Unsought Quarrel With The Ammonites And Their Allies (19.1-19).

It would be wrong to see David as an aggressive king who constantly sought to take over the territories of his neighbours. In most, if not all, cases, when he invaded he was probably responding to their initial belligerence, and we have a good example of that here. His intentions towards Hanun, the son of Nahash, were entirely good. It was Hanun’s advisers who turned it into an all out war. The source of the material is almost certainly 2 Samuel 10, where the same story is narrated.

The account continues the stories of David’s victories over his enemies (11.4-9; 14; 18) which bring out that he brought the nations in subjection under his feet, like the Messiah was later expected to do. In this he is being presented as the prototype of the Messiah, the coming ‘son of David’, Whose rule will be worldwide (Psalm 2.8).

These masterly descriptions of David’s triumphs emphasise that the Chronicler’s aim is to present David in his overall greatness, not just as the future Temple builder. It was to present him as the ideal king ruling under YHWH and great because YHWH was great. It was the vision to which Israel would look back, and from which it would look forward to great David’s greater Son.

David’s Initial Friendly Approach And The Answer It Received (19.1-5).

David’s initial approach to the Ammonites was with the best of intentions. He wanted to comfort Hanun over the death of his father. But his fame had grown, and Hanun’s advisers were unwilling to believe in his honesty. They could only see his approaches as an attempt to suss them out. So they humiliated his messengers.

Analysis.

• A 19.1 ‘And it came about after this, that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon died, and his son reigned in his stead, and David said, “I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, because his father showed kindness to me” (19.1-2a).
• B So David sent messengers to console him concerning his father (19.2b).
• C And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon to Hanun, to comfort him (19.2c).
• D But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun, “Do you think that David honours your father, in that he has sent consolers to you?” (19.3a).
• D Have his servants not come to you in order to search, and to overthrow, and to spy out the land?” (19.3b).
• C So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved them, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away (19.4).
• B Then certain persons went, and told David how the men were served (19.5a).
• A And he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly ashamed, and the king said, “Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return” (19.5b).

Note that in A David showed kindness to Nahash, and in the parallel he shows kindness to his shamed messengers. In B David sent messengers to give solace to Hanun, and in the parallel he learns how his messengers have been treated. In C the messengers come in to the land of Ammon, and in the parallel they are sent away. In D and its parallel are the suspicious questions asked by the Ammonite princes.

19.1 ‘And it came about after this, that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon died, and his son reigned in his stead.’

The passage commences by giving the background to what follows. All arose as a consequence of the death of the current king of Ammon, Nahash, who was seemingly on good terms with David, possibly because Nahash had wanted to get back at Saul. When as a young man he had besieged Jabesh-gilead, offering them cruel terms of surrender (the Ammonites were only half civilised, half desert tribesman), it was Saul who had delivered Jabesh-gilead and had sent Nahash and his army packing (1 Samuel 11.1-11). We do not know how he showed kindness to David, but it may well have been when David’s mother had found asylum with the king of Moab (1 Samuel 22.3-4). The Moabites and Ammonites were allies. Now Nahash had died, and he had been replaced by his son Hanun. The end of a long reign was often the time when men began to think about how the current situation could be altered, and whether a coup could be attempted, especially if they were egged on by others, and this would explain the edginess of Hanun’s advisers.

19.2 ‘And David said, “I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, because his father showed kindness to me.” So David sent messengers to console him concerning his father. And David’s servants came into the land of the children of Ammon to Hanun, to console him.’

News of Nahash’s death reached David who immediately determined to show his sympathy and offer friendship to Hanun, because Nahash had previously shown kindness towards him. We have no indication of what this kindness was, and, as we have suggested, it may have been related to his time when he was a fugitive from Saul. On the other hand it may simply indicate that they had maintained good relations during their respective reigns, with each helping the other. His approach here parallels David’s intention of showing kindness to the house of Saul in 9.1, the only difference being that this time it backfired against him.

So David sent messengers of consolation to Hanun, and his messengers accordingly entered the land of the children of Ammon. They may have come with some trepidation, for the fierceness of the Ammonite tribesmen was notorious. On the other hand they would know that they had David’s support, and have expected that that would ensure their safety.

19.3 ‘But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun, “Do you think that David honours your father, in that he has sent consolers to you? Have his servants not come to you in order to search, and to overthrow, and to spy out the land?”

The fierce tribal chiefs of Ammon, however, far from being grateful, sought to persuade their new king against David. The death of Nahash had increased their ability to influence the throne, and it must seem very probable that these half wild princes of a half wild people (situated between the more sophisticated Moabites and the even wilder Arabian nomads) had been stirred up by outside troublemakers to take this attitude in view of the fact that they were opposing the attitude shown by their late king. It was in fact regularly during an interregnum and the commencement of a new reign that such troublemakers would seek to take advantage of the situation to stir up trouble, and if Moab had been ‘pacified’ by David fairly recently (18.2) it would explain their attitude even more.

Thus these princes, possibly taking advantage of his innocence, suggested to the new young king that what David was doing was not genuinely showing honour to his dead father, but simply spying on them and assessing their capabilities with a view to an invasion. It is doubtful if they really thought this, for there had been a fairly long period of peace between Israel and Ammon (although it is quite true that it was at the commencement of a new reign that a potential aggressor might have such intentions). It is far more likely that they were being influenced by troublemakers from outside, namely the Aramaeans, who did not want to attack Israel themselves, but were hoping to foment trouble with that aim eventually in view.

19.4 ‘So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved them, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.’

The result of their urgings was that the new and rather naive king, no doubt egged on by his princes, decided to show David what he thought of him, and took David’s ambassadors, and shaved them (shaved off half their beards - 2 Samuel 10), and cut their robes so that their buttocks were revealed, and then sent them away. This was a deliberate insult of a most serious kind. To a Near-Easterner to have the beard shaved off was looked on as a major insult, and indeed warranted a death sentence on the culprit. Men would rather die than had their beards shaved off. And to shave off only half their beard added to the insult. There are a number of examples throughout history which demonstrate how deeply such insults were felt. Furthermore to have the buttocks bared was equally shameful (compare Isaiah 20.4). The ambassadors thus arrived back in Jericho feeling utterly shamed and humiliated, and in doing it to his ambassadors Ammon had in effect done it to David.

19.5 ‘Then certain persons went, and told David how the men were served. And he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, “Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.”

When David heard what had happened to his messengers he sent messages of sympathy and support to them at Jericho and told them that they could wait there until their beards had re-grown. Only then need they return to court. Meanwhile the insult to David himself was so great that retaliation was inevitable. Not to have acted would have encouraged all Israel’s neighbours to attack them because of their seeming weakness. No king could have held his head up after such treatment if he did not do something about it. So, as the Ammonites clearly recognised with some trepidation, an aggressive response to the insult would only take a matter of time.

David’s Forceful Response To Ammon And The Consequent War With Ammon and Aram (19.6-19).

Apprehensive at what they had done, the Ammonites did not wait for David to attack but immediately sent messages to the Aramaeans along with a ‘thousand talents’ of silver (i.e. a considerable sum) calling on them to come to their aid. This tends to confirm that there had already been contact with the Aramaeans, otherwise why would there have been such an immediate response to their request? It suggests that the Ammonites had in fact succumbed to Aramaean troublemaking suggestions, and were now looking for their assistance in facing up to the repercussions. In view of the fact that they knew that they could not face David alone they would hardly have deliberately insulted David in the way that they had unless they had had some plan already in mind which they had reason to think would be successful. They must have been absolutely confident that the Aramaeans would respond.

