Outline of Chapter 13:

         vv.     1–5           David Makes Preparations to Bring the Ark to Jerusalem

         vv.     6–8           The Ark is Moved Amid Great Celebration

         vv.     9–12         Uzzah is Struck Dead for Touching the Ark [Alternative Title: God’s Deadly Holiness]

         vv.    13–14         The Ark is Temporarily Kept in the House of Obed-edom, the Gittite

Charts, Short Doctrines and Maps:

         Introduction         Matthew Henry Outlines 1Chronicles 13

         Introduction         The Ark Chronology

         v.       1              What Form of Government Should a Nation Have?

         v.       1              Why Doesn't the Bible Specify an Ideal Government So That We Will at Least Have Something to Shoot For?

         v.       1              Just What are our Responsibilities Toward our Government?

         v.       1              When Should we Obey God and not Man?

         v.       2              7-Day Week, a Secular View

         v.       5              A Summary of the Doctrine of Lebo-Hamath

         v.       6              A Short Summary of the Ark of God

         v.       6              2Samuel 6:2 Compared to 1Chronicles 13:6

         v.       6              God, the Ark, the Mercy Seat and the Cherubim

         v.       6              The Angelic Conflict

         v.       9              Confusing and/or Objectionable Passages of Scripture

         v.      11              Who is Angry with Whom?

         v.      12              Summary Points: What Did David do Wrong?

         v.      12              Summary Points: Why Do We Know David Read about the Ark in Samuel?

         v.      12              Summary Points: Why Do We Know That David Did Not Study the Mosaic Law?

         v.      14              How Does David Know about Obed-edom’s Prosperity?

         v.      14              Why Does the Author of Chronicles insert David’s Lineage and Successful Battles Against the Philistines in Between the Two Transports of the Ark?

         v.      14              A Complete Translation of 1Chronicles 13

I ntroduction: In Samuel, the moving of the Ark was covered essentially as one chapter, even though David made two attempts to move the Ark. In 2Sam. 6, David moves the Ark, runs into trouble, temporarily sets this project aside, and, 3 months later, successfully moves the Ark. 1Chron. 13 covers only the first attempt and parallels 2Sam. 6:1–11. In 1Chron. 14, we have the increase of David’s family in Jerusalem, as well as his success in warring against the Philistines. Then, in 1Chron. 15–16, we have the second time David moves this Ark (successfully this time) and the celebration which accompanied the move.

Do not think that, because you have already studied 2Sam. 6 that you know enough about this incident and that you can simply breeze your way through Chronicles. You cannot simply skim this chapter and think that you understand what is going on. God the Holy Spirit did not include this second recording of the David’s first attempt to move the Ark for no reason. I personally examined 2Sam. 6, wrote about 150 pages or so; and then went immediately to 1Chron. 13. Now, although I could shortcut some things (as several of the verses are nearly identical), my examination of this book did not end up being a carbon copy of 2Sam. 6. There are things which I got out of my examination of this chapter which I did not get from 2Sam. 6. There are applications which I made in this chapter which I did not get in 2Sam. 6. God the Holy Spirit did not make a mistake by including two nearly identical accounts of this same historical incident. It would be your mistake to study one account, and ignore the other.

Now allow me to go into a little more detail. David first confers with his military leaders, asking them if it seems good to contact the rest of Israel and then bring the Ark into Jerusalem (vv. 1–3). David’s men agree to this, and a process of assembling the rest of Israel begins to take place (vv. 4–5). All of these went with David to Kiriath-jearim, to where the Ark had been kept for the past 50–100 years (v. 6). Uzzah and Ahio, descendants of Abinadab, who was originally entrusted with the Ark, become point men with respect to moving the Ark (v. 7). As the Ark begins its transport to Jerusalem, David and all Israel who have gathered with him celebrate (v. 8). Even though it is clear that many of those involved here are Levites and some are even priests, no one questions David’s way of transporting the Ark. Suddenly, the unthinkable occurs—the oxen pulling the cart appear to stumble, Uzzah reaches out to keep the Ark from falling, and God strikes Uzzah dead right then and there (vv. 9–10). David is both angry and afraid and uncertain as to how to next proceed (vv. 11–12). It is decided to temporarily keep the Ark at the home of Obed-edom, someone who is unknown to us, but who is mentioned several times in Scripture (v. 13). God blesses Obed-edom and his family for the 3 months that they are caretakers of the Ark (v. 14).

At this point, quite frankly, I am puzzled as to why Chronicles inserts David’s genealogy followed by his wars against the Philistines in between the two moves. You cannot father 13 sons and fight two successful wars in 3 months time (1Chron. 13:14), so 1Chron. 14 was not placed there chronologically. You may want to keep this in mind as we examine 1Chron. 13, knowing that it will be followed by what appears to be a completely different topic.

Application: Some of us have the mistaken notice that life is a zero-sum game. In order for you to gain, your next door neighbor must lose. Liberals are so upset when the United States citizens use so many resources and are so greatly blessed. They don’t seem to mind it if a liberal champion of theirs has a butt-load of money, but when the CEO of some nasty oil company has a butt-load of money, and when everyone in the conservative movement (in their eyes) are driving around in gas-guzzling vehicles; it’s just too much. What about all the poverty in Africa and Asia? But life is not a zero-sum game. God has blessed me greatly; but I don’t get up in the morning and spend the first couple hours of my day keeping the Black man down so that I can continue to be prosperous. That’s silly. If technology has shown us anything it is, man is going to determine how to harness greater agricultural yields, more production with less effort, and new energy sources will be tapped when they become economically viable. However, key is blessing, and, we do not manufacture our own blessing, no matter how much stuff we produce. God manufactures our blessing. Therefore, when a country has a preponderance of believers—especially growing and maturing believers—then God is going to bless that country with great prosperity. England of a couple centuries ago and the United States today are illustrations of this. So God did not withhold blessing from David in order to pour it out on Obed-edom; and this is what 1Chron. 14 is all about.

With respect to authorship, it is clear that Chronicles was based in part on the manuscript of Samuel; or that both books were produced from a similar set of original manuscripts. In the book of Samuel, even though the history was recorded close to the time that Samuel, Saul and David lived; it is clear that the original historical narratives had to have a variety of authors (the detail of Jonathan’s attack on the Philistine camp and the details of what happened when the Ark was in Philistia suggest first-hand accounts of those incidents). Although it is very likely that Samuel, and later David, assembled the final text of Samuel, it is still likely that they functioned partially as editors and partially as authors.

The book of Chronicles was written long after these events, and possibly assembled by one man. However, the text is so close to Samuel in some places that we must reasonably assume that Samuel was a primary text from which Chronicles was taken, or that they drew from the same manuscripts. It would be impossible for any man to have observed all that occurs in Chronicles as it takes place over such a long span of time. However, in this chapter, when we lay it down side-by-side Samuel, it will be obvious that there is no way that these texts were independently produced.

Since there is much more information in Chronicles on the movement of the Ark, the author of Chronicles had to have more to draw from than simply the text of Samuel. He simply did not make things up.

To remind you, Samuel and Kings approach the history of Israel from a human standpoint (to some degree) whereas Chronicles appears to have more of a divine viewpoint approach. That is, in case you miss some of the spiritual aspects of Samuel, Chronicles, at times, puts them right in your face. This in no way disparages the human authorship of these books; nor does it imply that God dictated Chronicles to some author (as He dictated much of the Pentateuch to Moses).

Let me give you an example: today, there are Muslims in almost all nations, their population is steadily growing and outpacing the growth rate of the indigenous people for the most part, and violence is breaking out throughout the world, its source being found in the more radical elements of these Muslims. That would be a current (January 2007) appraisal of some world events from human viewpoint. Divine viewpoint would be that these Muslims are evil, they are anti-God, and that these outbreaks as well as their infiltrating of most nations is a Satanic attempt to counterfeit the end times, where the Jews will be found scattered throughout every nation. Although the book of Chronicles might not be quite this straightforward, what is included and what is excluded in its historical narrative definitely reveals more of a divine perspective.

