Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Vers. l-4a. Davids return to Hebron, and anointing as king over Judah. — Ver. 1. "After this" i.e. after the facts related in ch. i., David inquired of the Lord, namely through the Urim, whether he should go up to one of the towns of Judah, and if so, to which. lie received the reply, "to Hebron" a place peculiarly well adapted for a capital, not only from its situation upon the mountains, and in the centre of the tribe, but also from the sacred reminiscences connected with it from the olden time. David could have no doubt that, now that Saul was dead, he would have to give up his existing connection with the Philistines and return to his own land. But as the Philistines had taken the greater part of the Israelitish territory through their victory at Gilboa, and there was good reason to fear that the adherents of Saul, more especially the army with Abner, Saul's cousin, at its head, would refuse to acknowledge David as king, and consequently a civil war might break out, David would not return to his own land without the express permission of the Lord. Vers. 2-4a. When he went with his wives and all his retinue (vid. 1 Sam. xxvii. 2) to Hebron and the " cities of Hebron" i.e. the places belonging to the territory of Hebron, the men of Judah came (in the persons of their elders) and anointed him king over the house, i.e. the tribe, of Judah. Just as Saul was made king by the tribes after his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam. xi. 15), so David was first of all anointed by Judah here, and afterwards by the rest of the tribes (ch. v. 3).

Vers. Ab-7. A new section commences with HjW. The first act of David as kino; was to send messengers to Jabesh, to thank the inhabitants of this city for burying Saul, and to announce to them his own anointing as king. As this expression of thanks involved a solemn recognition of the departed king, by which David divested himself of even the appearance of a rebellion, the announcement of the anointing he had received contained an indirect summons to the Jabeshites to recognise him as their king now. — Ver. 6. " And now" sc. that ye have shown tills love to Saul your lord, " may Jehovah show you grace and truth" " Grace and truth" are connected together, as in Ex. xxxiv. 6, as the two sides by which the goodness of God is manifested to men, namely in His forgiving grace, and in His trustworthiness, or the fulfilment of His promises (yid. Ps. xxv. 10). u And 1 also sJioio you this good" namely the prayer for the blessing of God (ver. 5), because ye have done this (to Saul). In ver. 7 there is attached to this the demand, that now that Saul their lord was dead, and the Judasans had anointed him (David) king, they would show themselves valiant, namely valiant in their reverence and fidelity towards David, who had become their king since the death of Saul. uyy roprnm, i.e. be comforted, spirited (cf. Judg. vii. 11). It needed some resolution and courage to recognise David as king, because Saul's army had fled to Gilead, and there was good ground for apprehending opposition to David on the part of Abner. Ishbosheth, however, does not appear to have been proclaimed king yet; or at any rate the fact was not yet known to David. Dtt does not belong to "TIK, but to the whole clause, as ^K is placed first merely for the sake of emphasis.

Vers. 8-11. Promotion of Ishbosheth to he king over Israel. — The account of this is attached to the fore^oino; in the form of an antithesis: u B\it Abner, the chief captain of Saul (see at 1 Sam. xiv. 50), had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and led him over to Mahanaim." Ishbosheth had probably been in the battle at Gilboa, and fled with Abner across the Jordan after the battle had been lost. Ishbosheth (i.e. man of shame) was the fourth son of Saul (according to 1 Chron. viii. 33, ix. 39): his proper name was Esh-baal (i.e. fire of Baal, probably equivalent to destroyer of Baal). This name was afterwards changed into Ishbosheth, just as the name of the god Baal was also translated into Boslieth (" shame," IIos. ix 10, Jer. iii. 24, etc.), and Jerubbaal changed into Jerubbosheth (see at Judg. viii. 35). Ewald's supposition, that bosheth was originally employed in a good sense as well, like alScos and inQ (Gen. xxxi. 53), cannot be sustained. Mahanaim was on the eastern side of the Jordan, not far from the ford of Jabbok, and was an important place for the execution of Abner's plans, partly from its historical associations (Gen. xxxii. 2, 3), and partly also from its situation. There lie made Ishbosheth king "for Gilead" i.e. the whole of the land to the east of the Jordan (as in Num. xxxii. 29, Josh. xxii. 9, etc.). " For the Ashurites:" this reading is decidedly faulty, since we can no more suppose it to refer to Assyria (Asshur) than to the Arabian tribe of the Assurim (Gen. xxv. 3); but the true name cannot be discovered.1 "And for Jezreel" i.e. not merely the city of that name, but the plain that was named after it (as in 1 Sam. xxix. 1). " And for Ephraim, and Benjamin, and all (the rest of) Israel" of course not including Judah, where David had already been acknowledged as king. — Vers. 10, 11. Length of the reigns of Ishbosheth over Israel, and David at Hebron. The age of Ishbosheth is given, as is generally the case at the commencement of a reign. He was forty years old when he began to reign, and reigned two years; whereas David was king at Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and a half. We arc struck with this difference in the length of the two reigns; and it cannot be explained, as Seb. Schmidt, Clericus, and others suppose, on the simple assumption that David reigned two years at Hebron over Judah, namely up to the time of the murder of Ishbosheth, and then five years and a half over Israel, namely up to the time of the conquest

1 In the Septuagint we find Qxaipl or Qoivovp, an equally mistaken form. The Chaldee has "over the tribe of Asher," which is also unsuitable, unless we include the whole of the northern portion of Canaan, including the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali. But there is no proof that the name Asher was ever extended to the territory of the three northern tribes. We should be rather disposed to agree with Bachienne, who supposes it to refer to the city of Asher (Josh. xvii. 7) and its territory, as this city was in the southeast of Jezreel, and Abner may possibly have conquered this district for Ishbosheth with Gilead as a base, before he ventured to dispute the government of Israel with the Philistines, if only we could discover any reason why the inhabitants (" the Ashurites'1'') should be mentioned instead of the city Asher, or if it were at all likely that one city should be introduced in the midst of a number of large districts. The Syriac and Vulgate have Geshuri, and therefore seem to have read or conjectured "H^an; and Thenius decides in favour of this, understanding the name Geshur to refer to the most northerly portion of the land on both sides of the Jordan, from Mount Hermon to the Lake of Gennesareth (as in Dent. iii. 14, Josh. xii. 5, xiii. 13, 1 Chron. ii. 23). But no such usage of speech can be deduced from any of these passages, as Geshuri is used there to denote the land of the Geshurites, on the north-east of Bashan, which had a king of its own in the time of David (see at ch. iii. 3), and which Abner would certainly never have thought of conquering.

of Jerusalem: for this is at variance with the plain statement in the text, that "David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and a half." The opinion that the two years of Ishbosheth's reign are to be reckoned up to the time of the war with David, because Abner played the principal part during the other five years and a half that David continued to reign at Hebron, is equally untenable. We may see very clearly from ch. iii.-v. not only that Ishbosheth was king to the time of his death, which took place after that of Abner, but also that after both these events David was anointed king over Israel in Hebron by all the tribes, and that he then went directly to attack Jerusalem, and after conquering the citadel of Zion, chose that city as his own capital. The short duration of Ishbosheth's reign can only be explained, therefore, on the supposition that he was not made king, as David was, immediately after the death of Saul, but after the recovery by Abner of the land which the Philistines had taken on this side the Jordan, which may have occupied five years.1

Vers. 12-32. War bet ween the supporters of IshLoshctli and those of David. — Vers. 12, 13. When Abner had brought all Israel under the dominion of Ishbosheth, he also sought to make Judah subject to him, and went with this intention from Mahanaim to Gibeon, the present Jib, in the western portion of the tribe of Benjamin, two good hours to the north of Jerusalem (see at Josh. ix. 3), taking with him the servants, i.e. the fighting men, of Ishbosheth. There Joab, a son of Zeruiah, David's sister (1 Chron. ii. 1G), advanced to meet him with the servants, i.e. the warriors of David; and the two armies met at

1 From tin1 fact that in vers. 10, 11, Ishbosheth's ascending the throne is mentioned before that of David, and is also accompanied with a statement of his age, whereas the age of David is not given till ch. v. 4, 5, when he became king over all Israel, Ewald draws the erroneous conclusion that the earlier (?) historian regarded Ishbosheth as the true king, and David as a pretender. But the very opposite of this is stated as distinctly as possible in vers. 1 sqq. (compared with ver. 8). The fact that Ishbosheth is mentioned before David in ver. 10 may he explained simply enough from the custom bo constantly observed in the book of Genesis, of mentioning subordinate lines or subordinate persons first, and stating whatever Beemed worth recording with regard to them, in order that the ground might be p 1 1 illy clear for relating the history of the principal characters without any interruption.

the pool of Gibeon, i.e. probably one of the large reservoirs that are still to be found there (see Eob. Pal. ii. pp. 135— (5; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerusalem, ii. pp. 515—6), the one encamping upon the one side of the pool and the other upon the other. — Vers. 14 sqq. Abner then proposed to Joab that the contest should be decided by single combat, probably for the purpose of avoiding an actual civil war. u Let the young men arise ami wrestle before us" pn*^, to joke or play, is used here to denote the war-play of single combat. As Joab accepted this proposal, twelve young warriors for Benjamin and Ishbosheth, and twelve from David's men, went over, i.e. went out of the two camps to the appointed scene of conflict; " and one seized the other s head, and his sword was (immediately) in the side of the other (his antagonist), so that they fell together? The clause ^jn 1V3 isnrn is a circumstantial clause: and his sword (every one's sword) was in the side of the other, i.e. thrust into it. Sending the sword into the opponent's side is thus described as simultaneous with the seizure of his head. The ancient translators expressed the meaning by supplying a verb (eveirn^av, deficit: LXX., Vulg.). This was a sign that the young men on both sides fought with great ferocity, and also with great courage. The place itself received the name of Helkath-hazzurim, u field of the sharp edges" in consequence (for this use of zur, see Ps. lxxxix. 44). — Ver. 17. As this single combat decided nothing, there followed a general and very sore or fierce battle, in which Abner and his troops were put to flight by the soldiers of David. The only thing connected with this, of which we have any further account, is the slaughter of Asahel by Abner, which is mentioned here (vers. 18-23) on account of the important results which followed. Of the three sons of Zeruiah, viz. Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, Asahel was peculiarly light of foot, like one of the gazelles; and he pursued Abner most eagerly, without turning aside to the right or to the left. — Vers. 20, 21. Then Abner turned round, asked him whether he was Asahel, and said to him, " Turn to thy right hand or to thy left, and seize one of the young men and take his armour for thyself? i.e. slay one of the common soldiers, and take his accoutrements as booty, if thou art seeking for that kind of fame. But Asahel would not turn back from Abner. Then he repeated his command that he would depart, and added, " Why should I smite thee to the ground, and how could I then lift up my face to Joab thy brother?" from which we may see that Abner did not want to put the young hero to death, out of regard for Joab and their former friendship. — Ver. 23. But when he still refused to depart in spite of this warning, Abner wounded him in the abdomen with the hinder part, i.e. the lower end of the spear, so that the spear came out behind, and Asahel fell dead upon the spot. The lower end of the spear appears to have been pointed, that it might be stuck into the ground (vid. 1 Sam. xxvi. 7); and this will explain the fact that the spear passed through the body. The fate of the young hero excited such sympathy, that all who came to the place where he had fallen stood still to mourn his loss (cf. ch. xx. 12). — Yer. 24. But Joab and Abishai pursued Abner till the sun set, and until they had arrived at the hill Ammah, in front of Giah, on the way to the desert of Gibeon. Nothing further is known of the places mentioned here. — Vers. 25, 26. The Benjaminites then gathered in a crowd behind Abner, and halted upon the top of a hill to beat back their pursuers; and Abner cried out to Joab, " Shall the sword then devour for ever (shall there be no end to the slaughter)? dost thou not knoiv that bitterness arises at last? and how long wilt thou not say to the people, to return from pursuing their brethrenV Thus Abner warns Joab of the consequences of a desperate struggle, and calls upon him to put an end to all further bloodshed by suspending the pursuit. — Ver. 27. Joab replied, " If thou hadst not spoken (i.e. challenged to single combat, ver. 14), the people would have gone away in the morning r, every one from his brother" i.e. there would have been no such fratricidal conflict at all. The first *3 introduces the substance of the oath, as in 1 Sam. xxv. 34; the second gives greater force to it (vid. Ewald, § 330, b). Thus Joab threw all the blame of the fight upon Abner, because he had been the instigator of the single combat; and as that was not decisive, and was so bloody in its character, the two armies had felt obliged to fight it out. But he then commanded the trumpet to be blown for a halt, and the pursuit to be closed — Ver. 29. Abner proceeded with his troops through the Arabah, i.e. the valley of the Jordan, marching the whole night: and then crossing the river, went through the whole of Bithron back to Mahanaim. Bit/iron is a district upon the eastern side of the Jordan, which is only mentioned here. Aquila and the Vulgate identify it with Bethhoron;

