Book Write-Up: A Commentary on 1&2 Chronicles, by Eugene H. Merrill

Eugene H. Merrill.  A Commentary on 1 & 2 Chronicles.  Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015.  See here to purchase the book.

Eugene H. Merrill is professor emeritus of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.  He has degrees from Bob Jones University, New York University, and Columbia University.  He has two PhDs!

Here are some thoughts about Merrill’s commentary on I-II Chronicles:

A.  Overall, Merrill believes in biblical inerrancy.  He does treat the Chronicler and the Deuteronomistic Historian (a term he uses for convenience) as having distinct agendas, which influences what they include and omit and how they tell the story.  Yet, he tends to regard their histories as complimentary rather than contradictory, and he also seems to treat their histories as faithful accounts of what actually happened.  Granted, this can lead to interesting insights: Merrill, for example, attempts to account for an apparent discrepancy between Chronicles and Kings by exploring ancient Mesopotamian historiography.  An inerrantist approach can make one sensitive or open to certain possibilities or avenues, whereas simply saying that the Bible is wrong can shut down exploration or further discussion.  At the same time, an inerrantist approach is difficult to sustain.  If the Deuteronomistic Historian and the Chronicler are telling the same story and give different numbers in saying how many troops there were in a battle, one of them has to be factually incorrect, right?

B.  Because Merrill had more of a harmonizing, or Christian inerrantist, approach, he tended to flatten or suppress the Chronicler’s own distinct theological voice.  Many other commentaries on Chronicles mention aspects of the Chronicler’s ideology: about priests and Levites, about trusting in God, etc.  Merrill, however, chose to focus on what he believed was one aspect of the Chronicler’s ideology: the Chronicler believes that God will send a Messiah, and that the Davidic kings foreshadow this.  Merrill’s belief that this Messiah is Jesus shapes how he interacts with Chronicles.  According to Christianity, Jesus is a priest and a king.  The Chronicler, by contrast, distinguishes the priestly roles from the monarchical roles, going further than the Deuteronomistic Historian on this.  To his credit, Merrill does interact with this issue.  (There were a number of tensions that he did not interact with, as far as I can recall.)  But he downplays its significance.

C.  Overall, I do not care for harmonizing or inerrantist approaches to the Bible.  But they do interest me, perhaps because there is a part of me that likes to see how theological tensions can co-exist in a coherent picture (assuming that they can).  That said, there were times when I was hoping that Merrill would wrestle with a tension, but he did not do so.   For example, Merrill speculates about why David’s wife Michal was so upset about David’s dancing before the Ark in I Chronicles 15.  Her stated reason, according to Merrill, was “her disgust at seeing David expose himself in this joyous celebration (1 Chr 15:29; 2 Sam 6:16)” (page 198).  Merrill doubts, however, that her disgust was rooted in Torah laws that prohibit nakedness in the worship of God (Exodus 20:24-16; 28:42-43).  That only raises other questions, though: Is the Chronicler portraying David doing something that the Torah forbids, without criticizing David?  If so, why?  Merrill brought up an interesting consideration but did not follow through on it.

D.  There were times when Merrill left a question unanswered, and I was hoping that he would wrestle with it some more.  For example, Merrill says that we do not know why some kings were buried where they were (i.e., in Jerusalem or outside it, in the royal tombs or outside of them), and that their righteousness or wickedness are not an adequate explanation.  Merrill does well to notice problems with that explanation, but it would have been nice had he attempted to provide some alternative explanation, since the Chronicler (for some reason) more than once makes a note about where kings were buried or not buried.

E.  There were questions that Merrill addressed, and I appreciated him addressing them, even if I was not always satisfied with his answers.  For example, in II Chronicles 26:3, the king of Egypt changes Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim.  Merrill wonders why a pagan king would change a Judahite king’s name to one that honored YHWH, the God of Israel.  Merrill proposes that the king of Egypt was saying that the God of Israel was God of Israel alone, not everyone else.  For Merrill, the “El” in Eliakim implied that the God of Israel was a universal God.  The name “YHWH,” by contrast, is God’s covenant name with Israel.  For Merrill, the king of Egypt was denying that the God of Israel was a universal, all-powerful God, choosing to focus on God’s covenant name with Israel.  This is interesting, but I question whether that works as an explanation, since there were times when pagan kings changed a Judahite’s Yahwistic name to another Yahwistic name (i.e., Mattaniah to Zedekiah).

F.  Merrill’s discussion of the authorship of Chronicles was mixed.  Merrill referred to the view that Ezra wrote I-II Chronicles, without interacting with strong arguments to the contrary (i.e., Ezra opposed intermarriage between Israelites and Gentiles, whereas such intermarriages are mentioned without criticism in the Chronicler’s genealogies).  On the other hand, Merrill did offer ideas about the Chronicler’s different sources, which I have not encountered in other commentaries about I-II Chronicles that I have read.

G.  Merrill argues that I-II Chronicles expresses a Messianic hope—-the hope of a Messiah who would bless Israel and the nations.  He did well to show that such a hope was a part of the Chronicler’s post-exilic reality, or at least that it occurred in other post-exilic biblical writings.  (And, interestingly, Merrill says that Haggai hoped Zerubbabel would be the Messiah, a view that some conservatives try to distance themselves from because that would make Haggai wrong.)  Merrill’s argument that the genealogies in Chronicles culminate in Judah (which had the Davidic dynasty) is another fairly strong point in terms of his thesis.  Merrill’s thesis may also explain why the Chronicler omits some of David’s sins: David is a type of the Davidic Messiah.  (Of course, as Merrill acknowledges, the Chronicler mentions certain sins or flaws of David and his offspring, so the thesis is not exactly infallible, in my opinion.)  My problem with his thesis, however, is that eschatology is not overly explicit in I-II Chronicles.  Merrill could have fit the content of Chronicles better with his thesis.

H.  Merrill often regurgitates the plot in discussing I-II Chronicles, but he sometimes offers historical information that the reader may find valuable.

I give this commentary three stars.  It raised some interesting points.  Yet, it tended to flatten Chronicles on account of its harmonizing, Christian inerrantist approach.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

II Chronicles 11

I have three items for my blog post today about II Chronicles 11:

1.  v 15 states regarding King Jeroboam of Northern Israel (in the KJV):

“And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.”

The Hebrew word that the KJV translates as “devils” is sa-ir, which often means a goat (see here).  That is why a number of English translations render the term as “goat demon” when it appears within the context of pagan worship.

Raymond Dillard in his Word Biblical Commentary on II Chronicles made some interesting points about II Chronicles 11:15.  Jeroboam made priests for the goat-demons and the golden calves he had made.  Dillard notes that there is no evidence in Syro-Palestine that Israelites worshiped deities who had the form of animals.  Moreover, in this region, gods are usually standing on the backs of calves, meaning that Israelites probably did not worship the calves themselves but the deity who was using the calves as a sort of throne.

Dillard is arguing that the worship of deities in the form of animals was not distinctly Israelite, and yet he does not seem to believe that Jeroboam encouraging this sort of worship was historically implausible.  There are icons in Egypt in which deities are depicted in animal form, and Jeroboam spent some time in Egypt when he was on the run from King Solomon.  Could Jeroboam have picked up such worship during his stay in Egypt?

2.  II Chronicles 11:18-23 states the following (in the KJV):

18 And Rehoboam took him Mahalath the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David to wife, and Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse;
19 Which bare him children; Jeush, and Shamariah, and Zaham.
20 And after her he took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah, and Attai, and Ziza, and Shelomith.
21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)
22 And Rehoboam made Abijah the son of Maachah the chief, to be ruler among his brethren: for he thought to make him king.
23 And he dealt wisely, and dispersed of all his children throughout all the countries of Judah and Benjamin, unto every fenced city: and he gave them victual in abundance. And he desired many wives.

The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary presents a variety of Jewish interpretations about this passage.  Why were King Rehoboam of Judah’s children intentionally dispersed throughout the tribes of Judah and Benjamin?

Malbim states that it was to prevent a civil war.  Rehoboam made his son Abijah a chief and was grooming him to become king, even though Abijah was not the oldest son.  Abijah was born to Rehoboam’s favorite wife, Maacah the daughter of David’s son Absalom, and Rehoboam took Maacah after he had taken Mahalath and Abihail and they had borne him sons.  Maacah was a late wife to the scene.  Rehoboam perhaps feared that his other sons would be jealous of the younger son Abijah and the special authority that Rehoboam was giving to him.  Malbim’s point may be that Rehoboam was distributing his other sons throughout Judah and Benjamin and was giving them favors because that would lessen the chance that they could conspire in Jerusalem against Abijah.

Another explanation was offered by Malbim and Ralbag, and this was that Abijah was the one sending his sons throughout Judah and Benjamin, in order to consolidate his own authority.

3.  I read an article by Israel Finkelstein, “Rehoboam’s fortified cities (II Chr 11, 5-12): a Hasmonean reality?”, which appeared in Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 123, number 1, 2011, pages 92-107.  Finkelstein argues that Rehoboam’s fortified cities—-their location and even some cities’ names—-do not reflect Israel’s post-exilic period but rather the Hasmonean period, which was later.  I recall Finkelstein saying in that article that Judah was not really fortified during the post-exilic period, notwithstanding what Nehemiah says, but that the Book of Nehemiah reflects a Hasmonean context in that case.  Finkelstein bases this conclusion, at least in part, on archaeology.  Similarly, Finkelstein in another article, “The Historical Reality behind the Genealogical Lists in 1 Chronicles” (Journal of Biblical Literature 131/1, 2012, pages 65-63), contends that the genealogies in Chronicles are consistent with the boundaries in the Hasmonean period rather than the post-exilic one.

