grander personality. Instincts and aspirations of this kind must have some deep meaning. It is evident that they were not meant to be limited by any immediate experience, but were charged with still higher energies and endeavours, unfolding in due time, and directed unfailingly to a supreme end. It is the Christian belief that in the fulness of time God sent his Son, and that in the Son of God there is sufficient to satisfy every desire or aspiration for personal primacy, official dignity, supreme benevolence, and complete redemption. The human mind cannot transcend the personality of Christ. Even readers who are not theological are bound to admit that in Christ humanity seems to culminate. Jesus Christ could not have come before in the history of the world: the very moment of his advent seems to be a revelation of an overruling providence, fixing all times, bounds, and issues, and doing all things by a might and a will neither to be calculated nor controlled by man. Instead, therefore, of looking forward to some coming One, who will solve all mysteries and subdue all tumult into order, we look up to the ascended and glorified Christ, and find in his mediation a pledge that in due time God shall be all in all.
Mark the reasons given to David why he should become king of Israel. The first reason is that which is founded upon kinship “Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.” That is a rational point to begin at. It is always important to have a good starting-point in every argument and in every enterprise of life. Many persons who cannot attain to a comprehension of the sublimities of the atonement, can see clearly that there is what may be termed a line of providence running through all the transactions of human life. We must not narrow this doctrine of kinship too much; that is to say, we must not limit kinship merely to bodily relation: there is a heredity of soul, and kinship of spirit, a family union of genius and aspiration. It is along this often-neglected line that we find great lessons of primogeniture and entail. It is no doubt of great social consequence to be descended from a prince or ruler, but it is of still more consequence to be able to trace the soul’s kinship back to the highest thinkers of the world. It is in this nobler region that many men find compensation for what may have appeared insuperable social disadvantages. They have but little money: but see how large and energetic are their minds; they have no acres: but what an eye they have for the landscape, and what ability to turn it into a parable abounding in moral suggestion and colour; their names are not written in the book of heraldry, but they may be inscribed in the book of life. Aristocracy does not run altogether in one direction. It has indeed been so narrowed as to be associated with family lines or household boundaries, but in the day of true interpretation it will be found that there is an aristocracy of mind, soul, spirit, sympathy, and in that day aristocracy will not be looked upon as an heirloom but as a divine coronation. We see something of that even in the case of David, for not only was the invitation to the throne founded upon kinship but upon work actually done “in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel.” A kinsman who has done nothing has but frail claim upon attention and confidence; but a kinsman who has also proved himself to be officially competent doubles his claim to honour and obedience. The time will surely come when every man’s record will be perused in order that some estimate may be formed of the uses to which he has put his life. A miserable thing indeed when reference to a man’s history discloses nothing but blank paper. Under such circumstances it is of no avail that he is a king’s son, or a titled ruler, or the descendant of an illustrious sire; his record will challenge his dignity and invalidate all his pretences. The palm be his who wins it. The time is coming when the one inquiry will relate as to what a man has done, in the way of leading out and bringing in all who depend upon his care. Whilst the matter of physical kinship is arbitrary, or is beyond control, this matter of working beneficently, in a shepherdly spirit, yea even under the inspiration of redeeming compassion itself, points to a field in which all men, how humble soever in birth and position, may achieve renown.
It is no surprise that such a man as David should have been marked by special divine indication,
“The Lord thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel” ( 1Ch 11:2 ).
Here again we come upon a line full of mystery, yet so broad and clear in the story of the world as to be beyond all dispute. It is not straining language so to use it as to represent the idea that God has actually said concerning this or that man Behold my chosen, my elect, the prince to whom I have committed great trusts and responsibilities. The divine indication is none the less definite and emphatic because no words are heard and no image is seen: by genius, capacity, temper, actual service, and indisputable superiority the man is marked out as the one to whom the nations are to look for guidance and rulership. A very solemn thought this, and in no wise to be regarded as other than setting out the doctrine of divine vocation in life. The man who is so called will show that over and above all his other credentials there stands the authority of personal modesty. The man who is divinely inspired is never vain, self-conscious, or contemptuous of others. His call does not excite a personal and selfish ambition; it rather solemnises the mind, and so lifts up the entire nature as to invest it with reverence and awe. Those who are not inspired, or specially gifted, or honoured in any significant way, may imagine that the sons of genius yea, the very elect of God must be the subjects of happy excitement or gratified ambition; but all history, especially all Bible history, shows that a divine vocation is associated with a divine chastisement, and that the very presence of God in the soul rules the whole character into chastened and sacred humility.
But was there not a deeper motive than that which is discoverable in the three reasons of kinship, work done, and evident divine indication? Is there not the inevitable line of selfishness running through the whole motive and argument of Israel? Was it not because David could do more for them than any other man could do that the assembly of elders, the senate of Israel, sought to confer upon him the kingship of the people? In one aspect the whole transaction seems to be profoundly religious. David was anointed king over Israel before the Lord, that is to say, in presence of the high priest, and probably in presence of the ark; both in Exo 21:6 , and 1Sa 2:25 , the priestly judge is called God, because in his official capacity he represented the authority of the divine Judge. But amidst all this religious ceremony was there not an unexplained and a more or less half-conscious action of selfishness? But we must not press this inquiry too closely, because it covers larger ground than the case of the coronation of David. There is no selfishness so profound as that which sometimes operates even in the assumption of Christian profession. Strange as it may seem, and even shocking, yet it is possible that a man may come to Christ in some way or other under the influence of merely selfish feelings. When men profess the Christian name because they are afraid of the punishment which is denounced against sin, they are acting from a selfish motive: when the mind is intent only upon reaching the state which is called heaven, with all its beauty and rest, its exemption from care and its gratification of all pure senses and desires, they are acting also under the same spirit. A very subtle action indeed is the action of selfishness: it taints our prayers; it debases our best professions; it excites suspicion regarding our most benevolent activities. For ever is it possible that men may come to Christ not because of the miracles but because of the loaves and fishes. Here it does not become one man to lecture another as if he were superior. The one duty is that of searching self-examination, the severest analysis of motive and intent, and the most ardent prayer that God would search and try and prove in every way the reality of the heart’s love. “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”
Prayer
Almighty God, give us the blessing of heaven, and we shall never more be poor. Without thy blessing there is no wealth; with it there is no poverty. Send upon thy believing children a double blessing, and no sorrow shall be added with it; it shall be a great peace, a tender light, an assured and inextinguishable hope. They who are thus blessed can never be disquieted; the foam will be on the surface, the depths of their hearts will be as a sanctuary inhabited by the spirit of peace. Great peace have they that love thy law. Give thy Church understanding of the times that it may know what Israel ought to do; clothe thy Church with her garments of beauty, and inspire her with the spirit of courage, and in an age of unbelief may her faith increase day by day, and where clouds of doubt gather may the stars of heaven thicken and shine. Thy presence in the heart is our safety, our immortality. Saviour Jesus, God the Son, abide with us: then shall our life be increased in all highest quality, in all noblest forces, and we shall sing while we live, and our zeal shall burn and our knowledge multiply. Help us in the night-time of life, when the sky is dark and cold, and the wind moans among the hills like a troubled spirit: then give us confidence in the living God, and may men hear our song in the night-time and take heart again, because some are glad in the Most High. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XVII
DAVID MADE KING OVER ALL ISRAEL, AND THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM FOR A CAPITAL
2Sa 5:1-10
This section is short, but intensely important. Please observe the method of the harmonist in arranging the text of the reign of David into periods of war, rest, and internal dissensions. This arrangement is admirable for topical discussion, but does not follow a strict chronological order of events. It is a characteristic of the histories themselves to intersperse here and there in the details of the story a comprehensive summary extending far beyond the specific details which precede or follow for example, 2Sa 5:4-14 .
The first notable event of this section is that David is made king over all Israel, at Hebron. For this consummation David himself deserves unstinted praise. There was nothing in his own conduct while Saul lived or after his death to make it difficult for any surviving partisan of Saul’s house to come over to David. Under persecution he had been loyal; in opportunities for vengeance he had been merciful; in the hour of triumph his spirit was not arrogant but conciliatory; in the long postponement of the divine purpose he was not impatient, never seeking, as some of his ancestors had done, to hasten by his own meddling the ripening of Jehovah’s prophecies and promises. And when some of his too zealous or more vengeful partisans took short cuts toward the destined end on lines of their own passions, he made it evident by signal rebuke that he was not personally responsible for their wrong-doing. He never rewarded a traitor for assassinating a member of the house of Saul except with instant execution and with expressions of the most pronounced abhorrence of their crimes. In impassioned and evidently sincere elegy he bore high tribute to the merits of the dead, mingled with a matchless charity that was silent as to their demerits, while sending benedictions to those who befriended them. So the remnants of Saul’s following and family had no grievances against David to forget or to forgive.
When we place over against this conduct of David the conduct of Philip II of Spain, the contrast is awful. Philip openly and habitually offered large rewards to assassins who by any means would murder his enemies, and sang, Te Deum Laudamus when they succeeded. His nature was as cold as a frog, poisonous as a snake, treacherous as a coyote, cruel as a panther. In wholesale murder, arson, and confiscation he was the prince of criminals, eclipsing the infamy of both Nero and Herod, and in stark unctuous hypocrisy none in the annals of time might dare to claim equality with him, much less pre-eminence over him. He was the Monster of the centuries. It certainly must have caused Satan himself to put on a sardonic grin when hearing Philip called “His most Christian majesty.” Spain, at Philip’s accession, was the dominant world-power; he left it with none so poor to do it reverence. Judea, at David’s accession, was at the bottom place among the nations; he left it on top, the glory of the world. The contrast spells just this: David was a saint, Philip was a devil.
It is to be regretted that so little reason prompted those tribes, now eager for union, to promote the defection which this union healed. Under the dominant influence of a selfish leader they set up Ishbosheth against the known will of Jehovah. They warred in open aggression against the choice of Jehovah. They made no decisive effort toward pacification while they had a leg to stand on, and when they did come back into the union their expressed reasons for return, while evidently now sincere, were all equally strong against their making the original breach. Look at these reasons and see. They assign three reasons for their return: (1) “Behold we are thy bone and thy flesh.” (2) “In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was thou that leddest out and broughtest in Israel.” (3) “Jehovah said to thee, Thou shalt be shepherd of my people, and thou shalt be prince over Israel.” In view of these cogent reasons, one may well inquire, Why, then, a long and bloody war of division?