but there is no more foundation for this than for the suggestion of Thenius, that it is the same place as Bethharam, the later Libias, at the mouth of the Nahr Hesban (see at Num. xxxii. 36). It is very evident that Bithron is not the name of a city, but of a district, from the fact that it is preceded by the word all, which would be perfectly unmeaning in the case of a city. The meaning of the word is a cutting; and it was no doubt the name given to some ravine in the neighbourhood of the Jabbok, between the Jordan and Mahanaim, which was on the north side of the Jabbok. — Vers. 30, 31. Joab also assembled his men for a retreat. Nineteen of his soldiers were missing besides Asahel, all of whom had fallen in the battle. But they had slain as many as three hundred and sixty of Benjamin and of Abner's men. This striking disproportion in the numbers may be accounted for from the fact that in Joab's army there were none but brave and well-tried men, who had gathered round David a long time before; whereas in Abner's army there were only the remnants of the Israelites who had been beaten upon Gilboa, and who had been still further weakened and depressed by their attempts to recover the land which was occupied by the Philistines. — Yer. 32. On the way back, David's men took up the body of Asahel, and buried it in his father's grave at Bethlehem. They proceeded thence towards Hebron, marching the whole night, so that they reached Hebron itself at daybreak. " It got light to them (i.e. the day dawned) at Hebron"

DAVID ADVANCES AND ISHBOSHETH DECLINES. ABNER GOES OVER TO DAVID, AND IS MURDERED BY JOAB. — CHAP. III.

Ver. 1. " And the war became long (was protracted) between the house of Saul and the house of David; but David became stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul weaker and iveaher." S&H, when connected with another verb or with an adjective, expresses the idea of the gradual progress of an affair (vid. Ges. § 131, 3, Anm. 3). The historian sums up in these wrords the historical course of the two royal houses, as they stood opposed to one another. " The war" does not mean continual fighting, but the state of hostility or war in which they continued to stand towards one another. They concluded no peace, so that David was not recognised by Ishboshetli as king, any more than Ishbosheth by David. Not only is there nothing said about any continuance of actual warfare by Abner or Ishbosheth after the loss of the battle at Gibcon, but such a tiling was very improbable in itself, as Ishbosheth was too weak to be able to carry on the war, whilst David waited with firm reliance upon the promise of the Lord, until all Israel should come over to him.

Vers. 2-5. Growth of the House of David. — Proof of the advance of the house of David is furnished by the multiplication of his family at Hebron. The account of the sons who were born to David at Hebron does not break the thread, as Clericus, Thenius, and others suppose, but is very appropriately introduced here, as a practical proof of the strengthening of the house of David, in harmony with the custom of beginning the history of the reign of every king with certain notices concerning his family (yid. ch. v. 13 sqq.; 1 Kings iii. 1, xiv. 21, xv. 2, 9, etc.). We have a similar list of the sons of David in 1 Chron. iii. 1-4. The first two sons were born to him from the two wives whom he had brought with him to PIcbron (1 Sam. xxv. 42, 43). The Chethibh n^l is probably only a copyist's error for ^?J?5, which is the reading in many Codices. From Ahinoam — the first-born, Amnon (called Aminon in ch. xiii. 20); from Abigail — the second, Chileab. The latter is also called Daniel in 1 Chron. iii. 1, and therefore had probably two names. The lamed before Ahinoam and the following names serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, like the German von, in consequence of the word son being omitted (yid. Ewald, § 292, a). The other four were by wives wrhom he had married in Hebron: Absalom by Mdachah, the daughter of Talmai kin^ of Geshur, a small kingdom in the north-east of Bashan (see at Deut. iii. 14); Adonijah by Haggith; Shepliatiah by Abital; and Ithream by Eglali. The origin of the last three wives is unknown. The clause appended to Eglah's name, viz. " David's wife" merely serves as a fitting conclusion to the whole list (Bertheau on 1 Chron. iii. 3), and is not added to show that Eglah was David's principal wife, which would necessitate the conclusion drawn by the Rabbins, that Michal was the wife intended.

Vers. 6-39. Decline of the House of Saul. — Vers. G— 11. Abner* s quarrel with Ishbosheth, — During the war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner adhered firmly to the house of Saul, but he appropriated one of Saul's concubines to himself. When Ishbosheth charged him with this, he fell into so violent a rage, that he at once announced to Ishbosheth his intention to hand over the kingdom to David. Abner had certainly perceived the utter incapacity of Ishbosheth for a very long time, if not from the very outset, and had probably made him king after the death of Saul, merely that he might save himself from the necessity of submitting to David, and might be able to rule in Ishbosheth's name, and possibly succeed in paving his own way to the throne. His appropriation of the concubine of the deceased monarch was at any rate a proof, according to Israelitish notions, and in fact those generally prevalent in the East, that he was aiming at the throne (vid. ch. xvi. 21; 1 Kings ii. 21). But it may gradually have become obvious to him, that the house of Saul could not possibly retain the government in opposition to David; and this may have led to his determination to persuade all the Israelites to acknowledge David, and thereby to secure for himself an influential post under his government. This will explain in a very simple manner Abner's falling away from Ishbosheth and going over to David. — Vers. 6 and 7 constitute one period, expanded by the introduction of circumstantial clauses, the W (it came to pass) of the protasis being continued in the "iftN5} (he said) of ver. lb. " It came to loass, when there luas war between the house of Saul and the house of David, and Abner showed himself strong for the house of Saul, and Saul had a concubine named Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, that he (Ishbosheth) said to Abner, Why hast thou gone to my father s concubine V The subject to " said" is omitted in the apodosis; but it is evident from ver. 8, and the expression u my father" that Ishbosheth is to be supplied. Even in the second circumstantial clause, " and Saul had a concubine" the reason why this is mentioned is only to be gathered from Ishbosheth's words. 3 Pjnnn: to prove one's self strong for, or with, a person, i.e. to render him powerful help. /K N13 means " to cohabit with" It was the exclusive right of the successor to the throne to cohabit with the concubines of the deceased king, who came down to him as part of the property which he inherited.— Ver. 8. Abner was so enraged at Ishbosheth' s complaint, that he replied, " Am la cloys head, holding with Judah? To-day {i.e. at present) / show affection to the house of Said thy father, towards his brethren and his friends, and did not let thee fall into the hand of David, and thou reproachest me to-day with the fault with the woman?" " Dog's head" is something thoroughly contemptible. TCiftVlb "IC'K, lit. which (belongs) to Judahj i.e. holds with Judah. — Ver. 9. " God do so to Abner,... as Jehovah hath sworn to David, so will I do to him." The repetition of ^ serves to introduce the oath, as in ch. ii. 27. " To take away the kingdom from the house of Said, and set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan to Beersheba." We do not know of any oath with which God had promised the kingdom to David; but the promise of God in itself is equivalent to an oath, as God is the true God, who can neither lie nor deceive (1 Sam. xv. 29; Num. xxiii. 19). This promise was generally known in Israel. " From Dan to Beersheba" (as in Judg. xx. 1). — Ver. 11. Ishbosheth could make no reply to these words of Abner, " because he was afraid of him."

Vers. 12-21. Abner goes over to David. — Ver. 12. Abner soon carried out his threat to Ishbosheth. He sent messengers to David in his stead (not " on the spot," or immediately, a rendering adopted by the Chaldee and Symmachus, but for which no support can be found) with this message: u Whose is the land?" i.e. to whom does it belong except to thee? and, "Make a covenant with me; behold, so is my hand with thee (i.e. so will I stand by thee), to turn all Israel to thee." — Ver. 13. David assented to the proposal on this condition: " Only one thing do I require of thee, namely, Thou shalt not see my face, unless thou first of all bringest me Michal, the daughter of Saul, when thou comest to see my face." W?p V.^r"0** *?, " except before thy bringing," i.e. unless when thou hast first of all brought or delivered " Michal to me." This condition was imposed by David, not only because Michal had been unjustly taken away from him by Saul, after he had rightfully acquired her for his wife by paying the dowry demanded, and in spite of her love to him (1 Sam. xviii. 27, xix. 11, 12), and given to another man (1 Sam. xxv. 44), so that he could demand her back again with perfect justice, and Ishbosheth could not refuse to give her up to him, but probably on political grounds also, namely, because the renewal of his marriage to the king's daughter would show to all Israel that he cherished no hatred in his heart towards the fallen king. — Ver. 14. Thereupon, namely when Abner had assented to this condition, David sent messengers to Ishbosheth with this demand: " Give (me) my wife Michal, whom I espoused to me for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines" (see 1 Sam. xviii. 25, 27). David sent to Ishbosheth to demand the restoration of Michal, that her return might take place in a duly legal form, " that it might be apparent that he had dealt justly with Paltiel in the presence of his king, and that he had received his wife back again, and had not taken her by force from her husband" (Seb. Schmidt). — Ver. 15. Ishbosheth probably sent Abner to Gallim (1 Sam. xxv. 44) to fetch Michal from her husband Paltiel (see at 1 Sam. xxv. 44), and take her back to David. The husband was obliged to consent to this separation. — Ver. 16. When he went with his wife, weeping behind her, to Bahurim, Abner commanded him to turn back; " and he returned" Bahurim, Shimei's home (ch. xix. 17; 1 Kings ii. 8), was situated, according to ch. xvi. 1, 5, and xvii. 18, upon the road from Jerusalem to Gilgal, in the valley of the Jordan, not far from the Mount of Olives, and is supposed by v. Schubert (P. iii. p. 70) to have stood upon the site of the present Abu Disj though in all probability it is to be sought for farther north (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 103). Paltiel had therefore followed his wife to the border of the tribe of Judah, or of the kingdom of David. — Vers. 17, 18. But before Abner set out to go to David, he had spoken to the elders of Israel (the tribes generally, writh the exception of Benjamin (see ver. 19) and Judah): uBoth yesterday and the day before yesterday (i.e. a long time ago), ye desired to have David as king over you. Now carry out your wish: for Jehovah hath spoken concerning David, Through my servant David will I save my people Israel out of the power of the Philistines and all their enemies." JpttHn is an evident mistake in writing for WiK, which is found in many mss., and rendered in all the ancient versions. — Ver. 1 9. Abner had spoken in the same way in the ears of Benjamin. He spoke to the Benjaminites more especially, because the existing royal family belonged to that tribe, and they had reaped many advantages in consequence

