Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 Samuel 6:1 - 6:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Sa_6:1-23
6And when they came to Nachon’s threshing-floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. 7And the anger of the Lord [Jehovah] was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died [he died there] by the ark of God. 8And David was displeased because the Lord [Jehovah] had made a breach upon Uzzah; and he called the name of the [that] place Perez-uzzah to this day. 9And David was afraid of the Lord [Jehovah] that day, and said, How shall the ark of the Lord 10[Jehovah] come to me? So David would not remove the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] unto him into the city of David, but David carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 11And the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] continued in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months; and the Lord [Jehovah] blessed Obed-edom and all his household.
12And it was told king David, saying, The Lord [Jehovah] hath blessed the house of Obed-edom and all that pertaineth unto him, because of the ark of God. So [And] David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom 13into the city of David with gladness. And it was so [it came to pass] that when they that bare the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] had gone six paces, he sacrificed oxen and fatlings. 14And David danced before the Lord [Jehovah] with all his 15might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. So [And] David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] with shouting and with the [om. the] sound of the [om. the] trumpet.
16And as the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] came into the city of David, Michal, Saul’s daughter, looked through a [the] window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord [Jehovah]; and she despised him in her heart. 17And they brought in the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] and set it in his [its] place in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings12 before the Lord [Jehovah]. 18And as soon as David had made [And David made] an end of offering [ins. the] burnt-offerings and [ins. the] peace-offerings, [ins. and] he blessed the people in the name of the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts. 19And he dealt among [dealt out to] all the people, even among [to] the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as [ins. to the] men, to every one a cake of bread and a good [om. good] piece of flesh and a flagon of wine [a raisin-cake]; so [and] all the people departed every one to his house.
20And David returned to bless his household. And Michal, the daughter of Saul, came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was [om. was] the king of Israel [ins. made himself] to-day, who uncovered himself to-day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! 21And David said unto Michal, It was [om. it was] before the Lord [Jehovah] which [who] chose me before thy father and before all his house, to appoint me ruler [prince] over the people of the Lord [Jehovah], over Israel—therefore will I play 22[yea, I have played] before the Lord [Jehovah]. And I will yet be more [be yet more] vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight; and of the maid-servants 23which [whom] thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honor. Therefore [And] Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2Sa_6:1. Assembly of all the chosen men in Israel.—“David assembled.” Thenius renders: “and David increased again all the chosen men;” but against this is that nothing has been before said of the numbers of the army (as the “again” would then imply), and that such a completely isolated statement of the augmentation of the standing army would be very strange, [and further this rendering would not agree with the expression “all the chosen men.”—Tr.].—The ancient VSS. all have: “assembled.”—The expression “all the chosen men” can be understood (as in Jdg_20:15; 1Sa_24:3) only of the military men chosen expressly for service of war, not of a chosen body identical (according to 1Ch_13:1-5) with the captains of thousands, etc., that is, with the representation of the nation in stocks and families (Keil), for the term “chosen” ( ëָçåּø ) could not be so employed. And for this reason the word “again” cannot refer to the non-military assembly of the Elders in 2Sa_5:1; 2Sa_5:3, against which further is, that David did not convoke that body, while it is here said that “David again gathered,” and that that assembly lay too far back of the two gatherings of the military population for the Philistine wars described just before [ch. 5]. Rather the “again” refers to this latter assemblage of the military men, which is obviously presupposed in the immediately preceding narrative. Thus 2Sa_6:1 by the “again” and the “all the chosen men” connects itself immediately with what precedes, while it introduces what follows: for why should David not have brought up the ark with an army of thirty thousand men (against Thenius)? The exhibition of such military pomp accorded perfectly with the importance of the ark for the whole people, whose elite in these “hearts of oak” [Germ. kernel- or core-warriors] (Ew. Gr. § 290 c) the more appropriately took the first place in the solemn procession, since it was their victory over the Philistines that made the transference of the ark possible. Besides, a military escort might be necessary to guard against a new attack of the enemy.—We learn from this “that David already in a certain sort maintained a standing army” (Then.).—The Sept. has seventy instead of thirty thousand, supposing, no doubt, that the whole military force of all Israel was here assembled, a supposition that is excluded by the phrase “chosen men.” [The consultation of David with the leaders in 1 Chronicles 13, and the assembling of “all Israel” (that is, probably, through its representatives) is not inconsistent with the statement here. The Chronicler brings out prominently details of organization, especially religious, “Samuel” gives the simplest historical narration.—Tr.]
2Sa_6:2-10. David’s march to fetch the ark from Kirjath-jearim.
