1 CHRONICLES 21 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

David Counts the Fighting Men

1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

BARNES, "As the books of Scripture are arranged in our Version, Satan is here for the first time by name introduced to us. He appears not merely as an “adversary” who seeks to injure man from without, but as a Tempter able to ruin him by suggesting sinful acts and thoughts from within. In this point of view, the revelation made of him here is the most advanced that we find in the Old Testament.

The difficulty in reconciling the statement here, “Satan provoked David,” etc. with that of Samuel, “the Lord moved David,” etc. 2Sa_24:1 is not serious. All temptation is permitted by God. When evil spirits tempt us, they do so by permission (Job_1:12; Job_2:6; Luk_22:31, etc.). If Satan therefore provoked David to number the peopIe, God allowed him. And what God allows, He may be said to do. (Another view is maintained in the 2Sa_24:1 note).

CLARKE, "And Satan stood up against Israel - See the notes on the parallel place, 2Sa_24:1 (note), etc.

HENRY 1-6, "Numbering the people, one would think, was no bad thing. Why should not the shepherd know the number of his flock? But God sees not as man sees. It is plain it was wrong in David to do it, and a great provocation to God, because he did it in the pride of his heart; and there is no sin that has in it more of contradiction and therefore more of offence to God than pride. The sin was David's; he alone must bear the blame of it. But here we are told,

1

I. How active the tempter was in it (1Ch_21:1): Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to do it. Is is said (2Sa_24:1) that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David to do it. The righteous judgments of God are to be observed and acknowledged even in the sins and unrighteousness of men. We are sure that God is not the author of sin - he tempts no man; and therefore, when it is said that he moved David to do it, it must be explained by what is intimated here, that, for wise and holy ends, he permitted the devil to do it. Here we trace this foul stream to its foundation. That Satan, the enemy of God and all good, should stand up against Israel,is not strange; it is what he aims at, to weaken the strength, diminish the numbers, and eclipse the glory of God's Israel, to whom he is Satan, a sworn adversary. But that he should influence David, the man of God's own heart to do a wrong thing, may well be wondered at. One would think him one of those whom the wicked one touches not. No, even the best saints, till they come to heaven, must never think themselves out of the reach of Satan's temptations. Now, when Satan meant to do Israel a mischief, what course did he take? He did not move God against them to destroy them (as Job, Job_2:3), but he provoked David, the best friend they had, to number them, and so to offend God, and set him against them. Note, 1. The devil does us more mischief by tempting us to sin against our God than he does by accusing us before our God. He destroys none but by their own hands, 2. The greatest spite he can do to the church of God is to tempt the rulers of the church to pride; for none can conceive the fatal consequences of that sin in all, especially in church-rulers. You shall not be so, Luk_22:26.II. How passive the instrument was. Joab, the person whom David employed, was an active man in public business; but to this he was perfectly forced, and did it with the greatest reluctance imaginable.1. He put in a remonstrance against it before he began it. No man more forward that he in any thing that really tended to the honour of the king or the welfare of the kingdom; but in this matter he would gladly be excused. For, (1.) It was a needless thing. there was not occasion at all for it. God had promised to multiply them, and he needed not question the accomplishment of that promise. They were all his servants, and he needed not doubt of their loyalty and affection to him. Their number was as much his strength as he could desire. (2.) It was a dangerous thing. In doing it he might be a cause of trespass to Israel, and might provoke God against them. This Joab apprehended, and yet David himself did not. The most learned in the laws of God are not always the most quick-sighted in the application of those laws.2. He was quite weary of it before he had done it; for the king's word was abominable to Joab, 1Ch_21:6. Time was when whatever king David did pleased all the people, 2Sa_3:36. But now there was a general disgust at these orders, which confirmed Joab in his dislike of them. so that, though the produce of this muster was really very great, yet he had no heart to perfect it, but left two tribes unnumbered (1Ch_21:5, 1Ch_21:6), two considerable ones, Levi and Benjamin, and perhaps was not very exact in numbering the rest, because he did not do it with any pleasure, which might be one occasion of the difference between the sums here and 2Sa_24:9.

JAMISON, "1Ch_21:1-13. David sins in numbering the people.Satan stood up against Israel — God, by withdrawing His grace at this time from David (see on 2Sa_24:1), permitted the tempter to prevail over him. As the result of this

2

successful temptation was the entail of a heavy calamity as a punishment from God upon the people, it might be said that “Satan stood up against Israel.”number Israel — In the act of taking the census of a people, there is not only no evil, but much utility. But numbering Israel - that people who were to become as the stars for multitude, implying a distrust of the divine promise, was a sin; and though it had been done with impunity in the time of Moses, at that enumeration each of the people had contributed “half a shekel towards the building of the tabernacle,” that there might be no plague among them when he numbered them (Exo_30:12). Hence the numbering of that people was in itself regarded as an undertaking by which the anger of God could be easily aroused; but when the arrangements were made by Moses for the taking of the census, God was not angry because the people were numbered for the express purpose of the tax for the sanctuary, and the money which was thus collected (“the atonement money,” Exo_30:16) appeased Him. Everything depended, therefore, upon the design of the census [Bertheau]. The sin of David numbering the people consisted in its being either to gratify his pride to ascertain the number of warriors he could muster for some meditated plan of conquest; or, perhaps, more likely still, to institute a regular and permanent system of taxation, which he deemed necessary to provide an adequate establishment for the monarchy, but which was regarded as a tyrannical and oppressive exaction - an innovation on the liberty of the people - a departure from ancient usage unbecoming a king of Israel.

K&D, "“And Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel.” The mention of Satan as the seducer of David is not to be explained merely by the fact that the Israelites in later times traced up everything contrary to God's will to this evil spirit, but in the present case arises from the author's design to characterize David's purpose from the very beginning as an ungodly thing.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:1. Satan stood up against Israel — Before the Lord and his tribunal, to accuse David and Israel, and to ask God’s permission to tempt David. Standing is the accuser’s posture before men’s tribunals; and consequently the Holy Scriptures (which use to speak of the things of God after the manner of men, to bring them down to our capacities) elsewhere represent Satan in this posture. See 1 Kings 22:21; Zechariah 3:1. In 2 Samuel 24:1, it is said, The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David, or rather, there was who moved David; namely, Satan, as is here stated, by God’s permission. The righteous judgments of God are to be observed and acknowledged even in the sins and unrighteousness of men. But we are sure God is not the author of sin, and that, strictly speaking, he tempts no man, James 1:13. That passage, therefore, must be explained by this. But of this particular, and of the contents of this whole chapter, and of the variations and seeming contradictions between this narrative and that in Samuel, see notes there.

3

COKE, "1 Chronicles 21:1. Satan stood up— An adversary stood up. Le Clerc. See the note on 2 Samuel 24:1; 2 Samuel 24:25. Bishop Warburton observes (perhaps the reader will think with rather too much refinement) upon this passage as follows: "This evil Being [Satan] was little known to the Jewish people till about this time: their great lawgiver, where he so frequently enumerates and warns them of the snares and temptations which would draw them to transgress the law of God, never once mentions this capital enemy of heaven: but as the fulness of time drew near, they were made more and more acquainted with this their capital enemy. When Ahab was suffered to be infatuated, (see on 1 Kings 22:19; 1 Kings 22:53.) Satan is not recorded by name. On the return from the captivity we find him better known, and things are then ascribed to him as the immediate and proper author, which were before given in an improper sense to the first and ultimate cause of all things. Thus in 2 Samuel 24:1 it seems to be said that God moved David to number the people: the anger of the Lord was kindled—and he moved, &c. But in the passage before us, which was written after the captivity, Satan is said to have moved David to this folly: for his history having an inseparable connection with the redemption of mankind, the knowledge of them was to be conveyed together; and now their later prophets had given very lively descriptions of the Redeemer, and the other attendant truths." Div. Leg.

ELLICOTT, "The census, and consequent plague. The hallowing of the Temple area. Omitting the magnificent ode which David sang to his deliverer (2 Samuel 22), and the last words of David (2 Samuel 23:1-7), as well as the list of David’s heroes (2 Samuel 23:8-39), which has already been repeated in 1 Chronicles 11, the chronicler resumes the ancient narrative at the point coincident with 2 Samuel 24 (See the notes there.) Though the two accounts obviously had a common basis, the deviations of our text from that of Samuel are much more numerous and noteworthy than is usual. They are generally explicable by reference to the special purpose and tendency of the writer.In Samuel the narrative of the census comes in as a kind of appendix to the history of David; here it serves to introduce the account of the preparations for building the Temple, and the organisation of its ministry.Verse 1(1) And Satan stood up against Israel.—Perhaps, And an adversary (hostile influence) arose against Israel. So in 2 Samuel 19:23 the sons of Zeruiah are called

4

“adversaries” (Heb., a Satan) to David. (Comp. 1 Kings 11:14; 1 Kings 11:25.) When the adversary, the enemy of mankind, is meant, the word takes the article, which it has not here. (Comp. Job 1, 2 and Zechariah 3:1-2.)And provoked David.—Pricked him on, incited him. 2 Samuel 24 begins: “And again the anger of Jehovah burned against Israel, and He (or it) incited David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.” It thus appears that the adversary of our text, the influence hostile to Israel, was the wrath of God. The wrath of God is the Scriptural name for that aspect of the Divine nature under which it pursues to destruction whatever is really opposed to its own perfection (Delitzsch); and it is only sin, i.e., breach of the Divine law, which can necessarily direct that aspect towards man. If Divine wrath urged David to number Israel, it can only have been in consequence of evil thoughts of pride and self-sufficiency, which had intruded into a heart hitherto humbly reliant upon its Maker. One evil thought led to another, quite naturally; i.e., by the laws which God has imposed upon human nature. God did not interpose, but allowed David’s corrupt motive to work out its own penal results. (Comp. Romans 1:18; Romans 1:24; Romans 1:26; Romans 1:28.) The true reading in Samuel may well be, “And an adversary incited David,” &c., the word Satan having fallen out of the text. Yet the expression “Jehovah provoked or incited against . . .” occurs (1 Samuel 26:19).To number Israel—Samuel adds, “and Judah.”EBC, "SATAN

"And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them saying, Go, number Israel and Judah." 2 Samuel 24:1

"And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel."- 1 Chronicles 21:1

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man: but each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed."- James 1:13-14

THE census of David is found both in the book of Samuel and in Chronicles, in very 5

much the same form; but the chronicler has made a number of small but important alterations and additions. Taken together, these changes involve a new interpretation of the history, and bring out lessons that cannot so easily be deduced from the narrative in the book of Samuel. Hence it is necessary to give a separate exposition of the narrative in Chronicles.

As before, we will first review the alterations made by the chronicler and then expound the narrative in the form in which it left his hand, or rather in the form in which it stands in the Masoretic text. Any attempt to deal with the peculiarly complicated problem of the textual criticism of Chronicles would be out of place here. Probably there are no corruptions of the text that would appreciably affect the general exposition of this chapter.

At the very outset the chronicler substitutes Satan for Jehovah, and thus changes the whole significance of the narrative. This point is too important to be dealt with casually, and must be reserved for special consideration later on. In 1 Chronicles 21:2 there is a slight change that marks the different points of the views of the Chronicler and the author of the narrative in the book of Samuel. The latter had written that Joab numbered the people from Dan to Beersheba, a merely conventional phrase indicating the extent of the census. It might possibly, however, have been taken to denote that the census began in the north and was concluded in the south. To the chronicler, whose interests all centered in Judah, such an arrangement seemed absurd; and he carefully guarded against any mistake by altering "Dan to Beersheba" into "Beersheba to Dan." In 1 Chronicles 21:3 the substance of Joab’s words is not altered, but various slight touches are added to bring out more clearly and forcibly what is implied in the book of Samuel. Joab had spoken of the census as being the king’s pleasure. It was scarcely appropriate to speak of David "taking pleasure in" a suggestion of Satan. In Chronicles Joab’s words are less forcible. "Why doth my lord require this thing?" Again, in the book of Samuel Joab protests against the census without assigning any reason. The context, it is true, readily supplies one; but in Chronicles all is made clear by the addition, "Why will he" (David) "be a cause of guilt unto Israel?" Further on the chronicler’s special interest in Judah again betrays itself. The book of Samuel described, with some detail, the progress of the enumerators through Eastern and Northern Palestine by way of Beersheba to Jerusalem. Chronicles having already made them start from Beersheba, omits these details.

6

In 1 Chronicles 21:5 the numbers in Chronicles differ not only from those of the older narrative, but also from the chronicler’s own statistics in chapter 27. In this last account the men of war are divided into twelve courses of twenty-four thousand each, making a total of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand; in the book of Samuel Israel numbers eight hundred thousand, and Judah five hundred thousand; but in our passage Israel is increased to eleven hundred thousand, and Judah is reduced to four hundred and seventy thousand. Possibly the statistics in chapter 27 are not intended to include all the fighting men, otherwise the figures cannot be harmonized. The discrepancy between our passage and the book of Samuel is perhaps partly explained by the following verse, which is an addition of the chronicler. In the book of Samuel the census is completed, but our additional verse states that Levi and Benjamin were not included in the census. The chronicler understood that the five hundred thousand assigned to Judah in the older narrative were the joint total of Judah and Benjamin; he accordingly reduced the total by thirty thousand, because, according to his view, Benjamin was omitted from the census. The increase in the number of the Israelites is unexpected. The chronicler does not usually overrate the northern tribes. Later on Jeroboam, eighteen years after the disruption, takes the field against Abijah with "eight hundred thousand chosen men," a phrase that implies a still larger number of fighting men, if all had been mustered. Obviously the rebel king would not be expected to be able to bring into the field as large a force as the entire strength of Israel in the most flourishing days of David. The chronicler’s figures in these two passages are consistent, but the comparison is not an adequate reason for the alteration in the present chapter. Textual corruption is always a possibility in the case of numbers, but on the whole this particular change does not admit of a satisfactory explanation.

In 1 Chronicles 21:7 we have a very striking alteration. According to the book of Samuel, David’s repentance was entirely spontaneous: "David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people"; but here God smites Israel, and then David’s conscience awakes. In 1 Chronicles 21:12 the chronicler makes a slight addition, apparently to gratify his literary taste. In the original narrative the third alternative offered to David had been described simply as "the pestilence," but in Chronicles the words "the sword of Jehovah" are added in antithesis to "the sword of Thine enemies" in the previous verse.

7

1 Chronicles 21:16, which describes David’s vision of the angel with the drawn sword, is an expansion of the simple statement of the book of Samuel that David saw the angel. In 1 Chronicles 21:18 we are not merely told that Gad spake to David, but that he spake by the command of the angel of Jehovah. 1 Chronicles 21:20, which tells us how Ornan saw the angel, is an addition of the chronicler’s. All these changes lay stress upon the intervention of the angel, and illustrate the interest taken by Judaism in the ministry of angels. Zechariah, the prophet of the Restoration, received his messages by the dispensation of angels; and the title of the last canonical prophet, Malachi, probably means "the Angel." The change from Araunah to Ornan is a mere question of spelling. Possibly Ornan is a somewhat Hebraized form of the older Jebusite name Araunah.

In 1 Chronicles 21:22 the reference to "a full price" and other changes in the form of David’s Words are probably due to the influence of Genesis 23:9. In 1 Chronicles 21:23 the chronicler’s familiarity with the ritual of sacrifice has led him to insert a reference to a meal offering, to accompany the burnt offering. Later on the chronicler omits the somewhat ambiguous words which seem to speak of Araunah as a king. He would naturally avoid anything like a recognition of the royal status of a Jebusite prince.

In 1 Chronicles 21:25 David pays much more dearly for Ornan’s threshing-floor than in the book of Samuel. In the latter the price is fifty shekels of silver, in the former six hundred shekels of gold. Most ingenious attempts have been made to harmonize the two statements. It has been suggested that fifty shekels of silver means silver to the value of fifty shekels of gold and paid in gold, and that six hundred shekels of gold means the value of six hundred shekels of silver paid in gold. A more lucid but equally impossible explanation is that David paid fifty shekels forevery tribe, six hundred in all. The real reason for the change is that when the Temple became supremely important to the Jews the small price of fifty shekels for the site seemed derogatory to the dignity of the sanctuary; six hundred shekels of gold was a more appropriate sum. Abraham had paid four hundred shekels for a burying-place; and a site for the Temple, where Jehovah had chosen to put His name, must surely have cost more. The chronicler followed the traditionwhich had grown up under the influence of this feeling.

1 Chronicles 21:27-30;, 1 Chronicles 22:1 are an addition. According to the Levitical 8

law, David was falling into grievous sin in sacrificing anywhere except before the Mosaic altar of burnt offering. The chronicler therefore states the special circumstances that palliated this offence against the exclusive privileges of the one sanctuary of Jehovah. He also reminds us that this threshing-floor became the site of the altar of burnt offering for Solomon’s temple. Here he probably follows an ancient and historical tradition; the prominence given to the threshing-floor in the book of Samuel indicates the special sanctity of the site. The Temple is the only sanctuary whose site could be thus connected with the last days of David. When the book of Samuel was written, the facts were too familiar to need any explanation; every one knew that the Temple stood on the site of Araunah’s threshing-floor. The chronicler, writing centuries later, felt it necessary to make an explicit statement on the subject.

Having thus attempted to understand how our narrative assumed its present form, we will now tell the chronicler’s story of these incidents. The long reign of David was drawing to a close. Hitherto he had been blessed with uninterrupted prosperity and success. His armies had been victorious over all the enemies of Israel, the borders of the land of Jehovah had been extended, David himself was lodged with princely splendor, and the services of the Ark were conducted with imposing ritual by a numerous array of priests and Levites. King and people alike were at the zenith of their glory. In worldly prosperity and careful attention to religious observances David and his people were not surpassed by Job himself. Apparently their prosperity provoked the envious malice of an evil and mysterious being, who appears only here in Chronicles: Satan, the persecutor of Job. The trial to which he subjected the loyalty of David was more subtle and suggestive than his assault upon Job. He harassed Job as the wind dealt with the traveler in the fable, and Job only wrapped the cloak of his faith closer about him; Satan allowed David to remain in the full sunshine of prosperity, and seduced him into sin by fostering his pride in being the powerful and victorious prince of a mighty people. He suggested a census. David’s pride would be gratified by obtaining accurate information as to the myriads of his subjects. Such statistics would be useful for the civil organization of Israel; the king would learn where and how to recruit his army or to find an opportunity to impose additional taxation. The temptation appealed alike to the king, the soldier, and the statesman, and did not appeal in vain. David at once instructed Joab and the princes to proceed with the enumeration; Joab demurred and protested: the census would be a cause of guilt unto Israel. But not even the great influence of the commander-in-chief could turn the king from his purpose. His word prevailed against Joab, wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all

9

Israel, and came to Jerusalem. This brief general statement indicates a long and laborious task, simplified and facilitated in some measure by the primitive organization of society and by rough and ready methods adopted to secure the very moderate degree of accuracy with which an ancient Eastern sovereign would be contented. When Xerxes wished to ascertain the number of the vast army with which he set out to invade Greece, his officers packed ten thousand men into as small a space as possible and built a wall round them; then they turned them out, and packed the space again and again; and so in time they ascertained how many tens of thousands of men there were in the army. Joab’s methods would be different, but perhaps not much more exact. He would probably learn from the "heads of fathers’ houses" the number of fighting men in each family. Where the hereditary chiefs of a district were indifferent, he might make some rough estimate of his own. We may be sure that both Joab and the local authorities would be careful to err on the safe side. The king was anxious to learn that he possessed a large number of subjects. Probably as the officers of Xerxes went on with their counting they omitted to pack the measured area as closely as they did at first; they might allow eight or nine thousand to pass for ten thousand. Similarly David’s servants would, to say the least, be anxious not to underestimate the number of his subjects. The work apparently went on smoothly; nothing is said that indicates any popular objection or resistance to the census; the process of enumeration was not interrupted by any token of Divine displeasure against the "cause of guilt unto Israel." Nevertheless Joab’s misgivings were not set at rest; he did what he could to limit the range of the census and to withdraw at least two of the tribes from the impending outbreak of Divine wrath. The tribe of Levi would be exempt from taxation and the obligation of military service; Joab could omit them without rendering his statistics less useful for military and financial purposes. In not including the Levites in the general census of Israel, Joab was following the precedent set by the numbering in the wilderness. Benjamin was probably omitted in order to protect the Holy City, the chronicler following that form of the ancient tradition which assigned Jerusalem to Benjamin. Later on, [1 Chronicles 27:23-24] however, the chronicler seems to imply that these two tribes left to the last were not numbered because of the growing dissatisfaction of Joab with his task: "Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but finished not." But these different reasons for the omission of Levi and Benjamin do not mutually exclude each other. Another limitation is also stated in the later reference: "David took not the number of them twenty years old and under, because Jehovah had said that He would increase Israel like to the stars of heaven." This statement and explanation seems a little superfluous: the census was specially concerned with the fighting men, and in the book of Numbers only those over twenty are numbered. But we have seen elsewhere that the chronicler has no great confidence in the intelligence of his readers, and feels bound to state definitely matters that have only

10

been implied and might be overlooked. Here, therefore, he calls our attention to the fact that the numbers previously given do not comprise the whole male population, but only the adults. At last the census, so far as it was carried out at all, was finished, and the results were presented to the king. They are meager and bald compared to the volumes of tables which form the report of a modern census. Only two divisions of the country are recognized: "Judah" and "Israel," or the ten tribes. The total is given for each: eleven hundred thousand for Israel, four hundred and seventy thousand for Judah, in all fifteen hundred and seventy thousand. Whatever details may have been given to the king, he would be chiefly interested in the grand total. Its figures would be the most striking symbol of the extent of his authority and the glory of his kingdom.

Perhaps during the months occupied in taking the census David had forgotten the ineffectual protests of Joab, and was able to receive his report without any presentiment of coming evil. Even if his mind were not altogether at ease, all misgivings would for the time be forgotten, He probably made or had made for him some rough calculation as to the total of men, women, and children that would correspond to the vast array of fighting men. His servants would not reckon the entire population at less than nine or ten millions. His heart would be uplifted with pride as he contemplated the statement of the multitudes that were the subjects of his crown and prepared to fight at his bidding. The numbers are moderate compared with the vast populations and enormous armies of the great powers of modern Europe; they were far surpassed by the Roman Empire and the teeming populations of the valleys of the Nile, the Euphrates, and the Tigris; but during the Middle Ages it was not often possible to find in Western Europe so large a population under one government or so numerous an army under one banner. The resources of Cyrus may not have been greater when he started on his career of conquest; and when Xerxes gathered into one motley horde the warriors of half the known world, their total was only about double the number of David’s robust and warlike Israelites. There was no enterprise that was likely to present itself to his imagination that he might not have undertaken with a reasonable probability of success. He must have regretted that his days of warfare were past, and that the unwarlike Solomon, occupied with more peaceful tasks, would allow this magnificent instrument of possible conquests to rust unused.

But the king was not long left in undisturbed enjoyment of his greatness. In the very moment of his exaltation, some sense of the Divine displeasure fell upon him.

11

Mankind has learnt by a long and sad experience to distrust its own happiness. The brightest hours have come to possess a suggestion of possible catastrophe, and classic story loved to tell of the unavailing efforts of fortunate princes to avoid their inevitable downfall. Polycrates and Croesus, however, had not tempted the Divine anger by ostentatious pride; David’s power and glory had made him neglectful of the reverent homage due to Jehovah, and he had sinned in spite of the express warnings of his most trusted minister.

When the revulsion of feeling came, it was complete. The king at once humbled himself under the mighty hand of God, and made full acknowledgment of his sin and folly: "I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing: but now put away, I beseech Thee, the iniquity of Thy servant, for I have done very foolishly."

The narrative continues as in the book of Samuel. Repentance could not avert punishment, and the punishment struck directly at David’s pride of power and glory. The great population was to be decimated either by famine, war, or pestilence. The king chose to suffer from the pestilence, "the sword of Jehovah"; "Let me fall now into the hand of Jehovah, for very great are His mercies: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So Jehovah sent a pestilence upon Israel, and there felt of Israel seventy thousand men." Not three days since Joab handed in his report, and already a deduction of seventy thousand would have to be made from its total; and still, the pestilence was not checked, for "God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it." If, as we have supposed, Joab had withheld Jerusalem from the census, his pious caution was now rewarded: "Jehovah repented Him of the evil, and said to the destroying angel, It is enough; now stay thine hand." At the very last moment the crowning catastrophe was averted. In the Divine counsels Jerusalem was already delivered, but to human eyes its fate still trembled in the balance: "And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of Jehovah stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem." So another great Israelite soldier lifted up his eyes beside Jericho and beheld the captain of the host of Jehovah standing over against him with his sword drawn in his hand. [Joshua 5:13] Then the sword was drawn to smite the enemies of Israel, but now it was turned to smite Israel itself. David and his elders fell upon their faces as Joshua had done before them: "And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done very wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Thine hand, I pray Thee, O Jehovah my God, be against me and against my father’s house, but not against

12

Thy people, that they should be plagued."