Interestingly enough, one commentator, Eugene Merrill, places the movement of the Ark near the end of David’s reign. Since the book of Samuel is generally is chonological order, I doubt this perspective; unfortunately, Merrill makes this assertion for reasons far too complex to rehearse here. I would have been interested to hear Merrill’s reasoning on this topic. On the other hand, Merrill puts the date of moving the Ark at 1004 b.c., which is at the beginning of David’s reign, so perhaps his reasoning would make little or no sense.

David Makes Preparations to Bring the Ark to Jerusalem

2Samuel 6:1

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:                       Note: I compare the Hebrew text to English translations of the Latin, Syriac and Greek texts (using the Douay-Rheims translation; George Lamsa’s translation, and Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton’s translation, respectively). When there are serious disparities between my translation and Brenton’s, I look at the Greek text of the Septuagint (the LXX) to see if a substantive difference actually exists (and I reflect these changes in the English rendering of the Greek text). Now and again, I update these texts with non-substantive changes (e.g., you for thou, etc.).

Latin Vulgate                          David consulted with the captains of thousands, and of hundreds, and with all the commanders.

Masoretic Text                       And so consults David with commanders of the thousands and the hundreds to every prince.

Peshitta                                  And David consulted with the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, and with all the leaders and governors of Israel.

Septuagint                              And David took counsel with the captains of thousands and captains of hundreds, even [with] every commander.

Significant differences:           No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Some time later, David talked with his army commanders,...

GNB (TEV)                            King David consulted with all the officers in command of units of a thousand men and units of a hundred men.

NLT                                        David consulted with all his officials, including the generals and captains of his army.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David consulted with every officer who commanded a regiment or battalion.

HCSB                                     David consulted with all his leaders, the commanders of hundreds and of thousands.

NIV                                         David conferred with each of his officers, the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       David consulted with the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, with every leader.

Young's Updated LT              And David consults with the heads of the thousands, and of the hundreds, every leader,...

What is the gist of this verse? David is thinking about moving the Ark to Jerusalem (this is not stated in this verse), so he consults his military leaders [instead of God].

Translation: Then David took counsel with the commanders of thousands and [with the commanders] of hundreds,... David intends to move the Ark of God to Jerusalem, but, rather than call for the High Priest to advise him in this matter, rather than consult the Scriptures on moving the Ark, David checks with his military commanders. The book of Samuel and the book of Chronicles are in a rough chronological order (Chronicles less so than Samuel). My guess is, David had been recently spending a lot of time with his military—possibly in his campaigns against the Philistines—and that, either after the first or second defeat of the Philistines, David thinks about moving the Ark. Now, he has spent many months with these commanders, the idea of bringing the Ark to Jerusalem has come to him, and the people he is with are those he would naturally speak to.

In fact, here is the scenario as I see it. David is reading up on the history of the wars between Israel and Palestine; and he reads about the Ark of God being hauled into battle and how it is eventually returned to Israel; and he decides that this Ark needs to be brought into Jerusalem. David was probably not completely aware of the function of the Ark in Tabernacle worship because David probably saw very little Tabernacle worship in his lifetime (when he was young, this was the time of Saul, and Saul was not all that concerned with spiritual things). So, David probably did not understand all of the relationships of the furniture in Tabernacle worship. However, in reading about the previous Philistine wars, he realized that this Ark was an important asset to Israel (even though it did not do the Israelites any good in battle against the Philistines).

What has happened here is, David has this wonderful idea, and he shares it with those who are around him, which are soldiers. Now, these are great and brave men, but they are not going to be experts in the field of spiritual mechanics. So, when he proposes to do this, of course they are going to agree to it. They know some fundamental principles about the Ark; but it is apparent that no one went back to the Law to examine exactly how the Ark is to be moved.

Now, you may think that all of this is complete conjecture, and, to some degree it is. However, what method will David use to move the Ark? David uses the same method that the Philistines used when they moved the Ark back to Israel. They got a new cart, put the Ark in the new cart, and sent the cattle in motion. David is going to, in part, copy the Philistines. This is reasonable evidence that David came upon this idea to move the Ark by reading of the previous wars between Israel and the Philistines.

In the alternative, one of the commanders could have said, “Here is how the Ark was returned to us.” However, if David is with these military types and is warring against the Philistines, and if he is studying the history of their previous wars (perhaps to gain some insight into tactics and strategies that he might employ), it fits very well together that David comes upon the Ark in his reading, and also makes a mental note of how the Ark is moved.

Application: The worst approach to spirituality is to read the Bible and copy what you read. Okay, it is even worse to copy people that you see as spiritually great (i.e., they are very nice to you and they seem to be really, really holy). You don’t go through the book of Acts, observe what is being done, and then copy that. The Book of Acts gives us a history of early evangelism, early missionary activity, the establishment of the first churches, and the function of the early gifts which God gave to the church. It is not a book of mandates or mechanics. Paul’s epistles are where we go for mandates and mechanics. If we observe Peter doing this or that in Acts, we might copy him, and we might not. It depends. However, when Paul (or James or Peter or John) give us a mandate in the epistles, then we should always follow that mandate. David is going to approach a spiritual matter by copying what he reads—that is the wrong method!

Translation: ...to every prince. This final phrase seems a little confusing, grammatically speaking. My only explanation is, David spoke to every commander that he could find, and that is essentially the meaning of this last part of v. 1.

McGee voices an opinion which is against gathering a large group together in order to make a decision: As I see it, there is a serious problem developing in many churches today because there are too many men who want to have their finger in the pie. That is, they (especially the boards of churches_ want to make the decisions. The problems arise because many of those men are not spiritually equipped to make decisions. Many times their wrong decisions hurt the cause of Christ.

Application: As I write this, we are in the midst of a war in Iraq, and the newly elected Congress is making sounds as though they should have a say in the function of this war. These are men who, in the recent past, called for more troops to be taken into Iraq; and, now that Bush proposes to take more troops into Iraq, they are throwing fits as though Bush is doing exactly the wrong thing (it is January 2007 as I write this). Exactly what we don’t need is the changing public opinion guiding this war; nor do we need the war run by the 585 members of Congress (not sure if I have that number right). I even have some friends who are beside themselves because Bush does not consult them on how we should run the war. We have one Commander-in-Chief, and that man, Democrat or Republican, handles the war. You and I don’t get a say, other than via letters, opinions, demonstrations, etc. However, we do not get to vote on the war directly. We cannot assume that a heart-felt letter sent to the president is going to change things.

Application: David is asking exactly the wrong people about this. He is consulting those in his military about what he should do concerning the Ark of God. How the hell should they know? At what point did they develop a sixth sense to guide David in spiritual matters? This is the wrong approach. It does not work in war; and, generally speaking, it does not work in the spiritual life.

If David needed to consult anyone, it would be the High Priest, Abiathar. He should have consulted him and the Ephod of God, or assigned him the project of determining what should be done with regards to the Ark. You choose the correct person for the job, if you are going to delegate; you don’t consult every Tom, Dick and Harry.

It appears as though some sort of a hierarchy had developed throughout the land, the structure of which is not clear to us; however, there were prominent men in every city and every territory that this phrase refers to. What David does here, which is a new thing, is he consults with not only the high-ranking members of his military, but with these high-ranking members of Israel. It is also possible that these are simply men who rose to high positions within David’s government, which has had 7½ years to grow and gel. But notice that, regardless of whom to every prince refers, David’s style is much different than Saul’s. Saul governed by making decrees and then enforcing these decrees; David governs by consulting a large group of men before choosing a course of action (at least, in this example).

