الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Chronicles 15:1 And David made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent. -47 DAVID 1. HIS TRIBE AND DYNASTY KING and kingdom were so bound up in ancient life that an ideal for the one implied an ideal for the other: all distinction and glory possessed by either was shared by both. The tribe and kingdom of Judah were exalted by the fame of David and Solomon: but, on the other hand, a specially exalted position is accorded to David in the Old Testament because he is the representative of the people of Jehovah. David himself had been anointed by Divine command to be king of Israel, and he thus became the founder of the only legitimate dynasty of Hebrew kings. Saul and Ishbosheth had no significance for the later religious history of the nation. Apparently to the chronicler the history of true religion in Israel was a blank between Joshua and David; the revival began when the Ark was brought to Zion, and the first steps were taken to rear the Temple in succession to the Mosaic tabernacle. He therefore omits the history of the Judges and Saul. But the battle of Gilboa is given to introduce the reign of David, and incidental condemnation is passed on Saul: "So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for that he asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire thereby, and inquired not of the Lord; therefore He slew him and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." The reign of Saul had been an unsuccessful experiment; its only real value had been to prepare the way for David. At the same time the portrait of Saul is not given at full length, like those of the wicked kings, partly perhaps because the chronicler had little interest for anything before the time of David and the Temple but partly, we may hope, because the record of David’s affection for Saul kept alive a kindly feeling towards the founder of the monarchy. Inasmuch as Jehovah had "turned the kingdom unto David," the reign of Ishbosheth was evidently the intrusion of an illegitimate pretender; and the chronicler treats it as such. If we had only Chronicles, we should know nothing about the reign of Ishbosheth, and should suppose that, on the death of Saul. David succeeded at once to an undisputed sovereignty over all Israel. The interval of conflict is ignored because, according to the chronicler’s views, David was, from the first, king de jure over the whole nation. Complete silence as to Ishbosheth was the most effective way of expressing this fact. The same sentiment of hereditary legitimacy, the same formal and exclusive recognition of a de jure sovereign, has been shown in modern times by titles like Louis XVIII and Napoleon III. For both schools of Legitimists the absence of de facto sovereignty did not prevent Louis XVII and Napoleon II from having been lawful rulers of France. In Israel, moreover, the Divine right of the one chosen dynasty had religious as well as political importance. We have already seen that Israel claimed a hereditary title to its special privileges; it was therefore natural that a hereditary qualification should be thought necessary for the kings. They represented the nation; they were the Divinely appointed guardians of its religion; they became in time the types of the Messiah, its promised Savior. In all this Saul and Ishbosheth had neither part nor lot; the promise to Israel had always descended in a direct line, and the special promise that was given to its kings and through them to their people began with David. There was no need to carry the history further back. We have already noticed that, in spite of this general attitude towards Saul, the genealogy of some of his descendants is given twice over in the earlier chapters. No doubt the chronicler made this concession to gratify friends or to conciliate an influential family. It is interesting to note how personal feeling may interfere with the symmetrical development of a theological theory. At the same time we are enabled to discern a practical reason for rigidly ignoring the kingship of Saul and Ishbosheth. To have recognized Saul as the Lord’s anointed, like David, would have complicated contemporary dogmatics, and might possibly have given rise to jealousies between the descendants of Saul and those of David. Within the narrow limits of the Jewish community such quarrels might have been inconvenient and even dangerous. The reasons for denying the legitimacy of the northern kings were obvious and conclusive. Successful rebels who had destroyed the political and religious unity of Israel could not inherit "the sure mercies of David" or be included in the covenant which secured the permanence of his dynasty. The exclusive association of Messianic ideas with a single family emphasizes their antiquity, continuity, and development. The hope of Israel had its roots deep in the history of the people; it had grown with their growth and maintained itself through their changing fortunes. As the hope centered in a single family, men were led to expect an individual personal Messiah: they were being prepared to see in Christ the fulfillment of all righteousness. But the choice of the house of David involved the choice of the tribe of Judah and the rejection of the kingdom of Samaria. The ten tribes, as well as the kings of Israel, had cut themselves off both from the Temple and the sacred dynasty, and therefore from the covenant into which Jehovah had entered with "the man after his own heart." Such a limitation of the chosen people was suggested by many precedents. Chronicles, following the Pentateuch, tells how the call came to Abraham, but only some of the descendants of one of his sons inherited the promise. Why should not a selection be made from among the sons of Jacob? But the twelve tribes had been explicitly and solemnly included in the unity of Israel, largely through David himself. The glory of David and Solomon consisted in their sovereignty over a united people. The national recollection of this golden age loved to dwell on the union of the twelve tribes. The Pentateuch added legal sanction to ancient sentiment. The twelve tribes were associated together in national lyrics, like the "Blessing of Jacob" and the "Blessing of Moses." The song of Deborah told how the northern tribes "came to the help of the Lord against the mighty." It was simply impossible