(vid. 1 Sam. xxii. 7). The verb iWl in the circumstantial clause (ver. 17), and the verb "I3T1 in ver. 19, which serves as a continuation of the circumstantial clause, must be translated as pluperfects, since Abner's interview with the elders of Israel and with Benjamin preceded his interview with David at Hebron. We may see from Abner's address to the elders, that even among the northern tribes the popular voice had long since decided for David. In 1 Chron. xii. we have historical proofs of this. The word of Jehovah concerning David, which is mentioned in ver. 18, is not met with anywhere in this precise form in the history of David as it has come down to us. Abner therefore had either some expression used by one of the prophets (Samuel or Gad) in his mind, which he described as the word of Jehovah, or else he regarded the anointing of David by Samuel in accordance with the command of the Lord, and the marvellous success of all that David attempted against the enemies of Israel, as a practical declaration on the part of God, that David, as the appointed successor of Saul, would perform what the Lord had spoken to Samuel concerning Saul (1 Sam. ix. 16), but what Saul had not fulfilled on account of his rebellion against the commandments of the Lord. — Ver. 19b. When Abner had gained over the elders of Israel and Benjamin to recognise David as king, he went to Hebron to speak in the ears of David " all that had /'leased Israel and the whole house of Benjamin," i.e. to make known to him their determination to acknowledge him as king. There went with him twenty men as representatives of all Israel, to confirm Abner's statements by their presence; and David prepared a meal for them all. — Ver. 21. After the meal, Abner said to David, u I will rise and go and gather together all Israel to my lord the king, that they may make a covenant with thee {i.e. do homage to thee before God as king), and thou main st become king oeer all that thy soid desiretli" i.e. over all the nation of God; whereupon David took leave of him, and Abner went away in peace. The expression "in peace" serves to prepare the way for what follows. It is not stated, however, that David scot him away in peace (without avenging himself upon him), but that " David Bent him away, and he went in peace." Apart altogether from the mildness of David's own character, he had no reason whatever for treating Abner as an enemy, now that he had given up all opposition to his reigning, and had brought all the Israelites over to him. What Abner had done for Ishbosheth, including his fighting against David, was indeed a sinful act of resistance to the will of Jehovah, which was not unknown to him, and according to which Samuel had both called and anointed David king over the nation; but for all that, it was not an ordinary act of rebellion against the person of David and his rightful claim to the throne, because Jehovah had not yet caused David to be set before the nation as its king by Samuel or any other prophet, and David had not yet asserted the right to reign over all Israel, which had been secured to him by the Lord and guaranteed by his anointing, as one which the nation was bound to recognise; but, like a true servant of God, he waited patiently till the Lord should give him the dominion over all His people.

Vers. 22-30. Abner assassinated by Joab. — Ver. 22. After Abner's departure, the servants of David returned with much booty from a marauding expedition, and Joab at their head. The singular N2 may be explained from the fact that Joab was the principal person in the estimation of the writer. IVianp, lit. from the marauding host, i.e. from the work of a marauding host, or from a raid, which they had been making upon one of the tribes bordering upon Judah. — Ver. 23. When Joab learned (lit. they told him) that Abner had been with David, and he had sent him away again, he went to David to reproach him for having done so. " What hast thou done f Behold, Abner came to thee; why then hast thou sent him away, and he is gone quite away?" i.e. so that he could go away again without being detained (for this meaning of the inf. abs., see Ewald, § 280, b). " Thou knowest (or more correctly as a question, Dost thou know^.) Abner, the-son of Ner, that he came to persuade thee (i.e. to make thee certain of his intentions), and to learn thy going out and in (i.e. all thine undertakings), and to learn all that thou wilt do" (i.e. all thy plans). Joab hoped in this way to prejudice David against Abner, to make him suspected as a traitor, that he might then be able to gratify his own private revenge with perfect impunity.- — Ver. 26. For Abner had only just gone away from David, when Joab sent messengers after him, no doubt in David's name, though without his knowledge, and had him fetched back " from Bor-hasirah, i.e. the cistern of Sirah." Sirah is a place which is quite unknown to us. According to

Josephus (Ant. vii. 1, 5), it was twenty stadia from Hebron, and called Brjaipa. — Ver. 27. When he came back, Joab " took him aside into the middle of the gate, to talk with him in the stillness," i e. in private, and there thrust him through the body, so that he died " for the blood of Asahel his brother" i.e. for having put Asahel to death (ch. ii. 23).— Vers. 28, 29. When David heard this, he said, "/ and my kingdom are innocent before Jehovah for ever of the blood of Abner. Let it turn (^n, to twist one's self, to turn or fall, irruit) upon the head of Joab and all his father s house (or so-called family)! Never shall there be wanting (HT13J 7N, let there not be cut off, so that there shall not be, as in Josh. ix. 23) in the house of Joab one that hath an issue (vid. Lev. xv. 2), and a leper, and one who leans upon a stick (i.e. a lame person or cripple; ^S, according to the LXX. o-kvtoXtj, a thick round staff), and who falls by the sword, and who is in want of bread." The meaning is: May God avenge the murder of Abner upon Joab and his family, by punishing them continually with terrible diseases, violent death, and poverty. To make the reason for this fearful curse perfectly clear, the historian observes in ver. 30, that Joab and his brother Abishai had murdered Abner, u because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle" (ch. ii. 23). This act of Joab, in which Abishai must have been in some way concerned, was a treacherous act of assassination, which could not even be defended as blood-revenge, since Abner had slain Asahel in battle after repeated warnings, and only for the purpose of saving his own life. The principal motive for Joab's act was the most contemptible jealousy, or the fear lest Abner' s reconciliation to David should diminish his own influence with the kinsr, as was the case again at a later period with the murder of Amasa (ch. xx. 10).

Vers. 31-39. David! s mourning for Abner s death. — Vers. 31, 32. To give a public proof of his grief at this murder, and his displeasure at the crime in the sight of all the nation, David commanded Joab, and all the people with him (David), i.e. all his courtiers, and the warriors who returned with Joab, to institute a public mourning for the deceased, by tearing their clothes, putting on sackcloth, i.e. coarse hairy mourning and penitential clothes, and by a funeral dirge for Abner; i.e. he commanded them to walk in front of A brier's bier mourning and in funeral costume, and to accompany the deceased to his resting-place, whilst David as king followed the bier. — Ver. 32. Thus they buried Abner at Hebron; and David wept aloud at his grave, and all the people with him. — Vers. 33, 34. Although the appointment of such a funeral by David, and his tears at Abner's grave, could not fail to divest the minds of his opponents of all suspicion that Joab had committed the murder with his cognizance (see at ver. 37), he gave a still stronger proof of his innocence, and of the sincerity of his grief, by the ode which he composed for Abner s death:

34. Thy hands were not bound, and thy feet were not placed in fetters. As one falls before sinners, so hast thou fallen!

The first strophe (ver. 33) is an expression of painful lamentation at the fact that Abner had died a death which he did not deserve. " The fool" (riabal) is " the ungodly," according to Israelitish ideas (vid. Ps. xiv. 1). The meaning of ver. 34 is: Thou hadst not made thyself guilty of any crime, so as to have to die like a malefactor, in chains and bonds; but thou hast been treacherously murdered. This dirge made such an impression upon all the people (present), that they wept still more for the dead. — Ver. 35. But David mourned so bitterly, that when all the people called upon him to take some food during the day, he declared with an oath that he would not taste bread or anything else before the setting of the sun. Drip riii^ri does not mean, as in ch. xiii. 5, to give to eat, on account of the expression " all the people" as it can hardly be imagined that all the people, i.e. all who were present, could have come to bring David food, but it signifies to make him eat, i.e. call upon him to eat; whilst it is left uncertain whether David was to eat with the people (cf. ch. xii. 17), i.e. to take part in the funeral meal that was held after the burial, or whether the people simply urged him to take some food, for the purpose of soothing his own sorrow. DN s3 are to be taken separately; S3, ore, introducing the oath, and EN being the particle used in an oath: " if" i.e. assuredly not. — Ver. 36. " And all the people perceived it (i.e. his trouble), and it pleased them, as everything that the king did pleased all the people" — Ver. 37. All the people (sc. who were with the king) and all

Israel discerned on that day (from David's deep and heartfelt trouble), that the death of Abner had not happened (proceeded) from the king, as many may probably at first have supposed, since Joab had no doubt fetched Abner back in David's name. — Vers. 38, 39. Finally, David said to his (confidential) servants: " Know ye not {i.e. ye surely perceive) that a prince and great man has this day fallen in Israel?" This sentence shows how thoroughly David could recognise the virtues possessed by his opponents, and how very far he was from looking upon Abner as a traitor, because of his falling away from Ishbosheth and coming over to him, that on the contrary he hoped to find in him an able general and a faithful servant. He would at once have punished the murderer of such a man, if he had only possessed the power. " But" he adds, " / am this day (still) weak, and only anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too strong for me. The Lord reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness." The expression " to-day" not only applies to the word " weak" or tender, but also to "anointed" (to-day, i.e. only just anointed). As David wTas still but a young sovereign, and felt himself unable to punish a man like Joab according to his deserts, he was obliged to restrict himself at first to the utterance of a curse upon the deed (ver. 29), and to leave the retribution to God. He could not and durst not forgive; and consequently, before he died, he charged Solomon, his son and successor, to punish Joab for the murder of Abner and Amasa (1 Kings ii. 5).