The awful presence returned no answer to the guilty king, but addressed itself to the prophet Gad, and commanded him to bid David go up and build an altar to Jehovah in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. The command was a message of mercy. Jehovah permitted David to build Him an altar; He was prepared to accept an offering at his hands. The king’s prayers were heard, and Jerusalem was saved from the pestilence. But still the angel stretched out his drawn sword over Jerusalem; he waited till the reconciliation of Jehovah with His people should have been duly ratified by solemn sacrifices. At the bidding of the prophet, David went up to the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. Sorrow and reassurance, hope and fear, contended for the mastery. No sacrifice could call back to life the seventy thousand victims whom the pestilence had already destroyed, and yet the horror of its ravages was almost forgotten in relief at the deliverance of Jerusalem from the calamity that had all but overtaken it. Even now the uplifted sword might be only held back for a time; Satan might yet bring about some heedless and sinful act, and the respite might end not in pardon, but in the execution of God’s purpose of vengeance. Saul had been condemned because he sacrificed too soon; now perhaps delay would be fatal. Uzzah had been smitten because he touched the Ark; till the sacrifice was actually offered who could tell whether some thoughtless blunder would not again provoke the wrath of Jehovah? Under ordinary circumstances David would not have dared to sacrifice anywhere except upon the altar of burnt offering before the tabernacle at Gibeon; he would have used the ministry of priests and Levites. But ritual is helpless in great emergencies. The angel of Jehovah with the drawn sword seemed to bar the way to Gibeon, as once before he had barred Balaam’s progress when he came to curse Israel. In his supreme need David builds his own altar and offers his own sacrifices; he receives the Divine answer without the intervention this time of either priest or prophet. By God’s most merciful and mysterious grace, David’s guilt and punishment, his repentance and pardon, broke down all barriers between himself and God.

But, as he went up to the threshing-floor, he was still troubled and anxious. The burden was partly lifted from his heart, but he still craved full assurance of pardon. The menacing attitude of the destroying angel seemed to hold out little promise of mercy and forgiveness, and yet the command to sacrifice would be cruel mockery if Jehovah did not intend to be gracious to His people and His anointed.

13

At the threshing-floor Ornan and his four sons were threshing wheat, apparently unmoved by the prospect of the threatened pestilence. In Egypt the Israelites were protected from the plagues with which their oppressors were punished. Possibly now the situation was reversed, and the remnant of the Canaanites in Palestine were not afflicted by the pestilence that fell upon Israel. But Ornan turned back and saw the angel; he may not have known the grim mission with which the Lord’s messenger had been entrusted, but the aspect of the destroyer, his threatening attitude, and the lurid radiance of his unsheathed and outstretched sword must have seemed unmistakable tokens of coming calamity. Whatever might be threatened for the future, the actual appearance of this supernatural visitant was enough to unnerve the stoutest heart; and Ornan’s four sons hid themselves.

Before long, however, Ornan’s terrors were somewhat relieved by the approach of less formidable visitors. The king and his followers had ventured to show themselves openly, in spite of the destroying angel: and they had ventured with impunity. Ornan went forth and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground. In ancient days the father of the faithful, oppressed by the burden of his bereavement, went to the Hittites to purchase a burying-place for his wife. Now the last of the Patriarchs, mourning for the sufferings of his people, came by Divine command to the Jebusite to purchase the ground on which to offer sacrifices, that the plague might be stayed from the people. The form of bargaining was somewhat similar in both cases. We are told that bargains are concluded in much the same fashion today. Abraham had paid four hundred shekels of silver for the field of Ephron in Machpelah, "with the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field." The price of Ornan’s threshing-floor was m proportion to the dignity and wealth of the royal purchaser and the sacred purpose for which it was designed. The fortunate Jebusite received no less than six hundred shekels of gold.

David built his altar, and offered up his sacrifices and prayers to Jehovah. Then, in answer to David’s prayers, as later in answer to Solomon’s, fire fell from heaven upon the altar of burnt offering, and all this while the sword of Jehovah flamed across the heavens above Jerusalem, and the destroying angel remained passive, but to all appearances unappeased. But as the fire of God fell from heaven, Jehovah gave yet another final and convincing token that He would no longer execute judgment against His people. In spite of all that had happened, to reassure them, the

14

spectators must have been thrilled with alarm when they saw that the angel of Jehovah no longer remained stationary, and that his flaming sword was moving through the heavens. Their renewed terror was only for a moment: "the angel put up his sword again into the sheath thereof," and the people breathed more freely when they saw the instrument of Jehovah’s wrath vanish out of their sight.

The use of Machpelah as a patriarchal burying-place led to the establishment of a sanctuary at Hebron, which continued to be the seat of a debased and degenerate worship even after the coming of Christ. It is even now a Mohammedan holy place. But On the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite there was to arise a more worthy memorial of the mercy and judgment of Jehovah. Without the aid of priestly oracle or prophetic utterance, David was led by the Spirit of the Lord to discern the significance of the command to perform an irregular sacrifice in a hitherto unconsecrated place. When the sword of the destroying angel interposed between David and the Mosaic tabernacle and altar of Gibeon, the way was not merely barred against the king and his court on one exceptional occasion. The incidents of this crisis symbolized the cutting off forever of the worship of Israel from its ancient shrine and the transference of the Divinely appointed center of the worship of Jehovah to the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite, that is to say to Jerusalem, the city of David and the capital of Judah.

The lessons of this incident, so far as the chronicler has simply borrowed from his authority, belong to the exposition of the book of Samuel. The main features peculiar to Chronicles are the introduction of the evil angel Satan, together with the greater prominence given to the angel of Jehovah, and the express statement that the scene of David’s sacrifice became the site of Solomon’s altar of burnt offering.

The stress laid upon angelic agency is characteristic of later Jewish literature, and is especially marked in Zechariah and Daniel. It was no doubt partly due to the influence of the Persian religion, but it was also a development from the primitive faith of Israel, and the development was favored by the course of Jewish history. The Captivity and the Restoration, with the events that preceded and accompanied these revolutions, enlarged the Jewish experience of nature and man. The captives in Babylon and the fugitives in Egypt saw that the world was larger than they had imagined. In Josiah’s reign the Scythians from the far North swept over Western Asia, and the Medes and Persians broke in upon Assyria and Chaldaea from the

15

remote East. The prophets claimed Scythians, Medes, and Persians as the instruments of Jehovah. The Jewish appreciation of the majesty of Jehovah, the Maker and Ruler of the world, increased as they learnt more of the world He had made and ruled; but the invasion of a remote and unknown people impressed them with the idea of infinite dominion and unlimited resources, beyond all knowledge and experience. The course of Israelite history between David and Ezra involved as great a widening of man’s ideas of the universe as the discovery of America or the establishment of Copernican astronomy. A Scythian invasion was scarcely less portentous to the Jews than the descent of an irresistible army from the planet Jupiter would be to the civilized nations of the nineteenth century. The Jew began to shrink from intimate and familiar fellowship with so mighty and mysterious a Deity. He felt the need of a mediator, some less exalted being, to stand between himself and God. For the ordinary purposes of everyday life the Temple, with its ritual and priesthood, provided a mediation; but for unforeseen contingencies and exceptional crises the Jews welcomed the belief that a ministry of angels provided a safe means of intercourse between himself and the Almighty. Many men have come to feel today that the discoveries of science have made the universe so infinite and marvelous that its Maker and Governor is exalted beyond human approach. The infinite spaces of the constellations seem to intervene between the earth and the presence-chamber of God; its doors are guarded against prayer and faith by inexorable laws; the awful Being, who dwells within, has become "unmeasured in height, undistinguished into form." Intellect and imagination alike fail to combine the manifold and terrible attributes of the Author of nature into the picture of a loving Father. It is no new experience, and the present century faces the situation very much as did the chronicler’s contemporaries. Some are happy enough to rest in the mediation of ritual priests; others are content to recognize, as of old, powers and forces, not now, however, personal messengers of Jehovah, but the physical agencies of "that which makes for righteousness." Christ came to supersede the Mosaic ritual and the ministry of angels; He will come again to bring those who are far off into renewed fellowship with His Father and theirs.

On the other hand, the recognition of Satan, the evil angel, marks an equally great change from the theology of the book of Samuel. The primitive Israelite religion had not yet reached the stage at which the origin and existence of moral evil became an urgent problem of religious thought; men had not yet realized the logical consequences of the doctrine of Divine unity and omnipotence. Not only was material evil traced to Jehovah as the expression of His just wrath against sin, but "morally pernicious acts were quite frankly ascribed to the direct agency of God."

16

God hardens the heart of Pharaoh and the Canaanites; Saul is instigated by an evil spirit from Jehovah to make an attempt upon the life of David; Jehovah moves David to number Israel; He sends forth a lying spirit that Ahab’s prophets may prophesy falsely and entice him to his ruin. [Exodus 4:21,, 1 Samuel 19:9-10,, 2 Samuel 24:1,, 1 Kings 22:20-23] The Divine origin of moral evil implied in these passages is definitely stated in the book of Proverbs: "Jehovah hath made everything for its own end, yea even the wicked for the day of evil"; in Lamentations, "Out of the mouth of the Most High cometh there not evil and good?" and in the book of Isaiah, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things." [Proverbs 16:4,, Lamentations 3:38,, Isaiah 45:7]

The ultra-Calvinism, so to speak, of earlier Israelite religion was only possible so long as its full significance was not understood. An emphatic assertion of the absolute sovereignty, of the one God was necessary as a protest against polytheism, and later on against dualism as well. For practical purposes men’s faith needed to be protected by the assurance that God worked out His purposes in and through human wickedness. The earlier attitude of the Old Testament towards moral evil had a distinct practical and theological value.

But the conscience of Israel could not always rest in this view of the origin of evil. As the standard of morality was raised, and its obligations were more fully insisted on, as men shrank from causing evil themselves and from the use of deceit and violence, they hesitated more and more to ascribe to Jehovah what they sought to avoid themselves. And yet no easy way of escape presented itself. The facts remained; the temptation to do evil was part of the punishment of the sinner and of the discipline of the saint. It was impossible to deny that sin had its place in God’s government of the world; and in view of men’s growing reverence and moral sensitiveness, it was becoming almost equally impossible to admit without qualification or explanation that God was Himself the Author of evil. Jewish thought found itself face to face with the dilemma against which the human intellect vainly beats its wings, like a bird against the bars of its cage.

However, even in the older literature there were suggestions, not indeed of a solution of the problem, but of a less objectionable way of stating facts. In Eden the temptation to evil comes from the serpent; and, as the story is told, the serpent is

17

quite independent of God; and the question of any Divine authority or permission for its action is not in any way dealt with. It is true that the serpent was one of the beasts of the field which the Lord God had made, but the narrator probably did not consider the question of any Divine responsibility for its wickedness. Again, when Ahab is enticed to his ruin, Jehovah does not act directly, but through the twofold agency first of the lying spirit and then of the deluded prophets. This tendency to dissociate God from any direct agency of evil is further illustrated in Job and Zechariah. When Job is to be tried and tempted, the actual agent is the malevolent Satan; and the same evil spirit stands forth to accuse the high-priest Joshua [Zechariah 3:1] as the representative of Israel. The development of the idea of angelic agency afforded new resources for the reverent exposition of the facts connected with the origin and existence of moral evil. If a sense of Divine majesty led to a recognition of the angel of Jehovah as the Mediator of revelation, the reverence for Divine holiness imperatively demanded that the immediate causation of evil should also be associated with angelic agency. This agent of evil receives the name of Satan, the adversary of man, the advocatus diaboli who seeks to discredit man before God, the impeacher of Job’s loyalty and of Joshua’s purity. Yet Jehovah does not resign any of His omnipotence. In Job Satan cannot act without God’s permission; he is strictly limited by Divine control: all that he does only illustrates Divine wisdom and effects the Divine purpose. In Zechariah there is no refutation of the charge brought by Satan; its truth is virtually admitted: nevertheless Satan is rebuked for his attempt to hinder God’s gracious purposes towards His people. Thus later Jewish thought left the ultimate Divine sovereignty untouched, but attributed the actual and direct causation of moral evil to malign spiritual agency.

Trained in this school, the chronicler must have read with something of a shock that Jehovah moved David to commit the sin of numbering Israel He was familiar with the idea that in such matters Jehovah used or permitted the activity of Satan. Accordingly he carefully avoids reproducing any words from the book of Samuel that imply a direct Divine temptation of David, and ascribes it to the well-known and crafty animosity of Satan against Israel. In so doing, he has gone somewhat further than his predecessors: he is not careful to emphasize any Divine permission given to Satan or Divine control exercised over him. The subsequent narrative implies an overruling for good, and the chronicler may have expected his readers to understand that Satan here stood in the same relation to God as in Job and Zechariah; but the abrupt and isolated introduction of Satan to bring about the fall of David invests the archenemy with a new and more independent dignity.

18

The progress of the Jews in moral and spiritual life had given them a keener appreciation both of good and evil, and of the contrast and opposition between them. Over against the pictures of the good kings, and of the angel of the Lord, the generation of the chronicler set the complementary pictures of the wicked kings and the evil angel. They had a higher ideal to strive after, a clearer vision of the kingdom of God; they also saw more vividly the depths of Satan and recoiled with horror from the abyss revealed to them.

Our text affords a striking illustration of the tendency to emphasize the recognition of Satan as the instrument of evil and to ignore the question of the relation of God to the origin of evil. Possibly no more practical attitude can be assumed towards this difficult question. The absolute relation of evil to the Divine sovereignty is one of the problems of the ultimate nature of God and man. Its discussion may throw many sidelights upon other subjects, and will always serve the edifying and necessary purpose of teaching men the limitations of their intellectual powers. Otherwise theologians have found such controversies barren, and the average Christian has not been able to derive from them any suitable nourishment for his spiritual life. Higher intelligences than our own, we have been told, -

" reasoned high

Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate,

Fixed fate, free-will, foreknowledge absolute,

And found no end, in wandering mazes lost."

On the other hand, it is supremely important that the believer should clearly understand the reality of temptation as an evil spiritual force opposed to Divine grace. Sometimes this power of Satan will show itself as "the alien law in his

19

members, warring against the law of his mind and bringing him into captivity under the law of sin, which is in his members." He will be conscious that "he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed." But sometimes temptation will rather come from the outside. A man will find his "adversary" in circumstances, in evil companions, in "the sight of means to do ill deeds"; the serpent whispers in his ear, and Satan moves him to wrong-doing. Let him not imagine for a moment that he is delivered over to the powers of evil; let him realize clearly that with every temptation God provides a way of escape. Every man knows in his own conscience that speculative difficulties can neither destroy the sanctity of moral obligation nor hinder the operation of the grace of God.

Indeed, the chronicler is at one with the books of Job and Zechariah in showing us the malice of Satan overruled for man’s good and God’s glory. In Job the affliction of the Patriarch only serves to bring out his faith and devotion, and is eventually rewarded by renewed and increased prosperity; in Zechariah the protest of Satan against God’s gracious purposes for Israel is made the occasion of a singular display of God’s favor towards His people and their priest. In Chronicles the malicious intervention of Satan leads up to the building of the Temple.

Long ago Jehovah had promised to choose a place in Israel wherein to set His name; but, as the chronicler read in the history of his nation, the Israelites dwelt for centuries in Palestine, and Jehovah made no sign: the ark of God still dwelt in curtains. Those who still looked for fulfillment of this ancient promise must often have wondered by what prophetic utterance or vision Jehovah would make known His choice. Bethel had been consecrated by the vision of Jacob, when he was a solitary fugitive from Esau, paying the penalty of his selfish craft; but the lessons of past history are not often applied practically, and probably, no one ever expected that Jehovah’s choice of the site for His one temple would be made known to His chosen king, the first true Messiah of Israel, in a moment of even deeper humiliation than Jacob’s, or that the Divine announcement would be the climax of a series of events initiated by the successful machinations of Satan.

Yet herein lies one of the main lessons of the incident. Satan’s machinations are not really successful; he often attains his immediate object, but is always defeated in the end. He estranges David from Jehovah for a moment, but eventually Jehovah and His people are drawn into closer union, and their reconciliation is sealed by the

20

long-expected choice of a site for the Temple. Jehovah is like a great general, who will sometimes allow the enemy to obtain a temporary advantage, in order to overwhelm him in some crushing defeat. The eternal purpose of God moves onward, unresting and un-hasting; its quiet and irresistible persistence finds special opportunity in the hindrances that seem sometimes to check its progress. In David’s case a few months showed the whole process complete: the malice of the Enemy; the sin and punishment of his unhappy victim; the Divine relenting and its solemn symbol in the newly consecrated altar. But with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day; and this brief episode in the history of a small people is a symbol alike of the eternal dealings of God in His government of the universe and of His personal care for the individual soul. How short-lived has been the victory of sin in many souls! Sin is triumphant; the tempter seems to have it all his own way, but his first successes only lead to his final rout; the devil is cast out by the Divine exorcism of chastisement and forgiveness; and he learns that his efforts have been made to subserve the training in the Christian warfare of such warriors as Augustine and John Bunyan. Or, to take a case more parallel to that of David, Satan catches the saint unawares, and entraps him into sin; and, behold, while the evil one is in the first flush of triumph, his victim is back again at the throne of grace in an agony of contrition, and before long the repentant sinner is bowed down into a new humility at the undeserved graciousness of the Divine pardon: the chains of love are riveted with a fuller constraint about his soul, and he is tenfold more the child of God than before.

And in the larger life of the Church and the world Satan’s triumphs are still the heralds of his utter defeat. He prompted the Jews to slay Stephen; and the Church were scattered abroad, and went about preaching the word; and the young man at whose feet the witnesses laid down their garments became the Apostle of the Gentiles. He tricked the reluctant Diocletian into ordering the greatest of the persecutions, and in a few years Christianity was an established religion in the empire. In more secular matters the apparent triumph of an evil principle is usually the signal for its downfall.

In America the slave-holders of the Southern States rode roughshod over the Northerners for more than a generation, and then came the Civil War.

These are not isolated instances, and they serve to warn us against undue depression 21

and despondency when for a season God seems to refrain from any intervention with some of the evils of the world. We are apt to ask in our impatience, -

"Is there not wrong too bitter for atoning?

What are these desperate and hideous years?

Hast Thou not heard Thy whole creation groaning

Sighs of the bondsman, and a woman’s tears?"

The works of Satan are as earthly as they are devilish; they belong to the world, which passeth away, with the lust thereof: but the gracious providence of God has all infinity and all eternity to work in. Where today we can see nothing but the destroying angel with his flaming sword, future generations shall behold the temple of the Lord.

David’s sin, and penitence, and pardon were no inappropriate preludes to this consecration of Mount Moriah. The Temple was not built for the use of blameless saints, but the worship of ordinary men and women. Israel through countless generations was to bring the burden of its sins to the altar of Jehovah. The sacred splendor of Solomon’s dedication festival duly represented the national dignity of Israel and the majesty of the God of Jacob; but the self-abandonment of David’s repentance, the deliverance of Jerusalem from impending pestilence, the Divine pardon of presumptuous sin, constituted a still more solemn inauguration of the place where Jehovah had chosen to set His name. The sinner, seeking the assurance of pardon in atoning sacrifice, would remember how David had then received pardon for, his sin, and how the acceptance of his offering had been the signal for the disappearance of the destroying angel. So in the Middle Ages penitents founded churches to expiate their sins. Such sanctuaries would symbolize to sinners in after-times the possibility of forgiveness; they were monuments of God’s mercy as well as of the founders’ penitence. Today churches, both in fabric and fellowship, have been

22

made sacred for individual worshippers because in them the Spirit of God has moved them to repentance and bestowed upon them the assurance of pardon. Moreover, this solemn experience consecrates for God His most acceptable temples in the souls of those that love Him.

One other lesson is suggested by the happy issues of Satan’s malign interference in the history of Israel as understood by the chronicler. The inauguration of the new altar was a direct breach of the Levitical law, and involved the superseding of the altar and tabernacle that had hitherto been the only legitimate sanctuary for the worship of Jehovah. Thus the new order had its origin in the violation of existing ordinances and the neglect of an ancient sanctuary. Its early history constituted a declaration of the transient character of sanctuaries and systems of ritual. God would not eternally limit Himself to any building, or His grace to the observance of any forms of external ritual. Long before the chronicler’s time Jeremiah had proclaimed this lesson in the ears of Judah: "Go ye now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I caused My name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of My people Israel I will do unto the house which is called by My name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh I wilt make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth." [Jeremiah 7:12-14] In the Tabernacle all things were made according to the pattern that was showed to Moses in the mount; for the Temple David was made to understand the pattern of all things "in writing from the hand of Jehovah." [1 Chronicles 28:19] If the Tabernacle could be set aside for the Temple, the Temple might in its turn give place to the universal Church. If God allowed David in his great need to ignore the one legitimate altar of the Tabernacle and to sacrifice without its officials, the faithful Israelite might be encouraged to believe that in extreme emergency Jehovah would accept his offering without regard to place or priest.

The principles here involved are of very wide application. Every ecclesiastical system was at first a new departure. Even if its highest claims be admitted, they simply assert that within historic times God set aside some other system previously enjoying the sanction of His authority, and substituted for it a more excellent way. The Temple succeeded the Tabernacle; the synagogue appropriated in a sense part of the authority of the Temple; the Church superseded both synagogue and Temple. God’s action in authorizing each new departure warrants the expectation that He may yet sanction new ecclesiastical systems; the authority which is sufficient to

23

establish is also adequate to supersede. When the Anglican Church broke away from the unity of Western Christendom by denying the supremacy of the Pope and refusing to recognize the orders of other Protestant Churches, she set an example of dissidence that was naturally followed by the Presbyterians and Independents. The revolt of the Reformers against the theology of their day in a measure justifies those who have repudiated the dogmatic systems of the Reformed Churches. In these and in other ways to claim freedom from authority, even in order to set up a new authority of one’s own, involves in principle at least the concession to others of a similar liberty of revolt against one’s self.

PARKER 1-13, "The Hands of God Better Than the Hands of Men

DAVID was tempted to number the people of Israel. He said unto Joab and to the rulers of the people,

"Go, number Israel, from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it" ( 1 Chronicles 21:2).

Joab was a wise counsellor; in this case the wisdom was with the subject, not with the king. Joab answered,

"The Lord make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord"s servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?" ( 1 Chronicles 21:3).

The protest was disregarded. When kings are mad, who can stand before them?—mad, not intellectually, but morally; the madness of the heart, compared with which mental lunacy is an unspeakable blessing. There are times when the soul seems to be given over to the power of the devil, when it is caught on every side, when religion itself becomes little better than a temptation to sin. Men are sometimes brought to suppose that they are doing things for the glory of God when in reality they are but heightening the crumbling pedestal on which their own little dignity is to be shown.

24

David might have said to himself, I will see how many fighting men there are in Israel that can be brought up to the Lord"s cause in the day of battle; I have no wish to magnify my own strength, or to put a fictitious value upon my own position; in fact, I am not concerned about myself at all in this matter, my only object is to see how many qualified men might be called up to the help of the Lord in the day of battle. In saying all this David might assure himself that he was deeply concerned only for the Lord"s name and glory, and that nothing could be more unselfish than his godly concern for the welfare of Israel. There are what may be called subtle sins, as well as vulgar sins. A man may set himself in open opposition to God, and boldly say that he means to fight down the divine supremacy, and put a mark of dishonour on God"s throne; he may be mad enough and vulgar enough for that and defeat his own intentions by his exaggeration. We need not argue the case with such a Prayer of Manasseh , for he is not the kind of character that does much evil in society; his very fury is its own best check. The drunkard who is rolling in the ditch is rather a warning than a temptation to other people. The thing to be noted Isaiah , that there are subtle sins—sins which do not look like sins; sins that are done up in beautiful parcels, that have an inviting aspect, that come to men altogether in false guises, and take men unawares. There is a possibility of doing things that look well, and yet are bad; of encouraging ambitions, and strengthening tastes which, under a passable reputation, are eating away the substance and strength of our best life. It will be a mistake on our part to imagine that David exhausted the sin of counting, and that now arithmetical calculations may be made without trespassing upon the province and honour of God. It is easy for us to rise in petulant indignation against David, and to declare that he ought not to have counted his men; but let us beware, lest in so doing we provoke the spirit of David to retort that it is possible for us to count our money so as to disclose the very motive and intention which in him we condemn as vicious. Yes, there is an atheistical way of counting money. A man may go over coin by coin of his property, and look at it in a way which, being interpreted, signifies, This is my strength, this is my confidence; so long as I have all these coins it is impossible that I can get far wrong, or know much trouble; these will be my answer and defence in the day of accusation and adversity! The most harmless looking things may be done in a distrustful and self-considering spirit. David was undoubtedly giving way to low considerations; he was trying an arm of flesh; he was encouraging himself by a review of forces which he imagined to be invincible. God, who is jealous for the honour of his servants, and jealous for the honour of his own name, sent Gad, David"s own seer, to put three propositions before the king:

"Choose thee either three years" famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy 25

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" ( 1 Chronicles 21:12).

