Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 24:1
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1 9. The Numbering of the People
1. again ] The previous manifestation of God’s anger referred to was the famine (ch. 21). It is possible that the two narratives stood in close juxtaposition in the original document used by the compiler.
and he moved David against them ] The subject of the verb is Jehovah. The nation had sinned and incurred His anger, and He instigated David to an act which brought down a sharp punishment on the nation. The statement that God incited David to do what was afterwards condemned and punished as a heinous sin cannot of course mean that He compelled David to sin, but that in order to test and prove his character He allowed the temptation to assault him. Thus while we read that “God himself tempteth no man” (Jas 1:13), we are taught to pray “Bring us not into temptation” (Mat 6:13). In 1Ch 21:1 we read “Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” The older record speaks only of God’s permissive action: the latter tells us of the malicious instrumentality of Satan. The case is like that of Job (Job 1:12; Job 2:10).
Go, number ] Go, count; a different word from that translated number in the rest of the chapter, for the meaning of which see note on ch. 2Sa 18:1.
Israel and Judah ] The designation of the people as Israel and Judah seems to have been in use even before the Division of the Kingdoms. In the next verse Israel includes the whole nation. See Introd. p. 13.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel – This sentence is the heading of the whole chapter, which goes on to describe the sin which kindled this anger, namely, the numbering of the people 1Ch 21:7-8; 1Ch 27:24. There is no note of time, except that the word again shows that these events happened after those of 2 Sam. 21. (Compare also 2Sa 24:25; 2Sa 21:14.)
And he moved David – In 1Ch 21:1 the statement is, and an adversary (not Satan, as the King James Version, since there is no article prefixed, as in Job 1:6; Job 2:1, etc.) stood up against Israel and moved David, just as 1Ki 11:14, 1Ki 11:23, 1Ki 11:25 first Hadad, and then Rezon, is said to have been an adversary (Satan) to Solomon and to Israel. Hence, our text should be rendered, For one moved David against them. We are not told whose advice it was, but some one, who proved himself an enemy to the best interests of David and Israel, urged the king to number the people.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Sa 24:1-25
Go, number Israel and Judah.
David numbering the people
I. The sin committed by David. It is possible that David dwelt with satisfaction upon the thought of his ample resources and numerous armies, and calculated that he was possessed of a power to repel aggression, and attempt fresh conquests. He may have forgotten that God alone, who had made him great, could preserve to him his greatness, and thence he may have longed to reckon up his forces, as though he could thence learn his security, or compute the extension of his kingdom. And let no man think that, because he occupies a private station, he cannot sin after the exact mariner in which David sinned, who filled the throne of a flourishing empire. The very same offence may be committed in any rank of life, and is probably chargeable, in a degree, on most in this assembly. What! to take one or two instances–is not the proud man he who delights to count up his monies, and catalogue to himself his cargoes, and his stock, and his deposits, and his speculations–is he not doing precisely what David did when taking the stun of his forces?–ay, is it not with the very same feeling that he prepares the inventory; the feeling that his wealth is his security against disaster; that the having largo possessions will comparatively place him and his family beyond the reach of trouble? The wish to be independent of Gad is natural to us in our fallen condition. This rigidly virtuous man may be all the while pluming himself on his excellence, and employing the captain of his host in summing up the number of his righteous qualities and actions, that he may certify his power for winning immortality. There may be freedom from gross vices, with a growing strength of pride which puts more contempt on the crown of the Redeemer than an open violation of every moral precept.
II. The punishment incurred. No doubt there is something strange, which it is hard to reconcile with our received notions of justice, in the declared fact that sins are often visited on others than the perpetrators. Who will think that David escaped with impunity because the pestilence smote down his subjects and touched not himself? It is evident from his passionate imprecation–Let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me and my fathers house–it is evident that the blow would have fallen more lightly had it fallen on himself and not on his subjects. In what manner should he be visited for his sin? So visited that the penalty may best indicate the offence it resists. Under what shape must vengeance come that it may touch him most closely, and most clearly prove by what it is provoked? You will admit at once that, forasmuch as it was the thought of having many subjects by which David had been puffed up, the most suitable punishment was the destruction of thousands of those subjects; for this took away the source of exultation, and stripped the boastful king of the strength on which he vain-gloriously rested. Certainly this was adapting the penalty to the fault; for not only was David punished, but punished by an act of retributive justice, from which himself and others might learn what it was which had displeased the Almighty. But, perhaps you will say that it is not enough to show that the king was punished through the death of his subjects; you will say that this does not touch the point of the innocent being made to suffer for the guilty. We allow this; but it is of great importance to establish that David himself was not left unpunished. One of the chief objections which seem to lay against the justice of the crime being in one creature and judgment in another, arises from the supposition that the guilty escape while the innocent suffer. Now we do not believe that this is ever the case; it certainly was not in the instance now under review. We believe that those who are punished deserve all which they receive, though they have not committed the precise fault of which they bear the penalty. It is evident enough that David regarded himself as the sole-offending party, and had no suspicion that the penalty had any other end than that of his own chastisement. The exclamation, Lord, I have sinned; I have clone wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done?–this is sufficient proof that the king thought of no criminal but himself, and of no punishment but that of his own wickedness. But it is equally evident that David was mistaken herein, and that God had other ends in view, besides that of correcting the monarch for his pride. It was in order that there might be occasion for the punishment of His subjects that God allowed Satan to tempt the ruler. For it is this–And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. In the Book of Chronicles, where the instigation is ascribed to the devil, the people are actually spoken of as the objects aimed at through the king–And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. So that it is put beyond doubt that the people had moved the anger of the Lord before the king moved it by his worldly confidence and pride. And if David had not offended, and thus made an inlet for Divine vengeance, another occasion would have been found, and wrath would have come down on Israel. We are not, indeed, told what the precise and particular sin was by which, at this time more especially, the chosen people had moved the indignation of God. Possibly their frequent rebellions against David, their ingratitude, their fickleness, and their growing dissoluteness of manners, which is a too common attendant on national prosperity, exposed them to those judgments by which God is wont to chastise an erring community; buff it is of no importance that we ascertain what the offence was of which the penalty was the punishment. We are at least certain that the people were really smitten for their own sins, though apparently for the sins of David; and that, therefore, there can be no place for the objection, that the innocent were made to suffer for the guilty.
III. The expiation that was made on the threshing floor of Araunah. So soon as the destroying angel had stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem, and, therefore, before any altar had been reared, or any burnt-offering presented, the Lord, we are told, repented Him of the evil, and said to the angel–It is enough; stay now thine hand. We sufficiently gather from this, even if it were not on other accounts evident, that the plague was not stayed from any virtue in the sacrifice which was offered by David. Even had the sacrifice preceded the arrest of the pestilence, we should know that it could not of itself have procured it, whereas now that it follows, none can dream of ascribing to it a solitary energy. But though the burnt-offering would not of itself have been efficacious, it would not have been commanded had not the presenting it subserved some great end; we may believe, therefore, that it was as a type, figuring that expiatory sacrifice, by which the moral pestilence that had been let loose on the globe would be finally arrested, that the offering was required from the contrite and terrified king. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
Davids numbering of the people
The boldness of the expression is startling. He moved David against them. Can it be that Jehovah stirred up the king of His choice against the people of His choice, to conceive and execute a design which so speedily called down upon them a deadly punishment? Or can we smooth away the difficulty by recourse to the parallel account in the book of Chronicles, and read the text as the margin of our English version suggests Satan moved David against them? Such an explanation is, I believe, untenable. If we had only the book of Samuel before us, we should not think of proposing it. The problem must be faced, that, in some sense or other, God is said to have moved David to this sin; while, on the other, hand, it was due to the instigation of Satan. Can we harmonise these divergent statements? We tread here on the skirts of that most mysterious problem, the relation of the Divine sovereignty to the human will. We approach here, also, and that still more closely, another problem wrapt in a thick cloud of mystery: the relation of the Divine will to the causation of evil. God never compels a man to sin. If that were possible, God would cease to be God; sin would cease to be sin. The moral consciousness of man revolts instinctively from such an idea. The teaching of Holy Scripture gives it no countenance whatsoever.
1. He purposely leads His saints into circumstances of trial, that their faith may be proved and tested, and coming forth from the furnace triumphantly, shine as a witness before the world.
2. God sees a mans heart turning aside from Him, and withdraws for a time His restraining grace and presence. He deserts the sinner who has deserted Him.
3. God is said to harden the hearts of men. But not until His mercy has been set at naught, not until His long-suffering has been defied to the uttermost, does He finally pronounce this sentence. Not until a Pharaoh has hardened his own heath against judgment after judgment, is God said to harden His heart. Not until a Saul has mocked His calling and despised repeated admonitions, does the Spirit of the Lord leave him, and an evil spirit from the Lord trouble him. Not until mercy has been tried and tried in vain is a judgment pronounced in this world. And who shall dare in any easel to say that it is final? But we not unnaturally ask, Why was David allowed to sin? There was, it seems, some national transgression which roused Gods wrath and demanded punishment. Nor was this the first occasion of the kind. We read, Again the Lords anger was kindled against Israel. Once before they had been smitten with famine for the unexpiated sins of Saul and his bloody house: what the offence was now, we are not told. The kings sin was in some way the culmination and representative of the nations sins. It was the final offence which filled up the cup of wrath, and the punishment smote the nation, and through the nation its ruler. A still more perplexing question meets us next.
Wherein lay the guilt of Davids Act? The answer must be that the motive which inspired the act was sinful.
1. He designed, say some, a development of the military power of the nation with a view to foreign conquest. He wished to organise the army, and visions of self-aggrandisement dazzled his brain.
2. It was the outcome of pride: pride at the growth of the nation. He wished to satisfy the foolish vanity of his heart; to know to the full over how vast a kingdom he ruled. It may be said that the sin of the people was in essence the same: that here on the very threshold of their national existence as a powerful kingdom, they were tempted by visions of worldly glory to forget that they were not to realise their vocation to the world in the guise of a conquering secular state, but as Jehovahs witness among the nations. It this was so, if already Israel was in peril of a virtual apostasy, no wonder that Jehovahs wrath was kindled. Vet in such a case wrath is in truth but another phase of love, chastisement is mercy in disguise. Judgment is mercy when it leads unto repentance. Wisely wrote St. Augustine of this fall of David: Let us remember how that a certain man said in his prosperity, I shall never be moved. But he was taught how rash were his words, as though he attributed to his own strength what was given him from on high. This we learn by his own confession, for he presently adds, Lord, by Thy favour Thou hast made my mountain to stand strong: Thou didst hide Thy face and I was troubled. He was deserted for a moment by his guide in healing Providence, lest in fatal pride he should himself desert that guide (Works, vol. 6. p. 530). Observe in this history:–
1. The hidden motive determines the character of the action.
2. If it was pride which was Israels transgression and Davids sin, mark how heinous an offence it is in the sight of God. (Homiletic Magazine.)
Numbering the People
One spot on earth there is, which, for four thousand years, has had more of human annals and human interest concentrated in it, by providential suggestion, than any other in she world. For a while, it was only a threshing-floor, owned by Araunah the Jebusite. This thrifty husbandman had selected an area on the top of Mount Moriah. We do not know that his imagination was ever awakened by the thought that here once was the thicket, in which the ram was caught that Abraham substituted for Isaac as a sacrifice. Nor, though Abraham saw the day of Christ afar off, and was glad, have we any reason to think that Araunahs faith ever gained a glimpse of the fact that the cross on which Jesus Christ suffered, was to be planted there in the future ages. Today, that spot lies covered with a canopy of silk, underneath a Mohammedan dome in Jerusalem. Years have passed since the temple of Solomon disappeared in its ruins, though for generations its matchless splendour rendered the ridge of Moriah historic. Thus forty centuries of fame have made that floor one of the centres of the world. We are to visit it to-day in our studies, and it may be expected that question after question will seek an answer.
1. What was this act of David, which brought on the catastrophe and the pestilence, that was happily stayed there? At first sight, it seems almost impossible to explain the transaction; for up to this time it had never been considered a crime to take a census in Israel. Indeed, it was one of the requirements of the Hebrew law, that each tribe and each family in it, and all the persons in the households, should be enrolled openly and regularly. Except for these disastrous circumstances detailed afterwards, we should never have conjectured any wrong had been done: It was one of the most rational things in history, that the ruler of any great nation should wish to be exactly informed concerning the military resources of the people.
2. But now we ask again: what was the moral character of this act in numbering the people? How do we know that it was one of the most sinful that King David ever committed?
(1) Even Joab, the unscrupulous warrior, pronounced it dangerously wicked from the start (2Sa 24:3-4). Over-ruled by the king he went about his work reluctantly, and to the last he persisted in his protest by refusing to count the two tribes of Benjamin and Levi, for the kings word was abominable to Joab.
(2) Consider the origin of the suggestion (2Sa 24:1, compared with 1Ch 21:1).
(3) But the strongest proof of the guilt of this action of David, is found in his own confessions. The census was scarcely completed, before the monarch seemed suddenly to become aware of his wickedness, and fell on his knees before God (2Sa 24:10).
3. Still our question remains: what was there in the action of David that made it so guilty in the sight of God?
(1) For one, I would just as soon say, I do not know, as anything else. The story is silent almost altogether. The commentaries are full of nothing but conjecture.
(2) But some things can be surmised, if that will furnish any help.
For one thing, there must have been a pride of power moving the king: the language of Job (1Ch 21:3), as he sternly expostulates, seems to touch on this; he intimates his hot contempt for a vanity so childish. Then, also, the greed of gain may have been in the heart of David: this may have been his first step towards the liberties of the people, a plan of augmenting the power of the crown. We feel safe in saying that distrust of God was in the wrong: he knew that Israel was not to be so strong because of a large standing army; many a prosperous year had rendered it sure that the nations strength was in God. Then there was the possible lust of conquest: if David was thus appealing to the ambition of his people, his sin was greater, in that he was teaching them positive unbelief, also.
4. Now in the next place, we come to the dreadful punishment which this sin brought on; what was the course of it?
(1) First of all, there came a revelation from heaven to awaken Davids conscience.
(2) Then there was a choice offered that would test the devotion of Davids heart. For always the main question is, Does a penitent man retain his confidence in God, or is he wholly under the sway of selfishness, and fixed in disobedience?
(3) Next, there was a humble selection made, which showed Davids piety and unbroken faith, still held true in the midst of his perversity.
(4) Then there was a sharp infliction of penalty (verse 15.) Over that land went the wild wail of bereaved men and women and children, from Dan to Beersheba, where the census-gatherers had just been ordered to go by this presumptive monarch.
5. But was there to be no limit to this affliction? That leads us forward to our final question: what was it that arrested the hand of God, and brought relief to dying Israel?
(1) Observe now the hopelessness of regrets after sin has been committed, and is rushing on (verse 17). It is plain that Davids heart is wrung with pity and indescribable anguish for the multitudes, who gasp and grow black and die, and make no sign. But he could not take back the sin he had set floating on the currents of God s providence; it was sweeping out in wider circles.
(2) Observe also the uselessness of offering any vicarious atonement for sin as a release from its retributions. In his sad sincerity, David says: Oh, spare these sheep l take me, and my house! But this is not Gods way (Psa 49:7-8). Paul said the same (Rom 9:3). So did Moses (Exo 32:31-33).
(3) Observe the availability of effectual prayer in arrest of Gods judgment (verse 16). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
David numbering the people
In what, then, did the sin of David consist? It appears to me that the answer to this is exceedingly plain: it is an answer which we derive from the account itself; it is an answer, too, full of very deep and profitable instruction. Davids command was, Go, number Israel and Judah; and when Job brought the sum to the king, it was divided under the two heads, Israel and Judah. Israel, i.e. the ten tribes (excluding Levi and Benjamin), numbering 800,000 men; and Judah, 500,000. Here, then, we see the secret of Davids sin. He wanted to know, not so much the number of the whole people, as the number of Judah, the royal tribe–Davids own tribe–compared with the rest of Israel. God had made him king over the whole people; and Satan tempted him to consider himself the king of the one tribe, so that he should endeavour to ascertain whether the tribe, upon whose strength and affections he could always rely, would not be a match for all the rest; and so he should be at ease in governing in the interest of his flesh and blood, rather than in the interest of all his people. Davids sin, then, was not the sin of pride, but the sin of division and party, spirit. God, as far as we can judge from the Bible, Himself ordained the right of primogeniture, or the right of the first-born, and generally upheld it. God assigned to Judah this pre-eminence, when He expressly commanded that the standard of Judah should go the first before the tabernacle in the vanguard of the children of Israel (Num 2:1-2). But God had prepared the tribe of Judah, by His Providence, for this pre-eminence which He assigned to it: for you will find that the tribe of Judah was, in point of numbers, by far the most powerful of all. Its numbers were nearly double those of the greater part of the other tribes: the next tribe, that of Dan, does not come within twelve thousand of it. Then, when the tribes were settled in the promised land, the same design of God is apparent. Reuben, the actual first-born, has his portion assigned to him on the east side of Jordan, and so is removed out of the way. Simeon at once sunk to be the lowest tribe in point of influence; and, in fact, soon disappears altogether. Levi, by having the priesthood, could not have the civil and military preeminence; so the field is left, as it were, to Judah. Then he had by far the largest and the most compact portion of the promised land assigned to him. Such was the tribe. But what was the first family in this tribe? Beyond all doubt the family of Jesse. Throughout the whole history of the people the first was that from which David sprung. Davids ancestors were the first family in point of blood of the first tribe of Israel. I believe that David, as a man of God, governed with a faithful and true heart, as the King of all Israel; but in the best of men there is a mixture of motives. In the most just line of human temporal policy there is that which is crooked and time-serving, and David, in this instance, gave way and succumbed to the temptation of the god of this world. He numbered the people for the purpose of ascertaining the strength on which he felt sure that his family could, under all circumstances, rely. David was right in his surmise. The census was taken, and the extra-ordinary fact came to light, that God had so increased and multiplied the tribe of Judah, that it was more than half as strong as all the rest of the tribes put together: for the single tribe of Judah showed 500,000 fighting men to the 800,000 of the other ten tribes. But the gratifictaion of family or party pride, as opposed to national exultation at the prosperity and numbers of Gods people, was short-lived. With the sum of the numbers came the smiting of the heart–the precursor, in this case, of immediate and signal punishment.
1. The account of Davids punishment is exceedingly instructive. God, to try what was in Davids heart, gave to him the choice of three evils–the sword, famine, and pestilence; and David, by his choice, showed plainly that his heart was right with God. But another very instructive fact is that the moment David surrendered to God those private family feelings and partialities that had been the real root of the mischief, then God at once turned and remitted the punishment.
2. And now let us say something respecting the punishment which God inflicted. There seems, at first sight, a difficulty about the persons whom God intended to punish. Throughout the chapter, however, David appears to be the sinner, and the punishment is evidently directed against him, though it falls on his people. Then, with reference to the effect of the punishment, it was inflicted, as all Gods punishments are, in far-seeing mercy. For, if future princes Of the House of David–Solomon and Rehoboam–had learnt the lesson which God intended them to learn, the disastrous rebellion in the time of Rehoboam, which entailed centuries of idolatry and civil war and its attendant miseries, would, humanly speaking, have been avoided.
For the punishment inflicted by God was intended to show Gods just displeasure at partial government. I must now, in conclusion, make two or three practical applications of the foregoing remarks.
1. First of all, the Bible deserves to be well and carefully studied, as a book full of the deepest insight into human nature–fallen and crooked human nature.
2. Let us see how hateful division, party-spirit, partiality, or a spirit of schism, is in the sight of God.
3. Let us also learn from this, that those who have the right to the first social place may have this evil spirit, as well as those who have not. (F. M. Sadler, M. A.)
The Churchs resources
Too much dependence may be placed in elements of power in the Church which are secondary and inferior. There is power in numbers. We should not despise numbers. It should awaken alarm and inquiry when the number of Church members does not steadily and rapidly increase. God will not deal with us when we make up the statistical tables as He did with David when he numbered the people. But there is something more important than multitudes. A Church with one hundred members may be stronger than one with a thousand. There is power in wealth when wisely used. In the promotion of education, in the supply of money to print Bibles and build churches and carry the Gospel to all parts of the world, wealth is a mighty agent. But there are more potent elements than wealth. A Church whose members are not worth one thousand pounds sometimes excel in usefulness Churches whose members represent many thousands.
In what respect the census was sinful
An ordinary census was perfectly legitimate; it was expressly provided for by the Mosaic law, and upon three occasions at least a census of the people was taken by Moses without offence. It was not then the census which was displeasing to God., but the motive which inspired David to take it. Some suppose that he intended to develop the military power of the nation with a view to foreign conquest; others that he meditated the organisation of an imperial despotism and the imposition of fresh taxes. The military character of the whole proceeding, which was discussed in a council of officers and carried out under Joabs superintendence, makes it probable that it was connected with some plan for increasing the effective army, possibly with a view to foreign conquests. But whether any definite design of increased armaments or heavier taxation lay behind it or not, it seems clear that What constituted the sin of the act was the vain-glorious spirit which prompted it. (A. F. Kirkpatrick, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXIV
David is tempted by Satan to number Israel and Judah, 1.
Joab remonstrates against it, but the king determines that it
shall be done; and Joab and the captains accomplish the work,
and bring the sum total to the king: viz.: eight hundred
thousand warriors in Israel, and five hundred thousand in
Judah, 2-9.
David is convinced that he has done wrong; and the prophet Gad
is sent to him, to give him his choice of three judgments,
one of which God is determined to inflict upon the nation,
10-13.
David humbles himself before God; and a pestilence is sent,
which destroys seventy thousand men, 14, 15.
The angel of the Lord being about to destroy Jerusalem, David
makes intercession, and the plague is stayed, 16, 17.
Gad directs him to build an altar to the Lord on the
threshing-floor of Araunah, where the plague was stayed, 18.
He purchases this place for the purpose, and offers
burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. 19-25.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXIV
Verse 1. He moved David against them] God could not be angry with David for numbering the people if he moved him to do it; but in the parallel place (1Ch 21:1) it is expressly said, Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. David, in all probability, slackening in his piety and confidence toward God, and meditating some extension of his dominions without the Divine counsel or command, was naturally curious to know whether the number of fighting men in his empire was sufficient for the work which he had projected. See more on 2Sa 24:10. He therefore orders Joab and the captains to take an exact account of all the effective men in Israel and Judah. God is justly displeased with this conduct, and determines that the props of his vain ambition shall be taken away, either by famine, war, or pestilence.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Again, to wit, after the former tokens of his anger, such as the three years famine, 2Sa 21.
He moved David he: who? Either,
1. Satan, as is expressed, 1Ch 21:1. Or,
2. God; who is said, in like manner, to stir up Saul against David, 1Sa 26:19, and to turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people, Psa 105:25, and to make men to err from his ways, Isa 63:17, and to send strong delusions, &c., and to harden their hearts. All which expressions are not so to be understood, as if God did work these sinful dispositions; which neither was necessary, because they are naturally in every mans heart, nor possible for the holy God to do; but because he permits them, and withdraws his grace and all restraints and hinderances from them, and giveth occasions and advantages to them; and directs their thoughts to such objects as may indeed be innocently thought of, which yet he knows they will wickedly abuse; and give them up to Satan, who he knows will deceive and entice them to such and such sins; which, being tempted to do by Satan, and being effected by their own wicked hearts, he so orders and overrules, that they shall be punishments for their former sins. Against them, i.e. for Israels punishment. To say, or, saying. For this may be referred, either,
1. To God, of whom the same expression is used 2Sa 16:10, The Lord said to Shimei, Curse David; which in both places is not to be understood of any command or impulse of God, but of his secret providence disposing things in manner here above expressed. Or,
2. To David; he moved David to say, to wit, to Joab, as he did, 2Sa 24:2.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-4. again the anger of the Lord waskindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go,number Israel and Judah“Again” carries us back tothe former tokens of His wrath in the three years’ famine [2Sa21:1]. God, though He cannot tempt any man (Jas1:13), is frequently described in Scripture as doing what Hemerely permits to be done; and so, in this case, He permitted Satanto tempt David. Satan was the active mover, while God only withdrewHis supporting grace, and the great tempter prevailed against theking. (See Exo 7:13; 1Sa 26:19;2Sa 16:10; Psa 105:25;Isa 7:17, &c.). The order wasgiven to Joab, who, though not generally restrained by religiousscruples, did not fail to present, in strong terms (see on 1Ch21:3), the sin and danger of this measure. He used every argumentto dissuade the king from his purpose. The sacred history has notmentioned the objections which he and other distinguished officersurged against it in the council of David. But it expressly statesthat they were all overruled by the inflexible resolution of theking.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel,…. It had been kindled, and appeared before in sending a three years’ famine among them for Saul’s ill usage of the Gibeonites, 2Sa 21:1; and now it broke forth again, either for some secret sins committed, as Kimchi suggests, or for the rebellion of Absalom, and the insurrection of Sheba, in which multitudes of them joined; so Abarbinel; no doubt there was cause for it, though it is not expressed:
and he moved David against them; not the Lord, but Satan, as may be supplied from 1Ch 21:1; or “it moved him”; the anger of the Lord, as the last mentioned writer interprets it; or the heart of David, as Ben Gersom; that is, the evil imagination of his heart, as Kimchi; the Lord left him to the corruption of his nature, sometimes called Satan, 2Co 12:7; which wrought powerfully in him, and stirred him up to take a step contrary to the interest of Israel, and what was prejudicial to them, as the event showed: it moved him to say; to Joab and his captains:
go, number Israel and Judah: not all the individuals, but such as were fit for war, able to bear arms, see 2Sa 24:9.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“Again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel; and He moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.” … points back to the manifestation of the wrath of God, which Israel had experienced in the three years’ famine (2 Samuel 21). Just as that plague had burst upon the land on account of the guilt which rested upon the people, so the kindling of the wrath of God against Israel a second time also presupposes guilt on the part of the nation; and as this is not expressly pointed out, we may seek for it generally in the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba against the divinely established government of David. The subject to “ moved ” is Jehovah, and the words “ against them ” point back to Israel. Jehovah instigated David against Israel to the performance of an act which brought down a severe judgment upon the nation. With regard to the idea that God instigates to sin, see the remarks on 1Sa 26:19. In the parallel text of the Chronicles, Satan is mentioned as the tempter to evil, through whom Jehovah had David to number the people.
2Sa 24:2 David entrusted the task to his commander-in-chief Joab. , “ who was with him: ” the meaning is, “when he was with him” (David). We are not warranted in attempting any emendations of the text, either by the expression , or by the reading in the Chronicles, (“and to the rulers of the people”); for whilst the latter reading may easily be seen to be a simplification founded upon 2Sa 24:4, it is impossible to show how , which is supported by all the ancient versions (with the sole exception of the Arabic), could have originated in . “ Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba (see at Jdg 20:1), and muster the people.” , to muster or number, as in Num 1:44. The change from the singular to the plural may be explained very simply, from the fact that, as a matter of course, Joab was not expected to take the census by himself, but with the help of several assistants.
2Sa 24:3 Joab discountenanced the thing: “Jehovah thy God add to the nation, as it is, a hundredfold as many, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?” The before stands at the commencement, when what is said contains a sequel to something that has gone before (vid., Ges. 255, 1, a.). The thought to which Joab’s words are appended as a sequel, is implied in what David said, “that I may know the number of the people;” and if expressed fully, his words would read somewhat as follows: “If thou hast delight in the greatness of the number of the people, may Jehovah,” etc. Joab evidently saw through the king’s intention, and perceived that the numbering of the people could not be of any essential advantage to David’s government, and might produce dissatisfaction among the people, and therefore endeavoured to dissuade the king from his purpose. , “ as they (the Israelites) just are,” i.e., in this connection, “just as many as there are of them.” From a grammatical point of view, is to be taken as the object to , as in the parallel passages, Deu 1:11; 2Sa 12:8. Not only did he desire that God would multiply the nation a hundredfold, but that He would do it during the lifetime of David, so that his eyes might be delighted with the immense numbers.
2Sa 24:4-5 But as the king’s word prevailed against Joab and against the captains of the army, they (Joab and the other captains) went out to number Israel. , they encamped, i.e., they fixed their headquarters in the open field, because great crowds assembled together. This is only mentioned here in connection with the place where the numbering commenced; but it is to be understood as applying to the other places as well (Thenius). In order to distinguish Aroer from the place of the same name in the Arnon, in the tribe of Reuben (Jos 12:2; Num 32:34, etc.), it is defined more precisely as “the town in the brook-valley of Gad,” i.e., Aroer of Gad before Rabbah (Jos 13:25; Jdg 11:33), in the Wady Nahr Ammn, to the north-east of Ammn (see at Jos 13:25). (and to Jazer): this is a second place of encampment, and the preposition is to be explained on the supposition that (they came), which follows, was already in the writer’s thoughts. Jazer is probably to be found in the ruins of es Szir, at the source of the Nahr Szir (see at Num 21:32).
2Sa 24:6 “And they came to Gilead,” i.e., the mountainous district on the two sides of the Jabbok (see at Deu 3:10). The words which follow, viz., “into the land ” are quite obscure, and were unintelligible even to the earlier translators. The Septuagint has , or (also ) . Symmachus has ; Jonathan (“into the southland Chodshi ”); and the Vulgate in terram inferiorem . The singular form , and the fact that we never read of a land called Chodshi, render the conjecture a very probable one that the text is corrupt. But it is no longer possible to discover the correct reading. Ewald imagines that we should read Hermon instead of the unintelligible Chodshi; but this is not very probable. Bttcher supposes to be a mistake in writing for , “below the lake,” namely the lake of Gennesareth, which might have been called Chodshi (the new-moon-like), since it had very much the appearance of a crescent when seen from the northern heights. This is ingenious, but incredible. The order of the places named points to the eastern side of the sea of Galilee; for they went thence to Dan-jaan, i.e., the Dan in northern Peraea, mentioned in Gen 14:14, to the south-west of Damascus, at that time probably the extreme north-eastern boundary of the kingdom of David, in the direction towards Syria (see at Gen 14:14): “and round to Sidon,” the extreme north-western boundary of the kingdom.
2Sa 24:7 Thence southwards to the fortress of Zor, i.e., Tyre (see at Jos 19:29), and “ into all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites,” i.e., the towns in the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar, or the (subsequent) province of Galilee, in which the Canaanites had not been exterminated by the Israelites, but had only been made tributary.
2Sa 24:8-9 When they had traversed the whole land, they came back to Jerusalem, at the end of nine months and twenty days, and handed over to the king the number of the people mustered: viz., 800,000 men of Israel fit for military service, drawing the sword, and 500,000 men of Judah. According to the Chronicles (1Ch 21:5), there were 1,100,000 Israelites and 470,000 Judaeans. The numbers are not given by thousands, and therefore are only approximative statements in round numbers; and the difference in the two texts arose chiefly from the fact, that the statements were merely founded upon oral tradition, since, according to 1Ch 27:4, the result of the census was not inserted in the annals of the kingdom. There is no ground, however, for regarding the numbers as exaggerated, if we only bear in mind that the entire population of a land amounts to about four times the number of those who are fit for military service, and therefore 1,300,000, or even a million and a half, would only represent a total population of five or six millions, – a number which could undoubtedly have been sustained in Palestine, according to thoroughly reliable testimony as to its unusual fertility (see the discussion of this subject at Num 1-4, Pentateuch, pp. 651-57). Still less can we adduce as a proof of exaggeration the fact, that according to 1Ch 27:1-15, David had only an army of 288,000; for it is a well-known fact, that in all lands the army, or number of men in actual service, is, as a rule, much smaller than the total number of those who are capable of bearing arms. According to 1Ch 21:6, the tribes of Levi and Benjamin were not numbered, because, as the chronicler adds, giving his own subjective view, “the word of the king was an abomination to Joab,” or, as it is affirmed in 1Ch 27:4, according to the objective facts, “because the numbering was not completed.” It is evident from this, that in consequence of Joab’s repugnance to the numbering of the people, he had not hurried with the fulfilment of the kings’ command; so that when David saw his own error, he revoked the command before the census was complete, and so the tribe of Benjamin was not numbered at all, the tribe of Levi being of course eo ipso exempt from a census that was taken for the sake of ascertaining the number of men who were capable of bearing arms.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The People Numbered. | B. C. 1017. |
1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people. 3 And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, a hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? 4 Notwithstanding the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel. 5 And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer: 6 Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi; and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon, 7 And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beer-sheba. 8 So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. 9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
Here we have,
I. The orders which David gave to Joab to number the people of Israel and Judah, 2Sa 24:1; 2Sa 24:2. Two things here seem strange:– 1. The sinfulness of this. What harm was there in it? Did not Moses twice number the people without any crime? Does not political arithmetic come in among the other policies of a prince? Should not the shepherd know the number of his sheep? Does not the Son of David know all his own by name? Might not he make good use of this calculation? What evil has he done, if he do this? Answer, It is certain that it was a sin, and a great sin; but where the evil of it lay is not so certain. (1.) Some think the fault was that he numbered those that were under twenty years old if they were but of stature and strength able to bear arms, and that this was the reason why this account was not enrolled, because it was illegal, 1Ch 27:23; 1Ch 27:24. (2.) Others think the fault was that he did not require the half-shekel, which was to be paid for the service of the sanctuary whenever the people were numbered, as a ransom for their souls, Exod. xxx. 12. (3.) Others think that he did it with a design to impose a tribute upon them for himself, to be put into his treasury, and this by way of poll, so that when he knew their numbers he could tell what it would amount to. But nothing of this appears, nor was David ever a raiser of taxes. (4.) This was the fault, that he had no orders from God to do it, nor was there any occasion for the doing of it. It was a needless trouble both to himself and to his people. (5.) Some think that it was an affront to the ancient promise which God made to Abraham, that his seed should be innumerable as the dust of the earth; it savoured of distrust of that promise, or a design to show that it was not fulfilled in the letter of it. He would number those of whom God had said that they could not be numbered. Those know not what they do that go about to disprove the word of God. (6.) That which was the worst thing in numbering the people was that David did it in the pride of his heart, which was Hezekiah’s sin in showing his treasures to the ambassadors. [1.] It was a proud conceit of his own greatness in having the command of so numerous a people, as if their increase, which was to be ascribed purely to the blessing of God, had been owing to any conduct of his own. [2.] It was a proud confidence in his own strength. By publishing among the nations the number of his people, he thought to appear the more formidable, and doubted not that, if he should have any war, he should overpower his enemies with the multitude of his forces, trusting in God only. God judges not of sin as we do. What appears to us harmless, or at least but a small offence, may be a great sin in the eye of God, who sees men’s principles, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. But his judgment, we are sure, is according to truth.
2. The spring from which it is here said to arise is yet more strange, v. 1. It is not strange that the anger of the Lord should be kindled against Israel. There was cause enough for it. They were unthankful for the blessings of David’s government, and strangely drawn in to take part with Absalom first and afterwards with Sheba. We have reason to think that their peace and plenty made them secure and sensual, and that God was therefore displeased with them. But that, in this displeasure, he should move David to number the people is very strange. We are sure that God is not the author of sin; he tempts no man: we are told (1 Chron. xxi. 1) that Satan provoked David to number Israel. Satan, as an enemy, suggested it for a sin, as he put it into the heart of Judas to betray Christ. God, as righteous Judge, permitted it, with a design, from this sin of David, to take an occasion to punish Israel for other sins, for which he might justly have punished them without this. But, as before he brought a famine upon them for the sin of Saul, so now a pestilence for the sin of David, that princes may from these instances learn, when the judgments of God are abroad, to suspect that their sins are the ground of the controversy, and may therefore repent and reform themselves, which should have a great influence upon national repentance and reformation, and that people may learn to pray for those in authority, that God would keep them from sin, because, if they sin, the kingdom smarts.
II. The opposition which Joab made to these orders. Even he was aware of David’s folly and vain-glory in this design. He observed that David gave no reason for it, only, Number the people, that I may know the number of the people; and therefore he endeavored to divert his pride, and in a much more respectful manner than he had before endeavoured to divert his passion upon the death of Absalom; then he spoke rudely and insolently (ch. xix. 5-7), but now as became him: Now the Lord thy God add unto the people a hundred fold, v. 3. There was no occasion to tax them, nor to enlist them, nor to make any distribution of them. They were all easy and happy; and Joab wished both that their number might increase and that the king, though old, might live to see their increase, and have the satisfaction of it. “But why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? What need is there of doing it?” Pauperis est numerare pecus–Leave it to the poor to count their flocks. Especially why should David, who speaks so much of delighting in God and the exercises of devotion, and who, being old, one would think, should have put away childish things, take a pleasure (so he calls it modestly, but he means taking pride) in a thing of this nature? Note, Many things, not in themselves sinful, turn into sin to us by our inordinately delighting in them. Joab was aware of David’s vanity herein, but he himself was not. It would be good for us to have a friend that would faithfully admonish us when we say or do any thing proud or vain-glorious, for we often do so and are not ourselves aware of it.
III. The orders executed notwithstanding. The king’s word prevailed, v. 4. He would have it done; Joab must not gainsay it, lest he be thought to grudge his time and pains in the king’s service. It is an unhappiness to great men to have those about them that will aid them and serve them in that which is evil. Joab, according to order, applied himself with some reluctancy to this unpleasing task, and took the captains of the host to help him. They began in the most distant places, in the east first, on the other side Jordan (v. 5), then they went towards Dan in the north (v. 6), so to Tyre on the east, and thence to Beer-sheba in the south, v. 7. Above nine months were spent in taking this account, a great deal of trouble and amazement were occasioned by it in the country (v. 8), and the sum total was, at length, brought to the king at Jerusalem, v. 9. Whether the numbers answered David’s expectation or no we are not told, nor whether the account fed his pride or mortified it. The people were very many, but, it may be, not so many as he thought they were. They had not increased in Canaan as they had in Egypt, nor were much more than double to what they were when they came into Canaan under Joshua, about 400 years before; yet it is an evidence that Canaan was a very fruitful land that so many thousands were maintained within so narrow a compass.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
AUTHORS NOTE: Second Samuel – Chapter 24 AND First Chronicles – Chapter 21-29
David Insists on a Census, 2Sa 24:1-4 AND 1Ch 21:1-4
Here is another event, the chronology of which is hard to determine. Attempts have been made to identify it with the plague of drought relative to Saul’s attempted extermination of the Gibeonites (II Samuel, ch. 21), but they are not the same. It may be that it occurred early in David’s reign since it is the prophet Gad through whom God speaks to David, rather than Nathan, who appeared later in his career. Gad had been with David in the days of flight from Saul.
On the surface it might seem to some there is a contradiction in verses 1 of the parallel passages. Whereas Samuel says the Lord moved David against Israel to number Israel because He was angry with them, the Chronicles account says Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. Of course there is no contradiction. Both passages taken together indicate this course of the matter: 1) Israel was guilty of trespass against the Lord for which He was angry with them; 2) David, of himself, conceived the notion of numbering Israel that he might know how many fighting men he could raise; 3) this idea was fostered and promoted in David by Satan; 4) David did not seek the will of the Lord, so that the Lord moved him, or allowed him, to proceed with his fleshly desire to know his strength.
Joab appears in the matter as more aware of the Lord’s will in it than was David. He objected to the census, as did all the captains of the host, when David instructed him to number the people from Dan to Beer-sheba. It is interesting to note that Chronicles reverses the command to read “Beer-sheba to Dan,” for the Jewish writers preferred their city of Beer-sheba over the idolatrous city of Dan in the north. Joab was willing that the Lord greatly multiply Israel, even a hundred times, and even then they would all be servants of David. So why should David wish to number the people?
Yet David’s insistence sent the census-takers on their way. It appears from later events, and – a suggestion from verse 4 of Chronicles, that the census was never finished. Joab traveled throughout Israel until he came to Jerusalem, where the plague which followed finally ended, probably before he had numbered those of the city.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2Sa. 24:1. Again, Evidently referring to the famine mentioned in 2Sa. 21:1-14. Israel. Some special national guilt not specified must be here referred to. If, as most writers suppose, this occurred in the closing years of Davids life it may be the rebellion under Absalom. He. Attempts have been made to translate here impersonally, David was moved, etc.; and in Chronicles the instigation is attributed to Satan. But the grammatical construction will not admit of any other rendering, and the expression has parallels in other parts of Scripture, and must be read in the light of what is revealed to us of the Divine character. (See 1Sa. 26:19, 2Sa. 16:10.) On these passages Kiel says: They show that God only instigates those who have sinned against Him to evil deeds; and therefore that the instigation consists in the fact that God compels sinners to manifest the wickedness of their hearts in deeds, or furnishes the opportunity and occasion for the unfolding and practical manifestation of the evil desires of his heart, that the sinner may either be brought to the knowledge of his more evil ways and also to repentance, through the evil deed and its consequences, or if the heart should be hardened still more by the evil deed, that it may become ripe for the judgment of death. Erdmann remarks that the conception that God incites to sin in the Old Testament belongs to the same circle of thought as the idea, carried over by Paul into the New Testament, of mans hardening in sin as a Divine act. The hardening pertains only to the inner being, to heart and disposition (which becomes insusceptible to the influences of the Divine word and spirit), to the will, which persistently sets itself against Gods holy will, to the ethical habits of the whole personality, etc. The Divine incitement to evil on the other hand refers to individual acts, and consists not in Gods producing evil, which would be inconsistent with his holiness (comp. Jas. 1:19), but in his occasioning the evil to break forth from the hidden depths of the heart and realise itself in deed, though this need neither pre-suppose nor induce hardening, but is rather intended to be the mean and avenue to the salvation and bettering of the sinner. Hengstenbergs comments on Psa. 41:6 apply well to this subject. Sin pertains, indeed, to man. He may always free himself from it by penitence. But if he does not repent, then the forms in which sin exhibits itself are no longer under his control, but under Gods dispensation, etc. But it is perhaps safer to leave this very difficult subject by saying, in the words of the American translator of Langes Commentary, that there is here involved the whole subject of the co-relation of Divine and human action, about which we can only insist on the two unhar-monisable facts of the absolute efficient control of God, and the complete independence of man. (See also Hengstenberg on 2Sa. 24:3.)
2Sa. 24:2. Number, or muster. From 2Sa. 24:9 it appears that this numbering was of a military character, and the aim of David was, most likely, to ascertain the fighting power of the people.
2Sa. 24:3. How many soever, literally, as it is. Joabs words show that this census was quite different from that taken by Moses at the command of God. (Exo. 30:12; Numbers 1, 26). He evidently regarded it at least as impolitic. Several views are held as to the nature of Davids sin in the act, but, as Erdmann remarks, Joabs remonstrance indicates Davids purpose to be to please himself with the exhibition of the imposing military strength of the people; and the ungodly feature, therefore, was its motive, Davids haughty estimation of himself and his people. His sin was one both of the lust of the eyes and pride. Doubtless he who had led Israel to so lofty a height, forgetting himself before the Lord, had a proud desire to exhibit the splendid array of his peoples military strength, as a pledge of the further advance of his house and people, and of the further development of the promise in Deu. 33:29. The nature of Davids sin is declared by the sacred writer, saying that it was prompted by Satan, the author of pride and unbelief;. it was the sin of lack of faith in God, and in His protection; it was the sin of self confidence, vain glory, and reliance on an arm of flesh. (Wordsworth). Warlike thoughts certainly stand in the back-ground; if we fail to see this, we lose the key to the whole transaction. David feeds his heart on the great numbers, on the thought of what his successors on the throne would be able to attain with such power. From its first origin Israel was called to the supremacy of the world. Already this assurance was given (Deu. 33:29). David now thought he could rise, step by step, to such elevation without the help of God, who had provided for the beginning. The records should bear witness to all time that he had laid a solid foundation for this great work of the future. Had his perception been clear, he would not have disregarded the special hint contained in the law respecting the danger connected with the numbering of the people. In Exo. 30:11, it is ordained that on the numbering of the people every Israelite should bring a ransom, that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. By this they would be released, as it were, from the death incurred by their proud arrogance. It reminded them of the danger of forgetting human weakness, so imminent where an individual feels himself the member of a large whole. With this feeling even the Romans presented offerings of atonement at their census. In Psalms 30, which has reference to this event, David himself describes the state of his mind, which offered a point of contact for the temptation According to this, confidence was the melancholy root of sin, both in David and the nation. Soft indolence, says Calvin, had taken possession of his mind, so that he had no inclination for prayer, nor any dependence on the mercy of God, but trusted too much to his past fortune. Where this corrupt disposition is found in the soul, Gods influence making use of Satan as its instrument, leads the corrupt germ to its development, rousing to action that which slumbers in the soul in order to bring about the retributive judgment in which man, if otherwise well intentioned, learns fully to recognise his sinful condition, and is moved to repentance. The question is not one of simple permission on the part of God, but of a real action, and that of a nature which each one may still perceive in his own tendencies. Whoever once yields to his sinful disposition is infallibly involved in the sinful deed which leads to retributive judgment, however much he may strive against it. (Hengstenberg.)
2Sa. 24:5. Pitched, i.e., encamped in the open country because of the great numbers who would assemble. Aroer river of Gad. Rather, the brook-valley, etc. There was another Aroer in Reuben, and one mentioned only in 1Sa. 30:28. This town is generally considered to be identical with the one near Rabbah mentioned in Num. 32:34 and Jos. 13:33. Some travellers identify it with the modern Ayra, but there is much uncertainty about its precise position. Jazer. Mentioned several times in Joshua and in Numbers, and sometimes spelt Ja-azer. It was known to Eusebius and Jerome, and its position is laid down with minuteness in the Onanasticon as ten Roman miles west of Philadelphi and fifteen from Heshbon. (Biblical Dictionary.) Modern travellers are divided as to its exact site.
2Sa. 24:6. Gilead. The mountainous district on both sides of the Jabbok. Tahtim-Hodsht. This word is very obscure, and neither ancient nor modern translators can discern any meaning in it, either as a proper name or as a descriptive phrase. It is generally agreed that the text is incorrect. Dan-Jaan. There seems no reason to doubt that the well-known Dan is intended. We have no record of any other Dan in the north, and even if this were not the case, Dan, as the accepted northern limit of the nation, was too important a place to escape mention in such a list as that in the text. (Biblical Dictionary.) The Vulgate reads Dan-jaar, which Gesenius translates Dan in the wood. This description agrees with the character of the country.
2Sa. 24:7. Tyre, etc. That is, in the region afterwards called Galilee, in which it appears the heathen nations were not exterminated but tributary. (So Keil and others.) The division into Hivites and Canaanites is remarkable; perhaps these were the most prominent of the surviving native races. (Translator of Langes Commentary).
2Sa. 24:8. Gone through, etc. According to 1Ch. 21:6, the census was not extended into Benjamin and Levi, because the kings word was an abomination to Joab, and according to 1Ch. 27:24, Joab did not finish his task because the plague broke out before he had finished.
2Sa. 24:9. Eight hundred thousand. five hundred thousand. These numbers do not agree with those given in Chronicles where a higher number is given for Israel and a lower for Judah (1,100,000 and 470,000). Some think there were two countings, one according to the private lists in the cities and villages, the other from the public registers, or that Chronicles includes the non-Israelites among the people. The numbers are given in thousands, and therefore are only approximate statements in round numbers; and the difference in two texts arose chiefly from the fact, that the statements were merely founded upon oral tradition, since, according to 1Ch. 27:24, the result of the census was not inserted in the annals of the kingdom. There is no ground, however, for regarding the numbers as exaggerated, if we only bear in mind that the entire population of a land amounts to about four times the number of those who are fit for military service, and, therefore, 1,300,000, or even a million and a half, would only represent a total population of five or six millionsa number which could undoubtedly have been sustained in Palestine, according to thoroughly reliable testimony as to its unusual fertility. (Keil). In this muster of Israel it is probable the standing army of David (1 Chronicles 27), which had before been numbered, is not reckoned, but it is inserted in the Chronicles. This standing army consisted of 1224,000 = 288,000 men, who, with their chiliarchs and twelve generals, will make 300,000; and if these are added to the 800,000 mentioned here, the numbers in both places would coincide. (Wordsworth). With regard to the difference in the number allotted to the tribes of Judah, Wordsworth suggests that perhaps David had 30,000 stationed with him at Jerusalem, and the other 470,000 were mustered by Joab.