Vers. 1-G. Murder of Ishbosheth. — Ver. 1. When the son of Saul heard of the death of Abner, " his hands slackened," i.e. he lost the power and courage to act as king, since Abner had been the only support of his throne. " And all Israel was confounded; " i.e. not merely alarmed on account of Abner s death, but utterly at a loss what to do to escape the vengeance of David, to which Abner had apparently fallen a victim. — Vers. 2, 3. Saul's son had two leaders of military companies (for ^X^"}3 vn we must read 'V j^ vn): the one was named Baanah, the other Rechab, sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, " of the sons of Benjamin" i.e. belonging to them; " for Beeroth is also reckoned to Benjamin" (^V, over, above, added to). Beeroth, the present Bireh (see at Josh. ix. 17), was close to the western frontier of the tribe of Benjamin, to which it is also reckoned as belonging in Josh, xviii. 25. This remark concerning Beeroth in the verse before us, serves to confirm the statement that the Beerothites mentioned were Benjaminites; but that statement also shows the horrible character of the crime attributed to them in the following verses. Two men of the tribe of Benjamin murdered the son of Saul, the king belonging to their own tribe. — Yer. 3. " The Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were strangers there unto this day." Gittaim is mentioned again in Neh. xi. 33, among the places in which Benjaminites were dwelling after the captivity, though it by no means follows from this that the place belonged to the tribe of Benjamin before the captivity. It may have been situated outside the territory of that tribe. It is never mentioned again, and has not yet been discovered. The reason why the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and remained there as strangers until the time when this history was written, is also unknown; it may perhaps have been that the Philistines had conquered Gittaim. — Ver. 4. Before the historian proceeds to describe what the two Beerothites did, he inserts a remark concerning Saul's family, to show at the outset, that with the death of Ishbosheth the government of this family necessarily became extinct, as the only remaining descendant was a perfectly helpless cripple. He was a son of Jonathan, smitten (i.e. lamed) in his feet. He was five years old when the tidings came from Jezreel of Saul and Jonathan, i.e. of their death. His nurse immediately took him and fled, and on their hasty flight he fell and became lame. His name was Mephibosheth (according to Simonis, for TW2 nKBD, destroying the idol); but in 1 Chron. viii. 34 and ix. 40 he is called Meribbaal (Baal's fighter), just as Ishbosheth is also called Eshbaal (see at ch. ii. 8). On his future history, see ch. ix., xvi. 1 sqq., and xix. 25 sqq. — Ver. 5. The two sons of Rimmon went to Mahanaim, where Ishbosheth resided (ch. ii. 8, 12), and came in the heat of the day (at noon) into Ishbosheth' s house, when he was taking his mid-day rest.— Ver. 6. " And here they had come into the midst of the house, fetching wheat (i.e. under the pretext of fetching wheat, probably for the soldiers in their companies), and smote him in the abdomen; and Rechab and his brother escaped" The first clause in this verse is a circumstantial clause, which furnishes the explanation of the way in which it was possible for the murderers to find their way to the kin<x. The second clause continues the narrative, and ^3n is attached to MfcM (ver. 5).1

Vers. 7-12. Punishment of the murderers by David. — Ver. 7. As the thread of the narrative was broken by the explanatory remarks in ver. 6, it is resumed here by the repetition of the words 'W *N2J1: " They came into the house, as he lay upon his bed in his bed-chamber, and smote him, and slew him" for the purpose of attaching the account of the further progress of the nffair, viz. that they cut off his head, took it and went by the way of the Arabah (the valley of the Jordan: see ch. ii. 29) the whole night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron with these words: " Behold (= there thou hast) the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul thine enemy,

1 The LXX. thought it desirable to explain the possibility of Rechab and Baanah getting into the king's house, and therefore paraphrased the sixth yerse as follows: x,ul l^oi> h Qvpuooc, rov oikov txudutos Trvpov; xxi suvaroc^s xxl ixctOivhe, xul 'Fyix**® K0Ct Baoti/a oi dlbt'KQoi ^it'Koc&ov (u and behold the doorkeeper of the house was cleaning wheat, and nodded and slept. And Rahab and Baana the brothers escaped, or went in secretly "). The first part of this paraphrase has been retained in the Vulgate, in the interpolation between vers. 5 and 6: et ostiaria domus purgans triticum obdormivit; whether it was copied by Jerome from the Itala, or was. afterwards introduced as a gloss into his translation. It is very evident that this clause in the Vulgate is only a gloss, from the fact that, in all the rest of ver. 6, Jerome has closely followed the Masoretic text, and that none of the other ancient translators found anything about a doorkeeper in his text. When Thenius, therefore, attempts to prove the " evident corruption of the Masoretic text," by appealing to the " nonsense (Unsinn) of relating the murder of Ishbosheth and the flight of the murderers twice over, and in two successive verses (see ver. 7)," he is altogether wrong in speaking of the repetition as " nonsense " whereas it is simply tautology, and has measured the peculiarities of Hebrew historians by the standard adopted by our own. J. P. F. Kbnigsfeldt has given the true explanation when he says: " The Hebrews often repeat in this way, for the purpose of adding something fresh, as for example, in this instance, their carrying off the head.'' Comp. with this ch. iii. 22, 23, where the arrival of Joab is mentioned twice, viz. in two successive verses; or ch. v. 1-3, where the assembling of the tribes of Israel at Hebron is also referred to a second time, — a repetition at which Thenius himself has taken no offence, — and many other passages of the same kind.

who sought thy life; and thus hath Jehovah avenged my lord the king this day upon Saul and his seed." No motive is assigned for this action. But there can be little doubt that it was no other than the hope of obtaining a great reward from David. Thus they presumed " to spread the name of God and His providence as a cloak and covering over their villany, as the wicked are accustomed to do" (Berleb. Bible). — Vers. 9 sqq. But David rewarded them very differently from what they had expected. He replied, " As Jehovah liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity, the man who told me, Behold, Saul is dead, and thought he was a messenger of good to me, I seized and sleiv at Zihlag (yid. i. 14, 15), to give him a reward for his news: how much more when wicked men have murdered a righteous man in his house upon his bed, should I not require his blood at your hand, and destroy you from the earth?" The several parts of this reply are not closely linked together so as to form one period, but answer to the excited manner in which they were spoken. There is first of all the oath, "As truly as Jehovah liveth," and the clause appended, " who redeemed my soul" in which the thought is implied that David did not feel it necessary to get rid of his enemies by the commission of crimes. After this (ver. 10) we have an allusion to his treatment of the messenger who announced Saul's death to him, and pretended to have slain him in order that he might obtain a good reward for his tidings. ^, like on, simply introduces the address. WJB... TSBn is placed at the head absolutely, and made subordinate to the verb by il after njnkj. i^fln?, " namely, to give him" "»$K is employed to introduce the explanation, like our "namely" {vid. Ewald, § 338, b). •T1K>3) good news, here "the reward of news." The main point follows in ver. 11, beginning with ^ *\K, "how much more'''' (vid. Ewald, § 354, c), and is introduced in the form of a climax. The words 133TO... D*BOK are also written absolutely, and placed at the head: " men have slain," for " how much more in this instance, when wicked men have slain." " Righteous" (zaddik), i.e. not guilty of any wicked deed or crime. The assumption of the regal power, which Abner had forced upon Ishbosheth, was not a capital crime in the existing state of things, and after the death of Saul; and even if it had been, the sons of Rimmon had no right to assassinate him. David's sentence then follows: "And now that this is the fact, that ye have murdered a righteous man, should I not" etc. 1JJ3, to destroy by capital punishment, as in Deut. xiii. 6, etc.. CH Pg3 (^= El t^TJ, Gen. ix. 5), to require the blood of a person, i.e. to take blood-revenge. — Ver. 12. David then commanded his servant to slay the murderers, and also to make the punishment more severe than usual. " They cut off their hands and feet" — the hands with which they had committed the murder, and the feet which had run for the reward, — u and hanged the bodies by the pool at Hebron" for a spectacle and warning, that others might be deterred from committing similar crimes (cf. Deut. xxi. 22; J. II. Michaelis). In illustration of the fact itself, we may compare the similar course pursued by Alexander towards the murderer of king Darius, as described in Justin's history (xii. 6) and Curtius (vii. 5). They buried Ishbosheth's head in Abner's grave at Hebron. Thus David acted with strict justice in this case also, not only to prove to the people that he had neither commanded nor approved of the murder, but from heartfelt abhorrence of such crimes, and to keep his conscience void of offence towards God and towards man.

II. THE GOVERNMENT OF DAVID OVER ALL ISRAEL IN THE TIME OF ITS STRENGTH AND GLORY.

After the death of Ishbosheth, David was anointed in Hebron by all the tribes as king over the whole of Israel (cli. v. 1-5). He then proceeded to attack the Jebusites in Jerusalem, conquered their fortress Zion, and made Jerusalem the capital of his kingdom; fortifying it still further, and building a palace in it (ch. v. G-1G), after he had twice inflicted a defeat upon the Philistines (ch. v. 17-25). But in order that the chief city of his kingdom and the seat of his own palace might also be made the religious centre of the whole nation as a congregation of Jehovah, he first of all brought the ark of the covenant out of its place of concealment, and had it conveyed in a festal procession to Zion, and deposited there in a tent which had been specially prepared for it, as a place of worship for the whole congregation (ch. vi.). lie then resolved to erect for the Lord in Jerusalem a temple fitted for His name; and the Lord gave him in return the promise of the eternal perpetuity of his throne (ch. vii.). To this there is appended a cursory account of David's wars with the neighbouring nations, by which not only his own sovereignty, but the lsraelitish kino-dom of God, was raised into a commanding power among the nations and kingdoms of the world. In connection with all this, David still maintained his affection and fidelity towards the fallen royal family of Saul, and showed compassion towards the last remaining descendant of that family (ch. ix.).

This account of the unfolding of the power and glory of the kingdom of Israel, through the instrumentality of David and during his reign, is so far arranged chronologically, that all the events and all the enterprises of David mentioned in this section occurred in the first half of his reign over the whole of the covenant nation. The chronological arrangement, however, is not strictly adhered to, so far as the details are concerned; but the standpoint of material resemblance is so far connected with it, that all the greater wars of David are grouped together in ch. viii. (see the introduction to ch. viii.). It is obvious from this, that the plan which the historian adopted was first of all to describe the internal improvement of the lsraelitish kingdom of God by David, and then to proceed to the external development of his power in conflict with the opposing nations of the world.

DAVID ANOINTED KING OVER ALL ISRAEL. JERUSALEM TAKEN, AND MADE THE CAPITAL OF THE KINGDOM. VICTORIES OVER THE PHILISTINES. — CHAP. V.

Vers. 1-3 (compare with this the parallel passages in 1 Chron. xi. 1-3). After the death of Ishbosheth, all the tribes of Israel (except Judah) came to Hebron in the persons of their representatives the elders (vid. ver. 3), in response to the summons of Abner (ch. iii. 17-19), to do homage to David as their king. They assigned three reasons for their coming: (1.) " Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh" i.e. thy blood-relations, inasmuch as all the tribes of Israel were lineal descendants of Jacob (vid.