2Sa_6:2. And David went with all the people that were with him.—These are not the above-named thirty thousand chosen warriors, but, besides them, the representatives of the whole nation gathered to the festival, as described in 1Ch_13:1-14, where nothing is said of a military body, while here in our passage the preliminary conference with the heads of families is passed over, and only a summary statement made in reference to the accompaniment of the ark by the people. The expression “from Baale” is strange, since nothing has before been said of David’s going thither. But we cannot make the Prep. ( îִï ) = “to” (Dathe), nor regard the phrase as definitive of the preceding “all the people,” as do the ancient VSS. (Sept. “of the rulers of Judah,” Vulg. “of the men of Judah,” and so Luther “of the citizens of Judah”)—the latter view is untenable because the designation of place presupposed in the expression “from thence” would then be wanting. From what follows “Baale-Judah” can be nothing but the place Kirjath-jearim (comp. 1Ch_13:6) whither the ark was carried according to 1Sa_6:21; 1Sa_7:1, = Kirjath-baal, Jos_15:60; Jos_18:14; Baalah, Jos_15:9; 1Ch_13:6. This original Canaanitish name continued along with the Israelitish. See Jos_18:14, “Kirjath-baal, that is, Kirjath-jearim, the city of the children of Judah;” to this last name answers here Baale-Judah, whereby this city is distinguished from others of like name, Baal or Baalah in Simeon (Jos_19:8; 1Ch_4:33) and in Dan (Jos_19:44). It lay on the border between Judah and Benjamin, westward on the border of the latter tribe and about eight miles west of Jerusalem [identified by Rob. with the modern Kuryet el-Enab or Abu Gosh, on the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa.—Tr.].—Since, now, the Prep. “from” cannot well be taken (with Keil) to be an ancient clerical error, we may either suppose that the writer here gives a very condensed narrative, not mentioning David’s march to Baalah, because he took it for granted in relating what was to him the chief matter, the bringing of the ark thence (Kimchi, Maurer), or, if such a condensation seems too hard, we must suppose a lacuna in the text. Thenius thinks it probable that it originally read “to Kirjath-jearim of the citizens of Judah,” = “children of Judah,” Jos_18:14 ( ÷ִøéִú éòָøַéí áּ× ) and the two first words except the last letter ( î ) have fallen out. This, as explaining how the Prep. ( îִï ) came into the text, seems better than the conjecture of Lud. Capell. (Crit. Sac. I. 9, § 8), who supplies the words of 1Ch_13:6 “to Baalah, to Kirjath-jearim, which is to Judah,” or that of Bertheau (and Ewald) “Baalah, it ( äִéà ), is K., which is to Judah.” [It seems a difficulty in the way of Thenius’ ingenious restoration that the word áַּòַì in the sense of “citizen, inhabitant” is found only with names of cities, not of countries. This, if correct, will also set aside Well-hausen’s explanation of the Prep. ( îִï ), that it arose from a misunderstanding of, áַּòֲìֵ , which was taken = “citizens or inhabitants.” Perhaps the î is clerical error for ì , the two letters being not very unlike in their ancient forms.—Tr.]. To bring up thence the ark of God.—The rest of the verse is descriptive of the “ark of God,” but opinions vary as to the exact sense. The rendering (connecting àֲùֶׁø with òָìָéå ): “on which (ark) the name, the name of Jehovah … is called” (Keil) or “called on” (De Wette), has against it that “there is no example of so many words between the Rel. and its complement” (Then.), and the strangeness of this repetition of the “name” [which is written twice in the Heb.—Tr.]. The translation: “which (ark) is called the name” (Kimchi, and also Bunsen: which is called by name [whose name is called] …), is untenable because the ark itself is never so called; equally insufficient is Keil’s explanation of his translation: “over which the name of Jehovah is named,” that is, above which Jehovah reveals His glory, for the verb “is called or named” must be referred not to Jehovah, but to the human naming” of Jehovah’s name. Also to Ewald’s view, who refers the Relative to “God,” and translates “He was named with the name” (Gr. § 284 c) the twice-recurring “name” is an objection. It is better, therefore, to render (with Cler., Maur., Then., Berth.): “where the name of the Lord of hosts … is invoked” (reading ùָׁí for ùֵׁí ). Usually indeed the verb “call” is followed by the Prep. áְּ (in, on) when it means “invoke,” but it is found without this Prep., Psa_99:6, and Lam_3:55; and though there was no invocation of the Lord’s name at the ark itself (since none was permitted to approach it), yet the place where it stood was doubtless a place of divine worship. “Who is enthroned on the Cherubim,” that is, is present with His ruling power in the midst of His people; the expression is never used except in relation to the ark; see on 1Sa_4:4. “Who is enthroned on the Cherubim above it (the ark).” [On the text of this verse see “Text. and Gram.—Tr.].
