STUDIES IN SAMUEL No. 64

2 Samuel 24:1-17

April 7, 2002

Text Comment

Now, let me remind you where we are as we come to the last chapter of the book. We are in the Appendix to 2 Samuel, chapters 21-24, which we pointed out is organized in the form of a chiasm or chiasmus: a parallel inversion. In this case we have crisis, warriors, poem, poem, warriors, crisis. The rhetorical device of chiasm serves to throw emphasis on the center item and in this case the two poems that celebrate God's grace and faithfulness to David and his house.

v.1 Now, many of you are aware of the problem posed by this text. In the parallel text, 1 Chronicles 21:1, it is Satan who is said to incite David to number the people. This is concursus with a vengeance! Here both God and Satan are said to be the cause of the same event in the world. What is more, given the indubitable fact that numbering the people was a sin - as will become clear as we read further in the narrative - here we seem to have God inciting David to do evil, when we are taught in Holy Scripture that God does not do such a thing. "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed" [James 1:13-14].

Well, let me say a few things in clarification. First, this is not the only place where Satan, as it were, is said to have done God's bidding. In both Job 1 and 2 the Lord clearly puts Satan up to attacking Job. Satan hadn't thought about it until God put the suggestion in his mind. Second, though concursus, the doctrine that in his providence, his sovereign control over all things in this world, God cooperates with second causes so that any result or creaturely action can be said to be the work of God or the work of the second cause, or, as in this case, the work of another creature - Satan or man - I say, though we see concursus usually in the Bible in respect to God's standing behind the works of men, even evil men (as when Joseph says to his brothers, 'You meant it for evil; God meant it for good.'), nothing is altered if God's cooperation in bringing something to pass in the world is with Satan instead of with men. The point is that God stands behind and is the ultimate cause of what happens. Whether the devil or a man or, as in this case, both, the reality of the second cause in no way diminishes God's absolute rule. Third, there is no excuse for the man here. It is clear in the rest of the chapter that David is entirely accountable for the sin he committed in receiving and acting upon the suggestion that he number the people. Fourth, as is clear in many places in the Bible, the difference between a temptation and a test - the words are the often the same in the Bible and only the context distinguishes between the meanings - is the purpose for which a suggestion is made. Remember, Paul calls his "thorn in the flesh" a "messenger of Satan," but he deals with it as having come to him by the will of God and, as we know, it remained with him according to the will of God. In fact he says of that "messenger" that it was sent to him to keep him from being conceited. That wasn't Satan's purpose, of course; that was God's! God's purposes, however mysterious, are always pure, always just, always wise. Even here, in 2 Sam. 24, the purpose is clearly the just punishment of the people and, following that, the provision of mercy for them. There is a mystery here, to be sure, but there is enough in the Bible's teaching to keep us from worrying that somehow this text forces us to conclude that God did something wrong here.

The "again" harks back to the beginning of the Appendix. The first chapter of the appendix, remember also narrated a crisis brought about as a result of God's wrath upon Israel.

Now the question, of course, is: what was the sin in taking a census? As we will see, the text never says. However, certain facts may be noted.

1. In the ANE the taking of a census was widely regarded as offensive to the gods and required some act of atonement so as to avert divine punishment. In Mesopotamia, earlier than this, the word for census was the word "purification," and it is thought that it was called that because a census had to be accompanied by rituals of purification to avert divine punishment. If that seems strange to you, read Exodus 30:11-16 where a ransom price is required of each individual who is counted in a census and the reason given is this: "Then no plague will come on them when you number them." It is hard to avoid the impression that this has something to do with 2 Samuel 24 given that Israel is punished with a plague as a result of a census that was taken. [Cf. Cassuto, Exodus; Gordon, Com.]

2. A census was taken in the ANE usually for one of three purposes: to determine taxation, to allocate land, or, as here, to determine the strength of the militia. That leads to the suspicion that what made a census particularly tempting to a king was that it inspired visions of grandeur. What God seems to have found offensive in David's census was the sense of self-sufficiency that prompted it, the desire to count his soldiers like a miser counts his money. It was as if this great nation was David's own accomplishment and that the victories were no longer "the Lord's," as we read in 22:23-43 but were David's own. There is the possibility also that David took the census but did not see to the payment of the appropriate ransom price as the law required.

In any case, it will become clear as we move through the story that David became conscience stricken and was not in doubt about the sinfulness of what he had done.