Gen. xxix. 14; Judg. ix. 2). (2.) u In time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast the leader of Israel (thou leddest out and broughtest in Israel)" i.e. thou didst superintend the affairs of Israel (see at Num. xxvii. 17; and for the fact itself, 1 Sam. xviii. 5). tosio nrvri is an error in writing for N^itsn rrri and *30 for K^D, with the N dropped, as in 1 Kings xxi. 21, etc. (rid. Olshausen, Gr. p. 69). (3.) They ended by asserting that Jehovah had called him to be the shepherd and prince over His people. The remarks which we have already made at ch. iii. 18 respecting Abner's appeal to a similar utterance on the part of Jehovah, are equally applicable to the words of Jehovah to David which are quoted here: " Thou shalt feed my people Israel," etc. On the Pisha, see the note to Josh. iv. 1. — Ver. 3. u All the elders of Israel came" is a repetition of ver. la, except that the expression " all the tribes of Israel " is more distinctly defined as meaning " all the elders of Israel." " So all the elders came;... and king David made a covenant icith them in Hebron before the Lord (see at ch. iii. 21): and they anointed David king over (all) Israel." The writer of the Chronicles adds, u according to the word of the Lord through Samuel," i.e. so that the command of the Lord to Samuel, to anoint David king over Israel (1 Sam. xvi. 1, 12), found its complete fulfilment in this. — Vers. 4, 5. The age of David when he began to reign is given here, viz. thirty years old; also the length of his reign, viz. seven years and a half at Hebron over Judah, and thirty-three years at Jerusalem over Israel and Judah. In the books of Chronicles these statements occur at the close of David's reign (1 Chron. xxix. 27).

Vers. 6-10. Conquest of the Stronghold of Zion, and Choice of Jerusalem as the Capital of the Kingdom (cf. 1 Chron. xi. 4, 9). — These parallel accounts agree in all the main points; but they are both of them merely brief extracts from a more elaborate history, so that certain things, which appeared of comparatively less importance, are passed over either in the one or the other, and the full account is obtained by combining the two. The conquest of the citadel Zion took place immediately after the anointing of David as king over all the tribes of Israel. This is apparent, not only from the fact that the account follows directly afterwards, but also from the circumstance that, according to ver. 5, David reigned in Jerusalem just as many years as he was king over all Israel. — Ver. 6. The king went with his men {i.e. his fighting men: the Chronicles have " all Israel," i.e. the fighting men of Israel) to Jerusalem to the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, i.e. the natives or Canaanites; " and they said (the singular "^sl is used because "•p^n is a singular form) to David, Thou wilt not come hither (i.e. come in), but the blind and lame will drive thee away: to say (i.e. by which they meant to say), David icill not come in.91 1T?l! is n°t used for the infinitive, but has been rightly understood by the LXX., Aben Ezra, and others, as a perfect. The perfect expresses a thing accomplished, and open to no dispute; and the use of the singular in the place of the plural, as in Isa. xiv. 32, is to be explained from the fact that the verb precedes, and is only defined precisely by the subject which follows (vid. Ewald, § 319, a). The Jebusites relied upon the unusual natural advantages of their citadel, which stood upon Mount Zion, a mountain shut in by deep valleys on three different sides; so that in their haughty self-security they imagined that they did not even need to employ healthy and powerful warriors to resist the attack made by David, but that the blind and lame would suffice. — Ver. 7. However, David took the citadel Zion, i.e. " the city of David." This explanatory remark anticipates the course of events, as David did not give this name to the conquered citadel, until he had chosen it as his residence and capital (vid. ver. 9). P5? (Sion), from rP¥? to be dry: the dry or arid mountain or hill. This was the name of the southern and loftiest mountain of Jerusalem. Upon this stood the fortress or citadel of the town, which had hitherto remained in the possession of the Jebusites; whereas the northern portion of the city of Jerusalem, which was upon lower ground, had been conquered by the Judseans and Benjaminites very shortly after the death of Joshua (see at Judg. i. 8). — In ver. 8 we have one circumstance mentioned which occurred in connection with this conquest. On that day, i.e. when he had advanced to the attack of the citadel Zion, David said, " Every one who smites the Jebusites, let him hurl into the waterfall (i.e. down the precipice) both the lame and blind, who are hateful to David's soul." This is most probably the proper interpretation of these obscure words of David, which have been very differently explained. Taking up the words of the Jebusites, David called all the defenders of the citadel of Zion u lame and blind," and ordered them to be cast down the precipice without quarter, "to signifies a waterfall (catarracta) in Ps. xlii. 8, the only other passage in which it occurs, probably from T3S, to roar. This meaning may also be preserved here, if we assume that at the foot of the steep precipice of Zion there was a waterfall probably connected with the water of Siloah. It is true we cannot determine anything with certainty concerning it, as, notwithstanding the many recent researches in Jerusalem, the situation of the Jebusite fortress and the character of the mountain of Zion in ancient times are quite unknown to us. This explanation of the word zinnor is simpler than Ewald's assumption that the word signifies the steep side of a rock, which merely rests upon the fact that the Greek word fcarappd/cT7)<; originally signified a plunge.1 W) should be pointed as a Iliphil V^l). The Masoretic pointing VW arises from their mistaken interpretation of the whole sentence. The Chethibh "INJ6? might be the third pers. per/., "who hate David's soul;" only in that case the omission of "l#K would be surprising, and consequently the Ken *WN? is to be preferred. " From this," adds the writer, " the proverb arose, * The blind and lame shall not enter the house;'" in which proverb the epithet u blind and lame," which David applied to the Jebusites who were hated by him, has the general signification of "repulsive persons," with whom one does not wish to have anything to do. In the Chronicles not only is the whole of ver. 7 omitted, with the proverb to which the occurrence gave rise, but also the allusion

1 The earliest translators have only resorted to guesses. The Seventy, with their cnnkaQct iv Trccpx^ttpfit, have combined "N-)¥ with i"!3¥, which they render now and then ^xxxipx or popQctix. This is also done by the Syriac and Arabic. The Chaldee paraphrases in this manner: " who begins to subjugate the citadel." Jerome, who probably followed the Rabbins, has et tetigisset domatum fistulas (and touched the water-pipes); and Luther, " und erlanget die Dachrinnen" (like the English version, 11 whosoever getteth up to the gutter: " Th.). Hitzig's notion, that zinnor signifies ear ("whosoever boxes the ears of the blind and lame") needs no refutation; nor does that of Fr. Bottcher, who proposes to follow the Alexandrian rendering, and refer zinnor to a " sword of honour or marshal's staff," which David promised to the victor.

to the blind and lame in the words spoken by the Jebusites (ver. 6); and another word of David's is substituted instead, namely, that David would make the man who first smote the Jebusites, i.e. who stormed their citadel, head and chief;1 and also the statement that Joab obtained the prize. The historical credibility of the statement cannot be disputed, as Thenius assumes, on the ground that Joab had already been chief (sar) for a long time, according to eh. ii. 13: for the passage referred to says nothing of the kind; and there is a very great difference between the commander of an army in the time of war, and a " head and chief," i.e. a commander-in-chief. The statement in ver. 8 with regard to Joab's part, the fortification of Jerusalem, shows very clearly that the author of the Chronicles had other and more elaborate sources in his possession, which contained fuller accounts than the author of our books has communicated. — Ver. 9. "David dwelt in the fort" i.e. he selected the fort or citadel as his palace, " and called it Davids city." David may have been induced to select the citadel of Zion as his palace, and by so doing to make Jerusalem the capital of the whole kingdom, partly by the natural strength of Zion, and partly by the situation of Jerusalem, viz. on the border of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, and tolerably near to the centre of the land. u And David built, i.e. fortified (the city of Zion), round about from Millo and inwards." In the Chronicles we have MDn-iJfl, " and to the environs or surroundings," i.e. to the encircling wall which was opposite to the Millo. The fortification "inwards" must have consisted in the enclosure of Mount Zion with a strong wall upon the north side, where Jerusalem joined it as a lower town, so as to defend the palace against hostile attacks on the north or town side, which had hitherto been left without fortifications. The u Millo" was at any rate some kind of fortification, probably a large tower or castle at one particular part of the surrounding wall (comp. Judg. ix. 6 with vers. 46 and 49, where Millo is used interchangeably with Migdal). The name (" the filling") probably originated in the fact that through this tower or castle the fortification of the city, or the surrounding wall, was filled or completed. The definite article before Millo indicates that it was a well-known fortress, probably one that had been erected by the Jebusites. With regard to the situation of Millo, we may infer from this passage, and 1 Chron. xi. 8, that the tower in question stood at one corner of the wall, either on the north-east or north-west, " where the hill of Zion lias the least elevation and therefore needed the greatest strengthening from without" (Thenius on 1 Kings ix. 15). This is fully sustained both by 1 Kings xi. 27, where Solomon is said to have closed the breach of the city of David by building (fortifying) Millo, and by 2 Chron. xxxii. 5, where Hezekiah is said to have built up all the wall of Jerusalem, and made Millo strong, i.e. to have fortified it still further (vid. 1 Kings ix. 15 and 24). — Ver. 10. And David increased in greatness, i.e. in power and fame, for Jehovah the God of hosts was with him.

Vers. 11-10. — David's Palace, Wives and Children (comp. 1 Chron. xiv. 1-7). — King Hiram of Tyre sent messengers to David, and afterwards, by the express desire of, the latter, cedar-wood and builders, carpenters and stone-masons, who built him a house, i.e. a palace. Hiram (Hirom'm 1 Kings v. 32; Iluram in the Chronicles; LXX. Xecpafi; Josephus, Etpafios and EtpcofjLos), king of Tyre, was not only an ally of David, but of his son Solomon also. He sent to the latter cedar-wood and builders for the erection of the temple and of his own palace (1 Kings v. 21 sqq.; 2 Chron. ii. 2 sqq.), and fitted out a mercantile fleet in conjunction with him (1 Kings ix. 27, 28; 2 Chron. ix. 10); in return for which, Solomon not only sent him an annual supply of corn, oil, and wine (1 Kings v. 24; 2 Chron. ii. 9), but when all the buildings were finished, twenty years after the erection of the temple, he made over to him twenty of the towns of Galilee (1 Kings ix. 10 sqq.). It is evident from these facts that Hiram was still reiirninjr in the twenty-fourth, or at any rate the twentieth, year of Solomon's reign, and consequently, as he had assisted David with contributions of wood for the erection of his palace, that he must have reigned at least forty-five or fifty years; and therefore that, even in the latter ease, he cannot have bcrnm to reign earlier than the eighth year of David's reign over all Israel, or from six to ten years after the conquest of the Jebusite citadel upon Mount Zion. This is quite in harmony with the account given here; for it by no means follows, that because the arrival of an embassy from Hiram, and the erection of David's palace, are mentioned immediately after the conquest of the citadel of Zion, they must have occurred directly afterwards. The arrangement of the different events in the chapter before us is topical rather than strictly chronological. Of the two battles fought by David with the Philistines (vers. 17-25), the first at any rate took place before the erection of David's palace, as it is distinctly stated in ver. 17 that the Philistines made war upon David when they heard that he had been anointed king over Israel, and therefore in all probability even before the conquest of the fortress of the Jebusites, or at any rate immediately afterwards, and before David had commenced the fortification of Jerusalem and the erection of a palace. The historian, on the contrary, has not only followed up the account of the capture of the fortress of Zion, and the selection of it as David's palace, by a description of what David gradually did to fortify and adorn the new capital, but has also added a notice as to David's wives and the children that were born to him in Jerusalem. Now, if this be correct, the object of Hiram's embassy cannot have been uto congratulate David upon his ascent of the throne," as Thenius maintains; but after he had ascended the throne, Hiram sent ambassadors to form an alliance with this powerful monarch; and David availed himself of the opportunity to establish an intimate friendship with Hiram, and ask him for cedar-wood and builders for his palace.1 — Yer. 12. "And David

