Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Chronicles 13:1
And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, [and] with every leader.
1. David consulted with the captains etc.] The Chronicler is fond of associating the people with the king in religious measures so as to minimise the appearance of arbitrary power which is suggested by the language of the books of Samuel and of Kings; cp. 1Ch 13:4 ( the assembly said that they would do so), also 2Ch 30:2; 2Ch 30:4. Similarly in 1Ch 28:2 the king addresses the elders as My brethren. Doubtless the Chronicler had in mind Deu 17:20.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The captains … – Such an organisation had probably been established generally through the tribes prior to the time of David: but David seems to have been the first to recognize in these officers of the host representatives of the people, to consult them on public affairs, and to give them a certain political position.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XIII
David consults with his officers, and resolves to bring back
the ark from the house of Abinadab, 1-4.
They place it on a new cart, and Uzza and Ahio drive the cart;
the oxen stumbling, Uzza puts forth his hand to save the ark
from falling, and he is smitten by the Lord, 5-10.
David is displeased, and orders the ark to be carried to the
house of Obed-edom the Gittite, 11-13.
The ark abides there three months, and the Lord blesses
Obed-edom, 14.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIII
Verse 1. David consulted] Having taken the strong hold of Zion from the Jebusites, organized his army, got assurances of the friendly disposition of the Israelites towards him, he judged it right to do what he could for the establishment of religion in the land; and as a first step, consulted on the propriety of bringing the ark from an obscure village, where it had remained during the reign of Saul, to the royal city or seat of government.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Or, governor or elder of the people.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-3. David consulted . . . And letus bring again the ark of our GodGratitude for the high andsplendid dignity to which he had been elevated would naturally, atthis period, impart a fresh animation and impulse to the habituallyfervent piety of David; but, at the same time, he was animated byother motives. He fully understood his position as ruler under thetheocracy, and, entering on his duties, he was resolved to fulfil hismission as a constitutional king of Israel. Accordingly, his firstact as a sovereign related to the interests of religion. The arkbeing then the grand instrument and ornament of it, he takes theopportunity of the official representatives of the nation being withhim, to consult them about the propriety of establishing it in a morepublic and accessible locality. The assembly at which he spoke ofthis consisted of the Sheloshim, princes of thousands (2Sa6:1). During the reign of the late king, the ark had been left inculpable neglect. Consequently the people had, to a great extent,been careless about the ordinances of divine worship, or hadcontented themselves with offering sacrifices at Gibeon, without anythought of the ark, though it was the chief and most vital part ofthe tabernacle. The duty and advantages of this religious movementsuggested by the king were apparent, and the proposal met withuniversal approval.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And David consulted with the captains of thousands, and hundreds, and with every leader. With the chiliarchs and centurions, and every officer in that large body of armed men in every tribe, who met to make and crown him king: for at that time was this consultation had, and therefore is connected with it; though the affair advised about was not yet done, as Dr. Lightfoot h observes, and was not done until some considerable time afterwards. Advice being taken, the several officers went with their men to their respective countries, to meet again at a certain time and place to put the thing projected into execution; and between this and that time were Hiram’s message to David on his accession to the throne, the taking of Jerusalem, and the two battles with the Philistines, as the same writer notes; most of which are recorded before this in the book of Samuel, and follow here.
h Works, vol. 1. p. 61, 62.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The removal of the ark from Kirjath-jearim. Cf. 2Sa 6:1-11, with the commentary on the substance of the narrative there given.
1Ch 13:1-3 The introduction to this event is in 2Sa 6:1 and 2Sa 6:2 very brief; but according to our narrative, David consulted with the chief men over thousands and hundreds (1Ch 15:25), viz., with all the princes. The preposition before groups together the individual chiefs of the people just named. He laid his purpose before “all the congregation of Israel,” i.e., before the above-mentioned princes as representatives of the whole people. “If it seem good to you, and if it come from Jahve our God,” i.e., if the matter be willed of and approved by God, we will send as speedily as possible. The words without the conjunction are so connected that defines the idea expressed by , “we will break through, will send,” for “we will, breaking through,” i.e., acting quickly and energetically, “send thither.” The construction of with is accounted for by the fact that the sending thither includes the notion of commanding ( ). , all the provinces of the various tribal domains, is used for , 1Sa 13:19, here, and 2Ch 11:23 and 2Ch 34:33; in all which places the idea of the division of the land into a number of territories is prominent. This usage is founded upon Gen 26:3 and Gen 26:4, where the plural points to the number of small tribes which possessed Canaan. After , or is to be repeated. The words in 1Ch 13:3, we have not sought it, nor asked after it, are meant to include all.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Removal of the Ark. | B. C. 1048. |
1 And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. 2 And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the LORD our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren every where, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us: 3 And let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we enquired not at it in the days of Saul. 4 And all the congregation said that they would do so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people. 5 So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hemath, to bring the ark of God from Kirjath-jearim. 6 And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjath-jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the LORD, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it. 7 And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. 8 And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.
Here is, I. David’s pious proposal to bring up the ark of God to Jerusalem, that the royal city might be the holy city, v. 1-3. This part of the story we had not in Samuel. We may observe in this proposal,
1. That as soon as David was well seated on his throne he had thoughts concerning the ark of God: Let us bring the ark to us, v. 3. Two things he aimed at herein:– (1.) To do honour to God, by showing respect to his ark, the token of his presence. As soon as he had power in his hand he would use it for the advancement and encouragement of religion. Note, It ought to be the first and great care of those that are enriched and preferred to honour God with their honours, and to serve him, and the interests of his kingdom among men, with their wealth and power. David said not, “What pompous thing shall I do now?” or, “What pleasant thing?” but, “What pious thing?” (2.) To have the comfort and benefit of that sacred oracle. “Let us bring it to us, not only that we may be a credit to it, but that it may be a blessing to us.” Those that honour God profit themselves. Note, It is the wisdom of those who are setting out in the world to take God’s ark with them, to make his oracles their counsellors and his laws their rule. Those are likely to proceed in the favour of God who thus begin in the fear of God.
2. That he consulted with the leaders of the people about it, v. 1. Though it was without doubt a very good work, and being king, he had the authority to command the doing of it, yet he chose rather to do it by consultation, (1.) That he might show respect to the great men of the kingdom and put honour upon them. Though they made him king, yet he would not rule with a high hand. He did not say, “We will and command, and it is our royal pleasure, that you do so and so; and we will be obeyed,” but, “If it seem good to you, and you think that the motion comes from the Lord our God, let us send out orders for this purpose.” No prince that is wise will covet to be absolute. The people’s allegiance is best secured by taking their concurrence in their representatives. Happy then art thou, O Britain! (2.). That he might be advised by them in the manner of doing it, whether just now, whether publicly. David was a very intelligent man himself, and yet consulted with his captains; for in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. It is wisdom to make use of the wisdom of others. (3.) That, they joining in it, it might pass the better for a national act and so might procure a national blessing.
3. That he would have all the people summoned to attend on this occasion, both for the honour of the ark and for the people’s satisfaction and edification, v. 2. Observe, (1.) He calls the common people brethren, which bespeaks his humility and condescension (notwithstanding his advancement), and the tender concern he had for them. Thus our Lord Jesus is not ashamed to call his people brethren, Heb. ii. 11. (2.) He speaks of the people as a remnant that had escaped: Our brethren that are left in all the land of Israel. They had been under scattering providences. Their wars with the Philistines, and with the house of Saul, had wasted the country and cut off many. We now hope to see an end of these troubles. Let those that are left be quickened by late judgments, and present mercies, to seek unto God. (3.) He takes care that the priests and Levites especially should be summoned to attend the ark; for it was their province in a particular manner. Thus Christian magistrates should stir up ministers to do their duty when they see them remiss.
4. That all this is upon supposition that it is of the Lord their God. “Though it should seem good to you and me, yet if it be not of the Lord our God, we will not do it.” What ever we undertake, this must be our enquiry, “Is it of the Lord? Is it agreeable to his mind? Can we approve ourselves to him in it? May we expect that he will own us?”
5. That thus it was requisite they should amend what has been amiss in the last reign, and, as it were, atone for their neglect: “For we enquired not at it in the days of Saul, and this was the reason why things went so ill with us: let that original error be amended, and then we may hope to see our affairs in a better posture.” Observe, David makes no peevish reflections upon Saul. He does not say, “Saul never cared for the ark, at least in the latter end of this reign;” but, in general, We enquired not at it, making himself with others guilty of this neglect. It better becomes us to judge ourselves than others. Humble good men lament their own share in national guilt, and take shame to themselves, Dan. ix. 5, c.
II. The people’s ready agreement to this proposal (<i>v. 4): The thing was right in the eyes of all the people. Nobody could say to the contrary, but that it was a very good work and very seasonable; so that it was resolved, nemine contradicente—unanimously, that they would do so. Those that prudently proposed a good work, and lead in it, will perhaps find a more ready concurrence in it than they expected. Great men know not what a great deal of good they are capable of doing by their influence on others.
III. The solemnity of bringing up the ark, v. 5, c., which we read before, 2 Sam. vi. 1, &c. Here therefore we shall only observe, 1. That it is worth while to travel far to attend the ark of God. They came out of all parts of the country, from the river of Egypt, the utmost part south, to the entering of Hemath, which lay furthest north, (<i>v. 5), to grace this solemnity. 2. That we have reason greatly to rejoice in the revival of neglected ordinances and the return of the tokens of God’s presence. When the light of religion shines out of obscurity, when it is openly and freely professed, is brought into reputation, and countenanced by princes and great ones, it is such a happy omen to a people as is worthy to be welcomed with all possible expressions of joy. 3. When, after long disuse, ordinances come to be revived, it is too common for even wise and good men to make some mistakes. Who would have thought that David would commit such an error as this, to carry the ark upon a cart? v. 7. Because the Philistines so carried it, and a special providence drove the cart (1 Sam. vi. 12), he thought they might do so too. But we must walk by rule, not by example when it varies from the rule, no, not even by those examples which Providence has owned.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Plans to Move the Ark, 1Ch 13:1-5
Not only did David have plans for making Jerusalem the center of government for his kingdom, but also the center of worship of God. The tabernacle had been erected in Shiloh during the early days of the Canaanite conquest (Jos 18:1) and was still there when the ark was captured by the Philistines in the days of Eli (1Sa 4:11). After the ark’s sojourn in the country of the Philistines for seven months (1Sa 6:1), during which time the Lord severely plagued the Philistines (1Sa, chap. 5), they returned it to Israel (1Sa 6:10 ff). It was eventually removed and set up in the house of Abinadab at Kiriathjearim (1Sa 6:21; 1Sa 7:1).
David now consulted with the great men of Israel, captains and leaders, about the removal of the ark to Jerusalem. He proposed that they invite to Jerusalem all the people of Israel, with the scattered priests and Levites in their appointed cities, to plan for the removal of the ark. This would be a move to unite the people in their worship and to restore the ark, the symbol of God’s presence in Israel, to its proper respect among them. For the many years of Saul’s reign the ark had been all but forgotten and neglected by the people.
The people agreed with David to make this move to restore the ark. To them it seemed, with David, the right thing to do, so all Israel began to gather for the great occasion. The people came from as far south as Shihor and from as far north as the road to Hemath (usually Hamath). Shihor is one of the names given the Nile in Egypt, but probably refers here to a smaller stream on the road to Egypt. Hamath was a city of upper Syria, about half the distance from Damascus to Antioch. The entering in of Hamath refers to the road in the far north of Israel which led on to the city of Hamath.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.] This chapter corresponds closely with 2Sa. 6:1-11; but in the first verse of that chapter is stated, with great brevity, what is given here in full (1Ch. 13:1-5).
1Ch. 13:1-5.The Consultation. Leaders (omit and, for leaders intended) are captains named, i.e., chiefs of people. If civil and military organisation existed before this, David seems to have been the first to recognise in these officers of the host representatives of the people, to consult them on public affairs and to give them a certain political position (see, besides the present place, ch. 1Ch. 15:25; 1Ch. 26:26; 1Ch. 28:1) [Speak. Com.]. 1Ch. 13:2. All assembled together; send quickly everywhere; left at home. 1Ch. 13:3. Enquired not (cf. 1Sa. 7:1-2; 1Sa. 28:6; 1Ch. 10:14). 1Ch. 13:5. Shihor, probably one of the names of the Nile (cf. Jos. 13:3; Isa. 23:3; Jer. 2:18); was the southern bounds, as Hemath was the northern of Canaan [Pat.]. Kirjath-jearim, where it had been since it returned out of land of Philistines (cf. 1 Samuel 6).
1Ch. 13:6-8.The Undertaking (cf. 2Sa. 6:2-11). All Israel, 30,000 in Sam. 1Ch. 13:6. Baalah (Jos. 15:9-60). Whose name, rather who is worshipped there. 1Ch. 13:7. Uzza and Ahio, sons or grandsons of Abinadab, who from age or death was unable to accompany procession. 1Ch. 13:8. Harps and lutes, stringed instruments; timbrels and cymbals, percussive instruments for keeping time in march or solemn dance. Trumpets used by priests, generally on joyous occasions (Numbers 10; Psa. 98:6). Some suppose that Psalms 34 was sung in parts on this occasion.
1Ch. 13:9-14.The Breach. Chidon, Nachon (2Sa. 6:6). Stumbled, descent steep and dangerous. Hand, ark not to be touched, would not have required it, if in obedience to law, it had been carried on the priests shoulders by poles (cf. Exo. 25:14; Num. 4:15). 1Ch. 13:11. David displeased and afraid at such sudden vindication of holiness. 1Ch. 13:14. Obed, a Levite, and afterwards doorkeeper in tabernacle (1Ch. 15:18; 1Ch. 16:5). Gittite, of Gath-rimmon, one of the Levitical cities (Jos. 21:24).
HOMILETICS
THE FIRST COUNCIL.1Ch. 13:1-5
David securely established on the throne, taken and fortified Jerusalem, organised and trained an army, turns attention to civil and religious concerns. First thing to restore the ark to its proper place. Hence consultation with chiefs.
I. The parties of which it was composed. David begins well. Instead of ignoring the people, he calls their representatives; he consults them and decides nothing absolutely, and unconstitutionally. Many sovereigns, proud and tyrannical, will yield nothing, give nothing, overrule the wish and rights of the people. I am the state, said one. The peoples allegiance is best secured by consent in their representatives. If it seem good unto you.
II. The purpose for which it was convened. Many historic councils summoned for important objects. This not called to celebrate success, organise plans of campaign; but to unite the people and establish the worship of the sanctuary by the restoration of the most sacred of all symbols. This
1. A religious movement. Former neglect great, people degenerated by influence and example of Saul; careless and indifferent concerning ordinances and worship of God. We enquired not in the days of Saul.
2. A national movement. If it seem good unto you. The throne established, national government under one head; foundation laid for internal unity by concentrating national life on its centre and source. Not like other kings, David displays in proceedings the popular character of his rule, assembles all round the sanctuary before the throne, and under the government of Jehovah (Psa. 24:1-10).
3. A divinely sanctioned movement. If it be of the Lord our God. All enterprises opposed to his will, though carried on with numbers and valour, will come to nought. This first, Is it the will of God? For man proposes, but God disposes. Ye ought to say if the Lord will we shall live and do this or that.
III. The decision at which it arrived. The purpose noble, and reasons for execution weighty and abundant.
1. A wise decision. It was right. Always wise to seek first the kingdom of God, &c. Oh that they were wise!
2. A unanimous decision. All the congregation said it was right. People rightly consulted readily agree. Leaders should never fear to appeal in Gods name to the nation, seek to rouse its conscience and gain its sympathies. The response will be cordial and unanimous. The Lord our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey (Jos. 24:24).
3. A firm decision. We will do so. Needful to be prudent in counsel and firm in execution.
THE ARK IN THE ROYAL CITY
A place of honour, influence, and right, as
I. The centre of unity. Politically and morally, outwardly and inwardly people one. Unity in worship not complete, for there were two holy places, one in Gibeon, another pitched over the ark, but internal unity which did not exist before.
II. The source of religious life. Under Saul it had fallen from the height to which Samuel had brought it. The royal family had lost piety, and, as instanced by Michal, had become proud. In her fathers house she had an idol god. But this act
1. Purified religious life. Elevated its tone and grandeur.
2. Unified religious life. External unity destroyed by war between Saul and David. Now national life one centre and source in dwelling of God in Zion. The sanctuary in Gibeon retires from view.
3. Organised religious life. He arranged priests and Levites, divided them into classes for service, gave a new impulse to music and culture. Reorganisation raised divine worship from its disintegration and lawlessness under Saul to an artistic and beautiful order.
III. The sign of Gods presence. David had captains and mighty men, but God was required. Conscious of dependence upon God, he confesses desire to rule according to the will of God. If it be of the Lord our God. This act one of reverence and gratitude, which enthrones God the king of glory (Psalms 24); makes Jerusalem the city of the Great King (Psa. 48:3); from whence proceed all manifestations of glory and might (Psa. 20:3); and before whom it is an unspeakable privilege to worship. Who may be guest in thy tent? who may dwell on thy holy mountain? (Psa. 15:1).
THE SOLEMN PROCESSION.1Ch. 13:6-8
Extreme anxiety to have the ark in the city, for counsel and succour on all occasions. To attain this all classes eager to undertake any effort and submit to any inconvenience. A procession formed which befits the object in view.
I. In military escort. The way rugged, the enemy defeated, but not destroyed. We must ever be on guard.
II. In united ranks. All Israel (30,000 in Sam.), king, priests, and people in order and position. All ranks indebted to God, all should join in service and praise.
III. In festive joy. The festival, says Dean Stanley, was one which exactly corresponded to what in the Middle Ages would have been the Feast of the Translation of some great relic, by which a new city or a new church was to be glorified. Long sleepless nights had David passed in thinking of it (Psa. 132:4), as St. Louis of the transport of the Crown of Thorns to the Royal Chapel of Paris. Such joy is natural and becoming, pleasing to men and acceptable to God.
THE LESSON OF UZZA.1Ch. 13:8-12
David loved God, venerated the symbol of his presence, desired to restore appointed worship, and put the ark where it should be. But right things must be done in right manner, or they will fail. In this case failure, sad and signal, for Uzza died and the ark turned aside to the house of Obed-edom.
I. The failure. Here multitudes, David and all Israel, yet business nought. Crowds do not ensure blessing. Here pomp, singing, harps, trumpets, &c., yet ended in mourning. Gorgeous ceremonial no guarantee of grace. Here energy; they played before God with all their mightno dull and sleepy worship, but a bright, lively service, yet the matter fell through. But there was no thought as to Gods mind. David confessed, We sought him not after the due order (1Ch. 15:13). The priests not in their places, nor Levites to carry the ark; oxen took the place of willing men. The worship was not sufficiently spiritual and humble. There was no sacrifice. This a fatal flaw, for how can we serve the Lord apart from sacrifice? There was little reverence. We hear little of prayer, but much of oxen, a cart, and the too familiar hand of Uzza. Now, even David must keep his place, and the Lords command must not be supplanted by will-worship. Therefore the breach upon Uzza, and David greatly afraid. May we not expect similar failures, unless careful to act obediently and serve the Lord with holy awe? Are all observances and practices of our churches scriptural? Are not some of them purely will-worship?
II. The fear. The terrible death of Uzza caused great fear. Thus the Lord slew Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire; and the men of Beth-shemesh for looking into the ark. I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified (Lev. 10:3). Sense of wrong-feeling caused fear in David, for we read, And David was displeased (1Ch. 13:11). We are too apt to be displeased with God because he is displeased with us. Sense of unworthiness for such holy work made him cry, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me? His feeling that he failed in that which God expected of his servants created a holy fear. Sanctify yourselves, that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God (1Ch. 15:12). He meant well, but erred and came to a pause; yet not for long. Ark remained with Obed-edom three months, not more (1Ch. 13:14). Some make the holiness of God and the strictness of His rule an excuse for wicked neglect. Others are overwhelmed with holy fear, and pause awhile till they are better prepared for the holy service [Spurgeon].
RIGHT THINGS DONE IN A WRONG WAY
I. The matter and right manner of performing duties are, in the command of God, linked together. He will have his service well done, as well as really done, with a perfect heart and a willing mind, for the Lord searcheth all hearts and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts. Masters on earth challenge to themselves a power to oblige their servants, not only to do their work, but to do it so-and-so; and though they do the thing itself, yet if not in the manner required, it is not accepted.
II. The doing of a duty in a wrong manner alters the nature of it, and makes it sin. Hence, the ploughing of the wicked is sin (Pro. 21:4). Hence, prayer is accounted a howling upon their beds (Hos. 7:14). Unworthy communicating is not counted as eating the Lords Supper (1Co. 11:20). If a house be built of never so strong timber and good stones, yet if it be not well founded and rightly built, the inhabitant may curse the day he came under the roof of it.
III. Duties not prepared according to the right order are but the half of the service we owe to God, and the worst half too [Thos. Boston].
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
1Ch. 13:2. Send abroad. Erumpamus, dimittamus. Let us break forth and send, i.e., let us send speedily and effectually. See his zeal for the Lord of Hosts [Trapp].
1Ch. 13:8. Played before God. Public joy should always be as before the Lord, with an eye to him, and terminating in him, otherwise it is no better than public madness, and the source of all manner of wickedness [Benson].
1Ch. 13:7-10. Perez-Uzza.
1. The act of Uzza. Rash, lacking faith in Gods power or providence to preserve the ark; irreverent; disobedient.
2. The punishment of Uzza. Sudden, signal, and severe. Apparently out of all proportion to the act. But we are improper judges of wrong, desert, and divine justice. God displays holiness, to secure discipline and check sin, to which we are prone. One instance of justice may benefit generations and ages.
3. The results of the punishment of Uzza. (a) The procession was broken up. (b) David was afraid. How could such a festal joy which knew nothing of holy fear, however well meant, prove acceptable to God? It is not enough that we mean well, and have pious thoughts; we must also, in what we do, hold fast to Gods word and commandment, and in all our joy in the Lord must not allow ourselves to forget that we have to do with a holy God.
Uzza, or Irreverence in sacred things.
1. Rashness in devotion. God smote Uzza for his rashness (marg.) (2Sa. 6:7). Worldly thoughts and plans brought into the very house and presence of God. Haste in spirit and utterance. Be not rash with thy mouth, &c. (Ecc. 5:2).
2. Thoughtlessness in Christian effort. No due preparation, trust to accidents or emergencies. Inconsiderate effort has blasted many a noble project. Prudence and thought required. Collect and arrange materials; for an unfurnished minister can never be a wise master-builder. Prepare thy work (set it in order) without and make it fit for thyself in the field (Pro. 24:27).
3. Sinfulness in the Christian ministry. Uzza a type of all who, unsanctified in spirit, take upon themselves to rescue the cause of God. Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. Profanation of the ark. It is of importance to observe the proportionate severity of the punishment attending the profanation of the ark. The Philistines suffered by diseases, from which they were relieved by their oblations, because the law had not been given to them; the Bethshemites also suffered, but not fatally, their error proceeding from ignorance or inadvertency; but Uzza, who was a Levite and well instructed, suffered death for his breach of the law [Jamieson].
HOMILETICS
FEREZ-UZZA AND ITS LESSONS
Arrangements of David for transport of the Ark differed from those which God had prescribed (Numbers 4). Never carry on the work of God by means which God has forbidden. Learn
I. If God be absent from a people, and the ark be long in obscurity, that people will lose a sense of reverence. All thought of divine power in the ark forgotten, a question of mere safety, not reverence; arrangements those of heathen nations, not divine injunctions.
II. That God, mindful of his honour, often singles out guilty men to be monuments of his displeasure. God will be sanctified in those who come nigh him (Lev. 10:3). Uzza presumptuous and irreverent, like Nadab and Abihua, suffered for sin. When many have sinned, God commonly punishes one or two of the leaders, in order that the others may remember their sin and beg forgiveness.
III. That by such examples of terror God warns others. King, priests, and people inspired with dread of divine majesty. Judgment opened the eyes and humbled the soul of David, who wisely delayed for thought, self-examination, and, under divine teaching, to learn the right way. For when thy judgments are in (strike) the earth, the inhabitants of the world (earth) will learn righteousness (Isa. 26:9).
Heaven wills our happiness, allows our doom;
Invites us ardently, but not compels [Young].