for the chronicler to absolutely repudiate the ten tribes; and so they are formally included in the genealogies of Israel, and are recognized in the history of David and Solomon. Then the recognition stops. From the time of the disruption the Northern Kingdom is quietly but persistently ignored. Its prophets and sanctuaries were as illegitimate as its kings. The great struggle of Elijah and Elisha for the honor of Jehovah is omitted, with all the rest of their history. Elijah is only mentioned as sending a letter to Jehoram, king of Judah; Elisha is never even named. On the other hand, it is more than once implied that Judah, with the Levites, and the remnants of Simeon and Benjamin, are the true Israel. When Rehoboam "was strong he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him." After Shishak’s invasion, "the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves." { 2 Chronicles 12:1 ; 2 Chronicles 12:6 } The annals of Manasseh, king of Judah, are said to be "written among the acts of the kings of Israel." { 2 Chronicles 33:18 } The register of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel is headed "The number of the men of the people of Israel." { Ezra 2:2 } The chronicler tacitly anticipates the position of St. Paul: "They are not all Israel which are of Israel": and the Apostle might have appealed to Chronicles to show that the majority of Israel might fail to recognize and accept the Divine purpose for Israel, and that the true Israel would then be found in an elect remnant. The Jews of the second Temple naturally and inevitably came to ignore the ten tribes and to regard themselves as constituting this true Israel. As a matter of history, there had been a period during which the prophets of Samaria were of far more importance to the religion of Jehovah than the temple at Jerusalem; but in the chronicler’s time the very existence of the ten tribes was ancient history. Then, at any rate, it was true that God’s Israel was to be found in the Jewish community, at and around Jerusalem. They inherited the religious spirit of their fathers, and received from them the sacred writings and traditions, and carried on the sacred ritual. They preserved the truth and transmitted it from generation to generation, till at last it was merged in the mightier stream of Christian revelation. The attitude of the chronicler towards the prophets of the Northern Kingdom does not in any way represent the actual importance of these prophets to the religion of Israel; but it is a very striking expression of the fact that after the Captivity the ten tribes had long ceased to exercise any influence upon the spiritual life of their nation. The chronicler’s attitude is also open to criticism on another side. He is dominated by his own surroundings, and in his references to the Judaism of his own time there is no formal recognition of the Jewish community in Babylon; and yet even his own casual allusions confirm what we know from other sources, namely that the wealth and learning of the Jews in Babylon were an important factor in Judaism until a very late date. This point perhaps rather concerns Ezra and Nehemiah than Chronicles, but it is closely connected with our present subject, and is most naturally treated along with it. The chronicler might have justified himself by saying that the true home of Israel must be in Palestine, and that a community in Babylon could only be considered as subsidiary to the nation in its own home and worshipping at the Temple. Such a sentiment, at any rate, would have met with universal approval amongst Palestinian Jews. The chronicler might also have replied that the Jews in Babylon belonged to Judah and Benjamin and were sufficiently recognized in the general prominence given to these tribes. In all probability some Palestinian Jews would have been willing to class their Babylonian kinsmen with the ten tribes. Voluntary exiles from the Temple, the Holy City, and the Land of Promise had in great measure cut themselves off from the full privileges of the people of Jehovah. If, however, we had a Babylonian book of Chronicles, we should see both Jerusalem and Babylon in another light. The chronicler was possessed and inspired by the actual living present round about him; he was content to let the dead past bury its dead. He was probably inclined to believe that the absent are mostly wrong, and that the men who worked with him for the Lord and His temple were the true Israel and the Church of God. He was enthusiastic in his own vocation and loyal to his brethren. If his interests were somewhat narrowed by the urgency of present circumstances, most men suffer from the same limitations. Few Englishmen realize that the battle of Agincourt is part of the history of the United States, and that Canterbury Cathedral is a monument of certain stages in the growth of the religion of New England. We are not altogether willing to admit that these voluntary exiles from our Holy Land belong to the true Anglo-Saxon Israel. Churches are still apt to ignore their obligations to teachers who. like the prophets of Samaria, seem to have been associated with alien or hostile branches of the family of God. A religious movement which fails to secure for itself a permanent monument is usually labeled heresy. If it has neither obtained recognition within the Church nor yet organized a sect for itself, its services are forgotten or denied. Even the orthodoxy of one generation is sometimes contemptuous of the older orthodoxy which made it possible; and yet Gnostics, Arians and Athanasians, Arminians and Calvinists, have all done something to build up the temple of faith. The nineteenth century prides itself on a more liberal spirit. But Romanist historians are not eager to acknowledge the debt of their Church to the Reformers; and there are Protestant partisans who deny that we are the heirs of the Christian life and thought of the medieval Church and are anxious to trace the genealogy of pure religion exclusively through a supposed succession of obscure and half-mythical sects. Limitations like those of the chronicler still narrow the sympathies of earnest and devout Christians. But it is time to return to the more positive aspects of the teaching of Chronicles, and to see how far we have already traced its exposition of the Messianic idea. The plan of the book implies a spiritual claim on behalf