I Chronicles
21
This very important chapter in David’s history is the
parallel of II Samuel 24:1-25,
which contains some details not found here, e.g. the
route taken by those who
went to number
of the clearer proofs (in respect of what it supplies, not
found in Samuel) that its
indebtedness is not to that book, but to a work open as
well to the compiler of
Chronicles as to the writer of Samuel. Its contents fall
into five sections.
(vs. 1-6).
thereof (vs. 7-8).
the drawn sword of the angel for
the sparing of the people (vs. 9-17).
consequent stay of the plague
(vs. 18-27).
(vs. 28-30).
1 “And
Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number
Israel.”
This remarkable sentence takes the place
of the statements
in the parallel, “And
again the anger of the Lord was kindled against
and he moved David
against them to say, Go, number
(II Samuel 24:1).
Our own passage seems to confine the temptation and sin
to David. David also seems to be spoken of as the object of
malignant attack
on the part of Satan, though
and animosity. It is also to be noticed that in v. 17 David
takes all the blame
to himself, and speaks of the people as “innocent
sheep.” A people and
whole nation have, indeed, often suffered the smart of one
ruler’s sin. Yet
here the light thrown upon the whole event by the account
in the Book of
Samuel must be accepted as revealing the fact that there
had been
previously something
amiss on the part of the people — perhaps
something
of illest significance lurking in their constitution. This
alone could “kindle
the auger of the Lord against
kindles the anger of Satan — when he witnesses excellence,
surpassing
excellence, as when he witnesses “the weakest saint,”
yet in that strongest
position,” on his knees.” The apparent inconsistency
in Satan being spoken
of as resisting
against
histories do only purport to state the facts overt. And
in this sense either
alternative statement gives the prima facie facts.
Either is true, and both
may be true in different chronological order. And further,
that the anger of
the Lord was kindled against
seize his opportunity. It looks the contrary way. There was
a time and an
occasion in
found it, when the anger of the Lord was not kindled
against Adam and
Eve for certain. But much more prompt will be the executive
of Satan at
another and less doubtful time. The paths in written
history are often
awhile rugged and broken up; the written history of
Scripture is no
exception. And in thus being the more in analogy with
history itself, those
unevennesses and breaks are the better attestation of both
the reality of the
Scripture history and the veracity of its writers. The word
(ˆf"c;) occurs
twenty-four times in the Old Testament. On all occasions of
its occurrence
in the Book of Job and in the prophecies of Zechariah, it
shows the
prefixed definite article; in all other places it is, with
the present passage,
unaccompanied by the article. Its translation here might
appear strictly as
that of a proper name. But this cannot be said of the other
instances of its
use, when without the article (Numbers 22:22, 32; I Samuel
29:4).
This constitutes with some the ground of the very opposite
opinion and
opposite translation. If we regard the name as utterly
expressing the
personality of Satan, the passage is very noteworthy, and
will be most
safely regarded as the language of the compiler, and not as
copied from the
original source. The signification of the word “Satan,”
as is well known, is
“adversary” (I Peter 5:8; Job 1:7) or “accuser” (Revelation 12:10). The
sin of
David in giving the order of this verse was of a technical
and ceremonial character,
in the first place, whatever his motives were, and however
intensified by other
causes of a moral and more individual complexion. We learn
(Exodus 30:12-16)
the special enactments respecting what was to be observed
when “the sum of the
children of
passage does not say, it fails to say, when such a
numbering would be
legitimate or when not. It is left us, therefore, to deduce
this from
observation. And we notice, in the first place, that, on
the occasion of its
undoubted rightness, it is the work of the distinct
commandment of God
(Numbers 1:1-3; 26:1-4). Next, we notice the religious
contribution,
“the ransom,”
that was required with it (Exodus 30:12-16; 38:25-26;
Numbers 31:48-54). Again, we notice that the numberings
narrated
both in the beginning of the Book of Numbers (1.) and
toward the close
(26.) had specific moral objects as assigned by God — among
them the
forcible teaching of the
loss entailed by the successive rebellions of the
people (Numbers 26:64-65; Deuteronomy 2:14-15). And though
last, not least, all these indications are lighted up by
the express and
emphatic announcements in God’s original promises to
Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, that their seed
should become past numbering,
multitudinous as
the stars, and as the sands of the seashore. From all which we may
conclude that only that numbering was held
legitimate which was for
God’s service in some form, and as against
human pride and boastfulness
— by God’s command
as against a human king’s fancy — and
which was
attended by the payment of that solemn “ransom”
money, the bekah, or
half-shekel (Exodus
30:12). Other numbering had snares about it, and it
was no doubt because it had such intrinsically that
it was divinely
discountenanced, and in this case severely punished. It seems
gratuitous
with some to tax David with having other motives than those
of some sort
of vanity now at work, sinister designs of preparing,
unaided and
unpermitted, some fresh military exploits, or stealing a
march on the nation
itself in the matter of some new system of taxation. The
context offers no
corroboration of either of these notions, while several
lesser indications
point to the simplest explanation (ch.27:23 – No sense
counting that
which is innumerable – CY -2012).
A King’s Pride (v.1)
The Scripture historians do not conceal David’s faults.
Though they
represent him as the man after God’s heart, they faithfully
record his
grievous defections. He was evidently a man in whom the
ordinary
principles of human nature were unusually vigorous. There
was,
accordingly, warmth in his piety, and his sins were those
peculiar to an
ardent and passionate nature. His warlike impulses led him
into cruelty, his
amatory passions into adultery, his violence into murder,
his self-confidence
into the act of regal pride which is condemned in this
passage.
Accustomed as we are to a periodical census, and indeed to
statistics of all
kinds, it is difficult for us to understand how blamable
was David’s conduct
in numbering the people.
Samuel we are told that the
Lord’s anger with Israel was the deepest
reason for the act and the
explanation of all that followed it, our text refers
the conduct of David to “an adversary.”
Whether this enemy was human,
or, as is generally supposed,
superhuman, diabolical, is not material. A
tempter, an adversary, suggested
the sinful motive and the disobedient
action.
influential with the prosperous
and the powerful. It was VANITY,
confidence
in his own greatness, in the number of his soldiers, in the
resources of his subjects. David
had been a warrior whose arms had
been attended with remarkable
success, and, like many such, he
doubtless deemed himself
invincible.
