And let us bring again the ark of our God to us. 1 Chronicles 13:3-6 The ark in the royal city J. Wolfendale. A place of honour, influence, and right, as: — I. THE CENTRE OF UNITY. II. THE SOURCE OF RELIGIOUS LIFE. This act: 1. Purified religious life. 2. Unified religious life. 3. Organised religious life. III. THE SIGN OF GOD'S PRESENCE. ( J. Wolfendale. ) The ark's progress to Mount Zion Bishop Chris. Wordsworth. One of the Psalms composed by David to be sung on the removing of the ark ( Psalm 68 .) is quoted by Paul ( Ephesians 4:7, 8 ) as having foretold what this procession itself foreshadowed, viz., the ascension of Christ, and the blessings which should flow therefrom upon every member of His Mystical Body. We see in all this great procession nothing less than the Universal Church of Christ, partaking with the Divine David in the glory of His ascension into the Heavenly Zion. From the narrative of which the text forms a part we may learn: — I. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. That periods of reformation, after past neglect, are those in which we need more than ordinary caution, lest we mar the work which is designed to promote God's glory. 2. That all religious reformation which is the work of man can scarcely fail to be blemished and disfigured more or less by human infirmities. 3. That the effects of those infirmities are not to be acquiesced in, but to be confessed and corrected, if ever we would hope to obtain the Divine approval, or even to escape the Divine chastisement. 4. Not to abandon our good intentions because we have been checked and hindered in our efforts after amendment, but still to hold on and persevere in our exertions; only taking heed to profit by the instruction which the experience of past failure was designed to give. 5. "God will be sanctified in all them that come nigh Him," by obedience to His holy laws ( Leviticus 10:2 ). 6. That ignorance and neglect, even when allowed to pass unchastised in others, may bring upon His ordained ministers the severest punishment. II. Particular lessons. 1. That every Christian has his place in that great procession, which is occupied in conveying the Ark of the Covenant ( Revelation 11:19 ) up to its final resting-place in Mount Zion; but every Christian has not the same place. 2. That it is not enough that we do, whatever we do, with a good intention unless what is done be also good, good in itself, and good in us. ( Bishop Chris. Wordsworth. ) And when they came unto the threshing-floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark. 1 Chronicles 13:9-11 Perez-Uzza J. Wolfendale. Learn — I. IF GOD BE ABSENT FROM A PEOPLE AND THE ARK BE LONG IN OBSCURITY, THAT PEOPLE WILL LOSE A SENSE OF REVERENCE. II. THAT GOD, MINDFUL OF HIS HONOURS, OFTEN SINGLES OUT GUILTY MEN TO BE MONUMENTS OF HIS DISPLEASURE. III. THAT BY SUCH EXAMPLES OF TERROR GOD WARNS OTHERS. ( J. Wolfendale. ) Uzza's transgression N. Marshall, D. D. Consider — I. THE IMPORTANCE OF RITUAL AND POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS, WITH THE PUNCTUAL OBSERVANCE WHICH GOD EXPECTS TO THEM. Amongst all the trials which have been made of human nature, in the way of worshipping a superior power, there hath been no instance of a pure and holy worship without somewhat of institution to fix the forms of it. Even a state of innocence did not subsist without a positive law for trial of our first parents' obedience. The first recorded act of worship after the Fall was apparently of a ritual and positive nature; since human reason doth no more direct to those sacrifices which we find offered to God by Cain and Abel, than it directs us to baptism or the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The gross superstitions of the heathen world were manifestly owing to the want of an authorised ceremonial in their worship. II. THE ENCLOSURE OF THE SACERDOTAL OR PRIESTLY FUNCTION, WITH THE DANGER OF INVADING OR THROWING IT OPEN. III. THE RESPECT WHICH IS DUE TO A RELATIVE HOLINESS. IV. THE INSUFFICIENCY OF A GOOD OR INNOCENT INTENTION TO WARRANT AN IRREGULAR OR FORBIDDEN ACTION. V. THE REVERENCE AND PREPARATION OF HEART WHEREWITH WE SHOULD APPROACH THE SOLEMN OFFICES OF DIVINE WORSHIP. VI. THE DANGER OF AN UNAUTHORISED, OFFICIOUS ZEAL. ( N. Marshall, D. D. ) Touching the ark, and touching the Saviour Joseph B. Owen, M. A. (ver. 10 with Matthew 9:21 ): — How characteristic are these two incidents of the two dispensations under which they respectively occurred? What a comment upon the declaration, "The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life." I. I observe that the Old and New Testaments present many such instructive contrasts, serving to illustrate THE DIFFERENT SPIRIT OF THE LEGAL AS COMPARED WITH THE EVANGELICAL ECONOMY — the one being mostly miracles of judgment, the other almost exclusively miracles of mercy. For instance, there is the confusion of tongues at Babel — the gift of tongues at Pentecost; the water turned into blood in Egypt — the water turned into wine at Cana; the darkness of Egypt issuing in the death of the first-born — the darkness of Calvary bringing many sons to glory. And so in the text: the death of Uzza on touching the ark — the healing of the sufferer that touched our Lord. It was in either case a touch; but the one was fatal, the other a cure. The one was a case of presumption, if not of unbelief; the other a case of humility and of the deepest