DAVIDS DISPLEASURE.1Ch. 13:11-12
The king greatly agitated, dreaded Gods displeasure might be extended to himself and people if ark further conveyed. Resolved to wait. The word betokens anger and grief, used by Jonah (1Ch. 4:1-9).
I. He was afraid of personal danger. He had neglected duty; knew not what might happen; dangerous to bring ark into the city. A guilty conscience makes cowards.
II. He was vexed at the interruption of his plan. People disappointed, his prestige damaged, and his enemies encouraged. We are often tempted to find fault when our religious enterprise is interrupted, when we as leaders are dishonoured, and our purposes broken. Complain of Gods providence when we should accuse ourselves. Should it be according to thy mind?
III. He was overcome with superstitious dread. Something about the ark itself he did not understand. He misinterpreted the event. Superstition ever misdirects, scares by expected evil. It were better to have no opinion of God at all than such an opinion as is unworthy of him, for the one is unbelief, the other is contumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach of the Deity [Bacon].
THE HOUSE OF OBED-EDOM.1Ch. 13:14
People dismayed, David perplexed, one perfectly calm and ready to welcome the ark. Obed. not a great warrior; for great talents no guarantee for holy life and faithful service (Balaam, Saul, Byron), but a man of sincere heart and upright conduct.
I. The service which he rendered. The ark was carried aside into the house of Obed-edom. A most signal service which no one else would undertake. A service for which he was trained, and which he was ready when required to give. Lonely homes are scenes of highest trust and purest character. Not the palace, but the cottage often the residence of God, and the national glory.
II. The spirit in which he performed this service. Uzza slain for rashness, David shrinks in fear, Obed-edom receives ark gladly.
1. In filial fear. In love to God and earnest desire to help his cause.
2. In striking courage. He knew what had been done among the Philistines and the Bethshemites, yet invites the ark to his house. O the courage, says Bishop Hall, of an honest and faithful heart! Nothing can make God otherwise than amiable to him; even his justice is lovely.
III. The reward which he gained. The Lord blessed the house.
1. A personal blessing.
2. A social blessing.
3. An extensive blessing. All that he had. None suffer whose guest is the ark of God. Piety is the best friend to prosperity. Happy and attractive the home in which God dwells.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
1Ch. 13:9 to 1Ch. 13:1. Gods people misinterpret his dealings.
2. How much they lose by this interpretation.
3. How much they gain who receive God simply.
(1) Beware of flying from God or shutting out God.
(2) Let God into the heart and the dwelling [H. Bonar].
1Ch. 13:14. Ark in the house. Family devotion, its nature, duty, and results. Howard, the philanthropist, never neglected family prayer, if even but one, and that his domestic servant, declaring that where he had a tent, God should have an altar. Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not upon thy name.
The Ark with Uzza, David, and Obed-edom; or the Ark the cause of judgment, fear, and blessing, according to its treatment.
1Ch. 13:14. Blessed. As he will do all those, both small and great, that favour his cause and further his kingdom; for he is a liberal paymaster, and his retributions are more than bountiful. If Abinadab was not so well blessed as Obed-edom, it was haply because he entertained not the ark with like reverence. As men measure to God in preparation, &c., so will God measure to them in blessing [Trapp].
A Deity believed, will nought avail,
Rewards and punishments make God adored [Young].
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 13
1Ch. 13:6-8. Singing. Oh that we might have such joy as that which inspired the men at the battle of Leuthen! They were singing a Christian song as they went into battle. A general said to the king, Shall I stop these people singing? No, said the king. Men that can sing like that can fight [Talmage].
1Ch. 13:11. Breach. God would have us read our sins in our judgments, that we might both repent of our sins, and give glory to his justice [Bishop Hall].
1Ch. 13:14. Blessed the house. Parents! if you would banish Satan from your households, and with him all the train of sins that bring misery and desolation into many a home, and convert into a wilderness with wild beasts what might be a family paradise, where every human affection bloomed in beauty, grew in grace, and brought forth fruit to Gods glory, seek the constant presence of Jesus Christ, and covet, above all earthly honour or renown, that your family should be like that one of old in Bethany which Jesus loved. His presence will be your true prosperity, making your daily mercies true mercies, and your seasons of bereavement seasons of richest blessing and deepest peace [Rev. Nor. Macleod, D.D.].
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
LESSON SIX 1314
DAVID AND THE ARK OF THE COVENANT DAVIDS FAMILY WAR WITH PHILISTIA.
6. THE ARK AND OBED-EDOM (Chapter 13)
INTRODUCTION
Davids desire to make Jerusalem a holy city is now evident, so the ark was brought to Jerusalem. The Philistines were never victorious in their encounters with David. Their gods failed them and they fled before the mighty invisible army of Jehovah.
TEXT
1Ch. 13:1. And David consulted with the captains of thousands and of hundreds, even with every leader. 2. 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 send abroad everywhere unto our brethren that are left in all the land of Israel, with whom the priests and Levites are in their cities that have suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us; 3. and let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we sought not unto it in the days of Saul. 4. And all the assembly said that they would do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people. 5. So David assembled all Israel together, from the Shihor the brook of Egypt even unto the entrance of Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim. 6. And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God Jehovah that sitteth above the cherubim, that is called by the Name. 7. And they carried the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart. 8. And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, even with songs, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.
9. And when they came unto the threshing-floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. 10. And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put forth his hand to the ark; and there he died before God. 11. And David was displeased, because Jehovah had broken forth upon Uzza: and he called that place Perezuzza, unto this day. 12. And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me? 13. So David removed not the ark unto him into the city of David, but carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 14, And the ark of God remained with the family of Obed-edom in his house three months: and Jehovah blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that he had.
PARAPHRASE
1Ch. 13:1. After David had consulted with all his army officers, 2. he addressed the assembled men of Israel as follows: Since you think that I should be your king, and since the Lord our God has given his approval, let us send messages to our brothers throughout the land of Israel, including the priests and Levites, inviting them to come and join us. 3. And let us bring back the Ark of our God, for we have been neglecting it ever since Saul became king. 4. There was unanimous consent, for everyone agreed with him. 5. So David summoned the people of Israel from all across the nation so that they could be present when the Ark of God was brought from Kiriath-jearim. 6. Then David and all Israel went to Baalah (i.e., Kiriath-jearmin) in Judah to bring back the Ark of the Lord God enthroned above the angels. 7. It was taken from the house of Abinadab on a new cart. Uzza and Ahio drove the oxen. 8. Then David and all the people danced before the Lord with great enthusiasm, accompanied by singing and by zithers, harps, tambourines, cymbals, and trumpets.
9. But as they arrived at the threshing-floor of Chidon, the oxen stumbled and Uzza reached out his hand to steady the Ark. 10. Then the anger of the Lord blazed out against Uzza, and killed him because he had touched the Ark, And so he died there before God. 11. David was angry at the Lord for what he had done to Uzza, and he named the place The Outbreak Against Uzza. And it is still called that today. 12. Now David was afraid of God and asked, How shall I ever get the Ark of God home? 13. Finally he decided to take it to the home of Obed-edom the Gittite instead of bringing it to the City of David. 14. The Ark remained there with the family of Obed-edom for three months, and the Lord blessed him and his family.
COMMENTARY
Having explained how David had become commander-in-chief over the great army of Israel and how he had been duly anointed king over a great united kingdom, the historian now turns to Davids establishment of Jerusalem as a holy city.[28] David demonstrated wise leadership when he counseled with properly constituted officers who represented the people. As early as Moses day responsible men had been selected to help Moses bear the burdens of leadership (Exo. 18:13-27). This probably was the historical basis for the Sanhedrin, or the high court of the Jews, which continued to function in the days of Jesus earthly ministry. David spoke also to the whole assembly of Israel and took the people into his confidence. His government was not to be that of an autocrat or a tyrant. Moreover, he was concerned about the will of God. If it be of Jehovah our God, we will bring the ark of God into Jerusalem. David knew the failures of Sauls kingship. He wanted to build the nation of Israel on the solid foundation of seeking out and doing Gods will. If Jerusalem is to be the capital, then David thought that the center of worship should be located there. He had to be certain that Jehovah was directing any action he might take. Consideration was given to the priests and Levites. These had been appointed to sacred service by Jehovah. The ark of the covenant would immediately concern these religious leaders so they are specifically invited to this national gathering.
[28] Pfeiffer, Charles F., The Biblical World, pp. 309-323.
The ark of the covenant had been in the tabernacle at Shiloh for years (Jos. 18:1). In the days of Eli and Samuel the Philistines captured the ark of the covenant. The power of Jehovah through this scared chest wrought havoc in the cities in Philistia (1Sa. 4:1-4; 1Sa. 4:11; 1Sa. 4:22; 1Sa. 5:1-10; 1Sa. 6:9-13). Plagued by their idolatry and superstition, the Philistines suffered greatly before they decided to relinquish the ark and send it back with golden tumors and golden mice. The ark came back to Bethshemesh in Judah. The people of Judah were so glad to see it, but in their rejoicing they dared to become too familiar with it. A great slaughter followed (1Sa. 6:19). The ark was then taken to the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, a village just west of Jerusalem. The ark remained there, separated from the tabernacle, until Davids day. To this place David brought all Israel so that the ark might be brought into Jerusalem. In the meantime, after the ark had been removed from the tabernacle at Shiloh, the tabernacle had been moved to the village of Nob on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The ark and the tabernacle would never be re-united until they were both brought into Solomons Temple.
A great assembly was called together for this sacred occasion (1Ch. 13:5). The record in 2Sa. 6:1-2 number thirty thousand of the chosen men of Israel. The term Shihor according to Gesenius is from a root meaning turbid or black. The River of Egypt, the modern Wady el-Arish, marked the southwestern boundary of Palestine. It flowed into the Mediterranean south and west of the Brook Besor and the Cherethite country south of Philistia, The Nile also is on occasion referred to as Shihor. The intention of the author here is to indicate the all-inclusive character of the assembly as people came from the farthest boundaries on the south and west to the farthest boundaries in the north. Hamath was about three hundred miles to the north from Jerusalem on the Orontes river in Syria. This must have involved sending runners to these distant places with summons for all Hebrews to attend this sacred meeting.
The village where the ark was located is called by various names in the Bible record. Baalah, Kiriath-jearim, Kiriath-baal all refer to the same place. At one time this must have been a center of Baal worship. Kiriath means city of or village. Kiriath-jearim signifies a village of forests. The exact location is not known, but it is generally located about eight and one-half miles north of Jerusalem.[29] The account we are now studying assigns the village to Judah. In earlier times it was named in connection with Gibeon and other Hivite villages.
[29] Pfeiffer, Charles F., The Biblical World, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1966, p. 16.
The combination of the terms God and Jehovah in this particular order is rare in the Scriptures. The Hebrew names involved are Elohim (God) and Yahweh (Jehovah). Elohim is used over two thousand times in the Old Testament and presents God as the all-powerful Creator and Sustainer. Yahweh was the name God chose for Himself when He sent Moses into Egypt to deliver Israel. By this term God is designated as the only existent deity who is in covenant relationship with His people. The Hebrews who loved God held His name in highest reverence. On occasion they feared even to attempt to pronounce His name Yahweh lest they blaspheme His name by mispronunciation They coined another term, Ha-shem or Shem, which they used in reference to Him. This term is used in 1Ch. 13:6 and is translated the Name. The focal point of Gods glory was between wings of the cherubim just over the ark of the covenant. There seemed to have been no lack of reverence for God on Davids part on this occasion. No explanation is given as to why Kohathite Levites were not designated to carry the ark on their shoulders as they had done by divine appointment in the days of Moses and Joshua. Had this been done at this time, the accident involving Uzza would have been avoided. No charge is brought against David in this matter. The new cart would seem to be a poor substitute for personal attention by the priests. The fact that the cart was new is probably emphasized to clarify the point that the cart was built especially to bear this holy treasure. Abinadab lived in Kiriath-jearim and had graciously consented to provide a place for the ark of the covenant through several years after it had been returned from Philistia. Uzza and Ahio (2Sa. 6:3; 2Sa. 6:6) were sons or grandsons of Abinadab. Eleazar was Abinadabs eldest son (1Sa. 7:1). Uzza and Ahio were charged with the responsibility of managing the oxen and the cart with its precious cargo. It was a happy day, a time for laughing, rejoicing, singing. The songs were accompanied with a full orchestration of musical instruments. David led in all of the religious exercises of the day.
The death of Uzza very abruptly ended the ceremonies of what had been a very happy occasion. As the procession moved up the road toward Jerusalem everything was in good order until they came to the threshing floor of Chidon (Nacon2Sa. 6:6). The two names most likely refer to the same place. A threshing floor would measure from fifty to one hundred feet in diameter and would be located so as to take advantage of the wind in separating the grain from the straw. Places of importance were often designated by familiar objects such as great rocks, trees, or as in this instance, a threshing floor. It may be that the procession stopped at this place for rest or worship. While they waited, the oxen shook the cart. Instinctively, Uzza reached out with hand to try to avert the disaster of the arks being thrown to the ground.[30] Uzzas action caused his death. Staves were to remain in the ark at all times so it could be put on priests shoulders at a moments notice and lead the line of march as Israel came to Canaan. Whether or not these handles were in the ark just now is not known. They were in the ark when it was later put in the Oracle in Solomons Temple. Most likely, Uzza was not a priest. His action was one of undue familiarity with the most sacred vessel known to the Hebrews. Jehovah struck him down. What happened here should underscore Gods attitude toward anyone who would profane sacred things. Davids laughter turned to anger and grief. David was displeased with the whole turn of events. It would appear that he came dangerously close to passing judgment on Jehovahs action. If he was about to do this, he soon recovered, because the word says (1Ch. 13:12), David was afraid of God. He reverenced God and knew he had to accept what had happened. The threshing floor was then named Perez-uzza, or the breach of Uzza, because Gods wrath had broken through on Uzza that day. David then decided not to attempt to take the ark into Jerusalem at this time. He may have thought that Uzzas death was Gods way of telling him that the time was not yet right for this move. He found a man, Obed-edom the Gittite, who lived nearby and who would receive the ark into his house.[31] In this matter Obed-edom was taking considerable risk. The wrath of God could break out upon him. This great assembly broke up and everybody returned to his own place unsatisfied with regard to the disposition of the ark. Periodically in the days that followed David checked with Obed-edom. The ark remained in his house for three months. During this time Jehovah blessed the house of Obed-edom. There is no indication that David suffered any other reverses for not bringing the ark into Jerusalem. However, when it was apparent that the presence of the ark in a house did not bring death, David resumed his plans to bring the ark to the capital city.
[30] Spence, H. D. M., The Pulpit Commentary, I Chronicles, p. 196.
[31] Elmslie, W. A. L., The Interpreters Bible, Vol. III, p. 394.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XIII.
(1) And David consulted.This consultation took place some time after the coronation at Hebron (comp. 2Sa. 6:1), And David gathered together again every chosen man i Israel, thirty thousand. This is all that Samuel has corresponding to our 1Ch. 13:1-5. It is by no means necessary to assume that, according to the context, we are still at Hebron in the assemblage of 350,000 warriors (Reuss). Samuel implies the contrary.
Captains of thousands.The thousands (comp. 1Ch. 12:20).
And the hundreds.Comp. Num. 31:14. The hundreds were the smaller military divisions of the tribe, representing, perhaps, the warlike strength of the houses, as the thousands represented that of the clans or sub-tribes.
And with every leader.Rather, viz. with every prince (nagd) or chief. These chiefs constituted the Great Council of the nation.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1Ch 13:14 And the ark of God remained with the family of Obededom in his house three months. And the LORD blessed the house of Obededom, and all that he had.
1Ch 13:14
1Ch 15:24, “And Shebaniah, and Jehoshaphat, and Nethaneel, and Amasai, and Zechariah, and Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, did blow with the trumpets before the ark of God: and Obededom and Jehiah were doorkeepers for the ark.”
1Ch 26:4-5, “Moreover the sons of Obededom were, Shemaiah the firstborn, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, and Sacar the fourth, and Nethaneel the fifth, Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peulthai the eighth: for God blessed him .”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Ark Brought from Kirjath-Jearim.
v. 1. And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader, v. 2. And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, v. 3. and let us bring again the ark of our God to us, v. 4. And all the congregation said that they would do so, v. 5. So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt, v. 6. And David went up and all Israel, v. 7. And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab, v. 8. And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, with songs of rejoicing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
The opening verses of this chapter explain and amplify the compressed announcement of 2Sa 6:1, “Again, David gathered together all the chosen of Israel, thirty thousand.” And the remaining verses (6-14) cover the same ground as 2Sa 6:2-11.
1Ch 13:1
There can be little doubt that the captains of thousands and hundreds… with every leader, here spoken of, represented what had become by this time a confirmed institution, although in embryo, dating from the time of Moses at least (Num 31:14; Deu 1:15; Jdg 20:7; 2Ch 20:21).
1Ch 13:2
Left in all the land. Some think that this phrase points to the destruction that had been widespread by the Philistines.
1Ch 13:8
Let us bring again the ark. It had been removed from Shiloh (Jos 18:1) at the instance of “the elders of Israel” to their camp, when they were hard pressed and smitten by the Philistines (1Sa 4:1-4); there it was taken by the Philistines (1Sa 4:11, 1Sa 4:22), and hurried from Ashdod to Ekron and on to Bethshemesh (1Sa 5:1-12. l, 5, 8, 10; 1Sa 6:9-13). For we inquired not at it in the days of Saul. The allusion may be considered delicately worded, but an inexpressible pathos and unmeasured condemnation must be imagined as clinging to this sentence, illustrated further by 1Sa 7:2; 1Sa 28:6, 1Sa 28:15, 1Sa 28:16; 1Ch 10:14.
1Ch 13:5
All Israel. The parallel gives the number as thirty thousand men (2Sa 6:1, 2Sa 6:2). Shihor of Egypt. According to Gesenius, this Shihor is from root meaning “to be turbid” or “black”. There can surely be little doubt that it is the river Nile which is here spoken of, after comparison of the following passages:Jos 13:3; Isa 23:3; Jer 2:18. Though others, quoting Jos 13:3 and Jos 19:26, and interpreting Shihor generically as applicable to any dark, turbid stream, make it the modern Wady el-Arish, However, the parallel, 1Ki 8:65, does not necessarily dissever the from of Egypt (Gen 15:18), but rather tends to identify them. The entering of Hemath; i.e. the way to Hamath (Hebrew, ,wer; Num 34:7, Num 34:8). Hamath was one of the great cities of the Orontes valley, in Upper Syria, which formed the boundary in especial of the empire of Solomon. This valley is watered by the Orontes, the river of Antioch, a river remarkable for its abundant spring (situate immediately north of the source of the Leontes), which won for it the name, among all the other springs of Syria, of “The Spring,” and remarkable for “the length of its course, the volume of its waters, and the rich vegetation of its banks.” It is the one of the four rivers which take their rise beneath the heights of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon which becomes really worthy of the name of river, the other three, viz. the Jordan, the Leontes or modern Litany of Phoeicia, and the Abana or modern Barada of Damascus, more resembling the nature of the mountain stream. This river was to the ancient Romans “the representative of Syria, as the Timings might be said to be of England, and in later times the region formed the chief point of contact between this part of Asia and the West”. The kingdom of Hamath comprised the tract of this valley of the Orontes, skirted by the hills separating the Leontes from the Orontes, and extending to the Pass of Daphne below Antioch. Riblah (Num 34:11; 2Ki 23:33) lies on the east bank of the Orontes, thirty-five miles north-east of Baal-bek, or Baal-gad. The people of Hamath were of the race of Ham, of the descendants of Canaan (Gen 10:18), and are not to be reckoned as of Phoenician origin.
1Ch 13:6
To Baalah, that is, to Kirjath-jearim (see Jos 15:9-11; 1Sa 4:7; 2Sa 6:2; where the name is spelt with a final yod instead of he). A third name of this same place, Kirjath-baal, is found in Jos 15:60; Jos 18:14. Probably the present ‘Arms, a ruin (i.q. Kirjath-arim, Ezr 2:25) on the brink of the valley of Sorek, may be the place. We read in Jos 9:17-27 how the men of Kirjath-jearim had been made by Joshua “hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord.” Hither to this Kirjath-jearim the ark had been conveyed from Bethshemesh (1Sa 7:1, 1Sa 7:2), and here it “abode” long time, “for it was twenty years.” Perhaps the word “abode” in this passage may be equivalent to abode unmoved (1Sa 14:1-52.18, 19). For though the chronology from the death of Eli, through the remainder of Samuel’s career and of Saul’s, seems almost hopelessly uncertain, yet it would appear certain that the interval exceeded twenty years, to the time that David now takes in hand to bring home, as it were, the ark. The ark of God, the Lord. Though the Authorized Version of this passage is better and cleverer than that of the parallel (2Sa 6:2), yet it is left somewhat obscure. The comma should follow the name God. Jehovah sitting upon the cherubim then follows as a clause in apposition, while the last three words (as the name is called, rather than whose name) state that clause to contain “the Name of the Lord” (Deu 10:8; Deu 31:9; 1Sa 4:4; 1Sa 5:3; 1Sa 6:8). Bertheau, following Thenius, proposes to change the Hebrew into . But there are abundant objections to this.
1Ch 13:7
They carried; the Authorized Version of the parallel “they set” But the verb is the Hiph. of , a word carrying more of majesty in its use (Deu 33:26; Job 30:22; Psa 18:11; Psa 68:1-35 :38; Isa 19:1). A new cart. The stress laid on the newness of this cart, the term being twice repeated in the parallel passage, may justly remind of Mar 11:2; Mat 27:60 (see ‘Speaker’s Commentary’ on 2Sa 6:3). The house of Abinadab. There is no mention of Abinadab that would indicate that he still lived, even when twenty years before, the ark was placed in his house. Eleazar was his eldest son (1Sa 7:1), and was “sanctified to keep the ark of the Lord.” Uzza and Ahio were possibly sons of Eleazar, and not sons of Abinadab, and Eleazar’s younger brothers. The Septuagint translates Ahio, and accordingly reads, “Uzza and his brethren drave the cart.”
1Ch 13:8
Played before God. The Hebrew word is the Piel of , the root of which, from the simplest meaning of “to laugh” (and with the two appropriate prepositions used for laughing with an expression of derision or contempt), through the two further meanings of “sporting” and “jesting,” passes to the signification of dancing” (1Sa 18:7; Jer 31:4). Its deepest idea seems to be “to make merry,” and to savour of the very same ambiguity attaching to that idiom with ourselves. The parallel of this passage exhibits “before the Lord.” With all their might. See the evident mistake of the parallel (“on all manner of instruments made of firwood,” literally, with all firwoods) through similarity of the Hebrew characters. Cymbals and trumpets. Of the five names of musical instruments, the same in number in both passages, the first three are the same in the Hebrew, but these last two are different words, here for A variation of this particular kind again indicates with some decisiveness the different character and the number of the sources from which the writers of the Books of Samuel and those of Chronicles took.
1Ch 13:9
The threshingfloor of Chidon. For Chidon, the parallel place has Nachon; possibly these are two names of the same place, or one form is a corruption of the ether; but there is nothing to determine for us which. Owing to the meaning of Nachon being “prepared,” the version of Aquila is “to the prepared threshingfloor,” with which the Jonathan Targum agrees, and (for this Chronicles passage) the Joseph Targum gives . The threshing-floor was a circular plot of hard ground, from fifty to one hundred feet in diameter, on which the oxen trampled out the grain. Threshingfloors evidently often became landmarks, and helped to designate places (Gen 50:10; 2Sa 24:16). The oxen stumbled. In the parallel place the Authorized Version renders “shook it.” The Hebrew verb is the same () in both places. Its elementary meanings are “to strike” and “to throw down.” Perhaps the meaning is near the Vulgate rendering, calcitrabant, and equivalent to the rendering, became restive.
1Ch 13:10
There seems some little uncertainty as to why Uzza was to blame in a desire that would appear both praiseworthy and instinctive, to steady the ark or save it from actually falling. Uzza was probably not a priest or Levite, and it is so distinctly said his sin consisted in putting his hand to the ark, that perhaps the direction of Num 4:15 may be sufficient account of the matter. Special injunction had been given (Exo 25:14,Exo 25:15) that the poles with which to bear it should not be taken out of the rings, but be always stationary there. If we suppose that it was not a question of the ark being absolutely overthrown, but simply of its riding unsteadily, his presumptuousness would not have the further defence of an instinctive impulse.