Finkelstein speculates that the Chronicler may have been presenting Rehoboam as building fortifications in order to highlight that fortifications alone could not save Judah: that they actually did not save Judah because Shishak of Egypt still invaded.  Rehoboam could not bypass piety towards God, which, for the Chronicler, was the true path to Israel’s security.

In my readings about Chronicles, I have encountered the view that the Chronicler does not care for Israel making alliances, for he believes that Israel should trust in God instead.  Does that mean that the Chronicler is critical of fortifications, as if they are human means for Israel to protect herself as opposed to relying on God for protection?  Well, II Chronicles 14:7 depicts the righteous King Asa building them, and his reason for doing so is that the LORD has given Israel rest.  The Chronicler does not explicitly criticize Asa for doing so.  And yet, later in the chapter, Asa wins against enormous odds by trusting God; later, in II Chronicles 16, Asa is criticized for trusting in an alliance and physicians rather than the LORD.  Maybe the Chronicler does not deem fortifications to be that good of a thing.  Or perhaps the Chronicler believes they are fine, as long as a king does not rely on them to the exclusion of relying on God.  Solomon did some practical things, and the Chronicler does not seem to criticize him for that; rather, he depicts that time as Israel’s golden age.

II Chronicles 8

I have two items for my blog post today about II Chronicles 8.

1.  II Chronicles 8:1-2 states in the NRSV: “At the end of twenty years, during which Solomon had built the house of the LORD and his own house, Solomon rebuilt the cities that Huram had given to him, and settled the people of Israel in them.”

In the KJV, we read: “And it came to pass at the end of twenty years, wherein Solomon had built the house of the LORD, and his own house, That the cities which Huram had restored to Solomon, Solomon built them, and caused the children of Israel to dwell there.”

Do you notice any significant difference between the two translations?  According to the NRSV, King Huram of Tyre gave Solomon cities.  According to the KJV, King Huram returned cities to Solomon, implying that Solomon had given Huram those cities earlier.

The Hebrew in this case is natan, which means “to give” (or literally, “he gave”).  If the writer had wanted to say that Huram returned the cities, he probably would have used some form of sh-w-v.  Why, then, did the King James Version translate natan as “restored”?  The reason is probably that it was trying to harmonize II Chronicles 8:2 with I Kings 9:11, which states that Solomon gave to Hiram twenty cities in Galilee.  Hiram in that chapter is displeased with those cities, however.  We have II Chronicles 8:2, which states that Hiram gave Solomon cities.  We have I Kings 9:11, which states that Solomon gave Hiram cities.  One way that people try to harmonize those two texts is to say that Solomon gave Hiram the cities, Hiram was displeased with them, and so Hiram returned them to Solomon, who rebuilt the cities and settled Israelites in them.

I tend to believe that there are two separate agendas in I Kings and II Chronicles.  I Kings is trying to explain why those cities came to be called Cabul, which is rather disparaging.  The reason, in I Kings 9, goes back to Hiram’s dissatisfaction with those cities.  II Chronicles 8, however, is presenting Huram as adoring and subordinating himself to Solomon, and thus giving Solomon cities.  And Solomon rebuilding the cities and settling Israelites in them occurs within the context of his projects of expansion and building, which we read about in the subsequent verses.

Of course, I have read in the Jewish Study Bible that I Kings presents Solomon and Hiram as equal parties making an agreement, whereas II Chronicles depicts Huram as subordinate to Solomon.  There is probably something to that, but it should not be taken in the direction of saying that Huram in II Chronicles lacked power in his own right.  II Chronicles 8:18 affirms that Huram sent Solomon ships and servants familiar with the sea, and so Huram had a lot of resources!

2.  II Chronicles 8:11 states (in the KJV): “And Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David unto the house that he had built for her: for he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy, whereunto the ark of the LORD hath come.”

I Kings has a similar story, but II Chronicles adds a rationale for Solomon doing what he did: Solomon did not want his Egyptian wife to dwell in the holy city of Jerusalem.

Why not?  A common explanation is that she was a Gentile.  I heard more than one sermon saying that Solomon was sinning in being married to a Gentile, but he was somehow trying to be religious, too, by forbidding his wife to live in Jerusalem.  It would be like someone making money off of a shady business deal, and deciding to get on God’s good side by donating the money to the church.

Granted, there are places in the Hebrew Bible that are against Israelites intermarrying with Gentiles.  I Kings criticizes Solomon for intermarriage, since that was what turned him away from God, and Nehemiah 13:26 refers to him as an example in defending a policy against Jewish intermarriage.  But I have problems saying that II Chronicles had this sort of view.  For one, the genealogies in Chronicles refer to intermarriages, without any hint of criticism.  The genealogies present intermarriage as part of the history of Israel.  Second, the Chronicler (as far as I can remember) does not criticize Solomon for intermarriage.

Maybe the Chronicler still had problems with a Gentile dwelling in Jerusalem, or he was trying to depict Solomon in a positive way: yes, Solomon married a Gentile, but at least he did not let her live in Jerusalem.

Raymond Dillard, however, has another idea.  He wonders if II Chronicles 8:11 could be sanctioning the late Jewish practice of separating men and women in worship.  You see that in orthodox synagogues today: the men sit in one section, the women in another.  Could II Chronicles 8:11 be about this sort of practice?  I seriously doubt that there was a blanket prohibition on women living in Jerusalem, so I tend not to absolutize Dillard’s proposal.  But to see it as a stray verse sanctioning the separation of men and women in worship?  I am somewhat open to that being a function of the verse—-not that I am in favor of such a practice.

II Chronicles 6

In II Chronicles 6, King Solomon is dedicating the newly-built Temple.

In vv 4-6, we read (in the KJV):

4 And [Solomon] said, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, who hath with his hands fulfilled that which he spake with his mouth to my father David, saying,
5 Since the day that I brought forth my people out of the land of Egypt I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build an house in, that my name might be there; neither chose I any man to be a ruler over my people Israel:
6 But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel.

God said that God did not choose a man to rule over Israel prior to King David?  What about King Saul, whom God chose to be king, and whose reign was prior to that of David?

Various interpreters say that God did not technically choose Saul to be king.  The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary notes that God long before the time of Saul planned for the king of Israel to come from Judah, not another tribe (Genesis 49:10).  David was from Judah, whereas Saul was from Benjamin.  According to the Artscroll, God intended from the outset for Saul’s reign to be temporary.  Jimmy Swaggart says that God intended David’s line to be permanent and for all future kings of Israel to come from that line.  For Swaggart, when II Chronicles 6:5-6 says that God chose David and no one else prior to him, the idea is that God chose David’s line to have permanent rulership over Israel.  E.W. Bullinger notes that God “overruled the choice of the people” and cites I Samuel 8:5  I do not entirely understand what Bullinger was getting at, but perhaps he was saying that God in choosing Saul as king was simply giving in to the people’s demands for a king, whereas God in choosing David was making God’s real choice.  Saul did botch some things up as king: maybe God foresaw this and set up Saul to punish the people of Israel for their request, which offended God.

I Samuel 13:13-14 may be relevant to this discussion.  The context here is Saul’s disobedience to God in offering sacrifices himself rather than waiting for Samuel the prophet to come.  “And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.  But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.”  Notice that God would have established Saul’s kingdom forever, had Saul not disobeyed.  On the one hand, that seems to challenge the idea that God intended Saul’s reign from the outset to be temporary.  On the other hand, maybe God knew ahead of time that Saul would disobey God and thereby forfeit an eternal reign for his line, and thus God did plan for Saul’s reign to be temporary.  In any case, the passage says that David was a man after God’s own heart: that could mean that David was God’s real choice, that David genuinely had the qualities that God desired a king of Israel to have.

Keil-Delitzsch simply note that the part of II Chronicles 6 about God not choosing a ruler over Israel prior to David is not in I Kings 8, which presents Solomon giving the same sort of speech at the Temple as what is in II Chronicles 6.  That could mean that the Chronicler himself is contributing the part about God not picking a king prior to David to rule Israel.  But the Chronicler was aware of King Saul (I Chronicles 5:8-13).  Why, then, would the Chronicler say that God did not choose a king of Israel prior to David?

A possible explanation could be that from the beginning (or, at least, from the time of Jacob’s son Judah) God planned for the king of Israel to descend from Judah, and so, technically, God chose David to be king long before he chose Saul.  I Chronicles 5:2 states: “For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler…”  My problem with this explanation is that II Chronicles 6:4 states that God did not choose a ruler over Israel since the time of the Exodus, until David came along.  The idea there seems to be that God chose David when David came along, not several centuries before David was born.  I also have a slight problem with the proposal that God uniquely chose David because David’s line was to be permanent.  So often in Chronicles, the duration of the reign of David’s line seems to be contingent on its obedience to God’s commandments, which is technically not permanence.  But perhaps there are ways to get around that: that the reigns of certain Davidic kings may be overthrown for disobedience while the line itself still reigns forever, or that God will one day restore the line of David to the throne.