Many sins are committed
heedlessly. Not so this; for Joab, who was by no
means a counselor always to be
trusted, warned his master against this act
of folly, which he saw was “a
cause of trespass to
was not to be deterred, and
perhaps resented, as such characters are wont
to do, any resistance to his
will. Temptation from without, evil passions
from within, are
often enough to overcome the calmest and the wisest
counsels and
admonitions. A lesson this of HUMAN
FRAILTY!
A summons also to
PENTITENCE and to HUMILITY.
2 “And
David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people,” – So Numbers 1:4,
“And with you
there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of
his fathers” (see also ch.27:22-24; II Samuel 24:4-5) - “Go,
number
Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number
of them to me, that I may
know it.”
3 “And
Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times
so many more as they be: but, my Lord the king,
are they not all
my lord’s servants?” - The place of
this perfectly intelligible sentence,
indicating that Joab discerned the object of David in
desiring the numbering
of the people, is occupied in the Book of II Samuel 24:3 by
the words,
“And that the eyes
of my lord the king may see it;” which
some for no very
evident reason prefer. It was, no doubt, a very radical element of David’s sin
in this matter that he
was thinking of the nation too much as his own servants,
instead of as the servants
of his one Master. The Lord ever
knoweth who are
His (II Timothy 2:19), and numbereth not
only them and their names, but their
every sigh, tear, prayer - “why then doth my Lord require this thing? why
will he be a cause of trespass to
though trespass was equivalent to the consequences, i.e. the
punishment of trespass.
This.however, rather tends to explain away than to explain
a phrase. More
probably the deeper meaning is that, in the fact of the numbering,
nation
and king would become one in act, and would become
involved together in
indisputable sin.
Though there were no unfeigned assent and consent in the
great body of the nation to the numbering, yet they would
become
participators in the wrong-doing. It would further seem
evident, from Joab
addressing these words to the king, that it was a thing familiarly known and
thoroughly understood that the course David was now bent on
following
was one virtually, if not actually, prohibited, and not one merely
likely to
be displeasing to God on account of any individual
disposition in David to
be boastful or self-confident. Otherwise it would be scarcely within the
4 “Nevertheless the king’s word
prevailed against Joab. Wherefore
Joab departed, and went throughout all
Israel, and came to Jerusalem.”
This short verse stands in the place of all the five verses
of II Samuel 24:4-8,
with their interesting contents, giving the route which
Joab and his assistants
took, and the time occupied (nine months and twenty days)
to their return.
5 “And
Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David.
And all they of
thousand men that drew sword: and
threescore and ten thousand men that drew
sword.” The
report of the
numbers as given in this verse does not tally with that of
the parallel place.
Here they are three hundred thousand more for Israel,
and thirty thousand
fewer for
discrepancies has yet appeared. The somewhat
ingenious suggestion that
the Chronicle-compiler counted in the standing
army (two hundred and
eighty-eight thousand, ch.27:1-15) for
supposed “thirty
thousand,” under the head of “the
thirty” of our ch.11.;
while the writer of the Book of Samuel did exactly the converse, —
can
scarcely pass muster, although it must be noticed that it would meet in
the
main the exigencies of the case. A
likelier suggestion might be found in a
comparison of the statements of our v. 6 compared with ch.27:22-24.
Indeed,
the last sentence of this last-quoted verse (Ibid. v.24) may
possibly
contain the explanation of all (compare Numbers 1:47-50;
2:33). That
Joab utterly refused to number Levi, because this was a
thing most
distinctly prohibited (and further because it was not
material to David’s
presumable objects), was quite to be expected. And though
Joab is said in
the following verse not to have numbered Benjamin, it is
possible enough
that he may have known this number (ch.7:6-11). Yet see
what follows.
6 “But
Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king’s
word was abominable to Joab.” Averse to his task as Joab was, he may have
been indebted to
the memory of the exemption of Levi from census
for the idea
of enlarging upon it and omitting Benjamin as well. The important
contents of this
short verse are not found in Samuel, so that we can borrow no light
thence. But
Benjamin was “the
least of the tribes” (Judges 21:1-23), and Peele has
suggested that God would not permit the numbers of either
of these tribes
to be lessened, as He foresaw that they would be faithful
to the throne of
David on the division of the kingdom. Others think that the
omission of
these tribes in the census may have been due to Joab’s
recall to
before the completion of the work, and to the king’s
repentance in the
interim cutting off the necessity of completing it. This
little agrees,
however, with the resolute tone and assigned reason
contained in this
verse. Peele’s explanation, meantime, explains nothing in
respect of the
statement that the king’s word was abominable
to Joab.
7 “And God
was displeased with this thing; therefore He smote
These last two words serve simply to summarize in the first
instance what the
compiler is about to rehearse at greater length. The
parallel place shows, “And
David’s heart
smote him after that he had numbered the people” (II Samuel
24:10). Some better
power occasioned that smiting. Reflection brought to David’s
heart and conscience (I Samuel 24:5), as often to those of others, restored
vitality.
The exact circumstances or providences, however, which roused into action the
conscience of David are
not stated. The second clause of our verse cannot refer
to any preliminary
smiting, but to the oncoming visitation of pestilence. It is
noticeable, if only as a coincidence, that II Samuel 24:11
opens with a similarly
ambiguously placed clause, “For when David was up in the morning, the
word of the Lord
came to the Prophet Gad,” although this is
explainable
simply as our insufficient
Authorized Version rendering. However, failing any
external cause,
the beginning of v. 10 in this same parallel place may intimate the
adequate account of all in the spontaneous stirring
of David’s conscience -
“the bitter thoughts of conscience born.” In these two verses we suddenly
come upon the name “God” instead of “the Lord,” i.e. Jehovah.
8 And David said unto God, I have sinned
greatly, because I have
done this thing: but now, I beseech thee,
do away the iniquity of
thy servant; for I have done very
foolishly.”
Contrition (v.8)
David was a man who both sinned grievously and repented bitterly.
If we
have nowhere more striking examples than in his life of
human frailty, we
have nowhere more than in his recorded experience an
example of anguish
and of penitence for sin. Witness the state of mind
manifested in Psalm 51.
We have in this most touching verse:
sincerely uttered confession.
Ø
It was offered to
God. “David said unto God.”
So in Psalm 51:4,
“Against thee, thee only, have I
sinned.” Not against society, not
against the state; but against the Searcher of
hearts and the Judge
of all.