The steps of the national reunion were these:
1. An armed host of all the tribes came simultaneously to David at Hebron to make him king.
2. Their elders, as representatives, enter into solemn covenant with him before Jehovah.
3. They anoint him king over all Israel.
4. A three-day’s festival of great joy celebrates the event. All these steps were profoundly significant, and are worthy of comment.
Concerning the first step the gathering of the armed host to Hebron some remarks are pertinent:
1. The total number of armed men who came together simultaneously from all of the tribes was enormous. Apart from the captains, and with the contingent of Issachar not stated, the total is 339,000, but assuming Issachar’s contingent to be somewhat between Zebulun’s and Napthali’s say 40,000, and adding the captains which are enumerated, the total would be 380,221.
2. The very large contingent from the house of Aaron of both branches shows how thoroughly the priesthood which Saul had hated stood by David.
3. The contingents from the least prominent tribes, Manaseeh, Zebulun, Napthali, Asher, Reuben, and Gad, were all out of proportion greater than the near-by tribes.
4. The small contingent from Benjamin is explained by the fact that even yet the greater part were attached to the house of Saul, but the reason of Judah’s small number is not given. The trans-Jordanic two-and-a-half tribes send a third of the total.
5. The remark concerning the contingent of the western half Manasseh is that they came instructed to make David king.
6. The remark concerning the two hundred leaders of Issachar has been the theme of many a sermon: “Men that had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do.” Oh, that such men were multiplied in our day!
7. Concerning Zebulun’s 50,000, it is said they were “not of double heart.” May such men flourish in this unstable, twisting, and turning generation!
8. Indeed, concerning all of them, it is said, “They came with perfect heart to make David king.” It was quite in accord with the patriarchal and representative constitution of the nation that the princes and elders of the tribes should act for them in entering into covenant with David. It must have been an imposing sight, to see nearly half a million armed men in fifteen distinct corps waiting at Hebron, while their statesmen, prophets, priests, and generals deliberated on the terms of the covenant.
The Covenant. The covenant itself doubtless was based on the charter of the kingdom as defined by Moses and Samuel, which safeguarded the rights of all parties concerned, to wit: Jehovah, the king, the national assembly, the religion, and the people at large. It was an intensely religious act, seeing it was “before Jehovah.” Following this covenant came
The Anointing. David had already been twice anointed, first at Bethlehem privately by Samuel as an expression of Jehovah’s choice, and as a symbol of the Spirit-power that rested on him. A second time here at Hebron his anointing was expressive of Judah’s choice, but now this third more public and imposing anointing on such a grand occasion, following such a covenant, takes on a wider and most charming significance so appropriately expressed by David himself in Psa 133 that it seems to have been occasioned by this event: Behold, how good and bow pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, That ran down upon the beard, Even Aaron’s beard; That came down upon the skirt of his garments; Like the dew of Hermon, That cometh down upon the mountains of Zion: Fur there Jehovah commanded the blessing, Even life forevermore.
It is certain that never before nor since was there such a thorough and joyous unity of the nation, and such brotherly love among the Jews, nor ever will be until erring and dispersed Israel, long exiled from Jehovah’s favor, shall be gathered out of all nations and turn in one momentous day with such penitence as the world has never known to David’s greater Son, according to the prophecies of Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Paul. Then, indeed, in one sense, will the “Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” be “anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows” because he sees “the travail of his soul” concerning Israel and is satisfied. We might well look to a greater fulfilment when the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ, at which time more appropriately than ever before in the history may a redeemed and united world unite in singing the greatest human coronation hymn, Bring forth the royal diadem And crown Him Lord of all!
The festival. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the whole occasion is the provision made for entertaining a half million people for three days. Our text says, “And they were there with David three days, eating and drinking: for their brethren had made preparation for them. Moreover, they that were nigh unto them, even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, victual of meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep in abundance: for there was joy in Israel.” This great festival of joy not only reminds us of the sacrificial feast following the covenant at Sinai (Exo 24:1-11 ), but prefigures the one announced in later days by Isaiah thus: “And in this mountain will Jehovah of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that covereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He hath swallowed up death forever; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of his people will he take away from off all the earth,” Isa 25:6-8 , or that greater festival adverted to by our Lord when he said concerning the salvation of the multitudinous thousands of the Gentiles, “Many shall come from the East and the West, and the North and the South, and shall recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.”
The auspices for the nation were all propitious. They have a king over them, not like other nations, but a king after God’s own heart. The rights, powers, and privileges of all parties interested were all clearly defined and solemnized by imposing ceremonies of religion. Here was God’s choice of the man, the ratification by the national assembly, bonds of charter and covenant, the presence and concurrence of prophet and priests, to which may be added, in the words of our text, “And all the rest also of Israel were all of one heart to make David King.” The plan of the kingdom, and its start are perfect. If failure shall come in later days, as come it will, it will be no fault in the plan.
The taking of Jerusalem. David’s first act of royalty tends to promote and perpetuate the union, namely, the securing of a central capital, strong for defense or aggression, and not likely to promote tribal jealousy. It would not do to make Hebron, distinctly a city of Judah, the national capital, nor yet Gibeah of Benjamin, where Saul had reigned. It must be a new place which commanded the Arabah, the Negeb, the Mediterranean coast, and all the highways from north to south and east to west. To meet these conditions there was but one place, the city whose citadel was held by the Jebusites; part of it lay in Judah’s allotted territory and part in Benjamin’s, but neither had driven the Jebusites from the citadel which overawed the city.
Memories of the place. It had been the city of Melchizedek, king of peace and righteousness, priest of the Most High God, to whom Abraham had paid tithes, and type of our Lord, David’s greater son. There, also, on Mount Moriah, in the greatest typical act of the ages, Abraham came to offer up his well-beloved son, Isaac, the child of promise, and there, in a type of our Lord’s resurrection, was Isaac saved. The authority of Moses still cried, “Drive out these Jebusites,” so David called the united nation to arms.
The selection of a capital for a nation made up of varied and jealous constituencies calls for the highest wisdom and the broadest spirit of compromise. Every student of our national history will recall what a perplexing thing it was for our fathers to agree on the site of a national capital. Philadelphia, the continental capital, would not do, nor would Annapolis, where Washington returned his sword at the close of the war, nor New York, with its Wall Street, where Washington was inaugurated. A district, ceded by Virginia and Maryland as an inalienable national possession, was the compromise, just as here Jerusalem, lying partly in Judah and partly in Benjamin, becomes the capital, and yet to be conquered by united force of the nation, giving all a special interest in it. “For similar reasons,” says a fine commentator, “promotive of national union, we have seen Victor Emmanuel made king of a united Italy, change his capital, first from Turin in Lombardv to Florence in Tuscanv and then to Rome, the ancient imperial city.” So now, David the wisest and most prudent of monarchs, avails himself of the enthusiasm of a united nation and the presence of a great army to lead them to storm the citadel of the Jebusites.
Two incidents of that great victory are worthy of note: (1) the scornful greeting of the Jebusites, confident in the impregnability of their fortress: “Even with the blind and the lame to hold the walls he cannot come hither.” (2) David’s offer to reward the one who would scale the wall, the position of commander-in-chief of his army, won by his nephew Joab. Following the conquest comes the fortification.
Rapid fortification. He lengthened, strengthened, and connected the walls of the city. Indeed, there was reason for haste, as storms of war were gathering from every point of the horizon.
Two results follow the union of the nation under such a king, and the rapid conquest and fortification of such a capital: (1) David waxed stronger and stronger; (2) neighboring nations, jealous and alarmed, prepare to pour on him a tide of war.
And now, before we dip into the bloody pages of these wars, two remarks are timely: (1) Throughout David’s reign, every act of his administration is promotive of the national unity centered at Jerusalem; (2) Jerusalem from this date forward to the end of time and throughout eternity will be the world’s chief city, either in type or antitype. Its vicissitudes in subsequent history are the most remarkable in the annals of time. On account of David’s work and preparation it became in Solomon’s day the joy of the whole earth. The Psalms proclaim its glory in worship, and after its fall they voice the exile’s lament: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.” Babylon captured it; Persia restored it; Greece, through Alexander the Great, honored it; Antiochus Epiphanes defiled it, the Asmoneans took it; the Messiah heard its hosannabs one day and its “Crucify Him” another day; Rome destroyed it; the Saracens captured it; the Crusader re-captured it; the Turk holds it and Germany covets it: its desolation has lasted nearly 2000 years and will last until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. Its greatest glory is that its temple symbolized the churches of the living God, and the city itself symbolized the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of all the saints. [The author’s reference to Germany’s desire to acquire Jerusalem was written long before World War I which has witnessed the Germanic-Turkish alliance. The words seem prophetic. EDITOR.]
QUESTIONS
1. What was the method of the harmonist in arranging the text of David’s reign?
2. What is a characteristic of the histories themselves?
3. What is the first notable event of this section?
4. What credit was due David himself in this great consummation?
5. Contrast David’s course in this matter with the character and polity of Philip II of Spain.
6. What reasons are assigned by the tribes for their return to David, and the bearing of their reasons on their defection?
7. What are the several steps of this national reunion?
8. What are the notable particulars of the armed hosts who assembled?
9. What tare he representative act of the elders?
10. What of the covenant itself?
11. What of the anointing?
12. What of the three days’ festival?
13. What was the first kingly act of David to strengthen and perpetuate this national union?
14. What place was selected for the capital, its advantages, and memories?
15. What are the incidents of its capture?
16. What were the steps taken to fortify it?
17. What two results naturally followed this union of the nation under such a king in such a capital?
18. What is the position of Jerusalem henceforward among the cities of the world?
19. Relate some of its vicissitudes in subsequent history.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Ch 11:1 Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we [are] thy bone and thy flesh.
Ver. 1. Then all Israel. ] See on 2Sa 5:1-5 .
We are thy bone and thy flesh.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 Chronicles Chapter 11
“Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. And moreover in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and Jehovah thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed My people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over My people Israel. Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Jehovah; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of Jehovah by Samuel.” 1Ch 11:1-3 . But further, David and all Israel went to Jerusalem – another grand point of the book. “And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus; where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of the land. And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither.” That is, they defied him. “Nevertheless David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David.”
He had offered it as a great prize that whosoever took that stronghold should be captain of the host.