1Ch 13:11
Displeased. The Hebrew root. () betokens a mixture of anger and grief. It is the word used of Jonah (iv. 1, 9), and perhaps our English word “vexed” or “hurt,” would convey its meaning. Had made a breach; literally, had broken forth a breaking forth on Uzza; i.e. had fiercely broken forth on Uzza. There are many exactly analogous uses of both verb and noun in the Hebrew. To this day. This phrase, also found in the parallel place, indicates the lapse of time from the historical point of time to the point of record.
1Ch 13:13
Obed-edom the Gittite. That Obed-edom is called “the Gittite,” i.e. of Gath-rimmon, a Levite city of Dan (Jos 21:24), might probably indicate that there was another Obed-edom, from whom to distinguish him. Such a one would appear readily to offer in the name of Obed-edom, son of Jeduthun, a “Merarite Levite” (1Ch 15:18-24; 1Ch 16:5, 1Ch 16:38; 1Ch 26:4-15). But the difficulty occurs that an expression in this last quotation seems to identify him with the Obed-edom of 2Sa 6:11; and the last sentence of our next verse. If they are one and the same, it has been suggested that marriage might account for the Merarite living in a Kohathite city (see ‘Speaker’s Commentary’ on 2Sa 6:10).
HOMILETICS
1Ch 13:1-14 -The chapter of reverse; or, the good enterprise of a good man overthrown in a day.
Before viewing this chapter in any detail, there is a general impression which it makes, and that, though general, yet not vague, but of a commanding sort. Here is, so to put it, a certain day in a man’s life, an important day, one looked for and consecrated to high end. It rose bright and its joy spread. With intense activity the work is set about, and it is at all events designed and superintended by a good man, though it is not possible that he should, in his own person, carry out every detail of it. That great day ended in disappointment and disaster. And though the proximate cause of this reverse of all that was intended, hoped, and prayed for is plainly enough told, the providence that permitted it in place of preventing it seems obscure. Such days happen in not a few lives, not least in the lives of men in exalted and responsible position. They produce sometimes a wounded spirit, a sense of aggravation and of intense disappointment and grief. Large thought, large care, large love, seem to have been thrown away and rebuffed. And though fault may have been, yet that fault, the fault of a mere subordinate, visits its worst effects upon the chief persons involved in the enterprise, or on a whole community, or upon both. It may throw some light on such disappointments and catastrophes in our own experience or under our own immediate observation if we view them at a little greater distance and as they befell others. Notice, then
I. THE ENTERPRISE ITSELF AND THE NATURE OF IT. It is to bring again the ark to some place of right, of honour, of influence.
1. To bring it back to the royal city was only to give it
(1) the place that belonged to it of right;
(2) the place that for honour it merited;
(3) the place where it would be likely to be most influential.
Even the ark out of sight was only too liable to be proportionately out of mind. There is, therefore, nothing of the nature of a mere empty demonstrativeness in the activity of David and his people. Of national, historic, and revealed sanction, what they sought to do that day was the proper thing to do. Again, it was something more than merely the becoming thing to do.
2. It was a holy thought and a holy deed. For the ark was a symbol of the highest kind; it spoke to all who knew of it of the Divine presence. To bring such a remembrancer into the midst of the nation and to its metropolis was to put it also at its moral centre, and where it would radiate forth innumerable rays of light and truth and warmth. Here placed, it taught
(1) how God must not be regarded as a God far off, but as one nigh at hand;
(2) how God wills to be in the constant sight and constant regard of his people, though in veiled majesty;
(3) how God would be known, even by symbol and emblem (though not by image), rather than as merely working through second causes and inexplicable influences. The ark ought to be where it can be “inquired at” or “sought to” in whatever may be the ordained ways. Once more, the ark was not only the depository of law and commandment, the stones of Sinai and the strict impartiality of ancient covenant, but its chiefest and most conspicuous accessory was all of mercy, and mercy ever accessible.
3. It was a course tending to the higher health of all to bring that ark back. Not mere addition to ecclesiastical pomp and furniture and display, nor to a pervading and penetrating sense of the awful and the infinite in contact with human life, it brought in benigner influences as well. Hope for the sinner; pardon for the penitent; soothing to save from despair; bright and happy thoughts of the supreme Father. That mercy-seat and overshadowing cherubim served to break up into welcome radiancy what would otherwise be the insufferable blaze of the eternal Light himself. It is like an infinite nature parting itself into those attributes by which alone partial and finite creatures like ourselves can in any wise lay hold upon it with comfort. Mere soothing, mere comforting, mere subduing influences will not necessarily minister to the higher education of either individual or community, but such influences as these must do so. And the known and offered mercy of God, just so fenced as it is, must be all pure gain to those who look to it and live in it.
II. THE FAILURE AND THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF IT. Though to the eye that looks on the outside only it might then have seemed, and may now seem, that it was not altogether necessary that failure should have been allowed to be the result of the day and of what happened upon it, yet:
1. as matter of fact, this was the verdict, very decisively pronounced by the person who bore the principal part in the transaction, and apparently no objection, no remonstrance is made by any others, and they were many, involved in the loss. That the outer reason was not very patent, and the obstacle not very physical, may make the difficulty the worse. Nervous complaints may be largely compounded of fanciesthese their chiefest ingredientsyet they are, as matter of fact, not a whit the less real; they are the stubbornest to hold their own, and most indocile to argument or to persuasion. Much more are conscientious complaints untractable, and justly so. Force will not drive them, persuasion will not conquer or stifle them, their reason is deep-hidden within themselves. And something of this kind must have been at the heart of the matter when David found himself so appalled and so stricken by a certain kind of impression which he received upon the death of one personan event which must have been, in all ordinary aspects, one of the commonest sights for David. That the failure, therefore, arose from the unseen and the intangible forces that were set active confessedly by the death of one man made by no means a less real, less serious obstacle, but rather the reverse.
2. The failure was very unexpected. It certainly was very unexpected as matter of fact. But it was also unexpected in the further degree that, if it had been thought ofif it had entered into the passing stream of thinking of any one, it would have been at once carried. out of the current and surrendered itself to the nearest eddying. For
(1) nothing in the object at heart would have warranted the gratuitous conjecture of ill omen;
(2) nothing in the necessities or likely perils of circumstances would have suggested the conjecture; and
(3) nothing (so far as was known) done, or neglected in the preparations, would have bespoken failure in the judgment of a calm, sympathizing, kindly bystander. Little indeed, then, was there to prepare for such a falling through of the very cherished hopes and the earnest deeds of that day.
3. The failure was of a sort to have many and wide effects and also cross-effects. How much thinking of friend and foe would be stirred! How many tongues of friend and foe would allow themselves licence! How would the matter be viewed from one point and another! Its relation to the king and what he had so fervently desiredto the people and their recent union under one king, would be eagerly scanned. The ill omen would be quickly discerned by those who wished ill to David or to Israel. And many a sincere heart would share the pain and anxious doubt and the fear of David himself. There can be no doubt that the greater the previous interest and enthusiasm in the undertaking, and pious zeal towards it, so much severer now the stroke and the shock to all concerned.
II. THE POSSIBLE USES AND EXPLANATION OF THE FAILURE. In default of being able to assign any one positive reason for the disappointment of this day, and for the fact that it fell heavy on those apparently free from blame and inspired with all good feeling and purpose it is ever open to us to notice results. We may reverently track consequences of Divine judgments and providence, and thence gather something of their origin, even where it would be most irreverent to dogmatize on these causes, to challenge the equity or to criticise the disposition of them. The deepest sorrows, the bitterest griefs, the keenest strokes which fall upon the humble and the wise, are ever found to lead to conduct similar to this in our actual life. When the severest has passed, and we are recovered but a little from the shock, we begin to cast about to inquire with solemn self-searchings what hidden fault there was in ourselves, to what great danger we were drawing near, heedless and unwitting, and at least what residuum of good we may derive out of so much evil and suffering. This is right conduct personally, and to follow the lines of such a practical analogy may help us see our way through many a deep thicket of the world’s dark history. We never do right when we would “do wrong that good might come.” But God ever does right and kindness when he directs trouble upon us, upon our very head, into our very heart, that good may come of it. It is his to chasten, and he chastens for our profit. And thus, when we have seen Uzza, the rash offender, suffer what must have been the just reward of his deeds, and he is passed away, we can but return to ask what lesson the deep and widespread disappointment had for all the rest, high and low. In what significant moral sense of this kind did this disaster find its root? And the answer is of this kind.
1. It may very possibly have been that outward zeal exceeded discretion and sincere piety.
2. It may have been that David and those high ecclesiastical officers with whom lay the ultimate responsibility had not given sufficiently careful instruction to those who only served, and had neglected to copy the well known minuteness and accuracy o! their old and revered Law. If so, they had failed of their duty in very high and significant respects.
3. It is certain that, for sanctified uses, this event must have deepened the solemn fear and respect toward the ark and him of whom it told throughout all the people far and wide who had lost some of that essential reverence for it during its long absence.
4. The disaster and disappointment were not a final loss. The delay of “three months” taught fear, raised hope, chastised self-trust, and helped educate to religion a whole people and their priests and king.
1Ch 13:1, 1Ch 13:2, 1Ch 13:4.-The rule that makes a willing people.
These verses discover to us the first, or some of the first, things which David did on finding himself now ruler over an entire and united people. And they serve to illustrate in particular, not merely the good and wise thing which he did, of which we shall speak hereafter, but the good and wise manner in which he set about doing it. Many a promising career has been spoilt by neglecting to observe the method which David now pursued, and diligently pursued, when the career that Providence may have opened has been of the same nature, namely, that of ruler or leader of men. Notice
I. THE HIGH ESTIMATE SET UPON NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS HARMONY. The ruler now evidently bids for no mere outer form of this, but for the presence of the deep, genuine spirit of it in his people. The captains and all the leaders and all the congregation if all these will think, and love, and determine, and do the same things, he will be satisfied, and his heart will rejoice. Though possibly he might have been in policy compelled to take less than this and effect or at least accept a compromise, it is this for which he makes his first bid, and that a sincere and hearty bid. The mere acknowledgment of so great a principle was a happy inauguration of his own kingship and a favourable omen for his reign. He had learnt not a little of the intrinsic value of this harmony in previous affliction of his own, in observation of how things had gone in the notorious absence of it with Saul, and partly in his own experience while he ruled over only a portion of the people. And having now gained the opportunity, he seizes it almost eagerly, he sanctifies it by an immediate practical honouring of it, and does his best not to lose early or needlessly so great and splendid an offer of Providence. Who can estimate the value of the act of a man already known as a good man, and occupying the place of a great man, when he thus sees the opportunity of advertising before a whole nation (not the individual quality of individual character, which haply might claim retirement for its perfection, best blossom in the dark and be “born to blush unseen,” but) that intrinsically good and Heaven-born principle which the arbitrary disposition and the despot would have made it their first endeavour to trample underfoot and hide out of the way? The man who stamps a beneficent principle of this kind with royal approbationwith that most royal kind of approbation which belongs to exalted and wide moral influenceis one of the very chiefest of the benefactors of his kind, and honours his own nature and its Author at the same time. His deed is one of the best in kind, most multifarious in good effect, and most far-reaching in place and lime. The fashion of the selfish, the haughty, the arbitrary, is the contraryto smother with jealous fear for themselves and their supposed influence the growth of opinion and private judgment the co-operation and the sympathy of the many, while they love their obedience best when it is the blindest.
II. THE RATIONAL WAY TAKEN TO OBTAIN THAT HARMONY. This was shown in two degrees. David is not a leveller. He knows well the principle of hierarchy, which nature itself illustrates in every direction, but nowhere more than in the gift and circumstance of man. These distinctions he does not affect to ignore or to despise. So
(1) he consults the judgment of the captains and every leader, who themselves formed a very “congregation of Israel” round about him; and
(2) tests the willinghood, or professes to do so, of the “brethren” and “the priests and Levites” “everywhere… in all the land of Israel.” There is no doing even the best and most religions thing altogether over the heads of the great people themselves. The principle of proxy in religion is nobly and opportunely here dishonoured. A religions people can alone constitute a religions nation. Willinghood in religion alone adequately attests the reality of its nature. This ruler David yields of his own accord what not a few, even of enlightened, civilized, modern times, would think it a great deal to yieldthe pride of commanding the pride of personal authority, the pride of bearing down any possible little difference or contrariety of opinion that might be expressedin order to attain the end, and an end in itself supremely desirable. How often that endthe end answering exactly to that description, that it is supremely desirablegets overlooked and suffers loss or absolute eclipse because of the eager, jealous, unlovely fray of personal, class, or priestly feeling! When we act thus we court defeat for our cause, though it be the highest; and to the great foe against whom we should show front so united we show instead the joints in our harness and armour and the weak places of ourselves. When we act thus it is not the resistlessness of the force of co-operation that we are likely to get, for it is not this that we are honestly seeking. We are seeking self first, The confidence that we do not give, or offer to give, we do not get offered in return, nor get it at all. We are poor, weak, uncertain. There is not constitution in us, nor the health and soundness of constitutionalism. Great is the gulf between that people of whatsoever sort and the ruler, the first principle of the latter of whom is that he must rule with unquestioned and inelastic command, and they obey with unquestioning and blind obedience. Nations and communities and families have, in numbers that cannot be numbered, suffered wreck irretrievable from this one cause, and yet the forcible and. innumerable warnings do not seem as yet to have secured a thorough mastery of the lesson on the part of the world. But at all events one clear, noble, loving exemplification of the very opposite is furnished to us by the prudent and sympathetic conduct of David in the narrative before us. He determines on ascertaining whether it is not possible to have the entire approval of the nation and the hearty co-operation of all. And he takes the right method to evoke these. The effect is that which has rarely failed to be the effect under any fairly analogous circumstances, that a splendid example of national and religious willinghood and harmonious consent is brought to viewa common glory of ruler and people and a universal source of instruction to the world. “All the congregation said that they would do so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.”
1Ch 13:3–Religious resolution based on regretful memories
David certainly wishes to make a contrast, and a decided one, between the days and the administration of Saul and those of himself; for it was ripe time, both that such contrast should be made, and made patent to all the nation. Yet, as we have read what he says and does, we do not take the impression that he desires to make that contrast ostentatiously, invidiously, or with any degree of triumphant antipathy toward his predecessor. What he does desire is to make it effective and real. Indeed, though we cannot hold David responsible for the way in which things went in the days of Saul, and for the neglect and dishonour shown to the ark as well as to not a few other of the observances of religion, yet his tone falls on our ear with something of the sound of self-reproach. And although it is impossible that he could in deep earnest have held himself responsible for those thingsto profess it could have amounted to mere affectationyet for all this we observe that he now speaks as though he would voluntarily include himself in his measure amongst the number of those involved in the fault and certainly in the disastrous consequences of it. He classes himself and those whom he is exhorting in the one common number of those who, let the causes be what they might, had long lived in neglect of some of the highest exercises and privileges of their religion. May we not justly set this down again to the forgiving temper and delicate feeling and refined nobility of spirit in David, to which his treatment of Saul had already often borne witness while Saul yet lived and though he was his bitterest foe? Therefore is it that David now abstains from making any needless, any profuse references to the chief causes of the irreligion of the past reign. He does not at all enlarge upon the conduct of the arch offender, though in the necessity of things he mentions his name. Two simplest sentences tell the tale of what weighs deeply on his heart: “Let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we inquired not at it in the days of Saul.” Let us notice
I. THE RESOLVE UPON IMMEDIATE AMENDMENT, AND THE IMMEDIATE PROCLAMATION OF IT. We cannot doubt that the mind of David was made up, that his resolution was formed. He is no sooner king of the whole people than he acknowledges the necessity of the presence and the ark of the God of the whole people. “Arise, O Lord, into thy rest, thou and the ark of thy strength:” this is his heart’s earnest prayer. And he does not merely “in secret” pray, but takes the responsibility of exhortation. He does not smother his convictions, nor utter them with bated breath, nor hope others will take them up and work them out while he slumbers; but he has the courage of his convictions, and as it were in the audience of the whole people, he rouses their sense of duty and calls them to a practical, even though tardy, repentance. Clear duty is always to be honoured by prompt attention to it and by prompt summons of others to it. And it is to be observed with painful consequence that it is clear interest, clear policy, clear present gain, that too often wins this prompt attention, rather than clear duty in those very highest forms of it which the pure acts of religion involve. First then, the own prompt thought of David, and secondly, his unshrinking call to others, bespoke a genuine religion in this matter in him. He is baulked by no shamefacedness, by no timidity of such as sometimes seem to think that their religion requires apologizing for, and that they may rule it rather than be implicitly ruled by it. But David betrays the real spirit of thorough amendment, and, though the waters of repentance should need to run deep and very deep, they will safely bear a man through them.
II. THE FAITHFUL PRESENCE OF ONE OF THE GREATEST HELPS TO THE AMENDMENT OF PRACTICAL REPENTANCE, namely, a frank admission and public confession of the exact facts of the case. Nothing is a surer deterrent for a repentance that might be than an unwilling facing of the exact state of things. Nothing augurs more surely that the repentance will die off with the transitoriness of a “morning cloud” than that it be unaccompanied by an uncompromising confession, or be accompanied with but a feeble, partial confession. But the assertion now made without fear of contradiction is of the most unequivocal: “We did not inquire at it in the days of Saul.” As though in our own days a man highly placed and of authority says of himself, and involves a large number of others in the assertion, while he looks them steadfastly in the face, “We were never on our knees;” “We forgot to pray;” “We lived long, perilous, anxious years without prayer.” To tell myself honestly my own greatest sin, and make confession thereof to one’s own soul argues two things
(1) some of the truest courage;
(2) the likeliest, surest evidence of genuine conversion.
However that sin was to be shared, and whoever might be justly charged with being chiefly answerable for it, the nation Israel could not be brought in guilty of a greater or more suicidal sin than that of neglecting “to inquire at the ark.” Well may we imagine that unmeasured pathos, sincerest self-condemnation, underlie this confession, “For we inquired not at it in the days of Saul.”
III. THE ENTIRE ABSENCE OF ANY APPARENT DISPOSITION TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE SIN. No excuse is suggested, no palliation is hinted. The bare fact announced seemed as though to make each one who heard, as well as him who had spoken, hold his breath. There is no offer on the part of David to point to what, so far as fact was concerned, he might justly have pointedthe clear, bad example of Saul, and the distracted, divided, worried nation, chief thanks to Saul. Adam, as the most natural thing in the world, early in the world as he was, attempted to push his sin a step further, though to fix it on Eve; and Eve acted after an exactly similar type. But David seems now to teach how convinced, utterly, he is that no such subterfuge can be anything but the subterfuge of an hour. He seems to know well what Ezekiel declared with such unsparing directness, none should elude it, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Were there a hundred manifest explanations, a hundred plausible excuses of the fact that Israel for a generation or for one year does “not inquire at the ark,” not all these will for one moment deliver Israel from its own inevitable loss, all the worse because self-inflicted, all the more cruel because ushered in by high precedents. And let there be a sin attaching to any one of us, a favourite, a besetting sin; and let us be able to give a hundred explanations and a hundred palliations of it. These hinder our confession, but do not help our soul; they hinder our estimate of our own sin, but lessen not its malignant nature; they hinder our likely breaking free, for ever free, but do not compensate for our not being free.
IV. THE ILLUSTRATION PRESENTED OF THE DUTY OF BREAKING AWAY THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE FROM COMPLICITY WITH OTHER MEN‘S SINS. Whatever was David’s share in the sin and the loss of the nation that had not for so long a time “inquired at the ark,” now there comes for him the time when he has to consider the position he holds with regard to the matter, no longer as a private citizen and as an individual man, but as successor to Saul, and first man in the realm. It is found by some one of the hardest things, not simply to break down their own habits, but to break through others’ precedents. Any number of anomalies are condoned and are still permitted to exist because they have existed, and perhaps existed long. But the anomalies of sin against God and sin against man can never be justly condoned on this principle, come they recommended by any number, any length, any kind of precedents. In nothing, perhaps, is the force of precedents more willingly felt, more tamely succumbed to, than in matters of religion and religious significance. And it is here that they should least of all be honoured thus. “To the Law and to the testimony” must they be brought. The ark has been neglected; the Bible has been unstudied, unmeditated; the closet of prayer has been unfrequented. It has got fashionable “to forsake the assembling of ourselves together;” and it is considered wit to level gibe and sarcasm against God’s great ordinance of preaching. To break through all this and subvert it, and begin afresh before the eye of man requires strong conviction, real religion, great courage. David frees himself with few enough words at the expense of his predecessor from any complicity with his career. He sees the steps that may be retraced, the evil courses that may be reformed, and the mischief that may be repaired, and he gives himself no rest till the great task is begun and concluded. With him in this matter to see is to conquer.
1Ch 13:12.-A mortifying stumble sanctified.
On the threshold of his reign David desired to dean act especially right, and on the threshold it seems that he is destined to encounter in that very attempt failure and keenest disappointment. With enthusiastic faith in the ark, it is his heart’s first and deepest desire to bring it again homeat least to some place more like permanence and honour. And in the bringing of it, through no apparent fault of his own, the enterprise fails, disastrously and fatally. This issue he must feel equivalent to a personal and very severe rebuff. Yet there is scarcely room to doubt that honest motive, religious feeling and principle, and an ardent faith dictated his desire and attempt. And as little room is there apparently to doubt that David reckoned on the helpful protection of Providence against whatever could be called accident, and from his heart prayed for it. The facts, however, of that day’s journey and work we know; and they stand in painful contrast to what we had hoped. All the circumstances we do not know, and there may be explanations not given us which would easily mitigate our surprise and account for what happened. It may be that David did omit to give the most proper directions, and to urge the needful cautions, and to implore solemnly the Divine blessing. He may have been a little too confident of the mere act itself, a little too trustful in the good intentions of himself, and a little too uplifted because of the unanimous sentiment of all whom he had consulted. A stumble over the threshold may be very mortifying, very humbling, but no doubt it has often saved infinitely worse calamity further on. The very badness of an omen may turn confidence into care, and will work well for a cause, if it call special attention to some fact, or principle, or aspect of the whole matter liable to be overlooked or insufficiently regarded. Perhaps in the present instance, did we but know all, this might sufficiently explain all that at first looks hard on David and an ill encouragement for his pious zeal. Passing, therefore, interesting but uncertain conjecture, it is open to us to study some of the known and ascertained results of that same day and that same bitter experience of David. The passage before us proclaims plainly some of these, and proffers a leading illustration of the principle of present loss compensated by spiritual results. Notice
I. THE BIRTH OF A DEEP RELIGIOUS FEELING OF FEAR OF GOD IN DAVID. “He was afraid of God that day.” David was not like a very young man; still less was he like a very young man with little knowledge, and who had been stinted of opportunity of gaining experience. Much of this he had already accumulated, and especially of the kind that had brought lessons of God and his providence near to him. There is not a little evidence going to indicate that David had a certain predisposition to religious thought and feeling. There is a wonderful absence of indication of the contrary. His mind had largely opened to Divine manifestation, his thoughts frequently roved among the thoughts and ways of God. Dangers and actual sufferings and fears had often brought him into near converse with the kindness and watchfulness of the “chief Shepherd,” of whom he knew how to speak so well. Perhaps it had never struck him (and perhaps it would have never struck us except for this incident) that there remained for him something especial to learn of God in a very different kind of direction from all before. His impressions of God were all most grateful, as well they might be. He had found God a “Sun and a Shield”Light, Warmth, and Protection. He had found God one who “had lifted him up on high,” and “had not suffered him to be cast down,” nor “his foes to rejoice over him.” He had been in earthly trial and persecution much, but in heavenly favour more, and in a wonderful assurance of all that gave him “boldness of access” to God. And he had not yet learned the other sidenot, indeed, of the benevolent character and beneficent working of Godbut the other side of himself, which might greatly need another sort of manifestation of the Divine power. Though he had often seen God’s justice and his anger, and had said, “God is angry with the wicked every day,” he had never felt these, nor had dreamed that he was such that the time might come that he would have to feel them, and his experience become enlarged by so much as this,” My flesh trembleth for fear of thee, and I am afraid of thy judgments” (Psa 119:120). To know a fear of God is one of. two things for the child of God. It is either to know the fear of one’s own sin in honest earnest; or to catch one humbling, overwhelming sight of the contrast between the finite and erring nature of the creature man and the infinite perfection of God. As Adam first “was afraid;” as Jacob “was afraid” when he woke from that transporting dream; as Peter was afraid in the presence of the mighty Master of miracle; so was David now “afraid of God.” There were slight differences of detail in each case, and differences of form, but the fundamental facts were identical, and they were two in onea sinful creature seizing a moment’s real idea of the all-holy Almighty! And this was the birth of a deep religious feeling in David which he never forgot, and which no doubt served the rest of his life many a valuable end.