2Sa. 24:11. For, rather, and. It is not intended that Gods visit produced the conviction in Davids mind.
2Sa. 24:13. Seven years. In Chronicles the number is three., which some expositors prefer as agreeing better with the connection, viz., three evils to choose from, and each lasting through three divisions of time. But, as Keil remarks: This agreement favours the seven rather than the three, which is open to the suspicion of being intentionally made to conform to the rest. Some suggest that in the Chronicles three successive years to come were offered; and that the seven here include the three former vears of famine, which, with the year then in course, would make seven.
2Sa. 24:14. The hand of men. It is not easy to see how this applies to famine; probably inasmuch as it tends more or less to create dependence upon those who are still in possession of the means of life. (Keil.) War and famine would not have hurt Davids own person. With noble disinterestedness he chose pestilence, in which he himself would be exposed to death no less than his subjects. (Theoderet.)
2Sa. 24:15. The time appointed. A doubtful rendering, and some translate to the time of the evening sacrifice, objecting that the pestilence did not last three days. But the phrase time appointed may even then be taken to refer to the appointed hour of evening sacrifice, or it may be as Erdmann suggests that the narrator combining and, in the Hebrew fashion, anticipating what follows, means by this expression to say that God in His mercy permitted the pestilence to go on only to a determined point of time within the three days. Seventy thousand. If the pestilence only lasted part of a day its violence was greater than any on record. It is recorded by Diodorus that in the siege of Syracuse 100,000 soldiers in the Carthaginian army died within a short time.
2Sa. 24:16. The angel. 2Sa. 24:17 affirms that David saw the angel. This then is no poetic figure, but a statement of a supernatural event, which removes the pestilence from the region of ordinary visitations of a similar nature. Jerusalem. The pestilence seems to have broken out at opposite extremities of the country, and to have advanced with gigantic strides until it was ready to concentrate its violence upon Jerusalem. (Jamieson.) Lord repented. (See on 1Sa. 15:10.) Threshing-place. These places were in the open air, and usually outside the town or city, and on an eminence, if possible, in order to catch the wind, which was utilised to winnow the corn. Araunah the Jebusite. Called Oornan in the Chronicles, one of the old inhabitants of the land, who, having apparently become a worshipper of Jehovah, retained his possessions in the city.
2Sa. 24:17. And David. According to Chronicles, the elders also clothed in sackcloth were with David at the time. I have sinned. The punishment was sent for the peoples own sin, though Davids sin was the immediate occasion of its execution. (Von Gerlach.)
2Sa. 24:23. As a king. The readings here differ somewhat. If we take it as translated in the English version, we must understand that Araunah belonged to the royal family of the Jebusites, an important fact which, as Thenius remarks, would not have been stated in a single word. Another reading is: All this gives Araunah, the servant of my lord the king, to the king. Keil asserts that the noun is a vocative: All this giveth Araunah, O king, to the king.
2Sa. 24:24. Fifty shekels. In Chronicles the sum is six hundred shekels of gold. No attempts that have been made to reconcile these statements are satisfactory, and it seems better to suppose a corruption of the text in one of the records. Apparently the statement in Chronicles is the more correct of the two; for if we consider that Abraham paid four hundred shekels of silver for the site of a family burial-place, at a time when the land was very thinly populated, and therefore land must have been much cheaper than it was in Davids time, the sum of fifty shekels of silver (about 6) appears too low a price. (Keil). But it should be remembered that the field for which Abraham gave four hundred shekels was of considerable size, comprising the cave at one end, and also timber, perhaps several acres in all, whereas the threshing floor was probably not one hundred feet in diameter. The explanation given by Bochart (which is far the best) may possibly be true, that the fifty shekels here mentioned were gold shekels, each worth twelve silver shekels, so that the fifty gold shekels are equal to the six hundred silver; and that our text should be rendered, David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for money, viz., fifty shekels, and that the passage in Chronicles should be rendered, gold shekels of the value (or weight) of six hundred shekels.
2Sa. 24:25. There. As we learn from 2Ch. 3:1, on Mount Moriah, afterwards the site of Solomons temple. (See Critical Notes on 2Sa. 5:7.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
THE NUMBERING OF THE PEOPLE
I. The motive and spirit of a deed determine its moral character. From the human standpoint the act of David appears quite harmless, even if inexpedient or impolitic. It belongs to quite a different class from his adultery and murder, because those deeds at once shock the moral sense of everyone who has any spark of moral sensitiveness within him, while this arouses no such emotion. Yet God here convicts His servant of a great wrong, and David acknowledges the justice of the sentence. We must, therefore, look behind the outward action to the inward state of mind which prompted it, and find there the iniquity of which David confesses himself guilty. But this is in accordance with all the teachings of Holy Writ from the days of the fall to those of Christ. The deed which first brought death into the world and all our woe was one which in itself was trivial, and under other circumstances would have been innocent. But as an act of disobedience to a plain command it was a great transgression, heavily weighted with terrible, yet justly-merited, retribution. Looking on the bright side of this doctrine, how small a thing it is to give a thirsty fellow creature a cup of cold water, and how often it may be done without having any moral significance. But Our Lord tells us there is a spirit and a motive which make this ordinary and simple act of great moral value and worthy of His notice and reward. So His anointing by Mary of Bethany. The deed itself was not so very remarkable, it was not to human eyes a very great act of devotion, But the acceptance which it met with from Him who read the heart of the doer seals it as one of no ordinary spiritual worth. In this, as in many other points, the religion of the Bible differs from and transcends all other systems. It enters into a mans soul and takes cognizance of what passes there, and condemns or justifies accordingly.
II. Very godly men are sometimes strangely inconsistent with themselves. Notwithstanding his deep spiritual experience and his ardent spiritual desires and emotions, David, had very strong tendencies to obey the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. It seems almost impossible that the man who penned the 23rd Psalm could have ever been an adulterer and a murderer. It is, perhaps, more surprising at first sight that he who wrote the 51st Psalm could afterwards, in apostolic language, have fallen into such a snare of the devil as that in which we here find him. Yet every godly man who searches his own spirit knows how much there is still within him ready to respond to the suggestions of the evil one, and every Christians life unites with that of David in testifying to the universality of the experience of PaulI delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members (Rom. 7:22-23).
III. A mans attitude after sin settles the question of character, and his position in relation to God. A childs character can be better estimated by the way in which he behaves under his fathers just displeasure than by counting the actual number of his transgressions. So is it with Gods children. The godly flee to God when they have sinned; the ungodly flee from Him (Psa. 33:1-8; 2Jn. 1:1-8). (On this thought see also on 2Sa. 14:25-33, page 360. On the remonstrance of Joab see on chap 2Sa. 19:1-15, page 384. On Davids chastisement see on 2Sa. 12:14-25, page 346).
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa. 24:1. The Scripture is most careful that we should feel the reality of Divine intimations, that we should refer them to their true source, and yet that we should understand how possible it is for a man to pervert them and found wrong inferences upon them, if his own mind is not in a thoroughly pure and healthy condition. The thought that it was a blessing to be the head of a growing and thriving peoplethis was Divine. The thought that it was well for a ruler to be acquainted with the condition and resources of his peoplethis was Divine. But the determination, just then, to send forth officers for the sake of ascertaining the armed forces of the landthis was the thought of a self-exalted man. I do not know anything so instructive to us if we use them as we ought, as these passages in the Bible, which teach us that all good thoughts, counsels, just works, come from the Spirit of God, and at the same time that we are in most imminent peril every moment of turning the Divine suggestions into sin, by allowing our selfish and impure conceits and rash generalizations to mix with them.Maurice.
2Sa. 24:12. The chastisement was not sent while he was in a state of insensibility to his sin, but after he awoke to a sense of it. It is not while the child is in a state of proud and hardened impenitence that the rod may be applied with most hope of success, but when conscience has begun to speak out, and soft relentings to appear. Dealing with conscience and appeals to the heart must ordinarily precede the infliction of punishment.Blaikie.
2Sa. 24:14. Whatever correction is necessary to Gods creatures, it is their request that He may be the immediate dispenser of it.
1. Because He is the fountain of mercy, and limits the punishment to the necessity.
2. He chastises to reclaim and not to revenge.
3. What comes from the hand of the Lord melts the heart and humbles the soul, as the rod in the hand of man can never do.
We do well believe thee, O David, that thou wert in a wonderful strait; this very liberty is no other than fetters; thou needest not have famine; thou needest not have the sword; thou needest not have pestilence; one of them thou must have; there is misery in all; there is misery in any; thou and thy people can die but once, and once they must die, either by famine, war, or pestilence. O God, how vainly do we hope to pass over our sins with impunity, when all the favour that David and Israel can receive is to choose their bane!Bishop Hall.
2Sa. 24:10. See then, David, thou hast gained thy purpose. What a power is this that is placed at thy disposal! A population of six millions, the inhabitants of the little tribes of Levi and Benjamin not being reckoned. What great things mayest thou now undertake! Who may dare raise his head so loftily as thou mayest, and who is there that may sit on his throne so free from care and so securely as thou dost? So many in spirit might perhaps say to him. But what happens? Instead of glorying, the king bends his head, descends in silence from his seat, and withdraws into one of his more remote chambers; and now listen!I have sinned greatly in that I have done, he cries out with deep emotion of heart: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly! Wonderful! That very thing from which David promised to himself kingly joy, now brings him only bitter sorrow, and that which ought to have added to his dignity, suddenly humbles him in deepest debasement. But this does not surprise us. As the sun always breaks through the clouds which encompass it, so the conscience, when once it is awakened and enlightened by the Spirit of God, always comes forth again victoriously out of every eclipse, and frees itself from every entanglement, and asserts anew its authority as a judge. Yea, in believers it constantly increases in tenderness, and becomes more and more like the apple of the eye, to which the smallest more gives annoyance; nor can there be any rest obtained till it is removed. The world cannot comprehend how so many things which it thinks unimportant and small fill the children of God with such deep shame and make them so sad. What is there so serious, it is perhaps said to them, in examining thy treasures, or in seeking the favour of this or that influential man, or taking a lottery-ticket? Where is there a Divine command which thou hast thereby transgressed? And, indeed, those who thus speak are not conscious where such a Divine precept is. But they know it well who have transgressed it. Their heart has forsaken the Lord and distrusted his power and love.Krummacher.
What then, was Davids sin? He will needs have Israel and Judah numbered. Surely there is no malignity in numbers; neither is it unfit for a prince to know his own strength. This is not the first time that Israel had gone under a reckoning. The act offends not, but the misaffection; the same thing had been commendably done out of a princely providence, which now, through the curiosity, pride, misconfidence of the doer, proves heinously vicious. Those actions, which are in themselves indifferent, receive either their life or their bane from the intentions of the agent. Moses numbereth the people with thanks, David with displeasure. Those sins which carry the smoothest foreheads and have the most honest appearances, may more provoke the wrath of God than those which bear the most abomination in their faces. How many thousand wickednesses passed through the hands of Israel, which we men would rather have branded out for judgment than this of Davids! The righteous judge of the world censures sins, not by their ill looks, but by their foul hearts.Bishop Hall.
2Sa. 24:24. The principle that comes out in these words is one that will sweep the whole circle of worship, and work, and gifts, and personal religious life. I. Worship. For in our buildings, in our service of praise and prayer, preaching and hearing, we are to give our best in effort, in intelligence, in all things, facing and resisting every temptation to the contrary, with the words, Shall I offer, etc. II. Work. Not to schemes only that are pleasant, and in times that are convenient, and by proxies that are easily obtainable will the true worker of God devote himself. III. Gifts. Not with careless gifts, almost covertly given, or the smallest coin dealt out niggardly, can he give who says, Shall I offer? etc. IV. Personal religion. There is meanness and ingratitude in the spirit that relegates all religious care to the leisure of Sunday, or of the sick-room, or of the infirmities of old age. Why should we not offer to God that which costs us nothing? Three questions may throw light upon it.
1. How far what costs you nothing is any benefit to yourself? Such may be of some benefit. But only what costs something call out,
(1) highest motives and employs
(2) all faculties.
2. How far what costs you nothing has much influence upon the world? Sacrifice is the subtle and tremendous element needed in all great influence. In the home, in the Church, in the state, they only climb true thrones, and wear real crowns, who have the spirit of sacrifice. The Saviour Himself relied upon thatI, if I be lifted up, will draw, etc. So does the Eternal Father of men, for He has made Christ, who is incarnate sacrifice, the power of God.
3. How far what costs you nothing is acceptable to God? Christs praise of the poor widows gift, Gods acceptance of the sacrifice of Christsufficiently indicate the Divine estimate of self-denial. And since that service which costs us something has the pulses of reality, the glow of love, and the reflection of Christit surely is acceptable to God.U. R. Thomas.
2Sa. 24:24-25. An altar must be built in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite; lo, in that very hill, where the angel held the sword of Abraham from killing his son, doth God now hold the sword of the angel from killing his people! Upon this very ground shall the temple after stand: here shall be the holy altar, which shall send up the acceptable oblations of Gods people in succeeding generations.
O God, what was the threshing-floor of a Jebusite to thee above all other soils? what virtue, what merit was in this earth? As in places, so in persons, it is not to be heeded what they are, but what thou wilt; that is worthiest, which thou pleasest to accept.Bp. Hall.
It is very remarkable that before the outward foundations of the temple were laid, Gods forgiving mercy was by God factually declared to be its spiritual foundation.Hengstenberg.
2Sa. 24:1-25. Whom does the Lord smite for his sins? Him who
1. Lets his heart be smitten by Gods earnestness and goodness, and takes to heart the greatness of his sin in contrast to Gods loving kindness.
2. Recognises his sin, in the light of Gods word, as a transgression of His Holy will, and
3. Maintains in his sinning and in spite of it the fundamental direction of his heart towards the living God, and has been preserved from falling away into complete unbelief.Erdmann.
True and hearty repentance is preserved in the life of Gods children.
1. In the penitent confession of their sin and guilt before the judgment seat of God.
2. In fleeing for refuge to the forgiving grace of God.
3. In humbly bowing under the punitive justice of God.
4. In a confidence which even amid Divine judgments does not waver in the delivering mercy of God.Erdmann.
The gradual succession in the inner life of a penitent sinner under the chastening of Gods love.
1. Reproving conscience.
2. Penitent conscience.
3. Hearty prayer for forgiveness.
4. Humble bowing beneath, the punishment imposed.
5. Unreserved submission to the Divine mercy.Erdmann.
This history leads us to noticeI. The severity of God in punishing sin. The sin which David committed was exceeding great. It was manifest even to so wicked a man as Joab. His punishment was proportionately severe. What shall we therefore think of sin? Is it so light a matter as men generally imagine? II. The goodness of God in pardoning sin. David evinced true contrition by pleading that the punishment might fall on him the guilty one, and not on his innocent people. Instantly did God command the angel to stay his hand.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
5. The Sin of Census, 2Sa. 24:1-25.
The Numbering. 2Sa. 24:1-9
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
3 And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?
4 Notwithstanding the kings word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel.
5 And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer:
6 Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi; and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon,
7 And came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beer-sheba.
8 So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
1.
When did the numbering occur? 2Sa. 24:1
There is no indication of the exact time of the numbering of Israel which provoked the anger of the Lord, but certain indications in the text point to a date late in the reign of David. First of all, we read that again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. This sounds very definitely like a reference to the famine which came in the days of David three years in a row when the Gibeonites called for vengeance (2Sa. 21:1). Since the anger of the Lord was kindled again, this numbering occurred after the famine. In the second place, the numbering took nearly ten months of time, and it would be very difficult for the commander-in-chief of the army to spend this length of time in what would be a peacetime task until after the conquests which marked the beginning of Davids reign had been completed. In the third place, the description of Davids preparation for building the temple which occupied the latter part of his reign is given in the book of Chronicles immediately after the account of this numbering. The numbering itself must have been one of Davids last acts.
2.
Did God move David to make the census? 2Sa. 24:1 b
The subject of the verb moved in this verse is the Lord whose anger was kindled against Israel. The nation had sinned against God and incurred His anger, and He moved David to perform an act which brought down a severe punishment on the nation. God did not compel David to sin; but in order to test and prove his character, he allowed the temptation to come to him. Although we read in Jas. 1:13 that no man is tempted of God, we are also instructed to pray that God should not bring us into temptation (Matthews 2Sa. 6:13). In 1Ch. 22:1 the statement is made that Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number his people. Such a condition would be similar to that of the days of Job when God allowed Satan to afflict a righteous man (Job. 1:12; Job. 2:10).
3.
Why did David want to number his people? 2Sa. 24:2
David said that he wanted to know the number of his people, but he was hardly so childish that he wanted to know the number simply for the sake of the knowledge. He had an end in mind which made the numbering wrong. The mere taking of a census was not wrong in itself, for God had commanded the numbering of His people on two separate occasions as they wandered in the wilderness (Num. 1:26). On other occasions, the number of people who went out to war was given indicating there must have been a consciousness of numbers and a means for ascertaining the exact numbers (1Sa. 11:8; 1Sa. 13:2).
4.
Why did Joab oppose the numbering? 2Sa. 24:3
Joab was not a man moved by religious scruples, and his opposition must have been based on some other reason. He would have to leave the work that he was best fitted for, and this may have been the basis of his objection. Later events proved that it was wrong, and Joab may have been able to ascertain this better than the king himself. Since he was not moved by religious scruples and his selfishness did not always cause him to do his work, his strong objection to the numbering of the people arose from his perception of Davids motives.
5.
What was wrong with Davids actions?
David overruled Joabs objections and sent him out to number the people of Israel. Something was dreadfully wrong with Davids actions. The numbering was presented in verse one as the manifestation of the wrath of God against Israel, and in verse three Joab tried to stop the king from continuing. In verse ten, David himself admitted that it was a grievous sin against God. His heart smote him. Moreover, as a sin, the numbering of the people was punished by the Lord (2Sa. 24:12). Josephus indicated that the census was a sin because he neglected to demand the atonement money which was specified in the law (Exo. 30:12 ff.). Such could hardly be the case because the collecting of the atonement money mentioned in the book of Exodus was the original enrolling of the people as members of the commonwealth of Israel. Many students of the Scripture have suggested that David entered into the whole affair with pride and vain boasting and that he commanded the census out of his vanity. But David was hardly so vain as to desire simply to have the number which he could quote or which could be recorded in the annals and provide him with an opportunity for reviewing how mighty he was. This may have entered into the sin, since Joab prayed that God multiply the number by 100 and allow the eyes of the king to see it. A higher purpose for the census was suggested in 1Ch. 27:23-24, where the numbering was connected with the military organization of the kingdom. David must not have taken the census in order to boast nor in order to levy taxes. He must have desired to be fully acquainted with his defensive power and thus came to a place where he was trusting his own might and not leaning heavily on the strength of God, although we cannot be justified in concluding that he was intending to enter into a campaign of world-wide conquests in an effort to make him more of a world power. God reduced the number to show that any effort of feeble man alone can be brought to nought by an almighty God.
6.
What was the route of the enumerators? 2Sa. 24:5-7
Those who took the census went out from Jerusalem and crossed over Jordan. They set up their headquarters in Aroer, a spot on the north bank of the Arnon river ten miles east of the Dead Sea. It was the southernmost town of Israel east of the Jordan and has been referred to as the Beersheba of the East. From this point, the workers moved north into the territory of Gad, the tribe which settled in the center section of the land east of the Jordan (Num. 32:33-42). Jazer was a town taken by Israel from the Amorites (Num. 21:32) and assigned to the tribe of Gad (Num. 32:1-3; Num. 32:35). The city was named a Levitical city (Jos. 21:39). The importance of the town is seen in the fact that it gave its name to the district including some dependent towns (Num. 31:32), and both Isaiah and Jeremiah mentioned the place in their prophecies (Isa. 16:8-9 and Jer. 48:32). It has been identified with Khirbet-jazzier. The men then turned north through Gilead and went throughout the land to a point mentioned only here in the Scriptures; the name of Tahtimhodshi means the lowland recently occupied and is probably a reference to the edge of the Israelite territory. Everybody was counted including those in Dan-Jaan, Israels northernmost town. Davids servants then moved west to the Phoenician territory on the Mediterranean seacoast counting people all the way to Tyre, the capital city of Phoenicia. They moved down throught western Palestine taking the census in the cities which had once belonged to the Canaanites until they reached Israels southernmost town, Beersheba. When the entire count had been made, they brought their report up to the king at Jerusalem. The total time spent in taking the census was nine months and twenty days (2Sa. 24:8).
7.
What was the total of the number of the people? 2Sa. 24:9
Joab and his men had counted 800,000 men in the ten tribes of Israel. There were 500,000 men in the tribe of Judah. Inasmuch as men were counted only after they had reached their twentieth birthday, this would be 1,300,000 men twenty years of age and over, thus men able to go to war (Num. 1:3). There must have been an equal number of men under twenty years of age, making the total of 2,600,000 males. An equal number of females should be added to bring the grand total to 5,200,000 or 6,000,000 people. The number is larger in Chronicles (1Ch. 21:5), and an additional note is made that the men of the tribes of Levi and Benjamin were not counted (1Ch. 21:6). The smaller number in the book of Samuel must be without the two tribes mentioned, and the number in Chronicles probably included them. The number in Chronicles is given in connection with David organizing his kingdom, and the tribe of Benjamin is mentioned in the list of tribes and their chieftains (1Ch. 27:21). An additional note is made in the book of Chronicles stating that the count was not the official count (1Ch. 27:24). Critics take particular exception to the numbers found in Chronicles as compared to those found in the books of Samuel and Kings. Certainly the writer of Chronicles did not deliberately seek to make his work appear ridiculous by increasing the numbers in the Chronicles, although the radical critics generally charge that the numbers are exaggerated in Chronicles. Neither did the writer give numbers out of ignorance, for the work is too superb for such a thing to be possible. It must be noted that the numbers given are round numbers, representing only approximate figures. Only thousands are taken into account, and the intention apparently is merely to indicate the greatness of the armies. While the numbers in Chronicles are usually larger than those in Samuel or Kings, sometimes they are smaller. For example, 40,000 stalls for Solomons horses are mentioned in 1Ki. 4:26, but 2Ch. 9:25 gives 4,000. In 1Ch. 11:11, three hundred mighty men are mentioned, but eight hundred are given in 2Sa. 23:8. In 1Ch. 21:12 David was given a choice of three years of famine, whereas the number is seven years in 2Sa. 24:13. In all of these cases the numbers are smaller in Chronicles than in the parallel passages in Kings or Samuel. Lastly, we must remember that even though today we are not in a position to explain precisely and to our satisfaction how the differences in the numerals may have arisen, these numerals being so isolated must not shake the conviction we have in the general historical credibility of Chronicles. Many more passages are in accordance with the facts as found elsewhere, and these are sufficient to give the earmarks of historicity and trustworthiness to the scriptures of Chronicles.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) Kindled against Israel.This was not in consequence of the numbering of the people, but in consequence of that which ultimately led to that act. We are not told why the anger of the Lord was kindled, but doubtless because He saw both in king and people that rising spirit of earthly pride and reliance on earthly strength which led to the sin.
He moved.The pronoun here stands for the Lord, yet in 1Ch. 21:1, the temptation is attributed to Satan, and Satan is clearly meant of the devil, and not simply of an adversary. This is a striking instance of attributing directly to God whatever comes about under His permission. And yet it is more than that. God has established immutable spiritual as well as material laws, or rather those laws themselves are but the expression of His unchanging will. Whatever comes about under the operation of those laws is said to be His doing. Now Davids numbering the people was the natural consequence of the condition of worldliness and pride into which he had allowed himself to fall. God then moved him, because He had from the first so ordered the laws of the spirit that such a sinful act should be the natural outcome of such a sinful state. Of other interpretations: that which makes the verb impersonalone movedis hardly tenable grammatically; and that which makes the nominative a sort of compound wordthe wrath of the Lord (as in some of the ancient versions)leads to substantially the same explanation as that given above.
The word number in this verse is a different one from that used in the rest of the chapter, and means simply to count, while the other conveys the idea of a military muster.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Again After the penal famine described in 2Sa 21:1.
He moved David against them By permitting Satan to insinuate unholy thoughts and purposes into his heart. Compare 1Ch 21:1. In the same sense did the Lord bid Shimei curse David. 2Sa 16:10, where see note. David’s own sins were many, and called for punishment; and the Lord, in executing his penal judgments upon him, first delivered him over for a while into the hands of Satan. Compare note on 1Sa 26:19.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
David’s Sinful Purpose To Number Israel And The Carrying Out Of That Purpose ( 2Sa 24:1-10 ).
As suggested above David’s sin lay in the fact that he was acting in disregard of the fact that he was YHWH’r regent or Nagid, and not Israel’s sole king. His act was thus seen as an act of rebellion, fostered by his own arrogance and pride. It indicated that he was forgetting his status, which was why it had to be severely dealt with.
It is significant that the book which commences with the unusual birth of the one who would introduce kingship to Israel (1 Samuel 1), and a prophecy of the Coming Anointed King (1Sa 2:10), finally ends with an indication of the failure of that king to obey YHWH and the need therefore for chastisement and atonement. It was an indication that the final promised righteous king had not yet come.
Analysis.
a
b And the king said to Joab the captain of the host, who was with him, “Go now to and fro through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and number you the people, that I may know the sum of the people” (2Sa 24:2).
c And Joab said to the king, “Now YHWH your God add to the people, however many they may be, a hundredfold, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king delight in this thing?” (2Sa 24:3).
d Notwithstanding, the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host (2Sa 24:4 a).
c And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel. And they passed over the Jordan, and encamped in Aroer, on the right side of the city that is in the middle of the valley of Gad, and to Jazer, then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-chodshi; and they came to Dan-jaan, and round about to Sidon, and came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites, and they went out to the south of Judah, at Beer-sheba (2Sa 24:4-7).
b So when they had gone to and from through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days . And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people to the king, and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand (or ‘units of’) valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand (or ‘units of’) men (2Sa 24:8-9).
a And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said to YHWH, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done, but now, O YHWH, put away, I beg you, the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly” (2Sa 24:10).
Note that in ‘a’ David is moved to number Israel, and in the parallel he confesses his sin of having done so. In ‘b’ the numbering is to go on so that David can know the sum of the people, and in the parallel he learns the sum of the people. In ‘c’ speaks of the numberlessness of God’s people, and in the parallel the vastness of the area that they covered in outlined. Centrally in ‘d’ the king’s word prevailed against all advice.
2Sa 24:1
‘ And again the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” ’
Many have questioned why the people should have had to suffer for David’s sin, but that question is clearly answered here. David’s action and its punishment was not just the result of his own sinfulness, it was as a consequence of the sin of the whole people. ‘The anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel.’ It was Israel as a whole who had sinned. The nature of Israel’s sin is not described, but it can probably be summed up in two words, widespread disobedience to the covenant Law and growing idolatry (compare Jdg 2:11-15; Jdg 2:17; Jdg 2:19; Jdg 3:7-8), something that had been brought out by the two rebellions as the people had rebelled against ‘the Anointed of YHWH’. Thus David’s numbering of Israel, and its consequences, were actually originally brought about as a result of the people’s sinfulness and disobedience. Israel would suffer for their own sins.
The writer puts it in terms of YHWH ‘moving David to number Israel’. But this was the viewpoint of someone who saw everything that happened as being the direct result of YHWH’s will. In fact the Chronicler tells us that David was moved to number Israel by an adversary (satanas), or even by Satan, the greatest of man’s adversaries (1Ch 21:1). Joab meanwhile lays the blame squarely on David himself. All three aspects were in fact involved. History results from sinful man’s random actions, is regularly prompted by Satan, but underneath is finally controlled by an omnipotent God. So when David was prompted by Satan, and took his own rational and sinful decision, behind it all could be seen YHWH’s purpose of punishing Israel for its sinfulness. The phrase ‘Dan to Beersheba’ which is regularly used as describing all Israel, indicates (roughly) the northernmost and southernmost cities in Israel, and occurs previously in Jdg 20:1; 1Sa 3:20 ; 2Sa 3:10; 2Sa 17:11.
2Sa 24:2
‘ And the king said to Joab the captain of the host, who was with him, “Go now to and fro through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and number you the people, that I may know the sum of the people.” ’
The result was that the king called in Joab, the commander of the host of Israel, and ordered him to number the whole people (i.e. the adult males over twenty) in all the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba so that he, David, could know the total sum of the people. The assumption that he was making was that they were his people and that he was therefore summing up his possessions. But this, of course, went totally contrary to the teaching of the Law that they were YHWH’s covenant people, and that it was He alone Who determined, or should be interested in, their number.
The point is that it was not the numbering itself that was sinful. Moses had twice numbered the people, the first time with a view to organising the march through the wilderness and the subsequent invasion (which was then aborted for thirty eight years), and the second time with a view to the second invasion and the apportioning of the land (Num 26:53-54). But both were at YHWH’s command and for practical purposes. Here David’s only aim was with a view to self-gloating aver what he was seeing as ‘his people’, and so that he could have a ‘global total’.
2Sa 24:3
‘ And Joab said to the king, “Now YHWH your God add to the people, however many they may be, a hundredfold, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king delight in this thing?” ’
The fact that Joab was appalled at the suggestion indicates that he clearly saw that the number of the people of Israel was neither his nor David’s concern. It was YHWH Who determined the number of people in Israel. He it was who could add to them a hundredfold as He had promised, something in which David could delight, but it was not for David to regulate the number of people. That was YHWH’s prerogative for the people were His ‘portion’ (considerDeu 32:8-9). The fact that they could not be numbered was an indication that they were God’s people (Num 23:10). Why then was David concerning himself to do so? He was taking such matters out of God’s hands. Was he then seeking to take over YHWH’s portion and inheritance?
(For David to number the people would be like the church counting up its converts so that it could rule them and pride itself in its achievements. It was a sad day when it began to do so. It was an indication that the church saw themselves as ‘possessing’ those souls and as having authority over them, and a sign that they were failing to recognise that they themselves were only the servants of God in winning men to Christ and building them up, and not the masters of the church. Such numbers have to left to God, for it is He Who alone can determine their number).
2Sa 24:4
‘ Notwithstanding, the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel.’
Despite Joab’s protest, seemingly also backed up by David’s principle military officers, the count was to go on, for the king ordered it and his word necessarily prevailed. Joab and David’s principle officers therefore went out from his presence to number the men of Israel.
2Sa 24:5-7
‘ And they passed over the Jordan, and encamped in Aroer, on the right side of the city that is in the middle of the valley of Gad, and to Jazer, then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-chodshi, and they came to Dan-jaan, and round about to Sidon, and came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites, and they went out to the south of Judah, at Beer-sheba.’
It would appear that what happened as they reached each area was that they encamped and then summoned to them all the adult males of Israel in order to carry out the count. It would be a huge task. They commenced in Transjordan, at Aroer, encamping in the valley of Gad (which was to the south), then moving to Jazer, which had been a city of Sihon, the Amorite king captured by Moses (Num 21:32), which was more central, after which they came to Gilead in the north, to the land of Tahtim-chodshi. The census in Transjordan having been completed they then moved over to Dan-jaan, west of the Jordan, a site which is unidentified, although distinguished from Dan to the far north. If all the census points are mentioned (but this is unlikely. The writer probably mentions the Canaanite cities specifically in order to bring out why YHWH was angry at Israel) then from Dan-jaan the call went out to most of Israel west of the Jordan. They then followed this up by going up to an area around Sidon on the west coast, which, while Canaanite (Phoenician), was seemingly fairly heavily populated with Israelites, after which they moved down to the stronghold of Tyre. They then covered all the cities of the Hivites and of the Canaanites which had not been conquered or divested of their inhabitants by the Israelites, and in which seemingly many Israelites dwelt (it was this contact with Canaanites and their ways which may help to explain YHWH’s anger against Israel). This would cover large parts of northern Israel, including Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun and Issachar. They then moved south to the Negev of Judah and to Beersheba, which was in the Negev, finally completing the task there.
2Sa 24:8
‘ So when they had gone to and fro through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.’
Having covered the whole land, moving too and fro, they returned to Jerusalem. Their journeying had taken nine moon periods and twenty days. It had been a long and arduous process.
2Sa 24:9
‘ And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people to the king, and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand (or ‘units of’) valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand (or ‘units of’) men.’
And at the end of it all Joab was able to give the totals that they had arrived at to the king. Note that it is not said that they were accurate or true, only that that was the figure that Joab had arrived at. They would, in fact, inevitably not have been strictly accurate (even if Joab had not fiddled the figures – 1Ch 21:6; 1Ch 27:24), for many who should have been included may well not have been available in their areas at the time that their censuses were taken, but they probably did present a fairly accurate and comprehensive picture, even if only roughly. The total came to eight hundred eleph (military units/families/tent groups) for Israel, and five hundred eleph (military units/families/tent groups) for Judah. The word translated ‘thousand’ (eleph) has varying meanings, e.g. ‘a thousand, a military unit, a family unit, a clan’.
The Chronicler in fact has differing figures, giving one thousand one hundred military units/familes/tent groups for Israel and four hundred and seventy military units/families/tent groups for Judah. But we have to take into account the probability that the statistics gathered produced a number of totals, e.g. those of ‘true’ Israelites, and then those of Canaanites and Israelites combined, and so on. Furthermore the Chronicler tells us specifically that because Joab was unhappy at the situation he was fiddling the figures, leaving out Levi and Benjamin (1Ch 21:6). So Joab was not intent on providing accurate figures.
The ‘one thousand one hundred eleph in Israel’ in Chronicles may therefore have been a figure which included Canaanites, for we must see it as very probable that a number of different sets of figures would be presented to David which conveyed different statistics. The eight hundred in Samuel would then refer to true Israelites. Furthermore in his usual way Joab deliberately sabotaged what he disagreed with, so that we are specifically told in 1Ch 21:6; 1Ch 27:24 that in fact not everyone was counted, that the counting was thus incomplete, and that no actual numbers were put in the official records, so that the whole result was clearly inaccurate anyway. It did not point to reliable figures having been obtained. The four hundred and seventy military units of Judah (where there would have been few Canaanites) may have been a more specific figure, of which the five hundred was simply a round number, or the four hundred and seventy units may have omitted the Benjaminites, with the five hundred units including an estimate of them (at least one of the captains would have a good idea of Benjamin’s military strength as he would have commanded them).
We do, also have to bear in mind the huge problems of taking an accurate census and take into account the fact that a number of the captains may have kept their own count as a kind of counter-check on each other, coming up with differing figures, with two or even more sets of numbers being presented to the king. (The writer in Samuel was not interested in the details of the census results). Thus David may have received two or more versions of what had been assessed which according to the Chronicler included a certain amount of guesswork due to the incomplete nature of the census.
If David found himself being drowned in differing figures which presented him with different pictures, it may well explain why his conscience was then stirred by the recognition that God’s people were indeed numberless, and that he had just been foolish.
2Sa 24:10
‘ And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said to YHWH, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done, but now, O YHWH, put away, I beg you, the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly.”
For once David received the numbers he realised what a fool he had been. He was faced up with the fact that these were not his men but YHWH’s, and that they were as numberless as the stars in Heaven (1Ch 27:23). His conscience being thus smitten, he cried to YHWH and sought His forgiveness, declaring that he had sinned greatly through his arrogant attitude, and asking Him to put away his iniquity. And no doubt YHWH would have done so more easily had He not also had a controversy with the people as a whole (verse 1).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
David Sins By Numbering Israel Resulting In Pestilence From YHWH And A Final Act Of Atonement ( 2Sa 24:1-25 ).
The act of numbering the men of Israel would appear to have been seen as an act of rebellion against YHWH. According to 1Ch 27:23-24 YHWH had promised that the number of the children of Israel would be as the stars of the heavens. They were thus not to be numbered arbitrarily (it was permitted in a general way for organisational purposes when mustering to battle but not otherwise – 2Sa 18:1) nor have any limit put on them. For in the end they were YHWH’s people, not David’s. To number them was thus an act of human arrogance and self-exaltation. It was to see them as David’s own people and at his disposal, rather than as YHWH’s people to be preserved by Him as He willed. David is seen as once more having got above himself. It was a similar act of arrogance to that of Moses smiting the rock in Num 20:10-12, something which also had painful consequences.
Both Joab (2Sa 24:3) and David (2Sa 24:10) in the end recognised what a sinful act David’s was. It was thus not an unconscious or unrecognised sin. The situation was that David had slipped into being simply ‘a king like all the nations’ instead of the unique Nagid (prince, war-leader) of YHWH. He had thus thrust YHWH into the background in his thinking, and that was why he had to be jolted out of it. The sad thing was that the people had to suffer for it because it was necessary to nullify the census by diminishing their numbers, but it should be noted that it is made quite clear that they suffered for their own sins and not for David’s (verse 1). They were thus not just being punished for what he did. For David it would mean a diminishing of the people over whom he ruled.
Other alternative suggestions have been made as to why the numbering was sinful, although they are nowhere specifically supported by the text. The following are examples:
David was numbering his people in order to commence a period of external aggression which YHWH disapproved of.
David was numbering Israel for military purposes because of the threats of an aggressor (satanas – 1Ch 21:1). This would, however, have been allowable.
David’s aim was to levy widespread taxation on God’s people over and above the tithe (compare1Ki 9:15).
David’s aim was in order to prepare for dividing the people up for the purposes of compulsory levies for building programmes (compare1Ki 5:13; 1Ki 9:21).
David had neglected the paying of the atonement money (Exo 30:12).
All these suggestion fail, however, on the basis that had they been correct the reason would surely have been mentioned by the writer.
The passage divides into three sections;
The description of David’s sinful purpose to number Israel and the carrying out of that purpose (2Sa 24:1-10).
YHWH’s choice of punishment is offered to David by Gad and is carried out (2Sa 24:11-15).
YHWH’s chastisement is limited by His mercy as He shows compassion on Jerusalem. This is followed by David’s offering of atonement offerings (2Sa 24:16-25) (2Sa 24:16-25).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Chapter 24
2Sa 24:1-25
Exo 30:11-16, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.”
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2Sa 24:1
1Ch 27:23, “But David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under: because the LORD had said he would increase Israel like to the stars of the heavens.”
Psa 20:7, “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.”
In Isa 22:10, “Israel numbered the houses in the city to try and fortify the wall and to repair its breaches. This also was looking to the arm of flesh.
Isa 22:10, “And ye have numbered the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses have ye broken down to fortify the wall.”
In contrast, note the story of Gibeon and his army of 300 men who defeated 185,000 Midianites.
2Sa 24:1 Comments – Sailhamer notes that there are a number of examples in the historical books of the Old Testament where God’s anger was turned against Israel (Jdg 2:14; Jdg 2:20; Jdg 3:8; Jdg 10:7, 2Ki 13:3; 2Ki 23:26). The parallel verse to 2Sa 24:1 is found in 1Ch 21:1, which reads differently, “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” In the book of Chronicles it was Satan ( ), and not the Lord, who caused David to number the people. In an effort to reconcile these different statements, Sailhamer notes that each time God was angry with Israel, He gave over to their enemies. He goes on to explain that when King Solomon was obeying the Lord, God gave him rest from all of his adversaries, “so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent.” (1Ki 5:4). Later, when Solomon sinned, “the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite,” (1Ki 11:14) and “God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah,” (1Ki 11:23), and “he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.” (1Ki 11:25) In these four verses, the same Hebrew word, “satan” ( ), is used, as in 1Ch 21:1. Sailhamer notes that the word ( ) is also used in a similar context in 1Sa 29:4. Thus, based upon this recurring motive in the historical books, he reconciles these two different statements by interpreting 1Ch 21:1 to mean that David’s enemies rose up with threats to invade Israel because of his disobedience to God. [69]
[69] John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, c1995), 305.
Jdg 2:14, “And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.”
Jdg 2:20, “And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and he said, Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice;”
Jdg 3:8, “Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia: and the children of Israel served Chushanrishathaim eight years.”
Jdg 10:7, “And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Ammon.”
2Ki 13:3, “And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Syria, and into the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael, all their days.”
2Ki 23:26, “Notwithstanding the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal.”
1Ki 5:4, “But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent.”
2Sa 24:13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
2Sa 24:13
1Ch 21:12, “Either three years’ famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.”
A look at the Hebrew words:
2Sa 24:13 – Hebrew ( ) – “seven” (H7651)
1Ch 21:12 – Hebrew ( ) – “three” (H7969)
2Sa 24:13 Comments – God could have pronounced a judgment upon David as in 2Sa 12:10, where God judged David’s household. But the judgment at the end of David’s life was a judgment upon the nation of Israel (2Sa 24:1). In contrast, the judgment in David’s sin against Bathsheba was a judgment upon an individual, which judgment matched the laws of God’s Word according to Pro 17:13.
2Sa 12:10, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.”
2Sa 24:1, “ And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel , and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”
Pro 17:13, “Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.”
2Sa 24:14 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.
2Sa 24:14
2Sa 12:22, “And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?”
2Sa 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.
2Sa 24:15
Exo 30:12, “When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them , when thou numberest them.”
2Sa 24:17 And David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house.
2Sa 24:17
1Ch 21:26, “And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the LORD; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering.”
1Ch 22:1, “Then David said, This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel.”
2Ch 3:1, “Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father , in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.”
2Sa 24:19 And David, according to the saying of Gad, went up as the LORD commanded.
2Sa 24:19
2Sa 24:24 And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.
2Sa 24:24
1Ch 21:25, “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.”
2Sa 24:25 And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.
2Sa 24:25
1Ch 21:28, “At that time when David saw that the LORD had answered him in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there.”
1Ch 22:1, “Then David said, This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel.”
2Sa 24:25 Comments – In 2Sa 23:1-7 David functioned in the office of a prophet. In 2Sa 24:25 David is functioning in the office of a priest. Thus, David functioned in the offices of a king, a priest, and a prophet, as did his New Testament counterpart, Jesus the Messiah; for King David was a type and figure of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The People Numbered
v. 1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, v. 2. For the king said to Joab, the captain of the host, which was with him, v. 3. And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord, thy God, add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it! But why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? v. 4. Notwithstanding the king’s word prevailed against Joab, v. 5. And they passed over Jordan, v. 6. Then they came to Gilead, v. 7. and came to the stronghold of Tyre, v. 8. So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days, v. 9. And Joab gave up,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Sa 24:1
And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel. It is probable that this chapter once stood in intimate connection with 2Sa 21:1-22; and that the famine therein described was followed by a pestilence, of which the blame largely rested upon David, though the sin punished by it was fully shared by the people. In saying that David was moved of Jehovah to number Israel and Judah, the writer acknowledges the great truth that all action, both good and evil, is of God. “Shall there be evil in a city, and Jehovah hath not done it?” (Amo 3:6). While we are taught to pray that we may not be led into temptation, yet trial and temptation are by God’s ordinance for man’s good. Man falls only when the temptation gives the opportunity for the outbreak of that which already was at work within (Jas 1:14). If the previous watch over the heart has been careful and earnest, then the temptation is a steppingstone to a nobler and more pure godliness; and if a man fall, yet even so he learns by outward proof what was secretly ruining his soul, and may by its manifestation be led to repentance. There were festering in David’s heart a thirst for war, and pride in his victories; a growing ambition, and, as its necessary result, a disregard of the rights of other nations. The same passions were gaining a daily increasing influence over the people generally. It is too often the case that a nation uses the bravery which has obtained for it freedom from foreign oppression, to impose the yoke of slavery upon others. But this chastisement brought back David and his subjects to more upright counsels. In 1Ch 21:1 the temptation is ascribed to Satan, because David fell. God tempts, that is, tries, men that they may stand more firmly and advance in all that is true and good. Satan tempts men that he may find out their weaknesses and effect their ruin. Yet David fell only to rise again. Satan’s triumph was but temporary, and the result was good for king and people, who would have suffered far more terribly from the effects of their lust of war than from the pestilence. Temptation, then, has two sides, and is good or evil according to the use we make of it; but in itself it is a necessity for our probation. The trials and sorrows of life serve but to break up the fallow ground (Jer 4:3); and without them our hearts would remain hard as the roadway; and the good seed, which may spring up to eternal life, would lie unheeded upon the surface, and find no entrance into their depths. As regards the exact time; and the idea of the Jewish commentators, that the sin consisted in neglecting to pay the half shekel there enjoined upon each man numbered, is not merely gratuitous, but is disproved by Joab’s remonstrance; for he objects to the census absolutely. From what, too, we know of Joab’s character, we cannot suppose that he would be particularly shocked at this being a census of the fighting men. Yet these Israelites were very noble men in their love of freedom and their respect for their national constitution; and if Joab observed in David a growing disposition towards despotism, and foresaw danger to the nation’s liberty from the king’s lust of foreign conquest, he was too upright a statesman not to oppose a measure which would strengthen the king in his dangerous tendencies. His words in 1Ch 21:3, “Are they not all my lord’s servants?” seem to have this meaning. David was the master of all these fighting men. If their vast number was paraded before his imagination, it might lead him, flushed with past successes, into aggressive war; and victory abroad would lead to the destruction of freedom at home. The sin plainly lay in the violation of the principles of the theocratic government, which fostered personal independence in every member of the nation, and were opposed to every war except one of self-defence; and it was the fact that a nation so governed was weak and almost powerless even to protect itself, that had made the people clamour for a king. And now the opposite dangers were developing themselves, and the Israelites, dazzled by the glamour of victory, were joining with their king in a longing after extended empire. The pestilence stopped them for the present in their ambitious course; the disruption of the. kingdom under Rehoboam dispelled their dream forever. In 1Ch 27:23 we also find the thought that the taking of a census, though several times practised by Moses (Exo 38:26; Num 1:2; Num 26:2), was in itself presumptuous, because it seemed to contradict the promise in Gen 15:5, that the seed of Abraham should be past numbering. He moved. It is impossible to translate, “and one moved,” understanding thereby Satan, as stated in Chronicles. It was Israel which had incurred the Divine anger by its lust of war, and Jehovah used David, who was himself the victim of the same evil passions, to take a step which led on to the just chastisement. Number; Hebrew, count. It is a different word from that translated “number” in the rest of the chapter.
2Sa 24:2
For the king said; Hebrew, and the king said. David’s command was not the cause of Jehovah’s auger, but the result of his having himself given way to ambition; and, as he yielded to the temptation, it so far became an act of Satan, in that it led to sin; but in its final result it led to good, in that the chastisement cured the people of their thirst for war. And as Satan can act only so far as the Divine will permits, the temptation was most truly the doing of Jehovah (but see note on 1Sa 26:19). Captain of the host, which was with him. There is a good deal of difficulty about this passage, as the word for “host” is not that elsewhere used, and the last phrase is somewhat meaningless. In 1Ch 21:2 we find “David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people.” Without the concurrence of these rulers, who were the princes of the tribes, the census could not have been taken. But as the ancient versions confirm the reading of the Hebrew here, no change of the text is admissible. Number ye. This is distinctly the war word, for which see note on 2Sa 18:1. It proves that the census was taken for military reasons. Even this in itself was not wrong (Num 26:2), but it is indicative of David’s purpose. When, moreover, Moses numbered the people, the census was taken by the priests (Num 1:3; Num 26:1, Num 26:2), and from the payment of the half shekel to the sanctuary, it appears that it was to some extent a religious ceremony. All this David neglects, and the employment of Joab goes far to prove that what David wanted was an examination of the military resources of his kingdom.
