Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 Samuel 6:1 - 6:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Sa 6:1
The ark fetched from Kirjath-jearim. - 2Sa 6:1. “David assembled together again all the chosen men in Israel, thirty thousand.” יֹסֵף for יֹאסֵף is the Kal of אָסַף, as in 1Sa 15:6; Psa 104:29. עֹוד, again, once more, points back to 2Sa 5:1, 2Sa 5:3, 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 1Ch 13:5). בָּחוּר does not mean “the young men” here (νεάνια, 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 (1Ch 13:1-5); 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.
2Sa 6:2
“David went with all the people that were with him to Baale-Jehuda, to fetch up the ark of God from thence.” The words וְהוּדָה מִבַּעֲלֵיcause some difficulty on account of the מִן, which is used instead of the accusative with ה loc., like בַּעֲלָתָה in the Chronicles; yet the translators of the Septuagint, Chaldee, Vulgate, and other versions, all had the reading מִן in their text, and בַּעֲלֵי has therefore been taken as an appellative and rendered ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχότων Ἰουδά (“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 Kirjath-jearim (Jos 15:60; Jos 18:14), which is called Baalah in Jos 15:9 and 1Ch 13:6, 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 Jos 18:14, 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 (1Ch 4:33; Jos 19:8), Baalath in the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:44), the present Kuryet el Enab (see at Jos 9:17). The מִן (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 שֵׁם in the clause עָלָיו ... נִקְרָא עֲשֶׁר, “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 שֵׁם into שָׁם, 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 עָלָיו, 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 יי בְשֵׁם קָרָא; whereas פּ עַל יי שֵׁם נִקְרָא signifies “the name of Jehovah is called above a person or thing.” Lastly, even if עָלָיו belonged to הַכְּרֻבִים יֹשֵׁב, it would not only be a superfluous addition, occurring nowhere else in connection with הך יֹשֵׁב, not even in 1Ch 13:6 (vid., 1Sa 4:4; 2Ki 19:15; Isa 37:16; Psa 99:1), but such an addition if made at all would necessarily require עָלָיו אֲשֶׁר עָ (vid., Exo 25:22). The only way in which we can obtain a biblical thought and grammatical sense is by connecting עָלָיו with the אֲשֶׁר before נִקְרָא: “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 שֵׁם, which is first of all written absolutely (as at the close of Lev 24:16), and then more fully defined as “the name of the Lord of hosts.”
2Sa 6:3-4
“They set the ark of God upon a new cart, and took it away from the house of Abinadab.” הִרְכִּיב means here “to put (load) upon a cart,” and נָשָׂא dn to take away, i.e., drive off: for there are grammatical (or syntactical) reasons which make it impossible to render וַיִשָּׂאֻהוּ as a pluperfect (“they had taken”), on account of the previous וירכבו.
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 1Sa 7:1., forty years under Samuel and Saul, and about ten years under David: see the chronological table). 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 חֲדָשָׁה (the last word in 2Sa 6:3) to Gibeah in 2Sa 6:4 are wanting in the Septuagint, and can only have been introduced through the error of a copyist, whose eye wandered back to the first עֲגָלָה in 2Sa 6:3, 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 חֲדָשָׁה without an article after הָעֲגָלָה; but the words which follow, אֲרֹון ה עִם (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 “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 2Sa 6:3 : “Uzzah and Ahio ... drove the cart with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark.” נָהַג, to drive (a carriage), is construed here with an accusative, in 1Ch 13:7 with בְּ, as in Isa 11:6.
2Sa 6:5
And David and all the house (people) of Israel were מְשַׂחֲקִים, sporting, i.e., they danced and played, before Jehovah. בְרֹושִׁים עֲצֵי בְּכֹל, “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 (2Sa 6:8), instead of this strange expression, we find וּבְשִׁירִים בְּכָל־עֹז, “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: ἐν ὀργάνοις ἡρμοσμένοις ἐν ισχύΐ καὶ ἐν ᾠδαῖς, where ἐν ὀργάνοις ἡρμοσμένοις is evidently the interpretation of בְרֹושִׁים עֲצֵי בְּכֹל; 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 1Sa 10:5), were generally played as accompaniments to singing. The vav before בְּשִׁירִים, and before the different instruments, corresponds to the Latin et ... et, both ... and. תֹּף, the timbrel. וּבְצֶלְצְלִים בִּמְנַעַנְעִים, sistris et cymbalis (Vulg., Syr.), “with bells and cymbals” (Luther). מְנַעַנְעִים, from נוּעַ, are instruments that are shaken, the σεῖστρα, sistra, of the ancients, which consisted of two iron rods fastened together at one end, either in a semicircle or at right angels, upon which rings were hung loosely, so as to make a tinkling sound when they were shaken. צֶלְצְלִים = מְצִלְתַּיִם are cymbals or castanets. Instead of מְנַעַנְעִים, we find חֲצֹצְרֹות, 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.
2Sa 6:6-7
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 “the threshing-floor of the stroke” (nachon from נָכָה, not from כּוּן); in the Chronicles we have goren chidon, i.e., the threshing-floor of destruction or disaster (כִּידֹון = כִּיד, Job 21:20). 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 (2Sa 6:8). 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.
(Note: If it were possible to discover the situation of Gath-rimmon, the home of Obed-edom (see at 2Sa 6:10), we might probably decide the question whether Obed-edom was still living in the town where he was born or not. But according to the Onom., 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.)
Jerome paraphrases הַבָּקָר שָֽׁמְטוּ כִּי thus: “Because the oxen kicked and turned it (the ark over.” But שָׁמַט does not mean to kick; its true meaning is to let go, or let lie (Exo 23:11; Deu 15:2-3), 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” (שַׁל, ἁπ. λεγ. from שָׁלָה, in the sense of erring, or committing a fault). The writer of the Chronicles gives it thus: “Because 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.
2Sa 6:8
“And David was angry, because Jehovah had made a rent on Uzzah, and called the place Perez-uzzah” (rent of Uzzah). פֶּרֶץ פָּרַץ, to tear a rent, is here applied to a sudden tearing away from life. לְ יִחַר 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 4 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 Num 4:15, 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 (1Sa 6:7.), 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.
2Sa 6:9-10
David's excitement at what had occurred was soon changed into fear of the Lord, so that he said, “How shall the ark of Jehovah come to me?” If merely touching the ark of God is punished in this way, how can I 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 Exo 6:21; Exo 18:16, and 1Ch 26:4), 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 (1Ch 15:18, 1Ch 15:24). He is called the Gittite or Gathite from his birthplace, the Levitical city of Gath-rimmon in the tribe of Dan (Jos 21:24; Jos 19:45).