It does seem, however, that Israel's sins are being punished as well in the plague that befalls the land. In this case we have another instance of God using sin sinlessly.

v.2 The result of the counting is given in v. 9.

v.3 Whether Joab's disgust with David's order is based on religious or practical considerations, the narrator does not tell us. It may be that Joab, ever vigilant for the political interests of the royal house, knows that this census would be provocative and would increase dissent and disaffection among the people because it would suggest that the king had in mind to bring more into military service. Remember, in 1 Sam. 8:10ff., when Samuel replied to Israel's demand for a king, the first thing he told them was that a king was going to take their husbands, fathers, and sons and conscript them into his army.

v.7 The mention of Tyre and Sidon indicates that the census was taken beyond the natural borders of Israel.

v.9 It appears, doesn't it, that already in the period of the united kingdom, Israel and Judah were administered in some ways separately. If the "thousands" are to be taken as literal numbers, the population of the state at that time was about 5 million. If "thousands" instead refers to a military unit of some size, then it will be harder to tell how large the population may have been.

v.10 In this case, David did not have to be confronted by a prophet to be brought to repentance.

v.13 The number "three" is prominent. The Hebrew text has "seven" in v. 13 but that is surely a transcriptional error for both the LXX and 1 Chron. 21:12 have "3."

v.14 David has learned to trust himself to God's mercy, even in wrath. As one scholar beautifully put it, "David did what was quite unexpected, but precisely in so doing he flung himself through the thick curtain of the divine anger directly on God's heart." [von Rad, Old Testament Theology, i, 318 cited in Gordon.] It is not clear in the context if David actually made a choice between the three options (the LXX says he chose number 3, the plague) or left it to God to choose between one and three.

v.16 This angel is the same as the "destroyer" who killed the Egyptian firstborn in Exodus 12:23 and the angel of the Lord who put to death nearly 200,000 Assyrian soldiers encamped outside Jerusalem in 2 Kings 19:35.

Araunah was one of Jerusalem's inhabitants before it became Israel's capital.

v.17 Presumably, at this moment David did not know the information reported in v. 16, that the Lord had relented. Here is the old David, the true and faithful king, caring about his people before himself.

v.19 "Go up" and "went up" suggest a summit which is also suggested by the necessities of threshing - one needs an exposed area open to the wind.

v.23 We need not interpret Araunah as actually offering his property for nothing. As one scholar puts it, this is "a typical opening gambit in oriental bargaining" and is very reminiscent of the account of Abraham's bargaining with Ephron the Hittite for a burial ground in Genesis 23.

v.24 Whatever Araunah meant, David's answer is magnificent and expresses the true spirit of Christian worship and devotion.

v.25 As you know and as is made explicit in the parallel text in Chronicles, but left powerfully understated and unmentioned here, this ground that David bought and this altar would become in time the temple of the Lord.

Take note of the last sentence, which is parallel in form to that in 21:14. The narrator has called attention to the symmetry of his arrangement. Both the first section and the last end with the same words.

As we conclude this text, let me read you the concluding paragraph of Robert Gordon's splendid commentary, the commentary on which I have depended more than any other in preparing these messages.

"This is not quite the end of the story of David, but nothing that is said later does anything for his reputation…and the division between Samuel and Kings at this point is no accident. There is a, by now, familiar realism about the presentation of David as saint and as sinner in these final scenes in 2 Samuel. He offends Yahweh, it is true, and his subjects suffer for his unwisdom. And yet…this final episode is noteworthy for the way in which it traces David's advance from despotic self-interest to the solicitude of the shepherd-king who is truly fitted to rule God's people. He is even willing to suffer (die?) for the sake of the sheep (v.17)." [322]

____________________________________

Now, there are, no doubt, some questions in our minds about all of this. How does God's judgment of the people of Israel embrace and take up into itself David's own sin? Why do both the Lord and David seem only concerned about his sin and not Israel's once the punishment has fallen? What precisely was the sin that Israel had committed and what was the exact nature of David's sin? Questions such as these.

But, what is clear beyond doubt is that God judged and punished both Israel and David. And that is something for us to consider. We have considered it in our studies in Samuel before, but it has been a major theme of these two books and it is right for us to return to it as this narrator does at the end of his story.

The idea that God should punish the children he loves is not foreign to us. We understand that, as we read in Hebrews 12, a loving parent disciplines his children for their good. And we know that God is a loving father. And we know that, even if the best Christian parents can lose their temper and punish improperly, punish too harshly, or forget the good and holy purposes that are to be served with punishment, God never does. He always has an eye to the good of his children when he applies his rod to their backs.

