The Shepherd’s Shepherd (I Chronicles 27:31)

Who had charge of David’s flocks? Jaziz the Hagerite (I Chronicles 27:31)

First Chronicles archives David’s reign over Israel’s united kingdom in the 10th century BCE. After filling its first nine chapters with genealogies and lists (I Chronicles 1:1-9:44), the narrative devotes a scant fourteen verses to David’s predecessor, Saul, and then only to focus on his death (I Chronicles 10:1-14). The remainder of the book is concerned with documenting David’s monarchy, remembered as a Golden Age (I Chronicles 11:1–28:30). Fittingly, the book concludes with David’s death (I Chronicles 29:28-30).

First Chronicles’ twenty-seventh chapter catalogs David’s administration: army commanders (I Chronicles 27:1-15), chief tribal officers (I Chronicles 27:16-24), various overseers (I Chronicles 27:25-31) and counselors (I Chronicles 27:32-34).

The Chronicler lists eleven overseers (I Chronicles 27:25-31). Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) encapsulates:

The list of David’s administrators of crown property is generally recognized as historically reliable. It is arranged in three groups, according to storage places in the capital (implicitly) and in the country (I Chronicles 27:25), agriculture and agricultural products (I Chronicles 27:26-28), and livestock (I Chronicles 27:29-31a). A descriptive summary in I Chronicles 27:31b concludes the list. The royal property was spread out throughout the united kingdom, as I Chronicles 27:28-29 attests. The list illustrates David’s riches (I Chronicles 29:28), painting a beautiful picture of God’s blessing on the land and a nostalgic ideal that implicitly included economic and political hopes for full restoration. (The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume III: 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, Judith, 457)

The last of the overseers listed is Jaziz the Hagrite (I Chronicles 27:31).

Jaziz the Hagrite had charge of the flocks. All these were overseers of the property which belonged to King David. (I Chronicles 27:31 NASB)

Though the notation regarding Jaziz occupies I Chronicles 27:31 in many translations (HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV,NKJV, NLT) it is also chronicled as verse 30 in others (ASV, CEV, ESV, NRSV, RSV).

Many possibilties have been offered regarding the meaning of Jaziz’s name. “Whom God Moves” (Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm Gesenius [1786-1842]), “Brightness, Departing” (Roswell Dwight Hitchcock [1817-1887]), “Shining or He Me Moves About” (Herbert Lockyer, Sr. [1886-1984]) and “He Will Make Prominent” (David Mandel [b. 1938]) have all been suggested.

Missionary Amy Carmichael (1867-1951) imagines:

Jaziz had a beautiful name —Shining. No dullness, no heavy-heartedness as he tended the flocks. God make us all to be Jazizes—happy shepherds, shining shepherds. (Carmichael, Whispers of His Power: Selections for Daily Readings, 188)

Most contemporary scholars admit that the name’s meaning is uncertain. Sara Japhet (b. 1934) conjectures:

The name of the Ishmaelite [I Chronicles 27:30] is most probably a Hebraized form of the Arabic Wabil (cf. Walter Baumgartner [1887-1970], 20) and the same probably holds true for the unique Jaziz of the Hagrites. (Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library, 478)

Jaziz is identified as a Hagrite (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV RSV) which the King James Version immortalizes with the alternate spelling “Hagerite”. Though hardly definitive, some have seen an etymological connection to Abraham’s concubine, Hagar (Genesis 16:1). As such, Jaziz has been associated with his predecessor in the list of overseers, Obil the Ishmaelite (I Chronicles 27:30).

Roddy Braun (b. 1935) notes:

The presence among the officials named in this of David’s officials of the Ishmaelite Obil, whose name means “camel driver,” and the Hagrite Jaziz, both of whom are associated with the Arabian territories to the south of Judah, has been taken by some (e.g., Wilhelm Rudolph [1891-1987], H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947]) to point to the early nature of the list. (Braun, 1 Chronicles (Word Biblical Commentary), 263)

Sara Japhet (b. 1934) identifies:

The former inhabitants of the conquered area are designated Hagrites – the descendants of Hagar. The main allusions to this Arabian group are found in Chronicles: in this chapter [I Chronicles 5:1-16]...and in David’s administration: Jaziz the Hagrite is ‘over the flocks’ (I Chronicles 27:31), and Mibhar the son of Hagri is one of David’s warriors (I Chronicles 11:38; in II Samuel 23:36, Bani the Gadite. As a people they are mentioned only once more, in Psalm 83:6 (Masoretic Text 83:7), which appropriately numbers them with Edom, Ishmaelites and Moab. They are absent, however, from the main traditions of the Pentateuch describing Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness, and are represented in the traditions of Genesis by Hagar, Sarah’s maid and Abraham’s concubine, who, throughout the narrative, retains eponymic characteristics. (Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library, 135-36)

