Now these are they that came to David to Ziklag. 1 Chronicles 12:1 Good men centres of lawful activity S. Smiles. The good and the great draw others after them; they lighten and lift up all who are within reach of their influence. They are so many living centres of beneficent activity. Let a man of energetic and upright character be appointed to a position of trust and authority, and all who serve under him become, as it were, conscious of an increase of power. ( S. Smiles. ) And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David. 1 Chronicles 12:8-15 David and his volunteers David, compelled to flee from his own country, and to hide himself from the malice of Saul, was eminently a type of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, in the days when He dwelt here among men, was despised and rejected of men. All who would repair to Him must go forth likewise, bearing His reproach. These eleven Gadites — all of them remarkable men — espoused the cause of David when he was in his very worst condition; they left the ease and comfort, the honours and emoluments, of their own home to associate themselves with him when he was regarded as an outlaw under the ban of society. And to this day every Christian who is faithful to his profession must separate himself from his fellow-men to be a follower of the despised Jesus. I. THE LEADER, WHOM WE REGARD AS A TYPE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, was David, the son of Jesse; and in tracing out some points of analogy we begin by noticing — 1. That, like David, our Lord was anointed of God to be the leader of His people. It is an honour to follow one who has the highest sanction of heaven in taking the command and exercising the authority that pertains to him. 2. Jesus was like David, too, in that He was personally fit to be a leader. David, alike by his character and his deeds of prowess, had become the foremost man of his times. So our blessed Lord, as to His person, is just such a King as one might desire to obey; and, as for His achievements, O tell what His arm hath done — what spoils from death His right hand won! Let His fame be spread over all the earth! He stood in the gap when there was none to help. He vanquished the foe who threatened our destruction. 3. But our Lord, though anointed of God and meriting the distinction which He gained, was, nevertheless, like David, rejected of men. So the seed of the serpent hates the seed of the woman. But notwithstanding the pains and penalties they incurred in those dark days, the really good and pious people in Israel rallied to the standard of David. I know it is said that those who were in debt and discontented came to David. That is quite true; and when it typifies the abject condition of those poor sinners who come to Christ for refuge; but many of those Israelites were reduced in circumstances and brought into debt through the bad government of Saul. There was with David, Abiathar the high priest. With David likewise there was Gad the prophet. Does not the like thing happen among those who ally themselves with the Son of David at this day? Although He whom we worship is despised and rejected of men, yet unto you who believe He is precious. We need not be ashamed to side with Jesus, for we shall be in good company. 4. Despised as David was among men, yet, being anointed of God, his cause in the end was successful. He did come to the throne: and so it is with our Lord Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding all the opposition that still rages against His cause, it must prosper and prevail. II. Having thus drawn your attention to the Leader, whom David the son of Jesse prefigured, let me turn now to speak a little of THOSE WHO GATHERED ROUND HIM AND ENLISTED IN HIS SERVICE. The recruits who came to David were eleven in number. The first characteristic we read about them is that they were separated. "Of the Gadites, there separated themselves unto David" eleven persons. 1. They were separated. Observe that. They separated themselves. They seem to have been captains of the militia of their tribe. The very least among them was over a hundred, and the greatest over a thousand. But they separated themselves from their commands over their tribes — separated themselves from their brethren and their kinsfolk. I daresay many of their friends said to them, "Why, what fools you are! You must be mad to espouse the cause of a fellow like David!" and then they would call David ell manner of foul, opprobrious names. In these times it is most important that every one who is a Christian should understand that he must separate himself from the world. Ye cannot serve Christ and the world too. You cannot be of the world and of Christ's Church. It is in his intercourse with the world that the Christian shows the morel forces of his character. There it comes out because it cannot be hid. If his trade has become used to tricks and stratagems which will not bear the light, he cannot conform to them; he will shrink from them with abhorrence: he must keep a clean conscience. 2. But observe that these people separated themselves unto David. You may separate yourself and not separate yourself unto Christ; and if not, you only change from one form of worldly-mindedness to another. We ere not to separate ourselves unto self-righteousness, or unto affectation, or unto a sect, but unto Christ. These people got away from their friends that they might get to David. We are to get away from the world that we may get closer to Christ. 3. And then, as you read that they separated themselves unto David in the wilderness, let me entreat you to ask yourselves it you are ready to take part with a rejected, crucified Christ. Tens of thousands would separate themselves to David if he were in Hebron on the throne of Israel. If the truth should lead us down into the hovel, where we could only associate with the very lowest of the low, if they were the Lord's people, they should be our delight. 