II. CORRECTER AND FULLER KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, WHILE IT INTERPOSES DELAY, DOES NOT INVOLVE DESPAIR, BUT DOES ENSURE A MORE EXALTED ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT IS TO ENTERTAIN HIM. The ark, with the mercy-seat upon it and the overshadowing cherubim, symbolized the Divine presence, and was, when located in the sanctuary in its proper place, unseen except by the high priest. In it centred the reverential feeling of the people. It is exceedingly likely that something of the deep mysterious awe with which it was associated was lowered and impaired by its history, when taken by the Philistines and lost to its own People. David himself may have been among the number of those whose higher sense suffered some depreciation. He reverenced the ark and prized it; he thought it a necessity to the well-being of the nation, and ardently longed “to bring it to himself to the city of David.” But something of this was form and the worship of form. Something of it was reliance on “means of grace,” rather than vital dependence on the grace itself. Even David’s time was too late to let this in David’s own self be “winked at”or in the self of any true Israelite. The Bible that is possessed must be intelligently used; it is not to be lowered to the place of a talisman. The God who is worshipped must be worshipped “in Spirit and in truth”he “seeketh such to worship him.” And what David had thought could be sufficiently well done in a day or two, he learns will take “three months'” preparation. During all this time his estimate of what it was to have and to entertain the Divine representation was being raised. How many a time did he speak in this wise to himself, “How shall! bring the ark of God home to me?” And the very process of thought that was going on within him, the mingled perplexity, disappointment, humiliation, all wakened by an unusual fear, were at the same time raising his estimate of the guest he fain would welcome, and fitting him to entertain that guest. In this instance fear supplied the missing link, fear held the key-stone position, fear wakened the things that “were ready to die,” unsuspectedly as the danger lurked. The theology must needs be radically weak that omits the justice of God, the integrity of man; the judgment of God, the fear of man. But the correcter and fuller knowledge of the Divine nature and relationship to man, which confessedly is most adapted to waken fear, to quicken it, to keep it a steady and strong force in our life, is not that which will permanently discourage, disappoint, or occasion desponding. It will interpose delay, it will occasion heart-searching, it will promote a wholesome self-renunciation. But thereupon it is provided that, long ere despair is touched, a ransom will be found, and a triumphant entrance for the ark more prized than ever. “Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other.”
1Ch 13:14.–Responsible service outvied by abounding reward.
A certain amount of obscurity hangs over the name of Obed-edom, as has been already seen. And supposing that slight amount of obscurity removed or to count for little, it remains to take note of the fact that the signification of the name Obed-edomservant to Edomlends some additional interest to the circumstance of the ark’s entertainment for a space of three months at his house. It reminds one of some two or three occasions in the time of our Saviour and in the first history of the apostles, when those who did not bear the name of Israel did seem to do works better than those of Israel, and to carry a truer heart within them, and received a signal and gracious reward. But on whatever occasion and in whatever way he or the family of which he came became possessed of the name, there is little doubt that this Obed-edom was a Levite, of the Kohathite family. And as his house would appear to have been near the scene of the judgment that befell Uzza, while the ark was now on its way from the house of Abinadab, the Levite of Kirjath-jearim, it the rather invited David to place it there awhile under his care. David is now the victim of panic. Whether the panic were more the offspring of good or bad quality, and had in it preponderance of good element or otherwise, certain it is that it lost David for three months the possession of the ark, where he would fain have it. Again he must have lived on mercy, and had to rest his hope again on thisthat the will be taken for the deed. It was a shadow of how it would be later on with the building of the glorious temple. But equally certain was another thingthat what David lost of honour, privilege) reward, another obtained: “The ark of God remained with the family of Obed-edom in his house three months. And the Lord blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that he had.” We have here a kind of leading instance of responsible trust transferred; lost by one it is gained by another, it is worthily fulfilled, it is bountifully rewarded. Notice
I. THE ARDUOUS TRUST OF THE FIRST MAN IN THE KINGDOM‘ HAS COME BY CIRCUMSTANCES, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, TO BE FORFEITED, EITHER TEMPORARILY .OR ALTOGETHER, TO ONE OF THE HUMBLEST. Very much of human life and circumstance often seems to go by chance, often seems to be moss arbitrary, often seems to those who most implicitly strive to believe in providence very unlike the work of an all-wise and beneficent providence. But sometimes we seem more able to get a clue which helps to strengthen, refresh, renew an implicit faith. The mere glimpse of such an explanation does at the same time rebuke our former doubt and failing faith. Have we not help here also? All David’s position, all his holy enthusiasm, all his good intention, do not suffice, it appears, to compensate the absence of some certain, real, moral quality. David had much of the noble, the brave, the forgiving, the generous, about him. But more than once he lets himself down for the want of a calm, unsparing faithfulness with himself. And for want of this, one of the grandest prizes, one of the greatest opportunities, now slips from his fingers. One of the strongest forms of human weakness will be found to consist in want of continuity of moral effort. One of the great victorious forces, despite of all human weakness, will be found in the reverse of this”patient continuance,” undespairing tenacity, the importunity which enlists time on its side. This present in one who seems to have no outer advantage of position or grace or other gift will avail more than a score of other gifts of fortune and gifts of character, if this be absent or inconspicuous. Surprising dash is in the long run conquered, for it is exactly for every matter of long run that dash has little persuasion. The lowliest humility of person, place, character, which has power to wait, to endure, to continue, has a career before it which, without one ambitious endeavour or thought, gets borne on irresistibly to the highest goal. But the other style may break down irremediably in a moment. We should not need always to wonder so much when “the mighty are put down from their seats and they of low degree are exalted,” if we would just see that the reverse that thus happens is emphatically not that of chance or reckless caprice, but a result of that which God most regards, the presence of some deep-lying, significant moral quality, or the want of it. The unnoticed working of this truth is not equivalent to any uncertainty in the working of it. And the invisible working of it, even when most invisible to man, is no stealthy indication of the indefensibleness of it when God should once arise to reveal and vindicate all. And he it is who is Arbiter of providence. Meantime mankind is ever being offered openly enough its own lesson.
II. A TRUST OF THE HIGHEST RELIGIOUS CHARACTER AT HOME IN LOWLY LODGING. The history of real greatness, of genuine goodness, and emphatically of God’s Church, is a continuous illustration of this very thing. The palace has seldom enough been, either of human endeavour or Divine decree, the nursery of the only real thing fit to be called greatness. Abundant privilege, knowledge, opportunity, have not been the seed-bed of signal and bright displays of goodness. The places where these grow are not here. Nay, these two things may be saidthat it is impossible to calculate or to foresee where they will be found; and that it is the least correct account of them to say that they “grow.” They at all events “are born.” “The Spirit bloweth where it listeth,” and we ofttimes are startled to hear the sound of it, and are envious that the pinion is heard so fleet and so strong as it passes our own ear or our own abode in order to light upon the head or the roof of some very humble neighbour. No lodging was too humble for Jesus from birth to death, from stable and manger to that cross upon which he “had not where to lay his head.” And the nearest approaches to the Godlike visitation in heart and home of man have been in the humble heart, the lowly home, the meek spirit, the Church that “the world knoweth not.” Whoever this Obed-edom was, up to this time his name was not inscribed on any roll of fame. And had it not been for his being ready to entertain that ark without the self-depreciation of Moses when he wanted to evade responsibility; without the panic of David when he thought of his own safety rather than of the honour and safe housing of that very ark; without the unmannerly prayer of the stricken Peter, “Depart from me,” when he feared his Saviour more than his sin,his name would never have been where it finds now its chiefest glory, nor his home one of the veritable oases of the world’s desert.
Verily the ark of God, the presence of God, the secret of God, the Spirit of God, the Church of God, are all of and with the humble and ungrasping and unexpectant heart. That kind of heart God surprises and makes it his home.
III. HIGH RELIGIOUS TRUST FAITHFULLY MET AND FULFILLED BRINGS FULLEST, RICHEST BLESSING. It is well to note the great stress laid upon the shower of blessing that descended upon the house of Obed-edom and himself, “and all that he had.” It were well if it were not too much considered old-fashioned to think, to say, heartily to believe, that God’s blessing does go with hospitality shown to his servants, liberality shown to his Church, honour shown to his Word. The history before us tells us the old-day fact plainly. It is not obsolete as a principle. Let the conditions be seen again, and the results will be seen again. If, indeed, a man give wealth and render honour, hoping to receive for it in another way what he would regard as a very ample equivalent, this should earn for itself but the name of another form of simony, and evoke again the just anathema, “Thy money perish with thee thou hast neither part nor lot in the matter thy heart is not right in the sight of God.” Therefore we cannot say, and would not say, “Let the experiment be but tried, and await with confidence the result.” For so soon as ever it be regarded as experiment, and take the least semblance of any of the shapes of calculation, the Spirit has gonethe greater Spirit has sped his flight far enough distant. But when this thing genuinely appears in heart or home, and honour is first shown to God, service first shown to Christ, and the ear listens first of all sounds for the whisper of the Spirit then three months’ sojourn of all Divine token is none too much condescension for the majesty of Heaven to deign, and perennial blessing upon the family, the business, and all unto which the hand may be set, none too great bounty for the Giver of all to bestow. That house is full of fragrance; the perfume spreads grateful abroad. More and still more of gift is not graspingly, selfishly, anxiously sought. It comes, and the earth yields her prophetic full increase. Little enough is said of what reverence, what care, what holy fear, Obed-edom and family showed the ark. These are to be supposed. But enough is said of how well God pays his faithful steward.
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON
1Ch 13:1-3.–Revival of religion.
The resolve to fetch back the ark of God was a sign of reviving interest in religion, of a more lively desire for the Divine favour, and of a deeper sense of the importance of observing religious ordinances. As the symbol of the Divine presence, as the depository of mementos and pledges of Jehovah’s authority and mercy, the ark was held sacred by the Hebrew people. Its proper position was in the most holy place of the tabernacle. It was justly felt to be a national calamity when the ark was taken by the Philistines in battle. That it was allowed to remain after its restoration at Kirjath-jearim for seventy years was culpable negligence, which was significant of religious indifference. The newly elected king was acting rightly as the human head of the theocratic kingdom in advising that the almost forgotten ark should be brought up with joyful solemnities to Jerusalem. His resolution, supported by the sympathy and cooperation of the people, was indicative of a revival of religion. The incident suggests several highly important lessons.
I. NATIONAL IRRELIGION ENTAILS NATIONAL CALAMITIES. It is always unjustifiable to attribute specified individual instances of calamity to the intentional interposition of a retributive Providence. At the same time, the world is under a righteous Ruler, and communities as well as individuals are subject to his sway. National vices and crimes have unquestionably a tendency to produce national troubles and disasters. Sin cannot go unpunished; a nation suffers when a nation errs.
II. REPENTANCE IS A NATIONAL DUTY. If a people in its corporate capacity can err, why can it not in the same capacity repent? David reminded the chiefs that, as a people, Israel had not inquired at the ark in the days of Saul. Thus he quickened the conscience of the community. Insensibility to sin is of all sins the worst. To recognize and confess, to mourn and to forsake sin, is the indispensable condition of acceptance and of reformation. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful,” etc.
III. IN A GREAT MORAL CRISIS IT BECOMES THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A NATION TO CONSULT WITH A VIEW TO UNITED REVIVAL. David consulted every leader and referred the matter to all the congregation. In a theocracy, no doubt, action was possible which would be impracticable in a nation where great diversity of opinion and practice prevails. But how obviously appropriate is it that religious societies and their leadersthe devout, the wise, the experiencedshould take counsel with a view to religious revival and reform!
IV. GENERAL COUNSELS OF REFORMATION SHOULD ISSUE IN PRACTICAL ACTION, The people were not brought together merely to “talk over” the existing state of things. They were summoned under the king’s leadership to act, and they did act. (What are called “resolutions” at religious meetings are often misnamed; it is sometimes the case that those who pass them never dream of exerting themselves to carry them into effect.) If religion is to be revived and the land to be purged of iniquity, if the favour of God is to be recovered and the honour of God to be sought, it must be by united effort and action. Each godly person must ask, “What can I do towards such an end?” True acknowledgment of God is not merely verbal, it is practical. When all the people, repenting of sin, turn unto the Lord, he too will turn them again unto himself, and they shall be saved.T.
Verse. 4.–Politics and morals.
David no sooner set before the people their duty with regard to the ark than they immediately resolved to act in accordance with his counsel. The chronicler explains why they did so; he tells us, in language remarkably dignified and simple: “For the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.”
I. A NATION SOMETIMES NEGLECTS TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT THROUGH INATTENTION. The ark seems to have been overlooked during the years it remained at Kirjath-jearim: “We inquired not at it in the days of Saul.” It is singular that nations sometimes connive at great national sins, that national conscience seems to slumber. How otherwise can we account for the prevalence of war, of slavery, of cruelty to prisoners, and other evils, which have disgraced civil and Christian communities?
II. IT IS A HAPPY THING WHEN THE QUESTION IS PUT TO A NATIONWHAT IS RIGHT? It is too common to ask the peopleWhat is customary and in accordance with precedents? What is expedient? What will contribute to national fame? But nations as well as individuals are under the government of a righteous moral Ruler and King. And there is one question which those who would elevate and guide a nation should ever raiseWhat is right?
III. THE NATIONAL CONSCIENCE SOMETIMES CORDIALLY RESPONDS TO THE REVELATION OF RIGHT. Let not the multitude be flattered; they are prone to bow before the furious gust of passion; yet, when the impulse of prejudice or anger is past, they are capable of proving themselves amenable to higher motives. Great acts of justice and self-sacrifice have, in such cases, been performed by a morally awakened society. If “the thing be fight in the eyes of all the people,” then there may be witnessed magnificent displays of heroism and unselfishness. Then is the adage true, Vox populi vox Dei.
IV. NATIONAL CONSCIENCE ONLY FULFILS ITS PART WHEN IT LEADS TO NATIONAL ACTION. “All the congregation said that they would do so.” Feeling must lead to corresponding achievement, or it is mere worthless sentimentality. A people’s protest is good, but a people’s action is better still.
LESSONS.
1. Let those who would forward a great movement appeal to the people at large, and seek to enlist the national judgment and conscience on their side.
2. Let nations that would enjoy the Divine favour seek it by doing the Divine will, by pursuing “the thing that right is.”T.
1Ch 13:8.–Holy mirth.
To some minds the two ideas, holiness and mirth, do not seem to harmonize. Whether because goodness is sometimes associated with austerity, and religious observances with dulness, or because mirth is sometimes associated with sensual indulgence and profanity; the fact is that to many minds there appears a mutual repugnance between the two.
I. WE HAVE HERE A SUITABLE AND INSPIRITING OCCASION OF HOLY MIRTH. General rejoicing should not take place only when temporal deliverances or material prosperity have been experienced. When God shows his mercy towards a people, in conferring upon them spiritual privileges, then should they show forth his praise, and make a joyful noise unto the Lord.
II. THE UNION OF ALL CLASSES IN HOLY MIRTH. King, priests, and people rejoiced together, and if all orders and ranks are alike indebted to God’s goodness, all should alike join in his service and praise. Widespread is the beneficence of the heavenly Father; let all the children give thanks, and be joyful before the Lord the King.
III. HOLY MIRTH FINDS AN APPROPRIATE EXPRESSION IN CONJOINED AND CORDIAL SERVICES OF MUSIC AND SONG. Such utterance of mirth is natural, is in accordance with the constitution God our Maker has given us. It is scriptural, for both under the old covenant and the new, vocal praise was practised by the saints of God. It is acceptable: “With such sacrifices God is well pleased.” It is an anticipation of heaven, where the praises of the redeeming God are universal and perpetual.
LESSONS.
1. Discourage a severe, morose piety.
2. Let songs of rejoicing abound in Christian homes and Churches.
3. Let the young be trained to associate happiness with religionto take pleasure in “the service of song in the house of the Lord.”T.
1Ch 13:10.–Severity of judgment.
To understand this narrative it is necessary to bear in mind the character of the older dispensation. It was an economy in which persons, things, and places were set apart as holy, doubtless in order to instil into the minds of the people ideas of spiritual purity and consecration. The ark was a holy thing, in a sense in which nothing material is holy under the Christian dispensation. But there are principles which underlie these ceremonial appointments and provisions, which are deserving of our serious and discriminating attention.
I. THE HISTORICAL INCIDENT. The chronicler here relates:
1. A serious offence. When Uzza put forth his hand and touched the ark, though he did so only for the security of the sacred chest, he incurred the Divine displeasure. His act was one of officiousness; it was not his business to interfere with the apparatus of Divine worship. He was guilty of irreverence; for he showed that he did not stand in awe of the symbol of the Divine presence. And we may discern even profanity in his conduct; it was only for the chosen tribe to minister in connection with the sanctuary and what it contained, and although the ark was in transit to its resting-place, its safe conduct should have been left to the Levites.
2. A severe punishment. “The Lord smote him there he died before God.” The penalty seems at first view disproportionate. Yet it was both what might have been anticipated and what was necessary to produce a wholesome impression. That it did produce awe and trembling there can be no question. The severe judgment tempered the national rejoicing and even altered the purpose of the king as to the residence of the ark of the Lord.
II. THE MORAL LESSON. AS we read this narrative we are impressed with the general lesson of:
1. God‘s displeasure with disobedience. The Scriptures are full of lessons illustrating this principle; they begin on its first page and continue to its last. There is a more special lesson, viz.:
2. That unspiritual men should not meddle with spiritual things. In Christian Churches it is of the highest importance that men actuated by carnal and worldly motives should not be allowed to intrude and to influence their affairs. Let those be clean who bear the vessels of the Lord. The profane cannot with impunity discharge sacred functions.
LESSON1 Chronicles S.
1. Let God and all that is his be regarded with reverence.
2. Let sinners spared by Divine mercy adore the forbearance and loving-kindness of the Lord, and “seek him whilst he may be found, and call upon him whilst he is near.”T.
1Ch 13:14.–Household blessing.
“Prosperity,” says Lord Bacon, “is the blessing of the old covenant, adversity of the new.” Certainly Old Testament Scripture abounds in instances of temporal abundance, fertility, and happiness, represented as proofs of the favour of the Most High. In the text Obed-edom is recorded to have received the ark into his house, and with it to have received an abundant blessing upon himself and upon all that pertained to him.
I. THE GROUND OF BLESSING. Apparently this was, in the case before us, a regard for what was God’s. But this was doubtless an expression of regard for God himself. The Divine Searcher of hearts and Judge of all sanctions this principle; and although we can give nothing, save our hearts, to God, we can give to his people much that is acceptable to him. Our Lord Jesus often puts this motive before his disciples. What we do we are to do for his sake; and what we do to his people we are deemed to do for him. Still, as in the olden days, God honours those that honour him.
II. THE SIGNS AND TOKENS OF BLESSING. Whom God blesses he blesses in them-selvesin their own persons. He enriches them with spiritual knowledge; he reveals to them his favour; he fits them for his service. He bestows upon them relative blessings. As God blessed the house of Obed-edom, so there is no more delightful way in which he reveals his favour to his people than by visiting in mercy those most dear to themencompassing them with the protection of his providence, and bringing them to a knowledge of his grace and love. He blesses them in their possessions; sometimes, according to the Hebrew saying, “in their basket and their store,” but always by granting them grace to make a sanctified use of all they have. Let all unite in the prayer, “God be merciful unto us, and bless us, and cause his face to shine upon us!”T.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
1Ch 13:1-6.–Piety and policy.
As King of Israel, David made an excellent beginning; he commenced his reign by an act in which piety and policy were happily united. His action was:
1. Indicative of the piety which was characteristic of him. We who know David so well from his psalms, as well as from the Biblical history of his life, are not surprised that, when anointed king over all Israel, his first thoughts were directed to the service of God. With many monarchs this would have been the last consideration. But it was deepest and uppermost with David. He felt, and most truly, that he owed his elevation to the distinguishing goodness of Jehovah, and when he had reached the height of his ambition he was not going to forget the hand that had lifted him up. Piety was a vein that ran straight through the life, because right through the character of the king.
2. Politic in all particulars. He acted:
(1) With sound constitutionalism. Instead of deciding and decreeing absolutely, he “consulted,” etc; he “said unto all the congregation of Israel,” etc. (1Ch 13:1, 1Ch 13:2). This was “the manner of the kingdom” (see Jdg 20:7; 1Ki 12:6; 2Ch 20:21). It was an act likely to impress the nation very favourably.
(2) With consideration toward the sacred tribe. “Let us send to the priests and Levites,” etc. They would naturally expect that special reference would be made to them, and they would be gratified by the royal attention.
(3) With regard to the general wishes of the people. All that could come to such a ceremony would like to be present; all were to be invited: “Our brethren everywhere” were to gather together (1Ch 13:2); “David gathered all Israel together” (1Ch 13:5).
(4) With tenderness toward the fallen house. He did not reproach Saul with the neglect with which he might have been justly charged; he gracefully included himself in whatever condemnation was implied: “For we inquired not at it in the days of Saul” (1Ch 13:3).
(5) Reserving one point which must be final and supreme. Their wishes were consulted and should be carried out, but subject to one conditionthe approval of God himself: “And that it be of the Lord our God.”
(6) With personal participation and co-operation. He did not send up and fetch the ark; he “went up, and all Israel” with him (1Ch 13:6).
I. POLICY WITHOUT PIETY IS A POOR AND VAIN THING. It seems clever or even brilliant to those who imitate and practise it; but it is contemned of God, disregarded by the wise and good, and certain to come to an ignominious end. It works in the ground, and then sports in the sun for its little hour, and then it falls utterly to pieces and cannot be lifted up again.
II. PIETY WITHOUT POLICY IS A DEFECTIVE THING. A reverent spirit and a pious purpose are admirable things, but if they are dissociated from discretion, and proceed on their way without regard to the claims, wants, and wishes of men, they will commonly, if not always, fail to secure the object they have in view.
III. PIETY AND POLICY TOGETHER ARE A BENIGNANT POWER. Let good men be prudent as well as reverent, discreet and considerate as well as godly and zealous; let the cause of God be championed and conducted by those who have a knowledge of “what is in man” and what are the conditions under which they work in harmony, and then will the goal be reached and the prize be won.C.
1Ch 13:7-13.-The imperfections of human service.
We cannot read this story of the first attempt to bring the ark to the capital without being impressed, if not depressed, with a sense of the weakness and imperfection characterizing our human service. We learn
I. THAT A SLIGHT DEPARTURE FROM THE DIVINE WILL MAY LEAD TO SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. David, in a moment of thoughtlessness or presumption, decreed that the ark of God should be “made to ride” “in a new cart.” This was not the way prescribed in “the Book of the Law of the Lord” (see Num 4:15). This irregularity led to the act of Uzza (1Ch 13:9), and this to the stroke of Divine wrath which so sadly and seriously interrupted the day’s proceedings (1Ch 13:10-13). We are not now called upon to conform our ritual to any prescribed order. The commandment of Christ does not go into the details of outward observance. But it is nevertheless true that any actual departure from his will, though it may seem to be but slight, may lead on and down to a most serious breach. This may apply to his revealed will in regard to
(1) the temper and spirit we should cherish,
(2) the attitude we should assume,
(3) the relations we should enter upon, in our various spheres.
II. THAT IT IS A MATTER OF GREAT MOMENT TO KNOW OUR PLACE IN THE SPHERE OF THE SACRED, AND TO KEEP IT. Uzza was not entitled to lay his hand on the ark of God; he exceeded his right; he intruded into a position for which he was not qualified, and he paid for his presumption the last penalty of sudden death at the hand of God. Those who now attempt a work for which God did not design them and to which Christ does not summon them, whether that of the Christian ministry, of missions, or any other sacred calling, will find that they have committed themselves to duties and responsibilities, the faulty and (perhaps) mechanical, the uncongenial and therefore unspiritual discharge of which will redound to their own serious if not mortal injury. We must take care to keep within the sphere for which our Lord designed us, in the realm of the sacred as well as the secular.