It is remarkable that Joab steps forward – not Abishai, not any one of those most honourable three, not Eleazar or Jashobeam, or any of the others (the thirty, those worthies that were with him in the cave). None of them, but Joab. Joab was not among them. The truth is that Joab was an ambitious man. He did not care to expose his person more than was necessary; but when there was anything to be got, Joab was the man. Joab was ready for action then, not to suffer but to gain. Joab therefore goes forward and takes the stronghold, and becomes chief. So it will always be till the true David comes. There will be no Joabs then. His people shall be all righteous; but till then every type has its failure, and it is a very important thing in Scripture to see first that which is natural. afterward that which is spiritual. It is the purpose of God, but it is the purpose of God in David, and not in Christ. It is the purpose of God in one that locked for Christ, loved Christ, waited for Christ, but nevertheless was not Christ. When Christ comes, all will be according to the mind of God. “So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief. And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of David. And he built the city round about, even from Millo round about: and Joab repaired the rest of the city. So David waxed greater and greater: for Jehovah of hosts was with him.”
Then follow the true worthies of David, the true warriors, not for what was to be got, but for David. And these are, most minutely brought before us to the end of the chapter, not only their great deeds in cutting down the enemy, but their intense love for David. Hence the Spirit of God tells the tale of how “David was in the hold, and the Philistines’ garrison was then at Bethlehem. And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, that is at the gate!” He knew his native place, and longed after the water that he had, no doubt, often drunk. He uttered this without a thought of anything further; but these three men “brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David.”
This was beautiful. It was no purpose of war. It was entirely outside the expedition. It was love. But David’s act was more beautiful. “But David would not drink of it, but poured it out to Jehovah, and said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing; shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.” There are others however – not, it is true, among the three mightiest, but who were most honourable. God loves to mention what is an honour to His people; and hence, therefore, after each of their names we find a record of their deeds. The Lord will do this and more for those who now and ever have lived and suffered for the name of the Lord. This then introduces us to David with his citadel Zion, and his warrior band.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Then all Israel. Compare 2Sa 5:2. Omitting all events in Hebron (2Sa 2:1-4). See App-56. In this chapter we have 1-3 David’s Coronation; 4-9, David’s Capital; 10-47, David’s Captains.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 11
David became the king, and so in chapter eleven,
All of Israel gathered themselves to David in Hebron ( 1Ch 11:1 ),
And it tells the numbers of people that gathered. Huge force of people from all of the tribes gathered to David. Hundreds of thousands actually gathered down in Hebron, and the mighty men, men of war and so forth. Now they said to David,
Behold, we are your bone and flesh. And moreover in times past, even when Saul was king, you were the one that led us out and brought us in: and the LORD thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people ( 1Ch 11:1-2 ).
Now the twofold commission of God to David. Number one: you shall feed my people. And, you shall be ruler over them. David was called a man after God’s own heart. Because David had the heart of a shepherd. And would to God that every leader over the people had the heart of a shepherd. He was a shepherd made king. But coming from that background he made an ideal king. Because his interest was always in the sheep. And of course, the primary need of the sheep is to be fed.
Now in the New Testament that thought is carried over as Jesus said to Peter, “Do you love me?” “Yes.” “Feed my sheep” ( Joh 21:16 ). Later, Peter wrote, “Feed the flock of God which is among you” ( 1Pe 5:2 ). Jeremiah, the Lord said, “And in that day I will give them pastors who will feed them in the knowledge of God” ( Jer 3:15 ). And so the command to David to feed the sheep as you rule over the people.
And how important it is for a pastor today to teach the people the knowledge of God. To feed the sheep.
Therefore the elders came to Hebron; made a covenant with David before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel ( 1Ch 11:3 ).
Now they did it again. He had already been anointed earlier.
And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem; and the inhabitants, [the Jebusites who were in Jerusalem] said, You can’t come in here ( 1Ch 11:4-5 ).
And David said, “You just think I can’t.”
And he took the castle of Zion, and he said, Whosoever smites the Jebusites first shall be the chief and the captain over the men. So Joab [his nephew] went up first, and he became the chief. And David dwelt in the castle; and they began to call [then Jerusalem the south slopes] the city of David. And David waxed greater and greater: for the LORD of hosts was with him ( 1Ch 11:5-7 , 1Ch 11:9 ).
The secret behind David’s greatness: the Lord of hosts was with him.
Now we get a list of some of David’s mighty men, and it’s interesting this first one that is listed is Jashobeam, verse eleven, and he was the chief of the captains. Now in the other records, nothing is spoken in Kings of this guy Jashobeam, and yet, he was a pretty powerful guy, because in one battle, he lifted up his spear against three hundred men whom he killed. I mean, three hundred to his credit in one battle. So he was not to be messed with.
Now, after him also one of the three mighties, of course, Joab was the first. And then Eleazar was the third. He was one of the three mighties.
And David was at Pasdammim, and the Philistines were gathered together in battle. And there was a parcel of ground that was full of barley; and all of the people fled from before the Philistines ( 1Ch 11:13 ).
And David and this other fellow Eleazar stood in this field of barley while the Philistines attacked. And David and Eleazar defeated the Philistines.
The LORD saved them by a great deliverance ( 1Ch 11:14 ).
David is a very interesting person. He has… really there’s much in David to be admired and, of course, there’s much to identify with because David was a man and he was subject to the same problems and temptations. And David wasn’t a perfect man by any means. In fact, because of some of the things that he did, he was rejected from building the temple unto God though it was in his heart to do it. But yet, he was an admirable, and here the Philistines are attacking, everybody flees, and David and Eleazar stand the ground there in the barley field and wipe out the Philistine attackers.
And so then it lists some of the others of the great. David, it speaks of how that they were near the cave of Adullam, and the host of the Philistines were encamped in the valley of Rephaim.
And David was with them there in this fortress, and the Philistines’ garrison was then occupying Bethlehem. And David said, [Oh boy,] if I only had a drink of water from the well that’s at the gate of Bethlehem! So three [of David’s buddies] broke through the ranks of the Philistines, and got him a pitcher of water from the well there at Bethlehem, and they brought it back to David: and David [said, Oh, no, can’t believe it. They] took the water and he poured it out [on the ground. He said, I can’t drink this. You guys hazarded your lives. You shed blood for this water. I’ll give it to God. I’ll pour it out] to the Lord ( 1Ch 11:16-19 ).
And so he poured the water out on the ground because he just felt unworthy to drink that water. He felt that those guys that were willing to hazard their lives for a thing like that better that they give it to the Lord. So he poured it out to the Lord, verse eighteen.
God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? And for the jeopardy of their lives they brought it to me. Therefore he would not drink it. But these things did these three mightiest men. And Abishai who was the brother of Joab, he was the chief of the three: for lifting up his spear against three hundred, he slew them, and had his name among the three. So yet he was not he did not attain to the first three ( 1Ch 11:19-21 ).
Benaiah, one of the second three along with Abishai had done many acts. He killed two lion like men of Moab. Now whatever that may be. Probably hairy guys with bushy hair and beards.
Also he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a snowy day. And he slew an Egyptian, who was a giant, [seven and a half feet tall]; who had a spear that was like a weaver’s beam; and he took and with his spear knocked the spear out of the [guy’s] hand, and then he killed him ( 1Ch 11:22-23 ).
And so he became one of the three, but not as mighty as the first three. And then the other thirty of the mighty men of David. He had thirty who were just really outstanding guys. And so their names come in for special mention. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
1Ch 11:1-3
1Ch 11:1-3
DAVID MADE KING OVER ALL ISRAEL;
THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM;
A LIST OF DAVID’S MIGHTY MEN.
DAVID MADE KING OVER ALL ISRAEL
“Then all Israel gathered themselves together unto David at Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and flesh. In times past, even when Saul was king, it was thou that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and Jehovah thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt be shepherd of my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over my people Israel. So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Jehovah; and they anointed David king over Israel.”
E.M. Zerr:
1Ch 11:1. This verse goes past the 7 years that David reigned in Hebron. During those years he was recognized by the tribe of Judah only. Abner, the captain over the military in Saul’s reign, put his son Ish-bosheth over the other tribes, and they kept David from his rightful place until after the affair of Abner and Saul’s concubine. Then Abner revolted the party of Saul and went over to David, which brought about the actions referred to in the present paragraph. The history of the change described above is in 2Sa 3:7-21. Seeing that the house of Saul had gone down in its plot for power, these people came to David and professed to be devoted to him.
1Ch 11:2. There might be some doubt as to the sincerity of “all Israel” in these flattering remarks, considering their attitude for 7 years just past. But now they see the “handwriting” and want to be on the winning side. However, all the good things they said to David were true, only they should have recognized it before.
1Ch 11:3. With their “change of heart” toward David, the elders and leaders of the Israelites came to Hebron, where he had been reigning for 7 years over Judah, and anointed him as their personal recognition of his true rank, spoken of by Samuel.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
We now enter on the second section of this Book. In this section there are four movements: the story of David’s crowning, the events connected with the Ark of God, the account of David’s reign, and, finally, matters concerning the building of the Temple.
The chronicler passes over in silence the story of the seven years in which David reigned over Judah. There may be two reasons for this. First, this is the history of the greatness of David, and begins therefore with his crowning over the whole nation; and, second, it was in connection with that crowning that his activity concerning the Ark and the Temple commenced.
In this chapter the story is first told in simple and yet dignified language of the crowning at Hebron. So far as the people were concerned, this was based on their recognition of the divine appointment. Then comes the account of the taking of Jesus, which became the city of David’s heart and the metropolis of the nation.
The chronicle of the mighty men and their deeds is full of color. It is principally interesting in view of what these men were in the days of David’s exile. They had gathered to him in the mountain fastnesses, a company of men graphically described as in debt, in danger, and discontented. How wonderfully he had influenced them is seen in their remarkable devotion to him, and still more surprisingly in the heroic character they had developed.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
1Ch 11:22
I. Notice, first, that Benaiah did a great deed: he “slew a lion.” Our David has some Benaiahs still in His camp who slay lions. (1) A man who boldly meets a besetting sin-he is a Benaiah. (2) Another Benaiah is the man who boldly overcomes a natural infirmity. (3) A third is found in the man who combats with and overcomes some special temptation. (4) He who achieves work for God, and work under difficult circumstances, is a Benaiah.
II. Observe that he slew the lion in a pit. That is a noble deed done in a very difficult place. Very often Benaiahs in the Lord’s army have to meet their lion in a pit, where apparently everything is on the enemy’s side. Work for God may be difficult in itself, but ten times more difficult because of its position.