4. Note, next, about these men that they were men of might. It is said of them that they were men of might, whose faces were like faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes upon the mountains. All that came to David were not like that. David had some women and children to protect, but he was glad to receive others that were men of might. Now there came to Jesus, the greater David in His day, the weak ones of the flock, and He never rejected them. He was glad to receive even the feeblest; but there did come to our Lord and Master eleven men who, by His grace, were like these Gadites. Truly, I may say of His apostles, after our Divine Lord had filled them with His Spirit, that they had faces like lions and feet like hinds' feet, so swift were they for service and so strong for combat. The grace of God can make us brave as lions, so that wherever we are we can hold our own, or rather can hold our Lord's truth, and never blush nor be ashamed to speak a good word for Him at all times. 5. But it is worth noticing that they were men of war, inured to discipline — men fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler. Now there are some men of might who do not seem to be good men of war, because they cannot keep rank. What exploits they may do they must needs do alone, for they cannot march with the army. There are some brethren I know who are most excellent people as individuals, but they seem never to be meant to march in the ranks; they must every one of them lead, they cannot be second to anybody; neither can they be under any discipline or rule. 6. These Gadites likewise furnish us with a noble example of strong resolution. When the eleven men determined to join David they were living the other side of a deep river, which at that season of the year had overflowed its banks, so that it was extremely deep and broad. But they were not to be kept from joining David, when he wanted them, by the river. They swam through the river that they might come to David. Do you stand back and shrink from avowing your attachment to the standard of God's anointed because it would involve loss of reputation, displeasure of friends, the frowns of your associates in the world, or the heartbreaks of anguish of those you tenderly love? Know, then, that our Lord is worthy of all the troubles you incur, and all the risks you run; and be assured that the peace which a soul enjoys that once joins Christ in the hold, and abides with Him in the wilderness, well repays a man for all that he has to part with in getting to his Lord and Master. Now, it would appear that after they had got across the river they were attacked, but we are told that they put to flight all them of the valleys, both toward the east and toward the west. O ye that love the Lord and Master, I beseech you in this evil day, this day of blasphemy and rebuke, stand not back: be not craven. ( C. H. Spurgeon . ) Fitness for service A. Maclaren, D. D. The secret of success religiously is precisely the same as the secret of success in ordinary things. Look at the splendid qualities that go to the making of a successful housebreaker. Audacity, resource, secrecy, promptitude, persistence, skill of hand, and a hundred others, are put into play before a man can break into your back kitchen and steal your goods. Look at the qualities that go to the making of a successful amuser of people. Men will spend endless time and pains, and devote concentration, persistence, self-denial, diligence to learning how to play upon some instrument, how to swing upon a trapeze, how to twist themselves into abnormal contortions. Jugglers and fiddlers, and circusriders and dancers, and people of that sort, spend far more time upon efforts to perfect themselves in their profession than ninety-nine out of every hundred professing Christians do to make themselves true followers of Jesus Christ. They know that nothing is to be got without working for it, and there is nothing to be got in the Christian life without working for it any more than in any other. ( A. Maclaren, D. D. ) And there came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the hold unto David. 1 Chronicles 12:16, 18 Recruits for King Jesus I want to run a parallel between the case of David and that of our Lord Jesus Christ. I. HERE IS A VERY COMMENDABLE EXAMPLE. Many of these men of Judah and Benjamin went to join themselves to David. 1. Because they bad heard that he was the Lord's anointed If Jesus be God's anointed, let Him be your beloved. 2. Because of his personal excellences. 3. Because he was so misrepresented and abused by his enemies. 4. Because they believed that he had a great future before him. II. A. CAUTIOUS INQUIRY. See what David said to them. 1. He set before them the right way; He said, "If ye be come peaceably unto me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you." Here are three questions —(1) Do you come to Christ and accept Him?(2) Do you come with a desire to maintain peace among your Christian brethren?(3) Do you come with the intent of helping the Lord Jesus Christ to spread abroad His truth? 2. He set before them the wrong way: "But if ye be come to betray me to my enemies, seeing there is no wrong in mine hands, the God of our fathers look thereon, and rebuke it."Some betray the Lord Christ to His enemies — 1. By giving up the doctrines of the gospel. 2. By their inconsistent lives. 