Edwin C. Hostetter (b. 1957) describes the Hagrites as:

A pastoralist tribe residing in the region East of Gilead. Psalm 83:6...enumerates Hagrites among other Transjordan enemies of Israel from the preexilic era. In the time of King Saul the Hebrew tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half-Manasseh took control of Hagrite territory (I Chronicles 5:18-22). King David seems to have won the loyalty of at least some of them, since he gave oversight of the royal flocks to Jaziz the Hagrite (I Chronicles 27:31). An ethnographic relationship between the Hagrites and the woman Hagar is uncertain (Baruch 3:23, “the children/descendants of Hagar”). (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Hagrites”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 541)

If Hagrites are descendants of Hagar and Ishmael, this would represent the inclusion of Arabs into Israel’s royal court. Tony Maalouf (b. 1955) observes:

During the united monarchy, Israel’s golden age of prosperity under the Lord, there is...evidence of positive relationships between the sons of Israel and the sons of Ishmael...David’s raids on the Negev during the reign of Saul did not involve the Ishmaelites. They were not listed among his victims, even though his raids “encroached upon their habitat, as is clear from I Samuel 27:8 and Genesis 25:18.” David’s sister was married to “Jether the Ishmaelite,” the father of Amasa who was to replace Joab as a later leader of Israel’s army (II Samuel 20:4-13; I Chronicles 2:17). Furthermore, among those who administrated “crown property” under David were “Obil the Ishmaelite” and “Jaziz thr Hagarite” (I Chronicles 27:30). (Maalouf, Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God’s Prophetic Plan for Ishmael’s Line, 118)

Jaziz is responsible for “the flocks” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV). The CEV relays that he oversees “sheep and goats” and the NLT combines these two phrases with “flocks of sheep and goats”.

This specification fits the Hebrew term, tsô‘n. The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament defines:

The basic meaning in all the Semitic dialects is “small livestock,” referring primarily to sheep and goats collectively in flocks or as possessions. Hence sō’n frequently parallels ‘ēder (Genesis 29:2-3; Jeremiah 13:20; Ezekiel 34:12, etc.) or is specified more closely by ‘ēder (Genesis 29:2; Joel 1:18; Micah 5:8) or miqneh (Genesis 26:14, 47:17; II Chronicles 33:29). The meaning “flock,” albeit as a metaphor, is emphatically supported by the construct expression sō’n ‘ādām (Ezekiel 36:38). (G. Johannes Botterweck [1917-1981], Helmer Ringgren [1917-2012] and Heinz-Josef Fabry [b. 1944], Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume XII, 198)

It is fitting that a Hagrite would oversee the flocks (I Chronicles 27:31) as shepherding was synonymous with the region. Merrill F. Unger (1909-1980) identifies Jaziz as:

A Hagrite and overseer of David’s flocks (I Chronicles 27:31), which were probably pastured east of Jordan where the forefathers of Jaziz had lived for ages (cf. vv. 19-22). (Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary).

A modern parallel to selecting Jaziz for this task might be naming a representative from Idaho as secretary of Potatoes.

The name “Hagrite” may actually designate a trade as opposed to an ethnicity. Roger Syrén considers:

‘Ishmaelites’ in the Old Testament, although formally a gentilic adjective, may not refer to any identifiable tribe at all. It is important to note that the Assyrian sources do not mention any ethnic group by the name of Ishmael (cf. Israel Eph‘al [b. 1933], The Ancient Arabs, pp. 166-68). In the Old Testament the term may imply socio-economically distinct, rather than racially related groups. So it seems when it appears in Genesis 37:5 and I Chronicles 27:30 referring to tradesmen and camel-breeders. In the latter usage, the Chronicler states that an ‘Ishmaelite’ and a ‘Hagrite’ were officers at King David’s court. While the other people on the list are identified by the name of their father, or alternatively, by a gentilic name indicating where they came from, the term ‘the Ishmaelite’ for Obil (over the camels) and ‘the Hagrite’ for Jaziz (over small cattle) do not follow any such pattern. It is possible, therefore, that these terms were chosen because of the particular tasks assigned to these persons. Along similar lines see E.A. Knauf [b. 1953], Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im I Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästinavereins; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2nd edition, 1989), pp. 13-14. (Syrén, The Forsaken First Born: A Study of Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives, 27)

Assigning Jaziz this task plays to his strengths. He is either from a region known for shepherding or is so adept in this field that he is given the name “Hagrite” to indicate his proficiency. He is the right man for the job.