III. And, lastly, done with very difficult surroundings-in a pit on a snowy day. There are some sins hard to combat when grace is filling the heart, and when spiritual life is at its best. But to meet the besetting sin on a snowy day, when unbelief is freezing you! to go and work for Christ and dare something difficult when your own love seems half frozen up! But even if your heart be cold and you feel numbed and powerless to do anything, yet, like Benaiah, go and venture it, though it be on a snowy day.
A. G. Brown, Penny Pulpit, No. 1068.
References: 1Ch 12:16-18.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx., No. 1770. 1Ch 12:32.-J. Baldwin Brown, Old Testament Outlines, p. 85; D. Burns, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvii., p. 68. 1Ch 12:33.-S. Cox, An Expositor’s Notebook, p. 103.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
III. THE CROWNING OF DAVID AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HIS KINGDOM
1. David at Hebron
CHAPTER 11
1. David crowned king (1Ch 11:1-3)
2. Jerusalem becomes Davids capital (1Ch 11:4-9)
3. The record of Davids mighty men (1Ch 11:10-47)
From the second book of Samuel we learned that the crowning of David in Hebron occurred after the death of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 5). The previous reign of David for seven and a half years and his failures are here omitted. We shall find that Chronicles does not record all the failures and sins of David and Solomon. The blessing and the grace of God toward the house of David are made prominent throughout. Acknowledged by all Israel as belonging to them, a great leader, Jehovahs choice to feed His people Israel and to be their prince, all the elders came to Hebron before the Lord and anointed David king.
The conquest of Jerusalem (Jebus) followed. It was still in the hands of the Jebusites, but David took the stronghold of Zion. Joab distinguished himself and became chief. This is unmentioned in 2 Sam. 5. He built the city from Millo. Millo means filling up so that it may have been a big embankment which connected the city of David with the Temple mount. See 1Ki 9:15 and 2Ch 32:5.
The record of Davids mighty men are mentioned here in the beginning of his reign. In Second Samuel we read of them at the end (2Sa 23:8-39), preceding Solomons reign. When the true King begins His reign, typified by both David and Solomon, those who were loyal to the Lord and faithful to Him will be remembered. The first name mentioned is Jashobeam, a Hachmonite. In Samuel his name is given as Josheb-basshebeth, the Tachmonite. They were probably alternative names for the same person. Jashobeam means the people shall return and his other name in Samuel means one who sits in a seat. Hachmonite means translated the wise. According to Samuel he slew 800 and here in Chronicles he slew 300 at one time. Probably these are both correct; he slew 800 at one occasion and 300 at another. The second name is Eleazar (help of God) the son of Dodo (his beloved). His deed is more fully given in 2Sa 23:9. Shammah, the third one of the three mighties is omitted here (2Sa 23:11).
Bethlehem shows the deepest devotion to David from the three who broke through the line in response to Davids wish. It was not a command but only a desire expressed, yet they were ready to give their lives, for they were ambitious to please David. May we think here of Him who is greater than David. He, who sat on Sychars well said to the woman give me to drink. He longs for the refreshment from His own and we must be ambitious to please Him. It means to break through the hostile ranks of our enemies, as the three men did.
Abishai (father of gift) the younger brother of Joab and nephew of David slew 300 men. Benaiahs deeds include the slaying of an Egyptian giant almost eight feet tall. In the list of the mighty men Uriah, the Hittite (verse 41) is included. He was a brave and devoted warrior which makes Davids deed so much more abhorrent (2 Sam. 11).
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 2956, bc 1048, An, Ex, Is, 443
all Israel: 1Ch 12:23-40, 2Sa 5:1-16
Hebron: Num 13:22, 2Sa 2:1, 2Sa 15:10, 1Ki 2:11
Behold: Gen 29:14, Deu 17:15, Jdg 9:2, 2Sa 19:12, 2Sa 19:13, Eph 5:30
Reciprocal: 2Sa 3:12 – my hand 1Ch 28:2 – my brethren Psa 141:6 – they shall hear
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ch 11:1-2. All Israel gathered themselves to David That is, all the tribes of Israel, as it is expressed 2Sa 5:1, by their elders (1Ch 11:3) and officers, and a great multitude of their soldiers and people. The Lord said unto thee Or, concerning thee: for it is apparent that they knew it was Gods will David should be king, and therefore many of them had opposed David hitherto against their own consciences.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ch 11:11. Jashobeam, called Tachmoni, 2Sa 23:8, a wise man and valiant. He had earned the laurel to sit as the chairman of Davids generals. Three hundred men he killed, and five hundred more in the pursuit, which makes up the eight hundred mentioned in the above passage.
1Ch 11:22. Two lion-like men. The Vulgate reads as the Hebrew, two lions of Moab. Slaying the Egyptian giant, more than nine feet high, and the lion at the cave, or rather at the cistern, are also narrated. No doubt, he slew two gigantic men of Moab.
REFLECTIONS.
This and the remaining chapters of the first book of Chronicles throw additional light on the reign of David, and the fruits of his victories. As soon as he came to the crown he conferred honours on his worthies, correspondent to their achievements; and some of them performed heroic actions which might have appeared impracticable. Let us learn of them to assume courage, and fight the good fight of faith. Let us be discouraged by no reverses, nor intimidated by any difficulty, for our captain, though long opposed, like David, shall surely triumph, and give the victors crown to every one that overcometh.
Among his worthies, mentioned in 1Ch 11:46, we find Ithmah the Moabite. Hence we see that the sentence pronounced against the people of Ammon and of Moab, never to enter the congregation of the Lord, Deu 23:3, was not irrevocable, where repentance prevailed. The pious Ruth is another instance to the same effect. Individual sinners and whole nations are encouraged to repentance, for the gracious and longsuffering God, in cases without number, repenteth him of the evil, and rejoices to see humiliation even in an Ahab.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ch 11:1-47. David Made King in Hebron; Jerusalem Taken; Davids Mighty Men (see notes on 2Sa 5:1-3; 2Sa 5:6-10; 2Sa 23:8-39).
1Ch 11:42-47. An addition by the Chronicler from some unknown source.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
11:1 Then all Israel {a} gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we [are] thy bone and thy flesh.
(a) This was after the death of Ishbosheth Saul’s son, when David had reigned over Judah seven years and six months in Hebron, 2Sa 5:5.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
B. David’s Coronation and Capital 11:1-9
David is really the hero of both 1 and 2 Chronicles. The heart of Chronicles is the rise of David and the establishment of the Davidic kingdom, which begins with chapter 11.
"They [1 and 2 Chronicles] look forward with anticipation to the coming King who will bring in God’s final salvation and blessing." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 32.]
"The principle point we wish to emphasize is that the Chronicler, the composer of the original work, structured his history around the figure of David and his dynasty, focusing attention on the religious activity of the monarch and his successors." [Note: David N. Freedman, "The Chronicler’s Purpose," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23 (1961):440.]
"David’s heroic personality exemplifies the success that God bestows on those who trust in him, whether in the Chronicler’s time or any other." [Note: Payne, "1, 2 Chronicles," p. 368.]
In 1 Chronicles the writer documented David’s greatness as God’s faithful vice-regent. In 2 Chronicles he evaluated all David’s successors in terms of his successes. In the chapters that unfold, the writer wove his hope for Israel’s future together with God’s love, as demonstrated in His past faithfulness, to encourage faith and obedience in his readers.
David’s eventual coronation was inevitable because God had chosen him as king long before Saul died. The Chronicler began his history of David with his coronation over all 12 tribes. This fact probably reflects the writer’s concern for the unity of God’s chosen people. The people recognized David as the suitable king because he had led Israel. Furthermore, God had anointed him to shepherd the people (his function) and to be prince over them (his office under Yahweh, 1Ch 11:1-2). David’s elevation happened as God had announced through Samuel (1Ch 11:3). God was leading the nation. These verses provide solid evidence that David, not Saul, was God’s preference as king of Israel.
David’s capture of Jerusalem was foundational to all the political and religious events that followed. The earliest reference to Jerusalem (Salem) that archaeologists have found so far occurs in the Ebla tablets that date from about 2400 B.C. [Note: See Eugene H. Merrill, "Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy," Bibliotheca Sacra 140:550 (October-December 1983): 302-21; and Giovanni Pettinato, "The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla," Biblical Archaeologist 39 (May 1976):44-52.] Joab’s deed shows he was a mighty warrior. By fortifying Jerusalem, David established a secure base of operations at a politically neutral site between Israel and Judah. This led to his succeeding, though the real reason for his greatness was that the Lord of Armies was with him. God was with David because David was with God, as well as because God had chosen David as His vice-regent. Payne believed that David established a "constitutional" monarchy, which was unique in the ancient Near East. [Note: Payne, "First Chronicles," p. 377.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
DAVID
1. HIS TRIBE AND DYNASTY
KING and kingdom were so bound up in ancient life that an ideal for the one implied an ideal for the other: all distinction and glory possessed by either was shared by both. The tribe and kingdom of Judah were exalted by the fame of David and Solomon: but, on the other hand, a specially exalted position is accorded to David in the Old Testament because he is the representative of the people of Jehovah. David himself had been anointed by Divine command to be king of Israel, and he thus became the founder of the only legitimate dynasty of Hebrew kings. Saul and Ishbosheth had no significance for the later religious history of the nation. Apparently to the chronicler the history of true religion in Israel was a blank between Joshua and David; the revival began when the Ark was brought to Zion, and the first steps were taken to rear the Temple in succession to the Mosaic tabernacle. He therefore omits the history of the Judges and Saul. But the battle of Gilboa is given to introduce the reign of David, and incidental condemnation is passed on Saul: “So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for that he asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire thereby, and inquired not of the Lord; therefore He slew him and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.”
The reign of Saul had been an unsuccessful experiment; its only real value had been to prepare the way for David. At the same time the portrait of Saul is not given at full length, like those of the wicked kings, partly perhaps because the chronicler had little interest for anything before the time of David and the Temple but partly, we may hope, because the record of Davids affection for Saul kept alive a kindly feeling towards the founder of the monarchy.
Inasmuch as Jehovah had “turned the kingdom unto David,” the reign of Ishbosheth was evidently the intrusion of an illegitimate pretender; and the chronicler treats it as such. If we had only Chronicles, we should know nothing about the reign of Ishbosheth, and should suppose that, on the death of Saul. David succeeded at once to an undisputed sovereignty over all Israel. The interval of conflict is ignored because, according to the chroniclers views, David was, from the first, king de jure over the whole nation. Complete silence as to Ishbosheth was the most effective way of expressing this fact.