3. By apostasy. III. A CORDIAL ENLISTMENT. "Thine are we, David, and on thy side," etc. ( C. H. Spurgeon . ) David and his helpers R. Maguire, M. A. Man is not an independent being. He is dependent for his life, his thought, his feeling — dependent upon God his Creator and his Preserver. He is dependent for the comforts and conveniences of life — dependent upon his fellow-men. And he that seems perhaps to be the most independent amongst us, is after all the most dependent upon his fellows. Man was never made to be independent here. He was never made to be alone. Some such circumstances as these gave rise to the peculiar position of the son of Jesse, as we read of him in the text. David was then combating against a twofold enemy — Saul, the king, his predecessor in office, and the Philistines, the hereditary foes of Israel. Let us mark the concurrent circumstances of these times. David's cause was not the winning side when these secessions broke off from the strength of Saul and attached themselves to the cause of the son of Jesse. He was as yet in point of numbers and of strength in a very small minority. He was not in power; and, so far as human appearances went, he was very far from power. Every appearance was against him. He himself, though the captain of a band, was a fugitive. And Saul was in power, for Saul was king. David is possessed of but scanty resources, but Saul can command the ways and the means and the supplies of a kingdom. And yet these men come, and they volunteer their services to the son of Jesse. They came not to the throne of one that rules, but they came to the cave of one that hides himself. No marvel that David should have suspected their proper aim, and should have inquired, inquisitively, as to the motive of their coming, as to the object of their visit in this the day of his distress and of his darkness. And this accounts for his inquiry in the verse preceding my text. We would learn from this text the value and the estimate to be set upon Christian co-operation. The downcast and the down-trodden may be rallied by a sympathising word, and may be aroused; and thus arise to his work and to his labour from the very consciousness that he is not altogether alone. Christian co-operation was given to Elijah. The assurance that God one day gave the Tishbite, that there were still seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal, mightily reassured the prophet. And when we come to inquire into the circumstances of this case a little further, respecting David, we are enabled to find out what was the kind of help, the quality of the help that he obtained. This may be judged of by considering the time in which the help was vouchsafed. As I have said, it was not in the time of his prosperity, but it was some time anterior to that, and in the time of his greatest adversity. Now, it is a law, or axiom, a practical law, that those men are most to be trusted in prosperity that have stood the firmest in the day of adversity. And verily, in practice, these men receive the reward of their fidelity. These men came and chose not the winning side; but there was a mark about even that declining interest — "Thy God helpeth thee." That decided the question. If God be for David, what can Saul do against him? "If God be for us, who can be against us?" God is not forgetful of your work and labour of love which you have showed toward His name. Mark, for instance, His twelve — His chosen ones. They had attached themselves to the person of the lowly Jesus, when there was no mark of distinction, of royalty, of kingly power: at His call they obeyed. Never were there purer days in the Christian faith than when the Christian faith was persecuted. Thus was it with David's auxiliaries: they looked not to the present adversity, but to the future glory. "Thy God helpeth thee," was sufficient as an indication of what would be. These were powerful men. Their faces were like the faces of lions; bold as a lion; "and they were as swift as the roes upon the mountains." They were able to ford the depths of Jordan at its full, and in its overflowing, and to rout their enemies to the east and to the west. Truly, with such auxiliaries, David might well thank God, and take courage. But this was not all. His hopes begin to brighten, his prospects begin to look up. Day after day added its gradual increase to his army, until by and by it became a mighty host like unto "the host of God." That is what the Scripture says. Each tribe sent its proportion. Thousands, tens of thousands, flocked to the standard of David, and enlisted in defence of the cause of the son of Jesse, until well-nigh half a million of men may be counted, from the enumeration of our context, as having resorted to his cause. This, from beginnings small, but good; this, from incipient stages scanty, yet hopeful. And all these men are well spoken of. They were "mighty men of valour"; they were "ready armed"; they were "famous throughout the house of their fathers"; they were no anonymous helpers, but it is said they were "expressed by name to come and make David king." And the value of that help was great because it was a right hearty help — such a help as we need, such a help as is indispensable if we are to be helped at all. We want no halfhearted men, but we want men of God — they are the best, they are the surest, they are the safest, they are the most and the longest to be depended upon. Our experience of human helpers has been a chequered experience. Some that began with us have not continued; some from whom we expected much, perhaps, have broken down midway, departed from us, and went not with us to the work; some that promised nothing, and from whom we expected nothing, have been the most ready, and have been the foremost to come and say, "Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers." ( R. Maguire, M. A. ) Fitness for the service of the great King J. Wolfendale. I. INTELLIGENCE is required. II. COURAGE is required. III. UNITY is required. IV. ENTHUSIASM is required. ( J. Wolfendale. ) Until it was a great host. 1 Chronicles 12:29 The accumulation of power Wayland Hoyt, D. D. It seems quite possible in the presence of this incident to find an easy statement of the law of the accumulation of power. The law may be stated thus: Persistent action in one direction brings, after a time, surprisingly added power for further action in that direction. Consider this — 1. In the accumulation of property. 2. As to the formation of habits. 3. As to increase in intellectual force. 4. As to advancing power in the spiritual life.Lessons: 1. Be careful of the day. Day by day, because he day by day had been the man he was, they gathered to David. Especially towards the accumulation of any sort of power do not lose time in youth. 