The Aramaeans did immediately respond. It gave them their opportunity to test David in battle without actually invading Israel, or Israel invading them. After all they had already experienced defeat at his hands (18.3-6). But what they had certainly not anticipated was the skill of David’s highly trained forces, and such a resounding defeat of their own forces. To put it in the way that the writer puts it, they had failed to recognise that YHWH was with Israel (18.6, 13).

Analysis.

• A And when the children of Ammon saw that they had made themselves odious to David, Hanun and the children of Ammon sent a thousand talents of silver to hire for themselves chariots and horsemen out of Mesopotamia, and out of Aram-maacah, and out of Zobah (19.6).
• B So they hired for themselves thirty two units of (thousand) chariots, and the king of Maacah and his people, who came and encamped before Medeba. And the children of Ammon gathered themselves together from their cities, and came ready for battle (19.7).
• C And when David heard of it, he sent Joab, and all the host of the mighty men. And the children of Ammon came out, and put the battle in array at the gate of the city, and the kings who had come were by themselves in the countryside (19.8-9).
• D Now when Joab saw that the battle was set against him before and behind, he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array against the Syrians (19.10).
• E And the rest of the people he committed into the hand of Abishai his brother. And they put themselves in array against the children of Ammon (19.11).
• F And he said, “If the Syrians are too strong for me, then you will help me, but if the children of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will help you.
• G Be of good courage, and let us play the man for our people, and for the cities of our God.
• G And YHWH do what seems good to him.” (19.12-13).
• F So Joab and the people who were with him drew near before the Syrians to the battle, and they fled before him (19.14).
• E And when the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians had fled, they likewise fled before Abishai his brother, and entered into the city. Then Joab came to Jerusalem (19.15).
• D And when the Syrians saw that they were put to the worse before Israel, they sent messengers, and drew forth the Syrians who were beyond the River, with Shophach the captain of the host of Hadarezer at their head (19.16).
• C And David was told, and he gathered all Israel together, and passed over the Jordan, and came upon them, and set the battle in array against them. So when David had put the battle in array against the Syrians, they fought with him (19.17).
• B And the Syrians fled before Israel, and David slew of the Syrians the men of seven units of (thousand) chariots, and forty units of (thousand) footmen, and killed Shophach the commander of the host (19.18).
• A And when the servants of Hadarezer saw that they were put to the worse before Israel, they made peace with David, and served him, nor would the Syrians help the children of Ammon any more (19.19).

Note that in A the Ammonites summoned the aid of forces which included Zobah and in the parallel those forces would not help the children of Ammon any more. In B the forces of the coalition gathered against Israel, and in the parallel their commander was slain, and the forces of Syria defeated. In C David heard about the massing of the coalition forces and sent his armies to face them, and in the parallel David hears about the massing of the Syrian forces and himself goes out to face them. In D when Joab saw the dire situation he chose his finest ment to face the Syrians, and in the parallel the Syrians saw that they were put to the worse and called on reinforcements. In E Abishai was put in command of the forces to face the Ammonites, and in the parallel the Ammonites fled before Abishai. In F Joab deployed his forces and spoke of the possibility of the Syrians being too strong for him, and in the parallel he defeated the Syrians. Centrally in G they are to play the man for the cities of their God, and in the parallel YHWH is called on to do what seems good to Him.

19.6 ‘And when the children of Ammon saw that they had made themselves odious to David, Hanun and the children of Ammon sent a thousand talents of silver to hire for themselves chariots and horsemen out of Aram-naharaim (Mesopotamia), and out of Aram-maacah, and out of Zobah.’

It would not have taken much intelligence for the Ammonites to realise that having deeply insulted David they must expect repercussions. Indeed that must surely have been their intention. It therefore suggests that what follows was already pre-planned. For the Ammonites sent a thousand talents of silver to the Aramaeans (Syrians) and their allies seeking for their assistance. It was a kind of tribute. In return they wanted to receive chariots and horsemen, and no doubt back up forces of footmen.

19.7 ‘So they hired for themselves thirty two units of (thousand) chariots, and the king of Maacah and his people, who came and encamped before Medeba. And the children of Ammon gathered themselves together from their cities, and came ready for battle.’

The Ammonites hired thirty two units of chariots, along with the king of Maacah and his people. According to 2 Samuel 10, which does not mention the chariots, thirty two units of footmen were provided, composed of twenty units of footmen provided by the Aramaeans of Beth-rehob and Zobah, a further unit by the Aramaean king of Maacah, and twelve units by ‘the men of Tob’. But chariots and footmen together may well have been part of an Aramean military unit at that time.

For Beth-rehob see Numbers 13.21; Judges 18.28, in which case it was at Lebo-Hamath (or ‘the entering in of Hamath’), and north of Laish/Dan. The kings of Zobah are mentioned in 1 Samuel 14.47 alongside Ammon, Moab and Edom as neighbouring tribes, and was to be found in the vicinity of Damascus and Hamath, and was thus to the north of Israel, and probably north-east of Damascus. For ‘the land of Tob’ as just north of Gilead see Judges 11.3.

Chariot units (eleph) would be much smaller than the foot units and would have prepared the way into battle for them. A devastating chariot charge would throw the enemy into confusion ready for the footmen to step in and annihilate them. It may indeed be, in a context like this, that a chariot unit was automatically seen as accompanied by footmen. 2 Samuel 10.18 makes clear that the writer of Samuel was aware that chariots and horsemen were involved at some stage. Medeba was on the King’s Highway and would therefore be accessible by chariots.

At the same time the Ammonites gathered from all their cities and came up ready for battle.

19.8 ‘And when David heard of it, he sent Joab, and all the host of the mighty men.’

As soon as David heard of the hiring of the Aramaean contingents he mustered his army and sent ‘Joab and all the host of the mighty men’ to the land of the children of Ammon, in order to avenge the insult to his messengers, and to him.

19.9 ‘And the children of Ammon came out, and put the battle in array at the gate of the city, and the kings who had come were by themselves in the countryside.’

Once the Israelite army approached, the warriors of the children of Ammon ‘came out’ from their various cities and stood ready to do battle at the gate of the city at which battle was to be joined. That would enable them if necessary to retreat into the city. We are not given the name of the city in either account, but it may be that it was Rabbah, their capital city Meanwhile the Aramaean units had congregated out in the countryside. Israel were thus faced with the prospect of having to fight on two fronts at once.

19.10-11 ‘Now when Joab saw that the battle was set against him before and behind, he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array against the Syrians, and the rest of the people he committed into the hand of Abishai his brother. And they put themselves in array against the children of Ammon.’

Immediately summing up the situation Joab divided his forces into two. He himself took the best trained and most effective units in order to deal with the sophisticated Aramaeans (Syrians and others), while he gave to Abishai the remainder of his forces, which put themselves in array in order that they might meanwhile keep the less sophisticated Ammonite tribesmen at bay. He did not want to meet the Aramaeans and at the same time be attacked from behind.

19.12-13 ‘And he said, “If the Arameans (Syrians and others) are too strong for me, then you will help me, but if the children of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will help you. Be of good courage, and let us play the man for our people, and for the cities of our God. And YHWH do what seems good to him.”

Then he instructed his brother to face up to the Ammonites, probably without attacking them unless necessary, while also keeping an eye out so that if Joab and his forces seemed to be failing he could send troops to assist him. Meanwhile he would do the same for Abishai if the Ammonites did attack.

After this he gave the instruction that to the writer was all important. It was to the effect that they should be of good courage and play the man, for the sake of their people and for the cities of their God (note how he saw Israel’s cities as belonging to YHWH), and then he committed the result to YHWH. Here would be the secret of their success. His very words suggest his awareness of the seeming superiority of the forces that were arraigned against them.

19.14 ‘ So Joab and the people who were with him drew near before the Arameans (Syrians and others) to the battle, and they fled before him.’

