Friday, October 1
1 Chronicles 8: Just as the opening genealogies of 1 Chronicles emphasized David, so these genealogies concentrate on Saul at the end. Thus, this final listing is Saul’s own tribe, Benjamin.
The initial list given in the present text (verses 1-28) is drawn partly from Genesis 46:21 and Numbers 26:38-40, but there are discrepancies. Indeed, no other part of Chronicles is so full of textual difficulties as this section. Someone has suggested—and the suggestion is plausible— that the ancient scribes, having copied out seven whole chapters containing almost nothing but names, were suffering from unusual fatigue and ennui. Hence, we have an unusual numbers of transcriptional errors. Perhaps so, but there is really nothing to be done about it. The various hypothetical emendations suggested by textual scholars seem rather shaky.
We recognize Ehud (verse 6) as the left-handed Judge from this right-handed (ben-jamini) tribe (Judges 3:12-30).
Jerusalem, now introduced in verses 28 and 32, will be treated at length in the following chapter.
Although the author’s intent in verses 29-40 was to present Saul’s ancestry and lineage, the method is not direct and straightforward. After presenting Jeiel (cf. 9:5) and his progeny, he moves to Saul’s immediate family, which does not seem to be connected to Jeiel. Even the relationships portrayed here among Abner, Kish, Ner, and Saul are difficult to reconcile with 1 Samuel 14:50-51. We must bear in mind—for certainly the author of 1 Chronicles bore in mind—that this was the family that was ultimately rejected and replaced by David’s.
For all that, the Chronicler himself seems to have been faithful to very old sources here, sources independent of 2 Samuel. We may illustrate this by his retention of the name of the pagan god “Baal” in two of the names given here, Ethbaal and Meribaal (verses 33-34). This is curious and historically significant. In 2 Samuel (2:8; 9:2) these names were changed to Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth.
Why the change in 2 Samuel and not in 2 Chronicles? The answer, though easy, tells us something of canonical history. The Second Book of Samuel is contained in the second section of the Hebrew Bible, the Nebiwim, “Prophets.” These books were regularly read in the synagogue. Reluctant to use the name of a pagan god, Baal, in the synagogue, the reader customarily changed the name to boseth, meaning “shame.” This practice led to the same change being made in the text itself. There was no need to make such a change in the Books of Chronicles, however, which are found in the third section of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Ketubim, or “Writings.” This section was not placed in the biblical canon until later, and Chronicles was not read publicly in the synagogue. Hence, Chronicles has preserved the old form of these two names.
Saturday, October 2
1 Chronicles 9: We have now completed the genealogies of “all Israel,” the name the Chronicler prefers in to distinguish the whole Chosen People as distinct from the Northern Kingdom, known as “Israel” in the Books of Kings. For the Chronicler this word is full of deep religious feeling, as when it serves to describe the religious reforms of King Hezekiah three centuries later (2 Chronicles 30:1,5).
As we have seen, the author of Chronicles was careful to treat last the tribe of Benjamin and the house of Saul among the sons of Israel, because this sequence permitted him to move, almost seamlessly, from mere lists to real narrative. Likewise, this order is an easy step for him now to go to Jerusalem, which sat on the southern border of the tribe of Benjamin.
Jerusalem had not been part of the land inherited by the twelve tribes at the time of Joshua. It remained a Canaanite (or, more specifically, a Jebusite) stronghold until taken by David’s forces in 992 B.C. and made the capital of the united kingdom (2 Samuel 5:6-7). This is why we find Jerusalem, unlike the other cities of the Promised Land, inhabited by Israelites from several of the tribes (verse 3).
Because the Ark of the Covenant was transferred to Jerusalem shortly after it became David’s capital, the city was quickly transformed into a religious center, a whole generation before Solomon’s construction of the Temple there. Hence, it is scarcely surprising that the capital was home to a high number of priest, Levites, and other liturgical ministers (verses 10-22).
The Chronicler describes their several responsibilities (verse 23-34). In this inventory the Chronicler gives special prominence to the Temple’s musicians (verses 14-16), who are listed immediately after the priests (verses 10-13). The Chronicler leaves no doubt about his great respect for the ministry of the Temple choir. Its leaders (6:39; 16:14) were Asaph (verse 15) and Jeduthan (verse 16).