2. Have courage. Front towards such right accumulation of power, and this great law of its accumulation is steadily working for you. 3. This great law works as steadily the other way; e.g. , King Saul, fronting and choosing wrong, was losing righteous power day by day, until at last he came to the sad wreck he made. ( Wayland Hoyt, D. D. ) Men that had understanding of the times. 1 Chronicles 12:32 Wants of the time Bp. Ryle. It is an important thing to understand the times in which we live, and to know what those times require ( Esther 1:13 ; Matthew 16:3 ; Luke 19:44 ). Next to our Bibles and our own hearts our Lord would have us study our own times. I. THE TIMES REQUIRE OF US A BOLD AND UNFLINCHING MAINTENANCE OF THE ENTIRE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, AND THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. Our lot is cast in an age of abounding unbelief, but when sceptics have said all they can, there are three broad facts which they have never explained away. 1. Jesus Christ Himself. How is it that there never has been one like Him, neither before nor after, since the beginning of historical times? 2. The Bible itself. How is it that this book stands entirely alone, for high views of God, true views of man, solemnity of thought, grandeur of doctrine, and purity of morality? 3. The effect which Christianity has produced on the world. II. THE TIMES REQUIRE AT OUR HANDS DISTINCT AND DECIDED VIEWS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. The victories of Christianity, wherever they have been won, have been won by distinct doctrinal theology. Christianity without distinct doctrine is a powerless thing. III. THE TIMES REQUIRE OF US AN AWAKENED AND LIVELIER SENSE OF THE UNSCRIPTURAL AND SOUL-RUINING CHARACTER OF ROMANISM. IV. THE TIMES REQUIRE OF US A HIGHER STANDARD OF PERSONAL HOLINESS, AND AN INCREASED ATTENTION TO PRACTICAL RELIGION IN DAILY LIFE. V. THE TIMES REQUIRE OF US MORE REGULAR AND STEADY PERSEVERANCE IN THE OLD WAYS OF GETTING GOOD FOR OUR SOULS. 1. Private prayer. 2. Private Bible-reading. 3. Private meditation and communion with Christ.Conclusion: Consider what the times require in reference — 1. To your own souls. 2. To the souls of others. 3. To the Church. ( Bp. Ryle. ) The characteristics and duties of the times James Parsons. Such was the character ascribed to the children of Issachar, at a remarkably interesting crisis in the circumstances of the nation to which they belonged. The period was that, when, by the death of Saul and his more worthy son in battle, the minds of the Jewish people were divided on the question whether the royalty was to be continued in the family of the departed monarch, or was to be transferred to the hands of the anointed David. The historian enumerates the individuals and the classes who were induced to announce their adherence to the latter; and amongst them are mentioned the persons whose names are recorded in our text. It may be considered as the duty of men, as the subjects of civil government, always to cherish an accurate acquaintance with the characteristics of the times in which they live, in order accurately to fulfil their ordinary duties, and those duties of a more peculiar nature, which the occurrence of seasons of exigency may sometimes impose upon them. We propose — I. TO STATE SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS BY WHICH THE PRESENT TIMES APPEAR TO BE PROMINENTLY DISTINGUISHED. 1. Flagrant indulgence of iniquity on the part of ungodly men. 2. A heavy and extended pressure of national distress and perplexity. 3. A wide diffusion of the influence of knowledge and of freedom. 4. Extraordinary and delightful facilities for the dissemination of the gospel of Christ. 5. An awakened and an increasing concern among the people of the Saviour as to the progress and final triumphs of His cause. II. THE DUTIES WHICH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRESENT TIMES IMPOSE UPON PROFESSING CHRISTIANS. 1. Distinctly and always to recognise the providence of God. 2. To compare all that is apparent with the predictions of Divine truth. 3. To cultivate uncompromising decision in the exemplification of personal religion. 4. Diligently to labour in all the spheres of exertion by which they may advance the gospel of Christ. 5. To engage in fervent and continued prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. ( James Parsons. ) The men of Issachar, an example to British citizens Dawson Burns, D. D. These were men who knew what it was best for the nation to carry out in the great crisis which had now arisen. It was important that Israel should wisely decide what ruler to select; it is of equal importance that we as a country should decide under what rule — whether that of strong drink, or that of unqualified temperance — we should abide. There are certain things that are needful in order to a good result in this matter. I. THERE SHOULD RE A RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF OUR OWN TIMES. Our own times are — 1. Times of much evil from strong drink. 2. Times of much good.(1) A spirit of investigation has gone abroad and done splendid service. We are much indebted to physiologists, moral philosophers, political economists, and statisticians, for the light they have thrown on this subject.(2) Our times are times of agitation for the application of remedial measures.(3) There has also been a great reformation resulting from all this. 3. Times of much hopefulness. II. A right understanding of our own times OUGHT TO LEAD TO PROPER ACTION. They understood the times, to know what Israel ought to do. Right action must — 1. Be directed by intelligence. 2. Be inspired by Christian philanthropy. 3. Be embodied in practical forms. 4. Be animated by a self-denying enthusiasm. III. IN ORDER THAT THIS RIGHT ACTION MAY FULLY ACCOMPLISH ITS ENDS THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. 