Then Joab and his elite forces advanced on the Aramaeans and dealt with them so effectively that the Aramaeans fled before them. David’s highly trained forces, led by his mighty men, were too much for the Aramaeans.

19.15 ‘And when the children of Ammon saw that the Aramaeans (Syrians) had fled, they likewise fled before Abishai his brother, and entered into the city. Then Joab came to Jerusalem.’

As soon as the Ammonites saw that the Aramaeans had been put to flight they panicked, and fled before Abishai, seeking refuge in their city. At this point Joab, recognising that they had not seen the last of the Aramaeans, decided to leave the Ammonites cooped up in their city (possibly with containing troops surrounding it) and returned to Jerusalem, no doubt to warn David of what the situation was and in order to prepare for a major war with the Aramaeans. The Ammonites could wait.

19.16 ‘And when the Syrians saw that they were put to the worse before Israel, they sent messengers, and drew forth the Aramaeans who were beyond the River, with Shophach the captain of the host of Hadarezer at their head.’

Recognising that his forces had been put to the worse by Israel Hadarezer gathered together, along with the remainder of his own forces, reinforcements from Beyond the River (from the Aramaeans in Mesopotamia proper). This was going to be the real test for David and his men. This powerful army then made for Helam (according to 2 Samuel 10), and were personally commanded by Shobach, Hadarezer’s commander-in-chief (who is mainly mentioned because he will shortly be slain). Helam was in northern Transjordan and may have been modern ‘Alma.

19.17 ‘ And David was told, and he gathered all Israel together, and passed over the Jordan, and came upon them, and set the battle in array against them. So when David had put the battle in array against the Aramaeans (Syrians and others), they fought with him.’

Once David learned of this major force approaching northern Transjordan he gathered all his forces and, crossing over the Jordan, went out personally to meet them. Setting his forces in array, battle was joined.

19.18 ‘And the Aramaeans fled before Israel, and David slew of the Aramaeans the men of seven units of (thousand) chariots, and forty units of (thousand) footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.’

The result of the battle was that the Aramaeans were totally defeated and fled before Israel, with David (i.e. he and his men) killing Shobach the Aramaean commander-in-chief and destroying seven units of chariots, and forty units of horsemen. These figures agree with the figures in 2 Samuel 10, although in 2 Samuel 10 the word used for military units of chariots is meoth (‘hundreds’) rather than eleph (‘thousands’) The two terms appear to have been interchangeable when used of military units, especially of chariots (chariot units would in fact be relatively small).

19.19 ‘And when the servants of Hadarezer saw that they were put to the worse before Israel, they made peace with David, and served him, nor would the Aramaeans help the children of Ammon any more.’

The result of David’s string of victories was that all the kings who had been vassals of Hadarezer noted how David had totally defeated him, and quietly switched their allegiance to David, accepting him as their overlord, becoming his vassals and paying him tribute. And the final result was that the Ammonites no longer had allies to look to and were left to rue having insulted David so grievously. They were soon to rue it even more.

The Defeat Of Rabbah And The Rape Of Ammon (20.1-3).

What follows is based on 2 Samuel 11.1; 12.26, 30-31. It was a consequence of Ammon’s insult to David and the battles that followed. Now was the time to finally make Ammon pay for its insult. Rabbah was taken, along with other cities, and they were deliberately desolated and rendered innocuous.

Analysis.

• A And it came about, at the time of the return of the year, at the time when kings go out (to battle), that Joab led forth the army, and wasted the country of the children of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah (20.1a).
• B But David tarried at Jerusalem. And Joab smote Rabbah, and overthrew it (20.1b).
• C And David took the crown of their king from off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold, and there were precious stones in it (20.2a).
• C And it was set on David’s head, and he brought forth the spoil of the city, in vast quantities (20.2b).
• B And he brought forth the people who were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes (20.3a).
• A And thus did David to all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem (20.3b).

Note that in A Joab went forth from Jerusalem and wasted Ammon, and in the parallel after wasting all the cities of Ammon they returned to Jerusalem. In B Joab smote Rabbah and overthrew it, and in the parallel Rabbah and the other cites were desolated. In C David took the crown off the head of the king of Ammon, and in the parallel he put it on his own head.

20.1 ‘And it came about, at the time of the return of the year, at the time when kings go out (to battle), that Joab led forth the army, and wasted the country of the children of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried at Jerusalem. And Joab smote Rabbah, and overthrew it.’

The return of the year was the period after the rains when men were relatively free from the requirements of the land, and when the roads were most suitable for travel. It was thus the time of the year when kings ‘go out’ (on looting expeditions or to battle). This is deliberately set in contrast with the fact that David did not ‘go out’. He ‘stayed at Jerusalem’ and sent Joab, together with his commanders and officers (his servants) and all Israel instead. He wanted to take it easy.

The purpose of their ‘going out’ was probably in order to avenge the insult described in 19.4-5, when David’s messengers had been shamed. The Aramaeans having finally been subdued it was now time for the Ammonites to get what they had asked for. And the result was that the Ammonites’ countryside was ‘wasted’. That is, their towns and villages were taken and put to the sword, and their fields were devastated, with the result that large numbers of the people fled for refuge to the strong fortress city of Rabbah, the capital city of Ammon. Then it was a matter of reducing Rabbah which Joab subsequently did (compare 2 Samuel 12.26).

This verse is mainly based on 2 Samuel 11.1, but the Chronicler ignores what follows (David’s sins to do with Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, and the consequences that follow), and simply adds that Joab smote Rabbah and overthrew it. This brings out the fact that, whilst presenting a few of his errors, the Chronicler mainly wants to present David as a man of nobility and integrity

20.2 ‘And David took the crown of their king from off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold, and there were precious stones in it; and it was set on David’s head, and he brought forth the spoil of the city, exceeding much.’

Compare 2 Samuel 12.30. Once the city was taken the ceremonial crown of the king of Ammon was taken ‘from off his head’, and set on David’s head. It was a crown of pure gold encrusted with jewels and was very heavy. It was thus probably a ceremonial crown and not for everyday usage. The ‘talent of gold’ was presumably a light talent of around 30 kilograms or 66 pounds. But it would still be excessively heavy. And it indicated that he was now king of Ammon. And as well as the crown a huge amount of spoil was taken from the city. It was openly apparent that YHWH had again caused David to prosper.

20.3 ‘And he brought forth the people who were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. And thus did David to all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.’

It was common practise for the warriors of a city which had resisted a siege to be put to death (Deuteronomy 20.12-14). This was in order to encourage cities to surrender without a siege, and also so as to ensure that once the army had moved on to further conquests it could not be attacked from behind by a belligerent city. The provision in Deuteronomy was actually merciful in contrast with others, as well as being practical, for many conquerors would slaughter all the inhabitants, apart from those whom they took away as slaves. In view of Deuteronomy 20.12-14 we may probably see ‘them’ as indication the cities of the Ammonites, rather than the Ammonites themselves. The cities were cut up with saws, harrows of iron and axes. The aim was to make the cities useless for defence.

Some see the description as signifying that the warriors of Ammon suffered cruel deaths by various means, but there are no other Scriptural examples of using such diverse methods of execution, and Deuteronomy 20.12-14 forbade if for all but warriors, while the descriptions adequately fit the idea of desolating the cities. Even so their fate would not be a happy one. The verse says, ‘and he brought forth the people who were in it, and he/they cut with saws, and with harrows of iron and with axes.’ The verb ‘cut’ is singular and might indicate David, but ‘people’ is also singular and it could therefore refer to what the people were made to do. But even if we do refer it to David it could signify that he did his cutting by means of forcing the Ammonites to do it.