I do not know why the Chronicler said what he said in II Chronicles 6:5-6, but perhaps it is a combination of the explanations others have offered: that David was God’s real choice to be king, whereas Saul really was not.  The Chronicler does exalt David a lot.

I Chronicles 29

In  I Chronicles 29, King David encourages leaders in Israel to support his successor, Solomon, in the task of constructing the Temple, and to donate materials to the project, as David did.

I generally listen to sermons about the chapter that I am studying for my weekly quiet time.  In the sermons that I heard about I Chronicles 29, there was a lot of emphasis on God loving a cheerful giver, a la I Corinthians 9:7.  More than one preacher said that, if we do not want to give, then God does not want us to give, for God desires that our giving be willing.  Throughout I Chronicles 29, we read that the Israelite leaders gave willingly, freely, or joyously.

I am a bit ambivalent about the pastors’ statement that we should not give if we do not want to do so.  On the one hand, I am against trying to force or guilt people to do things that they do not want to do.  If I absolutely do not want to go to a Christian small group, for example, then forcing myself to do so out of “obedience to God” will not help me, and it probably will not help those in the group.  On the other hand, when it comes to giving, especially charitable giving, then I believe that the focus should be on the need of the recipients rather than the attitude of the giver.  The attitude of the giver is still important, but that is because being a cheerful giver can lead to more giving and helping of those in need, not because it meets some legalistic requirement of what counts as legitimate giving in God’s eyes.

In I Chronicles 29, however, we are not dealing with charitable giving, but with giving that relates to the construction of the Temple.  But is not the Temple necessary for Israel to prosper?  Remember the Book of Haggai, where God criticizes the post-exilic Israelites for taking care of their own needs while neglecting their religious duty to build God a Temple?  According to Haggai, that neglect resulted in economic dearth for the Israelites, as their crops were consumed by blight, mildew, and hail (to draw from the NRSV’s rendering of Haggai 2:17).  Israel needed God in her midst in order to prosper.  When post-exilic Israel recognized that and undertook the duty of building God a Temple, then things got better for her economically.

But I am doubtful that Israel in the time of David and Solomon really needed a Temple in order to have God’s presence in her midst and to prosper.  God already dwelt in Israel’s midst through a Tabernacle, and, according to I Chronicles 17, God was satisfied with that.  It was David who decided that this was not good enough for God, that it was improper for David to dwell in a great palace while God dwelt in a lowly tent.  David decided to build God a Temple, and God signaled his approval of that, or, more accurately, his approval of David’s son Solomon undertaking the project.

That being said, David and the leaders of Israel were not donating willfully to building the Temple because they believed that God needed a Temple to dwell in Israel’s midst and to bless and prosper her, for God already dwelt in Israel through a Tabernacle.  Rather, they were eager to donate out of a conviction that a great God deserved a great Temple.  This was worship.  This was something that could not be compelled.  God wants for our love of him to be joyful, free, and willing.

At the same time, there was a temptation: people who try to do something for God may start to exalt themselves.  “Look what I am doing for God!”  That may be why David in I Chronicles 29 is exalting God at the expense of humans, saying that all came from and belongs to God, that humans are temporary, and that no one really deserves to give God anything.  Moreover, while one may point to one’s piety and become proud of it, David highlights the need for God to preserve a person’s piety, so that it is not just a passing fad or whim but becomes a defining factor in one’s life.  Human beings are inconstant and can be fickle, and so, rather than congratulating themselves for whatever piety or goodness they may have, they should depend on God to preserve that piety or goodness such that it becomes a defining part of their character.

I wonder also if David was also exalting God at the expense of the human as a way to convince people to give.  Maybe he was telling the Israelite leaders that their time on earth is temporary, and they cannot take their wealth with them, so what better way is there for them to use their wealth than to use it to honor the great God?  I suppose that one can think of other good uses they could have made of their wealth, even if they would die some day and could not take their wealth with them.  They could leave it to their children, and that would be laudable.  But David wants them to do something even more significant with it.

Giving is not always easy for me.  I have given in the past.  But it is not easy.  Somewhere in my mind, there should be a sense that—-in addition to saving up my money—-I should use at least some of it for something significant, such as helping those in need, or promoting the worship of God.

I Chronicles 28

I have four items for my blog post on I Chronicles 28.

1.   David summoned the princes, captains, valiant men, and officers of Israel, as well as his stewards and the stewards of his son.  In I Chronicles 28:2, he calls these men brothers.  More than one commentary that I read made a big deal about this.  Matthew Henry says that David is doing so to humble himself.  The more critical Peake’s commentary states  that “an oriental king does not place himself on a level with his subjects in this way”, so David must be doing so out of stress.  David wants for his son and coming successor, Solomon, to build the Temple, and for the important people of Israel to provide support for Solomon in this endeavor.  That could be what is stressing David out.  Peake’s commentary also cites Deuteronomy 17:15, which commands the Israelites, if they want a king, to appoint the king from among their brethren.  The king is to be a fellow Israelite, part of the family.

David may be addressing these men as brothers because he is humbly seeking their help, or because he actually does regard them as brothers—-they are fellow Israelites, after all.  Maybe David is saying that, as Israelites, they should be privy to God’s plans for Israel: to dwell with Israel in a Temple.  This involves them, too, and David in calling them brothers is recognizing and highlighting that.  I think of what Jesus says in John 15:15: “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” (KJV).

2.  David in I Chronicles 28:9 exhorts Solomon to know and to serve God.  What does it mean to know God?  Evangelicals like to make a big deal about this: “Do you know the Lord?”, some of them may ask people, or they may say that there is a difference between knowing about God and knowing God.  Is knowing God having an awareness of God’s identity and attributes, being in a relationship with God, or something else?

Roddy Braun in the Word Biblical Commentary on I Chronicles interprets knowing God in light of a covenant context:

“Studies in Hittite and Accadian treaties assure us of the usage of ‘to know’ to denote the mutual legal recognition of suzerain and vassal and the binding nature of treaty stipulations (cf. H. Huffmon, ‘The Treaty Background of Hebrew [Yada], BASOR 181 [1996] 31-37).  Biblical passages cited by Huffmon such as Amos 3:2; 2 Sam 7:20 (=I Chron 17:18); Hos 8:2; 13:4-5; Deut 9:24; and Psalm 14:4 wholly support the view that we are dealing here with conventional terminology which exhorts Solomon to recognize Yahweh as his covenant lord and to conduct himself in accord with his stipulations.”

So knowing God is recognizing that God is lord within the covenant relationship and treating God accordingly.  That could be.  Still, I think that there may be a broader conception of knowing God, within both the Hebrew Bible and also the New Testament.  In Jeremiah 22:15, we read: “He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD” (KJV).  That could mean that King Josiah recognized God as covenant lord and thus obeyed God’s commands regarding social justice, but could there also be a sense here that knowing God is seeing that God is just and acting according to God’s character?  We see something similar in I John 4:8: “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (KJV).  Here, knowing God is being aware (perhaps intimately aware) that God is love and thereby walking in love.

I also think of verses about people not hurting and destroying in the future paradise, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14).  In Isaiah 11:9, that seems to apply to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles are not part of God’s covenant with Israel.  Does knowing God in this context, then, relate to any covenant?  Well, maybe the Gentiles were part of some covenant with God, since God made a covenant with humanity through Noah (Genesis 9).  Moreover, Isaiah 24:5 accuses humanity of breaking a covenant with God by violating God’s laws.  Do Gentiles know God by acknowledging that they, too, have a covenant with God and are subject to God as their lord?  Or is Isaiah 11:9 saying that the Gentiles will know that hurting and destroying violate God’s character, and they will thus turn from hurting and destroying?  Is knowing God honoring God as the boss in a covenant, or is it recognizing God’s character?  Could it be both?

3.  More than one scholar has maintained that there is diversity within the Hebrew Bible concerning whether God’s covenant with David and David’s offspring was conditional or unconditional.  In II Samuel 7, God says that David’s seed will be established forever, and that God will discipline it when it does wrong but will not remove his love from it, as God did with Saul.  The implication seems to be that, whereas God rejected Saul from being king on account of Saul’s sins, God will not do this to David’s line; rather, God will discipline David’s line, but it will still rule.  And, throughout I-II Kings, God refuses to destroy Jerusalem for David’s sake, notwithstanding Jerusalem’s sins.

But there are also voices in the Hebrew Bible that treat God’s faithfulness to the Davidic line as conditional on its obedience to God’s commandments.  This occurs in I Kings, and those passages may be Deuteronomistic.  Eventually, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Davidic monarchy was overthrown.  Some voices within the Hebrew Bible may have looked at that as evidence that God’s covenant with David was conditional on obedience, and that David’s line forfeited the covenant through its sins.  There are some, however, who hold out hope that God is still faithful to the Davidic line: that God will restore it to its position of rulership, and it will rule forever (see, for example, Jeremiah 33:25-26).