2Sa_6:3 sq. “Set it on the cart.” A “new cart” must be taken, because the sacred vessel was not permitted to come in contact with anything already desecrated by common use, comp. 1Sa_6:7. “And brought it out;” according to the above translation (“set”) there is no need of rendering this verb as Pluperf. “had brought” (Then.).—Carrying the ark on a cart was contrary to the legal requirement (Num_7:9), according to which it was always to be borne by the Levites. “The Hebrews here probably imitated a Phœnician or Philistine custom. The Phœnicians, namely, seem to have had sacred carts, on which they carried about their gods (Münter, Relig. der Karthager, p. 120), and the oxen were sacred to Baal (p. 15).” (Stähl., David p. 39). See 1Sa_6:7. Out of the house of Abinadab on the hill, comp. 1Sa_7:1 sq. According to this passage Abinadab’s son Eleazar was entrusted with the oversight of the ark; here we find “Uzza and Ahio” mentioned as Abinadab’s sons, and as driving the cart in charge of the ark. The ark had been about seventy years in Abinadab’s house, twenty years up to the victory of Ebenezer (1Sa_7:1 sq.), forty years under Samuel and Saul, and about ten years under David. Thus the statement that Uzza and Ahio led the ark may (as Keil remarks) be explained without difficulty. “Either these two sons were born about or after the time that the ark was deposited in his house, or the word ‘sons’ is used in the wider sense of ‘grandsons,’ as is often the case” (Keil).—Text-criticism of 2Sa_6:4. By the mistake of a transcriber, whose eye wandered at the words ðäֲֹâִéí àֵúÎä× back to çֲãָùָׂä àֶìÎò× , the words from äã× to áַּðִëְòָä were repeated, and are to be omitted. Only thus is the omission of the Art. in the second çã× to be explained. [That is, omit the “new” at the close of 2Sa_6:3, and in 2Sa_6:4 omit the first clause ending with “Gibeah.” Some read 2Sa_6:4 thus: “and Uzza went with the ark of God, and Ahio (or, his brother) went before the ark,” which gives a good sense. The whole verse is omitted in Chron. See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
2Sa_6:5. Whilst Ahio went before the ark, and Uzza went alongside it (2Sa_6:6)—perhaps in 2Sa_6:4 the words “and Uzza went” have fallen out before “with the ark of God” (De Wette, Then., Buns.)—the whole procession, David at the head, moves forward with music, song and dance. The whole house of Israel, see 2Sa_6:1-2. Before the Lord, whose presence was symbolized by the ark itself. “Sporting,” that is, playing (see Jdg_16:25) and dancing (see 2Sa_6:14). The Heb. word ( öַçֵ÷ , ùַׂçֵ÷ ) is the general expression for dancing in its connection with vocal and instrumental music, 1Sa_18:7; 1Sa_21:11; 1Ch_13:8; 1Ch_15:29; Jer_30:19; Jer_31:4; Pro_8:30 sq.—The words of the Heb. text “with all manner of cypress-woods” make no sense; for what signifies the mention of the material, of which the instruments were afterwards made? The Sept. and Vulg. ( ἐí ὀñãÜíïéò ἡñìïóìÝíïéò ) “with fitted instruments,” in omnibus lignis fabrefactis “with all manufactured woods”) presuppose indeed this reading; but the Sept. has also another reading “with might and with songs,” to which answer the corresponding words in Chron. (2Sa_6:8): “with all their might and with songs.” [This reading of Chron. is now generally adopted here, though not by the Jewish expositors Philippson and Cahen, who retain the text of “Samuel.”—Tr.] With the expression “with all might” comp. 2Sa_6:14 : “and David danced with all (his) might.” On the connection of song with festive dance and instrumental music see on 1Sa_18:6-7. The timbrel (tabret, hand-drum úּåֹó ) or Aduffe [Arab, and Pers. duff or diff, Span. adufe] was used by the virgins to give the time in dancing.—The menana [incorrectly “cornet” in Eng. A. V.] is an instrument that gave forth a melodious tone when shaken to musical time (from, ðåּòַ “to shake”), the sistrum ( óåῖóôñïí ) of the ancients.—“Cymbals,” smaller or larger metal-plates, which when struck together gave a clear sound. Chron. has “trumpets” in place of “sistra;” the two accounts are doubtless mutually complementary (Keil). [On these instruments see the Bib.-Dicts.—Tr.]
2Sa_6:6. And when they came to a fixed threshing-floor.—Nachon ( ðָëåֹï ) is not to be taken (with many expositors [and Eng. A. V.]) as a proper name, since it never so occurs; nor is it = “threshing-floor of the blow” ( ðָëָä Mov., Keil), for the word is always found as a Pass. Partcp. (Niph.), and cannot be derived from the Qal [simple Active] of the verb “smite” ( ðëä ), which never occurs; besides, in that case, as Böttcher rightly remarks, “the name would not be connected with Perez (2Sa_6:8).” Nachon (from ëåּï ) = “a fixed threshing-floor, which did not change its place like the summer floor (Dan_2:35), and therefore probably had a roof and a stock of fodder” (Böttch.). Chron. has “threshing-floor of destruction” (Kidon, ëִּéã = ëִּéãåֹï Job_21:10, destruction, properly blow, plaga = Ar. caid), a designation that probably has its origin in the succeeding narrative. Later the name Perez-uzza came into use instead of these appellations. It is not necessary to insert in the Heb. the words “his hand” ( éָãåֹ ) after the verb “put forth,” for the verb is found alone in Psa_22:17; for example, comp. with Psa_18:17; Oba_1:13. [Bib.-Com.: the word reach is so used in Eng. without a following hand.—Tr.]. Uzza reached out to the ark of God and took hold of it, namely, to keep it from falling over or down; for the oxen shook, jostled it ( ùָׁîְèåּ ); according to the usual signification of the verb,—not “ran away” (Ges. Dietr.), or “had gotten loose” (De Wette), nor “had thrown it down” (Böttch., Then.), since according to the narrative Uzza wished to save it from falling by laying hold of it. Ewald: “they jostled the ark so that it seemed about to fall off.” [The Acc. Pron., not expressed in the Heb., is easily supplied from the connection.—Tr.]