The Defeat Of The Excessively Tall Warriors Of Gath Who Were Born To ‘The Giant Of Gath.’ (20.4-8).

The details of these episodes are derived from 2 Samuel 21.18-22. The Chronicler omits the reference to the threat to David’s life in 2 Samuel 21.15-17, probably because it spoiled the picture of the all-conquering hero which he was seeking to portray. It is also probable that the current champion of the Philistines was always called ‘Goliath’. Thus when David slew Goliath, his position was taken by a new Goliath, his brother Lahmi, whom 2 Samuel 21.18 refers to as Goliath. The Chronicler, in order to avoid confusion in his day, explained that the ‘Goliath’ in 2 Samuel 21.18 was in fact the brother of the former Goliath.

Analysis.

• A And it came about after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite slew Sippai, of the sons of the giant, and they were subdued (20.4).
• B And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam (20.5).
• B And there was again war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot; and he also was born to the giant, and when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David’s brother slew him (20.6-7).
• A These were born to the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants (20.8).

Note that in A the Philistines were subdued, and one of the sons of the giant was slain, and in the parallel the champions of the Philistines were subdued, who were sons of the giant of Gath. In B Elhanan slew a son of the giant of Gath, and in the parallel Jonathan, David’s brother slew another of the sons of the giant of Gath.

20.4 ‘And it came about after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite slew Sippai, of the sons of the giant; and they were subdued.’

‘After this’ is very vague timewise, but it does confirm continual trouble with the Philistines. Here we learn that war again arose at Gezer with the Philistines. We are not told whether this son of the giant, whose name was Sippai (2 Samuel calls him Saph which has the same initial consonants), came forth as a champion to challenge Israel, as Goliath had done before him, or whether he was just slain in battle. But either way he was slain by Sibbecai the Hushathite, one of David’s ‘thirty’ (11.29), and as a consequence the Philistines were defeated and brought back into subjection.

20.5 ‘And there was again war with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.’

What is described here took place in a further war with the Philistines. The Philistines now had a new ‘Goliath’ in the person of, Lahmi the brother of the old Goliath whom David slew. Like the old Goliath he too had a spear staff like a weaver’s beam. But Elhanan the son of Jair slew him (2 Samuel 21.19 calls him the son of Jaare-oregim of Bethlehem). This may well have been the same Elhanan as that in 2 Samuel 23.24, whose father’s name was Dodo, of Bethlehem. His father may simply have had different names, or Jair may have been a famous ancestor. The Philistine champion having been defeated the rout of the Philistines would follow.

20.6-7 ‘And there was again war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were twenty four, six on each hand, and six on each foot, and he also was born to the giant. And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David’s brother slew him.’

This appears to confirm that each giant stood forward as a champion of the Philistines in order to challenge Israel, for this one ‘defied Israel’ (compare 1 Samuel 17.26). He was a huge man with excess fingers and toes, which were probably seen as giving him an advantage. But he met his match when Jonathan, David’s nephew, slew him.

20.8 ‘These were born to the giant in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.’

The huge men who have been described were all sons of ‘the giant of Gath’. They no doubt had a fearsome reputation, thus their slaughter ‘by the hand of David’ would increase his reputation immensely. They were, of course slain by his warriors, but in common parlance that meant ‘by the hand of David’, for he was responsible for sending his servants to fight the ‘giants’.

This account brings us to the end of the section outlining the successes of David (18-20). It clearly played an important part in the Chronicler’s depiction of David’s relationship with YHWH, and of his being YHWH’s chosen one, a picture of the chosen one yet to come. It was a picture which deliberately omitted all his failures (see almost all of 2 Samuel 11.2-20.22) in order to reveal him as the almost ideal king.

The Activity Of Satan And The Angel Of YHWH, David’s Sin In Numbering Israel, And The Subsequent Purchase Of A Site For The Erection Of An Altar To YHWH (21.1-22.1).

All that has taken place in chapters 14-20 has been contained within the envelope of two examples of David’s failure to ‘enquire of YHWH’, the first in chapter 13 being in regard to the moving of the Ark, the second now being in respect of the numbering of Israel. Both involved a threshing-floor, a sign of God’s refining activity, and both had devastating consequences.

But we may ask, why was it so wrong to number Israel (count them man by man)? The act of numbering the men of Israel would appear to have been seen as an act of rebellion against YHWH. According to 27.23-24 YHWH had promised that the number of the children of Israel would be as the stars of the heavens. They were thus not to be numbered arbitrarily nor have any limit put on them, although it was seemingly permitted in a general way in terms of military units for organisational purposes when mustering to battle but not otherwise (12.23-38). For in the end they were YHWH’s people, not David’s. To number them was thus an act of human arrogance and self-exaltation. It was to see them as David’s own people and at his disposal, rather than as YHWH’s people to be preserved by Him as He willed. They could only be numbered at the command of YHWH when He had some specific purpose for it, and even then a ‘ransom’ had to be paid for each person numbered (Exodus 30.12). So David is seen as once more having got above himself. It was a similar act of arrogance to that of Moses smiting the rock in Numbers 20.10-12, something which also had painful consequences.

Joab was someone who was very tough skinned and hardened, but even he immediately recognised what a sinful act it was and was appalled (21.3). David, on the other hand, was obstinate, and only faced up to it later when God rebuked him by some act of judgment (21.7-8). But it was not an unconscious or unrecognised sin for either of them, for the principle was well established as Joab’s reaction makes clear. Indeed, David appears arrogantly to have dismissed any danger. The situation was that David had slipped into being simply ‘a king like all the nations’ instead of the unique Nagid (prince, war-leader) of YHWH, or even more dangerously, into thinking that YHWH would approve of anything he did. He had thus thrust YHWH into the background in his thinking, and that was why he had to be jolted out of it. The sad thing was that the people had to suffer for it because it was necessary to nullify the census by diminishing their numbers. (It should, however, be noted that in 2 Samuel 24.1 it was made quite clear that they suffered for their own sins and not just for David’s. They were thus not just being punished for what he did). For David it would mean a diminishing of the people over whom he ruled.

Other alternative suggestions have been made as to why the numbering was sinful, although they are nowhere specifically supported by the text. The following are examples:

• David was numbering his people in order to commence a period of external aggression which YHWH disapproved of.
• David was numbering Israel for military purposes because of the threats of an aggressor (satanas - 21.1). This would, however, have been allowable as long as it was done by called up units.
• David’s aim was to levy widespread taxation on God’s people over and above the tithe (compare 1 Kings 9.15).
• David’s aim was in order to prepare for dividing the people up for the purposes of compulsory levies for building programmes (compare 1 Kings 5.13; 9.21), something not approved of by God.
• David was in danger of being so influenced by the number of his troops that he would be tempted to become a ‘world conqueror’, like the Assyrians after him, something YHWH did not want at this time.
• David was punished because he had neglected the paying of the atonement money (Exodus 30.12).

All these suggestion fail, however, on the basis that had they been correct the reason would surely have been mentioned by the writer. The basic fault would appear to be that to number the people was to treat them as belonging to the king rather than to God.

But one more factor must be taken account of in this narrative, and that is two other-world figures who have dealings with David. They reveal that behind man’s activity there are spiritual forces at work. The one is ‘Satan’ who persuades David to do wrong, the other is the Angel of YHWH Who steps in to deal with the wrong that has been done. Satan enters for a moment and then is gone, his work seemingly accomplished. He no doubt thought that he had achieved his purpose, and that David would no longer be God’s favourite and thus that he had thwarted God’s plans. But the Angel of YHWH persists until He has brought David to repentance, and until he is again fully reconciled to God, something evidenced by the flame that falls on the altar as God personally accepts David’s atoning sacrifice. Whilst His judgments were dreadful, their final purpose was good.