1 The statements of Menander of Ephesus in Josephus (c. Ap. i. 18), that after the death of Abibal his son Hirom (Etpapog) succeeded him in the government, and reigned thirty-four years, and died at the age of fiftythree, are at variance with the biblical history. For, according to these statements, as Hiram was still reigning "at the end of twenty years" (according to 1 Kings ix. 10, 11), when Solomon had built his palaces and the house of the Lord, i.e. twenty-four years after Solomon began to reign, he cannot have ascended the throne before the sixty-first year of David's life, and the thirty-first of his reign. But in that case the erection of David's palace would fall somewhere within the last eight years of his life. And to this we have to add the repeated statements made by Josephus (I.e. and Ant. viii. 3, 1), to the effect that Solomon commenced the building of the temple in Hiram's twelfth year, or after he had reigned eleven years; so that Hiram could only have begun to reign seven years before the death of David (in the sixty-third year of his life), and the erection of the palace by David must have fallen later still, and his determination to build the perceived (sc. from the success of his enterprises) that Jehovah had firmly established him king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel's sake," i.e. because temple, which lie did not form till he had taken possession of his house of cedar, i.e. the newly erected palace (ch. vii. 2), would fall in the very last years of his life, but a very short time before his death. As this seems hardly credible, it has been assumed by some that Hiram's father, Abibal, also bore the name of Hiram, or that Hiram is confounded with Abibal in the account before us (Thenius), or that Abibal's father was named Hiram, and it was he who formed the alliance with David (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 287). Hut all these assumptions are overthrown by the fact that the identity of the Hiram who was Solomon's friend with the contemporary and friend of David is expressly affirmed not only in 2 Chron. ii. 2 (as Ewald supposes), but also in 1 Kings v. 15. For whilst Solomon writes to Hiram in 2 Chron. ii. 3, " as thou didst deal with David my father, and didst send him cedars to build him an house to dwell therein," it is also stated 1 Kings v. 1 that " Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants unto Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of his father: for Hiram was a lover of David all days (all his life)." Movers (Phonizier ii. 1, p. 147 sqq.) has therefore attempted to remove the discrepancy between the statements made in Josephus and the biblical account of Hiram's friendship with David and Solomon, by assuming that in the narrative contained in the books of Samuel we have a topical and not a chronological arrangement, and that according to this arrangement the conquest of Jerusalem by David is followed immediately by the building of the city and palace, and this again by the removal of the holy ark to Jerusalem, and lastly by David's resolution to build a temple, which really belonged to the close of his reign, and indeed, according to 2 Sam. vii. 2, to the period directly following the completion of the cedar palace. There is a certain amount of truth at the foundation of this, but it does not remove the discrepancy; for even if David's resolution to build a temple did not fall within the earlier years of his reign at Jerusalem, as some have inferred from the position in which it stands in the account given in this book, it cannot be pushed forward to the very last years of his life and reign. This is decidedly precluded by the fact, that in the promise given to David by God, his son and successor upon the throne is spoken of in such terms as to necessitate the conclusion that he was not yet born. This difficulty cannot be removed by the solution suggested by Movers (p. 149), "that the historian necessarily adhered to the topical arrangement which he had adopted for this section, because he had not said anything yet about Solomon and his mother Bathsheba:" for the expression "which shall proceed out of thy bowels" (eh. vii. 12) is not the only one of the kind; but in 1 Chron. xxii. 9, David says to his son Solomon, " The word of the Lord came to me, saying, A son shall be born to thee — Solomon — he shall build an house for my name;" from which it is very obvious, that Solomon was not born at the time when David determined to build the temple and received this promise from God in conse-

He had chosen Israel as His people, and had promised to make it great and glorious.

To the building of David's palace, there is appended in quence of his intention. To this we have also to add 2 Sam. xi. 2, where David sees Bathsheba, who gave birth to Solomon a few years later, from the roof of his palace. Now, even though the palace is simply called " the king's house " in this passage, and not the " house of cedar," as in ch. vii. 2, and therefore the house intended might possibly be the house in which David lived before the house of cedar was built, this is a very improbable supposition, and there cannot be much doubt that the u king's house " is the palace (ch. v. 11, vii. 1) which he had erected for himself. Lastly, not only is there not the slightest intimation in the whole of the account given in ch. vii. that David was an old man when he resolved to build the temple, but, on the contrary, the impression which it makes throughout is, that it was the culminating point of his reign, and that he was at an age when he might hope not only to commence this magnificent building, but in all human probability to live to complete it. The only other solution left, is the assumption that there are errors in the chronological date of Josephus, and that Hiram lived longer than Menander affirms. The assertion that Solomon commenced the erection of the temple in the eleventh or twelfth year of Hiram's reign was not derived by Josephus from Phoenician sources; for the fragments which he gives from the works of Menander and Dius in the Antiquities (viii. 5, 3) and c. Apion (i. 17, 18), contain nothing at all about the building of the temple (yid. Movers, p. 141), but he has made it as the result of certain chronological combinations of his own, just as in Ant. viii. 3, 1, he calculates the year of the building of the temple in relation both to the exodus and also to the departure of Abraham out of Haran, but miscalculates, inasmuch as he places it in the 592d year after the exodus instead of the 480th, and the 1020th year from Abraham's emigration to Canaan instead of the 1125th. And in the present instance his calculation of the exact position of the same event in relation to Hiram's reign may be just as erroneous. His statement concerning the length of Hiram's reign was no doubt taken from Menander; but even in this the numbers may be faulty, since the statements respecting Balezorus and Myttonus in the very same extract from Menander, as to the length of the reigns of the succeeding kings of Tyre, can be proved to be erroneous, and have been corrected by Movers from Eusebius and Syncellus; and, moreover, the seven years of Hiram's successor, Baleazar, do not tally with Eusebius and Syncellus, who both give seventeen years. Thus the proof which Movers adduces from the synchronism of the Tyrian chronology with the biblical, the Egyptian, and the Assyrian, to establish the correctness of Menander's statements concerning Hiram's reign, is rendered very uncertain, to say nothing of the fact that Movers has only succeeded in bringing out the synchronism with the biblical chronology by a very arbitrary and demonstrably false calculation of the years that the kings of Judah and Israel reigned.

vers. 13-15 the account of the increase of his house by the multiplication of his wives and concubines, and of the sons who were born to him at Jerusalem (as in 1 Chron. xiv. 3 sqq.). Taking many wives was indeed prohibited in the law of the kin cr; in Deut. xvii. 17: but as a lar^e harem was considered from time immemorial as part of the court of an oriental monarch, David suffered himself to be seduced by that custom to disregard this prohibition, and suffered many a heartburn afterwards in consequence, not to mention his fearful fall in consequence of his passion for Bathsheba. The concubines are mentioned before the wives, probably because David had taken many of them to Jerusalem, and earlier than the wives. In the Chronicles the concubines are omitted, though not " intentionally," as they are mentioned in 1 Chron. iii. 9; but as being of no essential importance in relation to the list of sons which follows, because no difference was made between those born of concubines and those born of wives. " Out of Jerusalem," i.e. away from Jerusalem: not that the wives were all born in Jerusalem, as the words which follow, u after he was come from Hebron," clearly show. In the Chronicles, therefore, it is explained as meaning " in Jerusalem." The sons are mentioned?gain both in 1 Chron. xiv. 5-7 and in the genealogy in 1 Chron. iii. 5-8. SJiammua is called Shimea in 1 Chron. iii. 5, according to a different pronunciation. Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon were sons of Bathsheba according to 1 Chron. iii. 5. — Ver. 15. Elishua is written incorrectly in 1 Chron. iii. 6 as Elisha?na, because Elishama follows afterwards. There are two names after Elishua in 1 Chron. iii. G, 7, and xiv. 6, 7, viz. EUphalet and Nogahy which have not crept into the text from oversight or from a wrong spelling of other names, because the number of the names is given as nine in 1 Chron. iii. 8, and the two names must be included in order to bring out that number. And, on the other hand, it is not by the mistake of a copyist that they have been omitted from the text before us, but it has evidently been done deliberately on account of their having died in infancy, or at a very early age. This also furnishes a very simple explanation of the fact, that the name Elipkalet occurs again at the end of the list, namely, because a son who was born later received the name of his brother who had died young. Eliada, the last but one, is called Beeliada in 1 Chron. xiv. 7, another form of the name, compounded with Baal instead of El. David had therefore nineteen sons, six of whom were born in Hebron (ch. iii. 2 sqq.), and thirteen at Jerusalem. Daughters are not mentioned in the genealogical accounts, because as a rule only heiresses or women who acquired renown from special causes were included in them. There is a daughter named Thamar mentioned afterwards in ch. xiii. 1.