2Sa_6:7. “God smote him for the error.” [Erdmann thus agrees in this translation with Eng. A. V., Abarb., Philipps., Keil, Chald.; the difficulty is stated in “Text. and Gram.” Some render “for his rashness,” some “unawares,” and others adopt the reading in 1Ch_13:10. Consult Kennicott’s “Dissertation,” p. 456, Levy’s Chald. Dict. s. v. ùְׁìִé , Wellhausen’s “Text Samuelis.”—Tr.]. The error consisted in touching the ark, which as the symbol of God’s presence (1Sa_4:7), none could look at (Num_4:20; 1Sa_6:19), much less lay hold of, without peril of life. For transportation, therefore, it was first covered up by the Levites to whom it was committed (especially the Kohathites, Num_7:9), and that with faces covered (Num_4:15; Num_4:20), and carried on staves which constantly projected (Exo_25:14-15).—Instead of this brief statement of the offence, Chron. has the descriptive periphrasis: “because he had put out his hand to the ark,” which is followed by Syr. and Arab. A suddenly fatal apoplectic stroke was the natural means of the manifestation of the divine anger at Uzza’s violation of the majesty of the holy God symbolized in the ark of the covenant.
2Sa_6:8. “And David was angry that the Lord had made a breach (or inflicted a stroke) on Uzza;” not “was amazed (confounded),” for the verb is always used of anger, the angry person being introduced with the Prep. ìְ [= to], 2Sa_19:43; 1Sa_15:11; Gen_18:30; Gen_18:32; Gen_31:36. The cause of his anger or angry excitement is not the deed of Uzza, but the deed of God, the slaying of Uzza, in so far as he was obliged to look on himself as the cause of this punishment through his non-observance of the legal prescription concerning the transportation of the ark; for the ark was to be borne, not ridden, and touching it was forbidden on pain of death (Num_4:15). “To this day” this name had continued the only one in use in commemoration of this occurrence, [that is, up to the writer’s time, which was at some considerable remove from the event referred to.—Tr.].
2Sa_6:9. While David is angry at this justly-incurred misfortune, his heart is filled with fear of the Lord. How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?—This question indicates the ground and object of David’s fear of the Lord; in view of what had happened on the touching of the ark, he feels himself guilty before the Lord and unworthy of His presence; he fears to be similarly stricken, if he now bring the ark to him into Zion.
2Sa_6:10. The procession was broken up, and the effort to bring the ark to Zion abandoned; he carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.—Obed-edom, a Levite of the stock of the Korahites, which was a branch of the family of Kohath (Exo_6:16; Exo_6:18; Exo_6:21), a “son of Jeduthun” (1Ch_16:38), appears afterwards as a porter in Jerusalem, and also acts as musician in the transference of the ark (1Ch_15:18; 1Ch_15:21; 1Ch_15:24; 1Ch_16:5). He is called “Gittite” not from a former protracted residence in the Philistine city Gath (Vatabl.), but from Gath-Rimmon, the Levitical city in Dan. (Cler.), Jos_21:24; Jos_19:45, where he was no doubt born. Since he was of the Korahites, who were porters during the march through the wilderness, we can the more readily understand how the ark was carried to him. [If Jeduthun is the same as Ethan (comp. 1Ch_15:17; 1Ch_15:19 with 1Ch_16:41-42; 1Ch_25:1; 1Ch_25:3; 1Ch_25:6; 2Ch_35:15) then Obed-edom, the son of Jeduthun, was a Merarite. There may, however, have been several of the name. 1Ch_25:15 is supposed by some to establish the identity of our Obed-edom with the Jeduthunite, though this cannot be said to be certain. If the two are the same, it is suggested that, “though a Merarite by birth, marriage with a Kohathite would account for his dwelling in a Kohathite city.” The question can hardly be certainly decided. His name is peculiar, apparently = “serving (servant of) Edom.” It is suggested (Wellh.) that Edom is here the name of a god, to which the objection is that there is no trace elsewhere of such a deity, the name occurring only as a gentilic one, and in connection with Esau. It having been shown by Erdmann that the man Obed-edom was a Levite, it may be surmised either that he was a foreigner adopted by marriage into the tribe of Levi, or, more probably, that he, or some ancestor of his, had once been in servitude to the Edomites.—See Bib.-Com. in loco.—Tr.]
2Sa_6:11-19. [1Ch_13:14; 1 Chronicles 15, 16]. Transference of the Ark from the house of Obed-edom to the City of David.