The People Are Numbered At The Command Of David Despite Joab’s Strong Objection (21.1-7).

Absolute power corrupts, and David was no exception. He had become so filled with a sense of his own importance that he had begun to think that he could do anything that he liked, even ignore God’s Law. Thus, presumably in order to boost his own sense of his importance, he ordered the numbering of Israel, something totally forbidden because they were God’s people, not man’s.

But behind his folly lay the mysterious figure of Satan (adversary). Satan has been specifically met with twice before, once in the case of Job (Job 1-2), and the second in the case of Joshua the High Priest (Zechariah 3.1-2). In both cases he opposed godly men. Hints of him are also found in 1 Kings 22.21-22. According to the New Testament he was also the sinister figure in the Garden of Eden who tempted Eve to rebel against God (Revelation 11.9). In Job and Zechariah ‘Satan’ has the definite article, but here in Chronicles it is without the article. This might suggest a heightening of the doctrine. It is saying that ‘Adversary’ was once his nature, but now it is his name.

Analysis.

• A And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel (21.1).
• B And David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, “Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring me word, that I may know the sum of them.” (21.2).
• C And Joab said, “YHWH make his people a hundred times as many as they are, but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord’s servants? Why does my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of guilt to Israel?” (21.3).
• D Nevertheless the king’s word prevailed against Joab (21.4a).
• D For which reason Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem (21.4b).
• C And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people to David. And all they of Israel were one thousand, one hundred family units (eleph - thousand, larger family unit, military unit) of men who drew sword, and Judah was four hundred and seventy family units of men who drew sword’ (21.5).
• B But he did not count Levi and Benjamin among them, for the king’s word was abominable to Joab” (21.6).
• A And God was displeased with this thing, therefore he smote Israel. (21.7).

Note that in A Satan stirred up David to number Israel, and in the parallel God was displeased with him. In B Joab was told to number all Israel, but in the parallel he did not number all Israel. In C Joab objects to numbering Israel, and in the parallel he obtains their sum (less those that he did not number) and informs David. In D the king’s word prevailed, and in the parallel Job obeyed the king’s word.

21.1 ‘And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.’

This might be translated, ‘an adversary stood up against Israel’, with the idea that an enemy of Israel was preparing to invade thus causing David to muster the whole of Israel. But the suggestion fails on the grounds, 1) that such a muster would not have been unacceptable, and 2). that to muster the whole of Israel ‘from Beersheba even to Dan’ would have only been required in the face of a massive invasion of which there was no hint. David already had a powerful standing army. We must therefore see satanas as having the same meaning as in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3.1-2, and thus as referring to a spiritual enemy.

This is cofirmed by the fact that unusually the Chronicler introduces a counter spiritual being, the ‘Angel of YHWH’. On the one hand Satan tempts David and makes him fall deeply, and on the other God counters this through the Angel of YHWH Who deals with the situation and brings David back to God.

So whilst, as 2 Samuel makes clear, all was under YHWH’s control, it is made clear here that He permitted Satan to tempt David. In 2 Samuel it was YHWH Who moved David to number Israel. But that was because the writer of Samuel saw everything in terms of the first cause, YHWH, and omitted reference to secondary causes. Here the second cause is brought into the equation. Furthermore in Samuel it was said to be because Israel had in some way offended God (2 Samuel 24.1).

This idea of spiritual beings influencing the course of nations is also found in Daniel 10, where a conflict is described between the good spiritual beings and the bad. We may well be expected to bear this in mind as we conside the remainder of Chronicles, especially the later part of the life of David.

21.2 ‘And David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, “Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan, and bring me word, that I may know the sum of them.”

So responding to the urgings of Satan David called in Joab and his council and called on them to number Israel from Beersheba to Dan.

It will be noted in defence of what is said above about David’s motive that his act is not described as being military, but as being because he ‘wanted to know the sum of them’. In other words it was an act of self-gratification and pride, and even arrogance, for he knew that it was forbidden. It reveals how easily even godly people can allow themselves to sink into such spiritual lethargy that they do things which are seemingly inconceivable.

21.3 ‘And Joab said, “YHWH make his people a hundred times as many as they are, but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord’s servants? Why does my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of guilt to Israel?”

Joab, who was a hard man, and not notably of strong morals, was horrified (indeed he was so horrified that he would later try to avoid totally fulfilling what was required of him, possibly hoping thereby to avoid YHWH’s wrath). He pleaded with David to reconsider what he was suggesting. He pointed out that all the people were the king’s servants. It was thus unnecessary to number them. That was something that should be left in the hand of God. What he was requesting would bring guilt on the whole of Israel, who would, of course, be permitting it, even though they might have felt that they had little choice. All knew YHWH’s demand that God’s people should not be numbered. Were they not as numberless as the stars in the sky, and the sand on the seashore? Their number should be left to God.

21.4 ‘Nevertheless the king’s word prevailed against Joab. For that reason Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.’

Inevitably the king’s word prevailed. To refuse to obey him would have been high treason and punishable by death. Thus Joab reluctantly gave in. Consequently he set about the task, organising it himself and sending counters throughout Israel, and eventually arrived back at Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 24.8 tells us that the whole task took nine months and twenty days.

21.5 ‘And Joab handed over the sum of the numbering of the people to David. And all they of Israel were one thousand one hundred family units (thousands, military units) of men who drew sword, and Judah was four hundred and seventy family units of men who drew sword.’

Joab then handed in the numbers to David. In Israel there were one thousand one hundred ‘wider family units’, and in Judah four hundred and seventy. A total count of every man in each family unit would presumably have been beyond their scope.

2 Samuel tells us that there were eight hundred family units in Israel and five hundred in Judah. The increased number in Chronicles for men of Israel may have arisen from the distinction between ‘men’ in Chronicles and ‘valiant men’ in Samuel, the latter referring only to those fit to fight and that would lead us to expect a rise in the men of Judah. But the subsequent drop in the number of men in Judah could be explained by the exclusion of Benjamites as in verse 6. An alternative possibility is that 2 Samuel omitted from the count the roughly three hundred military units in the regular army (288 in 27.1-9, plus some on other regular duties, e.g. the king’s bodyguard).

21.6 ‘But he did not count Levi and Benjamin among them, for the king’s word was abominable to Joab.’

In his figures presented to the king, Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin. He could excuse the former by citing the Law (Numbers 1.49), although David may not have intended them to be omitted. The exclusion of Benjamin may have been because, as the smallest of the tribes, he hoped that its absence in the figures might not be noticed, or might be thought to be included in Judah. But he knew that YHWH would notice. He may well have been hoping that YHWH would not respond in judgment if a total count was not taken. On the other hand it may simply have been out of pique because he had been forced to do the dirty deed (Joab was often a law to himself). Some see it as indicating that David, at the last moment, decided to stop the census. But that is not in accordance with the last clause.

21.7 ‘And God was displeased with this thing, therefore he smote Israel.’

But God was displeased (‘this thing was evil in the eyes of YHWH’), for it demonstrated the rebellion in David’s heart. Joab’s attempt at ameliorating the situation had not worked. Besides, as 2 Samuel tells us, YHWH also had an occasion against Israel. ‘Therefore He smote Israel’ may be a pre-description of the smiting that was to come as a kind of preparation. On the other hand something must have brought about David’s repentance, so it may indicate a preliminary smiting of Israel. Humanly speaking this may have been first indications of pestilence, which were prior to the main outbreak, which brought about David’s repentance. Something must have awoken him to his folly. On the other hand it may just have been a guilty conscience as 2 Samuel suggests.