faith. The Lord, the heart-searcher, saw a difference in the intrinsic similarity of the acts which man saw not. It was not altogether the difference in the dispensations, but the difference in the persons. Uzza not only overlooked the law that prescribed the Kohathite as the ark-bearer, but sacrilegiously intruded his hand to support an emblem which had vindicated the sufficiency of its self-reliance by its superhuman inflictions in the house of Dagon, and by its miraculous over-rulings of natural instincts in the leading of the kine from their calves when its mystic pilgrimage lay in an opposite direction; whereas the woman in the Gospels ascribed merit and virtue even to the hem of the Redeemer's garment, and much more therefore to Himself. Hence the two, Uzza and the woman, enacted in type the Pharisee and the publican, whereof the one "went down to her house justified rather than the other." Both intrinsically were slight, inconsiderable acts in themselves — A mere touch externally in either case; the one touching the sign, the other the thing signified. But the one brought his support to the covenant ark, the other drew her support from the Ark; the one approached in self-sufficiency, and was smitten for his presumption, the other drew nigh in self-abasement, and was healed for her faith. Upon the one, therefore, fell the terrible anathema of "the letter" that "killeth"; upon the other descended as the dews of heaven "the Spirit" that "giveth life." II. In their contrast is presented THE LIGHT AND SHADE OF THE PROFESSION-LIFE IN THE CHURCH. It is more agreeable to our natural pride to feel our personal hand to be the stay of a declining Church, than to creep with a poor, dejected sinner to the hem of the garment, the lowest place, the door-keeper's post in the house of our God. The pride of ecclesiastical office is in various shapes and degrees the besetting sin of clergy and laity. It leads the former to rest upon functional relations, those pretensions and reliances due only to the endowments of grace, to the conscientious cultivation of gifts, and to the exercise of personal influence. It tempts the priest alike to supersede the man and lose sight of God. Alas! for this thrusting the unbidden hand of the creature upon the ark of God! It displays itself among the laity, too, in the love of office in the Church, for the mere office sake, as a platform for self-parade. It escapes even in the mode and amount of contributions to the Church, in laying them like the corban on the altar, not for the glory of God, but as the price of redemption from some unpalatable duty. There are men who can be brought to church with the idea of playing the patron, to indulge the vanity of their sense of being necessary to her standing and well-doing, who thus lay unhallowed hands on her altar, like an Uzza, but who would disdain to be indebted to that lowly touch of her spiritual garment, for the feeling that it was that, and not their presumptuous handling of the ark of her strength, that made them whole. III. The doctrine of the contrast is twofold — NAMELY, THE PERIL OF THE LEAST SIN, AND THE PEACE OF THE LEAST ACT OF FAITH. As to the first: you are always in danger so long as you allow yourselves in any known sin under the plea of Lot, who, by the side of the enormities of Sodom, contended "is it not a little one?" The effect of that friction with the world into which men's eagerness in business or pursuit of pleasure leads them, is to rub off the bloom from the fruits of the Spirit, and to rub off, though in minutest particles, the fine gold, and turn it dim in lustre and less in substance. The little sin, as you imagine it, of putting your hand, say, upon a portion of the Sabbath, to do something in your business, or to spend it in recreation, or in reading the news, or in secular gossiping, leaving the sound of the service chimes to die away among the graves of the dead, who are no more insensible to its calling than yourselves — in these supposed little sins begins the course, that deceiving and being deceived, waxes worse and worse, until the man's life becomes at last a mere chapter of practical Atheism, without prayer, without faith, without obedience. Or suppose the little sin take another direction, confining its action to within the sanctuary, and the moral delinquent lays his hand upon the ark in another shape. Perhaps he does not realise Christ's sufficiency as to an atonement or a justifying righteousness, and must have a hand in the satisfaction of the one, and the completeness of the other, and therefore looks to a baptism, or a eucharist, or to his social charities, or moral duties, or evangelical sentiments, or enthusiastic feelings and sensations, or the suffrages of fellow-sinners, or even fellow-saints, if the phrase be more acceptable. If by these, by all of them or by any of them, the man looks to commend himself in the sight of God, and supplement that which was lacking, in his theory, in the finished work of Christ, his hand is on the ark, and unless it be removed betimes, the hand of an indignant God will be upon him, and he that "sinneth with a high hand," for whom neither, law nor Gospel provided an atonement, "shall suddenly be cut off, and that without remedy." On the other hand, the contrast exhibits the peace and advantage of the least act of faith, even if the faith be so weak and feeble as to be likened to "a grain of mustard