Where does the Chronicler land on this issue?  In I Chronicles 28, the Chronicler seems to maintain that God’s covenant with David was conditional on obedience: v 7 says that Solomon’s throne will be established if Solomon obeys God, and v 9 threatens that God will cast Solomon off forever if Solomon forsakes God.  At the same time, I Chronicles 17:12-14 affirms that Solomon’s throne will be established forever, and that God will not take away God’s love from Solomon, as God did from Saul.  Maybe there is a contradiction between I Chronicles 28 and 17, due to different sources.  Or perhaps the Chronicler, even in I Chronicles 17, downplays the unconditionality of the covenant.  The Chronicler omits the part from II Samuel 7 about God disciplining the line of Solomon.  Could the reason be that the Chronicler does not think that Solomon and his line will merely receive discipline for sin, but will actually be forsaken by God?  Could the Chronicler be implying that God would not remove God’s mercy from Solomon and Solomon’s line, but only so long as Solomon is faithful to God?

Overall, the Chronicler may have believed that the days of the Davidic line were over, and that God in the Chronicler’s post-exilic days was doing things differently.  Perhaps the Chronicler thought that the Davidic line broke the covenant and thus forfeited God’s faithfulness.

4.  I Chronicles 28:19 seems to imply that David’s plans for the layout of the Temple were from God.  But scholars have noted that the Solomonic Temple resembles other Temples in the ancient Near East, particularly those of Phoenicia, which was helping Solomon build the Temple.  Would God imitate a country’s style?  Well, the Chronicler may be going a step further than I Kings by saying that the plans for the Temple’s layout were from God.  But God may very well condescend to speak within people’s culture—-to meet people where they are.

I Chronicles 27

I Chronicles 27:5-6 states (in the KJV): “The third captain of the host for the third month was Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, a chief priest: and in his course were twenty and four thousand.  This is that Benaiah, who was mighty among the thirty, and above the thirty: and in his course was Ammizabad his son.”

Benaiah is present in many places in II Samuel, I Kings, and I Chronicles, specifically within the context of the reign of King David or of King Solomon.  II Samuel 23:20-21 and I Chronicles 11:22-23 list some of his great feats: killing lionlike Moabite men, killing a lion in a pit, and killing a large Egyptian warrior with the warrior’s own heavy spear.

But only in I Chronicles 27:5 is Benaiah said to be the son of a priest.  What is more, Benaiah’s father Jehoida is called a chief priest.  That does not mean that Jehoida was a high priest, for the Hebrew uses a different phrase for that (ha-cohen ha-gadol, whereas in I Chronicles 27:5 Jehoida is called ha-cohen rosh), plus, during the time of David, Zadok and Abiathar were the high priests.  But I Chronicles 27:5 may be implying that Jehoida was a descendant of Aaron, for Aaronides in Chronicles are usually the ones who are priests.

Because Benaiah is said to be a son of a priest only in I Chronicles 27:5, one may inquire if the Chronicler made that up.  Good question.  Yet, I wonder if hints of Benaiah’s priestly heritage may be evident in a story in I Kings 2.  Joab is clinging to the horns of the altar, and King Solomon commands Benaiah to go in and kill Joab, which Benaiah is reluctant to do.  More than one person has speculated that this would defile the sanctuary, since there are laws that try to keep death away from the realm of the holy.  I write about that here.  Still, I am curious: Did Solomon assign this task specifically to Benaiah because Benaiah was the son of a priest and thus had a right to enter the sanctuary?

Speaking of the holy and death, an issue that I have wondered about more than once on this blog concerns the priests who fought in battles.  Benaiah may be one example of this.  Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, accompanies the Israelites to battles or potential battles.  The Maccabees were another example.  Josephus was a general, and he brags about being descended from one of the twenty-four courses of priests.  My problem has been this: Would this violate the purity rules of Leviticus 21, which try to keep priests away from human corpses?

I recently read an article that may shed light on this issue.  It is by Christophe Batsch, and it is entitled “Priests in Warfare in Second Temple Judaism: 1QM, or the Anti-Phinehas”.  It appeared in the 2010 book Qumran Cave 1 Revisited, and you can read the article (minus a few pages) here.  The article highlights the diversity of views in Second Temple Judaism about whether priests should participate in war.  Some said yes, and some said no.  One view was that they could, as long as they killed people with a long spear so as to avoid direct contact with the corpse of their enemy.  I wonder if Benaiah grabbing the spear of the large Egyptian and killing him with it would accord with such a requirement.

Another issue concerns Benaiah’s city.  Benaiah is repeatedly said to be from Kabzeel, and Kabzeel was not a Levitical city.  Consequently, some question whether he was a priest.  But could Benaiah have moved to Kabzeel from a Levitical city?

I Chronicles 26

Here are some thoughts about I Chronicles 26:

1.  I Chronicles 26 talks a lot about gatekeepers to the Temple, or sanctuary.  Obed-Edom’s sons are said to be mighty men of valor (v 6), strong (v 7), and able (v 8), and one of them is called a wise counsellor (v 14).  Why would one need these qualities to be a guard?  Well, for one, it took strength to open and close the Temple doors.  John Gill refers to Josephus’ statement that it took twenty men to close the doors of the Temple (Jewish Wars 6.293).  Second, my guess is that it would take wisdom and strength to be a guard: one would need to assess situations to make sure no one snuck into the Temple, and also use force to keep people out.  Why would anyone want to sneak into the Temple?  Temples had a lot of wealth within them, so perhaps a person would want to loot them.

2.  Vv 27-28 state (in the KJV): “Out of the spoils won in battles did they dedicate to maintain the house of the LORD.  And all that Samuel the seer, and Saul the son of Kish, and Abner the son of Ner, and Joab the son of Zeruiah, had dedicated; and whosoever had dedicated any thing, it was under the hand of Shelomith, and of his brethren.”

Is this saying that Samuel and Saul dedicated spoils to the Temple?  How could they, when there was not a Temple in their time?  Well, there was a sanctuary, a tabernacle.  Perhaps they dedicated the spoils to that.

John Gill says that Samuel and Saul were aware that God would eventually have a place for his name.  Is Gill suggesting that Samuel and Saul knew that God would eventually have a Temple, and thus they were dedicating spoils to it in advance?  Could Deuteronomy 12:8-11 be relevant here: Israel first gets rest from her enemies, then a sanctuary where God will cause his name to dwell?  Samuel, Saul, and David did not live in a time when Israel had rest from her enemies, for they fought wars.  Solomon, however, did preside over that time of rest, and he was the one who built the Temple.  According to the Chronicler, did Samuel and Saul conclude from Deuteronomy 12:8-11 that God would eventually have a Temple?

I Chronicles 25

Heman’s sons sang and prophesied with musical instruments at the sanctuary.  Psalm 88 is attributed to Heman.

What catches a number of scholars’ attention is I Chronicles 24:4, which lists the sons of Heman:

“Of Heman: the sons of Heman; Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shebuel, and Jerimoth, Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti, and Romamtiezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, and Mahazioth” (KJV).

More than one scholar believes that there is a sentence, or a piece of a psalm, in this verse.

The commentator on this verse in Peake’s Bible commentary believes that the sentence starts at “Hananiah” and ends at “Mahazioth.”  He translates it to say: “Be gracious unto me, Yah, be gracious unto me; my God art Thou, Thee do I magnify and exalt; my helper when I am in trouble, I say, give me fullness of visions.”

Roddy Braun in the Word Biblical Commentary quotes W. Rudolph’s rendering of the psalm piece: “Be gracious to me, O Yahweh, be gracious to me; You are my God.  I exalt (you), I praise (my) Helper.  Sitting in adversity, I said, [or, Fulfill my request] Clear signs give plentifully.”

E.W. Bullinger starts the sentence later, at “Giddalti”: “I have magnified, and I have raised up help; Sitting in trouble, I have spoken many oracles.”

The commentator in Peake’s commentary speculates that “Although these appear now as proper names they were possibly not so originally…”  The commentator still notes that the names appear as proper names “elsewhere in the chapter.”

E.W. Bullinger says that Heman may have named his sons with that psalm in mind, since parents at that time often named their children with some purpose in mind—-to convey a message.  Indeed, we do see this in the Bible, especially in Genesis.  Still, I have a hard time envisioning Heman naming one son in reference to the first word in a Psalm, then the next son in reference to the next word, and so on.  How would he even have known that he would eventually have enough sons to complete the sentence?  Maybe he was just trying, not knowing if it would work out or not.  “The names are good names, even if I do not get to finish the sentence,” Heman may have thought.  Or perhaps Heman prophetically knew at the outset that he would have enough sons to complete the sentence/psalm.  He is said to have prophesied in I Chronicles 25:1, and v 5 calls him the king’s seer.

Braun refers to Rudolph’s view that “individuals or groups of singers may actually have taken their names from psalms which were especially sung by them” (Braun’s words), but he goes on to say that D.L. Petersen “finds unconvincing the Sumerian parallels that are quoted.”

Braun refers to another idea: that the names are not one psalm verse but rather are the beginnings of various psalms.  Braun does not find that convincing, however, for “no satisfactory psalms are apparent in our psalter for the last two groups of names.”  Braun may be correct that there are no psalms that start with, say, “abundance,” or “visions” (the meanings proposed for some of the names).  Still, I wonder if a psalm could have such titles: if a Psalm is about visions, could it have had a title of “visions”?