To these propositions David answered:

"I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the Lord; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man" ( 1 Chronicles 21:13).

Let us regard this answer as showing that in the saddest experiences of the heart, in the extremities of human guilt, in the allotment of penalties, and in the working out of law, it is better to fall into the hand of God than into the hands of men; that the Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy, and that like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.

The doctrine Isaiah , that as sinners, as sinners before God, and as sinners towards each other, our highest hope is not in the incomplete and perverted mercy of Prayer of Manasseh , but in the infinite mercy which is founded upon the infinite righteousness of God. We may, perhaps, help ourselves towards a clearer understanding of this doctrine by first considering that it is better to fall into the hands of the highest class of men than into the hands of the lowest; if this be made clear, it will give us a hint of how much better it may be to receive sentence from God than from the highest human authorities.

Take a debated legal case. In the first instance it may be brought before the local magistracy; but, very possibly, the result may be considered unsatisfactory by one party or the other, hence the case may be moved to the court above; there again dissatisfaction may be the result, and an appeal may be carried to the highest court in the land. The decision of that court carries with it the advantage that at all events nothing further can be done—all that legal learning, acumen, skill, and experience can do, has been done. The result, even then, may not be satisfactory; still, by so much as the case has been carried to the highest tribunal, and pronounced upon by the highest Wisdom of Solomon , there is strong ground to rest upon. Not only Song

26

of Solomon , there is a point beyond this; for by so much as a man wishes that there were yet another superior court to which an appeal might be made does he show how deeply graven upon the heart is the law that it is better to fall into the hands of the highest than into the hands of the lowest; that it is better to fall into the hands of God than into the hands of men. It is quite true that the decision of the highest may not bring with it satisfaction to the mind; that is not the point; the one point Isaiah , that men do aspire to have their cases determined, not by the lowest, but by the highest authorities, and it is only by so much as they are persuaded that they have had access to those highest authorities, that they approach anything like a condition of satisfaction.

What is true in the law is equally true in all criticism. Take an amateur painter: as his work approaches completion, he permits his friends to look at it. His father declares himself lost in wonder; his mother unhesitatingly says that the work of her son is perfect; his kinsfolk generally admit that there is genius in the family. So much for one class of critics; but, inasmuch as the artist is aware that this is the very lowest class, it is impossible for him to be satisfied even with the most flattering commendation of his skill. Next come other competitors for fame; and they, as becometh incipient greatness, look on critically and coldly; and the amateur consoles himself under their censure, by finding in envious rivalry a full explanation of their reserve. Is the artist satisfied with the opinions which have been pronounced upon his work? Does he consider himself favoured of fortune, because his father and his mother have, without modification, accorded to him the tribute of their favour? Or does he consider himself condemned to neglect and forgetfulness, because men who are in the same position as himself have treated his work with coldness? He says, alike to the flattery and the censure, I have yet to be judged by the academicians; you are not the judges; they will say what the work is worth; by their word I abide. I cannot accept your flattery; I cannot be discouraged by your censure: I must appeal to the highest, and by the highest I stand or fall. Even supposing the judgment of the highest to be unfavourable, the painter knows that, morally, it is impartial, and, artistically, it is supreme; and by so much he is set at rest as to the value of his work. But suppose that all preliminary criticism is favourable, the wise artist will yet say, I must not rest content with this, it has not the full consent of my own mind; these people are not able to judge my work by the right standards: the great judgment has yet to be pronounced; all that has been said may be confirmed or reversed, and not until the appointed authorities have expressed their opinion can I feel at rest.

27

Take the case of the young public speaker. It will be for the advantage of such a man to be judged by the greatest orators which the country can supply. Do not let his audience consist of half-educated men, but fill the house in which he is to speak with the highest talent of the land. Even then, should the young man fail in his effort, there will be in his hearers a discrimination that can find out any sign or trace of power that may be discovered in his service: there will be an honourable treatment of his failings; and everything that he does that looks in the direction of power will be viewed with hopefulness and encouraged with stimulating words. It is better to be judged by the highest than by the lowest; men have less to fear when they act or speak in the presence of the noblest minds than when they are criticised and judged by men of inferior sagacity and culture. Constantly in life we are seeing the conflict of opinions, and waiting for the expression of the highest, and when the highest has been ascertained, society settles down into contentment and rest. On the other hand, until the highest has been made known, men cannot be quite at ease; the vexed question is still beset with perilous possibilities, and no man is foolhardy enough to build upon it with confidence and satisfaction.

In carrying these illustrations into the religious realm, we must distinguish between the principle and the accident. There is of course infinite disparity between God and the highest human authorities; those authorities are not infallible, even upon matters which come within the scope of their proper functions; judges may err in law; academicians may err in art; physicians may err in medicine;—the one thing to be remembered Isaiah , that by so much as men are sure that they have appealed to the highest accessible tribunal, are they satisfied with the decision. We come then to the one great question of sin. How is sin to be met? How is sin to be forgiven? That sin must somehow be recognised and punished is made abundantly clear by all the arrangements of society. By common consent it has been determined to hunt down sin that affects our social relations; how is the great sin which affects the heart and disturbs our attitude towards God to be met? We may seek to punish one another, or to heal one another, but our punishments are mockeries, and our healings do not touch the disease. You may scourge a felon, but he is a felon still. When you have shut up the manslayer for life in the gloomiest solitude, you have not touched the spirit of murder that is in him. When we have sought to modify sin, to show that corruption is not so corrupt, and that there are spots of light even in the densest moral darkness, we have not really healed the heart which we have addressed in such vain words, we have only put over it a thin covering of lies which will be consumed; and the heart will be the worse for the delusion to which it has yielded.

28

All human punishment is but negative. Human punishment Isaiah , in fact, simply a protest.

Why is it better that the sinner should fall into the hands of God rather than into the hands of men? In reply to this question, good use might be made of the many pleasing considerations which arise in connection with God"s Wisdom of Solomon , God"s righteousness, and God"s perfect knowledge of facts; but we shall include all these in a higher answer—viz, it is better to fall into the hands of God than into the hands of men, because in his whole treatment of human sin God is constantly seeking, not the destruction, but the salvation of the sinner. The punishment which follows sin is not mere punishment; it is not a bald assertion of the rights of law: there is a redemptive element in it; the rod itself conveys a call to the cross. God has never answered our sin merely by punishment. To have contented himself with punishment, strictly as such, would have been to proclaim his weakness. Nothing is easier than to measure sin by penalty, and to make an end of transgression by a visitation of the rod. All this, however, is weakness itself; it is impotent compromise; it leaves the great rebellion untouched. God answers sin not by his hand only, but by his heart. When we ask, How does God propose to encounter sin? He does not point to the spear of lightning, and say, So long as that spear is at my command the sinner shall not go unpunished; he does not refer us to the thunder of his power, and say, So long as I can avail myself of such resources the sinner shall be humiliated: all this would amount to less than nothing; it is negative; it is puerile, if it be considered strictly within its own limits; God, instead of confining himself to penalty, set up the cross, and shows men the sinfulness of sin through the depth and tenderness of his own mercy. Man seeks to magnify his own righteousness, by pronouncing sentence of condemnation upon other people. Man is apt to think that he will be considered virtuous if he speak loudly against other people"s vices. It is possible to have quite a genius in devising penalties, and yet for the heart to know nothing of true loyalty to virtue. Magistracy is one thing, righteousness is another. Law-making may be reduced to a science, but law-keeping comes out of the heart. All human legislation in reference to crime is of necessity incomplete, because it touches simply the overt Acts , and not the motive or the spirit underlying and explaining the life. All incompleteness is weakness, and weakness has but three courses before it—it succumbs to an ignominious fate; it takes advantage of compromise; or it defends itself by exaggeration. All human penal law is ex post facto; it is made after the crime; it is something that comes up to meet a certain class of facts; or by so much as human law is apparently anticipative, it is founded upon inferences and probabilities which make it really retrospective. Crime came first, the Statute Book

29

came next. On the other hand, God"s treatment of sin was determined before the creation of man; for we read in the Holy Book of the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. The idea of redemption was established before the infliction of mere punishment could by possibility be accomplished. The cross is the first figure in the immeasurable past. Redemption lies at the very foundation of the divine government. It is no afterthought; it is not the device of a magistracy organised to put down public crime; it is the expression of the infinite righteousness and the infinite love of God.

Let us be clear upon this point, lest sentiments overrule reason. We are not to suppose that the punishment of sin is either unrighteous or inconsistent with the love of God. Sin must be punished. The law must smite. Sin punishes itself; it kindles a fire in the soul; it pierces the sinner with the sharpest sword. No man can do wrong without smarting for his iniquity, and all his smarting is a testimony that God is on the throne, that God is looking on, that the streams of his infinite life are flowing through the universe in one continual protest against all evil, and one continuous encouragement and benediction upon all good. We shall abuse the spirit of the text if we imagine that by going to God we shall escape the punishment of our sins. It is possible that some who have not been closely following our argument may say, Inasmuch as God deals so mercifully and lovingly with sinners, we shall leave our whole case in his hand and cast ourselves upon his mercy, in order that we may escape the consequences of our sin. They may say that, but let it be understood that it is not with the authority of the argument which we have been considering. It is more than a delusion, it is practical blasphemy. By going to God, we go to punishment; in appearing before his infinite holiness, we bring upon our souls a swift and sure condemnation of everything that is evil in our nature; but herein is the difference between the punishment man accords, and the punishment with which God visits the sinner who casts himself into his hands—under the divine punishment there lies the great and infinitely precious fact that God is seeking the salvation of the sinner. The punishment is not merely negative. God"s government is not a mere magistracy. It is a moral dominion—a government of the heart.

Need a word be added about the fallacy that men would deal more lightly with one another, if the whole question of punishment were left between themselves, because of selfish reasons? First of all, the suggestion is philosophically untrue; and, secondly, its moral unsatisfactoriness is obvious. The conscience would remain after the judgment. To deal lightly with sin is actually to commit sin. To tell lies to one

30

another, by way of modifying each other"s guilt, is a method which carries its own condemnation. We must accept the great principle, that punishment can never lessen sin; that punishment is strictly negative; and that God alone can accompany punishment with a scheme of righteous and merciful redemption. It is good to fall into thy hands, gracious Father; when thou dost smite, it is that we, feeling the bitterness of sin, may desire to abandon it; when thou art angry, we see how true and pure is thy love; when thou dost terribly thunder against us, it is not that we may be driven to destruction, but that we may be called to salvation and peace.

What is wanted for a full acceptation of the principle of this text? I. A deep sense of sin. David had it, "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." If men have inadequate notions of sin, they will, of necessity, have inadequate notions of its treatment. If a man comes to God with a sense of his own integrity, with a spirit that is prepared to defend itself against the charges of God"s law, the gospel will be to him nothing but a mockery, an offer that is to be declined with indignation, if not with contempt, He does not need it; he imagines that he is superior to it; he is not at all on the moral line on which the gospel operates. But let the heart be smitten with a sense of evil; let the whole soul cry out with contrition and with despair; let the watchword of the life be, "O wretched man that I am!" then in that hour of extremity, when all nature gives way, when life is a burden, when futurity is a threat, let the proposition be made to such to fall into the hands of God, who is gracious, long-suffering, and infinitely merciful, and who will mingle with all his judgment elements of love, and the heart will feel that the proposition appeals to its very deepest needs, and that there is but one answer which can be made to an offer so infinitely gracious. To those who are overwhelmed with a sense of their own moral respectability this message will be without meaning or application; but to the broken-hearted and contrite, to whom sin has become the most tormenting problem of their lives, it will be a word of illumination and encouragement.

2. An unreserved committal of our case to God. David gave himself up entirely to God"s will. Mark the beauty of the expression, Let me fall into the hand of the Lord; not, Let me stand before the Lord and consult him, laying before him my opinions and pointing out a modification of his judgment; not that at all; God would not have treated with David on any such terms, nor will he treat with us if we come before him with a proposition instinct with such selfishness. We must fall into the

31

hand of God—an expression which signifies resignation, perfect trust in the divine righteousness and benevolence, and an entire committal of our whole case to the disposal of God.

Fall into the hand of God, O misjudged man! We are living in a world where misjudgments are being constantly pronounced upon our conduct; our words are mistaken, our tones are perverted, our whole spirit is misunderstood: what is our hope? and in what does our soul find rest?—in the belief that God is over all, and that he himself pronounces the final judgment! In doing what is right and true, and doing it with individuality of method, we shall unquestionably expose ourselves to the censure of many critics. Men who profess to be men of taste, men who have made taste their idol, men whose taste is so highly cultivated as to have become the most odious vulgarity, will tell us that their whole nature shrinks from this or that method of doing things, and they will not be slow to suppose that because what they call their "whole nature" shrinks from something that bears our individuality, they are, therefore, very lofty and righteous judges! God knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust; and in the hour of his judgment he will look upon our life, not in such incomplete portions as are visible to the public eye, but in all the secret things, in all the hidden elements and forces that have gone to make it what it is; he will look at our life from its beginning to its end, and see how circumstances that never could be told to men have often asserted an overruling claim in our spirit, and caused us to assume attitudes and relations which have actually been distressingly painful to ourselves; he will judge not by the outward but by the inward, and if it be possible for his infinite love to find in us one redeeming feature, he will so magnify that as to cause our weaknesses and our failures, in so far as they have been mere infirmities, to be forgotten in the amplification of those features on which he himself can look with any degree of approbation. The whole world is in the hand of God, let us be thankful. The whole past is under his review, let us leave it with the assurance that his judgment is righteous. The whole future is under his control, let us pass into it with the steadiness, the quietness and the majesty of those who know that all the resources of God are placed at the disposal of all who put their whole trust in his wisdom and love. We can talk but inadequately about these things now; poor are our best notions about the goodness of the divine rule and the blessedness of falling into the divine hands. Not until we reach heaven can we fully know how good a thing it is to have given up our whole heart and life to the keeping and direction of our heavenly Father.

32

GUZIK, "1 CHRONICLES 21 - WHERE TO BUILD THE TEMPLEA. David commands a census to be taken.1. (1 Chronicles 21:1-2) David is moved to take a census.Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and to the leaders of the people, “Go, number Israel from Beersheba to Dan, and bring the number of them to me that I may know it.”a. Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel: In 2 Samuel 24:1, it tells us that this was initially prompted because the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel. So we see that Satan moved David yet the LORD expressly allowed it as a chastisement against David.i. There is quite a gap in the historical record that the Chronicler passes over, including many family problems and a civil war. “His reasons for a gap of this length are not difficult to surmise: little of what transpired during those two decades would encourage a postexilic Judah, before whom Ezra was seeking to portray a piety that characterized David as his best.” (Payne)ii. “For the first time in Scripture, the word ‘Satan’ appears without the definite article as a proper noun.” (Payne)iii. “When Satan incites, he is interested merely in his own ends. He neither cares for righteous punishment nor looks for possible repentance, since they are as foreign to his nature as temptation to sin is to God’s.” (Selman)b. Go, number Israel: This was dangerous because of a principle stated in Exodus 30:12 : When you take the census of the children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, that there may be no plague among them when you number them.i. The principle of Exodus 30:12 speaks to God’s ownership of His people. In the thinking of these ancient cultures, a man only had the right to count or number what belonged to him. Israel didn’t belong to David; Israel belonged to God. It was up to the LORD to command a counting, and if David counted he should only do it at God’s command and receiving ransom money to “atone” for the counting.ii. “Numbering the hosts of Jehovah is not essentially or necessarily wrong; everything depends on the motive. . . . When it is born of pride, it is the subtlest of perils, inclining us to trust in the multitude of a host, and thus to cease to depend upon God.” (Morgan)

33

iii. “When we are moved to number the people, we may rest assured that the impulse is Divine or Satanic, and we may determine which by the motive. If the motive is service, it is God. If the motive is pride, it is Satanic.” (Morgan)

POOLE, "David numbereth the people, 1 Chronicles 20:1-6. He repenteth of three judgments propounded, he chooseth the pestilence; and why, 1 Chronicles 21:7-13. David, by Gad’s direction, buildeth an altar, and sacrificeth: the plague is stayed, 1 Chronicles 21:14-30.Satan stood up, Heb. stood, to wit, before the Lord and his tribunal to accuse David and Israel, and to beg God’s permission to tempt David to number the people. Standing is the accuser’s posture before men’s tribunals; and consequently the Holy Scripture (which useth to speak of God, and of the things of God, after the manner of men, to bring them down to our capacities) elsewhere represents Satan in this posture, as 1 Kings 22:21 Zechariah 3:1. And so this agrees with 2 Samuel 24:1, where the Lord is said to move David, i.e. to give Satan commission or permission to move him; for otherwise God tempteth no man, James 1:13. But of this, and of this whole chapter, and of the variations and seeming contradictions between this narrative and that in Samuel, see my notes on 2Sa 24.

PULPIT, "This very important chapter in David's history is the parallel of 2 Samuel 24:1-25, which contains some details not found here, e.g. the route taken by those who went to number Israel (2 Samuel 24:5-8), and omits others. This chapter furnishes one of the clearer proofs (in respect of what it supplies, not found in Samuel) that its indebtedness is not to that book, but to a work open as well to the compiler of Chronicles as to the writer of Samuel. Its contents fall into five sections.

1. David's command to number the people, with Joab's remonstrances (2 Samuel 24:1-6).

2. The means taken to rouse David to a sense of his sin, and his confession thereof (2 Samuel 24:7, 2 Samuel 24:8).

3. The choice between punishments presented to him and his prayer under the 34

drawn sword of the angel for the sparing of the people (2 Samuel 24:9-17).

4. The accepted propitiatory sacrifices and offerings of David, and the consequent stay of the plague (2 Samuel 24:18 -27).

5. David's grateful establishment of that same spot as the place of sacrifice (verses 28-30).

1 Chronicles 21:1

Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. This remarkable sentence takes the place of the statements in the parallel, "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." Our own passage seems to confine the temptation and sin to David. David also seems to be spoken of as the object of malignant attack on the part of Satan, though Israel is spoken of as the object of malignant envy and animosity. It is also to be noticed that in 1 Chronicles 21:17 David takes all the blame to himself, and speaks of the people as "innocent sheep." A people and whole nation have, indeed, often suffered the smart of one ruler's sin. Yet here the light thrown upon the whole event by the account in the Book of Samuel must be accepted as revealing the fact that there had been previously something amiss on the part of the people—perhaps something of illest significance lurking in their constitution. This alone could "kindle the auger of the Lord against Israel." It is the opposite of this which kindles the anger of Satan—when he witnesses excellence, surpassing excellence, as when he witnesses "the weakest saint," yet in that strongest position, "on his knees." The apparent inconsistency in Satan being spoken of as resisting Israel, and the anger of the Lord being spoken of as kindled against Israel, is but apparent and superficial. In the first place, these histories do only purport to state the facts overt. And in this sense either alternative statement gives the prima facie facts. Either is true, and both may be true in different chronological order. And further, that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel is no disproof that Satan will see and seize his opportunity. It looks the contrary way. There was a time and an occasion in Eden when Satan thought he saw an opportunity, tried it, and found it, when the anger of the Lord was not

35

kindled against Adam and Eve for certain. But much more prompt will be the executive of Satan at another and less doubtful time. The paths in written history are often awhile rugged and broken up; the written history of Scripture is no exception. And in thus being the more in analogy with history itself, those unevennesses and breaks are the better attestation of both the reality of the Scripture history and the veracity of its writers. The word ( ָׂשַטן ) occurs twenty-four times in the Old Testament. On all occasions of its occurrence in the Book of Job and in the prophecies of Zechariah, it shows the prefixed definite article; in all other places it is, with the present passage, unaccompanied by the article. Its translation here might appear strictly as that of a proper name. But this cannot be said of the other instances of its use, when without the article (Numbers 22:22, Numbers 22:32; 1 Samuel 29:4). This constitutes with some the ground of the very opposite opinion and opposite translation. If we regard the name as utterly expressing the personality of Satan, the passage is very noteworthy, and will be most safely regarded as the language of the compiler, and not as copied from the original source. The signification of the word "Satan," as is well known, is "adversary," or "accuser." The sin of David in giving the order of this verse was of a technical and ceremonial character, in the first place, whatever his motives were, and however intensified by other causes of a moral and more individual complexion. We learn (Exodus 16-30:12 ) the special enactments respecting what was to be observed when "the sum of the children of Israel after their number" was to be taken. However, the same passage does not say, it fails to say, when such a numbering would be legitimate or when not. It is left us, therefore, to deduce this from observation. And we notice, in the first place, that, on the occasion of its undoubted rightness, it is the work of the distinct commandment of God (Numbers 3-1:1 ; Numbers 4-26:1 ). Next, we notice the religious contribution, "the ransom," that was required with it (Exodus 16-30:12 ; Exodus 38:25, Exodus 38:26; Numbers 31:48 -55). Again, we notice that the numberings narrated both in the beginning of the Book of Numbers (1.) and toward the close (26.) had specific moral objects as assigned by God—among them the forcible teaching of the loss entailed by the successive rebellions of the people (Numbers 26:64, Numbers 26:65; Deuteronomy 2:14, Deuteronomy 2:15). And though last, not least, all these indications are lighted up by the express and emphatic announcements in God's original promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that their seed should become past numbering, multitudinous as the stars, and as the sands of the seashore. From all which we may conclude that only that numbering was held legitimate which was for God's service in some form, and as against human pride and boastfulness—by God's command as against a human king's fancy—and which was attended by the payment of that solemn "ransom" money, the bekah, or half-shekel (Exodus 30:12). Other numbering had snares about it, and it was no doubt because it had such intrinsically that it was divinely

36

discountenanced, and in this case severely punished. It seems gratuitous with some to tax David with having other motives than those of some sort of vanity now at work, sinister designs of preparing, unaided and unpermitted, some fresh military exploits, or stealing a march on the nation itself in the matter of some new system of taxation. The context offers no corroboration of either of these notions, while several lesser indications point to the simplest explanation (1 Chronicles 27:23).

BI 1-30, "And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel.Under a spell(Compare 2Pe_1:21):—I. All the world seems to be under a spell or charm; inward influences move men as steam moves a ship. There am three spells.

1. One is that of parentage. The spell of a virtuous parentage influences its children’s children, like a good charm, for thousands of generations; but, on the other hand, the wickedness of a parent generally ceases to influence his offspring at, as the Second Commandment says, “the third and fourth generation.”2. Another spell is the outward influence of our surroundings. Faithful parents, wise teachers, inspiring books, virtuous companions, healthy atmosphere, and suitable food will train up a child in the way God and men would have him go; but many a bright apprentice lad has been cursed by bad example.3. The third spell is that of inward influences. One of these is said in the Bible to be the movement of the devil, and the other that of the holy God.4. What can be greater than the spell which moves the human appetite to intoxicating drink? To obtain drink people will sometimes descend to the lowest degradation of meanness. Yes; the evil spell of the appetite for drink upon its victims is great and overpowering. Drink may be no temptation to you and me, but many people find it a spell which moves them as the tide and wind sometimes drives a feeble ship on the rocks. And what stronger spell can there be than the inclination to war between men, and churches, and nations?5. Again, is there a stronger spell than the desire for money, the greed of gold? See how men under the spell of an insane ambition for wealth sometimes forget honour, and become actual thieves!

II. Now, let us consider the good spell over mankind. One of these is the heaven-born spell of true love; it is a most powerful influence for good. Thus love will reform the prodigal life. There is no stronger spell than true love; God is love. It is by the wisdom of love that He converts mankind. God’s object in winning men to love Him is that they may be prompted to self-denial in themselves and to do good works to others. (W. Birch.)

David’s sin and repentance37

I. David’s sin.1. Its occasion: pride and vainglory—“that I may know it.”2. Its unseen but real source: Satan (1Sa_24:1).