Is it significant that David crosses ethnic lines in appointing Jaziz the Hagrite (I Chronicles 27:31)? What facets of a person’s background would preclude you from hiring them? What geographic regions are synonymous with a particular profession? What are your strengths? Should you play to your strengths or improve your weaknesses? What do you oversee for your King, Jesus?

For most modern commentators, Jaziz does not merit comment. He is a mere name, nationality and occupation treated little more than a random name, rank and serial number. No stories pertaining to him are relayed in the Bible. In fact, his name appears only in this one isolated verse (I Chronicles 27:31).

Jaziz is remembered because he is part of David’s court, the most revered monarchy in the nation’s history. His legacy is as a member of an extraordinary team. Jaziz is a relic of a Golden Age, an era when the kingdom was united and times were good. The fact that his position exists is a sign of this prosperity.

Clyde T. Francisco (1916-1981) remarks:

The Chronicler presents a list (I Chronicles 27:25-31) of the officers who supervised the king’s crown property. Because David apparently had no direct taxation, he had acquired considerable personal property from which he derived the income that supported the life of his court. This included everything from farming to camel caravans. If crown properties had become so extensive during this one reign, one can imagine how later kings added to their possessions as time went by. This is one reason why Ezekiel recommended that the prince be given an allotted portion which he could not enlarge (Ezekiel 46:16-18). (Francisco, 1 Samuel - Nehemiah (The Broadman Bible Commentary), 356)

Jaziz is responsible for a significant portion of the kingdom’s assets. The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament recounts:

The sō’n [“flocks”] played an important role in the economy of the royal sphere...According to I Samuel 8:17, the king could claim a tenth of all flocks, and according to I Kings 4:23, Solomon’s court also required “ten fat oxen, twenty pasture-fed cattle, and one hundred sheep.” It is especially in connection with the temple and cultic celebrations that the Old Testament attests the use of extremely high quantities of both large and small livestock (I Kings 8:63; II Chronicles 7:5, 29:33, 30:24), part of which came from the king’s own possessions (mērekûs, II Chronicles 35:7). Hence in its list of civic officials in charge of the royal Davidic property, I Chronicles 27:31 specifically mentions a certain Hagrite by the name of Jaziz who was in charge of the flocks. (G. Johannes Botterweck [1917-1981], Helmer Ringgren [1917-2012] and Heinz-Josef Fabry [b. 1944], Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume XII, 202)

Though often overlooked by modern interpreters, Jaziz and his position are important. In addition to its economic impact, his task may have had a sentimental place in the king’s heart as David himself had been a shepherd (I Samuel 16:11, 17:15). Jaziz is selected for his position not only by the king but also by a peer. Jaziz is the shepherd’s shepherd.

How important is Jaziz’s job? What period in your life represents your golden age? Do you look upon the people in those times with special fondness? Are your past successes cause for hope or lament? Of the groups you have been involved with, which was the best team? Would you rather be the worst player on the best team or the best player on the worst team? When have you been recognized by your peers? Was this more meaningful than acclaim from others?

“Without a shepherd, sheep are not a flock” - Russian Proverb

Hushai: First Friend (I Chronicles 27:33)

In David’s time, what was Hushai the Archite called? The king’s friend (I Chronicles 27:33)

I Chronicles 27 catalogs the leading Israelites of David’s era (I Chronicles 27:1-34). The chapter inventories military officers (I Chronicles 27:1-14), tribal leaders (I Chronicles 27:16-24) and the king’s court (I Chronicles 27:25-34). The final list offers a retrospective glimpse into David’s royal cabinet (I Chronicles 27:25-34).

The names at the end of the index are familiar to readers of II Samuel ( I Chronicles 27:33-34). Two officials who figured prominently in Absalom’s revolt are listed side by side in David’s court (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Athithophel, the royal counselor who sided with David’s son in his failed coup d’état, is listed with Hushai, an advisor who remained loyal to David. Traitorous Athithophel is described as a “counselor” while Hushai is remembered simply as “the king’s friend” (I Chronicles 27:33).

