Numbered with the Transgressors

Introduction

The themes of “numbering” (census-taking) and plague as a consequence of failure to pay the atonement price are found in the parallel accounts of David’s numbering of the people in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. Whenever a census was taken atonement money was paid as an offering to the Lord “for an atonement of your souls” otherwise a plague would afflict the people (Exod 30:12-16). Such a plague afflicted the people after David’s census, and we can infer that it was because the atonement price was not paid. In this paper, we will examine this incident and conclude with suggestive parallels that are to be observed with the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53 who was “numbered with the transgressors”.

David Numbers the People

Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number (hnm[1]) Israel and Judah”. 2 Sam 24:1

The action of “numbering the people” is usually regarded as an act of folly or pride by David and/or a capricious/arbitrary act by God.[2] Despite David’s willingness to accept all the blame for what had been done, we are left in no doubt that Yahweh (a ‘satan’ in 1 Chron 21:1) was the prime mover behind David’s action to take a census. Hence, in the summary of his reign David, is only held accountable for his sin in the matter of Uriah the Hittite and the census-taking receives no mention (1 Kgs 15:5). These details invite a closer look at the whole episode:

1. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel rather than David. The preposition “against” (b) is repeated in the description of the action of David, so that we know that the action “against them” was the numbering.
2. Yahweh “moves” (tws) David (1 Sam 24:1), which is rendered “provoked” in 1 Chron 21:1 (KJV). The verb is broad in meaning and the sense here is conveyed in any neutral verb of persuasion, with “provocation” a translator’s interpretation.
3. The numbering takes more than nine months (2 Sam 24:8) and this detail illustrates peaceful conditions in the land allowing the commander of the army and a detachment to travel the length and breadth of the land collecting the census data.
4. A military catalyst for the census is therefore unlikely. Were David under attack in ongoing campaigns, it is implausible to infer that the commander of the army would collect census data with a view to a general conscription. This might be done ahead of a pre-emptive campaign the next year on the part of David, but not as a defensive response to an attack.
5. Thus, while the anger of the Lord is often kindled against his people, and this takes the form of attacks by the surrounding nations, this is not the case here because what is “against” the people is the numbering.

On the basis of (1)-(5), we should conclude that domestic politics are behind this incident rather than military threat. The persuasion of David by the Lord would naturally have taken the form of a word of prophecy.

What happens during the census-taking is indicative of the domestic situation. Levi and Benjamin were excluded from the census by Joab (1 Chron 21:6). This suggests that the census was taken against Israel and Judah as a means of asserting the authority of the Davidic king and that dissension was present at the highest of levels (Joab). It will be remembered that David was not accepted by the northern tribes for the first seven years of his reign at Hebron and we may surmise that Joab had support among the tribes.

If Yahweh saw that some of the people were hostile to David, his anointed, then this would explain his anger “against them” and how the action of numbering them would be “against them”. By such an action they would be brought under the authority of the king. We can go further in specifying what the domestic situation might have been because Levi was one of the tribes not counted. Levi was not a northern tribe, but the priestly tribe spread among the people. They were the priestly ruling class among the people and were presumably on the side of Joab throughout the census-taking. Similarly, the mention of Benjamin hints at the politics of the situation. Saul was of Benjamin, and supporters of Saul’s house (Benjamites) were hostile to Davidic claims upon the throne. Benjamin had a history of trouble with David. They had violated the covenant made with the Gibeonites who served at the tabernacle in the days of Saul (2 Sam 21:1-6; cf. Josh 9:19-23). David had granted the Gibeonite request to have seven of Saul’s sons executed because of the covenant violation.

In this connection it is important to recall that census-taking was allowed by the Law upon payment of an atonement price. Thus, a census is not in itself an act that is “against” the people unless there is the sort of background that we have sketched. God had imposed three years of famine for Benjamin’s refusal to repent over their slaughter of the Gibeonites. This was action “against” the people and the census-taking was likewise “against” the people and in support of David.

Finally, we might note that the plague that was visited upon the people after the census particularly fell upon Benjamin. Interestingly, the parallel account in Chronicles[3] adds the following detail (not present in Samuel),

For the tabernacle of the Lord and the altar of the burnt offering, which Moses had made in the wilderness, were at that time at the high place in Gibeon. But David could not go before it to inquire of God, for he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the Lord. 1 Chron 21:29-30

Gibeon was in the territory of Benjamin, and David was afraid to go there because the plague was presumably vigorous in that area.

David numbered the people and after receiving the census data he confessed that he had done foolishly.

And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. 2 Sam 24:10

This is not a confession that the census itself was foolish, but rather that the census had been carried out without regard to the atonement price being paid. This is shown by David’s choice of punishment: he chose the pestilence or plague that would be visited upon the people if they did not pay an atonement price. He had carried out the census without proper regard to the Law:

When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. Exod 30:12

There is a further dimension to this foolishness and the underlying politics. The atonement price was meant for the tabernacle and sanctuary (Exod 30:16) but the tabernacle was at the time of the census in Gibeon and in Benjamin. The Levites and Benjamin were the two tribes that would have been the beneficiaries of the monies taken through the census. Their non-participation in the census is all the more telling when we see that David had not collected the atonement price.