II. The Lord’s displeasure because of his sin (1Ch_21:9-17).III. The atonement for his sin, made on the site of the Lord’s house (chap. 20:1-2; 1Ki_6:1-38; 1Ki_7:1-51; 1Ki_8:1-66); as the foundation of the spiritual house (2Co_6:16-17; 1Pe_2:4-5; Eph_2:21-22). The temple therefore rests as it were on—

1. An atonement for sin (Rom_5:11).2. Sin put away, 1Ch_21:17 (Dan_9:24).3. Wrath averted by sacrifice (verse 16:26-27; 2Sa_24:16; Isa_42:21; 1Pe_1:18-19; 1Pe_2:24; Col_1:20; Col_2:14-15). (Clergyman’s Magazine.)

David’s self-confidenceI. The sin of David in numbering the people was self-confidence, pride in his own strength, and forgetfulness of the source of all his strength, even of God. It was the greater sin in him because he had had such marvellous, such visible, witnesses of God’s love, and care, and guidance. Past experience might and should have taught him that his strength was not in himself, but in his God.II. The sins of pride, and self-confidence, and forgetfulness of God are only too common amongst ourselves. When men dwell securely, in full peace and health, they grow careless in religion. God is not much present with them; they seem sufficient of themselves to keep themselves and to make themselves happy. (R. D. B. Rawnsley.)

David numbering IsraelI. Man, through the devil, bringing tremendous evils on the world. “Satan stood up,” etc. The existence and influence of this grand chief of evil agencies are here, and everywhere through the Bible, stated as facts too well authenticated to require argument. He tempted the progenitor of the race; he assailed the Redeemer of the world; and he leads humanity captive by his will. He now had access, by means not stated, to the mind of the monarch of Israel. One might have thought that age, which had cooled in him the fires of life, would also have extinguished all the fires of worldly ambition; but Satan can rekindle the smouldering embers of evil within us: he did so now. The ambitious feeling awakened was not one of those passing waves of emotion that rise from the depths of the soul and break upon the shore and are no more; it took the form of an obstinate purpose.

1. That Satan’s influence on man, however successful, interferes not with man’s personal responsibility. David was held responsible for the crime which the devil suggested to his mind. Great is the might of Satan, and great are the influences which he can bring to bear upon us; albeit he has no power to break down our wills by force, no power to coerce us into the wrong. We feel we are not mere engines in what we do, that our actions, good or bad, are our own.2. That one man’s sins may entail misery on thousands. It was so now: David’s sin

38

brought death on thousands and agony into the heart of the nation.3. That the Eternal has agents ever at hand to execute His judgments. (Homilist.)

Sinful countingIt is easy for us to rise in petulant indignation against David, and to declare that he ought not to have counted his men; but let us beware, lest in so doing we provoke the spirit of David to retort that it is possible for us to count our money so as to disclose the very motive and intention which in him we condemn as vicious. Yes there is an atheistical way of counting money. A man may go over coin by coin of his property, and look at it in a way which, being interpreted, signifies, this is my strength, this is my confidence; so long as I have all these coins it is impossible that I can get far wrong, or know much trouble, these will be my answer and defence in the day of accusation and adversity! (J. Parker, D. D.)

The impotence of numbersPalestine fills a large place in history, but a very insignificant one on the map. David’s enemies were on every side, and they were all mighty in war. He had the sea to his west but did not command the coast. That (with its harbours of Tyre and Sidon) belonged to the Phoenicians, who overlapped him also on the north. To the east were the barriers of Moab; to the south the plains, cities, and hosts of the Philistines. We do not wonder that he wished to know upon what swords he had to depend. And yet we are told that it was an ungodly thing for him to number Israel.I. What made this deed ungodly? The answer is that it was a departure from the place he held in the kingdom of God. He was losing the heart which could make him say, “I am small and of no reputation, yet do I not forget Thy commandments.” Such a mood, such a ranging of himself with neighbouring powers, was a grievous departure from David’s position as king of a chosen race. Think for a moment how unique that race was. Nothing is so wonderful in history as the survival of the Jews. They were set in the midst of mighty nations which far outnumbered them, but which all lost their place and power in the world while the Jews remained. And yet in the early days of this race they were in danger of being spoilt, and really degraded, by an attempt to set themselves on the level of the nations around. David’s act was a forgetfulness of, a departure from, God’s purpose. In seeking to realise his material resources, and count the swords which he could draw, he so far gave up that unseen vital force, which distinguished his people the most, and descended to the meaner level on which those around him took their stand.II. What is the lesson to be learnt from this incident? That in the conduct of society and of our lives, dependence on mere numbers may prove disastrous.

1. In national economy. The consent and unanimity of a thousand fools does not render the folly of one man harmless; it may arm it with the power to do a thousand-fold more harm. We should be specially cautious in finding our course by that weathercock public opinion.2. On a small as well as a large social scale. A prominent tendency to-day is to uphold the value of company and co-operation. In many respects this is well. Union is

39

strength. But along with this may grow up a new tyranny. In passing from a selfish individualism to the recognition of a righteous socialism, we are in danger of having our personal convictions overridden. In presence of all the associations, societies, and committees in the world, we must not forget that some of the greatest things the world owns and cherishes, have taken their beginning and drawn their power from solitary source, some halfhidden spring which the crowd would pass by or trample down. The Bible would point to Noah, Daniel, and Job, and above all to the “lonely cross.”3. In the religious life. No persuasion may be taken as true because it is accepted even by all. There was a time when the whole world believed that the sun moved round the earth. The great convictions and changes in history are irrespective of numbers. They come like little seeds which spread until they cover the land. Faith in numbers is a slavery worse than Egyptian, which shows itself in the discharge of our business and the profession of our faith. It is the deadly hindrance to which David exposed himself and his people. It is the temptation which besets us in the formation of our opinions and the doing of our work. We are all tempted to number the people. It is of the first importance that we should be true to the voice of our Father in heaven, who never leaves His children to walk alone if they will only take His hand. (Harry Jones.)

Census reflectionsI. References to and reflections on two official numberings of the children of Israel (Num_1:26.).II. Some general reflections on our national census.

1. The number of inhabitants of England and Wales at this moment is definite.2. The number of the living inhabitants at this moment on the earth is definite.3. The number of individuals who compose the whole human race is definite.4. The number of the elect, or of those who shall ultimately be saved is definite.

Application: I would address—1. Those who were numbered at the last census.2. I would call to your remembrance those who have appeared and again disappeared during this interval.3. The object of numbering suggests consolation. “The very hairs of your head are all numbered,” this is one of the sweetest pledges of our heavenly Father’s personal care over us.4. It also suggests warning. “Lord, let me know mine end and the number of my days.” For what purpose? “That I may know how frail I am.” (W. Bramley Moore, M. A.)

Man, through God, arresting the great evils that have come upon the world

40

1. Profound contrition for sin. “And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing; but now, I beseech Thee, do away with the iniquity of Thy servant, for I have done very foolishly.” In Samuel it is said, “David’s heart smote him.” His conscience was aroused to a sense of his crime and became his chastiser. It allowed him to make no excuse; it prevented him from charging the crime even on the devil who tempted him. “I have sinned greatly,” “I have done this thing,” “Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered?” “Even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed.” Conscience, the deepest power within us, ever vindicates our personality, our freedom, our responsibility. An awakened conscience detaches us from the universe, from all, and places us as guilty personalities in conscious contact with Him who is the Eternal Judge of right and wrong. The first step to true prayer is this.2. Unbounded trust in God. When Jehovah, through Gad, David’s seer, proposed to the monarch the choice of one of three judgments—famine, war, or pestilence—what was David’s reply? “I am in a great strait: let me fall into the hand of the Lord; for very great are His mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.” His sin had consisted in some measure in placing trust in men; why else did he require a census? Was it not because he thought that numbers were power for defence and conquest? That confidence is gone now, and God appears to him as the only object of trust. Wonderful trust is this. When all things go well and fortune smiles, when providence showers its blessings upon our path, skirting our way with verdure and flowers, we may feel some trust in Him; but when all is dreary, dark, and tempestuous, when we see, as David saw, in the black heavens the destroying angel with a sword drawn in his hands about to smite us, then to trust Him is to have a trust of the highest sort.3. An atoning self-sacrificing benevolence.

(1) With a generosity rejoicing in sacrifice, he rears an altar. He was divinely commanded to rear an altar unto the Lord on the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.(2) With a soul benevolently oblivious of all personal interest he pleads with heaven.

1. The solemnity of man’s existence on this earth. Man here is the subject and organ of spiritual and invisible agents. The same man, as in the case of David, might be the organ of the devil and the organ of God. Under the influence of the devil, David became proud and rebellious, incurring the displeasure of his Maker and bringing ruin on his country; under the influence of God, he became profoundly contrite, trustful, and most benevolently prayerful; arresting the progress of evil and securing again for his country the mercy of Heaven. How terribly solemn is our life!2. The ruinous and restorative dispositions in man. Selfish pride and self-sacrificing prayerfulness are the two grand dispositions which David displays in this portion of his history; the former was at once the product and instrument of the devil, bringing ruin upon his country; the latter was the product and instrument of God, counteracting the evils. (Homilist.)

41

2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”

K&D 2-14, "The naming of the ָהָעם ָׂשֵרי along with Joab is in accordance with the circumstances, for we learn from 2Sa_24:4 that Joab did not carry out the numbering of the people alone, but was assisted by the captains of the host. The object of ֵאַלי ,ְוָהִביאּוwhich is not expressed, the result of the numbering, may be supplied from the context. No objection need be taken to the simple ָּכֵהם of 1Ch_21:3, instead of the double ְוָכֵהםָּכֵהם in Samuel. The repetition of the same word, “there are so and so many of them,” is a peculiarity of the author of the book of Samuel (cf. 2Sa_12:8), while the expression in the Chronicle corresponds to that in Deu_1:11. With the words וגו ֲאֹדִני Are they“ ,ֲהלֹאnot, my lord king, all my lord's servants,” i.e., subject to him? Joab allays the suspicion that he grudged the king the joy of reigning over a very numerous people. In 2Sa_24:3the thought takes another turn; and the last clause, “Why should it (the thing or the numbering) become a trespass for Israel?” is wanting. ַאְׁשָמה denotes here a trespass which must be atoned for, not one which one commits. The meaning is therefore, Why should Israel expiate thy sin, in seeking thy glory in the power and greatness of thy kingdom? On the numbers, 1Ch_21:5, see on 2Sa_24:9. In commenting on 1Ch_21:6, which is not to be found in Samuel, Berth. defends the statement that Joab did not make any muster of the tribes Levi and Benjamin, against the objections of de Wette and Gramberg, as it is done in my apologet. Versuche, Sa. 349ff., by showing that the tribe of Levi was by law (cf. Num_1:47-54) exempted from the censuses of the people taken for political purposes; and the tribe of Benjamin was not numbered, because David, having become conscious of his sin, stopped the numbering before it was completed (cf. also the remarks on 2Sa_24:9). The reason given, “for the king's word was an abomination unto Joab,” is certainly the subjective opinion of the historian, but is shown to be well founded by the circumstances, for Joab disapproved of the king's design from the beginning; (cf. 2Sa_24:3 and 1Ch_21:3). - In 1Ch_21:7, the author of the Chronicle, instead of ascribing the confession of sin on David's part which follows to the purely subjective motive stated in the words, “and David's heart smote him,” i.e., his conscience (2Sa_24:10), has ascribed the turn matters took to objective causes: the thing displeased God; and anticipating the course of events, he remarks straightway, “and He (God) smote Israel.” This, however, is no reason for thinking, with Berth., that the words have arisen out of a misinterpretation or alteration of 2Sa_24:10; for such anticipatory remarks, embracing the contents of the succeeding verses, not unfrequently occur in the historical books (cf. e.g., 1Ki_6:14; 1Ki_7:2). - In reference to 1Ch_21:8-10, see on 2Sa_

42

24:10-16. - In 1Ch_21:12, ִנְסֶּפה has not come into the text by mistake or by misreading ֻנְס (2Sa_24:13), but is original, the author of the Chronicle describing the two latter

evils more at length than Samuel does. The word is not a participle, but a noun formed from the participle, with the signification “perishing” (the being snatched away). The second parallel clause, “the sword of thine enemies to attaining” (so that it reach thee), serves to intensify. So also in reference to the third evil, the יהוה ֶחֶרב which precedes ָּבָאֶרץ and the parallel clause added to both: “and the angel of the Lord destroying ,ֶּדֶברin the whole domain of Israel.”

ELLICOTT, " (2) And to the rulers (captains) of the people.—Omitted in Samuel, which reads, “Joab, the captain of the host, who was with him.” The “captains of the host” are, however, associated in the work of the census with Joab (2 Samuel 24:4). The fact that Joab and his staff were deputed to take the census seems to prove that it was of a military character.Go.—Plural.Number.—Enrol, or register (sifrû). A different word (mânâh) is used in 1 Chronicles 21:1, and in the parallel place. Samuel has, “Run over, I pray, all the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba,” using the very word (shût) which, in the prologue of Job (1 Chronicles 1:7; 1 Chronicles 2:2) Satan uses of his own wanderings over the earth.From Beersheba even to Dan.—As if the party were to proceed from south to north. (See 1 Chronicles 21:4.) The reverse order is usual. (See Judges 20:1; 1 Samuel 3:20.)

PULPIT, "And to the rulers of the people. So Numbers 1:4, "And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers" (see also 1 Chronicles 27:22-24; 2 Samuel 24:4, 2 Samuel 24:5).

3 But Joab replied, “May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king,

43

are they not all my lord’s subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?”

JAMISON, "why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel? — or bring an occasion of punishment on Israel. In Hebrew, the word “sin” is often used synonymously with the punishment of sin. In the course of Providence, the people frequently suffer for the misconduct of their rulers.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:3. Why will he be — Or, why should this be; a cause of trespass — Or, an occasion of punishment; (Hebrew words, which signify sin, being often used for the punishment of sin,) to, or against Israel? — Why wilt thou provoke God by this sin to punish Israel? He speaks thus because God commonly punishes the people for the sins of their rulers, the people being for the most part guilty of their rulers’ sins, in one kind or other.

ELLICOTT, " (3) Answered.—Hebrew, said.The Lord . . . as they be.—Literally, Jehovah add upon his people like them an hundred times, anabridged form of what is read in Samuel.But, my lord the king, are they not . . .?—Instead of this, Samuel records another wish, “And may the eyes of my lord the king be seeing,” that is, living (Genesis 16:13).Why then doth my lord require this thing?—So Samuel, in slightly different terms: “And my lord the king, why desireth he this proposal?”Why will he be (why should he become) a cause of trespass to Israel?—Not in

44

Samuel. It is an explanatory addition by the chronicler.

GUZIK, "2. (1 Chronicles 21:3-4) Joab objects to the census.And Joab answered, “May the LORD make His people a hundred times more than they are. But, my lord the king, are they not all my lord’s servants? Why then does my lord require this thing? Why should he be a cause of guilt in Israel?” Nevertheless the king’s word prevailed against Joab. Therefore Joab departed and went throughout all Israel and came to Jerusalem.a. Why then does my lord desire this thing? Joab wasn’t afraid to speak to David when he thought the king was wrong. With the best interest of both David and Israel in mind, Joab tactfully asked David to reconsider this foolish desire to count the nation.i. Joab also hints at the motive behind the counting - pride in David. The this thing that David desired was the increase of the nation, and he perhaps wanted to measure the size of his army to know if he had enough force to conquer a neighboring nation. “He did it out of curiosity and creature-confidence.” (Trapp)ii. We gather from 2 Samuel 24 that this took place late in his reign. So late in his reign, David was tempted to take some of the glory in himself. He looked at how Israel had grown and prospered during his reign - it was remarkable indeed. The count was a way to take credit to himself. “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.” (Morgan)b. Nevertheless the king’s word prevailed against Joab: 2 Samuel 24:4 tells us that it wasn’t only Joab who tried to tell David not to do this - the captains of the army also warned David not to count the soldiers in Israel. But David did so anyway.

POOLE, " Or, why will he be, or why should this be, a trespass, or a cause of trespass, or an occasion of punishment, (for Hebrew words signifying sin are oft used to note the punishment of sin,) or a desolation, or a cause of desolation or destruction, (for the verb whence this noun proceeds is oft used in that sense,) to or against Israel? Why wilt thou provoke God by this sin to punish Israel? Thus he speaks, because God commonly punisheth the people for the sins of their rulers, because they are for the most part guilty of their sins in one kind or other; or at

45

least God takes this occasion to punish people for all their sins.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 21:3But my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? The place of this perfectly intelligible sentence, indicating that Joab discerned the object of David in desiring the numbering of the people, is occupied in the Book of Samuel by the words, "And that the eyes of my lord the king may see it;" which some for no very evident reason prefer. It was, no doubt, a very radical element of David's sin in this matter that he was thinking of the nation too much as his own servants, instead of as the servants of his one Master. The Lord ever knoweth who are his, and numbereth not only them and their names, but their every sigh, tear, prayer. A cause of trespass. This clause may be explained as though trespass was equivalent to the consequences, i.e. the punishment of trespass. This. however, rather tends to explain away than to explain a phrase. More probably the deeper meaning is that, in the fact of the numbering, nation and king would become one in act, and would become involved together in indisputable sin. Though there were no unfeigned assent and consent in the great body of the nation to the numbering, yet they would become participators in the wrong-doing. It would further seem evident, from Joab addressing these words to the king, that it was a thing familiarly known and thoroughly understood that the course David was now bent on following was one virtually, if not actually, prohibited, and not one merely likely to be displeasing to God on account of any individual disposition in David to be boastful or self-confident. Otherwise it would be scarcely within the province of Joab either to express or suppose this of his royal master.

4 The king’s word, however, overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem.

46

ELLICOTT, "(4) Wherefore Joab departed.—“Went out” scil, from the king’s presence (Samuel). The chronicler omits the account of the route of Joab and his party, as described in 2 Samuel 24:4-8. They crossed Jordan, and went to Aroer, Jazer, Gilead, and Dan; then round to Zidon, “the fortress of Tyre, and all the cities of the Hivite and Canaanite, and came out at the nageb of Judah, to Beersheba.” The business occupied nine months and twenty days; and the fact that the generalissimo of David’s forces and his chief officers found leisure for the undertaking indicates a time of settled peace. The census, therefore, belongs to the later years of the reign.

PULPIT, "Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem. This short verse stands in the place of all the five verses of 2 Samuel 24:4-8, with their interesting contents, giving the route which Joab and his assistants took, and the time occupied (nine months and twenty days) to their return.

5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.

47

BARNES, "In 2Sa_24:9 the numbers are different. The explanation there given is not so generally accepted as the supposition that the numbers have, in one passage or the other (or possibly in both), suffered corruption.

CLARKE, "All they of Israel were a thousand thousand - Judah was fourhundred threescore and ten thousand - In the parallel place, 2Sa_24:9 (note), the men of Israel are reckoned eight hundred thousand, and the men of Judah five hundred thousand.

JAMISON, "Joab gave the sum of the number of the children of Israel — It amounted to one million one hundred thousand men in Israel, capable of bearing arms, inclusive of the three hundred thousand military (1Ch_27:1-9), which, being already enlisted in the royal service, were not reckoned (2Sa_24:9), and to four hundred seventy thousand men in Judah, omitting thirty thousand which formed an army of observation stationed on the Philistine frontier (2Sa_6:1). So large a population at this early period, considering the limited extent of the country and comparing it with the earlier census (Num_26:1-65), is a striking proof of the fulfillment of the promise (Gen_15:5).

COKE, "1 Chronicles 21:5. All—Israel were a thousand thousand— See on 2 Samuel 24:9.

ELLICOTT, " (5) The number.—Muster, or census (miphqăd). The first clause is identical with Samuel, but has “David” for “the king,” as elsewhere.

And all they of Israel.—And all Israel became (came to). The numbers are different in Samuel, which states them as 800,000 for Israel and 500,000 for Judah. The latter may fairly be regarded as a round number (500,000), our text giving the more exact total (470,000). As to the former, we may assume that the 1,100,000 of our text is an error of transcription, or, more probably, that the traditions respecting this census varied, as may easily have happened, inasmuch as the numbers were not registered in the royal archives (1 Chronicles 27:24). Perhaps, however, our estimate includes the standing army of David, reckoned (1 Chronicles 27:1-15) at a total of 288,000 men (in round numbers, 300,000); thus 800,000 (Sam.) + 300,000 = 1,100.000

48

(Chron.).

GUZIK, "3. (1 Chronicles 21:5-8) The census is made and David is immediately sorry.Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to David. All Israel had one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and Judah had four hundred and seventy thousand men who drew the sword. But he did not count Levi and Benjamin among them, for the king’s word was abominable to Joab. And God was displeased with this thing; therefore He struck Israel. So David said to God, “I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing; but now, I pray, take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have done very foolishly.”a. Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to the king: he results showed that there were 1,300,000 fighting men among the twelve tribes, reflecting an estimated total population of about 6 million in Israel.i. 2 Samuel 24:5-9 indicates that it took almost 10 months to complete the census. David should have called off this foolish census during the ten months, but he didn’t.ii. The number given in 2 Samuel 24:5-9 is different than the sum arrived at here. “To attempt to reconcile them in every part is lost labour; better at once acknowledge what cannot be successfully denied, that although the original writers of the Old Testament wrote under the influence of the Divine Spirit, yet we are not told that the same influence descended on all copiers of their words, so as absolutely to prevent them from making mistakes.” (Clarke)iii. But he did not count Levi and Benjamin: “The rabbis give the following reason for this: Joab, seeing that this would bring down destruction upon the people, purposed to save two tribes. Should David ask, Why have you not numbered the Levites? Joab purposed to say, Because the Levites are not reckoned among the children of Israel. Should he ask, Why have you not numbered Benjamin? he would answer, Benjamin has been already sufficiently punished, on account of the treatment of the woman at Gibeah: if, therefore, this tribe were to be again punished, who would remain?” (Clarke)b. Therefore He struck Israel: God would strike Israel with a choice of judgments offered to David. Yet God had already struck Israel by deeply convicting the King of Israel with an acute sense of his sin.

49

c. I have sinned greatly: The man after God’s heart was not sinless, but had a heart sensitive to sin when it was committed. David kept a short account with God.i. “The chief interest of this chapter for us lies in the revelation of the true character of David. His sins were the lapses and accidents of his life. This is not to condone them. It is, however, to emphasize that the habitual set of his life was far otherwise than these sins suggest, and the deepest truth concerning him is revealed, not by the failures, but by his action afterwards.” (Morgan)d. Take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have done very foolishly: David now saw the pride and vainglory that prompted him to do such a foolish thing.

PULPIT, "The report of the numbers as given in this verse does not tally with that of the parallel place. Here they are three hundred thousand more for Israel, and thirty thousand fewer for Judah, than there. No really satisfactory explanation of these discrepancies has yet appeared. The somewhat ingenious suggestion that the Chronicle-compiler counted in the standing army (two hundred and eighty-eight thousand, 1 Chronicles 27:1-15) for Israel, and omitted from Judah a supposed "thirty thousand," under the head of "the thirty" of our 1 Chronicles 11:1-47.; while the writer of the Book of Samuel did exactly the converse,—can scarcely pass muster, although it must be noticed that it would meet in the main the exigencies of the case. A likelier suggestion might be found in a comparison of the statements of our 1 Chronicles 11:6 compared with 1 Chronicles 27:22-24. Indeed, the last sentence of this last-quoted verse (1 Chronicles 27:24) may possibly contain the explanation of all (cutup. Numbers 1:47-50; Numbers 2:33). That Joab utterly refused to number Levi, because this was a thing most distinctly prohibited (and further because it was not material to David's presumable objects), was quite to be expected. And though Joab is said in the following verse not to have numbered Benjamin, it is possible enough that he may have known this number (1 Chronicles 7:6-11). Yet see what follows.

6 But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the king’s command was

50

repulsive to him.

BARNES, "To omit the Levites would be to follow the precedent recorded in Num_1:47-49. The omission of Benjamin must he ascribed to a determination on the part of Joab to frustrate the king’s intention, whereby he might hope to avert God’s wrath from the people.

CLARKE, "Levi and Benjamin counted he not - The rabbins give the following reason for this: Joab, seeing that this would bring down destruction upon the people, purposed to save two tribes. Should David ask, Why have you not numbered the Levites? Joab purposed to say, Because the Levites are not reckoned among the children of Israel. Should he ask, Why have you not numbered Benjamin? he would answer, Benjamin has been already sufficiently punished, on account of the treatment of the woman at Gibeah: if, therefore, this tribe were to be again punished, who would remain?