What troubles us, I think, is both the severity of his punishments and the seemingly arbitrary enforcement of them. We are not talking about a spanking or a tongue lashing, we are talking here about the lives of 70,000 human beings. And elsewhere it is the same. David is not just rebuked for his sin, not even simply humiliated in public. His family disintegrates, as did Eli's before him; and this was God's doing. He said he would bring a sword into David's family and he did. And generations of David's family paid the price. Or, take another example. Moses was forbidden to enter the Promised Land as punishment for one sin he committed; he who, we are tempted to think, deserved more than any other human being to see the Promised Land and who had longed to see it longer and more fiercely than anyone else. What is more, of all the sins that we see being committed in Holy Scripture, Moses' sin of striking the rock seems to us as easy to overlook as any. And, instead, a crushing punishment is imposed upon Moses. Peter, it seems to us, did a worse thing, and he wasn't punished in anything like the same dramatic and permanent way: he wasn't drummed out of the apostolate, for example. These are great mysteries and I have no simple explanations to give you. Just as evil itself is a great mystery, so is God's dealing with evil and punishing evil in this world.

But, there are two things that we are called upon to remember; to remember and take to heart.

The first is God's sovereign and perfect will.

We are powerfully reminded at the very outset of the chapter that all this happened according to the plan and purpose of God. The narrator leads with that fact. It doesn't embarrass him to say it, it is vital in his mind that we know that the chain of events was set in motion by God himself.

But, then we must also take note of the extraordinary and wonderful consequences that finally, that ultimately ensued from this horrifying chain of events. You have first the marvelous confessions of David - first, the confession of his own sin in vv. 10 and 17, and second, his wonderful extravagance in refusing to offer God sacrifices that cost him nothing, in v. 24. The Bible would be poorer without that last statement surely, a great statement that helps us to understand what it means to worship God rightly. I wonder: through the ages, how many great sermons have been preached to how many millions of Christian people on that text, 2 Sam. 24:24?

But, there is more. The narrator fully expects that you will know that the threshing floor of Araunah, bought as it was because it was there that the angel of the Lord withdrew his hand from punishing the people, was to become the site of the temple. The fact that he leaves this fact unsaid makes the point only that much more striking. We are left to make the connection in our own minds. (You may remember TV ads some years ago in which this device was used. The announcer would say, "Now, I'm going to mention [and he would give the name of the product] four times. And then he would mention it just three times. And by that device, he would force you to mention it to yourself in your own mind. And, having mentioned the name yourself, they thought you would remember it better. Well, so with the temple that cries out to be mentioned at this point, but is not mentioned.) And where was the temple sited? At just that place where God's wrath was turned away from his people by the intercession of her king, who promises to take upon himself the Lord's wrath on behalf of his people. What a magnificent picture of everything the temple would signify and everything its sacrifices would point to.

The temple, the place where God's presence was manifest to Israel, the place where the atoning sacrifices were offered; the place where Isaiah and Jeremiah would preach their great sermons; the place where Israel's righteous kings would seek the Lord; the place, the destruction of which and then the rebuilding of which would symbolize the judgment and the mercy of the Lord; the place where the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist would be made; the place where Jesus would be brought as an infant child; the place where Jesus Christ himself would eventually worship, preach, and heal the sick. The place where the curtain would be torn in two when the sacrifice of all sacrifices was finally offered. All of this because the Lord incited David to take a census of the people.

There is a doctrine that must be taught very carefully and circumspectly. It goes by the name of a Latin phrase: "O felix culpa," a line from an old Christian poem. "O happy guilt." It is a difficult doctrine and a dangerous one, for clearly there isn't anything happy about sin and the last thing we should ever do is to minimize our sin by imagining that, in the end, good comes from it. Paul forbids such thinking in Romans 6:1: "Shall we sin that grace may increase? By no means!"

Nevertheless, as hosts of godly men have taught through the ages, the Bible teaches and we ourselves observe, that in the providence of God sin can produce great good. "You meant it for evil," Joseph told his brothers regarding their betrayal of him, "but God meant it for good." This is true in the broad sense and in the narrow sense. In the broad sense, of course, were it not for sin, we would never have known of Christ's redeeming love. As John Owen wrote, "The greatest evil in the world is sin, and the greatest sin was the first; and yet Gregory feared not to cry, 'O felix culpa, quae talem meruit redemptorem!' - "O happy guilt, which found such a Redeemer." And Thomas Ken translates Gregory this way in verse:

What Adam did amiss,

Turned to our endless bliss,

O happy guilt, which to atone,

Drew filial God to leave his throne.

