Commentari biblici

VI.

This chapter contains a condensed narrative of the bringing up of the ark to Jerusalem, of which a much more full account is given in 1 Chronicles 13-16. It was the impulse of David’s piety to desire that the ark might be in the royal city, and the dictate of wise policy that his capital should become the centre of the national worship. The question may be asked, Why he did not at the same time bring up the Tabernacle? Two reasons may be suggested: (1) That by the force of circumstances there were now two high-priests, neither of whom could well be displaced—Abiathar, the companion of David in his trials and outlawry, and the heir to the high-priesthood, as son of the murdered Ahimelech; and Zadok, the high-priest in the later years of Saul, whom David found in office when he came to the throne, and who had joined him at Hebron (1Chronicles 12:28). It may have been wiser, therefore, for the present, to leave a necessity for high-priestly ministrations in different places. Zadok exercised his office at the Tabernacle at Gibeon (1Chronicles 16:39), and Abiathar was probably with the ark. (2) It might have been too great a change and shock to the people to concentrate everything at once in the new capital. The removal of the Tabernacle from Gibeon might have been resisted.

There is no sufficient reason to doubt that Psalms 68 was composed and chanted on this occasion, its martial tone being very natural in connection with the recent victories over the Philistines. Psalms 101, 15 were probably sung at the removal of the ark from the house of Obed-edom (2Samuel 6:12-16), while Psalms 24 was undoubtedly the triumphant chant with which the ark entered the city. All these should be studied in connection with this narrative. Psalms 132 is also, more doubtfully, referred to this period.

(1) Again, David gathered.—The word “again” should be transposed: “David gathered together again”—referring to the former military musters. In 1Chronicles 13:1-4, mention is made of the consultations with the leaders of Israel which preceded this gathering, and the gathering itself is there (2Samuel 6:5) said to be of “all Israel.” But “all Israel” was evidently represented by the thirty thousand (the LXX. reads seventy thousand) of its more prominent men.

(2) From Baale of Judah.—There is either a textual error here, so that instead of from should be read to, or else the historian is so occupied with his main subject that he omits the mention of the journey to Baale. In Joshua 15:9 and 1Chronicles 13:6, Baale is said to be another name for Kirjath-jearim. This was the place to which the ark was carried after its removal from Bethshemesh (1Samuel 7:2), and it had remained here ever since. It has been generally identified with Kuryet-el-enab, about eight miles a little north of west from Jerusalem. More recent opinion places it at ‘Erma, about eleven miles a little south of west from Jerusalem, and four miles east of Bethshemesh. In either case it was three or four hours’ march from the capital.

Whose name is called.—Neither the text nor the margin of the English represents the original quite accurately. Translate, which is called by the name, the name of Jehovah of hosts. The ark is thus described as being the visible symbol of God’s presence and of His covenant with His people.

(3) Upon a new cart.—The new cart, one which had been used for no other purpose, was doubtless intended as a mark of respect (comp. 1Samuel 6:7); yet it was a violation of the law (Numbers 7:9), requiring that the ark should be borne by the Levites. It is not necessary to suppose that David intended to violate the law; but the ark having been left neglected for more than two generations, the exact requirements in regard to it may easily have passed out of mind.

Abinadab that was in Gibeah.—Rather, in the hill, as the same word is translated in 1Samuel 7:1. Abinadab himself may have been long since dead, and Uzzah and Ahio may have been either his sons, now advanced in life, or his grandsons.

(4) And they brought it.—The text has undoubtedly suffered here through the repetition of a line by the scribes. The whole verse is omitted in the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 13, and the first half of it (which is a repetition of 2Samuel 6:3) in the LXX.

(5) Played.—This word means dancing accompanied by music. (See 1Samuel 18:7; 1Samuel 21:11, 1Chronicles 13:8; 1Chronicles 15:29, &c.)

On all manner of instruments made of fir wood.—Instead of this strange expression, the parallel passage in 1Chronicles 13:8 has “with all their might and with songs.” The difference between the two is very slight in the Hebrew, and it is generally thought that the latter is the correct reading. The variation, however, mast have been ancient, since the LXX. combines the two.

Cornets.—This word occurs only here, and is thought from its etymology to mean some kind of metal instrument with bells or rings, which gave forth its sound on being shaken. The Vulg. translates sistra. Instead of it Chronicles has “trumpets.”

(6) Nachon’s threshingfloor.—This place is entirely unknown. 1Chronicles 13:9 has “the threshingfloor of Chidon; “but it may be doubted whether the word is a proper name at all. The name, whatever it was, was now superseded by Perez-uzzah (2Samuel 6:8). The turning aside of the oxen to snatch the scattered grain of the threshingfioor may have caused the trouble.

(7) For his error.—The original is hero very obscure: 1Chronicles 13:10 has “because he put his hand to the ark.” (Comp. 1Samuel 6:19.) Especial sacredness was by the law attached to the ark, and it was strictly commanded, that when it was to be moved it should be first covered by the priests, and then borne by the Levites by means of its staves; but until it was covered, the Levites might not look upon it, and might not touch it, upon pain of death (Numbers 4:5; Numbers 4:15; Numbers 4:19-20). Uzzah was probably a Levite, or, at any rate, had been so long in the house with the ark that he ought to have made himself familiar with the law in regard to it. What may seem, at first thought, an exceeding severe penalty for a well-meaning, though unlawful act, is seen on reflection to have been a very necessary manifestation of the Divine displeasure; for this act involved not only a violation of the letter of the law (of which David also was guilty), but a want of reverence for the majesty of God as symbolised by the ark, and showed a disposition to profane familiarity with sacred things. “Uzzah was a type of all who, with good intentions, humanly speaking, yet with unsanctified minds, interfere in the affairs of the kingdom of God, from the notion that they are in danger, and with the hope of saving them” (O. von Gerlach). Judgments of this kind were, however, temporal, and give in themselves no indication of the treatment of the offender beyond the grave.