Again Yahweh’s anger burned against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, “Go, count Israel and Judah.” The king said to Joab the captain of the army, who was with him, “Now go back and forth through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and count the people, that I may know the sum of the people.”
Joab said to the king, “Now may Yahweh your God add to the people, however many they may be, one hundred times; and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king delight in this thing?”
Notwithstanding, the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the army. Joab and the captains of the army went out from the presence of the king to count the people of Israel. They passed over the Jordan, and encamped in Aroer, on the right side of the city that is in the middle of the valley of Gad, and to Jazer; then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim Hodshi; and they came to Dan Jaan, and around to Sidon, and came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites; and they went out to the south of Judah, at Beersheba. So when they had gone back and forth through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. Joab gave up the sum of the counting of the people to the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 The Lord permitted Satan, as 1 Chron. 21:2.
The Lord permitted Satan, as 1 Chron. 21:2.
Before they were plagued with famine, 2 Sam. 21:1.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–9 2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD…
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
Ver. 1. And again the anger of the Lord.] Again, after the late three years’ famine for Saul’s sin, and the late slaughter of twenty thousand for rebelling with Absalom, this plague of pestilence is sent - as they seldom go sundered - for the injury done to Uriah - saith Rupertus - who is named in the last verse of the former chapter; but more likely it was for some general sin of the whole land; whether it were their recently revolting from David, or their putting too much confidence in their king and his worthies; or the abuse of their present peace and plenty; or whatever else, God was displeased, and David so far abandoned and left to himself, that he yielded to that satanical suggestion, which brought the people’s ruth and ruin.
Read full note →
And he moved David against them.] God did; Satan also did, {1Ch 21:1} being let loose upon David for the purpose: like as the dog may be said to bait the beast; and the owner of the beasts that suffereth him to be baited. {a}
Go, number Israel and Judah.] This was the last act that he did before he took his bed. And some Hebrews say, that he was so grieved at the common calamity that followed upon his sin, and so terrified at the sight of the punishing angel, that thereupon he took his bed, and was so infirm, as 1Ki 1:1. It was not simply unlawful for him to number the people; but he did it out of curiosity and creature confidence. David - otherwise devoted to God’s holy fear {Psa 119:38} - had not now the fear of the Lord swaying in his soul, which teacheth to hate evil, even inward evils, such as lie in the bosom and bottom of the soul, as "pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way," {Pro 8:13} those "spiritual wickednesses," and more immediate affronts offered to the Divine Majesty; with which God is more angry, than with a fleshly crime, though heinously seconded, such as was David’s sin in the matter of Uriah.
{a} Non pugnant inter se, quum non sint adversa sed diversa, et quidem subalterna.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 Again, to wit, after the former tokens of his…
Again, to wit, after the former tokens of his anger, such as the three years’ famine, 2Sa 21.
He moved David he: who? Either,
Read full note →
1. Satan, as is expressed, 1Ch 21:1. Or,
2. God; who is said, in like manner, to stir up Saul against David, 1Sa 26:19, and to turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people, Psa 105:25, and to make men to err from his ways, Isa 63:17, and to send strong delusions, &c., and to harden their hearts. All which expressions are not so to be understood, as if God did work these sinful dispositions; which neither was necessary, because they are naturally in every man’s heart, nor possible for the holy God to do; but because he permits them, and withdraws his grace and all restraints and hinderances from them, and giveth occasions and advantages to them; and directs their thoughts to such objects as may indeed be innocently thought of, which yet he knows they will wickedly abuse; and give them up to Satan, who he knows will deceive and entice them to such and such sins; which, being tempted to do by Satan, and being effected by their own wicked hearts, he so orders and overrules, that they shall be punishments for their former sins. Against them, i.e. for Israel’s punishment. To say, or, saying. For this may be referred, either,
1. To God, of whom the same expression is used 2Sa 16:10, The Lord said to Shimei, Curse David; which in both places is not to be understood of any command or impulse of God, but of his secret providence disposing things in manner here above expressed. Or,
2. To David; he moved David to say, to wit, to Joab, as he did, 2Sa 24:2.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–9 And again the anger of the Lord was kindled…
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel,.... It had been kindled, and appeared before in sending a three years' famine among them for Saul's ill usage of the Gibeonites, Sa2 21:1; and now it broke forth again, either for some secret sins committed, as Kimchi suggests, or for the rebellion of Absalom, and the insurrection of Sheba, in which multitudes of them joined; so Abarbinel; no doubt there was cause for it, though it is not expressed:
and he moved David against them; not the Lord, but Satan, as may be supplied from Ch1 21:1; or "it moved him"; the anger of the Lord, as the last mentioned writer interprets it; or the heart of David, as Ben Gersom; that is, the evil imagination of his heart, as Kimchi; the Lord left him to the corruption of his nature, sometimes called Satan, Co2 12:7; which wrought powerfully in him, and stirred him up to take a step contrary to the interest of Israel, and what was prejudicial to them, as the event showed: it moved him to say; to Joab and his captains:
Read full note →
go, number Israel and Judah: not all the individuals, but such as were fit for war, able to bear arms, see Sa2 24:9.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 David is tempted by Satan to number Israel and…
CHAPTER XXIV
David is tempted by Satan to number Israel and Judah, 1.
Read full note →
Joab remonstrates against it, but the king determines that it
shall be done; and Joab and the captains accomplish the work,
and bring the sum total to the king: viz.: eight hundred
thousand warriors in Israel, and five hundred thousand in
Judah, 2-9.
David is convinced that he has done wrong; and the prophet Gad
is sent to him, to give him his choice of three judgments,
one of which God is determined to inflict upon the nation,
10-13.
David humbles himself before God; and a pestilence is sent,
which destroys seventy thousand men, 14, 15.
The angel of the Lord being about to destroy Jerusalem, David
makes intercession, and the plague is stayed, 16, 17.
Gad directs him to build an altar to the Lord on the
threshing-floor of Araunah, where the plague was stayed, 18.
He purchases this place for the purpose, and offers
burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. 19-25.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXIV
Verse 1. He moved David against them] God could not be angry with David for numbering the people if he moved him to do it; but in the parallel place (1Ch 21:1) it is expressly said, Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. David, in all probability, slackening in his piety and confidence toward God, and meditating some extension of his dominions without the Divine counsel or command, was naturally curious to know whether the number of fighting men in his empire was sufficient for the work which he had projected. See more on 2Sa 24:10. He therefore orders Joab and the captains to take an exact account of all the effective men in Israel and Judah. God is justly displeased with this conduct, and determines that the props of his vain ambition shall be taken away, either by famine, war, or pestilence.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 8 2Sa 24:1. And again — After the former tokens…
2Sa 24:1. And again — After the former tokens of his anger, such as the three years’ famine, mentioned chap. 21. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel — For their sins, and on account of the following action of David. The anger of the Lord, it must be well observed, was not the cause of David’s sin, nor of the sins of the people; for God cannot be the author of sin; but David’s sin and the sins of Israel were the cause of God’s anger. And he moved David against them — The reader must observe that, as there is no nominative case before the verb here, in the original, to express who moved David, the most strict rendering of the clause would be, There was who moved David against them, &c. By our version, the reader is led to suppose that the Lord, mentioned in the foregoing part of the sentence, moved David to commit this sin of numbering the people. But this is not only quite contrary to the nature and attributes of God, but to what we are expressly told 1Ch 21:1, where we learn that it was Satan, and not the Lord, that moved David to do this. Here then we have a very remarkable instance, which cannot be too much regarded, to warn us against building any particular doctrine, or belief, on certain particular, detached expressions or passages of Scripture, not in harmony with the general tenor of God’s oracles; especially such doctrines as are entirely opposite to the essential nature or attributes of God. For had not this fact of David’s numbering the people been related, through the care of divine providence, by another sacred writer, who entirely clears God from having any concern in moving David to sin, it might have been concluded from the passage before us that God impelled David to this act; and, consequently, that it is consistent with the nature and government of God to excite the human mind to sinful acts: than which there can scarce be any thing more impious imagined. And therefore we may plainly see from hence, that we are not to form our notions from particular passages or expressions of the Holy Scriptures, but from the general tenor of them.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 And again the anger of the Lord was kindled…
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel - This sentence is the heading of the whole chapter, which goes on to describe the sin which kindled this anger, namely, the numbering of the people 1Ch 21:7-8; 1Ch 27:24. There is no note of time, except that the word “again” shows that these events happened “after” those of 2 Sam. 21. (Compare also 2Sa 24:25; 2Sa 21:14.)
And he moved David - In 1Ch 21:1 the statement is, “and an adversary” (not “Satan,” as the King James Version, since there is no article prefixed, as in Job 1:6; Job 2:1, etc.) “stood up against Israel and moved David,” just as 1Ki 11:14, 1Ki 11:23, 1Ki 11:25 first Hadad, and then Rezon, is said to have been “an adversary” (Satan) to Solomon and to Israel. Hence, our text should be rendered, “For one moved David against them.” We are not told whose advice it was, but some one, who proved himself an enemy to the best interests of David and Israel, urged the king to number the people.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Stirred up, &c. This stirring up, was not the…
Stirred up, &c. This stirring up, was not the doing of God, but of satan; as it is expressly declared, 1 Chronicles xxi. 1. (Challoner) --- David was moved by vanity, &c., thus to displease God. --- Among. Hebrew, "against;" as the king could have done nothing more prejudicial to his people, 70,000 of whom perished on this occasion, ver. 15. (Haydock) --- We might also translate, "The anger of the Lord continued against Israel: for David, for their misfortune, was moved to say, Go," &c., as this would obviate the harshness of the expression. (Calmet) --- However, as it is the same in the Septuagint, &c., and as similar words do not prove that God is the author of sin, we may explain this in the same sense, allowing that he suffered the evil to take place, knowing how to draw good out of it. (St. Augustine, &c.) (Haydock) --- Some take this Satan to be an evil counsellor. (Calmet) --- The devil may be styled "the fury of God?" as he is his creature, though rebellious. (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 The Numbering of the People and the Plague
SIXTH SECTION
The Numbering of the People and the Plague
Read full note →
2Sa_24:1-25
1And again the anger of the Lord [Jehovah] was kindled against Israel, and he moved [incited] David against them to say [saying], Go, number Israel and Judah. 2For [And] the king said to Joab the captain [Joab and the captains1] of the host which was [were] with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even [om. even] to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people. 3And Joab said unto the king, Now [om. Now2] the Lord [Jehovah] thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it; but why doth my lord the 4king delight in this thing? Notwithstanding [And] the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel. 5And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer on the right side of the city. [better, and began from Aroer and from the city3] that lieth in the midst of the river 6[valley] of Gad [toward Gad] and toward Jazer. Then [And] they came to Gilead and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi [perhaps land of the Hittites to Kadesh], and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon, 7And came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites and of the Canaanites, and they went out to the south of Judah, even [om. even] to Beersheba. 8So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. 9And Joab gave up the sum of the number [the number of the census] of the people unto the king; and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men [warriors] that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
10And David’s heart smote him after that4 he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord [Jehovah], I have sinned greatly in that I have done. And now, I beseech thee, O Lord [Jehovah], take away the iniquity of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly. 11For when David was up [And David arose] in the morning—[ins. and] the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came unto the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, 12Go and say unto David, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], 13I offer5 thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So [And] Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven [better three6] years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. 14And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord [Jehovah], for his mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hand of man.
15So [And] the Lord [Jehovah] sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even [om. even] to the time appointed; and there died of the people from Dan even [om. even] to Beersheba seventy thousand men. 16And when the angel [And the angel] stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord [and Jehovah] repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord [Jehovah] was by the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. 17And David spake unto the Lord [Jehovah] when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house.
18And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto 19the Lord [Jehovah] in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. And David, according to the saying of Gad, went up as the Lord [Jehovah] commanded. 20And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him; and Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king on his face upon the ground. 21And Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshing-floor of thee, to build an altar unto the Lord 22[Jehovah], that the plague may be stayed from the people. And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him; behold, here be [are] oxen for burnt sacrifice, and [ins. the] threshing-instruments 23and other [the] instruments of the oxen for wood. All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king [All gives Araunah, O king, to the king; or, the whole gives the servant of my lord the king to the king7]. And Araunah said unto the king, The Lord [Jehovah] thy God accept thee. 24And the king said unto Araunah, Nay, but I will surely buy it of thee at a price, neither will I [and I will not] offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord [Jehovah] my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So [And] David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver 25And David built there an altar unto the Lord [Jehovah], and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. So [And] the Lord [Jehovah] was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
I. 2Sa_24:1-8. David’s sin in numbering the people.
2Sa_24:1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled. The “again” evidently refers to the famine in 2Sa_21:1-14; comp. especially 2Sa_24:1 and the identical endings of the two accounts (2Sa_24:25 here and 2Sa_24:14 there): “Jehovah (God) was entreated for the land.” From this both sections may be inferred to be from the same source. [Hence some regard 2Sa_21:15-22. as inserted in the midst of this history, and the two poems, 2Sa_23:1-7 as an insertion in the narrative 2Sa_21:15-22, 2Sa_23:8-39. Erdmann regards these various sections as separately selected, and put together according to a definite plan.—Tr.]—The additions in the parallel section 1Ch_21:1-22, are to be referred to another fuller authority that the Chronicler had before him (Mov., Ew.), but not also in part to “pure remodeling by the Chronicler himself.” (Ew.).—The time of this census is certainly to be put in the later years of David’s reign, “partly because the pestilence here described is expressly said to be the second of the two great plagues under David, partly because such a measure as the census, which occupied Joab 9 months and 20 days, could have been begun only in a perfectly quiet year” (Ew.). It cannot belong to the time before the insurrections of Absalom and Sheba (Seb. Schmid), because it presupposes a permanent condition of peace without and within. The late date is also favored by the fact that the Chronicler attaches immediately to this history (in accordance with its conclusion, the purchase of Araunah’s threshing-floor as the site of the future temple) the description of the preparations for the building of the temple and David’s arrangements for divine service, which Chron, puts in this peaceful last period of his reign. “One would not, indeed, think of David’s very last days, when death was daily before him; such great matters are not undertaken at such a time” (Hengst.).—The kindling of God’s anger presupposes a grave offence against God; and this not merely by David (whose guilt is expressly affirmed in 2Sa_24:3; 2Sa_24:10; 2Sa_24:12 sqq.), but also by the whole people, since “Israel” is designated as the object of the divine anger (2Sa_24:1), and the punitive plague was intended to include the whole nation (2Sa_24:13 sq.). This offence of the people consists, however, not in any “hidden sins” (D. Kimchi), nor in the insurrections under Absalom and Sheba (Keil), but (since God’s anger is obviously causally connected with David’s deed) in their participation in David’s sin.—And He incited David against them, that is, against Israel, and the subject of the Verb is Jehovah, not Satan (so several older expositors [and Ewald] after Chron.), nor David’s thought of numbering the people (Theod.) The outburst of God’s wrath against Israel is produced by a sin of David’s, to which the “incitement came from the Lord;” the statement in Chron: “Satan8 stood up against Israel and incited David” is not in contradiction with this, since Satan is not an independent agent alongside of God, but appears always as subject to and dependent on Him. Job 1; Zechariah 3. Buddæus’ explanation: “God and the devil may concur in one and the same evil deed, though in different ways, the latter by impelling, the former by permitting” must be corrected in accordance with this statement.—“The Lord incited David” means, not that He destroyed his free will and forced him, but that He permitted the temptations, resident in the circumstances ordained by Him, to approach David, and so developed the germinal ungodly desire in David’s heart into a determination of the will, and thence into the deed. See on 1Sa_26:19, and “Historical and Theological” to that chapter [see Jam_1:13-14; there is here involved the whole subject of the co-relation of divine and human action, about which we can only insist on the two unharmonizable facts of the absolute efficient control of God, and the complete independence of man.—Tr.]—Saying, go, number Israel and Judah! David’s aim in this census could not have been pleasure at the great number that it would show, and at the growth and well-being of his subjects thus brought out (S. Schmid and other older expositors); that would have been a childish undertaking, considering the great expenditure of time and strength made. Ewald (Hist. III. 218, bibl. Jahrb. 10, 34 sq.) holds that his purpose was to perfect the royal power internally, and establish a strict rule that should embrace the whole life of the nation; the census, he thinks, was intended “to drag the people as far as possible” into all sorts of taxes, such as existed in Egypt and Phenicia, and on this supposition he bases the opinion that the people, apprehensive of the subversion of their liberty by the royal power, withstood this innovation, and David had consequently to recede from the complete execution of his measure. But there is not a sign in the narrative of such a purpose on David’s part; and against it is the military character and aim of the measure. Apart from 1Ch_27:23 sq. (according to which it was connected with the military organization of the people, and probably intended to complete it), it is here discussed in the council of military officers, and executed by Joab the commander-in-chief himself in conjunction with them; and the census took account not of all classes of the people, or of all independent men, but only of “valiant men that drew the sword.” As is stated at the outset, military camps were formed for the numbering (mustering). “The military character of the procedure is clear also from the fact that Joab delayed as long as possible carrying it into Benjamin, in order not to arouse the insurrectionary spirit of this tribe, which could not forget the leadership it had possessed under Saul” (Hengst., ubi sup. p. 128).
2Sa_24:2. The king said to Joab: Go now through all the tribes of Israel, … and muster ye the people, that I may know the number of the people—a general mustering for a military-statistical purpose. That is, after having subjected foreign nations and established internal order and quiet, David wished to know the military force of the whole people. [Render: “the king said to Joab and to the captains (or princes) of the host that were with him.”—Tr.]—In itself this census by David was no more sinful than that of Moses, Exo_30:12 sq. Wherein David’s sin consisted is indicated in Joab’s words in 2Sa_24:3 : May now the Lord thy God add to the people, as it is, a hundred-fold, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it! but why does my lord the king delight in this thing? The speech has the form of a conclusion9 from what precedes, and indicates that Joab perceives David’s purpose to be to please himself with the exhibition of the imposing military strength of his people; and the question at the end conveys a moral reproof. The ungodly feature in this undertaking, therefore, was its motive, David’s haughty overestimation of himself and his people. His sin was one both of the lust of the eyes and of pride. So much is true in Josephus’ explanation (followed by Bertheau), which is otherwise incorrect, namely, that David’s sin consisted in his not demanding the expiation-money that, according to Exo_30:12 sqq., had to be paid by every man mustered; for this requirement of the law (the aim of which was: “that there be no plague among them”) had reference to the danger in such a census of falling into haughtiness and presumptuousness. “David wished to glory in the multitude of the people” (S. Schm.). And the punishment that followed the attempt—so that the number of warriors was diminished, and the result of the census was not noted in the State-annals (1Ch_27:24)—shows that it was made in proud self-feeling without the will of the Lord, Israel’s true king, and for a self-chosen end that did not accord with the aims and purposes of the Lord. It is going too far to regard it as David’s purpose here to summon the whole nation to war for new conquests (J. D. Mich.), or to transform the theocratic State (Kurz in Herz. III. 306). Such a complete recession from the dependence of his kingdom on the Lord, such thought of a political world-dominion of Israel, such a complete abandonment of Israel’s national-theocratic calling, presupposes a complete defection on David’s part from the living God. But doubtless he who had led Israel to so lofty a height, forgetting himself before the Lord, had a proud desire to exhibit the splendid array of his people’s military strength, as pledge of the further advance of his house and people, and of the future development of the promise: “thine enemies shall cringe before thee, and thou shalt tread on their high-places” (Deu_33:29). “To this height David now thought he could advance without God; the annals should show for all time that he had laid the foundations of this mighty work of the future” (Hengst.). The people also, filled with proud national conceit of their strength, shared David’s sin. Though the chief fault was not with the people (Hengst.), yet the solidarity [unity] of David’s sin and his people’s in this haughty anti-theocratic movement, is beyond doubt.
2Sa_24:4. David submits, indeed, to Joab’s opposition now also (comp. 2Sa_3:27; 2Sa_19:1-7); but he did not follow the voice of good conscience that he heard from his mouth. The word of the king prevailed against Joab, comp. 2Ch_28:3; 2Ch_27:5; not: “stood fast” (De W.).10 “It is noteworthy that such a man as Joab, without living fear of God, but with natural directness and sound practical sense, sees sooner than David, how such a sinful exaltation does not become a king of Israel” (O. v. Gerl.). “Nothing more was said in opposition” (Grotius). In silence Joab and the officers obey their lord’s command; they went out “before the eyes”11 of the king.