seed, which is the least of all seeds." Faith as little as that, like the woman's touch, has strength to remove mountains. A spark of Omnipotence is struck out of the rock by its feeblest blow. ( Joseph B. Owen, M. A. ) But carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom 1 Chronicles 13:13 The "asides" of God J. Parker, D. D. How much we owe to the "asides" of God. Obed-edom owed the benediction which descended upon his house to this "aside." God's way through life is thus wondrous: always indeed one great line of progress, yet who can count the detours which He makes, the asides, the incidental variations, the small things which men regarded as unworthy of notice, — who can tell how all these are wrought up into a comprehensive revelation of wisdom and love. If we only took the things which came to us on the great main thoroughfares of life, some people would hardly be blessed at all. A study of the "asides" of life would confirm us in our general Christian faith. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) And the Lord blessed the house of Obed-edom, and all that he had. 1 Chronicles 13:14 The selection of the house of Obed-edom Joseph B. Owen, M. A. Why was the house of Obed-edom selected for the three months' sojourn of the ark? The choice of the ark's resting-place was David's first-fruits of repentance. He was terrified at the judgment upon their act of disobedience to the law, which enjoined that none but the Levites of the family of Kohath should bear it, and that upon their shoulders, too; and they at once retraced their steps, so far as they could by conveying the sacred emblem to the house of Obed-edom, the Gittite, that is of Gath. This city was distinguished from several other towns of the same name by the addition of Gath-rimmon ( Joshua 24:21 ). It was not only one of the cities of the Levites in general, but of the Kohathites in particular, the very family to whom was specially assigned the post of "bearing the ark upon their shoulders." From 1 Chronicles 15:38 we find that Obed-edom was actually one of the "porters" employed to bear upon their shoulders, instead of in a cart, after the manner of the idolatrous Philistines, the sacred symbol of the presence of the Lord of hosts on the occasion of its final translation to Jerusalem. ( Joseph B. Owen, M. A. ) The house of Obed-edom J. Wolfendale. I. THE SERVICE WHICH OBED-EDOM RENDERED. II. THE SPIRIT IN WHICH HE PERFORMED THE SERVICE. III. THE REWARD WHICH HE GAINED. 1. A personal blessing. 2. A social blessing. 3. An extensive blessing.None suffer whose guest is the ark of God. Piety is the best friend to prosperity. ( J. Wolfendale. ) Churches blessing or a curse Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. I. WHAT WAS THIS ARK OF GOD? 1. It was a sign of the covenant God had made with His people. 2. It was a record of God's dealings with them under all their rebellions. 3. It was an instrument of communion between Him and them. II. HOW WAS THIS ARK TO BE TREATED, AND WHAT WAS THE CONSEQUNCE OF ITS PRESENCE? 1. See what it was amongst the heathen ( 1 Samuel 5:4, 11 ). 2. See what it was amongst God's own people, when they made themselves like unto the Gentiles and learned their works ( 1 Samuel 6:19 ; 1 Samuel 7:8 ). In the sight of these judgments we may plainly see that the mere having among them the appointed sign and instrument of God's presence was no blessing, but the having it for a lawful use, and the treating it after a godly manner. God's ark was a blessing where it was duly prized; its presence was a blessing or a curse according to the character of those it visited. III. THOSE CHURCHES WHICH ADORN OUR LAND ARE THE SIGNS OF GOD'S PRESENCE, AS THE ARK WAS OF OLD. WHAT BLESSES ANY DISTRICT AS THUS BRINGING HOME TO IT THE PRESENCE OF GOD? What is the effect on ungodly and irreverent men of seeing and attending churches? It brings down on them God's heavy judgments. ( Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. ) The blessing of God upon those who honour His institutions N. Emmons, D. D. The ark was a small elegant chest, which contained the two tables of the law — the Hebrew Bible — written by the finger of God. This was probably the first alphabetical writing in the world. Though the Egyptians and other heathen nations used to employ hieroglyphics, to record past events, and denote the actions and intellectual and moral qualities of men, yet they were totally ignorant of letters which compose words and sentences by their particular sounds. Obed-edom knew that the ark contained the written Word of God, and esteemed it, as David did, "better unto him than thousands of gold and silver." The subject is that God will bless those families who treat His Word with proper respect. I shall show: I. THAT THEY OUGHT TO TREAT IT WITH PROPER RESPECT. Observe — 1. That every family ought to have the Word of God in their house. 2. Parents should read it seriously every day in their families. 3. The Bible ought to be read in a family with a view to understand it. 4. The Bible is to be read and heard in a family with a sincere desire and intention to do whatsoever God has commanded. II. THAT IF THEY DO READ AND HEAR THE BIBLE WITH SUCH PROPER RESPECT GOD WILL BLESS THEM. 1. Because such pious families are the preservers of the Word of God. 2. Because they lay the greatest check and restraint upon every species of irreligion and impiety. No evil practices can be found in any family who daily read and love and obey the Bible. 