The same sentiment of hereditary legitimacy, the same formal and exclusive recognition of a de jure sovereign, has been shown in modern times by titles like Louis XVIII and Napoleon III. For both schools of Legitimists the absence of de facto sovereignty did not prevent Louis XVII and Napoleon II from having been lawful rulers of France. In Israel, moreover, the Divine right of the one chosen dynasty had religious as well as political importance. We have already seen that Israel claimed a hereditary title to its special privileges; it was therefore natural that a hereditary qualification should be thought necessary for the kings. They represented the nation; they were the Divinely appointed guardians of its religion; they became in time the types of the Messiah, its promised Savior. In all this Saul and Ishbosheth had neither part nor lot; the promise to Israel had always descended in a direct line, and the special promise that was given to its kings and through them to their people began with David. There was no need to carry the history further back.
We have already noticed that, in spite of this general attitude towards Saul, the genealogy of some of his descendants is given twice over in the earlier chapters. No doubt the chronicler made this concession to gratify friends or to conciliate an influential family. It is interesting to note how personal feeling may interfere with the symmetrical development of a theological theory. At the same time we are enabled to discern a practical reason for rigidly ignoring the kingship of Saul and Ishbosheth. To have recognized Saul as the Lords anointed, like David, would have complicated contemporary dogmatics, and might possibly have given rise to jealousies between the descendants of Saul and those of David. Within the narrow limits of the Jewish community such quarrels might have been inconvenient and even dangerous.
The reasons for denying the legitimacy of the northern kings were obvious and conclusive. Successful rebels who had destroyed the political and religious unity of Israel could not inherit “the sure mercies of David” or be included in the covenant which secured the permanence of his dynasty.
The exclusive association of Messianic ideas with a single family emphasizes their antiquity, continuity, and development. The hope of Israel had its roots deep in the history of the people; it had grown with their growth and maintained itself through their changing fortunes. As the hope centered in a single family, men were led to expect an individual personal Messiah: they were being prepared to see in Christ the fulfillment of all righteousness.
But the choice of the house of David involved the choice of the tribe of Judah and the rejection of the kingdom of Samaria. The ten tribes, as well as the kings of Israel, had cut themselves off both from the Temple and the sacred dynasty, and therefore from the covenant into which Jehovah had entered with “the man after his own heart.” Such a limitation of the chosen people was suggested by many precedents. Chronicles, following the Pentateuch, tells how the call came to Abraham, but only some of the descendants of one of his sons inherited the promise. Why should not a selection be made from among the sons of Jacob? But the twelve tribes had been explicitly and solemnly included in the unity of Israel, largely through David himself. The glory of David and Solomon consisted in their sovereignty over a united people. The national recollection of this golden age loved to dwell on the union of the twelve tribes. The Pentateuch added legal sanction to ancient sentiment. The twelve tribes were associated together in national lyrics, like the “Blessing of Jacob” and the “Blessing of Moses.” The song of Deborah told how the northern tribes “came to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” It was simply impossible for the chronicler to absolutely repudiate the ten tribes; and so they are formally included in the genealogies of Israel, and are recognized in the history of David and Solomon. Then the recognition stops. From the time of the disruption the Northern Kingdom is quietly but persistently ignored. Its prophets and sanctuaries were as illegitimate as its kings. The great struggle of Elijah and Elisha for the honor of Jehovah is omitted, with all the rest of their history. Elijah is only mentioned as sending a letter to Jehoram, king of Judah; Elisha is never even named.
On the other hand, it is more than once implied that Judah, with the Levites, and the remnants of Simeon and Benjamin, are the true Israel. When Rehoboam “was strong he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.” After Shishaks invasion, “the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves.” {2Ch 12:1; 2Ch 12:6} The annals of Manasseh, king of Judah, are said to be “written among the acts of the kings of Israel.” {2Ch 33:18} The register of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel is headed “The number of the men of the people of Israel.” {Ezr 2:2} The chronicler tacitly anticipates the position of St. Paul: “They are not all Israel which are of Israel”: and the Apostle might have appealed to Chronicles to show that the majority of Israel might fail to recognize and accept the Divine purpose for Israel, and that the true Israel would then be found in an elect remnant. The Jews of the second Temple naturally and inevitably came to ignore the ten tribes and to regard themselves as constituting this true Israel. As a matter of history, there had been a period during which the prophets of Samaria were of far more importance to the religion of Jehovah than the temple at Jerusalem; but in the chroniclers time the very existence of the ten tribes was ancient history. Then, at any rate, it was true that Gods Israel was to be found in the Jewish community, at and around Jerusalem. They inherited the religious spirit of their fathers, and received from them the sacred writings and traditions, and carried on the sacred ritual. They preserved the truth and transmitted it from generation to generation, till at last it was merged in the mightier stream of Christian revelation.
The attitude of the chronicler towards the prophets of the Northern Kingdom does not in any way represent the actual importance of these prophets to the religion of Israel; but it is a very striking expression of the fact that after the Captivity the ten tribes had long ceased to exercise any influence upon the spiritual life of their nation.
The chroniclers attitude is also open to criticism on another side. He is dominated by his own surroundings, and in his references to the Judaism of his own time there is no formal recognition of the Jewish community in Babylon; and yet even his own casual allusions confirm what we know from other sources, namely that the wealth and learning of the Jews in Babylon were an important factor in Judaism until a very late date. This point perhaps rather concerns Ezra and Nehemiah than Chronicles, but it is closely connected with our present subject, and is most naturally treated along with it. The chronicler might have justified himself by saying that the true home of Israel must be in Palestine, and that a community in Babylon could only be considered as subsidiary to the nation in its own home and worshipping at the Temple. Such a sentiment, at any rate, would have met with universal approval amongst Palestinian Jews. The chronicler might also have replied that the Jews in Babylon belonged to Judah and Benjamin and were sufficiently recognized in the general prominence given to these tribes. In all probability some Palestinian Jews would have been willing to class their Babylonian kinsmen with the ten tribes. Voluntary exiles from the Temple, the Holy City, and the Land of Promise had in great measure cut themselves off from the full privileges of the people of Jehovah. If, however, we had a Babylonian book of Chronicles, we should see both Jerusalem and Babylon in another light.
The chronicler was possessed and inspired by the actual living present round about him; he was content to let the dead past bury its dead. He was probably inclined to believe that the absent are mostly wrong, and that the men who worked with him for the Lord and His temple were the true Israel and the Church of God. He was enthusiastic in his own vocation and loyal to his brethren. If his interests were somewhat narrowed by the urgency of present circumstances, most men suffer from the same limitations. Few Englishmen realize that the battle of Agincourt is part of the history of the United States, and that Canterbury Cathedral is a monument of certain stages in the growth of the religion of New England. We are not altogether willing to admit that these voluntary exiles from our Holy Land belong to the true Anglo-Saxon Israel.
Churches are still apt to ignore their obligations to teachers who. like the prophets of Samaria, seem to have been associated with alien or hostile branches of the family of God. A religious movement which fails to secure for itself a permanent monument is usually labeled heresy. If it has neither obtained recognition within the Church nor yet organized a sect for itself, its services are forgotten or denied. Even the orthodoxy of one generation is sometimes contemptuous of the older orthodoxy which made it possible; and yet Gnostics, Arians and Athanasians, Arminians and Calvinists, have all done something to build up the temple of faith.
The nineteenth century prides itself on a more liberal spirit. But Romanist historians are not eager to acknowledge the debt of their Church to the Reformers; and there are Protestant partisans who deny that we are the heirs of the Christian life and thought of the medieval Church and are anxious to trace the genealogy of pure religion exclusively through a supposed succession of obscure and half-mythical sects. Limitations like those of the chronicler still narrow the sympathies of earnest and devout Christians.
But it is time to return to the more positive aspects of the teaching of Chronicles, and to see how far we have already traced its exposition of the Messianic idea. The plan of the book implies a spiritual claim on behalf of the Jewish community of the Restoration. Because they believed in Jehovah, whose providence had in former times controlled the destinies of Israel, they returned to their ancestral home that they might serve and worship the God of their fathers. Their faith survived the ruin of Judah and their own captivity; they recognized the power, and wisdom, and love of God alike in the prosperity and in the misfortunes of their race. “They believed God, and it was counted unto them for righteousness.” The great prophet of the Restoration had regarded this new Israel as itself a Messianic people, perhaps even “a light to the Gentiles” and “salvation unto the ends of the earth.” {Isa 49:6} The chroniclers hopes were more modest; the new Jerusalem had been seen by the prophet as an ideal vision; the historian knew it lay experience as an imperfect human society: but he believed none the less in its high spiritual vocation and prerogatives. He claimed the future for those who were able to trace the hand of God in their past.
Under the monarchy the fortunes of Jerusalem had been bound up with those of the house of David. The chronicler brings out all that was best in the history of the ancient kings of Judah, that this ideal picture of the state and its rulers might encourage and inspire to future hope and effort. The character and achievements of David and his successors were of permanent significance. The grace and favor accorded to them symbolized the Divine promise for the future, and this promise was to be realized through a Son of David.
DAVID
2. HIS PERSONAL HISTORY
IN order to understand why the chronicler entirely recasts the graphic and candid history of David given in the book of Samuel, we have to consider the place that David had come to fill in Jewish religion. It seems probable that among the sources used by the author of the book of Samuel was a history of David, written not long after his death, by some one familiar with the inner life of the court. “No one,” says the proverb, “is a hero to his valet”; very much what a valet is to a private gentleman courtiers are to a king: their knowledge of their master approaches to the familiarity which breeds contempt. Not that David was ever a subject for contempt or less than a hero even to his own courtiers: but they knew him as a very human hero, great in his vices as well as in his virtues, daring in battle and wise in counsel, sometimes also reckless in sin, yet capable of unbounded repentance, loving not wisely, but too well. And as they knew him, so they described him; and their picture is an immortal possession for all students of sacred life and literature. But it is not the portrait of a Messiah; when we think of the “Son of David,” we do not want to be reminded of Bathsheba.
During the six or seven centuries that elapsed between the death of David and the chronicler the name of David had come to have a symbolic meaning, which was largely independent of the personal character and career of the actual king. His reign had become idealized by the magic of antiquity; it was a glory of “the good old times.” His own sins and failures were obscured by the crimes and disasters of later kings. And yet, in spite of all its shortcomings, the “house of David” still remained the symbol alike of ancient glory and of future hopes. We have seen from the genealogies how intimate the connection was between the family and its founder. Ephraim and Benjamin may mean either patriarchs or tribes. A Jew was not always anxious to distinguish between the family and the founder. “David” and “the house of David” became almost interchangeable terms.