This does not mean that anyone who rules with an autocratic style is wrong and anyone who rules as the leader of a group is right. There are many flavors of these two styles, and the popular one today seems to be a leader who pretends to rule a group democratically or appears to solicit imput, but is thoroughly autocratic. I often encountered this in public education. It was unpopular to be autocratic, so leaders, principals, and department heads pretended to elicit information and input from their inferiors and then pretty much did what they were planning to do in the first place. An alternative style to this is setting up broad, popular policies, and then completely ignoring these policies (also something which I ran into in education).

Back on track: David, although he approaches this issue in what would be a popular approach today, that does not mean that his plan of attack is correct. We will find out that, what David does here is going to result in the death of one of those who helped take care of the Ark of God. In other words, we may like David’s style here, but the end result is going to be death for a faithful man.

What we do not have is a clear sense of time; obviously, this did not take place in a couple of days. We can pick up that David probably spoke to a large group (as per the next verse), but there is no idea here given as to how long it took David to assemble this original group, nor are we told how long it took to assemble the Levites from throughout the land. I would guess that from intention to the initial moving of the Ark was probably anywhere from a month to a year (and who knows what national situations occurred during this time period?).

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                          And he said to all the assembly of Israel: “If it please you; and if the words which I speak come from the Lord our God, let us send to the rest of our brethren into all the countries of Israel, and to the priests, and the Levites, that dwell in the suburbs of the cities, to gather themselves to us.

Masoretic Text                       And so says David to all an assembly of Israel, “If upon you [all] he was good and from Y^ehowah our Elohim, let us spread out; let us send [forth] upon our brothers the remaining ones in all a land of Israel and with them the priests and the Levites in cities of their pastures and they will gather unto us.

Peshitta                                  And David said to all the assembly of Israel, “If it seems good to you, let us ask the Lord our God to repair the breaches of our brothers who reside in all tons of Israel, and settle with them priests and Levites in their cities and suburbs, so that they may gather themselves and come to us... [a portion of this is v. 3 in the Syriac].

Septuagint                              And David said to the whole congregation of Israel, “If it [seems] good to you, and it should be prospered by the Lord our God, let us send to our brethren that are left in all the land of Israel, and the priests the Levites who are with them in the cities of their possession come, and they will be gathered to us.

Significant differences:           The preposition in the phrase if it seems good to you is what we would expect to find in the Greek; we have a different, more difficult preposition in the Hebrew (upon). In the Hebrew, there is no verb associated with Jehovah Elohim; but there is a verbal phrase associated with Jehovah Elohim in the Greek. In the Hebrew, there are two verbs associated with going out to locate and tell those who are still in the land; in the Greek, one of these verbs is associated with Jehovah Elohim and the other with those remaining in the land.

Both the Latin and Syriac have different verbs associated with Jehovah God, and I think the key is, the translators simply felt that some was missing here and they supplied what seemed holy to them. However, the key is that, David really does not consult Jehovah; the opinion of Jehovah God is not really a part of this. David appears to add from Jehovah Elohim as some of us would say Lord willing.

In the Hebrew, we have cites of their pastures; in the Greek, cities of their possession. The Levites did not own a specific portion of the land; the lived in cities within territories which belonged to other tribes. They held this land in-common, so to speak, with the tribe who owned the land. Sometimes, this is called pasture land, open land or common land. So there is no actual difference here.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       ...and then announced to the people of Israel: While Saul was king, the sacred chest was ignored. But now it's time to bring the chest to Jerusalem. We will invite everyone in Israel to come here, including the priests and the Levites in the towns surrounded by pastureland. But we will do these things only if you agree, and if the LORD our God wants us to. [vv. 2–3]

The Message                         Then David addressed the entire assembly of Israel, "If it seems right to you, and it is GOD's will, let's invite all our relatives wherever they are throughout Israel, along with their relatives, including their priests and Levites from their cities and surrounding pastures, to join us.

GNB (TEV)                            Then he announced to all the people of Israel, "If you give your approval and if it is the will of the LORD our God, let us send messengers to the rest of our people and to the priests and Levites in their towns, and tell them to assemble here with us.

NAB                                       ...he said to the whole assembly of Israel: “If it seems good to you, and is os decreed by the Lord our God, let us summon the rest of our brethren from all the districts of Israel, and also the priests and the Levites from their cities with pasture lands, that they may join us;...

REB                                       Then he said to the whole assembly of Israel, ‘If you approve, and if the Lord our God opens a way, let us send to our kinsmen who have stayed behind in all the districts of Israel, and also to the priests and Levites in the cities and towns where they have common lands, bidding them join us.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Then he told the whole assembly of Israel, "If you approve and if the LORD our God has consented, we will send an invitation to the rest of our relatives in every region of Israel and to the priests and Levites in their cities and pasturelands so that they may join us.

HCSB                                     Then he said to the whole assembly of Israel, "If it seems good to you, and if this is from the LORD our God, let us spread out and send the message to the rest of our relatives in all the districts of Israel, including the priests and Levites in their cities with pasturelands, that they should gather together with us.

JPS (Tanakh)                         David said to the entire assembly of Israel, “If you approve, and if the Lord our God concurs, let us send far and wide to our remaining kinsmen throughout the territories of Israel, including the priests and Levites in the towns where they have pasturelands, that they should gather together to us in order to transfer the Ark of our God to us, for throughout the days of Saul we paid no regard to it.” [vv. 2–3].

NIV                                         He then said to the whole assembly of Israel, “If it seems good to you and if it is the will of the Lord our God, let us send word far and wide to the rest of our brothers throughout the territories of Israel, and also to the priests and Levites who are with them in their towns and pasturelands, to come and join us.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       And David said to all the assembly of Israel, "If it seems good to you and from the LORD our God, let us send abroad to our brothers who remain in all the lands of Israel, as well as to the priests and Levites in the cities that have pasturelands, that they may be gathered to us.

Young’s Updated LT             ...and David says to all the assembly of Israel, “If unto you it be good, and from Jehovah our God it has broken forth—we send unto our brothers, those left in all the lands of Israel, and with them the priests and the Levites, in the cities of their suburbs, and they are gathered unto us,...

What is the gist of this verse? David has gathered a great multitude of Israelites (30,000?) Primarily from Judah, and he suggests that they go out to their brothers throughout the land and gather them all to Jerusalem. As we will see, the purpose is going to be the moving of the Ark to Jerusalem.

Translation: David said to all the assembly of Israel,... David has gathered together 30,000 men from Israel (or, eventually, he will gather 30,000 men of Israel). However many are here, he speaks to them, and this will be about gathering all of Israel together to celebrate the moving of the Ark.

In 2Sam. 6:1, David has gathered 30,000 chosen men, and they appear to accompany David to celebrate the moving of the Ark. Here, he apparently gathers these military leaders (1Chron. 13:1), which I suspect is much smaller than 30,000, and they will be charged with gathering the people of Israel to this celebration, which will be 30,000. Recall that the Jews have recently—within the past decade or so—been beat down by the Philistines, so it is difficult to determine how many were killed in that war.

The alternate understanding of this is, David has gathered 30,000 people here, but will gather more from throughout Israel. To me, 30,000 seems like too small a number for the final gathering, if David sends representatives throughout Israel to gather them. On the other hand, this number seems far too large to be the military leaders and local princes. My opinion is, the final gathering of Israel was 30,000; these were the ones interested in the Ark. Since the Ark is a piece of furniture which is unseen during religious sacrifices; and since the Tabernacle has probably been shut down for awhile, it may be more difficult to garner interest about the Ark.