2Sa 24:3
Why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? Joab was an unscrupulous and irreligious man; but he was clear headed, and far more statesmanlike than David (2Sa 19:5-7). He saw whither the king was drifting, and that the increase of the royal power, resulting from successful war, would be fatal to the liberties of Israel. Probably, too, though he had consented to carry out Uriah’s murder, yet he despised David for it. When he had murdered Abner to avenge Asahel, David had deprived him of his command, and he had to endure a long period of disgrace; and now David uses him to murder one altogether innocent. Joab, we may feel sure, noted the degradation of David’s character, and drew the conclusion that he was not the man to be trusted at the head of a military despotism. Warned thus by what he saw, his mind reverted to the principles of the theocracy, and their truth and value became more clear to his understanding; and honourably he remonstrates with David for violating them.
2Sa 24:4
The captains of the host. The matter was not undertaken without a council being held, and at it David’s chief officers agreed with Joab; but David had made up his mind, and would take no advice.
2Sa 24:5
Aroer. There is some uncertainty as to the Aroer here meant. There is first a city of that name in the tribe of Gad facing Rabbah (Jos 13:25), and this is apparently the city meant; for it is said that “Joab and his men pitched in Aroer, on the south side of the city situated in the middle of the valley of Gad, and unto Jazer.” Now, Jazer is also in Gad, about seven miles west of Rabbah, and as Rabbah is on the extreme east of the Israelite territory towards Ammon, it would be a very convenient spot from which to commence the numbering, But there is another Aroer on the Arnon, to the south of Reuben, and many commentators think that this Aroer must be meant, as otherwise the tribe of Reuben would seem to have been omitted. But this Aroer is regularly called “Aroer on the brink of the valley of Arnon” (Deu 2:36; Deu 4:48; Jos 12:2; Jos 13:9, Jos 13:16); or simply Aroer “in the valley of Arnon” (Deu 3:12; 2Ki 10:33); and cannot possibly be “the city in the midst of the valley of Gad,” nor can this Aroer be “toward Jazer.” Really the difficulty is made by commentators whose idea of the method of the census is superficial. Joab, in commencing it, formed an encampment in the open country on the right-hand side, that is, on the south of Aroer in the tribe of Gad, as being central, with Reuben on the south, and Manasseh on the north. It was “toward Jazer,” that is, it was on the Jazer side of Aroer, and not on the side opposite Rabbah. We, with our simpler way of describing the points of the compass, would merely say that Joab’s camp was in the open pasture land southwest of Aroer. Joab probably selected this spot because, though on the eastern border, it was yet not too far from Jerusalem, was central, and because a brook from Jazer flowing eastward for some distance, and thence to the north past Rabbah, would supply his people with water; and from this camp he would direct the proceedings of those who were to take the census. And as probably there would be considerable oppositionfor the people would see in an act which for four centuries had been in desuetude threats of heavier taxation, of heavier forced labour, and of longer service with the armyJoab would require the presence of a body of troops sufficiently powerful to overawe malcontents. And these would be of no use at Aroer on the Arnon, in the distant south, but must lie eneamped in some central position, whence detachments could rapidly be moved to any place where there was danger of resistance.
2Sa 24:6
Then they came to Gilead. When the enumerators had finished their labours in Reuben and the region south of Aroer, Joab moved his camp northwards, and pitched in Gilead, on the river Jabbek; and, having completed the counting in this part of the tribe of Gad, would next enter the wild regions of Manasseh. It is probable that the tribal princes and local officers actually numbered the people, and that Joab, with a powerful force, constrained them to obedience often against their will. It was possibly this danger of resistance which made David entrust the business to Joab, instead of employing the Levites. The land of Tahtim-hodshi. Gesenius dismisses this name with the remark that it can scarcely be regarded as genuine. The versions give little help; but Thenius cleverly extracts from the LXX; “unto Bashan, which is Edrei.” Others, by a slight change in the Hebrew, read, “the land of the Hittites,” and suppose that Hodshi is a corruption of the Hebrew word for “month,” so that the whole might have been, “They came to the land of the Hittites in the (third) month.” Others, again, suppose that Hodshi is a corruption of the name of the town Kadesh. But the versions would certainly have preserved anything so commonplace as this. When they make mistakes, it is almost invariably in proper names or unusual phrases. The emendation of Thenius is too ingenious to be accepted, but it gives the right sense, namely, that from Gilead and the tribe of Gad the numerators went northward through Bashan and the rest of the half tribe of Manasseh till they came to Dan, the town on the extreme northeast border, and the limit in that direction of the Israelite realm, as Beersheba was its limit on the south. Dan-jaan. Nowhere else is Dan found with this addition, and the Syriac omits it even here. The Vulgate, and Septuagint (Codex Alex.) read Dan-jaar the woodland Dan. Possibly the names of two towns have been run into one, and the original reading was “unto Dan and Ijon” (see 1Ki 15:20). Ijon was on the direct road from Dan to Sidon. Zidon. This was on the extreme northwestern boundary. It did not actually belong to David, but both it and Tyro had apparently placed themselves under his protection, and were bound to render some kind of military service.
2Sa 24:7
Tyre (comp. Jos 19:29). Tyre and the whole coast land between it and Sidon had been too strong for the tribe of Asher, and remained unsubdued. But, like the independent states in India, it acknowlodged the supremacy of the paramount power. The cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites. It is evident from this that even in David’s time there were towns and districts were Hivites and Canaanites dwelt as distinct communities, governed probably by their own laws. But as they were bound to serve in the Israelite armies, they were included in the census, and possibly one of its rosin objects was to learn the number of fighting men of alien races dwelling in Israel. They seem to have been reckoned as belonging to the tribe in whose borders they dwelt. So Baanah and Rechab, the murderers of Ishbosheth, though Beerothites (and therefore Gibeonites, who again were Hivites), were counted to Benjamin (2Sa 4:2). These Gentile communities were chiefly to be found in the north, for which reason it was called “the circuit (Gelil) of the nations” (Isa 9:1), and in later times from Gelil came the name Galilee. The Syriac adds “Jebusites,” and we find Jerusalem occupied by a community of Jebusites living in independence in the very neighbourhood of the warlike tribe of Benjamin (2Sa 5:6). This numbering of the aborigines by David is referred to in 2Ch 2:17, where it is added that Solomon made a separate census of them, and found that there were in Israel no fewer than a hundred and fifty-three thousand six hundred of these aliens.
2Sa 24:8
Nine months and twenty days. This long period seems excessive, if nothing more was intended than merely counting the heads of the people, especially as the census was left unfinished. But there might very probably be difficulties with the aliens dwelling in Israel; and it is still more probable that there was a complete examination of all the military resources of the land. The result showed a very different state of things from that described in 1Sa 13:19-22, and we can well understand the existence of much elation and war lust among the Israelites on the first flush of pride in their new empire.
2Sa 24:9
There were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. In Chronicles the numbers are, “of Israel eleven hundred thousand men, and of Judah four hundred and sixty-five thousand men.” These discrepancies are a remarkable confirmation of the truth of what is said in 1Ch 27:24 that because of the outbreak of the Divine wrath, “the number was not put in the account of the Chronicles of King David.” Neither the writer of the Books of Samuel nor of Chronicles had any official document to refer to; and as the numbers are lump sums, and derived probably from what was said by the enumerators, the more exact four hundred and sixty-five thousand men of the Chronicles might easily in round numbers be called a half million. The other is a much larger discrepancy, and no satisfactory explanation of it has been given. It is, however, quite possible that the additional three hundred thousand men were made up of the thirty-eight thousand Levites, as numbered on a later occasion by David, of the Benjamites, and of the aborigines, who belonged to the northern part of the kingdom, and might be included among “all they of Israel” (1Ch 21:5). The numbers are further attacked on the ground of exaggeration. A million and a half of fighting men means a general population of six or seven millions. Now, Palestine at most does not contain more than eleven thousand square miles, and a population of six millions means five hundred and forty-five persons to every square mile, or one to every acre. The country was undoubtedly very fertile in ancient times, and the ruins of populous cities are found where now there is a waste. But there were vast forests and pasture lands and downs, where there were the means of subsistence for only a few. But we must remember that the enumerators went as far north as Tyre, and counted the inhabitants, therefore, of the seaboard between it and Sidon. Probably they also acted in the same way in the south, where the limits of Simeon were very uncertain. Besides this, there is a very remarkable undesigned coincidence. We read in 1Ch 27:1-34. that David had a force of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men, who formed his regular army, and of whom twenty-four thousand were called up for training every month. But there are reasons for believing that David took for this purpose each fifth man of those of the military age; and thus the whole number of such men would be one million four hundred and forty thousand. This, as Mr. Sime has shown, holds a middle place between the one million three hundred thousand of the Book of Samuel, and the one million five hundred and seventy thousand of Chronicles, and shows that these numbers are not to be rejected on the score of exaggeration.
2Sa 24:10
David’s heart smote him. It appears from 1Ch 27:24 that the census was not completed, and, though Joab had visited Judah, he had not even begun to enrol the names of the men of the tribe of Benjamin (1Ch 21:6). It appears also that the displeasure of God was manifesting itself before David repented (1Ch 21:7; 1Ch 27:24). Some sign of this, either in public trouble, or in the brooding of the pestilential miasma over the land, brought home to David’s mind the conviction of sin; and he at once humbled himself before God, for the vanity of mind which had engendered in him a wicked lust after martial glory and thirst for bloodshed. I have done very foolishly.
2Sa 24:11
For when, etc.; Hebrew, and David arose in the morning, and a word of Jehovah came unto Gad, a seer of David, saying. The visit of the seer was the result of David’s repentance, and not its cause. And he was sent in mercy, that, after such punishment as would cure both king and people of their folly, there might be for both forgiveness. The name for seer is not roeh, the old word used in 1Sa 9:9, and which simply means “one who sees;” but chozeh, a gazer, one who looks with fixed eyes, that penetrate into the hidden world.
2Sa 24:13
Seven years of famine. In 1Ch 21:12 and here in the Septuagint we find “three years.” This is probably right as being in harmony with the rest. Three years of famine, three months of defeat, or three days of pestilence. In Eze 14:21 famine, pestilence, and the sword are mentioned as three of God’s four sore judgments. But a fourth judgment is there enumerated, namely, that of the increase of wild beasts, and Joshua the Stylite says that in Mesopotamia, as a result of the desolating war between the Romans and Persians, about A.D. 505, beasts of prey had become so numerous that they entered the villages and carried off the children from the streets, and were so bold and ferocious that even the men scarcely dared go about their labours in the fields. Now advise, and see; Hebrew, now know, and see. The phrase is common in the historical books (see 1Sa 12:17; 1Sa 14:38; 1Sa 23:22; 1Sa 24:11; 1Sa 25:17, etc.). Our translators render the phrase in a multitude of ways without greatly improving it.
2Sa 24:14
Let us fall now into the hand of Jehovah. David had sinned against God, and to God he humbly submitted himself. There would thus be nothing to come between the soul and God, and prevent the chastisement from having its due effect upon the heart. A famine would indeed equally come from God, but would necessitate effort and exertion on man’s part. In the pestilence he would wait patiently, nor look to anything but prayer for averting God’s judgment. In Psa 51:1 David refers to God’s mercies, in much the same way as here, as being a motive to repentance.
2Sa 24:15
Even to the time appointed. This rendering, though very uncertain, is retained in the Revised Version. It would mean, of course, the end of the third day, as the pestilence was to last for that time. The objections to it are that there is no article in the Hebrew, so that literally it would be “unto a time appointed.” Secondly, the pestilence did not continue unto the time appointed, but was mercifully stayed. And thirdly, these words are a literal translation, indeed, of the Vulgate, but a violation of its meaning. For Jerome, who made the translation, says, “‘tempus constitutum’ means the hour when the evening sacrifice was offered” (‘Tradd. Hebrews in Duos Libres Regum’). The versions all agree that the pestilence lasted only a few hours. Thus the Syriac translates, “From morning until the sixth hour,” i.e. noon. So too the Septuagint, “From morning until the midday meal.” The Vulgate adds on thrice hours, as the evening sacrifice was at the ninth hour; and this is the meaning of the Chaldee Paraphrase: “From the time the daily sacrifice was slain until it was burnt.” As the word moed used here means both a time or place appointed for a meeting, and also the meeting itself, the right translation probably is, “From the morning even to the time of assembly,” or, as we should say, “the hour of service.” Moed was the regular word for the time of the temple service, derived from the old name of the tabernacle, which was called “the tent of moed” (see Num 16:19, etc.), rendered iu the Authorized Version, “the tabernacle of the congregation,” and in the Revised Version, “the tent of meeting.” The hour would thus be the ninth, or three o’clock in the afternoon. Seventy thousand men. This is a vast number to fall victims of the pestilence in so short a time, as even the most dangerous forms of sickness take some days for their development. But similarly the army of Sennacherib was cut off in a night (Isa 37:36); as were the firstborn in Egypt, whose visitation more nearly resembles the course of this pestilence; and the rapidity of the death blow, striking down so vast a multitude suddenly throughout all parts of the land, would be proof to every mind that the mortality was the Divine chastisement for national sin. It is possible, nevertheless, that the black death cloud, bringing with it the plague, may have been settling down upon the land previously, and have alarmed David, and brought him to repentance; and though no new cases occurred after the offering of his burnt offerings (2Sa 24:25), yet it by no means follows that all cases of infection were miraculously cured. The malady may have run in them its normal course. It was Jerusalem that was saved from the blow, and, after the offering of the burnt offering, the pestilence smote down no more.
2Sa 24:16
The angel. In the next verse we are told that David saw the angel, and more fully in 1Ch 21:16 that he beheld him “standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand.” The pestilence plainly was not a natural visitation; though possibly the means used was a simoom, or poisonous wind, advancing with terrible rapidity throughout Israel. The Lord repented. In all the dealings of God’s providence, his actions are made to depend upon human conduct. Looked at from above, from God’s side, all things are foreknown and immutably fixed; looked at from man’s side, all is perpetually changing as man changes. The rescue of Jerusalem as the result of David’s penitence and prayers, is thus to human view a change in the counsels and even in the feelings of him who changeth not. The threshing place. “The threshing floor,” as rightly translated in 1Ch 21:18, 1Ch 21:21, 1Ch 21:24. Threshing floors were constructed, whenever possible, on eminences, that the wind might drive the chaff and dust away. Araunah’s was on the east of Jerusalem, outside the walls, upon Mount Moriah, and was the site on which the temple was built (see 2Ch 3:1). Araunah. The name is so spelt seven times in 1Ch 21:20-24, for which reason the Massorites have substituted it for Avarnah, found in this verse in the Hebrew text, and for Aranyah in 1Ch 21:18. In 1Ch 21:1-30 the name is spelt Ornan; in the Septuagint in all places, , Orna, and in the Syriac, Oron. The name is, of course, a Jebusite word, and the variation arises from the narrators having written down the sound as it caught their ears. In this, as in many other particulars, it is clear that the chronicler derived his account from independent Sources.
2Sa 24:17
I have done wickedly; Hebrew, I have done perversely, or crookedly. David acknowledges that his conduct had not been upright and straightforward, but that he had turned aside into the paths of self-will and personal aggrandizement. These sheep, what have they done? The sin had been quite as much that of the people as of the king; for the war lust had entered into the very heart of the nation. But David, with that warmth of feeling which makes his character so noble, can see only his own fault. It is not a true repentance when the sinner looks for excuses, and apportions the blame between himself and others. To David the people seemed innocent, or, if at all to blame, he felt that it was he who had set them the example and led them on. The narrative in this place is much briefer than in Chronicles.
2Sa 24:18
Go up. David probably, on receiving God’s message, had gone to the tent which he had pitched for the ark in Zion (2Sa 6:17), in order that he might pray there; and while on his way he saw the dark plague cloud coming as the messenger of God’s wrath to smite Jerusalem. In an agony of grief, he poured out his prayer that Jerusalem might be spared, and God heard him, and sent Gad a second time to bid him offer sacrifice, that, by making an atonement, he might stand between the dead and the living, as Aaron had done in the wilderness (Num 16:46-48) He is therefore to leave the tabernacle, and mount up to the summit on which Araunah’s threshing floor was situated. We read in 1Ch 21:28-30 that David wished to go to Gibeon, where the Mosaic tabernacle and altar of burnt offering were, to inquire of God, but that he was afraid, as the angel of the pestilence was smiting outside the walls. This is mentioned as an excuse for his offering at an unconsecrated spot. But it also suggests that David’s choice was a submission to a chastisement already at work.
2Sa 24:20
Araunah saw the king. In 1Ch 21:20, “saw the angel;” but the text there is apparently corrupt, the difference, moreover, in Hebrew between “king” and “angel” being very slight. The addition there of the story of Araunah’s four sons hiding themselves is very lifelike and natural. For these remnants of the aborigines, though tolerated, yet held a very insecure position, as we have seen in the dealings of Saul with the Gibeonites; and the coming of the king with his retinue to the out of the way spot where Araunah was at work, no doubt filled them all with terror.
2Sa 24:22
Behold, here be oxen. Araunah was threshing out his wheat by dragging sledges or frames of wood without wheels over it. All these he at once gives to David, that the sacrifice may be offered without delay, as it would have cost much time and labour to bring wood up from the city. Instead of and other instruments of the oxen, the Hebrew has “the harness or furniture of the oxen,” all of which was of wood.
2Sa 24:23
All these did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. The Hebrew is, “The whole gave Araunah the king to the king;” and so the Vulgate, dedit Areuna rex regi. The rendering of the Revised Version (and Keil), “All this, O king, doth Araunah give unto the king,” requires a change both of the order and of the tense. It is, of course, possible (though highly is probable) that Araunah was the representative of the kings of Jebus, and a titular monarch, like the Maori king in New Zealand. But the word is omitted in the Septuagint and Syriac, and is probably a mere repetition of the following word. The remark is made in order to point out Araunah’s generosity; and to mark even more clearly how hearty and sincere he was in his offering, the narrator adds, in Araunah’s own words, his prayer for God’s acceptance of David and his offering.
2Sa 24:24, 2Sa 24:25
David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. In 1Ch 21:25, “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.” There is a superficial, but no real discrepancy between these two narratives. David gave the fifty shekels for the immediate use of the place, and for the oxen and implements. He had no idea at the time of permanently occupying it, and probably the note in the LXX; interpolated by scribes from the margin into the text, is true, “And Solomon added to the altar afterwards, for it was small at the first.” It was a small altar hurriedly put together for the purpose of offering one sacrifice; and fifty shekels would be full compensation. But the sacrifice had hallowed the spot, and, when finally it was selected as the site for the temple, David bought the whole area and all that Araunah possessed there. Fifty shekels of silver would be about 9; six hundred shekels of gold would be about 1500; so that there is no comparison between the two sums. But the precious metals were worth very much more in David’s time than in ours, so that the smaller sum was adequate compensation for David’s first acquisition, while the larger implies the purchase of an extensive and valuable estate. Substantially the fuller narrative in Chronicles agrees with this. David refuses to sacrifice of that which cost him nothing, and must therefore have at once paid for what he took. But When God accepted his offering, and answered him by fire from heaven, then David said, “This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel.” And as the Chronicler has in view throughout the selection of the site for the temple, he naturally mentions its full cost. In the Book of Samuel this purpose is not expressly mentioned, and the narrative closes with the forgiveness of the sin both of David and his people. Jehovah was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed. But this sudden smiting down of so large a host humbled both king and people, and their eagerness for war and their lust of empire ceased. DEO GLORIA.
HOMILETICS
2Sa 24:1-9
The facts are:
1. On account of some transgressions, God, being angry with Israel, permits some one to incite David to number the people.
2. David, on issuing his commands to Joab, is met with a remonstrance from him and the captains of the host.
3. But the king persisting in his desire, Joab and his officers and men apply themselves to the work, and at the end of nine months and twenty days return the number of men capable of serving in war at 1,300,000. The difficulties involved in the statements of this section may be, at least, lightened by a few considerations. The parallel passage in 1Ch 21:1-30. mentions, in an indefinite way, an adversary as the instrument of inciting the mind of David. It is in accordance with the order of the Divine government sometimes to allow agencies to act on the minds of men for purposes of trial and especially for discipline. Adam was assailed. Satan had permission to tempt Job. David recognizes the possibility of Saul being incited against himself by God (the Hiph. as here, ); 1Sa 26:19. A spirit or agency inclining to evil is said to go forth or be sent from God, when the idea of permitting the free action of evil influences as a means of punishment for previous sins is to be inculcated (Jdg 9:23; 1Sa 16:14; 2Sa 16:10; 1Ki 22:21-23). The ascription of actions to God in almost absolute terms, where in reality the Divine action is a withdrawal of restraint, is a strong Hebraism, as seen in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (cf. Isa 6:9, Isa 6:10; Isa 63:17; Mat 13:13-15). It is no uncommon thing for sin to be punished by sin (Psa 17:13, Psa 17:14; cf. Isa 10:5, Isa 10:6). Now, accepting this general teaching as to some of God’s methods when trial or chastisement are in view, we find in 1Sa 21:1-15. that the nation was chastised for a previous national or semi-national sin. It seems, therefore, natural that the expression (1Sa 21:1), “And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel,” really sets forth the event of this chapter as being a second instance of national suffering on account of public sin; the difference being that in 1Sa 21:1-15. the famine became a fact before the occasion is revealed, while here the fact of sin is first stated, and the human instrumentality of bringing on the punishment is then set forth. David had sinned in the matter of Uriah, and been punished. Absalom had sinned in rebelling, and had also been punished. But he was not the only sinner. Israel had revolted under him against the Lord’s anointed, and was there to be no punishment for Israel as a people? The whole history of the dealings of God with them gives the reply. Apart from any recent unrecorded sin, there is, then, historical continuity in the words, “The anger of the Lord” was again “kindled against Israel.” The peculiarity of the case is thisthat the free falling of David into a snare of pride and undue reliance on material strength became the occasion and means by which the transgression of Israel was chastised, while he, being quite free in his sin, was also caused to suffer for it.
Deferred chastisements.
Some time evidently had elapsed between the sin of Israel and the expression of Divine anger against it (1Sa 21:1). This and the other Book of Samuel sets forth the chief cases of public visitation on account of sin, e.g. Eli, Saul,. David, Absalom; and, in keeping with this, the conduct of the people in revolting against the Lord’s anointed is now made the occasion of Divine displeasure. With reference to deferred chastisements observe
I. THAT GOD SOMETIMES WAITS TILL EVENTS SERVE THE PURPOSE OF CHASTISEMENT. The chastisement of Eli did not come till national affairs so far developed as to issue in a disastrous defeat of Israel. David’s sin bore its bitter fruit some months and years after committal. The sin of the house of Saul was brought home to the conscience of the nation after his death (2Sa 21:1). So here the wicked conduct of the nation in rejecting David, God’s chosen servant, was allowed to remain relatively unnoticed, as though God were waiting for such a development of events in the natural course of things as would serve the purposes of chastisement. Nations, Churches, and individuals are still allowed to go on for a while till events mature for bringing upon them the reward of their deeds.
II. THAT THE EVENTS WHICH SERVE FOR CHASTISEMENT ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FREE ACTION OF OTHERS. The free action of the Philistines brought on Eli’s trouble. The free action of Absalom and Israel was the means of chastising David for his sin in the case of Uriah. The natural development of famine, united with a revelation of God’s overruling purposes, smote Israel for the national crime against the Gibeonites (2Sa 21:1-4). So here the free action of some evil person or agent on the free mind of David was the natural event which issued in his official sin, and in his punishment in such a form as to bring on Israel the chastisement which all along they were deserving for their revolt. The same is seen in the free action of Babylon bringing on the chastisement of captivity, and of Rome in bringing on the chastisement of the dispersion due for rejection of Christ. God may wait long before he brings on what is due to sin; but all free events are in his hands, and he will use up some of them when fit conditions arise.
III. THE FREE ACTION OF MEN BY WHICH THEY ARE MEANS OF CHASTISING OTHERS; FOR SIN MAY BE ITSELF SINFUL AND SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT. David’s free act in yielding to the inducement to number the people was a sin. It was displeasing to God. It was a case of sin opening the way for a chastisement for sin. There were circumstances in David’s personal and official position which rendered it natural that his deed should be at once disowned, and in that disownment there came the rod which smote also for the past sin of Israel. The acts of Babylon and Rome were wicked, though they were the rod by which God smote his people. It is by a most wonderful adjustment that God thus makes sin the avenger of sin; and so, in course of ages, sin tends to establish that very righteousness of God which in its initiation it sought to set aside. All the resources of God are at his command at any time for expressing his anger against sin; but he does not create new agencieshe uses up what is in existence, and utilizes the successive acts even of the wicked. It is a solemn fact that though judgment be deferred it is not, the less sure (2Pe 2:3). Here is a warning to the impenitent, and a restraint on all The injured may rest assured that God will bring a recompense (Rom 12:19).
The subtle power of a sinful motive.
The narrative simply states outward facts; but the form of them compels the belief that David’s actions were now governed by a subtle motive, sinful in its nature, complete in its mastery over intellect and will, and so able to dominate his entire nature that its own real character should all the time be disguised. It is a difficult matter to disintegrate the complex movements of the mind or to present an accurate psychological analysis of an act of sin; but we may trace in David’s ease a few features of sin in its subjective workings. An underlying sinful motive may so operate as
I. TO SECURE BEFORE THE INTELLECT A GOOD ARRAY OF REASONS FOR AN ACT. David must have formulated reasons for his proposal to number the people. Most probably he thought it was a natural thing after all the vicissitudes the nation had passed through. It would afford an occasion of showing how God had blessed and prospered the people. He would be in a better position to make up any defects that might be discovered in the defences of the country. The knowledge of their unity and strength would give encouragement and confidence to men apprehensive of danger from without. The result, becoming known among neighbouring nations, would act as a check on their aggressiveness. His successor to the throne would be in possession of facts that would help his administration of affairs, and there would be some comfort in seeing how far Israel was realizing the hopes held out to their ancestors. Such reasons may seem to be the outcome of mere intellectual activity; but in reality they are set in order by the subtle influence of the ruling motive over the intellectual powers. Men do not know to what extent the form and order of their thinkings are determined by the governing desire. Herein lies much of the deceitfulness of sin. The useful nature of facts can easily be seen when the disposition would have it so. The devil was a clever reasoner in Eden. The inner adversary of our soul, be it evil motive or propensity, practically, by influence over the intellect, performs the part of a cogent reasoner, and makes out a case for the consent of the reason.
II. TO DIVERT CONSCIENCE FROM ITSELF. Conscience was alive in David when first the question of numbering occurred to him, but when once the idea is entertained and the subtle unspoken motive has strengthened its hold on the mind by being temporarily cherished, it so operates as to weaken the gaze of conscience on itself and virtually divert it to more incidental circumstances. An evil motive cannot live face to face with a live conscience; but if by persistence it can get lodgment among the many feelings of the heart, and as it were be hidden from direct single gaze, it can, by its contagions nature, create a condition of things that the conscience shall be occupied with other evils inferior in rank, while it does its deadly work almost without coming into consciousness. So many a man finds his conscience busy with straining out a gnat while the evil disposition most cherished is free to devour a camel. Hence, even great sinners are sometimes precise and punctilious in minor matters.
III. TO GIVE OBSTINACY TO THE WILL. It seems strange that David should have ventured to go against the deliberate protest of Joab and the chief military men. His disregard of Joab’s wishes can, perhaps, be explained by his previous quarrels with him; but that he should have gone against the judgment of the chief men in the army is explicable only on the moral and psychological principle that the subtle power of an evil motive, when cherished, imparts a peculiar obstinacy to the will. We see this in human life. The persistence of men in carrying out a sinful feeling, active though not perhaps distinct in consciousness, is amazing. The will is so imbued with the feeling as to be proof against all reason and all but physical force. This is the real bondage. This led Augustine to say that man, as a sinner, is not free. There is something akin to the blindness and insensibility and mechanical necessity of physical forces in a will subject to the rule of a sinful motive.
IV. TO ENSURE SELF–COMPOSURE. David seems to have set about this business with coolness, and to have been calmly determined to see it through. There was no excitement, and whatever occasional gleams of conscience may have fallen on the dark recesses where the hidden sinful motive lay doing its subtle work, they did not permanently affect the self-possession of his life. The sudden breaking of the spell came after the nine months and twenty days. Restlessness and anxiety during a sinful course can only arise when conscience and desire are face to face, and conscience is not diverted from its gaze. When the governing feeling has, by subtle action, brought intellect, conscience, and will into subjection, or rather when its nature has somehow tainted and weakened them all, there is a peace and composure which, if not of God, is nevertheless serviceable for the execution of a purpose. It is the bane of some wicked men that their strength is firm. It is an evil omen for a religious man when he is undisturbed in doing what others know to be wrong. “Grey hairs are upon him, and he knoweth it not.”
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It becomes men in the most favourable circumstances to remember that they are olden to incitements to evil as truly as the most unfavoured.
2. The more elevated our position in the religious life the more subtle are the temptations of the great adversary.
3. It is possible for a really good man to becloud his last days by falling into sin through lack of watchfulness and prayer against the more secret forms of evil.
2Sa 24:10-17
A king’s sin and a people’s chastisement.
The facts are:
1. David, reflecting on the accomplishment of his purpose, comes to a consciousness of his sin, and makes confession before God.
2. In the morning the Prophet Gad is sent to him from. the Lord, offering him, as a choice of a chastisement, either seven years’ famine, or three months’ defeat before his enemies, or three days’ pestilence.
3. David, in his anguish, elects to fall into the hands of God.
4. Thereupon God sends a pestilence which carries off seventy thousand men.
5. There being some relenting in the anger of God when the pestilence reached Jerusalem, David entreats with the angel of the Lord by the threshing floor of Araunah, that he would have pity on the people and rather smite him and his house. The various truths taught in this section may be briefly set forth thus.
I. THE REACTION OF MAN‘S SPIRITUAL NATURE. For more than nine months the unhallowed feeling which prompted the numbering of the people had held sway, and now during the silence of night the spiritual man that had been suppressed again asserts his power. David comes to himself, and sees his conduct in a Divine light. The supremacy of sin means a depression of the better nature. The awakening to a sense of sin is the reaction of that better nature. The same was seen in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah. The prodigal son’s coming to himself is an instance; as also the repentance of every sinner. The causes and occasions of the reaction may come from without, but there can he no doubt that the change does lie in a reaction. The spell is broken, and the higher nature of man once more asserts itself.
II. THE CAUSES AND OCCASIONS OF THE SOUL‘S BREAKING THE SPELL OF SIN ARE DEFINITE. David came to himself most probably for three reasons.
1. Difficulties of carrying out his project may have pressed on him the need of reflection; for not only were Joab and the captains reluctant workers, but long time elapsed, and so strong was the opposition that two tribes were not counted (1Ch 21:4).
2. The strain of persistence would, by psychological law, enfeeble purpose. He could not go on forever in a line of sin; exhaustion of moral motive is a reality.
3. The gracious action of God would revive the latent and suppressed sense of right; for though the Holy Spirit is grieved, he does not depart forever from the erring. The same is true still. External difficulties of a sinful course make the way hard, and so give chance for reflection and reaction of the better self. The exhaustion and satiety of persistence in evil tends to open a way for the action of Divine influence. The misery of the prodigal, the weariness of sin, the loss of early novelty, do not turn men, but they render other more spiritual action more timely. The real cause which turns these occasions to account is the gracious action of the Holy Spirit.
III. THE CHANGED ESTIMATE OF CONDUCT UNDER THE LIGHT OF GOD‘S SPIRIT. As we have seen (2Sa 24:1-9), plausible reasons could be assigned for numbering the people, but now that in the silence of night the light had come, that which once was reasonable and proper, and persisted in as essential, is folly and sin. It is only in the light which God causes to shine into our hearts that we can see what is the real character of some of the motives lurking there. Saul of Tarsus came to see himself in the light of God, and the old life in which he had prided himself became his shame. No man knows himself apart from Divine illumination. Repentance marks the change undergone in a man’s estimate of himself in the sight of God.
IV. THE ANTITHESIS OF SIN AND RIGHT REASON. When David confessed before God that in what he had done he had acted foolishly, he not only expressed a changed estimate of his conduct, but also illustrated a universal truth. Sin and wisdom are incompatible; they are mutually exclusive. The lie from the beginning has been that it is good for man to do his own will. The wisdom of being “as gods” was the first of snares. The votaries of pleasure and the scornful rejecters of the supernatural Christ deem themselves wise in following the bent of their unholy and proud disposition. The wise “disputer of this world” looks with contempt on “the foolishness of preaching” and of the obedience to Christ which is its object. Yes, like David, in his sin, they have their day; but just as he found at last that his wisdom was all the time folly, so others will find that wisdom is utterly removed from their preference of their own to the will of Christ. Sin is the most desperate folly. It debases man’s nature, entails numberless ills for body and spirit, interferes with the true development of the mind and the acquisition and enjoyment of the treasures of good hid in nature, inflicts a stigma and leaves a stain that unfit for the highest society in the universe, and, moreover, mars the future possibly beyond recovery. Holiness and wisdom alone coincide. To go against the will of God is a species of madness. The history of individuals and of nations is proof of it.
V. GOD‘S WATCHFULNESS OVER REPENTING SINNERS. It was a long solitary night when David came to see the folly and sin of his conduct. The outpouring of his penitent heart was known to no human being. The most sacred experiences of life are secrets between the soul and God. But yet in the morning, just at the right time, the messenger of God came to him. His mission was to offer alternative chastisements, but there was implied in it forgiveness. The eye of God had seen the inner workings of the broken spirit, and the occasion was seized to bring David again into more direct communication with his God. In the case of Bathsheba Nathan had awakened penitence; here Gad came to help forward the good work begun in penitence. The cry of Saul of Tarsus was heard in heaven, and to help him a servant of God was prepared to speak the words suitable to his case. The ear of the Lord is ever open to the cry of the humble, and his eye is on their sorrows. Some message or messenger will be sent to them to confirm the fact of their awakening to a sense of sin, and do what is best for their restoration. Let every penitent remember that God hears the cry in the night, and sees all the desires of the broken heart.
VI. THE ADAPTATION OF CHASTISEMENT TO SIN. In the alternative choice of David as to the form of chastisement there is secured the same adaptation of the infliction to the nature of the sin. Many explanations have been offered of this sin, but we prefer to consider its essence to lie in a sense of elation in the strength of the nation, and a consequent desire to be assured of its sufficiency for all contingencies. David was thinking of strength and glory in numerical form. In this he was going counter to the letter and spirit of the Law laid down for him and his people (Lev 26:1-46.). Success and prosperity were to be dependent on perfect obedience to God’s commands (Le 26:3, 4)? It is expressly added that then a few men will suffice against a host, and, on the other hand, disobedience and “pride of power” (2Sa 24:14, 2Sa 24:15-19) will entail defeat and desolation. That this “pride of power” was the real sin in David’s case is seen in thisthat the three alternatives offered to him are the very three forms of chastisement alluded to in Le 26:3-10 (cf. 16-20). But the point is this, that, whichever form of chastisement is taken, the effect is the samea diminution of the power which was an object of pride. The sin of rejoicing in the “arm of flesh” (Jer 17:5; cf. Isa 30:2) was visited by a weakening of that “arm.” Famine, war, pestilence, either, would take away from that very number which it was David’s ambition to know and have as large as possible. This adaptation of chastisement to sin is seen elsewhere. The infliction for wicked craving for flesh in the wilderness (Num 11:33), the confusion and helplessness of those who sought help in Egypt rather than in God (Isa 30:2, Isa 30:3, Isa 30:16, Isa 30:17), the turning of Laodicean outward respectability into a loss of all respectability (Rev 3:14-18), the change from boasted glory to corruption in the case of Herod (Act 12:21-23),are instances of a certain adaptation of chastisement to the particular sin committed. All who make self, or personal merits, or created power, a substitute for God, will find that on which they rest vanishing just when they most need comfort.
VII. THE PENITENT‘S TRUST IN THE JUSTICE AND MERCY OF GOD. Of the three dreadful alternatives, David took the pestilence, on the ground that his broken heart could rest more calmly in God’s judgments, where the human element was not employed as agent. Here was the true instinct of the soul. God is just and good, and in his hands all is sure to be right and kind. Man is weak and evil, and as an agent may blend his own base passions with the execution of a Divine decree. Even in the hour of suffering, when sin is to be punished, the heart has faith in God. Here is homage to God’s justice and mercy. Many a man, who by his sins brings terrible wars on himself and family, bows in entire submission, and rests in blended justice and mercy. This is the essence of our faith in Christ as Sacrifice for sin.
VIII. THE RELATIVE CHARACTER OF OPEN MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD‘S PRESENCE. There is nothing really surprising in the appearing of the angel of the Lord to David; for it is in keeping with the theophanies of the early dispensation, when men had special need to be reminded of the reality of God’s presence. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Manoah, were predecessors of David in this respect. The step from the message of God by the Seer Gad to a visible manifestation is not very great to any one who believes at all in the supernatural; indeed, the final manifestation of God in Christ covers all prior manifestations. Those who profess to see difficulties in these Old Testament accounts do not understand the logic or the historical congruity of their position as believers in the visible incarnation of the Son of God. Manifestations of God’s presence are relative. Creation is an expression of the being and presence of God. The voice which comes to prophet or apostle, the glory on which Moses gazed, the pillar of cloud and of fire, the appearance of manna after the promise of it, the vision of the seer, the still small voice to Elijah, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the frustration of the scheme of the wicked and the furtherance of those of the good, and the spiritual revelation to the soul in fulfilment of the precious words (Joh 14:21, Joh 14:22),these are all manifestations of God. Christ differs from all in that he is the Fulness of the Godhead bodily. It is a mercy that our poor dull nature has been blessed by these demonstrations of the reality of things unseen and eternal.
IX. MENTAL SUFFERING THE CHIEF PENALTY OF SIN. David sinned in numbering the people; the pestilence smote many of them, but touched him not. Nevertheless, he was the greatest sufferer; for no physical death could equal, in the pain it brings, the anguish of his soul in seeing that his sin had brought such trouble and pain on “these sheep” (verse 17). To a man of his generous nature, with all the ambition to be a good and wise ruler (2Sa 23:3-5), it must have been torment unspeakable to see that he was an occasion of bringing woe to thousands of homes. His punishment was heavy indeed. A similar terrible mental punishment comes to the parent who sees, in his reformed years, his children diseased or ruined by former sins of his own. In this mental anguish lies, perhaps, the hell which men so much dread.
X. THE PARCIMONY OF PROVIDENCE. David was not correct in his supposition that “these sheep” had not gone astray. We are not certain whether they had indulged in feelings of pride in the strength of Israel, and so were virtually one with their king in the sin of numbering; but we know that they had sinned in the revolt of Absalom and Sheba, and the anger of the Lord against Israel may, as we have seen (verses 1-9), be referred to those acts. The fact that they had not been chastised for so great a sin is manifest, so far as the history is any guide, though, if Absalom’s sin deserved special visitation on him, theirs equally deserved a visitation on themselves. The sense of the whole history, therefore, is that God waited, and made the occasion of the new sin of their king the opportunity of visiting them with stripes while visiting him with stripes for his own. Indeed, the severity of his chastisement lay much in this, that he was the instrumental occasion of their woe. By one pestilence the double chastisement was secured. Philosophy has dwelt much on the “law of parcimony” in nature. It seems also to run through many providential dispensations in relation to man. By the Flood God punished wicked men and set forth his faithfulness to the righteous. The institution of the Hebrew ritual both educated men in spiritual conceptions, and kept them distinct from the nations for the ulterior purpose of Christ’s coming. The sacrifice of Christ is at the same time an objective ground of forgiveness, and the most impressive source of moral influence in winning men over to God. There are manifold forms of the same law in daily life.
2Sa 24:18-25
The facts are:
1. The Seer Gad having directed David to rear an altar to the Lord in the threshing floor of Araunah, he proceeds to carry out the instruction.
2. Araunah, observing the approach of David and his servants, makes obeisance, and desires to know the purport of his visit.
3. Ascertaining that David desired to buy the threshing floor that he might there entreat for the staying of the plague, he generously offers all that was requisite for the sacrifices, and expresses the hope that God might be propitious.
4. But David, not caring to offer to God what cost him nothing, insists on purchasing the place and the oxen required.
5. The offering being presented on the altar, the plague ceases to trouble Israel.
The way to reconciliation with God a matter of Divine revelation.
God had graciously condescended to reveal himself in visible form both to assure David that the plague was more than a mere natural course of disease (2Sa 24:17), and to render an approach to himself more accessible. The chief effect, however, on David was to deepen his conviction of sin and his pity for his suffering people. His prayer, like that of Moses, was that he might suffer if so be they be set free. It was not till the seer came the next day that David learnt what course to take in order to secure reconciliation, not only for the people, but for himself also. God reveals to man the way of reconciliation.
I. THIS IS TRUE OF THE GROUND OF OUR SALVATION IN CHRIST. As surely as the prophet from God informed David as to what was to be done in order to find favour with God and escape the plague, so surely has God revealed in his Word the fact that through Christ alone do we find favour and eternal life. The work of redemption by the sacrifice of Christ was not discovered by the exercise of human reason. In the desert, when Israel was perishing, God ordained the lifting up of the serpent, and caused information of the fact to be given. In our desert life God sent his beloved Son, independently of our asking or knowledge, and commissioned his servants to announce the way of salvation. Reason may enable us to ascertain the reality of the historic fact, but reason could not discover the way of reconciliation. The Apostle Paul declares that he received it not of man, but of God. They do not understand the gospel who imagine that man, by his learning or reason, could ever find out, apart from special revelation, the only way to God.
II. IT IS TRUE OF THE MEANS BY WHICH SALVATION BECOMES PERSONAL. Salvation may be spoken of in general terms, and in this sense is too often the subject of discussion. But it is, also, a matter of personal experience. The end for which Christ lived and died becomes realized in individual souls, in the form of actual forgiveness, restoration to favour, newness of life and progressive holiness. By what means this is to be brought about, so far as our action is concerned, is purely a matter of revelation. It is revealed from heaven to be of faith (Rom 1:17). As Christ was the Gift of God, so the revelation that we are saved by Christ on condition of our faith is also the gift of God. It was made known to David that sacrifice would be the ground of pardon, and that his personal use or application of that to the need of the hour was the means of his obtaining the benefit of it. The place of our faith in our salvation from the plague of sin is not a question of human speculation: it is fixed by him who gave the sacrifice.
III. IT IS TRUE OF OUR INDIVIDUAL APPRECIATION OF WHAT GOD HAS ALREADY MADE KNOWN. The spiritual bearing of the acts enjoined on David could only be spiritually discerned. That Christ is our great Sacrifice, and that faith is the means by which we are to appropriate it;these are things plainly revealed in Scripture, and could only be known as Divine ordinations by special revelation; but they are a dead letter to multitudes. We need the revelation of their spiritual bearing to our own souls by the Holy Spirit; and it is only as the Holy Spirit takes of these things pertaining to Christ and reveals them to our individual spirit that we see their force and value their application. Hence a revelation of the matter of revelation is needful to conversion. Hence many read and speak about salvation who never see its real significance or know it as a matter of personal experience. The invisible messenger of God must come to us as truly as the seer came to David, if we are to see his salvation (Joh 3:5).
Devotion of property to God’s service.
Araunah was eager to provide a place and oxen for the celebration of the services about to be rendered to God. His interest in David, in Israel, and his homage for God seem to have prompted the generous proposal. On the other hand, David’s sense of what was due to God from himself, and his personal interest in the solemn transaction, would not suffer him to be spared cost through the generosity of Araunah. He must honour God with his own and not with another man’s possessions.
I. ALL OUR POSSESSIONS ARE GOD‘S. This is the basis of our devotion of what we hold to his service. We are really but stewards. Our mental powers, our wealth, our personal influence, our very life, are lent to us for a season, and lent with a view to use in God’s Name. This is laid down in the words, “Ye are not your own;” in the parable of the talents; in the very constitution and dependence of our lives; in the specific commands concerning “firstfruits;” and this was practically recognized by both David and Araunah in their emulation in self-sacrifice. It would be a great gain to the Church and world if Christian people would only let this truth sink deeply into their hearts. What elevation, tone, and nobility it would import to life!
II. THERE IS NO NOBLER USE OF POSSESSIONS THAN IN GOD‘S SERVICE. David and Araunah were one in this belief. They strove for the honour of devoting substance to God. In a well-ordered Christian life all is devoted to God. The entire life, embracing mental powers, occupations, property, time, is a sacrifice (Rom 12:1). But by reason of custom we recognize that as specially devoted to God which is directly employed in maintaining his holy worship or diffusing a knowledge of his great mercy to mankind. The wonderful way in which the priesthood was set apart, the distinction put in Scripture on men whose lives were chiefly spent in witnessing for God, the significant words of our Saviour in reference to the widow’s mite and the box of ointment, and the glorying of the Apostle Paul in that he was called and counted worthy of a special ministry,these things point out the honour of using our gifts and possessions in furtherance of God’s gracious purposes to mankind.
III. THE USE OF OUR POSSESSIONS IN GOD‘S SERVICE IS A MEANS OF VAST BLESSING MANKIND. By devoting their substance to God on this occasion, David and Araunah knew that they would be doing that which, being graciously accepted, would issue in the removal of the plague from Israel. No wonder that they were ambitious to lay their gifts at the mercy seat! It was a question of staying the plague. Equally in our case it is daily a question of staying the plague, lifting the curse of sin and scattering the wholesome blessings of salvation over the land. He who builds a sanctuary, or endows a college, or send forth missionaries, turns his money into streams of spiritual good.
IV. A TRUE HEART WILL FIND PURE SATISFACTION IN DEVISING MEANS OF DEVOTING GIFTS TO GOD. David honoured the noble impulse of Arannah, but he could not be deprived of the satisfaction claimed by every true man of giving of his own. There is a real blessedness in laying our gifts of mind and body and our material possessions at the altar of God. The meanness which would worship at others’ expense, or look on spiritual good done at others’ cost, can never dwell in a Christly soul. As the Saviour himself counted it a deep and holy joy to lay down his life for others, so all who enter into his spirit feel it to be a matter of thankfulness when occasion arises for some surrender in his service. The bountiful soul is always rich. The large heart is never in poverty. The joy of their Lord is their portion.
V. IT IS BY THE USE OF SUCH ACTS OF DEVOTION TO HIS SERVICE THAT GOD HAS HITHERTO BLESSED THE WORLD. The self-surrender of Abraham when he left Ur of the Chaldees, the devotion by Moses of his great powers to the leadership of Israel, were simply conspicuous instances in the entire history of redemption of God’s acceptance and use of human powers and possessions for carrying out his great purpose of mercy. David was following the usual order in the case before us. Even our blessed Lord came to earth by means of the devotion of a virgin life. The “good news” has been sent abroad by consecration of human speech. Who would not fall in with this glorious succession till the world is saved?
Plague and prayer.
The narrative plainly teaches that this plague was ordained of God for moral ends, and that it was stayed by means of the intercession offered in the manner suited to the age of shadowy sacrifice before the offering of the eternal sacrifice by Christ.
I. AFFLICTIVE EVENTS ARE SOMETIMES TO BE REGARDED AS DIVINE CHASTISEMENTS. This was true of the event here referred to. No sensible man can doubt it. The only way to get rid of the fact is to regard this portion of Scripture as a mere superstitious legendhuman superstitions being infused into a natural occurrence. The bad logic of this, in the case of one who accepts the supernatural in the incarnation of Christ, is obvious. If God thought fit to deal supernaturally with men at one time, why not at another? In Scripture many afflictive events are set forth in the same light, and we may fairly say that God’s government of men has not yet ceased, and that men, especially communities, need discipline as much now as ever. If men are moral beings under government, and if the order of nature is not beyond the reach and control of God, we have a right to regard the events of Scripture as examples of what God does to the sons of men (1Co 10:11).