David’s Repentance Comes Too Late, and YHWH Gives Him Three Choices, Famine, Successful Invasion By An Enemy Or A Plague (21.8-14).

When David woke up to what he had done he repented deeply. But it was too late. A lesson had to be learned. So YHWH offered him a choice between three years of famine, three months of intrusive invasion or three days of pestilence. Note the clear indication that YHWH had control of all three. David was learning again that forgiven sin had its consequences (in the same way as with his sin with Bathsheba)

Analysis.

• A And David said to God, “I have sinned greatly, in that I have done this thing. But now, put away, I beg you, the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly” (21.8).
• B And YHWH spoke to Gad, David’s seer, saying, “Go and speak to David, saying, ‘Thus says YHWH. I offer you three things. You choose one of them, that I may do it to you.’ ” (21.9-10).
• C So Gad came to David, and said to him, “Thus says YHWH, take which you will” (21.11).
• D “Either three years of famine” (21.12a).
• D “Or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtake you” (21.12b).
• D “Or else three days the sword of YHWH, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of YHWH destroying throughout all the borders of Israel” (21.12c).
• C Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me (21.12d).
• B And David said to Gad, “I am in a great strait. Let me fall, I pray, into the hand of YHWH, for very great are his mercies, and let me not fall into the hand of man” (21.13).
• A So YHWH sent a pestilence on Israel, and there fell of Israel seventy family units of men (21.14).

Note that in A David admitted his sin and in the parallel that sin is punished. In B David is to be offered three choices, and in the parallel he does not know which of the three to choose. In C Gad calls on David to make his choice, and in the parallel is called on to give his answer. Centrally in D are the three options.

21.8 ‘And David said to God, “I have sinned greatly, in that I have done this thing: but now, put away, I beg you, the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly.”

Something clearly sparked off David’s repentance, and the most obvious thing was that YHWH had in some way smitten Israel. This then apparently brought David to his senses and made him recognise how presumptuous he had been. Alternately it may have been the awakening of his conscience which made him realise his folly. But as a consequence he was appalled to think of what he had done, and he cried for YHWH to forgive him and put his sin away, acknowledging how foolishly he had behaved. The threatened punishments made it immediately apparent that God forgave him, but nevertheless showed that God considered that he had to be taught a lesson. All three punishments would spoil the census figures, but even more, they would bring home to David his guilt as he recognised how he had failed his people..

21.9-10 ‘And YHWH spoke to Gad, David’s seer, saying, “Go and speak to David, saying, Thus says YHWH, I offer you three things. You choose one of them, that I may do it to you.”

YHWH now approached David through the prophet Gad rather than directly, an indication of His displeasure with David. With many kings the sufferings of their people might have been shrugged off. But God knew the heart of David. Thus He offers him three choices which will directly affect his people.

21.11-12 ‘ So Gad came to David, and said to him, “Thus says YHWH. Take which you will, either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtake you; or else three days the sword of YHWH, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of YHWH destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me.”

In a sense all three judgments would be ‘invasions’. In the first water would dry up and insects would invade the land affecting the harvests. A three year famine was devastating, especially affecting the poor. At the end of the third year all the spare corn would have been eaten by a starving people and there would be little to sow in the next year. It could have devastating consequences. In the second the invasion by an army would result in the sword of men slaying some of David’s people, and who knew where it would stop?. In the third they would face the sword of YHWH, that is pestilence and plague. As at the Exodus the angel of YHWH would be destroying men in judgment, but this time Israel would not escape. The whole of Israel would be affected.

So David had to make a choice as to which of these judgments he preferred. It was a dreadful choice. Had we not learned from 2 Samuel that God had reasons for punishing Israel it would have seemed very unfair. But when a king fails it necessarily affects the behaviour of the people. Thus they too had grown slack towards God. The Chronicler, however, puts all the blame on David. In both good things and bad things David is central. This brings out one of his main aims, to present David as God’s chosen king. And, he would have added, in preparation for one yet to come.

The combination of famine, sword and pestilence is fairly common in the Old Testament. See, for example, 2 Chronicles 20.9; Jeremiah 14.12; 21.9; and often; Ezekiel 5.12; 6.12; 12.16.

2 Samuel 24.13 speaks of ‘seven years of famine’. However, both ‘three’ and ‘seven’ express completeness, and do not necessarily indicate an exact period of time. Rather they indicate a general one (we would say ‘a number of years’ which was the equvalent of ‘three years’ or ‘seven years’). The idea is thus the same, a complete and devastating famine of some years duration. Recognising this the Chronicler has presented it as ‘three’ in order to parallel the other two judgments.

21.13 ‘And David said to Gad, “I am in a great strait. Let me fall, I pray, into the hand of YHWH, for very great are his mercies, and let me not fall into the hand of man.”

David speaks of his great constraint. He is torn apart because he loves his people. But he chooses wisely. Famine and the sword of man would be uncontrolled. But with all its problems the sword of YHWH would be in the hands of YHWH. It would do what was necessary and no more. And, indeed, who knew? Perhaps God would be merciful. Better to be directly in His hands than in the hands of men.

21.14 ‘So YHWH sent a pestilence on Israel, and there fell of Israel seventy family units (eleph - thousand, wider family unit, military unit) of men.’

So YHWH responded to David’s request and sent a pestilence on Israel. And as a consequence seventy wider family units were affected, the seventy indicating divine completeness. It indicated the total number demanded by YHWH.

‘Family units’. Pestilence would tend to spread through families, as they cared for each other. But seventy out of 1,570 was comparatively lenient, even if, as with the taking of the census, Jerusalem was approached last and through the mercy of God escaped infection. The fact that it was the odd seventy may be seen as suggesting YHWH’s control in the whole affair. The specific number had been generalised. The main body of Israel survived.

The Angel Of YHWH, With Drawn Sword In His Hand, Advances on Jerusalem, Only To Be Held Back By The Mercy Of YHWH (21.15-18).

The vivid picture of the angel of YHWH with sword drawn is a vivid one, and indicates YHWH’s personal involvement in the threatened plague. Satan was being opposed by the Angel of YHWH. The angel is seen as advancing on Jerusalem in judgment, drawn sword in hand, until YHWH in mercy and compassion, calls a halt at the threshing-floor of Ornan (2 Samuel ‘Araunah’ a more ancient form of the name). Meanwhile David and the elders of Israel are seen as pleading before Him for mercy, clothed in sackcloth.

Analysis.

• A And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it (21.15a).
• B And as he was about to destroy, YHWH beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and he said to the destroying angel, “It is enough, now stay your hand” (21.15b).
• C And the angel of YHWH was standing by the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite (21.15c).
• C And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of YHWH standing between earth and heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem (21.16).
• B Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell on their faces (21.17).
• A And David said to God, “Is it not I who commanded the people to be numbered? It is even I who have sinned and done very wickedly, but these sheep, what have they done? Let your hand, I pray you, O YHWH my God, be against me, and against my father’s house, but not against your people, that they should be plagued” (21.18).

Note that in A the angel was sent to Jerusalem to destroy it, and in the parallel David prays rather that he and his family be destroyed. In B YHWH repented of what He was doing, and in the parallel David and the elders repented of what they had been doing. In C the angel stood by the threshing-floor of Ornan, and in the parallel David saw him standing there, with drawn sword stretched over Jerusalem.

21.15 ‘And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. And as he was about to destroy, YHWH beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the destroying angel, “It is enough. Now stay your hand.” And the angel of YHWH was standing by the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.’

The advancing pestilence, as it moves towards Jerusalem, is depicted in terms of the angel of YHWH with sword drawn. Compare how a similar pestilence that smote the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus was spoken in terms of ‘the destroyer’ (Exodus 12.23). And for a brief period the angel was actually visible to human eye (verse 16a; 19-20) so as to underline the personal nature of the pestilence.