Even the prophets of the eighth century connect the future destiny of Israel with David and his house. The child, of whom Isaiah prophesied, was to sit “upon the throne of David” and be “over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness from henceforth even forever.” {Isa 9:7} And, again, the king who is to “sit in truth judging, and seeking judgment, and swift to do righteousness,” is to have “his throne established in mercy in the tent of David.” When {Isa 16:5} Sennacherib attacked Jerusalem, the city was defended {Isa 37:35} for Jehovahs own sake and for His servant Davids sake. In the word of the Lord that came to Isaiah for Hezekiah, David supersedes, as it were, the sacred fathers of the Hebrew race; Jehovah is not spoken of as “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” but “the God of David.” {Isa 38:5} As founder of the dynasty, he takes rank with the founders of the race and religion of Israel: he is “the patriarch David.” {Act 2:29} The northern prophet Hosea looks forward to the time when the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord “their God and David their king”; {Hos 3:5} when Amos wishes to set forth the future prosperity of Israel, he says that the Lord “will raise up the tabernacle of David”; {Amo 9:11} in Micah “the ruler in Israel” is to come forth from Bethlehem Ephrathah, the birthplace of David; {Mic 5:2} in Jeremiah such references to David are frequent, the most characteristic being those relating to the “righteous branch, whom the Lord will raise up unto David,” who “shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land, in whose days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely”; in Ezekiel “My servant David” is to be the shepherd and prince of Jehovahs restored and reunited people; {Eze 34:23-24} Zechariah, writing at what we may consider the beginning of the chroniclers own period, follows the language of his predecessors: he applies Jeremiahs prophecy of “the righteous branch” to Zerubbabel, the prince of the house of David: similarly in Haggai Zerubbabel is the chosen of Jehovah; {Hag 2:23} in the appendix to Zechariah it is said that when “the Lord defends the inhabitants of Jerusalem the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.” {Zec 12:8} In the later literature, Biblical and apocryphal, the Davidic origin of the Messiah is not conspicuous till it reappears in the Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament, but the idea had not necessarily been dormant meanwhile. The chronicler and his school studied and meditated on the sacred writings, and must have been familiar with this doctrine of the prophets. The interest in such a subject would not be confined to scholars. Doubtless the downtrodden people cherished with ever-growing ardor the glorious picture of the Davidic king. In the synagogues it was not only Moses, but the Prophets, that were read; and they could never allow the picture of the Messianic king to grow faint and pale.
Davids name was also familiar as the author of many psalms. The inhabitants of Jerusalem would often hear them sung at the Temple, and they were probably used for private devotion. In this way especially the name of David had become associated with the deepest and purest spiritual experiences.
This brief survey shows how utterly impossible it was for the chronicler to transfer the older narrative bodily from the book of Samuel to his own pages. Large omissions were absolutely necessary. He could not sit down in cold blood to tell his readers that the man whose name they associated with the most sacred memories and the noblest hopes of Israel had been guilty of treacherous murder, and had offered himself to the Philistines as an ally against the people of Jehovah.
From this point of view let us consider the chroniclers omissions somewhat more in detail. In the first place, with one or two slight exceptions, he omits the whole of Davids life before his accession to the throne, for two reasons: partly because he is anxious that his readers should think of David as king, the anointed of Jehovah, the Messiah; partly that they may not be reminded of his career as an outlaw and a freebooter and of his alliance with the Philistines. It is probably only an unintentional result of this omission that it enables the chronicler to ignore the important services rendered to David by Abiathar, whose family were rivals of the house of Zadok in the priesthood.
We have already seen that the events of Davids reign at Hebron and his struggle with Ishbosheth are omitted because the chronicler does not recognize Ishbosheth as a legitimate king. The omission would also commend itself because this section contains the account of Joabs murder of Abner and Davids inability to do more than protest against the crime. “I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me,” {2Sa 3:39} are scarcely words that become an ideal king.
The next point to notice is one of those significant alterations that mark the chroniclers industry as a redactor. In 2Sa 5:21 we read that after the Philistines had been defeated at Baal-perazim they left their images there, and David and his men took them away. Why did they take them away? What did David and his men want with images? Missionaries bring home images as trophies, and exhibit them triumphantly, like soldiers who have captured the enemys standards. No one, not even an unconverted native, supposes that they have been brought away to be used in worship.
But the worship of images was no improbable apostasy on the part of an Israelite king. The chronicler felt that these ambiguous words were open to misconstruction; so he tells us what he assumes to have been their ultimate fate: “And they left their gods there; and David gave commandment, and they were burnt with fire.” {2Sa 5:21 1Ch 14:12}
The next omission was obviously a necessary one; it is the incident of Uriah and Bathsheba. The name Bathsheba never occurs in Chronicles. When it is necessary to mention the mother of Solomon, she is called Bathshua, possibly in order that the disgraceful incident might not be suggested even by the use of the name. The New Testament genealogies differ in this matter in somewhat the same way as Samuel and Chronicles. St. Matthew expressly mentions Uriahs wife as an ancestress of our Lord, but St. Luke does not mention her or any other ancestress.
The next omission is equally extensive and important. It includes the whole series of events connected with the revolt of Absalom, from the incident of Tamar to the suppression of the rebellion of Sheba the son of Bichri. Various motives may have contributed to this omission. The narrative contains unedifying incidents, which are passed over as lightly as possible by modern writers like Stanley. It was probably a relief to the chronicler to be able to omit them altogether. There is no heinous sin like the murder of Uriah, but the story leaves a general impression of great weakness on Davids part. Joab murders Amasa as he had murdered Abner, and this time there is no record of any protest even on the part of David. But probably the main reason for the omission of this narrative is that it mars the ideal picture of Davids power and dignity and the success and prosperity of his reign.
The touching story of Rizpah is omitted; the hanging of her sons does not exhibit David in a very amiable light. The Gibeonites propose that “they shall hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the Lord,” and David accepts the proposal. This punishment of the children for the sin of their father was expressly against the Law and the whole incident was perilously akin to human sacrifice. How could they be hung up before Jehovah in Gibeah unless there was a sanctuary of Jehovah in Gibeah? And why should Saul at such a time and in such a connection be called emphatically “the chosen of Jehovah”? On many grounds, it was a passage which the chronicler would be glad to omit.
2Sa 21:15-17 we are told that David waxed faint and had to be rescued by Abishai. This is omitted by Chronicles probably because it detracts from the character of David as the ideal hero. The next paragraph in Samuel also tended to depreciate Davids prowess. It stated that Goliath was slain by Elhanan. The chronicler introduces a correction. It was not Goliath whom Elhanan slew, but Lahmi, the brother of Goliah. However, the text in Samuel is evidently corrupt; and possibly this is one of the cases in which Chronicles has preserved the correct text. {2Sa 21:19 1Ch 20:5}
Then follow two omissions that are not easily accounted for 2Sa 22:1-51; 2Sa 23:1-39, contain two psalms, Psa 18:1-50, and “the Last Words of David,” the latter not included in the Psalter. These psalms are generally considered a late addition to the book of Samuel, and it is barely possible that they were not in the copy used by the chronicler; but the late date of Chronicles makes against this supposition. The psalms may be omitted for the sake of brevity, and yet elsewhere a long cento of passages from post-Exilic psalms is added to the material derived from the book of Samuel. Possibly something in the omitted section jarred upon the theological sensibilities of the chronicler, but it is not clear what. He does not as a rule look below the surface for obscure suggestions of undesirable views. The grounds of his alterations and omissions are usually sufficiently obvious; but these particular omissions are not at present susceptible of any obvious explanation. Further research into the theology of Judaism may perhaps provide us with one hereafter.
Finally, the chronicler omits the attempt of Adonijah to seize the throne, and Davids dying commands to Solomon. The opening chapters of the book of Kings present a graphic and pathetic picture of the closing scenes of Davids life. The king is exhausted with old age. His authoritative sanction to the coronation of Solomon is only obtained when he has been roused and directed by the promptings and suggestions of the women of his harem. The scene is partly a parallel and partly a contrast to the last days of Queen Elizabeth; for when her bodily strength failed, the obstinate Tudor spirit refused to be guided by the suggestions of her courtiers. The chronicler was depicting a person of almost Divine dignity, in whom incidents of human weakness would have been out of keeping; and therefore they are omitted.
Davids charge to Solomon is equally human. Solomon is to make up for Davids weakness and undue generosity by putting Joab and Shimei to death; on the other hand, he is to pay Davids debt of gratitude to the son of Barzillai. But the chronicler felt that Davids mind in those last days must surely have been occupied with the temple which Solomon was to build, and the less edifying charge is omitted.
Constantine is reported to have said that, for the honor of the Church, he would conceal the sin of a bishop with his own imperial purple. David was more to the chronicler than the whole Christian episcopate to Constantine. His life of David is compiled in the spirit and upon the principles of lives of saints generally, and his omissions are made in perfect good faith.
Let us now consider the positive picture of David as it is drawn for us in Chronicles. Chronicles would be published separately, each copy written, out on a roll of its own. There may have been Jews who had Chronicles, hut not Samuel and Kings, and who knew nothing about David except what they learned from Chronicles. Possibly the chronicler and his friends would recommend the work as suitable for the education of children and the instruction of the common people. It would save its readers from being perplexed by the religious difficulties suggested by Samuel and Kings. There were many obstacles, however, to the success of such a scheme; the persecutions of Antiochus and the wars of the Maccabees took the leadership out of the hands of scholars and gave it to soldiers and statesmen. The latter perhaps felt more drawn to the real David than to the ideal, and the new priestly dynasty would not be anxious to emphasize the Messianic hopes of the house of David. But let us put ourselves for a moment in the position of a student of Hebrew history who reads of David for the first time in Chronicles and has no other source of information.