II. THERE IS MORE IN THESE EVENTS THAN THE NECESSARY ACTION OF PHYSICAL LAWS. The presence of the angel here shows that there was a special Divine element in the event. The same is true of other similar events recorded in Scripture. In modern Divine chastisements of men there may be physical order, but that will not be the interpretation of the moral bearing of the events. There seems to be more than s foreseen coincidence of a chain of physical necessities issuing in an event just at the time when some national or individual sin transpires. Bare prevision of a coincidence that could not be helped is a poor explanation of Divine government. The scriptural idea is the bestthat God is free and above and behind all the forces at work, and in some way not revealed and not certainly discoverable by physical science, he does so regulate the succession of physical events as to make them subserve a moral purpose when, in the development of human history, there arises a need of such subservance. We must either admit this, or place God practically outside his own possessions as a helpless spectator, less able to strike in than are we ourselves. The mystery may be great, but it is more mysterious, and certainly more absurd, that there should be such a God deprived of freedom of action.
III. THE REMOVAL OF AFFLICTIVE EVENTS IS CONNECTED WITH THE WORK OF CHRIST. The offering of sacrifice by David was a divinely appointed means of accepting the repentance and homage of the nation. “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” This deep spiritual truth was doubtless recognized by all the truly pious of those times. Thus it sets forth the greater truth that the sacrifice of Christ is the ground on which God exercises his mercy in forgiving our sins and healing our wounds. The far reaching benefits of his death deserve more consideration than they commonly get. Thousands enjoy the fruit of his sacrifice who know him not. For all men he has lifted up the curse, so that its pressure is not so great as once it was or might have been. When the rod is laid by, and the sinful nation or individual is no longer smitten, it is for “Christ’s sake.”
IV. PRAYER IS THE HUMAN MEANS BY WHICH CHASTISEMENTS ARE REMOVED. On the basis of the sacrifice typical of Christ’s death, David’s prayer was accepted and the plague was stayed. In like manner Moses intreated for Israel, and David for his people. The nature of prayer and its place in the Divine government have not changed with years. It is a spiritual power as truly as that gravity is a physical force. Its exercise, according to Scripture, is not exclusive of the use of personal effort to remove physical evils, and certainly not exclusive of moral conduct. As a spiritual power, it is part of our endowment, and to be employed along with our other endowments of good sense, prudence, and correctness of life. It does not follow that answer to prayer is a violation of the order of things. We do not know how far God’s personal contact with every force in action is or is not part of the order, and hence we do not know but that his free energy may so modify the course of events as to maintain what seems to us to be natural order, and yet to be the product of his own will. The pointsman on a railway may suddenly save a train from destruction without violating the order of nature. Who shall say that the watchful energy of the Eternal may not, in answer to our urgent cry, so act as to obviate what otherwise would be a great disaster? “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” It is mighty only as it is the concentrated voice of a “newness of life” lifted up to heaven in the all-prevailing Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
2Sa 24:1, 2Sa 24:2
(1Ch 21:1, 1Ch 21:2).(JERUSALEM.)
A sinful census.
1. This census appears to have been ordered by David in one of the later years of his life. The word “again” (2Sa 24:1) indicates that it was subsequent to the famine (2Sa 21:1, 2Sa 21:14; verse 25); and a measure that occupied Joab and the captains of the host nine months and twenty days could only have been accomplished during a time of settled peace, such as succeeded the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba. “Three great external calamities are recorded in David’s reign, which may be regarded as marking its beginning, its middle, and its closea three years’ famine, a three months’ exile, a three days’ pestilence” (Stanley). No man, however advanced in life, or whatever the wisdom he may have “learnt by experience,” is wholly exempt from the power of temptation.
2. It was a census of those who were capable of bearing arms (2Sa 24:9), and of the nature of a military organization (2Sa 8:15-18). “But David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under,” etc. (1Ch 27:23, 1Ch 27:24). The result showed a great increase of the people800,000 (1,100,000) warriors of Israel, 500,000 (470,000) of Judah, omitting Levi and Benjamin (1Ch 21:6); representing a population of about five millions.
3. Its direct and declared object was that David might “know the number of the people,” or become fully acquainted with its military strength, “its defensive power” (Keil). Of any additional object, except what is implied in the words of Joab, “Why does my lord the king delight in this thing?” nothing is stated.
4. It, nevertheless, was wrong and exceedingly sinful. This is evident, not only from the expostulation of Joab, but also from the confession of David himself (2Sa 24:10), and the Divine chastisement that followed. Wherein consisted his sin? A census was not in itself and always sinful; for it had been expressly directed by God (Exo 30:11-16; Exo 38:26; Num 1:2; Num 26:14, Num 26:63-65), and it was (as it still is) attended with important advantages. But this census was determined upon by David,
(1) apparently without due inquiry, by means of oracle (1Ch 21:30) or prophet (2Sa 24:11), concerning the will of the Divine King of Israel; without adequate grounds in relation to the welfare of the people; and without proper consideration of the danger of promoting a spirit of pride, and producing other evil consequences (Exo 30:11, Exo 30:12). “David forgot the commands of Moses, who told them beforehand that if the multitude were numbered, they should pay half a shekel (the price of a sin offering) to God forevery head” (Josephus). In its omission “he invaded the fights of the supreme King of Israel, and set aside a positive command of God. The demanding the tax by his own authority might have created a national disturbance, and therefore should have prevented him from numbering his people” (Chandler).
(2) Probably with warlike thoughts and intentions, for the strengthening of the army and the farther extension of Israel’s dominion by foreign conquests (2Sa 22:44, 2Sa 22:45). “Warlike thoughts certainly stand in the background; if we fail to see this, we lose the key to the whole transaction, and the Divine judgment is incomprehensible” (Hengstenberg); but it can hardly be supposed that he formed the definite purpose of “transforming the theocratic state into a conquering world state” (Kurtz).
(3) Possibly with a view to “the development of the royal power in Israel” and “general taxation” (Ewald); which made it obnoxious to Joab and the council (for something of the kind seems necessary to account for the opposition of such a man).
(4) Certainly with vain glorious pride, self-elation, distrust of God, who “said he would increase Israel like to the stars of the heavens” (1Ch 27:23), and presumptuous confidence in himself (1Sa 15:1-9; Luk 4:5-12). “David’s heart was lifted up to rejoice in the number and strength of the people” (Willet). “The very same action, apparently performed with different intentions, becomes essentially different in a moral point of view. It is the motive in which it originates, or the spirit with which it is carried on, that gives it its distinctive character in the sight of God. David was actuated by a vain glorious spirit, which is always an abomination in the sight of God. He was thus indulging a vain conceit of his own strength, a proud confidence in his own greatness, as if his chief dependence were on an arm of flesh; forgetting his own devout profession that the Lord was his Rock and his Fortress and his Deliverer, in whom he would trust” (Lindsay). “From its first origin Israel was called to the supremacy of the world (Deu 33:29). David now thought that he could rise step by step to such elevation without the help of God, who had provided for the beginning. The records should bear witness for all time that he had laid a solid foundation for this great work of the future” (Hengstenberg). “It was a momentary apostasy from Jehovah; an oblivion of the spirit of dependence inculcated on the rulers of Israel.” This was the root of the offence; and in it the whole nation participated. “This history shows that the acts and fortunes of rulers and people are closely connected together; and that the sins and virtues of the one exercise great influence on the happiness of the other” (Wordsworth). Consider that
I. GOD IS NEVER ANGRY WITH ANY PERSON OR PEOPLE EXCEPT ON ACCOUNT OF SIN, “David’s causing the people to be numbered was the immediate cause of the pestilence; for the procedure originated in motives which the Lord condemned. But the primary and real cause is to be found in the verse which introduces the narrative; and which is almost invariably lost sight of in the common accounts of this transaction. It is that ‘the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.’ Now, the anger of the Lord could only be awakened by unfaithfulness and evil doing; and that, whatever its precise nature, was the real cause of the calamity that followed, and relieves the case of the apparent harshness, of which so much has been said, of making the people suffer for the offence of their king” (Kitto, ‘Daily Bible Illus.’).
1. Sin alone excites the anger of God; which is his holy opposition to sin and sinners, and not inconsistent with his love, but rather the effect of resistance to it (2Sa 11:27).
2. Whenever sin dwells in the heart, no less than when it is expressed in outward actions, God observes it, and is displeased with those who are guilty of it. “For he knoweth the secrets of the heart” (Psa 44:21).
3. His displeasure with a whole people implies prevalent and persistent sin among them, such as the spirit of unbelief, disobedience, vain glorious pride, and presumption, which was manifested in the recent rebellions of Israel, and appears to have been subsequently indulged.
4. So far from being palliated or passed over because of their exalted position and privileges, their sin is aggravated, and more fully ensures their chastisement on that account. “You only have I known,” etc. (Amo 3:2). “It may be not unreasonably surmised that they were smitten with the same unhallowed elation of heart (as the king); that they were tempted to exult in their own strength; that they rejoiced in the prospect of beholding the proud array of their multitudes of fighting men; and that dreams of grandeur and glory may have been before their eyes, and may have caused them to depart from the Lord” (Le Bas). “The important lesson for all here is thisthat even the smallest feeling of national pride is a sin against God, and, unless there be a powerful reaction, calls down the judgments of God. With this feeling even the Romans presented offerings of atonement at their census.”
II. SIN IN A PEOPLE IS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH SIN IN THEIR RULER.
1. The former may be incited by the latter (1Ki 15:30). Or:
2. It may be an incitement to it (Joh 19:12). “The people had infected the king with their own arrogance, which had been called forth by their success.” Or:
3. Both people and ruler may alike participate in the same prevalent, sinful disposition or tendency of the age. As formerly (2Sa 15:1-5), “soft indulgence” and sensual desire; so now, “the lust of the eyes and the pride of life” (1Jn 2:16) seem to have taken possession of his mind.
4. The sin of a people may culminate in, and be manifested and represented by, the sin of their ruler. For this he is eminently responsible, and when his piety, which should have checked the evil tendency of the people, and may hitherto have restrained the righteous judgment of God, begins to fall, it becomes the occasion of the breaking forth of his fiery indignation. “It was the final offence which filled up the cup of wrath, and the punishment smote the nation, and, through the nation, its ruler” (Kirkpatrick, Horn. Quart; 6.). “The Lord was wearied with the sins of Israel and Judah; and he likewise beheld the secret pride of David’s heals; and for these things he was resolved to visit both the people and the king.” “Pride, or vain glory, or self-sufficiency, which was the sin of David, and which, for the very reason that it effects us less, because it is not so much against man as against God, offends him the more. It is a substitution of ourselves in his place; an impious thought of independence, and transference to ourselves of that confidence and admiration which are due to him alone. It is an invasion of his throne, an assumption of his sceptre, an attempt to rob him of that glory which he will not give to another, a removing of the crown from his head to put it on our own. ‘Wherefore it is said, God resisteth the proud'” (J. Leifchitd). “He was, for the time, the image and emblem of all who in any age, or in any country, love to have arrayed before them the elements of their worldly strength; who delight to see spread out the full enrolment of their powers and resources, and who forget that there is One before whose breath all these things shall be even as the cloud capped towers and palaces before the breath of the whirlwind.”
III. THE SINFUL MEASURES OF A RULER ARE SOMETIMES THE EFFECT OF THE DIVINE DISPLEASURE WITH HIS PEOPLE, whose sin he shares, and of whose punishment he is made the instrument. “And he [Jehovah] moved [incited, provoked] David to say,” etc. “The thought isthere should come a pestilence over Israel, and David become the occasion thereof” (Thenius). “The ruler’s sin is a punishment to a wicked people.” Sin implies personal responsibility; and “God tempts no man” (Jas 1:13). But in his universal sovereignty:
1. He appoints the circumstances, which are adapted to test and manifest character, and often conduce to sin.
2. He suggests thoughts which, although right and good in themselves, are sometimes perverted to wrong and evil by human folly and infatuation (verse 10). “All good thoughts, counsels, just works, come from the Spirit of God; and, at the same time, we are in the most imminent peril at every moment of turning the Divine suggestions into sin by allowing our selfish and impure conceits and rash generalizations to mix with them” (Maurice).
3. He withdraws his restraining grace in consequence of sin, and permits men to be tempted of Satan (1Ch 21:1), who readily seizes the opportunity to lead them into transgression. Deus probat, Satan tentat.
4. He even constrains the manifestation of the iniquity of the heart for holy and beneficent ends. “God’s influence, making use of Satan as its instrument, leads the corrupt germ to its development, rousing into action that which slumbers in the soul, in order to bring about the retributive judgment in which man, if otherwise well intentioned, learns fully to recognize his sinful condition, and is moved to repentance. The question is not of simple permission on the part of God, but of a real action, and that of the nature which each one may perceive in his own tendencies. Whoever once yields to his sinful disposition is infallibly involved in the sinful deed which leads to retributive judgment, however much he may strive against it” (Hengstenberg). “Though it was David’s sin that opened the sluice, the sins of the people all contributed to the deluge” (Matthew Henry).
IV. AN ADEQUATE REASON IS AFFORDED BY SUCH MEASURES FOR THE CHASTISEMENT OF RULER AND PEOPLE. “It was needful for an external, visible manifestation of the sin to precede the judgment, in order to justify the ways of God to men. The temptation was presented to David; he fell, and in his fall represented truly and faithfully the fall of the nation. The nation was not punished vicariously for its ruler’s sin, but for a sin which was its own, and was only embodied and made visible by its ruler’s act. And the punishment struck the very point of their pride, by diminishing the numbers which had been the ground of their self-confident elation” (Kirkpatrick, 2 Samuel). “Because David was about to boast proudly and to glory in the number of his people, God determined to punish him by reducing their number, either by famine, war, or pestilence” (S. Schmid).
1. Sinful actions serve to manifest the hidden sin of the heart.
2. They show the connection between such sin and its just retribution.
3. They make chastisement more signal and salutary.
4. They are often overruled to the glory of God and the welfare of men. [Note: Some of the difficulties indicated above would be removed by regarding the first sentence as “the heading of the whole chapter, which goes on to describe the sin which kindled this anger, viz. the numbering of the people” (‘Speaker’s Commentary’); and by reading, “And one moved David,” etc.; i.e. “one of his courtiers or attendants, who is therefore called satan, or an adversary, either designedly or consequentially both to David and his people. The people were themselves very culpable; as they knew, or might have known, that, upon being numbered, they were to pay the prescribed ransom, which yet they neglected or refused” to do; as partners in the offence, they justly shared m the penalty inflicted (Chandler). But this explanation is not satisfactory.]D.
Verse 2
(1Ch 21:2).(THE KING‘S PALACE.)
Self-elation.
This chapter contains the spiritual history of a great soul in its “fall and rising again,” its sin and recoveryits
(1) self-elation,
(2) self-will (verses 3, 4),
(3) self-deception (during many months),
(4) self-conviction (by self-examination, verse 10),
(5) self-abasement,
(6) self-surrender (verse 14),
(7) self-devotion for the people (verse 17),
and self-dedication to God (verses 24, 25). Of self-elation, pride, presumption, vain glory (the sin of David), it may be said that it is
I. A COMMON EFFECT OF EXTRAORDINARY PROSPERITY, temporal or spiritual. Pride; war, famine, or pestilence; suffering and humiliation; peace and industry; prosperitypride again; such is the melancholy circle of human affairs (Exo 8:14). “If we knew how to enjoy our blessings in the fear of God, they would be continued unto us; but it is the sin of man that he extracts, even from the mercies of God, the poison which destroys his comforts; he grows fat upon the bounties of Heaven, spurns its laws, and awakens its vengeance” (R. Watson).
II. AN UNGRATEFUL PERVERSION OF DIVINE BENEFITS. “The grave sin of proud exaltation, which David and the people of Israel here had in common, presupposed the elevation to victory and power that God had bestowed by his gracious mind; and its consequence was the judgment that revealed God’s anger against the perversion of his favours into plans of self-aggrandizement” (Erdmann). What should produce thankfulness and humility too often results in unthankfulness and vain glory (2Ki 20:13).
III. A SPECIAL TEMPTATION OF THE EVIL ONE. (1Ti 3:6.) “And Satan [an adversary] stood up,” etc. (1Ch 21:1). “We see that God and Satan both had their hand in the work; God by permission, Satan by suggestion; God as a Judge, Satan as an enemy; God as in a just punishment for sin, Satan as in an act of sin; God in a wise ordination of it to good, Satan in a malicious intent to confusion” (Hall).
IV. A GRIEVOUS EXHIBITION OF SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS; inconsideration of dependence, self-ignorance, self-deception, and foolish infatuation (Jer 49:16). “David, when strongly tempted to this gratification of his vanity, was not at all sensible of the evil of such an act; while Joab was. Joab, though a man of blood, and apparently hardened in iniquity, could see through David’s vain and arrogant feelings, while David himself, whose mind was under ordinary circumstances eminently sensitive and pious, could not discover the impiety of his proceeding, but persevered in evil for several months. Such is the infatuation of sin!” (Lindsay).
V. A PECULIAR PROVOCATIVE OF DIVINE WRATH (1Sa 2:3; Pro 16:5); most odious of all things in the sight of God, because most directly opposed to him. “Pride is the beginning of sin” (Ecclesiasticus 10:13). “And what is pride but the craving for undue exaltation? And this is undue exaltation when the soul abandons him to whom it ought to cleave as its end, and becomes a kind of end to itself. This happens when it becomes its own satisfaction. And it does so when it falls away from that unchangeable good which ought to satisfy it more than itself”.
VI. A PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE IN RELATION TO OTHER PEOPLE; inciting in them a similar spirit, and bringing untold miseries upon them. What oppression, strife, and other deadly fruits grow out of this “root of bitterness” (Exo 14:5)!
VII. A RUINOUS TENDENCY IN RELATION TO MAN HIMSELF. (Dan 4:28; Pro 16:18.) “Pride wishes to dethrone God. Pride takes occasion from virtue itself. Pride was particularly odious in David, who was exalted from so lowly a state. His pride was accompanied by falsehood; for he had protested his humility in the psalms which he made for all the people to sing. David was a just man; but this was a reason why God should punish him more severely. For it is certain that the sins of the children of God are more deserving of condemnation than the sins of reprobates and slaves of the devil. These only offend their master, but those do outrage to their Father; these are only rebel subjects, but those are unnatural children and barbarians; these only abuse the gifts of nature, but those profane miserably the gifts of grace. And how much more abominable is Judas than Pilate! Be not surprised, then, that when David, who was complete in a thousand graces, committed the crime of felony against him, the Eternal could not suffer such an indignity without punishing him severely” (Du Bose, in Vinet’s ‘Histoire de la Predication’).D.
2Sa 24:3, 2Sa 24:4
(1Ch 21:3, 1Ch 21:4).(THE ROYAL COUNCIL CHAMBER.)
Unheeded remonstrance.
This was not the first time that Joab remonstrated with David (2Sa 3:24; 2Sa 19:5); but his manner was now very different from what it had been before; arising, perhaps, from his recollection of the consequences of his former rudeness (2Sa 19:13), and his fear of the displeasure of the king, whose authority was fully restored. His remonstrance appears to have been made in a council of the captains of the army (2Sa 23:8), to whom the king declared his purpose, and by whom Joab’s objection to it was supported (2Sa 24:4). As often happens in other instances, it was:
1. Greatly needed, on account of a sinful and dangerous course about to be pursued.
(1) Men of the most exalted position and excellent character sometimes go astray from the right path.
(2) The error of their way is often perceived by others, when they are blind to it themselves.
(3) One of the principal means of preventing their continuance therein is to reason, expostulate, and remonstrate with them concerning its real nature and probable consequences (Psa 141:5).
2. Properly offered.
(1) By those to whom the matter is one of just concern. Joab was captain of the host; and, although a man of depraved character, he possessed a sound practical judgment, and had rendered great services to the nation and the king.
(2) From sincere conviction. “No man is so wicked but that sometimes he will dislike some evil, and it will be abominable (1Ch 21:6) to him” (Guild).
(3) On reasonable grounds. It can neither increase the number of the people (which is with God) nor the power and honour of the king (already supreme, 1Ch 21:3), and it will be “a cause of trespass.” “Why doth my lord,” etc.? “There are many who can give good counsel to others, for the avoiding of some sins, who in grosset trespasses have not grace to take good counsel themselves” (Mat 7:3).
(4) In a right spirit; devout, loyal, humble, and courteous. There is nothing to indicate that Joab was actuated by sinister motives; and the event justified the wisdom of his counsel.
3. Impatiently received, and imperfectly considered; it may be because of:
(1) Distrust of the person from whom it comes. “Let none look who gives the counsel, but what it is; and, if good, not to reject it for him who gives the same.”
(2) A determination to have one’s own way; and the wish to show independence of and superiority to other persons.
(3) Dislike to the nature of the advice itself, and indisposition to abandon a course on which the heart is set.
4. Resolutely rejected and wholly overborne. “The word of the king prevailed,” etc. His persistency in his purpose, after the remonstrance,
(1) increases his responsibility,
(2) aggravates his guilt
(3) consummates his transgression. “And Joab and the captains went out from the presence of the king,” reluctantly to fulfil their commission; and it was only when it was well nigh accomplished (1Ch 27:24) that he became aware of his sin and folly. “Men seldom accomplish to good purpose those services in which they reluctantly engage; and God does not generally allow those whom he loves the satisfaction which they sinfully covet” (Scott).D.
2Sa 24:5-10
(1Ch 21:5-8).(THE ROYAL BED CHAMBER.)
An, awakened conscience.
The taking of the census occupied over nine months; and during this time David remained insensible to his sin, and waited for the result. At length the work was finished (about wheat harvest), and the number given to the king; but, whilst he looked at the definite proof of the nation’s increase, and at first, perhaps, felt elated at the thought of commanding an army of mere than a million soldiers (with something of the spirit of another monarch, Dan 4:30), the same night” David’s heart smote him; and he said unto Jehovah, I have sinned,” etc.; “and David arose in the morning,” etc. (2Sa 24:11). What the remonstrance of Joab failed to effect was wrought by the operation of his own conscience. “It was well for him that his own ways reproved him, and that conscience sounded the first trumpet of alarm. This is characteristic of the regenerate. Men who have no light of grace, no tenderness of conscience, must have their sin recalled to them by the circumstances which at once reveal its enormity and visit it with punishment; but the regenerate have an inward monitor that waits not for these consequences to rouse its energy, but lights up the candle of the Lord within them, and will not let them rest after they have done amiss till they have felt compunction and made confession” (J. Leifchild). Conscience is of a threefold naturea law, a judgment, a sentiment (1Sa 22:20-22). Observe, with respect to it
I. THE CAUSES OF ITS CONTINUING LONG ASLEEP. These are summed up in “the deceitfulness of sin” (2Sa 12:5, 2Sa 12:6). More especially:
1. The persistency of the influence under which sin is at first indulged; viz. the pleasing illusion (arising from partial views, strong passions, and self-will) that it is different from what it really is, and the agent better than he really is; which (even when the true standard of right is recognized) perverts the.moral judgment and deadens the moral emotion. “A concrete fact is presented in a partial aspect; conscience pronounces its judgment according to the representation made to it; this representation, or rather misrepresentation, is made, directly or indirectly by the influence of the rebellious will, the true seat of all moral evil” (McCosh). Hence evil is often deemed good, and self-glory the glory of God.
2. The assumption (arising from self-confidence) that what has been resolved upon is justifiable and right; and indisposition to review the grounds of the determination or to examine one’s self so that a too favourable estimate of his character may be corrected.
3. The absorption of the mind in the pursuit of the object sought and in other occupations, preventing due consideration of the state of the heart. Alas! how many on this account “regard iniquity in their heart” with an easy conscience!
“Great crimes alarm the conscience; but she sleeps
While thoughtful man is plausibly amused.”
(Cowper.)
“And Satan is so far from awaking him, that he draws the curtains close about him that no light nor noise in his conscience may break his rest” (Gurnall). “If a man accustoms himself to slight or pass over the first motions to good, or shrinkings of conscience from evil, which originally are as natural to the heart as the appetites of hunger and thirst are to the stomach, conscience will by degrees grow dull and unconcerned, and, from not spying out motes, come at length to overlook beams; from carelessness it shall fall into a slumber; and from a slumber it shall settle into a deep and long sleep; till at last, perhaps, it sleeps itself into a lethargy, and that such a one that nothing but hell and judgment shall be able to awaken it” (South, Serm. 23.).
II. THE MEANS BY WHICH IT IS SUDDENLY AROUSED. In some cases the publication of the offence, the reprobation of society, the threatening of punishment; in others, serious consideration, deliberate reflection, deeper self-inspection (1Sa 24:5; Psa 4:4), induced by:
1. The feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction which commonly attends the attainment of an earthly end, or the accomplishment of a selfish purpose. David has ‘the number of the people before him; yet, after all, he cannot “delight in this thing” (2Sa 24:3). “All is vanity.” Where shall the heart find rest (Psa 116:17; Psa 73:25)?
2. The occurrence of circumstances naturally adapted to fix attention on a particular subject and excite inquiry concerning the motives by which one is actuated: a pause in “life’s fitful fever;” the necessity of contemplatingwhat next? and next? a sleepless night (Est 6:1); “sleep that bringeth oft tidings of future hap” (Dante)”a dream, a vision of the night” (Job 33:15). “David had made spiritual progress since the time when it required the parable of Nathan, and the prophetic announcement, ‘Thou art the man,’ to awaken him from his spiritual slumber. At this period of his life he examined himself and Weighed his own actions in private, especially at night time; and no sooner was the census of the men of war reported to him than, instead of being elated with self-confidence and puffed up with vain glory, ‘his heart smote him,'” etc. (Wordsworth). “Night and sleep bring us times of revision or moral reflection, such as greatly promote the best uses of existence. Whatever wrong has been committed stalks into the mind with an appalling tread. All those highest thoughts and most piercing truths that most deeply concern the great problem of life will often come nigh to thoughtful men in the dusk of their evenings, and their hours of retirement to rest. The night is the judgment bar of the day. About all the reflection there is in the world is due, if not directly to the night, to the habit prepared and fashioned by it. Great thoughts and wonderfully distinct crowd in, stirring great convictionsall the more welcome to a good man; to the bad, how terrible! ‘Thou hast visited me in the night,’ says David; ‘thou hast tried me;’ and again, ‘My reins instruct me in the night season.’ What lessons of wisdom have every man’s reins given him in the depths of the night!things how high, how close to other worlds! reproofs how piercing in authority, how nearly Divine!” (Bushnell, ‘Moral Uses of Dark Things’).
3. The operation of Divine grace (in connection with a man’s own thoughts), which visits the upright in heart, dispels every illusion, and strengthens every holy and God-ward aspiration. Did the Lord in judgment move David to number Israel? His judgment was founded on love, and his goodness led him to repentance.
III. THE EFFECT OF ITS RENEWED ACTIVITY. “And David said unto Jehovah, I have sinned greatly in that I have done,” etc.
1. A right knowledge of himself and a correct judgment of his conduct.
2. A painful sense of his guilt and folly. In the truly penitent:
3. A humble confession before the Lord (1Sa 7:6); and:
4. Fervent prayer for forgiveness (2Sa 12:13).
Of the way of forgiveness and its own pacification, indeed, conscience is unable to declare anything; the knowledge thereof is afforded by the Word of God alone (2Sa 24:18). Nevertheless, its awakening tests and manifests the character, and results in peace and righteousness, or in increased “hardness of heart,” confirmed rebellion, remorse, and despair. The hour of its awakening comes to all; but it may come too late, when there is found “no place for repentance” (2Sa 24:16).D.
2Sa 24:9-13, 2Sa 24:18, 2Sa 24:19
(1Ch 21:9-13, 1Ch 21:18, 1Ch 21:19).
The Prophet Gad.
“And when David was up in the morning,” etc. Gad had formerly given valuable direction to David (1Sa 22:5); and he must have been now far advanced in life. He was “David’s seer,” or spiritual counsellor; a true prophet of God (1Sa 2:27; 1Sa 3:19; 2Sa 7:3); assisted in the arrangements for the temple service (1Ch 9:22), and (like Samuel and Nathan) wrote a (theocratic) history of his time (1Ch 29:29). “The most celebrated representatives of special prophecy in David’s period were Nathan the prophet and Gad the seer. As Nathan connected Messianic prophecy forever with the house of David, so Gad was instrumental in moulding the history of salvation even till the period of the New Testament, since, by directing David to build an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, he laid the foundation of the temple upon Mount Moriah, in which Israel, by prayer and sacrifice, honoured his God for more than a thousand years” (Delitzsch). He was fully acquainted with the king’s purpose, the remonstrance of Joab, the completion of the census; and may possibly already, from his intimacy with David, have observed misgivings in him concerning the measure, and surmised his present state of mind. “He said nothing to him about his sin, but spoke only of correction for it; which confirms it that David was made sensible of his sin before he came to him” (Gill). Notice:
1. His Divine mission. “The word of Jehovah came unto the prophet,” etc.
(1) It came to him directly, by inward intuition, when “in a state most nearly related to communion with God in prayer” (Oehler).
(2) With the irresistible assurance of its Divine origin. “The prophets themselves had the clearest and most profound consciousness that they did not utter their own thoughts, but those revealed to them by God” (Riehm).
(3) With a powerful impulse to give it utterance, in “fulfilment of a definite duty laid upon him by God.”
(4) And it proved whence it came, by its manifest adaptation and actual accomplishment; the Divine wisdom and might with which it was imbued (2Sa 24:15, 2Sa 24:25). “The three elements which enter into the true conception of a prophet are revelation, inspiration, and utterance; for the prophet is the inspired medium of truth to other minds. Revelation, the inner disclosure of the Divine thought and will to the human soul, is an essential element of genuine prophecy. But this revelation cannot become realized, cannot become a real disclosure of thought and purpose to the individual as a preparation for prophecy, without inspiration. The soul of the prophet must be ethically quickened and elevated in order that the word of Jehovah may reach the people through him. Nor can the message remain concealed in the prophet’s own soul; for it is a message, a Divine commission, to communicate a revealed truth to those for whom it is divinely intended” (Ladd, ‘The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture,’ 1:124).
2. His prophetic message. More than what is recorded may have been spoken in his two interviews with the king; but his words contain:
(1) An assertion of the sole sovereignty of Jehovah, which had been for a season practically ignored. “Thus saith Jehovah,” etc. (verse 12). The office of a prophet was that of “watchman to the theocracy” (Jer 6:27); he had to observe and denounce every departure from its principles on the part of the king or people, and give warning of coming danger.
(2) An announcement of the approach of judgment. “I lay before thee three things,” etc. Already, perchance, the king had a presentiment thereof; but now it was rendered plain and certain. Yet “mercy is mixed with judgment; the Lord is angry, yet shows great condescension and goodness.” “His mercies are great” (verse 14).
(3) An appointment of the means of deliverance. “Go up, rear an altar unto Jehovah,” etc. (verse 18).
(4) An injunction of those duties or conditions, in the fulfilment of which the favour of God would be enjoyedsubmission, trust, and unreserved self-devotion.
3. His faithful obedience. “And Gad came to David,” etc; with:
(1) Simplicity; uttering the word of God, just as it was revealed to him, adding nothing, and withholding nothing.
(2) Fearlessness.
(3) Earnestness. “Now advise,” etc.
(4) Diligence and perseverance.
4. His salutary influence (in accordance with the purpose of his mission), not only in the removal of the pestilence, but also in
(1) checking the spirit of presumption and of rebellion against Jehovah,
(2) pacifying a troubled conscience,
(3) restoring both king and people to their allegiance,
(4) promoting the interests of the kingdom of God.D.
2Sa 24:13
(1Ch 21:12).(JERUSALEM.)
Preachers and hearers.
“Now advise [know], and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.” The intercourse of the prophet with the king, especially his language at the close of the first interview, is suggestive of
I. THE VOCATION OF THE PREACHER of the gospel.
1. Every true preacher is sent forth by God.
2. He is put in trust with the Word of God, and is sent to proclaim it to others, as his messenger and ambassador (2Co 5:20); not to teach his own speculations.
3. The purpose of the proclamation is their spiritual welfaretheir instruction, edification, salvation. “They watch on behalf of your souls” (Heb 13:17). But, too often,
“The aim of all
Is how to shine: e’en they whose office is
To preach the gospel, let the gospel sleep,
And pass their own inventions off instead.
The sheep, meanwhile, poor witless ones, return
From pasture, fed with wind: and what avails
For their excuse, they do not see their harm?
Christ said not to his first conventicle,
‘Go forth and preach impostures to the world,’
But gave them truth to build on.”
(Dante, ‘Par.,’ 29.)
4. The fulfilment of his calling demands the highest qualitieswisdom, sincerity, sympathy, disinterestedness, self-denial, fidelity, courage, zeal, assiduity.
5. The manner of his reception varies (Act 17:34), and tests the character of those to whom he is sent (Mat 10:11-13; 2Co 2:16).
6. He must return to him who sent him, and give account, not only of his own conduct, but also of the manner in which they have treated him and his message (Eze 33:30-33), and the effect produced in their lives. His return takes place in private communion with God on earth, and at “the end of his life” (Heb 13:7). “What answer,” etc.?
II. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HEARER of the Word.
1. He receives through the preacher a message from God of unspeakable importance; not, indeed, an announcement of judgment, but a revelation of mercy and of his will concerning him; repentance, faith, and obedience; “all the words of this life” (Act 5:20).
2. He has the power of considering and understanding it, and of accepting or rejecting it.
3. He is under the strongest obligation to accept and not reject it.
4. He cannot avoid doing the one or the other; indifference, inattention, or procrastination being itself an “answer” little short of positive rejection.
5. Whatever may be his treatment thereof, it is fully known to God.
6. According to the manner in which he treats the message of God, is he justly treated by God, both here and hereafter. “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Joh 12:48). “Now therefore advise thyself.” “Consider” (1Sa 12:24). “Take heed. therefore how ye hear” (Luk 8:1-18).
III. THE MUTUAL DEPENDENCE OF PREACHER AND HEARER.
1. On the preacher, his character, adaptation, diligence (as well as on himself), depend the hearer’s acceptance of the message and his spiritual benefit.
2. On the hearer, his attention, acceptance, obedience (as well as himself), depend the preacher’s efficiency, success, and present joy. “That they may do this [watch, etc.] with joy, and not with grief; for this were unprofitable for you” (Heb 13:17).
3. The relation in which they stand to each other will fully appear in the light of the great day; when the salvation of the hearer will be clearly seen to have been connected with the faithful labours of the preacher (Dan 12:3), and the reward of the preacher will be proportioned to his success (and not merely to his fidelity). “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing?” etc. (1Th 2:19, 1Th 2:20; 1Jn 2:28).
4. For his own benefit, therefore (as well as that of the hearer), the preacher should seek that the hearer may be believing, obedient, and fruitful in good works (1Th 3:2; 1Th 5:12, 1Th 5:13).
5. For his own benefit, also, the hearer should seek that the preacher may be faithful and successful.
6. Each should pray for the blessing of God upon the other, so that the proper end of preaching and hearing may be accomplished.D.
2Sa 24:14
(1Ch 21:13).(THE KING‘S PALACE.)
Submission to Divine chastisement.
“Let us now fall into the hand of Jehovah.” Already David had been convinced of his sin. He had also confessed it and sought forgiveness. Nor had he done so in vain. But, as formerly (2Sa 12:10-12), so now, the (temporal) penalties of sin must follow. Throughout he exhibited a spirit the exact reverse of that in which he had numbered. the people. Consider
I. THE CHASTISEMENT OF SIN which was laid before him. I. It was consequent upon his sin, and adapted to its correction. A vain glorious pride and warlike policy result (in the providence of God, sometimes by means which can be clearly seen) in the destruction of human life; not only directly by war (Mat 26:52), but also by famine (through lack of proper cultivation of the soil, wasting consumption of its produce, etc.) and by pestilence (to which both contribute); and are rebuked and chastised thereby (Rev 6:4-8).
2. It was a necessity, from which there was no escape. He and his people must suffer, according to the fixed and just method of the Divine procedure, for the vindication of the honour of God and the promotion of their own welfare. Herein no choice is left.
3. But it was also optional, within certain limits (Jer 34:17). “Every example, public or private, of a sin brought face to face with its suffering, presents an aspect of choice as well as of compulsion. The mere question of confession or denial, with the consequences of either, is such an alternative in the case of individual wrong doing. The adoption of this expedient rather than that, in the way of avoidance or mitigation of consequences, is an alternative” (C.J. Vaughan). Why was such a choice submitted to him? To test his character; to deepen his sense of sin, by the consideration of its terrible effects; to induce the open acknowledgment of his guilt; to perfect his submission; “to give him some encouragement under the correction, letting him know that God did not cast him cut of communion with himself, but that still his secret was with him; and in afflicting him he considered his frame, and what he could best bear” (Matthew Henry).
4. And it caused him great distress; all the greater because he was required, not merely to submit passively to chastisement, but to choose the form thereof, and thus make it, in some sense, his own. “All chastening seemeth for the present to be not joyous, but grievous,” etc. (Heb 12:11).
II. THE SPIRIT OF SUBMISSION which he displayed. “Is it a choice made? or, is it a choice referred back to the offerer? Is it, ‘I choose pestilence’? or is it, ‘Let God choose’? Whatever the application, the principle stands steadfastIn everything let me be in God’s hand; whether for the choice of my punishment, or for the infliction of it, he shall be my Judge; for his mercies are greatgreater than man’s; the more free his choice, the more direct his dealing, the better is it for the man, the better is it for the nation that must suffer.” “And David chose for himself the mortality [death]” (LXX.); “that affliction which is common to kings and to their subjects, and in which the fear was equal on all sides” (Josephus). Of famine and war, with their untold miseries, he had had experience, not of pestilence. By the former he would become dependent on men (for the sustaining or the sparing of life); by the latter, more directly on God; and whilst “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel,” his “anger endureth but a moment” (Psa 30:5), and “his mercies are great.” The spirit evinced is one of:
1. Self-abasement, before the majesty of the supreme King and Judge.
2. Self-abnegation; with noble disinterestedness, setting aside all care for his personal safety, and enduring, in common with the meanest of his subjects, the just chastisement of Heaven. His position might secure him against suffering and death by famine and “the sword of his enemies;” not by “the sword of the Lord” (1Ch 21:12)
“The pestilence that walketh in darkness,
And the sickness that wasteth at noonday.”
(Psa 91:6.)
3. Self-surrender; the sacrifice of his own will to the will of God (1Sa 3:18; 2Sa 15:23-29; Psa 131:1-3.).
“And in his will is our tranquillity:
It is the mighty ocean, whither tends
Whatever it creates and nature makes.”
(Dante, ‘Par.,’ 3.)
“Though he slay me,” etc. (Job 13:15). “If Christ stood with a drawn sword in his hand pointed at my breast, yet would I rush into his arms” (Luther).
4. Confidence in the abounding mercy of God. For he is not like man, ignorant, inconsiderate, unjust, wilful, selfish, cruel, and malicious; but knows all things (the secrets of the heart, the force of temptation, the sincerity of penitence, the reality of love), is considerate (of human infirmities, Isa 57:16), righteous, “merciful, and gracious,” etc. (Exo 34:6), very pitiful (Psa 103:13, Psa 103:14), mitigates affliction (Isa 27:8), mingles with it many consolations, and “repents him of the evil” (Jon 4:4; 1Sa 15:29; 1Sa 15:16). Such trust is the spring of true submission, and it is fully justified by the event.
5. Cooperation with the merciful and holy purposes of God in relation to the moral welfare of those whom he afflicts. The selfishness of men in famine and their cruelty in war tend to evoke rebellion, wrath, and retaliation; the recognition of “the mighty hand of God” (Jas 4:10; 1Pe 5:6) tends to produce lowly obedience, tenderness, and kindness.
6. Concern for the welfare of the nation, which would suffer less by the last than by the first two of the calamities; and:
7. Zeal for the interests of religion and the glory of God. “Let thy Name be magnified forever” (2Sa 7:26). “When the apostle said to the Hebrews that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, does it not contradict the decision of David? By no means. The apostle meant to speak of those who fall without repentance into the hands of God for punishment; but, in a penitent disposition, nothing is so sweet as to fall into the loving and most gracious hands of the living God” (Du Bose).D.
2Sa 24:15, 2Sa 24:16
(1Ch 21:14, 1Ch 21:15).(JERUSALEM.)
Pestilence.
Pestilence, even more than famine and war, was regarded by David as directly inflicted by the hand of God. How far, in this instance, it occurred in connection with secondary causes is unknown. But doubtless, ordinarily, it depends on such causes; the crowding together of great numbers of people, the accumulation of filth, the state of the atmosphere, the susceptibilities of the persons affected by it. “The peculiar source of the thought that a numbering of the people brought mischief lies probably in the experience that epidemic sicknesses often broke out in such numberings, because therein a great mass of people was crowded together, to facilitate the business, in a proportionally small space” (Thenius). Most of the great plagues that have afflicted mankind appear to have originated in the East, where the climate, the soil, and the social habits of the population afford conditions favourable to their production. In all cases, however, the hand of God must be recognized in the consequences of violating his laws, physical and moral; and in the employment of them “for correction.” Consider –
I. ITS MOURNFUL PREVALENCE; as at this time in Israel, so in other ages and nations (Exo 12:29; Num 25:9; 2Ki 19:35; Jer 27:13).
1. Its sudden appearance.
2. Its rapid diffusion; “from the morning to the [a] time appointed [the time of assembly].” “It burst upon the people with supernatural strength and violence, that it might be seen at once to be a direct judgment from God” (Keil).
3. Its extensive presence; “from Dan to Beersheba.”
4. Its dreadful destructiveness; “seventy thousand men” (fourteen in the thousand of the whole population). “Such a pestilence and loss of life as this [at Athens, 430 B.C.] was nowhere remembered to have happened” (Thucydides, 2:47). At Rome (A.D. 80) ten thousand perished daily; in England more than half the population; in London over thirty thousand; and again eight thousand persons weekly. These are only a few of the many recorded instances of the awful “visitation of God.”
II. ITS MERCIFUL ARREST. “And the angel” (1Sa 29:9; 2Sa 14:17; 2Sa 19:27; Psa 104:4; Psa 34:7; Psa 35:5; Psa 91:11), who had been “destroying through all the territories of Israel” (1Ch 21:12), “stretched out his hand” (having a drawn sword therein, 1Ch 21:6) “upon Jerusalem to destroy it,” etc. The pestilence approached the city, threatening its destruction, and filling all hearts with terror (1Ch 21:16, 1Ch 21:20). We can conceive that it might have spread until the whole human race perished. But its destructive force was limited (as it always is):
1. When its purpose was accomplished and the law of retribution satisfied. “It is enough.”
2. By the same Divine power as sent it. “Stay now thine hand.” God has placed in the human constitution a self-healing power. “Our natures are the physicians of our diseases” (Hippocrates). He provides special remedies for special diseases; alleviates and often cures them in unexpected, extraordinary, and mysterious ways, The Christian religion is a remedial system by which mortality itself is “swallowed up of life.” “I am Jehovah thy Physician” (Exo 15:26; Mat 8:16; Joh 3:14, Joh 3:15; Rev 22:2).
3. With tender pity toward the afflicted, involving a change of his procedure. “And Jehovah repented him of the evil” (1Sa 15:24-31).
4. In connection with the moral condition of men and their altered relation to himselfhumiliation (2Sa 24:10), trust (2Sa 24:14), and prayer (2Sa 24:17). “Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces” (1Ch 21:16), their spirit being doubtless shared in by the people, whose representatives they were. God deals with men according to the state of their hearts (2Sa 24:1), and commences doing so even before it is fully expressed in outward actions. Psa 91:1-16. (“by David,” LXX.), ‘Under the shadow of the Almighty.’
“Because he hath set his love upon me.
Therefore will I deliver him,” etc.
(Psa 91:14.)
“Some years ago an eminent physician in St. Petersburg recommended this psalm as the best preservative against cholera” (Perowne).
III. ITS MORAL USES, with respect to those who suffer from it or to mankind generally in.
1. Producing efficient impressions of the majesty of God; his sovereignty, justice, and might.
2. Proving the real condition of the hearts of men; whether they will “keep his commandments or no” (Deu 8:3).
3. Inducing, in those who are rightly disposed, proper feelings of penitence, humility, dependence, submission; and correcting vanity, pride, and self-win.
4. Inciting a purer and loftier trust in God, and more complete devotion and self-sacrifice. “Plagues to us are not funerals of terror, but exercises of holiness. We understand their meaning. They are messages sent to us by God, to explore our hearts, to sound the depth of our love to him, and to fathom our faith in God” (Cyprian, ‘De Mortalitate’).
5. Presenting a terrible picture of the evil of sin, by exhibiting, not only the natural consequences thereof, but also its degrading effect on the ignorant and unbelieving, who pass rapidly from the extreme of fear to the opposite extreme of recklessness, licentiousness, and despair (1Co 15:32). “So they resolved to take their enjoyment quickly, and with a sole view to gratification; regarding their lives and their riches alike as things of a day. And fear of gods or law of men there was none to stop them” (Thucydides).
6. Teaching the solidarity of the race; and, more especially, constraining “the higher and more privileged ranks of mankind to own their oneness of life with the humbler and more degraded or even savage classes” (Bushnell).
7. Promoting, in still other ways, the advancement of mankind in knowledge, virtue, and piety; for it is through the discipline of suffering that the race, like the individual, “learns obedience.” “The Lord’s dealing herein is not penal, but paternal and medicinal” (Guild).D.
2Sa 24:17-19
(1Ch 21:16-19).(ZION.)
Self-devotion.
“These sheep, what have they done?” etc. (2Sa 24:17). As through one man many suffer, so through one man many are delivered from suffering and greatly benefited. This is especially the case when, like David, he is their head and representative, the shepherd of the flock of God (2Sa 24:17; 2Sa 5:2). His numbering the people in a spirit of self-exaltation was the occasion (not the cause, 2Sa 24:1) of the pestilence; his intercession for them in a spirit of self-devotion is now the means in connection with which the calamity is limited in its duration (from three days to nine hours) and wholly removed (2Sa 24:25). Already, with an “awful rose of dawn,” the agent of destruction goes forth on his mission, and a “great cry” of distress reaches the city (Exo 12:30). Then the king gathers the elders together (at the tabernacle and before the curtained ark, 2Sa 7:2; 2Sa 12:20; 2Sa 15:25; adjoining the palace in Zion, 2Sa 5:7); they are clothed with sackcloth, and overwhelmed with fear and grief (1Ch 21:16; 2Sa 12:16; 2Sa 15:30); and at length, “about the time of assembly,” or evening oblation (Act 3:1), there appears (beyond the Tyropoean Valley) on Mount Moriah (2Ch 3:1), “by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite” (just outside the city), “the angel of the Lord standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem;” and they “fell upon their faces” in humiliation before the Lord. “Significantly, it was as the Divine command of mercy sped to arrest the arm of the angel messenger of the judgment, that he became visible to David and his companions in prayer” (Edersheim). “As in 2Ki 6:17 the source of seeing the heavenly powers was in Elisha, and by his mediation the eyes of his servant were opened, so here the flight of David’s mind communicated itself to the elders of his retinue, whom he collected about him; and, after he had repaired to the place where he saw the vision, was revealed even to the sons of Araunah” (Hengstenberg). “And David said unto God,” etc. “And Gad came that day to David,” etc. (2Ki 6:18; 1Ch 21:18). Here is
I. A FEARFUL VISION OF JUDGMENT impending over the people. This judgment may be regarded as representing that to which nations are exposed in this world, and individuals both here and hereafter; real, terrible and imminent; the result and reflection of human sin and guilt, which
“Blackens in the cloud,
Flashes across its mass the jagged fire,
Whirls in the whirlwind and pollutes the air,
Turns all the joyous melodies of earth
To murmurings of doom.”