Translation:...“If, according to you, it seems good... Note David’s approach; instead of going to God, he checks in with his mates to see how they feel about things. Now, obviously, from the language, this is a large crowd; but we are probably talking about 100–1000 right here. David asks them how they feel about his plan, which he is about to explain to them.

Translation: ...and [if this is] from Y^ehowah our Elohim, [then] let us disperse [and] let us deploy with regards to our brothers, those remaining in all the land of Israel—... David says something quite interesting here: if this is from Jehovah our God; however, he does nothing to confirm God’s direction here. He could. He could send for Abiathar and the Ephod of God, but he does not.

Application: Do you know anyone who tells you this or that action is God’s will without having any actual basis in Scripture that position? Or have you asserted that such and such is God’s will? David is essentially assuming that this is God’s will; that what he is doing is exactly what God wants. David does not check with Scripture nor does he consult the Ephod of God. Essentially, what David is saying here is, God willing. He has the ability to determine what God’s will actually is; and yet, he does not. That is a very bad sign.

We have a similar instance in Scripture in Acts 1 when the disciples were hanging out and talking about spiritual things, and they decided, hey, let’s elect a new Apostle and let God be the real decider. Turns out, that Matthias in Acts 1 is never heard from again. We all know that the 12^th Apostle is Paul; he is God’s choice. In the group from which the Apostles chose, Paul was not even in the running. In fact, had Paul come anywhere near them, they would have started running.

Application: Not every choice of action is God’s will, even if someone says God willing a lot and the thing actually comes to pass. We have free will and the things which we do are a result of our freewill choices. Throwing in the phrase God willing is damned close to meaningless.

Note also that David refers to these people as our brothers, as the Jews are all related, all coming from the same ancestor Abraham. David does not call these people the people of Israel or my subjects; they are his brothers, where he recognizes, to some extent, their equality with him.

Translation: ...and along with them, the priests and Levites in cities held in common [lit., cities of common land]—... The Levites were not given a particular place to live; they simply lived in specific cities which God had given to other tribes, and they were scattered throughout the land, just as the Jews in the future would be scattered throughout the world. They did not own property, per se, just as Jews would often feel as though they did not completely belong in this or that country. Priests are a subset of the Levites. Since the Ark is being moved, it makes sense to David to involve the Levites. However, as we have studied in Samuel, he is going to approach this in the wrong way.

The Levites are in charge of the holy furniture, including the Ark. They are supposed to be the ones to take care of it and to move it. Although David will send these men to whom he is speaking out into the land to fetch the Levites, there does not appear to be anything which indicates that David is going to consult with the Levites and ask them how to move the Ark. David is assuming that, if the Philistines moved the Ark from point A to point B in a new cart, that he will do the same thing. Now, David is not completely ignorant. As discussed in 2Sam. 6, David probably read about the Ark while studying whatever information he could gather about the Philistines. When he realized its importance, David decided to bring it to Jerusalem. He would have also read, in the same context, about the number of deaths and diseases which resulted from contact with the Ark; so David would be aware of that as well. However, despite the fact that moving the Ark involved risk, and despite the fact that David could have consulted with Abiathar or with the Levites about the mechanics of moving the Ark, David apparenly chose not to.

Application: You might be feeling pretty superior to David at this point, since I have beat it into your head that David should have read the Mosaic Law in order to determine how the Ark should be moved. However, understand where David is coming from: he is enthusiastic, he is sincere, and he is functioning without the doctrine that he needs in this situation. Do you understand? Your enthusiasm means nothing; it might impress other Christians who think that you are the most dynamic thing to come down the pike, but to God, enthusiasm without knowledge is meaningless. David is also sincere. He is not moving the Ark to Jerusalem as some perfunctory move; nor is he moving the Ark to Jerusalem in order to somehow control the Jews with religion; he sincerely wants to place the Ark in Jerusalem because he believes that is the right thing to do. So, you obviously know how much God values sincerity without doctrine, right? God is not impressed with your sincerity; He is not impressed with your enthusiasm. In fact, God is not impressed at all with your emotions, even though you might be. We are given emotions so that we can enjoy and appreciate life. They are often a guide to tell us that we are screwing up our lives when our emotions are negative ones. Our body had nerves and we sense pain when there is a problem with our bodies. When we feel crappy emotionally, many times it is because there is something wrong with our lives; painful emotions can be the nerve sensors which tell us that we are doing something wrong. However, emotions are not valuable to God. We can feel warm and fuzzy toward the person sitting next to us in church; or we can feel nothing at all. It does not matter. God is not impressed by how we feel. My point in all of this is, sincerity + enthusiasm is meaningless in the spiritual life, although if you appear this way to others in church, they are going to think that you are the best Christian ever. Now, if you have doctrine in your soul, but you have a dour personality, and no one can look at you and think, “Wow, is he ever sincere,” you can still impress God. God is impressed by doctrine in your soul; He is not impressed with your array of emotions.

Now, let me share a personal note with you. When I first studied 2Sam. 6, I must admit that I was not really sure about the importance of studying 1Chron. 13. Yeah, sure, there is a lot more detail here, and the parallel passage takes 3 chapters of 1Chronicles; but, when it comes to almost the identical verse, what do we really get out of that? Well, to be quite frank, I have more clearly understood this the second time through in terms of application, and when it comes to summarizing what this chapter is about (see Summary Points, which we will cover in v. 12), I was much more confident, organized and clear in my presentation. So, even though I went into the study of this chapter immediately after my examination of 2Sam. 6, in almost perfunctory mode, I have gotten a great deal out of looking over this same material again. Surely you have watched a movie a second time, and you heard dialogue or observed relationships or cause and effect events which you missed the first time; well, there are times when we get a great deal out of the Word of God, even though we are covering the same set of events from a slightly different perspective.

Since I am on this tangent, what about...the 4 gospels? Of course, the reasons I gave in the previous paragraph apply, but there are 4 gospels for a much more important reason: by the testimony of 2 or 3, a thing is confirmed. People often dismiss the gospel and dismiss the historical record of Jesus Christ, and say, “This is just a bunch of old religious guys pontificating.” In fact, I have heard the stupidest things about this, including the theory that the Apostles spread these stories about Jesus so they could be really big and important guys in the first century. This is unbelievably stupid! Christians were persecuted in the ancient world; this is very clear in the book of Acts and from things which Paul says in his epistles, and from what happened to Jesus in His final days before the crucifixion. We have extra-Biblical evidence of this as well. So, not only was it problematic for someone to be a Christian in the ancient world, but the leaders of the movement would have faced even greater attacks from the religious Judaizers and from the Roman establishment (where Cæsar was seen as a god). People who spread the gospel and who were pillars of the church paid for their leadership positions, often with their lives (John was merely placed on the Isle of Patmos to keep him away from everyone else). People come up with goofy ideas like this because they judge the early church with, most often, the Roman church, or with some big, well-televised church today. They do not see these early Apostles and church leaders as analogous to missionaries who go to, for instance, China or some Muslim country. So, the 4 gospels were not written so that these 4 men could make themselves out to be important leaders of the church and to be revered. Quite the opposite would have occurred. These gospels are 4 in number to confirm the historicity of the life of Jesus. We do not have any ancient documents which similarly confirm any event or any other life of ancient history like these. We have these writings for which we have copies written within 100 years of the events (also unheard of when it comes to ancient documents, which are generally removed from the historical events which they describe by 500–1000 years); nor do we have such a myriad of manuscripts for any other book (there are 26,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, which is unheard of in other ancient literature). Furthermore, this was a time period where a lot of writing took place; and we have these books and these people discussed for centuries after—and, even though people today question the historicity of Jesus, no one in the ancient world every questioned the historicity of Jesus and few questioned His deity (it apparently was more common to question His humanity back then; i.e., was Jesus really human?). If we had any other event or life from ancient history, and 4 historical documents which reference that event or person, then, insofar as history is concerned, that person or even would be an absolute, irrefutable fact. No historian would look at 4 different documents written around the same time, two by eyewitnesses and two by friends of eyewitnesses, and disparage these documents or the events which they describe. If such a thing occurred, then all history would be build around those events or that person. Oh, wait a minute....all history is centered around that event and that Person. We divide our history into  b.c. and  a.d.; before Christ and in the year of our Lord. The central event of human history is Jesus Christ. I talk with people from all over the world, and, even though some celebrate the Chinese New Year or something along those lines, all of them recognize the new year which you and I recognize; all of them which I can recall get time off of their jobs in order to celebrate the new year that you and I celebrate; if you watch tv, and it goes around the world, you have New Year’s celebrations occurring throughout the world, including Asian countries where 90% of their citizens might be Buddhists; but, the celebration of the New Year that we celebrate is a witness to the event of Jesus Christ coming into history, coming to this earth, and in a 3 or 4 year ministry, making an impact so great, as to divide history in half. And, you know what is funny is, almost every nation in the world has a New Year’s celebration, and few if any of the revelers realize that they are celebrating the central event of human history, the life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. By the way, of course I am aware that there are other New Year’s celebrations at other times of the year in other countries; however, more countries celebrate New Years as per the Gregorian calendar than any other calendar.