III. THAT OUR BRIGHT AND HOLY JOYS MAY BE MOST UNEXPECTEDLY DASHED. The eighth verse gives us a picture of a company of men in the full enjoyment of sacred pleasure; they were exulting before God in the act of service they were rendering. Sacred joy had reached its very summit, and in the very midst of it, without a moment’s interval of preparation, there occurred the transgression and the punishment. Song was turned into lamentation, dancing into weeping, gladness into perplexity and sorrow, day into night. So may it be with us at any hour in this lower earthly sphere. We cannot reckon on the continuance of any present good. Even our joy in God, our delight in his service, may suffer sudden and sad eclipse, and our noon of devout exultation descend at once into the midnight of discomfiture and grief.
IV. THAT GOOD MEN MAY BE MUCH PERPLEXED AT DIVINE DISPOSALS. We read that David was “displeased” (1Ch 13:11), and also that he was “afraid” (1Ch 13:12). We also often find ourselves both perplexed and alarmed at the dealings of God with us. God’s way is often “in the sea, his path in the great waters, and his footsteps are not known.” He is sometimes “terrible in his doings toward the children of men.” Why he lets the assassin do his deadly work so well, the storm wreck the vessel which is carrying missionaries to their post, the father of the family catch the fatal fever, the irreplaceable minister perish in the railway accident, etc; we do not know and cannot think. Our hearts are saddened, perplexed, troubled, awed. Let us feel that we are but very little children trying to understand a Divine Father, whose wisdom and love must be unfathomably deep, must go down far lower than our poor plummet will sound. “Blessed are they who do not see, and yet believe.” We “walk by faith, not by sight.”C.
1Ch 13:13, 1Ch 13:14.–Superstitious error and religious truth.
We must take care to read these verses intelligently, or we may misread them altogether. It is possible to draw from them a conclusion which is not in accordance with the mind of God. There is
I. A SUPERSTITIOUS ERROR AGAINST WHICH TO GUARD. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the mere fact of the presence of the ark in the house ensured prosperity; or that, similarly, the mere presence of sacred rites or persons will now command the favouring regard of God. That there was something more than this in the case of Obed-edom is proved by the facts:
1. That the presence of the ark in the midst of the Philistines proved to be disastrous (1Sa 5:1-12).
2. That the presence of the ark in the camp of the Israelites proved to be fruitless of help (1Sa 4:1-22.).
3. That the ark was nothing more in itself than a box of wood, and, apart from God’s determination to bless, could not possibly effect anything at all.
4. That to trust in a thing manufactured of man and not in the living God himself would partake of the idolatrous (see 2Ki 18:4). If we cherish the idea that, because we are connected by blood (or in any other way) with sacred persons, or that because we have much to do officially with sacred things, with the utterance of sacred words, or the performance of sacred rites, or the care of sacred buildings, therefore it will be well with us in the books of heaven, we are only harbouring a fiction, we are leaning on a brittle reed, we are building the house of our hope upon the sand.
II. THE RELIGIOUS TRUTH TO BE RECEIVED AND WELCOMED. God blessed the house of Obed-edom because he cheerfully and reverently made room for the sacred chest. His act was one of simple piety, rendered in an hour of need and offered devoutly, intelligently unto God; therefore God “blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that he had.” It was the mark of God’s approval of a service rightly and worthily rendered. The truth for us to gather is that God‘s abidingfavour is the one sure source of blessedness. If God be “with us,” i.e. for us, on our side, who or what can be against us? “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Those who, in constructing their life, leave God’s favour out of the account, make a fundamental and fatal error. Those who go on the principle that his Divine favour will secure true prosperity are proceeding along the lilies of truth. Let every man be discontented and disturbed in soul until he has first made sure of the abiding approval of the Most High. Till then it will be wrong with him and with all that he has; when that is gained, all is well with him and his. But how is this approval to be secured?
1. By doing the one thing which God demands of all his children now. This, first of all and most of all, is the work or the will of God, that we “believe on the Name of his Son Jesus Christ,” etc. (see Joh 6:29; 1Jn 3:23). The acceptance of Christ as our personal Saviour and Lord is the way to secure the abiding favour of the Father of all. Having thus gained his Divine regard, we must continue therein.
2. By striving to be and to do all those things in all our relations which are pleasing in his sight (see Php 4:8; Col 3:17, Col 3:23). Among many other ways of pleasing Christ, we may win his approving smile in the particular way suggested in the text.
3. By showing special attention to that with which, and to those with whom, he is specially connectedhis house and his disciples.C.
HOMILIES BY F. WHITFIELD
1Ch 13:1-8.–David and the ark.
Now that David had been anointed king over Israel, his first act was to think of the ark. During the reign of Saul it had been utterly neglected, and the people had become careless about the ordinances of Divine worship. This was the thought ever uppermost in David’s heart. The ark, the outward symbol of the Divine presence, was everything to him. He could not live outside the sunshine of God’s favour. To him God was everything, and without him there was nothing. What to him was all the popularity, the loyalty of those who rallied round him to proclaim him king, the devotion of the many thousands of Israel, if the Lord was not with him, the Centre and Source of all? Nothing. We see what David’s estimate of God’s presence was by the praises which he and all Israel offered on the occasion of bringing up the ark (1Ch 13:8). What had been of old a terror to the Philistines (see 1Sa 6:1-21.) was the highest joy to the people of God. It is so always. God’s presence is to God’s people their highest joy. To those who are out of Christ what can it be but terror? Notice, again, how David adds to “if it seem good unto you” the words “and it be of the Lord our God.” A true Christian will never, in any question, leave out the latter words. They must ever qualify all that precedes.W.
1Ch 13:7, 1Ch 13:9-12.–Uzza and the ark.
Since the ark was last heard of it had been in Baalah, or Kirjath-jearim. For upwards of fifty years, since it had been in the hands of the Philistines, it had been in the house of Abinadab of Gibeah, under the charge of his two sons, Uzza and Ahio, who were Levites, and who had been consecrated for the office. For the purpose of removing the ark to Jerusalem it was set upon a new cart, he was instantly smitten of God, and “there he died by the ark” (2Sa 7:7), “before God” (1Ch 13:10). David was grieved at this, and, instead of proceeding further and carrying the ark as he had intended to Jerusalem, he left it in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite, where it remained three months (1Ch 13:14). The setting of the ark on a cart was a hasty and inconsiderate procedure, in direct violation of the command of God (see Num 4:14, Num 4:15; Num 7:9; Num 18:3). Setting it upon a cart instead of having it carried upon the shoulders may seem to be a very small mistake. Touching it against an express command may seem to admit of extenuation, especially as it seemed to be falling. To the eye of man the fault, under such circumstances, may seem only to require a mitigated punishment. But it is not so with God. The entire act betrayed a forgetfulness of the majesty and holiness of Jehovah’s presence. It was also a departure from the Word. Such departures from the Word, to us who are accustomed to estimate evil by quantity and degree rather than by principle, may seem light things; but God looks at the motive, the principle, the underlying spirit.W.
1Ch 13:13, 1Ch 13:14.-The ark in the house of Obed-edom.
The ark was in the house of Obed-edom three months, and “the Lord blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that he had.” Why was this? Obed-edom was a Levite. He had been prepared of God to minister before it. None but a prepared heart can enjoy Christ. The ark was at home with Obed-edom, and he with it. So it is always with Christ and his people. But God not only blessed Obed-edom and his family; the significant words are added, “and all that he had.” Everything went right with Obed-edom, in his house, his family, his duties, his joys, and his sorrows, because the ark was there. What a lesson! Reader, why do things not go right with you? Because Christ has not his right place in your heart, in your affections, in your home, in your duties, and in all you have. Let Christ be in all, and then it cannot but be with you as it was with Obed-edom, “the Lord blessed his house, and all that he had.”W.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
1Ch 13:1-3, 1Ch 13:4.–Unity in religious enterprises.
The ark was the national religious symbol. Its return, was a matter of interest to the whole nation. So David made a very earnest effort to unite the whole nation in the work of its restoration. It was but a little thing that David, as the king, should order the ark to be fetched. It was a great mark of respect and honour shown to Jehovah that the whole nation should rise, as one man, and show its care of the Divine symbol. Religion has its private spheres. It is strictly an individual and personal thing. Men cannot be saved in masses; the regenerating grace of God only reaches them one by one. But while we see this with the utmost distinctness, we must also admit that religion has its public spheres, and that these are properly a care and anxiety to all sincere and earnest men. We are not to “forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.” Our Lord gave us his own example of reverent sharing in public worship. With much suggestiveness the evangelist says, “Jesus, as his custom was, went into the synagogue” (Luk 4:16). The apostles afford the example of sharing together in worship and work. And the best men in every age have fully recognized both the duty and the moral value of public religion. It has been left to our times of luxurious self-indulgence to find excuses for half-day attendance at the sanctuaries, which too often grows into entire neglect of all public means of grace. Bishop Wordsworth notices, in 1Ch 13:3, that “David, in his charitable spirit towards the memory of the departed king, does not say that Saul, being possessed by an evil spirit, became indifferent and careless to religion, and was given over to a reprobate mind; but he speaks in general terms, and takes a share of the blame to himself: ‘We troubled ourselves little about the ark in the days of Saul.’ Here is a happy example of mildness and charity, joined with piety and zeal.”
I. THE MORAL VALUE OF UNITY IN RELIGIOUS ENTERPRISE AND WORSHIP. The complete circle of human culture cannot be reached and covered by a purely private religious life. This is fully illustrated in the case of hermits, nuns, and monks, who have isolated themselves from their fellows for purposes of personal soul-culture. But the results have never been the harmonious development of the whole nature. Some sides have been unduly cultured, others have been neglected. In our commoner life private culture can no better suffice. The side of feding becomes unhealthily exaggerated. Certain necessary things in the religious life are only nourished by united and public acts of devotion and worship. We only notice a few of the chief influences for good exerted by such scenes.
1. They check the self-centering, introspective habit, the undue attention to feeling.
2. They take us out of ourselves by presenting to thought matters of common rather than individual interest.
3. They sway us to higher ranges of feeling than we could otherwise reach.
4. They culture reverence, and so counteract the tendency of private devotion to nourish undue familiarity with God.
5. And they provide peculiar help for those who, being weak in piety, are very dependent on sympathy.
II. THE POWER THAT MAY BE GIVEN TO ONE MAN TO SECURE SUCH UNITY IN ENTERPRISE AND WORSHIP. Illustrated in David. So, now, a man may give the initiative, as has been again and again illustrated in modern missions. Especially note Hudson Taylor’s starting of itinerant work in China. A man may give a leading example. A man may use effort to secure efficiency and attractiveness in worship. Illustrate from reformers of modern servicesthose who have improved Church singing, etc. Impress how superior a force the Church has and wields to that exerted, in Christian work, by any number of private individuals.R.T.
1Ch 13:8.-The joy of religion.
The natural and fitting expression of the kingly and national gladness in the restoration of the sacred ark was, “Playing before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.” The three kinds of musical instruments are here indicatedthose producing sound by wind, by the vibration of strings, and by the clanging together of metals. For a picturesque realization of the scene brought before us in this verse, see Stanley’s ‘Jewish Church,’ vol. 2:74-76. The mission of music and song is to find expression for man’s gladness and joy. It is as natural to sing as to laugh. Man has wonderfully developed the faculties of music and song, and now it is one of our chief modes of expressing human emotions, and of relieving them by expression. It is as truly one of the great forces for exciting and stirring emotion, as is well shown when it is necessary to raise the martial spirit of a nation. Dr. Horace Bushnell has a very striking paper on ‘Religious Music,’ in his volume ‘Work and Play,’ in which he opens out and illustrates these two points: “The very wonderful fact that God has hidden powers of music in things without life; and that when they are used, in right distinctions or properties of sound, they discourse what we knowwhat meets, interprets, and works our feeling, as living and spiritual creatures.” “How carefully this (musical) part of the worship was ordered in the temple service of Israel is known to every reader of the ancient Scriptures; how exactly also the chorus of singers and of players on instruments were arranged, one to answer to another in the deep wail of grief or penitence, the soft response of love, the lively sweep of festive gladness, or all to flow together in choral multitudes of praise, that might even shake the rock of Zion itself.” “And if any one wishes to know what power there may be in music, as an instrument of reliction, let him ask what effect the songs of this one singer (David) have had, melted into men’s hearts, age after age, by music, and made in that manner to be their consecrated and customary expressions of worship.”
I. THE REASONABLENESS OF JOY IN RELIGION. We feel the reasonableness of the songs and joy of Israel when redeemed from Egyptian bondage and delivered from their raging foes. Much more is joy and song right and natural as our response for redemption from penalty, and deliverance from evil. It can only be a distorted religion that fits with melancholy. “The joy of the Lord is our strength;” and with “joy we draw water from the wells of salvation.” Illustrate from the Old Testament point of view: David and the prophets give high examples. Illustrate from the New Testament point of view: apostles tell us if we “are merry, we should sing psalms;” “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Modern religious life makes music and song essential features, and these do much towards preserving a healthy tone in our piety. This may be applied to private devotion; it is greatly aided by hymn and song. It is the most attractive feature of public worship.
II. THE HELPFULNESS OF SONG IN EXPRESSING RELIGIOUS JOY. What could David have done else, or so well, in uttering his over-charged feelings? Music at once soothes and gives adequate expression. A man can put his very heart into a song, and ease and quiet his intense emotions by so doing. Estimate the influence of song: it
(1) uplifts;
(2) brightens;
(3) aids feeling;
(4) comforts.
Illustrate by the incidents and influences connected with Paul Gerhardt s hymns. Then we should fully recognize the importance of the gifts of song and music which have been granted to the Church, and see that these are duly consecrated and cultivated. Religious joy cannot be always maintained, and yet true hearts may even find “songs in the night“ and in the prison.R.T.
1Ch 13:9, 1Ch 13:10.–Warnings against irreverence.
The incident here recalled to mind is one full of difficulties. Uzza seems to have been struck dead for what was, in intention, an act of consideration and care for She safety of the ark. To human view his sin does not readily appear, and some explanations are necessary in making it clear. Uzza’s death was not, mainly, a judgment on Uzza, but a lesson, taught in a very solemn manner, to David and the people. They had not been associated with the ark for a long time, and so may have lost some of the due solemnity of feeling concerning it. By the Mosaic rules, the ark was on no account to be touched by human hands. It would not have needed any steadying if, in obedience to the Law, it had been carried by poles on the priests’ shoulders. So God permitted this one man’s death to teach the solemn lesson of reverence. The sin was really David’s in neglecting the due order and regulations, but it pleased God that he should receive his warning through the suffering of another. One tradition says that Uzza was struck by a lightning flash; another represents his death as occasioned by the withering of his hand and arm. “We cannot fully explain this judgment from the side of Uzza. We must add that man, in life and in death, may be used by God to teach his lessons and accomplish his work; and Uzza, in his sudden death, was God’s appeal to a king (and to a nation) who had forgotten his holy Law, and were ‘following the devices and desires of their own hearts.’ That which was a judgment to Uzza was a merciful call to repentance and right-heartedness given to king and people.”
I. ATTENTION TO FORMS MAY EXPRESS REVERENCE. Illustrate by the way in which kneeling aids in securing the spirit of prayer. Herein lies the importance of care in arranging the externals, the ceremonials, of Christian worship. The associations of God’s house should both secure and cultivate a due and becoming reverence.
II. THE NEGLECT OF FORMS MAY TEND TO NOURISH IRREVERENCE. Some pride themselves on freedom from forms. But while it is quite conceivable that overdone forms may crush out spiritual life and feeling, it is even more likely that a despising of religious forms may lead to undue familiarity with God’s Name, and sanctuary, and worship, and sacraments. If to some it may seem that undue attention to ritual is replacing a true reverence by a mere formalism, to others it appears that the age is singularly and perilously irreverent, and sorely needs again the warning of Uzza’s death.
III. THAT WHICH IS DONE FOR GOD MUST BE DONE IN GOD‘S WAY. A lesson which every age and every individual needs to learn. David made the very common mistake of trying to do God’s work in Ms own way. He must be impressively shown that the fully obedient spirit waits on God to know the how as well as the what. It not only says, “What wouldst thou have me to do?” but also, “How wouldst thou have me do it?” To win willingness to take God’s way is often, as with David, the issue of humiliating failures; and it is precisely the lesson which life-failures are designed to teach.
IV. BY SOLEMN PROVIDENCES SOLEMN LESSONS MAY BE IMPRESSED. Our Lord taught us that we must not venture to convict public sufferers of special sins bringing on them judgment (Luk 13:1-5). God often teaches the mass of men by his dealings with a few. The victims of so-called accident vicariously suffer for the good of others. Illustrate by those who die of diseases caused by neglect of sanitary laws. They awaken attention to existing evils, and are the means of saving men. Uzza really saved the judgment that must have fallen on David and the nation if they had kept on acting in this self-willed way.
Make final appeal to modern feeling respecting worship. There are signs of the danger of losing the worshipping idea, and overdoing the instruction idea, in our public services. We need recalling to a due reverence.R.T.
1Ch 13:14.–Obed-edom’s blessing.
The subject introduced here is “God in the home, God cherished in the home, and God blessing the home.” God was pleased to teach Israel by symbols, by incidents, by personal experiences, and by actions, as well as by words. There is given a picture of Obed-edom’s home, and we see that God’s cherished presence is assured blessing for the heart and the home.
I. GOD‘S PRESENCE WITH US CAN BE GRANTED AND REALIZED. Man can be, and know that he is, the temple of the living God. The possibility of this is the assurance given us in the incarnation of Christ. God can dwell with men; for be has dwelt in the “Man Christ Jesus.”
II. GOD‘S PRESENCE WITH US CAN BE CHERISHED; So David, fearing the Divine removal, prays, “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” We cherish the Divine indwelling by
(1) daily openness;
(2) dependence; and
(3) prayer;
but especially by daily following, in simplicity and loyalty, the consequent inward Divine leadings. Compare George Macdonald’s sentence, “If any man will do the truth he knows, he shall know all the truth he needs to know.” God only stays with the obedient.
III. GOD‘S PRESENCE TAKES GRACIOUSLY HELPFUL FORM IN CHRISTIANITY, It is the presence of Jesus Christ, and from the records of his earthly life we know what an infinite charm and help that presence can be. Our Lord promised, “I will come to him, and sup with him,” and he left this last assurance, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”
IV. GOD‘S PRESENCE STILL ENSURES PERSONAL AND FAMILY BENEDICTIONS. It does not ensure freedom from care, but it does our sanctification through the care. We cannot be alone in any trouble. It brings a gracious actual reward of
(1) soul-prosperity;
(2) family peace and success.
Plead for the recognition of God in the home, by maintaining the habit of family prayer. And show the mystery of grace in God’s even using the incentive of promised rewards of godliness, and giving Scripture examples of such rewards.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
. The Removal of the Ark from Kiriath-jearim: 1 Chronicles 13
1Ch 13:1.And David consulted with the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with every leader. 2And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good to you, and it be of the Lord our God, let us send quickly unto our brethren remaining in all lands of Israel, and with them the priests and Levites in the cities of their suburbs, that they gather unto us. 3And let us bring again the ark of our God to us; for we inquired not at it in the days of Saul. 4And all the congregation said, We must do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of 5all the people. And David gathered all Israel, from Shihor of Egypt even unto Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim.
6And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, unto Kiriath-jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the Lord, that sitteth over the cherubim, as He is called by name. 7And they carried the ark of God on a new waggon from the house of Abinadab; and Uzza and Ahio drove the waggon. 8And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with songs and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and cymbals, and trumpets.
9And they came to the threshing-floor of Chidon; and Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen shook it. 10And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and He smote him, because he put his hand to the ark; and he died there before the Lord. 11And David was angry, because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzza; and that place is called Perez-uzza to this day. 12And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God to 13me? And David removed not the ark to him to the city of David, but placed it in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 14And the ark of God remained in the house of Obed-edom in his house three months; and the Lord blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that he had.
EXEGETICAL
Preliminary Remark.In the second book of Samuel, where 1Ch 6:1-11 corresponds to the present section, the history of the transference of the ark from Kiriath-jearim to the Louse of Obed-edom (which is there related, irrespective of the somewhat shorter introduction, almost word for word as here; comp. 2Sa 6:2-11 with 1Ch 13:6-14 of our chapter) is immediately followed by the account of the removal three months later of the ark from that house to Zion. Our author, on the contrary, inserted (1 Chronicles 14) an account of Davids house-building, his family, and his victory over the Philistines, which in 2Sa 5:11-25 follows the narrative of the taking of Zion, between the history of the removal of the ark to the house of Obed-edom and its introduction into Zion, and, moreover, on the ground of an old Levitical document, has treated this latter part of the history with vastly greater detail and fulness (see 1 Chronicles 15, , 16). The more circumstantial introduction of our chapter, 1Ch 13:1-5, to which there is only one verse parallel in 2 Samuel 6, may spring from the same source as the following full detail in 1 Chronicles 15, 16.
1. Description of the Assembly in which the Removal of the Ark from Kiriath-jearim was resolved upon: 1Ch 13:1-5.And David consulted (comp. 2Ch 10:6; 2Ch 30:2) with the captains of thousands and of hundreds (comp. 1Ch 15:25), with every leader. before serves here for the brief recapitulation of the fore-mentioned, thus, in short, namely; comp. Gen 23:10.
1Ch 13:2. And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, that is, to those princes as the representatives of the community (to the ecclesia reprsentativa); comp. in Lev 14:3; Deu 31:30, etc.If it seem good to you, properly, if it be good with you; comp. Neh 2:5; Neh 2:7; Est 1:19; Est 3:9. For the following: and it be of the Lord our God, comp. Gen 24:50; Act 5:39.Let us send quickly, properly, let us break through () and send, that is, with all diligence, and instant suppressing of all hesitation; comp. 1Sa 28:23. Less certain is the interpretation, flowing from the notion of spreading out (so , for example, Isa 54:3): send far and wide.Unto our brethren remaining in all lands of Israel, in all lands of the several tribes; comp. in Gen 26:3-4; 2Ch 11:23; 2Ch 34:33. The preposition before , because in the sending is implied at the same time the commanding (comp. ). After (with them, that is, here, likewise, besides), this , or even , is to be repeated.
1Ch 13:4. We must do so, literally, to do so; , the infin, with , as in 1Ch 5:1, 1Ch 9:25.
1Ch 13:5. All Israel, from Shihor of Egypt even unto Hamath, that is, not all the individuals, but a large representation of the whole people (according to 2Sa 6:1, a select number of 30,000). From Shihor of Egypt even unto Hamath means essentially the same as from Dan to Beersheba, namely, Palestine from the south to the north border; comp. Jdg 20:1; 2Sa 3:10; 2Sa 17:11. is abbreviated for , Jos 13:3. It means the small stream between Palestine and Egypt, which is otherwise called the river of Egypt ( , Jos 15:4; Jos 15:47; 1Ki 8:65; 2Ch 7:8, etc.), the Rhinokorura of old, and the Wady el Arisli of the present. The Nile certainly bears the name , that is, black water (Isa 23:3; Jer 2:18); yet smaller waters are also so named, as Jos 19:26, the Shihor Libnath, in the tribe of Asher, which, however, casts no doubt on our interpretation. On , to denote the northern border of Palestine, comp. Num 34:5; Num 34:8; 2Ki 14:25. Hamath, on the river Orontes, on the southern slope of Antilibanus or Hermon, an old Canaanitish colony (Gen 10:8), which the prophet Amos (1Ch 6:2), in the 9th century b.c., designated the great ( ), and which still, in the Seleucidic and Roman times, when it was called , belonged to the most considerable Syrian cities, was in Davids time the seat of a king friendly to David, but independent of him, and tolerably powerful; see 1Ch 18:9 f.; 2Sa 8:9 ff.