2Sa_6:11 sq. Three months the Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom.—After the words “with the house of Obed-edom,” Chron. has “in its house,” “in order to maintain the dignity of the sacred vessel” (Then.). The blessing on Obed-edom’s house and possessions (comp. Jos. Ant. 7, 4, 2) “for the ark of God’s sake,” that is, by reason of God’s gracious presence in His majesty and glory, forms the contrast to that other revelation of God’s anger [against Uzza] and to David’s fear of misfortune and destruction from the presence of the ark, and now becomes the occasion of David’s resolution to bring the ark to himself to Mount Zion. After the words (2Sa_6:12): “because of the ark of God” the Vulg. has: “and David said, I will go and bring back the ark with blessing into my house,” which is an explanation of what precedes in reference to Obed-edom’s experience of blessing, as motive for bringing back the ark. [Well-hausen: “This addition in the Vulgate of 1590, which pragmatically connects the two facts which in the masoretic texts are merely collocated, does not belong to Jerome—see Vercellone in loco. It is found also in several Greek MSS. Against Thenius.”—Tr.]. Chron. (2Sa_15:1) connects this narrative with the preceding (the palace-building, 2Sa_14:1 sq.) by the remark that David, while building houses in Jerusalem, prepared a place for the ark of God and pitched a tent for it. And David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom (which was not necessarily near Perez-Uzza, but lay perhaps on the outskirts of the Lower City) into the city of David “with gladness,” in glad procession, with festive joy, comp. Gen_31:27; Neh_12:43.
2Sa_6:13. Since bearers of the ark are spoken of, it appears that David now observed the prescription of the Law. In 1Ch_25:2 sq. David declares that no one should bear the ark but the Levites, because they were thereto chosen by God. The former procedure is thus expressly recognized as illegal (comp. Num_1:40; Num_4:15; Num_6:9; Num_10:17). In Chron. we then find (2Sa_6:2-13) the king’s consultation with the priests and Levites about the legal performance of the solemn act of bringing up the ark, and (2Sa_6:14 sq.) David’s further regulations concerning the singing and instrumental music in the procession.—And when the bearers of the ark of the Lord had made six steps, he sacrificed (caused to be sacrificed) an ox and a fat calf.—De Wette renders wrongly: “And it came to pass, as often as they went six steps, he sacrificed;” the Heb. would not allow this rendering (it must then be åְäָéָä ... åְæָáַç , Böttch.), and what a monstrous representation: such an offering every six steps! The meaning is that David, having arranged and started the procession, introduced and consecrated it with a sacrifice. “It was a thank-offering for the happy beginning and a petition for the prosperous continuation of the undertaking” (Böttch.). The halt after six steps is therefore not a “surprising fact” (Then.), nor need we suppose that the bearers stood “a long time” with the ark on their shoulders. The offering of seven bullocks and seven rams, which according to Chron. (1Ch_15:26) was made by the Levites, was not the same with this, but a concluding thank-offering for the happy completion of the undertaking with the Lord’s help (comp. 2Sa_6:12). [So also Patrick and Keil regard the sacrifice in 1Ch_15:26; but it seems clear from the context that the same offering is here intended as in our passage, for the solemnity is not completed till 2Sa_6:15. It is no objection to this that David is the offerer in the one and the Levites in the other (Patr.), for David may have used the Levites as sacrificers (as Erdmann intimates); nor does the apparent difference in the animals make a serious difficulty, for the terms in “Samuel” may be collective, see Gen_32:6 (so Eng. A. V.), Chron. simply supplying the exact numbers, the special term “bullock” of Chron. may be included under the general “oxen” of “Samuel,” and the “rams” under the somewhat indefinite “fatlings” (so Sept. and Vulg.). Or, if it be difficult to take the second word ( îְøִéà ) as collective, we may suppose a difference in the figures in the two accounts, such as is not infrequent.—Tr.].
2Sa_6:14. And David danced with all his might before the Lord.—The verb (Pilp. of ëָּøַø , only here and 2Sa_6:16) = “to hop, spring, dance in a half circle,” comp. the similar word for “camels, dromedaries” ( ëִּøְëָøåú ). Dances on festive occasions, as in thanksgiving for deliverances (Exo_15:20), for victory (Jdg_11:34; Jdg_21:19; 1Sa_18:6) were commonly performed by women alone. The expression “with all his might” sets forth the high degree of David’s joyful excitement, comp. 2Sa_6:5. “Before the Lord,” that is, before the ark of the covenant as the symbol of the presence of the Lord as the king of His people.—Girded with a (white) linen ephod.—As elsewhere the white ephod was worn only by priests as a sign of their priestly character (1Sa_22:18), there was a special significance in David’s wearing the priestly dress now; it lay, however, not in a desire on his part to represent himself, in honor of the Lord as head of the priestly people of Israel, but partly in the general priestly character that the kingly office of David and Solomon still continued to maintain at the head of the people, partly in David’s priestly procedure in this festivity; he, as it were, performed the functions of a priest (Thenius), not merely in blessing the people (2Sa_6:18), but also in conducting the whole procession and arranging the sacrifice. While the Chronicler gives elaborate information respecting the dress of David and the Levites, our narrator here confines himself to the statement that David was clothed with the white ephod. On the other hand, David’s dancing is omitted by the Chronicler, not because it offended him from a priestly point of view (for he alludes to it in 2Sa_6:16, and mentions it 2Sa_13:8 in agreement with 2Sa_6:5), but because he here wished to bring out with special prominence the ritualistic side of the ceremony, for which the priestly dress was important. (See Keil in loco.) [It is suggested by some (see Bib. Comm.) that the first clause of 1Ch_15:27, “and David was clothed with a robe of fine linen,” is merely another form (possibly a corruption) of the text of “Samuel,” “and David danced with all his might,” especially as this same 2Sa_6:14 mentions the linen-ephod also. The Heb. letters in the two clauses are sufficiently alike to permit one to be derived from the other, and the context in Chron. is not against such a supposition. But it is impossible to say whether the one text is to be derived from the other, or, under such a supposition, which is the original.—Tr.]