The gatekeepers, especially delegated to preserve the holiness within the Temple, were to emulate that great champion of Israel’s holiness, the priest Phineas (verse 20).
The sections on the singers and gatekeepers, we note, are arranged in chiastic order: A—singers (verses 14-16), B—gatekeepers (verses 17-27), B’—duties of gatekeepers (verses 28-32), and A’—duties of singers (verses 33-34).
In verse 35 the author returns to the genealogy of Saul, in order to prepare for the Battle of Gilboa (1000 B.C.) at the beginning of the next chapter. It is at the death of Saul at that battle that David assumes the throne.
Sunday, October 3
1 Chronicles 10: This succinct account of the Battle of Gilboa may be supplemented by the accounts in 1 Samuel 31 and Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 6.14.7-9.
The chapter opens abruptly. After all the genealogies, lists, rosters, and schedules of the previous nine chapters, the reader is suddenly confronted with a story of combat, in which the whole battle is over in one verse: “Now the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and fell slain on Mount Gilboa” (verse 1 ESV).
There is no need, however, to ascribe the first nine chapters to a different hand, as some have suggested. Indeed, there are two sound reasons to resist this hypothetical ascription. First, the ideas, themes, and preoccupations of those first nine chapters are identical to those in the rest of Chronicles. Second, if the opening of the present chapter seems abrupt, it would hardly appear less abrupt as the beginning of a book. Even the novelist will do his readers the kindness of remarking , “it was a dark and stormy night” before announcing that “suddenly a shot rang out.”
Following a pattern we have now come to expect, the Chronicler has nothing good to say for Saul. The latter’s sole significance was that his downfall prepared the way for David. Consequently, the book’s actual narrative commences with Saul’s downfall at the Battle of Gilboa, bringing Saul’s twenty years’ of reign to an end. Although the wounded Saul died by his own hand, it was really the Lord who slew him (verse 14).
Saul is condemned for his “unfaithfulness”(verse 13). The Chronicler uses this same word (ma‘al)to explain why the nation was deported to Babylon (9:1; 2 Chronicles 36:14), and he later employ it to describe the later reigns of Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:19; 29:19) and Manasseh (33:19). Thus, Saul’s unfaithfulness is for the Chronicler part of the larger theme of the nation’s unfaithfulness.
The assertion that all of Saul’s family perished (verse 7) must be understood in a sense compatible with the subsequent seven years’ reign of Ishbosheth in the north (2 Samuel 2—3) and the survival of Mephibosheth (9:7; 16:3). Perhaps the Chronicler intends to include here the deaths of those men years later. In fact, he has already listed other sons of Saul in 9:39-40.
Even though the Chronicler has nothing good to say for Saul, he does record the fact that some of Saul’s contemporaries took a different view (verse 12).
Monday, October 4
1 Chronicles 11: The material in this chapter is drawn from two widely separated parts of 2 Samuel. Verses 1-9 reflect the material in 2 Samuel 5:1-10, while verses 10-47 come from 2 Samuel 23:8-39.
The Chronicler greatly abbreviates the lengthy, difficult, and complicated story of David’s gaining control over all the tribes. We note that the material in the first four chapters of 2 Samuel is simply missing. There is no mention of the brief reign of Ishbosheth, the crisis of Abner, the subsequent negotiations, Joab’s hand in Abner’s death. Instead, the story skips immediately to the gathering of the tribes at Hebron (David’s firs t capital) to make David the king. There is no suggestion that Israel was politically divided between north and south (a division that would reappear at Solomon’s death in 922). Indeed, in place of “all the tribes of Israel” in 2 Samuel 5:1, we now have simply “all Israel” in verse 1. That is to say, the nation is completely united; even the tribal distinctions are lost. Thus Jerusalem is captured by “David and all Israel” (verse 4).
Having thus described David’s rise to power and the taking of Jerusalem in a bare nine verses of narrative, the Chronicler returns to what we have begun to suspect he does best—he provides more lists of names! This time, however, the lists are in large part derived from 2 Samuel 23:8-39.