JAMISON, "Levi and Benjamin counted he not — If this census was ordered with a view to the imposition of taxes, this alone would account for Levi, who were not warriors (1Ch_21:5), not being numbered (see on Num_1:47-54). The population of Benjamin had been taken (see on 1Ch_7:6-11), and the register preserved in the archives of that tribe. This, however, was taken on another occasion, and by other agency than that of Joab. The non-numbering of these two tribes might have originated in the special and gracious providence of God, partly because Levi was devoted to His service, and Benjamin had become the least of all the tribes (Jdg_21:1-25); and partly because God foresaw that they would remain faithful to the house of David in the division of the tribes, and therefore He would not have them diminished [Poole]. From the course followed in this survey (see 2Sa_24:4-8), it would appear that Judah and Benjamin were the last tribes that were to be visited; and that, after the census in Judah had been finished, Joab, before entering on that of Benjamin, had to return to Jerusalem, where the king, now sensible of his great error, gave orders to stop all further proceedings in the business. Not only the remonstrance of Joab at the first, but his slow progress in the survey (2Sa_24:8) showed the strong repugnance and even horror of the old general at this unconstitutional measure.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:6. Levi and Benjamin counted he not — Partly for the following reason, and principally by God’s gracious providence to Levi, because they were devoted to his service; and to Benjamin, because they were the least of all

51

the tribes, having been almost extinct, (Judges 21.,) and because God foresaw that they would be faithful to the house of David in the division of the tribes, and therefore he would not have them diminished. And Joab also presumed to leave these two tribes unnumbered, because he had specious pretences for it; for Levi, because they were no warriors, and the king’s command reached only of those that drew sword; and for Benjamin, because they, being so small a tribe, and bordering upon Jerusalem, might easily be numbered afterward.

ELLICOTT, " (6) But Levi . . .—This verse is wanting in Samuel, but it probably existed in the original source. There is nothing in the style to suggest a later hand; while the word “counted” (pâqad), which has not been used before in this chapter, occurs twice in the parallel passage (2 Samuel 24:2; 2 Samuel 24:4). It is noticeable also that the chronicler writes “the king” (not “David”) here, as in Samuel.As regards the fact stated, we may observe that the sacerdotal tribe of Levi would naturally be exempted from a census taken for military or political purposes. (Comp. Numbers 1:47; Numbers 1:49.) And 1 Chronicles 27:24 expressly asserts that the census was not completed; a result with which Joab’s disapprobation of the scheme may have had much to do. The order in which the tribes were numbered (2 Samuel 24:4-8; see 1 Chronicles 21:4) makes it likely that Judah and Benjamin were to have been taken last, and that, after numbering Judah, Joab repaired to the capital, where he was ordered by the king to desist from the undertaking. Josephus (Antiq. vii. 13, 1) speaks as if Joab had not had time to include Benjamin in the census. He may have feared to give offence to the tribe of Saul.

POOLE, "Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them; partly for the following reason, and principally by God’s special and gracious providence to these two tribes; to Levi, because they were devoted to his service; and to Benjamin, because they were the least of all the tribes, having been almost extinct, Jude 21, and because God foresaw that they would be faithful to the house of David in the division of the tribes, and therefore he would not have them diminished. And Joab presumed to leave these two tribes unnumbered, because he had specious pretences for it; for Levi, because they were no warriors, and the king’s command reached only to those that drew sword, as appears from 1 Chronicles 21:5; and for Benjamin, because they, being so small a tribe, and bordering upon Jerusalem their chief city, might easily be numbered afterward.

52

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 21:6Averse to his task as Joab was, he may have been indebted to the memory of the exemption of Levi from census for the idea of enlarging upon it and omitting Benjamin as well. The important contents of this short verse are not found in Samuel, so that we can borrow no light thence. But Benjamin was "the least of the tribes" ( 21:1-23), and Peele has suggested that God would not permit the numbers of either of these tribes to be lessened, as he foresaw that they would be faithful to the throne of David on the division of the kingdom. Others think that the omission of these tribes in the census may have been due to Joab's recall to Jerusalem before the completion of the work, and to the king's repentance in the interim cutting off the necessity of completing it. This little agrees, however, with the resolute tone and assigned reason contained in this verse. Peele's explanation, meantime, explains nothing in respect of the statement that the king's word was abominable to Joab.

7 This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel.

HENRY 7-17, "David is here under the rod for numbering the people, that rod of correction which drives out the foolishness that is bound up in the heart, the foolishness of pride. Let us briefly observe,

I. How he was corrected. If God's dearest children do amiss, they must expect to smart for it. 1. He is given to understand that God is displeased; and that it is no small uneasiness to so good a man as David, 1Ch_21:7. God takes notice of, and is displeased with, the sins of his people; and no sin is more displeasing to him than pride of heart: nor is anything more humbling, and grieving, and mortifying to a gracious soul, than to see itself under God's displeasure. 2. He is put to his choice whether he will be punished by war, famine, or pestilence; for punished he must be, and by one of these. Thus, for his 53

further humiliation, he is put into a strait, a great strait, and has the terror of all the three judgments impressed upon his mind, no doubt to his great amazement, while he is considering which he shall choose. 3. He hears of 70,000 of his subjects who in a few hours were struck dead by the pestilence, 1Ch_21:14. He was proud of the multitude of his people, but divine Justice took a course to make them fewer. Justly is that taken from us, weakened, or embittered to us, which we are proud of. David must have the people numbered: Bring me the number of them, says he, that I may know it. But now God numbers them after another manner, numbers to the sword, Isa_65:12. And David had another number of them brought, more to his confusion than was to his satisfaction, namely, the number of the slain - a black bill of mortality, which is a drawback to his muster-roll. 4. He sees the destroying angel, with his sword drawn against Jerusalem, 1Ch_21:16. This could not but be very terrible to him, as it was a visible indication of the anger of Heaven, and threatened the utter destruction of that beloved city. Pestilences make the greatest devastations in the most populous places. The sight of an angel, though coming peaceably and on a friendly errand, has made even mighty men to tremble; how dreadful then must this sight be of an angel with a drawn sword in his hand, a flaming sword, like that of the cherubim, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life! While we lie under the wrath of God the holy angels are armed against us, though we see them not as David did.II. How he bore the correction. 1. He made a very penitent confession of his sin, and prayed earnestly for the pardon of it, 1Ch_21:8. Now he owned that he had sinned, had sinned greatly, had done foolishly, very foolishly; and he entreated that, however he might be corrected for it, the iniquity of it might be done away. 2. He accepted the punishment of his iniquity: “Let thy hand be on me, and on my father's house, 1Ch_21:17. I submit to the rod, only let me be the sufferer, for I am the sinner; mine is the guilty head at which the sword should be pointed.” 3. He cast himself upon the mercy of God (though he knew he was angry with him) and did not entertain any hard thoughts of him. However it be, Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercies are great,1Ch_21:13. Good men, even when God frowns upon them, think well of him. Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him. 4. He expressed a very tender concern for the people, and it went to his heart to see them plagued for his transgression: These sheep, what have they done?

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:7. God was displeased with this thing — Because it was done without any colour of necessity, and out of mere curiosity and ostentation, as David’s own conscience afterward told him, which therefore smote him, as is related 2 Samuel 24:10. Therefore he smote Israel — As is particularly related in the following verses. Undoubtedly God did this because Israel concurred with David in the act of numbering the people, and approved of it, as well as because of all their other sins.

ELLICOTT, " (7) And God was displeased.—This verse also is not read in Samuel, which has instead, “And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people.” The peculiarities of expression in Samuel suggest textual corruption. The

54

chronicler’s verse is a sort of general heading, or anticipative summary, to the following narrative. The margin rightly renders the first clause (see Genesis 21 for the same unusual construction).Verses 7-13(7-13) The Divine wrath, declared by Gad the seer.

POOLE, " God was displeased with this thing; because this was done without any colour of necessity, and out of mere curiosity, and ostentation, and carnal confidence, as David’s own conscience told him, which therefore smote him, as it is related, 2 Samuel 24:10.Therefore he smote Israel; which is particularly related in the following verses.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 21:7Smote Israel. These two words serve simply to summarize in the first instance what the compiler is about to rehearse at greater length. The parallel place shows, "And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people." Some better power occasioned that smiting. Reflection brought to David's heart and conscience (1 Samuel 24:5), as often to those of others, restored vitality. The exact circumstances or providences, however, which roused into action the conscience of David are not stated. The second clause of our verse cannot refer to any preliminary smiting, but to the oncoming visitation of pestilence. It is noticeable, if only as a coincidence, that the eleventh verse of the parallel passage (2 Samuel 24:11) opens with a similarly ambiguously placed clause, "For when David was up in the morning, the word of the Lord came to the Prophet Gad," although this is explainable simply as our insufficient Authorized Version rendering. However, failing any external cause, the beginning of 1 Chronicles 21:10 in this same parallel place may intimate the adequate account of all in the spontaneous stirring of David's conscience "the bitter thoughts of conscience born." In these two verses we suddenly come upon the name "God" instead of "the Lord," i.e. Jehovah.

55

8 Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by doing this. Now, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:8. I have done very foolishly — I see plainly, and acknowledge, that I have been very foolish in thinking to found my security on the number of my people, instead of depending solely on thy almighty power and sovereign help.

ELLICOTT, " (8) And David said.—This verse is verbatim the same with its parallel, save that it makes the characteristic substitution of “God” for “Jehovah,” and adds the explanatory phrase “this thing” in the first half, and in the second omits the Divine Name altogether.Do away.—Cause to pass over, and so away. David’s conscience misgave him in the night, before his interview with Gad. (See 2 Samuel 24:10-11.)

9 The Lord said to Gad, David’s seer,

JAMISON, "the Lord spake unto Gad, David’s seer — Although David was himself endowed with a prophetic gift, yet, in matters relating to himself or his kingdom, he was in the habit of consulting the Lord through the medium of the priests; and when he failed to do so, a prophet was sent on extraordinary occasions to admonish or chastise him. Gad, a private friend, was occasionally employed as the bearer of these prophetic messages.

56

ELLICOTT, " (9) And the Lord (Jehovah) spake unto Gad.—Samuel, “And David arose in the morning. Now a word of Jehovah had come to Gad the prophet, a seer of David, saying—“ This appears to be more original than our text.David’s seer.—Better, a seer of David’s, for the same title is applied to Heman (1 Chronicles 25:5). For Gad, see 1 Samuel 22:5, and 1 Chronicles 29:29. From the latter passage it has been inferred that it was Gad who wrote the original record of the census.

GUZIK, "4. (1 Chronicles 21:9-12) David is allowed to choose the judgment.And the LORD spoke to Gad, David’s seer, saying, “Go and tell David, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “I offer you three things; choose one of them for yourself, that I may do it to you.”‘“ So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Choose for yourself, either three years of famine, or three months to be defeated by your foes with the sword of your enemies overtaking you, or else for three days the sword of the LORD the plague in the land, with the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.’ Now consider what answer I should take back to Him who sent me.”a. I offer you three things: God used David’s sin and the resulting chastisement to reveal David’s heart and wisdom. His choice of the following three options would test David:· Three years of famine: This would surely be the death of some in Israel, but the wealthy and resourceful would survive. Israel would have to depend on neighboring nations for food· Three months to be defeated by your foes: This would be the death of some in Israel, but mostly only of soldiers. Israel would have to contend with enemies among neighboring nations· For three days . . . the plague in the land: This would be the death of some in Israel, but anyone could be struck by this plague - rich or poor, influential or anonymous, royalty or commoni. “This was a great mercy: David must be whipped; but he may choose his own rod.” (Trapp)b. Now consider what answer I should take back to Him who sent me: God wanted David to use the prophet as a mediator, and to answer to the prophet instead of

57

directly to God.5. (1 Chronicles 21:13) David chooses the three days of plague.And David said to Gad, “I am in great distress. Please let me fall into the hand of the LORD, for His mercies are very great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man.”a. Please let me fall into the hand of the LORD: This meant that David chose the three days of plague. In the other two options the king and his family could be insulated against the danger, but David knew that he had to expose himself to the chastisement of God.i. “Had he chosen war, his own personal safety was in no danger, because there was already an ordinance preventing him from going to battle. Had he chosen famine, his own wealth would have secured his and his own family’s support. But he showed the greatness of his mind in choosing the pestilence, to the ravages of which himself and his household were exposed equally with the meanest of his subjects.” (Clarke)b. Do not let me fall into the hand of man: This meant that David chose the three days of plague. In the other two options, Israel would either be at the mercy of neighbors (as in the famine) or attacked by enemies. David knew that God is far more merciful and gracious than man is.

PULPIT, "Gad, David's seer. The parallel place says, "The Prophet Gad ( ֲהָּנִביא ), David's seer" (2 Samuel 24:11). The Hebrew word here used in both passages for "seer," is ֹחֶזה, in place of the word of higher import, ָהֹרֶאה, the use of which is confined to Samuel, Hanani, and to the person spoken of in Isaiah 30:10 . In this last passage our Authorized Version translates "prophet" while in 1 Chronicles 29:29our Authorized Version translates both Hebrew names in the very same verse by the one English word "seer." Gad was, perhaps, a pupil of David (2 Samuel 22:8), and was the successor of Samuel (1 Chronicles 9:22) in this office.

10 “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of

58

them for me to carry out against you.’”

ELLICOTT, "(10) This verse, again, nearly coincides with the parallel in Samuel. The variations look like corrections and explanatory or paraphrastic substitutions. Thus the word “go is here imperative, instead of the less usual infinitive; “saving” is added by way of clearness; the easier phrase, “I offer thee” (spread or lay before thee), is given in place of the curious “I lift up” (i.e., impose) “on thee” (nôteh for nôtçl: a change such as is common in the Targum); and, lastly, the pronoun of them, which is masculine in Samuel, is more correctly feminine here.

11 So Gad went to David and said to him, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Take your choice:

JAMISON 11-12, "Choose thee, etc. — To the three evils these correspond in beautiful agreement: three years, three months, three days [Bertheau]. (See on 2Sa_24:13).

ELLICOTT, " (11) And said unto him.—Samuel has the pleonastic, “And told him, and said,” &c.The following curse from the Annals of Tiglath Pileser I. (circ. 1120 B.C.) well illustrates the three penalties proposed by God to David: “May Assur and Anum, the great gods my lords, mightily rebuke him and curse him with grievous curse . . . The overthrow of his army may they work! In presence of his foes may they make him dwell altogether! May Rimaron with evil pestilence his land cut off! Want of

59

crops, famine, corpses, to his country may be cast!”Thus saith the Lord, Choose thee.—Not in Samuel, which has instead a direct question: “Shall there come to thee seven years’ famine in thy land?” Our “choose” (take) is a word of later use in Hebrew. The Syriac gives the same term (qabbél).

12 three years of famine, three months of being swept away[a] before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the Lord—days of plague in the land, with the angel of the Lord ravaging every part of Israel.’ Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me.”

BARNES, "And the angel of the Lord destroying ... - These words are not in Samuel, which puts the third alternative briefly. They prepare the way for the angelic appearance 1Ch_21:16, on which the author is about to lay so much stress.

CLARKE, "Three days - the pestilence in the land - In 2Sa_24:13 (note), seven years of famine are mentioned.

BENSON, "Verse 12-131 Chronicles 21:12-13. Either three years of famine — In 2 Samuel 24:13, it is said the prophet propounded to David seven years of famine, concerning which see the note there. Let me fall now into the hand of the Lord — The pestilence is more properly called the hand, or sword of the Lord, than other common calamities. For they have visible causes, but none know whence this sudden destruction comes,

60

unless immediately from the hand or stroke of God.

ELLICOTT, " (12) Three years’ famine.—This appears correct, as harmonising with the three months and three days of the other visitations. Samuel has the reading “seven,” which perhaps originated in some scribe’s memory of the famine described in Genesis 41:30, sqq.To be destroyed.—Samuel has, “thy flying,” and so LXX. and Vulg. here. This is doubtless right, as the word in our Hebrew text might easily be a corrupt form of that in Samuel.While that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee.—Literally, and the sword of thy foes at overtaking. The word “overtaking” (massègeth) only occurs besides in Leviticus 14:21. Samuel has simply, “and he pursuing thee.” Perhaps the right text is, and he pursue thee to overtaking. (Comp. the Syriac here: “Three months thou shalt be subdued before thy enemy, and he shall be pursuing thee, and he shall be mastering thee.”)Or else three days the sword of the Lord . . . coasts of Israel.—Samuel has the brief, “Or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land.” Our text appears to be an exegetical expansion of the older statement. Others suppose it to be the original, of which Samuel is an epitome, alleging that otherwise “the angel” is introduced in 2 Samuel 24:16 quite suddenly and abruptly. But we must remember that in the thought of those times pestilence and “the sword,” or “angel of the Lord,” would be suggestive of each other. (Comp. 2 Kings 19:35; and for the three judgments, Ezekiel 5:17; Ezekiel 14:13-19; Ezekiel 14:21; Leviticus 26:25-26.)Throughout all the coasts.—In every border.Now therefore advise thyself.—And now see. Samuel, “Now know and see.”

PULPIT, "Three years' famine. The parallel place has, in our Hebrew text, "seven" instead of "three." But the Septuagint indicates this to be but a corruption of a later text; for it reads" three," as here. The parallel place shows no mention of the destroying angel here spoken of. The three inflictions of famine, sword, pestilence, are found not unfrequently elsewhere in Scripture (see Deuteronomy 28:21-25; Ezekiel 14:21; Revelation 6:4-8). Now … advise thyself. The simple text is" Now see," in place of "Now know and see" of the parallel passage.

61

13 David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”

CLARKE, "David said - I am in a great strait - The Targum reasons thus:“And David said to Gad, If I choose famine, the Israelites may say, The granaries of David are full of corn; neither doth he care should the people of Israel die with hunger. And if I choose war, and fly before an enemy, the Israelites may say, David is a strong and warlike man, and he cares not though the people of Israel should fall by the sword. I am brought into a great strait; I will deliver myself now into the Hand of the Word of the

Lord, ביד מימרא דיי beyad meymera dayai, for his mercies are many; but into the hands of the children of men I will not deliver myself.”

JAMISON, "let me fall now into the hand of the Lord ... let me not fall into the hand of man — Experience had taught him that human passion and vengeance had no bounds, whereas our wise and gracious Father in heaven knows the kind, and regulates the extent, of chastisement which every one needs.SBC,"I. The sin of David in numbering the people was self-confidence; pride in his own strength, and forgetfulness of the source of all his strength, even of God. It was the greater sin in him because he had had such marvellous, such visible, witnesses of God’s love, and care, and guidance. Past experience might and should have taught him that his strength was not in himself, but in his God.II. The sins of pride, and self-confidence, and forgetfulness of God are only too common amongst ourselves. When men dwell securely, in full peace and health, they grow careless in religion. God is not much present with them; they seem sufficient of themselves to keep themselves and to make themselves happy. Let us judge ourselves, that we be not judged by the Lord. Let us fear more the Lord our God, and serve Him in truth with all our heart, for consider how great things He hath done for us.

62

R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 3rd series, p. 150.

It is better to fall into the hand of God than into the hands of men, because in His whole treatment of human sin God is constantly seeking, not the destruction, but the salvation, of the sinner. God has never answered our sin merely by punishment. Instead of confining Himself to penalty, He sets up the Cross and shows men the sinfulness of sin through the depth and tenderness of His own mercy.God’s government is not a mere magistracy. It is a moral dominion—a government of the heart.What is wanted for a full acceptation of the principle of this text? (1) A deep sense of sin. David had it: "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." (2) An unreserved committal of our case to God. David gave himself up entirely to God’s will. We must fall into the hand of God, an expression which signifies resignation, perfect trust in the Divine righteousness and benevolence, and an entire committal of our whole case to the disposal of God.Parker, City Temple, 1870, p. 325.

ELLICOTT, " (13) And David said.—Almost identical with Samuel. “Let me fall” looks like an improvement of Samuel, “Let us fall.” The word “very” (not in Sam.) is perhaps an accidental repetition from the Hebrew of I am in a great strait.Let me not fall.—Samuel has a precative form of the same verb (’eppôlâh; here ’eppôl).David confesses inability to choose. So much only is clear to him, that it is better to be dependent on the compassion of God than of man; and thus, by implication he decides against the second alternative, leaving the rest to God. Famine, sword, and pestilence were each regarded as Divine visitations, but the last especially so, because of the apparent suddenness of its outbreak and the mysterious nature of its operation.

PULPIT, "It is in such answers as these—answers of equal piety and practical wisdom, that the difference is often visible between the man radically bad, and the man good at heart and the child of grace, even when fallen into the deepest depth of sin.

63

14 So the Lord sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead.

JAMISON 14-15, "So the Lord ... sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it — The infliction only of the pestilence is here noticed, without any account of its duration or its ravages, while a minute description is given of the visible appearance and menacing attitude of the destroying angel.

K&D 14-15, "The naming of the ָהָעם ָׂשֵרי along with Joab is in accordance with the circumstances, for we learn from 2Sa_24:4 that Joab did not carry out the numbering of the people alone, but was assisted by the captains of the host. The object of ֵאַלי ,ְוָהִביאּוwhich is not expressed, the result of the numbering, may be supplied from the context. No objection need be taken to the simple ָּכֵהם of 1Ch_21:3, instead of the double ְוָכֵהםָּכֵהם in Samuel. The repetition of the same word, “there are so and so many of them,” is a peculiarity of the author of the book of Samuel (cf. 2Sa_12:8), while the expression in the Chronicle corresponds to that in Deu_1:11. With the words וגו ֲאֹדִני Are they“ ,ֲהלֹאnot, my lord king, all my lord's servants,” i.e., subject to him? Joab allays the suspicion that he grudged the king the joy of reigning over a very numerous people. In 2Sa_24:3the thought takes another turn; and the last clause, “Why should it (the thing or the numbering) become a trespass for Israel?” is wanting. ַאְׁשָמה denotes here a trespass which must be atoned for, not one which one commits. The meaning is therefore, Why should Israel expiate thy sin, in seeking thy glory in the power and greatness of thy kingdom? On the numbers, 1Ch_21:5, see on 2Sa_24:9. In commenting on 1Ch_21:6, which is not to be found in Samuel, Berth. defends the statement that Joab did not make any muster of the tribes Levi and Benjamin, against the objections of de Wette and Gramberg, as it is done in my apologet. Versuche, Sa. 349ff., by showing that the tribe of Levi was by law (cf. Num_1:47-54) exempted from the censuses of the people taken for political purposes; and the tribe of Benjamin was not numbered, because David, having become conscious of his sin, stopped the numbering before it was completed (cf. also the remarks on 2Sa_24:9). The reason given, “for the king's word was an abomination unto Joab,” is certainly the subjective opinion of the historian, but is shown to be well founded by the circumstances, for Joab disapproved of the king's design from the

64

beginning; (cf. 2Sa_24:3 and 1Ch_21:3). - In 1Ch_21:7, the author of the Chronicle, instead of ascribing the confession of sin on David's part which follows to the purely subjective motive stated in the words, “and David's heart smote him,” i.e., his conscience (2Sa_24:10), has ascribed the turn matters took to objective causes: the thing displeased God; and anticipating the course of events, he remarks straightway, “and He (God) smote Israel.” This, however, is no reason for thinking, with Berth., that the words have arisen out of a misinterpretation or alteration of 2Sa_24:10; for such anticipatory remarks, embracing the contents of the succeeding verses, not unfrequently occur in the historical books (cf. e.g., 1Ki_6:14; 1Ki_7:2). - In reference to 1Ch_21:8-10, see on 2Sa_24:10-16. - In 1Ch_21:12, ִנְסֶּפה has not come into the text by mistake or by misreading ֻנְס (2Sa_24:13), but is original, the author of the Chronicle describing the two latter

evils more at length than Samuel does. The word is not a participle, but a noun formed from the participle, with the signification “perishing” (the being snatched away). The second parallel clause, “the sword of thine enemies to attaining” (so that it reach thee), serves to intensify. So also in reference to the third evil, the יהוה ֶחֶרב which precedes ָּבָאֶרץ and the parallel clause added to both: “and the angel of the Lord destroying ,ֶּדֶברin the whole domain of Israel.”

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:14. There fell of Israel — He was proud of the number of his people, but God took a course to make them fewer. Justly is that which we are proud of taken from us, or imbittered to us.

ELLICOTT, "(14) So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel.—So Samuel. The rest of our verse is abridged. From Samuel we learn that the plague raged throughout the land from dawn to the time of the evening sacrifice.