2Sa_6:15. Comp. 1Ch_15:28, where the names of the several instruments are given. Here we have briefly with shouting and sound of trumpet.—The Chron. draws full accounts from the common source, our author gives a summary statement. [On religious dances among the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, see Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Ant., Arts. Chorus and Saltatio, and comp. Art. Dance in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.]
2Sa_6:16. Michal is expressly called Saul’s daughter, not thereby to characterize her as lacking in true-hearted piety (Keil), but to distinguish her in comparison with David’s other wives, as highest in position. She looked through the window—that is, holds herself aloof from the procession, and criticises David’s conduct (as her remark proves) with a cold heart which had no part in his and the people’s joyous inspiration. When she saw the king leaping and dancing (Chronicl.: dancing [= leaping] and playing), she despised him in her heart—despised him on account of his presumed degradation of himself, to the shame of his royal dignity (2Sa_6:20).
2Sa_6:17. The tent that David pitched for the ark being merely a covering on poles without a firm structure of boards, could have been only temporary, since David had the purpose to build a permanent sanctuary, a “house” to the Lord (chap. 7). Set it in its place in the midst of the tent.—That is, in the space marked off according to the tabernacle which still stood in Gibeon, in the Holy of Holies. The burnt-offerings and thank-offerings that David now offered referred to this provisional sanctuary, and served to consecrate it. Of course he made the sacrifices not in his own person, but through the priests.
2Sa_6:18. The offerings being ended, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of Sabaoth.—The blessing was not the Aaronic (Num_6:22 sq.), which pertained only to the high-priest, but (like Solomon’s, 1Ki_8:55) a concluding benedictory address to the whole people. “The name of the Lord of Sabaoth” is the essential being of God, as it was exhibited in the fulness of all His revelations to His people. The benedictions find their fulfilment only in this self-revelation of God to His people as their source, which is at the same time the pledge for the fulfilment.
2Sa_6:19. The entertainment of the people. Each one, men and women, received a “bread-cake” ( ëִּëַּø = çַìַּú , 1Ch_16:3), a round cake, such as was baked for sacrificial meals, comp. Exo_29:23 with Lev_8:24 sq. Eshpar [Eng. A. V.: good piece of flesh] occurs only here, is not = “piece of flesh,” but probably to be derived from a verb “to measure” (Aeth. ùׁôּø , De Dieu, Gesenius, Rödiger, De Wette), and = a “measure of wine,” which would not be too hard a suppletion [would not be supplying or understanding too much] (Thenius). The third term [Eng. A. V.: flagon of wine] means raisin-cake, or a mass of dried grapes pressed into a cake (Ges.), comp. Son_2:5; Hos_3:1.—Thereupon the people returned home.—In like manner David, having finished the offering and the entertainment, returned to his house to bless it (2Sa_6:20 a)—that is, to invoke on his house the blessings he had pronounced on the people, and (having finished this sacred act) to place it under the protection and blessing of the Lord, of whose presence in his house the ark standing near in the tent was the symbol. The close of verse 19 and the beginning of verse 20 are given at the end of the narrative, 1Ch_16:43.
2Sa_6:20-23. Michal’s pride and David’s humility.
2Sa_6:20. And Michal came to meet David.—The words here added by the Sept.: “and greeted him” are an insertion, which there is no ground for putting into the Hebrew text. How glorious did the king of Israel make himself to-day!—This bitterly ironical address with which David, returning joyfully to bless his house, is received by Michal, is the outburst of her wicked feeling (2Sa_6:16). Who uncovered himself to-day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants.—That is: exposed, degraded himself, obviously alluding to the fact that David had exchanged the royal robes proper to such an occasion for the light, comparatively short sacerdotal dress. She blames him not so much for dancing as that in such a procession and in such attire, forgetting his royal dignity, he mingled with the common people and put himself on a level with them. As one of the vain fellows uncovers himself.—“Worthless, bad fellows” ( øֵé÷ ) as Jdg_9:4; Jdg_11:3; Pro_12:11; Vulg.: “buffoons” (scurris), Sept.: “dancers” ( ὀñ÷ïõìÝíùí ), which is an explanation instead of a translation. Observe the twofold definition of the degradation: “in the eyes of the maids of his servants” over against the reference to the king of Israel.