First, there are David’s “three mighty men” (verses 10-14). Since only two names are given, however, we might suspect that Joab, treated in the previous verses, was to be understood as included among them. It is more plausible, however, to suspect a copyist’s omission, since the name given in 2 Samuel 23:11 is Shammah.
Second, there is a list of thirty other warriors of renown (verses 20-47). Whereas the corresponding list in 2 Samuel ends with Uriah the Hittite, Chronicler adds several names more (verses 41-47). Since these men appear to come predominantly from the east side of the Jordan, we may presume that the Chronicler received them from a Transjordanian source not available to the author of Samuel.
Such lists of combatants reflect the period when warfare was generally conducted hand-to-hand. In our own times, when weapons are employed from great distances, it is difficult to imagine this impression of ongoing single-handed combat. Indeed, Shelby Foote, the preeminent historian of the Civil War, remarked that that war produced relatively few casualties from the bayonet; most wounds were inflicted by gunfire. In very ancient accounts of combat, however, such as that between David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 and many places in Homer, the reader sometimes has the impression that any given battle was just a series of fights between individuals. These biblical lists of warriors reflect that setting. In fact, even Josephus, writing during the period of the New Testament, saw no reason to include these lists.
With David, says the Chronicler, as “the Lord of hosts,” a title that fits the military character of the whole chapter.
Especially curious is the place of Joab in this narrative. First, this text is the only place in Holy Scripture that explains how Joab came to be David’s chief commander (verses 6-7). Second, only this text speaks of Joab’s role in the repair and reconstruction of Jerusalem (verse 8). Third, Joab is never criticized in Chronicles, which even omits David’s final curse on him (1 Kings 2:5).
Tuesday, October 5
1 Chronicles 12: The military lists go on! As we reflected in the previous chapter, in the days when hand-to-hand combat was the normal way of warfare, it was normal that a certain individual notoriety attached to warriors of great skill with sword, javelin, and battle-ax. This is why we find lists of famous warriors in the ancient literature of warfare.
We may take the Iliad as a well-known instance. In his dhe descriptions of the various battles at the gates of Troy Homer emphasized the valor and prowess of individual warriors, such as Achilles, Hector, Ajax, and so on. One-on-one combat was the rule, and the stories of the combat delineate the efforts of individual brave men.
Holy Scripture comes from that same era and demonstrates that same preoccupation. The story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17, for example, complete with the speeches of each man prior to their engagement, will support comparison with the accounts of Patroclus and Hector, Diomede and Aeneas, and so on.
What we have at the end of 1 Chronicles 11 and here through Chapter 12 are similar lists of outstanding famous warriors who threw in their lot with David. They are drawn, as we can see, from among the cream of their own tribes, Benjamin (verses 1-7), Gad (verses 8-15), Manasseh (verses 19-22), and so on. This attention to the individual tribes represented in David’s band helps to emphasize that David was the choice of “all Israel.”
Because they came to David from Saul’s own tribe, the warriors of Benjamin are mentioned first (verses 1-7). In fact, when the other tribes eventually rebel against the House of David in 922 (an event that the Chronicler will not honor with so much as mention), the tribe of Benjamin remained loyal. In the present text, attention is given to the very specialized and ambidextrous skills of the Benjaminites.
The warriors of Gad (verses 8-15), who may have joined David during his sojourn at Engedi (1 Samuel 24:1), had the “faces of lions,” an expression that probably means they looked fierce to their opponents. It was not all show, however, because these warriors, in addition to their speed, were accomplished swimmers, able to cross the cold, swollen waters of the Jordan at flood stage.
All these men came to strengthen the army of David and secure his throne over all Israel (verse 38). This union of all the tribes remained for the Chronicler an ideal that King Hezekiah would later attempt to restore (2 Chronicles 30—31).
In the midst of this impressive list, and in order to make him the representative of the whole lot, “the Spirit of the Lord came upon Amisai, chief of the thirty” (verse 18). “We are yours, O David” expresses the enthusiasm of the whole kingdom.