(Talfourd.)
1. Similar judgment has been already executed (2Ki 6:15; Jud 2Ki 1:7; Rom 5:12; Rev 2:11; Rev 21:8). “The wages of sin is death.”
2. Solemn warnings of its certain and speedy approach have been repeatedly given (2Ki 6:13, 2Ki 6:17; 2Pe 2:3; 1Th 5:2, 1Th 5:3).
3. Only a few persons have any adequate impression thereof; whilst they behold “the wrath to come,” the rest are blind and unconcerned, immersed in the pleasures and cares of this life (Luk 21:34; Mat 7:14).
4. They whose eyes are opened are naturally impelled to seek the salvation of themselves and others, and are under the obligation of doing so (Jud 1:22, 23). “Take a censer,” etc.; “and he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed” (Num 16:46 -68; Joe 2:17).
II. A FERVENT ENTREATY FOR THE PEOPLE, that they may be spared. In his intercession for them (1Sa 12:23; 1Sa 15:10, 1Sa 15:11, 1Sa 15:35) David:
1. Takes the burden of their guilt upon himself; whilst he recognizes his responsibility, openly confesses his transgression in “commanding the people to be numbered” (1Ch 21:17), and honours the justice of God in inflicting punishment; he “forgets their sin is his own,” regarding them, “not indeed as free from every kind of blame, but only from the sin which God was punishing by pestilence” (Keil). “Many of those sheep were wolves to David. What had they done? They had done that which was the occasion of David’s sin and the cause of their own punishment; but that gracious penitent knew his own sin; he knew not theirs” (Hall).
2. Feels a tender compassion for them in their misery and danger. His language “shows the high opinion he had of them, the great affection he had for them, and his sympathy with them in this time of distress” (Gill).
3. Offers himself freely, and his “father’s house” (his life and all his most cherished hopes) to the stroke, that it may be averted from his people. “Hitherto David offered not himself to the plague, because, as Chrysostom conjectureth, he still expected and made account of himself to be taken away in the plague, but now seeing that it was God’s will to spare him, he doth voluntarily offer himself” (Wilier).
4. Urges an effectual plea on their behalf; not merely that they are blameless (in comparison with himself), and may be righteously spared, but that they are the chosen flock of the Divine Shepherd, whose mercies are great, whose promises to them are numerous and faithful, and whose glory they are designed to promote in the earth (1Sa 12:22; Psa 74:1; Psa 95:7). “Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?” (Gen 18:23); “Yet now if thou wilt forgive their sin,” etc. (Exo 32:32; 1Ki 18:36; Dan 9:3); “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ on behalf of my brethren,” etc. (Rom 9:3); “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luk 23:34); “The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (Joh 10:11); “He ever liveth to make intercession” (Heb 7:27). “In his hands intercessory prayer is the refuge of the guilty, the hope of the penitent, a mysterious chain fastened to the throne of God, the stay and support of a sinking world.”
III. A FAVOURABLE ANSWER FROM THE LORD. Although David sees not the interposition of God, by which the hand of the angel is stayed, yet his prayer “availeth much in its working” (Jas 5:16). “And the angel of the Lord [now transformed from a minister of wrath into a minister of mercy] commanded Gad [who previously announced the message of judgment] to say,” etc. (1Ch 21:18); “And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar,” etc.; “And David went up as the Lord commanded” (2Ki 6:18, 2Ki 6:19). The answer is propitious; a sign of Divine reconciliation. But why the command to rear an altar, instead of the direct assurance of forgiveness (2Sa 12:13)?
1. To show forth to all the people (who confess by their elders and representatives that they have part in the king’s transgression) that forgiveness is possible only in connection with sacrifice, wherein justice and mercy are alike exhibited.
2. To call forth their renewed and open obedience and self-devotion.
3. To give there a public sign of the Divine acceptance and removal of the judgment (1Ch 21:26, 1Ch 21:27).
4. To establish a new and permanent centre of Divine worship, in fulfilment of previous promises (2Sa 7:13); so overruling the evil for good, and turning the curse into a blessing (1Ch 22:1). This was a turning point in the history of the nation; and henceforth the service of the tabernacle began to be superseded by that of the temple.
CONCLUSION. Let it be remembered, that the intercession of Christ (unlike that of David) is the intercession of the Innocent for the guilty; that he is also himself the Altar, “which sanctifieth the gift,” and “the Propitiation for our sins;” and that in dependence upon him, as well as after his example and in his spirit, all our prayers and “spiritual sacrifices” must be presented unto God.D.
2Sa 24:20-23
(1Ch 21:18-23).(MORIAH.)
Araunah the Jebusite.
Araunah (Aravnah, Avarnah, Aranyah, Ornan) was:
1. A Gentile by birth; almost the last relic of the Canaanitish tribe whose fortress was taken nearly thirty years before (2Sa 5:6). “He was not slain by David in the siege of Jerusalem, because of the good will he bore to the Hebrews, and a particular benignity and affection which he had to the king himself” (Josephus); with whom, during his exile, he may have become acquainted.
2. A proselyte to the faith of Israel (2Sa 24:23). “There was no other people who were specially called the people of God; but they (the Jews) cannot deny that there have been certain men of other nations, who belonged, not by earthly but heavenly fellowship, to the true Israelites, the citizens of the country that is above”.
3. A prosperous owner of property on the hill Moriah (at that time outside the city), where he had his threshing floor, and dwelt with his four sons. His prosperity was due, not merely to his own industry, but chiefly to his friendship with David and his people.
4. A partaker of the sufferings, as well as the privileges, of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Whilst occupied in threshing wheat (by means of sledges drawn by oxen), it was given him to see the supernatural messenger of wrath (1Ch 21:20); and “his four sons with him, hid themselves” from fear.
5. A loyal subject; respectful, courteous (2Sa 24:20), and grateful for the king’s visit to him in his threshing floor (2Sa 24:21). “It was a piece of condescension to be marvelled at; and the language expresses a desire to know his pleasure concerning him, supposing it must be something very urgent and important” (Gill).
6. A generous donor and public-spirited man (2Sa 24:22). “All does Araunah, O king, give to the king” (2Sa 24:23). “His liberality and princely munificence is registered to all after ages in the Holy Scripture; what is done by a pious heart to the honour and worship of God shall never want its own reward and blessed remembrance; as was the breaking of the box of precious ointment” (Guild).
7. A devout worshipper of God. “Jehovah thy God accept thee.”
8. A ready helper toward the building of the altar and temple of God.
9. A pattern to Christians.
10. A pro-intimation of the willing homage of the Gentile world to Christ (2Sa 22:50); an earnest or firstfruits of the harvest (Psa 72:10, Psa 72:11). “In every place incense shall be offered,” etc. (Mal 1:11).D.
2Sa 24:24
(1Ch 21:24, 1Ch 21:25).(MORIAH.)
Personal sacrifice.
“And I will not offer unto Jehovah my God of that which doth cost me nothing.” The gift of Araunah would have enabled David to perform a religious service in a cheap and inexpensive manner. But,
(1) humbly recognizing the obligations that rested upon him, and animated by a spirit of self-devotion,
(2) he nobly repudiates an offering which would have been, not really his own, but another’s; or rendering to God a selfish and mercenary service; “which rebukes and condemns the avaricious disposition of many in this age, who can part with nothing for the maintenance of God’s worship or promoting religion or any good work” (Guild). “It is a heartless piety of those base minded Christians that care only to serve God good cheap” (Hall).
(3) He also generously resolves (acting toward the Divine King of Israel in the same spirit as Araunah acted toward himself) to purchase all that was required at “the fullprice,” and thus serve God at his own cost, with self-denial and self-sacrifice. “And David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver” (1Ch 21:1-30; “the place,” the whole hill perhaps, for “six hundred shekels of gold by weight”). The principle applies not only to gifts of money (2Sa 8:11); but also to the employment of thought, effort, time, talents, relationships, influence; the renunciation of ease, pleasure, convenience, name, and fame; the endurance of privation, pain, opposition, dishonour, and shame; its highest application is to the “whole burnt offering” of a man himself (heart, soul, will), which virtually includes all other offerings, and without which they are vain. “What a change it would make in the Christian world if Christians of all sorts would put this question seriously to their souls, ‘Shall I serve God with that which costs me nothing?'” (Manton, 22:94). Personal sacrifice is:
1. Enjoined by the express commands of God. “None shall appear before me empty” (Exo 34:20); “Every man as he is able,” etc. (Deu 16:16); “It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. Neither from a stranger’s hand,” etc. (Le 2Sa 22:21, 2Sa 22:25). Men were required to offer what was valuable, not worthless; what was their own, not another’s. Even the poorest were not exempt. Self-denial is also “the law of Christ”.
2. Incited by the supreme claims of God; arising from his greatness and goodness, his ownership of all things (1Ch 29:14), his manifold mercies (2Sa 24:14), above all, the unspeakable Gift of his only Son (Rom 8:32; Rom 12:1).
3. Expressive of a right feeling toward God. Reverence, gratitude, love, self-consecration, holy zeal (Joh 12:3). “Everything depends on the predominant principle and purpose. If a man’s prime feeling be that of self, he will go the easiest and most economic way to work and worship; if a man’s prime feeling be that of God, he will rebuke all thoughts of cheapness and facility. In the first ease, he will seek the largest possible results from the least possible expenditure; in the second, the expenditure will be itself the result. Now, it is the end and essence of all religion to turn the mind from self to God; to give it absorbing views of the Divine beauty and glory; to fill it with Divine love and zeal; to make it feel honoured in honouring God, blessed in blessing him; to make it feel that nothing is good enough or great enough for him; and when the mind is thus affected and thus possessed, it will understand and share the spirit of David’s resolve” (A.J. Morris, ‘The Unselfish Offering’).
4. Essential to the true service of God; for this depends not so much upon the form or amount of the offering as upon its relation to the offerer; its being.the genuine expression of the heart (as it professes to be); without which the service is formal, unreal, and insincere. That which costs nothing is worth nothing (Mal 1:8; Isa 1:11; Psa 51:16, Psa 51:17).
5. Necessary to the assured acceptance of God. It alone is attended with the sign and sense of his approval (1Ch 21:26).
6. Conducive to the proper honour of God amongst men; in whom it begets a spirit like its own.
7. Embodied in highest perfection in Christ; “who gave himself up for us, an Offering and a Sacrifice to God,” etc. (Eph 5:2). “A Spanish proverb says, ‘Let that which is lost be for God.’ The father of a family, making his will and disposing of his goods upon his death bed, ordained concerning a certain cow which had strayed, and had been now for a long time missing, if it were found it should be for his children, if otherwise for God. Whenever men world give to God only the lame and blind, that which costs them nothing, that from which they hope no good, no profit, no pleasure to themselves, what are they saying in their hearts but that which this man said openly, ‘Let that which is lost be for God’?” (Trench, ‘Proverbs’).D.
2Sa 24:25
(1Ch 21:26-30; 1Ch 22:1).(MORIAH.)
The new altar.
“And David built there an altar unto Jehovah,” etc.
1. An altar was a place of sacrifice (Gen 4:3, Gen 4:4; Gen 8:20; Gen 22:14); consisting (according to Divine direction, Exo 20:24, Exo 20:25) of earth or unhewn stone, and constituting (according to Divine assurance) a point of meeting or reconciliation between God and men; the offerings which it sustained and sanctified (and with which it was identical in purpose) being of divers kinds, symbolic of certain truths, and expressive of various feelings on the part of those who brought them. It was a prime necessity of religious worship in ancient time; the appointed way of access to God; the table at which Divinity and humanity held fellowship with one another.
2. The altar erected by David on the threshing floor of Araunah marks the commencement of a new chapter in the history of the kingdom of God under the old covenant. Heretofore sacrifice was offered in different places (1Sa 1:3; 1Sa 2:33; 1Sa 6:15; 1Sa 7:9, 1Sa 7:17; 1Sa 9:12; 1Sa 11:15; 1Sa 14:35; 1Sa 16:3; 1Sa 20:6; 2Sa 6:13, 2Sa 6:17; 2Sa 15:12); and the requirement of the Law (Deu 12:13, Deu 12:14) was imperfectly fulfilled, in consequence of the unsettled condition of the nation and the disorganized state of religious worship (1Ki 3:2). Whilst the ark was at Jerusalem, “the altar of the burnt offering” remained at Gibeon (1Ch 21:29, 1Ch 21:30); and although not finally abandoned till some time after (1Ki 3:4), it henceforth began to be superseded by the new altar, which was divinely appointed and consecrated by fire from heaven (1Ch 21:26), and chosen by Jehovah (Deu 16:15) as the place of his worship, the central sanctuary for succeeding ages. “Now when King David saw that God had heard his prayer, and had graciously accepted of his sacrifice, he resolved to call that entire place the altar of all the people” (Josephus). “And David said, This is the house of the Lord God,” etc. (1Ch 22:1, 1Ch 22:2; Gen 28:17); “And Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David,” etc. (2Ch 3:1). Psa 30:1-12; inscription: ‘A song at the dedication of the house’ (see Hengstenberg). “I wilt extol thee, O Lord,” etc.
“And as for meI had said, in my prosperity,
I shall not be moved forever,” etc.
(Psa 31:6-10.)
3. The chief interest for us of this altar (as of every other) arises from the fact that it was not merely symbolic of spiritual truth, but also typical of its embodiment in Christthe Altar (as well as the Offering and the Offerer), the new and only true (Heb 7:2), perfect, effectual, central, universal, and enduring Altar and Temple (Joh 2:21), where God records his name, and where we draw nigh to God, offer spiritual sacrifices, and find acceptance with him. It was “a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Col 2:17). “We have an altar [his cross and sacrifice], whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle” (Heb 13:10). Consider, with this reference
I. THE ERECTION OF THE ALTAR, as (in connection with the offerings, apart from which it cannot be fully contemplated):
1. Rendered necessary by human sin, through the temptation of Satan; estrangement from God through pride and disobedience to his Law; exposure to condemnation and death (Heb 9:22).
2. Ordained by Divine wisdom and love, “before the foundation of the world” (1Pe 1:20), in order to the remission of sins and the restoration of sinners to the fellowship of God (Heb 9:26).
3. Adapted to the fulfilment of that purpose; by the atonement there made (2Sa 21:3; Le 2Sa 1:4; Isa 53:6; Joh 1:29; 1Jn 2:2; 2Co 5:19; Gal 3:13); by the exhibition of the duty, sinfulness, and desert of men, and the sovereignty, righteousness, and mercy of God (Rom 3:21-26). “When sinful souls approached the altar of God, where dwelt his holiness, their sinful nature came between them and God, and atonement served the purpose of covering their sins, of cancelling the charges on which they were arraigned” (Kuper).
4. Designed to do away with every other altar and to afford free access to God for all people in all places and ages (Isa 56:7; Joh 4:23; Eph 2:18). The language in which the death of Christ is described in the New Testament is derived from the sacrifices of the former dispensation, and can only be properly understood by some acquaintance with them. It is no longer needful or possible to set up an altar (according to a common mode of expression), except in the sense of recognizing, approaching, and making known “the altar of God” which is set up in Christ Jesus (Psa 43:4; Joh 14:6). “Let us draw near,” etc. (Heb 10:22).
II. THE OFFERINGS PRESENTED THERE. “And offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (1Sa 1:3; 2Sa 6:17-19). In becoming himself an Offering (Isa 53:12) and Propitiation for our sins (complete and incapable of being repeated or rendered more efficacious), Christ displayed a spirit (Heb 10:5-7) in which (coming to him with penitence, Psa 30:10, and faith) we must participate, and thus “offer up spiritual sacrifices,” etc. (1Pe 2:5).
1. The free, entire, and continual surrender (verse 14) and dedication of ourselves, spirit, soul, and body, to God (Rom 12:1).
2. Prayers, supplications and intercessions (verse 17; Jdg 20:26; Psa 51:17; Psa 141:2). “And the Lord Jehovah was entreated for the land.” “Sacrifice is in the main embodied prayer.”
3. “The sacrifice of praise” (Heb 13:15).
4. Holy obedience (verse 19), generous gifts (verse 24), and benevolent activities. “To do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb 13:16; Php 4:18). “The altar is not to stand in its beauty and stateliness a solemn, unapproachable thing, on which we may reverently gaze, but which we may not touch without sacrilege. It is for use; its broad summit is to be laden with oblations and crowded with victims; it stands in the midst of us; it accompanies us wherever we wander, that it may invite our offerings, and be always ready to receive what we should always be ready to give” (Psa 4:5; Psa 26:6; Psa 118:27).
III. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFERER. “Jehovah thy God accept thee” (verse 23); “And the plague was stayed from Israel.” Christ’s offering was well-pleasing to God; and we are accepted in him (Eph 5:2; Eph 1:6, Eph 1:7).
1. There is now no condemnation (Rom 8:1; Heb 10:16-18). The sword is put up again into the sheath thereof.
2. The presence, favour, and sanctifying power of God are manifested to us (Act 2:3, Act 2:4).
3. Peace with God, and “the communion of the Holy Ghost,” are vouchsafed to us.
4. And we” rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2; Eph 2:19-22; Rev 21:3, Rev 21:4).
“Thou didst turn for me my mourning into dancing;
Thou didst put off my sackcloth, and didst gird me with joy
To the end that my glory should sing praise to thee, and not be silent;
O Jehovah my God, forever will I give thanks unto thee.”
(Psa 30:11, Psa 30:12.)
CONCLUSION.
1. “Jesus Christ is the Object of the two Testaments: of the Old, its expectancy; of the New, its model; of both, the centre” (Pascal). As in every part of the country there is a way which leads to the metropolis, so in every part of Scripture there is a way which leads to Christ.
2. The method of human salvation has always been the same in the mind of God; but it has been gradually revealed to the mind of man; and wherever faith has been exercised in God, in so far as he has revealed his saving purposes, it has been accounted for righteousness.
3. “To the cross of Christ all eternity looked forward; to the cross of Christ all eternity will look back. With reference to it all other objects were created and are still preserved; and every event that takes place in heaven, earth, and hell is directed and overruled” (Payson).
4. “Wherefore, receiving a kingdom,” etc. (Heb 12:28). “Now the God of peace,” etc. (Heb 13:20, Heb 13:21).D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD
2Sa 24:10
Sinful numbering.
This is part of a narrative which presents various serious difficulties. The chief is that which arises from the statement that God moved David to commit the sin for which he afterwards punished him. In 1Ch 21:1 the instigator is said to be Satan, or “an adversary;” and it is possible to translate hero (‘Speaker’s Commentary’) “one moved David.” Still, the translation in our English versions (both Authorized and Revised) is more natural. The statement reminds us of Num 22:20, Num 22:22, and is probably susceptible of a similar explanation. God gives permission to men who indulge sinful desires to gratify their desires. He says “Go” when they strongly desire to do so, and thus punishes them by allowing them to sin, and then inflicting the penalty due to such sin. Moreover, the sacred writers speak more freely than we are accustomed to do of the agency of God in connection with the sins of men. Our Lord teaches us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” which implies that God may thus lead men. However, if David knew that in some sense God had bidden him number the people, he none the less felt that the sin of the proceeding was great, and that it was his own.
I. DAVID‘S SIN. In what did it consist? As the narrative does not explain, and no law or statement of the Scriptures can be adduced in explanation, it is impossible to answer the question satisfactorily. That there was sin in the numbering of the people at this time, the strong remonstrance of the by-no-means-over-scrupulous or pious Joab (Num 22:3) makes manifest. It may have been done in a spirit of pride and vain glory, that the king might delight himself in the contemplation of the greatness of his armed forces. For it should be noted that only those that “drew the sword” (Num 22:9) were. counted. The kings of Israel were not, like other monarchs, to trust in the multitude of their armed men, but in their God, who could save or give victory by many or by few (1Sa 14:6; 2Ch 14:11). Possibly David may have had ulterior designs that were opposed to the will of God. He may have proposed to himself to reduce the people, as into more complete unity, so into more slavish subjection to the throne; or he may have had designs of unjust aggression on other peoples. Similar sins are committed:
1. When men reckon up their achievements or possessions, or the number of their servants and retainers, in a spirit of pride, self-satisfaction, or false confidence (Dan 4:30).
2. When they sum up their wealth, not to consider how they may best employ it for the good of men and the glory of God, but to frame schemes of sinful indulgence (Luk 12:19).
3. When the calculation of numbers or resources is made in order to determine the safety or otherwise of perpetrating or continuing some injustice to others. Rulers increasing and reckoning their hosts, etc; with a view to unjust wars, or the suppression of the liberties, or other violation of the rights, of their subjects.
4. When numbers are counted, instead of arguments weighed, previous to adopting a religious or political creed, or to obtain encouragement in the practice of any wickedness (Joh 7:48; Exo 23:2).
II. DAVID‘S REPENTANCE. It was long in comingso long as to excite our amazement. It included:
1. Conviction. “His heart smote him.” His conscience accused him. He saw the greatness of his sin and folly. Sin is always folly, though folly is not always sin (see on 2Sa 13:13).
2. Humble confession made to God.
3. Earnest prayer for pardon.
III. HIS PUNISHMENT. The reply to his prayer was not such as he may have hoped. The Prophet Gad was sent to him, not to assure him of pardon, but to offer him a choice of punishments (Num 22:12, Num 22:13). He chose pestilence, as being more immediately from “the hand of the Lord,” whose “mercies are great.” Accordingly, a terrible plague fell on the people, destroying seventy thousand men in less, apparently, than one day. For although three days had been named as the duration of the pestilence, the time was evidently shortened, and the plague ceased as it threatened to destroy Jerusalem (Num 22:16). To that extent the prayers of David (Num 22:10, Num 22:17), and the sacrifices which he hastened to offer by direction of the prophet, prevailed. The king had sinned; the punishment fell on the people. David felt and pleaded the incongruity (Num 22:17). What can we say respecting it?
1. It is according to a universal law of Divine procedure. The difficulty meets us everywhere. Subjects suffer on account of the sins, and even the mistakes, of their rulers; children, of their parents; and, more widely, the innocent, because of the sins and follies of others. It is useless to argue against facts.
2. Events which are judgments to the guilty are simple trials to the innocent, and may be unspeakable blessings. When the godly are struck down with others in a time of general calamity they exchange earth for heaven.
“The sword, the pestilence, or fire,
Shall but fulfil their best desire;
From sins and sorrows set them free,
And bring thy children, Lord, to thee.
(Watts.)
3. In this case the people suffered for sins of their own. It was because “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel” for their sins (Num 22:1), that David’s sin was permitted and its punishment inflicted. Many other cases would admit of a similar explanation.
4. Although the calamity which fell on the nation was great, a greater would have been the death of its sovereign by the plague.
5. David suffered severely in the destruction of so many of his subjects. If his sin was that of pride in the number whom he ruled and could lead to war, the punishment corresponded to the sin. He was made to feel how soon God could deprive him of that in which he boasted.
6. When all has been thought and said that is possible, it is for us
(1) to recognize that God’s ways are necessarily beyond our comprehensionwe are soon out of our depth as we contemplate them;
(2) to cherish undoubting confidence in his wisdom, righteousness, and love in all his proceedings, whether they are discernible by us or not. Such confidence is required and justified by what we do distinctly know of him; and it is the only way to settled peace in a world so full of misery and mystery.
7. Let us carefully avoid sin, not only because it is evil in itself and will bring pain and sorrow to ourselves, but because others will inevitably be involved in the consequences of our conduct. Many children are sufferers for life through the wickedness of their parents.G.W.
2Sa 24:13
Pressing for an answer to God’s message.
“Advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.” These words of Gad to David might well be addressed by religious teachers, and especially ministers of the gospel, to those whom they instruct. Notice
I. GOD‘S MESSENGERS. “Him that sent me.”
1. True ministers of Christ are God’s messengers. Their office is not a human invention. They are not mere lecturers, who may choose their own themes and aims; not mere philosophers, free to speculate at will and give the people the result of their speculations; still less mere performers, whose business is to amuse. They are sent of God, by the operations of his Spirit, the guidance of his providence, and the appointment of his Church; and have a definite message from him to their hearers, viz. the gospel (in the wider sense) of Jesus Christits revelations, precepts, promises, and threatenings. In delivering this message, they have a definite end to seekthe salvation of their hearers. He who is not convinced that he is God sent”inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him this office and ministration” (Prayer book)ought not to assume it.
2. They should cherish a due sense of their position. Which will keep alive:
(1) The feeling of responsibility to God. “As they that must give account” (Heb 13:17).
(2) Humility. The consciousness of a Divine mission might tempt them to pride and arrogance, but the consciousness of unworthiness and unfitness for so sacred a work will keep them humble. “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2Co 2:16).
(3) Care as to what they teach. That it may be the very message of God. “Preach the preaching that I bid thee” (Jon 3:2).
(4) Care as to the spirit and aim of their teaching. Not to exalt or enrich themselves, or merely please men, but to glorify God and promote the salvation of their hearers (Joh 7:18; Gal 1:10; Col 1:28).
(5) Faith and hope. That he whose messengers they are will guide and support them, give success to their endeavours, and amply reward them.
3. Hearers should recognize the position of their ministers. Such recognition will:
(1) Regulate their expectations from them. They will not expect them to flatter, or merely entertain, or to suppress unwelcome truths. They will desire them to be faithful to their convictions as to the message God would have them deliver.
(2) Induce them to give earnest heed to their instructions and admonitions. Their attitude will be that of Cornelius and his friends (Act 10:33): “Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God;” and, when the words addressed to them are perceived to be Divine truth, they will receive them “not as the word of men, but as the Word of God” (1Th 2:13), with faith and obedience. (For the opposite spirit and practice, see Eze 33:31, Eze 33:32.)
II. THE ALTERNATIVES THEY PRESENT. Happily they have not, like Gad, to offer a choice of fearful calamities, but of:
1. On the one hand, eternal life; commencing now in the enjoyment of pardon and peace, holiness and hope; and perfected in heaven. This to be secured by faith in the Son of God as Saviour and Lord, with corresponding love and obedience.
2. And, on the other, eternal punishment; “indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish” (Rom 2:8, Rom 2:9); to be assuredly secured by rejection of Christ, and of God in him. These solemn alternatives must not, cannot, be kept cut of view by a faithful messenger of God; and the thought of them will give earnestness to his ministrations, and to the treatment of them by his hearers (comp. Deu 30:15-19).
III. THE ANSWER FOR WHICH THEY PRESS. Christian ministers should endeavour as far as possible privately to urge individuals to consider what answer they will give to the Divine message, what choice they will make between the alternatives presented to them. This cannot be always done; but in their public addresses they ought to be urgent in pressing their hearers to definite consideration and decision. They should show them:
1. That an answer has to be given, and that to God, who searches the heart. That, in fact, they are ever giving a reply; ever choosing the evil, if not the good.
2. That their answer should be the result of careful consideration. “Advise, and see;” consider and determine. A great point is gained when men are induced to consider the claims of God and their souls.
3. That such consideration should be prompt. It is both sinful and perilous to delay. To put off attention to God’s message is insulting to him, and may end in his deciding suddenly and unexpectedly for us which of the two alternatives shall be ours.
4. That they are themselves intensely concerned that the answer given should be that which is alone wise and goodthe hearty acceptance of Christ and salvation. “As though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2Co 5:20).G.W.
2Sa 24:14
God’s treatment preferred to man’s.
David had good reasons for the choice he made. He knew well, from his own treatment of defeated enemies (2Sa 12:31; 1Ch 20:3), how fearfully cruel were conquerors in war in those days, what an awful scourge to his subjects would be the ravages of a victorious invading army. He also doubtless dreaded the disgrace and permanent damage to the kingdom which would be thus wrought, and the dishonour, in the view of the heathen, which would be cast on the Name of Jehovah its God (see Jos 7:8, Jos 7:9). Taking the words wider application, they express what will be the natural preference of good men.
I. GROUNDS OF THE PREFERENCE HERE EXPRESSED.
1. The great mercy of God and the unmercifulness, or limited mercy, of men.
2. The righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of men. We can never be sure that in a particular case righteousness will guide human proceedings; we know that the Divine are always thus guided. Many men are utterly regardless of what is right where their own interests, inclinations, or passions are concerned; and even the best men are liable to fail in respect to pure and constant regard for rectitude.
3. The knowledge and wisdom of God, and the ignorance and folly of men. Much of the misconduct and untrustworthiness of men springs from ignorance and folly. When they mean well, they often do ill through not knowing the actual state of the affairs with which they are called to deal, not taking the trouble, perhaps, to ascertain it; or, when they know it, not understanding how to treat it. But the Divine knowledge and wisdom are perfect.
4. The power of God and the weakness of men. Men are often incapable of doing the good they know, and even strongly desire to do; and their weakness often causes them to do mischief while endeavouring to do good. God is Almighty to effect what his wisdom, mercy, and rectitude prompt.
5. The relation of God to good men. Their Father, their covenant God. The certainty that he will honour those that honour him, and turn all things, including his own chastisement of them, to their good, and ultimately bring them to eternal glory. The preference will be strong in proportion to the actual contrast between the men with whom we have to do and God. There are some men who are so God like that we should not be averse to falling into their hands in a considerable variety of circumstances. It would be to a limited extent like falling into the hands of God.
II. CASES IN WHICH THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE EXERCISED.
1. The endurance of suffering. As in the text. It is better to suffer from disease than from human violence. The suffering will be easier to bear, more likely to profit, less likely to excite resentment and other evil passions. The infliction will be more tempered with mercy, and promote in a greater degree the ends of mercy.
2. Judgment of character and actions. To be judged by God is preferable to being judged by men. Men are often fond of passing judgment, but for the most part very incapable. They commonly judge ignorantly, or from prejudice, and therefore unjustly. They are apt to be wrong alike in their favourable and unfavourable opinions of others. When condemned by them, it is well if we can appeal with confidence to the judgment of God, which is always just.
3. Forgiveness. Men forgive reluctantly, in a limited measure, with reserves; and soon grow weary of pardoning the same offender. To pardon “seven times,” much more “seventy times seven” (Mat 18:21, Mat 18:22), seems to them an impossibility. Indeed, repeated offences, as they appear incompatible with real repentance, may justify hesitation to pardon repeatedly, since the state of the offender’s heart cannot be known. But God, who knows the heart, discerns where it is true, notwithstanding frequent falls; and, pitying human weakness, forgives many times a day. And his pardons are full and complete. Add that forgiveness from men does not ensure forgiveness from God, and that having the latter we can, if need be, dispense with the former. There is then abundant reason why, in the matter of pardon, we should prefer to have to do with God rather than men.
4. Spiritual guidance and help. God has appointed that men should instruct and aid their fellow men in matters of religion and morals. But those who offer themselves as spiritual guides are fallible, and they differ widely on important points. It is then encouraging and assuring that Divine guidance and help are available. By the devout study of God’s holy Word, and earnest prayer for the Holy Spirit, whose aid is promised to those who seek it (Luk 11:13), all may obtain such heavenly wisdom and strength as shall ensure them against serious error and failure. And after listening to the conflicting statements of human teachers, and their denunciation of those who decline their counsel, a religious inquirer may in many instances wisely turn from them to God, saying, “Let me fall into the hand of the Lord rather than of man.”
In conclusion:
1. It is a great comfort to sincere Christians to know that they are ever in the hand of the Lord. When they seem to be most left to the will of arbitrary, unjust, and cruel men, God is over all, controlling, overruling, sanctifying, compelling their most malignant foes to promote their real and lasting good. He will rectify and compensate for all the injustice and injury which he permits men to inflict upon them.
2. Impenitent sinners might well prefer to fall into the hands of men rather than of God. The limited knowledge and power of men, as well as their feeble hatred of sin, would be in their favour; at the worst, they can only “kill the body.” But God abhors sin with a perfect hatred, knows fully the guilt of each sinner, and “hath power to cast into hell” (Luk 12:4, Luk 12:5). “Who knoweth the power of thine anger?” (Psa 90:11).G.W.
2Sa 24:23
Acceptance with God.
“The Lord thy God accept thee.” A good wish, flowing from good will, and all the heartier because of the occasion. For Divine acceptance of the king and his offerings meant deliverance for the nation, Araunah included, from the ravages of the pestilence. The sincerity of his wish was proved by the substantial offers with which it was accompanied.
I. THE BLESSING DESIRED. Araunah referred to the favourable reception by God of David’s offerings. In the widest sense, acceptance with God includes:
1. Acceptance of ourselves. Our reception by God into his friendship and favour. Unless the man is accepted, his offerings cannot be. God receives nothing from his enemiesa truth which should be very seriously pondered by multitudes of his professed worshippers, who give him outward homage, but withhold from him themselves. Who, then, are accepted by God? Those who come to him according to his appointment, with repentance, faith, self-devotement, confessing sin, trusting to the mercy and entering on the service of God. Under the Christian dispensation, men are accepted through faith in Jesus Christ. When we receive him as Saviour and Lord, God receives us (comp. Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2).
2. Acceptance of our worship. Which includes devout exercises of mind and heart, study of the Word of God, pious meditation, praises and thanksgivings, prayers. What worship is accepted? Such as is offered in the name of Jesus (Joh 16:23, Joh 16:24; Eph 3:12; Php 2:10, Revised Version). Sincere (Isa 29:13; Joh 4:24), humble (Luk 18:10-14), reverential (Heb 12:28), yet trustful and affectionate as children (Rom 8:15). Not that of slaves or mercenaries.
3. Acceptance of our gifts. We give to God when we give for the support of his worship and the spread of his kingdom, and when we give to the poor for his sake (Mat 25:40). Our gifts are acceptable
(1) when presented with pure hearts, not ostentatiously to gain human applause (Mat 6:2-4), not with a view to atone for sin and obtain pardon, not to bribe men to unholy compliances;
(2) when they are our own property, not the fruit of dishonesty, oppression, or injustice;
(3) when they are in due proportion to our ability (2Co 8:12).
4. Acceptance of active service. Labours for the good of others, temporal and spiritual. All honest work springing from and guided by Christian principles.
II. THE DESIRE ITSELF. In this case it was a patriotic desire. It is always pious and benevolent. Pious, as it recognizes the necessity of God’s favour and approbation to the well being of men, and implies his willingness to be favourable to them. Benevolent, as it is a desire that others should enjoy the most essential and all comprehensive of blessings, without which other blessings are of small and temporary value. Not health or wealth, not acceptance with men, not long life, not intellectual superiority, not refinement of taste, etc; are of primary importance; and these should not be first in our minds when seeking the welfare whether of ourselves or of others; but the favour of Almighty God, and, as the sure means of securing this, the possession of Christian faith and holiness. “Wherefore” let us “labour that, whether present or absent” (living or dying), “we,” and all in whom we are interested, yea, all mankind, “may be accepted of him” (2Co 5:9).G.W.
2Sa 24:24
Cheap religion repudiated.
“Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing.” We have in the context “a laudable contention between a good king and a good subject” (Manton). Araunah wished to give the site for an altar, the animals and fuel for sacrifice, taking, on account of the necessity for haste, the threshing oxen and implements for the purpose. David insisted on paying for all. The text expresses his reason. He felt it was unworthy of his position and means as monarch, of the greatness of God, and of his own relation and obligations to him, to offer sacrifices which had cost him nothing. His determination is worthy of adoption by all, and will be adopted by all true-hearted Christians. They will not worship and serve God without cost to themselves. In considering the words, we need not confine attention to gifts of money or other property. In the worship and service of God, expenditure of thought, feeling, time, strength, etc; is required as well as of property; and, in relation to each and all, the true Christian, when the need for such expenditure arises, and he is tempted to avoid it, will be ready to exclaim, “I will not serve the Lord my God without cost.” His motives are such as follow.
I. REVERENCE FOR GOD. Sense of his majesty and excellence. The feeling that he who is so great and glorious should be served with the best we can present to him, internal and external; and that to come before him without any worthy gift is to insult him (see Mal 1:7, Mal 1:8, Mal 1:14).
II. GRATITUDE TO GOD. For his great and manifold gifts to us, especially that of his Son, with all the unspeakable blessings which come to us with and through him. If duly sensible of what we have received from God, we shall be eager to make him such return, poor though it is, as is possible to us, and shall feel that we can never do enough for him who has clone so much for us.
III. LOVE TO GOD AND MAN. The substance of true religion. Love to God, awakened and kept alive by his love to us and by increasing knowledge of his all-perfect and lovely character, will produce love for his worship, his people, his cause in the world, our fellow men. In helping these by deed and gift, we offer sacrifices to him (Php 2:17; Php 4:18; Heb 13:16), and all who love him will offer such sacrifices. In proportion to the ardour of their love will be the measure of their services; and they will never grow weary of them, since love makes them a delight.
IV. JUSTICE TO OTHERS. The worship of God cannot be maintained, nor his kingdom extended, nor his will as to the poor done, without cost of various kinds, in which it is right that all should do their part according to their capabilities. If some shirk their duty, others may be compelled to do more than fairly belongs to them. The thought of this will move each to take his proper share of gift or labour.
V. THE EXAMPLE OF OTHERS.
1. The liberal expenditure of some on their idols. Heathen. Worldly men. Ourselves, perhaps, before we were converted.
2. The liberality of many Christians. In every circle a few are known who are generous in deed or gift, or both, in the service of God and the poor. Their zeal incites others by the power of sympathy and the feeling that they are themselves under equal obligation to their Saviour and their God.
3. The cost at which multitudes of Christians have had to serve God. In times of persecution their religion has cost many their property, liberty, or lives; and they have borne the cost bravely and gladly (Heb 10:34; Act 6:1-15 :41; Php 2:17; Col 2:1-23 :24). Shame on us if we grudge the much smaller cost of religion to us.
4. Above all, the example of our Lord and Saviour. (2Co 8:9; Tit 2:14.) Remembrance of the cost to him of our opportunity of serving God acceptably will strengthen us when tempted to make our religion as cheap as possible.
VI. PERCEPTION OF THE WORTHLESSNESS OF A RELIGION THAT COSTS US NOTHING.
1. It is unreal. A mere name and pretence. Real religion begins and is maintained at the cost of much thought, feeling, and prayer. Where it exists it must move the heart to zeal and generosity in the service of God, cannot but manifest itself in works and gifts.
2. It is unacceptable to God. Instead of accepting, he abhors it. It is contrary to his will. The spirit of the old injunction, “They shall not appear before the Lord empty,” is plainly of universal application; and the New Testament abounds in precepts enjoining zeal and generosity in the service of God.
3. It is therefore fruitless of good, now and hereafter. It may be correct in creed, fair in profession, interesting in sentiment, beautiful in phrase; but it is useless. It answers no substantial end of a religion. It does not elevate and improve the worshipper. It can hardly secure even the approval of men. It does not avert, but ensure and increase, the judgments of God. Those who practise it will justly have their “portion with the hypocrites” (Mat 24:51).
VII. ASSURANCE OF RECOMPENSE. God will not let any man be a loser in his service.
1. He gives valuable rewards now to those who expend their energies or substance for him. The practical manifestation of Christian principles, strengthens them. Talents employed are multiplied. “Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance” (Mat 25:29). Service opens opportunities and develops capacities for service. Influence for good widens, honourable positions in Christ’s Church are reached without ambitious striving for them, the esteem and affection of the good are enjoyed. The pleasure of doing good is experienced, and, withal, the pleasures of a good consciencethe consciousness of Christian principles, affections, and aims, and of the approval of God.
2. Great is their reward in heaven. Perfected character; enlarged and exalted service; the unclouded light of the Divine countenance; the blessings of those whom they have helped to save; the eternal joy and glory of the Lord.
In conclusion:
1. This resolution deserves the serious consideration and adoption of: (l) Ministers and other teachers of religion, who are often tempted to do their work with as little trouble to themselves as possible. The help afforded by such books as this may be abused by the indolent.
(2) All who have opportunity to expend money, time, or talents in the service of Christ. Cordially adopted, it will make the numerous calls on Christian zeal and liberality in our day matter of thankfulness rather than of annoyance. It will induce even the poor to render aid according to their means.
2. The subject shows the disadvantages attending endowments of religion. They tend to deprive worshippers of the pleasure and profit of worshipping God with cost to themselves. Where they exist, Christians should compensate themselves for the loss thus inflicted on them by exercising all the greater generosity towards other branches of Divine service, such as missions at home and abroad, charity to the poor, etc.G.W.
2Sa 24:25
Efficacious sacrifices.
These sacrifices of David illustrate the nature and purpose of such offerings under the Law. David acted in obedience to a message from God (2Sa 24:18). He did not offer sacrifices in order to render God merciful; it was the mercy of God which originated them. It was because he would stay the destroying pestilence that he directed David to offer them. Still, the sacrifices were a condition of the exercise of his mercy. It was when they had been offered that “the Lord was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.” Hence the question arisesWhy should the Merciful One have required the death of innocent victims in order that his mercy might be displayed in the cessation of the pestilence? If it be said that this method of entreating him was a solemn and expressive acknowledgment that the sins which occasioned the pestilence were deserving of death, the answer may be accepted as a partial explanation. But the question recursWhy should not the confession of sin, with sincere penitence, be accepted without the infliction of death on the innocent? The only satisfying answer is that which takes into account the justice as well as the mercy of God, and recognizes in the death of the innocent an atonement for the guilt of those to whom mercy is shown. In exercising his mercy, God would also “declare his righteousness that he might be just” while justifying the sinner (Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26), and that men, while seeking and obtaining forgiveness, might discern more clearly, feel more deeply, and acknowledge more heartily, the righteousness of the sentence which condemned them to death. These remarks apply more especially to the “burnt offerings.” The “peace offerings” (thank offerings)were added apparently as an expression of joyful gratitude for the deliverance which was confidently expected through the sacrifice of the burnt offerings. The text reminds us of another sacrifice which was offered ten centuries later near the site of David’s altar, and which has rendered all other offerings for sin superfluous and unlawful. It may tend to the better understanding of both to view them together, noting their resemblances and contrasts.
I. THEIR RESEMBLANCES.
1. In their origin. Both were of Divine origin and appointment. They originated in the love and righteousness and wisdom of Godhis perception of what “became him” (Heb 2:10).
2. In their nature. As making atonement for sin, by which God was “entreated,” and the exercise of his forgiving mercy rendered consistent with a due regard for justice.
3. In their significance for men. Displaying the evil of sin and the Divine displeasure against it, and at the same time the loving kindness of Godhis readiness to pardon; and thus tending to produce at once abhorrence of sin and penitential grief, and the assured hope of pardon.
4. In their results. Reconciliation between God and sinners; forgiveness of sin and deliverance from its penalties; renewed enjoyment of the favour of God; renewed confidence in and obedience to him; added strength to resist temptation.
II. THE INCALCULABLE SUPERIORITY OF THE SACRIFICE OF OUR LORD.
1. David offered the lives of animals; our blessed Lord offered himself. They were of little value; but who shall calculate the worth of him who was not only the perfect Man, but the Word Incarnate, the only begotten Son of God? They could not understand the transaction in which they were made to participate, and could gale no voluntary part in the sacrifice. But Jesus entered fully into the mind of God, shared to the utmost his love to sinners and hatred of their sins, made the Divine purpose his own, and in devoted obedience to the will of the Father surrendered himself willingly to suffering and death for our salvation. The virtue of his sacrifice arose from his Divine dignity, his perfect oneness with the Father in mind and heart, and his perfect obedience unto death (Joh 10:17, Joh 10:18; Php 2:6-8; Heb 9:14; Heb 10:5-10).
2. David provided his own sacrifices; Jesus was the Gift of God. (lJn 2Sa 4:9,2Sa 4:10.) No man, no creature, could provide a sacrifice of sufficient worth to really and effectually atone for the sins of men.
3. The moral significance of the sacrifice of Christ is immeasurably greater than of the offering of any number of animal sacrifices. As a revelation of God and man, of holiness and sin, of the Divine hatred to sin and love to sinners, of the beauty and glory of self-sacrifice, etc; it is altogether unique.
4. The efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ transcends incalculably that of the sacrifices offered by David.
(1) The value of the latter for atonement depended wholly on the will and appointment of God; the worth of the former was essential and intrinsic.
(2) The one atonement was of limited, the other of boundless, efficacy. The former removed limited guiltof a single nation, and for the time; the other was for the sins of all men, everywhere, and in all ages of the world (Joh 1:29; 1Jn 1:7; 1Jn 2:2; Heb 10:14).
(3) The sacrifices of David arrested a pestilence, and thus lengthened the lives of many; that of Christ saves from eternal punishment, and secures eternal life (1Th 1:10; Joh 6:51-54).
(4) The former had doubtless some influence on some of the Israelites, favourable to repentance, faith, and obedience; the latter has produced and will yet produce a complete revolution in the position and character of vast multitudes belonging to many nations. Those who believe are by the death of Christ brought to God (1Pe 3:18; Heb 10:19, Heb 10:20), made partakers of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:13, Gal 3:14), pardoned and justified (Eph 1:7; Rom 5:9), sanctified (Rom 8:3, Rom 8:4; Eph 5:25-27), led to thorough consecration of life to him who died for them (2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15), and to assured hope and unspeakable happiness (Rom 5:5-11; Rom 8:32-39), issuing in the perfection, glory, and bliss of heaven (Rev 7:9, Rev 7:10, Rev 7:13-17).
5. The animals offered by David ceased to exist; the great Redeemer obtained for himself by his self-sacrifice exaltation to universal dominion and immortal glory, including the honour of leading and saving those for whom he died, and of receiving their loving and devoted homage (Rom 14:8, Rom 14:9; Eph 1:19-23; Php 2:8-11; Heb 13:20; Rev 1:17, Rev 1:18).
6. The benefits of David’s offerings came to the people through his faith, penitence, and obedience; those of the sacrifice of Christ come to each Christian as the result of his own. Its moral and spiritual power is thus enhanced.