2. The Execution of this Resolve: 1Ch 13:6-14.And David went up, and all Israel. By all Israel is undoubtedly to be understood here, as well as in the foregoing verse, that assembly of select representatives of the people from every tribe, which amounted, 1Sa 6:1, to 30,000 men. Neither the assumption that here, in the fetching of the ark, the participation of a much greater number is presupposed than in that preparatory assembly, nor the hypothesis that 2Sa 6:1 originally conveyed the sense: And David multiplied all the men of war in Israel, the Sheloshim and the captains of thousands (instead of 30,000), is necessary (against Berth.), as the indefinite all Israel would suit even a smaller number of representatives than 30,000.To Baalah, unto Kiriath-jearim. For might be expected, from Jos 15:9, perhaps ; for Baalah is the older Canaanitish name for Kiriath-jearim, which is also called Kiriath-baal (Jos 15:60; Jos 18:14). Yet the thing is expressed intelligibly enough; the to Baalah is sufficiently explained by the addition, unto Kiriath-jearim. For the addition, which belonged to Judah, comp. on Jdg 18:12, and for the situation of Kiriath-jearim, the present Kureyet el Enab, on the way from Jerusalem to Ramleh and Lydda (three hours from Jerusalem), comp. Rob. Pal. ii. 589.That sitteth over the cherubim, as He is called by name. , here , as (comp. Ew Lehrb. 333, a); the acc, of reference belongs not merely to , but to , and designates the whole phrase as a usual epithet of God in religious worship; comp. Isa 37:16; Psa 80:2. Others would refer to , and change into (Kamph.: which is called by the name), or even change into (with reference to 2Sa 6:2, where also is once to be read), and so get the sense: who was there, at the ark, addressed (Berth.; comp. Then, on 2 Samuel 6). See, on the contrary, and in favour of our interp., Keil, p. 144.
1Ch 13:7. And they carried . . . from the house of Abinadab. This house lay on a hill in Kiriath-jearim (, 1Sa 7:1), not in a place Gibeah, near Kiriath-jearim, as the passage 1Sa 7:1 seems to say in the faulty translation of the Vulg, and Luther (comp. C. Hoffmann, Blicke in die frh. Gesch. d. gelobten Landes, i. p. 156). Uzza and Ahio, the drivers of the waggon with the ark, are, 2 Samuel 6, expressly called the sons of Abinadab.
1Ch 13:8. With all their might, and with songs, and with harps, etc. The parallel: with all woods of cypresses, in 2Sa 6:5, rests on a corruption of the text, and is, as of the Sept, there shows, to be amended by our passage () comp. 2Sa 6:14. For the instruments here named, particularly the harps, psalteries, and cymbals, see on 1Ch 15:16.Cymbals and trumpets. The words presented instead of in 2Sa 6:5 : , and with rattles and with cymbals, are perhaps more original; at least the (Vulg. sistra), occurring nowhere else, might easily have been suppressed by the alleviating correction of a later hand (comp. Wellh. p. 167 f.).
3. Uzzas Fall, and the Placing of the Ark in the House of Obed-edom: 1Ch 13:9-14.And they came to the threshing-floor of Chidon. The name is written, in 2Sa 6:6, (Sept. ), a reading scarcely preferable to our own.For the oxen shook it, were on the point of upsetting it (Sept. ; Vulg. paululum inclinaverant eam); the ark of itself supplies the subject to . Others give the oxen let go (Berth.), or stept aside (Luther and many ancients), or flung on every side, Ew., etc.
1Ch 13:10. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, whose error might lie less in the accidental and involuntary touching of the ark, as in his conveying this sacred thing on an ox waggon, instead of having it borne according to the law (Num 7:9; Num 10:17); comp, what David afterwards did, 1Ch 15:2. For the parallel text of Samuel to be amended by our passage, comp. Thenius and Wellhausen.
1Ch 13:13. In the house of Obededom the Gittite; according to 1Ch 15:18; 1Ch 15:24, this Obed-edom was one of the Levitical porters; whence we are not to think of the Philistine Gath, but the Levitical city Gath-rimmon (Jos 19:45; Jos 21:24), as his birth-place.
1Ch 13:14. In the house of Obed-edom in his house, in his own tent, which was spread over it in the court of this Levite (thus, in his dwelling-house, ). This text appears more correct than that in 2 Samuel 6, which only states that the ark remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.And all that he had. For this 2 Samuel 6. has: and all his house. The various reading of our passage is well chosen, because, just before, was used of the tent of the ark (Berth.). That the blessing which God gave to Obed-edom consisted chiefly in numerous offspring, appears from 1Ch 26:4-8. Yet, even during the three months mentioned in our passage, David must have clearly perceived that the Lords anger was sufficiently appeased by the death of Uzza, and that the removal of the ark to Jerusalem involved no danger, but would be attended with blessed effects.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter relates to us the circumstance of David’s fetching the Ark of God from Kirjath-jearim: the death of Uzzah, for his presumption on that occasion; in consequence of which, the Ark is left at the house of Obed-edom.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
There is so much sameness in the account here given, concerning the removal of the ark from Kirjath-jearim to what we read of it in the 2d book of Samuel, that I shall not enlarge upon the observations, but refer the Reader to that subject already reviewed. See 2Sa 6:1-11 , and the Commentary and Reflections upon it. No doubt David meant well, respecting the removal of the ark, but he should first have consulted the Lord before he consulted his captains. After we have been at a throne of grace we may confer with men. Means are to be made use of, when we are looking to the God of the means, to bless them. There is one feature marked in David’s conduct upon this occasion, that merits our notice. Though he was king, and a great king, yet he condescends to call his subjects brethren. Let us send abroad unto our brethren (says he) everywhere. Can I read this account, dearest Jesus, and not recollect thine unequalled condescension? Thou art indeed King, and a Great King, even Lord of heaven and earth, and yet thou art not ashamed to call thy redeemed ones, brethren. Oh! thou beloved, precious, condescending Saviour! By what name shall I call thee to testify how endeared thou art to all thy people? A brother, indeed, born for adversity, and one that loveth at all times, that sticketh closer than a brother. Hail! thou first-born of many brethren!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Holy Ebullitions
1Ch 13
CHAPTERS 13-16 form a section complete in itself, relating to the transfer of the ark from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem. There is a short parenthesis in chapter xiv. The fourteenth chapter is almost parallel to 2Sa 6:1-11 , except that the introduction goes into much more detail. Even David, though so mighty, was wise enough to consult with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. The hundreds were the smaller military divisions of the tribe. Every leader means every prince or chief; when all the chiefs were gathered together they constituted what was known as the Great Council of the nation. David was about to enter upon a distinctly religious enterprise, yet he surrounded himself with all the forces at his command. None could tell the difficulties with which he might meet, so like a sagacious prince he prepared himself for every exigency. To bring the ark from one locality to another was easy enough, so far as mere weight and distance were concerned; but who knows what enemies may unexpectedly arise, or what obstructions may suddenly be developed? Those who conduct the enterprises of the Church should take a complete survey of all the possibilities of the case, and not allow themselves to be surprised by things which might have been foreseen and prepared for. They are not wise Church statesmen who see only the one particular thing to be done; they rather are the true philosophers and leaders who note every circumstance, and upon a complete survey of the entire detail base their plan of operation. Men work best when they are thus consulted; their sense of responsibility is developed; their instinct of honour is happily touched; so the work becomes more than personal, it broadens itself into a national enterprise. David does not want the ark simply as an ornament; he wishes to inquire at it, that he may hold more direct and distinct communication with God. David remembers that in the days of Saul the ark was neglected, men were secularists, or atheists, or self-idolaters; they supposed that they had the directing voice within themselves, and need not have recourse to instrumentalities: David now sees the mistake of all this, and re-institutes the ark, and looks upon it as the medium through which God will come to him in all the exigencies and perplexities of life. David gathered all Israel together to bring the ark of God from Kirjath-jearim ( 1Ch 13:5 ). The ark did not belong to one man nor to the chiefs of the nation, nor to the rich and the mighty; it belonged to the whole people of Israel. This is the true conception of all Christian ordinances; they are not priestly ceremonies; they belong to the whole people, to the human heart, to that one peculiar element which constitutes Humanity. The ark was at Kirjath-jearim, a city of Judah, and Judah was the tribe to which David himself belonged: but it was not enough that the ark should be associated with one tribe; the king desired to place it at the centre, in the capital, and in the royal residence. Though we may not follow this direction literally, we may adopt it in all its spiritual meanings. The ark of God is not to occupy some side-place, some outside locality, however respectable; nor to be identified with one tribe or family how distinguished soever: it is to be in the supreme place, in the imperial city, accessible to all; yea, it is to be as “a city set on an hill that cannot be hid,” and which is not kept apart by gates of man’s formation or erection. According to verse seven, the ark was carried in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab, where it had been for twenty years after it had been returned by the Philistines. These little attentions to what may be called the spirit of homage or courtesy, such as the providing of a new cart, are not to be omitted when looking carefully into the nature of ancient religion. Men may be right in points, and yet wrong in the whole. A great character cannot be built upon individual excellences, or exceptional attentions to duty and ceremony. The spirit which is within determines the quality of the character, and the measure of its best influence. As David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets, they expressed a great religious joy. Enthusiasm is of the very nature of religion. David and his people were filled with a higher gladness than if they had captured a city. We should be careful upon what objects we expend our purest enthusiasm. Here we find great numbers of people rejoicing, because their connection with heaven had been more visibly established. This ought to be the one joy of the human heart, absorbing all others, and giving quality to every degree of minor gladness. There is nothing merely sentimental in holy ebullitions of this kind; they expressed deep conviction, they signified indeed the real passion and consecration of the heart. There is a quietness that is not decent, because it is not just. Many persons mistake indifference for peace, or self-control, or dignity: it is nothing of the kind: it is simply an offence against the very spirit of the sanctuary, which is one of jubilance, of triumph, and music. Whenever a church is consecrated to the service of God all the people should celebrate the event with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets, if not literally yet in the spirit represented by these words, a spirit of abounding, grateful enthusiasm and gladness.
“Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the ox shook it.” On this we have already commented. The lesson is not difficult to learn, when men are moving along the commandment of God, they may be sure that God will see to the fulfilment of his purpose without their excitement and interposition, as if everything depended upon themselves. God takes care of his own stars: God takes care of his redeemed Church. We may be impious even in the defence of our religion. The religion is not ours, except as a spirit that is to rule our life; it is God’s gift, as is the sun in the heavens, and he himself is the one Defender of the faith, and to him must be left the answer to every difficulty, the reply to every form of opposition and assault. David, however, was affrighted by what he saw. He thought that God was calling him to do that which was impossible, to walk along a line fraught with danger; a line perforated, so to say, with the deepest pits, into any one of which he might fall at any moment. David was so alarmed indeed that he “brought not the ark home to himself to the city of David, but carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite” ( 1Ch 13:13 ). Who knows whether this turning aside was not the real meaning of the punishment which fell upon Uzza? Things may be larger than they seem at first sight. By very small occurrences the course of great lines may be changed in history. If we look at any little occurrence we may be surprised that God should have taken action upon it, because of its insignificance; yet if we take into view the whole history following, we may see that a great door was hung upon a small hinge, and that what we considered insignificant was needful to the development and progress of a stupendous plan. How much we owe to the “asides” of God! But for these how many would have remained unblessed! Obed-edom owed the benediction which descended upon his house to this “aside.” God’s way through life is thus wondrous: always, indeed, one great main line of progress, yet who can count the detours which he makes, the asides, the incidental variations, the small things which men regarded as unworthy of notice, who can tell how all these are wrought up into a comprehensive revelation of wisdom and love? If we only took the things which came to us on the great main thoroughfares of life, some men would hardly be blessed at all: they owe nearly all they are and have to circumstances which appear to be out of the general course, quite exceptional, so unique indeed that the men receiving the benefits accruing therefrom have no difficulty in proclaiming the doctrine of special providence. A study of the “asides” of life would confirm us in our general Christian faith.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XX
BRINGING UP THE ARK AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CENTRAL PLACE OF WORSHIP
2Sa 6:1-7:29
The wars are now all over, and there has come a period of rest. The first thing that impresses David’s mind is this: “I have made Jerusalem the capital of the nation, and Mount Zion is the chief place in Jerusalem, but in order to keep this people unified, God must be present. Off yonder at Gibeon is the tabernacle and the brazen altar, a part of the people worshiping there, and there is an altar of sacrifice but no altar at Jerusalem. Ten miles off yonder at Kirjathjearim is the ark of the covenant; it has been there forty-eight years. Lost in the days of Eli to the Philistines, and returned by the Philistines and stopped at that place, and there another part of the people are worshiping.” You can see how David’s mind would be fastened upon the thought that he must bring that ark with its symbol of divine presence to his capital, but in order to bring it he must have a place to put it, so he selects a site for it and builds a tent, something like the tabernacle which Moses built, which was still at Gibeon, and it remained there until Solomon built the Temple. After Solomon built the Temple, the tabernacle was no longer regarded. It passes out of history.
It has been a characteristic of this man’s life to consult God in everything that he does. Now the priest carried two jewels on his Ephod called the Urim and Thummim, and through the Urim and Thummim God answered questions propounded. That Ephod with the Urim and Thummim had been carried by Abiathar to David in the cave of Adullam. All along through life he had that with him, and through these brilliant jewels in some way, we do not know just how, God answered questions propounded. There was also instituted an order of prophets who became the mouthpieces of Jehovah, so that if a man wanted to know Jehovah’s will he would go to the seer, or prophet, as David went to Nathan, and as Saul went to Samuel. These were two ways in which God communicated with the people the priest way, through the Urim and Thummim, and the prophet way, through their inspiration. It is the object of David to gather together at Jerusalem everything sacred the ark, tent, and altar, and the precious Urim and Thummim, so that here now in every way he may hear from God.
Sometimes God communicated with individuals in dreams and visions, but ordinarily through the two ways I have pointed out. We see why he wanted to get the ark up there, and how important in order to perpetuate unity and solidarity of his kingdom; all who would confer with God must come to his capital.
While David was king it was not an absolute monarchy. There was what was called the Convocation of Israel the general assembly. This section commences: “And David consulted with the captains of thousands and of hundreds, even with every leader.” Notice that he did not settle matters by a mere ipse dixit “words spoken by himself.” It was not by mere royal edict. He wanted the people to see and commit themselves to it, that this was the best thing to do for the nation. Sometimes a pastor becomes arbitrary in deciding what to do when he could accomplish his object a great deal better if he would confer with his brethren. David was not just a boss; he wanted everybody committed. After this consultation it was decided that they would go for the ark, and our text tells us how they brought it from Kirjathjearim on a cart drawn by oxen and that when the oxen stumbled and the cart looked as though it were going to turn over, Uzzah, one of the men who had been guiding it, reached out his hand to stop it, and God struck him dead instantly. That made a deep impression upon David and the people as deep as when Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire upon the altar and the lightning leaped from God and destroyed them; an impression as solemn as when at Peter’s words Ananias and Sapphira fell dead under the stroke of God. The question is, why? The answer is found in the Mosaic law, that while carts might be used to carry the external things, the posts of the enclosure, and the curtain of the enclosure, the things of the sanctuary had to be carried by men, and staves were fitted into each piece heavy enough to require it so that four men might carry it. They might put the other things in a cart, but these sacred things had to be borne by men. In the next place, only certain men could touch it without death. They must not only be of the tribe of Levi, but of the family of Kohath. In Numbers we have the order of the encampment of the twelve tribes, three on each of the four sides; the Levites made an inner circle, and the position of the Kohathites and their duties. Whenever the trumpet sounded the Kohathites had to pick up the ark to carry it. In this case the law was violated, and God, in order to show that there must be reverence for sacred things, and that his precise commands must be carried out, made the breach on Uzzah.
We now come to a question of David, and it is a great text 1Ch 13:12 : “How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?” What a theme for a sermon! If I were to preach on that I would show that wherever the ark was there was safety and blessing. After it stopped at Kirjathjearim that place was blessed; after it stopped at the house of Obed-Edom that home was blessed. Since that ark was a symbol of divine presence and divine guidance, it was a supreme question, “How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?” How shall I get the ark of God into my family, so that there will be safety, guidance, peace, and love? You see what kind of a sermon could be made out of it.
The whole vast crowd went back to Jerusalem and left the ark there. It was a good thing to have, but a bad thing to touch. It stayed at the house of Obed-Edom three months, and every hour it brought a blessing to that home. Our text tells us that David had made him houses in the city of David and prepared a place for the ark, if he could ever get it there: “How shall I bring it home to me?” The house that David built for himself was a palace.
The riches that he had made, the commerce that he had instituted, culminated in a treaty with Hiram, king of Tyre. Tyre was the great naval power of that age what England is now and through his alliance with Hiram he obtained the best artificers in wood and metal, skilled workmen, and cedars from Lebanon. These huge trees were floated to Joppa, and from Joppa brought across the country to Jerusalem, and so David had a fine house. When he went into that house the day it was finished, he wrote a song Psa 30 . I told you about his gratitude; whenever a blessing came, it brought immediately from him an expression of thanksgiving to God. He wrote Psa 30 and sang it at the dedication of the house. He dedicated this house of his to God. The song commences: I will extol thee, O Jehovah; for thou hast raised me up, And hast not made my foes to rejoice over me. O Jehovah my God, I cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me. O Jehovah, thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol; Thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.
I told you that in studying the psalms, you would get the interpretation of the inner life of David, and that you could tell from the psalms what events of his life most impressed him. Arrange the Davidic psalms in order, as they express the life of David. You will commence, of course, with the twenty-third, then the eighth, etc. There was a great difference between the Gave of Adullam and this fine palace. Some people do not get a home until late in life. Lorenzo Dow used to sing that he never had a home, and when a friend made him a present of a home, he declined it because it kept him from singing his favorite hymn.
David, hearing that the blessings of God had been on ObedEdom, and wanting this blessing brought to Jerusalem, studied the law and the law told him how to handle the ark; that the Kohathites should bear it, the Levites only should come near it; so he set out again with a vast host nearly 1000 singers to go after the ark.
Three chief singers led with cymbals, then three more men led the lute or psaltery-crowd, and three more men led the harp-crowd, and the priests blew the trumpets for signals. On page 127 (1Ch 15:19 ) we have: “So the singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were appointed, with cymbals of brass to sound aloud; and Zechariah and Asiel, and Shemiramoth and Jehiel, and Unni and Eliab, and Maaseiah and Benaiah with psalteries set to Alamoth.” “Alamoth” means female choir; “Sheminith,” male choir. He started out to get the ark home, and when he got to the place they sang this song, Psa 15:1 : Jehovah, who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, And speaketh truth in his heart; He that slandereth not with his tongue.
Then when the Kohathites lifted up the ark, he said, “Let God arise, and his enemies be scattered,” the song that Cromwell sang before battle. And now having picked up the ark, the priests with the trumpets gave the signals to the cymbal-band., the psaltery-band whose singers were maidens, and to the harp-band. When that vast host drew near to Jerusalem, they sang Psa 24:7 . Lift up your heads, O ye gates, And be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors.
They marched in and deposited the ark in its place in the tent and then David repeated the words of Moses: “Return to thy rest, O Lord,” then followed refreshments, and then followed the benediction.
I will not go over the pageantry, but will present this thought: The Harmony tells us (p. 128) “On that day David first ordained to give thanks unto the Lord, by the hand of Asaph and his brethren.” In other words, as soon as he got the ark in its place, he instituted that remarkable worship which has never been equalled from that day to this; there was something every day, morning sacrifice and evening sacrifice. He appointed 24,000 Levites to various services around the sanctuary. There were twelve different bands, twenty-four pieces each, for each month of the year, and on great occasions these 288 pieces would be in one grand band with a choir of 4,000 voices; but every month of the year a certain band would know that it would have to go in. There were a great many singers, male and female; singers corresponding to cymbals, singers corresponding to harps, and singers corresponding to cornets. I do not suppose that history has a parallel to this organization of music. It became somewhat greater in Solomon’s time, but David was the organizer.
We now come to one of the most important lessons in the Bible (p. 131). You will understand that Deu 12:10-11 , is the key passage for interpreting the present section. Here is the direction that after they get over into the Promised Land and their enemies are subdued, the kingdom is settled, all the wars ended, then God will designate a central place of worship for his house. David was familiar with the passage in Deuteronomy. He now believes that the provisional days are over, and that the time has come for God to have fixed habitation where all must come, in fulfilment of that passage, and he purposes in his heart to build the most magnificent house for God that the world has ever seen (2Sa 7:1-3 ). He was not mistaken in the divine purpose to have a central place of worship; he was not mistaken that Jerusalem was the place, but he was mistaken as to the time when, and the man by whom this glorious Temple of God should be erected. It is important for you to see wherein he was mistaken and wherein he was not mistaken. God commends him for his zeal: “It was well that thou didst purpose this in thine heart.” “That is a good thing, but you are not the man to do it.”
The Bible assigns two reasons why David was not the man. In 1Ki 5:3 , Solomon, who was the right man, uses this language: Thou knowest how that David, my father, could not build a house for the name of Jehovah his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until Jehovah put these under the soles of his feet. In other words, the military power of David had not fully given rest; the time of rest had not fully come; a partial rest had come, but not the full rest necessary to the establishment of this house. Solomon then adds: But now Jehovah my God hath given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary nor evil occurrence. That is the first reason.
We find another reason in 1 Chronicles. David is speaking: “But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou art a man of war, and hast shed blood” (1Ch 28:3 ). He refers to it again as follows: “But the word of Jehovah came to me saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build a house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight” (1Ch 22:8 ).
Now go back to the passage in Deuteronomy: “When you have gotten over into that country and have obtained rest from all your enemies, then this permanent house of God shall be built.” David mistook, (1) the time the wars were not yet ended; (2) the person he had been a man of war and had shed blood abundantly, and the builder of the house of God must be a prince of peace. We will have use for this thought when we come to consider the antitype. Whereupon the message to David, the message of our text (and I want you to see that this divine message to David made the deepest impression ever made upon his mind by any event of his life) made a stronger impression upon the Jewish mind after his time than any preceding thing. You will find the psalms full of references to it, and the prophets magnify it above every promise, particularly Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel, and you will find that this message that Nathan, from God, delivered to David, thrilled the Jewish heart with marvelous expectation of the Messiah, David’s son, the Great King that was to come. Frequent reference is made to it in the New Testament, and Matthew’s whole Gospel was written on the thought of the coming of the King. This is his great theme.
In order to see how this impressed David, notice the exact words spoken to him (2Sa 7:4-7 ): “And it came to pass the same night, that the word of Jehovah came unto Nathan, saying, Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith Jehovah, shalt thou build me a house for me to dwell in? for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even unto this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel, spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to be shepherd of my people Israel, saying, Why have ye not built me a house of cedar?” “During the period of the judges, when I selected a judge like Samson, or Gideon, or Barak, did I at any time say to any of these judges that the time had come to build me a permanent house?” (Read 2Sa 7:8-16 .) That was the message and it is very easy to see from the context that at the time it made a most wonderful impression upon the mind of David, as you further note from his prayer following right after it. (Read 2Sa 7:18-19 ; 1Ch 17:16-17 .) Consider particularly these words: “And this too after the manner of men, ‘O lord Jehovah.” Luther translates that passage thus: “This is after the manner of a man who is God, the Lord.” That is to say, such a promise cannot fulfil itself in a man of low degree. The Chronicles passage has it: “Thou hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree.” David does not understand that his son Solomon is to exhaust the meaning of this passage.
In order to prove the impression made on David’s mind, let us read all of Psa 72 which closes with the words of David and ends a book of the Psalms. The subscription is: “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended.” You may easily gather from this psalm that when this promise was made through Nathan that God would build him a house house meaning family except the Lord build a house, they labor in vain to build it, since children are a heritage of the Lord. The King in his mind appears from Psa 2 . (Read Psa 2:1-8 .) Then again in Psa 110:1 “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” This king is to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Then in Psa 89 . (Read Psa 89:2-4 .) Notice again in Psa 45 . (Read the entire psalm.) Now we want to know how this promise to David impressed the mind of the prophet. (Read Isa 11:1-10 .)
The genealogies of both Matthew and Luke prove that Jesus was a descendant of David. (Read Luk 1:31-33 ; Luk 1:68-70 .)
Another passage (Read Heb 1:5 ). “Again” here refers to Christ’s resurrection. His soul had gone up to God at his death on the cross to make atonement, and after the atonement returned for the body, and when the resurrection took place God said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” Again, in Hebrews, he says that Moses built a house, the tabernacle, and Solomon, the lineal son of David, built a house, the Temple. But the Temple that Solomon built was out of unfeeling rock, unthinking stone, quarried as rough ashlars from the mountains; then by certain processes smoothed and fashioned into things of beauty, to be fitted into the earthly Temple of the Lord, which is a type of human beings, quarried as rough ashlars from the mountains of sin; then by the marvelous works of regeneration and sanctification, they become smooth ashlars ready for fitting into the temple of God, the living temple, to be a habitation for God, through the Spirit, to the end of the world. See also the last chapter of Revelation.