2Sa_24:5. Exact geographical statement of the beginning of the census. It began beyond the Jordan in Gad, “because military affairs were in an especially flourishing condition there,12 comp. 1Ch_12:8 sqq., 37” (Then.) Comp. Thenius’ remarks on 2Ki_15:25. And encamped at Aroer on the right of the city; they encamped in the plain instead of going into the city, because of the large number of men engaged in taking the census, and so they doubtless did hereafter. [Another reading, in some respects better, is: “they began from Aroer and from the city.” See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.] In the midst of the brook-valley of Gad, that is, not in the vale of the Jabbok, as the greatest river in Gad (Winer, s. v. Thäler and Aroer, Then., Rüetschi in Herz. s. v. Gad); for it is identical with the Aroer of Josh. 12:25, which was before Rabbah (= Rabbah of the Ammonites), that is, between it and the Jordan; for this reason and from the statement in Jdg_11:33 (Jephthah smote the Ammonites from Aroer to Abel Kernaim) it cannot have lain so far north as the Jabbok, but is probably to be sought in the valley noted on the map south of the Jabbok in the middle of the territory of God. According to Von Raumer (p. 259) it is probably the present Ayra southwest from es-Salt, with which Burckhardt also probably identified it (Reisen in Syrien, etc., p. 609). This Aroer in Gad is to be distinguished from 1) Aroer in Judah, southeast of Beersheba, whither David sent a part of the booty of Ziklag, 1Sa_30:28; 1Sa_30:2) Aroer on the right (northern) bank of the Arnon in Reuben (Jos_12:2; Num_32:34. [Bib.-Com. holds that Aroer on the Arnon is here meant, on the ground that the description here agrees perfectly with that in Deu_2:36 (comp. Jos_13:16), and that if Aroer before Rabbah is meant, the whole tribe of Reuben would be omitted from the census, which is impossible; and this view is the most natural. For a possible city on the Arnon see Art. Arnon in Smith’s Bible-Dict.—Instead of “in the valley of Gad,” render “towards Gad;” they advanced from the southern limit to Gad and Jazer.—Tr.]—They encamped13 as far as towards Jazer, the plain in which this gathering was held extended from Aroer to Jazer; Jazer cannot, therefore, have been far from Aroer. Jazer, formerly belonged to the Ammonites, conquered from them (Num_21:32), pertained to Gad (Num_32:35, Jos_13:25), a Levitical city (Jos_21:39, 1Ch_6:81); afterwards Moabitic (Isa. 18:8); after the exile Ammonitish (Jer_48:32), conquered by Judas Maccabæus (1Ma_5:8). Burckhardt (p. 609) conjectures that the name of the old Jazer is found in the fine spring Ain Hazir, which he found near the ruins of a very considerable city in the valley south of es-Salt, whose water flows into the Wady Shoeb, which empties into the Jordan. But Gesenius, who agrees with this conjecture (on Burckh. p. 1062), thinks it possible that Jazer is the present Sir, a ruin at the source of the Wady Sir, which flows into the Jordan, and this view is adopted by Seetzen, who found several pools at Sir (comp. Jer_48:32 : “sea of Jazer”), Van de Velde and Keil (on Num_21:32). According to Eusebius (Onom.), “the city of Jazer extended in Gad as far as Aroer, which is before Rabbah.” In accordance with this Von Raumer, who regards Aroer as the present Ayra, to which the valley of Ain Hazir descends, adopts the view that this Ain Hazir is the ancient Jazer, as it is not five English miles from Ayra (p. 263).
2Sa_24:6. Then they came to Gilead, the mountain-land on both sides the Jabbok, and thence into the land of Tahtim hodshi. This local expression (regarded as a proper name by Cler. and De Wette, but as such yielding no sense) is variously given by the ancient Versions: Sept.: “land of the Hittites, which is Adasai” [Stier and Theile’s text], or “land of Thabason” [Vat., Tisch.], or, “land of Ethaon Adasai [Alex.]; Symm.: “to the lower way;” Vulg.: “to the lower land of Hodsi.” No tolerable sense can be gotten from the words except on the supposition that the text is corrupt. The first part of Böttcher’s conjectural emendation “under the sea”14 is a fortunate suggestion, since it requires no change in the letters, and this designation of the Lake of Gennesareth as a “sea” accords with the usage of the language [it is the “sea of Kinnereth”] and with the local statements of the narrative. But the second part of his conjecture, that hodshi = “like the new moon,” in reference to the shape of the lake, is too far-fetched. So also Gesenius’ view, that hodshi is a matronymic from the woman called Hodesh in 1Ch_8:9 [= Hodshites]. Ewald’s conjecture, to read Hermon for Hodshi, and render: “the lower regions of Hermon” is without support (Thenius). Thenius conjectures that hodshi is for Kedshi,15 Denominative from Kedesh, understanding thereby the town in Naphtali near lake Merom, so that it would read: “they came into the land under the lake [sea] of Kedesh [Kadesh].” But this designation of lake Merom is strange, and does not elsewhere occur; nor does the term “under or, below]” suit, we should rather expect “over [above].” Retaining the “Kedesh,” it is more probable that the reference is to the Levitical city of that name in Issachar, southwest of the lake of Gennesareth (1 Chron. 7:72 (1Ch_6:57); in Jos_19:20; Jos_21:28 = Kishion). Comp. Raumer (p. 132, Rem. 36 b) and the country below the lake of Gennesareth southwest in Raumer’s map. This lake is often called a “sea” (Num_34:11; Jos_12:3; Jos_13:27; Isa. 8:23), called so in the last passage without further description (comp. “Galilean sea.” Mat_4:18; Mat_15:29; Mar_1:16; Mar_7:31). Instead of Thenius’ adjective form Kadshi [“sea of Kedesh”], it is better to read: “towards Kedesh” (קֵדְשָׁה, comp. Ges. § 90. 2 a. b), understanding the town in Issachar, and rendering: “they came into the land below the sea towards [or, to] Kadesh.” Hither they came from Gilead, passing through the Jordan-plain below the Galilean sea.—[For other conjectures about this expression see Smith’s Bib.-Dict. s. v., Bib.-com. and Philippson: this whole geographical account is omitted in 1 Chronicles 21.—Tr.]—And they came to Dan Jaan; according to Schultz and Van d. Velde (Mem. p. 306, in Von Raumer p. 125) the present ruin Danian between Tyre and Aire near Ras en Nakura. But this does not agree with the statement that Joab went from this region below the sea to Dan Jaan, thence to Zidon, and then first to Tyre, whereas according to that view he would have gone from Dan Jaan by the sea to Zidon. This route would naturally lead us to think of the Dan that formed the extreme northern boundary of Israel (comp. 2Sa_24:2; 2Sa_24:15), the old Laish (Jos_19:47; Jdg_18:29); but the objection to this is that the name Jaan is not appended to this Dan in 2Sa_24:2; 2Sa_24:15, and we must therefore seek another Dan between Gilead and Zidon. So Hengst., Pent. II. 194. Keil looks for it in northern Perea, southwest of Damascus, taking it to be the same that is mentioned in Gen_14:14, which according to Deu_34:1 belonged to Gilead; but that is none other than the well-known Dan-Laish. And since no other place suiting the geographical relations can be found, we hold to this (Dan-Laish), which by its position was particularly suited for a mustering [so Wordsworth and Bib.-Com.—Tr.]. But what does the Jaan mean? Bunsen remarks on this passage: “Dan-Jaan, as the name Baal-Jaan on coins shows, is a Phœnician god (literally: Judge, i.e. ruler, the singer,16 i.e. player), answering to the Greek Pan, who gave the city its name.” But this surname is never elsewhere found with Dan. The Vulg. has: in Dan silvestria, “in Dan of the wood” (יַעַר), which reading Winer, Lengerke, Ewald adopt, and render: “Dan in the (Lebanon) forest.” Thenius regards Laish as the original reading.—And about towards Zidon; the “about” [= roundabout] means not the environs of Zidon, but in the direction of Dan; from the northern border they turned around towards the north-western border of the kingdom.17
2Sa_24:7. From Zidon they went southward, and came to the fortified city Zor (= “rock”), comp. Jos_19:29, the fortress Tyre built on a rock on the mainland (now Sur), in distinction from the insular Tyre. They came, therefore, into the territory of Asher, which bordered on that of Zidon and Tyre.—And into all the cities of the Hivites and Canaanites, that is, in Naphtali, Zebulon and Issachar, the region afterwards called Galilee, “in which the Canaanites were not exterminated by the Israelites, but only made tributary” (Keil). [It hence appears that even as late as this these native tribes had cities of their own. The division into Hivites and Canaanites is remarkable; perhaps these were the most prominent of the surviving native races. The Hivite territory extended down near Jerusalem (Gibeon), see Jdg_3:3; Jos_11:3; what the “Canaanite” district was is not clear.—Tr.]—And went out to the south of Judah to Beersheba, passed along the western border throughout the length of the land from Dan to Beersheba.
2Sa_24:8. The return, after nine months and twenty days. According to 1Ch_21:6 the census was not extended into Benjamin and Levi, “because the king’s word was an abomination to Joab,” and according to 1Ch_27:24 Joab did not finish the numbering “because wrath therefor came upon Israel.” Joab, who had entered unwillingly (2Sa_24:3) on the execution of the king’s command, had not made haste; then David saw his wrong, the plague broke out before the census was finished; the numbering had not yet begun in Benjamin, nor in Levi (which, however, was excepted therefrom by Num_1:47-49).
2Sa_24:9. Statement of the total number of the people mustered: Israel had eight hundred thousand arms-bearing men, Judah five hundred thousand. Chron. gives a higher number for Israel, eleven hundred thousand; a lower for Judah, four hundred and seventy thousand. To explain or reconcile this difference in respect to Israel it has been supposed that there were two countings, one according to the private lists in cities and villages (Chron.), the other according to the digests made therefrom for the public registers (2 Sam.) (so Cornelius a Lapide)—or that Joab was less accurate in his numbering than the officers with him (Sanktius)—or that Chron. includes the non-Israelites in the Ten Tribes and the neighboring regions, about three hundred thousand (S. Schmid). Against this last is that only Israelites proper are spoken of in 2Sa_24:1-2; the other suppositions are mere conjectures. Osiander’s opinion that Chron. includes the older men is opposed to 2Sa_24:5, and D. Kimchi’s, that Chron. includes also Benjamin and Levi, to 1Ch_21:6. [Others suppose that the regular army of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men (1Ch_27:1-15) is included in Israel in Chron., and excluded in Sam., and that a corps of thirty thousand men (commanded by the thirty, 1Ch_11:25) is included in Judah in Samuel, and excluded in Chronicles. See Bib.-Com. on 1Ch_21:5. These conjectures are without foundation, and errors of text or errors of oral tradition must be supposed.—See notes of Wordsw. and Bib.-Com., on our verse.—Tr.]. Apart from the fact that we have round numbers here, the differences explain themselves if we remember that the result of the census was not recorded in the State-annals (1Ch_27:24), and the statements here must rest on oral tradition. The numbers are not to be taken as perfectly accurate, but there is no good reason to reject them as unhistorically large, since this fertile country was very thickly peopled. “We see this from the various places, whose ruins stand as near to one another, as villages in our most densely populated regions” (Arnold in Herz. XI. 23 sq.). Taking the military population as about one-fourth of the whole, Palestine [Israel] would have contained, according to this census, a population of from five to six million souls, which is not too large a number. Ewald (Hist. III. 196, Rem. 3) refers to other numerical statements about Israel, that seem to us too large, and yet must be accepted as historical, and remarks: “Though the numbers may be in part round, and sometimes exaggerated, yet in general there is no reason for doubting their historical value. If, for example, the present population of Algeria be estimated at three million, and therein from 300,000 to 400,000 arms-bearing men (see Dawson Borrer, Campaign in the Kabylie) Israel in such happy times as David’s with its wide limits might certainly sustain a larger number.” Rüetschi (Herz. VIII. 89): “Considering the general extent of the levies and the almost incredibly dense population of Palestine, the enormous numerical strength of the Israelitish army (1Sa_11:8; 1Sa_15:4; 2Sa_17:11; 1Ch_27:1 sqq.) cannot occasion much surprise.”
II. 2Sa_24:10-17. The judgment of the pestilence.
2Sa_24:10. David confesses his sin before the Lord, and asks forgiveness. David’s heart smote him, that is, his conscience, just as in 1Sa_24:6. Comp. 1Ki_2:44; Job_27:6; Ecc_7:22. With anguish of conscience David sees that his sin is an offence against the Lord. As to wherein it consisted see above on 2Sa_24:1-3.
2Sa_24:11. “In the morning” = the next morning.—David had made his short penitent prayer either as he was going to sleep, or, more probably, after a sleepless night.—The word of Jehovah comes to Gad, see 1Sa_22:5. He is called David’s seer as being his confidential counsellor, aiding him constantly with direction from the source of divine revelation.—And the word of the Lord … this revelation had come to Gad independently of human means or occasion.
2Sa_24:12. Choice between three judgments set before David. Three things I hold over thee (נטל), not: I lay on thee, but: I hold high over thee, namely, as a load of punishment, which is to be laid on thee according as thou choosest; the sense in Chron. (נטה) is the same: “I turn [stretch] over thee” [so Eng. A. V. here: offer thee].
2Sa_24:13. Then came Gad to David.—This is the apodosis to the protasis in verse 2 Samuel 11 : and when David rose in the morning … then came Gad; what intervenes is a circumstantial sentence.18 Instead of seven years of famine Chron. (so Sept.) has three, agreeing with the figures in the other plagues. For this reason the reading of Chron. is to be preferred; there correspond, therefore, three years of famine, three months of flight before enemies, three days of pestilence.19 [The seven20 in Sam. may be accounted for by the frequent occurrence of that number, possibly from the seven years’ famine in the history of Joseph.—Tr.].
2Sa_24:14. “I am in a great strait”—the exclamation of a tortured conscience,, whose anguish is heightened by the necessity of choosing between the three punishments. David looks on the pestilence as an immediate stroke of God’s hand, while the other plagues make him and his people dependent on man; at the same time he looks to God’s mercy, whence, if he fall only into God’s hands, he may the sooner hope to draw comfort and help. In view of God’s punitive righteousness his faith holds fast to God’s mercy, and verifies itself therein.—At the close of this verse the Sept. has: “And David chose the pestilence [θάνατον], and it was the days of the wheat-harvest.” But this is nothing but an explanatory remark taken from 1Ch_21:20, designed partly to make a direct statement of David’s choice (which is only indirectly stated in the text), partly to account for Araunah’s work at the threshing-floor (2Sa_24:18 sq.).
2Sa_24:15. Beginning, duration and extent of the pestilence.—And the Lord gave a pestilence, it was a divine punishment. From the morning—the morning when Gad came to David (2Sa_24:11; 2Sa_24:13). The next words,21 giving the terminus ad quem [Eng. A. V.: “to the time appointed;” Erdmann: “to an appointed time”], offer great difficulties.—The Sept. renders: “till the hour of breakfast,” that is, the sixth hour, to which it adds: “and the plague began among the people,” which Böttcher and Thenius would receive into the text. But this addition of the Sept. had its origin no doubt in the reflection that the time from morning to breakfast was too short for the effects of the plague (70,000 died) therefore the words “from the morning to, etc.,” were regarded as defining the verb gave [Eng. A. V.: sent], that is, the divine arrangement in inflicting the plague, and then the plague itself was made to begin after the sixth hour. But the word “gave” itself includes the destructive effect of the pestilence, and the result is indicated immediately by the word “died.”—We have then here the limit of time of the raging of the pestilence. But what is meant? up to what point? The most natural explanation: “to the appointed time” (Cler., De W., Ew.), that is, to the end of the three days (2Sa_24:13) contradicts 2Sa_24:16, according to which the pestilence ceased through God’s mercy before this time; besides the Def. Art. is wanting, while elsewhere the word in the sense of a time designated has the Art. The Art. may indeed be omitted when the word (מוֹעֵד) signifies an assembly for divine service and festival. Hos_9:5; Lam_2:7; Lam_2:22. Thus Bochart (Hieroz. I. 2, 38, ed. Ros. I. 396 sq.) renders (after the Chald.), having Act_3:1 in mind: “the time when the people used to meet for evening prayers, about the ninth hour of the day, that is, the third hour after noon.” Keil adopts this view, and thinks it favors the basis of the rendering of the Vulg.: “to the time appointed” according to Jerome’s explanation (tradit. Hebr. in 2 libr. Reg.): “he calls that the time appointed, in which the evening sacrifice was offered.” Against this Thenius rightly remarks22 that the general expression “time of assembly” could not be used for the afternoon or evening-assembly. Thenius’ conjecture (suggested by the Chald.): “to the time of lighting” (the lamps in the sanctuary or in dwellings) is declared by Böttcher to be contrary to Heb. usage; and Böttcher’s reading: “up to the time of food” is unsupported. The same thing is to be said of Hitzig’s suggestion: “up to the time of dinner.” Instead of adding another to these doubtful, in fact unsuccessful attempts to gain a new text, it seems requisite to return to our masoretic text, which, since the Art is wanting, is to be rendered: “up to an appointed time.” Why should this phrase not give a suitable sense? In view of the fact that the Lord had in mercy determined on a point of time before the expiration of the three days (2Sa_24:16), it is here intimated that the pestilence lasted a shorter time fixed by His gracious will. It must be left undetermined whether this “appointed time” falls in the first day of the plague (which seems to be indicated by the “from the morning,” and “that day,” 2Sa_24:18, though not necessarily, since the “morning” is the same as in 2Sa_24:11, and may point out merely the beginning of the pestilence without reference to the same day), or in the second day. In any case, however, the narrator, combining and, in Heb. fashion, anticipating what follows, means by this expression to say that God in His mercy permitted the pestilence to go on only to a determined point of time within the “three days.”—Seventy thousand men.=Grotius cites the fact (Diod. Sic. l. 14) that in the siege of Syracuse 100,000 men of the Carthaginian army died within a short time.—[Dr. Erdmann’s explanation of the “appointed time” is not a little strained; the fact that he refers to (the shortening of the duration of the pestilence) would hardly have been expressed in this way. The word seems obviously to mean: “time of assembly” (so Wellh., Bib.-Com., and others), and points to some well-known gathering of the people. The most natural suggestion is that the time of evening-prayer is meant, to which some regard it as a fatal objection that the assembly for evening-prayer could not have existed in the time of David, or of the author of the Book of Samuel. But it may be replied that we do not know when the custom of thus gathering began; or, it may be that there was some other regular gathering otherwise unknown to us. It is at any rate better so to render the word, whether it can be satisfactorily explained or not.—Tr.]
2Sa_24:16. And the angel, namely the angel of the Lord afterwards more exactly described (“that destroyed the people”), the embodiment of His punitive righteousness, the exactor of the judgment, the destroying angel (comp Exo_12:23)—stretched out his hand to Jerusalem to destroy it; thereupon the Lord repented him of the evil.—Chron.: “And God sent His angel to Jerusalem to destroy it.” According to both accounts the pestilence ceased at the moment when it had reached Jerusalem through the will of the merciful God. This is the moment meant by the “appointed time” of 2Sa_24:15. On God’s repentance see on 1 Sam. 13:35, “Historical and Theological,” No. 1 (to 1 Samuel 13.).—The Lord’s command to His angel:—Enough! now stay thy hand! the “thy hand” refers to the “His hand” above. As yet the pestilence had not attacked Jerusalem itself; for “the angel of the Lord was at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite.” Threshing-floors were usually in the open air, on heights where it was possible, on account of the chaff and the dust, and for the sake of the wind, which was necessary for the purifying of the grain; comp. Jdg_6:37; Rth_3:2; Rth_3:15. So this threshing-floor was without Jerusalem, northeast of Zion, on the hill Moriah; see on 2Sa_24:25. The pestilence had reached the houses lying near this threshing-floor. Instead of the form Awarnah (2Sa_24:16) or Aranyah (2Sa_24:18), the name of the owner of the floor is to be read with the Masorites Araunah (2Sa_24:20; 2Sa_24:22-24). Chron. has Ornan (2Sa_24:15; 2Sa_24:18; 2Sa_24:20-23); Sept. Orna. Ewald: “This form of the name is un-Hebrew, but perhaps all the more Jebusite.” Bertheau: “The form Araunah does not look like Heb., while Orna and Ornan are Heb.; for this very reason the form Araunah seems to rest on an old tradition.” Jebusites still dwelt in the land (Jos_15:63), and were tributary (1Ki_9:20 sq.). See on 2Sa_5:6 sq.; Araunah is here represented as a man of property, see on 2Sa_24:22-23.
2Sa_24:17. David saw the angel; according to Chron. (whose account is fuller) he saw him standing by the threshing-floor between heaven and earth with a drawn sword in his hand, which was stretched out over Jerusalem. The drawn sword is the symbol of the execution23 of the divine judgment, comp. Gen_3:24; Num_22:23; Jos_5:13.—David said to the Lord: I, etc. By the “I”24 he presents himself as the really guilty person before God, in contrast with the people, whom he declares to be innocent. According to Chron. (2Sa_24:16) the elders, clothed in sackcloth and praying, shared with David the vision of the angel; the representatives of the people, therefore, confess that it has part in David’s sin; see on 2Sa_24:1. “The punishment was sent for the people’s own sin (2Sa_24:1), though David’s offence was the immediate occasion of its execution” (O. v. Gerl.). David is so penetrated with a sense of his guilt, and with sympathy with the suffering of his people, that he now prays God to visit judgment on “him and his house” alone, and spare the people as “His flock” [comp. 1Ch_21:17].
III. 2Sa_24:18-25. Appeasement of God’s wrath by the purchase of Araunah’s, threshing-floor, and the erection of an altar thereon.
2Sa_24:18. God’s announcement of grace (contrasted with His announcement of judgment, 2Sa_24:13) is the consequence of “the repentance of the Lord” (2Sa_24:16) and the synchronous repentance of David (2Sa_24:17), though this did not cause God’s repentance; it occurs at the same time (“that day”) that God stops the plague, at the “appointed time” (2Sa_24:15) before the expiration of the three days.—Besides his prayer David has now to make public affirmation of his guilt, and of his willingness henceforth with the people to devote himself as an offering to the Lord, by building an altar. [According to Chron. the angel commanded Gad to go to David; the two accounts do not exclude each other. The relation of time between 2Sa_24:16; 2Sa_24:18 is not clear; but God’s repentance is represented as independent of David’s action.—Tr.]
2Sa_24:19. And David went up; he shows unconditional obedience to the divine command; whereby the altar was already in spirit built, and the offering of an obedient heart well-pleasing to the Lord, was made in truth. Comp. 1Sa_15:22.
2Sa_24:20. And Araunah looked forth; the verb (שׁקף) means “to lie out over, bend forward, see, look at, look out”—here, to look into the distance, since Araunah was working in the threshing-floor, and saw David coming from the city. Chron. more fully: “And as Ornan was threshing wheat.” [2Sa_24:21. David announces his purpose to Araunah to buy his threshing-floor.]
2Sa_24:22 sqq. Araunah’s unselfish readiness is shown in the fact that he takes for granted the threshing-floor is to be made over to David, does not even mention it, but offers everything on the place to be used in averting the plague: the oxen that drew the threshing-wagon, the threshing-sledges (the Plural is used because a sledge consisted of several connected iron-pointed rollers), and the instruments of the oxen, the wooden yokes; the “wood” (yokes and sledges) was for the fire, as the oxen for the burnt-offering.