Rabbi Duncan puts the same point differently. "There would certainly have been no display of some of the divine attributes had sin not been. They would have been conserved for ever in the depths of the adorable Godhead." [Just a Talker, 73]

But it is also true on the smaller scale of an individual human life. John Bunyan said of himself, "The guilt of sin did help me much." Samuel Rutherford put it this way: "Christ has a use for all your corruptions." And James Fraser, the Scot covenanter was even more daring: "my sins have in a manner done me more good than my graces."

Richard Hooker, the 16th century Anglican, in a magnificent passage says this.

"I am not afraid to affirm it boldly, with St. Augustine, that men puffed up through a proud opinion of themselves receive a great benefit at the hands of God when they are permitted and that grievously to transgress…. Ask the very soul of Peter, and it shall undoubtedly make you this answer: 'My eager protestations, made in the glory of my ghostly strength, I am ashamed of; but those crystal tears, wherewith my sin and weakness were bewailed, have procured my endless joy; my strength was my ruin, but my fall has been my stay.'"

Surely, David would speak similarly about himself and say that he was a better man by far at the end of 2 Samuel 24 than he had been at the beginning! Think of all the things that our sins do for us that absolutely must be done: they humble us and bring us to the end of our self-confidence and self-love; they make you love the Lord Jesus Christ for his free grace; they make you less inclined to love this world and rather to long for heaven; they give you a truer sympathy for others; they teach your hands to war as a soldier of Jesus Christ; they force you to pray and pray earnestly; they compel you both to seek forgiveness constantly at the one place you can find it, the heart of God and Jesus Christ, and then to extend that forgiveness to others, and on and on. "O the blessed chemistry of heaven," says John Flavel, "to extract such mercies out of such miseries!"

This is God using sin sinlessly, as we have it here in 2 Samuel 24. We must never let this fact, this truth of "O felix culpa" diminish our sense of the evil of sin, our wrong in committing it, of the danger of sin - we've been forced to see the terrible consequences of it in David's life - or of our absolute obligation to kill it in our lives. But, God be praised, even the sin of God's people, terrible as it is and severely as it sometimes must be punished, does not take them beyond the grace and mercy of God and even their sins can be made a blessing to them, so gracious is God's sovereign will.

The second thing we need always to remember is God's mercy, even in judgment.

I will deal with this just briefly. But did you notice v. 16. The punishment was to be three days of plague in the land. And v. 15 suggests that was to be the consequence of David's sin. But, v. 16 clearly suggests that the Lord stayed his hand sooner than he was supposed to. He stopped before the time was up. His heart was moved by the suffering already undergone by his people and he, as it were, hadn't the heart to continue the punishment to its promised end. That is clearly the suggestion of the text.

This happens elsewhere in Scripture. The exile to Babylon was to last 70 years, but God was better than his word. It was barely 50 years from 587, when Jerusalem was destroyed, and 60 years from the deportation of 597, and still less than 70 from the token deportation in 605 B.C. to 538, when Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to the Holy Land.

Habakkuk asked the Lord that in his judgment of the people, necessary as Habakkuk realizes that judgment is, to "remember mercy (3:2)." And God did that. And he did the same here in 2 Samuel 24. In his wrath, he remembered mercy. He always does with his people. He must punish us because he is our heavenly Father and he loves us and we need it. But he remembers mercy. He is a kind punisher.

So, we see the Lord punishing to be sure, here in this text. But we also see him remembering mercy and we see him working out, through his children's wicked deeds, good and right and holy things for them. That is what we must remember when we find ourselves under God's rod. And that is why it always the best thing for us to kiss that rod and to accept that punishment. God knows what he is doing and we will receive better from him in his wrath than we will get from anyone else in love!

Do you know Isaiah 28:21? In an oracle in which the Lord promises the punishment of his people for their sins, we read this:

The Lord will rise up…

    He will rouse himself…

To do his work, his strange work,

    And perform his task, his alien task.

Punishing his people is the Lord's strange work and alien task. He is their God and Savior. He loves them with an everlasting love. He does not delight in punishing them; he does it because he must. It is strange for him to make his loved ones unhappy; he does it only because their eventual happiness, their eternal happiness requires it. Remember that, always!