My point is, that while this promise of God through Nathan rested for the time being on Solomon, who did build a house, that it looked to a higher than Solomon, to a more distant day. Let us read Luther’s translation again: “This is after the manner of a man who is God, our Lord.” When you study the vast literature of the Old Testament say such a series as Hengstenberg’s Christology or Hengstenberg’s Kingdom of God, or any good commentary on 2Sa 7 and parallel passages in Chronicles, you will find that they regard this promise made to David as the most remarkable ever made. The prophetic light grew brighter all the time. Way back yonder the seed of the woman, Abel, then Seth, Shem, Abram, Isaac, Jacob. . . David, but here the messianic light becomes most brilliant in this promise.
QUESTIONS
1. What are the general conditions of affairs at this point, and what prompted David to bring up the ark from Kirjathjearim?
2. In what three ways did God communicate with his people, and what was the bearing of these on the removal of the ark and tabernacle to Jerusalem?
3. What course did David pursue, and the lesson therefrom, what incident here shows the sanctity of the ark and the impression made by it, and what Mosaic law was violated here?
4. What text here for a sermon, and the line of thought suggested?
5. Give an account of the building and dedication of David’s house.
6. What course did David pursue before attempting again to bring up the ark?
7. Describe the procession that went after the ark. What psalm did they sing as they started?
8. What did David say when the Kohathites lifted up the ark, and what general sang it before battle?
9. What song did they sing as they approached Jerusalem, and what did David say when they deposited the ark in the tent?
10. Describe the course of worship instituted by David.
11. Cite the direction for the establishment of the central place of worship; what David’s purpose concerning it; wherein was he not mistaken, and wherein was he mistaken?
12. Why was not David the man to build the Temple?
13. What message brought to David by Nathan, what impression did it make on his own mind, on the Jewish mind, and what Old Testament and New Testament references to it?
14. What was Luther’s translation of, “And this too after the manner of men O Lord Jehovah,” and what its meaning?
15. What was the impression made on David’s mind, and what was the proof?
16 How did this promise to David impress the mind of Isaiah?
17. Who was the immediate fulfilment of this promise to David, who the remote fulfilment, and what the New Testament proof?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Ch 13:1 And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, [and] with every leader.
Ver. 1. And David consulted. ] He was not of that king of Scotland’s mind, who seldom asked counsel, and never followed any. But though himself were full of wisdom, yet he advised with his subjects about the weighty work he had in hand. See Pro 11:22 ; Pro 20:18 ; Pro 24:6 . His first care was to establish religion; as the first thing Abraham did in any place he moved to, was to set up an altar. “Seek first the kingdom of God,” &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 Chronicles Chapter 13
The next thing shows us what was most in David’s heart. Not the throne – that was most in their hearts – that David should reign. But David’s heart thought of Jehovah’s throne; and therefore he consults and says: “If it seem good unto you, and that it be of Jehovah our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren everywhere, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us. And let us bring again the ark of our God to us; for we enquired not at it in the days of Saul.” 1Ch 13:2 , 1Ch 13:3 . And all the congregation agreed. “So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hemath, to bring the ark of God from Kirjath-jearim.”
Shihor is, I presume, not the Nile, although it may be called so sometimes, but rather that brook of El-heresh that divides the land of Israel from the borders of the desert on the Egyptian side. “And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjath-jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God Jehovah, that dwelleth between the cherubim whose name is called on it. And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab; and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart.”
There was the great mistake. It was all very well for Philistines to send the ark of God in a cart – not for Israel. Israel should have known better. When the Philistines did it, there was a propriety. They had an object too. It was not to be driven; it was to be committed to the kine that were yoked to it. It was particularly meant as a test, because the cows would naturally care for the young they had left behind; and the very point of God’s power and manifestation of His glory was this – that although there was very natural feeling on the part of the cows to go after their young, on the contrary they took an opposite direction, and carried the new cart with the ark upon it to the land of Israel, thus giving a most illustrious proof of the power of God above nature. It was not chance; it was not nature; it was God that governed. But with Israel it was a very different thing. Yet I presume they adopted the cart because it was the last thing. So it is that we often do. Even a Philistine tradition will carry away the people of God, so that although the only people, as far as we know, that ever employed a cart for the ark of God were these Philistines, here we find that wonderful man David, and the priests and the Levites, and indeed all Israel, all joining in this Philistinian way of bringing in the ark of God to the site that was destined for it.
Well, one bad step leads to another, and, although there was apparent joy, and no doubt there was plenty of outward honour to the ark, when they came to the threshing-floor of Chidon, God allowed that there should be something that tested their state. “Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzza, and He smote him, because he put his hand to the ark.” He at least ought to have known better. He who belonged to the tribe of Levi – he who ought to have felt that God was able to take care of His own ark, let oxen stumble or not – he put forth his hand unhallowedly to sustain the sign of the presence of the God of Israel as if He were not there to care for His own glory. He was smitten on the spot, “and there he died before God.” David was displeased, instead of humbling himself, “because Jehovah had made a breach upon Uzza; wherefore that place is called Perez-uzza to this day. And David was afraid of God that day, saying, “How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?” That was the next effect; first displeasure, then dread. “So David brought not the ark home to himself to the city of David, but carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. And the ark of God remained with the family of Obed-edom in his house three months. And the Lord blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that he had.” There was such manifest blessing in that house that, as we find afterward, it could not abide; but there it abode at any rate for three months.
The next chapter, however, gives us not so much this religious picture of the state of things, which you will find to be extremely important afterward, but what I may call more practical – the manner in which the throne of David was regarded by the Gentiles not the humiliation of the king before the ark of God (David’s relation to Jehovah) but the Gentiles’ relation to David.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Chapter 13
Now in chapter thirteen, David said, “Look, if it’s your purpose to make me your king and all, if it seems good to you, and if it’s of the Lord, then let us bring back the ark of the covenant that we might put it here at the tabernacle in Jerusalem.” And so they came to Kirjathjearim, where the ark of the covenant had been placed.
And they carried the ark of God on a new cart that they had made: and Uzza and Ahio were driving the cart. And David and all of Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets ( 1Ch 13:7-8 ).
So here, if you can now get in your mind the picture: they’ve gone down to Kirjathjearim to bring the ark of the covenant and all of the celebration, the bands, the music, and out there dancing with all their might before the Lord and singing with the psalteries and the harps and this great time of rejoicing. We’re bringing the sign of God’s covenant with Israel back to dwell with us there in Jerusalem. And suddenly, the cart began to wobble and it looked like the ark was going to fall off the cart. And Uzza, one of the drivers, put his hand up to steady it so it wouldn’t fall, and the wrath of God was kindled against Uzza because they were strictly forbidden not to touch the ark, and Uzza died.
And suddenly all of the mirth ceased. The songs. I mean, it was serious. It was sober. God moved on the scene, and it brought a real note of sobriety to the whole thing. And David said, “Hey, I can’t dwell with anything that is that holy. Leave it here. I’m going home.” And so they just left the ark of the covenant there in the house of Obededom, and he called the name of the place Perezuzza. Now Perez means a breach. God made a breach against Uzza. And so the ark there was placed in the house of Obededom, and David went back to Jerusalem. He was angry at God. Angry because God stopped this glorious celebration and stopped David’s intent of bringing the ark of the covenant back to Jerusalem.
Now in this we find a right thing being done in a wrong way. Now it is not only important that we do right things, but it’s important that we do right things in right ways. When the Philistines captured the ark of the covenant, when they were in battle against Saul, you remember the story how that everywhere the ark of the covenant went, boils would break out on the Philistines? And so finally, in every city the men would get boils all over them where the ark of the covenant was brought. And so finally, as they started to take it to another city, the men in the city came out and said, “Oh no, you’re not bringing that thing here. We don’t want it in our city.”
And so the Philistines then went to their prophets and they said, “What shall we do?” And they said, “Send the thing back. Take an ox and make a cart and put it on the cart and just turn the cows.” Actually, not an ox, but turn the cows loose. And if the cows go right back to the camp of Israel, you know the thing is of God and let the thing go. Don’t touch it.
If the cows just sort of roam around like they’re lost, then you know that it was just all coincidental that boils happen to break out. And so they took these cows and they made this ark and they put the… they made the cart. They put the ark on it, and they turned the cows loose. And they started just mooing and going straight towards the camp of Israel. The Philistines followed and watched them go right on into the camp of Israel. Of course, when it came into the camp of Israel there was great rejoicing.
Now the idea is when David then decided to bring the ark back to Jerusalem, a good desire. But what did he do? He copied the method of transportation that was used by the Philistines. Now God in the law had commanded that whenever the ark of the covenant was moved, that it should be borne by four of the priests on staves. The ark had these golden rings on the side, and they would put these sticks through these rings so that it wouldn’t touch it. And there would be four fellows that would hold these staves on their shoulder, and the ark would be, of course, in the middle of them. And that is how the ark was to be transported. That was under the law of Moses.
Now, David was doing a right thing, but he was doing it in a wrong way. He was following really the worldly pattern of the Philistines in taking a cart, making a cart, an ox and pulling it. He was following the Philistines’ way of doing things.
Now I do believe that the church is guilty many times, or parachurch organizations are guilty many times of trying to use worldly methods for doing the work of God. Now that which we seek to do is right. We seek to bring men to Jesus Christ. But we get a bunch of suede shoe-Madison Avenue advertiser men and we say, “Now set up a program for us.” An advertising program and all, and we’re trying to use worldly methods to do the work of God. Now you’re trying to do a right thing. You want to get men to Jesus Christ. But you’re doing it in the wrong way. God didn’t say that we were to get fancy advertising schemes and all of this kind of stuff to bring men to Jesus Christ. A lot of work for God, legitimate work that should be done is done in a wrong way. And so because we have been doing things in a wrong way, then we got to raise funds to support the wrong way method of doing things. And we make a travesty of God by the way we get up to raise funds.
It is a shame the methods that people use to extract money for the so-called work of God. I am embarrassed as a Christian of the junk that goes on on television in their fundraising efforts and methods. It, to me, is an absolute embarrassment. And they are motivating people the wrong way.
Now David, or Moses had to raise funds for the building of the tabernacle. What did he do? “All of you that would like to contribute to the building of the tabernacle just bring it in and dump it.” He didn’t go around, you know, getting pledges or jumping up and down and running around the place, putting on a show. And the people started bringing in the funds, until finally, they had to stop. And they said, “Stop, stop, we’ve got too much. Quit! No more. You can’t give any more. Didn’t make it? That’s too bad. You’re out of luck.”
Now Paul the apostle tells us in the New Testament, writing to the Corinthians, he said, “Now every man as he’s purposed in his own heart, so let him set aside for the Lord” ( 2Co 9:7 ). But don’t let your giving be out of constraint. Never should your giving to God be pressured giving. It is wrong to seek to pressure people to give to God. And yet, how many times we notice that the whole tactic is that of pressure tactics. Professional letter writers to write the appeals. And all kinds of idiotic gimmicks are used by these people to raise funds.
When a person has to degrade to those type of efforts, then something’s wrong with the work that they are seeking to do. I am thoroughly convinced “when God guides, God provides.” And if you tell me that you’re not getting the money to do this great program God has laid upon your heart, I’ll have to say God didn’t lay it upon your heart. When you have to resort to worldly ways and do things after the pattern of the world, it’s not of God. It’s not of the Spirit of God.
David made a tragic mistake. He wanted to do the right thing. There is nothing wrong with the desire, but he was doing it in a wrong way. God never intended for us to use the Madison Avenue techniques to sell Jesus Christ to the world. Or to use all of these fundraising techniques that people stoop to raise funds for the work of God. “Poor God, He’s almost broke. All the time. He lives on the verge of financial disaster. If you don’t come through this week, God’s had it.” What kind of a God is it who never can take care of His own program? As I say, it embarrasses me. I’m humiliated by it.
So David said, “Hey, leave it here. I’m not going to take that back to Jerusalem.” They took it into the house of Obededom. And then God began to bless Obededom tremendously because the ark of the covenant was there at his house. And so David said, “Hey, let’s get the thing back to Jerusalem. Let’s do it again.” Only this time, he had gone back to the law of Moses. He said, “Let’s have four priests who will take and let them bear it between them and so forth. And we’ll offer sacrifices unto the Lord.” And so they went out again with the worshipping and with the praising, the offering of sacrifices before the ark. They would go so many places, and they’d offer a sacrifice. And the priests were carrying it, and David put on just a linen. He took off his royal robes as a king, and he put on just a linen ephod, which was a sort of a, the robes that the priest wore in service. And he just put on sort of the priestly servant’s garments and was with the people, among the people. And dancing and praising the Lord as they brought the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem.
And his wife Michal looked out the window and saw him out there without his kingly garments, dressed in just the linen ephod, mingling with the common people, dancing before the Lord. Out there shouting, having a big time. And when she saw him, she despised him. So David had a great feast for all of the people as they gave to each of them bread and wine and a big portion of meat. And then after blessing the people, he came home to bless his own family. And when he came into the house, Michal said to him, “Well, didn’t you look smart out there! In a linen robe, no less. Big deal!”
Boy, I’ll tell you, it wiped David out. Just, you know, he came in just overloaded with joy, blessing. Oh, praise the Lord! Isn’t it amazing how easily Satan can deflate our spiritual balloon? You know, we can get so high and so joyous in the Lord and, “Oh Lord, You’re so good. You’re so great.” And Satan can rob us of that joy. And whenever you get in that state, he’s seeking to do some little thing just to deflate that, you know, super feeling that you have.
A while back I was in the Safeway Market. And every once in a while someone will send some money and say, “Have a steak for dinner or something.” And I had some money that was sent and a little note said, “Have a steak for dinner.” Well, they had some beautiful thick top sirloin steaks. And so I picked out one of these choice beautiful thick, thick top sirloin. I was going to take it home and barbecue it. And I said, “Lord, I can remember the days when man, all we could afford, we couldn’t even afford hamburger. And now able to buy this beautiful steak, oh Lord, You’re so good. Oh, thank You, Lord; I just love you so much.” And I, just pushing the cart through Safeway just really just worshipping the Lord and praising Him. Just a beautiful time. And I pulled up to the checkstand, just could taste that steak. Just praising the Lord.
And some short little fat guy smoking a cigar pulled… He came up and he just pushed my cart and stood right in front of me. Got in line in front of me. And my first impulse was to grab the guy by the collar, turn him around and say, “Hey fattie, who do you think you are?” And hope that he would take a swing at me. Oh how I wanted to level him. I was so upset. And beside that, smoking that stinky cigar! And I thought, “The very idea! I’ve never seen anything like this. I’ve heard of it. I’ve never seen any. This guy needs to be taught a lesson.” And the Lord spoke to my heart and He said, “Oh what joy and praise all dissipated over a smelly cigar!” And I said, “No, Lord, I’m not going to let him get the best of me.” I didn’t have to smell his cigar. I took my cart and I went walking again through the store to get my joy and peace back again, you know. I made a few rounds through the store till he got out the door and then I went back up to the checkstand and went out. But I thought, “Oh, how easy it would have been for me to have lost my joy.” God has been so good and all. Now one little adverse thing comes along and, you know, the joy dissipates so rapidly. Oh, how I’m sure, how Satan delights in robbing us from our joyful experiences in Christ.
I’m sure that he is just thinking of ways by which he can dissipate and see how fast he can dissipate that joy in the Lord. You watch it. The next time you have a real high in Jesus. Watch how he’s going to come along and try and deflate it. He’ll use some irritating little thing to just turn you out of the Spirit into the flesh. And man, it’s so easy to turn from the Spirit into the flesh. And that’s, of course, his purpose. Get me in the flesh, and then he just makes minced meat out of me. He can just defeat me. As long as I’m in the Spirit I can have a glorious victory over him.
And so David in the Spirit out there worshipping, and suddenly, man, it’s gone. Here is his wife just giving him a bad time. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
1Ch 13:1-3. And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the LORD our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren every where, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us: and let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we enquired not at it in the days of Saul.
It had lain neglected at Kirjathjearim, in the fields of the wood, as David writes in the 132nd Psalm.
1Ch 13:4-5. And all the congregation said that they would do so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people. So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hemath, to bring the ark of God from Kirjathjearim. And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjathjearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the LORD, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it. And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.
A stately array of all the leaders of the tribes, with all sorts of music, to do honour to the ark of God.
1Ch 13:9-10. And when they came unto the threshing-floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.
I suppose that Uzza, through the ark having been so long in his fathers house, had grown unduly familiar with it, and therefore touched it. Yet it was an express law that even the Levites should not lay a hand upon the ark. They carried it with staves; the priests alone might touch it for necessary purposes. It was for this profanation that Uzza died before God.
1Ch 13:11-12. And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzza; wherefore that place is called Perezuzza to this day. And. David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?
He was afraid lest he also might die.
1Ch 13:13. So David brought not the ark home to himself to the city of David, but carried it aside into the house of Obededom the Gittite.
He must have been a brave, believing man, to be willing to receive the terrible ark into his house; but he probably knew that, so long as he behaved reverentially to it, he would have a blessing, and not a curse, through taking it under his charge.
1Ch 13:14. And the ark of God remained with the family of Obededom in his house three months. And the LORD blessed the house of Obededom, and all that he had.
(This exposition consisted of readings from 1 Chronicles 13, and 1Ch 15:1-4; 1Ch 15:11-16; 1Ch 15:25-29.)
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
1Ch 13:1-14
1Ch 13:1-14
DAVID’S FIRST ATTEMPT TO BRING THE ARK TO JERUSALEM
“And David 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 send abroad unto our brethren everywhere that are left in all the land of Israel, with whom the priests and Levites are in their cities that have suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us; and let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we sought not unto it in the days of Saul. And all the assembly said that they would do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people. So David assembled all Israel together, from the Shihor the brook of Egypt even unto the entrance of Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim. And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God Jehovah that sitteth above the cherubim, that is called by the Name. And they carried the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart. And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, even with songs, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.
“And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put forth his hand to the ark; and there he died before God. And David was displeased, because Jehovah had broken forth against Uzza: and he called that place Perez-uzza, unto this day. And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me? So David removed not the ark unto him into the city of David, but carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. And the ark of God remained with the family of Obed-edom in his house three months: and Jehovah blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that he had.”
2Samuel is parallel with this chapter in 2Sa 6:11. (See our comments on the events recorded there in 2Sa.)
E.M. Zerr:
1Ch 13:1. David was the absolute king of the Israelite nation. But he was a man of systematic principles and knew the value of cooperation. He therefore took his great men into his confidence and consulted them about the important proposition at hand.
1Ch 13:2. The proviso that David made in connection with his proposal was that it be of the Lord our God. With such a condition understood, all of his suggestions would be righteous. Among the brethren generally scattered, special mention is made of priests and Levites. The distinction between these two is in the fact that all priests were of the tribe of Levi, yet not all Levites were eligible for the office of priests; only the family of Aaron had that right.
1Ch 13:3. In 1Sa 7:2 it is stated that the ark was in Kirjath-jearim 20 years; that was before Saul was made king. He reigned 40 years (Act 13:21) and David had been reigning at least 7 years at the time of the present paragraph, making fully 47 years since the ark was taken to Kirjath-jearim. The clearest explanation is the statement in 1Sa 7:2 is based on some special conditions connected with the ark, and not on the period as a whole. The ark had not been consulted in the days of Saul because he was not much interested, and also because it was not in its proper place in the tabernacle where the high priest could have access to it.
1Ch 13:4. It is not necessary for a thing to be right in the eyes of the people, to be right before God. It is gratifying, though, when the people approve of that which is right. That was the case in the matter of bringing the ark home.
1Ch 13:5. Shihor of Egypt is the same as “river of Egypt” in Gen 15:18. It was the southern boundary of the land of Canaan while Hemath was at the north. The statement means that David made a general call for the People all over the country to back him in bringing the ark home.
1Ch 13:6. Baalah was another name for Kirjath-jearim, the place where the ark had been so long. Belonged to Judah means it was located in the territory possessed by the tribe of Judah. The cherubims were on the cover of the ark and God had said he would meet the high priest there on behalf of the people. (Exo 25:10-22.)
1Ch 13:7. Carried is from DAKAR and Strong defines it, “to ride (on an animal or in a vehicle); causatively, to place upon (for riding or generally), to dispatch).” A cart was used to move the ark which was contrary to the law which required that it be borne by the staves in the sides. (Exo 25:14-15.)
1Ch 13:8. David and all Israel played means they were merry and expressed their feelings by using instruments of music. The corresponding passage in 2Sa 6:14 says that David danced also. Individual dancing was a common practice in those days. It was not like the mixed dancing of the sexes with each other in our times. It was perfectly logical that a feeling of joy would be caused by seeing the sacred vessel arriving toward the city from which it had unlawfully been taken almost half a century before.
1Ch 13:9. It was common for more than one name to be given to the same person or place. Chidon here is the same as “Nachon” in 2Sa 6:6. Stumbled is from an original word with a stronger meaning than this. It is defined, “to fling down; incipiently [indicating] to jostle.”–Strong. It means that the movements of the oxen actually caused the ark to be shaken so that it was in danger of being thrown from the cart. That would have been a tragedy, for it would doubtless have been burst open and its sacred contents exposed. With all that in view, Uzza had the best of motive in putting his hand on the ark.
1Ch 13:10. Good motives will not excuse a man in wrongdoing. The ark was to be borne by the hand with the staves, and no reason existed for carrying it on a cart. The Lord was angry or displeased with Uzza for his violation of the law and punished him with immediate death. The circumstance should be a lesson on the importance of obeying God regardless of how matters look to us.
1Ch 13:11. David was displeased does not mean he found fault with the Lord. He was worried over the whole thing because it was necessary for God to break off (breach) his favor from Uzza, which threw the situation into confusion.
1Ch 13:12. Afraid of God means he was overawed by the event and intimidated against doing anything further with the moving of the ark as far as Jerusalem.
1Ch 13:13. For the time being David had the ark deposited in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.
1Ch 13:14. The Lord blessed the family of Obed-edom for the respectful care given the ark during the three months it was there. According to Young and other authorities, Obededom was a Levite, which made it appropriate for the ark to be in his house, although there is no indication that he attempted any priestly use of it. Gittite was a locality term and not related to his nationality.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
David’s consciousness of the true strength of the kingdom is manifest in his anxiety concerning the Ark of God. This had been at Kirjathjearim, and neglected for long years. He now set himself to bring it into the midst of the people as a recognition of the nation’s relationship to Jehovah.
In connection with this action a terrible event taught David a lesson of deep solemnity. If God’s order is to be restored, it must be done in His way. The long neglect of the Ark would seem to have rendered these men unfamiliar with all the particular regulations for its removal, which they attempted by a device of their own. The swift death of the man who stretched out a hand to save the Ark was evidence at once of the presence of God among the people, and of the necessity for perfect conformity to His minutest instructions. David was at once angry and afraid. The whole movement was stayed, and the Ark was carried for shelter to the house of Obed- edom.
Most graphically does this story set forth a truth never to be lost sight of by the people of God, that zeal for Him must be according to knowledge. When divine arrangements are made for methods of worship and service, no circumstances must be allowed to be an excuse for a change in such methods.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
1Ch 13:6
I. Among the more general lessons of this passage (1) we may notice that periods of reformation, after past neglect, are those in which we need more than ordinary caution, lest we mar the work which is designed to promote God’s glory. (2) We may learn that all religious reformation which is the work of man can scarcely fail to be blemished and disfigured more or less by human infirmities; but that the effects of those infirmities are not to be acquiesced in, but to be confessed and corrected, if ever we would hope to obtain the Divine approval, or even to escape the Divine chastisement. (3) We may learn not to give over and abandon our good intentions because we have been checked and hindered in our efforts after amendment, but still to hold on and persevere in our exertions, only taking heed to profit by the instruction which the experience of past failure was designed to give. (4) Above all, we may learn, and take to ourselves the warning, that “God will be sanctified in all them that come nigh Him;” sanctified, that is, by obedience to His holy laws.