Ahithophel was counselor to the king; and Hushai the Archite was the king’s friend. (I Chronicles 27:33 NASB)

The term “Archite” connects Hushai with a clan that settled near Ataroth, on the border between Ephraim and Benjamin (Joshua 16:2-3). It is presumed that “Hushai” is a diminutive form of Ahishai (also Ahushai).

Hushai’s designation is conspicuous amidst the compendium of official titles. He is labeled by the Hebrew word rea`. The word is common but this marks the only time it is used in I Chronicles. It means “friend, companion, fellow, another person” and as such is translated “friend” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “companion” (KJV, NKJV), “advisor” (CEV) and “confidant” (NIV). There are certainly worse descriptors.

The epithet, however, is not merely descriptive. Sara Japhet (b. 1934) relays, “Athithophel and Hushai are mentioned together, the first as counsellor and the second as ‘friend’. The last term for some time has been interpreted as a title, rather than a simple noun (Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 479).”

Simon John De Vries (b. 1921) relays the position as “a kind of chief executive (De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Volume XI), 214).”

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) concurs:

Hushai remained loyal to David as a political adviser, and he is here called “the king’s friend” (I Chronicles 27:33; cf. II Samuel 15:37, 16:16). This expression is probably a formal title for a trusted sage; the position has parallels in the Egyptian royal court. (Hill, 1 & 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 321)

It is fitting that Hushai is juxtaposed with Athithophel. The two were on opposite sides of the most significant threat to David’s monarchy, the revolt from the king’s son, Absalom (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Athithophel joined Absalom but Hushai remained loyal to David. The Archite attempted to join the deposed king in exile but at David’s request, Hushai remained in Jerusalem and offered himself to Abasalom as an advisor (II Samuel 15:32-37). Though both Athtithophel and Hushai appeared to be aiding Absalom’s uprising, Hushai was actually working as a double agent. In addition to relaying information to David, Hushai countered Athtithophel’s counsel with intentionally bad advice (II Samuel 17:5-29). The dueling counselors functioned in much the way a competing angel and devil do in cartoon bubbles. Fortunately for David, Absalom listened to the wrong voice. When Ahithophel proposed an attack, Hushai convinced Abasalom to delay, buying David time to escape (II Samuel 17:1-16, 22).

Steven Shawn Tuell (b. 1956) analyzes:

The revolt fails in large measure because Hushai...pretending to go over to Absalom’s side, counters Athithophel’s wise counsel with bad advice (II Samuel 15:32-37, 17:5-14). Athithophel, seeing his counsel rejected and knowing Absalom’s case is doomed, commits suicide (II Samuel 17:23). (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 106)

Despite being a notorious traitor, Chronicles makes no mention of Athithophel’s disloyalty. Paul K. Hooker (b. 1953) writes:

Because he omits all discussion of the revolt of David’s son Absalom, the Chronicler masks the roles played by these two characters in those events (II Samuel 15:32-37, 17:5-14). In the present list, Athithophel and Hushai are listed alongside one another, as if none of the events of Absalom’s revolt had occurred and both had rendered valuable service to David. (Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (Westminster Bible Companion), 106)

John Mark Hicks (b. 1957) counters:

The Chronicler assumes a knowledge of political intrigues without commenting on them. His only hint is that Athithophel was succeeded by Jehoiada son of Benaiah and by Abiathar. He does not say why Athithophel was replaced, but he assumes his readers know the story. (Hicks, 1 & 2 Chronicles (The College Press NIV Commentary), 237-38)

Were you offered any position in the royal court, what would you choose? What is the worst advice someone has ever given you? When two equally credible advisors offer conflicting guidance, how do you decide which you will follow? Why does the chronicler omit Athithophel’s betrayal? Who has betrayed you? Did his loyalty during David’s time of need merit Hushai the moniker “the king’s friend”?

Hushai is known as “David’s friend” prior to Absalom’s revolt (II Samuel 15:37, 16:17) but his relationship with the king likely deepened during the crisis (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Although Hushai is never mentioned again in Scripture, one of the Solomon’s prefects, Baana son of Hushai, is likely his son (I Kings 4:16).

Hushai was not only a royal advisor but also a friend of the monarch himself. In addition to their formal Cabinets, many United States presidents have had friends who served as informal advisors. Most famously, Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) listened to his crew of cronies and newspaper men so frequently that his opponents dubbed them his “kitchen cabinet”. Their importance was elevated when Jackson dismissed five of his eight Cabinet officials in the middle of his first term.