of the Jewish community of the Restoration. Because they believed in Jehovah, whose providence had in former times controlled the destinies of Israel, they returned to their ancestral home that they might serve and worship the God of their fathers. Their faith survived the ruin of Judah and their own captivity; they recognized the power, and wisdom, and love of God alike in the prosperity and in the misfortunes of their race. "They believed God, and it was counted unto them for righteousness." The great prophet of the Restoration had regarded this new Israel as itself a Messianic people, perhaps even "a light to the Gentiles" and "salvation unto the ends of the earth." { Isaiah 49:6 } The chronicler’s hopes were more modest; the new Jerusalem had been seen by the prophet as an ideal vision; the historian knew it lay experience as an imperfect human society: but he believed none the less in its high spiritual vocation and prerogatives. He claimed the future for those who were able to trace the hand of God in their past. Under the monarchy the fortunes of Jerusalem had been bound up with those of the house of David. The chronicler brings out all that was best in the history of the ancient kings of Judah, that this ideal picture of the state and its rulers might encourage and inspire to future hope and effort. The character and achievements of David and his successors were of permanent significance. The grace and favor accorded to them symbolized the Divine promise for the future, and this promise was to be realized through a Son of David. DAVID 2. HIS PERSONAL HISTORY IN order to understand why the chronicler entirely recasts the graphic and candid history of David given in the book of Samuel, we have to consider the place that David had come to fill in Jewish religion. It seems probable that among the sources used by the author of the book of Samuel was a history of David, written not long after his death, by some one familiar with the inner life of the court. "No one," says the proverb, "is a hero to his valet"; very much what a valet is to a private gentleman courtiers are to a king: their knowledge of their master approaches to the familiarity which breeds contempt. Not that David was ever a subject for contempt or less than a hero even to his own courtiers: but they knew him as a very human hero, great in his vices as well as in his virtues, daring in battle and wise in counsel, sometimes also reckless in sin, yet capable of unbounded repentance, loving not wisely, but too well. And as they knew him, so they described him; and their picture is an immortal possession for all students of sacred life and literature. But it is not the portrait of a Messiah; when we think of the "Son of David," we do not want to be reminded of Bathsheba. During the six or seven centuries that elapsed between the death of David and the chronicler the name of David had come to have a symbolic meaning, which was largely independent of the personal character and career of the actual king. His reign had become idealized by the magic of antiquity; it was a glory of "the good old times." His own sins and failures were obscured by the crimes and disasters of later kings. And yet, in spite of all its shortcomings, the "house of David" still remained the symbol alike of ancient glory and of future hopes. We have seen from the genealogies how intimate the connection was between the family and its founder. Ephraim and Benjamin may mean either patriarchs or tribes. A Jew was not always anxious to distinguish between the family and the founder. "David" and "the house of David" became almost interchangeable terms. Even the prophets of the eighth century connect the future destiny of Israel with David and his house. The child, of whom Isaiah prophesied, was to sit "upon the throne of David" and be "over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness from henceforth even forever." { Isaiah 9:7 } And, again, the king who is to "sit in truth judging, and seeking judgment, and swift to do righteousness," is to have "his throne established in mercy in the tent of David." When { Isaiah 16:5 } Sennacherib attacked Jerusalem, the city was defended { Isaiah 37:35 } for Jehovah’s own sake and for His servant David’s sake. In the word of the Lord that came to Isaiah for Hezekiah, David supersedes, as it were, the sacred fathers of the Hebrew race; Jehovah is not spoken of as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," but "the God of David." { Isaiah 38:5 } As founder of the dynasty, he takes rank with the founders of the race and religion of Israel: he is "the patriarch David." { Acts 2:29 } The northern prophet Hosea looks forward to the time when the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord "their God and David their king"; { Hosea 3:5 } when Amos wishes to set forth the future prosperity of Israel, he says that the Lord "will raise up the tabernacle of David"; { Amos 9:11 } in Micah "the ruler in Israel" is to come forth from Bethlehem Ephrathah, the birthplace of David; { Micah 5:2 } in Jeremiah such references to David are frequent, the most characteristic being those relating to the "righteous branch, whom the Lord will raise up unto David," who "shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land, in whose days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely"; in Ezekiel "My servant David" is to be the shepherd and prince of Jehovah’s restored and reunited people; { Ezekiel 34:23-24 } Zechariah, writing at what we may consider the beginning of the chronicler’s own period, follows the language of his predecessors: he applies Jeremiah’s prophecy of "the righteous branch" to Zerubbabel, the prince of the house of David: similarly in Haggai Zerubbabel is the chosen of Jehovah; { Haggai 2:23 } in the appendix to Zechariah it is said that when "the Lord defends the inhabitants of Jerusalem the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them." { Zechariah 12:8 } In the later literature, Biblical and apocryphal, the Davidic origin of the Messiah is not conspicuous till it reappears in the Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament, but the idea had not necessarily been dormant meanwhile. The chronicler and his school studied and meditated on the sacred writings, and must have been familiar with this doctrine of the prophets. The interest in such a subject would not be