II. More particularly we notice: (1) Every Christian has his place in that great procession which is occupied in conveying the ark of the covenant (see Rev 11:19) up to its final resting-place in Mount Zion; but every Christian has not the same place. In the things of God the distinctions which He has Himself ordained must be strictly kept. (2) It is not enough that we do whatever we do with a good intention unless what is done is also good, good in itself and good in us. Uzzah intended well, but he did not on that account escape the fatal punishment of his forbidden act, whether it proceeded from presumption, from ignorance, or from inadvertency. (3) The constant caution and watchfulness which we all require in consequence of our necessary familiarity with sacred things. The ark having remained so long in his father’s house was probably the cause of Uzzah’s fault. He had ceased to regard it with due reverence. But let us not forget that the same emblem of the Divine presence which brought sudden and awful death to the family of Abinadab brought abundant and abiding blessing to the house of Obed-edom.
Bishop Wordsworth, Guardian, Oct. 1st, 1884.
References: 13:8-15:25.-Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes, p. 96.
1Ch 13:12
There were two ways of answering this question: “How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?” There were two ways in which the work might be attempted: a wrong way and a right way. And it is so in other things. The great lesson from the text is that God may be sought and yet not be found, because the seeking is not in the way or “order” which He hath revealed as agreeable to Himself.
I. The right way of seeking God must be the way that God Himself has been pleased to reveal. But there is a twofold revelation: a revelation which God makes of Himself by and through conscience, and a revelation which is contained in the Bible. (1) If you would radically get quit of an evil habit, the “due order” of proceeding is to observe how that habit has been formed and to apply yourselves to the cultivation, by a similar process, of an opposite habit. This is the “due order” in labouring at the reformation which conscience demands. (2) The “due order” of the theology of the Gospel is not first repentance and then appeal to Christ. The “due order” is that, stirred by the remonstrances of conscience, by the pleadings of God’s Spirit, we flee straightway to Christ and entreat of Him to make us penitent, and then to give us pardon.
II. He who has revelation in his hand, and either rejects or resists its sayings in regard of the alone mode of salvation, has nothing to expect but that, as it was with David and his people, the Lord God will break in in anger upon him, because in the matter of his endeavouring to “bring home to him the ark of the Lord” he has failed to proceed after the “due order.”
H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2308.
References: 1Ch 15:13.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. vi., No. 307. 1Ch 16:4.-Ibid., vol. xxii., No. 1308.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
3. The Ark Removed from Kirjath-jearim
CHAPTER 13
1. The consultation about the ark (1Ch 13:1-5)
2. The attempt and the failure (1Ch 13:6-14)
The first thing after the coronation which concerned David was the ark. This reveals the fact that the king had the things of the Lord upon his heart. He at once consulted with the captains about bringing the ark from Kirjath-jearim. The ark is mentioned forty-six times in the two books of Chronicles. (The titles are the following: ark, 15 times; the ark of God, 12 times; the ark of the Covenant of the LORD, 11 times; the ark of the LORD, 4 times; the ark of the Covenant of God, of Thy Strength, of our God and Thy holy ark, each once.)
In Chronicles Davids gracious words are recorded, which he addressed to the assembly of Israel, if it seem good unto you and that it be of the LORD our God … let us bring again the ark of our God to us; for we inquired not at it in the days of Saul. The whole scene manifests a true religious enthusiasm and deep concern to follow the ways of Jehovah. David and all Israel went up to Kirjath-jearim and carried the ark upon a new cart. David and all Israel played before God with all their might, even with songs and with harps and with psalteries, with cymbals and trumpets. But in all this great and human rejoicing, David did not conform to Jehovahs ways. According to Gods laws covering the handling of the ark, only the Levites were to touch it. They were to carry it on their shoulders and not to place it in a cart (Num 4:5; Num 4:15). All this had been violated. The divine displeasure was fully manifested when Uzza put forth his hands to hold the ark, because the oxen had stumbled. Uzza was stricken with sudden death. He forgot that the ark was the emblem of Jehovahs presence in the midst of His people. See annotations on 2 Samuel 6.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
consulted: 1Ch 12:14, 1Ch 12:20, 1Ch 12:32, 2Sa 6:1, 2Ki 23:1, 2Ch 29:20, 2Ch 34:29, 2Ch 34:30
Reciprocal: 1Ki 8:1 – that they might bring 1Ki 20:7 – all the elders 1Ch 23:2 – he gathered 1Ch 27:1 – captains 2Ch 1:2 – to the captains 2Ch 20:21 – consulted 2Ch 25:5 – captains over thousands 2Ch 30:2 – the king Neh 12:31 – the princes Job 29:25 – chose out Mat 25:16 – went
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The Ark in the Home of Obed-Edom
2Sa 6:1-18 (Compare 1Ch 13:1-14)
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
We have some very solemn lessons to consider.
1. The sacredness of holy things. For several chapters we have studied some things which have had to do with the Ark of the Lord. One thing which we have not thus far suggested is the careless way in which the Ark was handled, first by the Philistines, and later by the men of Beth-shemesh. Neither of the above seemed to realize that there was any sacredness connected with the Ark. The former jostled it about on a cart, and the latter rudely opened it to examine the inside.
In this study, however, we come to a climax in this carelessness-a climax which is altogether inexcusable, and which was severely rebuked from on High by the death of Uzzah. Details of this will be brought out later. We wish to do no more here than offer some general comments.
As we see it, the spirit of the age in which we are now living is imbibed with an utter disregard of the sacredness of things Divine. Men worship the Lord, the high and holy One, the Creator of Heaven and earth, in a most careless and even flippant way.
The Names of Deity are often omitted. We speak of those Names which refer to the risen, exalted, and glorified Lord. Instead of addressing our Saviour as the Lord Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ the Lord, He is too frequently addressed by the one Name, Jesus.
We grant that the Name Jesus has a very hallowed significance of meaning-“He shall save His people from their sins.” However, the Name which is so casually upon the lips of many is used to designate our Lord as the Man who dwelt among us.
In the Epistles following the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, His fuller titles are given to Him with, perhaps, two or three exceptions, where there is special reference to His Saviourhood.
Let us observe for a moment the opening statement of the prayer which the Lord taught His disciples. The prayer is like this: “Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name.” There is something in the word “hallowed” which carries reverence and worship and the recognition of the sublimity, the glory, and the power of the Father.
We need to learn the deeper significance of the words spoken to Moses, “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”
I. BRINGING THE ARK BACK WITH POMP AND GLORY (2Sa 6:1-2)
1. The Ark had been twenty years in the house of Abinadab. It was, to be sure, once more among the people of Israel; but now that Samuel was gone, and Saul was gone, and David was king, it was quite natural for the king to want the Ark brought again to its own place, that God might be the recognized Head of the nation.
2. David gathered together thirty thousand men of Israel to bring the Ark. In 1Ch 13:1-14 we read that David consulted “with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader.” This might have been all right, had they all consulted with the Lord, in His Word, and found out just how the Ark was to be brought back. Failing in this, David made a great mistake, Again we read in Chronicles that David said, “If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the Lord our God.” Let us do this and that. Let us beware that in everything we keep God in the first place and never in the second. It is not whether it seem good to us and the Lord, but to the Lord.
3. David may have felt that the presence of so many thousands of Israel would give glory to God, and he may have felt that his own dignity as king demanded such a great demonstration. At any rate there was to be much ado in the matter.
It was at least a great day in Israel. They were ready to come together to the great event, even from Shihor of Egypt, unto the entering of Hemath.
The Ark, during the days of Saul, and after the death of Samuel, had never been recognized; and the God who dwelt between the cherubim had never been sought. Now, however, the people were once more turning their faces God-ward.
Beloved, let our chief concern be this-that God is in our midst, both honored and loved. If He has been isolated outside the camp, then let us go unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. If He is loved and received as the One in the midst of the church, let us not fail in meeting Him there.
If there is no Ark of God in our own home, let us bring thither the Ark in the erection of our Family Altar.
II. DOING A GOOD THING IN A WRONG WAY (2Sa 6:2-3)
1. The imitation of the world often works havoc. The news of how the Philistines had brought the Ark back into the coasts of Israel, had never been forgotten. They had brought it upon a new cart, drawn by oxen. They had brought it thus, and brought it successfully.
Now the Lord’s people seek to imitate them. Perhaps this was the result of David’s looking to the people. Had they only read God’s instructions, they had known that the Ark was to be carried and not carted. Had they stopped to consider the construction of the Ark, itself, they could have seen that the Ark was made to be carried and not carted. Why were the staves there, and why the sockets?
2. The Head of the Church is Christ, and Christ should be recognized. The time has come when there is altogether too much consulting of the people, instead of the lines of positive Scriptural statement. Pastors are called, deacons or elders selected, trustees, Sunday School superintendents, church organists, choirs, and much else, are brought into the places of authority without even asking whether there be any “thus saith the Lord” as to how they shall be chosen, or as to what kind of men are to be chosen.
Let us, hereafter, recognize Christ, and ask His guidance in all of these things.
III. MAY OUR GOOD BE MARRED BY OUR BAD? (2Sa 6:5)
1. A wonderful and glorious praise. How the volume of song and music must have welled up to Heaven! Truly God was pleased with the songs of praise; for praise is comely, and it exalteth the Lord. What a time of praise and magnificent music awaits us over in the Glory! There will be angels harping on their harps. There will be the voices uplifted in marvelous magnificats unto the Lamb.
The numbers praising the Lord will be ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands and thousands of thousands. The words will be, “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.” The words will be “Thou art worthy to take the Book, and to open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy Blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
2. What then? May our good be marred by our bad? We are sure that it may. The jubilation of that wonderful hour was hastening to a sad anticlimax. The singing was to be turned to dread and fear. The people were about to be shocked with the judgment of God upon one of their number. The king, even David, was filled with misgivings as to God’s judgments.
Yes, it may be so. Doing a good thing, in a way all pleasing to God, cannot make it possible for God to overlook a thing that is altogether evil.
Let no one think for a moment that large gifts of money, or great feats of service, can in any way make up for sin in the camp. We cannot cover our evil way with the cloak of any great display of praise-be it ever so sincere. When there is an Achan in the camp, there is an army in defeat.
The many suffer for the sins of the one, when the one is an integral part of the many.
IV. WHEREIN HUMAN METHODS MEET THEIR JUST DISASTER (2Sa 6:6-7)
1. A rough place in the road. As the cart passed by Nachon’s threshing floor, the oxen caused the Ark of God to shake. There you are! Carting the Ark was out of the Divine plan. The Ark had never been shaken had it been carried.
There are always places in the road where the ways of the world in the church will bring disaster. Unless God is in the house, they labor in vain who build it. God will not insure worldly, self-devised, humanly conducted church methods against failure.
God’s ways are not man’s ways. They are as far separated as the East is from the West. The ways of men augur success, but they cannot fit in with the ways of God. The carnal and the mental cannot walk with the spiritual. The flesh cannot join in comradeship with the Spirit.
2. The dead man in the road. Uzzah did the natural thing. When the Ark began to shake, he immediately reached out his hand to steady it. Was there anything wrong in this? Perhaps Uzzah thought the Ark was as precious as his own life. He loved it. To him it stood for everything that was high, and holy, and lofty. He did not want it to fall to the ground, and to be broken upon the roadside. Was he not then, to be commended rather than blamed?
Perhaps Peter should have been commended instead of reproved when he drew out his sword and smote off the ear of Malchus. Perhaps Moses should have been condoned when, in his anger, he struck the rock twice instead of speaking to it. Should we teach that a well intended service is necessarily an acceptable service?
At least God does not teach so. The moment that the well-meaning Uzzah touched the Ark of the Lord, there was a dead Uzzah by the roadside.
As we look at Uzzah, dead, we see the harvest of carting the Ark, which God instructed should be carried. The wages of sin is death. We see also the utter folly of approaching God or God’s Ark, apart from the commanded Blood of atonement.
V. WHEREIN PRAISING WAS TURNED TO COMPLAINING (2Sa 6:8-9)
1. Shall we cease to praise God in His judgments? Is our God righteous and worthy of praise only when He passes around His blessings? With Israel it was a day of praise, when God delivered them from the hands of the Egyptians. They were willing to praise God even for His judgments upon Pharaoh.
Let us remember that God is just as righteous in His judgments as He is in His deliverances. Why then should Israel have lost their song, when God sent forth judgment on Uzzah, and on all of them?
Perhaps there is no theme of song so dear to the hearts of saints as that of Calvary. Yet Calvary is the place of God’s righteous judgment on sin. We sing not when we see Uzzah dead in the road, but we sing when we see Christ dead on the Tree.
2. Behold David, the king displeased with God. The trouble with David was that he did not want his hour of praise to be broken up with a funeral. Uzzah’s death put a quietus on Israel’s praise. The harpers put up their harps; the timbrels were laid aside, the music ceased.
Does God ever break up our seasons of joy with times of sorrows? Does judgment ever walk hard upon the path of victory? Yes, when there is sin in the camp. Yes, when we try to do the right thing in the wrong way. Yes, when we are willing to set aside God’s way for our own.
3. Wherein fellowship is turned into fear. It seems too bad! They, who were so happily blessing God in a glorious song of fellowship, now began to be afraid of the same Lord. God’s breach on Uzzah filled David and the Children of Israel with the same kind of fear that His breach on the inhabitants of Ashdod and Ekron had filled the Philistines.
The Children of Israel began to dread God because He was a God of judgment. They felt safer, perhaps, without Him than with Him. Thus it was that they trembled and were afraid. Sin always makes men afraid of God. From the day that Adam and Eve hid in the trees of the Garden, sinners have always hidden. In the days of the Lord’s Second Advent the nations will be afraid as they see the Lamb seated on the throne.
VI. THE ARK IN THE HOUSE OF OBED-EDOM (2Sa 6:10-12)
Yes, the march of that wonderful day was ended abruptly. The 30,000 choice men of Israel returned to their homes in disappointment and afraid of God.
So it was that David would not take the Ark unto himself, but it was carried aside into the house of Obed-edom, the Gittite.
1. The Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household. It must have been a wonderful three months to the household of Obed-edom. A new prosperity came to him and to all who dwelt with him. His whole household was blessed. Everything he touched, the Lord made to prosper. Perhaps his very children bloomed out in a new radiance of health. His fields became more abundant. Joy filled every heart in his home. Prosperity had come and they were glad.
Is this not always true when the Lord dwells in any home? Does His presence not breathe a peace and a power that nothing else can produce? If the Lord is in the house, the blessings of the Lord are upon it.
2. The Ark which had brought death to Uzzah, brought blessing to Obed-edom. Here is a seeming paradox. Why should the same Ark bless the one, and curse the other? Does not the same fire which warms one, burn another? Does not the same water that gives drink to the one, drown the other? Why? Not because the fire or the water has favorites; not because the fire or the water has spasms in which it blesses or curses, according to its whims. Not at all. Then, why? The difference is in men, and peoples; not in God.
God would be rich to all, but He is rich unto all who call upon Him. Where there is the curse, there is invariably sin; where there is blessing, there is always the righteousness which is by faith.
3. David hears the good news. “It was told king David, saying, The Lord hath blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that pertaineth unto him, because of the Ark of God.” Here was room for thought, with David. He had gotten a vision of God that enlightened his mind. He had learned a lesson that we are sure he never forgot. God with us always brings blessing.
VII. CLAIMING GOD’S BEST (2Sa 6:15-18)
1. Think of the period David was without the Ark of God. Somehow it seems to us that David had been depriving himself of many blessings during the time that the Ark was in the home of Obed-edom. During those three months, between the time he went to get the Ark and the hour when at last, assured of blessing because of the blessing that God had given the household of Obed-edom, he was restrained by fear.
Let us ask ourselves this solemn question: “Are we missing God’s best because we have lived apart from His presence?” God help us to at once set about to secure all that is ours in Christ Jesus.
2. Consider the joy of bringing back the Ark of God. In 1Ch 15:1-29 we find David had prepared a place for the Ark. Moreover David had discovered wherein he had erred in his first attempt to fetch the Ark. Now, David said, “None ought to carry the Ark of God but the Levites.” Mark you “carry the ark,” not “cart the ark.” Then David added, “Because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought Him not after the due order.” What else could God do? His people had refused to follow Him fully; they had broken His Headship, and they had to be judged and chastened.
Now, with as much joy, perhaps greater joy; and now, in God’s way, they brought back the Ark. What a glorious sight it was. “And David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, and all the Levites that bare the Ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah the master of the song with the singers: David also had upon him an ephod of linen.”
As they marched there was heard the sound of the cornet, and with trumpets and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps.
Thus the ark was brought to its house that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. Then, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.
Our minds cannot but anticipate that wonderful day when the saints will be gathered home. Oh, what joy and rejoicing, to be forever with the Lord.
AN ILLUSTRATION
At last David found the place of true joy-it lay in the path of obedience and the full presence of God who dwelt in the midst of the cherubim.
There is no more beautiful legend than the one associated with the Bells of Limerick, a quaint Irish city, famous today very much because of this beautiful story.
A poor Italian lad, ambitious to produce a set of bells whose chimes would be unrivaled for beauty, labored hard and long in his own country to bring them to perfection. They were hung in a monastery in Italy, and the whole countryside was charmed by their sweet melody. The successful artist purchased a house in the district and for years spent his evenings listening to the sweet music of his bells. War came; the bells were stolen and carried away, he knew not where. Old and poor, he bade good-by to his native Italy, and set forth in search of the music he loved so well. His tired feet touched the shores of many lands; at last he came to Ireland.
One evening, just as the sun was going down, he was sailing up the river that runs close by Limerick, when borne on the evening’s zephyr, there came stealing into his ears the sweet chimes of melodious bells. He sat enraptured; he knew that he was not mistaken, and that the entrancing melody was the music of his own long-lost and cherished bells. He set his face, now wet with tears, toward the tower whence the enchanting strains were coming; and as the vessel sailed into port, his wanderings were over. The light had faded from his eyes, his fingers had loosened their hold, and his soul had wafted away to the sweet music of his own bells.
Oh, child of God, have you lost the music that once delighted your soul? Has the world stolen from joy the joy bells of our old-time faith and devotion? You need not wander the world about nor wait till death to find the music. The bells are in your soul, and Jesus is able to touch them into “music so sweet the angels will stoop to listen.” If those bells have ceased to ring, there is a reason, which God knows and you know. Let the Son of God forgive you and restore the music to your soul.-W. E. B.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
1Ch 13:1. David consulted with the captains of thousands, &c. With all the principal persons in authority, who had any command over others. For it is a dangerous thing for a prince, especially in the beginning of his reign, to rely wholly on his own wisdom, and not advise with others.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ch 13:3. Let us bring again the ark of our God, which, like the church, had now dwelt seventy or eighty years in an unsettled abode.
1Ch 13:5. Shihor of Egypt. The river of Egypt, so often mention when the boundaries of Israel are described, is a subject of much debate among oriental travellers and biblical critics. Some contend that it is the eastern branch of the Nile which runs into the sea at Damiette, the ancient Pelusium; and others, that it is the lake of Shirbon, or the small river at the entrance of the desert, near El-Arish. After consulting various maps and authors I feel perfectly satisfied with the decision of Dr. Lightfoot, vol. 2. p. 9. From Pelusium, says Pliny, are the entrenchments of Chabrias, mount Casius, the temple of Jupiter Casius, the tomb of Pompey the great, and Ostracine. The boundaries of Arabia are sixty five miles from Pelusium: a little farther begin the boundaries of Idumea, and Palestine at the lake Shirbon. The word Shirbon implies burning, which corresponds with its nature, which is bituminous. It is described by Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and others, to whom I refer the reader. It is a small lake, bitter like Sodom, and perhaps had the same origin. Hence the farthest southern boundary of Israel was not the Nile, but Shihor in the way to Egypt. Jos 13:3. Jer 2:18. In Isa 27:12, the LXX render it, unto Rhinocorura.Hemath, Emesa, or Emath at the foot of mount Lebanon, towards Damascus, the capital of Hamath.
1Ch 13:10. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, who as a levite ought to have known better. The priest covered the ark with a cloth, and the levites should have borne it on staves; but as men had not consulted the ark all the days of Saul, this custom was forgotten on that day. Therefore the Lord divided the soul of Uzza from his body, as the Hebrew imports. No sinner can approach his Maker without an atonement, and a Mediator.
1Ch 13:11. David was displeased. David was made sad, and so awed that he durst not bring the ark near to his own house.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ch 13:1-14. The Bringing up of the Ark from Kiriath-jearim to the House of Obed-Edom (cf. 2Sa 6:1-11).The event here mentioned is put in its wrong place by the Chronicler (see 2Sa 5:11-25) with the object of emphasizing Davids zeal for the worship of Yahweh, which is represented as his first care after being made king and the taking of Jerusalem.
1Ch 13:1-4. An introduction inserted by the Chronicler setting forth his own point of view.
1Ch 13:5. Shihor: conceived of as the southern boundary of ancient Israel; there is, of course, no mention of this in the parallel account in 2 S.the entering in of Hamath: the northern boundary (cf. Num 13:21, Jos 13:5, Jdg 3:3).
1Ch 13:6-14. See notes on 2Sa 6:1-11.
1Ch 13:14. The RV rendering here is misleading; the words should run, following the Hebrew text as it stands: And the ark of God abode among the people (lit. house) of Obed-edom in its house . . .; it is possible, in view of 2Sa 6:10 f., that in its house is a textual error for the Gittite. If, however, the Hebrew text as it stands is correct, the difference between this passage and its parallel 2Sa 6:11 is significant, for in the latter the Ark is stated to have been placed in the house of Obed-edom, while the Chronicler, regarding the Ark as too holy to abide in an ordinary house, supposes a special one (presumably a tent; cf. 1Ch 15:1), to have been erected for it.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
D. David and the Ark chs. 13-16
"In the Chronicler’s eyes David’s reign consisted of two great religious phases, his movement of the ark to Jerusalem (chs. 13-16) and his preparations for the building of the temple (chs. 17-19 or at least 17-22, 28, 29). The intent of the parallelism seems to be to mark the ends of these two phases with praise and prayer that both glorified Yahweh and spelled out his relationship to his people in theological terms appropriate to the Chronicler and his constituency." [Note: Allen, p. 22.]
"Prayer plays an important role in 1 & 2 Chronicles. We find five major prayers (whose contents are given) included in the books. These prayers are all by good kings-David (2), Solomon, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah-and their inclusion performs at least two functions: first, they reinforce the positive picture that the Chronicler wants to paint of these kings; second, their contents provide us with rich insights into God Himself, His desires for His people, and ways of properly relating to God." [Note: Howard, p. 266. This author proceeded to discuss most of the references to prayer in 1 and 2 Chronicles as an important aspect of these books’ biblical theology.]
The ark of the covenant plays a central role in chapters 13-16 (cf. 2 Samuel 6). It was not only a symbol of God’s grace and presence but the actual place where God had chosen to reside among His people (Exo 25:22). The Chronicler showed great interest in the location of the ark because that was where God was and where He manifested His grace. David’s desire to bring the ark into Jerusalem shows his concern that God would dwell among His people (cf. Exo 19:3-6; Exo 25:8). It also reveals his desire that the people would again have ritual access to God. They had not had this during Saul’s reign when the Philistines held the ark captive or when the Israelites kept it in a private residence (1Ch 13:3). God blessed David and his kingdom in many ways for bringing the ark into Jerusalem. David’s desire to honor Yahweh as Israel’s Head served as a model for the postexilic community. The Chronicler probably related the ark’s movement to Jerusalem in stages to heighten anticipation in the reader.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
1. The removal of the ark from Kiriath-jearim ch. 13
The lesson the writer intended this incident to teach the readers is that Yahweh is holy and His people should not take His presence among them lightly (cf. Lev 10:1-11; Numbers 16). God’s presence is real, and His people must deal with it in harmony with His character (cf. Exodus 25-31). It would have been tempting to regard the rituals and physical objects used in worship as common. The writer warned his readers not to make this fatal mistake.
"In a real sense Yahweh was wherever His Ark was. It crystallized His immanence, bearing witness to both His nearness and His sovereignty." [Note: Merrill, "A Theology . . .," p. 174.]
Even though there was much joy and worship as the people transported the ark, they did not obey God’s orders for its proper treatment (1Ch 13:7; 1Ch 13:9; cf. Num 4:15). Worship can never replace obedience to God’s revealed will (cf. 1Sa 15:22-23). Where God’s presence abode there was power, as always (1Ch 13:14).
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.