2Sa_6:21. David’s answer.—Before the Lord who chose me …… and I have played before the Lord.—We have here an anacolouthon, the long Rel. clause “who chose … Israel” breaking the connection, which is then restored by “and [or yea] I have played,” the phrase “before the Lord” (which stands at the beginning) being resumed. [On this verse see the English translation and “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] After the words “before Jehovah” Sept. inserts “I will dance; blessed be the Lord,” and after “and I have played” [which it renders “I will play”] has “and I will dance,” in order thus to relieve the anacolouthon, and to introduce the “dancing,” which (though the object of Michal’s blame) is strangely omitted [in the Heb.] in David’s reply. In answer to Michal’s cutting irony, which regards David’s conduct merely from the point of view of its accordance with the dignity of “the king of Israel,” and characterizes it as common and low, he affirms two things: 1) that in his procedure he had an eye only to the glory of God, and that it must therefore not be condemned as common and low, but rather recognized as holy and well-pleasing to God; and 2) that he received his kingdom and his position as king of Israel through the Lord’s choice and command. He had therefore acted not counter to, but in accordance with this royal dignity, in that he gave the honor to the Lord, who had raised him from lowliness to this height. The expression “before the Lord” derives a very strong emphasis from its position at the beginning and at the end, and, thus repeated, indicates the holiest and highest point of view whence (in opposition to Michal’s profane utterance) his procedure in this festival is to be judged and estimated. Before thy father and before his whole house says David, in order to repel the charge that he had thus lowered the royal dignity which had passed to him from Saul and his house, thus pointing also to the cause of the rejection of Saul and his house, namely, such haughtiness and pride as the “daughter of Saul” had here exhibited.
2Sa_6:22. “And I will be yet more vile.” Instead of this Sept. has the nonsensical rendering: “and I will still thus uncover myself” ( âָּìָä )! The less reason then for changing the Heb. “in my eyes” into the Sept. “in thy eyes.” Certainly David did not lower himself in his own eyes, that is, in his own judgment, by his playing and dancing (as Thenius, contrary to the text-reading, remarks)—not in the sense of Michal’s charge; yet he did lower or humble himself in his own eyes in the sense that he expresses in 2Sa_6:21, where he describes his conduct as a self-abasement before the presence of the Lord. “In comparison with this” (that is, with this abasement before the Lord) he continues: And I will be held (= become) yet more vile (Niph. = Qal. as Gen_16:4) in my eyes.—That is, in my own judgment will humble myself yet more than to-day. The expression “in my eyes” cannot be explained as = I will suffer still greater contempt from men than what I have just experienced.” And with the maids, of whom thou hast spoken, with them will I be held in honor.—Ewald’s explanation: “should I seek honor from them? no, that is not at all necessary” falls to the ground, since Michal’s assertion that he had gotten himself honor was not serious, but ironical. Thenius: “of the maids shall I be held in honor” [so Eng. A. V.]—that is, they, the simple souls, will know better than thou how to estimate my humility, and this will compensate me for thy foolish contempt. But this latter is an interpolated thought, which would be farthest from David’s soul at this moment of extreme humility before the Lord, and would savor of Michal’s ideas about human honor. The “honored” here (obviously contrasted with Michal’s “honored, made glorious,” 2Sa_6:20) refers (as is clear from the throughout recurring words, “before the Lord”) to the honor in the sight of the Lord, which will be given those who humble themselves before the Lord. David, having opposed to Michal’s “in the eyes of the maids” his “in the presence of the Lord,” places himself “before the Lord” on the same level with the maids, expressing by the repeated “with” his fellowship and equality with these humble folk, and pointing to the honor which he with them would have before the Lord, because he humbly showed due honor to the Lord. [The objection to this interpretation is that we should then expect David to say “I will (or shall) be honored by Jehovah,” that is, the subject or agent of the honoring must be expressed, and is given in the text only by the word “maids.” The Hebrew Prep, may mean “among” or “before” (apud), and thus permits the translation of Eng. A. V., Patr., Then., Philippson. Besides, in reply to Michal’s sneer about the maids, it is a natural and sharp rejoinder on David’s part to accept this honor which she regards as beneath contempt.—Tr.]
2Sa_6:23. Michal’s childlessness is specially mentioned as a punishment of her pride. This was the deepest humiliation for an oriental woman. [For a vivid description of the scenes of this chapter see Stanley’s Jewish Church, Second Series, p. 89–98, Lect. 23 (Am. Ed.).—Tr.]