1. Individualisation. God invites us one by one, saying to each of us, "Do the work I give thee to do." 2. Organisation. Combination multiplies force. In the moral world, one and one make a good deal more than two; they often make four, and three and three often make thirty. 3. Consecration. ( Dawson Burns, D. D. ) The state of the times and the corresponding duties of th Walter M'Gilvray., Thomas Binney. e Church : — The peculiar tribute which is thus paid to the tribe of Issachar — a tribute which distinguishes them most honourably from all the other classes of their countrymen, will appear the more remarkable when we took at the smallness of their number and the comparative seclusion in which they lived. In point of numerical strength they were by far the least considerable of all the tribes of Israel. While the rest could muster their hundreds of thousands, the children of Issachar, though "all their brethren were at their commandment," could only furnish a body of two hundred men. But their lack of numbers was more than counterbalanced by their pre-eminent zeal, sagacity, and discipline — qualities which rendered them the ablest advisers in the council, as well as the best soldiers in the camp. But how, it may be asked, did they come to acquire this superior wisdom and intelligence? Were they more favourably circumstanced for obtaining information, and for observing the signs and duties of the times, than the general body of their fellow-subjects? Had they access to the private circles of the capital, or to the secret conferences of the court? On the contrary, they lived remote from cities — buried amid the tranquil retreats of the rural provinces, away from the sordid cares and the sickening crowds and the unquiet rumours of the metropolis, breathing the air of freshness and of freedom among their native mountains. From their peaceful solitudes they looked forth with a calm and dispassionate eye on the various movements that took place; and having leisure to reflect on the nature o! these movements, to compare them with the past transactions of their history, and to test them by the principles of the Divine Word, they were in a better condition for forming a sound judgment regarding them than those who might have an opportunity of seeing them through a closer, but, for that very reason, a more contracted and clouded medium. In this matter the children of Issachar have left an example which is well worthy of our thoughtful regard. We are required, by the authority of our Lord Himself, "to mark the signs of the times" — to keep a wide and wakeful eye on the revolving events of Providence, with the view of discovering their bearing on the position and prospects of the Church. It is, no doubt, generally supposed that religious men are very incompetent judges of public affairs. Like the tribe spoken of in the text, they are, as a distinctive party, the smallest in the state; and like them, too, they live in comparative seclusion from the cabals and contentions of the world; and it is, therefore, presumed that they can have but little acquaintance with the movements which are going on around them. Let it be admitted that they are not, as a body, so conversant with the details of public transactions as those who are directly engaged about them, yet still we hesitate not to say that they may be, and that they generally are, even better fitted than these for apprehending the great moral principles which such transactions carry in their bosom, and the manner in which they are likely to affect the welfare of the community. We need not remind you that religious men are accustomed to view questions of this kind in a very different light from the men of the world. The latter look upon them as they stand related to the opinions and interests of their fellow-creatures. It is in this respect that religious men — men of enlarged and enlightened piety — have the advantage of mere worldly politicians. They form their estimate of passing events not as they influence the temporary interests either of one party or another, nor as they are reflected through the fluctuating medium of public opinion. They judge of them by a far higher and more comprehensive standard. They view them in connection with the great chain of Providence. They compare them with the fixed purposes of the Divine administration, and with the unalterable rules of the Divine Word; and, by examining therein the light of these clear and all-controlling principles, they are enabled to group in the disjointed and fragmentary measures of public men under distinct moral classifications, to analyse the impulses and the agencies from whence they proceed; and, by means of these testing and discriminating processes, they are led to an "understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do." It is important to mark the connection between the two separate members of the passage before us. It is stated, regarding the Children of Issachar, that they had "understanding of the times." They comprehended the circumstances in which their country was placed; they marked the spirit which prevailed among the people. It was not from any motives of mere curiosity that they studied the movements of the day, nor was it with the view of descanting upon them in private meetings or in popular assemblies; far less was it their object to busy themselves with public matters for personal ends or for party purposes. The welfare of their country was the subject of their concern and the source of their inquiries. For the same reason it is incumbent upon us, not merely as subjects of the State, but as office-bearers and members of the Church of Christ, to study the phenomena of the age in which we live — to watch the moral forces that are operating upon the mass of society, swaying the tide of public opinion, and influencing the measures of public men. I. The grand capital characteristic feature of these times consists in THE GENERAL PREVALENCE OF NATIONAL INDIFFERENTISM OR NEGATIVE INFIDELITY. — a general want of faith on all subjects, whether moral, political, or religious. II. THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH REQUIRES — 1. That she should maintain a clear and decided testimony on behalf of the great fundamental principles of Divine truth. 