Wednesday, October 6
1 Chronicles 13: In 2 Samuel 5:11-25 David first builds his own house and does combat against the Philistines, before beginning to make Jerusalem the religious center of the kingdom. The Chronicler, however, more interested in theological principle than in historical sequence, postpones that narrative in order to concentrate on Jerusalem’s theological importance. He first tells the story of David’s attempt to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.
Since the destruction of the ancient shrine at Shiloh, when Samuel was but a child, the Ark had apparently been a bit neglected (verse 3). As a religious and historical symbol, however, it was an object without peer in Israel’s experience. It evoked Moses and the Exodus and the Covenant and a thousand things in Israel’s deepest memory. David, then, was anxious to secure it for his new capital.
In this chapter the author begins an implicit contrast of David with Saul. Whereas the Ark had been little consulted in Saul’s time (verse 3), David will consult it. Perhaps this is why Michal, Saul’s daughter, will scoff at David’s devout treatment of the Ark (15:29).
Twice in the next chapter we will find David’s consulting the oracle at the Ark of the Covenant. Unlike Saul, who “also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance of the Lord” (10:13-14), David will be guided only by God’s revelation of His will. The Chronicler returns to this theme in the following chapter.
Though he had no trouble getting the Israelites to agree with his plans for the Ark, David found that getting God’s cooperation in the project was a tad more complicated. Although he arranged for the most elaborate of processions to bring the Ark to Jerusalem (verse 8), the event ended in tragedy because of an unforeseen mishap (verses 9-10). David’s own reaction was a mixture of anger and fear (verses 11-12).
The interest of the Chronicler here, however, is deeper. He knew that the Ark was not being carried in the proper way — that is, by the appointed Levites. The accident occurred on the road because the Ark was being carried on a cart drawn by oxen. In the next chapter (15:2), David will see to it that this sort of thing never happens again.
With respect to Uzziah, the man who stretched forth his hand to steady the Ark so that it would not fall, it will seem to many modern readers that he got a sort of bum rap. After all, his intentions (to the extent that he could be said to have any) were not reprehensible. Generations of commentators have tried to find some moral failing in the man that would explain the severity of his punishment.
For example, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 7.4.2) believed that Uzziah died because he was assuming the rights of the priesthood (cf. Numbers 4:15; Hebrews 5:4). This is an unnecessary interpretation. There is nothing in the Sacred Text to suggest a moral failing on Uzziah’s part.
The forgotten premise in such an interpretation of the story is that, according to the Bible, holiness is a very physical thing. And it is also a very dangerous thing. Uzziah learned that truth the hard way. Like the Corinthians later on, he died because he failed to “discern” what he was dealing with when he touched the sacred (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-30).
The things of God are not what we want or understand them to be. God Himself determines what they are, and God has not the slightest concern for our own interpretations of them. Someone approaching the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner may or not believe that he is receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord. If he receives that Mystery without faith, it is still the Body and Blood of the Lord, and the receiver will partake of damnation.
The holiness is real and objective. It has nothing to do with man’s recognition of it. The trespasser who is electrocuted when climbing too high on a high voltage tower perishes without regard to his own understanding of what he is about, or his personal theories on electricity, or his perhaps laudable intentions. “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow” (Hebrews 12:20).
Thursday, October 7
1 Chronicles 14: The three months’ delay in the execution of David’s plan (13:14) now permits the author to treat of the geopolitical matters contained in 2 Samuel 5, which he had earlier postponed. From a literary perspective this arrangement allows the author, not only to state explicitly that a certain time period elapsed between David’s two attempts to introduce the Ark into Jerusalem, but also to “fill in” those three months with other activity that suggest the passage of time.
The narrative thus provides the chief character, David, some breathing space, as it were, some opportunity, while engaged in other business, to reflect on the tragedy contained in the preceding chapter. Hence, when the Chronicler again turns our attention to the Ark in the next chapter, we find David gifted with a new and important insight about the meaning of that tragedy (15:12-13).
The reference to David’s multiple wives (verse 3) is the one place in Chronicles which may reflect badly on the king, but even here the author omits the reference to David’s concubines in 2 Samuel 5:13. Although he also excises David’s adulterous affair with Bathsheba, he does here include a reference to Solomon, Bathsheba’s son (verse 4). Given the importance of Solomon to this whole history, the Chronicler could hardly fail to take note of him!