3. God will bless pious families because they are the important instruments of promoting and transmitting pure religion from generation to generation.Improvement. 1. It is the wisdom as well as duty of every family to pay a cordial and sacred regard to the Bible. 2. Those families that neglect these duties have reason to expect the frowns of Heaven upon them. 3. If those families only are religious who pay proper respect to the Word of God, then there is ground to conclude that there are many families in this place who are not religious. 4. How important it is that heads of families should be truly religious. 5. The great criminality of irreligious children who have been religiously educated. ( N. Emmons, D. D. ) The house of Obed-edom A. Raleigh, D. D. The ark was the symbol of God's presence. Every truly Christian household now had the blessing that so enriched the home of Obed-edom. The subject is — Religion in the home. I. IT IS A POWER OF FULFILMENT. Religion is the sole power of fulfilment in regard to the very purpose and idea of home. A house may be full of persons who are very dear to each other, very kind to each other; full of precious things — affections, hopes, living interests; but if God is not there as the Ruler and Father of the house, the original and true idea of home will not be realised; vacancy and need will still be at the heart of all. Good things will grow feebly and uncertainly, like flowers in winter, trying to peep out into the sunshine, yet shrinking from the blast. Evil things will grow with strange persistency. Little things will produce great distresses. It will be as when a man of ingenuity tries in vain to put together the separated parts of a complicated piece of mechanism. He tries it this way and that, puts the pieces into every conceivable mode of arrange. merit, then at last stops and says, "There must be a piece wanting." Home without the Divine presence is at best a moral structure with the central element wanting. II. IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF HARMONY. Religion is the only principle of harmony in the endeavour after this highest and best home life. It supplies the missing element which unites and quickens all the rest. It conducts its progress as a regulative force. It is hot contended that the principle bears all its proper fruits, and that every Christian home is a scene of unbroken harmony. Some Christian homes are very peaceful. One enters them with the same kind of soothed and comforted feeling with which a traveller, after a toilsome walk over the breezy hills, comes down on a little placid lake, hardly ruffled by the breeze, and fringed with freshest green. Others again are more troubled. But we must not hastily conclude that the uniformly placid house is really further advanced in the harmonies of Christian living than some others which are less serene. It may be so; but it may also be quite the reverse. Sometimes the jarrings are brought out just by the endeavours after the higher harmonies. Failures are more apparent if the efforts are high. The dearest harmonies in all the social life of men are sounding only in the Christian home; and those imperfections of which some make so much, and of which no one ought to make too little, are, after all, but like the flitting shadows of a sunny day — but like the chafing of the stream as it rushes against the rocky barrier on its passage to the peaceful plains which it will fertilise, or to the depths of ocean where it will rest. III. RELIGION IN THE HOUSE IS A SOURCE OF PROSPERITY. Life in the present day is more complex; it has greater interests, heavier tasks and higher prizes. The Lord still blesses the house of Obed-edom and all that he has. 1. Character. 2. Plans of usefulness. 3. Controversies with evil principles and with evil men. 4. Reverses. A thoughtful, earnest man now feels himself connected with politics — law — battles — civilisation — churches — religion — life in all its phases. He has some stake, some property in all these things, and in proportion to the earnestness and greatness of his mind, he will feel that these are the real interests of his life, for which he needs "blessing" from the Lord. IV. RELIGION IN THE HOUSE OF A GOOD MAN, IS LIKELY TO BE A LEGACY TO HIS CHILDREN. In the piety of the living, and in the laws of Christian family life, he makes provision for what we may call the transmission of religion to those who shall come after. In the rule of their house, and in the spirit of their life, godly parents are casting the forms which will be peopled and animated with the future "families of Israel." ( A. Raleigh, D. D. )