Ø
It was a taking to
himself of the guilt. “I have sinned.” Instead
of laying the blame upon
another, the king accepted it for himself.
It is a sad thing
when men take excuses into the presence of God.
Ø
David had a just
sense of the heinousness of his sin.
He felt that he
had sinned greatly. It was
not in his view a light thing of which he
had been guilty. How can we, as
Christians, regard sin as a light
matter, when we remember that
sin
brought our HOLY SAVIOUR,
THE LORD OF
GLORY, TO THE IGNOMINIOUS CROSS?
Ø
The folly of sin was
very apparent to David’s mind when he poured
out his soul in contrite
confessions before the Lord. “I have done
very foolishly.”
the sinner acknowledged his
errors and faults, he did so with no hope or
expectation of
grace and forgiveness. But
David knew that God was a
God delighting in
mercy and ready to forgive (“but
there is
forgiveness with
thee…..with the Lord there is mercy and plenteous
redemption” – Psalm 130:4,7). Accordingly he added to his
confession this entreaty: “I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy
servant” (v.8). What abundant encouragement
have we to present a prayer
like this! (“Let us therefore come boldly
unto the throne of grace, that
we may obtain
mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need”
(Hebrews 4:16). The revelation of God’s character, the
provision of a Divine
Redeemer, the promises of a
welcome gospel, all alike induce us to come
unto God in the attitude, not
only of sinners, but of suppliants, beseeching
of Him a favorable reception,
and the extension to us as sinners of His
clemency and
grace.
9 And the LORD spake unto Gad, David’s seer,
saying,” - The parallel place
says, “The Prophet
Gad (aybiN;h}), David’s seer” (II Samuel 24:11). The
Hebrew
word here used in
both passages for “seer,” is hz,jo, in place of the word of higher
import, ha,roh;, the use of which is confined to Samuel, Hanani, and to
the person
spoken of in Isaiah 30:10. In this last passage our
Authorized Version translates
“prophet” while in ch.29:29 our Authorized Version translates both
Hebrew names
in the very same verse by the one English word “seer.” Gad was, perhaps, a pupil
of David, and was the successor of Samuel (ch.9:22) in this
office.
10 Go and
tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three
things: choose thee one of them, that I may
do it unto thee.
11 So Gad
came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD,
Choose thee”
12 “Either
three years’ famine;” - The parallel place has, in our Hebrew
text, “seven” instead of “three.” But the Septuagint
indicates this to be but
a corruption of a later text; for it reads” three,” as
here. The parallel place
shows no mention of the destroying angel here spoken of.
The three
inflictions of famine, sword, pestilence, are found not
unfrequently
elsewhere in Scripture (see Deuteronomy 28:21-25; Ezekiel
14:21;
Revelation 6:4-8) - “or three months to be destroyed
before
thy foes, while that the sword of thine
enemies overtaketh thee; or
else three days the sword of the LORD, even
the pestilence, in the
land, and the angel of the LORD destroying
throughout all the
coasts of
“Now see,” in place of “Now know and see” of the parallel
passage -
“what word I shall bring again to Him that
sent me.”
13 “And
David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now
into the hand of the LORD; for very great
are His mercies: but let
me not fall into the hand of man.” It is in such
answers as these —
answers of equal piety and practical wisdom, that the difference is
often
visible between the man radically bad, and the man good at heart
and the
child of grace, even when fallen into the deepest depth of sin.
Falling into the Hand of the Lord (v.13)
There is something very simple and touching in this
expression. “The hand
of the Lord” is,
for the most part, mentioned in Scripture as the emblem of
God’s protecting,
upholding, preserving power. Here it indicates
chastisement. How truly
submissive and filial was the spirit which was
manifested in this petition! Whether God’s hand was raised
to deliver or to
smite, His servant was content — so that it was God’s.
OFFENDERS. Some
unthinking persons may wonder why, if the sinner be
penitent and the sin forgiven,
there should be any necessity for punishment
at all. But facts cannot be
explained away. The great Lord and Judge of all
does sometimes, as in the
instance before us, permit the sinner to endure
temporal consequences of sin,
although His anger is turned away from the
repentant heart. God thus
avenges His own Law, upholds His own
authority, shows Himself a
righteous Sovereign and Ruler.
DIVINE CHASTISEMENT.
An
alternative of punishment is not
God’s usual offer
to repenting sinners. There is much to
commend
in the choice which David made
when Gad, at the Lord’s command,
permitted the king to elect one
form of penalty rather than another. David
referred the matter
wholly into “the hand” of a wise and merciful God.
There are many reasons why we should
thus submit when the Lord chastens.
Ø
God is the All-merciful. For this reason His
people may well be
content to “fall into His hand.” “Very great are His mercies”
(v.13). He is “merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity,
transgression, and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7). His character, His
promises, and especially
His “unspeakable
gift” (II Corinthians
9:15), should encourage us to lay aside all rebellion, murmuring,
and fear, and to
submit with patience, and “endure
chastening”
(Hebrews 12:7).
It is, no doubt, in His power to punish with
far
greater severity than
any human enemy is capable of doing. But whilst
“the tender mercies of the
wicked are cruel” (Proverbs 12:10),
the mercy of God
is boundless as His nature.
Ø God knows, not only the sin, but the repentance by which
it it followed. He reads the heart, and hears the sighs, and marks
the tears of every contrite penitent. He sees when a deep impression
of the sinfulness of sin has been produced. He knew that though
David was a great sinner, he was a sincere, submissive, and
lowly penitent. He makes a distinction between the
punishment
which is a mark of His
righteous displeasure with the sin, and that
which is needed to bring
the offender to a just sense of his ill desert.
Ø God tempers
His chastisements with Divine consolations and
support. He does not
desert His children, even in their deserved
distresses. He is with
them in the furnace. When they are
ready to
sink beneath their merited sorrows, lo! His everlasting arms are found
to be underneath them. (Deuteronomy 33:27)
Ø God designs, by all His chastening, to secure His people’s
spiritual good.
He afflicts, not for His pleasure, but for
our profit
(Hebrews
12:10. His
purpose is that we may “bring forth the
peaceable fruits of righteousness” (Ibid.
v.11). Men may
wreak malicious vengeance; GOD’S DISCIPLINE
IS
THAT OF A HOLY
AND COMPASSIONATE FATHER!
14 “So the
LORD sent pestilence upon Israel:” - This
sentence is
followed in the parallel place by “from the morning even to the time
appointed (II Samuel 24:15).”