But David was proved right about it being better to be in the hands of YHWH than in the hands of men, for as the pestilence advanced on Jerusalem, with its crowded streets, YHWH called a halt. He ‘repented’ of the evil. This is, of course, an anthropomorphism. The cessation of the judgment, now made clear in the eyes of David, had always been intended to halt here. God apparently ‘changed His mind’ because there was a limit on how far He wanted to execute judgment, and as a consequence of circumstances like David’s repentance and prayers. These altered the situation and enabled Him to act in mercy. For ‘God is not a man that He should --- repent’ (Numbers 23.19), but He could change His mind when circumstances changed. And at the time of the cessation of the pestilence the angel of YHWH was visibly seen at the threshing-floor of Ornan, a Jebusite. This threshing-floor was to have deep significance into the future, for it would become the site of the Temple. We learn later that it was on Mount Moriah (2 Chronicles 3.1). But there is no direct reason for identifying that site with the mountain on which Abraham offered Isaac, for that was said to be on ‘the mountains of Moriah’ (in the region of Moriah) not on Mount Moriah. Had they been seen as being the same place it would surely have been brought out.

A threshing-floor was an area of ground in an exposed place which had been levelled for the purpose of threshing the grain, often on a hillside. The grain would be separated from the husks by such means as treading oxen, often pulling a threshing instrument, or winnowing forks, with the grain often being tossed into the air so that the prevailing wind could complete the task of separating the grain from the chaff. It is a regular picture of judgment (Jeremiah 51.33; Micah 4.13; Habakkuk 3.12; Matthew 3.12). The hint is given here that that is what YHWH is doing to His people, separating the wheat from the chaff in their hearts.

21.16a ‘And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of YHWH standing between earth and heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem.’

The visionary nature of the incident now comes out in that David sees the angel of YHWH as ‘standing between earth and heaven’, with his drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem, in other words, with the fate of Jerusalem is in his hands. Judgment is apparently about to fall. Compare with this the drawn sword of the commander of YHWH’s host which promised judgment on Jericho (Joshua 5.13P.

There is no suggestion that at this time David was by the threshing-floor (why should he have been?). He was in Jerusalem praying, and seeing the angel from a different viewpoint. It would only be later that he went to the threshing-floor at the command of YHWH (verse 18).

21.16b ‘Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell on their faces.’

Seeing this dreadful apparition David and the elders fall on their faces, clothed in sackcloth. They were probably in the palace and in mourning over the huge number of Israelites dying in the plague. Wearing sackcloth was a sign of mourning.

21.17 ‘And David said to God, “Is it not I who commanded the people to be numbered? It is even I who have sinned and done very wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done? Let your hand, I pray you, O YHWH my God, be against me, and against my father’s house, but not against your people, that they should be plagued.’

David is not at this time repenting. He had already done that. Now he is praying that the effects which his sin had produced might be limited, for he is aware of the awful consequences of his sin. He points out to God that he is the one who is to blame for what has happened. It was he who had sinned and done wickedly. As for the people they were innocent like sheep. They had simply followed him. And so he prays that the consequences for his sin might fall on him and his house, rather than on the people. It is a warning to us of the consequences of our sin on others. We might repent, but other continue to suffer for our folly.

God, however, saw things differently. He was aware that the whole of Israel were sinning in one way or another. Thus He was not punishing the innocent for the guilty. In His eyes all were guilty (2 Samuel 24.1).

However, David’s prayer appears to have been effective, for at the threshing-floor of Ornan Jerusalem is spared. YHWH will cease to thresh His people at this time. But in order for this to happen there must be atonement. God cannot overlook sin.

David Purchases The Threshing-floor In Order To Build An Altar At The Place Where The Angel Of YHWH Had Appeared, And Offers Offerings and Sacrifices On It, And The Threat Is Stayed (21.18-30).

God now therefore commands David to go and rear up an altar to YHWH at the threshing-floor of Ornan, in accordance with Exodus 20.24 (where an altar can be raised at a place where there is a theophany). There he must offer up offerings and sacrifices. And when he has done so the avenging sword is sheathed.

It is clear from what is said that the angel of YHWH is simply YHWH Himself in a physical manifestation, communicating with Himself interpersonally, for it is not YHWH, but the angel of YHWH, Who comes to Gad the prophet to inform him of what he must do, and yet when Gad speaks it is in the Name of YHWH. Thus when YHWH gives commands to the angel of YHWH we have another indication of inter-personality within YHWH. He communicates with Himself. Nor can we see this usage as simply revealing an indication of an age when men sought to avoid the idea of YHWH acting directly, for a similar usage is found in, for example, Genesis 16.7-13; 21.17-19; Exodus 3.2; Judges 6.11-23; 13.1-25; Isaiah 37.36; etc.

Analysis.

• A Then the angel of YHWH commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and rear an altar to YHWH in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite (21.18).
• B And David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spoke in the name of YHWH, and Ornan turned back, and saw the angel, and his four sons who were with him hid themselves, and Ornan was threshing wheat (21.19-20).
• C And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the threshing-floor, and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground. Then David said to Ornan, Give me the place of this threshing-floor, that I may build on it an altar to YHWH (21.21a).
• D “For the full price shall you give it to me, that the plague may be stayed from the people” (21.21b).
• E And Ornan said to David, Take it to you, and let my lord the king do what is good in his eyes. Lo, I give you the oxen for burnt-offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meal-offering. I give it all” (21.22-23)
• E And king David said to Ornan, No, but I will truly buy it for the full price, for I will not take what is yours for YHWH, nor offer a burnt-offering without cost” (21.24).
• D So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight (2125)
• C And David built there an altar to YHWH, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and called on YHWH, and he answered him from heaven by fire on the altar of burnt-offering (21.26).
• B And YHWH commanded the angel, and he put up his sword again into its sheath (21.27).
• A At that time, when David saw that YHWH had answered him in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there, for the tabernacle of YHWH, which Moses had made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering, were at that time in the high place at Gibeon, but David could not go before it to enquire of God, for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of YHWH (21.28-30).

Note that in A the angel of YHWH commanded David to rear up an alter to YHWH on the threshing-floor of Ornan, and in the parallel he offered sacrifices at the threshing-floor of Ornan, for he was afraid of the sword of the angel of YHWH. In B Ornan and his four sons saw the angel and were afraid, and in the parallel the angel sheathed his sword. In C David asked to buy the threshing floor of Ornan in order to build an altar on it, and in the parallel he built an altar on it. In D he offered the full price and in the parallel he paid the full price. Centrally in E Ornan offered the threshing-floor and the burnt offering for nothing, and in the parallel David offered to buy both as he would not offer a burnt offering that had cost nothing.

21.18 ‘Then the angel of YHWH commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and rear an altar to YHWH in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.’

The idea of ‘the angel of YHWH’ speaking through a prophet of YHWH is unique to this passage, although it may be seen as contained in Exodus 3.2; Judges 2.1, 4. Here the angel of YHWH (in other words YHWH Himself), commands Gad to instruct David as to what he must do. He must go and rear an altar to YHWH on the threshing-floor of Ornan, clearly with the purpose of making offerings on it. YHWH would show mercy but there must be atonement for their sins.

The reason for speaking of ‘the angel of YHWH’ here is in order to involve the inspiring figure of judgment with the One Who comes to David offering atonement. The angel of YHWH is involved in every aspect of the matter, combating the effects of Satan.

21.19 ‘And David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spoke in the name of YHWH.’

Responding to YHWH’s command given through Gad David did what God had instructed him to do. He went up to the threshing-floor of Ornan.

21.20 ‘And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel, and his four sons who were with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat.’