confined to scholars. Doubtless the downtrodden people cherished with ever-growing ardor the glorious picture of the Davidic king. In the synagogues it was not only Moses, but the Prophets, that were read; and they could never allow the picture of the Messianic king to grow faint and pale. David’s name was also familiar as the author of many psalms. The inhabitants of Jerusalem would often hear them sung at the Temple, and they were probably used for private devotion. In this way especially the name of David had become associated with the deepest and purest spiritual experiences. This brief survey shows how utterly impossible it was for the chronicler to transfer the older narrative bodily from the book of Samuel to his own pages. Large omissions were absolutely necessary. He could not sit down in cold blood to tell his readers that the man whose name they associated with the most sacred memories and the noblest hopes of Israel had been guilty of treacherous murder, and had offered himself to the Philistines as an ally against the people of Jehovah. From this point of view let us consider the chronicler’s omissions somewhat more in detail. In the first place, with one or two slight exceptions, he omits the whole of David’s life before his accession to the throne, for two reasons: partly because he is anxious that his readers should think of David as king, the anointed of Jehovah, the Messiah; partly that they may not be reminded of his career as an outlaw and a freebooter and of his alliance with the Philistines. It is probably only an unintentional result of this omission that it enables the chronicler to ignore the important services rendered to David by Abiathar, whose family were rivals of the house of Zadok in the priesthood. We have already seen that the events of David’s reign at Hebron and his struggle with Ishbosheth are omitted because the chronicler does not recognize Ishbosheth as a legitimate king. The omission would also commend itself because this section contains the account of Joab’s murder of Abner and David’s inability to do more than protest against the crime. "I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me," { 2 Samuel 3:39 } are scarcely words that become an ideal king. The next point to notice is one of those significant alterations that mark the chronicler’s industry as a redactor. In 2 Samuel 5:21 we read that after the Philistines had been defeated at Baal-perazim they left their images there, and David and his men took them away. Why did they take them away? What did David and his men want with images? Missionaries bring home images as trophies, and exhibit them triumphantly, like soldiers who have captured the enemy’s standards. No one, not even an unconverted native, supposes that they have been brought away to be used in worship. But the worship of images was no improbable apostasy on the part of an Israelite king. The chronicler felt that these ambiguous words were open to misconstruction; so he tells us what he assumes to have been their ultimate fate: "And they left their gods there; and David gave commandment, and they were burnt with fire." { 2 Samuel 5:21 1 Chronicles 14:12 } The next omission was obviously a necessary one; it is the incident of Uriah and Bathsheba. The name Bathsheba never occurs in Chronicles. When it is necessary to mention the mother of Solomon, she is called Bathshua, possibly in order that the disgraceful incident might not be suggested even by the use of the name. The New Testament genealogies differ in this matter in somewhat the same way as Samuel and Chronicles. St. Matthew expressly mentions Uriah’s wife as an ancestress of our Lord, but St. Luke does not mention her or any other ancestress. The next omission is equally extensive and important. It includes the whole series of events connected with the revolt of Absalom, from the incident of Tamar to the suppression of the rebellion of Sheba the son of Bichri. Various motives may have contributed to this omission. The narrative contains unedifying incidents, which are passed over as lightly as possible by modern writers like Stanley. It was probably a relief to the chronicler to be able to omit them altogether. There is no heinous sin like the murder of Uriah, but the story leaves a general impression of great weakness on David’s part. Joab murders Amasa as he had murdered Abner, and this time there is no record of any protest even on the part of David. But probably the main reason for the omission of this narrative is that it mars the ideal picture of David’s power and dignity and the success and prosperity of his reign. The touching story of Rizpah is omitted; the hanging of her sons does not exhibit David in a very amiable light. The Gibeonites propose that "they shall hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the Lord," and David accepts the proposal. This punishment of the children for the sin of their father was expressly against the Law and the whole incident was perilously akin to human sacrifice. How could they be hung up before Jehovah in Gibeah unless there was a sanctuary of Jehovah in Gibeah? And why should Saul at such a time and in such a connection be called emphatically "the chosen of Jehovah"? On many grounds, it was a passage which the chronicler would be glad to omit. 2 Samuel 21:15-17 we are told that David waxed faint and had to be rescued by Abishai. This is omitted by Chronicles probably because it detracts from the character of David as the ideal hero. The next paragraph in Samuel also tended to depreciate David’s prowess. It stated that Goliath was slain by Elhanan. The chronicler introduces a correction. It was not Goliath whom Elhanan slew, but Lahmi, the brother of Goliah. However, the text in Samuel is evidently corrupt; and possibly this is one of the cases in which Chronicles has preserved the correct text. { 2 Samuel 21:19 1 Chronicles 20:5 } Then follow two omissions that are not easily accounted for 2 Samuel 22:1-51 ; 2 Samuel 23:1-39 , contain two psalms, Psalm 18:1-50 , and "the Last Words of David," the latter not included in the Psalter. These psalms are generally considered a late addition to the book of Samuel, and it is barely possible that they were not in the copy used by the chronicler; but the late date of Chronicles makes against this supposition. The psalms may be omitted for the sake of brevity, and yet elsewhere a long