It has been suggested that “the time appointed”
may mean the time of the evening sacrifice, and that God
shortened thus the
three days to a short one day. There seems nothing
sufficient to support the
suggestion, unless it might lie in the “repenting” of the
Lord, and His “staying”
of the angel’s hand, in v. 15 - “and there fell of
The whole number of Israel, including women, must have
reached near to five
millions. On this assumption, the sacrifice of life for
Israel would be something
like 14 per cent., or fourteen in the thousand.
15 “And
God sent an angel” – It is at this point first
that any mention of an
angel is found in the parallel
place, but then not in the present form, but in a
sentence which would seem to presuppose the knowledge of
the agency of an
angel on the occasion: “And
when the angel stretched out his hand upon
Jerusalem to
destroy it, the Lord repented Him of the evil” (II Samuel 24:16) -
“unto
and He repented Him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is
enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the
threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.” The verb “stood”
is employed here
quite generically. It does not imply that the angel stood on the ground; for
see next verse, in which it is said that he “stood between the earth and the heaven,”
the Hebrew verb being
exactly the same. Ornan is the uniform form and spelling
of the name in
Chronicles. In Samuel, however, the name appears as hw;n]r"a}
(Ibid. v.20), or Araunah. Yet in v. 16, of the same
chapter the Kethiv
inverts the order of the resh and vau, prefixing
the article, or what looks
like it, and again in v. 18 the Kethiv shows the form hy;n]r"a}. Ornan, then,
or Arauuah, was a descendant of the old Jebusite race to
whom the fort of
Zion once belonged. And the present narrative finds him
living on the Hill
of Moriah (Conder’s’ Bible Handbook,’ 2nd edit., 236 [6]). The
threshingfloor -
The primitive threshing-floors of the Israelites still
essentially obtain.
They were level spots of stamped and well-trodden earth,
about fifty feet in
diameter, and selected in positions most exposed to the
wind, in order to
take the advantage of its help in the separating of the
grain from the chaff.
On these circular spots of hard earth the sheaves of grain,
of whatever
kind, were distributed in all sorts of disorder. Oxen and
other cattle trod
them. And sometimes these beasts were driven round and
round five
abreast. The stalk of the grain was, of course, much
bruised and crushed,
and the method is described still as of a very rough and
wasteful kind.
Instruments were also employed, as the “flail” (Ruth 2:17; Isaiah
28:27-28); the “sledge,”
to which possibly reference is made in Judges
8:7,16, under the name barkanim (Authorized Version,
“briers”). These
sledges were of two kinds:
made of flat planks joined
together, and furnished with rough studs
on the under surface; and
made of wooden rollers, or
rollers of iron or stone, and dragged by
cattle over the sheaves. Egypt
and Syria, as well as Palestine, still show
these instruments (see
Robinson’s ‘Bibl. Res.,’ 1:550; and Thomson’s
‘Land and the Book,’ pp.
538-541).
God’s Repentance (v.15)
How often, in the Scriptures, are human emotions attributed
to God! The
charge of “anthropopathy” has, in consequence, sometimes
been brought
against what we hold to be Divine revelation. The truth is
that objectors do
not truly believe in THE
PERSONALITY OF GOD! The Bible does
teach us to think of God as a Person — a living, conscious
Being, with moral
attributes and purposes. It even speaks, as in the text, of
God’s repentance.
WRONG. This is the usual
application of the word, but it obviously has
deserved one. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
(Genesis 18:25) - As A
RULER OF INFLEXIBLE RIGHTEOUSNESS,
the Lord demands our reverence
and confidence in all the proceedings of His
providence.
attributing to the Lord the
emotions of pity, of long-suffering, and of love.
The spectacle of the suffering
nation, and the humbled, afflicted, contrite
king, was one which deeply
affected the Divine and fatherly heart.
Repentance arose upon the
perception that the chastening had now
answered its purpose in rousing
the sense of sin, in bringing the sinner low
before the feet of a justly
offended Judge and Lord. When the Lord saw
this result, His heart relented
and His wrath assuaged.
the angel that
destroyed, It is enough, stay now thy hand.” Pity may be
sincere, but ineffectual. Not so
with the Divine King. He utters his fiat,
and “in the midst of wrath remembers mercy.” (Habakkuk 3:2)
16 And
David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand
between the earth and the heaven, having a
drawn sword in his
hand stretched out over
Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell
upon their faces.
17 And
David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to
be numbered? even I it is that have sinned
and done evil indeed;
but as for these sheep, what have they
done? let thine hand, I pray
thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my
father’s house; but
not on thy people, that they should be
plagued.” These
verses offer instances,
especially the former, of the shorter narratives not being with
Chronicles, but
with Samuel And the longer narrative being with Chronicles
is found uniformly
in the cases in
which reference is had, whether more or less
directly, to the
ecclesiastical
or permanent institution of the Israelites.
Sin Taken Home (v. 17)
It is a most pathetic scene. The angel of the Lord, who had
smitten with his
destroying sword “throughout
all the coasts of
threshing-floor of the Jebusite. His drawn sword was
stretched out over
and his princes and counselors, clad in sackcloth, were
prostrate in
penitence and supplication before the vision — before the
Lord. And David
was taking the sin to himself, and invoking the penalty
upon himself, as he
bowed low before the righteous Judge and Avenger. We
observe in
David’s language:
MEN’S CONFESSIONS.
There is no sign of:
Ø
A disposition to shift
the sin upon others.
Ø
Or of a willingness
that others should bear the penalty of the sin,
Ø
Or of a tendency to
extenuate the guile of sinful action. We observe:
includes:
Ø
An acknowledgment of
his own offence.
Ø
A submission to the
Divine wisdom and justice.
He is willing that the hand of
God, that is, the chastening and afflicting hand,
should fall upon him and inflict
the strokes which he is well aware he merits.
SUFFERERS. How truly
is this David’s language! Under the influence of
deep emotion he speaks, as men
are wont to do in such circumstances, the
language of his
youth. His poor subjects are, to his
view, like guileless,
helpless sheep, scattered and
smitten. He implores that in compassion it
may please the Lord to save
them.
LANGUAGE. David’s attitude was pleasing to the Lord. Reconciliation
ensued. An altar was built, and sacrifices offered and accepted.