2. A determined effort to resuscitate the sinking power of principle, and also a vigorous and combined movement to repel the creeping invasions — the subtle but forceful and successful encroachments of error. ( Walter M'Gilvray. )Understanding the times: — Some of the chapters of this book look as though they were so many of the newspapers of the period, that had been preserved; and there would be no history like that of a collection of newspapers, supposing there had been such things, successively issued, day by day, by different parties, affording a general view of events and transactions. We have here a very minute account of the political, military, and religious position of things at this time. We find different persons resorting to David, in larger or lesser numbers, and welcomed as they came. And among the rest there came a number of persons peculiar and distinct in character from all others. Instead of being told of their physical strength and vigour, their prowess and skill in using swords and spears, their incomparableness in war, we are told that they were "men who had understanding of the times, and knew what Israel ought to do" — men of political intelligence and sagacity, who could look about and see into things, who could interpret the prediction written upon a circumstance, who could tell what was the line marked out by such and such an event. They were not antiquarian men, who could tell you of the past; nor dreaming, poetical, prophetic men, talking about the future; but men who understood their own times — men who felt the great realities that were stirring about them. It was a great matter to have this understanding; for the consequence of having it was, they deduced "what Israel ought to do" — the movements that should be made, the things that the nation should determine upon. The accession of these men to David was, perhaps, of greater value than that of the thousands of fighting men; for wisdom and valour strengthen more than weapons of war. The wise man is strong. And these men, as a consequence of their understanding, ruled; "their brethren were at their commandment"; they had influence; other men and other minds recognised them as regal men, for, after all, I suppose, in the long run, it will always come to that — those that ought to rule, because they can do it, ultimately will do it. It is a blessed thing for a people, and for the world, when those who rule understand things, and really know what ought to be done, and every other body is at their command; for after all, the world wants guiding and ruling, and it is willi

Benson Commentary 1 Chronicles 12:1 Now these are they that came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept himself close because of Saul the son of Kish: and they were among the mighty men, helpers of the war. 1 Chronicles 12:1 . Now these are they that came to David, &c. — This author thought fit to do those the honour of having their names recorded, (which was omitted in the book of Samuel,) who came and joined themselves to him when he was in exile; and were afterward great assistants to him in his wars. While he kept himself close — Or was shut out from his own land and people: for the writer speaks not of that time when he was shut up, and hid himself in caves in the land of Judah, but when he was at Ziklag. 1 Chronicles 12:2 They were armed with bows, and could use both the right hand and the left in hurling stones and shooting arrows out of a bow, even of Saul's brethren of Benjamin. 1 Chronicles 12:2 . Could use both the right hand and the left — With like nimbleness and certainty: compare Jdg 3:15 ; and Jdg 20:16 . Saul’s brethren of Benjamin — Of Saul’s own tribe: who were moved hereto by God’s Spirit, by the conscience of their duty to David, and by their observation of God’s departure from Saul, and of his special presence with David. 1 Chronicles 12:3 The chief was Ahiezer, then Joash, the sons of Shemaah the Gibeathite; and Jeziel, and Pelet, the sons of Azmaveth; and Berachah, and Jehu the Antothite, 1 Chronicles 12:4 And Ismaiah the Gibeonite, a mighty man among the thirty, and over the thirty; and Jeremiah, and Jahaziel, and Johanan, and Josabad the Gederathite, 1 Chronicles 12:4 . A mighty man among the thirty — Who came attended with thirty valiant Benjamites and was their commander. 1 Chronicles 12:5 Eluzai, and Jerimoth, and Bealiah, and Shemariah, and Shephatiah the Haruphite, 1 Chronicles 12:6 Elkanah, and Jesiah, and Azareel, and Joezer, and Jashobeam, the Korhites, 1 Chronicles 12:7 And Joelah, and Zebadiah, the sons of Jeroham of Gedor. 1 Chronicles 12:8 And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David into the hold to the wilderness men of might, and men of war fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler, whose faces were like the faces of lions, and were as swift as the roes upon the mountains; 1 Chronicles 12:8 . There separated themselves — From Saul, to whom they had hitherto adhered, and from their brethren of their own tribe, who yet maintained Saul’s cause; and from their families, and the places where they lived, from whom they went to David. Into the hold to the wilderness — Or rather, into the hold of the wilderness; that is, either to the cave of Adullam or Engedi, or rather to Ziklag, which was in the wilderness of Judah, and may be here called the hold or fortress, for the same reason for which that name is given to the city of David, 1 Chronicles 11:7 , (see the Hebrew,) namely, because it was a strong, well-fortified place. Whose faces were like the faces of lions — Who were full of courage, and by the majesty and fierceness of their countenances terrified their adversaries. As swift as the roes upon the mountains — As their very looks daunted their enemies, and put them to flight, so they could easily pursue, and overtake, and destroy them in their flight. 