cento of passages from post-Exilic psalms is added to the material derived from the book of Samuel. Possibly something in the omitted section jarred upon the theological sensibilities of the chronicler, but it is not clear what. He does not as a rule look below the surface for obscure suggestions of undesirable views. The grounds of his alterations and omissions are usually sufficiently obvious; but these particular omissions are not at present susceptible of any obvious explanation. Further research into the theology of Judaism may perhaps provide us with one hereafter. Finally, the chronicler omits the attempt of Adonijah to seize the throne, and David’s dying commands to Solomon. The opening chapters of the book of Kings present a graphic and pathetic picture of the closing scenes of David’s life. The king is exhausted with old age. His authoritative sanction to the coronation of Solomon is only obtained when he has been roused and directed by the promptings and suggestions of the women of his harem. The scene is partly a parallel and partly a contrast to the last days of Queen Elizabeth; for when her bodily strength failed, the obstinate Tudor spirit refused to be guided by the suggestions of her courtiers. The chronicler was depicting a person of almost Divine dignity, in whom incidents of human weakness would have been out of keeping; and therefore they are omitted. David’s charge to Solomon is equally human. Solomon is to make up for David’s weakness and undue generosity by putting Joab and Shimei to death; on the other hand, he is to pay David’s debt of gratitude to the son of Barzillai. But the chronicler felt that David’s mind in those last days must surely have been occupied with the temple which Solomon was to build, and the less edifying charge is omitted. Constantine is reported to have said that, for the honor of the Church, he would conceal the sin of a bishop with his own imperial purple. David was more to the chronicler than the whole Christian episcopate to Constantine. His life of David is compiled in the spirit and upon the principles of lives of saints generally, and his omissions are made in perfect good faith. Let us now consider the positive picture of David as it is drawn for us in Chronicles. Chronicles would be published separately, each copy written, out on a roll of its own. There may have been Jews who had Chronicles, hut not Samuel and Kings, and who knew nothing about David except what they learned from Chronicles. Possibly the chronicler and his friends would recommend the work as suitable for the education of children and the instruction of the common people. It would save its readers from being perplexed by the religious difficulties suggested by Samuel and Kings. There were many obstacles, however, to the success of such a scheme; the persecutions of Antiochus and the wars of the Maccabees took the leadership out of the hands of scholars and gave it to soldiers and statesmen. The latter perhaps felt more drawn to the real David than to the ideal, and the new priestly dynasty would not be anxious to emphasize the Messianic hopes of the house of David. But let us put ourselves for a moment in the position of a student of Hebrew history who reads of David for the first time in Chronicles and has no other source of information. Our first impression as we read the book is that David comes into the history as abruptly as Elijah or Melchizedek. Jehovah slew Saul "and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." { 1 Chronicles 10:14 } Apparently the Divine appointment is promptly and enthusiastically accepted by the nation; all the twelve tribes come at once in their tens and hundreds of thousands to Hebron to make David king. They then march straight to Jerusalem and take it by storm, and forthwith attempt to bring up the Ark to Zion. An unfortunate accident necessitates a delay of three months, but at the end of that time the Ark is solemnly installed in a tent at Jerusalem. {Cf. 1 Chronicles 11:1-9 ; 1 Chronicles 12:23 ; 1 Chronicles 13:14 } We are not told who David the son of Jesse was, or why the Divine choice fell upon him or how he had been prepared for his responsible position, or how he had so commended himself to Israel as to be accepted with universal acclaim. He must however, have been of noble family and high character; and it is hinted that he had had a distinguished career as a soldier. { 1 Chronicles 11:2 } We should expect to find his name in the introductory genealogies: and if we have read these lists of names with conscientious attention, we shall remember that there are sundry incidental references to David, and that he was the seventh son of Jesse, { 1 Chronicles 2:15 } who was descended from the Patriarch Judah, though Boaz, the husband of Ruth. As we read further we come to other references which throw some light on David’s early career, and at the same time somewhat mar the symmetry of the opening narrative. The wide discrepancy between the chronicler’s idea of David and the account given by his authorities prevents him from composing his work on an entirely consecutive and consistent plan. We gather that there was a time when David was in rebellion against his predecessor, and maintained himself at Ziklag and elsewhere, keeping "himself close, because of Saul the son of Kish," and even that he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle, but was prevented by the jealousy of the Philistine chiefs from actually fighting against Saul. There is nothing to indicate the occasion or circumstances of these events. But it appears that even at this period, when David was in arms against the king of Israel and an ally of the Philistines, he was the chosen leader of Israel. Men flocked to him from Judah and Benjamin, Manasseh and Gad, and doubtless from the other tribes as well: "From day to day there came to David to help him, until it was a great host, like the host of God." { 1 Chronicles 20:1-8 } This chapter partly explains David’s popularity after Saul’s death; but it only carries the mystery a stage further back. How did this outlaw, and apparently unpatriotic rebel, get so strong a hold on the affections of Israel? Chapter 12 also provides material for plausible explanations of another difficulty. In chapter 10 the army of Israel is routed, the inhabitants of the land take to flight, and the Philistines occupy their cities; in 11 and 1 Chronicles 12:23-40 all Israel come straightway to Hebron in the most peaceful and unconcerned fashion to make David king. Are we to understand that his Philistine allies, mindful of that "great host, like the host of God," all at once changed their minds and entirely relinquished the fruits of their victory? Elsewhere, however, we find a statement that renders other explanations possible. David reigned seven years in Hebron, { 1 Chronicles 29:27 } so that our first impression as to the rapid sequence of events at the beginning o