And the
angel of the Lord “put up his sword again into the sheath thereof.” (v.27)
18 “Then
the angel” – The Hebrew shows no article (see
Numbers 22:34-35;
I Kings 13:18; 19:5; Zechariah 1:9). The place where the
altar was now about
to be erected was that made famous
by the sacrifice of Abraham (Genesis
22:2, 9), and, though less certainly, that known to the
priesthood of Melchizedek
(Ibid. ch.14:17-20) -“of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David, that
David should go up, and set up an altar
unto the LORD in the
threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. 19 And David
went up at the saying
of Gad, which he spake in the name of the
LORD.”
20 “And
Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons with
him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing
wheat.” This
verse is not
found in the parallel place. The Septuagint reading of
“king” in this verse,
in place of “angel,” is no doubt an error. The drift of this and the following
verse is plain and continuous. Ornan and his sons had
hidden themselves on the
apparition of the angel, but came out on the advent of
David, to welcome him.
21 “And as
David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and
went out of the threshingfloor, and bowed
himself to David with
his face to the ground.”
22 “Then
David said to Ornan, Grant me the place of this threshingfloor,” –
i.e. the place on
which the threshing-floor was made. It was the level summit
of the middle elevated ground of the eastern ridge on which
situate (ch.11:4-7) - “that I may build an altar therein
unto the LORD:
thou shalt grant it me for the full price:
that the plague may be
stayed from the people.”
23 “And
Ornan said unto David, Take it to thee, and let my Lord the
king do that which is good in his eyes: lo,
I give thee the oxen also
for burnt offerings, and the threshing
instruments for wood, and the
wheat for the meat offering; I give it
all.” Ornan’s
offer to David of the
threshing-floor and all its belongings, as a gift, reminds of
Ephron’s offer
to Abraham (Genesis 23:11).
Ornan’s prompt offer of gift was, perhaps,
all the prompter from the desire to render every assistance to the
staying of
the plague. For burnt offerings … for the meat offering. The whole code of
regulations for offerings — sin
offering, trespass offering, peace offering,
burnt offering, meat and drink
offering — is to be found in Leviticus 1-7.
As regards the burnt
offering, see Leviticus 1.; 6:8-13. It was
called hl;[O,
from its “ascending” accepted
to heaven, or else from its being put up or
raised up (Hiph. conjugation)
on the altar; and sometimes lyliK;, from being
“wholly” consumed. The sin and trespass offerings were for
special sins,
but this was of a more comprehensive kind and of much
greater dignity, as
standing for the “purging of the conscience” (Hebrews
9:14). The
entire
consuming of the sacrifice signified the unqualified
self-surrender of him
who brought the sacrifice. It was a voluntary offering, the offerer laid his
hand on the head of the victim, and the blood of the
victim was sprinkled
round about the altar. The meat offering (hj;n]mi) is fully described in
Leviticus it.; 6:14-23. It
was an offering without blood, and therefore was an
accompaniment of an offering of blood. It was composed of flour or cakes,
prepared with salt, oil, and frank-incense — the salt emblematic of non-decay;
the oil, of spiritual grace; and the frankincense, of acceptable
fragrance. A
portion of this offering was to be burnt, and a portion eaten by the
priests in the
court, unless it was for a priest himself, when all must be
burnt. Meantime
a drink offering of wine was, in fact, a part of the meat
offering itself
(Exodus 29:40-41; Leviticus 23:13; Numbers 15:4-7, 9-10).
The
material of the meat offering might be the green or
fresh-gathered ears of
corn. The Septuagint translates dw~ron – doron – to bestow gratuitously;
give.
Luther, speis-opfer; and it need scarcely be
said that our Authorized
Version meat offering exhibits only the generic
employment of the word
“meat” for food.
24 “And
king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the
full price: for I will not take that which
is thine for the LORD, nor
offer burnt offerings without cost.”
Cheap Sacrifice Disdained (v.24)
It is a scene of historical and of sacred interest. Upon
the threshing-floor of
the old Jebusite chieftain, the son of Jesse, by his repentance
and prayer,
secured the
cessation of the pestilence which was desolating the land. The
Divine command enjoins that on this spot where the plague
was stayed, an
altar shall be reared to Jehovah in acknowledgment of
sparing mercy. The
site is the property of Ornan, who with his four sons is
threshing wheat.
When David approaches, the Jebusite bows before him with
reverence. The
representatives of “the old order” and “the new” meet together.
The scene
is truly Oriental. The king asks for the site; the chief
offers it as a gift; the
king refuses to accept it upon such terms; and an agreement
is entered into
that the site shall become David’s in exchange for six
hundred shekels of
gold. Thus is acquired the land upon which an altar is
built, and which is to
become
hereafter the site of the splendid
conduct and language convey a general principle of
universal validity, viz.
that it does not become man to offer, and that God will not
accept, a gift or
sacrifice which costs the giver nothing.
OURS. We call it ours, but our possession is DERIVED FROM AND
IS SUBORDINATE TO
HIS CREATIVE BOUNTY, HIS
PROVIDENTIAL
GOODNESS! What have we that we did not receive
from Him? (I
Corinthians 4:7) - Our
property, and our powers of
body and of
mind, we have FROM HIM AND OWE TO HIM!
That we cannot enrich Him by our giving, this
is certain. (The cattle on
a thousand hills is His – Psalm
50:10 – CY - 2012) But we can please
Him and can advantage ourselves
by giving to His people and to His cause.
CONTEMNED AND REJECTED BY GOD. David felt this, and
expressed it in noble and
memorable language, when he said, “I will not
take that which is
thine for the Lord, nor offer burnt offerings
without cost.” Every sincerely religious mind must sympathize with
the spirit here displayed. We are
reminded that the widow’s mite was
approved and accepted by our
Lord Jesus (Mark 12:41-44). It is not
the
magnitude of the gift, but the proportion of the
gift to the giver’s means,
and, above all, the spirit of
self-denial displayed
in the act of giving, which
meets with the approbation of the Searcher of hearts.
THE CAUSE OF GOD,
The King of Israel found this to be so in his own
experience, and the experience
of all who in this have followed his example
coincides with David’s. Our Lord
has said, “It is more blessed to give than
to receive.” (Acts 20:35)
25 So David
gave to Ornan for the
place six hundred shekels of gold by
weight.” The
only way to
reconcile this statement with that of the parallel place,
which (II Samuel
24:24) speaks of “fifty shekels of silver” (i.e. taking
the shekel at 2s. 8d.,
equal to about f6 13s. 4d.) as the price of “the threshing-floor
and the
oxen,” is to suppose
that the fifty shekels speak of the purchase money of
the oxen indeed, but not of the floor itself, which was
valuable, not only for
size and situation, but also for its prepared construction;
or again, keeping
to the literal language of Samuel, that “the floor and the
oxen” are
intended, while our expression, “the place,” may designate
the whole hill.