7. The burnt offerings of David laid the foundation for his thank offerings; much more does the death of Christ call for, induce, and render acceptable, thank offerings of a nobler kind, and these innumerable, unceasing, and throughout eternity. Such are the presenting of ourselves to God, and the offerings of praise, prayer, and beneficence (Rom 12:1; Php 4:18; Heb 13:15, Heb 13:16; Rev 8:3, Rev 8:4). Let us not fail to present such thank offerings. Let us take up the song of the banished apostle (Rev 1:5, Rev 1:6), “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood to him be glory and dominion forever and ever.” Let us now join angels and the Church and all creation, and purpose and hope to join them forever, in the sublime anthem (Rev 5:12, Rev 5:13), “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever. Amen.”G.W.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
2Sa 24:1. He moved David against them, to say, Go, number This verse may be rendered thus, And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; for he moved David, or, David was moved against them, to say, Go, number, &c. active verbs in the third person being frequently to be rendered as impersonals, and not to be referred to the nouns immediately foregoing: and thus the text will be fully reconcileable with that in Chronicles, which says, that Satan moved him to number the people. Gen 16:13-14 is exactly parallel with this; where it is said of Hagar, “She called the name of the Lord, who spake to her, Thou, God, seest me; for she said, Have I here looked after him? therefore he called the well, the well Lahai-roi.” Who called it so? Not that God who saw her; and therefore the words must be rendered, as in our version, the well was called. But there is another way of rendering and understanding this passage, viz. For he moved David, or, David was moved against them, not as in our version, to say, but by saying, Go, number; which last will then be, not David’s words to his officers, which follow in the next verse, but his who counselled David to this action: and thus David’s numbering the people will be neither by the inspiration of God, nor immediately by the instigation of Satan, as that word means the Devil. See the parallel passage, 1Ch 21:1. And yet somebody actually said to him, Go, number the people; and this person seems to have been one of his courtiers, or attendants; one who, to give David a higher notion of his grandeur, and of the number and strength of his forces, put it into his head, and persuaded him to take the account of them; and in Chronicles is therefore called Satan, or an adversary, either designedly or consequentially both to David and his people. And this will exactly agree with what the author of the book of Chronicles says, An adversary stood up against Israel, and provoked, or, as the word is rendered here, moved him against them. The word , Satan, properly signifies an adversary, whether to a bad or a good cause. In the former sense it is used Num 22:23 where the angel of the Lord is said to stand in the way lesatan lo, as an adversary, a Satan, to Balaam. In a bad sense it is used ch. 2Sa 19:22 where David calls the sons of Zeruiah his Satan or adversary; and thus in the place before us: “An adversary to the peace of David and Israel, stood up and excited him to number the people; vaiiaset, excited him by his persuasion and advice; actually saying to him, Go, number, &c.” Thus “Jezebel, hesattah, stirred up her husband Ahab to work wickedness;” was continually soliciting and urging him to it. 1Ki 21:25. See also Job 2:3. Deu 13:6. Houbigant is of opinion, that this passage is to be supplied from the Chronicles, and accordingly he translates it the same as in that place.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
SIXTH SECTION
The Numbering of the People and the Plague
2Sa 24:1-25
1And again the anger of the Lord [Jehovah] was kindled against Israel, and he moved [incited] David against them to say [saying], Go, number Israel and Judah. 2For [And] the king said to Joab the captain [Joab and the captains1] of the host which was [were] with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even [om. even] to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people. 3And Joab said unto the king, Now [om. Now2] the Lord [Jehovah] thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it; but why doth my lord the 4king delight in this thing? Notwithstanding [And] the kings word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel. 5And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer on the right side of the city. [better, and began from Aroer and from the city3] that lieth in the midst of the river 6[valley] of Gad [toward Gad] and toward Jazer. Then [And] they came to Gilead and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi [perhaps land of the Hittites to Kadesh], and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon, 7And came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites and of the Canaanites, and they went out to the south of Judah, even [om. even] to Beersheba. 8So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. 9And Joab gave up the sum of the number [the number of the census] of the people unto the king; and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men [warriors] that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
10And Davids heart smote him after that4 he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord [Jehovah], I have sinned greatly in that I have done. And now, I beseech thee, O Lord [Jehovah], take away the iniquity of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly. 11For when David was up [And David arose] in the morning[ins. and] the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came unto the prophet Gad, Davids seer, saying, 12Go and say unto David, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], 13I offer5 thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So [And] Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven [better three6] years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. 14And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord [Jehovah], for his mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hand of man.
15So [And] the Lord [Jehovah] sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even [om. even] to the time appointed; and there died of the people from Dan even [om. even] to Beersheba seventy thousand men. 16And when the angel [And the angel] stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord [and Jehovah] repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord [Jehovah] was by the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. 17And David spake unto the Lord [Jehovah] when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my fathers house.
18And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto 19the Lord [Jehovah] in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. And David, according to the saying of Gad, went up as the Lord [Jehovah] commanded. 20And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him; and Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king on his face upon the ground. 21And Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshing-floor of thee, to build an altar unto the Lord 22[Jehovah], that the plague may be stayed from the people. And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him; behold, here be [are] oxen for burnt sacrifice, and [ins. the] threshing-instruments 23and other [the] instruments of the oxen for wood. All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king [All gives Araunah, O king, to the king; or, the whole gives the servant of my lord the king to the king7]. And Araunah said unto the king, The Lord [Jehovah] thy God accept thee. 24And the king said unto Araunah, Nay, but I will surely buy it of thee at a price, neither will I [and I will not] offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord [Jehovah] my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So [And] David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver 25And David built there an altar unto the Lord [Jehovah], and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. So [And] the Lord [Jehovah] was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
I. 2Sa 24:1-8. Davids sin in numbering the people.
2Sa 24:1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled. The again evidently refers to the famine in 2Sa 21:1-14; comp. especially 2Sa 24:1 and the identical endings of the two accounts (2Sa 24:25 here and 2Sa 24:14 there): Jehovah (God) was entreated for the land. From this both sections may be inferred to be from the same source. [Hence some regard 2Sa 21:15-22. as inserted in the midst of this history, and the two poems, 2Sa 23:1-7 as an insertion in the narrative 2Sa 21:15-22, 2Sa 23:8-39. Erdmann regards these various sections as separately selected, and put together according to a definite plan.Tr.]The additions in the parallel section 1Ch 21:1-22, are to be referred to another fuller authority that the Chronicler had before him (Mov., Ew.), but not also in part to pure remodeling by the Chronicler himself. (Ew.).The time of this census is certainly to be put in the later years of Davids reign, partly because the pestilence here described is expressly said to be the second of the two great plagues under David, partly because such a measure as the census, which occupied Joab 9 months and 20 days, could have been begun only in a perfectly quiet year (Ew.). It cannot belong to the time before the insurrections of Absalom and Sheba (Seb. Schmid), because it presupposes a permanent condition of peace without and within. The late date is also favored by the fact that the Chronicler attaches immediately to this history (in accordance with its conclusion, the purchase of Araunahs threshing-floor as the site of the future temple) the description of the preparations for the building of the temple and Davids arrangements for divine service, which Chron, puts in this peaceful last period of his reign. One would not, indeed, think of Davids very last days, when death was daily before him; such great matters are not undertaken at such a time (Hengst.).The kindling of Gods anger presupposes a grave offence against God; and this not merely by David (whose guilt is expressly affirmed in 2Sa 24:3; 2Sa 24:10; 2Sa 24:12 sqq.), but also by the whole people, since Israel is designated as the object of the divine anger (2Sa 24:1), and the punitive plague was intended to include the whole nation (2Sa 24:13 sq.). This offence of the people consists, however, not in any hidden sins (D. Kimchi), nor in the insurrections under Absalom and Sheba (Keil), but (since Gods anger is obviously causally connected with Davids deed) in their participation in Davids sin.And He incited David against them, that is, against Israel, and the subject of the Verb is Jehovah, not Satan (so several older expositors [and Ewald] after Chron.), nor Davids thought of numbering the people (Theod.) The outburst of Gods wrath against Israel is produced by a sin of Davids, to which the incitement came from the Lord; the statement in Chron: Satan8 stood up against Israel and incited David is not in contradiction with this, since Satan is not an independent agent alongside of God, but appears always as subject to and dependent on Him. Job 1; Zechariah 3. Buddus explanation: God and the devil may concur in one and the same evil deed, though in different ways, the latter by impelling, the former by permitting must be corrected in accordance with this statement.The Lord incited David means, not that He destroyed his free will and forced him, but that He permitted the temptations, resident in the circumstances ordained by Him, to approach David, and so developed the germinal ungodly desire in Davids heart into a determination of the will, and thence into the deed. See on 1Sa 26:19, and Historical and Theological to that chapter [see Jam 1:13-14; there is here involved the whole subject of the co-relation of divine and human action, about which we can only insist on the two unharmonizable facts of the absolute efficient control of God, and the complete independence of man.Tr.]Saying, go, number Israel and Judah! Davids aim in this census could not have been pleasure at the great number that it would show, and at the growth and well-being of his subjects thus brought out (S. Schmid and other older expositors); that would have been a childish undertaking, considering the great expenditure of time and strength made. Ewald (Hist. III. 218, bibl. Jahrb. 10, 34 sq.) holds that his purpose was to perfect the royal power internally, and establish a strict rule that should embrace the whole life of the nation; the census, he thinks, was intended to drag the people as far as possible into all sorts of taxes, such as existed in Egypt and Phenicia, and on this supposition he bases the opinion that the people, apprehensive of the subversion of their liberty by the royal power, withstood this innovation, and David had consequently to recede from the complete execution of his measure. But there is not a sign in the narrative of such a purpose on Davids part; and against it is the military character and aim of the measure. Apart from 1Ch 27:23 sq. (according to which it was connected with the military organization of the people, and probably intended to complete it), it is here discussed in the council of military officers, and executed by Joab the commander-in-chief himself in conjunction with them; and the census took account not of all classes of the people, or of all independent men, but only of valiant men that drew the sword. As is stated at the outset, military camps were formed for the numbering (mustering). The military character of the procedure is clear also from the fact that Joab delayed as long as possible carrying it into Benjamin, in order not to arouse the insurrectionary spirit of this tribe, which could not forget the leadership it had possessed under Saul (Hengst., ubi sup. p. 128).
2Sa 24:2. The king said to Joab: Go now through all the tribes of Israel, and muster ye the people, that I may know the number of the peoplea general mustering for a military-statistical purpose. That is, after having subjected foreign nations and established internal order and quiet, David wished to know the military force of the whole people. [Render: the king said to Joab and to the captains (or princes) of the host that were with him.Tr.]In itself this census by David was no more sinful than that of Moses, Exo 30:12 sq. Wherein Davids sin consisted is indicated in Joabs words in 2Sa 24:3 : May now the Lord thy God add to the people, as it is, a hundred-fold, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it! but why does my lord the king delight in this thing? The speech has the form of a conclusion9 from what precedes, and indicates that Joab perceives Davids purpose to be to please himself with the exhibition of the imposing military strength of his people; and the question at the end conveys a moral reproof. The ungodly feature in this undertaking, therefore, was its motive, Davids haughty overestimation of himself and his people. His sin was one both of the lust of the eyes and of pride. So much is true in Josephus explanation (followed by Bertheau), which is otherwise incorrect, namely, that Davids sin consisted in his not demanding the expiation-money that, according to Exo 30:12 sqq., had to be paid by every man mustered; for this requirement of the law (the aim of which was: that there be no plague among them) had reference to the danger in such a census of falling into haughtiness and presumptuousness. David wished to glory in the multitude of the people (S. Schm.). And the punishment that followed the attemptso that the number of warriors was diminished, and the result of the census was not noted in the State-annals (1Ch 27:24)shows that it was made in proud self-feeling without the will of the Lord, Israels true king, and for a self-chosen end that did not accord with the aims and purposes of the Lord. It is going too far to regard it as Davids purpose here to summon the whole nation to war for new conquests (J. D. Mich.), or to transform the theocratic State (Kurz in Herz. III. 306). Such a complete recession from the dependence of his kingdom on the Lord, such thought of a political world-dominion of Israel, such a complete abandonment of Israels national-theocratic calling, presupposes a complete defection on Davids part from the living God. But doubtless he who had led Israel to so lofty a height, forgetting himself before the Lord, had a proud desire to exhibit the splendid array of his peoples military strength, as pledge of the further advance of his house and people, and of the future development of the promise: thine enemies shall cringe before thee, and thou shalt tread on their high-places (Deu 33:29). To this height David now thought he could advance without God; the annals should show for all time that he had laid the foundations of this mighty work of the future (Hengst.). The people also, filled with proud national conceit of their strength, shared Davids sin. Though the chief fault was not with the people (Hengst.), yet the solidarity [unity] of Davids sin and his peoples in this haughty anti-theocratic movement, is beyond doubt.
2Sa 24:4. David submits, indeed, to Joabs opposition now also (comp. 2Sa 3:27; 2Sa 19:1-7); but he did not follow the voice of good conscience that he heard from his mouth. The word of the king prevailed against Joab, comp. 2Ch 28:3; 2Ch 27:5; not: stood fast (De W.).10 It is noteworthy that such a man as Joab, without living fear of God, but with natural directness and sound practical sense, sees sooner than David, how such a sinful exaltation does not become a king of Israel (O. v. Gerl.). Nothing more was said in opposition (Grotius). In silence Joab and the officers obey their lords command; they went out before the eyes11 of the king.
2Sa 24:5. Exact geographical statement of the beginning of the census. It began beyond the Jordan in Gad, because military affairs were in an especially flourishing condition there,12 comp. 1Ch 12:8 sqq., 37 (Then.) Comp. Thenius remarks on 2Ki 15:25. And encamped at Aroer on the right of the city; they encamped in the plain instead of going into the city, because of the large number of men engaged in taking the census, and so they doubtless did hereafter. [Another reading, in some respects better, is: they began from Aroer and from the city. See Text, and Gram.Tr.] In the midst of the brook-valley of Gad, that is, not in the vale of the Jabbok, as the greatest river in Gad (Winer, s. v. Thler and Aroer, Then., Retschi in Herz. s. v. Gad); for it is identical with the Aroer of Josh. 12:25, which was before Rabbah (= Rabbah of the Ammonites), that is, between it and the Jordan; for this reason and from the statement in Jdg 11:33 (Jephthah smote the Ammonites from Aroer to Abel Kernaim) it cannot have lain so far north as the Jabbok, but is probably to be sought in the valley noted on the map south of the Jabbok in the middle of the territory of God. According to Von Raumer (p. 259) it is probably the present Ayra southwest from es-Salt, with which Burckhardt also probably identified it (Reisen in Syrien, etc., p. 609). This Aroer in Gad is to be distinguished from 1) Aroer in Judah, southeast of Beersheba, whither David sent a part of the booty of Ziklag, 1Sa 30:28; 1Sa 30:2) Aroer on the right (northern) bank of the Arnon in Reuben (Jos 12:2; Num 32:34. [Bib.-Com. holds that Aroer on the Arnon is here meant, on the ground that the description here agrees perfectly with that in Deu 2:36 (comp. Jos 13:16), and that if Aroer before Rabbah is meant, the whole tribe of Reuben would be omitted from the census, which is impossible; and this view is the most natural. For a possible city on the Arnon see Art. Arnon in Smiths Bible-Dict.Instead of in the valley of Gad, render towards Gad; they advanced from the southern limit to Gad and Jazer.Tr.]They encamped13 as far as towards Jazer, the plain in which this gathering was held extended from Aroer to Jazer; Jazer cannot, therefore, have been far from Aroer. Jazer, formerly belonged to the Ammonites, conquered from them (Num 21:32), pertained to Gad (Num 32:35, Jos 13:25), a Levitical city (Jos 21:39, 1Ch 6:81); afterwards Moabitic (Isa. 18:8); after the exile Ammonitish (Jer 48:32), conquered by Judas Maccabus (1Ma 5:8). Burckhardt (p. 609) conjectures that the name of the old Jazer is found in the fine spring Ain Hazir, which he found near the ruins of a very considerable city in the valley south of es-Salt, whose water flows into the Wady Shoeb, which empties into the Jordan. But Gesenius, who agrees with this conjecture (on Burckh. p. 1062), thinks it possible that Jazer is the present Sir, a ruin at the source of the Wady Sir, which flows into the Jordan, and this view is adopted by Seetzen, who found several pools at Sir (comp. Jer 48:32 : sea of Jazer), Van de Velde and Keil (on Num 21:32). According to Eusebius (Onom.), the city of Jazer extended in Gad as far as Aroer, which is before Rabbah. In accordance with this Von Raumer, who regards Aroer as the present Ayra, to which the valley of Ain Hazir descends, adopts the view that this Ain Hazir is the ancient Jazer, as it is not five English miles from Ayra (p. 263).
2Sa 24:6. Then they came to Gilead, the mountain-land on both sides the Jabbok, and thence into the land of Tahtim hodshi. This local expression (regarded as a proper name by Cler. and De Wette, but as such yielding no sense) is variously given by the ancient Versions: Sept.: land of the Hittites, which is Adasai [Stier and Theiles text], or land of Thabason [Vat., Tisch.], or, land of Ethaon Adasai [Alex.]; Symm.: to the lower way; Vulg.: to the lower land of Hodsi. No tolerable sense can be gotten from the words except on the supposition that the text is corrupt. The first part of Bttchers conjectural emendation under the sea14 is a fortunate suggestion, since it requires no change in the letters, and this designation of the Lake of Gennesareth as a sea accords with the usage of the language [it is the sea of Kinnereth] and with the local statements of the narrative. But the second part of his conjecture, that hodshi = like the new moon, in reference to the shape of the lake, is too far-fetched. So also Gesenius view, that hodshi is a matronymic from the woman called Hodesh in 1Ch 8:9 [= Hodshites]. Ewalds conjecture, to read Hermon for Hodshi, and render: the lower regions of Hermon is without support (Thenius). Thenius conjectures that hodshi is for Kedshi,15 Denominative from Kedesh, understanding thereby the town in Naphtali near lake Merom, so that it would read: they came into the land under the lake [sea] of Kedesh [Kadesh]. But this designation of lake Merom is strange, and does not elsewhere occur; nor does the term under or, below] suit, we should rather expect over [above]. Retaining the Kedesh, it is more probable that the reference is to the Levitical city of that name in Issachar, southwest of the lake of Gennesareth (1 Chron. 7:72 (1Ch 6:57); in Jos 19:20; Jos 21:28 = Kishion). Comp. Raumer (p. 132, Rem. 36 b) and the country below the lake of Gennesareth southwest in Raumers map. This lake is often called a sea (Num 34:11; Jos 12:3; Jos 13:27; Isa. 8:23), called so in the last passage without further description (comp. Galilean sea. Mat 4:18; Mat 15:29; Mar 1:16; Mar 7:31). Instead of Thenius adjective form Kadshi [sea of Kedesh], it is better to read: towards Kedesh (, comp. Ges. 90. 2 a. b), understanding the town in Issachar, and rendering: they came into the land below the sea towards [or, to] Kadesh. Hither they came from Gilead, passing through the Jordan-plain below the Galilean sea.[For other conjectures about this expression see Smiths Bib.-Dict. s. v., Bib.-com. and Philippson: this whole geographical account is omitted in 1 Chronicles 21.Tr.]And they came to Dan Jaan; according to Schultz and Van d. Velde (Mem. p. 306, in Von Raumer p. 125) the present ruin Danian between Tyre and Aire near Ras en Nakura. But this does not agree with the statement that Joab went from this region below the sea to Dan Jaan, thence to Zidon, and then first to Tyre, whereas according to that view he would have gone from Dan Jaan by the sea to Zidon. This route would naturally lead us to think of the Dan that formed the extreme northern boundary of Israel (comp. 2Sa 24:2; 2Sa 24:15), the old Laish (Jos 19:47; Jdg 18:29); but the objection to this is that the name Jaan is not appended to this Dan in 2Sa 24:2; 2Sa 24:15, and we must therefore seek another Dan between Gilead and Zidon. So Hengst., Pent. II. 194. Keil looks for it in northern Perea, southwest of Damascus, taking it to be the same that is mentioned in Gen 14:14, which according to Deu 34:1 belonged to Gilead; but that is none other than the well-known Dan-Laish. And since no other place suiting the geographical relations can be found, we hold to this (Dan-Laish), which by its position was particularly suited for a mustering [so Wordsworth and Bib.-Com.Tr.]. But what does the Jaan mean? Bunsen remarks on this passage: Dan-Jaan, as the name Baal-Jaan on coins shows, is a Phnician god (literally: Judge, i.e. ruler, the singer,16 i.e. player), answering to the Greek Pan, who gave the city its name. But this surname is never elsewhere found with Dan. The Vulg. has: in Dan silvestria, in Dan of the wood (), which reading Winer, Lengerke, Ewald adopt, and render: Dan in the (Lebanon) forest. Thenius regards Laish as the original reading.And about towards Zidon; the about [= roundabout] means not the environs of Zidon, but in the direction of Dan; from the northern border they turned around towards the north-western border of the kingdom.17
2Sa 24:7. From Zidon they went southward, and came to the fortified city Zor (= rock), comp. Jos 19:29, the fortress Tyre built on a rock on the mainland (now Sur), in distinction from the insular Tyre. They came, therefore, into the territory of Asher, which bordered on that of Zidon and Tyre.And into all the cities of the Hivites and Canaanites, that is, in Naphtali, Zebulon and Issachar, the region afterwards called Galilee, in which the Canaanites were not exterminated by the Israelites, but only made tributary (Keil). [It hence appears that even as late as this these native tribes had cities of their own. The division into Hivites and Canaanites is remarkable; perhaps these were the most prominent of the surviving native races. The Hivite territory extended down near Jerusalem (Gibeon), see Jdg 3:3; Jos 11:3; what the Canaanite district was is not clear.Tr.]And went out to the south of Judah to Beersheba, passed along the western border throughout the length of the land from Dan to Beersheba.
2Sa 24:8. The return, after nine months and twenty days. According to 1Ch 21:6 the census was not extended into Benjamin and Levi, because the kings word was an abomination to Joab, and according to 1Ch 27:24 Joab did not finish the numbering because wrath therefor came upon Israel. Joab, who had entered unwillingly (2Sa 24:3) on the execution of the kings command, had not made haste; then David saw his wrong, the plague broke out before the census was finished; the numbering had not yet begun in Benjamin, nor in Levi (which, however, was excepted therefrom by Num 1:47-49).
2Sa 24:9. Statement of the total number of the people mustered: Israel had eight hundred thousand arms-bearing men, Judah five hundred thousand. Chron. gives a higher number for Israel, eleven hundred thousand; a lower for Judah, four hundred and seventy thousand. To explain or reconcile this difference in respect to Israel it has been supposed that there were two countings, one according to the private lists in cities and villages (Chron.), the other according to the digests made therefrom for the public registers (2 Sam.) (so Cornelius a Lapide)or that Joab was less accurate in his numbering than the officers with him (Sanktius)or that Chron. includes the non-Israelites in the Ten Tribes and the neighboring regions, about three hundred thousand (S. Schmid). Against this last is that only Israelites proper are spoken of in 2Sa 24:1-2; the other suppositions are mere conjectures. Osianders opinion that Chron. includes the older men is opposed to 2Sa 24:5, and D. Kimchis, that Chron. includes also Benjamin and Levi, to 1Ch 21:6. [Others suppose that the regular army of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men (1Ch 27:1-15) is included in Israel in Chron., and excluded in Sam., and that a corps of thirty thousand men (commanded by the thirty, 1Ch 11:25) is included in Judah in Samuel, and excluded in Chronicles. See Bib.-Com. on 1Ch 21:5. These conjectures are without foundation, and errors of text or errors of oral tradition must be supposed.See notes of Wordsw. and Bib.-Com., on our verse.Tr.]. Apart from the fact that we have round numbers here, the differences explain themselves if we remember that the result of the census was not recorded in the State-annals (1Ch 27:24), and the statements here must rest on oral tradition. The numbers are not to be taken as perfectly accurate, but there is no good reason to reject them as unhistorically large, since this fertile country was very thickly peopled. We see this from the various places, whose ruins stand as near to one another, as villages in our most densely populated regions (Arnold in Herz. XI. 23 sq.). Taking the military population as about one-fourth of the whole, Palestine [Israel] would have contained, according to this census, a population of from five to six million souls, which is not too large a number. Ewald (Hist. III. 196, Rem. 3) refers to other numerical statements about Israel, that seem to us too large, and yet must be accepted as historical, and remarks: Though the numbers may be in part round, and sometimes exaggerated, yet in general there is no reason for doubting their historical value. If, for example, the present population of Algeria be estimated at three million, and therein from 300,000 to 400,000 arms-bearing men (see Dawson Borrer, Campaign in the Kabylie) Israel in such happy times as Davids with its wide limits might certainly sustain a larger number. Retschi (Herz. VIII. 89): Considering the general extent of the levies and the almost incredibly dense population of Palestine, the enormous numerical strength of the Israelitish army (1Sa 11:8; 1Sa 15:4; 2Sa 17:11; 1Ch 27:1 sqq.) cannot occasion much surprise.
II. 2Sa 24:10-17. The judgment of the pestilence.
2Sa 24:10. David confesses his sin before the Lord, and asks forgiveness. Davids heart smote him, that is, his conscience, just as in 1Sa 24:6. Comp. 1Ki 2:44; Job 27:6; Ecc 7:22. With anguish of conscience David sees that his sin is an offence against the Lord. As to wherein it consisted see above on 2Sa 24:1-3.
2Sa 24:11. In the morning = the next morning.David had made his short penitent prayer either as he was going to sleep, or, more probably, after a sleepless night.The word of Jehovah comes to Gad, see 1Sa 22:5. He is called Davids seer as being his confidential counsellor, aiding him constantly with direction from the source of divine revelation.And the word of the Lord this revelation had come to Gad independently of human means or occasion.
2Sa 24:12. Choice between three judgments set before David. Three things I hold over thee (), not: I lay on thee, but: I hold high over thee, namely, as a load of punishment, which is to be laid on thee according as thou choosest; the sense in Chron. () is the same: I turn [stretch] over thee [so Eng. A. V. here: offer thee].
2Sa 24:13. Then came Gad to David.This is the apodosis to the protasis in verse 2 Samuel 11 : and when David rose in the morning then came Gad; what intervenes is a circumstantial sentence.18 Instead of seven years of famine Chron. (so Sept.) has three, agreeing with the figures in the other plagues. For this reason the reading of Chron. is to be preferred; there correspond, therefore, three years of famine, three months of flight before enemies, three days of pestilence.19 [The seven20 in Sam. may be accounted for by the frequent occurrence of that number, possibly from the seven years famine in the history of Joseph.Tr.].
2Sa 24:14. I am in a great straitthe exclamation of a tortured conscience,, whose anguish is heightened by the necessity of choosing between the three punishments. David looks on the pestilence as an immediate stroke of Gods hand, while the other plagues make him and his people dependent on man; at the same time he looks to Gods mercy, whence, if he fall only into Gods hands, he may the sooner hope to draw comfort and help. In view of Gods punitive righteousness his faith holds fast to Gods mercy, and verifies itself therein.At the close of this verse the Sept. has: And David chose the pestilence [], and it was the days of the wheat-harvest. But this is nothing but an explanatory remark taken from 1Ch 21:20, designed partly to make a direct statement of Davids choice (which is only indirectly stated in the text), partly to account for Araunahs work at the threshing-floor (2Sa 24:18 sq.).
2Sa 24:15. Beginning, duration and extent of the pestilence.And the Lord gave a pestilence, it was a divine punishment. From the morningthe morning when Gad came to David (2Sa 24:11; 2Sa 24:13). The next words,21 giving the terminus ad quem [Eng. A. V.: to the time appointed; Erdmann: to an appointed time], offer great difficulties.The Sept. renders: till the hour of breakfast, that is, the sixth hour, to which it adds: and the plague began among the people, which Bttcher and Thenius would receive into the text. But this addition of the Sept. had its origin no doubt in the reflection that the time from morning to breakfast was too short for the effects of the plague (70,000 died) therefore the words from the morning to, etc., were regarded as defining the verb gave [Eng. A. V.: sent], that is, the divine arrangement in inflicting the plague, and then the plague itself was made to begin after the sixth hour. But the word gave itself includes the destructive effect of the pestilence, and the result is indicated immediately by the word died.We have then here the limit of time of the raging of the pestilence. But what is meant? up to what point? The most natural explanation: to the appointed time (Cler., De W., Ew.), that is, to the end of the three days (2Sa 24:13) contradicts 2Sa 24:16, according to which the pestilence ceased through Gods mercy before this time; besides the Def. Art. is wanting, while elsewhere the word in the sense of a time designated has the Art. The Art. may indeed be omitted when the word () signifies an assembly for divine service and festival. Hos 9:5; Lam 2:7; Lam 2:22. Thus Bochart (Hieroz. I. 2, 38, ed. Ros. I. 396 sq.) renders (after the Chald.), having Act 3:1 in mind: the time when the people used to meet for evening prayers, about the ninth hour of the day, that is, the third hour after noon. Keil adopts this view, and thinks it favors the basis of the rendering of the Vulg.: to the time appointed according to Jeromes explanation (tradit. Hebr. in 2 libr. Reg.): he calls that the time appointed, in which the evening sacrifice was offered. Against this Thenius rightly remarks22 that the general expression time of assembly could not be used for the afternoon or evening-assembly. Thenius conjecture (suggested by the Chald.): to the time of lighting (the lamps in the sanctuary or in dwellings) is declared by Bttcher to be contrary to Heb. usage; and Bttchers reading: up to the time of food is unsupported. The same thing is to be said of Hitzigs suggestion: up to the time of dinner. Instead of adding another to these doubtful, in fact unsuccessful attempts to gain a new text, it seems requisite to return to our masoretic text, which, since the Art is wanting, is to be rendered: up to an appointed time. Why should this phrase not give a suitable sense? In view of the fact that the Lord had in mercy determined on a point of time before the expiration of the three days (2Sa 24:16), it is here intimated that the pestilence lasted a shorter time fixed by His gracious will. It must be left undetermined whether this appointed time falls in the first day of the plague (which seems to be indicated by the from the morning, and that day, 2Sa 24:18, though not necessarily, since the morning is the same as in 2Sa 24:11, and may point out merely the beginning of the pestilence without reference to the same day), or in the second day. In any case, however, the narrator, combining and, in Heb. fashion, anticipating what follows, means by this expression to say that God in His mercy permitted the pestilence to go on only to a determined point of time within the three days.Seventy thousand men.=Grotius cites the fact (Diod. Sic. l. 14) that in the siege of Syracuse 100,000 men of the Carthaginian army died within a short time.[Dr. Erdmanns explanation of the appointed time is not a little strained; the fact that he refers to (the shortening of the duration of the pestilence) would hardly have been expressed in this way. The word seems obviously to mean: time of assembly (so Wellh., Bib.-Com., and others), and points to some well-known gathering of the people. The most natural suggestion is that the time of evening-prayer is meant, to which some regard it as a fatal objection that the assembly for evening-prayer could not have existed in the time of David, or of the author of the Book of Samuel. But it may be replied that we do not know when the custom of thus gathering began; or, it may be that there was some other regular gathering otherwise unknown to us. It is at any rate better so to render the word, whether it can be satisfactorily explained or not.Tr.]
2Sa 24:16. And the angel, namely the angel of the Lord afterwards more exactly described (that destroyed the people), the embodiment of His punitive righteousness, the exactor of the judgment, the destroying angel (comp Exo 12:23)stretched out his hand to Jerusalem to destroy it; thereupon the Lord repented him of the evil.Chron.: And God sent His angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. According to both accounts the pestilence ceased at the moment when it had reached Jerusalem through the will of the merciful God. This is the moment meant by the appointed time of 2Sa 24:15. On Gods repentance see on 1 Sam. 13:35, Historical and Theological, No. 1 (to 1 Samuel 13.).The Lords command to His angel:Enough! now stay thy hand! the thy hand refers to the His hand above. As yet the pestilence had not attacked Jerusalem itself; for the angel of the Lord was at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Threshing-floors were usually in the open air, on heights where it was possible, on account of the chaff and the dust, and for the sake of the wind, which was necessary for the purifying of the grain; comp. Jdg 6:37; Rth 3:2; Rth 3:15. So this threshing-floor was without Jerusalem, northeast of Zion, on the hill Moriah; see on 2Sa 24:25. The pestilence had reached the houses lying near this threshing-floor. Instead of the form Awarnah (2Sa 24:16) or Aranyah (2Sa 24:18), the name of the owner of the floor is to be read with the Masorites Araunah (2Sa 24:20; 2Sa 24:22-24). Chron. has Ornan (2Sa 24:15; 2Sa 24:18; 2Sa 24:20-23); Sept. Orna. Ewald: This form of the name is un-Hebrew, but perhaps all the more Jebusite. Bertheau: The form Araunah does not look like Heb., while Orna and Ornan are Heb.; for this very reason the form Araunah seems to rest on an old tradition. Jebusites still dwelt in the land (Jos 15:63), and were tributary (1Ki 9:20 sq.). See on 2Sa 5:6 sq.; Araunah is here represented as a man of property, see on 2Sa 24:22-23.
2Sa 24:17. David saw the angel; according to Chron. (whose account is fuller) he saw him standing by the threshing-floor between heaven and earth with a drawn sword in his hand, which was stretched out over Jerusalem. The drawn sword is the symbol of the execution23 of the divine judgment, comp. Gen 3:24; Num 22:23; Jos 5:13.David said to the Lord: I, etc. By the I24 he presents himself as the really guilty person before God, in contrast with the people, whom he declares to be innocent. According to Chron. (2Sa 24:16) the elders, clothed in sackcloth and praying, shared with David the vision of the angel; the representatives of the people, therefore, confess that it has part in Davids sin; see on 2Sa 24:1. The punishment was sent for the peoples own sin (2Sa 24:1), though Davids offence was the immediate occasion of its execution (O. v. Gerl.). David is so penetrated with a sense of his guilt, and with sympathy with the suffering of his people, that he now prays God to visit judgment on him and his house alone, and spare the people as His flock [comp. 1Ch 21:17].
III. 2Sa 24:18-25. Appeasement of Gods wrath by the purchase of Araunahs, threshing-floor, and the erection of an altar thereon.
2Sa 24:18. Gods announcement of grace (contrasted with His announcement of judgment, 2Sa 24:13) is the consequence of the repentance of the Lord (2Sa 24:16) and the synchronous repentance of David (2Sa 24:17), though this did not cause Gods repentance; it occurs at the same time (that day) that God stops the plague, at the appointed time (2Sa 24:15) before the expiration of the three days.Besides his prayer David has now to make public affirmation of his guilt, and of his willingness henceforth with the people to devote himself as an offering to the Lord, by building an altar. [According to Chron. the angel commanded Gad to go to David; the two accounts do not exclude each other. The relation of time between 2Sa 24:16; 2Sa 24:18 is not clear; but Gods repentance is represented as independent of Davids action.Tr.]
2Sa 24:19. And David went up; he shows unconditional obedience to the divine command; whereby the altar was already in spirit built, and the offering of an obedient heart well-pleasing to the Lord, was made in truth. Comp. 1Sa 15:22.
2Sa 24:20. And Araunah looked forth; the verb () means to lie out over, bend forward, see, look at, look outhere, to look into the distance, since Araunah was working in the threshing-floor, and saw David coming from the city. Chron. more fully: And as Ornan was threshing wheat. [2Sa 24:21. David announces his purpose to Araunah to buy his threshing-floor.]
2Sa 24:22 sqq. Araunahs unselfish readiness is shown in the fact that he takes for granted the threshing-floor is to be made over to David, does not even mention it, but offers everything on the place to be used in averting the plague: the oxen that drew the threshing-wagon, the threshing-sledges (the Plural is used because a sledge consisted of several connected iron-pointed rollers), and the instruments of the oxen, the wooden yokes; the wood (yokes and sledges) was for the fire, as the oxen for the burnt-offering.
2Sa 24:23. Render: All this gives Araunah, O king, to the king; the words are a continuation of Araunahs speech in 2Sa 24:22. In the ancient versions (Sept., Vulg., Syr., Ar., Chald.) the first the king is omitted, because, taking it as Nominative, they rightly thought it impossible that Araunah should be a king. If the words be taken as the statement of the narrator, and the king as Nominative, then [since it says: Araunah gave all this] there is a contradiction with 2Sa 24:24, where David buys the threshing-floor, and moreover a historically incorrect statement, namely, that Araunah was king of Jebus before its conquest by David; this view Ewald in fact adopts, against which Thenius rightly says: this important fact would not have been stated in a single word, and it is in itself, but especially from 2Sa 5:8., incredible that David should have suffered the Jebusite king to remain at his side. [For another reading: all this gives Araunah, the servant of my lord the king, to the king (which is also a continuation of Araunahs discourse.), see Text. and Gram.Tr.].And Araunah said to the king; before this we must suppose a pause, or the repetition of the announcing formula [Araunah said], without intervening discourse, is to be explained by the fact that the following wish is sharply marked off from what precedes as a word of special significance and wholly new content. The phrase and he said is frequently repeated, where the same person continues to speak, see 2Sa 15:4; 2Sa 15:25; 2Sa 15:27 (Keil). The Lord thy God accept thee; the verb is used of the acceptance of persons by God in connection with prayer and offering, Job 33:26; Eze 20:40-41; Eze 43:27; Jer 14:12; so also here in reference to the offering that David proposes making. Sept., Syr., Arab. have The Lord bless thee; Bttcher proposes to combine these texts and read: the Lord thy God accept and bless thee, after Gen 49:25; Num 6:24 sqq.; Psa 67:2 [1].
2Sa 24:24. David does not accept Araunahs offered gift (which exhibits him as a propertied man), because the offering would seem incomplete in his eyes if it were not his own property that he offered.For fifty shekels of silver; Chron.: shekels of gold in weight six hundred. There would be room for the supposition of an intentional exaggeration in Chronicles (Thenius), only if it were certain that the Chronicler had before him our present text of Samuel(Bertheau). Bochart [approved by Bib.-Com.], holds that the word () means here not silver, but in general money, that David paid money, fifty shekels in gold-pieces, and, as gold was worth twelve times as much as silver, this was = 600 shekels in silver [according to Bochart, Chron. (2Sa 24:25) reads: shekels of gold of the weight (value) of 600 (silvershekels).Tr.]; but this contradicts the texts of both Sam. and Chron. We have to suppose a corruption of text here. Keil properly points out that, comparing the price (400 silver shekels) that Abraham gave for a burial-place (Gen 23:15), and especially the smaller value of land in his day, the price here stated, 50 shekels of silver (about 30 American dollars) seems too small. [However, Abrahams purchase was much greater in extent than this (Bib.-Com.), and peculiar circumstances may here have affected the price. The sum mentioned in Chron. seems too large, but of this we cannot very well judge. Some suppose that the 50 shekels were paid for the materials of the offering, and 600 for the ground (see note in Bib. Com. on 1Ch 21:25); but of this there is no hint in the narrative. We cannot with certainty recover the true numbers.Tr.]
2Sa 24:25. The building of the altar and the presentation of the offering is the work of humble and obedient faith, whereby David testifies anew his complete devotion of heart and life to the Lord. The burnt-offering precedes, because by it expiation is made, and Gods favor, as Araunah wished for David, restored; comp. Lev 1:3-4 for his acceptance before Jehovah (comp. 2Sa 24:23). Thereon follows the peace and thank-offering (Shelamim). It assumes Gods favor and the peaceful relation between Him and man, and on the ground of this relation, expresses thanks for divine kindnesses already received or hereafter to be received (comp. Oehler in Herz. X. 637).After peace-offerings the Sept. adds: And Solomon made an addition to the altar afterwards, for it was little at first. It must be left undetermined whether the Alexandrian translators found these words in their text, they being an addition by an editor or scribe (Then.), or added them by way of explanation. Certainly the place on Araunahs threshing-floor, where David built the altar and continued to offer, is the consecrated spot that he chose for the Temple, and on which Solomon built it (1Ch 21:27 to 1Ch 22:1); and this addition of the Sept. agrees with the statement of Josephus, that Araunahs threshing-floor was on the hill afterwards occupied by the Temple (so Grotius).Chr. Rosen has attempted to prove the identity of this threshing-floor on Moriah (comp. Arnold in Herz. XVIII. 625) with the sacred rock in the present Mosque es-Sakra, which stands on the site of the ancient Temple (Wochenblatt der Johanniter-Ordens-Balley Brand. Jahrg. 1860 in the Beilage to No. 12).
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The grave sin of proud self-exaltation, which David and the people of Israel here had in common, presupposed the elevation to victory and power that God had bestowed by His gracious might, and its consequence was the judgment that revealed Gods anger against the perversion of His favors into plans of self-aggrandizement. Gods honor does not permit a king and people to seek their own honor in the power conferred by Him. The aims of Gods kingdom cannot, according to Gods laws of moral order, be abridged or obscured with impunity by the aims and purposes of human pride. Gods judgments fail not against false national honor and ambitious, self-seeking pride of rulers, as is shown by the history not only of Israel, but of all nations to the present time.
2. That God, angry with Israel, incites to the sin of numbering the people, and then punishes it, is no contradiction according to the theology of the Old Testament (J. Mller, Lehre von der Snde I. 322), since inciting to sin does not set aside the holding one responsible for it. Mans free will is not destroyed by the divine will, and the punishment of the righteous God presupposes mans guilt. Immersed in the thought of Gods all-fulfilling efficiency, the human mind does not indeed refer to it evil as well as good (Mller, ubi supra), for Old Testament theology is far from presenting the divine causality in this like attitude to good and evil; but the divine activity (in its punitive manifestations) is referred to the external production of evil (already present as an inward fact of mans free will, opposed to Gods will), in so far as the circumstances that produce and incite to sin exist under Gods government, and are used by Him as means to develop mans sin for the ends of His punitive righteousness. But also, apart from the external realization of sin, God gives man, who freely hardens himself in sin, over to the judgment of the consequence of his sin; Rom 1:28.There is here not mere permission, but real action on Gods part, and such as every one may see in his own experiences. He that allows the sinful disposition to rise within him is, however much he may strive against it, inevitably involved in the sinful deed, which draws down the requiting judgment (Hengst., Hist. II. 130).
3. The root of the sin in this census is already laid bare in the word of the law relating to the numbering of the people. Hengstenberg excellently remarks (ubi sup. 129): If Davids eye had been clear, he would have seen in Gods law the special reference to the danger attending the numbering of the people. In Exo 30:11 sq. it is enjoined that in the census every Israelite shall pay expiatory money, that there be no plague among them when they are numbered; by this money they are, as it were, ransomed from the death that they incurred by proud conceit. It recalls the danger of forgetting human weakness, that so easily arises when the individual feels himself a member of a powerful whole. Even the slightest movement of national pride (it is an important lesson for all times) is sin against God, which, if not vigorously repelled, involves the nation in the judgment of God. Indeed the Romans with a similar feeling made an expiatory offering when they took the census.The greatness of Davids guilt increases with the maintained opposition of his will to the voice of God, which he hears in Joabs word, whereby his conscience ought to have been awakened. The degree, of mans guilt against God rises with the maintained determination of the will against conscience in the inner life, with the outward resolution to act, with the rejection of counsel and instruction, whereby the attainment of better knowledge is frustrated, and with the final performance of the evil determination in spite of protest and opposition from within and from without.
4. The various steps whereon God leads men that yield their conscience to His Spirit to ever deeper humility in sincere penitence are mirrored in this history of Davids repentance. First God rouses David from his sleep of conscience and security by the result of his boastful antigodly undertaking, so that his heart smote him (comp. for this expression, 1Sa 24:6), that is, his conscience chastised him. So he comes to know that he has sinned and how sorely, and to acknowledge the foolishness of his sin, and to pray for forgiveness (2Sa 24:10). But to the inward voice of his smiting conscience is added the voice of the word of God, which comes to him from without through the prophet Gad with the announcement of punitive righteousness. The penitence of the heart proves itself in humble submission to Gods punishing hand, whence David instead of the asked-for pardon takes without murmuring the announcement of punishment, and in the unconditional trustful self-abandonment to Gods mercy (2Sa 24:14). Under the sorrowful experience of punishment the feeling of personal guilt is deepened, wherefore he acknowledges himself and his house alone to be the proper object of the divine punitive justice (2Sa 24:17). Having suffered himself to be led thus far on the path of penitence by Gods hand, he encounters the prophetically announced divine mercy, which stops the punishment (2Sa 24:18), and gives proof of the renewed obedience rising from the depths of true penitence, in the deed (commanded by the Lord) of faith and devotion of his whole life to him (2Sa 24:19 sq.). Davids repentance is finished and confirmed by the building of the altar, and his offering on the threshing-floor of Araunah.
On the same spot where once Abraham, the possessor of the primeval promises of salvation, presented the sacrifice of his faith and obedience to the Lord, the royal bearer of the Messianic promises presents his burnt-offering and thank-offering, and therewith consecrates the spot, on which his son was to build a house as the Lords dwelling amid His people, and this on the ground of his experience of sin-forgiving grace and divine mercy that puts an end to punitive justice.Hengstenberg: It is very remarkable that before the outward foundations of the Temple were laid, Gods forgiving mercy was by God factually declared to be its spiritual foundation.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The glory of God shows itself in the life of His people, not only through His abounding grace but also through His holy wrath, whose fire is kindled by the sins into which they fall through the temptations of their own flesh or of the world without.No height of the life of faith in the pious secures from a deep fall; the richer the possession of salvation which they have received through divine grace, the greater the loss if they do not preserve it or wish in self-exaltation to boast of it as their own acquirement.The perverse self-will of man is the fountain of all sin; its guilt is not removed when through Gods action, the evil breaks forth from this fountain, and becomes a deed of disobedience to His holy will; Gods manifestations of grace often become, to man fallen into carnal security, the occasion of grievous acts of sin.God would annihilate the free will of man if he did not allow the sin, which through that free will has already become an inner deed of the heart, to work itself out in its consequences; but He does not allow this to happen without first sending forth to men the voice of warning, and the call to turn from the way on which with the sinful resolve they have entered.If Gods exhortation and warning has been uttered in vain through mans word, His voice afterwards makes itself heard so much the more loudly through the accusation of what is called an evil conscience, but should properly be called a good conscience.
The smitings with which God visits His people, when they have strayed into the ways of sin, are 1) those of conscience, in view of the goodness of God which became the occasion or subject of self-exaltation; 2) Those of the word of God, in view of the holiness of His will against which they have sinned; and 3) Those of outward chastisement, through sufferings in which punitive justice exerts itself.Whom does the heart smite for his sins? Him who 1) Lets his heart be smitten by Gods earnestness and goodness, and takes to heart the greatness of his sin in contrast to Gods loving-kindness; 2) Recognizes his sin, in the light of Gods word, as a transgression of His holy will; and 3) Maintains in his sinning and in spite of it the fundamental direction of his heart towards the living God, and has been preserved from falling away into complete unbelief.True and hearty repentance is preserved in the life of Gods children, 1) In the penitent confession of their sin and guilt, before the judgment-seat of God, 2) In fleeing for refuge to the forgiving grace of God, 3) In humbly bowing under the punitive justice of God, and 4) In a confidence, which even amid divine judgments does not waver, in the delivering mercy of God.The gradual succession in the inner life of a penitent sinner under the chasten-ings of Gods love: 1) Reproving conscience, 2) Penitent confession, 3) Hearty prayer for forgiveness, 4) Humble bowing beneath the punishment imposed, 5) Unreserved submission to the divine mercy.Conduct of an honestly penitent man beneath the blows of Gods chastening hand: 1) He bows his head under the divine judgment, yet does not lose his head; 2) He is silent before the word of God which judges him, that the Lord alone may be justified, yet his mouth does not remain closed, but opens itself for the one word he has to utter, Take away the iniquity of thy servant; 3) He is grieved in heart in view of the punishment he has deserved from the divine justice, yet he does not cast away his confidence, but places himself in the hands of the divine mercy.Mercy rejoices over judgment: 1) The penitent man casts himself into the arms of Gods mercy; 2) Mercy falls into the arms of justice, in order to stay its blows; punitive justice must yield to mercy at the command of the Lord, It is enough: stay now thy hand.Rear an altar unto the Lord! 1) In obedience to the Lords command (2Sa 24:18-19); 2) With dedication of thyself, and what is thine to the Lords honor (2Sa 24:21-24); 3) For the continual presentation of spiritual offerings, which are acceptable to the Lord (2Sa 24:23-24); and 4) For the reception of the highest gift of grace, peace with the propitiated God.
Osiander: Even the holiest people may sometimes be overtaken by their corrupt flesh (Rom 7:18).Schlier: After David had given up his heart to evil thoughts, the Lord gave occasion and opportunity for these evil thoughts to break forth unto the punishment of the king as well as of his whole people. Much depends, for the understanding of the following history, upon our not forgetting this concealed background, upon our keeping well in view, on the one hand the Lords wrath against Israel, and on the other hand the kings evil thoughts.[Hall: O the wondrous, and yet just ways of the Almighty! Because Israel hath sinned, therefore David shall sin, that Israel may be punished; because God is angry with Israel, therefore David shall anger Him more, and strike Himself in Israel, and Israel through HimselfTr.]F. W. Krummacher: Despite all the purifying processes through which we have passed, there is scarcely anything sinful to be named that cannot, even though conquered, come up in us afresh in the way of temptation. The most assured Christian, if his eyes are not blinded, never attains the consciousness that now he can stand justified before God in his own virtue.[Hall: The Spirit of God elsewhere ascribes this motion to Satan, which here it attributes to God; both had their hand in the work; God by permission, Satan by suggestion; God as a Judge, Satan as an enemy; God as in a just punishment for sin, Satan as in an act of sin; God in a wise ordination of it to good; Satan in a malicious intent of confusion.Tr.]