2Sa_24:23. Render: “All this gives Araunah, O king, to the king;” the words are a continuation of Araunah’s speech in 2Sa_24:22. In the ancient versions (Sept., Vulg., Syr., Ar., Chald.) the first “the king” is omitted, because, taking it as Nominative, they rightly thought it impossible that Araunah should be a king. If the words be taken as the statement of the narrator, and the “king” as Nominative, then [since it says: Araunah gave all this] there is a contradiction with 2Sa_24:24, where David buys the threshing-floor, and moreover a historically incorrect statement, namely, that Araunah was king of Jebus before its conquest by David; this view Ewald in fact adopts, against which Thenius rightly says: “this important fact would not have been stated in a single word, and it is in itself, but especially from 2Sa_5:8., incredible that David should have suffered the Jebusite king to remain at his side.” [For another reading: “all this gives Araunah, the servant of my lord the king, to the king” (which is also a continuation of Araunah’s discourse.), see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.].—And Araunah said to the king; before this we must suppose a pause, or the repetition of the announcing formula [“Araunah said”], without intervening discourse, is to be explained by the fact that the following wish is sharply marked off from what precedes as a word of special significance and wholly new content. “The phrase ‘and he said’ is frequently repeated, where the same person continues to speak, see 2Sa_15:4; 2Sa_15:25; 2Sa_15:27” (Keil). The Lord thy God accept thee; the verb is used of the acceptance of persons by God in connection with prayer and offering, Job_33:26; Eze_20:40-41; Eze_43:27; Jer_14:12; so also here in reference to the offering that David proposes making. Sept., Syr., Arab. have “The Lord bless thee;” Böttcher proposes to combine these texts and read: “the Lord thy God accept and bless thee,” after Gen_49:25; Num_6:24 sqq.; Psa_67:2 [1].
2Sa_24:24. David does not accept Araunah’s offered gift (which exhibits him as a propertied man), because the offering would seem incomplete in his eyes if it were not his own property that he offered.—For fifty shekels of silver; Chron.: “shekels of gold in weight six hundred.” There would be room for the supposition of an intentional exaggeration in Chronicles (Thenius), only “if it were certain that the Chronicler had before him our present text of Samuel”(Bertheau). Bochart [approved by Bib.-Com.], holds that the word (כֶּסֶף) means here not “silver,” but in general “money,” that David paid money, fifty shekels in gold-pieces, and, as gold was worth twelve times as much as silver, this was = 600 shekels in silver [according to Bochart, Chron. (2Sa_24:25) reads: “shekels of gold of the weight (value) of 600 (silvershekels).”—Tr.]; but this contradicts the texts of both Sam. and Chron. We have to suppose a corruption of text here. Keil properly points out that, comparing the price (400 silver shekels) that Abraham gave for a burial-place (Gen_23:15), and especially the smaller value of land in his day, the price here stated, 50 shekels of silver (about 30 American dollars) seems too small. [However, Abraham’s purchase was much greater in extent than this (Bib.-Com.), and peculiar circumstances may here have affected the price. The sum mentioned in Chron. seems too large, but of this we cannot very well judge. Some suppose that the 50 shekels were paid for the materials of the offering, and 600 for the ground (see note in Bib. Com. on 1Ch_21:25); but of this there is no hint in the narrative. We cannot with certainty recover the true numbers.—Tr.]
2Sa_24:25. The building of the altar and the presentation of the offering is the work of humble and obedient faith, whereby David testifies anew his complete devotion of heart and life to the Lord. The burnt-offering precedes, because by it expiation is made, and God’s favor, as Araunah wished for David, restored; comp. Lev_1:3-4 “for his acceptance before Jehovah” (comp. 2Sa_24:23). Thereon follows the peace and thank-offering (Shelamim). It assumes God’s favor and the peaceful relation between Him and man, and on the ground of this relation, expresses thanks for divine kindnesses already received or hereafter to be received (comp. Oehler in Herz. X. 637).—After “peace-offerings” the Sept. adds: “And Solomon made an addition to the altar afterwards, for it was little at first.” It must be left undetermined whether the Alexandrian translators found these words in their text, they being an addition by an editor or scribe (Then.), or added them by way of explanation. Certainly the place on Araunah’s threshing-floor, where David built the altar and continued to offer, is the consecrated spot that he chose for the Temple, and on which Solomon built it (1Ch_21:27 to 1Ch_22:1); and this addition of the Sept. agrees with the statement of Josephus, that Araunah’s threshing-floor was on the hill afterwards occupied by the Temple (so Grotius).—Chr. Rosen has attempted to prove the identity of this threshing-floor on Moriah (comp. Arnold in Herz. XVIII. 625) with the sacred rock in the present Mosque es-Sakra, which stands on the site of the ancient Temple (Wochenblatt der Johanniter-Ordens-Balley Brand. Jahrg. 1860 in the Beilage to No. 12).
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The grave sin of proud self-exaltation, which David and the people of Israel here had in common, presupposed the elevation to victory and power that God had bestowed by His gracious might, and its consequence was the judgment that revealed God’s anger against the perversion of His favors into plans of self-aggrandizement. God’s honor does not permit a king and people to seek their own honor in the power conferred by Him. The aims of God’s kingdom cannot, according to God’s laws of moral order, be abridged or obscured with impunity by the aims and purposes of human pride. God’s judgments fail not against false national honor and ambitious, self-seeking pride of rulers, as is shown by the history not only of Israel, but of all nations to the present time.
2. That God, angry with Israel, incites to the sin of numbering the people, and then punishes it, is no contradiction according to the theology of the Old Testament (J. Müller, Lehre von der Sünde I. 322), since inciting to sin does not set aside the holding one responsible for it. Man’s free will is not destroyed by the divine will, and the punishment of the righteous God presupposes man’s guilt. Immersed in the thought of God’s all-fulfilling efficiency, the human mind does not indeed refer to it “evil as well as good” (Müller, ubi supra), for Old Testament theology is far from presenting the divine causality in this like attitude to good and evil; but the divine activity (in its punitive manifestations) is referred to the external production of evil (already present as an inward fact of man’s free will, opposed to God’s will), in so far as the circumstances that produce and incite to sin exist under God’s government, and are used by Him as means to develop man’s sin for the ends of His punitive righteousness. But also, apart from the external realization of sin, God gives man, who freely hardens himself in sin, over to the judgment of the consequence of his sin; Rom_1:28.—“There is here not mere permission, but real action on God’s part, and such as every one may see in his own experiences. He that allows the sinful disposition to rise within him is, however much he may strive against it, inevitably involved in the sinful deed, which draws down the requiting judgment” (Hengst., Hist. II. 130).
3. The root of the sin in this census is already laid bare in the word of the law relating to the numbering of the people. Hengstenberg excellently remarks (ubi sup. 129): “If David’s eye had been clear, he would have seen in God’s law the special reference to the danger attending the numbering of the people. In Exo_30:11 sq. it is enjoined that in the census every Israelite shall pay expiatory money, ‘that there be no plague among them when they are numbered;’ by this money they are, as it were, ransomed from the death that they incurred by proud conceit. It recalls the danger of forgetting human weakness, that so easily arises when the individual feels himself a member of a powerful whole. Even the slightest movement of national pride (it is an important lesson for all times) is sin against God, which, if not vigorously repelled, involves the nation in the judgment of God. Indeed the Romans with a similar feeling made an expiatory offering when they took the census.”—The greatness of David’s guilt increases with the maintained opposition of his will to the voice of God, which he hears in Joab’s word, whereby his conscience ought to have been awakened. The degree, of man’s guilt against God rises with the maintained determination of the will against conscience in the inner life, with the outward resolution to act, with the rejection of counsel and instruction, whereby the attainment of better knowledge is frustrated, and with the final performance of the evil determination in spite of protest and opposition from within and from without.
4. The various steps whereon God leads men that yield their conscience to His Spirit to ever deeper humility in sincere penitence are mirrored in this history of David’s repentance. First God rouses David from his sleep of conscience and security by the result of his boastful antigodly undertaking, so that “his heart smote him” (comp. for this expression, 1Sa_24:6), that is, his conscience chastised him. So he comes to know that he has sinned and how sorely, and to acknowledge the foolishness of his sin, and to pray for forgiveness (2Sa_24:10). But to the inward voice of his smiting conscience is added the voice of the word of God, which comes to him from without through the prophet Gad with the announcement of punitive righteousness. The penitence of the heart proves itself in humble submission to God’s punishing hand, whence David instead of the asked-for pardon takes without murmuring the announcement of punishment, and in the unconditional trustful self-abandonment to God’s mercy (2Sa_24:14). Under the sorrowful experience of punishment the feeling of personal guilt is deepened, wherefore he acknowledges himself and his house alone to be the proper object of the divine punitive justice (2Sa_24:17). Having suffered himself to be led thus far on the path of penitence by God’s hand, he encounters the prophetically announced divine mercy, which stops the punishment (2Sa_24:18), and gives proof of the renewed obedience rising from the depths of true penitence, in the deed (commanded by the Lord) of faith and devotion of his whole life to him (2Sa_24:19 sq.). David’s repentance is finished and confirmed by the building of the altar, and his offering on the threshing-floor of Araunah.
On the same spot where once Abraham, the possessor of the primeval promises of salvation, presented the sacrifice of his faith and obedience to the Lord, the royal bearer of the Messianic promises presents his burnt-offering and thank-offering, and therewith consecrates the spot, on which his son was to build a house as the Lord’s dwelling amid His people, and this on the ground of his experience of sin-forgiving grace and divine mercy that puts an end to punitive justice.—Hengstenberg: “It is very remarkable that before the outward foundations of the Temple were laid, God’s forgiving mercy was by God factually declared to be its spiritual foundation.”
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The glory of God shows itself in the life of His people, not only through His abounding grace but also through His holy wrath, whose fire is kindled by the sins into which they fall through the temptations of their own flesh or of the world without.—No height of the life of faith in the pious secures from a deep fall; the richer the possession of salvation which they have received through divine grace, the greater the loss if they do not preserve it or wish in self-exaltation to boast of it as their own acquirement.—The perverse self-will of man is the fountain of all sin; its guilt is not removed when through God’s action, the evil breaks forth from this fountain, and becomes a deed of disobedience to His holy will; God’s manifestations of grace often become, to man fallen into carnal security, the occasion of grievous acts of sin.—God would annihilate the free will of man if he did not allow the sin, which through that free will has already become an inner deed of the heart, to work itself out in its consequences; but He does not allow this to happen without first sending forth to men the voice of warning, and the call to turn from the way on which with the sinful resolve they have entered.—If God’s exhortation and warning has been uttered in vain through man’s word, His voice afterwards makes itself heard so much the more loudly through the accusation of what is called an evil conscience, but should properly be called a good conscience.
The smitings with which God visits His people, when they have strayed into the ways of sin, are 1) those of conscience, in view of the goodness of God which became the occasion or subject of self-exaltation; 2) Those of the word of God, in view of the holiness of His will against which they have sinned; and 3) Those of outward chastisement, through sufferings in which punitive justice exerts itself.—Whom does the heart smite for his sins? Him who 1) Lets his heart be smitten by God’s earnestness and goodness, and takes to heart the greatness of his sin in contrast to God’s loving-kindness; 2) Recognizes his sin, in the light of God’s word, as a transgression of His holy will; and 3) Maintains in his sinning and in spite of it the fundamental direction of his heart towards the living God, and has been preserved from falling away into complete unbelief.—True and hearty repentance is preserved in the life of God’s children, 1) In the penitent confession of their sin and guilt, before the judgment-seat of God, 2) In fleeing for refuge to the forgiving grace of God, 3) In humbly bowing under the punitive justice of God, and 4) In a confidence, which even amid divine judgments does not waver, in the delivering mercy of God.—The gradual succession in the inner life of a penitent sinner under the chasten-ings of God’s love: 1) Reproving conscience, 2) Penitent confession, 3) Hearty prayer for forgiveness, 4) Humble bowing beneath the punishment imposed, 5) Unreserved submission to the divine mercy.—Conduct of an honestly penitent man beneath the blows of God’s chastening hand: 1) He bows his head under the divine judgment, yet does not lose his head; 2) He is silent before the word of God which judges him, that the Lord alone may be justified, yet his mouth does not remain closed, but opens itself for the one word he has to utter, “Take away the iniquity of thy servant;” 3) He is grieved in heart in view of the punishment he has deserved from the divine justice, yet he does not cast away his confidence,’ but places himself in the hands of the divine mercy.—“Mercy rejoices over judgment:” 1) The penitent man casts himself into the arms of God’s mercy; 2) Mercy falls into the arms of justice, in order to stay its blows; punitive justice must yield to mercy at the command of the Lord, “It is enough: stay now thy hand.”—Rear an altar unto the Lord! 1) In obedience to the Lord’s command (2Sa_24:18-19); 2) With dedication of thyself, and what is thine to the Lord’s honor (2Sa_24:21-24); 3) For the continual presentation of spiritual offerings, which are acceptable to the Lord (2Sa_24:23-24); and 4) For the reception of the highest gift of grace, peace with the propitiated God.
Osiander: Even the holiest people may sometimes be overtaken by their corrupt flesh (Rom_7:18).—Schlier: After David had given up his heart to evil thoughts, the Lord gave occasion and opportunity for these evil thoughts to break forth unto the punishment of the king as well as of his whole people. Much depends, for the understanding of the following history, upon our not forgetting this concealed background, upon our keeping well in view, on the one hand the Lord’s wrath against Israel, and on the other hand the king’s evil thoughts.—[Hall: O the wondrous, and yet just ways of the Almighty! Because Israel hath sinned, therefore David shall sin, that Israel may be punished; because God is angry with Israel, therefore David shall anger Him more, and strike Himself in Israel, and Israel through Himself—Tr.]—F. W. Krummacher: Despite all the purifying processes through which we have passed, there is scarcely anything sinful to be named that cannot, even though conquered, come up in us afresh in the way of temptation. The most assured Christian, if his eyes are not blinded, never attains the consciousness that now he can stand justified before God in his own virtue.—[Hall: The Spirit of God elsewhere ascribes this motion to Satan, which here it attributes to God; both had their hand in the work; God by permission, Satan by suggestion; God as a Judge, Satan as an enemy; God as in a just punishment for sin, Satan as in an act of sin; God in a wise ordination of it to good; Satan in a malicious intent of confusion.—Tr.]
2Sa_24:2-4. Disselhoff: Even on the heights of life in God, the favored one remains the child of Adam. The jubilant cry, “according to my righteousness,” may easily become the boast, “on account of my righteousness.”—Starke: When kings and princes fall into sin, that means much; let us then not forget to pray for them, that God may preserve them (1Ti_2:2).—Schlier: Pride sticks in the flesh and blood of us all; and the difference is only whether pride has power over us, or whether we rein in and subjugate pride. Either thou slayest pride, or pride slays thee.—[Hall: Those actions which are in themselves indifferent, receive either their life, or their bane, from the intentions of the agent. Moses numbereth the people with thanks, David with displeasure.—Tr.]—Disselhoff: Humility wishes not to know what it is and possesses, and has done. As soon as the human heart wishes to count the fruits it has brought, its trophies and its booty, piles up before itself the proofs of its faith and zeal, and contemplates them with pleasure, humility is flown, pride has returned. From pride there immediately arises self-satisfied boasting..…Then the second step also is soon taken that the man no longer trusts in the invisible gracious God, but holds flesh for his arm, and in his heart turns away from the Lord,—that he wishes to see and calculate, and no longer to live by faith.
2Sa_24:10. J. Lange: God, the great and universal judge of the world, still holds as it were His secret inferior court in the conscience of the man, and summons him continually before his superior court (Rom_2:15-16).—F. W. Krummacher. As the sun always again breaks through the clouds that veiled it, so the conscience once awakened and enlightened by the Spirit of God, however darkened and ensnared it may be, ever victoriously comes forth again, and anew makes efficient its judicial office.—Disselhoff: Before God came with the punishment, before He showed him his sin from without, David’s own conscience rose up strong and living, and left him no peace till he had poured out his guilt-laden heart in sincere and earnest confession, and had supplicated forgiveness of his misdeed.—Fr. Arndt: How a man behaves after his fault, whether he persists in it, stands to his purpose, seeks to carry through his self-will and follows it out consistently to the utmost, or whether he enters into himself, humbles himself, repents, takes back, and supplicates forgiveness—that is the proof and the touch-stone for the true state of the heart. The former course is indeed apparent progress, but a progress that leads to hell; the latter is apparently going backward, but going back to heaven and blessedness.
2Sa_24:11-13. Starke: God is not swift to punish, but corrects in measure, only that we may not reckon ourselves innocent (Jer_30:11).—God is also Lord over the kingdom of nature, and has everything therein under His government (Mat_10:29).—Fr. Arndt: With His children the Lord is very exact. He is milder towards them, but also stricter than towards others. To whom much is given, of Him much also is required.—F. W. Krummacher: The power to endure ills in proportion as they seem divine manifestation of grace should not serve to obscure the divine justice.—Disselhoff: Here lies the sinner a night in confession and supplication, and in the morning God sends him—punishment, and therewith no syllable of grace and forgiveness! We observe it with trembling. To the deeply ruined, and long-lost child the father runs with open arms to meet him, and presses him to his heart. Yet when the favored one, who has tasted the power of atonement, loses himself, when he makes the goodness of God a subject of arrogance and presumptuousness, then the Lord comes upon the penitent with the sharp edge of His sword.—He must punish, the eternal God, when He seees that the old nature is too tough in the new man, too deep-rooted and grown with His growth … but above all must He then come with the sword, when His grace and His gifts have been made the cause of the self-exaltation.
2Sa_24:14 sqq. Cramer: Nowhere have we a better refuge in extremities than in the gracious hands of the Lord (Psa_90:1; Psa_91:1 sqq.).—S. Schmid: The mercy of man is nothing in comparison with the divine mercy.—F. W. Krummacher: David is conscious that the Lord “corrects His people in measure,” and the cup of His holy wrath, where He neither can nor should spare them, He never extends to them without adding hidden manifestations of grace, while men, even where they are the executioners of God’s judgments, too easily mistake their position as instruments, and pass beyond the limits of merciful moderation that were assigned them, and give free course in their bosom to the spirits of rage and vengeance.—[Hall: The Almighty, that had fore-determined his judgment, refers it to David’s will as fully as if it were utterly undetermined. God had resolved, yet David may choose: that infinite wisdom hath foreseen the very will of His creature; which, while it freely inclines itself to what it had rather, unwittingly wills that which was fore-appointed in heaven.—Tr.]
2Sa_24:16. Schlier: The Lord our God is a consuming fire to the sinner, and punishes, when it must be, with frightful earnestness, so that it goes through marrow and bone; but in the midst of the most awful judgments the Lord thinks of mercy. He pities us—that is the only reason why He thinks of mercy.—Fr. Arndt: O miracle of mercy! Thus does the Lord in compassion cut short the punishment, when we bow! Thus says He, It is enough, when the evil has first begun to unfold its devastating effects! Thus before the eyes of His omniscience and His compassion do need and help, beginning and end, wonderfully come together!
2Sa_24:17. F. W. Krummacher: Not from the virtues of God’s children, but from their tears for their faults, shines upon us the noblest silver light of their new life.—Schlier: We are willing to confess our sin, to acknowledge ourselves guilty, to be nothing, just nothing in our own eyes, and we may certainly yet experience in ourselves also that to the humble the Lord always gives grace.—[On this verse John Wesley has a sermon.—Hall: These thousands of Israel were not so innocent, that they should only perish for David’s sin: their sins were the motives both of this sin and punishment; besides the respect of David’s offence, they die for themselves.—Henry: Most people, when God’s judgments are abroad, charge others with being the cause of them, and care not who falls by them, so they can escape; but David’s penitent and public spirit was otherwise affected. As became a penitent, he is severe upon his own faults, while he extenuates those of the people.—Tr.]
2Sa_24:18 sqq. Starke: Teachers must not go before God sends them (Jer_23:21).—Cramer: As God is beginning to punish, He also thinks how He wishes to end.—Schlier: The repentance that comes from the bottom of the heart works great miracles; repentance draws down God’s grace, repentance finds nothing but peace and blessing. The more repentance, so much the more blessing—that holds true for heart and house, and also for land and people.—Disselhoff: Where the Lord punishes His people, He blesses. Where He chastens is the door of heaven, there is His countenance, there He beholds, there He builds His tabernacle of peace.
2Sa_24:19 sqq. S. Schmid: One prophet must hearken to another (1Co_14:22).
2Sa_24:22-24. [Hall: Two frank hearts are well met; David would buy; Araunah would give. … There can be no devotion in a niggardly heart; as unto dainty palates, so to the godly soul, that tastes sweetest that costs most: nothing is dear enough for the Creator of all things. It is an heartless piety of those base-minded Christians that care only to serve God good-cheap.—Tr.]—Wuert. B.: Penitent and believing prayer, and obedience to God’s command, can accomplish much (Psa_145:18; Jam_5:16).
F. W. Krummacher: Were God’s faithfulness no more unchanging towards us than ours towards Him, what would become of us all? With this humble confession we draw near to contemplate this new judicial proceeding between Jehovah and the king of Israel, and inquire into its subject, its course, and its issue.
On the whole chapter, J. Disselhoff: How God meets the presumptuousness of His favored ones: 1) He comes upon them with the edge of the sword; 2) His sword is not to kill, but to loose the chains of pride; 3) Where the sword of the Lord has done its work, there He builds His temple of peace.
[2Sa_24:1. Vengeance against a nation often comes through the infatuation of its rulers.—The sin of national pride and vain-glory. “Fourth of July oratory” may be something worse than bad rhetoric.
2Sa_24:3. Good advice from a bad man. Fas est et ab hoste doceri. Luk_16:8. Much of life’s best wisdom lies in knowing how to take advice.
2Sa_24:10. Delusion lasting throughout the process of performing the wrong deed, and ceasing the moment the deed is done.—Often, alas! is there occasion to say, in bitterness and shame, What a fool I have been!
2Sa_24:10, compared with 2Sa_22:20 sqq. There, rewarded because righteous and wise; here, seeks to be forgiven because sinful and foolish.—Tr.]