Meanwhile Ornan the Jebusite (but although a Jebusite no doubt a Yahwist) is experiencing something outside all his past experience. Engaged in threshing the wheat he turned round and saw the awe-inspiring figure of the angel of YHWH, as did his four sons, for they also apparently saw Him. And his four sons were so filled with apprehension that they hid themselves. We are not told of Ornan’s reaction.

That God chose to reveal Himself to a Jebusite, no doubt a life-long inhabitant of pre-David Jerusalem, would bring out God’s concern, not only for trueborn Israelites, but also believing proselytes. (If he was not already a Yahwist he would certainly be after this experience).

21.21 ‘And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the threshing-floor, and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground.’

Then Ornan had another surprise, on a day of surprises. He saw the king of Israel himself approaching his threshing-floor, no doubt accompanied by his retainers. These would include priests among them as sacrifices were in mind. Overwhelmed he left his threshing-floor and went to meet him, bowing deeply to him. For the second time that day he was overawed.

21.22 ‘Then David said to Ornan, “Give me the place of this threshing-floor, that I may build on it an altar to YHWH. For the full price shall you give it me, that the plague may be stayed from the people.”

David now began the bargaining process for the purchase of the threshing-floor, although no doubt one of his financial officials conducted the negotiations. He called on Ornan to let him have ownership of the threshing-floor so that he could erect on it a permanent altar to YHWH, after which there would be little room for threshing. He called on him to state the full price, and commented that it was necessary in order that the plague might be stayed from the people. This last would act as a spur to Ornan to be willing to sell his family land, which he would otherwise be loth to do. He could have refused even the king (compare 1 Kings 21.1-3). In Israel ownership of land was seen as sacred. It was seen as having been given to its owners by God.

21.23 ‘And Ornan said to David, “Take it to you, and let my lord the king do what is good in his eyes. Lo, I give you the oxen for burnt-offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meal-offering. I give it all.”

Ornan sees the opportunity to indulge in some hard bargaining. His reply must not be taken at face value. We can compare here Genesis 23 where Abraham bought land for a sepulchre for Sarah, after being offered it as a gift, which follows the same pattern. It would not have been seen as courteous in accordance with oriental practise for Ornan to name a price immediately. No man of standing would do such a thing. It would have been vulgar. So following the usual standard oriental practise he offered both the land, and the animals for the offerings, for free. But no one would have been more surprised, or offended, than Ornan if the king had accepted. Both of them knew that he was, in fact, engaging in hard bargaining in the nicest possible way, for he was trying to bring the sale of the animals and the meal, and of his threshing instruments, into the deal. That would raise the price considerably. He was offering a take it or leave it package.

21.24 ‘And king David said to Ornan, “No, but I will truly buy it for the full price: for I will not take what is yours for YHWH, nor offer a burnt-offering without cost.”

Just as Ornan, and everyone there, expected he would, David refused the polite gesture and offered the full price, which was finally agreed as 50 shekels of silver for the threshing-floor and the oxen (2 Samuel 24.24), a reasonable price. As David said, it would not be right to offer something to YHWH that had cost him nothing.

But around this time, or possibly later, David began thinking in terms of building the Temple there, and he knew that this would require considerably more land. So further negotiations would be required, and because of the intended purpose of the land David would not be niggardly. That would have been an insult to YHWH. And that was what made him finally offer six hundred shekels of gold for sufficient land around the threshing-floor on which to build the Temple. The payment described by the Chronicler was the one at the final end of the dealing.

21.25 ‘So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.’

So six hundred shekels of gold was the amount that David finally paid (a shekel was not a coin but a weight of gold) for the land on which the Temple was going to be built. It was a huge sum. But David would see it as honouring YHWH, and he was not short of gold.

21.26 ‘And David built there an altar to YHWH, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and called on YHWH, and he answered him from heaven by fire on the altar of burnt-offering.’

Having purchased the site David then erected on it an altar to YHWH, no doubt fully in accord with the description in Exodus 20.24-26 which described the kind of altars to be built in any place where He ‘recorded His Name’. There could be no doubt that He had ‘recorded His Name’ here. It is doubtful if David erected it himself. He would no doubt have called on the priests who were with him for the purpose. But he could be said to have built it because it was at his instigation (compare how Solomon was said to have offered a thousand sacrifices in one day, an impossible task single-handed - 2 Chronicles 1.6).

So David, through his priests, offered burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar and ‘called on YHWH’. To ‘call on the Name of YHWH’ was a stereotyped phrase which indicated cult worship (Genesis 4.26). But this shortened form may indicate David’s own intercessory prayer as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110.4). Whichever it was, it was effective. And YHWH answered him from heaven by fire on the altar of burnt offering, as He had when Aaron and his sons were consecrated as priests, (Leviticus 10.24), and as he would later for Elijah on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18.18). Possibly God-directed lightning was involved. In the light of Leviticus 10.24 this may have been intended to be seen as a reconsecration of David as YHWH’s anointed king after his fall from grace.

21.27 ‘And YHWH commanded the angel, and he put up his sword again into its sheath.’

Meanwhile, all this while the angel of YHWH had been hovered with His sword outstretched over Jerusalem (verse 16), but now came the command from YHWH to sheathe the sword, and the angel of YHWH did as He was bid. The threat was officially at an end to the great relief of those present.

21.28 ‘At that time, when David saw that YHWH had answered him in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there.’

And when David saw that the threat was over, and that YHWH had answered him in the threshing-floor of Ornan, he offered more offerings and sacrifices there for he was afraid to go to the Tabernacle at Gibeon where the official bronze altar was.

21.29 ‘For the tabernacle of YHWH, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering, were at that time in the high place at Gibeon.’

What David did was unusual for it was at the bronze altar at the Tabernacle at Gibeon that continual offerings should be made. Why then did he not go there to continue his offerings? Had he done so the priests would have been fully in accord with him.

21.30 ‘But David could not go before it to enquire of God, for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of YHWH.’

Shaken to the core by his experience David was now afraid to enquire of God in Gibeon. And the reason why David would not go to enquire of YHWH at Gibeon may have been:

• 1). Because he was afraid that once he had left the threshing-floor the angel might again unsheathe His sword, and Jerusalem would be doomed. For whilst he was there he could act so as to seek to prevent it, by more penitence, more intercession and more offerings and sacrifices, but once he had gone nothing could prevent it. David had clearly received a severe jolt and was now deeply aware of how sinful he had been.
• Or 2). that he felt that only the altar at the threshing-floor of Ornan had been efficacious in dealing with the threat of the Angel of YHWH against Jerusalem, and it was therefore now the only altar which was effective.. The altar at the Tabernacle at Gibeon, and the altar at the Jerusalem Tent, had both failed to avert the plague. Thus he may have felt that he should now centre worship at the new altar. He now saw that as alone being efficacious enough to avert any further action from the Angel of YHWH. There is no wonder then that he soon began to see this site as the best site for the new Temple, a site where God had publicly manifested Himself, and which had an altar which had been lit by YHWH Himself (the fires would be kept burning day and night).

And at this point, with David reconsecrated, and an altar which was seen as especially efficacious, the second large section of Chronicles comes to an end. In it David has been exalted by YHWH and his reign mainly idealised. He has established the visible sign of the presence of YHWH in Jerusalem and was ruling over a large empire. He was now at the height of his power. Furthermore, he had been reconsecrated as the servant of YHWH by the fire falling on the altar. He is the somewhat marred image of the David who was yet to come. It is no accident that his name appears in almost every chapter of 2 Chronicles, for these demonstrated the expectancy for the future David. And up to this point there has been no mention of the future Temple except as something that had been forbidden. That will now come in the following section.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?