Vers. 17-25. David gains two Victories over the Philistines (compare 1 Chron. xiv. 8-17). — Both these victories belong in all probability to the interval between the anointing of David at Hebron over all Israel and the conquest of the citadel of Zion. This is very evident, so far as the first is concerned, from the words, " When the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel" (ver. 17), not when David had conquered the citadel of Zion. Moreover, when the Philistines approached, David "went down to the hold," or mountain fortress, by which we cannot possibly understand the citadel upon Zion, on account of the expression "went down." If David had been living upon Zion at the time, he would hardly have left this fortification when the Philistines encamped in the valley of Rephaim on the west of Jerusalem, but would rather have attacked and routed the enemy from the citadel itself. The second victory followed very soon after the first, and must therefore be assigned to the same period. The Philistines evidently resolved, as soon as the tidings reached them of the union of all the tribes under the sovereignty of David, that they would at once resist the growing power of Israel, and smite David before he had consolidated his government. — Ver. 17. " The Philistines went up to seek David" i.e. to seek him out and smite him. The expression ^|5X> presupposes that David had not yet taken up his abode upon Zion. He had probably already left Hebron to make preparations for his attack upon the Jebusites. When he heard of the approach of the Philistines, he went down into the mountain fortress. " The hold " cannot be the citadel of Zion (as in vers. 7 and 9), because this was so high that they had to go up to it on every side; and it is impossible to sustain the opinion advanced by Bertheau, that the verb TV (to go down) is used for falling back into a fortification. HTiVDn (the hold), with the definite article, is probably the mountain stronghold in the desert of Judah, into which David withdrew for a long time to defend himself from Saul (vid. ch. xxiii. 14 and 1 Chron. xii. 8). In ver. 18 the position of the Philistines is more minutely defined. The verse contains a circumstantial clause: u The Philistines had come and spread themselves out in the valley of Rephaim" a valley on the west of Jerusalem, and only separated from the valley of Ben-hinnom by a narrow ridge of land (see at Josh. xv. 8). Instead of W®\\ the Chronicles have ^B>B*, they had invaded, which is perfectly equivalent so far as the sense is concerned. — Vers. 19, 20. David inquired of the Lord by the Urim whether he should go out against the foe, and whether God would give them into his hand;l and when he had received an answer in the affirmative to both these questions, he went to Baal-perazim (lit. into Baalperazim), and smote them there, and said (ver. 20), " Jehovah hath broken mine enemies before me like a water-breach," i.e. has smitten them before me, and broken their power as a flood breaks through and carries away whatever opposes it. From these words of David, the place where the battle was fought received the name of Baal-perazim, i.e. "possessor of breaches" (equivalent to Bruch-hausen or Brechendorf, Breach-ham or Break-thorpe). The only other passage in which the place is mentioned is Isa. xxviii. 21, where this event is alluded to, but it cannot have been far from the valley of Rephaim. — Yer. 21. The Philistines left their idols behind them there. They had probably brought them to the war, as the Israelites once did their ark, as an auxiliary force. u And David took them away." The Chronicles have " their gods " instead of u their idols," and "they were burned with fire" instead of D^, "he took them

1 Through the express statement that David inquired of Jehovah (viz. by the Urim) in both these conflicts with the Philistines (vers. 19 and 213), Dieetel'a assertion, that after the death of Saul we do not read any more about the use of the holy lot, is completely overthrown, as well as the conclusion which he draws from it, namely, that " David probably employed it for the purpose of giving a certain definiteness to his cornmain 1 over his followers, over whom he had naturally but little authority (1 Sam. xxii. 2?), rather than because he looked upon it himself with any peculiar reverence."

away,"1 took them as booty. The reading in the Chronicles gives the true explanation of the fact, as David would certainly dispose of the idols in the manner prescribed in the law (Deut. vii. 5, 25). The same reading was also most probably to be found in the sources employed by our author, who omitted it merely as being self-evident. In this way David fully avenged the disgrace brought upon Israel by the Philistines, when they carried away the ark in the time of Eli. — Vers. 22-25. Although thoroughly beaten, the Philistines soon appeared again to repair the defeat which they had suffered. As David had not followed up the victory, possibly because he was not sufficiently prepared, the Philistines assembled again in the valley of Rephaim. — Ver. 23. David inquired once more of the Lord what he was to do, and received this answer: " Thou shalt not go up (i.e. advance to meet the foe, and attack them in front); turn round behind them, and come upon them (attack them) opposite to the Baca-shrubs." &^J?, a word which only occurs here and in the parallel passage in 1 Chron. xiv. 14, is rendered airiovs, pear-trees, by the LXX., and mulberry-trees by the Rabbins. But these are both of them uncertain conjectures. Baca, according to Abulfadl, is the name given in Arabic to a shrub which grows at Mecca and resembles the balsam, except that it has longer leaves and larger and rounder fruit, and from which, if a leaf be broken off, there flows a white pungent sap, like a white tear, which in all probability gave rise to the name K32 = H33? to weep (vid. Celsii, Hierob. i. pp. 338 sqq., and Gesenius, Thes. p. 205). — Ver. 24. "And when thou hearest the rush of a going in the tops of the baca-shrubs, then bestir thyself," or hasten; ufor Jehovah has gone out before thee, to smite the army of the Philistines." " The sound of a going," i.e. of the advance of an army, was a significant sign of the approach of an army of God, which would smite the enemies of Jehovah and of His servant David; like the visions of Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 2, 3) and Elisha (2 Kings vi. 17). "Then thou shalt bestir thyself," lit. be sharp, i.e. active, quick: this is paraphrased in the Chronicles by u then thou shalt go out to battle." — Ver. 25. David did this, and smote the Philistines from Geba to the neighbourhood of Gezer. In the Chronicles we find u from Gibeon " instead of from Geba. The former is unquestionably the true reading, and Geba an error of the pen: for Geba, the present Jeba, was to the north of Jerusalem, and on the east of Ramah (see at Josh, xviii. 24); so that it is quite unsuitable here. But that is not the case with Gibeon, the present el Jib, on the north-west of Jerusalem (see at Josh. ix. 3); for this was on the way to Gezer, which was four Roman miles to the north of Amws, and is probably to be sought for on the site of the present el Kubab (see at Josh. x. 33). l

After David had selected the citadel of Zion, or rather Jerusalem, as the capital of the kingdom, he directed his attention to the organization and improvement of the legally established worship of the congregation, which had fallen grievously into decay since the death of Eli, in consequence of the separation of the ark from the tabernacle. He therefore resolved first of all to fetch out the ark of the covenant, as the true centre of the Mosaic sanctuary, from its obscurity and bring it up to Zion; and having deposited it in a tent previously prepared to receive it, to make this a place of worship where the regular worship of God might be carried on in accordance with the instructions of the law. That he should make the capital of his kingdom the central point of the worship of the whole congregation of Israel, followed so naturally from the nature of the kingdom of God, and the relation in which David stood, as the earthly

1 There is no force in the objection brought by Bertheau against this view, viz. that "it is a priori improbable that the Philistines who were fighting against David and his forces, whose base of operations was Jerusalem, should have taken possession of the whole line from Gibeon to Gezer," as the improbability is by no means apparent, and has not been pointed out by Bertheau, whilst the assumption that Jerusalem was David's base of operations has no foundation whatever. Moreover, Bertheau's opinion, that Geba was the same as Gibeah in the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 57), is decidedly erroneous: for this Gibeah is not to be identified with the present village of Jeba on the south side of the Wady Mutuary half-way between Shocoh and Jerusalem, but was situated towards the rt of Judah (see at Josh. xv. 57); and besides, it is impossible to see how the Philistines, who had invaded the plain of Rephaim, could have been beaten from this Gibeah as far as to Gezer.

monarch of that kingdom, towards Jehovah the God-king, that there is no necessity whatever to seek for even a partial explanation in the fact that David felt it desirable to have the high priest with the Urim and Thummim always close at hand. But why did not David remove the Mosaic tabernacle to Mount Zion at Jerusalem at the same time as the ark of the covenant, and so restore the divinely established sanctuary in its integrity? This question can only be answered by conjectures. One of the principal motives for allowing the existing separation of the ark from the tabernacle to continue, may have been that, during the time the two sanctuaries had been separated, two high priests had arisen, one of whom officiated at the tabernacle at Gibeon, whilst the other, namely Abiathar, who escaped the massacre of the priests at Nob and fled at once to David, had been the channel of all divine communications to David during the time of his persecution by Saul, and had also officiated as high priest in his camp; so that he could no more think of deposing him from the office which he had hitherto filled, in consequence of the reorganization of the legal worship, than he could of deposing Zadok, of the line of Eleazar, the officiating high priest at Gibeon. Moreover, David may from the very first have regarded the service which he instituted in connection with the ark upon Zion as merely a provisional arrangement, which was to continue till his kingdom was more thoroughly consolidated, and the way had been thereby prepared for erecting a fixed house of God, and so establishing the worship of the nation of Jehovah upon a more durable foundation. David may also have cherished the firm belief that in the meantime the Lord would put an end to the double priesthood which had grown out of the necessities of the times, or at any rate give him some direct revelation as to the arrangements which he ought to make.

We have a parallel account of the removal of the ark of the covenant to Zion in 1 Chron. xiii. 15 and 16, which agrees for the most part verbatim, at all events in all essential points, with the account before us; but the liturgical side of this solemn act is very elaborately described, especially the part taken by the Levites, whereas the account given here is very condensed, and is restricted in fact to an "account of the work of removing the ark from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem as carried out by

David. David composed the 24th Psalm for the religious ceremonies connected with the removal of the ark to Mount Zion.