I looked up the meaning of the names.  I went to Brown-Driver-Briggs, Strong’s, and Blueletterbible, which referred to Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon and also an “Outline of Biblical Usage.”  I will share my findings here:

Hananiah:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: “whom Jehovah gave”
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “God has favoured”
Strong’s: “Jah has favored”
BDB: “Yah hath been gracious”

Hanani:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: : “favourable”
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “gracious”
Strong’s: “gracious”
BDB: maybe abbreviation of Hananiah

Eliathah:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: “to whom God comes”
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “God has come”
Strong’s: “God of (his) consent”
BDB: “God has come”

Giddalti:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: doesn’t give meaning
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “I make great”
Strong’s: “I have made great”
BDB: “I magnify (God)”

And Romamti-ezer:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: none
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “I have exalted the helper”
Strong’s: “I have raised up a help”
BDB: “I have made lofty help”

Joshbekasha:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: “seat in a hard place”
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “seated in hardness”
Strong’s: “a hard seat”
BDB: pertains to “seat”

Mallothi:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: “my fullness”
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “I have uttered”
Strong’s: “I have talked”, “loquacious”
BDB: “I have uttered” (from piel of m-l-l)

Hothir:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: none
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “abundance.”
Strong’s: “he has caused to remain”
BDB: “abundance, superabundance” (from y-t-r, “remain”)

Mahazioth:
Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: “visions”
BLB Outline of Biblical Usage: “visions”
Strong’s: “visions”
BDB: “visions”

As I look at these, I can see the bases for the various translations of the alleged psalm piece.  Some of the translators understand certain words differently, however: more than one, for example, translate “Eliathah” as “you are my God,” the idea being that “Eli” is “my God” and “athah” here is the second person singular, “you.”  I question whether the names come together to create a smooth-flowing sentence.  Moreover, as I double-click on the names on my BibleWorks, I notice that many of the words do not appear in psalms in the Book of Psalms, and that leads me to doubt if these names are all part of a psalm fragment at the outset.  But some believe they are.

I Chronicles 24

I Chronicles 24 is about the twenty-four courses of priests who would officiate in the Temple.  They were descended either from Aaron’s son Eleazar or Aaron’s son Ithamar.  These twenty-four courses would rotate their service, with each officiating at specific times in the year.

The twenty-four courses figure prominently in later literature.  In the Gospel of Luke, John the Baptist’s father Zacharias belonged to the eighth course (Luke 1:5).  This detail features in many Christian attempts to discover the date of Jesus Christ’s birth: they try to determine when Zacharias was ministering in the Temple, since that was the time when the angel announced that Zacharias’ wife would have a son.  Then, they would take into consideration the factor that Jesus was born six months after John the Baptist.

The Maccabees were descended from Jehoiarib, who belonged to the first course (I Maccabees 2:1).  The Jewish historian Josephus also claimed to belong to the first course (Life 1.2).

All of this raises questions in my mind.  How could Josephus, a priest, be a leader in battle, with all the purity regulations to which priests were subjected (Leviticus 21)?  Priests were subjected to very stringent laws against coming into contact with a corpse; would not battles be a place of rampant corpse contamination, however?  Actually, I wonder this about more than one priest, such as Aaron’s grandson Phinehas, who went into battle (Numbers 31; Judges 20:28).

(UPDATE: Within rabbinic tradition, there is a priest anointed for war, and he cannot officiate in the Temple service once he is so anointed; rather, a deputy high priest takes his place.  See here, especially Babylonian Talmud Nazir 47b.)  

How could Josephus, a priest, go around exploring different sects, as Josephus says he did?  How would John the Baptist, a son of a priest, be out in the wilderness preaching?  Or, if you don’t believe that John the Baptist really was of a priestly line, why would Luke have no problem depicting John the Baptist as a son of a priest who is out in the wilderness?  Could not priests be exposed to contamination that way?  Would they not be safer from that in the Temple?  Leviticus 21:12 says that a high priest cannot leave the sanctuary, for anointing oil is upon him.  Does that refer to a specific situation, not all times?  Or were the twenty-four courses technically not high priests, even if they were descendants from Aaron, and thus they could venture outside the sanctuary?

Another issue in my study that interested me was how some of the priestly families were questioned or missing, only to be accepted back, eventually.  Only four courses came back from exile (Ezra 2:36-39; Nehemiah 7:39-42; 12:1-21).  Hakkoz’s descendants were not allowed into the priesthood because their record in their genealogies could not be found (Ezra 2:61).  Yet, Hakkoz is included in the list in I Chronicles 24:10.  The note in the HarperCollins Study Bible says that the list in I Chronicles 24:10 must be later and the family of Hakkoz “had made gains in having its claims acknowledged.”

I Chronicles 23

I Chronicles 23 is about the Levites.  The Levites assisted the Aaronic priests.  In the Book of Numbers, their primary responsibility was transporting the holy objects (i.e., the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, etc.) from place to place, since Israel was on the move from Egypt to the Promised Land.  Even after Israel arrived in the Promised Land, there were times when holy objects needed transporting—-when the location of the sanctuary changed, or when the Israelites went out into battle and took the Ark of the Covenant with them—-and, in those cases, the Levites were the ones who were supposed to transport the holy objects.

According to Numbers 4:35, Levites between the ages of 30 and 50 were the ones who were to serve.  Numbers 8:24 says that the starting age is 25, and rabbinic sages sought to harmonize this contradiction (or apparent contradiction) by positing that Levites began their training at age 25 but actually started serving at age 30.  Why age 30?  David Rothstein in the Jewish Study Bible proposes that the idea is that, during the wilderness journey, the Levites needed strength to carry the Ark and enough experience to transport the holy objects correctly, as mishandling the holy objects could bring death.  In light of this, 30-50 is a good age range, since people in that age range have arrived at a state of strength, experience, and maturity.

David in I Chronicles 23 initially numbered the Levites over thirty and assigned to them responsibilities: being officers, judges, and gatekeepers, praising God with instruments, and assisting in the sanctuary itself.  But David then decided to enroll the Levites between 20-29, as well.  The reason for this is given in vv 25-26: the Israelites are now at rest, and they are no longer on the move.  Consequently, their sanctuary is not on the move, and so the Tabernacle and its vessels no longer need to be transported by the Levites.  The text does not say why specifically this is relevant, but some have proposed that David’s reasoning is that the serving Levites no longer need to be in the 30-50 age range, the best age range for transporting the holy objects, for the Levites no longer needed to transport holy objects.  Another rationale may have been that David was expecting the Temple to be larger than the Tabernacle and thus to require more men to support it: you reduce the starting age for Levitical service, and you have more Levites serving!

David Rothstein in the Jewish Study Bible proposes that perhaps Israel’s post-exilic setting—-the milieu in which the Book of Chronicles was composed—-explains why I Chronicles 23 presents the starting age for Levitical service being lowered.  Ezra 8:15-20 seems to indicate that post-exilic Israel had difficulty finding Levites; thus, it would make sense that requirements for Levitical service would become a bit looser at that time.  I Chronicles 23 itself does not present a dearth of Levites, but perhaps it addresses the need of post-exilic Israel: post-exilic Israel needed Levites for service and thus felt a need to lower the starting age, and I Chronicles 23 depicted an important figure in Israel’s history, King David, doing precisely that.

I Chronicles 22

In I Chronicles 22:7-10, King David relates to his son and future successor, Solomon, that God did not allow David to build the Temple because David had shed a lot of blood and waged great wars.  Solomon, however, a man of rest who would preside over a time of peace for Israel, would build the Temple.

Why would David waging wars disqualify him from building the Temple?  Did not God command or sanction David’s warfare, as a way to defeat Israel’s enemies and bring Israel to a state of peace?

The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary lists a variety of reasons that David’s warfare disqualified him from building the Temple, as it draws from commentators.  One commentator stated that David killed innocent people, both in his military campaigns and also apart from those (as when David had Uriah killed so that David could take Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba).  Another commentator said that David’s warfare demonstrated that David was a man of strict justice, perhaps because David was punishing foreign enemies for their sins, whereas the Temple was to be a place of forgiveness and mercy.  In essence, the Temple was to be a place of rest and peace.  Exodus 20:22 forbids an iron instrument from being used to manufacture the stones of the altar, and a traditional Jewish interpretation is that this is because iron instruments related to warfare, and the altar was to be disassociated from warfare.  David may have fulfilled God’s role for him in conducting wars—-and even here some question whether David’s conduct of the war accorded perfectly with God’s will, since David killed innocent people.  Still, God was bringing forth a new era of peace, in which the Temple would play a significant role, and God wanted a man of peace to be the one who would build that Temple.

Even though God turned David down when David wanted to build the Temple, however, David still found ways that he could contribute so as to make things easier for his successor.  The nineteenth century preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon had a good sermon about this, and how we should find things that we can do for God.

I Chronicles 21

I Chronicles 21 is about King David conducting the census, and God punishing Israel with pestilence as a result.  Here are some thoughts.

1.  I wrote a post a while back about II Samuel 24, which also tells a story about David’s census.  God punished Israel for David’s census by sending pestilence, indicating that God regarded the census as a bad thing.  Similarly, in Exodus 30:12-13, God commands that the Israelites are to pay a half shekel as a ransom for their lives when they conduct the census, so that a plague might not come upon them.  In this case, the census is still bad, on some level, and yet God commands the Israelites to conduct one while offering a way for them to bypass its negative consequences.