Furthermore, if you were to ask anyone what is today’s date, the vast majority would give you today’s date and the year; a few might say, by which calendar; but most would simply give you the date that you expect to hear, and, more importantly, the year that you expect to hear. God is like that: God makes His presence known in a number of fundamental ways. For instance, do you know what was the book which sold the most copies last month? It was the Bible. How about the month before that? Which book sold the most copies? The Bible. And the month before that and the month before that, going back to the beginning of the printing press. The Bible has outsold every single book that has every been written and continues to do so every single month. If the bestseller list wanted to be honest, you’d see the Bible at the top of the list month after month, year after year. That’s a given. God can get His Word out.

Another example: how many days are in a week? Where do you think that came from? In China, how many days are in that week? In Thailand, how many days are in that week? In Iran, how many days are in a week in Iran? Man has marked time with 7 days from the beginning of time. Hindus, Moslems, Jews and Christians are recognize a 7 day week. A 7 day week was observed in ancient Babylon. When the Japanese first came into contact with Europeans in the 19^th century, they were surprised that even their names for the days of the week corresponded with one another. Now, of course, you will hear a myriad of reasons why people and cultures besides Jews and Christians decided upon a 7 day week, because, even though this is almost universally observed, no one is going to say, “Well, God restored the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7^th, and so ordered man; and that is the basis for all 7-day weeks.” It is much more logical for man to have a 6 day week (considered to be a perfect number, because the sum of its divisors is 6); or a 5-day week (divides evenly into 365); or an anything but 7-day week (since all numbers between 1 and 10 divide evenly into 360—except for 7); but, for the most part, throughout the world, we have 7-day weeks. Now, this does not mean that a 7-day week is universal; nor does it mean that such a week has always existed in history (Mayas, Persians, and Malaysians, for instance, historically have had weeks of something other than 7 days). However, for the most part, a 7-day week is the most universal and the most pervasive. It should be amazing that, a little nation like Israel, destroyed and dispersed on several occasions; and a sect known as Christianity should become so pervasive as to establish the 7-day week almost universally, but that is God’s way. God often chooses to make these so obvious and place them so prominently before us that, it is difficult to deny them, except under the principle of negative volition.

Now, back to the Scripture at hand: the Levites should also have known what to do here. Some of them should have known how to move the Ark and this should have been pointed out to a Levite elder, who should have pointed this out to one of the priests, who should have pointed it out to David (or something along these lines). My point is, there is really no excuse here. We will find out that the poles are with the Ark; Levites are there in this crowed; probably Abiathar is here in this crowd; someone in this congregation should have known how to move the Ark and this information should have been passed along. This did not happen.

Application: In the United States, we have thousands of churches, and thousands of church members. This is meaningless if we have believers without any doctrine in their souls. It is a fairly simple thing to move the Ark from point A to point B. You get 4 Levites; each one grabs a corner of the pole, and they walk. The Christian life is simple, in many ways; the fundamentals are simple; but, without these fundamentals, believers flounder. My people perish for lack of knowledge. I recall Thieme, over and over, talking about the pivot (believers who are mature within a country), and how important they are to the survival of a nation. As I vew the nation and where we are today, and how precipitous our situation is, it is clear that God’s grace is what keeps us alive and prosperous.

Translation: ...and they will be gathered to us. David has gathered his top military aides, but I don’t think that this is the 30,000 spoken of in 2Sam. 6; when they spread out across the land and contact the people of Israel, including the Levites and priests, about 30,000 will respond. Now, even though I questioned the actual number here as being too small of a gathering, realize that, for the most part, none of these people necessarily even knew about the Ark. Since it had not been used for 50–100 years, and since it was always hidden during the worship service at the Tabernacle, and since it is questionable whether any Tabernacle worship had taken place in the past 50 or so years, it should not seem odd that such a small number show up for the moving of the Ark.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And let us bring round an Ark of Elohim unto us, for we did not seek him in days of Saul.”

Septuagint                              And let us bring over to us the ark of our God; for men [lit., they] have not enquired [about] it since the days of Saul.

Significant differences:           Although the first verb in the Greek appears to be somewhat different, this is not a verb that I have a definition for from my Koine dictionaries. Secondly, in the Hebrew, David says we did not seek Him, and in the Greek, it reads they did not seek Him (which, surprisingly, seems to make less sense). Again, the minor differences are insignificant.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         And let's bring the Chest of our God back--the Chest that was out of sight, out of mind during the days of Saul."

NJB                                        And then we will go and recover the ark of our God, for in the days of Saul we neglected to do it.’

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Then we'll bring back our God's ark, which we ignored while Saul was king."

HCSB                                     Then let us bring back the ark of our God, for we did not inquire of Him in Saul's days."

NIV                                         Let us bring the ark of our God back to us, for we did not inquire of it during the reign of Saul.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

MKJV                                     And let us bring again the ark of our God to us. For we did not inquire at it in the days of Saul.

Young's Updated LT              ...and we bring round the ark of our God unto us, for we sought Him not in the days of Saul.”

What is the gist of this verse? David suggests to the congregation that they bring the Ark into Jerusalem, and points out that they had not sought God (or the Ark?) since the days of Saul.

Translation: Therefore, let us bring the Ark of Elohim [back] to us,... This is sort of an odd verb, and I would have expected the common word for to bring. There is a circuit or a circular path generally involved with this verb, which probably indicates that they will go there and then bring the Ark back; however, by using this verb, David does not have to say, we will go there, as the circuitous route of the verb implies that.

David is speaking to his lead generals, continuing his proposal, which is essentially two-fold: they will first gather the people from all over the land and then they will bring the Ark of God into Jerusalem.

Translation: ...for we did not seek it during the time of Saul.” In worship, it would not be necessary, for some, to function without the Ark of God. It was hidden within the Holy of Holies and no one saw it ever (except for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement). However, the Ark of God is the heart and soul of the worship of God; without the Ark at the core of the worship service, there was no true worship of God. It symbolized the Divine Presence in Israel.

Application: Without Jesus in you, without God in you, your worship and your actions are meaningless. One of Satan’s lies is, everyone has a divine spark within them; and his corollary to that lie: look deep within you to find out what God wants you to do. Unless you are a believer in Jesus Christ, you do not have God, no matter how religious and how dedicated you are. We have the modern-day illustration of this in the radical Muslims, who will kill innocent women and children—including those who belong to their own way of thinking—in order to make political statements or religious sacrifices. Although they are an obvious illustration of this, all of those who subscribe to the various religions or various philosophies are the same—their worship, their actions and their dedication is empty without having believed in Jesus Christ (and then, for any action to have meaning, they must be filled with God the Holy Spirit).