In contrast, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) filled some of his Cabinet positions with “enemies”. This revolutionary strategy is chronicled in Doris Kearns Goodwin (b. 1943)’s New York Times Best Seller Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.

Who has remained loyal to you through the worst times of your life? Were you a monarch, who would you designate to be your “friend”? Would you prefer to be advised by your friends or a team of rivals? Why?

“The antidote for fifty enemies is one friend.” - Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

Something For Nothing (I Chronicles 21:15)

Where did David see an angel with an unsheathed sword? By the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (I Chronicles 21:15)

Shortly after a pestilence in Jerusalem resulted in the deaths of 70,000 Israelites (I Chronicles 21:15), David saw an angel suspended over the city with its sword drawn ready to strike (I Chronicles 21:15-16). David successfully interceded for the people and God, through the priest Gad, instructed David to purchase the land beneath the angel to build an altar (I Chronicles 21:17-18). The land was the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, known in II Samuel as Araunah (II Samuel 24:16; I Chronicles 21:15).

The Jebusites were to Jerusalem what Native Americans are to the United States - they were the previous occupants prior to David taking the city (II Samuel 5:6-9). Evidently, David respected their property rights as he did not displace them, or as in the case of Ornan, exercise eminent domain when he wanted their property.

When Ornan realized the king desired his holdings, Ornan offered not only his land but also the implements needed for the offering (I Chronicles 21:23). David insisted he purchase the land stating, “I will surely buy it for the full price; for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, or offer a burnt offering which costs me nothing (I Chronicles 21:24 NASB).”

According to Samuel, David paid 50 silver shekels (II Samuel 24:24) while Chronicles names the selling price as 600 gold shekels (I Chronicles 21:25). The discrepancy has been explained by claiming that Samuel names the price for only the threshing floor while Chronicles adds the entire property and/or the materials for the sacrifice. Some Rabbinical sources reconcile the discrepancy by suggesting that David collected 50 silver shekels from all 12 tribes (600 total) and that the amount equated with 50 gold shekels (The Talmud on Zevahim 116b).

From either account, it is clear that David paid Ornan more than fair market value as he procured the land as God had instructed (I Chronicles 21:25). This land purchase would prove highly significant as Ornan’s threshing floor would be the future site of the temple (II Chronicles 3:1). As such, the land for the temple had been secured without bloodshed and the location had been selected by God.

What are some of the most important land acquisitions in history? Have you ever purchased a lot to build a house? Can the story of Ornan be used as a Biblical case study regarding eminent domain?

David’s eagerness to pay for the land and not simply take it demonstrates that he understood sacrifice. The king was correct to pay for Ornan’s land and not impose his will on his subject. Still, David’s claim accentuates how difficult it is to accept something one feels they have not deserved. As Americans say, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

This is worth remembering as Christianity is predicated upon accepting grace. As David illustrates, it is our inclination to want to feel as though we have earned what we have. The grace of Christ is not something that can be merited. Consequently, grace is often difficult to accept.

Have you accepted grace? Why? Why not?

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” - Ephesians 2:8, NASB

The King is Dead (I Chronicles 10:12)

How long did the men of Jabesh-gilead fast after Saul’s death? Seven days (I Chronicles 10:12)

Israel’s first king, Saul, and three of his sons died while battling the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (I Samuel 31:1-6; I Chronicles 10:1-6). Israel was numbed by the defeat and the disconsolate army retreated (I Samuel 31:7; I Chronicles 10:7). The death of the royal family would have been perceived as cataclysmic, equivalent to modern U.S. calamities like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The battle also marked a hapless end to a tragic life that began with vast potential (I Samuel 9:1-2).

As was military custom, the Philistine soldiers pillaged the carnage for spoils of war and while stripping the dead, they found Saul’s body (I Samuel 31:8; I Chronicles 10:8). The king would have been easily identifiable due to his exceptional height (I Samuel 9:2, 10:23) and distinguishable armor (I Samuel 17:38). Not surprisingly, the Philistines made a religious claim about the event, crediting a victory to their gods over the God of Israel (I Samuel 31:9; I Chronicles 10:9). They stripped Saul, decapitated him and graphically displayed the king’s remnants throughout the land placing his armor in the temple of Ashtoreths, his body on the wall of Beth Shan and his head in the temple of Dagon (I Samuel 31:10; I Chronicles 10:9-10).