2Sa 24:2-4. Disselhoff: Even on the heights of life in God, the favored one remains the child of Adam. The jubilant cry, according to my righteousness, may easily become the boast, on account of my righteousness.Starke: When kings and princes fall into sin, that means much; let us then not forget to pray for them, that God may preserve them (1Ti 2:2).Schlier: Pride sticks in the flesh and blood of us all; and the difference is only whether pride has power over us, or whether we rein in and subjugate pride. Either thou slayest pride, or pride slays thee.[Hall: Those actions which are in themselves indifferent, receive either their life, or their bane, from the intentions of the agent. Moses numbereth the people with thanks, David with displeasure.Tr.]Disselhoff: Humility wishes not to know what it is and possesses, and has done. As soon as the human heart wishes to count the fruits it has brought, its trophies and its booty, piles up before itself the proofs of its faith and zeal, and contemplates them with pleasure, humility is flown, pride has returned. From pride there immediately arises self-satisfied boasting..Then the second step also is soon taken that the man no longer trusts in the invisible gracious God, but holds flesh for his arm, and in his heart turns away from the Lord,that he wishes to see and calculate, and no longer to live by faith.
2Sa 24:10. J. Lange: God, the great and universal judge of the world, still holds as it were His secret inferior court in the conscience of the man, and summons him continually before his superior court (Rom 2:15-16).F. W. Krummacher. As the sun always again breaks through the clouds that veiled it, so the conscience once awakened and enlightened by the Spirit of God, however darkened and ensnared it may be, ever victoriously comes forth again, and anew makes efficient its judicial office.Disselhoff: Before God came with the punishment, before He showed him his sin from without, Davids own conscience rose up strong and living, and left him no peace till he had poured out his guilt-laden heart in sincere and earnest confession, and had supplicated forgiveness of his misdeed.Fr. Arndt: How a man behaves after his fault, whether he persists in it, stands to his purpose, seeks to carry through his self-will and follows it out consistently to the utmost, or whether he enters into himself, humbles himself, repents, takes back, and supplicates forgivenessthat is the proof and the touch-stone for the true state of the heart. The former course is indeed apparent progress, but a progress that leads to hell; the latter is apparently going backward, but going back to heaven and blessedness.
2Sa 24:11-13. Starke: God is not swift to punish, but corrects in measure, only that we may not reckon ourselves innocent (Jer 30:11).God is also Lord over the kingdom of nature, and has everything therein under His government (Mat 10:29).Fr. Arndt: With His children the Lord is very exact. He is milder towards them, but also stricter than towards others. To whom much is given, of Him much also is required.F. W. Krummacher: The power to endure ills in proportion as they seem divine manifestation of grace should not serve to obscure the divine justice.Disselhoff: Here lies the sinner a night in confession and supplication, and in the morning God sends himpunishment, and therewith no syllable of grace and forgiveness! We observe it with trembling. To the deeply ruined, and long-lost child the father runs with open arms to meet him, and presses him to his heart. Yet when the favored one, who has tasted the power of atonement, loses himself, when he makes the goodness of God a subject of arrogance and presumptuousness, then the Lord comes upon the penitent with the sharp edge of His sword.He must punish, the eternal God, when He seees that the old nature is too tough in the new man, too deep-rooted and grown with His growth but above all must He then come with the sword, when His grace and His gifts have been made the cause of the self-exaltation.
2Sa 24:14 sqq. Cramer: Nowhere have we a better refuge in extremities than in the gracious hands of the Lord (Psa 90:1; Psa 91:1 sqq.).S. Schmid: The mercy of man is nothing in comparison with the divine mercy.F. W. Krummacher: David is conscious that the Lord corrects His people in measure, and the cup of His holy wrath, where He neither can nor should spare them, He never extends to them without adding hidden manifestations of grace, while men, even where they are the executioners of Gods judgments, too easily mistake their position as instruments, and pass beyond the limits of merciful moderation that were assigned them, and give free course in their bosom to the spirits of rage and vengeance.[Hall: The Almighty, that had fore-determined his judgment, refers it to Davids will as fully as if it were utterly undetermined. God had resolved, yet David may choose: that infinite wisdom hath foreseen the very will of His creature; which, while it freely inclines itself to what it had rather, unwittingly wills that which was fore-appointed in heaven.Tr.]
2Sa 24:16. Schlier: The Lord our God is a consuming fire to the sinner, and punishes, when it must be, with frightful earnestness, so that it goes through marrow and bone; but in the midst of the most awful judgments the Lord thinks of mercy. He pities usthat is the only reason why He thinks of mercy.Fr. Arndt: O miracle of mercy! Thus does the Lord in compassion cut short the punishment, when we bow! Thus says He, It is enough, when the evil has first begun to unfold its devastating effects! Thus before the eyes of His omniscience and His compassion do need and help, beginning and end, wonderfully come together!
2Sa 24:17. F. W. Krummacher: Not from the virtues of Gods children, but from their tears for their faults, shines upon us the noblest silver light of their new life.Schlier: We are willing to confess our sin, to acknowledge ourselves guilty, to be nothing, just nothing in our own eyes, and we may certainly yet experience in ourselves also that to the humble the Lord always gives grace.[On this verse John Wesley has a sermon.Hall: These thousands of Israel were not so innocent, that they should only perish for Davids sin: their sins were the motives both of this sin and punishment; besides the respect of Davids offence, they die for themselves.Henry: Most people, when Gods judgments are abroad, charge others with being the cause of them, and care not who falls by them, so they can escape; but Davids penitent and public spirit was otherwise affected. As became a penitent, he is severe upon his own faults, while he extenuates those of the people.Tr.]
2Sa 24:18 sqq. Starke: Teachers must not go before God sends them (Jer 23:21).Cramer: As God is beginning to punish, He also thinks how He wishes to end.Schlier: The repentance that comes from the bottom of the heart works great miracles; repentance draws down Gods grace, repentance finds nothing but peace and blessing. The more repentance, so much the more blessingthat holds true for heart and house, and also for land and people.Disselhoff: Where the Lord punishes His people, He blesses. Where He chastens is the door of heaven, there is His countenance, there He beholds, there He builds His tabernacle of peace.
2Sa 24:19 sqq. S. Schmid: One prophet must hearken to another (1Co 14:22).
2Sa 24:22-24. [Hall: Two frank hearts are well met; David would buy; Araunah would give. There can be no devotion in a niggardly heart; as unto dainty palates, so to the godly soul, that tastes sweetest that costs most: nothing is dear enough for the Creator of all things. It is an heartless piety of those base-minded Christians that care only to serve God good-cheap.Tr.]Wuert. B.: Penitent and believing prayer, and obedience to Gods command, can accomplish much (Psa 145:18; Jam 5:16).
F. W. Krummacher: Were Gods faithfulness no more unchanging towards us than ours towards Him, what would become of us all? With this humble confession we draw near to contemplate this new judicial proceeding between Jehovah and the king of Israel, and inquire into its subject, its course, and its issue.
On the whole chapter, J. Disselhoff: How God meets the presumptuousness of His favored ones: 1) He comes upon them with the edge of the sword; 2) His sword is not to kill, but to loose the chains of pride; 3) Where the sword of the Lord has done its work, there He builds His temple of peace.
[2Sa 24:1. Vengeance against a nation often comes through the infatuation of its rulers.The sin of national pride and vain-glory. Fourth of July oratory may be something worse than bad rhetoric.
2Sa 24:3. Good advice from a bad man. Fas est et ab hoste doceri. Luk 16:8. Much of lifes best wisdom lies in knowing how to take advice.
2Sa 24:10. Delusion lasting throughout the process of performing the wrong deed, and ceasing the moment the deed is done.Often, alas! is there occasion to say, in bitterness and shame, What a fool I have been!
2Sa 24:10, compared with 2Sa 22:20 sqq. There, rewarded because righteous and wise; here, seeks to be forgiven because sinful and foolish.Tr.]
[2Sa 24:12-13. How sad a consequence of sin and folly, when there is left to us only a choice of evils, yea, a choice amid terrible calamities.Which do we find harder to bear, which bringing more wholesome discipline, our less violent but long-continued distresses, or those which are briefer and more intense?
2Sa 24:14. It is always easier to endure ills in proportion as they seem more directly and exclusively providential, with the least possible intervention of human agency.
2Sa 24:17. It is a very bitter reflection to a good man, that his folly and sin should have brought evil upon others. And what sin or folly ever fails to have such a result, directly or indirectly?
2Sa 24:24. People often say, You can give that and never feel it. If this be true, then a devout man ought to give more, till he does feel it. Here, only what costs will pay. The widows mite was felt deeply, for it was all she had.Chap. 24. 1) Davids sin. 2) His self-reproach and confession. 3) His punishment. 4) His supplication and expiatory offering. 5) His forgiveness.Tr.]
[Upon the Life of David, the following groups of topics may aid, by way of suggestion, in devising some series of sermons.David as shepherd, warrior, father, king, psalmist.Davids conflicts: with the enemies of his flock, Goliath, Saul, the Philistines in general, Absalom, himself.Davids friends: Samuel, Jonathan, Ahimelech, Achish, Joab, Nathan, Ittai, Hushai, Barzillai, his own sons, and best friend of all, the Lord God.Davids early piety, series of great sins, bitter repentance, subsequent chastenings, hope in death.Davids impulsiveness, generosity, penitence, trust in God, gratitude, delight in worship.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa 24:2. So in 1Ch 21:2, and required by the phrase with him, and by the plural verb number ye.Tr.]
[2][2Sa 24:8. Bttcher shows (against Thenius) that the here must be given up (it is wanting in Chron.). Erdmann retains it.Tr.]
[3][2Sa 24:5. Syr., Vulg.: came to Aroer (Syr.: Sarub) on the right of the city. But the reading (given above in brackets) of the Holmes MSS. 19, 82, 93, 108, as cited by Wellh., commends itself as more natural. We should not here expect the statement that they encamped, but it is natural that the point where they began should be mentioned; moreover the phrase: on the right of the city is a strange one. The amended text would read: .Tr.]
[4][2Sa 24:10. The (which is an Adverb) here followed by the finite verb is contrary to usage. Either, one of the two (the afterwards or he numbered the people) must be omitted (Wellh.), or must be inserted: after this, because he had numbered (Bib.-Com.), or must be written instead of , and the Conjunction retained (as in the Vulg. and Eng. A. V.).What the Pisqas in 2Sa 24:10; 2Sa 24:12 signify, is uncertain.Tr.]
[5][2Sa 24:12. lay upon; Eng. A. V. rather translates the verb in Chronicles (2Sa 24:10) stretch out. Erdmann: I hold over thee; Philippson: I lay before thee.Tr.]
[6][2Sa 24:13. So Chron. (2Sa 24:12), and so the symmetry of the statement requires.Tr.]
[7][2Sa 24:23. So Bttcher, writing for and inserting . The words must be regarded as part of Araunahs speech, since it is not true that he gave the things to the king; he offered them, but they were not accepted (Wellh.).Tr.]
[8][Bib.-Com. (on 2Sa 24:1) renders this an adversary (otherwise unknown), on the ground that the Art. (found in Job and Zech.) is wanting, and similarly translates here one (an unknown enemy) moved David. But the absence of the Art. in the late-composed Chron. is explained by the fact that Satan had then become a proper name, and here the natural connection points to Jehovah as subject; if another person had been concerned, distincter mention would have been made of him.Tr.]
[9]Indicated by the before , as in 2Ki 4:41; Psa 4:4 [3], comp. Ges. 155, 1 d. [Against this see Text, and Gram.Tr.]
[10]Vulg.: obtinuit sermo regis verba Joab.Instead of should perhaps be written (Chron.).
[11]It is unnecessary to write (Vulg., Syr., Ar.) for , for the latter means simply before the king without a necessary intimation that the king went along with them.
[12][Or, because this point was exactly at the opposite end of the land (going in a circuit) from Judah.Tr.]
[13]The and to Jazer defines not the verb came (Keil), but the encamped.
[14] = .
[15] .
[16][From .Tr.]
[17][Instead of Wellh. proposes to read , and render: and they came to Dan, and from Dan turned about to Zidon (comp. the repetition of Dan in the Sept.), which gets rid of the Jaan.Tr.]
[18][On the criticism of the text here see Text. and Gram.Tr.]
[19] , Fem. with an abstract Plu., Ew. 317 a. (Inf.) thy fleeing = that thou fleest. The Sing. collects the into one conception: enemy.
[20]The numeral letter was changed into (Thenius).
[21] . Sept.: , to which it adds: , after which Thenius and Bttcher write: .
[22]Thenius: , out of which by change of into and of into . Against this Bttcher shows that is not a Heb. word, and (according to the use of ) would mean burning, comp. Jdg 15:14;.2Sa 22:9; he (Bttch.), after the Sept., reads strengthener = repast, from to support, strengthen by food, comp. Gen 43:5; Jdg 19:5; Jdg 19:8; 1Ki 13:7; as, then, in Chald. means heartstrengthening = food, dinner, so in Heb. strengthener may have meant the first meal of the day (about 11 or 12 oclock). But against this Bttcher himself says that the form is elsewhere used only of acting persons; further, such a designation of breakfast occurs nowhere else; since in the passages cited obtains the signification strengthen only from the connection (especially by the addition of heart and food), so much the more ought the connection to show when it is intended to mean breakfast, since it usually means only in general to strengthen by food.If breakfast-time is here spoken of, Thenius (following the Sept.) would take the form ; but Bttcher says rightly that the language would not have used the same word for breakfast and furniture (1Ki 10:12). Hitzig (according to Then., p. 290 sqq.), thinks that if the of the Sept. is not based on a , then to (Then.) is to be preferred (kitchen-cakes), which he tries to show means prandium.
[23]On with see Ew. 217, 2.
[24][The Pronoun is emphatic in the original.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
We have, in this chapter, a part of David’s history, the date of which is not certain. He is here in a state of trespassing against the Lord, by numbering the people. The prophet Gad is sent to reprove him, and to propose to his choice one of three plagues with which the Lord would chastise him. We have also the relation of the chastisement, and David’s repentance.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(1) And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2) For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Daniel even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
It is more than probable that David’s sin, on this occasion, was, that he was looking for strength from numbers more than from the LORD. And Satan found occasion to blow up this pride of David into a flame of rebellion against the LORD. Alas! what is man in his highest attainments, if but for a moment left to himself and his own government? Well might David, from his own experience, put up the prayer which he did upon another occasion; Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins. Psa 19:13 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Let Me Fall Into the Hands of the Lord
2Sa 24:14
I. ‘I am in a great strait.’ How often we have all of us had to say that! Sometimes by our own sin, as David now; sometimes only by our own misfortune. But to whom did David say it? for that makes all the difference as to whether he said it wisely or foolishly. He asked the question of Gad, God’s prophet; but mark you, David’s seer, as it says also the man who was the Lord’s ambassador to David, and the man who also knew David best. We have prophets, it is true, no longer; but ambassadors from God we still have, namely, His priests. And as we shall never do wrong if we go to the great High Priest, and say to Him, ‘I am in a great strait,’ ‘Lord, I am oppressed, undertake for me,’ so neither shall we be wrong if we go to the priests whom He has appointed in His own name, the shepherds whom He has set over His own fold, and tell them our troubles. David did wisely; and so shall we.
II. And what choice did he make? He made none at all; he left the whole matter in God’s hands. ‘Let me now fall into the hand of the Lord, for very great are His mercies.’ No one ever really and earnestly and heartily said that ‘Let me fall into the hand of the Lord’ and was lost. And why? because those hands were for us men and for our salvation nailed to the Cross, and are therefore mighty to save to the uttermost all that trust in them. It matters not from what degree of sin; it matters not in what extremity of danger; there is no limit to either: those blessed hands that wrought so many miracles, that cast out so many devils, that raised so many dead, they are able to heal us, to cleanse us, yes, and to raise us from any death of trespasses and sins.
III. You all know how remarkable a type David was of our Lord. Now see the great difference and contrast between them. David sinned, and the people suffered for his sake. ‘These sheep,’ he said, ‘what have they done?’ But, afterwards, it was the people that sinned, and the Son of David that suffered; it was expedient, as the Holy Ghost said by the mouth of wicked Caiaphas, ‘that one Man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not’. As it is written, ‘But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, and with His stripes we are healed’. In the one case the shepherd sins, and the sheep are punished; in the other the sheep wander, and the Good Shepherd dies to bring them back to the fold.
J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, p. 85.
References. XXIV. 14. J. M. Neale, Readings for the Aged (4th Series), p. 161. XXIV. 24. Church Times, vol. xxxvii. 1897, p. 240. E. S. Talbot, Keble College Sermons, 1870-76, p. 12.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
The Census and the Pestilence
2Sa 24
THE chapter opens:
“And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”
In another part of the record it is said that “Satan” tempted David to number the people ( 1Ch 21:1 ). In this chapter it is explicitly said that the Lord “moved David,” saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” Can there be evil in the city and the Lord not have done it? How many Lords are there? In whose keeping, in the last result, is the universe? There are certain bold inquiries which we must reverently face, and when we come to the point of mystery we must reverently adore, confessing our ignorance, but asserting our willingness, as a very miracle of grace, to wait until the light dissolves the cloud. That Satan was the tempter is unquestionable. It is marvellous, though, how often the divine Being seems to be associated, directly or indirectly, with the temptation, in the sense of the trial and the testing of men. “Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” At first a sense of revulsion draws us back, makes us stand aghast at the horrible contradiction and blasphemous irony of such an assertion. Then we say, It is better so: God must have been in this temptation at some point: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” So there are points at which we must build altars, saying, All the rest of the line has been a stroke of light, beautiful, lovely, full of solace and of hope; and as for this dark point, let us build here, and cover it as with the sanctuary of God.
Wherein was David’s sin in numbering the people? The ideal Israel was a theocracy, with as little outside work as possible, with as little shape and form and mechanism and obtrusiveness as possible; it was to be a spiritual kingdom, ruled over by the unseen Spirit. Did David imagine in his heart that the time had come for the creation of a grand military despotism built on the lines of Phoenicia and of Egypt? Was his last effort in poetry an effort stimulated by ambition? Was he but a man at the best? Does the despot rise up within all kings even those who sing amongst them most sweetly saying, Build an empire upon the earth that cannot be shaken; appeal to the senses of the people; hold up before them a throne, and a flag that cannot be mistaken, and rally them round you in patriotic zeal? How could this have been the project of the king, when so crafty and daring a man as Joab opposed the suggestion? Joab undertook to be preacher on the occasion; said he:
“Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?” ( 2Sa 24:3 ).
When some men preach to us we should take heed: it is not their custom; they are speaking an unknown tongue; they are wielding unfamiliar thunders: “Notwithstanding the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host” ( 2Sa 24:4 ). So we dismiss the idea of David having in his heart a military despotism, for surely he would have whispered it to such men, and they would have answered it with an emphatic acquiescence. Was it on account of the time that would be wasted in taking the census? From the time of starting until the time of closing nearly ten months were occupied. Could ten months not be better used than by counting heads? Is there not a religious use of time? Do we not fritter away some hours and years in useless reckonings, needless and profitless speculations? That may have been the reason; we cannot tell. But we dwell upon these suggestions to show that they need not be dwelt upon at all. The answer is given by David himself. In the tenth verse we find the secret resolved:
“And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.”
So it was a sin of the heart. Better we should not know it in words. Some ghosts cannot be transferred to canvas; they disdain the manifestation of paint; we feel them; we know them well, almost by name. Who can tell what temptations glare upon a man’s soul, and say to him, in masonic language, the cipher of perdition, Do this, and win; eat of that tree and live; stand up, and be as God? Is not that human life? The temptations are on the right hand and on the left. If they would speak in our mother tongue we might answer them in some degree, but they speak in allegory, in music heard far away, in suggestions rather than in fully elaborated pictures. They speak of the need of immediate consent. They too have their Gospel words: now is the accepted time, now is the day of satisfaction; whilst the sun shines gather what you may. This is our tragical life. We cannot pray “without ceasing,” because our continual prayer is punctuated and marred by suggestions hot as hell. The best men have these visitations; the saints of God have this abiding struggle. Here was a sin in the motive. David does not tell us what his motive was, but he confesses that it was a sinful one: and that is enough for us to know. But what right have we to condemn David if it be a question of motive? Save us from the judgment of motive; deal with our overt actions, and see how keen we are in debate, how agile in self-defence, how gifted in invention, how damnable in genius; but motive must it be dragged out of the heart’s secret place and held up to the sunlight? “Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” We are warranted only in dealing with this case because David himself said that his motive was impure, and that his heart had gone astray. How many mysteries could be cleared up if we would look within, and let the heart speak! We have turned mysteries into intellectual riddles; we have made them the subjects of special and appointed controversy; we have appointed a plaintiff and a defendant in this court which we have extemporaneously erected for criticising the mysteries of the universe. Herein is our fatal mistake. What is the explanation of many mysteries? It must be found in the soul; the heart must be subpoenaed to bear testimony. “If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.”
So much for the human side of this transaction. Now let us look at the divine side, and estimate the quality and degree of the wickedness by the punishment with which it was followed.
“Go and say unto David, Thus saith the Lord, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me” ( 2Sa 24:12-13 ).
That is the measure of the iniquity. If we would know what sin is we must know what hell is. We stand aghast at great punishments, but who trembles at great sins? How wonderfully sensitive we are when we see the mysteries of providence expressing themselves in penalties and chastisements almost intolerable! Where is there a man who stands up to vindicate eternal providence and justify the ways of God to men? We need a prophet who will say, Now let us look at the other side of the case; is there not a cause? We say, Why do children die why should the innocent be punished why should children in their earliest years be deprived of father, mother, home, friend? How mysterious are the ways of God! Where is there a man who will stand up and say, No more talking like that; or it can only be allowed as an introduction? We must not daub the wall with untempered mortar; we must not heal the hurt of the daughter of God slightly; we must be fundamental. It is useless to dwell with tears upon effects; we ought to dwell with wonder and with a feeling of worship upon causes. But it is at this point that the narrowness of our judgment is revealed, and the littleness of our ways is made known. Ours is a selfish grief. Who lifts his head heavenward, and says, How God must be grieved, how heaven’s own snow must be blackened, by these innumerable and infinite wickednesses! Heaven is almost un-heavened because of God’s grief over man’s iniquity. Until we become sterner in our view of sin, we cannot preach Christ’s Gospel. It will be to us a beautiful display of spiritual jewellery, quite a wonderful casket of tender and gracious sentiments, quite a gathering-up upon golden threads of beautiful things, translucent as dew and precious as diamonds; but nothing more; it will not burn, it will not be as a sword among the nations, it will not be first a terror and then a benediction. So God must take up his own cause and show what man’s sin is precisely by the punishment which follows it; and that punishment cannot be limited to a day, unless we use the word “day” in other than a literal sense; it must go through the first, second, third, and fourth generations of them that hate him. The hate does not die with the sunset, nor can the judgment die at the gathering of night. Human nature must be looked at in its solidarity, unity, completeness, and we cannot calculate when and where divine punishment may fall. Let us, therefore, look earnestly and pray vehemently, and repent until there be not one entire piece in our hearts, but the whole be shattered, broken, and thus made into a dwelling-place fit for God. Punishment soon makes men religious, at least for the time being. It is pitiful to see how weak the strongest disbeliever is when God continues the pressure of providence upon him. He can endure three days’ east wind, remarking merely that the weather is severe; but let him have three weeks of it, and then three months; let it interfere with his seedtime, let it diminish his crop of green things, so that he may have to look otherwhere for the nourishment of his flocks; let it still blow more chillingly than ever, and he says, What is this? Let the earth be dried up and be as a pot of white dust, so that he can find in it no cohesion, no reply to the sun, no flower growing upon all the monotony. Then watch him! When a day of prayer is proposed, he does not wreathe his face into a sardonic smile; rather he says, If anything can be done, let it be done. Poor fool! Unbelief has but few resources; it is soon run to earth, it quickly flees into bankruptcy; only faith can say, Though the fig-tree shall not blossom, I will sing, I will rejoice, I will build mine altar higher; my poverty shall be made an element of my wealth. There is a time, full “nine months and twenty days,” when we can number the people, carry out our dreams and ambitions, strut our little hour upon the stage, play such fantastic tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep; but by mere effluxion of time God transfixes us, until, if we cannot pray, we begin to whimper like cowards, and to sigh like those who have no more resource. Sometimes, therefore, we have to estimate sin by the punishment which follows it; in other words, sometimes, to estimate at its proper value the cause, we have to dwell upon the effect and work our way back from overt and terrific punishment to spiritual and metaphysical explanation.
“So the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men” ( 2Sa 24:15 ).
And still the pestilence kept outside Jerusalem. But the angel came very near: he stretched out his hand over the city of God, and the Lord said, “It is enough: stay now thine hand;” and the angel was so near Jerusalem that he was actually at “the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.” So near had God’s anger come to Zion! And when David saw the angel that smote the people, he said,
“Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house” ( 2Sa 24:17 ).
So David went forward at the bidding of Gad, the seer, who said: “Go up, rear an altar unto the Lord in the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite” ( 2Sa 24:18 ) go and rear an altar almost on the very spot where the temple will one day stand. So, as the king came near,
“Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshingfloor of thee, to build an altar unto the Lord, that the plague may be stayed from the people. And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, here be oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen for wood. All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king” ( 2Sa 24:21-23 ).
Let not this be a matter of buying and selling. He offered it unto David. David said: No; not only is this forbidden in the law: I will not offer unto the Lord that which cost me nothing. “So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver” ( 2Sa 24:24 ). David would return an equivalent. He would have no borrowed altar; he would not avail himself of other men’s religion. There comes a time when a man’s religion affirms itself and justifies itself by distinct, positive, costly sacrifice. We cannot do some things in crowds. We are thankful now and again for a prayer in the great congregation, because it is touched by a pathos impossible to solitude, yet every man must pray his own prayer, give his own tribute, and go through the costly process of self-sacrifice. We are not ashamed of the faith which believes that man must do something before God will cease to afflict David built his altar, “and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.” And “the Lord was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel” ( 2Sa 24:25 ). The Lord will lure us or drive us. “The Lord reigneth.” We must either fall upon the stone and be broken, or the stone will fall upon us and grind us to powder. “Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace.” “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry.” We belong, as Christian thinkers and workers, to those who are not ashamed to confess that before things can be rectified or adjusted and brought back into harmonious and beneficent action, man must do something. What is that something? “Then Jesus began to preach, saying, Repent,” where every great prophet must begin, where every grand reformation must originate. It must start in self-conviction, in bitterest tears, in self-renunciation, in speechless contrition. God will not be appeased by our controversies, our battles of words, however skilfully and deftly fought; he will only be pleased with repentance towards himself and faith in his Son Jesus Christ. “Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee.” What then? Shall the air be rent with song, and the sun be amazed by music, where before he has only heard noise? Shall angels hasten to listen to melody unexpected but not unwelcome? No; that is not the ending of the psalm. Let us read the whole of it: “Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee. Then shall the earth yield her increase,” and be a mother to us, nourishing us, answering our hunger with abundance, and our thirst with fountains of water.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXII
THE SIN OF NUMBERING THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL,
ITS PENALTY, AND THE HISTORY OF ABSALOM
2Sa 13:1-39
On page 138 of the Harmony preserved in both 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, is an account of another great affliction from God, and this affliction took the form of a pestilence in which 70,000 people perished. In one account it is said that the Lord moved David to number Israel, in the other that Satan instigated it. God is sometimes said to do things that he permits. There was a spirit of sinfulness in both the nation and king, on account of the great prosperity of the nation. Some preachers holding protracted meetings, and some pastors in giving their church roll, manifest a great desire to put stress upon numbers. So David ordered a census taken of the people. We search both these accounts in vain to find the law of the census carried out, that whenever a census was taken a certain sum of money from each one whose census was taken was to be put into the sanctuary. It was not wrong to take a census, because God himself ordered a census in Numbers. The sin was in the motive which prompted David to number Israel on this occasion. Satan was at his old trick of trying to turn the people against God, that God might smite the people. Oftentimes when we do things, the devil is back of the motive which prompts us to do them. It is a strange thing that the spirit of man can receive direct impact from another spirit.
It is also a strange thing that a man so secular-minded as Joab, understood the evil of this thing better than David. Joab worked at taking this census for nearly ten months, but did not complete it; be did not take the census of Levi or Benjamin. 1 Chronicles gives the result in round numbers, which does not exactly harmonize with 2 Samuel, one attempting to give only round numbers. Both show a great increase in population. After the thing was done, David’s conscience smote him, he felt that here were both error and sin; and he prayed about it, and when he prayed, God sent him a message, making this proposition: “I offer thee three things” [try and put yourself in David’s place and see which of these three things you would have accepted.] (1) “Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?” He had just passed through three years of famine, and did not want to see another, especially one twice as long as the other. (2) “Or wilt thou flee three months before thy foes, while they pursue thee?” He rejected that because it put him at the mercy of man. (3) The last alternative was, “Or shall there be three days’ pestilence in thy land?” And David made a remarkable answer: “Let us fall now into the hands of the Lord, for his mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hands of man.” I would myself always prefer that God be the one to smite me rather than man. “Man’s inhumanity to man makes countless millions mourn.” It is astonishing how cruel man can be to man and woman to woman, especially woman to woman. Always prefer God’s punishment; he loves you better than anyone else, and will not put on you more than is just; but when the human gets into the judgment seat, there is no telling what may happen. Before this three days’ pestilence had ended 70,000 people had died. The pestilence was now moving upon the capital, and David was going to offer a sacrifice to God and implore his mercy. When he saw the angel of death with his drawn sword, about to swoop down upon Jerusalem, then comes out the magnanimity of David: “Lo, I have sinned and I have done perversely; but these sheep, what have they done?” Who greater than David used similar language in order to protect his flock? Our Lord in Gethsemane. Thereupon God ordered a sacrifice to be made, its object being to placate God, to stay the plague, a glorious type of the ultimate atonement.
When I was a student at Independence, the convention met there, and Dr. Bayless, then pastor of the First Baptist Church at Waco, took this text: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” He commenced: “When the flaming sword of divine justice was flashing in the sunbeams of heaven, and whistling in its fiery wrath, Jesus interposed and bared his breast, saying, ‘Smite me instead.’ ” Bayless was a very eloquent preacher. But though our Lord interposed, yet on him, crushed with imputed sin, that sword was about to fall. His shrinking humanity prayed, “Save me from the sword!” But the Father answered, “Awake, O Sword, smite the shepherd and let the flock be scattered.” And here we find the type.
The threshing floor of Araunah became the site of Solomon’s Temple. It was the place where Abraham brought his son, and bound him on an altar, and lifted up the knife when the voice of God called: “Abraham, stay thy hand, God himself hath provided a sacrifice.” There Abraham started to offer Isaac; there the Temple was afterward built, and the brazen altar erected on which these sacrificial types were slain. I ask you not only to notice David’s vicarious expiation, but also the spirit of David as set forth in 2Sa 24:24 , page 141; “Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God, which cost me nothing.” That old Canaanite man was a generous fellow, and offered to give him that place for such a purpose and to furnish the oxen for the sacrifice, but David refused to make an offering that cost him nothing. Brother Truett preaches a great sermon on that subject: “God forbid that I should offer an offering unto the Lord that costs me nothing.” When he wants to get a really sacrificial collection; wants people to give until it hurts, he takes that text and preaches his sermon. We must not select for God that which costs us nothing. I will not say tens or hundreds, but I wills ay thousands of times in my life I have made such offerings where it cost me something where it really hurt.
History of Absalom. In the last discussion it was shown that there had been a number of antecedent sins in connection with Absalom: (1) It was a sin that the Geshurites had been left in the land. (2) It was a sin that David had married & Geshurite. (3) That he had married for State reasons. (4) That he had multiplied wives. (5) That he did not instruct and discipline Absalom. Absalom stands among the most remarkable characters of the Old Testament. He was the handsomest man in his day, according to the record. He was perfect in physical symmetry and body. That counts a good deal with many people, but here it is not a case of “pretty is that pretty does.” He had outside beauties to a marvelous degree. In that poem of N. P. Willis, he assumes that Absalom’s body is before David in the shroud, and says that as the shroud settled upon the body it revealed in outline the matchless symmetry of Absalom. Absalom had remarkable courage; there is nothing in the history to indicate that he was ever afraid of anything or anybody. Again, he had great decision of character; he knew exactly what he wanted; he was utterly unscrupulous as to the means to secure it. However, he was a man of most remarkable patience; he had passions and hate, and yet he could hold his peace and wait years to strike. That shows that he was not impulsive; that he could keep his passions under the most rigid control. The idea of a young man like Absalom under such an indignity waiting two years and then carefully planning and bringing his victims under his hand and smiting them without mercy! That is malice aforethought. He alone could make Joab bend to him; he sent for Joab, but Joab did not come; then he sent to his servant saying, “Set fire to Joab’s barley field.” That brought him! Spurgeon has a sermon on that. You know that a terrapin will not crawl when you are looking at him unless you put a coal of fire on his back. Absalom put a coal of fire on Joab’s back. Then, to show the character of the man, he could get up early in the morning and go to the gate of the city and listen to every grievance in the nation, pat each fellow on the back and whisper in his ear, “Oh, if I were judge in Israel your wrong would be righted!” There is your politician. Now for a man to keep that up for years indicates a fixedness of purpose, absolute control over his manner. Whoever supposes Absalom to have been a weak-minded man is mistaken. Whoever supposes him to have been a religious man is mistaken. He had not a spark of religion.
David’s oldest son, Amnon, commits the awful offense set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Words cannot describe the villainy of it, and if Absalom under the hot indignation of the moment had smitten Amnon, he would have been acquitted by any jury. But that was not Absalom’s method. He intended to hit and hit to kill, but he was going to take his time, and let it be as sudden as death itself when it came. David refrains from punishing Amnon. Under the Jewish law he could have been put to death at once, and he ought to have been, but David could not administer the law; seeing his own guilt in a similar case, stripped him of the moral power to execute the law.
You will find that whenever you do wrong, it will make you more silent in your condemnation of wrong in others.
We now come to a subject that has been the theme of my own preaching a good deal: “Now Joab, the son of Zeruiah, perceived that the king’s heart was toward Absalom,” but he also perceived that that affection was taking no steps to bring about a reconciliation, so he falls upon a plan. He sent a wise woman of Tekoa to find David, feigning a grievance as set forth here, who among other things said, “We must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again,” i.e., from one against whom our anger is extended, but in behalf of whom we are interceding. The fact that God had not killed him was proof that he was soaring him that he might repent. “But God deviseth means whereby his banished shall not be perpetually expelled.” The application intended is this: “Now David, you are doing just the other way. You have only a short time to live, and when you die your opportunities of reconciliation are gone forever. Imitate God; devise means to bring your banished one home.” David acted on this advice and sent Joab after Absalom, but he did not imitate God fully; he had Absalom brought to Jerusalem, but would not see him. Absalom waited there under a cloud for three years, and when he could stand it no longer, by burning Joab’s barley field he forced him to bring about a reconciliation. Absalom’s object in bringing about this reconciliation was to put him in position to rebel. He knew that the tenth son, Solomon, wag announced as the successor to David, and he was the older son, and under the ordinary laws of primogeniture entitled to the kingdom. So he determines to be king.
David at this time, as we learn from Psa 41 , was laboring under an awful and loathsome sickness a sickness that separated him from his family, from his children, and from his friends. This caused him to be forgotten to a great extent. It was a case of “when you drop out of sight, you drop out of mind.” While the people saw nothing of David, they were seeing much of Absalom; he had his chariot and followers, and paraded the streets every day, and his admirers would say, “There is a king for you! We want a king that is somebody!” David in retirement, Absalom conspicuous, making promises, and being the oldest son, captured the hearts of the people. Among these was Ahithophel. Then Absalom sent spies out all over the country and said, “When you hear the trumpet blow, you may know that Absalom is reigning.” He went down to Hebron and announced himself as king. When the word is brought to David that the people have gone from him, there seems to be no thought in his mind of resistance; he prepares to leave the city, leave the ark of God and the house of God. Leaving his concubines and taking his wives and children with him) he sets out, and upon reaching Mount Olivet, looks back upon the abandoned city, and weeps. A great number of the psalms were composed to commemorate his feelings during this flight. Both priests, Abiathar and Zadok, wanted to take the ark with them, but David sent them back, saying he wanted some there to watch for him and send him word. Never in the annals of time do we find a more lively historic portraiture of men and events than here. Each lives before us as we read: “Ittai, Abiathar, Zadok, Hushai, Ziba, Shirnei, and Abishai.”
QUESTIONS
1. How do you harmonize 2Sa 24:1 and 1Ch 21:1 ?
2. What was the sin of this numbering of Israel?
3. What was the lessons to preachers?
4. What was David’s course?
5. What was God’s proposition to David?
6. What was David’s answer, and reason for his choice?
7. How was the plague finally stayed?
8. What type here, and the New Testament fulfilment?
9. What was the site of Solomon’s Temple?
10. What historic events connected are with this place?
11. What great text for a sermon here, and who has preached a noted sermon from it?
12. Rehearse here the antecedent sins in connection with Absalom?
13. What was his physical appearance?
14. Analyze his character.
15. What was the lesson to preachers from the sin of Amnon and David’s attitude toward it?
16. What was the lesson for David from the woman of Tekoa?
17. How did David receive it?
18. To what expedient did Absalom resort, and why?
19. What was David’s disadvantage and Absalom’s advantage here?
20. What was David’s course when he saw that the hearts of the people had turned toward Absalom?
21. What was the nature of this part of the history?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
Ver. 1. And again the anger of the Lord. ] Again, after the late three years’ famine for Saul’s sin, and the late slaughter of twenty thousand for rebelling with Absalom, this plague of pestilence is sent – as they seldom go sundered – for the injury done to Uriah – saith Rupertus – who is named in the last verse of the former chapter; but more likely it was for some general sin of the whole land; whether it were their recently revolting from David, or their putting too much confidence in their king and his worthies; or the abuse of their present peace and plenty; or whatever else, God was displeased, and David so far abandoned and left to himself, that he yielded to that satanical suggestion, which brought the people’s ruth and ruin.
And he moved David against them.
Go, number Israel and Judah.
a Non pugnant inter se, quum non sint adversa sed diversa, et quidem subalterna.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
And again. The history in this chapter precedes 2Sa 23, by Figure of speech Hysterologia (App-6). See note on 23. i. the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4. He moved-He suffered him to be moved. By He-brew idiom (and also by modern usage) a person is said to do that which he permits to be done. Here we have the historical fact. In 1Ch 21:1 we have the real fact from the Divine standpoint. Here the exoteric, in 1Ch 21:1 the esoteric. For examples, see Exo 4:21; Exo 5:22. Jer 4:10. Eze 14:9; Eze 20:25. Mat 11:25; Mat 13:11. Rom 9:18; Rom 11:7, Rom 11:8; 2Th 2:11. God’s permission, but Satan’s suggestion (Jam 1:13, Jam 1:14); or, yasath may be taken impersonally, “David was moved”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 24
Chapter twenty four,
Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, and number Israel and Judah. For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people ( 2Sa 24:1-2 ).
Now Joab rightfully objected to David from this numbering process. He said, “Why do you need to know how many people there are? God is able to give you a great multitude, why do you need to know how many you have?” But David insisted that they be numbered.
Now the Lord was opposed to the census. On the basis of the fact that God had declared that He was gonna multiply Abraham’s seed so that it would be as the sands of the seas, and the stars of the heavens, innumerable. For David then to seek to number the people, or to count the people, to take the census, was actually in a defiance in a way, against the promise of God, which God had declared that He was gonna multiply them until they were innumerable.
But David’s pride, for whatever reason, sought to number the number of fighting men that he had both in Judah and in Israel. So he commissioned Joab to go throughout the whole land and number them all. Joab went throughout the land, took him nine months to take the census. When he came back after nine months, he found that there were five hundred thousand men in Judah who were valiant. There were some eight hundred thousand in Israel.
Now David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David confessed, Lord, I’ve sinned greatly in what I have done: and now, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly ( 2Sa 24:10 ).
So David after it was over with, realizes his folly, realizes his sin, and he asks forgiveness.
And so the Lord said, I’ll give you three choices, either [Number one] there’ll be seven years of famine come into the land, or you will flee three months before your enemies, or I will bring a pestilence for three days into the land, take your choice. So David said, [Well, I don’t want to fall into the hands of my enemies, because I don’t think they are merciful.] I’d rather fall into the hands of God; for he is merciful. [So, I’ll take the three days pestilence in the land. So the angel of the Lord went through the land with a plague, and began to smite the men of Israel.] The Lord sent the pestilence from morning until evening, from Dan to Beersheba seventy thousand men were wiped out in this pestilence. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It’s enough: stay now thy hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite. David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and he said, Lo, I have sinned, I’ve done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and my father’s house ( 2Sa 24:12-17 ).
“Lord it was me, I sinned, what have these people done? They’re just poor sheep, they haven’t done anything.” David is seeking the Lord, actually though you go back to the first verse, and the Lord was angry with Israel, no doubt for their apostasy and all. God sought this cause against Israel.
And so the prophet Gad came that day to David and said to him, Go up and raise up an altar unto the LORD at the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite. And David, according to the saying of Gad went up as the Lord commanded. Araunah looked and he saw the king and he started coming toward him: and he went out, and bowed himself unto David. And he said, Why has the king come to his servant? [And so forth] And David said, I’ve come to buy your threshingfloor, that I might build an altar to the LORD, and offer a sacrifice that the plague might be stayed from the people. And Araunah said to David, [Hey, take it man, I don’t want it,] you can have it: and here you can kill these oxen, and you can take the plows and all to make the wood for the altar, and you can have them. And David said, No, I will not offer unto God that which cost me nothing ( 2Sa 24:19-24 ):
I think with David this is a very interesting principle. We talk about making sacrifices unto God, but we don’t really understand what it is to sacrifice unto the Lord. Very few people actually sacrifice in giving to God. Most generally people give from their abundance. Very few ever sacrifice, or give sacrificially unto God. So often we’re giving to the Lord that which cost us nothing. It doesn’t really cost; it doesn’t really take away from me. If it should take away from me, then I’d think twice about giving it to God. Very few people are willing to actually give sacrificially to God, give God that really costs them something. In reality I feel that the poor actually always give much more to God than the rich. Even as when Jesus was with His disciples watching the people cast their money into the treasury, and the rich came by casting their great gifts in, all the people standing there going, “Oh wow, wow.”
This poor little widow came along and dropped her mite in, which today is one fortieth of a penny. You can buy forty mites for a penny. And when this widow put that mite in, Jesus turned to His disciples and He said, “Did you see that? She gave more than all of the rest of them.”
“What do you mean Lord? You got to be kidding.”
“No, I’m not kidding. You see, she dropped in all that she had. That’s her very sustenance. That’s all she’s got. That cost her. The rest of them, they’re all giving from their abundance, it didn’t cost them to give, they’re giving their surplus, their abundance; it doesn’t cost them anything. She has given of her very sustenance unto the Lord, it cost.”
That’s what the Lord measured. Thus, the poor people are those that will be rich in the kingdom of God because their giving unto the Lord has been costly. They give out of their sustenance. Whereas the rich, though you may count them in dollar amounts, give much more, God doesn’t count in dollar amounts. God counts in what it costs to give.
David declares, “I will not give unto God that which cost me nothing.” I think in that exemplified an excellent principle, that our giving to God should cost us something in order for it to be true sacrificial giving.
And thus David bought the threshingfloor from Araunah, and he bought the cattle. And there he offered the sacrifice of God, and the plague was stayed, the angel’s hand was stayed, and did not smite Jerusalem, and did not smite any further than Israel ( 2Sa 24:24-25 ).
Now because of this, they did not take a census in Israel after this time. But every man was required once a year to drop a shekel into the treasury of the temple. They would count the shekels so they knew how many men there were. But they wouldn’t count people after this anymore.
It’s like we were in Israel a few weeks ago. Our guide had some obligations to fulfill, and he also wanted to be with us, and he said, “Oh, I’ll go talk to Rabbi,” he said, “they can always work a way around the law, you know.” Of course this is the very thing that Jesus was complaining about, how that they had developed traditions and all by which they could circumvent the law. So they’re still doing it, developing little traditions by which you can circumvent the law. On the Sabbath day, you cannot spend money. You’re breaking the Sabbath law if you spend money, but it’s all right to use a MasterCharge, or Visa card, because that’s not money. So they’ve got these little nuances all the way through, where you can sort of circumvent the law.
The Rabbi said, “He’ll tell you some way, well, if you do it this way, and so forth, you’re not violating, you’re okay.” So today in orthodox Jewry, they still refuse to be counted.
Now if you’re at a party, you need to play a game, a game in which the people in the room have to be numbered, you really can’t count the people so you say, “Well, you’re not one, you’re not two, you’re not three, you’re not four, you’re not five.” So you’re not counting them. Little ways around everything.
It is sad that David’s career ends in sort of tragedy. But after the sin with Bathsheba, there was a penalty to be paid though the prophet said, “The Lord has forgiven thy sins, yet the sword will never depart from your house. Your own children will rise up against you.” First of all Absalom rising up against him, next week Adonijah rising up against him. The sword, the rebellion by the northern tribes, the attack by the Philistines. The sword is constantly there. Yes, he’s forgiven, but oh the price that he paid for his sins.
It should cause us to think twice before we would entertain the thought of sinning. God will forgive of course, but sometimes the price that has to be paid is very steep.
Shall we pray?
Father we thank You again for the privilege of studying Your Word. We pray Lord that we might walk in its light. Give us, Father a richer, fuller, understanding of Your purpose, of Your plan of Your love, as You unfold it to our hearts through Thy Word. Lord, let us examine ourselves, our own lives that we might walk circumspectly before Thee. Father, we pray that You’ll help us to even examine our giving to Thee. That we would not, Lord, just give to You cast-offs, but giving that counts. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
Shall we stand?
May the Lord be with you, may the Lord watch over you this week, may the Lord bless you. May He fill you with His love, with His Spirit, with His grace, that you might show forth that grace of God in your dealings with others. That you might manifest the Spirit, the nature of Jesus Christ, in your relationship with others. That you might walk, even as He walked, in Jesus’ name. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
The Book closes with one other picture, reminding us of the direct government of the people by God in that He visited the king and the nation with punishment for numbering the people.
It has been objected that there was nothing sinful in taking a census, seeing that it had been done before in the history of the people by the direct command of God. But in that very fact lay the contrast between previous numberings and this. They were carried out by the command of God. This was done from a very different motive. That the act was wrong is evident from David’s consciousness that it was so; and in the presence of his confession it is not for us to criticize. Quite evidently the motive explains the sin. While that motive is not explicitly declared, we may certainly gain an understanding of it from the protest of Joab, “Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it; but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?” The spirit of vainglory in numbers had taken possession of the people and the king, and there was a tendency to trust in numbers and forget God.
David’s choice of his punishment once more revealed his recognition both of the righteousness and tenderness of Jehovah. He willed that the stroke which was to fall, should come directly from the divine hand rather than through any intermediary.
The Book ends with the story of the erection of the altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite in which we finally see the man after God’s own heart turning the occasion of his sin and its punishment into an occasion of worship.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
a Proud Heart Humbled
2Sa 24:1-14
The sin of numbering the people lay in its motive. David was animated by a spirit of pride and vainglory. He was eager to make a fine showing among the surrounding nations, and to impress them with such a conception of Israels greatness that they would not dare to attack any point of the long frontier line. He yielded to the temptation of trusting in chariots and horses, instead of in the victories of faith.
When the enumeration was nearly complete, Davids heart smote him. He saw how far he had swerved from the idea of the theocracy, in which Gods will was the sole guide of national policy. He had substituted his own wisdom for the divine edict. A night of anguish followed on this self-discovery, but David submitted himself to Gods dealings.