[2Sa_24:12-13. How sad a consequence of sin and folly, when there is left to us only a “choice of evils,” yea, a choice amid terrible calamities.—Which do we find harder to bear, which bringing more wholesome discipline, our less violent but long-continued distresses, or those which are briefer and more intense?
2Sa_24:14. It is always easier to endure ills in proportion as they seem more directly and exclusively providential, with the least possible intervention of human agency.
2Sa_24:17. It is a very bitter reflection to a good man, that his folly and sin should have brought evil upon others. And what sin or folly ever fails to have such a result, directly or indirectly?
2Sa_24:24. People often say, “You can give that and never feel it.” If this be true, then a devout man ought to give more, till he does feel it. Here, only what costs will pay. The widow’s mite was felt deeply, for it was all she had.—Chap. 24. 1) David’s sin. 2) His self-reproach and confession. 3) His punishment. 4) His supplication and expiatory offering. 5) His forgiveness.—Tr.]
[Upon the Life of David, the following groups of topics may aid, by way of suggestion, in devising some series of sermons.—David as shepherd, warrior, father, king, psalmist.—David’s conflicts: with the enemies of his flock, Goliath, Saul, the Philistines in general, Absalom, himself.—David’s friends: Samuel, Jonathan, Ahimelech, Achish, Joab, Nathan, Ittai, Hushai, Barzillai, his own sons, and best friend of all, the Lord God.—David’s early piety, series of great sins, bitter repentance, subsequent chastenings, hope in death.—David’s impulsiveness, generosity, penitence, trust in God, gratitude, delight in worship.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa_24:2. So in 1Ch_21:2, and required by the phrase “with him,” and by the plural verb “number ye.”—Tr.]
[2][2Sa_24:8. Böttcher shows (against Thenius) that the וְ here must be given up (it is wanting in Chron.). Erdmann retains it.—Tr.]
[3][2Sa_24:5. Syr., Vulg.: “came to Aroer (Syr.: Sarub) on the right of the city.” But the reading (given above in brackets) of the Holmes MSS. 19, 82, 93, 108, as cited by Wellh., commends itself as more natural. We should not here expect the statement that they encamped, but it is natural that the point where they began should be mentioned; moreover the phrase: “on the right of the city” is a strange one. The amended text would read: וַיָּחֵלוּ מֵעֲרוֹעֵר וּמִן הָעִיר.—Tr.]
[4][2Sa_24:10. The אַחֲרֵי־כֵן (which is an Adverb) here followed by the finite verb סָפַר is contrary to usage. Either, one of the two (the “afterwards” or “he numbered the people”) must be omitted (Wellh.), or עַל אֲשֶׁר must be inserted: “after this, because he had numbered” (Bib.-Com.), or אֲשֶׁר must be written instead of כּן, and the Conjunction retained (as in the Vulg. and Eng. A. V.).—What the Pisqas in 2Sa_24:10; 2Sa_24:12 signify, is uncertain.—Tr.]
[5][2Sa_24:12. נָטַל “lay upon;” Eng. A. V. rather translates the verb in Chronicles (2Sa_24:10) נָטָה “stretch out.” Erdmann: “I hold over thee;” Philippson: “I lay before thee.”—Tr.]
[6][2Sa_24:13. So Chron. (2Sa_24:12), and so the symmetry of the statement requires.—Tr.]
[7][2Sa_24:23. So Böttcher, writing אֲדנִי for ארונה and inserting עֶבֶד. The words must be regarded as part of Araunah’s speech, since it is not true that he gave the things to the king; he offered them, but they were not accepted (Wellh.).—Tr.]
[8][Bib.-Com. (on 2Sa_24:1) renders this “an adversary” (otherwise unknown), on the ground that the Art. (found in Job and Zech.) is wanting, and similarly translates here “one (an unknown enemy) moved David.” But the absence of the Art. in the late-composed Chron. is explained by the fact that Satan had then become a proper name, and here the natural connection points to Jehovah as subject; if another person had been concerned, distincter mention would have been made of him.—Tr.]
[9]Indicated by the וְ before יוֹסֵף, as in 2Ki_4:41; Psa_4:4 [3], comp. Ges. § 155, 1 d. [Against this see “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]
[10]Vulg.: obtinuit sermo regis verba Joab.—Instead of אֶל־יוֹאָנ should perhaps be written עַר־י׳ (Chron.).
[11]It is unnecessary to write מִפְּנֵי (Vulg., Syr., Ar.) for לפנְיֵ, for the latter means simply “before the king” without a necessary intimation that the king went along with them.
[12][Or, because this point was exactly at the opposite end of the land (going in a circuit) from Judah.—Tr.]
[13]The “and to Jazer” defines not the verb “came” (Keil), but the “encamped.”
[14] תחת ים = תחתים.
[15] מדשׁי.
[16][From עָנָה.—Tr.]
[17][Instead of יַעַן וְסָבִיב Wellh. proposes to read וּמִדָּן סָבְבוּ, and render: “and they came to Dan, and from Dan turned about to Zidon” (comp. the repetition of Dan in the Sept.), which gets rid of the Jaan.—Tr.]
[18][On the criticism of the text here see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
[19] תָבוֹא, Fem. with an abstract Plu., Ew. § 317 a.—נֻסְךָ (Inf.) “thy fleeing” = “that thou fleest.” The Sing. וְהוּא collects the צָרִים into one conception: “enemy.”
[20]“The numeral letter ג was changed into ז” (Thenius).
[21] וְעד־עֵת מוֹעֵד. Sept.: ἕως ὤρας ἀρίστου, to which it adds: και ἤρξατο ἡ θραῦσις ἐν τῲ λαῷ, after which Thenius and Böttcher write: וַתָּחֶל הַמַּגֵּפָּה בָּעָם.
[22]Thenius: עֵת־מִבְעָר, out of which מוֹעֵד by change of ב into ו and of ר into ד. Against this Böttcher shows that מִבְעָר is not a Heb. word, and (according to the use of בער) would mean burning, comp. Jdg_15:14;.2Sa_22:9; he (Böttch.), after the Sept., reads סוֹעֵד “strengthener” = “repast,” from סָעַד “to support, strengthen” by food, comp. Gen_43:5; Jdg_19:5; Jdg_19:8; 1Ki_13:7; as, then, in Chald. סְעוּדָה means “heartstrengthening” = “food, dinner,” so in Heb. סוֹעֵד “strengthener” may have meant the first meal of the day (about 11 or 12 o’clock). But against this Böttcher himself says that the form קוֹטֵל is elsewhere used only of acting persons; further, such a designation of breakfast occurs nowhere else; since in the passages cited סָעַד obtains the signification “strengthen” only from the connection (especially by the addition of “heart” and “food”), so much the more ought the connection to show when it is intended to mean breakfast, since it usually means only in general “to strengthen by food.”—If breakfast-time is here spoken of, Thenius (following the Sept.) would take the form מִסְעָד; but Böttcher says rightly that “the language would not have used the same word for ‘breakfast’ and ‘furniture’ (1Ki_10:12).” Hitzig (according to Then., p. 290 sqq.), thinks that if the ἀρίστου of the Sept. is not based on a סְעוּדָה, then to מִסְעָד (Then.) is to be preferred מָעוֹג (kitchen-cakes), which he tries to show means prandium.
[23]On בְּ with הְכָּה see Ew. § 217, 2.
[24][The Pronoun is emphatic in the original.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv5, 6, 9 they passed over Jordan--This census was taken first in…
they passed over Jordan--This census was taken first in the eastern parts of the Hebrew kingdom; and it would seem that Joab was accompanied by a military force, either to aid in this troublesome work, or to overawe the people who might display reluctance or opposition.
the river of Gad--"Wady" would be a better term. It extends over a course estimated at about sixty miles, which, though in summer almost constantly dry, exhibits very evident traces of being swept over by an impetuous torrent in winter (see Deu 2:36).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 1. Again — After the penal famine described in…
1. Again — After the penal famine described in 2Sa_21:1.
He moved David against them — By permitting Satan to insinuate unholy thoughts and purposes into his heart. Compare 1Ch_21:1. In the same sense did the Lord bid Shimei curse David. 2Sa_16:10, where see note. David’s own sins were many, and called for punishment; and the Lord, in executing his penal judgments upon him, first delivered him over for a while into the hands of Satan. Compare note on 1Sa_26:19.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–9 1–9. The Numbering of the People
1–9. The Numbering of the People
1. again] The previous manifestation of God’s anger referred to was the famine (ch. 21). It is possible that the two narratives stood in close juxtaposition in the original document used by the compiler.
Read full note →
and he moved David against them] The subject of the verb is Jehovah. The nation had sinned and incurred His anger, and He instigated David to an act which brought down a sharp punishment on the nation. The statement that God incited David to do what was afterwards condemned and punished as a heinous sin cannot of course mean that He compelled David to sin, but that in order to test and prove his character He allowed the temptation to assault him. Thus while we read that “God himself tempteth no man” (Jas_1:13), we are taught to pray “Bring us not into temptation” (Mat_6:13). In 1Ch_21:1 we read “Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” The older record speaks only of God’s permissive action: the latter tells us of the malicious instrumentality of Satan. The case is like that of Job (Job_1:12; Job_2:10).
Go, number] Go, count; a different word from that translated number in the rest of the chapter, for the meaning of which see note on ch. 2Sa_18:1.
Israel and Judah] The designation of the people as Israel and Judah seems to have been in use even before the Division of the Kingdoms. In the next verse Israel includes the whole nation. See Introd. p. 13.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (1) Kindled against Israel.—This was not in consequence of…
(1) Kindled against Israel.—This was not in consequence of the numbering of the people, but in consequence of that which ultimately led to that act. We are not told why the anger of the Lord was kindled, but doubtless because He saw both in king and people that rising spirit of earthly pride and reliance on earthly strength which led to the sin.
He moved.—The pronoun here stands for “the Lord,” yet in 1Ch_21:1, the temptation is attributed to Satan, and Satan is clearly meant of the devil, and not simply of “an adversary.” This is a striking instance of attributing directly to God whatever comes about under His permission. And yet it is more than that. God has established immutable spiritual as well as material laws, or rather those laws themselves are but the expression of His unchanging will. Whatever comes about under the operation of those laws is said to be His doing. Now David’s numbering the people was the natural consequence of the condition of worldliness and pride into which he had allowed himself to fall. God then moved him, because He had from the first so ordered the laws of the spirit that such a sinful act should be the natural outcome of such a sinful state. Of other interpretations: that which makes the verb impersonal—“one moved”—is hardly tenable grammatically; and that which makes the nominative a sort of compound word—“the wrath of the Lord” (as in some of the ancient versions)—leads to substantially the same explanation as that given above.
Read full note →
The word “number” in this verse is a different one from that used in the rest of the chapter, and means simply to count, while the other conveys the idea of a military muster.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–9 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against…
And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel. It is probable that this chapter once stood in intimate connection with ch. 21., and that the famine therein described was followed by a pestilence, of which the blame largely rested upon David, though the sin punished by it was fully shared by the people. In saying that David was moved of Jehovah to number Israel and Judah, the writer acknowledges the great truth that all action, both good and evil, is of God. "Shall there be evil in a city, and Jehovah hath not done it?". (Amo_3:6) While we are taught to pray that we may not be led into temptation, yet trial and temptation are by God"s ordinance for man"s good. Man falls only when the temptation gives the opportunity for the outbreak of that which already was at work within. (Jam_1:14) If the previous watch over the heart has been careful and earnest, then the temptation is a steppingstone to a nobler and more pure godliness; and if a man fall, yet even so he learns by outward proof what was secretly ruining his soul, and may by its manifestation be led to repentance. There were festering in David"s heart a thirst for war, and pride in his victories; a growing ambition, and, as its necessary result, a disregard of the rights of other nations. The same passions were gaining a daily increasing influence over the people generally. It is too often the case that a nation uses the bravery which has obtained for it freedom from foreign oppression, to impose the yoke of slavery upon others. But this chastisement brought back David and his subjects to more upright counsels. In 1Ch_21:1 the temptation is ascribed to Satan, because David fell. God tempts, that is, tries, men that they may stand more firmly and advance in all that is true and good. Satan tempts men that he may find out their weaknesses and effect their ruin. Yet David fell only to rise again. Satan"s triumph was but temporary, and the result was good for king and people, who would have suffered far more terribly from the effects of their lust of war than from the pestilence. Temptation, then, has two sides, and is good or evil according to the use we make of it; but in itself it is a necessity for our probation. The trials and sorrows of life serve but to break up the fallow ground; (Jer_4:3) and without them ourhearts would remain hard as the roadway; and the good seed, which may spring up to eternal life, would lie unheeded upon the surface, and find no entrance into their depths. (On the word "Satan," nevertheless, see note on 2Sa_19:22. The Revised Version in 1Ch_21:1 puts in the margin, "or, an adversary." But in such matters our constant adversary is the devil.) As regards the exact time (o which this pestilence may be referred, we cannot draw any certain conclusion from its place in 1Ch 21., because it seems to have been inserted there in connection with the arrangements for the building of the temple, which was erected upon the site purchased from Araunah. As Joab, however, could be spared for nine months and twenty days for the making of this census, it is plain that it took place in a time of profound peace. Probably, therefore, its position in 1 Chronicles is right, namely, at some time after the termination of David"s great wars. About twelve years elapsed between the capture of Rabbah and the rebellion of Absalom, and if during this period the respect of the people for David was first damaged by the revelation of his adultery with Bathsheba, and the murder of her husband, and then rudely shaken by the repeated manifestation of the displeasure of the Most High, it is not so surprising, perhaps, that his hold upon his subjects was so small as to make them ready to favour the designs of his ambitious son. But wherein lay the sin? Not only was a census lawful, but it was actually commanded; (Exo_30:12, sqq.) and the idea of the Jewish commentators, that the sin consisted in neglecting to pay the half shekel there enjoined upon each man numbered, is not merely gratuitous, but is disproved by Joab"s remonstrance; for he objects to the census absolutely. From what, too, we know of Joab"s character, we cannot suppose that he would be particularly shocked at this being a census of the fighting men. Yet these Israelites were very noble men in their love of freedom and their respect for their national constitution; and if Joab observed in David a growing disposition towards despotism, and foresaw danger to the nation"s liberty from the king"s lust of foreign conquest, he was too upright a statesman not to oppose a measure which would strengthen the king in his dangerous tendencies. His words in 1Ch_21:3, "Are they not all my lord"s servants?" seem to have this meaning. David was the master of all these fighting men. If their vast number was paraded before his imagination, it might lead him, flushed with past successes, into aggressive war; and victory abroad would lead to the destruction of freedom at home. The sin plainly lay in the violation of the principles of the theocratic government, which fostered personal independence in every member of the nation, and were opposed to every war except one of self-defence; and it was the fact that a nation so governed was weak and almost powerless even to protect itself, that had made the people clamour for a king. And now the opposite dangers were developing themselves, and the Israelites, dazzled by the glamour of victory, were joining with their king in a longing after extended empire. The pestilence stopped them for the present in their ambitious course; the disruption of the. kingdom under Rehoboam dispelled their dream forever. 1Ch_27:23 we also find the thought that the taking of a census, though several times practised by Moses, (Exo_38:26 Num_1:2 Num_26:2) was in itself presumptuous, because it seemed to contradict the promise in Gen_15:5, that the seed of Abraham should be past numbering. He moved. It is impossible to translate, "and one moved," understanding thereby Satan, as stated in Chronicles. It was Israel which had incurred the Divine anger by its lust of war, and Jehovah used David, who was himself the victim of the same evil passions, to take a step which led on to the just chastisement. Number; Hebrew, count. It is a different word from that translated "number" in the rest of the chapter.
HOMILETICS.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-9. The facts are:
1. On account of some transgressions, God, being angry with Israel,permits some one to incite David to number the people.
2. David, on issuing his commands to Joab, is met with a remonstrancefrom him and the captains of the host.
3. But the king persisting in his desire, Joab and his officers and men applythemselves to the work, and at the end of nine months and twenty days return the number of men capable of serving in war at 1, 300, 000. The difficulties involved in the statements of this section may be, at least, lightened by a few considerations. The parallel passage in 1Ch 21. mentions, in an indefinite way, an adversary as the instrument of inciting the mind of David. It is in accordance with the order of the Divine government sometimes to allow agencies to act on the minds of men for purposes of trial and especially for discipline. Adam was assailed. Satan had permission to tempt Job. David recognizes the possibility of Saul being incited against himself by God (the Hiph. as here, 1Sa_26:19. A spirit or agency inclining to evil is said to go forth or be sent fromGod, when the idea of permitting the free action of evil influences as a means of punishment for previous sins is to be inculcated (Jud_1:9:23; 1Sa_16:14; 2Sa_16:10; 1Ki_22:21-23) The ascription of actions to God in almost absolute terms, where in reality the Divine action is a withdrawal of restraint, is a strong Hebraism, as seen in the hardening of Pharaoh"s heart. (cf Isa_6:9, 10 63:17; Mat_13:13-15) It is no uncommon thing for sin to be punished by (Psa_17:13, Psa_17:14; cf. Isa_10:5, Isa_10:6) Now, accepting this general teaching as to some of God"s methods when trial or chastisement are in view, we find in ch. 21. that the nation was chastised for a previous national or semi-national sin. It seems, therefore, natural that the expression (ver. 1), "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel," really sets forth the event of this chapter as being a second instance of national suffering on account of public sin; the difference being that in ch. 21. the famine became a fact before the occasion is revealed, while here the fact of sin is first stated, and the human instrumentality of bringing on the punishment is then set forth. David had sinned in the matter of Uriah, and been punished. Absalom had sinned in rebelling, and had also been punished. But he was not the only sinner. Israel had revolted under him against the Lord"s anointed, and was there to be no punishment for Israel as a people? The whole history of the dealings of God with them gives the reply. Apart from any recent unrecorded sin, there is, then, historical continuity in the words, "The anger of the Lord" was again "kindled against Israel." The peculiarity of the case is this that the free falling of David into a snare of pride and undue reliance on material strength became the occasion and means by which the transgression of Israel was chastised, while he, being quite free in his sin, was also caused to suffer for it.
Deferred chastisements.
Some time evidently had elapsed between the sin of Israel and the expression of Divine anger against it (ver. 1). This and the other Book of Samuel sets forth the chief cases of public visitation on account of sin, e.g. Eli, Saul,. David, Absalom; and, in keeping with this, the conduct of the people in revolting against the Lord"s anointed is now made the occasion of Divine displeasure. With reference to deferred chastisements observe
I THAT GOD SOMETIMES WAITS TILL EVENTS SERVE THE PURPOSE OF CHASTISEMENT. The chastisement of Eli did not come till national affairs so far developed as to issue in a disastrous defeat of Israel. David"s sin bore its bitter fruit some months and years after committal. The sin of the house of Saul was brought home to the conscience of the nation after his death. (2Sa_21:1) So here the wicked conduct of the nation in rejecting David, God"s chosen servant, was allowed to remain relatively unnoticed, as though God were waiting for such a development of events in the natural course of things as would serve the purposes of chastisement. Nations, Churches, and individuals are still allowed to go on for a while till events mature for bringing upon them the reward of their deeds.
II THAT THE EVENTS WHICH SERVE FOR CHASTISEMENT ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FREE ACTION OF OTHERS. The free action of the Philistines brought on Eli"s trouble. The free action of Absalom and Israel was the means of chastising David for his sin in the case of Uriah. The natural development of famine, united with a revelation of God"s overruling purposes, smote Israel for the national crime against the Gibeonites. (2Sa_21:1-4) So here the free action of some evil person or agent on the free mind of David was the natural event which issued in his official sin, and in his punishment in such a form as to bring on Israel the chastisement which all along they were deserving for their revolt. The same is seen in the free action of Babylon bringing on the chastisement of captivity, and of Rome in bringing on the chastisement of the dispersion due for rejection of Christ. God may wait long before he brings on what is due to sin; but all free events are in his hands, and he will use up some of them when fit conditions arise.
III THE FREE ACTION OF MEN BY WHICH THEY ARE MEANS OF CHASTISING OTHERS; FOR SIN MAY BE ITSELF SINFUL AND SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT. David"s free act in yielding to the inducement to number the people was a sin. It was displeasing to God. It was a case of sin opening the way for a chastisement for sin. There were circumstances in David"s personal and official position which rendered it natural that his deed should be at once disowned, and in that disownment there came the rod which smote also for the past sin of Israel. The acts of Babylon and Rome were wicked, though they were the rod by which God smote his people. It is by a most wonderful adjustment that God thus makes sin the avenger of sin; and so, in course of ages, sin tends to establish that very righteousness of God which in its initiation it sought to set aside. All the resources of God are at his command at any time for expressing his anger against sin; but he does not create new agencies he uses up what is in existence, and utilizes the successive acts even of the wicked. It is a solemn fact that though judgment be deferred it is not, the less sure. (2Pe_2:3) Here is a warning to the impenitent, and a restraint on all The injured may rest assured that God will bring a recompense. (Rom_12:19)
The subtle power of a sinful motive.
The narrative simply states outward facts; but the form of them compels the belief that David"s actions were now governed by a subtle motive, sinful in its nature, complete in its mastery over intellect and will, and so able to dominate his entire nature that its own real character should all the time be disguised. It is a difficult matter to disintegrate the complex movements of the mind or to present an accurate psychological analysis of an act of sin; but we may trace in David"s ease a few features of sin in its subjective workings. An underlying sinful motive may so operate as
I TO SECURE BEFORE THE INTELLECT A GOOD ARRAY OF REASONS FOR AN ACT. David must have formulated reasons for his proposal to number the people. Most probably he thought it was a natural thing after all the vicissitudes the nation had passed through. It would afford an occasion of showing how God had blessed and prospered the people. He would be in a better position to make up any defects that might be discovered in the defences of the country. The knowledge of their unity and strength would give encouragement and confidence to men apprehensive of danger from without. The result, becoming known among neighbouring nations, would act as a check on their aggressiveness. His successor to the throne would be in possession of facts that would help his administration of affairs, and there would be some comfort in seeing how far Israel was realizing the hopes held out to their ancestors. Such reasons may seem to be the outcome of mere intellectual activity; but in reality they are set in order by the subtle influence of the ruling motive over the intellectual powers. Men do not know to what extent the form and order of their thinkings are determined by the governing desire. Herein lies much of the deceitfulness of sin. The useful nature of facts can easily be seen when the disposition would have it so. The devil was a clever reasoner in Eden. The inner adversary of our soul, be it evil motive or propensity, practically, by influence over the intellect, performs the part of a cogent reasoner, and makes out a case for the consent of the reason.