Upon learning of this humiliation, the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead infiltrated nearby Beth Shan under cover of night and recovered Saul’s body, reverently burning his bones and burying them beneath a tree (I Samuel 31:12-13; I Chronicles 10:12). Cremation was highly rare in ancient Israel but it may have been done to insure the safety of the body. For this deed of valor they were highly praised by Saul’s successor, David (II Samuel 2:4–6) who would later have Saul’s body exhumed for proper burial in his native Benjamin (II Samuel 21:12-14).

After completing this rescue, the people of Jabesh-gilead fasted for seven days (I Chronicles 10:12; I Samuel 31:13). They publicly mourned their fallen leader. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) compares, “The prospect of public grief is a scarce practice in our society, where we are so engaged in self-deception, pretending that everything is all right.” (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 218).

The people of Jabesh-gilead risked life for the dead. Was this wise? Are there other historical or literary examples of retrieving a corpse from enemy hands for proper burial? Did the ancient view of the afterlife influence their decision? Why did the people of Jabesh-Gilead take this risk? Why did other Israelites not also retrieve Saul’s head and armor? How do you grieve? Which is healthier, the grieving process in ancient Israel or modern America?

Only the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead and eventually David and his men fasted when they learned of the fallen king’s passing (I Samuel 31:13; II Samuel 1:12; I Chronicles 10:12). Saul’s approval rating was low as his behavior was often erratic. The threatened monarch attempted to kill his perceived rival, David (I Samuel 18:10-11, 19:1, 9-10, 11-14), and even his own son, Jonathan (I Samuel 20:33), and later brutally commanded the slaughter of 85 priests (I Samuel 22:17-19). His last irrational act was consulting a medium (I Samuel 28:7-19). After recording Saul’s death, I Chronicles summarized that “Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse (I Chronicles 10:13-14 NASB).”

Even so, the people of Jabesh-gilead were not afraid to be linked with the dead king when so many others were. Forty years earlier, Jabesh-gilead was the site of Saul’s first victory (I Samuel 11:1-11). Though the exact site of Jabesh-Gilead is debated, it was a town east of the Jordan River within the borders of the half tribe of Manasseh and in full view of Beth Shan. Jabesh-Gilead appears to have been aligned with the tribe of Benjamin as the people of Jabesh-Gilead did not join an earlier expedition of Israelite tribes against Benjamin at great personal cost (Judges 21:8-14) and when Nahash the Ammonite took Jabesh-Gilead, they appealed to a Benjamite - Saul (I Samuel 9:21, 10:21; I Chronicles 12:2, 29; Acts 13:21). After a day’s march, Saul routed the Ammonites and freed the city (I Samuel 11:6-11). It was a kindness Jabesh-gilead never forgot.

Some have wondered why the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead were not at the battle at Gilboa in the first place as they were counted among Israel (I Samuel 11:3-4) yet apparently failed to heed Saul’s summons to war (I Samuel 29:4). There is a possibility that their support of the king waned. Even if this is true, they would not allow their former hero to be disgraced in death.

How does the Jabesh-gilead rescue of Saul parallel his previous rescue of them? Does everyone deserve to be mourned by someone? Who will you mourn and who will mourn you? Whose past kindness have you forgotten?

“A man’s indebtedness is not virtue; his repayment is. Virtue begins when he dedicates himself actively to the job of gratitude.” - Ruth Fulton Benedict (1887-1948)

Uzzah: Can’t Touch This (I Chronicles 13:10)

What happened when Uzzah tried to keep the Ark from falling off the cart on which it was being carried? He died (I Chronicles 13:10).

Tragedy struck when King David finally had the opportunity to give the Ark of the Covenant, Israel’s most holy relic and the very symbol of God’s presence, a permanent residence in his capital city (II Samuel 6:1-11; I Chronicles 13:5-14). The procession from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem was an event with great fanfare that included music and 30,000 witnesses (II Samuel 6:1; I Chronicles 13:8). The Ark had been stored at Abinadab’s house and a new cart driven by Abinadad’s sons, Uzzah and Ahio, was enlisted to transport the sacred ark (II Samuel 6:3; I Chronicles 13:7). The cavalcade ran smoothly until the oxen stumbled at Nacon’s threshing floor and Uzzah instinctively acted to steady the cart, touching the holy vessel and dying on impact (II Samuel 6:6-7; I Chronicles 13:9-10). The procession stopped dead in its tracks with Uzzah. Stunned and angered, David stored the ark with Obed-Edom the Gittite and the project was shelved for three months (II Samuel 6:10-11; I Chronicles 13:13-14).