In that post, I referred to scholar E.A. Speiser, who mentioned the fear and caution about censuses in the ancient Near East, as people sought to appease the gods so that nothing bad might happen to them.  According to Speiser, this may trace to the fear people had of their names being recorded, since their names could be put to “unpredictable uses” (Speiser’s words), plus the census was often associated with the military draft and all the insecurity that came with that.  Speiser speculated that this may have been relevant to the aversion towards censuses in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East.  I’m just mentioning this because I think it is important, even if I don’t do anything with this information in the rest of this post.

2.  Why did David conduct the census?  He may have wanted to know how many people he had so he could formulate military strategy or assess how much revenue he would be receiving from taxes.  According to the Jewish commentator Malbim, because many Israelites had followed David’s son Absalom rather than David when Absalom was revolting, David was doubtful that he could rely on getting volunteers for his military, and thus he resorted to the draft.  And Malbim contends that David was obsessive-compulsive about this: that David counted, not just those of fighting age, but also the infants, so that David could keep track of who reached fighting age.  All of this sounds practical, but there are many religious commentators who hold that this displeased God because David was trusting human means rather than God for the victory and well-being of his nation.   David was trusting numbers rather than God; he may have even conducted the census as a means of boasting, so that he could feel good about how many people he was commanding!  Even here, his mind was not on God.

Conservative biblical scholar Gleason Archer wrote a book entitled The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.  I respect what Archer has to say, even though my own approach is to acknowledge the bumps in the Bible rather than trying to smooth them over so that the Bible looks perfect.  Archer addresses some of the troubling details in the stories of David’s census.  II Samuel 24:1 says that God incited David to conduct the census because God was angry with Israel.  God appears to set David up to sin so that God can punish Israel.  I Chronicles 21:1, however, states that Satan was the one who incited David to conduct the census.  Why would God incite David to sin, punish David for something that Satan incited him to do, or punish all of Israel for David’s misdeed (David himself asks God the last question in II Samuel 24:17 and I Chronicles 21:17)?  According to Archer, David and all of Israel were already becoming proud as a result of their military victories and their power, and so God decided to set up a situation in which that pride would be brought to the surface and dealt with.  I wonder if God does that with us: God sees certain tendencies within us, for good or for bad, and God creates a situation in which we could become more aware of ourselves, or pruned so that we bear more fruit.  

3.  There are contradictions between II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21.  Or some conservative Christians would call them apparent contradictions, which means that they only appear to be contradictions on the surface, but they can be harmonized if one digs more deeply.  First, there is the contradiction about the choice of punishments that God offered to David.  After David sinned with the census, God offered him a choice of punishments: II Samuel 24 says these options were seven years of famine, three months of fleeing from enemies, and three days of pestilence.  I Chronicles 21, by contrast, says they were three years of famine, three months of fleeing from enemies, and three days of pestilence.  David opts for the pestilence because he thinks it would be better for Israel to fall into the merciful hands of the LORD rather than foreign enemies.  But there is still a contradiction about the amount of time of famine God was offering to David as a choice.

Gleason Archer addresses this problem by saying that the prophet Gad approached David two times.  Gad approached David a first time and offered seven years of famine as an option.  David then wrestled with God in prayer, and God heard David’s plea and then sent Gad to offer the lesser punishment of three years of famine instead. 

Another contradiction concerns the amount of money that David paid Ornan for the property on which the Temple would later be constructed, and (on a short-term basis) on which David would build an altar to stave off the plague.  II Samuel 24:24 says David paid fifty shekels of silver for Araunah’s threshingfloor and oxen.  I Chronicles 21:25, by contrast, states that David paid 600 shekels of gold for Ornan’s place.

A number of scholars say that this is a contradiction and that the Chronicler likes to beef up the numbers in retelling the stories in Samuel-Kings.  The Temple is pretty important, after all, so David had to have paid a lot to get the site on which the Temple would later be constructed!  Gleason Archer disputes, however, that Chronicler inflates the numbers, for he notes times when the stories in Chronicles actually have a lower number than do the parallel stories in Samuel-Kings.
Archer’s solution to the contradiction on how much David paid is to say that David paid fifty shekels of silver for the threshingfloor, but later David decided that the entire mountain of Moriah would be suitable for religious and governmental purposes, so David paid Ornan 600 shekels of gold for all of Mount Moriah.

Some will be convinced by these harmonizations; some will not.  There are even Christians who will find these explanations unconvincing, so it’s not a matter of “Well, these atheists are rejecting my harmonization because their hearts are hard against God and they don’t want to believe” (not that Archer says that).  What is interesting to me is that these harmonizations aim to present the Bible as divine in origin and as infallible, but they end up making the Bible look more human in origin.  They posit that there are different versions of the same event: that one author records the event and mentions one set of details, while another author records the same event and has another set of details.  That’s what humans do: they tell stories differently because they remember different details.   

I Chronicles 20

I Chronicles 20:2 says the following, in reference to David conquering the country of Ammon:
“And David took the crown of their king from off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold, and there were precious stones in it; and it was set upon David’s head: and he brought also exceeding much spoil out of the city” (KJV).

The crown of the king of Ammon was put on David’s head.  It weighed a talent of gold.  The HarperCollins Study Bible says that’s 75 pounds.  How did David wear 75 pounds on his head?  That’s really heavy!

The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary lists rabbinic explanations, which are in Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 44a.  One is that David did not wear the crown, but it still fit his head.  Another is that there was a magnet on the ceiling lifting the crown when David wore it so that it would not be so heavy for him.  A third explanation is that the stone in the crown weighed the same as a talent of gold, but the crown itself was lighter.  A fourth explanation is that the person who could wear the crown was the one who would be king.  It’s sort of like the sword in the stone of Arthurian lore.  Rashi says that Joash could wear the crown, and Joash was the one in II Kings 11 who was hidden when the wicked Queen Athaliah reigned in Judah.  I can see why Rashi would think that Joash’s right to be king would need to be authenticated after Athaliah was overthrown.  And, according to Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 21b, the crown did not fit the head of Adonijah, the son of David who was competing with Solomon for the throne.

The Artscroll cites the Zohar, which, in 1:110b, affirms that David’s kingship was to come from Lot.  Lot was Abraham’s nephew centuries before.  Lot had two sons: Moab and Ammon.  David was descended from Moab, through Ruth the Moabitess.  But he was legitimized as king through the crown of Ammon.

One thing that I have to give to the “magnet” explanation and the sword-in-the-stone-like explanation: they take seriously the biblical text’s statement that the crown was put on David’s head.  It seems to me that other explanations try to skirt this.  I read one critical suggestion that crowns were placed on cult statues.  Maybe, but the text says that the crown was taken off of the head of the king of Ammon, and put on the head of David.

I Chronicles 19

In I Chronicles 19, Nahash the king of Ammon has died, and Nahash’s son Hanun takes his father’s place as king.  David sends messengers to comfort Hanun because Nahash had been kind to David, probably when David was on the run from King Saul.  Hanun’s advisers, however, are suspicious, and they think that David is sending those messengers to spy out the land for war.  Consequently, Hanun humiliates David’s servants by shaving half their bodies, from the head to the buttocks.  Realizing that he has probably offended David by doing this, Hanun prepares for war, and he pays people in other countries to come and assist him.  In II Samuel, it was during this war that David committed adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (II Samuel 11).

The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary refers to Jewish commentators who struggled with a question.  In Deuteronomy 23:6, God prohibits the Israelites from seeking the peace and prosperity of the Ammonites and Moabites.  The rationale is stated in Deuteronomy 23:4: “Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee” (KJV).  But here David was, seeking the peace and prosperity of the king of Ammon.  Was David violating God’s law in doing so?

The Artscroll lists solutions that commentators have proposed.  The first one is that David was not offering kindness to the king of Ammon but was simply repaying the favor that the king’s father Nahash had done for David.  David was not offering kindness gratis, which is what is prohibited, but rather is repaying a kindness.  The problem that the Artscroll has with this solution is that David was not repaying Nahash for Nahash’s kindness, for Nahash was dead; rather, David was extending kindness to Nashash’s son, and that did not count as a repayment, for Nahash’s son was not the one who had been kind to David.  Nahash was.

The second solution is that the prohibition on seeking the peace and prosperity of the Ammonites applies to specific situations.  The Israelites when making war on a city are not to offer the Ammonites peace, and the Israelites are not to allow any Ammonite to dwell in Israel as a ger toshav—-a Gentile resident alien in Israel who observes some of God’s commands but not the entire Torah.  These are forbidden, according to this solution, but extending a personal kindness to an Ammonite (as David did) is allowed.

The third solution is that David was aware of the prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:6, and he did not want to repay Nahash’s kindness while Nahash was still alive because that would look like he was trying to establish a treaty with Nahash and the Ammonites, which would presumably go against Deuteronomy 23:6.  Consequently, David waited for Nahash to die and then sought to repay Nahash’s kindness by sending his messengers to comfort Hanun, Nahash’s son.  That would not look like David trying to establish a treaty with the Ammonites, but rather it would look like David seeking to comfort a son who is mourning for his father.