II TO DIVERT CONSCIENCE FROM ITSELF. Conscience was alive in David when first the question of numbering occurred to him, but when once the idea is entertained and the subtle unspoken motive has strengthened its hold on the mind by being temporarily cherished, it so operates as to weaken the gaze of conscience on itself and virtually divert it to more incidental circumstances. An evil motive cannot live face to face with a live conscience; but if by persistence it can get lodgment among the many feelings of the heart, and as it were be hidden from direct single gaze, it can, by its contagions nature, create a condition of things that the conscience shall be occupied with other evils inferior in rank, while it does its deadly work almost without coming into consciousness. So many a man finds his conscience busy with straining out a gnat while the evil disposition most cherished is free to devour a camel. Hence, even great sinners are sometimes precise and punctilious in minor matters.
III TO GIVE OBSTINACY TO THE WILL. It seems strange that David should have ventured to go against the deliberate protest of Joab and the chief military men. His disregard of Joab"s wishes can, perhaps, be explained by his previous quarrels with him; but that he should have gone against the judgment of the chief men in the army is explicable only on the moral and psychological principle that the subtle power of an evil motive, when cherished, imparts a peculiar obstinacy to the will. We see this in human life. The persistence of men in carrying out a sinful feeling, active though not perhaps distinct in consciousness, is amazing. The will is so imbued with the feeling as to be proof against all reason and all but physical force. This is the real bondage. This led Augustine to say that man, as a sinner, is not free. There is something akin to the blindness and insensibility and mechanical necessity of physical forces in a will subject to the rule of a sinful motive.
IV TO ENSURE SELF-COMPOSURE. David seems to have set about this business with coolness, and to have been calmly determined to see it through. There was no excitement, and whatever occasional gleams of conscience may have fallen on the dark recesses where the hidden sinful motive lay doing its subtle work, they did not permanently affect the self-possession of his life. The sudden breaking of the spell came after the nine months and twenty days. Restlessness and anxiety during a sinful course can only arise when conscience and desire are face to face, and conscience is not diverted from its gaze. When the governing feeling has, by subtle action, brought intellect, conscience, and will into subjection, or rather when its nature has somehow tainted and weakened them all, there is a peace and composure which, if not of God, is nevertheless serviceable for the execution of a purpose. It is the bane of some wicked men that their strength is firm. It is an evil omen for a religious man when he is undisturbed in doing what others know to be wrong. "Grey hairs are upon him, and he knoweth it not.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It becomes men in the most favourable circumstances to remember thatthey are olden to incitements to evil as truly as the most unfavoured.
2. The more elevated our position in the religious life the more subtle arethe temptations of the great adversary.
3. It is possible for a really good man to becloud his last days by falling intosin through lack of watchfulness and prayer against the more secret forms of evil.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE.
Vers. 1, 2 (JERUSALEM.) (1Ch_21:1, 1Ch_21:2)
A sinful census.
1. This census appears to have been ordered by David in one of the later years of his life. The word "again" (ver. 1) indicates that it was subsequent to the famine; (2Sa_21:1, 2Sa_21:14; ver. 25) and a measure that occupied Joab and the captains of the host nine months and twenty days could only have been accomplished during a time of settled peace, such as succeeded the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba. "Three great external calamities are recorded in David"s reign, which may be regarded as marking its beginning, its middle, and its close a three years" famine, a three months" exile, a three days" pestilence" (Stanley). No man, however advanced in life, or whatever the wisdom he may have "learnt by experience," is wholly exempt from the power of temptation.
2. It was a census of those who were capable of bearing arms (ver. 9), andof the nature of a military organization. (2Sa_8:15-18) "But David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under," etc. (1Ch_27:23, 1Ch_27:24) The result showed a great increase of the people 800, 000 (1, 100, 000) warriors of Israel, 500, 000 (470, 000) of Judah, omitting Levi and Benjamin; (1Ch_21:6) representing a population of about five millions.
1. Its direct and declared object was that David might "know the number of the people," or become fully acquainted with its military strength, "its defensive power" (Keil). Of any additional object, except what is implied in the words of Joab, "Why does my lord the king delight in this thing?" nothing is stated.
2. It, nevertheless, was wrong and exceedingly sinful. This is evident, not only from the expostulation of Joab, but also from the confession of David himself (ver. 10), and the Divine chastisement that followed. Wherein consisted his sin? A census was not in itself and always sinful; for it had been expressly directed by God, (Exo_30:11-16 Exo_38:26 Num_1:2 Num_26:14, Num_26:63-65) and it was (as it still is) attended with important advantages. But this census was determined upon by David,
(1) apparently without due inquiry, by means of oracle (1Ch_21:30) or prophet (ver. 11), concerning the will of the Divine King of Israel; without adequate grounds in relation to the welfare of the people; and without proper consideration of the danger of promoting a spirit of pride, and producing other evil consequences. (Exo_30:11, Exo_30:12) "David forgot the commands of Moses, who told them beforehand that if the multitude were numbered, they should pay half a shekel (the price of a sin offering) to God forevery head" (Josephus). In its omission "he invaded the fights of the supreme King of Israel, and set aside a positive command of God. The demanding the tax by his own authority might have created a national disturbance, and therefore should have prevented him from numbering his people" (Chandler).
(2) Probably with warlike thoughts and intentions, for the strengthening of the army and the farther extension of Israel"s dominion by foreign conquests. (2Sa_22:44, 2Sa_22:45) "Warlike thoughts certainly stand in the background; if we fail to see this, we lose the key to the whole transaction, and the Divine judgment is incomprehensible" (Hengstenberg); but it can hardly be supposed that he formed the definite purpose of "transforming the theocratic state into a conquering world state" (Kurtz).
(3) Possibly with a view to "the development of the royal power in Israel" and "general taxation" (Ewald); which made it obnoxious to Joab and the council (for something of the kind seems necessary to account for the opposition of such a man).
(4) Certainly with vain glorious pride, self-elation, distrust of God, who "said he would increase Israel like to the stars of the heavens", (1Ch_27:23) and presumptuous confidence in himself (1Sa_15:1-9; Luk_4:5-12) "David"s heart was lifted up to rejoice in the number and strength of the people" (Willet). "The very same action, apparently performed with different intentions, becomes essentially different in a moral point of view. It is the motive in which it originates, or the spirit with which it is carried on, that gives it its distinctive character in the sight of God. David was actuated by a vain glorious spirit, which is always an abomination in the sight of God. He was thus indulging a vain conceit of his own strength, a proud confidence in his own greatness, as if his chief dependence were on an arm of flesh; forgetting his own devout profession that the Lord was his Rock and his Fortress and his Deliverer, in whom he would trust" (Lindsay). "From its first origin Israel was called to the supremacy of the world. (Deu_33:29) David now thought that he could rise step by step to such elevation without the help of God, who had provided for the beginning. The records should bear witness for all time that he had laid a solid foundation for this great work of the future" (Hengstenberg). "It was a momentary apostasy from Jehovah; an oblivion of the spirit of dependence inculcated on the rulers of Israel." This was the root of the offence; and in it the whole nation participated. "This history shows that the acts and fortunes of rulers and people are closely connected together; and that the sins and virtues of the one exercise great influence on the happiness of the other" (Wordsworth). Consider that
I GOD IS NEVER ANGRY WITH ANY PERSON OR PEOPLE EXCEPT ON ACCOUNT OF SIN, "David"s causing the people to be numbered was the immediate cause of the pestilence; for the procedure originated in motives which the Lord condemned. But the primary and real cause is to be found in the verse which introduces the narrative; and which is almost invariably lost sight of in the common accounts of this transaction. It is that "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel." Now, the anger of the Lord could only be awakened by unfaithfulness and evil doing; and that, whatever its precise nature, was the real cause of the calamity that followed, and relieves the case of the apparent harshness, of which so much has been said, of making the people suffer for the offence of their king" (Kitto, "Daily Bible Illus.").
1. Sin alone excites the anger of God; which is his holy opposition to sin and sinners, and not inconsistent with his love, but rather the effect of resistance to it. (2Sa_11:27)
2. Whenever sin dwells in the heart, no less than when it is expressed in outward actions, God observes it, and is displeased with those who are guilty of it. "For he knoweth the secrets of the heart". (Psa_44:21)
3. His displeasure with a whole people implies prevalent and persistent sin among them, such as the spirit of unbelief, disobedience, vain glorious pride, and presumption, which was manifested in the recent rebellions of Israel, and appears to have been subsequently indulged.
4. So far from being palliated or passed over because of their exalted position and privileges, their sin is aggravated, and more fully ensures their chastisement on that account. "You only have I known," etc.. (Amo_3:2) "It may be not unreasonably surmised that they were smitten with the same unhallowed elation of heart (as the king); that they were tempted to exult in their own strength; that they rejoiced in the prospect of beholding the proud array of their multitudes of fighting men; and that dreams of grandeur and glory may have been before their eyes, and may have caused them to depart from the Lord" (Le Bas). "The important lesson for all here is this that even the smallest feeling of national pride is a sin against God, and, unless there be a powerful reaction, calls down the judgments of God. With this feeling even the Romans presented offerings of atonement at their census.
II SIN IN A PEOPLE IS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH SIN IN THEIR RULER.
1. The former may be incited by the latter. (1Ki_15:30) Or:
2. It may be an incitement to it. (Joh_19:12) "The people had infected the king with their own arrogance, which had been called forth by their success." Or:
3. Both people and ruler may alike participate in the same prevalent, sinfuldisposition or tendency of the age. As formerly, (2Sa_15:1-5) "soft indulgence" and sensual desire; so now, "the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1Jn_2:16) seem to have taken possession of his mind.
4. The sin of a people may culminate in, and be manifested and representedby, the sin of their ruler. For this he is eminently responsible, and when his piety, which should have checked the evil tendency of the people, and may hitherto have restrained the righteous judgment of God, begins to fall, it becomes the occasion of the breaking forth of his fiery indignation. "It was the final offence which filled up the cup of wrath, and the punishment smote the nation, and, through the nation, its ruler" (Kirkpatrick, Horn. Quart., 6.). "The Lord was wearied with the sins of Israel and Judah; and he likewise beheld the secret pride of David"s heals; and for these things he was resolved to visit both the people and the king." "Pride, or vain glory, or self-sufficiency, which was the sin of David, and which, for the very reason that it effects us less, because it is not so much against man as against God, offends him the more. It is a substitution of ourselves in his place; an impious thought of independence, and transference to ourselves of that confidence and admiration which are due to him alone. It is an invasion of his throne, an assumption of his sceptre, an attempt to rob him of that glory which he will not give to another, a removing of the crown from his head to put it on our own. "Wherefore it is said, God resisteth the proud (J. Leifchitd). "He was, for the time, the image and emblem of all who in any age, or in any country, love to have arrayed before them the elements of their worldly strength; who delight to see spread out the full enrolment of their powers and resources, and who forget that there is One before whose breath all these things shall be even as the cloud capped towers and palaces before the breath of the whirlwind.
III THE SINFUL MEASURES OF A RULER ARE SOMETIMES THE EFFECT OF THE DIVINE DISPLEASURE WITH HIS PEOPLE, whose sin he shares, and of whose punishment he is made the instrument. "And he Jehovah moved incited, provoked David to say," etc. "The thought is there should come a pestilence over Israel, and David become theoccasion thereof" (Thenius). "The ruler"s sin is a punishment to a wicked people." Sin implies personal responsibility; and "God tempts no man". (Jam_1:13) But in his universal sovereignty:
1. He appoints the circumstances, which are adapted to test and manifest character, and often conduce to sin.
1. He suggests thoughts which, although right and good in themselves, are sometimes perverted to wrong and evil by human folly and infatuation (ver. 10). "All good thoughts, counsels, just works, come from the Spirit of God; and, at the same time, we are in the most imminent peril at every
2. moment of turning the Divine suggestions into sin by allowing our selfish and impure conceits and rash generalizations to mix with them" (Maurice).
3. He withdraws his restraining grace in consequence of sin, and permitsmen to be tempted of Satan, (1Ch_21:1) who readily seizes the opportunity to lead them into transgression. Deus probat, Satan tentat.
4. He even constrains the manifestation of the iniquity of the heart for holy and beneficent ends. "God"s influence, making use of Satan as its instrument, leads the corrupt germ to its development, rousing into action that which slumbers in the soul, in order to bring about the retributive judgment in which man, if otherwise well intentioned, learns fully to recognize his sinful condition, and is moved to repentance. The question is not of simple permission on the part of God, but of a real action, and that of the nature which each one may perceive in his own tendencies. Whoever once yields to his sinful disposition is infallibly involved in the sinful deed which leads to retributive judgment, however much he may strive against it" (Hengstenberg). "Though it was David"s sin that opened the sluice, the sins of the people all contributed to the deluge" (Matthew Henry).
IV AN ADEQUATE REASON IS AFFORDED BY SUCH MEASURES FOR THE CHASTISEMENT OF RULER AND PEOPLE. "It was needful for an external, visible manifestation of the sin to precede the judgment, in order to justify the ways of God to men. The temptation was presented to David; he fell, and in his fall represented truly and faithfully the fall of the nation. The nation was not punished vicariously for its ruler"s sin, but for a sin which was its own, and was only embodied and made visible by its ruler"s act. And the punishment struck the very point of their pride, by diminishing the numbers which had been the ground of their self-confident elation" (Kirkpatrick, 2 Samuel). "Because David was about to boast proudly and to glory in the number of his people, God determined to punish him by reducing their number, either by famine, war, or pestilence" (S. Schmid).
1. Sinful actions serve to manifest the hidden sin of the heart.
2. They show the connection between such sin and its just retribution.
3. They make chastisement more signal and salutary.
4. They are often overruled to the glory of God and the welfare of Men. note: Some of the difficulties indicated above would be removed by regarding the first sentence as "the heading of the whole chapter, which goes on to describe the sin which kindled this anger, viz. the numbering of the people" ("Speaker"s Commentary"); and by reading, "And one moved David," etc.; i.e. "one of his courtiers or attendants, who is therefore called satan, or an adversary, either designedly or consequentially both to David and his people. The people were themselves very culpable; as they knew, or might have known, that, upon being numbered, they were to pay the prescribed ransom, which yet they neglected or refused" to do; as partners in the offence, they justly shared m the penalty inflicted (Chandler). But this explanation is not satisfactory. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v1 Go, number Israel and Judah.
2Sa_24:1-25
Go, number Israel and Judah.
Read full note →
David numbering the people
I. The sin committed by David. It is possible that David dwelt with satisfaction upon the thought of his ample resources and numerous armies, and calculated that he was possessed of a power to repel aggression, and attempt fresh conquests. He may have forgotten that God alone, who had made him great, could preserve to him his greatness, and thence he may have longed to reckon up his forces, as though he could thence learn his security, or compute the extension of his kingdom. And let no man think that, because he occupies a private station, he cannot sin after the exact mariner in which David sinned, who filled the throne of a flourishing empire. The very same offence may be committed in any rank of life, and is probably chargeable, in a degree, on most in this assembly. What! to take one or two instances--is not the proud man he who delights to count up his monies, and catalogue to himself his cargoes, and his stock, and his deposits, and his speculations--is he not doing precisely what David did when taking the stun of his forces?--ay, is it not with the very same feeling that he prepares the inventory; the feeling that his wealth is his security against disaster; that the having largo possessions will comparatively place him and his family beyond the reach of trouble? The wish to be independent of Gad is natural to us in our fallen condition. This rigidly virtuous man may be all the while pluming himself on his excellence, and employing the captain of his host in summing up the number of his righteous qualities and actions, that he may certify his power for winning immortality. There may be freedom from gross vices, with a growing strength of pride which puts more contempt on the crown of the Redeemer than an open violation of every moral precept.
II. The punishment incurred. No doubt there is something strange, which it is hard to reconcile with our received notions of justice, in the declared fact that sins are often visited on others than the perpetrators. Who will think that David escaped with impunity because the pestilence smote down his subjects and touched not himself? It is evident from his passionate imprecation--Let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me and my fathers house--it is evident that the blow would have fallen more lightly had it fallen on himself and not on his subjects. In what manner should he be visited for his sin? So visited that the penalty may best indicate the offence it resists. Under what shape must vengeance come that it may touch him most closely, and most clearly prove by what it is provoked? You will admit at once that, forasmuch as it was the thought of having many subjects by which David had been puffed up, the most suitable punishment was the destruction of thousands of those subjects; for this took away the source of exultation, and stripped the boastful king of the strength on which he vain-gloriously rested. Certainly this was adapting the penalty to the fault; for not only was David punished, but punished by an act of retributive justice, from which himself and others might learn what it was which had displeased the Almighty. But, perhaps you will say that it is not enough to show that the king was punished through the death of his subjects; you will say that this does not touch the point of the innocent being made to suffer for the guilty. We allow this; but it is of great importance to establish that David himself was not left unpunished. One of the chief objections which seem to lay against the justice of the crime being in one creature and judgment in another, arises from the supposition that the guilty escape while the innocent suffer. Now we do not believe that this is ever the case; it certainly was not in the instance now under review. We believe that those who are punished deserve all which they receive, though they have not committed the precise fault of which they bear the penalty. It is evident enough that David regarded himself as the sole-offending party, and had no suspicion that the penalty had any other end than that of his own chastisement. The exclamation, Lord, I have sinned; I have clone wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done?--this is sufficient proof that the king thought of no criminal but himself, and of no punishment but that of his own wickedness. But it is equally evident that David was mistaken herein, and that God had other ends in view, besides that of correcting the monarch for his pride. It was in order that there might be occasion for the punishment of His subjects that God allowed Satan to tempt the ruler. For it is this--And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. In the Book of Chronicles, where the instigation is ascribed to the devil, the people are actually spoken of as the objects aimed at through the king--And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. So that it is put beyond doubt that the people had moved the anger of the Lord before the king moved it by his worldly confidence and pride. And if David had not offended, and thus made an inlet for Divine vengeance, another occasion would have been found, and wrath would have come down on Israel. We are not, indeed, told what the precise and particular sin was by which, at this time more especially, the chosen people had moved the indignation of God. Possibly their frequent rebellions against David, their ingratitude, their fickleness, and their growing dissoluteness of manners, which is a too common attendant on national prosperity, exposed them to those judgments by which God is wont to chastise an erring community; buff it is of no importance that we ascertain what the offence was of which the penalty was the punishment. We are at least certain that the people were really smitten for their own sins, though apparently for the sins of David; and that, therefore, there can be no place for the objection, that the innocent were made to suffer for the guilty.
III. The expiation that was made on the threshing floor of Araunah. So soon as the destroying angel had stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem, and, therefore, before any altar had been reared, or any burnt-offering presented, the Lord, we are told, repented Him of the evil, and said to the angel--It is enough; stay now thine hand. We sufficiently gather from this, even if it were not on other accounts evident, that the plague was not stayed from any virtue in the sacrifice which was offered by David. Even had the sacrifice preceded the arrest of the pestilence, we should know that it could not of itself have procured it, whereas now that it follows, none can dream of ascribing to it a solitary energy. But though the burnt-offering would not of itself have been efficacious, it would not have been commanded had not the presenting it subserved some great end; we may believe, therefore, that it was as a type, figuring that expiatory sacrifice, by which the moral pestilence that had been let loose on the globe would be finally arrested, that the offering was required from the contrite and terrified king. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
Davids numbering of the people
The boldness of the expression is startling. He moved David against them. Can it be that Jehovah stirred up the king of His choice against the people of His choice, to conceive and execute a design which so speedily called down upon them a deadly punishment? Or can we smooth away the difficulty by recourse to the parallel account in the book of Chronicles, and read the text as the margin of our English version suggests Satan moved David against them? Such an explanation is, I believe, untenable. If we had only the book of Samuel before us, we should not think of proposing it. The problem must be faced, that, in some sense or other, God is said to have moved David to this sin; while, on the other, hand, it was due to the instigation of Satan. Can we harmonise these divergent statements? We tread here on the skirts of that most mysterious problem, the relation of the Divine sovereignty to the human will. We approach here, also, and that still more closely, another problem wrapt in a thick cloud of mystery: the relation of the Divine will to the causation of evil. God never compels a man to sin. If that were possible, God would cease to be God; sin would cease to be sin. The moral consciousness of man revolts instinctively from such an idea. The teaching of Holy Scripture gives it no countenance whatsoever.
1. He purposely leads His saints into circumstances of trial, that their faith may be proved and tested, and coming forth from the furnace triumphantly, shine as a witness before the world.
2. God sees a mans heart turning aside from Him, and withdraws for a time His restraining grace and presence. He deserts the sinner who has deserted Him.
3. God is said to harden the hearts of men. But not until His mercy has been set at naught, not until His long-suffering has been defied to the uttermost, does He finally pronounce this sentence. Not until a Pharaoh has hardened his own heath against judgment after judgment, is God said to harden His heart. Not until a Saul has mocked His calling and despised repeated admonitions, does the Spirit of the Lord leave him, and an evil spirit from the Lord trouble him. Not until mercy has been tried and tried in vain is a judgment pronounced in this world. And who shall dare in any easel to say that it is final? But we not unnaturally ask, Why was David allowed to sin? There was, it seems, some national transgression which roused Gods wrath and demanded punishment. Nor was this the first occasion of the kind. We read, Again the Lords anger was kindled against Israel. Once before they had been smitten with famine for the unexpiated sins of Saul and his bloody house: what the offence was now, we are not told. The kings sin was in some way the culmination and representative of the nations sins. It was the final offence which filled up the cup of wrath, and the punishment smote the nation, and through the nation its ruler. A still more perplexing question meets us next.