It appears the ox stumbling was not an accident as the misstep came on a threshing floor. A threshing floor is a region of hard packed soil used to separate grain from the chaff. By definition a threshing floor is hard and level. The oxen stumbled on nothing. This is further evidenced by the fact that the ambiguous Hebrew could just easily read that the oxen shook as if the animals sensed that it was wrong for them to carry the ark. The text suggests that God stopped the procession.

The festivities’ sudden turn from triumph to tragedy and the finality of God’s action take the reader by surprise and many are left with the same reaction as David - becoming shocked, disturbed and even angry (II Samuel 6:8; I Chronicles 13:11). Was Uzzah killed for a reflexive reaction trying to protect God’s own treasure? What did Uzzah do to deserve death? What should Uzzah have done? Should he have allowed the sacred object to fall from the cart to be covered in filth or potentially shattered?

When the ark of the covenant was built, God designed very specific rules as to its transportation David must not have read the directions as none were followed on the day in question. Two significant breaches of protocol occurred in transporting the ark. First, the ark was carried by an ox cart. The ark was to be covered (Numbers 4:5-6, 15), carried only by members of a branch of Levites known as the Kohathites (Numbers 3:30-31, 4:15, 7:9), and even then only on their shoulders (Numbers 7:9) and only using poles (Exodus 25:13-16, 37:5). In fact, the Kohathites were the only chapter of Levites not to be bequeathed with carts (Numbers 7:9). Secondly, Uzzah touched the Ark, a violation punishable by death (Numbers 4:15).

Though the parallel account in II Samuel does not explain the incident, I Chronicles reports that David realized that he had not followed proper protocol (I Chronicles 15:12-15). He admits “we did not seek Him [God] according to the ordinance (I Chronicles 15:13, NASB).” Decorum seems to be a factor as when etiquette was followed, the ark was moved safely to Jerusalem without incident (II Samuel 6:13-16; I Chronicles 15:25-26).

The alternative plan David utilized appears to have been copied from the last time the ark was moved, by the Philistines. They had captured the ark in battle and after it had caused them no small trouble, returned it via cart (I Samuel 6:1-12). Like the Philistines, David employed a new cart (I Samuel 6:7; II Samuel 6:3; I Chronicles 13:7). It had been over 400 years since the law had been written. Whether David was ignorant of the law or he noticed that this method worked for his rivals and saw it as an improvement over the prescribed mode is unknown. What is clear is that David ignored God’s instructions and transported the ark in a manner that seemed right to him without seeking God’s approval. The party was for God but David did not consult God first and God crashed the party.

Many have viewed this passage as indicative that divine judgment is executed even against technical violations and that God engages in ritualistic perfectionism. The rules are nonnegotiable. The underlying assumption to this interpretation is that Uzzah’s intentions are pure.

The charge against Uzzah is “irreverence” (II Samuel 6:7 NASB). Since the ark had been housed at his home for twenty years (I Samuel 7:2; II Samuel 6:3) many believe that an over familiarity with the ark precipitated the incident. He may have become accustomed to its presence leading to an attitude of casualness that minimized its sanctity in his own mind.

Whether this is accurate or not, Uzzah instinctively touched the ark. Uzzah felt it was his responsibility to save the integrity of God and he assumed he was qualified to do so. The purpose of the laws regarding the ark were not to protect it from contact with mud but rather to insulate it from contact with sinful human hands. It was not the filth of the ground that would defile the ark but the contamination of human sin. In short, Uzzah thought that his fingers were cleaner than the dirt the ark might fall into. His misjudgement demonstrates that he either held a high view of himself or a low view of God’s holiness.

At a conference in 2007, R.C. Sproul (b. 1939) summarized, “Uzzah believed that mud would desecrate the ark, but mud is just dirt and water obeying God. Mud is not evil. God’s law was not meant to keep the ark pure from the earth, but from the dirty touch of a human hand. Uzzah presumed his hands were cleaner than the dirt. God said no.”

The tragedy did served to re-instill the fear (or holy awe) of God in King David (II Samuel 6:9; I Chronicles 13:12).

Have you become so familiar with God that you have little to no fear of the divine?

Peleg and The Great Divide (I Chronicles 1:19)

In whose days was the earth divided? Peleg’s (I Chronicles 1:19),

Peleg is a name that appears eight times in the Biblical record, all in genealogies (Genesis 10:25, 11:16, 17, 18, 19, I Chronicles 1:19, 25; Luke 3:35). He first appears amidst the “Table of Nations”, the record of the dispersing of Noah’s sons (Genesis 10). Twice the tantalizing detail is added that “in his [Peleg’s] days the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25; I Chronicles 1:19 NASB).” In fact, Peleg’s name actually means “division”. His very name commemorates a monumental event that made things different after his time than they were before it.