1 Chronicles 12:9 Ezer the first, Obadiah the second, Eliab the third, 1 Chronicles 12:10 Mishmannah the fourth, Jeremiah the fifth, 1 Chronicles 12:11 Attai the sixth, Eliel the seventh, 1 Chronicles 12:12 Johanan the eighth, Elzabad the ninth, 1 Chronicles 12:13 Jeremiah the tenth, Machbanai the eleventh. 1 Chronicles 12:14 These were of the sons of Gad, captains of the host: one of the least was over an hundred, and the greatest over a thousand. 1 Chronicles 12:15 These are they that went over Jordan in the first month, when it had overflown all his banks; and they put to flight all them of the valleys, both toward the east, and toward the west. 1 Chronicles 12:15 . These are they that went over Jordan, &c. — Namely, in Saul’s time, when, it seems, the enemies of the Israelites had made an inroad, and done some mischiefs to the Israelites beyond Jordan, to whose help these persons then came. When it had overflowed all its banks — As it commonly did about that time. Probably these, being men of great courage and dexterity, swam over Jordan, at the time here specified, through their ardent desire to help their brethren, and to fight with their enemies. And they put to flight all them of the valleys — The people that lived in the valleys or deserts beyond Jordan, who, it seems, when Saul was engaged against the Philistines, took that advantage to fall upon the Israelites beyond Jordan. Both toward the east and toward the west — Both the people that lived more eastward and remote from Jordan, and those that lived more westward and nearer to it. 1 Chronicles 12:16 And there came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the hold unto David. 1 Chronicles 12:17 And David went out to meet them, and answered and said unto them, If ye be come peaceably unto me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you: but if ye be come to betray me to mine enemies, seeing there is no wrong in mine hands, the God of our fathers look thereon , and rebuke it . 1 Chronicles 12:17 . David went out to meet them, and answered — That is, spake, for that word is often used in the Scriptures, even of him that speaks first. My heart shall be knit unto you — I shall ever esteem and love you, and show this by my actions to you hereafter. But if ye be come to betray me, &c. — Which your number, and quality, and near relation to Saul, give me some cause to suspect. Seeing there is no wrong in my hands — I have done no injury to Saul nor to you; but have spared him and you when it was in my power to have destroyed you. The God of our fathers look thereon, and rebuke it — Namely, by his power, manifested for me, and against you, for your perfidiousness. In saying, the God of our fathers, meaning both his fathers and theirs, he suggests a reason why they should not deal ill with him: namely, because they were both descendants from the same patriarchs, and servants of the same God. And thus he encourages himself to believe, that God would right him if he were injured. For he was the God of his fathers, therefore a blessing was entailed upon him: and a God to all Israel in particular, as well as a Judge to all the earth. 1 Chronicles 12:18 Then the spirit came upon Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said , Thine are we , David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee. Then David received them, and made them captains of the band. 1 Chronicles 12:18 . The Spirit came upon Amasai — Not only saving graces, but other heroical and generous motions are ascribed to God’s Spirit, which here stirred up in him a more than ordinary greatness of mind and resolution. Thy God helpeth thee — We have seen evidences of God’s singular and gracious care of thee, and kindness to thee; and if we should oppose thee we should fight against God, and his word and providence. Then David made them captains of the band — Of those forces which they brought with them: or, he put them among the heads, or officers of his band; that is, he gave them commands, either now in his small army, each according to his quality; or afterward, when he was advanced to the kingdom: for it is not here said when he did this. 1 Chronicles 12:19 And there fell some of Manasseh to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle: but they helped them not: for the lords of the Philistines upon advisement sent him away, saying, He will fall to his master Saul to the jeopardy of our heads. 1 Chronicles 12:19-20 . They helped them not — That is, the Manassites here named, and the rest of David’s forces, to whom they had now joined themselves, did not help the Philistines in battle, as David had pretended to do. As he went to Ziklag — As he returned thither from the camp of the Philistines. 1 Chronicles 12:20 As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zilthai, captains of the thousands that were of Manasseh. 1 Chronicles 12:21 And they helped David against the band of the rovers : for they were all mighty men of valour, and were captains in the host. 1 Chronicles 12:21-22 . They helped David against the band, &c. — Against the Amalekites, who had taken and burned Ziklag, and whom David and his six hundred men were now pursuing. Or, as in the margin, with a band, or troop of soldiers, which they brought along with them to David’s assistance. They were all mighty men of valour — Therefore they readily came to David’s help. At that time, day by day — While David was at Ziklag, and in his march to Hebron, and principally at Hebron. There came to David — like the host of God — An innumerable multitude, like the stars or angels of God, both which are called God’s host. 1 Chronicles 12:22 For at that time day by day there came to David to help him, until it was a great host, like the host of God. 1 Chronicles 12:23 And these are the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the LORD. 1 Chronicles 12:23-24 . According to the word of the Lord — Whereby he had settled the crown on David after Saul’s death. Six thousand, &c. — Who came hither in the name of their brethren: for that whole tribe adhered to David. 