And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my father’s house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued. 1 Chron 21:17

It is possible to mis-read David’s confession: he did command the people to be numbered, but this is not the sin. It is true that his confession of sin does not identify his failing to collect the atonement price, but this is implied for those with knowledge of the Law.

A. Whittaker proposes that the motivation for the census-taking (disguised as a military census) was the desire by David to raise funds for the building of the Temple and he suggests that the census-taking occurred early in his reign.[4] This proposal has not received the attention that it deserves, but the narrative has no mention of atonement monies being raised or not raised. We could surmise that David was raising such monies for a sanctuary, but not the sanctuary-tabernacle that was at Gibeon in Benjamin. We could hypothesize that he was collecting monies for a future temple in Jerusalem. Such a proposal would explain the opposition by Benjamin and the Levites if they were vested in the existing arrangements.

The problem with Whittaker’s proposal is that it does not account for the confession of sin on the part of David since the taking of a census was lawful. If David was exacting the atonement price, his sin would become his keeping the monies for a new temple. We don’t know if the Levites would oppose such an aspiration given that it does not diminish their role in Israel. Further, while Benjamin may have opposed such an action when the tabernacle-sanctuary was in their territory, we should remember that the tabernacle moved its location around Israel. Accordingly, we would say that Whittaker’s historical reconstruction is a step too far. The justice in God afflicting a pestilence upon Israel requires a legal basis and the failure to collect an atonement price seems the simpler explanation.

We might query whether David was at fault in this episode. Did he determine not to collect the atonement price, or was this a failure on the part of Joab and his poll-tax collectors? Or was it disobedience on the part of the people as each city, town and village was visited by Joab? We need to look at David’s confession of sin. This happens in two stages:

(1)

And David’s heart condemned (hkn nakah) him after he had numbered the people. So David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done; but now, I pray, O Lord, take away the iniquity (!w[ ‛avon) of your servant (db[ ‛ebed), for I have done very foolishly. 2 Sam 24:10 (NKJV)

This is the initial confession and it is followed by the affliction of the people with a plague and 70,000 die throughout all the land. With Levi and Benjamin singled out, it is possible that these two tribes were more fully in transgression. This settles the question of culpability – the whole people were involved.

David’s heart condemned him, and this is an acknowledgement of guilt rather than any self-sacrificial taking of blame.

(2)

And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces. And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my father’s house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued. 1 Chron 21:16-17 (KJV)

The second confession is different; it is an intervention on behalf of the people. In this intervention, David takes responsibility upon himself and his house and excludes the sheep from blame.

David shoulders all the responsibility and requests that divine retribution be visited against his “father’s house” instead of the people. In other words, David was asking to be “numbered with the transgressors” – to be treated as the one who had not paid the atonement money at the census-taking. In this request, David was offering to pay the price. This is why he insists that he purchase the temple site from his own resources. An atonement tax has not been collected but the site for the temple had still to be bought; David pays with his own resources and this is the atonement price for the census.

The Suffering Servant

There are echoes of David’s “transgression” in the Servant Song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12:

number the people (hnm manah)	numbered with the transgressors (hnm manah)
David’s heart was smitten (hkn nakah)	we esteemed him stricken, smitten (hkn nakah)
take away the iniquity (!w[ ‛avon)	he shall bear their iniquities (!w[ ‛avon)
your servant (db[ ‛ebed)	my servant (db[ ‛ebed)
these sheep, what have they done (!ac tso’n)	we like sheep have gone astray (!ac tso’n)

These echoes might be judged as purely coincidence; this is a reading judgment. On the other hand, they may be part of a designed contrast between the Suffering Servant who is innocent and David who was culpable. David calls himself a “foolish” servant; in contrast the servant of Isaiah is a “prudent/knowledgeable” servant. David confesses personal “iniquity” and sin and empathises with the “smitten” people by being “smitten” in the heart. The Suffering Servant is esteemed by the elders of the people to be “smitten”.

These parallels with the Suffering Servant are striking. Scholars, such as M. Barker, have clearly recognised that the atonement ritual forms the background to Isaiah 53.[5] It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore this theme, but we can note the two most obvious connections:

He shall sprinkle many nations (Isa 52:15)	He shall sprinkle the blood (Lev 16:19)
He bare the sin of many (Isa 53:12)	The goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities (Lev 16:22)

This suggests that the Servant was modelled on the one who performed the atonement rites in the first temple. We should not be surprised to find echoes of the atonement price paid by David as well as the Day of Atonement in the description of the Suffering Servant.

Conclusion

There are problems of interpretation in the episode of David’s numbering of Israel. The main problem is the puzzle as to what is wrong. Census-taking was lawful and there is nothing intrinsically “against” anyone in the taking of a census. In order to solve this puzzle we are driven to reconstruct the history behind the episode. We have inferred that the sin of David was a failure to collect the atonement price. Someone might ask: why do we have to infer anything in the first place; the text does not actually specify any sin. Such an attitude is an understandable complaint on the part of the historian but it fails to appreciate the conditions under which the historical records of the Israelites were recorded.

---

An Aside: Dating undated prophetic books is a judgment that can only be made through a careful comparison of the language of the book with what is known about the history of Israel and Judah in Kings and Chronicles (and any non-biblical sources). Joel is a case in point: it requires a comprehensive knowledge of the times of Ahaz and Hezekiah to know that this is the correct placement of the book.