Peleg was born in the fifth generation (101 years) after the Flood and yet was the first patriarch born after the Flood to die. His father, Eber, lived 464 years (Genesis 11:16), but Peleg died at the age of 239. Eber outlived Peleg by 191 years and Noah and his son Shem were still living when Peleg died. No one after Peleg lived much longer than he did. The genealogies also take the highly irregular tact of mentioning Peleg’s brother, Joktan (Genesis 10:25; I Chronicles 1:19). Joktan’s name means “smallness” or “a lessening”. Life spans did indeed decrease dramatically after the time of Peleg and Joktan.

Do you have a moment in your life where things were not the same after an event as they were before? What division is Peleg related to and why is he so associated with it? Did Peleg in any way cause the division?

Traditionally, the split in Peleg’s time is associated with the failure of the Tower of Babel and the resulting diaspora (Genesis 11:1-9). James Ussher (1581-1656)’s famed chronology dates the Tower of Babel five years after the birth of Peleg. The connection between Peleg and Babel still represents the dominant view. Of the divisiveness, Walter Kaiser (b. 1933) writes “Here is a clear allusion to the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 118).” Proponents of the traditional view include G. Charles Aalders (1880-1961), Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941), Kaiser, C.F. Keil (1807-1888) and Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), H. C. Leupold (1892-1972), Henry M. Morris (1918-2006), Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) , John Sailhamer (b. 1946), and Richard T. White. Babel does mark an epic irrevocable change in human life as presumably the world went from one language to today’s estimated 7,299 primary languages.

Some segments of creation science pose that Peleg’s schism references a continental division. This theory holds that the earth was once a single landmass, often called Pangaea, and that Peleg lived at a time when a geological event precipitated continental drift. The belief that the contingents were once unified is supported by God’s command at creation to “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear (Genesis 1:9, NASB).”

Supporters of the continental drift view cite etymological considerations based on Peleg’s name which suggests that the division involved water. The associated noun peleg occurs ten times in the Old Testament and in each instance refers to water (Job 29:6; Psalms 1:3; 46:4, 65:9, 119:136; Proverbs 5:16; 21:1; Isaiah 30:25, 32:2; Lamentations 3:48).

Bernard E. Northrup (1925-2008) writes of the hydraulic connection to Peleg:

[Peleg, palag, or PLG] often contains within it a reference to water. It is used to refer to a stream of water in Hebrew, Coptic, Ethiopic and in Greek. The root is used to refer to irrigation canals which carried the water throughout the farming land of Mesopotamia. However, an examination of the Greek usage (of the family of Japeth) of the root letters PL and PLG clearly shows that in the majority of the instances this root was used of the ocean...It is used to mean: “to form a sea or lake,” “of places that are flooded and under water,” “of crossing the sea,” of “the broad sea” itself, of “being out at sea,” “on the open sea.” It is used of seamen and ships. The noun with the result suffix is used of “an inundation.” I continue: it is used of “a being at sea,” of “a creature of or on the sea,” of “one who walks on the sea,” of “running or sailing on the open sea,” of “a harbor that is formed in the open sea by means of sandbags,” and in many ways of “the open sea itself,” of “going to, into or toward the sea,” of “roving through the sea,” of “being sea-nourished,” of “turning something into the sea or into the sea or of flooding.” It is quite apparent that every Greek usage here involves the sea in someway. (Northrup, “Continental Drift and the Fossil Record,” Repossess the Land (Minneapolis: Bible Science Association, 1979), 165–166)

Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895-1960), Northrup and Alfred Wagener (1880-1930) support the view that continental drift occurred at the time of Peleg.

Other simpler theories have also been posited. One suggests that “divided” implies that the land was surveyed and divided into grids. The division could also be one between Peleg and his brother, Joktan. Genesis states Eber had “two sons”, a phrase which often denotes a territorial issue in Genesis. The Biblical genealogies follow Peleg’s line while Joktan became the father of Arabian people (Genesis 10:26-30).

Regardless of what event is being referenced, Peleg is associated solely with divisiveness.

Who do you most associate with divisiveness? Are you known more for divisiveness or unity? In what ways are you actively building bridges with others?