And David made him houses in the city Of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God. 1 Chronicles 15:1, 24 Removal of the ark, or carrying on the work of God J. Wolfendale. I. PREPARATION FOR GOD'S WORK. 1. By personal sanctification. 2. By implicit obedience to God's command. II. HEARTY CO-OPERATION IN GOD'S WORK. 1. Gained by consultation. Teachers' Meetings, Ministers' Conferences, National Councils of great help in effective work. 2. Displayed in united ranks. 3. Expressed by individual effort. III. SUCCESS ACHIEVED IN GOD'S WORK. ( J. Wolfendale. ) The call to service J. Wolfendale. I. THE CALL. 1. Personal. 2. Pressing. 3. Worthy. II. THE RESPONSE. 1. Ready. 2. Universal. 3. Immediate. III. THE DIRECTIONS TO CARRY IT OUT. 1. Clear. 2. Right. 3. Safe. ( J. Wolfendale. ) Sanctify yourselves. 1 Chronicles 15:12 Personal holiness essential to sacred service J. Wolfendale. I. PERSONAL HOLINESS REQUIRED IN THOSE WHO SERVE. 1. In heart. 2. In life. II. PERSONAL HOLINESS THE PATTERN ACCORDING TO WHICH WE MUST SERVE ( Ephesians 5:1 ). III. PERSONAL HOLINESS IS THE ONLY CONDITION ON WHICH WE CAN SERVE. 1. By this we influence others. 2. By this we answer the end of our being. "He hath not called you to uncleanness, but unto holiness." ( J. Wolfendale. ) For that ye sought Him not after the due order. 1 Chronicles 15:13 Seeking the Lord H. Melvill, B. D. There are historical details connected with these words which we wish you carefully to consider. David had prepared a place for the ark of God, which had been retained by the Philistines from the days of Eli; and for a long period had been banished from the congregation of Israel. He now determined to go down to the house of Obed-edom, where the ark was, and bring up to Jerusalem with all due solemnity this precious emblem of the presence of the Lord. He exhorts the priests and Levites to sanctify themselves, to observe, that is, all the prescribed ceremonial purifications, in order that they might be fitted to carry the ark. This was not the first attempt at bringing back the ark of the Lord. The Philistines, finding that its presence only brought down judgments upon their land, carried the ark into the country of the Israelites, where it remained for many years with Abinadab, in Kirjath-jearim. But when David, after the decease of Saul, had placed himself on the throne, he went down to the house of Abinadab, that he might bring up thence the sacred deposit. The ark of God, you read, was put on a new cart, and Uzza and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove the cart. After proceeding some distance the oxen stumbled; and Uzza put forth his hand and laid hold on the ark to prevent it from falling. Uzza was not a priest; and every other was expressly forbidden to touch the ark. Alarmed at so signal and unexpected an interference of God, David gave vent to his feelings in the exclamation of our text: "How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?" and determined, that for the present at least, he would make no further endeavour to remove what it was so perilous to touch. In process, however, of time, when he had duly considered the causes of his failure, he set himself again to recovering the ark. Warned by the fate of Uzza he was a little more careful and cautious in the several arrangements. David goes on to address the Levites: "Because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought Him not after the due order." We have a great lesson to derive from the facts thus briefly set before you. The lesson is, that God may be sought, and yet not be found, because the seeking is not in the way or "order" which He hath revealed as agreeable to Himself. It was not that David and his people were not sincere and hearty in their desire that the ark of God might be once more amongst them. We are told that while the ark abode in Kirjath-jearim, the time was long, for it was twenty years, and all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord. So that the seeking was not that of the hypocrite. The seeking God in a way of their own notion, and not in that of the Divine appointment; or, rather, the neglecting to observe rigidly what God had prescribed in respect of the manner in which He would be sought — this it was which had been offensive to the Lord. And if where there was sincerity of purpose, there might be this failure through want of exact conformity to the revealed will of God, we are bound to conclude that in our own day and generation it is not the mere striving for masteries; but, as St. Paul has expressed it, the "striving lawfully," which will be crowned with any measure of success. Now, we need hardly observe to you, that the right way of seeking God must he the way that God Himself has been pleased to reveal. But there is a twofold revelation — a revelation which God makes of Himself by and through conscience, and a revelation which is contained in the Bible. Let us look at both of these. There may be a due order prescribed by the one, as well as by the other. You will all be prepared to admit that the first step which conscience dictates, when it has roused a man to a sense of his moral condition is, that he break loose from those habits of evil which have been formed during years of carelessness and vice. There is a thorough harmony here between the two revelations. But if we would overcome a habit, we must carefully observe how habits are formed. A habit must be overcome through retracing step by step that very process by which the habit was formed; so that there is a "due order" to be observed, the neglecting of which will frustrate all our labours. A habit is not formed in a day, neither is a habit to be overcome in a day. Now, if this be the way in which a habit is formed; in what way may that habit be loosened and destroyed? We reply that, as it was formed