PARKER 14-30, " 1 Chronicles 21:14-3014. So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel [From Samuel we learn that the plague raged throughout the land, from dawn to the time of the evening sacrifice]: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.15. And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it ["And the angel stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem to destroy it"]; and as he was destroying ["About (at the time of) the destroying;" when the angel was on the point of beginning the work of death. It does not appear that Jerusalem was touched (comp. 2 Samuel 24:16)], the Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now ["Enough now, stay (drop) thine hand"] thine

65

hand. And the angel of the Lord stood [was standing. Samuel "had come to be"] by the threshingfloor of Oman [or, Araunah, 2 Samuel 24:18] the Jebusite.16. And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces. [On the bursting out of the pestilence it would be natural that David and the elders should put on sackcloth (see 2 Samuel 3:31; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 6:30, etc.); and on seeing the angel it would be natural that they should veil their faces (see Exodus 3:6; 1 Kings 19:13)].17. And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep [verbatim as in Samuel, save that the appeal, "O Lord my God," is wanting there. (Literally, "But these, the sheep." The king was the shepherd)], what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my father"s house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued [Literally, "and on thy people, not for a plague "].Interrupted JudgmentsTHE ministry of angels is not always a ministry of salvation. We read in the epistle to the Hebrews , "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" But in this case we find an angel charged with the awful mission of destruction. The city towards which the angel was flying was none other than Jerusalem, the fair, the beautiful, the comeliest object upon all the earth, the very city of peace and of God. But position, history, outward advantages, cannot save men from divine judgment, when they have rebelled against God and invoked his wrath. Curious, however, it is to notice how judgment and mercy meet together, even under circumstances the most appalling. A beautiful instance of this occurs in the fifteenth verse—"and as he was destroying"—the Lord was looking on, and he himself interrupted the judgment which he had ordered to be poured out upon the doomed city. The Lord cannot look upon destruction with complacency. He did not make the earth to destroy it, or create the children of men that he might turn them to destruction; his thoughts are ever thoughts of restoration, maturity, completeness, and the blessedness of peace and sweet contentment "Turn ye, turn ye; why will ye die?" "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Are there not many interrupted judgments in human history? Sometimes we have wondered why the judgment was not carried on to the point of extremity, so that nothing whatever should be left behind of all the heritage of evil-doers. The explanation of our wonder is given in this verse, and specially in these

66

words, "and as he was destroying." God has left a remnant; he would not have the uttermost farthing extracted; he would not carry out his judgment until there was nothing left upon the earth but the signs of the fire which had consumed it. What applies to a nation or to a city applies also to the individual life. We have had much taken away, and yet how much have we had left! As the angel was destroying, "the Lord beheld," and into his eyes there came tears of pity, and his voice was heard saying to the angel, "It is enough, stay now thine hand." In wrath God has remembered mercy; thus, although our house has been shaken down, and our life has suffered great chastisements, and all objects of beauty seem to have been withdrawn from our vision, yet when we come to look on what God has left behind, we may indeed often be more astounded by the mercy than we have been appalled by the wrath. "It is enough, stay now thine hand,"—enough, if rightly interpreted, but not enough if the right interpretation has been missed. Enough was done to assert the reality of divine righteousness, the certainty of the divine superintendence of human affairs; enough was done to show that God could have done more, had not his pity arrested his anger. Blessed are they who themselves say, "It is enough," and who justify their verdict of sufficiency, not because of their cowardice under the strain of suffering, but because their distresses have brought them to penitential humiliation and to full-orbed views of life and of God. We have never had enough punishment until we have been brought to an attitude of humiliation, confession, and uttermost penitence. The object of God in sending the destroying angel to city or nation, to family or individual, is to bring men to repentance, to use even the ministry of fear in order that he may bring home those who have wandered far from him. When David beheld the awful spectacle, he began to accuse himself with just severity, yet he began in that hour to know what it is to respond to priestly instincts and to pursue the holy work of mediation. David said unto God, I only am to blame—"I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed "—I am the guilty one before high Heaven: O thou God of mercy, kill me if thou wilt, but spare those who have no part or lot in this iniquity. Happy indeed is the man who can bring himself even to this distress of mind. Contradictory as the mere words may appear to be, there is joy in a distress in which we have not involved others, but which righteously falls upon ourselves, and which we accept in a spirit of submission and penitence. David was great in his repentance. The circumstances developed the highest quality of the man"s nature; he did not seek for the mitigation of his punishment in the punishment of innocent men: he felt that he could bear that penalty more resignedly, and even gratefully, if he himself were left alone to receive the full outpouring of divine indignation which he had justly incurred: "Let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my father"s house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued." Yet a curious illustration of providence is afforded by this very association of innocent people with divine judgments. We

67

cannot sin ourselves without involving others in some measure of penalty and suffering. Surely this should be some restraint upon our eager appetites, our unholy ambitions, our diabolical desires. When the father of the house goes down in character he carries down with him, to a considerable extent, the character of his innocent children. The bad man is laying up a bad fortune for those whom he has brought into the world; long years afterwards they may be told how bad a man their father was, and because of his iniquity they may be made to suffer loss and pain. If any man is now seeing innocent people suffering on his account he ought at once to confess the sin to be his own, and openly implore God to keep back the hand of judgment from those who are involved in the grievous offence."Then the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the Lord in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. And David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spake in the name of the Lord. And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat. And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the threshingfloor, and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground. Then David said to Ornan, Grant [Heb. Give] me the place of this threshingfloor, that I may build an altar therein unto the Lord: thou shalt grant it me for the full price: that the plague may be stayed from the people. And Ornan said unto David, Take it to thee, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes: lo, I give thee the oxen also for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meat offering [comp. Leviticus 2:1]; I give it all. And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the Lord, nor offer burnt offerings without cost. So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight. 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. And the Lord commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath thereof" ( 1 Chronicles 21:18-27).Another link is now introduced into this ministry of mediation. The Lord commanded the angel, and the angel of the Lord commanded Gad, and that prophet was to tell David to go up and set up an altar unto the Lord. The setting-up of an altar unto the Lord was not a mere act of masonry. Many sinners there are who would be willing to build altars and churches if thereby they could escape the penalty of their sin. There is no way into the blessedness of pardon through any golden door. How easy it would be for the rich man to claim a pardon because of the multitude of his donations, or the magnificence of the buildings for whose erection

68

he has paid! The way of escape does not lie along that path at all. We are indeed to set up an altar, but that altar is to express the condition of the heart; in the heart itself the altar is first set up: all the building of the hand but shows forth visibly what has already been done secretly in the innermost parts of the soul. Instantly David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spake in the name of the Lord. David said to Ornan, "Grant me the place of this threshingfloor, that I may build an altar therein unto the Lord." David did not ask for a privilege, he asked to be allowed to purchase the site upon which his eyes were fixed. He told the object which he had in view, that object being none other than that the plague might be stayed from the people. He who had seen innumerable thousands of men slain by the sword, in the time of what he considered to be just and honourable war, could not bear to see innocent people mown down by the scythe of divine wrath. Here embodies the true idea of amelioration and all true restoration, namely, that the man must be made right with God in order that he may be made right with his fellow-men, and in order that divine judgments may be turned into divine blessings. David had nothing to say to Gad, nor had he a word to speak to the angel; these were but instruments in the divine hand: his business was to go immediately to God himself, and there, in amplest submission and deepest humiliation, make his peace with the offended Creator. Our rupture is not with our fellow-men, it is with our God. The answer to all the results of that rupture, therefore, is not to be found in political rearrangements, in social reforms, in manipulations suggested by an inventive genius; it is to be found in a deeply religious exercise, namely, the up-going of the soul to God with tears and brokenheartedness and uttermost contrition; and thus having purified the fountain the streams will all be cleansed and sanctified. When David built his altar "he offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the Lord." After all, this was work which David loved. With all his shortcomings, with his manifest and even monstrous defects, there was deep down in his heart an inextinguishable love for God and for God"s house. Nor was the Lord slow to answer him; the Lord commanded the angel, and the sword was at once put up into its sheath. This was answered prayer. If we have difficulties in the matter of prayer being answered, we ought to consider whether those difficulties should not turn upon the nature of the prayer itself. What is the prayer which we offer? Is it a cry of selfish pain or selfish shame? Or is it in any way limited by merely selfish desires and considerations? If Song of Solomon , it is not prayer at all; it is the mere cry of cowardice, the mere whimper of childish timidity. We shall prove the reality of our prayer when we publicly confess our own sin, and when we openly go forward and at all costs purchase what is required in order to show the depth and power of our conviction, and when we lovingly and audibly cry in the hearing of the whole world that God would have mercy upon us and heal us: when our prayer comes to that point of agony, we shall be in a position to say whether

69

God hears our prayers or allows them to die upon the idle wind. Before pronouncing upon prayer we ought ourselves to pray. We ought also to remember that to pray is not to use a form of words, however sacred and tender, but to pour out the living heart in absolute and ungrudging sacrifice before the throne of grace. Few men pray. Many men utter the words of prayer, but never truly aspire to heaven. Lord, teach us how to pray!"At that time when David saw that the Lord had answered him in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there [i.e, then (from the time of the fall of fire from heaven) David made this his regular place for offering sacrifice]. For the tabernacle of the Lord, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of the burnt offering, were at that season in the high place at Gibeon [comp. ch. 1 Chronicles 16:39-40, and 2 Chronicles 1:3-5]. But David could not go before it to inquire of God: for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of the Lord" ( 1 Chronicles 21:28-30).This is a parenthesis, showing why David did not resort to the ancient tabernacle which stood then at Gibeon. The dwelling-place of Jehovah is set forth in contrast with Ornan"s threshingfloor, or the new sanctuary. David could not go to inquire of God, for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of the Lord. David could not go to Gibeon because of the sword of the angel of Jehovah—that is to say, because of the pestilence which raged at Gibeon. It has been supposed by some that the awful vision of the angel had afflicted David with some bodily weakness; perhaps it is better to suppose that the sight of the angel had made an indelible impression upon the mind of David.There are some sights which we never wish to see repeated; so thoroughly unmanned have we been by certain spectacles that nothing could induce us to look upon them again. No man can see God, and live; and God can so show an angel to the human vision that that vision would on no account look again upon the appalling and bewildering sight. We know not what we ask for when we desire to see the invisible world. We cannot tell what is the meaning of the word "spirit"; we see one another in the body, and become familiar with one another in that relation, but who can tell what would be the effect upon the mind if we could really see the spirit of our dearest friend? Mysterious spirit! spirit of fire, spirit of life; an amazing, wondrous, immeasurable thing, palpitating in every part of the body, and yet wholly resident in none: the thing that thinks, that brings riches to the mind from afar, that wonders, schemes, plots, prays, blasphemes, and conducts the whole tragedy of life, and yet is itself invisible— impalpable! By our self-study we approach in some degree a knowledge of the nature of God. God is a Spirit. God is invisible. We are to know God meanwhile as we know one another, namely, through

70

embodiment, incarnation, phenomena; we are to know him by the very nature that is round about us—the shining heavens, the flowering earth, the living air: all these things, rightly understood, interpret God as we are able to bear him. There is indeed another interpretation always to be desired and always to be earnestly sought for, and that is the indwelling Holy Ghost, taking of the things of Christ and showing them unto us, leading us into all truth, comforting us with appropriate solaces, and giving us confidence that the future shall be larger and brighter than the past, and that all our sorrows shall be but as dark roots out of which the flower of joy will spring. Solemn indeed ought every religious exercise to be: it should heighten the whole level of the mind, and bring to a finer pitch of harmony the action of all the powers of the soul. If we have left the altar in any other frame of mind than this, then our service there has been a vain oblation. When men go down from the house of God, their whole spirit should be marked by reverence, tenderness, submission, and a complete desire to obey and fulfil every tittle of the word of God. By this sign shall men know that they have offered acceptable worship.

GUZIK, "B. The course of the plague1. (1 Chronicles 21:14-15) The plague of destruction hits Israel severely.So the LORD sent a plague upon Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell. And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying, the LORD looked and relented of the disaster, and said to the angel who was destroying, “It is enough; now restrain your hand.” And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.a. Seventy thousand men of Israel fell: This was a great calamity upon Israel - a devastating plague striking this many in such a short period of time.b. The LORD looked and relented of the disaster: This justified David’s wisdom in leaving himself in God’s hands. He could not trust man to relent from destruction.

PULPIT, "So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel. This sentence is followed in the parallel place by "from the morning even to the time appointed." It has been suggested that "the time appointed" may mean the time of the evening sacrifice, and that God shortened thus the three days to a short one day. There seems nothing sufficient to support the suggestion, unless it might lie in the "repenting" of the Lord, and his "staying" of the angel's hand, in 1 Chronicles 21:15. There fell of

71

Israel seventy thousand men. The whole number of Israel, including women, must have reached near to five millions. On this assumption, the sacrifice of life for Israel would be something like 14 per cent; or fourteen in the thousand.

15 And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah[b] the Jebusite.

CLARKE, "And God sent an angel - Thus the Targum: “And the Word of the Lord sent the angel of death against Jerusalem to destroy it; and he beheld the ashes of the binding of Isaac at the foot of the altar, and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, which he made in the Mount of Worship; and the house of the upper sanctuary, where are the souls of the righteous, and the image of Jacob fixed on the throne of glory; and he turned in his Word from the evil which he designed to do unto them; and he said to the destroying angel, Cease; take Abishai their chief from among them, and cease from smiting the rest of the people. And the angel which was sent from the presence of the Lord stood at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

JAMISON, "stood by the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite — Ornan was probably his Hebrew or Jewish, Araunah his Jebusite or Canaanitish, name. Whether he was the old king of Jebus, as that title is given to him (2Sa_24:23), or not, he had been converted to the worship of the true God, and was possessed both of property and influence.

72

K&D, "ליר ַמְלָא ִהים ָהֱא And God sent an angel towards Jerusalem,” gives“ ,ַוּיְׁשַלחno suitable sense. Not because of the improbability that God sent the angel with the commission to destroy Jerusalem, and at the same moment gives the contrary command, “Stay now,” etc. (Berth.); for the reason of this change is given in the intermediate clause, “and at the time of the destroying the Lord repented it,” and command and prohibition are not given “at the same moment;” but the difficulty lies in the indefinite ַמְלָא (without the article). For since the angel of Jahve is mentioned in 1Ch_21:12 as the bringer of the pestilence, in our verse, if it treats of the sending of this angel to execute the judgment spoken of, ַהַּמְלָא must necessarily be used, or ַהַּמְלָאַמְלָא as in 1Ch_21:16; the indefinite ,ֵאת ַהַּמְלאָ can by no means be used for it. In 2Sa_24:16 we read, instead of the words in question, יר ַהַּמְלָא ָיד and the angel“ ,ַוּיְׁשַלחstretched out his hand towards Jerusalem;” and Bertheau thinks that the reading ִהים ָהֱא (in the Chron.) has arisen out of that, by the letters ידו ה being exchanged for אלהים and ,יהוה being substituted for this divine name, as is often the case in the Chronicle; while Movers, S. 91, on the contrary, considers the reading of the Chronicle to be original, and would read יהוה ִיְׁשַלח in Samuel. But in that way Movers leaves the omission of the article before ַמְלָא in the Chronicle unexplained; and Bertheau's conjecture is opposed by the improbability of such a misunderstanding of a phrase so frequent and so unmistakeable as ָיד ,as would lead to the exchange supposed ,ִיְׁשַלחever occurring. But besides that, in Samuel the simple ַהַּמְלָא is strange, for the angel has not been spoken of there at all before, and the lxx have consequently explained the somewhat obscure ַהַּמְלָא by ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ Θεοῦ. This explanation suggests the way in which the reading of our text arose. The author of the Chronicle, although he had already made mention of the יהוה ַמְלַא in 1Ch_21:12, wrote in 1Ch_21:15 ִהים ָהֱא ַמְלַא ִהי ָהֱא the angel of God stretched (his hand) out towards Jerusalem,” using“ ,ַוּיְׁשַלחהאלהים instead of יהוה, - as, for example, in Jdg_6:20, Jdg_6:22; Jdg_13:6, Jdg_13:9, and Jdg_13:13, Jdg_13:15, Jdg_13:17. ִהים ָהֱא ַמְלַא alternates with יהוה and ,ַמְלַאomitting ָיד with ִיְׁשַלח, as is often done, e.g., 2Sa_6:6; Psa_18:17, etc. By a copyist מלא and האלהים have been transposed, and ַמְלָא was then taken by the Masoretes

for an accusative, and pointed accordingly. The expression is made clearer by ּוְכַהְׁשִחית, “And as he destroyed, Jahve saw, and it repented Him of the evil.” The idea is: Just as the angel had begun to destroy Jerusalem, it repented God. ַרב, adverb, “enough,” as in 1Ki_19:4, etc., with a dativ commodi, Deu_1:6, etc. Bertheau has incorrectly denied this meaning of the word, connecting ַרב with ָּבָעם in 2Sa_24:16, and desiring to alter our text to make it conform to that. In 2nd Samuel also ַרב is an adverb, as Thenius also acknowledges.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:15-16. God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it, 73

&c. — This seems to import that there were more angels than one employed to effect this destruction in different parts of the country: and that the angels, sent to Jerusalem, had begun to slay some of its inhabitants. The Lord beheld, and repented him of the evil — Probably because he beheld their serious repentance. David and the elders clothed in sackcloth — That is, in mourning garments; fell on their faces — Humbling themselves before God for their sins, and deprecating his wrath against the people. COKE, "1 Chronicles 21:15. Ornan the Jebusite— In Samuel, Araunah: there is no great difference between the words in the Hebrew.

ELLICOTT, " (15) And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it.—The reading of Samuel is probably right, “And the angel stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem, to destroy it.” The verb is the same word in each, and the word “God” in our text is substituted for “Jehovah,” which, again, is a misreading of part of the Hebrew of Samuel (yâdô ha), the first word meaning his hand, and the second being the definite article belonging to “angel.”To destroy.—A different voice of the same verb as in Samuel.And as he was destroying, the Lord beheld. Not in Samuel. The words “soften the harshness of the transition from the command to the countermand” (Bertheau).As he was destroying.—About (at the time of) the destroying; when the angel was on the point of beginning the work of death. It does not appear that Jerusalem was touched. (Comp. 2 Samuel 24:16.)That destroyed.—Samuel adds, “Among the people.” The addition is needless, because the Hebrew implies “the destroying angel.” (Comp. Exodus 12:23.It is enough, stay now.—According to the Hebrew accentuation, Enough now (jam satis), stay (drop) thine hand.Stood.—Was standing. Samuel, “had come to be.”Ornan.—So the name is spelt throughout this chapter. Samuel has the less Hebrew-looking forms ha-’ôrnah (text; comp. the LXX. ǒpva) or ha-Arawnah, margin) here, and in 1 Chronicles 21:18 Aranyah (text), elsewhere Arawnah. Such differences are natural in spelling foreign names. The LXX. have “Orna,” the Syriac and Arabic “Aran.”

74

PULPIT, "And God sent an angel. It is at this point first that any mention of an angel is found in the parallel place, but then not in the present form, but in a sentence which would seem to presuppose the knowledge of the agency of an angel on the occasion: "And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil" (2 Samuel 24:16). Stood by the threshing-floor of Ornan. The verb "stood" is employed here quite generically. It does not imply that the angel stood on the ground; for see next verse, in which it is said that he "stood between the earth and the heaven," the Hebrew verb being exactly the same. Ornan is the uniform form and spelling of the name in Chronicles. In Samuel, however, the name appears as ֲאַרְנָוה (2 Samuel 24:20), or Araunah. Yet in 1 Chronicles 21:16, of the same chapter the Kethiv inverts the order of the resh and vau, prefixing the article, or what looks like it, and again in 1 Chronicles 21:18the Kethiv shows the form ֲאַרְנָיה . Ornan, then, or Arauuah, was a descendant of the old Jebusite race to whom the fort of Zion once belonged. And the present narrative finds him living on the Hill of Moriah. The threshing-floor. The primitive threshing-floors of the Israelites still essentially obtain. They were level spots of stamped and well-trodden earth, about fifty feet in diameter, and selected in positions most exposed to the wind, in order to take the advantage of its help in the separating of the grain from the chaff. On these circular spots of hard earth the sheaves of grain, of whatever kind, were distributed in all sorts of disorder. Oxen and other cattle trod them. And sometimes these beasts were driven round and round five abreast. The stalk of the grain was, of course, much bruised and crushed, and the method is described still as of a very rough and wasteful kind. Instruments were also employed, as the "flail" (Ruth 2:17; Isaiah 28:27, Isaiah 28:28); the "sledge," to which possibly reference is made in 8:7, 8:16, under the name barkanim (Authorized Version, "briers"). These sledges were of two kinds:

16 David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell

75

facedown.

BARNES, "Here a picture of awful grandeur takes the place of the bare statement of the earlier historian 2Sa_24:17. And here, as elsewhere, the author probably extracts from the ancient documents such circumstances as harmonize with his general plan. As the sanctity of the temple was among the points whereon he was most anxious to lay stress, he gives in full all the miraculous circumstances attending this first designation of what became the temple site (marginal reference “k”) as a place “holy to the Lord.”

David and the elders ... clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces - Facts additional to the narrative of Samuel; But facts natural in themselves, and in harmony with that narrative. Similarly, the narrative in 1Ch_21:20 is additional to the account in Samuel; but its parts hang together; and there is no sufficient ground for suspecting it.JAMISON, "David and the elders ... clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their

faces — They appeared in the garb and assumed the attitude of humble penitents, confessing their sins, and deprecating the wrath of God.

K&D 16-19, "The account of David's repentant beseeching of the Lord to turn away the primitive judgment, and the word of the Lord proclaimed to him by the prophet, commanding him to build an altar to the Lord in the place where the destroying angel visibly appeared, together with the carrying out of this divine command by the purchase of Araunah's threshing-floor, the erection of an altar, and the offering of burnt-offering, is given more at length in the Chronicle than in 2Sa_24:17-25, where only David's negotiation with Araunah is more circumstantially narrated than in the Chronicle. In substance both accounts perfectly correspond, except that in the Chronicle several subordinate circumstances are preserved, which, as being minor points, are passed over in Samuel. In 1Ch_21:16, the description of the angel's appearance, that he had a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem, and the statement that David and the elders, clad in sackcloth (garments indicating repentance), fell down before the Lord; in 1Ch_21:20, the mention of Ornan's (Araunah's) sons, who hid themselves on beholding the angel, and of the fact that Ornan was engaged in threshing wheat when David came to him; and the statement in 1Ch_21:26, that fire came down from heaven upon the altar-are examples of such minor points. We have already commented on this section in our remarks on 2Sa_24:17-25, and the account in the Chronicle is throughout correct and easily understood. Notwithstanding this, however, Bertheau, following Thenius and Böttcher, conjectures that the text is in several verses corrupt, and wishes to correct them by 2nd Samuel. But these critics are misled by the erroneous presumption with which they entered upon the interpretation of the Chronicle, that the author of it used as his authority, and revised, our Masoretic text of the second book of Samuel. Under the

76

influence of this prejudice, emendations are proposed which are stamped with their own unlikelihood, and rest in part even on misunderstandings of the narrative in the book of Samuel. Of this one or two illustrations will be sufficient. Any one who compares 2Sa_24:17 (Sam.) with 1Ch_21:16 and 1Ch_21:17 of the Chronicle, without any pre-formed opinions, will see that what is there (Sam.) concisely expressed is more clearly narrated in the Chronicle. The beginning of 1Ch_21:17, “And David spake unto Jahve,” is entirely without connection, as the thought which forms the transition from 1Ch_21:16 to 1Ch_21:17, viz., that David was moved by the sight of the destroying angel to pray to God that the destruction might be turned away, is only brought in afterwards in the subordinate clause, “on seeing the angel.” This abrupt form of expression is got rid of in the Chronicle by the clause: “And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel ... and fell ... upon his face; and David spake to God.” That which in Samuel is crushed away into an infinitive clause subordinate to the principle sentence, precedes in the Chronicle, and is circumstantially narrated. Under these circumstances, of course, the author of the Chronicle could not afterwards in 1Ch_21:17 make use of the clause, “on seeing the angel who smote the people,” without tautology. Berth., on the contrary, maintains that 1Ch_21:16 is an interpolation of the chronicler, and proposes then to cull out from the words and letters בעם המכה המלא את בראתו (Sam.), the words ָבָעם תי ִלְמנ אמרתי בראת(1Ch_21:17), great use being made in the process of the ever ready auxiliaries, mistakes, and a text which has become obscure. This is one example out of many. 1Ch_21:16 of the Chronicle is not an addition which the Chronicle has interpolated between 2Sa_24:16-17of Samuel, but a more detailed representation of the historical course of things. No mention is made in 2nd Samuel of the drawn sword in the angel's hand, because there the whole story is very concisely narrated. This detail need not have been borrowed from Num_22:23, for the drawn sword is a sensible sign that the angle's mission is punitive; and the angel, who is said to have visibly appeared in 2nd Samuel also, could be recognised as the bearer of the judicial pestilence only by this emblem, such recognition being plainly the object of his appearance. The mention of the elders along with David as falling on their faces in prayer, clad in sackcloth, will not surprise any reader or critic who considers that in the case of so fearful a pestilence the king would not be alone in praying God to turn away the judgment. Besides, from the mention of the ֲעָבִדים of the king who went with David to Ornan (2Sa_24:20), we learn that the king did not by himself take steps to turn away the plague, but did so along with his servants. In the narrative in 2nd Samuel, which confines itself to the main point, the elders are not mentioned, because only of David was it recorded that his confession of sin brought about the removal of the plague. Just as little can we be surprised that David calls his command to number the people the delictum by which he had brought the judgment of the plague upon himself. - To alter 1 ,ִּבְדַברCh_21:19, into ִּכְדַבר, as Berth. wishes, would show little intelligence. ִּבְדַבר, at Gad's word David went up, is proved by Num_31:16 to be good Hebrew, and is perfectly suitable.