During the entire reign of Saul, the heart and soul of Jehovah worship was ignored; the Ark was kept in Kiriath-jearim, and whatever happened on the religious front happened without the Ark. Although Saul’s crime of killing the priests of Nob was heinous; bear in mind that these priests did not seek out the Ark of God to complete their worship. They ignored—in fact, they forsook—the very heart and soul of Jehovah worship. God allowed only the youngest of these priests to survive, and perhaps this is because he had not become too screwed up by their traditions.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: During the reign of the late king, the ark had been left in culpable neglect. Consequently the people had, to a great extent, been careless about the ordinances of divine worship, or had contented themselves with offering sacrifices at Gibeon, without any thought of the ark, though it was the chief and most vital part of the tabernacle. The duty and advantages of this religious movement suggested by the king were apparent, and the proposal met with universal approval. Wesley makes almost the exact same comment: The ark was then neglected; and the generality of the people contented themselves with going to Gibeon and offering sacrifices there, not caring, though the ark, the soul of the tabernacle, was in another place.

I do want you to notice one thing about what David says here—he does not blame Saul. He does not make Saul out to be the scapegoat, even though Saul could be blamed for neglecting the Ark and later for wiping out the priests of Nob. David was alive at this time and the people he is speaking to were alive then; and no one sought the Ark of God. David does not blame mitigating factors; he does not blame others; he blames himself, and includes his audience for the same reason that he includes himself.

I need to add something extremely important: it takes more than sincerity to reinstate the worship of Jehovah Elohim into the culture of Israel. David is a believer in Jesus Christ already; he does not need to be evangelized. It is apparent that many who have been with David as a part of his army are also believers. However, their sincere desire to bring the Ark into Jerusalem is not going to be enough. One needs more than sincerity in the Christian life. By the end of this chapter, David’s sentiment, “Let us bring the Ark of our God back to us” will become “How can I ever bring the Ark of God to me?” (V. 12). Sincerity is never enough to power the Christian life.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so say all the assembly to do so for is pleasing the word in eyes of the people.

Septuagint                              And all the congregation said [that] they would do thus; for the saying was right in the eyes of all the people.

Significant differences:           Essentially no differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         The entire assembly of Israel agreed--everybody agreed that it was the right thing to do.

GNB (TEV)                            The people were pleased with the suggestion and agreed to it.

REB                                       With the approval of the whole nation the assembly resolved unanimously to do this.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

HCSB                                     Since the proposal seemed right to all the people, the whole assembly agreed to do it.

JPS (Tanakh)                         The entire assembly agreed to do so, for the proposal pleased all the people.

NIV                                         The whole assembly agreed to do this, because it seemed right to all the people.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       All the assembly agreed to do so, for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.

WEB                             All the assembly said that they would do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.

Young's Literal Translation     And all the assembly say to do so, for the thing is right in the eyes of all the people.

What is the gist of this verse? Those whom David gathered at first agreed to what he suggests; it seems like a correct approach to them.

Translation: The entire assembly agreed [lit., said]... David has proposed that they first gather people from all over, and then, secondly, to bring the Ark into Jerusalem. He apparently speaks to a group of men here, a large assembly of his ranking officers and princes (civil servants?). David gives them a chance to respond, and they are in agreement with his plan.

Translation: ...to do this [lit., thus]... The crowd to whom David spoke agrees that they should do what David suggests.

Translation: ...for the thing was pleasing in the eyes of the people. What David suggests is right in their opinion. Recall that, this is before we have gathered Levites and priests. This suggests that none of these men, including David, have carefully examined the Bible in order to determine what they should do, and David has not consulted the High Priest or the Ephod or a prophet (ala 2Sam. 2:1).

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so assembles David all Israel from Shihor-Egypt and as far as to an entrance of Hamath to bring the Ark of the Elohim from Kiriath-Jearim.

Peshitta                                  So David gathered all Israel together, from the river of Egypt even to the entrance of Ramath, to bring the ark of the Lord from Koriath-narin. Kiriath-narin is also found in the Peshitta in 1Sam. 7:1.

Septuagint                              So David assembled all Israel, from the borders of Egypt even to the entering in of Hemath, to bring in the ark of God from the city of Jarim.

Significant differences:           In the Greek, we have the borders of Egypt rather than the Shihor-Egypt. However, this is a reasonable substitution. The Latin agrees with the Hebrew; the Syriac has the river of Egypt instead.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       David gathered everyone from the Shihor River in Egypt to Lebo-Hamath in the north.

The Message                         So David gathered all Israel together, from Egypt's Pond of Horus in the southwest to the Pass of Hamath in the northeast, to go and get the Chest of God from Kiriath Jearim.

GNB (TEV)                            So David assembled the people of Israel from all over the country, from the Egyptian border in the south to Hamath Pass in the north, in order to bring the Covenant Box from Kiriath Jearim to Jerusalem.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         So David gathered all Israel from the Shihor River near Egypt to the border of Hamath in order to bring God's ark from Kiriath Jearim.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       So David assembled all Israel from the Nile of Egypt to Lebo-hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim.

WEB                                      So David assembled all Israel together, from the Shihor the brook of Egypt even to the entrance of Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath Jearim.

Young’s Updated LT             And David assembles all Israel from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering in of Hamath, to bring in the ark of God from Kirjath-Jearim.

What is the gist of this verse? David gathers Israelites from the far south to the far north, with the intent of bringing the Ark out of Kiriath-jearim.

Translation: David assembled all Israel... David had first spoken to a large group of his generals; and they fanned out into the land of Israel and gathered 30,000 Israelites. These are the ones David assembles, and this is also mentioned back in 2Sam. 6:1: David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. We have previously discussed this figure in this chapter, and although it seems small for all Israel, that amount would have been too large to describe his captains and princes.

All Israel refers to all of those who gathered in Jerusalem when David summoned them. Although we do not know the population of Israel, I think it is reasonable to assume that there were significantly more than 30,000.

Translation: ...from Shihor–Egypt... The Bible has already identified where Shihor is: Shihor...is east of Egypt, northward to the boundary of Ekron... (Joshua 13:3b). Ekron is not that far south; Gaza is much father south along the coast, and Ashkelon is further south down the coast. However, Ekron, in the text of Joshua, is not identifying where Shihor is (as does east of Egypt) but it describes a boundary on which one side is Israel and on the other side is Israel’s enemies. So, Joshua is essentially drawing a line throughout Israel to indicate what had not been conquered yet. Shihor is incidentally positioned by Joshua’s text. It is essentially the southernmost area which separates Israel from non–Israel. There are some lakes northeast of Egypt and one is named Shihor (on my MacMillan Bible Atlas); and Wikipedia identifies Shihor–Egypt with the Brook of Egypt. Many suggest that Shihor is a canal off the Nile (or possibly a tributary). Even though we are unable to determine exactly which river could be considered Shihor–Egypt, we are most certainly speaking of the southernmost border of Judah. We find Shihor–Egypt also mentioned in Num. 34:5 Joshua 15:4, 47 1Kings 4:29 (Sihor) 8:65 2Kings 24:7 2Chron. 7:8 Jer. 2:18 (Sihor).

You may recall that phrase which is used the most often in Scripture is from Dan to Beersheba. Whether this is an alternate phrase or whether this emphasizes just how far and wide David’s men went is a matter of opinion. However, it appears that David’s description actually takes in more land.