step by step, so must it be destroyed step by step. And when you have determined that a habit is obnoxious, there will rise a desire, however faint, to pursue a course of conduct which is opposed to this habit. This desire, like the vicious one already considered, will at first be obeyed with difficulty; an effort will be needed, perhaps a painful, and in some cases l most intense effort. But this effort will diminish with every instance of success. This is the "due order" in dealing with habit, and thus labouring at the reformation which conscience demands. But there may be a neglect of this "due order," and then comes that failure which is our chief subject of discourse. If you withstand an evil habit, but take no pains to cultivate an opposite habit, you may produce an external reformation, and yet make no advance towards an internal reformation. The drunkard may force himself into a sober man, without undergoing any moral change. He may impose some powerful restraint upon the evil passion, and thus produce a suspension of the habit; but all the while the tendency remains unsubdued; and if the restraint be withdrawn, the tendency will resume all its power. The man is just what he was in all but the actual indulgence. But our chief attention should be given to the theology of the gospel, though what we have called the theology of conscience occupies a highly important place in reference to moral reformation. It is not unfrequent to find repentance described as a kind of condition to be performed on man's part, in order that he may be fitted to receive the blessings of the gospel. Repentance is spoken of as a preliminary to be accomplished by ourselves, so that when disciplined and penitent we may turn to Christ for forgiveness. But this is not the doctrine of the gospel. This is rather the inversion of the "due order" prescribed by the gospel. The doctrine of the New Testament is not "repentance," and then appeal to Christ. It is appeal at once to Christ in order that you may repent. We know that before the blood of the atonement can be applied to the conscience, and a man have reason to hope himself justified by God, there must be an earnest and hearty resolution to mortify those affections and desires whose indulgence has heretofore done despite unto God. But then we equally know that such a resolution as this is not to be made out of anything which man finds in himself, through the instrumentality of his unaided feelings whether mental or moral. We know that a determination to forsake sin, if it be anything better than a feeble purpose which will give way at the first onset of temptation, must be a determination which is based on hatred of sin as despite to a Benefactor; for such is the construction of our minds, at least in this the eclipse and degradation of man, that we cannot long avoid through mere dread of its consequences what commends itself as desirable to the appetites of our nature. And if it be essential to the resolution in question, that there be hatred of sin as despite to a Benefactor, there is little likelihood of its being fabricated and fastened on the soul, so long as a man is at a distance from Christ. It must be fabricated amid the scenes of crucifixion; it must be fastened by the agonies of the crucified; so that, we again say, that applying to Christ is the first step, and not the second in that "due order" which is prescribed by the gospel plan for seeking the Lord. The ark of the truth of God, in which is deposited the mysteries and the mercies of redemption how, according to the question of our text — how shall this be brought into the human breast and shrined in the recesses of the soul? Repentance and faith — these, so to speak, are the anointed priesthood who alone may handle, alone move the hallowed treasure. But if we would substitute for that repentance, which is the gift of the interceding Saviour, another, human in its origin, and produced by ..the workings of our unassisted feelings, what are we doing but placing an Uzza, one not sprung of the consecrated line, to assist in bringing back the sacred and magnificent treasure? The "due order" is that, stirred by the remonstrances of conscience, by the pleadings of God's Spirit, we flee straightway to Christ, and entreat of Him to make us penitent; and then to give us pardon. Let him try this method, and it may not be long ere the ark of the living God, weighty with the blessings of eternity, moves majestically into his soul. But we have yet some general remarks to advance upon what David calls seeking God after the "due order," or to speak more popularly, going the right way to work in the matter of moral endeavour. When God has once made known His will, the question is not whether there be sincerity of purpose, and earnestness of endeavour, but whether in striving for masteries man strives lawfully — strives in the way which has been revealed. If not, if there be any swerving from this way, it is not the amount of energy which he brings to the effort, nor the devotedness with which he follows out his course, which shall procure him favour with his Maker. He offends by substituting his own way for God's way; and, certainly, the zeal with which he prosecutes an offence can in no sense repair the offence. The decisions of the intellect are mightily swayed by the dictates of the inclination. An investigation may be carried on with all candour and honesty; yet the judgment has no fair play if there be a lurking wish that the verdict may confirm a preconceived theory. Therefore do we hold a man answerable for his faith, because we hold him answerable for that state of moral feeling which he brings to the search after truth. If a man have himself destroyed or impaired the organ of vision, surely he is answerable for not seeing what God hath made plain. We unequivocally maintain that he who has revelation in his hand, and either rejects, or resists its sayings in regard of the alone mode of salvation, has nothing to expect but that as it was with David and his people, the Lord God will break in anger upon him, because in the matter of his endeavouring to "bring home to him the ark of the Lord," he has failed to proceed after the "due order." If God hath been pleased to make known a method in which the ark of His presence may be brought into the soul, we are answerable for conforming ourselves to that method with all