Wherein lay the guilt of Davids Act? The answer must be that the motive which inspired the act was sinful.
1. He designed, say some, a development of the military power of the nation with a view to foreign conquest. He wished to organise the army, and visions of self-aggrandisement dazzled his brain.
2. It was the outcome of pride: pride at the growth of the nation. He wished to satisfy the foolish vanity of his heart; to know to the full over how vast a kingdom he ruled. It may be said that the sin of the people was in essence the same: that here on the very threshold of their national existence as a powerful kingdom, they were tempted by visions of worldly glory to forget that they were not to realise their vocation to the world in the guise of a conquering secular state, but as Jehovahs witness among the nations. It this was so, if already Israel was in peril of a virtual apostasy, no wonder that Jehovahs wrath was kindled. Vet in such a case wrath is in truth but another phase of love, chastisement is mercy in disguise. Judgment is mercy when it leads unto repentance. Wisely wrote St. Augustine of this fall of David: Let us remember how that a certain man said in his prosperity, I shall never be moved. But he was taught how rash were his words, as though he attributed to his own strength what was given him from on high. This we learn by his own confession, for he presently adds, Lord, by Thy favour Thou hast made my mountain to stand strong: Thou didst hide Thy face and I was troubled. He was deserted for a moment by his guide in healing Providence, lest in fatal pride he should himself desert that guide (Works, vol. 6. p. 530). Observe in this history:--
1. The hidden motive determines the character of the action.
2. If it was pride which was Israels transgression and Davids sin, mark how heinous an offence it is in the sight of God. (Homiletic Magazine.)
Numbering the People
One spot on earth there is, which, for four thousand years, has had more of human annals and human interest concentrated in it, by providential suggestion, than any other in she world. For a while, it was only a threshing-floor, owned by Araunah the Jebusite. This thrifty husbandman had selected an area on the top of Mount Moriah. We do not know that his imagination was ever awakened by the thought that here once was the thicket, in which the ram was caught that Abraham substituted for Isaac as a sacrifice. Nor, though Abraham saw the day of Christ afar off, and was glad, have we any reason to think that Araunahs faith ever gained a glimpse of the fact that the cross on which Jesus Christ suffered, was to be planted there in the future ages. Today, that spot lies covered with a canopy of silk, underneath a Mohammedan dome in Jerusalem. Years have passed since the temple of Solomon disappeared in its ruins, though for generations its matchless splendour rendered the ridge of Moriah historic. Thus forty centuries of fame have made that floor one of the centres of the world. We are to visit it to-day in our studies, and it may be expected that question after question will seek an answer.
1. What was this act of David, which brought on the catastrophe and the pestilence, that was happily stayed there? At first sight, it seems almost impossible to explain the transaction; for up to this time it had never been considered a crime to take a census in Israel. Indeed, it was one of the requirements of the Hebrew law, that each tribe and each family in it, and all the persons in the households, should be enrolled openly and regularly. Except for these disastrous circumstances detailed afterwards, we should never have conjectured any wrong had been done: It was one of the most rational things in history, that the ruler of any great nation should wish to be exactly informed concerning the military resources of the people.
2. But now we ask again: what was the moral character of this act in numbering the people? How do we know that it was one of the most sinful that King David ever committed?
(1) Even Joab, the unscrupulous warrior, pronounced it dangerously wicked from the start (2Sa_24:3-4). Over-ruled by the king he went about his work reluctantly, and to the last he persisted in his protest by refusing to count the two tribes of Benjamin and Levi, for the kings word was abominable to Joab.
(2) Consider the origin of the suggestion (2Sa_24:1, compared with 1Ch_21:1).
(3) But the strongest proof of the guilt of this action of David, is found in his own confessions. The census was scarcely completed, before the monarch seemed suddenly to become aware of his wickedness, and fell on his knees before God (2Sa_24:10).
3. Still our question remains: what was there in the action of David that made it so guilty in the sight of God?
(1) For one, I would just as soon say, I do not know, as anything else. The story is silent almost altogether. The commentaries are full of nothing but conjecture.
(2) But some things can be surmised, if that will furnish any help.
For one thing, there must have been a pride of power moving the king: the language of Job (1Ch_21:3), as he sternly expostulates, seems to touch on this; he intimates his hot contempt for a vanity so childish. Then, also, the greed of gain may have been in the heart of David: this may have been his first step towards the liberties of the people, a plan of augmenting the power of the crown. We feel safe in saying that distrust of God was in the wrong: he knew that Israel was not to be so strong because of a large standing army; many a prosperous year had rendered it sure that the nations strength was in God. Then there was the possible lust of conquest: if David was thus appealing to the ambition of his people, his sin was greater, in that he was teaching them positive unbelief, also.
4. Now in the next place, we come to the dreadful punishment which this sin brought on; what was the course of it?
(1) First of all, there came a revelation from heaven to awaken Davids conscience.
(2) Then there was a choice offered that would test the devotion of Davids heart. For always the main question is, Does a penitent man retain his confidence in God, or is he wholly under the sway of selfishness, and fixed in disobedience?
(3) Next, there was a humble selection made, which showed Davids piety and unbroken faith, still held true in the midst of his perversity.
(4) Then there was a sharp infliction of penalty (verse 15.) Over that land went the wild wail of bereaved men and women and children, from Dan to Beersheba, where the census-gatherers had just been ordered to go by this presumptive monarch.
5. But was there to be no limit to this affliction? That leads us forward to our final question: what was it that arrested the hand of God, and brought relief to dying Israel?
(1) Observe now the hopelessness of regrets after sin has been committed, and is rushing on (verse 17). It is plain that Davids heart is wrung with pity and indescribable anguish for the multitudes, who gasp and grow black and die, and make no sign. But he could not take back the sin he had set floating on the currents of God s providence; it was sweeping out in wider circles.
(2) Observe also the uselessness of offering any vicarious atonement for sin as a release from its retributions. In his sad sincerity, David says: Oh, spare these sheep l take me, and my house! But this is not Gods way (Psa_49:7-8). Paul said the same (Rom_9:3). So did Moses (Exo_32:31-33).
(3) Observe the availability of effectual prayer in arrest of Gods judgment (verse 16). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
David numbering the people
In what, then, did the sin of David consist? It appears to me that the answer to this is exceedingly plain: it is an answer which we derive from the account itself; it is an answer, too, full of very deep and profitable instruction. Davids command was, Go, number Israel and Judah; and when Job brought the sum to the king, it was divided under the two heads, Israel and Judah. Israel, i.e. the ten tribes (excluding Levi and Benjamin), numbering 800,000 men; and Judah, 500,000. Here, then, we see the secret of Davids sin. He wanted to know, not so much the number of the whole people, as the number of Judah, the royal tribe--Davids own tribe--compared with the rest of Israel. God had made him king over the whole people; and Satan tempted him to consider himself the king of the one tribe, so that he should endeavour to ascertain whether the tribe, upon whose strength and affections he could always rely, would not be a match for all the rest; and so he should be at ease in governing in the interest of his flesh and blood, rather than in the interest of all his people. Davids sin, then, was not the sin of pride, but the sin of division and party, spirit. God, as far as we can judge from the Bible, Himself ordained the right of primogeniture, or the right of the first-born, and generally upheld it. God assigned to Judah this pre-eminence, when He expressly commanded that the standard of Judah should go the first before the tabernacle in the vanguard of the children of Israel (Num_2:1-2). But God had prepared the tribe of Judah, by His Providence, for this pre-eminence which He assigned to it: for you will find that the tribe of Judah was, in point of numbers, by far the most powerful of all. Its numbers were nearly double those of the greater part of the other tribes: the next tribe, that of Dan, does not come within twelve thousand of it. Then, when the tribes were settled in the promised land, the same design of God is apparent. Reuben, the actual first-born, has his portion assigned to him on the east side of Jordan, and so is removed out of the way. Simeon at once sunk to be the lowest tribe in point of influence; and, in fact, soon disappears altogether. Levi, by having the priesthood, could not have the civil and military preeminence; so the field is left, as it were, to Judah. Then he had by far the largest and the most compact portion of the promised land assigned to him. Such was the tribe. But what was the first family in this tribe? Beyond all doubt the family of Jesse. Throughout the whole history of the people the first was that from which David sprung. Davids ancestors were the first family in point of blood of the first tribe of Israel. I believe that David, as a man of God, governed with a faithful and true heart, as the King of all Israel; but in the best of men there is a mixture of motives. In the most just line of human temporal policy there is that which is crooked and time-serving, and David, in this instance, gave way and succumbed to the temptation of the god of this world. He numbered the people for the purpose of ascertaining the strength on which he felt sure that his family could, under all circumstances, rely. David was right in his surmise. The census was taken, and the extra-ordinary fact came to light, that God had so increased and multiplied the tribe of Judah, that it was more than half as strong as all the rest of the tribes put together: for the single tribe of Judah showed 500,000 fighting men to the 800,000 of the other ten tribes. But the gratifictaion of family or party pride, as opposed to national exultation at the prosperity and numbers of Gods people, was short-lived. With the sum of the numbers came the smiting of the heart--the precursor, in this case, of immediate and signal punishment.
1. The account of Davids punishment is exceedingly instructive. God, to try what was in Davids heart, gave to him the choice of three evils--the sword, famine, and pestilence; and David, by his choice, showed plainly that his heart was right with God. But another very instructive fact is that the moment David surrendered to God those private family feelings and partialities that had been the real root of the mischief, then God at once turned and remitted the punishment.
2. And now let us say something respecting the punishment which God inflicted. There seems, at first sight, a difficulty about the persons whom God intended to punish. Throughout the chapter, however, David appears to be the sinner, and the punishment is evidently directed against him, though it falls on his people. Then, with reference to the effect of the punishment, it was inflicted, as all Gods punishments are, in far-seeing mercy. For, if future princes Of the House of David--Solomon and Rehoboam--had learnt the lesson which God intended them to learn, the disastrous rebellion in the time of Rehoboam, which entailed centuries of idolatry and civil war and its attendant miseries, would, humanly speaking, have been avoided.
For the punishment inflicted by God was intended to show Gods just displeasure at partial government. I must now, in conclusion, make two or three practical applications of the foregoing remarks.
1. First of all, the Bible deserves to be well and carefully studied, as a book full of the deepest insight into human nature--fallen and crooked human nature.
2. Let us see how hateful division, party-spirit, partiality, or a spirit of schism, is in the sight of God.
3. Let us also learn from this, that those who have the right to the first social place may have this evil spirit, as well as those who have not. (F. M. Sadler, M. A.)
The Churchs resources
Too much dependence may be placed in elements of power in the Church which are secondary and inferior. There is power in numbers. We should not despise numbers. It should awaken alarm and inquiry when the number of Church members does not steadily and rapidly increase. God will not deal with us when we make up the statistical tables as He did with David when he numbered the people. But there is something more important than multitudes. A Church with one hundred members may be stronger than one with a thousand. There is power in wealth when wisely used. In the promotion of education, in the supply of money to print Bibles and build churches and carry the Gospel to all parts of the world, wealth is a mighty agent. But there are more potent elements than wealth. A Church whose members are not worth one thousand pounds sometimes excel in usefulness Churches whose members represent many thousands.
In what respect the census was sinful
An ordinary census was perfectly legitimate; it was expressly provided for by the Mosaic law, and upon three occasions at least a census of the people was taken by Moses without offence. It was not then the census which was displeasing to God., but the motive which inspired David to take it. Some suppose that he intended to develop the military power of the nation with a view to foreign conquest; others that he meditated the organisation of an imperial despotism and the imposition of fresh taxes. The military character of the whole proceeding, which was discussed in a council of officers and carried out under Joabs superintendence, makes it probable that it was connected with some plan for increasing the effective army, possibly with a view to foreign conquests. But whether any definite design of increased armaments or heavier taxation lay behind it or not, it seems clear that What constituted the sin of the act was the vain-glorious spirit which prompted it. (A. F. Kirkpatrick, M. A.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1
CHAPTER X X X I I.
THE NUMBERING OF ISRAEL.
Read full note →
2Sa_24:1-25
THOUGH David's life was now drawing to its close, neither his sins nor his chastisements were yet exhausted. One of his chief offences was committed when he was old and grey-headed. There can be little doubt that what is recorded in this chapter took place toward the close of his life; the word "again" at the beginning indicates that it was later in time than the event which gave rise to the last expression of God's displeasure to the nation. Surely there can be little ground for the doctrine of perfectionism, otherwise David, whose religion was so earnest and so deep, would have been nearer it now than this chapter shows that he was.
The offence consisted in taking a census of the people. At first it is difficult to see what there was in this that was so sinful; yet highly sinful it was in the judgment of God, in the judgment of Joab, and at last in the judgment of David too; it will be necessary, therefore, to examine the subject very carefully if we would understand clearly what constituted the great sin of David.
The origin of the proceeding was remarkable. It may be said to have had a double, or rather a triple, origin: God, David, and Satan, or, as some propose to render in place of Satan, "an enemy."
In Samuel we read that "the Lord's anger was again kindled against Israel." The nation required a chastisement. It needed a smart stroke of the rod to make it pause and think how it was offending God. We do not require to know very specially what it was that displeased God in a nation that had been so ready to side with Absalom and drive God's anointed from the throne. They were far from steadfast in their allegiance to God, easily drawn from the path of duty; and all that it is important for us to know is simply that at this particular time they were farther astray than usual, and more in need of chastisement. The cup of sin had filled up so far that God behooved to interpose.
For this end "the Lord moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." The action of God in the matter, like His action in sinful matters generally, was that He permitted it to take place. He allowed David's sinful feeling to come as a factor into His scheme with a view to the chastising of the people. We have seen many times in this history how God is represented as doing things and saying things which He does not do nor say directly, but which He takes up into His plan, with a view to the working out of some great end in the future. But in Chronicles it is said that Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel. According to some commentators, the Hebrew word is not to be translated "Satan," because it has no article, but "an adversary," as in parallel passages: "The Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite" (1Ki_11:14); "God stirred up another adversary to Israel, Razon, the son of Eliadib" (1Ki_11:23). Perhaps it was someone in the garb of a friend, but with the spirit of an enemy, that moved David in this matter. If we suppose Satan to have been the active mover, then Bishop Hall's words will indicate the relation between the three parties: "Both God and Satan had then a hand in the work - God by permission, Satan by suggestion; God as a Judge, Satan as an enemy; God as in a just punishment for sin, Satan as in an act of sin; God in a wise ordination of it for good, Satan in a malicious intent of confusion. Thus at once God moved and Satan moved, neither is it any excuse to Satan or to David that God moved, neither is it any blemish to God that Satan moved. The ruler's sin is a punishment to a wicked people; if God were not angry with a people, He would not give up their governors to evils that provoke His vengeance; justly are we charged to make prayers and supplications as for all men, so especially for rulers."
But what constituted David's great offence in numbering the people? Every civilized State is now accustomed to number its people periodically, and for many good purposes it is a most useful step. Josephus represents that David omitted to levy the atonement money which was to be raised, according to Exo_30:12, etc., from all who were numbered, but surely, if this had been his offence, it would have been easy for Joab, when he remonstrated, to remind him of it, instead of trying to dissuade him from the scheme altogether. The more common view of the transaction has been that it was objectionable, not in itself, but in the spirit by which it was dictated. That spirit seems to have been a self-glorifying spirit. It seems to have been like the spirit which led Hezekiah to show his treasures to the ambassadors of the king of Babylon. Perhaps it was designed to show, that in the number of his forces David was quite a match for the great empires on the banks of the Nile and the Euphrates. If their fighting men could be counted by the hundred thousand or the thousand thousand, so could his. In the fighting resources of his kingdom, he was able to hold his head as high as any of them. Surely such a spirit was the very opposite of what was becoming in such a king as David. Was this not measuring the strength of a spiritual power with the measure of a carnal? Did it not leave God most sinfully out of reckoning? Nay, did it not substitute a carnal for a spiritual defense? Was it not in the very teeth of the Psalm, ''There is no king saved by the multitude of an host; a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. An horse is a vain thing for safety; neither shall he deliver any by his great strength. Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear Him, upon them that hope in His mercy, to deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine"?
That David's project was very deeply seated in his heart is evident from the fact that he was unmoved by the remonstrance of Joab. In ordinary circumstances it must have startled him to find that even he was strongly opposed to his project. It is indeed strange that Joab should have had scruples where David had none. We have been accustomed to find Joab so seldom in the right that it is hard to believe that he was in the right now. But perhaps we do Joab injustice. He was a man that could be profoundly stirred when his own interests were at stake, or his passions roused, and that seemed equally regardless of God and man in what he did on such occasions. But otherwise Joab commonly acted with prudence and moderation. He consulted for the good of the nation. He was not habitually reckless or habitually cruel, and he seems to have had a certain amount of regard to the will of God and the theocratic constitution of the kingdom, for he was loyal to David from the very beginning, up to the contest between Solomon and Adonijah. It is evident that Joab felt strongly that in the step which he proposed to take David would be acting a part unworthy of himself and of the constitution of the kingdom, and by displeasing God would expose himself to evils far beyond any advantage he might hope to gain by ascertaining the number of the people.
For once - and this time, unhappily - David was too strong for the son of Zeruiah. The enumerators of the people were dispatched, no doubt with great regularity, to take the census. The boundaries named were not beyond the territory as divided by Joshua among the Israelites, save that Tyre and Zidon were included; not that they had been annexed by David, but probably because there was an understanding that in all his military arrangements they were to be associated with him. Nine months and twenty days were occupied in the business. At the end of it, it was ascertained that the fighting men of Israel were eight hundred thousand, and those of Judah five hundred thousand; or, if we take the figures in Chronicles, eleven hundred thousand of Israel and four hundred and seventy thousand of Judah. The discrepancy is not easily accounted for; but probably in Chronicles in the number for Israel certain bodies of troops were included which were not included in Samuel, and vice versa in the case of Judah.
Just as in the case of his sin in the matter of Uriah, David was long of coming to a sense of it. How his view came to change we are not told, but when the change did occur, it seems, as in the other case, to have come with extraordinary force. "David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that which I have done; and now, I beseech Thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of Thy servant, for I have done very foolishly." Once alive to his sin, his humiliation is very profound. His confession is frank, hearty, complete. He shows no proud desire to remain on good terms with himself, seeks nothing to break his fall or to make his humiliation less before Joab and before the people. He says, "I will confess my transgression to the Lord;" and his plea is one with which he is familiar from of old - "For Thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great." He is never greater than when acknowledging his sin.
Next comes the chastisement. The moment for sending it is very seasonable. It did not come while his conscience was yet slumbering, but after he had come to feel his sin. His confessions and relentings were proofs that he was now fit for chastisement; the chastisement, as in the other case, was solemnly announced by a prophet; and, as in the other case too, it fell on one of the tenderest spots of his heart. Then the first blow fell on his infant child; now it falls upon his sheep. His affections were divided between his children and his people, and in both cases the blow must have been very severe. It was, as far as we can judge after a night of very profound humiliation that the prophet Gad was sent to him. Gad had first come to him when he was hiding from Saul, and had therefore been his friend all his kingly life. Sad that so old and so good a friend should be the bearer to the aged king of a bitter message! Seven years of famine (in 1Ch_21:12, three years), three months of unsuccessful war, or three days of pestilence, - the choice lies between these three. All of them were well fitted to rebuke that pride in human resources which had been the occasion of his sin. Well might he say, ''I am in a great strait." Oh the bitterness of the harvest when you sow to the flesh! Between these three horrors even God's anointed king has to choose. What a delusion it is that God will not be very careful in the case of the wicked to inflict the due retribution of sin! "If these things were done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?"
David chose the three days of pestilence. It was the shortest, no doubt, but what recommended it, especially above the three months of unsuccessful war, was that it would come more directly from the hand of God. "Let me fall now into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great, and let me not fall into the hand of man." What a frightful time it must have been! Seventy thousand died of the plague. From Dan to Beersheba nothing would be heard but a bitter cry, like that of the Egyptians when the angel slew the first-born. What days and nights of agony these must have been to David! How slowly would they drag on! What cries in the morning, "Would God it were evening!" and in the evening, "Would God it were morning!"
The pestilence, wherever it originated, seems to have advanced from every side like a besieging army, till it was ready to close upon Jerusalem. The destroying angel hovered over Mount Moriah, and, like Abraham on the same spot a thousand years before, was brandishing his sword for the work of destruction. It was a spot that had already been memorable for one display of Divine forbearance, and now it became the scene of another. Like the hand of Abraham when ready to plunge the knife into the bosom of his son, the hand of the angel was stayed when about to fall on Jerusalem. For Abraham a ram had been provided to offer in the room of Isaac; and now David is commanded to offer a burnt-offering in acknowledgment of his guilt and of his need of expiation. Thus the Lord stayed His rough wind in the day of His east wind. In sparing Jerusalem, on the very eve of destruction, He caused His mercy to rejoice over judgment.
No one but must admire the spirit of David when the angel appeared on Mount Moriah. Owning frankly his own great sin, and especially his sin as a shepherd, he bared his own bosom to the sword, and entreated God to let the punishment fall on him and on his father's house. Why should the sheep suffer for the sin of the shepherd? The plea was more beautiful than correct. The sheep had been certainly not less guilty than the shepherd, though in a different way. We have seen how the anger of the Lord had been kindled against Israel when David was induced to go and number the people. And as both had been guilty, so both had been punished. The sheep had been punished in their own bodies, the shepherd in the tenderest feelings of his heart. It is a rare sight to find a man prepared to take on himself more than his own share of the blame. It was not so in paradise, when the man threw the blame on the woman and the woman on the serpent. We see that, with all his faults, David had another spirit from that of the vulgar world. After all, there is much of the Divine nature in this poor, blundering, sinning child of clay.