The Artscroll itself goes another route.  It says that David in I Chronicles 19 felt secure, since he had defeated several nations, and he felt like extending goodwill to a nation that had historically been an enemy to Israel.  David was either trying to be overrighteous—-more righteous than the standard that God set forth in the Torah—-or David was technically compliant with the Torah yet was violating its spirit.  According to the Artscroll, David should have realized that reaching out to Ammon was undesirable and would backfire, that God knew what God was talking about when God forbade Israel to deal with Ammon.  It did backfire, for the Ammonites humiliated David’s servants and geared up for battle.  Moreover, according to the Artscroll, the command in Deuteronomy 23:6 may have played a role in the Ammonite advisers’ suspicion of David.  They knew that the Torah of Israel forbade the Israelites to seek the peace and prosperity of the Ammonites, and so they were suspicion when David was extending kindness to their king.  They thought David was really trying to undermine their country.

On the one hand, this discussion seems to me to stereotype an entire people-group as no-good, and I have issues with that, for I would prefer to judge people according to the content of their character rather than saying they’re no-good because they belong to a certain people-group.  On the other hand, I see here wisdom that I can apply to my own life, in that I should not be quick to trust everyone.  I know that the New Testament talks about loving everybody, even enemies, and there is a place for that.  But Jesus did tell his disciples to be wise as serpents, and helpless as doves (Matthew 10:16).

I Chronicles 18

I Chronicles 18 is the Chronicler’s version of II Samuel 8.  In both, David defeats and conquers other countries.  The Chronicler omits a piece of David’s brutality, however.  II Samuel 8:2 states: “And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David’s servants, and brought gifts” (KJV).  The Chronicler does not have that.  Maybe it was because he thought that it reflected negatively on David’s character.

The Jewish commentator Rashi wondered why David was so hard on Moab.  Was not David descended from a Moabitess, Ruth?  And did not David’s father and mother take refuge in Moab when David was on the run from King Saul of Israel (I Samuel 22:3)?  According to Rashi, the reason that David had an ax to grind against Moab was that, when his family was there taking refuge, the Moabites slaughtered all but one of David’s brothers (the one survivor being Elihu, who is mentioned in I Chronicles 27:18).

But don’t think that all of David’s aggressions were retaliatory.  As the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary acknowledges, David was attacking nations who had not attacked him.  But the Artscroll says that David did so because it was not yet the Messianic era.  The implication is probably that it was not a time of peace, that these nations could still pose a threat to Israel, since some of them had been a threat in the past.  David was taking preemptive action for Israel’s security, for good or for bad.

There are Jewish commentators who regard events in I Chronicles 18 as a foreshadowing of the Messianic era.  David sets up governors over Edom, and one Jewish work, Ran, quotes Obadiah and contends that the Messiah will do the same.  Is there any indication, though, that David in II Samuel 8 and I Chronicles 18 was a benevolent ruler of these nations?  What is interesting to me is that, after listing these conquests, I Chronicles 18:14 states: “So David reigned over all Israel, and executed judgment and justice among all his people” (KJV).  It does not say that David executed judgment and justice among these conquered nations, but that he did so over his people Israel.  The Jewish commentator Radak states that this verse serves to demonstrate that no one doubted David’s legitimacy as king after his military victories: David had clearly demonstrated that he was the right man for the job.  Perhaps.  Of course, in contrast to the Books of Samuel, the Chronicler depicts all of Israel as behind David at the outset, but perhaps there was still lingering doubt in some Israelites’ minds, or there was still room for them to be convinced further.  Alternatively, maybe the point of v 14 is that David could finally devote his energies to reigning now that he had subdued any external threats to Israel’s security.

I wish that there was some indication in the text that David ruled the conquered countries with judgment, justice, and benevolence.  According to the Jewish Psalms of Solomon 17:32-36, the Messiah will have compassion on all nations.  Did David have this compassion, or did he simply view these countries as potential threats that he needed to keep down?

Rashi’s explanation for why David was so harsh on Moab appealed to me, because it was so raw, so honest.  People kill David’s family, so David retaliates against those people.  There’s no “turn the other cheek,” or denying the existence of pain or injustice in the name of forgiveness.  Still, there is something to be said for being above the fray and pursuing righteousness, whatever one’s hurts, and even for loving one’s enemies.

I Chronicles 17

In I Chronicles 17, David wants to build God a Temple, but God says no.  God says that David’s son would do this instead.  God then goes to to affirm that God will build David a house, an everlasting dynasty.

Why did God not want David to build him a house?  There are a variety of explanations within the Hebrew Bible.  One is that God’s custom was never to dwell in a house, but in a tent and a Tabernacle.  We see this idea in II Samuel 7:5-7 and I Chronicles 17:4-6.  Another is that David had shed much blood in warfare.  This notion is in I Chronicles 22:8.  A third explanation is that David was too busy fighting wars to devote the time necessary to building a Temple.  We see this in I Kings 5:3, and I would say that this explanation is also implied in II Samuel 7 and I Chronicles 17.  Both of these chapters stress that God will bring Israel to a state of security, implying that it was not fully present when David wanted to build the Temple.  And, sure enough, in subsequent chapters, David still has more wars to fight.  Better to save the building of the Temple for a peaceful time!

The third explanation for why David wanted to build the Temple makes practical sense: it was just not the right time yet.  The first two explanations are, well, kind of nebulous, in my opinion.  Why did God prefer to dwell in a Tabernacle?  Was it because God was humble?  Did a person put those words into God’s mouth to attack the establishment or to promote a simpler form of worship, rather than a grand Temple?  Was God somehow suggesting that any Temple David could build for God would not be good enough for God, and that was why God rejected a Temple for so many years?  There are commentators who maintain that God was putting David in his place: David had an ambition to build his god a Temple, since that is what kings do, and God told David that the Temple would be built when God wanted it, not when David wanted it (Jewish Study Bible).

Why did God in I Chronicles 22:8 say that David could not build God a Temple on account of all of the blood he has shed?  Did not David shed this blood in wars that God had sanctioned: wars against Israel’s enemies that were designed to bring Israel security?  Was God saying that wars in those cases were a necessary evil?  Did God prefer that the Temple be built when Israel had a fresh start of peace, in David’s son Solomon?

One professor told me that the biblical text in these cases is trying to account for why David did not build a Temple, when kings ordinarily built their gods Temples.  That would arguably support the existence of a historical David, unless one wants to suggest that biblical authors still could have made David up and presented God’s refusal of David’s request in order to teach some moral lesson, or to attack later political realities under the guise of criticizing David.

In any case, there are spiritual lessons that I can take from this: how my timing may not be God’s timing, for example.

I Chronicles 16

I have two items for my post about I Chronicles 16.

1.  Although the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle were often together in the Pentateuch—-with the Ark being inside of the Tabernacle, except when it was brought out (usually for battle)—-they were separate from each other during David’s reign.  Or so says I Chronicles.  David brought the Ark to Jerusalem and pitched a tent for it, and there it remained while he was king.  The Tabernacle, however, was located in Gibeon, which John MacArthur says was six miles to the northwest of Jerusalem.  According to I Chronicles 16, there were thanksgiving, music, and Levitical priests at both sites.  Sacrifices, however, occurred at the Tabernacle.

Could sacrifices be offered outside of the Tabernacle?  Well, II Samuel 6:13 seems to say so, for, there, when the Ark was being transported from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem under King David, the people transporting the Ark walked six paces and offered sacrifices.  They had recently seen God strike Uzzah dead for touching the Ark, and they wanted to stay on God’s good side, so they offered sacrifices throughout their journey to Jerusalem.  The Chronicler, however, may tell the story differently, for I Chronicles 15:26 states: “And it came to pass, when God helped the Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, that they offered seven bullocks and seven rams” (KJV).  Keil-Delitzsch interpret this passage to mean that the Levites offered their sacrifices after their transportation of the Ark had been successful.  Whereas II Samuel 6 depicts people offering sacrifices to God during the journey of transporting the Ark from Obed-Edom’s house to Jerusalem, I Chronicles 15 seems to depict Levites transporting the Ark, and then, once that is done, offering sacrifices to God.  Did the Chronicler have problems with the idea that sacrifices could be offered outside of a sanctuary?

Where exactly did the Levites offer those sacrifices, according to the Chronicler?  At the Tabernacle in Gibeon?  It doesn’t say.  I Chronicles 16:1-2 state: “So they brought the ark of God, and set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it: and they offered burnt sacrifices and peace offerings before God.  And when David had made an end of offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD” (KJV).  Are these sacrifices being offered in Jerusalem, which is where the Ark is, or are David and the Israelites in Jerusalem, while the sacrifices are being offered in Gibeon, at the Tabernacle?  It makes more sense to me to go with the former—-the sacrifices were being offered at Jerusalem, where the ceremony was taking place.  So did the Chronicler think that sacrifices could be offered outside of Gibeon, after all?  Maybe.  The sacrifices in Jerusalem were occurring close to the Ark, which was holy, so perhaps that made them acceptable, in the Chronicler’s sight.  Why, then, would the Chronicler have problems with offering sacrifices during the Ark’s transportation from Obed-Edom’s house to Jerusalem?  The sacrifices would have been near the Ark, in that case.  I don’t know.  I Chronicles 16 (see v 40) seems to be specifying that sacrifices occurred at Gibeon.  Perhaps the Chronicler was open to sacrifices occurring elsewhere, on special occasions—-like in Jerusalem, after the Ark had arrived and been settled.  But he may have thought that offering sacrifices on a journey went a bit too far.

Why did David settle the Ark in Jerusalem rather than where the Tabernacle was located?  Maybe he just wanted to be near the Ark.  He desired God’s blessing, and he wanted God to be especially close to him.