The value of gold as compared with silver was as sixteen to
one. If this be
the solution, we should have again an instance of the
compiler of this book
seizing for perpetuation the point of greatest and most
permanent interest,
i.e. the purchase of
the whole place.
26 “And
David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt
offerings and peace offerings, and called
upon the LORD; and He
answered him from heaven by fire upon the
altar of burnt offering.”
There is no doubt significance in the fact that the
compiler of Chronicles
records this answer by fire, unmentioned in the Book of
Samuel. He would
give prominence to this great token, as determining, or
going a great way
towards determining, the site of the temple. The answer by
fire was given
on critical and special occasions (Leviticus 9:24; I Kings
18:24, 38).
Accepted Offerings (v. 26)
The site of Ornan’s threshing-floor, once secured, was
without delay
consecrated to the appointed purpose. The altar was reared,
the priests
were summoned, the victims were prepared, the prayers were
offered; and
then the favor of the Most High was manifested, and the
nation was spared.
of two kinds. The burnt
offerings were typical of the consecration
of the
worshipper,
body, soul, and spirit, to the God of
offerings were expressive of reconciliation and fellowship with
Heaven. The appropriateness
of both in the case before us is manifest.
himself:
Ø
His obedience.
As appears from v.18, he was acting in
literal and
immediate compliance with
the direction he had received from the
Lord through the angel. He
had learned from Samuel the seer that
“to obey is better
than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat
of rams.” (I Samuel 15:22) In this case the sacrifice and the
obedience were one.
Ø
His prayer. David called upon the Lord. He was emphatically a
man of prayer, and it was
in answer to his prayer that the plague
was stayed. We learn that
his sacrifice was not merely a ceremonial
act, but that it was accompanied with spiritual desires and
acknowledgments.
Ø
His humility and submission. The king clothed himself in sackcloth
and fell upon his face; and
the man who in such a spirit sought to avert
the Lord’s anger would
certainly accompany his offering with contrition
and submission.
Ø
God answered him
from heaven by fire, thus showing that
the
sacrifice and the
worshipper were not rejected.
Ø
“The Lord
commanded the angel, and he put up his sword
again into the sheath
thereof” (v.27). His wrath was laid aside,
His mercy was
manifested, the people were SPARED!
o
The spirit of David is
an example to every suppliant sinner who
deprecates the wrath, and
would be delivered from the
condemnation, of the
righteous Judge.
o
The offerings of David
are A SYMBOL OF THE ONE
TRUE OFFERING,
JESUS CHRIST, provided by God
Himself.
o
The acceptance of
David is an encouragement to every true
penitent to approach
the Lord with confidence, coming in
GOD’S OWN
APPOINTED WAY and in the spirit God
approves.
27 And the LORD commanded the angel; and he put
up his sword
again into the sheath thereof.”
28 “At
that time when David saw that the LORD had answered him in
the threshingfloor” – David “saw “ this by the
fire on the altar, and by the fact
that God, at the voice of the angel (v. 18), had not
misdirected him, but
had guided him aright - “of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there.”
This means to say that he thenceforward “sacrificed
there;” and established there
the service of sacrifices. David was so impressed “at that time,”
by the answer
given in fire from heaven, that he began systematically to
sacrifice on the site
of this threshing-floor, instead of going to the high place
at
altar of burnt offering still stood. To have attempted to
go thither would
not only have meant a long and wasteful delay, but would
also have meant
the neglecting of the august omen of the angel present. An awful sanction
is thus given to “this place,” Moriah, and it becomes “the house of the
Lord God,” and the place of lawful and established sacrifice. (A
thousand
years later, JESUS
CHRIST DIED
FOR YOUR SINS AND
MINE! – CY – 2012)
29 “For the
tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses made in the
wilderness, and the altar of the burnt
offering, were at that season
in the high place at
inquire of God: for he was afraid because
of the sword of the angel
of the LORD.”
Typical, Sin, Suffering, Sorrow, Sacrifice
(vs. 1-30)
The study of the narrative before us, together with its
parallel, leads, with
little room for hesitation, to the conclusion that there
must have been
symptoms in the national character of
severe check or peremptory visitation. Failing this supposition, we cannot
satisfactorily get over the language of the opening verse
in the parallel
record of II Samuel 24. It is, however, undeniable that in
both places the
history lays the whole head and front of the offending upon
David, and that
the offending was his is corroborated by his own forcible
confession in the
seventeenth verse of the present chapter. The brunt of the suffering,
on the
other hand, falls upon the people, who were cut down by the
pestilence,
and upon those who, from the ties of nature, to say none
other, mourned
their loss. This is so entirely the tenor of the history,
that our exposition
has no choice but to follow its lead. And we shall therefore unfold the
moral and spiritual significance of the section from the
standpoint of David,
counting him the
sinner, holding him responsible
for the suffering,
watching him in
his struggle to emerge from the consequences of his
conduct, and to
lift his people out after him, and observing the sanctified
result to which all was turned by THE OVER-RULING AND
EVER-
RULING PROVIDENCE OF GOD!
Let us notice:
THE SIN OF DAVID
IN NUMBERING THE PEOPLE -(vs. 1-6.)
1. Whatever was the exact
nature of this offence, we are not at liberty to
discount it in allowing anything for the consideration
already supposed,
that
visitation. This may have been true enough. Yet their leader, their
shepherd, their king, should have been the first to watch
each symptom of
the kind, to study them anxiously, to counteract them in
place of neglecting
them or of co-operating with them, above all of becoming the
actual
EXPONENT OF THEM! It is for the shepherd to warn, to watch, to
keep
the flock. For every station in life there are its own
proper duties, and for every
increased and more exalted privilege of life there are its
own proportioned
opportunities and responsibilities. This is a moral canon
of human life and
society, always, everywhere, and that cannot be escaped in
its solemn
obligation. But how far David practically forgot it appears
from this
history. It is Scripture that represents it thus to us,
that Satan knew the
readiness of
he saw and used his opportunity with no miscalculation, “scattering the
flock” actually through and by aid of the shepherd. Once this way
ascertained to be practicable in this instance, and Satan
knew too well for
Israel that it was the readiest way, the method most
trenchant — easiest
for himself, and most humiliating to those for whom he
designed harm. A
man’s own sphere, special privilege, particular duty, will
always have it in
it to reveal the
possibilities of sin, to find the occasion for sin, to enhance
the triumph of sin, and to make it burn with fiercer blaze
and more lurid
glare. Many difficulties have been made out of such detail
as the language
of Scripture contains here, and in places of similar kind.