ELLICOTT, " (16) This verse is not read in Samuel, which, however, mentions the essential fact that David “saw the angel that smote the people” (2 Samuel 24:17). There is nothing in the style to suggest suspicion of a later hand; and it is as likely that the compiler of Samuel has abridged the original account as that the chronicler

77

has embellished it.Having a drawn sword in his hand.—Comp. Numbers 22:23, where the same phrase occurs. Literally, and his sword drawn in his hand.Stretched out.—See Isaiah 5:25; Isaiah 9:12, &c., for this term so used of the menace of Divine wrath.Then David and the elders.—Literally, and David fell, and the elders, covered with the sackcloth. on their faces. The elders have not been mentioned before, but wherever the king went he would naturally be accompanied by a retinue of nobles, and their presence on this occasion agrees with the statement of 2 Samuel 24:20, that Araunah saw the king and his servants coming towards him. (See 1 Chronicles 21:21, below.)Fell upon their faces.—See Numbers 22:31; Joshua 5:14; Judges 13:20.Clothed in sackcloth.—The garb of mourners and penitents.

GUZIK, "2. (1 Chronicles 21:16-19) David’s intercession; and God’s instruction.Then David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the LORD standing between earth and heaven, having in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem. So David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell on their faces. And David said to God, “Was it not I who commanded the people to be numbered? I am the one who has sinned and done evil indeed; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand, I pray, O LORD my God, be against me and my father’s house, but not against Your people that they should be plagued.” Therefore, the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David that David should go and erect an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. So David went up at the word of Gad, which he had spoken in the name of the LORD.a. Having in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem: At this point God had relented from the severity of judgment, yet the threat was still imminent. So David and the elders humbled themselves before God and David repented.b. Let Your hand, I pray, O LORD my God, be against me and my father’s house: Like a true shepherd, David asked that the punishment be upon him and his own household. Having another purpose to accomplish, God did not accept David’s offer.c. Erect an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite: This is

78

where David met the Angel of the LORD, and where God relented from the plague before it came upon Jerusalem. Now God wanted David to meet Him there in worship.i. “Threshing floors were usually on a height, in order to catch every breeze; some area to the north of David’s city is indicated” (Baldwin)ii. The threshing floor of Ornan had both rich history and a rich future. 2 Chronicles 3:1 tells us that the threshing floor of Ornan was on Mount Moriah; the same hill where Abraham offered Isaac (Genesis 22:2), and the same set of hills where Jesus died on the cross (Genesis 22:14).iii. “In fact, David’s altar was the only one in pre-exilic times which God explicitly commanded to be built.” (Selman)iv. “The decision of God to establish his altar and temple at Moriah in Jerusalem has affected all history (cf. Revelation 11:1); for this mountain became the focus of the Holy City, where His Son was crucified. And it will continue to affect history; for from this ‘city he loves’, he will some day rule the nations of the earth (Isaiah 2:2-4).” (Payne)

POOLE, " In sackcloth, i.e. in mourning garments, humbling themselves before God for their sins, and deprecating his wrath against the people.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 21:16, 1 Chronicles 21:17These verses offer instances, especially the former, of the shorter narratives not being with Chronicles, but with Samuel And the longer narrative being with Chronicles is found uniformly in the cases in which reference is had, whether more or less directly, to the ecclesiastical or permanent institution of the Israelites.

17 David said to God, “Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I, the shepherd,[c]

79

have sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Lord my God, let your hand fall on me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people.”

ELLICOTT, " (17) And David said unto God.—Sam., “Jehovah.” Samuel adds, “when he saw the angel that smote the people” (see our 1 Chronicles 21:16); “and he said.”Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered?—Literally, to number the people. In Samuel these words are wanting. They may have been added by the chronicler for the sake of clearness. “though they may also have formed part of the original narrative.Even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed.—Samuel reads, “Lo, I” (different pronoun) “have sinned, and I have dealt crookedly.” Our text here may be paraphrastic, but hardly a corruption of the older one.But as for these sheep, what . . . father’s house.—Verbatim as in Samuel, save that the appeal, “O Lord my God,” is wanting there. (Literally, But these, the sheep. The king was the shepherd.)But not on thy people, that they should be plagued.—Literally, and on thy people, not for a plague. The strangeness of this order makes it likely that these words comprise two marginal notes, or glosses, which have crept into the text. They are not read in Samuel.

David Builds an Altar

80

18 Then the angel of the Lord ordered Gad to tell David to go up and build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

BARNES, "It has been observed that it is only in books of a late period that Angels are brought forward as intermediaries between God and the prophets. This, no doubt, is true; and it is certainly unlikely that the records, from which the author of Chronicles drew, spoke of Gad as receiving his knowledge of God’s will from an angel. The touch may be regarded as coming from the writer of Chronicles himself, who expresses the fact related by his authorities in the language of his own day (see Zec_1:9, Zec_1:14, Zec_1:19; Zec_2:3; Zec_4:1; Zec_5:5; etc.); language, however, which we are not to regard as rhetorical, but as strictly in accordance with truth, since Angels were doubtless employed as media between God and the prophet as much in the time of David as in that of Zechariah.

HENRY 18-30, "We have here the controversy concluded, and, upon David's repentance, his peace made with God. Though thou wast angry with me, thy anger is turned away. 1. A stop was put to the progress of the execution, 1Ch_21:15. When David repented of the sin God repented of the judgment, and ordered the destroying angel to stay his hand and sheath his sword, 1Ch_21:27. 2. Direction was given to David to rear an altar in the threshing-floor of Ornan, 1Ch_21:18. The angel commanded the prophet Gad to bring David this direction. The same angel that had, in God's name, carried on the war, is here forward to set on foot the treaty of peace; for angels do not desire the woeful day. The angel could have given this order to David himself; but he chose to do it by his seer, that he might put an honour upon the prophetic office. Thus the revelation of Jesus Christ was notified by the angel to John, and by him to the churches. The commanding of David to build an altar was a blessed token of reconciliation; for, if God had been pleased to kill him, he would not have appointed, because he would not have accepted, a sacrifice at his hands. 3. David immediately made a bargain with Ornan for the threshing-floor; for he would not serve God at other people's charge. Ornan generously offered it to him gratis, not only in complaisance to the king, but because he had himself seen the angel (1Ch_21:20), which so terrified him that he and his four sons hid themselves, as unable to bear the brightness of his glory and afraid of his drawn sword. Under these apprehensions he was willing to do anything towards making the atonement. Those that are duly sensible of the terrors of the Lord will do all they can, in their places, to promote religion, and encourage all the methods of reconciliation for the

81

turning away of God's wrath. 4. God testified his acceptance of David's offerings on this altar; He answered him from heaven by fire, 1Ch_21:26. To signify that God's anger was turned away from him, the fire that might justly have fastened upon the sinner fastened upon the sacrifice and consumed that; and, upon this, the destroying sword was returned into its sheath. Thus Christ was made sin and a curse for us, and it pleased the Lord to bruise him, that through him God might be to us, not a consuming fire, but a reconciled Father. 5. He continued to offer his sacrifices upon this altar. The brazen altar which Moses made was at Gibeon (1Ch_21:29), and there all the sacrifices of Israel were offered; but David was so terrified at the sight of the sword of the angel that he could not go thither, 1Ch_21:30. The business required haste, when the plague was begun. Aaron must go quickly, nay, he must run, to make atonement, Num_16:46, Num_16:47. And the case here was no less urgent; so that David had not time to go to Gibeon: nor durst he leave the angel with his sword drawn over Jerusalem, lest the fatal stroke should be given before he came back. And therefore God, in tenderness to him, bade him build an altar in that place, dispensing with his own law concerning one altar because of the present distress, and accepting the sacrifices offered on this new altar, which was not set up in opposition to that, but in concurrence with it. The symbols of unity were not so much insisted on as unity itself. Nay, when the present distress was over (as it should seem), David, as long as he lived, sacrificed there, though the altar at Gibeon was still kept up; for God had owned the sacrifices that were here offered and had testified his acceptance of them, 1Ch_21:28. On those administrations in which we have experienced the tokens of God's presence, and have found that he is with us of a truth, it is good to continue our attendance. “Here God had graciously met me, and therefore I will still expect to meet with him.”

JAMISON, "1Ch_21:18-30. He builds an altar.the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say — The order about the erection of an altar, as well as the indication of its site, is described (2Sa_24:18) as brought directly by Gad. Here we are informed of the quarter whence the prophet got his commission. It is only in the later stages of Israel’s history that we find angels employed in communicating the divine will to the prophets.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:18. The angel commanded that David should go and set up an altar — This command was a blessed token of reconciliation. For if God had been pleased to kill him, he would not have commanded, because he would not have accepted, a sacrifice at his hands.

ELLICOTT, " (18) Then the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David.—Rather, Now the angel had told Gad to tell David. In Samuel, the mediation of the angel is not mentioned. There we read, “And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up,” &c. No doubt it is only in the later prophetical books of the

82

Canon that angels are introduced as the medium of communication between God and His prophets. (See Daniel 8:16, ix, 21; Zechariah 1:9; Zechariah 1:12, &c.; but comp. Judges 6:11; Judges 6:14; Judges 6:16, &c., and Genesis 18:1-2; Genesis 18:13; Genesis 32:24; Genesis 32:30.)Verses 18-27(18-27) The purchase of Ornan’s threshingfloor as a place of sacrifice.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 21:18The angel. The Hebrew shows no article (see Numbers 22:34, Numbers 22:35; 1 Kings 13:18; 1 Kings 19:5; Zechariah 1:9). The place where the altar was now about to be erected was that made famous by the sacrifice of Abraham (Genesis 22:2, Genesis 22:9), and, though less certainly, that known to the priesthood of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-20).

19 So David went up in obedience to the word that Gad had spoken in the name of the Lord.

ELLICOTT, " (19) At the saying.—Samuel, “according to.” The difference is only that of the “one tittle,” or small projection, of a letter, mentioned in Matthew 5:18.Which he spake in the name of the Lord.—Samuel reads, “as the Lord commanded.” The variation is merely verbal.

83

20 While Araunah was threshing wheat, he turned and saw the angel; his four sons who were with him hid themselves.

CLARKE, "Ornan turned back, and saw the angel - The Septuagint say, And Orna turned, και ειδε τον βασιλεα, and saw the King. The Syriac and Arabic say, David saw the angel; and do not mention Ornan in this place. Houbigant translates the same reading המלך hammalech, the king, for המלעך hammalach, the angel, and vindicates his version from the parallel place, 2Sa_24:20, where it is said, he saw David: but there is no word of his seeing the angel. But the seeing David is mentioned in 1Ch_21:21; though Houbigant supposes that the 20th verse refers to his seeing the king while he was at a distance; the 21st, to his seeing him when he came into the threshing-floor. In the first instance he and his sons were afraid when they saw the king coming, and this caused them to hide themselves; but when he came into the threshing-floor, they were obliged to appear before him. One of Kennicott’s MSS. has המלך the king, instead of המלאך the angel. Some learned men contend for the former reading.

JAMISON, "Ornan was threshing wheat — If the census was entered upon in autumn, the beginning of the civil year, the nine and a half months it occupied would end at wheat harvest. The common way of threshing corn is by spreading it out on a high level area, and driving backwards and forwards upon it two oxen harnessed to a clumsy sledge with three rollers and some sharp spikes. The driver sits on his knees on the box, while another person is employed in drawing back the straw and separating it from the grain underneath. By this operation the chaff is very much chopped, and the grain threshed out.

K&D, "ָאְרָנן ,and Ornan turned him about,” is translated by Berth. incorrectly“ ,ַוָּיָׁשב“then Ornan turned back,” who then builds on this erroneous interpretation, which is contrary to the context, a whole nest of conjectures. ַוָּיָׁשב is said to have arisen out of ַהַּמְלָא the succeeding ,ַוַּיְׁשֵקף out of ִעּמ ,ַהֶּמֶל ָּבָניו ַעְרַּבַעת out of ָעָליו ֹעְבִרים ֲעָבָדיו(2Sa_24:20), “by mistake and further alteration.” In saying this, however, he himself has not perceived that 2Sa_24:20 (Sam.) does not correspond to the 1Ch_21:20 of the Chronicle at all, but to the 1Ch_21:21, where the words, “and Araunah looked out (יׁשקף) and saw the king,” as parallel to the words, “and Ornan looked (ַיֵּבט) and saw David.” The 1Ch_21:20 of the Chronicle contains a statement which is not found in Samuel, that Ornan (Araunah), while threshing with his four sons, turned and saw the angel, and

84

being terrified at the sight, hid himself with his sons. After that, David with his train came from Zion to the threshing-floor in Mouth Moriah, and Araunah looking out saw the king, and came out of the threshing-floor to meet him, with deep obeisance. This narrative contains nothing improbable, nothing to justify us in having recourse to critical conjecture.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:20. His four sons with him hid themselves — Because of the glory and majesty in which the angel appeared, which men’s weak natures are not able to bear; and from the fear of God’s vengeance, which now seemed to be coming to their family.COKE, "1 Chronicles 21:20. And saw the angel— And saw the king. Houbigant. See the LXX, and 2 Samuel 24:20.

ELLICOTT, " (20) And Ornan turned back (returned), and saw the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves (were hiding). There can be little doubt that this is corrupt, and that the text of Samuel is right, “And Araunah looked up, and saw the king and his servants passing by him.” The LXX. here has “Ornan turned, and saw the king;” the Vulg., “when Ornan had looked up” The Hebrew words for “returned” and “looked up,” “angel” and “king,” are similar enough to be easily confused in an ill-written or failed MS.Now Ornan was threshing wheat.—This clause does not harmonise with the preceding statement, but its genuineness is made probable by the fact that Ornan was in his threshingfloor at the time. Moreover, the LXX. adds to 2 Samuel 24:15, “And David chose for himself the death; and it was the days of wheat harvest.”

GUZIK, "3. (1 Chronicles 21:20-25) David buys the threshing floor or Ornan.Now Ornan turned and saw the angel; and his four sons who were with him hid themselves, but Ornan continued threshing wheat. Then David came to Ornan, and Ornan looked and saw David. And he went out from the threshing floor, and bowed before David with his face to the ground. Then David said to Ornan, “Grant me the place of this threshing floor, that I may build an altar on it to the LORD. You shall grant it to me at the full price, that the plague may be withdrawn from the people.” And Ornan said to David, “Take it to yourself, and let my lord the king do what is good in his eyes. Look, I also give you the oxen for burnt offerings, the threshing

85

implements for wood, and the wheat for the grain offering; I give it all.” Then King David said to Ornan, “No, but I will surely buy it for the full price, for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings with that which costs me nothing.” So David gave Ornan six hundred shekels of gold by weight for the place.a. Now Ornan turned and saw the angel; and his four sons who were with him hid themselves: “Partly because of the glory and majesty in which the angel appeared, which men’s weak and sinful natures are not able to bear; and partly for the fear of God’s vengeance, which was at this time riding circuit in the land, and now seemed to be coming to their family.” (Poole)b. Grant me the place of this threshing floor . . . at full price: David wanted to transform this place where chaff was separated from wheat into a place of sacrifice and worship. It would remain a place of sacrifice and worship, because this land purchased by David became the site of Solomon’s temple (1 Chronicles 21:28 to 1Ch_22:5).i. “So David bought ‘the site’ - hammaqom, which may have included the whole area of Mount Moriah - for 240 ounces of gold. This was worth about one hundred thousand dollars. 2 Samuel 24:24 notes a much smaller amount, 20 ounces of silver, for the threshing floor itself.” (Payne)c. Take it to yourself, and let my lord the king do what is good in his eyes: Ornan had a good, generous heart and wanted to give David anything he wanted.i. “Had Araunah’s noble offer been accepted, it would have been Araunah’s sacrifice, not David’s; nor would it have answered the end of turning away the displeasure of the Most High.” (Clarke)d. No, but I will surely buy it for the full price, for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings with that which costs me nothing: David knew that it would not be a gift nor a sacrifice unto the LORD if it did not cost him something. He didn’t look for the cheapest way possible to please God.i. “He who has a religion that costs him nothing, has a religion that is worth nothing: nor will any man esteem the ordinances of God, if those ordinances cost him nothing.” (Clarke)ii. “Where there is true, strong love to Jesus, it will cost us something. Love is the costliest of all undertakings . . . But what shall we mind if we gain Christ? You cannot give up for Him without regaining everything you have renounced, but purified and transfigured.” (Meyer)

86

POOLE, "Verse 20Or,And Ornan turned back, ( i.e. turned his face from the angel,) for, or when, (for the Hebrew vau is frequently used both those ways,)he saw the angel and (so did) his four sons with him hiding themselves; partly because of the glory and majesty in which the angel appeared, which men’s weak and sinful natures are not able to bear; and partly from the fear of God’s vengeance, which was at this time riding circuit in the land, and now seemed to be coming to their family.

PULPIT, "This verse is not found in the parallel place. The Septuagint reading of "king" in this verse, in place of "angel," is no doubt an error. The drift of this and the following verse is plain and continuous. Ornan and his sons had hidden themselves on the apparition of the angel, but came out on the advent of David, to welcome him.

21 Then David approached, and when Araunah looked and saw him, he left the threshing floor and bowed down before David with his face to the ground.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 21(21) And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David.—This is wanting in Samuel. The corruption of the previous verse made some such statement

87

necessary here. The rest of the verse nearly corresponds with 2 Samuel 24:20.

22 David said to him, “Let me have the site of your threshing floor so I can build an altar to the Lord, that the plague on the people may be stopped. Sell it to me at the full price.”

ELLICOTT, " (22) Then (and) David said to Oman, Grant me the place of this threshingfloor, that I may build.—Literally, Pray give me the place of the threshingfloor. Samuel, “And Araunah said Why is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said, To purchase from thee the threshingfloor, to build,” &c.Grant it me for the full price.—Literally, At a full price give it me. These words are not in Samuel. (Comp. Genesis 23:9—Abraham’s purchase of the Cave of Machpelah.) The recollection of that narrative may have caused the modification of the present. The last clause is word for word as in Samuel.

PULPIT, "The place of this threshing-floor; i.e. the place on which the threshing-floor was made. It was the level summit of the middle elevated ground of the eastern ridge on which Jerusalem was situate (1 Chronicles 11:4-7).

23 Araunah said to David, “Take it! Let my lord the king do whatever pleases him. Look, I will give

88

the oxen for the burnt offerings, the threshing sledges for the wood, and the wheat for the grain offering. I will give all this.”

JAMISON, "I give thee ... the threshing instruments for wood — that is, to burn the sacrifice of the oxen. Very little real import - the haste and the value of the present offered - can be understood in this country. The offering was made for instantuse. Ornan, hereby hoping to terminate the pestilence without a moment’s delay, “gave all,” oxen, the large threshing machine, and the wheat.

ELLICOTT, " (23) Take it to thee.—Comp. Genesis 23:11.Let my lord the king do.—Samuel, “offer.” In the Hebrew only one letter is different; and the word “do” may have the meaning “offer,” as in Greek (Comp. Exodus 29:38.)I give thee.—Not in Samuel; an exegetical addition.For burnt offerings.—For the burnt offerings. Samuel has the singular.The threshing instruments, or drags. 1 Chronicles 20:3 a different word. See Isaiah 41:15 and 2 Samuel 24:22, the only other places where this word (môraq) occurs. Samuel adds, “And the instruments (yokes) of the oxen.”For wood.—For the wood (Genesis 22:7).And the wheat for the meat offering.—Not in Samuel, but probably part of the oldest text of this narrative.I give it all.—The whole I have given. Samuel (Heb.), “The whole hath Araunah given, O king to the king.” The rest of 2 Samuel 24:23 is here omitted; “And Araunah said unto the king, The Lord thy God accept thee.”

PULPIT, "Ornan's offer to David of the threshing-floor and all its belongings, as a gift, reminds of Ephron's offer to Abraham (Genesis 23:11). Ornan's prompt offer

89

of gift was, perhaps, all the prompter from the desire to render every assistance to the staying of the plague. For burnt offerings … for the meat offering. The whole code of regulations for offerings—sin offering, trespass offering, peace offering, burnt offering, meat and drink offering—is to be found in Leviticus 1-7. As regards the burnt offering, see Leviticus 1:1-17.; Leviticus 6:8-13. It was called ֹעָלה, from its "ascending" accepted to heaven, or else from its being put up or raised up (Hiph. conjugation) on the altar; and sometimes ָּכִליל, from being "wholly" consumed. The sin and trespass offerings were for special sins, but this was of a more comprehensive kind and of much greater dignity, as standing for the "purging of the conscience." The entire consuming of the sacrifice signified the unqualified self-surrender of him who brought the sacrifice. It was a voluntary offering, the offerer laid his hand on the head of the victim, and the blood of the victim was sprinkled round about the altar. The meat offering ( ִמְנָחה ) is fully described in Leviticus it.; Leviticus 23-6:14 . It was an offering without blood, and therefore was an accompaniment of an offering of blood. It was composed of flour or cakes, prepared with salt, oil, and frank-incense—the salt emblematic of non-decay; the oil, of spiritual grace; and the frankincense, of acceptable fragrance. A portion of this offering was to be burnt, and a portion eaten by the priests in the court, unless it was for a priest himself, when all must be burnt. Meantime a drink offering of wine was, in fact, a part of the meat offering itself (Exodus 29:40, Exodus 29:41; Leviticus 23:13; Numbers 15:4-7, Numbers 15:9, Numbers 15:10). The material of the meat offering might be the green or fresh-gathered ears of corn. The Septuagint translates סןםש͂ה ; Luther, speis-opfer; and it need scarcely be said that our Authorized Version meat offering exhibits only the generic employment of the word "meat" for food.

24 But King David replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing.”

90

CLARKE, "For the full price - That is, six hundred shekels full weight of pure gold.

K&D, "The infinitive ת ַהֲעל is very frequently used in Hebrew as the continuation of the verb. fin., and is found in all the books of the Old Testament (cf. the collection of passages illustrative of this peculiar form of brief expression, which We. gives, §351, c), and that not only with regard to the infin. absol., but the infin. constr. also. David's answer to Ornan's offer to give him the place for the altar, and the cattle, plough, and wheat for the burnt-offering, was therefore: “no, I will buy it for full price; I will not take what belongs to thee for Jahve, and bring burnt-offerings without cost,” i.e., without having paid the price for them.

ELLICOTT, " (24) For the full price.—Samuel simply, “At a price” (different word). The next clause does not appear in Samuel, but may well be original.Nor offer burnt offerings without cost.—So Samuel: “Nor will I offer to the Lord my God burnt offerings without cost.” It was of the essence of sacrifice to surrender something valued in order to win from God a greater good (Ewald).

25 So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels[d] of gold for the site.

BARNES, "Compare the marginal reference and note. It may also be conjectured that we should read “six” for “six hundred” here; since, according to the later Jewish system, six gold shekels were nearly equal in value to fifty silver ones.

91

JAMISON, "David gave ... for the place six hundred shekels of gold — At first he bought only the cattle and the threshing instruments, for which he paid fifty shekels of silver (2Sa_24:24); afterwards he purchased the whole property, Mount Moriah, on which the future temple stood. High in the center of the mountain platform rises a remarkable rock, now covered by the dome of “the Sakrah.” It is irregular in its form, and measures about sixty feet in one direction and fifty feet in the other. It is the natural surface of Mount Moriah and is thought by many to be the rock of the threshing-floor of Araunah, selected by David, and continued by Solomon and Zerubbabel as “the unhewn stone” on which to build the altar [Bartlett, Walks about Jerusalem; Stanley].

K&D, "As to the different statements of the price, cf. on 2Sa_24:24.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:25. David gave six hundred shekels of gold, &c. — How this is reconciled with 2 Samuel 24:24, where it is said, David bought the thrashing-floor, &c, for fifty shekels of silver, see note there.