It was wise to choose to fall into the hands of God. They are very loving and tender hands, but David viewed them as punitive and not redemptive; and the plague, which devastated the people, cut him to the quick.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
2Sa 24:1
We do not see immediately upon its being mentioned how it was wrong for David to number the people; that is, in the modern phrase, to take a census of the population. We have a census of the population taken at certain intervals, and this is not wrong, but very proper and useful. What is the difference between the circumstances of the children of Israel and our own?
I. Notice first the object with which this act was done. It was very clear what David had an eye to in numbering the people. It was one of those steps which the kings of the nations around were accustomed to take from time to time when they wanted to know how strong they were and what wars they could carry on, what countries they could invade and what cities they could take. This was the way of the heathen world, whom the Israelites were specially bidden not to imitate. They were not meant by God to be a conquering nation; they were a holy nation, a peculiar people, whom God had admitted into a special covenant with Himself. David’s act was one of vulgar kingly ambition, in absolute contradiction to the express designs of God for the Jewish people. It pleased God by a terrible visitation at once to check this new temper and suppress at its very commencement this dangerous aim.
II. Another reason why David’s act was a sinful one was that it was done under a very different dispensation from that under which we live. To the Jews God was not only their God in heaven, but their King on earth as well. Anything that interfered with this special Divine sovereignty was treason, because the chosen people were not to set up governments and modes of policy for themselves, as other nations did, but were to wait upon the voice of their Divine King. David was only king under a Divine King, and had no right to be constructing great plans out of his own head.
III. There is a sense, and a very true sense, in which David’s sin applies to us. People are very fond of numbering the good things they have or suppose themselves to have. This is the peril to which our Lord refers when He says, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, …for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also;” that is, you will be always brooding in your heart upon them, and they will fill your mind to the exclusion of all spiritual thoughts. The Bible takes us out of ourselves, and directs us to God as the great object of our love, and in Him to our neighbour. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”
J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 72
References: 2Sa 24:1.-H.Thompson, Concionalia: Outlines of Sermons for Parochial Use, vol. i., p. 349; F W. Krummacher, David King of Israel, p. 478; Homiletic Magazine, vol vi., p. 171.
2Sa 24:14
Consider:-
I. The different effects produced by the fear of God and the fear of man in the case of sorrow for sin in ourselves. (1) The fear of man leads directly to concealment, and to all those acts of meanness and falsehood which are practised to escape detection and punishment. (2) The fear of man drives some to feelings of general disgust and hatred towards mankind; others it drives to despair and to thoughts of suicide. (3) The fear of man leads us astray in our treatment of others who have offended.
II. Notice the effect produced by the fear of God. (1) The fear of God brings us to confession, and humiliation, and a grateful hope. (2) It leads us to judge rightly of the comparative guilt of different offences, and to value them, not according to the opinion of men, but according to the word of God. (3) It makes us eager and ready to forgive, even as God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven us.
III. It is remarkable, however, that while the Scripture enforces the most entire indifference to the censure of the world, and condemns so often and so justly the fear of man, yet it teaches us to shock no man’s opinion of us arrogantly, and to consider in all trifling matters, as much as we can, how we may please others, not for our sake, but for theirs. The excellence of Christian compliance is that it regards the favour of man, not as an end, but as a means; it does not covet it for its own sake, but that men, by learning to look upon Christians favourably, may be persuaded to become altogether Christians themselves.
T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. i., p. 164.
References: 2Sa 24:14.-T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 66; J. Baldwin Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 252; J. M Neale, Sermons in Sackville College, vol. ii., p. 85.
2Sa 24:17
Consider:-
I. The sin committed by David. There is little doubt that it was manifestation of pride which made this action so offensive in the sight of the Lord. It is possible that David dwelt with pride upon the thought of his ample resources and numerous armies, and calculated that he was possessed of a power to repel aggression and attempt fresh conquests. He had forgotten that God alone, who had made him great, could preserve to him his greatness. The same offence may be committed in any rank of life. I care not what it is that a man is anxious to reckon up, but if it be pride that moves him to the reckoning, we identify his case with that of David, and charge on him the iniquity which exposed the Israelites to the pestilence.
II. The punishment which was incurred. There is something strange in the declared fact that sins are often visited on others than the perpetrators. But in the instance before us we can easily see that neither was David unpunished, nor the people punished without a cause. (1) David had sinned by a vainglorious desire to know the number of his subjects; the most suitable punishment was the destruction of thousands of those subjects, for this took away the source of exaltation. (2) It is evident, from the account in the book of Chronicles, that the people had moved the anger of the Lord before the king moved it by worldly confidence and pride. The people were really smitten for their own sins, though apparently for the sins of David.
III. The expiation which was made. The plague was not stayed by any virtue in the sacrifice which David offered. The sacrifice was but as a type, figuring that expiatory sacrifice by which the moral pestilence that had spread over the world would be finally arrested.
H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1894.
References: 2Sa 24:17.-J. Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year. Sundays after Trinity, Part I., p. 234; D. Hunter, The Modern Scottish Pulpit, p. 158.
2Sa 24:24.
The highest joy in the world is that which Christ feels in saving a sinner. Such as the cost is, such is the work; and such as the service is, such is the joy.
I. This is true of our private devotions. It is comparatively easy to pray morning and evening, but it is much more difficult to do so regularly in the course of the day. Yet the omitted and costly part is the very part which would show reality or give it.
II. The same is true of Bible-reading. There are two ways of reading God’s word, so widely separate that the Bible is two books, according as we take the one method or the other. There is an easy, superficial way of reading down a chapter; and there is a bent, real, intense, intelligent searching into every word and every syllable. Mark the promise given to Adam, “In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread,” and the promise applies to the natural and to the spiritual bread. Therefore the soul that will eat bread must do it with pains, perseverance, and patience.
J. Vaughan, Sermons, 9th series, p. 126 (see also Fifty Sermons, 1874, p. 314).
We observe in these words two things:-
I. The true motive to beneficence: “offering unto the Lord.” Our offerings must be gifts to the Lord. Everything in life depends on the motive from which it springs. Man is what his motives are; he is no better and no worse. The highest and purest motive is that of doing all unto the Lord.
II. The true measure of beneficence: that which we feel to cost us something. Giving must always be tending towards sacrifice and self-denial. Having love as the impulse to our benevolence, its measure will be determined by the nature of the case which appeals for our help and also by the means which God has placed at our disposal.
E. Mellor, In the Footsteps of Heroes, p. 31.
References: 2Sa 24:25.-R. D. B. Rawnsley, Sermons in Country Churches, 3rd series, p. 280. 1Sam 24-Parker, vol. vii., p. 222.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
4. Davids Failure: the Altar on the Threshing Floor of Araunah
CHAPTER 24
1. The numbering of the people (2Sa 24:1-9)
2. The sin acknowledged and Gads message (2Sa 24:10-14)
3. The pestilence (2Sa 24:15-17)
4. The altar on the threshing floor of Araunah (2Sa 24:18-25)
The final chapter of the books of Samuel is of much interest and importance. And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. In 1Ch 21:1 we read And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. This has often been pointed out as a discrepancy and contradiction. Criticism has explained it in the following way: Of surpassing interest for the study of the progressiveness of revelation in the Old Testament period is the form which the chronicler has given to this verse. To his more developed religious sense the idea was abhorrent that God could be subject to moods, and incite men to a course of action for which He afterwards calls them to account. Accordingly he writes: And Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. There is no contradiction here nor do the two accounts need an explanation as the above. Israel had committed some sin which brought upon them the displeasure of Jehovah. Satan the accuser was then permitted to influence David. The statement, He (God) moved David, also means in Hebrew, He suffered him to be moved. He permitted Satan to do his work. In 1Ti 3:6 we read that pride is the condemnation (or as it is literally the crime) of the devil. And Satan the accuser moves David with national pride to number the people. It is significant that preceding this record are the names and achievements of the mighty men of David. No doubt his heart swelled with much elation over his victories and great achievements. While Davids eyes were blinded by Satan, Joab saw the danger. In 1Ch 21:3 we read that he said to David: The LORD make His people an hundred times so many more as they be; but, my lord the King, are they not all my lords servants? Why doth my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of guilt to Israel? The Kings word prevailed and reluctantly Joab and the captains went forth to carry out the Kings command. It was altogether a military census. But the census was not completed (1Ch 27:24).
Davids heart then smote him and we see him coming to the Lord and confessing his sin. I have sinned greatly in that I have done; and now I beseech thee, LORD, take away the iniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. It was a true confession he made that night. Then the Lord sent the answer through the prophet Gad. The Lord leaves the choice to David. Either three years of famine, three months of flight or three days of pestilence. (This is according to 1Ch 21:12; 2Sa 24:13 records seven years, which must be the error of some copyist.) And here the man of faith asserts himself Let us now fall into the hand of the LORD; for His mercies are great, and let me not fall into the hand of man. And the Lord did not disappoint His servants faith in His mercy. When the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it the Lord said, It is enough; stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord, the same who appeared to the patriarchs, to Moses, Joshua and others, was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Once more Davids voice is heard in confession. I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Thy hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my fathers house. He was willing to be the one sufferer for his people; in this he is a type again of our Lord, the sinbearer. He is commanded to rear an altar upon the threshing floor of Araunah. It was a fitting spot for mercy upon Israel, this place where of old faithful Abraham had been ready to offer his only son unto God; fitting also as still outside the city; but chiefly in order that the pardoning and sparing mercy now shown, might indicate the site where, on the great altar of burnt-offering, abundant mercy in pardon and acceptance would in the future be dispensed to Israel (A. Edersheim). It was the place upon which the temple was built (1Ch 21:28-30; 1Ch 22:1). And Araunah the Jebusite offered willingly the threshing floor and the sacrificial animals. But David would not consent. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. For fifty shekels of silver he bought the oxen and the threshing floor. Then the burnt offerings and peace offerings ascended unto Jehovah as a sweet savour. And Jehovah answered by fire (1Ch 21:26). And David before that altar, who buys and offers, thus meeting the claim of God, is a type of our Lord who bought us with the great price and offered Himself And even so as this book closes with the Lord being merciful to His land and people, the plague stayed, so will Israel in the future receive and enjoy His mercy. It will be the result of the one sacrifice.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 2987, bc 1017, An, Ex, Is, 474
again: 2Sa 21:1-14
he: This verse, when read without reference to any other part of the word of God, is very difficult to understand, and has been used by those who desire to undermine the justice of God, to shew that he sought occasion to punish – that he incited David to sin; and when he had so incited him, gave to him the dreadful alternative of choosing one of three scourges by which his people were to be cut off. On the face of the passage these thoughts naturally arise, because “the Lord” is the antecedent to the pronoun “he,” – He moved David. But to those who “search the Scriptures,” this exceedingly difficult passage receives a wonderful elucidation. By referring to 1Ch 21:1, the reader will there find that Satan was the mover, and that the Lord most righteously punished David for the display of pride he had manifested. Oh! that Christians, who sometimes have their minds harassed with doubts, would remember the promise, that what they know not now they shall know hereafter; and if no other instance of elucidation than this passage occurred to them to remove their doubts, let this be a means of stirring them up to dig deeper than ever into the inexhaustible mines of the Inspired Word. Jam 1:13, Jam 1:14
moved: 2Sa 12:11, 2Sa 16:10, Gen 45:5, Gen 50:20, Exo 7:3, 1Sa 26:19, 1Ki 22:20-23, Eze 14:9, Eze 20:25, Act 4:28, 2Th 2:11
number: 1Ch 27:23, 1Ch 27:24
Reciprocal: Gen 22:1 – God Exo 30:12 – takest Lev 10:6 – lest wrath Num 1:2 – Take ye the sum Num 1:19 – General Num 14:12 – smite Num 16:22 – one man sin Jos 7:1 – the anger Jos 22:18 – he will be 1Ki 11:14 – the Lord 1Ki 12:15 – the cause 2Ki 3:6 – numbered 1Ch 5:26 – stirred up 1Ch 7:2 – whose number 1Ch 7:40 – the number 1Ch 21:7 – he smote 1Ch 21:17 – what have 2Ch 21:16 – the Lord 2Ch 24:18 – wrath 2Ch 32:25 – General Jer 52:3 – through
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
A FATAL BLUNDER
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2Sa 24:1
We do not see immediately upon its being mentioned how it was wrong for David to number the people; that is, in the modern phrase, to take a census of the population. We have a census of the population taken at certain intervals, and this is not wrong, but very proper and useful. What is the difference between the circumstances of the children of Israel and our own?
I. Notice first the object with which this act was done.It was very clear what David had an eye to in numbering the people. It was one of those steps which the kings of the nations around were accustomed to take from time to time when they wanted to know how strong they were and what wars they could carry on, what countries they could invade and what cities they could take. This was the way of the heathen world, whom the Israelites were specially bidden not to imitate. They were not meant by God to be a conquering nation; they were a holy nation, a peculiar people, whom God had admitted into a special covenant with Himself. Davids act was one of vulgar kingly ambition, in absolute contradiction to the express designs of God for the Jewish people. It pleased God by a terrible visitation at once to check this new temper and suppress at its very commencement this dangerous aim.
II. Another reason why Davids act was a sinful one was that it was done under a very different dispensation from that under which we live.To the Jews God was not only their God in heaven, but their King on earth as well. Anything that interfered with this special Divine sovereignty was treason, because the chosen people were not to set up governments and modes of policy for themselves, as other nations did, but were to wait upon the voice of their Divine King. David was only king under a Divine King, and had no right to be constructing great plans out of his own head.
III. There is a sense, and a very true sense, in which Davids sin applies to us.People are very fond of numbering the good things they have or suppose themselves to have. This is the peril to which our Lord refers when He says, Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also; that is, you will be always brooding in your heart upon them, and they will fill your mind to the exclusion of all spiritual thoughts. The Bible takes us out of ourselves, and directs us to God as the great object of our love, and in Him to our neighbour. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
Canon Mozley.
Illustrations
(1) The numbering of the people was one of the last and most reprehensible acts of David. From the expressions here used we learn that God permitted Satan to tempt David to the commission of a crime, which would draw down punishment on himself and his people, as he afterward permitted the same evil and lying spirit to seduce the prophets of Ahab 1Ki 22:22), and the disciple of Christ (St. Luk 22:3). The ruling passion by which the tempter assailed David was the pride of life, which, though checked and mortified by the wholesome restraints of adversity, broke out again in the sunshine of prosperity.
(2) It was not the census itself which was displeasing to God, but the motive which inspired David to take it. Various conjectures have been suggested to account for Davids wish to number the people. Some suppose that he intended to develop the military power of the nation with a view to foreign conquest: others that he meditated the organisation of an imperial despotism and the imposition of fresh taxes. But whether any definite design of increased armaments or heavier taxation lay behind it or not, it seems clear that what constituted the sin of the act was the vainglorious spirit which prompted it. In a moment of pride and ambitionpride at the prosperity of the kingdom, ambition to be like the kings of the nations round abouthe desired to know to the full over how vast and populous a kingdom he ruled, forgetting that the strength of Israel consisted not in the number of its people, but in the protecting care of God. This view is strongly corroborated by Joabs expostulation. It was a momentary apostasy from Jehovah; an oblivion of that spirit of dependence which was the duty and the glory of the kings of Israel.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
2Sa 24:1. And again After the former tokens of his anger, such as the three years famine, mentioned chap. 21. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel For their sins, and on account of the following action of David. The anger of the Lord, it must be well observed, was not the cause of Davids sin, nor of the sins of the people; for God cannot be the author of sin; but Davids sin and the sins of Israel were the cause of Gods anger. And he moved David against them The reader must observe that, as there is no nominative case before the verb here, in the original, to express who moved David, the most strict rendering of the clause would be, There was who moved David against them, &c. By our version, the reader is led to suppose that the Lord, mentioned in the foregoing part of the sentence, moved David to commit this sin of numbering the people. But this is not only quite contrary to the nature and attributes of God, but to what we are expressly told 1Ch 21:1, where we learn that it was Satan, and not the Lord, that moved David to do this. Here then we have a very remarkable instance, which cannot be too much regarded, to warn us against building any particular doctrine, or belief, on certain particular, detached expressions or passages of Scripture, not in harmony with the general tenor of Gods oracles; especially such doctrines as are entirely opposite to the essential nature or attributes of God. For had not this fact of Davids numbering the people been related, through the care of divine providence, by another sacred writer, who entirely clears God from having any concern in moving David to sin, it might have been concluded from the passage before us that God impelled David to this act; and, consequently, that it is consistent with the nature and government of God to excite the human mind to sinful acts: than which there can scarce be any thing more impious imagined. And therefore we may plainly see from hence, that we are not to form our notions from particular passages or expressions of the Holy Scriptures, but from the general tenor of them.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Sa 24:1. The Lordmoved David. He permitted Satan to stand up against Israel. 1Ch 21:1.
2Sa 24:9. There were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. The men of Israel are in the first of Chronicles said to be eleven hundred thousand, and the men of Judah only four hundred and seventy thousand. Those who attempt to reconcile the difference, suppose that the twenty four thousand monthly guards are not included in this number. Josephus, though his numbers have somehow been mis-written here, evidently follows the account in the Chronicles; for he affirms that the men of Benjamin and of Levi were not included in these returns.
2Sa 24:11. The prophet Gad. Here we have a certainty of revelation; for Gad could not have known which of the three plagues David would choose; and a failure would have proved the utter ruin of the prophet.
2Sa 24:13. Seven years of famine. The Septuagint says, three years; and in the Chronicles both the Septuagint and the Hebrew are three years. It is conjectured that the three years of famine for the Gibeonites, with the one year now spent in numbering the people, are here joined to make the seven years.Or three days of pestilence. Surely we cannot forget the malignant cholera which has marched from the Ganges, through the Turkish empire, to the north of Europe, to Paris and the British Isles. It has given its victims but a few hours notice. They have lain on their beds speechless, and almost without pulse or circulation, till blackness of aspect sunk them in the arms of death.
2Sa 24:25. David built an altar there, in Jebus, or on the mount Moriah; and the Lord answered him by fire from heaven, which according to the rabbins pointed out the future scite of the temple. 1Ch 21:26.
REFLECTIONS.
Tracing the steps of this illustrious man till within two years of his death, we find farther instruction from calamitous experience. Once he had fallen by an unholy passion; now he falls by vain glory and regal pride. On coming to the throne in Hebron, he found the kingdom ruined and the people few. Now he saw his empire extended; he saw it full of riches, full of people, and full of wantonness. Therefore Gods anger was kindled against Israel.
Satan, taking advantage of the pride and prosperity of the people, moved the king to number all who were able to bear arms; and he, dallying with the temptation, God at last permitted him to take his own way. The people on leaving Egypt and coming into the wilderness, were numbered to pay half a shekel towards the tabernacle, and they were again numbered before they entered Canaan, the better to divide the inheritance by lot; but now, no reason is assigned. The secret reason, the touchstone of the sin, lay in the bold ambition of swaying the empire of all the east. It was the sin of Babylon, of Rome, and lately the sin of Paris. It was the sin of national pride. It was the sin of meditating conquests for the glory of empire. It was ceasing to trust in the Lord, to repose their confidence in an arm of flesh: and cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm. Come hither then ye families who have suddenly risen by commerce and speculation to affluence and pride, who display your villas, your parks, your carriages, your sumptuous furniture. Your sins will bring you also into great and sore straits. God is about to afflict your bodies with disease, your households with anguish, and to send a blast on all your hopes; and he may not indulge you, as he did this penitent king, with a choice of calamities. What a pity that a little of earth, a little prosperity, should not only make a man vain and contemptible in the eyes of heaven, but even in the eyes of his fellow sinners. Lord, keep us ever lowly, ever vile in our own esteem. Yes: the wicked can soon perceive when the righteous err. Joab, though a bloody man, could soon perceive that Davids design was an unhallowed ostentation; he therefore ventured to expostulate, and in a very candid way.
This man, on returning to Jerusalem, brought the king a flattering report of the land, a report which corresponded with the promises and covenant of God; but he must have added, that the effects on the people were as he had feared; a spirit of vain glory was excited throughout the land. Oh how grievous was this in the sight of the Lord: he hates the rising pride in the heart of man, and has at all times marked it with his displeasure. David, hearing this report of Joab, instantly saw his error, and exclaimed, I have sinned greatly, oh LordI have done very foolishly. Ah, but why did he act so rashly; why did he not consult the Lord in a matter so reluctantly complied with by his generals? The counsel of kings should be consummate; and their plans should never prove abortive for the want of sober deliberation. The deed however was now done, and the king had scarcely wept a night before the prophet Gad entered his chamber with an awful choice. Just so when Hezekiah, through the like pride, had showed the Babylonian embassy all his treasures and all his arsenals, the Lord sent Isaiah to say, that all those treasures should be carried away to Babylon.
When the awful choice was presented to David, he was alarmed and revolted; and for awhile, shrinking nature declined all choice. I am, said he, in a great strait. Being a man of war he well knew that the wicked pursuing the vanquished are not only cruel as the wild beasts, but they join to cruelty the craft of hell; and having already experienced a three years famine, he dreaded the like calamity, and therefore chose the plague; and the plague, with repentance, was better than prosperity and wickedness. The avenging angel moved in the steps of the captains, from Aroer to Jerusalem; death followed in his train; seventy thousand were already subtracted from the boasted numbers, and prostrated in the dust; and he raised his arm to smite Jerusalem, the city first in guilt. But oh he found them all in tears, and weeping with their king: and heaven seemed to weep too, for the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy. The angel stayed his course of vengeance at Araunahs threshing floor. Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem: thou wast just gone, but justice stayed her arm.
The aged prophet, who announced the awful choice, is again commissioned to advise a prompt atonement. The bullocks were instantly slain, and no other timber being at hand, the threshing instruments were all consumed. Here the angel stayed his destroying hand, as he had once on this identical spot stayed the hand of Abraham from destroying his son. Here also, and in the temple built on this spot, henceforth hallowed ground, Christ preached mercy to the penitent, and denounced destruction to the impenitent Jerusalem. And he, the innocent, being led out of Zion, as accursed for guilty man, death pursued him to Calvary, and there the monster lost his sting, and all his power. There the atoning blood flowed, there the anger of heaven was appeased, and the Lord of glory came back from the dead to preach life and salvation to a guilty world.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1 Samuel 24. The Census (J). (Cf. p. 292.)This event also may belong to the beginning of Davids reign over all Israel.
2Sa 24:1-9. Here is another illustration of the imperfect recognition of the moral nature of Yahweh in the primitive documents. No one is conscious of sin, yet Yahweh, for some inscrutable, arbitrary reason, is angry with His people. Accordingly, He induces David to commit an obvious sin, so that He may have a justification for punishing Israel. It is useless to ask why a census was sinful; such ideas go too far back for us to trace their origin (Num 31:50*). In the Priestly Code censuses are taken quite happily. The subsequent advance of religious thought in Israel is indicated by the fact that in 1Ch 21:1, it is Satan who induces David to take the census. Controlled by a baneful inspiration, David is incapable of listening to reason, he turns a deaf ear to the protests of Joab and his officers, and the census is taken. In considering the theology of this chapter, the reader will appreciate the relief which we obtain when we realise that such passages are records, preserved by the Divine Providence for our instruction, of a primitive and imperfect interpretation of the ways of God. The enumerators began at the S. of E. Palestine; went to the extreme N.; then westward; then they traversed W. Palestine from N. to S. The numbers differ in Ch. and in MSS of LXX, and are no doubt exaggerated.
2Sa 24:6. Tahtim-hodshi . . . Dan-jaan: corrupt readings; there is no certain restoration; but it is clear that the enumerators went to the northern Dan, the extreme point of the territory of Israel northwards.
2Sa 24:10-17. Yahweh now removes the misleading influence from David, so that he comes to himself and is penitent. Yahweh offers him a choice of three punishments; famine for three (so with 1Ch 21:12) years; disastrous war for three months; pestilence for three days. In 2Sa 24:15 most scholars follow LXX in reading: So David chose the pestilence. And in the days of the wheat harvest, the plague began among the people and slew of the people seventy thousand men. Then, when the plague was on the point of reaching Jerusalem, David interceded with Yahweh, and He stayed the plague, apparently before the three days had elapsed.
2Sa 24:18-25. By Gads direction David builds an altar and offers sacrifices; the plague is stayed. If 2Sa 24:16 f. belongs to the original story, Yahweh was not placated by the sacrifices, but had already bidden the destroying angel stay his hand. David buys a threshing floor and oxen for fifty shekels of silverAraunahs offer of them as a gift is only another piece of Oriental courtesy. The site of this altar is identified with that of the altar of burnt offering in Solomons Temple. In 1 Chronicles 21 David buys the place for six hundred shekels of gold.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
The reason for God’s anger burning against Israel (v.1) is not told us: if there is no public occasion for it, then it must be due to the moral and spiritual condition of the nation. Very likely that condition was represented in the pride that led David to desire to have Israel numbered. The nation had grown from a small people of no significance in the world’s eyes into a strong empire. Had this humbled the people in thankfulness for the grace of God in so blessing them? Apparently not. We too easily glory in numbers, as though our increase in numbers makes us more distinguished than others. God allowed David to follow his natural inclinations of pride in being the king of so great a nation. No doubt Israel had the same proud thoughts, and God saw that this needed some serious humbling. When David gave instructions to Joab to number the people. Even Joab, self-centered man as he was, realized that David’s desire stemmed only from pride, and protested that, while it would be good to see Israel increased one hundred fold, yet to take delight in the number of the people appeared unseemly in his eyes. It is often true that an unbeliever can see through the inconsistent ways of a believer.
David insisted on his having the people numbered, though the commander of the army as well as Joab did not agree. It was they who were required to do the job, and they travelled through all the country, taking nine months and twenty days to complete their task (v.8). Yet 1Ch 21:6 tells us that Joab did not count Benjamin and Levi because of being disgusted with David’s order. The number given, however, is not that of all the people, but only of their military strength, 800,000 soldiers in Israel and 500,000 in Judah. Judah’s population was proportionately much higher than that of the other nine tribes.
After he is told the number, David’s conscience finally wakens to cause him sharp pain in reflecting on the seriousness of what he now calls sin and foolishness. It is at least good to see that he confesses this candidly to God and asks Him to take away this iniquity.
Certainly God hears his prayer, but there must be some governmental results from the wrong-doing of man of authority. God therefore sends the prophet Gad to David to ask him to choose one of three alternatives, either seven years of famine in the land, or three months of Israel’s retreating before their enemies, or three days of a deadly plague in the land.
Any one of these prospects was greatly disturbing to David, but he chose to fall in the hand of God, and accept the three days of plague, because God’s mercies are great in contrast to the cruelty of men. The judgment falls with terrible severity throughout the whole land, and 70,000 die in the plague. The destroying angel comes to Jerusalem, ready to inflict judgment there, and God Himself intervenes in mercy, saying, “It is enough.” David had rightly depended on His mercy.
Nevertheless, when David had seen the angel and the destruction, his heart was deeply broken up in confession and self-judgment before the Lord. “Surely I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done?” He realizes that he ought to personally suffer the consequences. But this is a lesson for anyone who has a prominent place among God’s people. The people will suffer for the failure of the leaders.
There is wonderful instruction for us, however, in the plague being arrested at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. The judgment of God only goes as far as the threshing floor. In other words, when God judges, it is with the object of bringing out the grain from the chaff. The process may be deeply painful, but the resulting blessing for genuine believers is unspeakably precious. The Jebusites had been true to their name, “treaders down” of the city God had declared to be His own center, that is, Jerusalem. But Araunah is one whose character has been changed by the grace of God, a prodigal of the Gentiles, spared when the judgment was impending over his head. Indeed, he is a picture of all Gentiles who are saved by the grace of God.
The prophet Gad is sent to David to instruct him to build an altar to the Lord in the threshing floor of Araunah. When Araunah sees the king and his servants coming, he willingly takes the lowly place of bowing before the king to ask the reason for his coming to a man so insignificant. When David desires to buy the threshing floor, Araunah offers it to him without charge, as well as oxen for sacrifice and wood for its burning.
The picture here becomes most beautiful as we come to the end of this book. Israel has been spared by the grace of God, the Gentile drawn to God in such a way that his heart is opened with desire to give up his own possessions. The king, on the other hand, insists on full payment to Araunah for that which he desires to offer to God. With a full heart the king offers burnt offerings and peace offerings, a reminder of the great value of the sacrifice of Christ, both as perfectly glorifying God (the burnt offering) and as accomplishing peace between God and man (the peace offering). The burnt offering comes first, for it speaks of that aspect of the sacrifice of Christ in which all goes up in fire to God, that is, God’s glory is the first and foremost object of that sacrifice. When this is observed, then the place of the peace offering is appropriate, for this offering the priest and the offerer were each given part, while another part was for God (Lev 7:15-16; Lev 7:31-32).
Wonderful will be that day when Israel turns to the Lord to acknowledge the value of the sacrifice of Christ so long ago offered. For centuries the plague of God’s disapproval has been upon that nation, because of their pride in themselves and their rejection of their true Messiah and His one perfect sacrifice. It is that sacrifice alone that can remove the plague from Israel, just as, at the present time, this perfect sacrifice alone removes the guilt of our many sins, bringing peace and rest and joy. Israel will rejoice in that coming day, and we shall rejoice with them.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
24:1 And {a} again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and {b} he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
(a) Before they were plagued with famine, 2Sa 21:1.
(b) The Lord permitted Satan, as in 1Ch 21:2.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
1. David’s sin of numbering the people 24:1-9
David probably ordered this census about 975 B.C.
"After the revolutions of both Absalom and Sheba it would have been reasonable for David to reassess his military situation against the possibility of similar uprisings or other emergencies." [Note: Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., p. 272.]
In support of this hypothesis is the fact that Joab and the army commanders were able to take over nine months to gather the population statistics (2Sa 24:8). This suggests a very peaceful condition in Israel that characterized David’s later reign but not his earlier reign.
The writer of Chronicles wrote that Satan (perhaps an adversarial neighbor nation since the Heb. word satan means "adversary") moved David to take the census (1Ch 21:1). Yet in 2Sa 24:1 the writer of Samuel said God was responsible. Both were true; God used an adversary to bring judgment on the objects of His anger (cf. Job 1-2; Act 2:23). [Note: See Robert B. Chisholm Jr., "Does God Deceive?" Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):11-12, 21-23.]
". . . paradoxically, a divinely-sent affliction can be called a ’messenger of Satan’ (2Co 12:7 . . .)." [Note: Youngblood, p. 1096.]
We can identify perhaps four levels of causality in 2Sa 24:1. God was the final cause, the primary instrumental cause was Satan, the secondary instrumental cause was some hostile human enemy, and David was the efficient cause. The Lord was angry with Israel for some reason. He evidently allowed Satan to stir up hostile enemy forces to threaten David and Israel (cf. Job 1-2). In response to this military threat, David chose to number the people. David’s choice was not his only option; he chose to number the people. He sinned because he failed to trust God. The Lord did not force David to sin.
Quite clearly David took the census to determine his military strength. Taking a census did not constitute sin (cf. Exo 30:11-12; Num 1:1-2). David’s sin was apparently placing confidence in the number of his soldiers rather than in the Lord.
"For the Chronicler in particular [cf. 1Ch 27:23-24], . . . the arena of David’s transgression appears to be that taking a census impugns the faithfulness of God in the keeping of His promises-a kind of walking by sight instead of by faith." [Note: Raymond B. Dillard, "David’s Census: Perspectives on 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21," in Through Christ’s Word: A Festschrift for Dr. Philip E. Hughes, p. 105.]
"Register" (2Sa 24:2; 2Sa 24:4) literally means to "muster" in preparation for battle. Joab proceeded in a counterclockwise direction around Israel. [Note: See Patrick W. Skehan, "Joab’s Census: How Far North (2 Samuel 24, 6)?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31:1 (January 1969):42-49, for a detailed study of his route. Rasmussen, p. 119, provided a map of Joab’s route.] The territory described included, but did not extend as far as, all the territory that God had promised to Abraham. There appear to have been 800,000 veterans in Israel plus 300,000 recruits (cf. 1Ch 21:5). In Judah there was a total of 500,000. The figure of 470,000 in 1 Chronicles 21 probably omitted the Benjamites (cf. 1Ch 21:6). The Hebrew word eleph can mean either "thousand" or "military unit." Here it could very well mean military unit. [Note: Cf. Baldwin, p. 296; Gordon, p. 319; Anderson, p. 285; McCarter, II Samuel, p. 510.] The parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21 says that Joab did not number the men of Levi and Benjamin because David’s command was abhorrent to Joab (1Ch 21:6).
Joab wisely warned David of his folly (2Sa 24:3). Even such a man as Joab could see that what David planned to do was wrong. Nevertheless David chose to ignore his counsel (2Sa 24:4). He behaved as one who refuses to be accountable to anyone, which was easy for David to do since he was the king. The thing that David had done displeased the Lord, and He struck Israel (1Ch 21:7).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XXXII.
THE NUMBERING OF ISRAEL.
2Sa 24:1-25
THOUGH David’s life was now drawing to its close, neither his sins nor his chastisements were yet exhausted. One of his chief offences was committed when he was old and grey-headed. There can be little doubt that what is recorded in this chapter took place toward the close of his life; the word “again” at the beginning indicates that it was later in time than the event which gave rise to the last expression of God’s displeasure to the nation. Surely there can be little ground for the doctrine of perfectionism, otherwise David, whose religion was so earnest and so deep, would have been nearer it now than this chapter shows that he was.
The offence consisted in taking a census of the people. At first it is difficult to see what there was in this that was so sinful; yet highly sinful it was in the judgment of God, in the judgment of Joab, and at last in the judgment of David too; it will be necessary, therefore, to examine the subject very carefully if we would understand clearly what constituted the great sin of David.
The origin of the proceeding was remarkable. It may be said to have had a double, or rather a triple, origin: God, David, and Satan, or, as some propose to render in place of Satan, “an enemy.”
In Samuel we read that “the Lord’s anger was again kindled against Israel.” The nation required a chastisement. It needed a smart stroke of the rod to make it pause and think how it was offending God. We do not require to know very specially what it was that displeased God in a nation that had been so ready to side with Absalom and drive God’s anointed from the throne. They were far from steadfast in their allegiance to God, easily drawn from the path of duty; and all that it is important for us to know is simply that at this particular time they were farther astray than usual, and more in need of chastisement. The cup of sin had filled up so far that God behooved to interpose.
For this end “the Lord moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” The action of God in the matter, like His action in sinful matters generally, was that He permitted it to take place. He allowed David’s sinful feeling to come as a factor into His scheme with a view to the chastising of the people. We have seen many times in this history how God is represented as doing things and saying things which He does not do nor say directly, but which He takes up into His plan, with a view to the working out of some great end in the future. But in Chronicles it is said that Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel. According to some commentators, the Hebrew word is not to be translated “Satan,” because it has no article, but “an adversary,” as in parallel passages: “The Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite” (1Ki 11:14); “God stirred up another adversary to Israel, Razon, the son of Eliadib” (1Ki 11:23). Perhaps it was someone in the garb of a friend, but with the spirit of an enemy, that moved David in this matter. If we suppose Satan to have been the active mover, then Bishop Hall’s words will indicate the relation between the three parties: “Both God and Satan had then a hand in the work – God by permission, Satan by suggestion; God as a Judge, Satan as an enemy; God as in a just punishment for sin, Satan as in an act of sin; God in a wise ordination of it for good, Satan in a malicious intent of confusion. Thus at once God moved and Satan moved, neither is it any excuse to Satan or to David that God moved, neither is it any blemish to God that Satan moved. The ruler’s sin is a punishment to a wicked people; if God were not angry with a people, He would not give up their governors to evils that provoke His vengeance; justly are we charged to make prayers and supplications as for all men, so especially for rulers.”
But what constituted David’s great offence in numbering the people? Every civilized State is now accustomed to number its people periodically, and for many good purposes it is a most useful step. Josephus represents that David omitted to levy the atonement money which was to be raised, according to Exo 30:12, etc., from all who were numbered, but surely, if this had been his offence, it would have been easy for Joab, when he remonstrated, to remind him of it, instead of trying to dissuade him from the scheme altogether. The more common view of the transaction has been that it was objectionable, not in itself, but in the spirit by which it was dictated. That spirit seems to have been a self-glorifying spirit. It seems to have been like the spirit which led Hezekiah to show his treasures to the ambassadors of the king of Babylon. Perhaps it was designed to show, that in the number of his forces David was quite a match for the great empires on the banks of the Nile and the Euphrates. If their fighting men could be counted by the hundred thousand or the thousand thousand, so could his. In the fighting resources of his kingdom, he was able to hold his head as high as any of them. Surely such a spirit was the very opposite of what was becoming in such a king as David. Was this not measuring the strength of a spiritual power with the measure of a carnal? Did it not leave God most sinfully out of reckoning? Nay, did it not substitute a carnal for a spiritual defense? Was it not in the very teeth of the Psalm, ”There is no king saved by the multitude of an host; a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. An horse is a vain thing for safety; neither shall he deliver any by his great strength. Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear Him, upon them that hope in His mercy, to deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine”?
That David’s project was very deeply seated in his heart is evident from the fact that he was unmoved by the remonstrance of Joab. In ordinary circumstances it must have startled him to find that even he was strongly opposed to his project. It is indeed strange that Joab should have had scruples where David had none. We have been accustomed to find Joab so seldom in the right that it is hard to believe that he was in the right now. But perhaps we do Joab injustice. He was a man that could be profoundly stirred when his own interests were at stake, or his passions roused, and that seemed equally regardless of God and man in what he did on such occasions. But otherwise Joab commonly acted with prudence and moderation. He consulted for the good of the nation. He was not habitually reckless or habitually cruel, and he seems to have had a certain amount of regard to the will of God and the theocratic constitution of the kingdom, for he was loyal to David from the very beginning, up to the contest between Solomon and Adonijah. It is evident that Joab felt strongly that in the step which he proposed to take David would be acting a part unworthy of himself and of the constitution of the kingdom, and by displeasing God would expose himself to evils far beyond any advantage he might hope to gain by ascertaining the number of the people.
For once – and this time, unhappily – David was too strong for the son of Zeruiah. The enumerators of the people were dispatched, no doubt with great regularity, to take the census. The boundaries named were not beyond the territory as divided by Joshua among the Israelites, save that Tyre and Zidon were included; not that they had been annexed by David, but probably because there was an understanding that in all his military arrangements they were to be associated with him. Nine months and twenty days were occupied in the business. At the end of it, it was ascertained that the fighting men of Israel were eight hundred thousand, and those of Judah five hundred thousand; or, if we take the figures in Chronicles, eleven hundred thousand of Israel and four hundred and seventy thousand of Judah. The discrepancy is not easily accounted for; but probably in Chronicles in the number for Israel certain bodies of troops were included which were not included in Samuel, and vice versa in the case of Judah.
Just as in the case of his sin in the matter of Uriah, David was long of coming to a sense of it. How his view came to change we are not told, but when the change did occur, it seems, as in the other case, to have come with extraordinary force. “David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that which I have done; and now, I beseech Thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of Thy servant, for I have done very foolishly.” Once alive to his sin, his humiliation is very profound. His confession is frank, hearty, complete. He shows no proud desire to remain on good terms with himself, seeks nothing to break his fall or to make his humiliation less before Joab and before the people. He says, “I will confess my transgression to the Lord;” and his plea is one with which he is familiar from of old – “For Thy name’s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great.” He is never greater than when acknowledging his sin.
Next comes the chastisement. The moment for sending it is very seasonable. It did not come while his conscience was yet slumbering, but after he had come to feel his sin. His confessions and relentings were proofs that he was now fit for chastisement; the chastisement, as in the other case, was solemnly announced by a prophet; and, as in the other case too, it fell on one of the tenderest spots of his heart. Then the first blow fell on his infant child; now it falls upon his sheep. His affections were divided between his children and his people, and in both cases the blow must have been very severe. It was, as far as we can judge after a night of very profound humiliation that the prophet Gad was sent to him. Gad had first come to him when he was hiding from Saul, and had therefore been his friend all his kingly life. Sad that so old and so good a friend should be the bearer to the aged king of a bitter message! Seven years of famine (in 1Ch 21:12, three years), three months of unsuccessful war, or three days of pestilence, – the choice lies between these three. All of them were well fitted to rebuke that pride in human resources which had been the occasion of his sin. Well might he say, ”I am in a great strait.” Oh the bitterness of the harvest when you sow to the flesh! Between these three horrors even God’s anointed king has to choose. What a delusion it is that God will not be very careful in the case of the wicked to inflict the due retribution of sin! “If these things were done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?”
David chose the three days of pestilence. It was the shortest, no doubt, but what recommended it, especially above the three months of unsuccessful war, was that it would come more directly from the hand of God. “Let me fall now into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great, and let me not fall into the hand of man.” What a frightful time it must have been! Seventy thousand died of the plague. From Dan to Beersheba nothing would be heard but a bitter cry, like that of the Egyptians when the angel slew the first-born. What days and nights of agony these must have been to David! How slowly would they drag on! What cries in the morning, “Would God it were evening!” and in the evening, “Would God it were morning!”
The pestilence, wherever it originated, seems to have advanced from every side like a besieging army, till it was ready to close upon Jerusalem. The destroying angel hovered over Mount Moriah, and, like Abraham on the same spot a thousand years before, was brandishing his sword for the work of destruction. It was a spot that had already been memorable for one display of Divine forbearance, and now it became the scene of another. Like the hand of Abraham when ready to plunge the knife into the bosom of his son, the hand of the angel was stayed when about to fall on Jerusalem. For Abraham a ram had been provided to offer in the room of Isaac; and now David is commanded to offer a burnt-offering in acknowledgment of his guilt and of his need of expiation. Thus the Lord stayed His rough wind in the day of His east wind. In sparing Jerusalem, on the very eve of destruction, He caused His mercy to rejoice over judgment.
No one but must admire the spirit of David when the angel appeared on Mount Moriah. Owning frankly his own great sin, and especially his sin as a shepherd, he bared his own bosom to the sword, and entreated God to let the punishment fall on him and on his father’s house. Why should the sheep suffer for the sin of the shepherd? The plea was more beautiful than correct. The sheep had been certainly not less guilty than the shepherd, though in a different way. We have seen how the anger of the Lord had been kindled against Israel when David was induced to go and number the people. And as both had been guilty, so both had been punished. The sheep had been punished in their own bodies, the shepherd in the tenderest feelings of his heart. It is a rare sight to find a man prepared to take on himself more than his own share of the blame. It was not so in paradise, when the man threw the blame on the woman and the woman on the serpent. We see that, with all his faults, David had another spirit from that of the vulgar world. After all, there is much of the Divine nature in this poor, blundering, sinning child of clay.
On the day when the angel appeared over Jerusalem, Gad was sent back to David with a more auspicious message. He is required to build an altar to the Lord on the spot where the angel stood. This was the fitting counterpart to Abraham’s act when, in place of Isaac, he offered the ram which Jehovah-jireh had provided for the sacrifice. The circumstances connected with the rearing of the altar and the offering of the burnt-offering were very peculiar, and seem to have borne a deep typical meaning. The place where the angel’s arm was arrested was by the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. It was there that David was commanded to rear his altar and offer his burnt-offering. When Araunah saw the king approaching, he bowed before him and respectfully asked the purpose of his visit. It was to buy the threshing-floor and build an altar, that the plague might be stayed. But if the threshing-floor was needed for that purpose, Araunah would give it freely; and offer it as a free gift he did; with royal munificence, along with the oxen for a burnt-offering and their implements also as wood for the sacrifice. David, acknowledging his goodness, would not be outdone in generosity, and insisted on making payment. The floor was bought, the altar was built, the sacrifice was offered, and the plague was stayed. As we read in Chronicles, fire from heaven attested God’s acceptance of the offering. ”And David said. This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of the burnt-offering for Israel.” That is to say, the threshing-floor was appointed to be the site of the temple which Solomon was to build; and the spot where David had hastily reared his altar was to be the place where, for hundreds of years, day after day, morning and evening, the blood of the burnt-offering was to flow, and the fumes of incense to ascend before God.
No doubt it was to save time in so pressing an emergency that Araunah gave for sacrifice the oxen with which he was working, and the implements connected with his labour. But in the purpose of God, a great truth lay under these symbolical arrangements. The oxen that had been labouring for man were sacrificed for man; both their life and their death were given for man, just as afterwards the Lord Jesus Christ, after living and labouring for the good of many, at last gave His life a ransom. The wood of the altar on which they suffered was part of it at all events, borne on their own necks, “the threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen,” just as Isaac had borne the wood and as Jesus was to bear the cross on which, respectively, they were stretched. The sacrifice was a sacrifice of blood, for only blood could remove the guilt that had to be pardoned. The analogy is clear enough. Isaac had escaped; the ram suffered in his room. Jerusalem escaped now; the oxen were sacrificed in its room. Sinners of mankind were to escape; the Lamb of God was to die, the just for the unjust, to bring them to God.
There were other circumstances, however, not without significance, connected with the purchase of the temple site. The man to whom the ground had belonged, and whose oxen had been slain as the burnt- offering, was a Jebusite; and from the way in which he designated David’s Lord, “the Lord thy God,” it is not certain whether he was even a proselyte. Some think that he had formerly been king of Jerusalem, or rather of the stronghold of Zion, but that when Zion was taken he had been permitted to retire to Mount Moriah, which was separated from Zion only by a deep ravine. Josephus calls him a great friend of David’s. He could not have shown a more friendly spirit of a more princely liberality. The striking way in which the heart of this Jebusite was moved to cooperate with King David in preparing for the temple was fitted to remind David of the missionary character which the temple was to sustain. “My house shall be called an house of prayer for all nations.” In the words of the sixty-eighth Psalm, “Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents unto thee.” As Araunah’s oxen had been accepted, so the time would come when ” the sons of the stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him and to love the name of the Lord, even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon Mine altar.” What a wonderful thing is sanctified affliction! While its root lies in the very corruption of our nature, its fruit consists of the best blessings of Heaven. The root of David’s affliction was carnal pride; but under God’s sanctifying grace, it was followed by the erection of a temple associated with heavenly blessing, not to one nation only, but to all. When affliction, duly sanctified, is thus capable of bringing such blessings, it makes the fact all the more lamentable that affliction is so often unsanctified. It is vain to imagine that everything of the nature of affliction is sure to turn to good. It can turn to good on one condition only – when your heart is humbled under the rod, and in the same humble, chastened spirit as David you say, and feel as well as say, “I have sinned.”
One other lesson we gather from this chapter of David’s history. When he declined to accept the generous offer of Araunah, it was on the ground that he would not serve the Lord with that which cost him nothing. The thought needs only to be put in words to commend itself to every conscience. God’s service is neither a form nor a sham; it is a great reality. “If we desire to show our honour for Him, it must be in a way suited to the occasion. The poorest mechanic that would offer a gift to his sovereign tries to make it the product of his best labour, the fruit of his highest skill. To pluck a weed from the roadside and present it to one’s sovereign would be no better than an insult. Yet how often is God served with that which costs men nothing! Men that will lavish hundreds and thousands to gratify their own fancy, – what miserable driblets they often give to the cause of God! The smallest of coins is good enough for His treasury. And as for other forms of serving God, what a tendency there is in our time to make everything easy and pleasant, – to forget the very meaning of self-denial! It is high time that that word of David were brought forth and put before every conscience, and made to rebuke ever so many professed worshippers of God, whose rule of worship is to serve God with what does cost them nothing. The very heathen reprove you. Little though there has been to stimulate their love, their sacrifices are often most costly – far from sacrifices that have cost them nothing. Oh, let us who call ourselves Christians beware lest we be found the meanest, paltriest, shabbiest of worshippers! Let souls that have been blessed as Christians have devise liberal things. Let your question and the answer be: “What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits toward me? I will take the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord, now in the presence of His people.”