1 Chronicles 12:24 The children of Judah that bare shield and spear were six thousand and eight hundred, ready armed to the war. 1 Chronicles 12:25 Of the children of Simeon, mighty men of valour for the war, seven thousand and one hundred. 1 Chronicles 12:26 Of the children of Levi four thousand and six hundred. 1 Chronicles 12:27 And Jehoiada was the leader of the Aaronites, and with him were three thousand and seven hundred; 1 Chronicles 12:27-29 . Jehoiada was the leader of the Aaronites — Not the high- priest, for that was Abiathar, ( 1 Samuel 23:6 ,) but one of some eminent place under him. And Zadok — Thought to be the same who was made high-priest in Solomon’s time, ( 1 Kings 2:35 ,) which, if true, he must have been very young at that time. Twenty and two captains — Whom he brought along with him. Had kept the ward of the house of Saul — Had endeavoured to keep the crown in their own tribe, and in Saul’s family. 1 Chronicles 12:28 And Zadok, a young man mighty of valour, and of his father's house twenty and two captains. 1 Chronicles 12:29 And of the children of Benjamin, the kindred of Saul, three thousand: for hitherto the greatest part of them had kept the ward of the house of Saul. 1 Chronicles 12:30 And of the children of Ephraim twenty thousand and eight hundred, mighty men of valour, famous throughout the house of their fathers. 1 Chronicles 12:31 And of the half tribe of Manasseh eighteen thousand, which were expressed by name, to come and make David king. 1 Chronicles 12:31 . Of the half-tribe of Manasseh — Which was within Jordan: for of the other half beyond Jordan he speaks 1 Chronicles 12:37 . Which were expressed by name — Who were not ashamed publicly to own David by putting their names to some paper presented to them for that purpose. 1 Chronicles 12:32 And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment. 1 Chronicles 12:32 . That had understanding of the times — They understood public affairs, the temper of the nation, and the tendencies of the present events. And they showed their wisdom at this time; for as they had adhered to Saul, while he lived, as knowing the time was not yet come for David to take possession of the kingdom; and as they could not join David, while Abner lived, and had the command of the other tribes wherewith they were encompassed, so, as soon as he was dead, and they had opportunity to declare themselves, they owned David for their king. 1 Chronicles 12:33 Of Zebulun, such as went forth to battle, expert in war, with all instruments of war, fifty thousand, which could keep rank: they were not of double heart. 1 Chronicles 12:33 . Fifty thousand — For this tribe, being next to that of Issachar, which was generally well affected to David, were probably very much swayed by their opinion and advice. Which could keep rank — Or, which were prepared, or ordered for battle, or to fight for David if occasion required. Not of double heart — They were sincerely loyal, and did not dissemble with David, pretending to be for him, while in their hearts they favoured Saul’s family. And none had any separate interests, but all were for the public good. 1 Chronicles 12:34 And of Naphtali a thousand captains, and with them with shield and spear thirty and seven thousand. 1 Chronicles 12:35 And of the Danites expert in war twenty and eight thousand and six hundred. 1 Chronicles 12:36 And of Asher, such as went forth to battle, expert in war, forty thousand. 1 Chronicles 12:37 And on the other side of Jordan, of the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and of the half tribe of Manasseh, with all manner of instruments of war for the battle, an hundred and twenty thousand. 1 Chronicles 12:38 All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king. 1 Chronicles 12:39 And there they were with David three days, eating and drinking: for their brethren had prepared for them. 1 Chronicles 12:40 Moreover they that were nigh them, even unto Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, and meat, meal, cakes of figs, and bunches of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep abundantly: for there was joy in Israel. 1 Chronicles 12:40 . They that were nigh them — That lived not far from Hebron, the place where they now were. Unto Issachar, &c. — This is added by way of amplification and explication, to show that this was not to be understood of those Israelites only who lived in the neighbourhood of Hebron, but of those also who lived at some distance, yet were nearer to Hebron than some of the other tribes here named. And on oxen — Which, though not commonly used in this manner, nor very fit for such purposes, yet were now employed, because the quantity of provisions which they brought was very great, as the number of the people at Hebron were, and of horses they had few in Israel, and most of their asses, camels, and mules, here mentioned, were probably used to carry men, women, and children, to this great, and public, and happy solemnity. For there was joy in Israel — Partly because their civil wars were wholly ended, and they were all united under one king; and partly because they had now a king of eminent valour and piety, and therefore expected to be saved from all their enemies and calamities, as indeed they were. Such was the joy and feasting when David was made king. And when the throne of the Son of David is set up in any soul, there is great joy in that soul; and provision is made for the feasting of it, not as here, merely for two or three days, but for the whole life, nay, for eternity. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Chronicles 12:1 Now these are they that came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept himself close because of Saul the son of Kish: and they were among the mighty men, helpers of the war. 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