CHAPTER XV.

THE NUMBERING OF THE PEOPLE, AND ITS

CONSEQUENCES.

DAVID was now approaching seventy years of age. He was in a position of happiness and honour to which few statesmen and warriors have attained; and, according to all human calculation, he might have closed his life and his reign without further anxiety or trouble. Not another storm might have opposed his happy voyage through the remainder of his life; not another ripple have disturbed his future progress. Yet David the good, the wise, the prosperous king of Israel, again falls into sin, grievous sin, and reaps a fearful harvest of bitter and crushing anguish.

The sin of David on this occasion was the numbering of the male population throughout the Hebrew dominions; or, as it would now be expressed, taking an accurate census of them. If the reader be surprised at hearing this action called a sin, and inquires wherein its iniquity consisted, he will search the pages of Holy Writ in vain for an answer; and his further researches among critics and commentators will scarcely yield a more satisfactory result. One thing, however, seems certain, that the reason why we are left without this information is, that the nature of the crime was so well and so generally understood at the time, that it was not placed on record by the sacred writer. Joab, not always over scrupulous in matters of obedience to Divine law, objected to comply with the king's command, as long as he could venture to do so: and, even when he yielded, he did not complete the work by counting the tribes of Levi and Benjamin; "for the

66

THE PEOPLE NUMBERED.

329

king's word was abominable to Joab," who regarded it as a cause of trespass to Israel." (1 Chron. xxi. 3-6.) Josephus and numerous writers following him have regarded the sin of David in this case as having consisted in omitting to comply with the requirement of the Mosaic law bearing on such an enumeration of the people. But, giving every respect to the Jewish historian, as being intimately conversant with the history and manners of his nation, we cannot receive his opinion as a full and satisfactory exposition of the difficulty. The law indeed said, "When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man for the ransom of his life unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague amongst them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary; a half shekel shall be the offering unto the Lord. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give the offering unto the Lord." (Exod. xxx. 12-14.) And for anything that appears on the face of the record, this requirement might be intended to apply not only to the numbering of the people at Sinai, but also to every future enumeration of them. David does not appear to have regarded this law, or to have applied it in his census; and this has been supposed, on the authority above mentioned, to have constituted his sin.

But there is a serious objection to this theory, in the fact that Joab was decidedly opposed to this numbering of the people, and spoke of it as "a trespass," before the manner of doing it had been considered or arranged. Influenced by this and similar reasons, others have supposed that David wished to place in

strong contrast before the public mind, the vast difference which had arisen between the number and power of the people when he ascended the throne, and the number of the people, and the military strength of the state, toward the close of his reign. But there is also an objection to this solution. From the language employed by Joab, it appears that it was the thing itself, and not the motives or state of mind that led to it, which constituted David's offence.

It seems, therefore, probable that the essential sin of David in this matter was his purpose to establish an absolute military government over the Hebrew people, by which every able-bodied man would, at the command of the king, be subject to military service and discipline, as was the case at Rome in after times. He had already made a regulation, by which twentyfour thousand men were employed on military duty every month. These were relieved by another body of the same number the following month, and so on; so that in the course of the year two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men would be employed in active military duty. These were exclusive of the permanent household troops and body-guards. This would appear to be an army sufficient for all the purposes of national defence, and also to hold in continued subjection the several nations that were tributary to the Hebrew state.

But this did not appear to satisfy David. Notwithstanding the altered condition of the people, he wished to have every able-bodied man, of a suitable age, enrolled for military service, as was the case when the Israelites marched through the wilderness under Moses. By these means, if carried into effect, the king would acquire a more absolute and unlimited control over his subjects, and thus show to the world that he

THE SIN OF THIS TRANSACTION.

331

was at the head of a vast and irresistible military power. Several circumstances slightly touched on in the narrative indicate that this is, to some extent at least, the true solution of the case. When Joab expostulated with the king on this subject, he said, “Are they not all my lord's servants? Why then doth my lord require this thing?" (1 Chron. xxi. 3 ;) evidently meaning that the people were loyal and obedient, and did not need to be placed in any altered position. But what is specially confirmatory of this view, is the fact that this census was not a civil or religious measure, conducted by the priests or elders of the people, but an extensive military arrangement, or organization, which occupied nine months and twenty days, although neither the tribe of Benjamin nor the Levites were included.

If this theory is correct, it will be evident that the sin of David was not merely a desire to establish a great military power for the purpose of his own personal aggrandisement and glory. This might have. been unjust to his people, and have proved the existence and operation of sinful passions in the mind of the king; but it would not, we believe, have drawn down upon David and his people that signal chastisement with which this transgression was visited. In the theocratic government of the Hebrews, God was the supreme Ruler of this nation. As He was the source of all power, His declared will was the statutelaw of the kingdom. The king (for the appointment of kings over Israel was contemplated by Moses, Deut. xvii. 14-20) was to act in entire subjection to Jehovah, and to rule only in subordination to His will. We accordingly find that the throne of David and Solomon is called "the throne of the Lord; " (1 Chron. xxix. 23;) and the kingdom is said to be "the kingdom of

the Lord in the hands of the sons of David." (2 Chron. xiii. 8.) David is therefore called, with peculiar emphasis, "the servant of the Lord;"* and, considered personally, was not the sovereign, but the viceroy, of Israel. He had, consequently, no separate independent legislative power, but was simply charged with unlimited executive authority.† Nor was this an unimportant element in the constitution of the Hebrew kingdom: it was its vital essential principle. It was, from the beginning, designed to make this sovereignty a fit precursor of the reign of Christ; and, for this purpose, the Divine and the human were blended together as intimately as circumstances would permit. Saul having failed to effect this object, David was appointed to the kingly administration in Israel. "He was the root and founder of the kingdom-as a kingdom-in which the Divine and human stood first in an official, as they were ultimately to stand in a personal, union. And to make the preparatory and the final in this respect properly harmonize and adapt themselves to each other, the Lord, in the first instance, ordered matters connected with the institution of the kingly government, so as to render the beginning an image of the end, typical throughout of Messiah's work and kingdom." +

The action of David in numbering the people for military purposes, and by a military commission, was therefore an infraction of the theocratic character of the Hebrew commonwealth, and excluded God from the government of His people.

*“This appellation is used of David far more frequently than of any other person. Upwards of thirty times it is expressly coupled with David; and in the Psalms he is ever speaking of himself as the Lord's servant.”—FAIRBAIRN's “Typology of Scripture,” vol. i., p. 117, note. † WARBURTON'S "Divine Legation," book v., sect. iii.

FAIRBAIRN'S "Typology of Scripture," vol. i., p. 117.