Our first impression as we read the book is that David comes into the history as abruptly as Elijah or Melchizedek. Jehovah slew Saul “and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.” {1Ch 10:14} Apparently the Divine appointment is promptly and enthusiastically accepted by the nation; all the twelve tribes come at once in their tens and hundreds of thousands to Hebron to make David king. They then march straight to Jerusalem and take it by storm, and forthwith attempt to bring up the Ark to Zion. An unfortunate accident necessitates a delay of three months, but at the end of that time the Ark is solemnly installed in a tent at Jerusalem. {Cf. 1Ch 11:1-9; 1Ch 12:23; 1Ch 13:14}
We are not told who David the son of Jesse was, or why the Divine choice fell upon him or how he had been prepared for his responsible position, or how he had so commended himself to Israel as to be accepted with universal acclaim. He must however, have been of noble family and high character; and it is hinted that he had had a distinguished career as a soldier. {1Ch 11:2} We should expect to find his name in the introductory genealogies: and if we have read these lists of names with conscientious attention, we shall remember that there are sundry incidental references to David, and that he was the seventh son of Jesse, {1Ch 2:15} who was descended from the Patriarch Judah, though Boaz, the husband of Ruth.
As we read further we come to other references which throw some light on Davids early career, and at the same time somewhat mar the symmetry of the opening narrative. The wide discrepancy between the chroniclers idea of David and the account given by his authorities prevents him from composing his work on an entirely consecutive and consistent plan. We gather that there was a time when David was in rebellion against his predecessor, and maintained himself at Ziklag and elsewhere, keeping “himself close, because of Saul the son of Kish,” and even that he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle, but was prevented by the jealousy of the Philistine chiefs from actually fighting against Saul. There is nothing to indicate the occasion or circumstances of these events. But it appears that even at this period, when David was in arms against the king of Israel and an ally of the Philistines, he was the chosen leader of Israel. Men flocked to him from Judah and Benjamin, Manasseh and Gad, and doubtless from the other tribes as well: “From day to day there came to David to help him, until it was a great host, like the host of God.” {1Ch 20:1-8}
This chapter partly explains Davids popularity after Sauls death; but it only carries the mystery a stage further back. How did this outlaw, and apparently unpatriotic rebel, get so strong a hold on the affections of Israel?
Chapter 12 also provides material for plausible explanations of another difficulty. In chapter 10 the army of Israel is routed, the inhabitants of the land take to flight, and the Philistines occupy their cities; in 11 and 1Ch 12:23-40 all Israel come straightway to Hebron in the most peaceful and unconcerned fashion to make David king. Are we to understand that his Philistine allies, mindful of that “great host, like the host of God,” all at once changed their minds and entirely relinquished the fruits of their victory?
Elsewhere, however, we find a statement that renders other explanations possible. David reigned seven years in Hebron, {1Ch 29:27} so that our first impression as to the rapid sequence of events at the beginning of his reign is apparently not correct, and there was time in these seven years for a more gradual expulsion of the Philistines. It is doubtful, however, whether the chronicler intended his original narrative to be thus modified and interpreted.
The main thread of the history is interrupted here and later on {1Ch 11:10-47; 1Ch 20:4-8} to insert incidents which illustrate the personal courage and prowess of David and his warriors. We are also told how busily occupied David was during the three months sojourn of the Ark in the house of Obededom the Gittite. He accepted an alliance with Hiram, king of Tyre: he added to his harem: he successfully repelled two inroads of the Philistines, and made him houses in the city of David. {1Ch 13:14}
The narrative returns to its main subject: the history of the sanctuary at Jerusalem. As soon as the Ark was duly installed in its tent, and David was established in his new palace, he was struck by the contrast between the tent and the palace: “Lo, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant of the Lord dwelleth under curtains.” He proposed to substitute a temple for the tent, but was forbidden by his prophet Nathan, through whom God promised him that his son should build the Temple, and that his house should be established forever. {1Ch 17:1-27}
Then we read of the wars, victories, and conquests of David. He is no longer absorbed in the defense of Israel against the Philistines. He takes the aggressive and conquers Gath; he conquers Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Amalek; he and his armies defeat the Syrians in several battles, the Syrians become tributary, and David occupies Damascus with a garrison. “And the Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went.” The conquered were treated after the manner of those barbarous times. David and his generals carried off much spoil, especially brass, and silver, and gold; and when he conquered Rabbath, the capital of Ammon, “he brought forth the people that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. And thus did David unto all the cities of the children of Ammon.” Meanwhile his home administration was as honorable as his foreign wars were glorious: “He executed judgment and justice unto all his people”; and the government was duly organized with commanders of the host and the bodyguard, with priests and scribes. {1Ch 18:1-17; 1Ch 20:3}
Then follows a mysterious and painful dispensation of Providence, which the historian would gladly have omitted, if his respect for the memory of his hero had not been overruled by his sense of the supreme importance of the Temple. David, like Job, was given over for a season to Satan, and while possessed by this evil spirit displeased God by numbering Israel. His punishment took the form of a great pestilence, which decimated his people, until, by Divine command, David erected an altar in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite and offered sacrifices upon it, whereupon the plague was stayed. David at once perceived the significance of this incident: Jehovah had indicated the site of the future Temple. “This is the house of Jehovah Elohim, and this is the altar of burnt, offering for Israel.”
This revelation of the Divine will as to the position of the Temple led David to proceed at once with preparations for its erection by Solomon, which occupied all his energies for the remainder of his life. {1Ch 21:1-30; 1Ch 22:1-19; 1Ch 23:1-32; 1Ch 24:1-31; 1Ch 25:1-31; 1Ch 26:1-32; 1Ch 27:1-34; 1Ch 28:1-21; 1Ch 29:1-30} He gathered funds and materials, and gave his son full instructions about the building; he organized the priests and Levites, the Temple orchestra and choir, the doorkeepers, treasurers, officers, and judges; he also organized the army, the tribes, and the royal exchequer on the model of the corresponding arrangements for the Temple.
Then follows the closing scene of Davids life. The sun of Israel sets amid the flaming glories of the western sky. No clouds or mists rob him of accustomed splendor. David calls a great assembly of princes and warriors; he addresses a solemn exhortation to them and to Solomon; he delivers to his son instructions for “all the works” which “I have been made to understand in writing from the hand of Jehovah.” It is almost as though the plans of the Temple had shared with the first tables of stone the honor of being written with the very finger of God Himself, and David were even greater than Moses. He reminds Solomon of all the preparations he had made, and appeals to the princes and the people for further gifts; and they render willingly-thousands of talents of gold, and silver, and brass, and iron. David offers prayer and thanksgiving to the Lord: “And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Jehovah our God. And all the congregation blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah and the king. And they sacrificed sacrifices unto Jehovah, and offered burnt offerings unto Jehovah, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel, and did eat and drink before Jehovah on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon king; and David died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor, and Solomon his son reigned in his stead.” {1Ch 29:20-22; 1Ch 29:28} The Roman expressed his idea of a becoming death more simply: “An emperor should die standing.” The chronicler has given us the same view at greater length; this is how the chronicler would have wished to die if he had been David, and how, therefore, he conceives that God honored the last hours of the man after His own heart.
It is a strange contrast to the companion picture in the book of Kings. There the king is bedridden, dying slowly of old age; the lifeblood creeps coldly through his veins. The quiet of the sick-room is invaded by the shrill outcry of an aggrieved woman, and the dying king is roused to hear that once more eager hands are clutching at his crown. If the chronicler has done nothing else, he has helped us to appreciate better the gloom and bitterness of the tragedy that was enacted in the last days of David.
What idea does Chronicles give us of the man and his character? He is first and foremost a man of earnest piety and deep spiritual feeling. Like the great religions leaders of the chroniclers own time, his piety found its chief expression in ritual. The main business of his life was to provide for the sanctuary and its services; that is, for the highest fellowship of God and man, according to the ideas then current. But David is no mere formalist; the psalm of thanksgiving for the return of the Ark to Jerusalem is a worthy tribute to the power and faithfulness of Jehovah. {1Ch 16:8-36} His prayer after God had promised to establish his dynasty is instinct with devout confidence and gratitude. {1Ch 17:16-27} But the most gracious and appropriate of these Davidic utterances is his last prayer and thanksgiving for the liberal gifts of the people for the Temple.
Next to Davids enthusiasm for the Temple, his most conspicuous qualities are those of a general and soldier: he has great personal strength and courage, and is uniformly successful in wars against numerous and powerful enemies; his government is both able and upright; his great powers as an organizer and administrator are exercised both in secular and ecclesiastical matters; in a word, he is in more senses than one an ideal king.
Moreover, like Alexander, Marlborough, Napoleon, and other epoch-making conquerors, he had a great charm of personal attractiveness; he inspired his officers and soldiers with enthusiasm and devotion to himself. The pictures of all Israel flocking to him in the first days of his reign and even earlier, when he was an outlaw, are forcible illustrations of this wonderful gift; and the same feature of his character is at once illustrated and partly explained by the romantic episode at Adullam. What greater proof of affection could outlaws give to their captain than to risk their lives to get him a draught of water from the well of Bethlehem? How better could David have accepted and ratified their devotion than by pouring out this water as a most precious libation to God? {1Ch 11:15-19} But the chronicler gives most striking expression to the idea of Davids popularity when he finally tells us in the same breath that the people worshipped Jehovah and the king. {1Ch 29:20}
In drawing an ideal picture, our author has naturally omitted incidents that might have revealed the defects of his hero. Such omissions deceive no one, and are not meant to deceive any one. Yet Davids failings are not altogether absent from this history. He has those vices which are characteristic alike of his own age and of the chroniclers, and which indeed are not yet wholly extinct. He could treat his prisoners with barbarous cruelty. His pride led him to number Israel, but his repentance was prompt and thorough; and the incident brings out alike both his faith in God and his care for his people. When the whole episode is before us, it does not lessen our love and respect for David. The reference to his alliance with the Philistines is vague and incidental. If this were our only account of the matter, we should interpret it by the rest of his life, and conclude that if all the facts were known, they would justify his conduct.
In forming a general estimate of David according to Chronicles, we may fairly neglect these less satisfactory episodes. Briefly David is perfect saint and perfect king, beloved of God and man.