ELLICOTT, "(25) So David gave to Oman for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.—Literally, shekels of gold—a weight of six hundred. Samuel has, “And David purchased the threshingfloor and the oxen for silver, fifty shekels.” The two estimates are obviously discordant. We have no means of calculating what would have been a fair price, for we know neither the extent of the purchase nor the value of the sums mentioned. But comparing Genesis 23:16, where four hundred shekels of silver are paid for the field and cave of Machpelah, fifty shekels of silver would seem to be too little. On the other hand, six hundred shekels of gold appears to be far too high a price for the threshingfloor. Perhaps for “gold” we should read “silver.” It has, indeed, been suggested that “the authors were writing of two different things,” and that Samuel assigns only the price of the threshingfloor and oxen; whereas the chronicler, when he speaks of “the place,” means the entire Mount of the Temple (Moriah), on which the floor was situate. But a comparison of the two narratives seems to identify the things purchased—“the place” (1 Chronicles 21:25) is “the place of the threshingfloor” (1 Chronicles 21:22); and in both cases Samuel has “the threshingfloor.” Tradition may have varied on the subject; and as “there is no positive mention of the use of gold money among the Hebrews” apart from this passage (Madden), ours is probably the later form of the story. However this may be, the chronicler has doubtless preserved for us what he found in his original. It is interesting to compare with this sale some of those the

92

records of which are preserved in the Babylonian Contract Tablets. One of these relates how Dân-sum-iddin sold a house and grounds in Borsippa for eleven and a-half minæ of silver, i.e., 690 shekels. This was in the second year of Nabonidus the last king of Babylon.

PULPIT, "Six hundred shekels of gold by weight. The only way to reconcile this statement with that of the parallel place, which (2 Samuel 24:24)speaks of "fifty shekels of silver" (i.e. taking the shekel at 2s. 8d; equal to about f6 13s. 4d.) as the price of "the threshing-floor and the oxen," is to suppose that the fifty shekels speak of the purchase money of the oxen indeed, but not of the floor itself, which was valuable, not only for size and situation, but also for its prepared construction; or again, keeping to the literal language of Samuel, that "the floor and the oxen" are intended, while our expression, "the place," may designate the whole hill. The value of gold as compared with silver was as sixteen to one. If this be the solution, we should have again an instance of the compiler of this book seizing for perpetuation the point of greatest and most permanent interest, i.e. the purchase of the whole place.

26 David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. He called on the Lord, and the Lord answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.

93

BARNES, "He answered him from heaven by fire - This fact is not mentioned by the author of Samuel, since his object is to give an account of the sin of David, its punishment, and the circumstances by which that punishment was brought to a close, not to connect those circumstances with anything further in the history. With the writer of Chronicles the case is different. He would probably have omitted the whole narrative, as he did the sin of David in the matter of Uriah, but for its connection with the fixing of the temple site 1 Chr. 22. It was no doubt mainly the fact that God answered him by fire from heaven on this altar, which determined David, and Solomon after him, to build the temple on the spot so consecrated.

CLARKE, "He answered him - by fire - In answer to David’s prayers, God, to show that he had accepted him, and was now pacified towards him and the people, sent fire from heaven and consumed the offerings.

JAMISON, "David built there an altar — He went in procession with his leading men from the royal palace, down Mount Zion, and through the intervening city. Although he had plenty of space on his own property, he was commanded, under peremptory direction, to go a considerable distance from his home, up Mount Moriah, to erect an altar on premises which he had to buy. It was on or close to the spot where Abraham had offered up Isaac.

answered him by fire from heaven — (See Lev_9:24; 1Ki_18:21-23; 2Ki_1:12; 2Ch_7:1).

K&D 26-30, "In 2Sa_24:25 the conclusion of this event is shortly narrated thus: David offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and Jahve was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel. In the Chronicle we have a fuller statement of the יהוה ֵיָעֵתר in 1Ch_21:26. David called upon Jahve, and He answered with fire from heaven upon the altar of burnt-offering (1Ch_21:27); and Jahve spake to the angel, and he returned the sword into its sheath. The returning of the sword into its sheath is a figurative expression for the stopping of the pestilence; and the fire which came down from heaven upon the altar of burnt-offering was the visible sign by which the Lord assured the king that his prayer had been heard, and his offering graciously accepted. The reality of this sign of the gracious acceptance of an offering is placed beyond doubt by the analogous cases, Lev_9:24; 1Ki_18:24, 1Ki_18:38, and 2Ch_7:1. It was only by this sign of the divine complacence that David learnt that the altar built upon the threshing-floor of Araunah had been chosen by the Lord as the place where Israel should always thereafter offer their burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as is further recorded in 1Ch_21:28-30. and in 1Ch_22:1. From the cessation of the pestilence in consequence of his prayer and sacrifice, David could only draw the conclusion that God had forgiven him his transgression, but could not have known that God had chosen the place where he had built the altar for the offering demanded by God as a permanent place of sacrifice. This

94

certainly he obtained only by the divine answer, and this answer was the fire which came down upon the altar of burnt-offering and devoured the sacrifice. This 1Ch_21:28 states: “At the time when he saw that Jahve had answered him at the threshing-floor of Ornan, he offered sacrifice there,” i.e., from that time forward; so that we may with Berth. translate ָׁשם then he was wont to offer sacrifice there.” In 1Ch_21:29“ ,ַוִּיְזַּבח and 1Ch_21:30 we have still further reasons given for David's continuing to offer sacrifices at the threshing-floor of Ornan. The legally sanctioned place of sacrifice for Israel was still at that time the tabernacle, the Mosaic sanctuary with its altar of burnt-offering, which then stood on the high place at Gibeon (cf. 1Ch_16:39). Now David had indeed brought the ark of the covenant, which had been separated from the tabernacle from the time of Samuel, to Zion, and had there not only erected a tent for it, but had also built an altar and established a settled worship there (1 Chron 17), yet without having received any express command of God regarding it; so that this place of worship was merely provisional, intended to continue only until the Lord Himself should make known His will in the matter in some definite way. When therefore David, after the conquest of his enemies, had obtained rest round about, he had formed the resolution to make an end of this provisional separation of the ark from the tabernacle, and the existence of two sacrificial altars, by building a temple; but the Lord had declared to him by the prophet Nathan, that not he, but his son and successor on the throne, should build Him a temple. The altar by the ark in Zion, therefore, continued to co-exist along with the altar of burnt-offering at the tabernacle in Gibeon, without being sanctioned by God as the place of sacrifice for the congregation of Israel. Then when David, by ordering the numbering of the people, had brought guilt upon the nation, which the Lord so heavily avenged upon them by the pestilence, he should properly, as king, have offered a sin-offering and a burnt-offering in the national sanctuary at Gibeon, and there have sought the divine favour for himself and for the whole people. But the Lord said unto him by the prophet Gad, that he should bring his offering neither in Gibeon, nor before the ark on Zion, but in the threshing-floor of Ornan (Araunah), on the altar which he was there to erect. This command, however, did not settle the place where he was afterwards to sacrifice. But David - so it runs, 1Ch_21:29. - sacrificed thenceforward in the threshing-floor of Ornan, not at Gibeon in the still existent national sanctuary, because he (according to 1Ch_21:30) “could not go before it (ְלָפָניו) to seek God, for he was terrified before the sword of the angel of Jahve.” This statement does not, however, mean, ex terrore visionis angelicae infirmitatem corporis contraxerat (J. H. Mich.), nor yet, “because he, being struck and overwhelmed by the appearance of the angel, did not venture to offer sacrifices elsewhere” (Berth.), nor, “because the journey to Gibeon was too long for him” (O. v. Gerl.). None of these interpretations suit either the words or the context. ֶחֶרב ִמְּפֵני terrified before the sword, does indeed signify that the sword of the angel, or the ,ִנְבַעתangel with the sword, hindered him from going to Gibeon, but not during the pestilence, when the angel stood between heaven and earth by the threshing-floor of Araunah with the drawn sword, but - according to the context - afterwards, when the angelophany had ceased, as it doubtless did simultaneously with the pestilence. The words וגו ִנְבַעת ִּכי can therefore have no other meaning, than that David's terror before the sword of the angel caused him to determine to sacrifice thereafter, not at Gibeon, but at the threshing-floor of Araunah; or that, since during the pestilence the angel's sword had prevented him from going to Gibeon, he did not venture ever afterwards to go. But the fear before the sword of the angel is in substance the terror of the pestilence; and the pestilence had hindered him from sacrificing at Gibeon, because Gibeon, notwithstanding the presence

95

of the sanctuary there, with the Mosaic altar, had not been spared by the pestilence. David considered this circumstance as normative ever for the future, and he always afterwards offered his sacrifices in the place pointed out to him, and said, as we further read in 1Ch_22:1, “Here (הּוא ,properly this, mas. or neut.) is the house of Jahve God ,ֶזהand here is the altar for the burnt-offering of Israel.” He calls the site of the altar in the threshing-floor of Araunah יהוה because there Jahve had manifested to him His ,ֵּביתgracious presence; cf. Gen_28:17.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:26. He answered him from heaven by fire — Hebrew, by fire from heaven; which was a sign of God’s acceptance. The fire that might justly have fastened on the sinner, fastened upon the sacrifice and consumed it. Thus Christ was made sin and a curse for us, and it pleased the Lord to bruise him, that through him God might be to us, not a consuming fire, but a reconciled Father.

ELLICOTT, " (26) And David built . . . peace offerings.—Word for word as in Samuel.And called upon the Lord.—Not in Samuel, where the narrative ends with the words, “And the Lord was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.”From heaven by fire (with the fire from the heavens).—The Divine inauguration of the new altar and place of sacrifice. (See Leviticus 9:24; 1 Kings 18:24; 1 Kings 18:38—Elijah’s sacrifice; 2 Chronicles 7:1.) Also a sign that David’s prayer was heard.

GUZIK, "4. (1 Chronicles 21:26-27) God is satisfied and the judgment relents.And David built there an altar to the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called on the LORD and He answered him from heaven by fire on the altar of burnt offering. So the LORD commanded the angel, and he returned his sword to its sheath.a. And offered burnt offerings and peace offerings: This shows that David understood that the death of the 70,000 in Israel in the plague did not atone for his and Israel’s sin. Atonement could only be made through the blood of an approved substitute.i. Burnt offerings were to atone for sin; peace offerings were to enjoy fellowship

96

with God. This shows us from beginning to end, David’s life was marked by fellowship with God.ii. “We finally see the man after God’s own heart turning the occasion of his sin and its punishment into an occasion of worship.” (Morgan)b. He answered him from heaven by fire on the altar: God showed His acceptance of David’s sacrifice by consuming it with fire from heaven. God honored David’s desire to be right and to fellowship with God by answering with Divine blessing from heaven. So it always is when God’s children draw near to their God and Father for cleansing and fellowship.i. The sending of fire from heaven answered a question that had burned in the heart of David for a long time. For many years, he had wondered where God wanted the temple to be built, and he sought for that place, as shown in Psalms 132:1-5 :

LORD, remember David

And all his afflictions;

How he swore to the LORD,

And vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob:

“Surely I will not go into the chamber of my house,

Or go up to the comfort of my bed;

I will not give sleep to my eyes

97

Or slumber to my eyelids,

Until I find a place for the LORD,

A dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob.”ii. The fire on the altar from heaven confirmed the previous word of the Prophet Gad that this was the place to build the altar and the temple. We see that God simply use Satan’s provocation at the opening of this chapter to lead to the answer of this important question for David and for the nation of Israel. There were certainly other purposes of God at work, but this was one of them.iii. The character of Ornan’s threshing floor shows us something about where and how God wants to meet with men. Ornan’s threshing floor was . . .

· A simple, unadorned place - not like a fancy church at all.

· A place of ordinary work.

· A place bought with money.

· A place where bread was brought forth from.

· A place where the justice of God was evident.

· A place where sin was confessed.

· A place where sacrifice was offered and accepted.

98

iv. “Do not believe for a moment that visible grandeur is necessary to the place where God will meet with you. Go to your threshing floor and pray; aye, while the unmuzzled oxen take their rest, bow your knee and cry to the Lord of the harvest, and you shall meet with God there amongst the straw and the grain. Fear not to draw nigh to God in these streets, but consecrate all space to the Lord your God.” (Spurgeon)

PULPIT, "He answered him from heaven by fire. There is no doubt significance in the fact that the compiler of Chronicles records this answer by fire, unmentioned in the Book of Samuel. He would give prominence to this great token, as determining, or going a great way towards determining, the site of the temple. The answer by fire was given on critical and special occasions (Le 1 Chronicles 9:24; 1 Kings 18:24, 1 Kings 18:38).

27 Then the Lord spoke to the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath.

ELLICOTT" (27) He put up . . .—It seems hardly fair to call this verse a “figurative or poetical expression for the cessation of the plague.” In 1 Chronicles 21:16 David sees the angel with drawn sword; and the older text (2 Samuel 24:16-17) equally makes the angel a “real concrete being,” and not a “personification,” as Reuss will have it.Sheath (nâdân).—A word only found here. A very similar term is applied to the body as the sheath of the soul in Daniel 7:15; viz., the Aramaic, nidneh, which should, perhaps, be read here.1 Chronicles 21:28 to 1 Chronicles 22:1. These concluding remarks are not read in Samuel, but the writer, no doubt, found some basis for them in his special source. They tell us how it was that Oman’s threshingfloor became recognised as a

99

permanent sanctuary, and the site ordained for the future Temple. They thus form a transition to the account of David’s preparations for the building (1 Chronicles 22:2-19).

28 At that time, when David saw that the Lord had answered him on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, he offered sacrifices there.

GILL, "At that time when David saw that the Lord had answered him in the threshing floor Of Ornan the Jebusite,.... The same with Araunah, 2Sa_24:16, with some small variation of the letters, and are of the same signification; both signifying the "ornus", as Hillerus (m) observes, the pine tree or ash; see Isa_44:14, in whose threshingfloor David now was, and where he had been praying and sacrificing; and God had accepted his prayer, as the Targum, and had answered him, by causing fire to come down on the sacrifice and consume it, and by ordering the angel to put up his sword in its sheath: then he sacrificed there; again by the priests, and continued to do so, for he had sacrificed there before, 1Ch_21:26 and finding his sacrifices in that place were acceptable, he repeated them, and did not go to Gibeon, as follows.

JAMISON, "when David saw that the Lord had answered him ..., he sacrificed there — or, “he continued to sacrifice there.” Perceiving his sacrifice was acceptable, he proceeded to make additional offerings there, and seek favor by prayer and expiatory rites; for the dread of the menacing angel destroying Jerusalem while he was absent in the center of worship at Gibeon, especially reverence for the Divine Being, led him to continue his adorations in that place which God (2Ch_3:1) had hallowed by the tokens of His presence and gracious acceptance.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:28. Then he sacrificed there — When he perceived that his sacrifice offered there was acceptable to God, he proceeded to offer more

100

sacrifices in that place, and did not go to Gibeon, as otherwise he should have done.

COFFMAN, "This chapter is parallel with 2 Samuel 24; and I have written thirteen pages of comments there, pp. 326-339. The variation regarding the price paid to Ornan is explained at that place.Keil has explained the significance of the last paragraph here, which is not in 2Samuel.God's answering David's sacrifice with fire from heaven taught David that the altar built upon the threshing floor of Ornan had been chosen by the Lord as the place where Israel should always thereafter offer their burnt-offerings and sacrifices.[1]This explains why David was afraid thereafter to go to the high place at Gibeon. The events of this chapter explain why Solomon's temple was placed at that very location where God had answered David with fire from heaven. A few other variations in the parallels are of no importance.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 28(28) At that time when David saw . . .—The use of Ornan’s threshingfloor as a place of sacrifice was continued from the time of the cessation of the pestilence. The words “then he sacrificed there” refer to this fact. The answer by fire from heaven (1 Chronicles 21:26) was an unmistakable intimation of the Divine will that it should be so. (Comp. also Joshua 5:15.)

GUZIK, "5. (1 Chronicles 21:28 to 1 Chronicles 22:1) David decides to build the temple at the place where God showed mercy to Israel.At that time, when David saw that the LORD had answered him on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, he sacrificed there. For the tabernacle of the LORD and the altar of the burnt offering, which Moses had made in the wilderness, were at that time at the high place in Gibeon. But David could not go before it to inquire of God, for he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the LORD. Then David said, “This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel.”a. When David saw that the LORD had answered him on the threshing floor of

101

Ornan the Jebusite, he sacrificed there: David knew that there was something special about this threshing floor; he understood that God had sanctified the place Himself with fire from heaven.i. “Having seen his prayers answered and his sacrifices accepted, the site had already become a ‘house of prayer’ and a ‘temple for sacrifices’ cf. 2 Chronicles 7:12; Isaiah 56:7).” (Selman)ii. “Abraham taught the fact of the sacrifice, while to David the reason of that sacrifice of Christ was explained. He was sacrificed to stay the plague - the plague of sin, the punishment of our iniquities.” (Spurgeon)b. This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel: David understood that the future temple should be built on this spot in Jerusalem. God had sanctified this humble threshing floor to Himself.i. This is the house: “This is that very place foretold by Moses (Deuteronomy 12:11).” (Trapp)

POOLE, " When he perceived that his sacrifice there offered was acceptable to God, he proceeded to offer more sacrifices in that place, and did not go to Gibeon, as otherwise he should have done.

PULPIT, "David saw that the Lord had answered him in the threshing-floor. David "saw" this by the fire on the altar, and by the fact that God, at the voice of the angel (1 Chronicles 21:18), had not misdirected him, but had guided him aright. He sacrificed there. This means to say that he thenceforward "sacrificed there;" and established there the service of sacrifices. David was so impressed "at that time," by the answer given in fire from heaven, that he began systematically to sacrifice on the site of this threshing-floor, instead of going to the high place at Gibeon, where the altar of burnt offering still stood. To have attempted to go thither would not only have meant a long and wasteful delay, but would also have meant the neglecting of the august omen of the angel present. An awful sanction is thus given to "this place," Moriah, and it becomes "the house of the Lord God," and the place of lawful and established sacrifice.

102

29 The tabernacle of the Lord, which Moses had made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt offering were at that time on the high place at Gibeon.

GILL, "For the tabernacle of the Lord, which Moses made,.... Or ordered to be made by the command of God, and according to his direction: and the altar of burnt offerings, were at that season in the high place at Gibeon; which was four or five miles from Jerusalem, and too far for David to go in that time of extremity; though he must have gone thither to sacrifice, had not the Lord bid him build an altar on the threshingfloor; for there was the altar of burnt offering, on which only, according to the law of Moses, sacrifices were to be offered: this high place is, in the Targum, called the sanctuary, it including, as Kimchi observes, the whole house, the tabernacle, and the altar in it; which had been here, and at Nob, fifty seven years, as the Jewish writers say (n).

ELLICOTT, " (29) For the tabernacle.—Now the dwelling-place of Jehovah: in contrast with Oman’s threshingfloor, the new sanctuary.Verse 29-30(29, 30) A parenthesis, relating why it was that David did not rather resort to the ancient Tabernacle, which then stood at Gibeon. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 16:39-40.)

30 But David could not go before it to inquire of God, because he was afraid of the sword of the

103

angel of the Lord.

BARNES, "David, knowing that by sacrifice on this altar he had caused the angel to stay his hand, was afraid to transfer his offerings elsewhere, lest the Angel should resume his task and pestilence again break out.

CLARKE, "Because of the sword of the angel - This is given as a reason why David built an altar in the threshing-floor of Ornan: he was afraid to go to Gibeon, because of the sword of the destroying angel, or he was afraid of delaying the offerings so long as his going thither would require, lest the destroying angel should in the mean while exterminate the people; therefore he hastily built an altar in that place, and on it made the requisite offerings, and by the fire from heaven God showed that he had accepted his act and his devotion. Such interventions as these must necessarily maintain in the minds of the people a full persuasion of the truth and Divine origin of their religion.

For a more circumstantial account of these transactions, see the notes on 2Sa_24:1, Ac., in which several difficulties of the text are removed.

GILL, "But David could not go before it to inquire of God,.... Which yet was the proper place to seek the Lord in: the reason follows: for he was afraid, because of the sword of the angel of the Lord; which had so terrified him, that he was so weak that he could not go; and he feared that, should he attempt to go, while he was going thither, at such a distance, the angel would make a terrible slaughter in Jerusalem, and therefore he durst not go and leave it; and besides, as the Lord had commanded him to build an altar there, he might fear it would displease him, should he depart from it; and the rather, as hereby he pointed out to him the place where the temple should be built, and sacrifices offered, as appears from what he says in the beginning of the next chapter.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 21:30. David could not go before it — Did not dare to go before the tabernacle, where the altar stood. To inquire of God — Hebrew, לדרׁש, lidrosh, to seek God, or humbly to entreat his favour by prayer and sacrifice. For he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of the Lord — That is, when he saw the angel stand with his drawn sword over Jerusalem, he durst not go away to Gibeon,

104

lest the angel in the mean time should destroy Jerusalem: for the prevention whereof he thought it proper to worship God in that place, which he had consecrated by his special presence and acceptance. COKE, "1 Chronicles 21:30. But David could not go before it, &c.— 1:e. David could not delay so long as to go to Gibeon, because he was convinced that God had consecrated the present spot, and that it was necessary to offer sacrifice there immediately.REFLECTIONS.—1st, Observe,1. The greatest saints of God upon earth are but men, against whom Satan despairs not of prevailing; and they have need to take heed lest they fall, as David did here.2. Pride of heart was the corruption on which the devil wrought in David, and deep it lies in the bosom of man. If once he can strike a spark on this tinder, it easily kindles. O that we may all be delivered from it!2nd, Observe,1. God's love to the sinner's soul will not spare the rod of chastisement.2. Gad's reproof brought David to his knees; but this could not save him from the threatened judgment. We shall suffer in the flesh for our sins, though our spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.3. Our folly usually brings us into our greatest straits, and we have nobody but ourselves to blame.4. If God's mercy was not infinite, verily we should be utterly consumed.5. The only resource which we have left is that God whom we have offended; when, humbled in the dust, we fly to him, he will lay the uplifted thunderbolt aside.3rdly, David is relieved from his terrible distress: Gad, the messenger of his plague, brings him notice of reconciliation, and directs him what to do, in which David makes no delay.1. He purchases the threshing-floor of Ornan, or Araunah, where the angel appeared, to rear an altar for sacrifice.2. He offers there the blood of atonement, and God testifies his acceptance by fire from heaven on the sacrifice. There is one sacrifice in which God is well pleased; if his blood be upon us, then the sword of judgment shall not hurt us.

105

3. David continued ever after to sacrifice on this altar. At first, he was afraid to stir from Jerusalem (where he had seen the terrible angel) till the judgment was removed; but afterwards God's gracious acceptance of his offering encouraged him to continue his attendance at the same place. Note; Where we have found especial blessings to our souls, it is our wisdom there to continue our attendance upon God.

ELLICOTT, " (30) But (and) David could not go before it—i.e., the Tabernacle at Gibeon and the altar of burnt offering (1 Chronicles 16:4; 1 Chronicles 16:37; 1 Chronicles 16:39).To enquire of God.—To seek Him, that is, to seek His favour by sacrifice and prayer. (But comp. 1 Chronicles 13:3; 1 Chronicles 15:13.) For he was afraid because of the sword.—“David could not go to Gibeon,” says Keil, “because of the sword of the angel of Jehovah: i.e., on account of the pestilence which raged at Gibeon.” Others have thought that the awful vision of the angel had stricken him with some bodily weakness. A more natural explanation is that the menacing aspect of the apparition overawed the king, so that he durst not follow the usual course in the present instance. It made, as we should say, an indelible impression upon his mind as to the sanctity of the place where it appeared. (Comp. Genesis 28:17; Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15; Judges 6:21; Judges 6:26.)

POOLE, " David could not, i.e. durst not. Before it, i.e. before the tabernacle, where the altar stood.To inquire of God, Heb. to seek God, i.e. humbly to beg his favour by prayer and sacrifice.Because of the sword of the angel of the Lord, i.e. when he saw the angel stand with his drawn sword over Jerusalem, as is related above, 1 Chronicles 21:15,16, he durst not go away thence to Gibeon, lest the angel in the mean time should destroy Jerusalem; for the prevention whereof he thought it most proper to continue to worship God in that place, which he had consecrated by his special presence and gracious acceptance.

106

Footnotes:

1 Chronicles 21:12 Hebrew; Septuagint and Vulgate (see also 2 Samuel 24:13) of fleeing 1 Chronicles 21:15 Hebrew Ornan, a variant of Araunah; also in verses 18-28 1 Chronicles 21:17 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see 2 Samuel 24:17 and note); Masoretic Text does not have the shepherd. 1 Chronicles 21:25 That is, about 15 pounds or about 6.9 kilograms

107