Vers. 1-10. The ark fetched from Kirjath-jearim. — Ver. 1. " David assembled together again all the chosen men in Israel, thirty thousand." *)DS for ^ON"1 is the Kal of ^ps^ as in 1 Sam. xv. G, Ps. civ. 29. "riy, again, once more, points back to ch. v. 1 and 3, where all Israel is said to have assembled for the first time in Hebron to anoint David king. It is true that that assembly was not convened directly by David himself; but this was not the point in question, but merely their assembling a second time (see Bertheau on 1 Chron. xiii. 5). ^nn does not mean " the young men " here (yeavia, LXX.), or " the fighting men," but, according to the etymology of the word, " the picked men." Instead of thirty thousand, the LXX. have seventy chiliads, probably with an intentional exaggeration, because the number of men in Israel who were capable of bearing arms amounted to more than thirty thousand. The whole nation, through a very considerable body of representatives, was to take part in the removal of the ark. The writer of the Chronicles gives a more elaborate account of the preparations for these festivities (1 Chron. xiii. 1-5); namely, that David took counsel with the heads of thousands and hundreds, and all the leaders, i.e. all the heads of families and households, and then with their consent collected together the whole nation from the brook of Egypt to Hamath, of course not every individual, but a large number of heads of households as representatives of the whole. This account in the Chronicles is not an expansion of the brief notice given here; but the account before us is a condensation of the fuller description given in the sources that were employed by both authors. — Ver. 2. " David went with all the people that were with him to Baale-Jehuda, to fetch up the ark of God from thence." The words HTilT yJ3D cause some difficulty on account of the IP, which is used instead of the accusative with n loc, like nnpys in the Chronicles; yet the translators of the Septuagint, Chaldee, Vulgate, and other versions, all had the reading |E in their text, and yV2 has therefore been taken as an appellative and rendered utto tu)v apyovjwv 'lovhd ("from the rulers of Judah "), or as Luther renders it, " from the citizens of Judah." This is decidedly incorrect, as the word "thence" which follows is perfectly unintelligible on any other supposition than that Baale-Jehudah is the name of a place. Baale-Jehudah is another name of the city of Kirjathjearim (Josh. xv. 60, xviii. 14), which is called Baalah in Josh. xv. 9 and 1 Chron. xiii. 6, according to its Canaanitish name, instead of which the name Kirjath-jearim (city of the woods) was adopted by the Israelites, though without entirely supplanting the old name. The epithet " of Judah" is a contraction of the fuller expression "city of the children of Judah" in Josh, xviii. 14, and is added to distinguish this Baal city, which was situated upon the border of the tribe of Judah, from other cities that were also named after Baal, such as Baal or Baalath-beer in the tribe of Simeon (1 Chron. iv. 33, Josh. xix. 8), Baalath in the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 44), the present Kuryet el Enab (see at Josh. ix. 17). The JE (from) is either a very ancient error of the pen that crept by accident into the text, or, if genuine and original, it is to be explained on the supposition that the historian dropped the construction with which he started, and instead of mentioning Baale-Jehudah as the place to which David went, gave it at once as the place from which he fetched the ark; so that the passage is to be understood in this way: " And David went, and all the people who were with him, out of Baale-Jehudah, to which they had gone up to fetch the ark of God" (Kimchi). In the sentence which follows, a difficulty is also occasioned by the repetition of the word BIP in the clause Ivy... fcOjM "^K, " upon which the name is called, the name of Jehovah of hosts, who is enthroned above the cherubim" The difficulty cannot be solved by altering the first DE> into DK?, as Clericus, Thenius, and Bertheau suggest: for if this alteration were adopted, we should have to render the passage " where the name of Jehovah of hosts is invoked, who is enthroned above the cherubim (which are) upon it (i.e. upon the ark); " and this would not only introduce an unscriptural thought into the passage, but it would be impossible to find any suitable meaning for the word Ivy, except by making very arbitrary interpolations. Throughout the whole of the Old Testament we never meet with the idea that the name of Jehovah was invoked at the ark of the covenant, because no one was allowed to approach the ark for the purpose of invoking the name of the Lord there; and upon the great day of atonement the high priest was only allowed to enter the most holy place with the cloud of incense, to sprinkle the blood of the atoning sacrifice upon the ark. Moreover, the standing expression for "call upon the name of the Lord" is '* DUO *Op; whereas 'a 5>y '" D^; Kipa signifies " the name of Jehovah is called above a person or thing." Lastly, even if v6y belonged to D'TCW 3B*, it would not only be a superfluous addition, occurring nowhere else in connection with '3fl 3B*? not even in 1 Chron. xiii. 6 (vid. 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Kings xix. 15; Isa. xxxvii. 16; Ps. xcix. 1), but such an addition if made at all would necessarily require Ivy "IE>X {vid. Ex. xxv. 22). The only way in which we can obtain a biblical thought and grammatical sense is by connecting ivy with the "NW before N"}P?: " above which (ark) the name of Jehovah-Zebaoth is named," i.e. above which Jehovah reveals His glory or His divine nature to His people, or manifests His gracious presence in Israel. "The name of God denotes all the operations of God through which He attests His personal presence in that relation into which He has entered to man, i.e. the whole of the divine self-manifestation, or of that side of the divine nature which is turned towards men" (Oehler, Herzog's Real-Encycl. x. p. 197). From this deeper meaning of " the name of God " we may probably explain the repetition of the word Dt?, which is first of all written absolutely (as at the close of Lev. xxiv. 16), and then more fully defined as "the name of the Lord of hosts." — Vers. 3, 4. " They set the ark of God upon a new cart, and took it away from the house of 'Abinadab." ^3"in means here " to put (load) upon a cart," and KfcM to take away, i.e. drive off: for there are grammatical (or syntactical) reasons which make it impossible to render ^N'B?5 as a pluperfect ("they had taken "), on account of the previous "Q3V1.

The ark of the covenant had been standing in the house of Abinadab from the time when the Philistines had sent it back into the land of Israel, i.e. about seventy years (viz. twenty years to the victory at Ebenezer mentioned in 1 Sam. vii. 1 sqq., forty years under Samuel and Saul, and about ten years under David: see the chronological table in vol. iv. p. 289). The further statement, that " Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, drove the cart," may easily be reconciled with this. These two sons were either born about the time when the ark was first taken to Abinadab's house, or at a subsequent period; or else the term sons is used, as is frequently the case, in the sense of grandsons. The words from HBhn (the last word in ver. 3) to Gibeah in ver. 4 are wanting in the Septuagint, and can only have been introduced through the error of a copyist, whose eye wandered back to the first n?jy in ver. 3, so that he copied a whole line twice over; for they not only contain a pure tautology, a merely verbal and altogether superfluous and purposeless repetition, but they are altogether unsuitable to the connection in which they stand. Not only is there something very strange in the repetition of the ncnn without an article after rbwn; but the words which follow, 'n fnx Dy (with the ark of God), cannot be made to fit on to the repeated clause, for there is no sense whatever in such a sentence as this: " They brought it (the ark) out of the house of Abinadab, which is upon the hill, with the ark of God." The only way in which the words u with the ark " can be made to acquire any meaning at all, is by omitting the repetition referred to, and connecting them with the new cart in ver. 3: " Uzzah and Ahio... drove the cart with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark." jnj, to drive (a carriage), is construed here with an accusative, in 1 Chron. xiii. 7 with 3, as in Isa. xi. 6. — Ver. 5. And David and all the house (people) of Israel were D^n^p? sporting, i.e. they danced and played, before Jehovah. D^KTD ^y?33? " with all kinds of woods of cypresses." This could only mean, with all kinds of instruments made of cypress wood; but this mode of expression would be a very strange one even if the reading were correct. In the Chronicles, however (ver. 8), instead of this strange expression, we find D^Ebl T'y*v33? " with all their might and with songs." This is evidently the correct reading, from which our text has sprung, although the latter is found in all the old versions, and even in the Septuagint, which really combines the two readings thus: iv opydvois rip/moa fxevois iy IcX™ Kat *v 2^a£?, where iv opydvots rjp/jLoa/juevoi^ is evidently the interpretation of D^m ^V fell; for the text of the Chronicles cannot be regarded as an explanation of Samuel. Moreover, songs would not be omitted on such a festive occasion; and two of the instruments mentioned, viz. the kinnor and nebel (see at 1 Sam. x. 5), were generally played as accompaniments to singing. The vav before 0*1^3, and before the different instruments, corresponds to the Latin et... et, both... and. *|fr, the timbrel. B^V31 D*J3J0D3, sistris et cymbalis

(Vulg., Syr.), "with bells and cymbals" (Luther). D^D, from JO, are instruments that are shaken, the aelarpa, sistra, of the ancients, which consisted of two iron rods fastened together at one end, either in a semicircle or at right angles, upon which rings were hung loosely, so as to make a tinkling sound when they were shaken. By??-? = ^npvp are cymbals or castanets. Instead of D^Jttp, we find rtTSfrn, trumpets, mentioned in the Chronicles in the last rank after the cymbals. It is possible that sistra were played and trumpets blown, so that the two accounts complete each other. — Vers. 6, 7. When the procession had reached the threshing-floor of Nachon, Uzzah stretched out his hand to lay hold of the ark, i.e. to keep it from falling over with the cart, because the oxen slipped. And the wrath of the Lord was kindled, and God slew Uzzah upon the spot. Goren nachon means u the threshing-floor of the stroke" (nachon from HDJ, not from pi3); in the Chronicles we have goren chidon, i.e. the threshing-floor of destruction or disaster (pT3 = T3) Job xxi. 20). Chidon is probably only an explanation of nachon, so that the name may have been given to the threshing-floor, not from its owner, but from the incident connected with the ark which took place there. Eventually, however, this name was supplanted by the name Perez-uzzah (ver. 8). The situation of the threshing-floor cannot be determined, as all that we can gather from this account is that the house of Obed-edom the Gathite was somewhere near it; but no village, hamlet, or town is mentioned.1 Jerome paraphrases ^iJ2n lDDtJ> *3 thus: " Because the oxen kicked and turned it (the ark) over." But Bp^ does not mean to kick; its true meaning is to let go, or let lie (Ex. xxiii. 11; Deut. xv. 2, 3), hence to slip or stumble. The stumbling of the animals might easily have turned the cart over, and this was what Uzzah tried to prevent by laying hold of the ark. God smote him there " on account of the offence " (?&?, air. \ey. from np^, in the sense of erring, or committing a fault). The writer of the Chronicles gives it thus: " Because

1 If it were possible to discover the situation of Gath-rimmon, the home of Obed-edom (see at ver. 10), we might probably decide the question whither Obed-edom was still living in the town where he was born or not. But according to the Unom., Kirjath-jearim was ten miles from Jerusalem, and Gath-rimmon twelve, that is to say, farther off. Now, if these statements are correct, Obed-edom's house cannot have been in Gath-rimmon.

he had stretched out his hand to the ark," though of course the text before us is not to be altered to this, as Thenius and Bertheau suggest. — Ver. 8. " And David was angry, because Jehovah had made a rent on Uzzah, and called the place Perez-uzzah" (rent of Uzzah). pQ H?> to tear a rent, is here applied to a sudden tearing away from life,? "in1! is understood by many in the sense of " he troubled himself;" but this meaning cannot be grammatically sustained, whilst it is quite possible to become angry, or fall into a state of violent excitement, at an unexpected calamity. The burning of David's anger was not directed against God, but referred to the calamity which had befallen Uzzah, or speaking more correctly, to the cause of this calamity, which David attributed to himself or to his undertaking. As he had not only resolved upon the removal of the ark, but had also planned the way in which it should be taken to Jerusalem, he could not trace the occasion of Uzzah' s death to any other cause than his own plans. He was therefore angry that such misfortune had attended his undertaking. In his first excitement and dismay, David may not have perceived the real and deeper ground of this divine judgment. Uzzah's offence consisted in the fact that he had touched the ark with profane feelings, although with good intentions, namely to prevent its rolling over and falling from the cart. Touching the ark, the throne of the divine glory and visible pledge of the invisible presence of the Lord, was a violation of the majesty of the holy God. " Uzzah was therefore 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. v. Gerlach). On further reflection, David could not fail to discover where the cause of Uzzah' s offence, which he had atoned for with his life, really had lain, and that it had actually arisen from the fact that he (David) and those about him had decided to disregard the distinct instructions of the law with regard to the handling of the ark. According to Num. iv. the ark was not only to be moved by none but Levites, but it was to be carried on the shoulders, not in a carriage; and in ver. 15, even the Levites were expressly forbidden to touch it on pain of death. But instead of taking these instructions as their rule, they had followed the example of the Philistines when they sent back the ark (1 Sam. vi. 7 sqq.), and had placed it upon a new cart, and directed Uzzah to drive it, whilst, as his conduct on the occasion clearly shows, he had no idea of the unapproachable holiness of the ark of God, and had to expiate his offence with his life, as a warning to all the Israelites. — Vers. 9, 10. David's excitement at what had occurred was soon changed into fear of the Lord, so that he said, u How shall the ark of Jehovah come to me?" If merely touching the ark of God is punished in this way, how can 1 have it brought near me, up to the citadel of Zion? He therefore relinquished his intention of bringing it into the city of David, and placed it in the house of Obed-edom the Gathite. Obed-edom was a Levite of the family of the Korahites, who sprang from Kohath (compare Ex. vi. 21, xviii. 16, with 1 Chron. xxvi. 4), and belonged to the class of Levitical doorkeepers, whose duty it was, in connection with other Levites, to watch over the ark in the sacred tent (1 Chron. xv. 18, 24). He is called the Gittite or Gathite from his birthplace, the Levitical city of Gath-rimmon in the tribe of Dan (Josh. xxi. 24, xix. 45).