A portrait reveals the artist as well as the model, and the chronicler in depicting David gives indications of the morality of his own times. We may deduce from his omissions a certain progress in moral sensitiveness. The book of Samuel emphatically condemns Davids treachery towards Uriah, and is conscious of the discreditable nature of many incidents connected with the revolts of Absalom and Adonijah; but the silence of Chronicles implies an even severer condemnation. In other matters, however, the chronicler “judges himself in that which he approveth.” {Rom 14:22} Of course the first business of an ancient king was to protect his people from their enemies and to enrich them at the expense of their neighbors. The urgency of these duties may excuse, but not justify, the neglect of the more peaceful departments of the administration. The modern reader is struck by the little stress laid by the narrative upon good government at home; it is just mentioned, and that is about all. As the sentiment of international morality is even now only in its infancy, we cannot wonder at its absence from Chronicles; but we are a little surprised to find that cruelty towards prisoners is included without comment in the character of the ideal king. {2Sa 12:31 1Ch 20:3} It is curious that the account in the book of Samuel is slightly ambiguous and might possibly admit of a comparatively mild interpretation; but Chronicles, according to the ordinary translation, says definitely, “He cut them with saws.” The mere reproduction of this passage need not imply full and deliberate approval of its contents; but it would not have been allowed to remain in the picture of the ideal king, if the chronicler had felt any strong conviction as to the duty of humanity towards ones enemies. Unfortunately we know from the book of Esther and elsewhere that later Judaism had not attained to any wide enthusiasm of humanity.
DAVID
3. HIS OFFICIAL DIGNITY
IN estimating the personal character of David, we have seen that one element of it was his ideal kingship. Apart from his personality his name is significant for Old Testament theology as that of the typical king. From the time when the royal title Messiah “began to” be a synonym for the hope of Israel, down to the period when the Anglican Church taught the Divine right of kings, and Calvinists insisted on the Divine sovereignty or royal authority of God, the dignity and power of the King of kings have always been illustrated by, and sometimes associated with, the state of an earthly monarch-whereof David is the most striking example.
The times of the chronicler were favorable to the development of the idea of the perfect king of Israel, the prince of the house of David. There was no king in Israel; and, as far as we can gather, the living representatives of the house of David held no very prominent position in the community. It is much easier to draw a satisfactory picture of the ideal monarch when the imagination is not checked and hampered by the faults and failings of an actual Ahaz or Hezekiah. In earlier times the prophetic hopes for the house of David had often been rudely disappointed, but there had been ample space to forget the past and to revive the old hopes in fresh splendor and magnificence. Lack of experience helped to commend the idea of the Davidic king to the chronicler. Enthusiasm for a benevolent despot is mostly confined to those who have not enjoyed the privilege of living under such autocratic government.
On the other hand, there was no temptation to flatter any living Davidic king, so that the semi-Divine character of the kingship of David is not set forth after the gross and almost blasphemous style of Roman emperors or Turkish sultans. It is indeed said that the people worshipped Jehovah and the king; but the essential character of Jewish thought made it impossible that the ideal king should sit “in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.” David and Solomon could not share with the pagan emperors the honors of Divine worship in their life-time and apotheosis after their death. Nothing addressed to any Hebrew king parallels the panegyric to the Christian emperor Theodosius, in which allusion is made to his “sacred mind,” and he is told that “as the Fates are said to assist with their tablets that God who is the partner in your majesty, so does some Divine power serve your bidding, which writes down and in due time suggests to your memory the promises which you have made.” Nor does Chronicles adorn the kings of Judah with extravagant Oriental titles, such as “King of kings of kings of kings.” Devotion to the house of David never oversteps the bounds of a due reverence, but the Hebrew idea of monarchy loses nothing by this salutary reserve.
Indeed, the title of the royal house of Judah rested upon Divine appointment. “Jehovah turned the kingdom unto David and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of Jehovah by the hand of Samuel.” {1Ch 10:14; 1Ch 11:3} But the Divine choice was confirmed by the cordial consent of the nation; the sovereigns of Judah, like those of England, ruled by the grace of God and the will of the people. Even before Davids accession the Israelites had flocked to his standard; and after the death of Saul a great array of the twelve tribes came to Hebron to make David king, “and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.” {1Ch 12:38} Similarly Solomon is the king “whom God hath chosen,” and all the congregation make him king and anoint him to be prince. {1Ch 29:1; 1Ch 29:22} The double election of David by Jehovah and by the nation is clearly set forth in the book of Samuel, and in Chronicles the omission of Davids early career emphasizes this election. In the book of Samuel we are shown the natural process that brought about the change of dynasty; we see how the Divine choice took effect through the wars between Saul and the Philistines and through Davids own ability and energy. Chronicles is mostly silent as to secondary causes, and fixes our attention on the Divine choice as the ultimate ground for Davids elevation.
The authority derived from God and the people continued to rest on the same basis. David sought Divine direction alike for the building of the Temple and for his campaigns against the Philistines At the same time, when he wished to bring up the Ark to Jerusalem, he “consulted with the captains of thousands and of hundreds. even with every leader; and David said unto all the assembly of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and if it be of Jehovah our God let us bring again the ark of our God to us and all the assembly said that they would do so, for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.” {1Ch 13:4} Of course the chronicler does not intend to describe a constitutional monarchy, in which an assembly of the people had any legal status. Apparently in his own time the Jews exercised their measure of local self-government through an informal oligarchy, headed by the high-priest; and these authorities occasionally appealed to an assembly of the people. The administration under the monarchy was carried on in a somewhat similar fashion, only the king had greater authority than the high-priest, and the oligarchy of notables were not so influential as the colleagues of the latter. But apart from any formal constitution the chroniclers description of these incidents involves a recognition of the principle of popular consent in government as well as the doctrine that civil order rests upon a Divine sanction.
It is interesting to see how a member of a great ecclesiastical community, imbued, as we should suppose, with all the spirit of priestcraft, yet insists upon the royal supremacy both in state and Church. But to have done otherwise would have been to go in the teeth of all history; even in the Pentateuch the “king in Jeshurun” is greater than the priest. Moreover the chronicler was not a priest, but a Levite; and there are indications that the Levites ancient jealousy of the priests had by no means died out. In Chronicles, at any rate, there is no question of priests interfering with the kings secular administration. They are not even mentioned as obtaining oracles for David as Abiathar did before his accession. {1Sa 23:9-13; 1Sa 30:7-8} This was doubtless implied in the original account of the Philistine raids in chapter 14, but the chronicler may not have understood that “inquiring of God” meant obtaining an oracle from the priests.
The king is equally supreme also in ecclesiastical affairs; we might even say that the civil authorities generally shared this supremacy. Somewhat after the fashion of Cromwell and his major-generals, David utilized “the captains of the host” as a kind of ministry of public worship; they joined with him in organizing the orchestra and choir for the services of the sanctuary, {1Ch 25:1-2} probably Napoleon and his marshals would have had no hesitation in selecting anthems for Notre Dame if the idea had occurred to them. David also consulted his captains {1Ch 13:1} and not the priests, about bringing the Ark to Jerusalem. When he gathered the great assembly to make his final arrangements for the building of the Temple, the princes and captains, the rulers and mighty men, are mentioned, but no priests. {1Ch 28:1} And, last, all the congregation apparently anoint {1Ch 29:22} Zadok to be priest. The chronicler was evidently a pronounced Erastian (But Cf. 2Ch 26:1-23). David is no mere nominal head of the Church; he takes the initiative in all important matters, and receives the Divine commands either directly or through his prophets Nathan and Gad. Now these prophets are not ecclesiastical authorities; they have nothing to do with the priesthood, and do not correspond to the officials of an organized Church. They are rather the domestic chaplains or confessors of the king, differing from modern chaplains and confessors in having no ecclesiastical superiors. They were not responsible to the bishop of any diocese or the general of any order; they did not manipulate the royal conscience in the interests of any party in the Church; they served God and the king, and had no other masters. They did not beard David before his people, as Ambrose confronted Theodosius or as Chrysostom rated Eudoxia; they delivered their message to David in private, and on occasion he communicated it to the people. {Cf. 1Ch 17:4-15 and 1Ch 28:2-10} The kings spiritual dignity is rather enhanced than otherwise by this reception of prophetic messages specially delivered to himself. There is another aspect of the royal supremacy in religion. In this particular instance its object is largely the exaltation of David; to arrange for public worship is the most honorable function of the ideal king. At the same time the care of the sanctuary is his most sacred duty, and is assigned to him that it may be punctually and worthily discharged. State establishment of the Church is combined with a very thorough control of the Church by the state.
We see then that the monarchy rested on Divine and national election, and was guided by the will of God and of the people. Indeed, in bringing up the 1Ch 13:1-14 the consent of the people is the only recorded indication of the will of God. “Vox populi vox Dei.” The king and his government are supreme alike over the state and the sanctuary, and are entrusted with the charge of providing for public worship. Let us try to express the modern equivalents of these principles. Civil government is of Divine origin, and should obtain the consent of the people: it should be carried on according to the will of God, freely accepted by the nation. The civil authority is supreme both in Church and state, and is responsible for the maintenance of public worship.
One at least of these principles is so widely accepted that it is quite independent of any Scriptural sanction from Chronicles. The consent of the people has long been accepted as an essential condition of any stable government. The sanctity of civil government and the sacredness of its responsibilities are coming to be recognized, at present perhaps rather in theory than in practice. We have not yet fully realized how the truth underlying the doctrine of the Divine right of kings applies to modern conditions. Formerly the king was the representative of the state, or even the state itself; that is to say, the king directly or indirectly maintained social order, and provided for the security of life and property. The Divine appointment and authority of the king expressed the sanctity of law and order as the essential conditions of moral and spiritual progress. The king is no longer the state. His Divine right, however, belongs to him, not as a person or as a member of a family, but as the embodiment of the state, the champion of social order against anarchy. The “Divinity that doth hedge a king” is now shared by the sovereign with all the various departments of government. The state-that is to say, the community organized for the common good and for mutual help-is now to be recognized as of Divine appointment and as wielding a Divine authority. “The Lord has turned the kingdom to” the people.
This revolution is so tremendous that it would not be safe to apply to the modern state the remaining principles of the chronicler. Before we could do so we should need to enter into a discussion which would be out of place here, even if we had space for it.
In one point the new democracies agree with the chronicler: they are not inclined to submit secular affairs to the domination of ecclesiastical officials.
The questions of the supremacy of the state over the Church and of the state establishment of the Church involve larger and more complicated issues than existed in the mind or experience of the chronicler. But his picture of the ideal king suggests one idea that is in harmony with some modern aspirations. In Chronicles the king, as the representative of the state, is the special agent in providing for the highest spiritual needs of the people. May we venture to hope that out of the moral consciousness of a nation united in mutual sympathy and service there may arise a new enthusiasm to obey and worship God? Human cruelty is the greatest stumbling-block to belief and fellowship; when the state has somewhat mitigated the misery of “mans inhumanity to man,” faith in God will be easier.