David also observed that the ark's presence in Obed-edom's house resulted in blessing for its host. This made him more eager than ever to install the ark in Jerusalem.
Verse 13 probably means after the priests had taken six steps other priests sacrificed an ox and a fatling (fatted calf). This happened every time the priests carrying the ark took six steps.80
David wore a priest's garment (v. 14; cf. 1 Sam. 2:18) as he offered sacrifices to the Lord (v. 13).81Why did God not express his wrath over this breach of His Law? Were not the priests the only individuals who could offer sacrifices to the Lord? Priests were the specified slayers of the offerings at the central sanctuary, but other non-priests could offer sacrifices of worship to God elsewhere (e.g., Samuel and Saul).82
"The white ephod was, strictly speaking, a priestly costume, although in the law it is not prescribed as the dress to be worn by them when performing their official duties, but rather as the dress which denoted the priestly character of the wearer (see at 1 Sam. xii. 18); and for this reason it was worn by David in connection with these festivities in honor of the Lord, as the head of the priestly nation of Israel (see at 1 Sam. ii. 18)."83
As head of the priestly nation (Exod. 19:6), David exercised a sacerdotal (priestly) role in Israel (cf. 24:25; 1 Chron. 16:4-6). He was a royal priest after the order of Melchizedek, a former king-priest of Jerusalem (Salem; cf. Ps. 76:2; 110:4-6). Royal priesthood was not uncommon in the ancient Near East.84Other Israelite kings occasionally officiated as priests (cf. 1 Kings 8:64; 9:25).
Note that David's radical obedience resulted in his experiencing and expressing great joy, as seen in his celebrating. Whereas people often think that complete obedience to God will make them less happy, the opposite is true. We only experience full joy when we follow God's will completely (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). David felt anger and fear the first time he tried to bring the ark into Jerusalem (vv. 8-9), but when he observed the Mosaic Law carefully he felt great freedom and joy.
Michal apparently did not understand David's reasons for bringing the ark into Jerusalem. She seems to have regarded kingship in Israel as her father had.85He had believed the human king was the ultimate authority and that everyone should honor him. By referring to Michal as "the daughter of Saul"(v. 16) the writer linked her attitude with her father's.
"Her idea seems to have been that the king should avoid mixing with the people, and be aloof and inaccessible. As it was, she despised himfor the very qualities that made him great, namely, devotion to the Lord and spontaneity in worship."86
The tent David had pitched for the ark in Jerusalem (v. 17) was not the tabernacle of Moses (2 Chron. 1:3-6). The writer did not explain why David did not move the central sanctuary from Gibeon to Jerusalem. Probably he did not want to offend the northern tribes. His blessing the people (v. 18) and giving them cakes made with fruit (v. 19) was a sign to them that their God, who was now in their midst, would bless them as He had promised. Fruit was a common symbol of fertility in the ancient Near East.87Solomon later decorated his temple with figures of fruits. Cake also connoted plenty, prosperity, and blessing.
"The bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem was an event of major theological significance. . . . David wanted to make the Jebusite city not only the center of his rule but also the center of the worship of the Lord.
"By bringing the Ark to his new Jebusite capital, David was attempting to bind the tribes and the central government more firmly."88
Whereas the people responded to David's leadership enthusiastically, David's own wife rejected it. She despised her husband for his humility before the Lord. He had behaved as a servant of God. She thought he should have behaved in a more distinguished manner. David promised her that the Lord would give him distinction. He did not need to claim that for himself. The honor of Yahweh was more important to David than his own dignity. In this he set us all a good example. As a result of her attitude toward God and His anointed, Michal suffered barrenness the rest of her life. This was, of course, the opposite of fruitfulness and fertility that result from responding properly to God and His anointed.
"While the Lord's blessing on Obed-Edom resulted in a large number of descendants for him . . ., David's intended blessing on his own household (v. 20) was effectively nullified by Michal's tragic criticism of her husband."89
"The final sentence of the chapter, which may imply some sort of judgement [sic] on Michal for her sarcasm, forecloses any possibility that David and Michal will produce an heir who will be able to unite Davidide and Saulide loyalties."90
It may be that God shut Michal's womb as a judgment on her for her attitude. I think it is more probable, in view of the record of antagonism that precedes verse 23, that we should infer that David had no more intimate relations with her. He had other wives and concubines, and he could have fulfilled his sexual desires without Michal. If this interpretation is correct, we have here another instance of David failing God in his family relations. He should have taken the initiative to heal the breach in his relations with Michal that this chapter records and not to have allowed them to continue. Even when we are right, as David was, we must be sensitive to the feelings of those who are wrong, as Michal was, and seek to resolve interpersonal conflicts.
"The writer . . . does not question the historically crucial fact of David's divine election, so prominently stressed by the king himself at the beginning of his speech; but theological rights do not necessarily justify domestic wrongs, and the anointed monarch of Israel may still be a harsh and unfeeling husband to the woman who has loved him and saved his life."91
The writer emphasized that those who follow God's covenant prosper, but God cuts off those who do not. The Philistine idols could not deliver the Philistines (5:21), but the ark of God brought blessing to His people (ch. 6).
Most scholars have placed David's bringing the ark into Jerusalem near the beginning of his reign.92They have done so because of where the writer placed this incident in the text. However a few have argued that this event occurred toward the end of David's reign.93The basis for this view is 1 Chronicles 15:1 that says David pitched a tent for the ark after he built houses for himself. Those who hold this second view believe--properly, I think--that the houses in view were David's palace structures that Hiram helped him build (5:11). Since Hiram reigned in Tyre only during the last nine years of David's reign, the building of his palace must have occurred late in David's reign (ca. 980-978 B.C.). After that, David built a tent for the ark and brought the ark into Jerusalem as the writer recorded in this chapter (ca. 977 B.C.). However these houses may have been David's original dwellings in Jerusalem that his palace complex later replaced. If so, 1 Chronicles 15:1 may describe conditions at the beginning of David's reign. This seems unlikely to me.