possible exactness and all possible care. There can be nothing simpler than the directions which are given us in Holy Writ. We are to set ourselves at once to the resisting those known sins which we are sure must grieve the Holy Spirit of God. We are to pray for the influences of His Spirit, that we may be led to Christ for repentance and faith. Our whole dependence is to be placed on the sacrifice and righteousness of the Mediator. Many — vast multitudes — perish in utter indifference; they make no effort to be saved. Others make an effort, but not in the right way; not in the way the Bible prescribes; and they, too, perish — perish through planning for themselves, in place of submitting meekly to the revealed will of God. We are all naturally in the condition of Jerusalem at the time when the solicitudes of its monarch were given to bringing the ark within its precincts. Created in the image of his Maker, the breast of man was designed as a sanctuary in which the Lord God might tabernacle; but the Philistine came down in his strength; the sanctuary was desecrated; and the Lord God withdrew from the polluted abode. And now the question which should interest us, and command our intense consideration — it is, How can the temple be rebuilt and cleansed, and habited again with the indwellings of Deity? The question of our text: "How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?" is the question which presses hardest on every thinking man, conscious of the corruption which has been woven into his nature, conscious of the immortality to which that nature is heir. We thank God that we are not abandoned to our own conjecture and our own strivings! The ark "s yet in the land, and though none but a priest can presume to touch the mysterious thing, we have a High Priest whose intercession is so rapid and so prevalent, that He can at once purify the temple, and fill it with the long lost treasure. ( H. Melvill, B. D. ) The danger of not waiting on God after the due order T. Boston, D. D. God is highly displeased with persons who perform duties, but are careful not to perform them in a right manner. In discoursing which, I shall show — I. HOW IT COMES TO PASS THAT MEN PERFORM DUTIES, BUT ARE NOT CAREFUL TO PERFORM THEM IN A RIGHT MANNER. 1. Because to perform duty is the easiest part of religion, but to do it in a right manner is very difficult; and few people have a heart to manage the difficulties of religion. 2. Because the bare performance of duties is within the reach of all, the performing of them in a right manner is beyond the reach of the most part. Natural abilities will serve for the one, gracious abilities are necessary for the other ( John 15:5 ; Hebrews 11:4 ). Nature cannot carry a man above itself, more than the mouth of a river can be higher than the spring-head. 3. By the bare performance of duties, men attain the base and low ends which they propose to themselves in the service of God, viz., (1) Peace of mind, such as it is. (2) It gains a man credit in the world. 4. Because men may get duties done and keep their lusts too. To perform duties in a right manner is inconsistent with peace with our lustre ( Psalm 66:18 ). 5. Because most men have low and mean thoughts of God ( Malachi 1:6-8 ). II. HOW THE LORD TESTIFIES HIS DISPLEASURE AGAINST SUCH PERSONS. 1. By withdrawing from them in religious services. Ordinances are the trysting-places where Christ meets with His people; but if they be not gone about in a right manner, they will be but an empty sepulchre. The living God is not to be found in a dead worship. 2. By rejecting their services (Malachi 1:18; Isaiah 1:11 ). 3. By spiritual strokes upon their souls ( Jeremiah 48:10 ; Malachi 1:14 ). 4. By strokes upon their bodies. III. WHY IS THE LORD SO HIGHLY DISPLEASED? 1. Because God commands His service to be done in a right manner, "With a perfect heart and a willing mind" ( 1 Chronicles 28:9 ). 2. Because the doing of a duty in a wrong manner alters the nature of it and makes it sin. If a house be built of never so strong timber, and good stones, yet if it be not well founded and right built, the inhabitant may curse the day he came under the roof of it. 3. Because duties not performed according to the right order, are but the half of the service we owe to God, and the worst half too. The Jews had it written about the doors of their synagogues, "Prayer without intention is as a body without a soul." 4. Because duties thus performed are very dishonourable to God. ( T. Boston, D. D. ) Importance of small things in religion You have before you now the picture. I shall want you to look at it — I. IN DETAIL. I observe — 1. That God's judgment of sin must differ exceedingly from ours. 2. That all changes from the written revelation of God are wrong. 3. Whenever the practices of Christians differ from Scripture they are sure to incur inconvenience. 4. One innovation upon Sacred Writ leads to another. 5. A wrong thing done from right motives is not acceptable with God. II. AS A WHOLE. Here I have two pictures — 1. One for the people of God. Let us be done with everything erroneous. Then will the ark be brought up out of its obscurity into the place of glory. This is what is necessary to bring the kingdom of Christ on earth. 2. The other for the ungodly. It was a right thing for David to wish to bring up the ark, but perhaps he was ignorant of the way to bring it, and see what inconvenience he had to suffer. If you are not clear as to the plan of salvation, you will have many joltings, much shaking, and you will suffer much inconvenience. The plan of salvation is "Trust in Jesus." ( C. H. Spurgeon . )10

15:1-24 Wise and good men may be guilty of oversights, which they will correct, as soon as they are aware of them. David does not try to justify what had been done amiss, nor to lay the blame on others; but he owns himself guilty, with others, of not seeking God in due order 15:25-29 It is good to notice the assistance of Divine Providence, even in things which fall within the compass of our natural powers; if God did not help us, we could not stir a step. If we do our religious duties in any degree aright, we must own it was God that helped us; had we been left to ourselves, we should have been guilty of some fatal errors. And every thing in which we engage, must be done in dependence on the mercy of God through the sacrifice of the Redeemer.