Benson Commentary 1 Chronicles 13:1 And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. 1 Chronicles 13:1 . David consulted with the captains of thousands, &c. — With all the principal persons in authority, who had any command over others. For it is a dangerous thing for a prince, especially in the beginning of his reign, to rely wholly on his own wisdom, and not advise with others. 1 Chronicles 13:2 And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the LORD our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren every where, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us: 1 Chronicles 13:2 . David said unto all the congregation — Unto all the people then assembled with him at Hebron. In the second book of Samuel (chap. 5. and 6.) this story of removing the ark is mentioned after the taking of Jerusalem, and the two first fights with the Philistines, whereas here it is placed before the latter, and there is no mention of the former. The case seems to have been as follows: There being now a great and general concourse of all Israel, and David being now established in his throne with universal consent and applause, he begins with God, and his first thoughts and cares are concerning religion, and what was then the great instrument and ornament of it, the ark. And, having this assembly with him, he takes the opportunity of desiring their advice and concurrence with him about bringing the ark, either to Hebron, which was then the royal city, or to Jerusalem, which, as probably he told them, he was resolved to besiege, and hoped, by God’s help, to take. After this was proposed by the king, and accepted by the people, this great assembly was dismissed, only some of them David reserved to go with him against Jerusalem, which accordingly he did, and succeeded in his enterprise. But before his resolution to fetch the ark could be executed, the Philistines came and fought twice with him, as is related 2 Samuel 5:17 , &c., and here 1 Chronicles 14:8 , &c. And after they were repulsed with great loss and shame, David sets upon the execution of what he had resolved, and, in order to it, calls another general assembly of the people. And it be of the Lord our God — If this translation of the ark be pleasing to God; let us send abroad — Hebrew, ????? , niphretsa, Let us break out and send. We are now in some sort pent up in one place, but let us break up the assembly, and disperse ourselves, and send messengers speedily and universally to the several tribes about this work. It is a metaphor taken from the sea, or rivers, which, when the banks are broken, suddenly overflow the adjacent country. That are left in all the land of Israel — By which expression he reminds them of the great desolations and destructions brought upon them for their sins; and therefore advises that remnant, whom God had so graciously saved in and from those dreadful ruins, more seriously to set themselves to seek God than they had formerly done. 1 Chronicles 13:3 And let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we inquired not at it in the days of Saul. 1 Chronicles 13:3 . We inquired not at it in the days of Saul — The ark was then neglected, and the generality of the people contented themselves with going to Gibeon and offering sacrifices there, not caring, though the ark, the soul of the tabernacle, was in another place. As soon as David had power in his hand, he would use it for the advancement of religion. It ought to be the first care of those that are enriched or preferred, to honour God with their honours, and to serve him, and the interests of his kingdom among men, with their wealth and power. 1 Chronicles 13:4 And all the congregation said that they would do so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people. 1 Chronicles 13:4-5 . The thing was right in the eyes of all the people — Their consciences smiting them for their former negligence, and being fully convinced of the piety and reasonableness of this proposal. So David gathered all Israel together — All the chosen men of Israel, as it is expressed 2 Samuel 6:1 , their elders and representatives. From Shihor of Egypt — By which the Targum, and most of the Jews, understood the river Nile. It here stands for the southern bounds of the land of Canaan. Unto the entering of Hemath — The northern boundary of the land. 1 Chronicles 13:5 So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hemath, to bring the ark of God from Kirjathjearim. 1 Chronicles 13:6 And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is , to Kirjathjearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the LORD, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it . 1 Chronicles 13:6 . David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, Kirjath-jearim — Which explication is justified by Joshua 15:9 ; Joshua 15:60 , where the same city is called by both names: see note on 2 Samuel 6:2 . The ark of God the Lord, that dwelleth between the cherubim — Showing himself in a singular manner present or visible between the cherubim, before which his name was called upon, 2 Samuel 6:1 . 1 Chronicles 13:7 And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. 1 Chronicles 13:8 And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets. 1 Chronicles 13:9 And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. 1 Chronicles 13:10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God. 1 Chronicles 13:11 And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzza: wherefore that place is called Perezuzza to this day. 1 Chronicles 13:12 And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me? 1 Chronicles 13:13 So David brought not the ark home to himself to the city of David, but carried it aside into the house of Obededom the Gittite. 1 Chronicles 13:14 And the ark of God remained with the family of Obededom in his house three months. And the LORD blessed the house of Obededom, and all that he had. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Chronicles 13:1 And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. 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 of his reign is apparently not co