On the day when the angel appeared over Jerusalem, Gad was sent back to David with a more auspicious message. He is required to build an altar to the Lord on the spot where the angel stood. This was the fitting counterpart to Abraham's act when, in place of Isaac, he offered the ram which Jehovah-jireh had provided for the sacrifice. The circumstances connected with the rearing of the altar and the offering of the burnt-offering were very peculiar, and seem to have borne a deep typical meaning. The place where the angel's arm was arrested was by the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. It was there that David was commanded to rear his altar and offer his burnt-offering. When Araunah saw the king approaching, he bowed before him and respectfully asked the purpose of his visit. It was to buy the threshing-floor and build an altar, that the plague might be stayed. But if the threshing-floor was needed for that purpose, Araunah would give it freely; and offer it as a free gift he did; with royal munificence, along with the oxen for a burnt-offering and their implements also as wood for the sacrifice. David, acknowledging his goodness, would not be outdone in generosity, and insisted on making payment. The floor was bought, the altar was built, the sacrifice was offered, and the plague was stayed. As we read in Chronicles, fire from heaven attested God's acceptance of the offering. ''And David said. This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of the burnt-offering for Israel." That is to say, the threshing-floor was appointed to be the site of the temple which Solomon was to build; and the spot where David had hastily reared his altar was to be the place where, for hundreds of years, day after day, morning and evening, the blood of the burnt-offering was to flow, and the fumes of incense to ascend before God.
No doubt it was to save time in so pressing an emergency that Araunah gave for sacrifice the oxen with which he was working, and the implements connected with his labour. But in the purpose of God, a great truth lay under these symbolical arrangements. The oxen that had been labouring for man were sacrificed for man; both their life and their death were given for man, just as afterwards the Lord Jesus Christ, after living and labouring for the good of many, at last gave His life a ransom. The wood of the altar on which they suffered was part of it at all events, borne on their own necks, "the threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen," just as Isaac had borne the wood and as Jesus was to bear the cross on which, respectively, they were stretched. The sacrifice was a sacrifice of blood, for only blood could remove the guilt that had to be pardoned. The analogy is clear enough. Isaac had escaped; the ram suffered in his room. Jerusalem escaped now; the oxen were sacrificed in its room. Sinners of mankind were to escape; the Lamb of God was to die, the just for the unjust, to bring them to God.
There were other circumstances, however, not without significance, connected with the purchase of the temple site. The man to whom the ground had belonged, and whose oxen had been slain as the burnt- offering, was a Jebusite; and from the way in which he designated David's Lord, "the Lord thy God," it is not certain whether he was even a proselyte. Some think that he had formerly been king of Jerusalem, or rather of the stronghold of Zion, but that when Zion was taken he had been permitted to retire to Mount Moriah, which was separated from Zion only by a deep ravine. Josephus calls him a great friend of David's. He could not have shown a more friendly spirit of a more princely liberality. The striking way in which the heart of this Jebusite was moved to cooperate with King David in preparing for the temple was fitted to remind David of the missionary character which the temple was to sustain. "My house shall be called an house of prayer for all nations." In the words of the sixty-eighth Psalm, "Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents unto thee." As Araunah's oxen had been accepted, so the time would come when " the sons of the stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him and to love the name of the Lord, even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon Mine altar." What a wonderful thing is sanctified affliction! While its root lies in the very corruption of our nature, its fruit consists of the best blessings of Heaven. The root of David's affliction was carnal pride; but under God's sanctifying grace, it was followed by the erection of a temple associated with heavenly blessing, not to one nation only, but to all. When affliction, duly sanctified, is thus capable of bringing such blessings, it makes the fact all the more lamentable that affliction is so often unsanctified. It is vain to imagine that everything of the nature of affliction is sure to turn to good. It can turn to good on one condition only - when your heart is humbled under the rod, and in the same humble, chastened spirit as David you say, and feel as well as say, "I have sinned."
One other lesson we gather from this chapter of David's history. When he declined to accept the generous offer of Araunah, it was on the ground that he would not serve the Lord with that which cost him nothing. The thought needs only to be put in words to commend itself to every conscience. God's service is neither a form nor a sham; it is a great reality. "If we desire to show our honour for Him, it must be in a way suited to the occasion. The poorest mechanic that would offer a gift to his sovereign tries to make it the product of his best labour, the fruit of his highest skill. To pluck a weed from the roadside and present it to one's sovereign would be no better than an insult. Yet how often is God served with that which costs men nothing! Men that will lavish hundreds and thousands to gratify their own fancy, - what miserable driblets they often give to the cause of God! The smallest of coins is good enough for His treasury. And as for other forms of serving God, what a tendency there is in our time to make everything easy and pleasant, - to forget the very meaning of self-denial! It is high time that that word of David were brought forth and put before every conscience, and made to rebuke ever so many professed worshippers of God, whose rule of worship is to serve God with what does cost them nothing. The very heathen reprove you. Little though there has been to stimulate their love, their sacrifices are often most costly - far from sacrifices that have cost them nothing. Oh, let us who call ourselves Christians beware lest we be found the meanest, paltriest, shabbiest of worshippers! Let souls that have been blessed as Christians have devise liberal things. Let your question and the answer be: "What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits toward me? I will take the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord, now in the presence of His people."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa_24:1. “Again,” Evidently referring to the famine mentioned in…
2Sa_24:1. “Again,” Evidently referring to the famine mentioned in 2Sa_21:1-14. “Israel.” Some special national guilt not specified must be here referred to. If, as most writers suppose, this occurred in the closing years of David’s life it may be the rebellion under Absalom. “He.” Attempts have been made to translate here impersonally, David was moved, etc.; and in Chronicles the instigation is attributed to Satan. But the grammatical construction will not admit of any other rendering, and the expression has parallels in other parts of Scripture, and must be read in the light of what is revealed to us of the Divine character. (See 1Sa_26:19, 2Sa_16:10.) On these passages Kiel says: “They show that God only instigates those who have sinned against Him to evil deeds; and therefore that the instigation consists in the fact that God compels sinners to manifest the wickedness of their hearts in deeds, or furnishes the opportunity and occasion for the unfolding and practical manifestation of the evil desires of his heart, that the sinner may either be brought to the knowledge of his more evil ways and also to repentance, through the evil deed and its consequences, or if the heart should be hardened still more by the evil deed, that it may become ripe for the judgment of death. Erdmann remarks that “the conception that God incites to sin in the Old Testament belongs to the same circle of thought as the idea, carried over by Paul into the New Testament, of man’s hardening in sin as a Divine act. The hardening pertains only to the inner being, to heart and disposition (which becomes insusceptible to the influences of the Divine word and spirit), to the will, which persistently sets itself against God’s holy will, to the ethical habits of the whole personality, etc.… The Divine incitement to evil on the other hand refers to individual acts, and consists not in God’s producing evil, which would be inconsistent with his holiness (comp. Jas_1:19), but in his occasioning the evil to break forth from the hidden depths of the heart and realise itself in deed, though this need neither pre-suppose nor induce hardening, but is rather intended to be the mean and avenue to the salvation and bettering of the sinner.” Hengstenberg’s comments on Psa_41:6 apply well to this subject. “Sin pertains, indeed, to man. He may always free himself from it by penitence. But if he does not repent, then the forms in which sin exhibits itself are no longer under his control, but under God’s dispensation,” etc. But it is perhaps safer to leave this very difficult subject by saying, in the words of the American translator of Lange’s Commentary, that “there is here involved the whole subject of the co-relation of Divine and human action, about which we can only insist on the two unhar-monisable facts of the absolute efficient control of God, and the complete independence of man.” (See also Hengstenberg on 2Sa_24:3.)
2Sa_24:2. “Number,” or muster. From 2Sa_24:9 it appears that this numbering was of a military character, and the aim of David was, most likely, to ascertain the fighting power of the people.
Read full note →
2Sa_24:3. “How many soever,” literally, as it is. Joab’s words show that this census was quite different from that taken by Moses at the command of God. (Exo_30:12; Numbers 1, 26). He evidently regarded it at least as impolitic. Several views are held as to the nature of David’s sin in the act, but, as Erdmann remarks, Joab’s remonstrance “indicates David’s purpose to be to please himself with the exhibition of the imposing military strength of the people; and the ungodly feature, therefore, was its motive, David’s haughty estimation of himself and his people. His sin was one both of the lust of the eyes and pride.… Doubtless he who had led Israel to so lofty a height, forgetting himself before the Lord, had a proud desire to exhibit the splendid array of his people’s military strength, as a pledge of the further advance of his house and people, and of the further development of the promise in Deu_33:29.” “The nature of David’s sin is declared by the sacred writer, saying that it was prompted by Satan, the author of pride and unbelief;.… it was the sin of lack of faith in God, and in His protection; it was the sin of self confidence, vain glory, and reliance on an arm of flesh.” (Wordsworth). “Warlike thoughts certainly stand in the back-ground; if we fail to see this, we lose the key to the whole transaction. David feeds his heart on the great numbers, on the thought of what his successors on the throne would be able to attain with such power. From its first origin Israel was called to the supremacy of the world. Already this assurance was given (Deu_33:29). David now thought he could rise, step by step, to such elevation without the help of God, who had provided for the beginning. The records should bear witness to all time that he had laid a solid foundation for this great work of the future. Had his perception been clear, he would not have disregarded the special hint contained in the law respecting the danger connected with the numbering of the people. In Exo_30:11, it is ordained that on the numbering of the people every Israelite should bring a ransom, “that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.” By this they would be released, as it were, from the death incurred by their proud arrogance. It reminded them of the danger of forgetting human weakness, so imminent where an individual feels himself the member of a large whole.… With this feeling even the Romans presented offerings of atonement at their census.… In Psalms 30, which has reference to this event, David himself describes the state of his mind, which offered a point of contact for the temptation According to this, confidence was the melancholy root of sin, both in David and the nation. Soft indolence, says Calvin, had taken possession of his mind, so that he had no inclination for prayer, nor any dependence on the mercy of God, but trusted too much to his past fortune. Where this corrupt disposition is found in the soul, God’s influence making use of Satan as its instrument, leads the corrupt germ to its development, rousing to action that which slumbers in the soul in order to bring about the retributive judgment in which man, if otherwise well intentioned, learns fully to recognise his sinful condition, and is moved to repentance. The question is not one of simple permission on the part of God, but of a real action, and that of a nature which each one may still perceive in his own tendencies. Whoever once yields to his sinful disposition is infallibly involved in the sinful deed which leads to retributive judgment, however much he may strive against it.” (Hengstenberg.)
2Sa_24:5. “Pitched,” i.e., encamped in the open country because of the great numbers who would assemble. “Aroer … river of Gad.” Rather, the “brook-valley,” etc. There was another Aroer in Reuben, and one mentioned only in 1Sa_30:28. This town is generally considered to be identical with the one near Rabbah mentioned in Num_32:34 and Jos_13:33. Some travellers identify it with the modern Ayra, but there is much uncertainty about its precise position. “Jazer.” Mentioned several times in Joshua and in Numbers, and sometimes spelt Ja-azer. “It was known to Eusebius and Jerome, and its position is laid down with minuteness in the Onanasticon as ten Roman miles west of Philadelphi and fifteen from Heshbon.” (Biblical Dictionary.) Modern travellers are divided as to its exact site.
2Sa_24:6. “Gilead.” The mountainous district on both sides of the Jabbok. “Tahtim-Hodsht.” This word is very obscure, and neither ancient nor modern translators can discern any meaning in it, either as a proper name or as a descriptive phrase. It is generally agreed that the text is incorrect. “Dan-Jaan.” “There seems no reason to doubt that the well-known Dan is intended. We have no record of any other Dan in the north, and even if this were not the case, Dan, as the accepted northern limit of the nation, was too important a place to escape mention in such a list as that in the text.” (Biblical Dictionary.) The Vulgate reads Dan-jaar, which Gesenius translates Dan in the wood. This description agrees with the character of the country.
2Sa_24:7. “Tyre,” etc. That is, in the region afterwards called Galilee, in which it appears the heathen nations were not exterminated but tributary. (So Keil and others.) “The division into Hivites and Canaanites is remarkable; perhaps these were the most prominent of the surviving native races.” (Translator of Lange’s Commentary).
2Sa_24:8. Gone through, etc. “According to 1Ch_21:6, the census was not extended into Benjamin and Levi, “because the king’s word was an abomination to Joab,” and according to 1Ch_27:24, Joab did not finish his task because the plague broke out before he had finished.
2Sa_24:9. Eight hundred thousand.… five hundred thousand. These numbers do not agree with those given in Chronicles where a higher number is given for Israel and a lower for Judah (1,100,000 and 470,000). Some think there were two countings, one according to the private lists in the cities and villages, the other from the public registers, or that Chronicles includes the non-Israelites among the people. “The numbers are given in thousands, and therefore are only approximate statements in round numbers; and the difference in two texts arose chiefly from the fact, that the statements were merely founded upon oral tradition, since, according to 1Ch_27:24, the result of the census was not inserted in the annals of the kingdom. There is no ground, however, for regarding the numbers as exaggerated, if we only bear in mind that the entire population of a land amounts to about four times the number of those who are fit for military service, and, therefore, 1,300,000, or even a million and a half, would only represent a total population of five or six millions—a number which could undoubtedly have been sustained in Palestine, according to thoroughly reliable testimony as to its unusual fertility.” (Keil). “In this muster of Israel it is probable the standing army of David (1 Chronicles 27), which had before been numbered, is not reckoned, but it is inserted in the Chronicles. This standing army consisted of 12×24,000 = 288,000 men, who, with their chiliarchs and twelve generals, will make 300,000; and if these are added to the 800,000 mentioned here, the numbers in both places would coincide.” (Wordsworth). With regard to the difference in the number allotted to the tribes of Judah, Wordsworth suggests that “perhaps David had 30,000 stationed with him at Jerusalem, and the other 470,000 were mustered by Joab.”
2Sa_24:11. “For,” rather, and. It is not intended that God’s visit produced the conviction in David’s mind.
2Sa_24:13. “Seven years.” In Chronicles the number is three., which some expositors prefer as agreeing better with the connection, viz., three evils to choose from, and each lasting through three divisions of time. But, as Keil remarks: “This agreement favours the seven rather than the three, which is open to the suspicion of being intentionally made to conform to the rest.” Some suggest that in the Chronicles three successive years to come were offered; and that the seven here include the three former vears of famine, which, with the year then in course, would make seven.
2Sa_24:14. “The hand of men.” “It is not easy to see how this applies to famine; probably inasmuch as it tends more or less to create dependence upon those who are still in possession of the means of life.” (Keil.) “War and famine would not have hurt David’s own person. With noble disinterestedness he chose pestilence, in which he himself would be exposed to death no less than his subjects.” (Theoderet.)
2Sa_24:15. “The time appointed.” A doubtful rendering, and some translate “to the time of the evening sacrifice,” objecting that the pestilence did not last three days. But the phrase “time appointed” may even then be taken to refer to the appointed hour of evening sacrifice, or it may be as Erdmann suggests that “the narrator combining and, in the Hebrew fashion, anticipating what follows, means by this expression to say that God in His mercy permitted the pestilence to go on only to a determined point of time within the three days.” “Seventy thousand.” If the pestilence only lasted part of a day its violence was greater than any on record. It is recorded by Diodorus that in the siege of Syracuse 100,000 soldiers in the Carthaginian army died within a short time.
2Sa_24:16. “The angel.” 2Sa_24:17 affirms that David saw the angel. This then is no poetic figure, but a statement of a supernatural event, which removes the pestilence from the region of ordinary visitations of a similar nature. “Jerusalem.” “The pestilence seems to have broken out at opposite extremities of the country, and to have advanced with gigantic strides until it was ready to concentrate its violence upon Jerusalem.” (Jamieson.) “Lord repented.” (See on 1Sa_15:10.) “Threshing-place.” These places were in the open air, and usually outside the town or city, and on an eminence, if possible, in order to catch the wind, which was utilised to winnow the corn. “Araunah the Jebusite.” Called Oornan in the Chronicles, one of the old inhabitants of the land, who, having apparently become a worshipper of Jehovah, retained his possessions in the city.
2Sa_24:17. “And David.” According to Chronicles, the elders also clothed in sackcloth were with David at the time. “I have sinned.” “The punishment was sent for the people’s own sin, though David’s sin was the immediate occasion of its execution.” (Von Gerlach.)
2Sa_24:23. “As a king.” The readings here differ somewhat. If we take it as translated in the English version, we must understand that Araunah belonged to the royal family of the Jebusites, an important fact which, as Thenius remarks, “would not have been stated in a single word.” Another reading is: “All this gives Araunah, the servant of my lord the king, to the king.” Keil asserts that the noun is a vocative: All this giveth Araunah, O king, to the king.
2Sa_24:24. Fifty shekels. In Chronicles the sum is six hundred shekels of gold. No attempts that have been made to reconcile these statements are satisfactory, and it seems better to suppose a corruption of the text in one of the records. “Apparently the statement in Chronicles is the more correct of the two; for if we consider that Abraham paid four hundred shekels of silver for the site of a family burial-place, at a time when the land was very thinly populated, and therefore land must have been much cheaper than it was in David’s time, the sum of fifty shekels of silver (about £6) appears too low a price.” (Keil). “But it should be remembered that the field for which Abraham gave four hundred shekels was of considerable size, comprising the cave at one end, and also timber, perhaps several acres in all, whereas the threshing floor was probably not one hundred feet in diameter. The explanation given by Bochart (which is far the best) may possibly be true, that the fifty shekels here mentioned were gold shekels, each worth twelve silver shekels, so that the fifty gold shekels are equal to the six hundred silver; and that our text should be rendered, David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for money, viz., fifty shekels, and that the passage in Chronicles should be rendered, gold shekels of the value (or weight) of six hundred shekels.
2Sa_24:25. “There.” As we learn from 2Ch_3:1, on Mount Moriah, afterwards the site of Solomon’s temple. (See Critical Notes on 2Sa_5:7.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
THE NUMBERING OF THE PEOPLE
I. The motive and spirit of a deed determine its moral character. From the human standpoint the act of David appears quite harmless, even if inexpedient or impolitic. It belongs to quite a different class from his adultery and murder, because those deeds at once shock the moral sense of everyone who has any spark of moral sensitiveness within him, while this arouses no such emotion. Yet God here convicts His servant of a great wrong, and David acknowledges the justice of the sentence. We must, therefore, look behind the outward action to the inward state of mind which prompted it, and find there the iniquity of which David confesses himself guilty. But this is in accordance with all the teachings of Holy Writ from the days of the fall to those of Christ. The deed which first brought death into the world and all our woe was one which in itself was trivial, and under other circumstances would have been innocent. But as an act of disobedience to a plain command it was a great transgression, heavily weighted with terrible, yet justly-merited, retribution. Looking on the bright side of this doctrine, how small a thing it is to give a thirsty fellow creature a cup of cold water, and how often it may be done without having any moral significance. But Our Lord tells us there is a spirit and a motive which make this ordinary and simple act of great moral value and worthy of His notice and reward. So His anointing by Mary of Bethany. The deed itself was not so very remarkable, it was not to human eyes a very great act of devotion, But the acceptance which it met with from Him who read the heart of the doer seals it as one of no ordinary spiritual worth. In this, as in many other points, the religion of the Bible differs from and transcends all other systems. It enters into a man’s soul and takes cognizance of what passes there, and condemns or justifies accordingly.
II. Very godly men are sometimes strangely inconsistent with themselves. Notwithstanding his deep spiritual experience and his ardent spiritual desires and emotions, David, had very strong tendencies to obey the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. It seems almost impossible that the man who penned the 23rd Psalm could have ever been an adulterer and a murderer. It is, perhaps, more surprising at first sight that he who wrote the 51st Psalm could afterwards, in apostolic language, have fallen into such a “snare of the devil” as that in which we here find him. Yet every godly man who searches his own spirit knows how much there is still within him ready to respond to the suggestions of the evil one, and every Christian’s life unites with that of David in testifying to the universality of the experience of Paul—I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members (Rom_7:22-23).
III. A man’s attitude after sin settles the question of character, and his position in relation to God. A child’s character can be better estimated by the way in which he behaves under his father’s just displeasure than by counting the actual number of his transgressions. So is it with God’s children. The godly flee to God when they have sinned; the ungodly flee from Him (Psa_33:1-8; 2Jn_1:1-8). (On this thought see also on 2Sa_14:25-33, page 360. On the remonstrance of Joab see on chap 2Sa_19:1-15, page 384. On David’s chastisement see on 2Sa_12:14-25, page 346).
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa_24:1. The Scripture is most careful that we should feel the reality of Divine intimations, that we should refer them to their true source, and yet that we should understand how possible it is for a man to pervert them and found wrong inferences upon them, if his own mind is not in a thoroughly pure and healthy condition. The thought that it was a blessing to be the head of a growing and thriving people—this was Divine. The thought that it was well for a ruler to be acquainted with the condition and resources of his people—this was Divine.… But the determination, just then, to send forth officers for the sake of ascertaining the armed forces of the land—this was the thought of a self-exalted man.… I do not know anything so instructive to us if we use them as we ought, as these passages in the Bible, which teach us that all good thoughts, counsels, just works, come from the Spirit of God, and at the same time that we are in most imminent peril every moment of turning the Divine suggestions into sin, by allowing our selfish and impure conceits and rash generalizations to mix with them.—Maurice.
2Sa_24:12. The chastisement was not sent while he was in a state of insensibility to his sin, but after he awoke to a sense of it. It is not while the child is in a state of proud and hardened impenitence that the rod may be applied with most hope of success, but when conscience has begun to speak out, and soft relentings to appear. Dealing with conscience and appeals to the heart must ordinarily precede the infliction of punishment.—Blaikie.
2Sa_24:14. Whatever correction is necessary to God’s creatures, it is their request that He may be the immediate dispenser of it.
1. Because He is the fountain of mercy, and limits the punishment to the necessity.
2. He chastises to reclaim and not to revenge.
3. What comes from the hand of the Lord melts the heart and humbles the soul, as the rod in the hand of man can never do.
We do well believe thee, O David, that thou wert in a wonderful strait; this very liberty is no other than fetters; thou needest not have famine; thou needest not have the sword; thou needest not have pestilence; one of them thou must have; there is misery in all; there is misery in any; thou and thy people can die but once, and once they must die, either by famine, war, or pestilence. O God, how vainly do we hope to pass over our sins with impunity, when all the favour that David and Israel can receive is to choose their bane!—Bishop Hall.