Someone else who may have wanted to stay near the Ark was Obed-Edom, for I Chronicles 16 states that Obed-Edom and his brothers would serve at the Ark after it had been transported to Jerusalem.  That’s pretty cool, if that is the same Obed-Edom at whose house the Ark was after Uzzah was killed (and there is debate about this, and also about how many Obed-Edoms there are in Chronicles).  Obed-Edom’s house experienced the blessings of the Ark, so Obed-Edom decided to follow the Ark into Jerusalem and make a career as a doorkeeper there.  Imagine that!  Of course, there is the question of whether Obed-Edom was even qualified to be near the Ark, since only Levites were allowed near it, according to the Pentateuch.  Obed-Edom was a Gittite, which could be the Philistine ethnic group of which Goliath was part, according to II Samuel 21:19 and I Chronicles 20:5.  But the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary states (on I Chronicles 13:13): “Since Oved-Edom is mentioned among the Levites at 15:18, Mefaresh thinks that he is called a Gittite because he used to live in Gath—-not because he was a Philistine…”  I Chronicles 15:18 does not explicitly say that Obed-Edom was a Levite, but that may be a good inference.  Perhaps Obed-Edom, after experiencing the blessings of the Ark at his house, decided to get in touch with his Levitical roots and minister to the Ark once it came to Jerusalem!

2.  According to I Chronicles 16, when the Ark was brought to Jerusalem, David delivered a psalm into the hands of Asaph and his brothers.  V 35 of that Psalm states: “And say ye, Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather us together, and deliver us from the heathen, that we may give thanks to thy holy name, and glory in thy praise” (KJV).  That is pretty odd.  Why would David ask God to return Israelite exiles to Israel, when the exile had not happened yet?  Northern Israel had not yet fallen to Assyria (which happened in 722 B.C.E.), nor had Judah fallen to Babylon (which occurred in 587 B.C.E.).  Is David being prophetic here?  Is this an anachronism on the Chronicler’s part?

Keil-Delitzsch suggest that v 35 may refer to Israelite prisoners-of-war, taken captive by Israel’s enemies during Israel’s battles with them.  Saul and David both battled foreign enemies.  Those foreign enemies probably took Israelite captives.  Perhaps David is asking God to return those captives to Israel.

I Chronicles 15

My post about I Chronicles 15 today will focus more on what a commentary said about a verse in I Chronicles 15, rather than the contents of the chapter itself.

I Chronicles 15:1 states: “And David made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent” (KJV).

David had brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.  There, he pitched a tent for it.  He did not take the Ark to the Tabernacle at Gibeon, even though the Tabernacle was long the place where the Ark of the Covenant resided, until they got separated from each other.  Rather, David pitched another tent for the Ark.  Why?  E.W. Bullinger in The Companion Bible says the following:

“Had the Tabernacle of Moses been brought to Jerusalem, difficulties would have arisen in building the Temple.  David’s Tabernacle was merely provisional.  The provision will yet be repeated before the erection of the future Temple.  See Acts 15:16.”

Bullinger’s point may be that it was just better for the Tabernacle to be out of the way when the Temple was being built.  The Tabernacle was a holy object and had to be handled with extreme care.  David’s tent for the Ark, however, was just a provisional tent for the Ark.  It would be easier to work around David’s provisional tent than it would be to work around the sacred Tabernacle.  At least that’s my guess about what Bullinger means when he says that “Had the Tabernacle of Moses been brought to Jerusalem, difficulties would have arisen in building the Temple.”

But you may have noticed that Bullinger goes a step further.  He thinks that, in the future, there will be a repeat of this: that there will be a provisional tent of David that will exist until the new Temple is built.

Bullinger quotes Acts 15:16, which is actually a quotation of Amos 9:11.  Amos 9:11 states: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old” (KJV).

So the Tabernacle of David will be reestablished.  Will this be like the tent that David made for the Ark in Jerusalem?  If not, what exactly is the Tabernacle of David that Amos 9:11 is mentioning?
I checked out my E-Sword commentaries.  One view is that Amos 9:11 is acknowledging that the palace of David had degenerated from palace to hut, with all the problems that Jerusalem was experiencing.  Indeed, the Tabernacle of David probably refers to where David’s descendant will be rather than the place of the Ark of the Covenant, for Isaiah 16:5 depicts the Davidic descendant sitting upon the throne in the Tent of David, judging righteously.  Amos 9:11 and Isaiah 16:5 may be treating this Tabernacle of David as provisional until the Davidic ruler gets a palace: after Israel’s restoration, after all, it may take a while before Israel gets on her feet enough to build the Davidic ruler a palace.  Or perhaps those passages long for a simple time, when the king sits in a lowly Tabernacle rather than a haughty palace.

The problem, in my opinion, with saying that the Tabernacle of David will be a Tabernacle for the Ark until the Temple is rebuilt is that Jeremiah 3:16 forecasts a time when the Ark of the Covenant will never again come to people’s minds.  Bullinger himself says that the Ark was destroyed with the Temple, Jerusalem, and the Old Covenant.  So what does Bullinger believe the future Tabernacle of David will house until the Temple is rebuilt?  God’s presence, apart from the Ark?  The thing is, the point of Jeremiah 3:16 seems to be that God will be enthroned in Jerusalem and will not need an Ark.  Zechariah 14:21 may have a similar vision, for it affirms that every pot in Judah and Jerusalem will be holy.  If God’s glory then will be too big to be confined to an Ark, why should we assume that it will be confined to a tent?  Yet, Ezekiel may have a different vision from that of Jeremiah and Zechariah, for it does depict an eschatological Temple.

I Chronicles 14

I Chronicles 14 is about David’s battle with the Philistines shortly after he became king.  A key theme that came up in my study of this chapter was David’s dependence on and obedience towards God.

1.  David inquired of God over whether he should go out against the Philistines, and God gave him the go-ahead, saying that God would deliver the Philistines into David’s hands.  David then went out, fought the Philistines, and won.  When the Philistines came back, David again inquired of God.  God once more gave him the go-ahead, but God also gave David specific instructions about how to fight this time.

This second time around, David was to wait to hear the sound going over the tops of the mulberry trees before he went out to fight the Philistines.  Why?  There are at least two explanations.  The Jewish commentator Radak said that the sound over the top of the mulberry trees would be the footsteps of God’s angels, who would be fighting the Philistines.  This makes sense to me, for I Chronicles 14:15 states that “God is gone forth before thee to smite the host of the Philistines” (KJV).  The idea is that the Israelites would have spiritual assistance as they smote their enemies.  Another explanation is that the sound going over the mulberry trees presented David with an opportune time to strike: the Philistines would think that the sound was just the wind, and they would not notice David and his forces coming out to strike them.  This is the opinion of the Jewish commentator Ralbag.

Both the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary and evangelical preachers see significance in David asking God a second time whether he should go out against the Philistines.  Why did David ask God a second time?  Wasn’t the first go-ahead enough?  Couldn’t David just conclude that, because God let him go out the first time and enabled him to win, God would do so again the second time, without David having to ask?  The Artscroll and Jimmy Swaggart both speculate that David, a military man, must have struggled with his desire to take matters into his own hands.  But David depended on God.  Moreover, according to Swaggart (and other evangelicals have made this point), David was serving a living God, and so God’s second strategy may not be the same as God’s first strategy.  The Artscroll contrasts David with his predecessor, King Saul.  Saul tended to become impatient and take matters into his own hands in disobedience to God’s will, and Saul failed to obey God completely.  David, by contrast, was willing to hear and to yield to God’s will.

2.  More than one commentator has noted that I Chronicles makes David into a follower of the Torah.  II Samuel 5:21 states that David carried away the idols of the Philistines, whereas I Chronicles 14:12 affirms that David burned the idols, which would be in accord with Deuteronomy 8:25.  There may be something to that.  The Torah as a book probably existed more fully when I Chronicles was written than when II Samuel was written, and so the Chronicler conformed David’s actions to what was commonly believed to be God’s will in the Chronicler’s time: the Torah.

But David in I Chronicles 14 does not entirely follow the Torah.  I Chronicles 14:3 narrates that David took more wives, whereas Deuteronomy 17:17 forbids the king to multiply wives to himself.  Perhaps the Chronicler did not consider that part of the Torah, or he did not interpret it as a blanket prohibition of polygamy: Deuteronomy 8:25 forbids the king from multiplying wives because that could turn his heart away, presumably from following God.  According to I Kings, that’s what happened to Solomon, whose foreign wives turned him towards idolatry.  The Chronicler may have thought that such was not a problem for David, whose wives were probably not idolatrous.

Conclusions: Do I believe in a living God who can specifically guide me in my day to day life, or do I rely on a past revelation—-the Bible—-for my instructions?  Many Christians do both.  They either look to the Bible as God’s general instructions while waiting for God’s voice on specific matters, or, for them, reading the Bible can be a way that God guides them each day, as God illuminates the words of Scripture and applies them to their specific situation.  I do not feel that I hear from God, to tell you the truth, at least in such a manner that I know it is God.  But I still pray to God, recognizing my dependence on him.  Obedience to God’s will in the Bible is also important, especially when that coincides with compassion and justice.  Yet, we all have blind spots, and our obedience is often incomplete.  God still looks for a willingness to obey, though.