Translation: ...to the entrance of Hamath [or, Lebo-Hamath]... The entrance of Hamath is the northern border of Israel under David and Solomon. Like Shihor above, the exact location of the entrance of Hamath is unknown.

There are some who are willing to give their opinion of course; Barnes writes: The southern approach to Hamath from the plain of Coele-Syria, lay between those two ranges of Lebanon called Libanus and Antilibanus. A low screen of hills connects the northernmost points of these two ranges; and through this screen the Orontes bursts from the upper Coele-Syrian hollow into the open plain of ramath [and, is therefore call Lebo-Hamath]. ZPEB is in agreement with this general location, calling the mountain ranges the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. ZPEB suggests the lower part of the Valley of On where there is a road to Hamath.

We find this same phrase used in 1Kings 8:65, when Solomon brings the Ark into the Temple, and he celebrates this with all Israel who have assembled from the entrance of Hamath [or, Lebo-Hamath] to the brook of Egypt before the Lord our God. Now would be a good time to examine the Doctrine of Lebo-Hamath; a summary is provided below:

Since many will not go to this specific doctrine, let me briefly cover it in a few points:
A Summary of the Doctrine of Lebo-Hamath
There is a valley which runs between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountains which are due north of Israel. At the southern portion of this valley, we have Lebo-Hamath, which literally means to an entering of Hamath or the entrance of Hamath. It is not a city, but a geographical area, marking the northernmost portion of Israel (at least, under David, Solomon and Jeroboam II), and the southernmost portion of Hamath, a country which surrounds the Orontes River and has the capital city Hamath, which was build on both sides of the Orontes. Interestingly enough, Lebo-Hamath is mentioned several times before Hamath is mentioned in the Bible (Lebo-hamath is first mentioned in Num. 13:21; Hamath is not mentioned until 2Kings 8:9).
The two mountain ranges in the north are the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges. The southern portion of the valley between these two ranges is known as Lebo-Hamath. The southernmost lake above is the Sea of Galilee. The picture is taken from: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/hydrography/E30N40s.jpg

Translation: ...to bring the Ark of Elohim out of Kiriath-Jearim. As we are well-aware, when the Ark was taken out of the Tabernacle originally, and into battle, then into Palestine, it was returned to the Israelites, and, because many died by treating the Ark as trivial, it did not go back to the Tabernacle, but was placed in the care of Eleazar and his family in Kiriath-Jearim.

The Ark is Moved Amid Great Celebration

2Samuel 6:2–5

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                          And David went up with all the men of Israel to the hill of Cariathiarim which is in Juda, to bring thence the ark of the Lord God sitting upon the cherubim, where his name is called upon.

Masoretic Text                       And so goes up David and all Israel Baalah-ward unto Kiriath-Jearim which [is] to Judah, to bring up from here an Ark of the Elohim, Y^ehowah dwelling the cherubim, which is called a name.

Peshitta                                  And David went up, and all Israel, to Kiriath-narin, which belong to the tribe of Judah, to bring up from there the Ark of the Lord God Who dwells upon the high cherubim, which are known by His name.

Septuagint                              And David brought it up: and all Israel went up to the city of David, which belonged to Juda, to bring up from there the ark of the Lord God sitting upon [or, opposite] the cherubim, where His name is called.

Significant differences:           The Peshitta does not mention Baalah; the Greek and Latin do not mention Baalah or Kiriath-jearim. In the LXX, they all go up to the city of David, presumably to gather and then leave from there to Kiriath-jearim.

The Latin, Greek and Syriac all have the Lord God rather than God Lord, the latter of which is an unusual order to place these words, and suggests that we are beginning a new thought, although there is no intervening wâw consecutive or wâw conjunction. I suspect that the translators of these ancient texts has problems with the Hebrew text, and attempted to make a reasonable translation without doing to much damage to the original text which they had (at least in the 2^nd half of the verse). I do not know what happened in the first half of this verse, other than the text was corrupt.

We have His Name in the Greek, Latin and Syriac; and it is unusual for these 3 to agree and be out of step with the Hebrew.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Then he led them to Baalah in Judah, which was also called Kiriath-Jearim. They went there to get the sacred chest and bring it to Jerusalem, because it belonged to the LORD God, whose throne is above the winged creatures on the lid of the chest.

The Message                         Then David and all Israel went to Baalah (Kiriath Jearim) in Judah to bring back the Chest of God, the "Cherubim-Throne-of-GOD," where GOD's Name is invoked.

GNB (TEV)                            David and the people went to the city of Baalah, that is, to Kiriath Jearim, in the territory of Judah, to get the Covenant Box of God, which bears the name of the LORD enthroned above the winged creatures.

NJB                                        David and all Israel then went up to Baalah, to Kiriath-jearim in Judah, from there to bring up the ark of God, which bears the title ‘Yahweh enthroned on the winged creatures’.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David and all Israel went to Baalah in Kiriath Jearim, which is in Judah, to bring God's ark to Jerusalem. (The LORD is enthroned over the angels on the ark where his name is used.)

HCSB                                     David and all Israel went to Baalah (that is, Kiriath-jearim), which belongs to Judah, to take from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD who dwells between the cherubim.

JPS (Tanakh)                         Then David and all Israel went to Baalah of Juda (also called Kiriath-jearim) to bring back the Ark of God, which bears the name o the Lord who is enthroned between the cherubim.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       And David and all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim that belongs to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD who sits enthroned above the cherubim.

Young’s Updated LT             And David goes up, and all Israel, to Baalah, unto Kirjath-Jearim that is to Judah, to bring up there the ark of God Jehovah, inhabiting the cherubs, where the Name is called on.

What is the gist of this verse? David and all Israel go up to Baalah, which is apparently another name fr Kiriath-jearim, in Judah, for the purpose of transporting the Ark of God to Jerusalem. The end of this verse is a little clunky, and it seems to indicate that Jehovah dwells upon (within?) the Ark, where the cherubs are sitting, and where His name is called.

Translation: David and all Israel went up to Baalah,... You may recall the great discussion back in 2Sam. 6:2, about whether Baale-Judah was equivalent to Kiriath-jearim; and this verse seems to confirm that: And David and all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim that belongs to Judah... However, one problem is, Balle is not the same as Baalah; and, the second problem is, none of the ancient texts agree with the Masoretic text at this point, casting great doubt upon the MT, as the Latin and Syriac are almost always in agreement with the Hebrew. What is clear is, Kiriath-jearim is equivalent to Kiriath-Baal (Joshua 15:60 18:14) and it is equivalent to Baalah (Joshua 15:9). However, whether Baalah is actually found here or not is debatable; it is clearly found in the MT, but why is it not found in the parallel ancient texts? Did someone Baalah because of 2Sam. 6:2 or some other passage where Baalah is found? Is this Hebrew text accurate, but not available to the translators of the Greek, Latin or Syriac? In any case, no matter what difficulties exist with this short portion of text and with its parallel passage, Joshua 15:9 clearly identifies Baalah with Kiriath-jearim.

Translation: ...to Kiriath-jearim (which [is] in Judah),... Although I added to text is, the relative pronoun often requires that addition. Kiriath-jearim is fairly close to Jerusalem. The transport is thought, by David, to be one that should be easy. However, because David does not follow God’s Word, the movement of the Ark will be fraught with problems.

Application: When you do the right thing in a wrong way, you can end up with a big mess on your hands, and you will not have any clue as to what happened. Have you ever met a believer who was incredibly disappointed or kept saying (or thinking) why me? He might even be able to list the things which he has done for God (or, maybe he thinks that would be too proud, but he can certainly think of the things which he has done). It is quite simple: you must do a right thing in a right way. The biggest problem with most believers is they spend their entire Christian lives out of fellowship. What they do is, they imitate moral unbelievers, and if they do a really good job of this, believers around them think that they are fantastic and want to emulate them. You must know rebound; you must periodically name your sins to God, and how you feel is not an issue.