In Josephus (Antiquities 7.4.1) this attack of the Philistines is expanded into an international coalition of enemies, which (in spite of the testimony of verses 1-2)) included the Phoenicians. It is more likely the case that David’s defeat of the Philistines, who were part of a larger body of European invaders (from Crete and Greece) known in antiquity as “the Sea Peoples,” proved to be beneficial to the mercantile aspirations of the Phoenicians. Only with David’s defeat of the Sea Peoples does Phoenicia rise again to become a great mercantile power. That is to say, David was every bit as helpful to Hiram, king of Tyre, as the latter was to him. The defeat of these enemies leads to an international recognition of David’s stature and prestige (verse 17).
It is clear that the Chronicler had in mind to suggest a contrast between Saul and David. He does this by contrasting the Battle of Gilboa (10:1) with the Battle of Baalperazim (verses 11-12). In the latter case David took care to “inquire of” the Lord (darash, verse 13), whereas Saul, who had not “inquired of” the Lord (darash, 10:14), “inquired of” (darash, 10:13) a medium instead. Indeed, apparently it was Saul who had put a stop to “inquiring of” the Lord (darash, 13:13). Josephus perceived this contrast, remarking that David “never permitted himself to do anything without prophecy and the command of God, and without depending on Him as a safeguard for the future” (Antiquities 7.4.1).
Adhering closely to the narrative in 2 Samuel 5:17-25, the Chronicler speaks of a second victory over the Philistines (verses 13-16).
Friday, October 8
1 Chronicles 15: To house the Ark, David provides a tent, presumably on the model of the Tabernacle that Moses constructed in the desert (Numbers 1:50). When the Ark was brought to Jerusalem this time, it was borne on the shoulders of the Levites (verses 2,15), as Moses determined (Numbers 4:2,15; Deuteronomy 10:8; 31:25; 1 Samuel 6:15). From now on, David insists, there are to be no mistakes on such matters (verse 13).
David perceived what must be perceived by any who would approach God in worship—God determines the nature, structure, and spirit of the worship. Correct (“orthodox”) worship is not the uninformed, spontaneous outpouring of human activity, and the worshipper must be on guard against identifying his own impulses with the agency of the Holy Spirit. Undisciplined, uninformed people are far more likely to act under the impulse of suspect and impure spirits than under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Mere spontaneity and a “sense of fulfillment” are no adequate indications of the agency of the Holy Spirit.
The Chronicler’s introduction of a different subject hints that some time was needed for David to arrive at the perception of this truth. Whereas in 2 Samuel (6:12) David’s motive in again attempting to move the Ark was a response to the blessings poured out on the family of Obed-edom, himself a Levite (16:5,38; Josephus, Antiqwuities 7.4.2), here in Chronicles David is credited with a deeper perception. He perceived that the real problem was the people’s relative nonchalance and carelessness in the proper conduct of the worship (verses 12-13). He discerned that in worship it is God that measures man, not the other way round.
David perceived that correct worship is not directly and immediately concerned with the religious needs and aspirations of human beings, but with the glory of God, which is inseparable from His holiness. The fundamental ground of true worship is not the religious nature of man, but the manifestation of God. Indeed, any worship that is not a response to God’s Self-revelation must of necessity be idolatrous, the worship of something that man himself creates from the resources of his own religious nature.
For worship to be authentic and true, God Himself takes the initiative. God must be revealed in order for man to worship correctly. Otherwise, man is simply worshipping the works of his own hands, the ideas of his own imagination and reason. Two chapters earlier the divine revelation was of a particularly disturbing kind, resulting in a man’s death, but it was a true revelation nonetheless, and David properly regarded it as such. He perceived that correct worship does not consist in the attempt to express man’s religious aspirations, but in meeting in faith the manifestation of God in His truth. David concluded, therefore, that from now on, everything would be done decently and in order, as determined in the rules that the Lord had given to Moses on the mountain.
This principle pertained first of all to the proper arrangement of the sacred music (verse 16), a matter about which David, himself a musician, took special care. This included instrumental music as well as vocal. This entire section on music (verses 15-24) we owe to the Chronicler.