2. The significance of this narrative (of the transference of the ark to Jerusalem and David’s conduct therein) for the apprehension and representation of the theocratic royal office in his person, is first to be considered on the one side in relation to God, and on the other side in relation to the people. The content of his consciousness as king is simply this one thought of the dependence of his kingdom for its dominion on the royal rule and might of the covenant-God, whose choice and command has appointed him king over Israel (2Sa_6:21), that he is the instrument by which God carries on His government of His people. From this point of view the bringing back of the ark is an act of reverence and gratitude to the Lord, whose name, symbolically set forth in this sanctuary, is honored and praised by David at the head of the whole people as the sum of all his revelations to them. But also by the establishment of this token of the presence of the Lord in the midst of His people and of His royal dwelling and enthronement in His possession on Mount Zion, which David has prepared for his own residence, the idea of the indivisible unity of the human kingship and the kingly rule of God in His people is brought out. There is enthroned the king of glory, Psa_24:7-10; the king’s throne is the throne of God, Psa_45:7 [6]; Jerusalem is the city of the Great King, Psa_48:3 [2]; Zion is Jehovah’s dwelling, Psa_9:12 [11]; Psa_74:2; Psa_76:3 [2]; thence proceed all manifestations of God’s royal might and glory, Psa_20:3 [2]; Psa_110:2.—But also in relation to the people David represents the theocratic kingship in the light of its ideal signification. He assembles the whole people about the sanctuary as the throne of Jehovah; he will make them a people truly united under the dominion of God, moving with their whole life around Jehovah as centre, showing their king-God the highest honor and serving Him alone (Psa_24:1-10). In contrast with every other oriental kingly office David shows in his conduct the popular character of the theocratic kingship. He does not soar at an unattainable and unapproachable distance and height above the people, but “makes himself one” with them, mingles immediately with them, is accessible to all, and does not scorn fellowship with the lowest and meanest, because be knows that in the presence of the Lord he is not connected but religious-morally on the same level with the whole people and every individual one of these (2Sa_6:21-22). David, as theocratic king, whose government is to be the organ and representative of Jehovah’s rule over His people, is conscious that he is mediator between the Lord and His covenant-people, and acts accordingly: on the one hand he “represents the whole people” before the Lord and leads them to Him, at their head and in their stead brings burnt-offerings and thank offerings, and appears with them “before the presence of the Lord” (2Sa_6:21) to restore at the ark the legally ordained divine service—on the other hand he represents the Lord before His people, declaring His “name” to them, and praying and obtaining His “blessing” for them.—Herein, as appears most clearly in this history, David not only stands in closest connection with the bearers of the prophetic office, but we see in him also the kingly office in closest association with the priestly, while Saul, in opposition to both these offices, allowed his kingly rule to assume more and more an antitheocratic character. But still farther: as David, as representative and instrument of God’s royal rule over the people of His possession [peculiar people = his private property—Tr.], possesses the prophetic spirit, whereby Jehovah’s word designed for the people is on his tongue (2Sa_23:2), so also, like Samuel representing the people before God, he combines in his person the priestly character with the kingly and the prophetic, and in this festival in his priestly dress and procedure brings out and represents the idea, that the theocratic kingship, as a representation of the people before the Lord is to be a priest-kingship. [As David is never said to have performed the distinctively priestly work of sacrifice (committing this, as Erdmann himself says in the Exposition, to the priests), and as the representation of the people before God, and mediation between them and Him is a general pious work, performed often by prophets and others (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Josiah, Nehemiah), it is not easy to see why on this ground alone a priestly character should be assigned to him. In one sense the whole people were priests (Exo_19:6), a great spiritual idea being thus guarded against the perverting tendencies of outward ritual, and so David was in the high spiritual sense a priest, as every Christian now is; but in the narrower sense an Israelitish priest made atonement for sin by blood, and none but sons of Aaron could perform this service, as now human priesthood is abolished, and the priestly work is done by Christ alone.—Tr.].—But also the religious-moral character and the disposition of the theocratic king is here set forth typically in the presence of the whole people; he precedes them in showing the Lord His due honor in word and deed; he shows himself to be the faithful and conscientious overseer, leader and arranger of the divine service; he shows himself to be deeply penetrated with the feeling that he owes his royal office solely to the free undeserved grace of the Lord, and exhibits a deep humility, wishing to be nothing but the servant of the Lord in fellowship with his servants and maids. [See Translator’s note to Erdmann’s exposition of 2Sa_6:22.—Tr.].—This humble disposition of David in the presence of his God forms the sharpest contrast to the haughtiness and pride of his wife Michal, “who knew nothing of the impulse of divine love” (Theodoret).
3. God’s blessing is an outflow of His name; it can only be mediately obtained by man for man, when it is drawn from this eternal, inexhaustible source. The Lord dispenses His blessing to house and family, people and State, only on the condition that His gracious presence is desired and preserved (2Sa_6:11), and honor given to His name in mind, word and deed, as here by David and all the people. When men devote their heart and all their life as a sacrifice to the Lord, and consecrate themselves to Him, in reward therefor He sends on them streams of blessing.
4. The following are the references in the Psalms to the important event of the transference of the Ark. Psalms 24 was no doubt composed by David to celebrate Jehovah’s entrance into the sanctuary on Mount Zion, with direct reference to the incidents narrated in 2 Samuel 6 Jehovah, the king of glory, comes to make His dwelling on Mount Zion amid His people.
He is celebrated as the king of the whole world (2Sa_6:1; 2Sa_6:10); on this foundation of the majesty of the Creator and Lord of all things rests the view of His royal glory, the revelation of which is unfolded in and for Israel. The praise of Jehovah as the strong hero in war, the Lord of Sabaoth, points to David’s Philistine wars (2Sa_6:1; 2Sa_6:15). The primeval doors, which are to lift themselves up that the king may hold his entry, are the gates of the old fortress of Zion. The exhortation to the doors to raise and widen themselves assumes that this is the first entrance of the ark, and excludes the view that the Psalm was composed on its return from war. While 2Sa_6:7-10 describe the arrival and solemn entry of “the King of glory” with the outward preparation for His worthy reception and for His entrance into the place prepared for him, 2Sa_6:1-6 refer to the ascension of the people to Mount Zion and to the moral requirements made of those who will be in truth the people of God, who desire and seek after Him. Only the pure in thought, word and deed are His people and may approach Him. With unholy mind and unclean hand Uzza seized the sacred vessel; to this (2Sa_6:6 sq.) refer the words of the Psa_5:3-6. The blessing of “Jehovah the God of salvation” (2Sa_6:5) recalls 2Sa_6:11; 2Sa_6:18. Th