But Scripture
traverses all these, simply ignoring the skeptic’s misuse
of them. Scripture
keeps in the tracks of the undoubted analogies of fact. Israel was ready to
go wrong. Granted; but SO ALSO WAS HE whose highest work
and highest
honor it was to watch and to know and to guard
2. David’s sin was the
further removed from excuse, in that those who
were second to him in place and authority put him
in mind, and
remonstrated with him, and evidently with that earnest,
nervous feeling
which should have been at once as good as conviction
to him. The offence
was deliberate, determined, and would not brook
expostulation. For so it is
written, “The word of the king prevailed against that of Joab and the
captains of the
host.” It is the same thing as to say that
the word of
intolerant and arbitrary authority was encouraged to
override the “Law and
the testimony,”
the suggestions of memory, the remonstrances of
conscience, and the kindly spoken, courteous advice of
friendly and
constitutional counselors. The man who has it in him to set
at naught
certain kinds of expression of disapproval, that tell tales
so true to nature’s
touch, has it in him also, so far at least as that humor is
concerned, to set
anything at naught. And the impression cannot be resisted
that it was just
so with David at this crisis.
3. The offence of
David in numbering the people, unrelieved as it was by
any external considerations, offers also a peculiar kind of
evidence of the
large infusion of the moral element. It is not,
indeed, that the record of
Scripture fails to furnish the grounds on which his action
stood
condemned; yet it may be admitted that we feel them to be
wanting in
some measure in precision. Considering all that resulted
from the offense,
this very thing proves the larger presence of no technical,
no mere
ceremonial fault, but of deeper moral fault. Is David condemned by the
letter? He is condemned tenfold by the spirit. On the evidence, we are
bound to find him guilty on the counts of principle rather
than of the
violation of positive commandment. Why, for instance, does
not Joab in his
ill-disguised disgust (which even grew with his task, v. 6)
quote the
commandment, give
chapter and verse for his intense disapproval and
indignation? Oh yes, there are sins of the heart, of the
subtle undergrowth
of pride and ambition, and trust of self, which far surpass
all others in
significance and heinousness. Surely it were enough for the
quondam
shepherd-boy, now King of Israel, to be vicegerent of the
King of kings?
But David has slipped the charm of modest love and reverent
fear and
devoted religious service, and aims to be ruler in his own
right. He does
this just as really as Judas Iscariot, the disciple,
thought it was open to him
to compass and supersede the Master if he could. This
constitutes the
essence of what seems to he held up to view as the
unparalleled offence of
David, that he forgets his
subordinate place, and presumes to try to steal an
advantage on his own Supreme
Master. Does David wish to know the
number of his fighting men? It is perhaps in part matter of
pure vanity,
probably in greater part in order to estimate the strength
of his own
supposed resources; in other words, to calculate how far he
may afford to
dispense with simple, trustful, humble, daily dependence
— dependence on
the Lord his God. Nor was the calculating less or less
pernicious, that it
was unacknowledged, unconscious.
THE SUFFERING ENTAILED BY THE ONE SINFUL
DETERMINATION
OF ONE MAN (vs. 14-15.)
1. We have to credit
David with causing now one of the most dreadful
forms of human suffering. The state of mind which is filled
with
apprehension of
suffering is itself suffering of the worst kind for any
individual. It is not diminished by company, nor
distributed by being shared
among many. It is terribly intensified when a community, a
nation, an army,
is the prey of it. First, excited imagination very likely
goes beyond the
ensuing realities if they were but left to themselves. Then
the facts result
otherwise, and the realities on which the sun in the
heavens has looked
down in not a few such cases surpass imagination, even to
beggaring it.
History’s very devotee declines to believe. What cries, what
wails, what
maddened curses
must have rent the air wherever the ear of David was to
hear, whether he
traveled or rested, whether he listened or strove to shut
out every sound!
When once pestilence walks abroad, it not
only kills so
many thousands of its own professional right, but
from hour to hour, from
morning to night, it
tortures an uncounted number, who “hang in doubt of
their life,” and
have no rest, because they “have no
assurance of their life”
nor, indeed, of lives dearer to them than their own. And it is this which
David does for the very flock it was his life-work to fold,
to feed, and to
shield free even from the breath of fear.
2. We have to credit
David with having cut short some seventy thousand
human careers. Even though the nation may have deserved the
punishment,
and their crimes have cried for judgment, David has laden
himself withal
with the responsibility of inflicting it. So many streams of human life he has
dried up. So many deaths lie at his door. At so many
burials the loud
mourners and the low mourners, say it is he who has
rifled the home of life
and love, and opened the sepulcher’s dark door to receive
an untimely
prey. Youth he has cut down, beauty he has blighted, in
their opening
freshest hope. The strong men, the pride and defence of
his kingdom, and
the support of its homes, he has laid weak as the
weakest. And for the
peaceful or splendid sunsetting of old age he has
substituted a horizon
overspread with
the gloomiest clouds. This is what one sinful
determination of
one man carried through could do, and really did. And it
is a type of many, many an antitype. It is a type not least
in this one
element of it, that it did what it never meant nor thought
to do, and yet is
to the full answerable for it, because it was not in the path of duty, and was
distinctly out of it. Sin sometimes takes very heavy toll out of those who
do wrong, not because they mean to do so, but because they
do not mean
not to do it, AND DO NOT LIVE WITH WATCHING
and PRAYER!
3. We have to credit
David’s sin with an incalculable amount of human
grief. Not always, by any means, is he who is gone the one
who deserves
most pity, even as he certainly is past the reach of any
sympathy, but rather
those who remain, who remember, who grieve, who weep, and not merely
“would not be comforted’’ (Matthew 2:18), but cannot
be comforted, for
comfort is not. To wound human affections, to make hearts bleed, to crush
human courage, hope, life, is surely among the deadly sins, and to be revealed
“IN THAT DAY!” (I
Corinthians 3:13; Romans 5:2) - Abel’s blood cried to
God from the very earth, what cries must have reached Him from the
innumerable bleeding
hearts of bereft homes now,
wrecked of hope and joy
and peace by David!