In the book of Samuel, we have a complete explanation as how the Ark came to be in Kirath-jearim; we have no such explanation here in the book of Chronicles. I am assuming that the writer of Chronicles is familiar with the back-story here, as he appears to have used the book of Samuel, as well as other documents, in order to write this book. Given the slant of this book—Chronicles appears to be God’s viewpoint of history—human failures are often left out of the picture. So, where we find in-depth, good and bad in Samuel; we don’t find that approach nearly as often in Chronicles. So, I don’t think that the writer of Chronicles assumes that everyone knows why the Ark is in Kiriath-jearim; it just is a detail unimportant to his presentation.

Now, bearing this in mind, 1Chron. 13 is also a failed attempt at moving the Ark. So, as I said, human failures are often left out of the picture; but not always.

Translation: ...to bring up from there the Ark of Elohim,... The infinitive gives David’s purpose; he intended to bring the Ark of God from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem. However, he did not do this as God had instructed him, and, therefore, there will be problems.

Translation:...[whereupon is] Y^ehowah, sitting [between] the cherubim,... Again, we have textual problems. It is common to find the phrase Y^ehowah Elohim in Scripture; it is not common to find Elohim Y^ehowah. This would suggest that we are beginning a new thought, but new thoughts are generally preceded by a wâw consecutive or a wâw conjunction; even a preposition here would be nice. We have the Qal active participle of to inhabit, to dwell, to sit; and it is unclear whether this refers to the two cherubim on both sides of the Mercy Seat; or whether this refers to Jesus Christ, the 2^nd member of the Trinity, the revealed member of the Trinity. All of the other ancient texts reverse the names for God; and what follows seems to be a little more natural. The other texts often include prepositions, so that Jehovah Elohim is dwelling between or opposite the cherubim. So, again, there is a problem with the text. Since this text matches so closely with 2Sam. 6:2, we will compare them side-by-side at this end of this verse. What we have here is, the Ark is being identified in some detail, as it had not been used for a long time (50–100 years).

Translation: ...which [Ark] is called [by His] name [or, Who is proclaimed there (i.e., between the cherubim)]. I think again, the text is a little messed up; but the basic idea is, the Ark of God was closely identified with God’s character. At the time that this was written, they may not have understood all the implications of the Ark, but we do.

There are two understandings of this portion of v. 6, depending upon the translation. People did not go to the Ark as if it were God, as people had no access to the Ark; in fact, no one did, except for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. Therefore, worship service at the Tabernacle, if it is still ongoing at this time, does not really function any differently with or without the Ark.

Application: This is a significant concept, as many churches who have congregations made up of non-Christians can appear to function as good or better than congregations with Christians. To the casual observer, there may not appear to be any difference in the function of two churches; in fact, the one without believers in the congregation might be more socially active, and therefore appeal even more to the casual observer. The worship at the Tabernacle, if it is occurring at this time, lacks the heart and soul of the Tabernacle—the Ark of God—it is like the empty worship of a congregation of unbelievers.

The other interpretation is based upon the other possible translation: David and all Israel went up to Baalah, to Kiriath-jearim (which [is] in Judah), to bring up from there the Ark of Elohim, [whereupon is] Y^ehowah, sitting [between] the cherubim, Who is proclaimed there (i.e., between the cherubim). Jehovah, in a sense, is sitting between the cherubim, on the Mercy Seat, as the Ark speaks directly of Jesus Christ. The Ark proclaims Jesus Christ. Whereas, the Ark of God is not an idol—it is not a thing to be worshiped—it speaks of Him; it proclaims Him. I think that this is probably the better sense of this verse. Since the Ark proclaims our Lord, we should find evidence of this. In Isa. 37:16, we read: O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; You have made heaven and earth (see also Ex. 25:22 Psalm 80:1). Theologically, this all holds together. The Mercy Seat, between the cherubim, where the High Priest sprinkled blood once a year, is where God meets man. This speaks of the cross; this speaks of Jesus Christ. We cannot go straight to God; we cannot have direct contact with God. The key is, we must go through the Mercy Seat. The Mercy Seat, between the cherubim, there God is proclaimed. There we have God’s love, God’s mercy, God’s righteousness and God’s justice all proclaimed, as well as God’s plan as observed by the angels of God (the cherubim).

One translation of v. 6 is: David and all Israel went up to Baalah, to Kiriath-jearim (which [is] in Judah), to bring up from there the Ark of Elohim, [whereupon is] Y^ehowah, sitting [between] the cherubim, which [Ark] is called [by His] name. As pointed out, God does not sit between the cherubim, nor does He well there specifically, as the god behind an idol is supposed to, but it is at the Ark, between the cherubim, upon the Mercy Seat, where God meets man. It is by His blood upon the Mercy Seat that man is able to have any contact with God. And to those in the Old Testament, exactly what that means, is hidden, until revealed to them by God the Holy Spirit. The even of Christ going to the cross is hidden from them, as it had not occurred in history. This is why the Ark was supposed to remain within the Holy of Holies. In this particular understanding, the Ark is clearly associated with the name (reputation) of God.

Another way of rendering this verse is: David and all Israel went up to Baalah, to Kiriath-jearim (which [is] in Judah), to bring up from there the Ark of Elohim, [whereupon is] Y^ehowah, sitting [between] the cherubim, Who is proclaimed there (i.e., between the cherubim). This second understanding of the verse, which requires fewer added words, still has God dwelling between the cherubim, with the same meaning: God meets mankind at the Mercy Seat; it is the only place where God can have contact with sinful man. Secondly, it is God Who is proclaimed there, between the cherubim; God is made known to mankind there, at the Mercy Seat of the Ark.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                          And they carried the ark of God upon a new cart out of the house of Abinadab. And Oza and his brother drove the cart.

Masoretic Text                       And so they cause to ride an Ark of the Elohim upon a cart new from a house of Abinadab and Uzzah and Ahio were leading in the cart.

Septuagint                              And they set the ark of God on a new wagon out of the house of Aminadab: and Oza and his brethren drove the wagon.

Significant differences:           In the Greek and the Syriac, Uzzah and his brothers move the cart; in the Latin, it is his brother; and his brother is named in the MT. The reason for these differences is, Ahio in the Hebrew means brotherly; therefore, the Latin, Greek and Syriac translated this word instead of transliterating it. These differences have no affect whatsoever upon any doctrine.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The sacred chest was still at Abinadab's house, and when David and the crowd arrived there, they brought the chest outside and placed it on a new ox cart. Abinadab's sons Uzzah and Ahio guided the cart...

The Message                         They moved the Chest of God on a brand-new cart from the house of Abinadab with Uzzah and Ahio in charge.

GNB (TEV)                            At Abinadab's house they brought out the Covenant Box and put it on a new cart. Uzzah and Ahio guided the cart,...

NAB                                       They transported the ark of God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab; Uzzah and Ahio were guiding the cart,...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David and his men put God's ark on a new cart from Abinadab's home. Uzzah and Ahio guided the cart.

HCSB                                     At Abinadab's house, they set the ark of God on a new cart. Uzzah and Ahio were guiding the cart.

NIV                                         They moved the ark of God from Abinadab’s house on a new cart with Uzzah and Ahio guiding it.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

LTHB                                     And they made the ark of God to ride on a new cart from the house of Abinadab. And Uzza and Ahio were leading the cart.

WEB                                      They carried the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart.

Young's Updated LT              And they place the ark of God on a new cart, from the house of Abinadab, and Uzza and Ahio are leading the cart.

What is the gist of this verse? The Ark of God was placed upon a new cart outside the house of Abinadab, and Uzzah and Ahio guide the cart away from the house.