2Sa_24:10. “See then, David, thou hast gained thy purpose. What a power is this that is placed at thy disposal! A population of six millions, the inhabitants of the little tribes of Levi and Benjamin not being reckoned. What great things mayest thou now undertake! Who may dare raise his head so loftily as thou mayest, and who is there that may sit on his throne so free from care and so securely as thou dost?” So many in spirit might perhaps say to him. But what happens? Instead of glorying, the king bends his head, descends in silence from his seat, and withdraws into one of his more remote chambers; and now listen!—“I have sinned greatly in that I have done,” he cries out with deep emotion of heart: “and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly!” Wonderful! That very thing from which David promised to himself kingly joy, now brings him only bitter sorrow, and that which ought to have added to his dignity, suddenly humbles him in deepest debasement. But this does not surprise us. As the sun always breaks through the clouds which encompass it, so the conscience, when once it is awakened and enlightened by the Spirit of God, always comes forth again victoriously out of every eclipse, and frees itself from every entanglement, and asserts anew its authority as a judge. Yea, in believers it constantly increases in tenderness, and becomes more and more like the apple of the eye, to which the smallest more gives annoyance; nor can there be any rest obtained till it is removed. The world cannot comprehend how so many things which it thinks unimportant and small fill the children of God with such deep shame and make them so sad. “What is there so serious,” it is perhaps said to them, “in examining thy treasures, or in seeking the favour of this or that influential man, or taking a lottery-ticket? Where is there a Divine command which thou hast thereby transgressed?” And, indeed, those who thus speak are not conscious where such a Divine precept is. But they know it well who have transgressed it. Their heart has forsaken the Lord and distrusted his power and love.—Krummacher.
What then, was David’s sin? He will needs have Israel and Judah numbered. Surely there is no malignity in numbers; neither is it unfit for a prince to know his own strength. This is not the first time that Israel had gone under a reckoning. The act offends not, but the misaffection; the same thing had been commendably done out of a princely providence, which now, through the curiosity, pride, misconfidence of the doer, proves heinously vicious. Those actions, which are in themselves indifferent, receive either their life or their bane from the intentions of the agent. Moses numbereth the people with thanks, David with displeasure. Those sins which carry the smoothest foreheads and have the most honest appearances, may more provoke the wrath of God than those which bear the most abomination in their faces. How many thousand wickednesses passed through the hands of Israel, which we men would rather have branded out for judgment than this of David’s! The righteous judge of the world censures sins, not by their ill looks, but by their foul hearts.—Bishop Hall.
2Sa_24:24. The principle that comes out in these words is one that will sweep the whole circle of worship, and work, and gifts, and personal religious life. I. Worship. For in our buildings, in our service of praise and prayer, preaching and hearing, we are to give our best in effort, in intelligence, in all things, facing and resisting every temptation to the contrary, with the words, “Shall I offer,” etc. II. Work. Not to schemes only that are pleasant, and in times that are convenient, and by proxies that are easily obtainable will the true worker of God devote himself. III. Gifts. Not with careless gifts, almost covertly given, or the smallest coin dealt out niggardly, can he give who says, “Shall I offer?” etc. IV. Personal religion. There is meanness and ingratitude in the spirit that relegates all religious care to the leisure of Sunday, or of the sick-room, or of the infirmities of old age. Why should we not offer to God that which costs us nothing? Three questions may throw light upon it.
1. How far what costs you nothing is any benefit to yourself’? Such may be of some benefit. But only what “costs something” call out,
(1) highest motives and employs
(2) all faculties.
2. How far what costs you nothing has much influence upon the world? Sacrifice is the subtle and tremendous element needed in all great influence. In the home, in the Church, in the state, they only climb true thrones, and wear real crowns, who have the spirit of sacrifice. The Saviour Himself relied upon that—“I, if I be lifted up, will draw,” etc.” So does the Eternal Father of men, for He has made “Christ,” who is incarnate sacrifice, “the power of God.”
3. How far what costs you nothing is acceptable to God? Christ’s praise of the poor widow’s gift, God’s acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ—sufficiently indicate the Divine estimate of self-denial. And since that service which costs us something has the pulses of reality, the glow of love, and the reflection of Christ—it surely is acceptable to God.—U. R. Thomas.
2Sa_24:24-25. An altar must be built in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite; lo, in that very hill, where the angel held the sword of Abraham from killing his son, doth God now hold the sword of the angel from killing his people! Upon this very ground shall the temple after stand: here shall be the holy altar, which shall send up the acceptable oblations of God’s people in succeeding generations.
O God, what was the threshing-floor of a Jebusite to thee above all other soils? what virtue, what merit was in this earth? As in places, so in persons, it is not to be heeded what they are, but what thou wilt; that is worthiest, which thou pleasest to accept.—Bp. Hall.
It is very remarkable that before the outward foundations of the temple were laid, God’s forgiving mercy was by God factually declared to be its spiritual foundation.—Hengstenberg.
2Sa_24:1-25. Whom does the Lord smite for his sins? Him who—
1. Lets his heart be smitten by God’s earnestness and goodness, and takes to heart the greatness of his sin in contrast to God’s loving kindness.
2. Recognises his sin, in the light of God’s word, as a transgression of His Holy will, and—
3. Maintains in his sinning and in spite of it the fundamental direction of his heart towards the living God, and has been preserved from falling away into complete unbelief.—Erdmann.
True and hearty repentance is preserved in the life of God’s children.
1. In the penitent confession of their sin and guilt before the judgment seat of God.
2. In fleeing for refuge to the forgiving grace of God.
3. In humbly bowing under the punitive justice of God.
4. In a confidence which even amid Divine judgments does not waver in the delivering mercy of God.—Erdmann.
The gradual succession in the inner life of a penitent sinner under the chastening of God’s love.
1. Reproving conscience.
2. Penitent conscience.
3. Hearty prayer for forgiveness.
4. Humble bowing beneath, the punishment imposed.
5. Unreserved submission to the Divine mercy.—Erdmann.
This history leads us to notice—I. The severity of God in punishing sin. The sin which David committed was exceeding great. It was manifest even to so wicked a man as Joab. His punishment was proportionately severe. What shall we therefore think of sin? Is it so light a matter as men generally imagine? II. The goodness of God in pardoning sin. David evinced true contrition by pleading that the punishment might fall on him the guilty one, and not on his innocent people. Instantly did God command the angel to stay his hand.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa 24:1
2Sa 24:1
We do not see immediately upon its being mentioned how it was wrong for David to number the people; that is, in the modern phrase, to take a census of the population. We have a census of the population taken at certain intervals, and this is not wrong, but very proper and useful. What is the difference between the circumstances of the children of Israel and our own?
Read full note →
I. Notice first the object with which this act was done. It was very clear what David had an eye to in numbering the people. It was one of those steps which the kings of the nations around were accustomed to take from time to time when they wanted to know how strong they were and what wars they could carry on, what countries they could invade and what cities they could take. This was the way of the heathen world, whom the Israelites were specially bidden not to imitate. They were not meant by God to be a conquering nation; they were a holy nation, a peculiar people, whom God had admitted into a special covenant with Himself. David’s act was one of vulgar kingly ambition, in absolute contradiction to the express designs of God for the Jewish people. It pleased God by a terrible visitation at once to check this new temper and suppress at its very commencement this dangerous aim.
II. Another reason why David’s act was a sinful one was that it was done under a very different dispensation from that under which we live. To the Jews God was not only their God in heaven, but their King on earth as well. Anything that interfered with this special Divine sovereignty was treason, because the chosen people were not to set up governments and modes of policy for themselves, as other nations did, but were to wait upon the voice of their Divine King. David was only king under a Divine King, and had no right to be constructing great plans out of his own head.
III. There is a sense, and a very true sense, in which David’s sin applies to us. People are very fond of numbering the good things they have or suppose themselves to have. This is the peril to which our Lord refers when He says, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, ...for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also;" that is, you will be always brooding in your heart upon them, and they will fill your mind to the exclusion of all spiritual thoughts. The Bible takes us out of ourselves, and directs us to God as the great object of our love, and in Him to our neighbour. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."
J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 72
References: 2Sa 24:1.—H.Thompson, Concionalia: Outlines of Sermons for Parochial Use, vol. i., p. 349; F W. Krummacher, David King of Israel, p. 478; Homiletic Magazine, vol vi., p. 171.
2Sa 24:14
Consider:—
I. The different effects produced by the fear of God and the fear of man in the case of sorrow for sin in ourselves. (1) The fear of man leads directly to concealment, and to all those acts of meanness and falsehood which are practised to escape detection and punishment. (2) The fear of man drives some to feelings of general disgust and hatred towards mankind; others it drives to despair and to thoughts of suicide. (3) The fear of man leads us astray in our treatment of others who have offended.
II. Notice the effect produced by the fear of God. (1) The fear of God brings us to confession, and humiliation, and a grateful hope. (2) It leads us to judge rightly of the comparative guilt of different offences, and to value them, not according to the opinion of men, but according to the word of God. (3) It makes us eager and ready to forgive, even as God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven us.
III. It is remarkable, however, that while the Scripture enforces the most entire indifference to the censure of the world, and condemns so often and so justly the fear of man, yet it teaches us to shock no man’s opinion of us arrogantly, and to consider in all trifling matters, as much as we can, how we may please others, not for our sake, but for theirs. The excellence of Christian compliance is that it regards the favour of man, not as an end, but as a means; it does not covet it for its own sake, but that men, by learning to look upon Christians favourably, may be persuaded to become altogether Christians themselves.
T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. i., p. 164.
References: 2Sa 24:14.—T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 66; J. Baldwin Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 252; J. M Neale, Sermons in Sackville College, vol. ii., p. 85.
2Sa 24:17
Consider:—
I. The sin committed by David. There is little doubt that it was manifestation of pride which made this action so offensive in the sight of the Lord. It is possible that David dwelt with pride upon the thought of his ample resources and numerous armies, and calculated that he was possessed of a power to repel aggression and attempt fresh conquests. He had forgotten that God alone, who had made him great, could preserve to him his greatness. The same offence may be committed in any rank of life. I care not what it is that a man is anxious to reckon up, but if it be pride that moves him to the reckoning, we identify his case with that of David, and charge on him the iniquity which exposed the Israelites to the pestilence.
II. The punishment which was incurred. There is something strange in the declared fact that sins are often visited on others than the perpetrators. But in the instance before us we can easily see that neither was David unpunished, nor the people punished without a cause. (1) David had sinned by a vainglorious desire to know the number of his subjects; the most suitable punishment was the destruction of thousands of those subjects, for this took away the source of exaltation. (2) It is evident, from the account in the book of Chronicles, that the people had moved the anger of the Lord before the king moved it by worldly confidence and pride. The people were really smitten for their own sins, though apparently for the sins of David.
III. The expiation which was made. The plague was not stayed by any virtue in the sacrifice which David offered. The sacrifice was but as a type, figuring that expiatory sacrifice by which the moral pestilence that had spread over the world would be finally arrested.
H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1894.
References: 2Sa 24:17.—J. Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year. Sundays after Trinity, Part I., p. 234; D. Hunter, The Modern Scottish Pulpit, p. 158.
2Sa 24:24.
The highest joy in the world is that which Christ feels in saving a sinner. Such as the cost is, such is the work; and such as the service is, such is the joy.
I. This is true of our private devotions. It is comparatively easy to pray morning and evening, but it is much more difficult to do so regularly in the course of the day. Yet the omitted and costly part is the very part which would show reality or give it.
II. The same is true of Bible-reading. There are two ways of reading God’s word, so widely separate that the Bible is two books, according as we take the one method or the other. There is an easy, superficial way of reading down a chapter; and there is a bent, real, intense, intelligent searching into every word and every syllable. Mark the promise given to Adam, "In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread," and the promise applies to the natural and to the spiritual bread. Therefore the soul that will eat bread must do it with pains, perseverance, and patience.
J. Vaughan, Sermons, 9th series, p. 126 (see also Fifty Sermons, 1874, p. 314).
We observe in these words two things:—
I. The true motive to beneficence: "offering unto the Lord." Our offerings must be gifts to the Lord. Everything in life depends on the motive from which it springs. Man is what his motives are; he is no better and no worse. The highest and purest motive is that of doing all unto the Lord.
II. The true measure of beneficence: that which we feel to cost us something. Giving must always be tending towards sacrifice and self-denial. Having love as the impulse to our benevolence, its measure will be determined by the nature of the case which appeals for our help and also by the means which God has placed at our disposal.
E. Mellor, In the Footsteps of Heroes, p. 31.
References: 2Sa 24:25.—R. D. B. Rawnsley, Sermons in Country Churches, 3rd series, p. 280. 1Sam 24—Parker, vol. vii., p. 222.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Numbering of the People, and its Penalty
The Numbering of the People, and its Penalty
In punishment for David's sin in numbering the people, God sends a pestilence, which slays 70,000 men. In gratitude for the stay of the plague, David erects an altar in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
Read full note →
1. Again] This refers to the former occasion mentioned in 2 Samuel 21. He moved] Chronicles states that 'Satan.. provoked David.' The older account does not enter into the distinction between what God permits and what God causes. This distinction is the result of later reflection and more subtle theology.
5-8. Their course is easy to follow, though several of the names are corrupt. They started from the city of Aroer on the Arnon, and passed through eastern Palestine. They next crossed to Zidon, and traversed western Palestine to Beersheba in the extreme south.
5. On the right side (i.e. on the south) of the city that lieth in the midst of the river (RV 'valley')] Perhaps this city was Ar of Moab (Isa_15:1).
6. Tahtim-hodshi] Thenius conjectures that this is a mistake for 'Kadesh,' a town on the Orontes marking the extreme northern limit of Israel. Dan-jaan] read 'Dan.'
10. David's sin consisted in pride in his own strength and forgetfulness of his dependence on God. It was the very sin which ruined Saul.
13. Seven years] LXX and Chronicles read 'three years.'
15. From the morning even to the time appointed] These words occasion some difficulty as the pestilence was stayed before the appointed time. They are omitted in Chronicles.
22. Instruments of the oxen] i.e. the wooden yoke: cp. 1Ki_19:21.
23. This v. continues Araunah's speech: RV 'all this, O king, doth Araunah give.'
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v9 in Israel
in Israel
Cf. 1Ch 21:5. The total military strength of Israel (the northern kingdom) was 1,100,000, and of Judah 500,000. The numbers actually set in array were, of Israel, 800,000; of Judah, 470,000.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 4. David’s Failure: the Altar on the Threshing Floor…
4. David’s Failure: the Altar on the Threshing Floor of Araunah
CHAPTER 24
Read full note →
1. The numbering of the people (2Sa 24:1-9)
2. The sin acknowledged and Gad’s message (2Sa 24:10-14)
3. The pestilence (2Sa 24:15-17)
4. The altar on the threshing floor of Araunah (2Sa 24:18-25)
The final chapter of the books of Samuel is of much interest and importance. “And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” In 1Ch 21:1 we read “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” This has often been pointed out as a discrepancy and contradiction. Criticism has explained it in the following way: “Of surpassing interest for the study of the progressiveness of revelation in the Old Testament period is the form which the chronicler has given to this verse. To his more developed religious sense the idea was abhorrent that God could be subject to moods, and incite men to a course of action for which He afterwards calls them to account. Accordingly he writes: ‘And Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.’“ There is no contradiction here nor do the two accounts need an explanation as the above. Israel had committed some sin which brought upon them the displeasure of Jehovah. Satan the accuser was then permitted to influence David. The statement, “He (God) moved David,” also means in Hebrew, “He suffered him to be moved.” He permitted Satan to do his work. In 1Ti 3:6 we read that pride is the condemnation (or as it is literally “the crime”) of the devil. And Satan the accuser moves David with national pride to number the people. It is significant that preceding this record are the names and achievements of the mighty men of David. No doubt his heart swelled with much elation over his victories and great achievements. While David’s eyes were blinded by Satan, Joab saw the danger. In 1Ch 21:3 we read that he said to David: “The LORD make His people an hundred times so many more as they be; but, my lord the King, are they not all my lord’s servants? Why doth my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of guilt to Israel?” The King’s word prevailed and reluctantly Joab and the captains went forth to carry out the King’s command. It was altogether a military census. But the census was not completed (1Ch 27:24).
David’s heart then smote him and we see him coming to the Lord and confessing his sin. “I have sinned greatly in that I have done; and now I beseech thee, LORD, take away the iniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.” It was a true confession he made that night. Then the Lord sent the answer through the prophet Gad. The Lord leaves the choice to David. Either three years of famine, three months of flight or three days of pestilence. (This is according to 1Ch 21:12; 2Sa 24:13 records seven years, which must be the error of some copyist.) And here the man of faith asserts himself “Let us now fall into the hand of the LORD; for His mercies are great, and let me not fall into the hand of man.” And the Lord did not disappoint His servant’s faith in His mercy. When the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it the Lord said, It is enough; stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord, the same who appeared to the patriarchs, to Moses, Joshua and others, was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Once more David’s voice is heard in confession. “I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Thy hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house.” He was willing to be the one sufferer for his people; in this he is a type again of our Lord, the sinbearer. He is commanded to rear an altar upon the threshing floor of Araunah. “It was a fitting spot for mercy upon Israel, this place where of old faithful Abraham had been ready to offer his only son unto God; fitting also as still outside the city; but chiefly in order that the pardoning and sparing mercy now shown, might indicate the site where, on the great altar of burnt-offering, abundant mercy in pardon and acceptance would in the future be dispensed to Israel” (A. Edersheim). It was the place upon which the temple was built (1Ch 21:28-30; 1Ch 22:1). And Araunah the Jebusite offered willingly the threshing floor and the sacrificial animals. But David would not consent. “Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing.” For fifty shekels of silver he bought the oxen and the threshing floor. Then the burnt offerings and peace offerings ascended unto Jehovah as a sweet savour. And Jehovah answered by fire (1Ch 21:26). And David before that altar, who buys and offers, thus meeting the claim of God, is a type of our Lord who bought us with the great price and offered Himself And even so as this book closes with the Lord being merciful to His land and people, the plague stayed, so will Israel in the future receive and enjoy His mercy. It will be the result of the one sacrifice.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 The People Numbered
The People Numbered
v. 1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, as in the former famine, 2Sa 21:1-14, and He moved David against them, namely, the members of the nation, by giving Satan leeway to tempt David, to say, Go, number Israel and Judah, by taking a census chiefly for military purposes.
Read full note →
v. 2. For the king said to Joab, the captain of the host, which was with him, having held his post as commander-in-chief of the army, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, from the extreme north to the extreme south end of the land, and number ye the people that I may know the number of the people, really get the exact statistics of the country’s military strength.
v. 3. And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord, thy God, add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it! But why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? Joab noticed that the pride of the king was his motive for instituting this census, that he wanted to boast of the imposing and growing military strength of his people, and he feared that no good would come of it, especially since the people themselves might resent the procedure. Joab’s native shrewdness here stood him in good stead.
v. 4. Notwithstanding the king’s word prevailed against Joab, his sinful exaltation insisted upon having his command carried out, and against the captains of the host, for the practical sense of the latter had caused them to side with Joab. And Joab and the captains of the host, without further opposition, went out from the presence of the king, before his very eyes, to number the people of Israel.
v. 5. And they passed over Jordan, in order to begin the census in the southeastern part of the country, in the territory of Reuben, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river, that is, the valley, of Gad, and toward Jazer, preferring to camp in the open on account of the large numbers of people who had to be summoned to be enrolled in the census lists.
v. 6. Then they came to Gilead, the hill country along the Jabbok, and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi, probably a lower section of the east-Jordan country, which had but recently been settled; and they came to Dan-jaan, in Northern Perea, southwest of Damascus, and about to Zidon, as they turned to the west across the foothills of the Lebanon,
v. 7. and came to the stronghold of Tyre, still a Phenician city, and to all the cities of the Hivites and of the Canaanites, for here the heathen nations had never been fully exterminated, and the mixed population of Galilee was notorious even in Old Testament times; and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beersheba, omitting Benjamin, however, and not including the Levites, 1Ch 21:6.
v. 8. So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days, the census not being really finished, because wrath came upon Israel and caused the suspension of the project.
v. 9. And Joab gave up, reported, the sum of the number of the people unto the king; and there were in Israel, in the northern tribes, eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. These were round numbers, and the statement in Chronicles, 1Ch 21:5, includes either the standing army or the heathen proselytes. So David had yielded to the temptation of pride, an abomination to God, even as murder and adultery. Every believer must guard against this sin with all earnestness, lest it become a snare to him.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 8 the anger of Yahweh was ignited against Israel
the anger of Yahweh was ignited against Israel
The word "ignite" means start a fire. Here Yahweh's anger is compared to that of a fire. AT: "the anger of Yahweh started to burn like a fire" (See: Metaphor)
Read full note →
he moved David against them
"he caused David to oppose them"
Go, count Israel and Judah
In the law of Moses, God prohibited the kings of Israel from taking a census of fighting men. The full meaning of this statement can be made explicit. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Dan to Beersheba
This phrase uses two place names Dan, in the far north, and Beersheba, in the far south, to represent the entire country. (See: Merism)
count all the people ... fit for battle
This means to count all the men except those men who are either too young, too old, or physically unable to fight.
translationWords
anger
Yahweh
Israel
David
Judah
king
Joab
commander
tribe
Dan
Beersheba
know
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 9 24:1 The reason God’s anger . . . burned…
24:1 The reason God’s anger . . . burned against Israel is unknown (but see Deut 4:25; 6:14-15; 29:22-28; 31:16-18). • Caused . . . to harm reflects a Hebrew verb (suth) used elsewhere in the sense of enticing or inciting someone to do wrong (1 Sam 26:19, “stirred you up against me”). Census-taking was usually unpopular with citizens, who resented it as an intrusion into their private affairs. They regarded it as a prelude to taxation or forced military service (see study note on 2 Sam 24:9). If David was motivated by pride or was preparing for an illegitimate war (as 24:9 might suggest), this might explain why it was a sin for him (24:10).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.