THE STRUGGLE OF DAVID TO EMERGE FROM THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS SIN, AND TO EXTRICATE HIS
PEOPLE
AFTER HIM. (vs. 12-13, 16-17.).
1. It must be allowed
at once that David begins to resume again his better self.
The struggle was the struggle of conviction,
confession, prayer, even to
wrestling; not the struggle against these. Although
it may be held that there
is some ambiguity about it, yet a comparison and
combination of the two
accounts need leave little hesitation as to the real order
of things. David’s
heart “smote him”
after that he had numbered the people.
Never mind that,
it was not quite a spontaneous stirring of the conscience
and heart that
were within him; yet there was the fact — branded and seared they
were
not (I Timothy 4:2). God’s sudden morning call and message (II
Samuel 24:11)
roused David from his torpor in the twinkling of an eye. It was upon this event
that conviction, most unreserved confession,
entreaty for pardon and
mercy, and in due time intercession, followed. And they
followed with no
other calculation than the calculation most instinctive of AN AWAKENED
AND ALARMED SOUL! The real ring, solemn though the ring was, of other
well-known self-condemnation of David, is now unmistakably
heard. Not a
syllable of excuse, not an accent of extenuation, is to be detected in the tone.
2. The struggle shows
David in the midst of the very paroxysm of grief,
and fresh from the rebuke of his great Master, to be
possessed in a peculiar
manner of the wisest and right attitude of disposition
towards God.
free will and power
to choose once too often. He will renounce it now.
which shows how accurately he
had struck the balance between the
“mercies” of God and the “hand” of man. It apparently now amounts
to an instinct with him, that
there was no room for a moment’s hesitation
between throwing himself and
people upon the “mercies” of God, or
being thrown into the hands of men.
This his strongest impression was
also his correctest, which
cannot always be said of our strongest and most
absolute impressions. ‘Tis a
great lesson for all to learn, and a great fact in
the world’s history all up to
this present moment, that the paternal love is
to be better trusted than the fraternal.
THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD is,
after all, A BETTER ASCERTAINED REALITY than the brotherhood
of humanity.
acknowledging that he is “in a great strait,” he honors God by recording
a testimony which had come of his own long
experience of him: “For
very great are
His mercies” (v.13). The rod often brings us to our senses,
and when only uplifted
will suffice to bring a man to himself (Luke
15:17). But rarely did David — or any one else
who had known, loved,
done the truth, but fallen away from it too —
recover himself so rapidly
and apparently so completely in all essential
respects. (Except in the
matter of Bathsheba, from which
it seems he never fully recovered –
nothing of consequence in
David’s life occurred after that – CY – 2012)
3. The struggle offers
an undesigned but fine example of an intelligent
acknowledgment of the essence of the principle of
sacrifice. When the
scene is gone a little further, and the angel with drawn
sword is beheld,
David in an
agony of pleading is heard beseeching that “the
innocent” may
be spared (v. 17). He
proclaims who are the innocent (so far, at all events,
as his act is concerned); he begs that the guilty
one may suffer, and proposes
himself and his father’s house as the justly designated
resource for
sacrifice. The “altar and the wood,” ay, and the knife too,
are there, and
they shall not want the sacrifice. It seems possible,
probable, that not merely:
all equivalent to sacrifice,
was acceptable
to God. David’s importunate
expostulation, intercession,
prayer — three in one — contain implicitly
the principle of sacrifice. And
it is observable that it is from that moment
that David is authorized, and
indeed ordered, to seek a place of sacrifice,
and to erect an altar of
sacrifice. Thus in the struggle to purge himself
as far as possible of his
offense, and at least to extricate his people from
the fierceness of plague and
suffering, he rises to this point of view, to
entreat that on himself and his
father’s house may be concentrated the
punishment now
falling far and wide on a nation.
THE RESULTS TO
WHICH ONE MAN’S SIN AND AN
IMMENSITY OF CONSEQUENT SUFFERING
WERE NOW
OVERRULED. (vs. 26-30.)
1. Some of these
results were of special significance in the then time of day, and
for the people of
For the thousandth time were shown forth these things — the
loving
fatherly heart of God, the hand that forbore, the yearning
pity that
“repented” because of its own tenderness of even the most deserved
chastisement. Touching indeed is the language of v. 15. So
in older time
the Lord Himself to the angel, and the angel to Abraham,
had cried,
“Forbear; it is enough.” But not so when that dreader scene
gathered in its
fulness over
26:53), and might have come to the rescue, no
voice said “Forbear;” and
the only voice that did then speak as with authority —
authority
notwithstanding what it must say and how it
must say it — said this,
“Not my will be done” (Luke 22:42); and again, “It is
finished” (John
19:30) – A SIGNAL FOR
THAT AWFUL SACRIFICE TO GO ON
TO ITS SOLEMN END!
2. The stricter
typical principle of sacrifice was led up to, and an instance
of it exhibited. Blood flows for sin, and the blood of
those who were so far
forth innocent was now flowing for sin. And this doubtless,
though it fell
on the innocent, was the punishment of sin. But we see
David
acknowledge the principle that sacrifice may avail to stay
the punishment.
He, however, viewed, and justly viewed, himself as the guilty, and
therefore as the
one who ought to suffer. He does not come before us as
an instance of the innocent proposing to suffer in the
place of the guilty.
The issue is that the sacrifices of the Law were offered in
great abundance.
3. By auguries
memorable and solemn an altar of sacrifice and a place of
worship were designated. They became consecrate for the
service of a
thousand years at one stretch, and for what more to come we
know not.
Though we must fail to realize what seemed to David and to
Israel greatest
in this, yet analogies of the most intrinsic kind guide us
in the same
direction. Meantime not the grandest building we may raise
and dedicate to
the worship and glory of God, to the love and service of
Jesus, need mean
either more or less to us than that site and that altar
meant to David and
Israel. And, on the other hand, it may with equal truth be
said that the
humblest building, the least pretentious schoolroom for the
service of
Christ, means more for knowledge, for heavenly light, for
real beauty, than
David and the temple, and Solomon and “all his glory.”
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.