1 Chronicles 18 - 20 and Psalm 60
In summary:
David continues to solidify his dominion through impressive military victories over his enemies. We can summarize this reading by the verse: "And the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went" (1 Chronicles 18:13).
David continues to solidify his dominion through impressive military victories over his enemies. We can summarize this reading by the verse: "And the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went" (1 Chronicles 18:13).
In more detail:
Among the impressive military victories in this chapter, we can see a marked difference between the historical narrative of the Chronicler and that of the author in 1 Samuel – 2 Kings. Notice that here the Chronicler passes over almost all of David’s life in
2 Samuel 11 – 21. For example, it seems like we are going to enter into the topic of his sin with Bathsheba when he says, “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle; Joab led out the army and ravaged the country of the Ammonites and came and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem… (1 Chronicles 20:1) It echoes 2 Samuel 11:1 when the sin with Bathsheba was introduced.
But instead of retelling his sin, the Chronicler skips it completely and runs right to the conclusion of the war against the Ammonites: “And David took the crown of their king from his head. He found that it weighed a talent of gold, and in it was a precious
stone. And it was placed on David’s head” (1 Chronicles 20:2), just as in 2 Samuel 12:30. The Chronicler skips almost two whole chapters of 2 Samuel and never mentions the sin with Bathsheba, the one against Uriah, the divine reproof through Nathan nor David’s repentance. Neither does he mention Amnon and Tamar nor the difficulties with Absalom that led to his rebellion. Why doesn’t the chronicler these conflicts and the discipline against David’s house for his sins? Can it be that he is giving us a false representation of Israel’s history?
No. Allow a few observations:
The Chronicler supposes that the reader has Access to other histories and sources of information about the history of Judah and specifically about King David. For example, he mentions the chronicles of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24), the Story of the Book of the Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27), the Book of the Kings of Israel (1 Chronicles 9:1), the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26; 28:26; 32:32) and the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 27:7; 35:27; 36:8). He also mentions: “The acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer, with accounts of all his rule and his might and of the circumstances that came upon him and upon Israel and upon all the kingdoms of the countries” (1 Chronicles 29:29-30). Although he does not mention any of the events that happened in
disciplining David and his house for his sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah the Hittite, we cannot come to the conclusion that the Chronicler is trying to “hide” something; his readers had access to many more sources of information about David than we do, and those events were well-known to the point that they could be referenced in a brief mention and be recognized easily: “David did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5).
Again we should remind ourselves that the Bible does not have an encyclopedic interest in narrating history. The Chronicler is not trying to tell us everything he can about David’s life but only that which corresponds with his narrative interests. He wants to show the exiles who recently have returned to rebuild the Promised Land of the
exemplary acts in David’s life that they should imitate, and the narratives about Bathsheba, Uriah, Tamar, Amnon and Absalom would be a long digression from that purpose.
In fact, the Chronicler does the same thing we do today when we tell someone about an event. Normally we don’t give an encyclopedic retelling of an event but only the pertinent information leading to the conclusion that we want our listener to reach.
For example, the day before yesterday my sons played soccer in two different games, and my wife could not attend either one. When we came home, I told her the most important parts of the game that were of interest to her: one son scored a goal, and the other scored two goals, all of them on penalty kicks. When she heard this information, she asked what happened that caused the referee to call the penalties, then she was satisfied with the information. I never told her about the best plays of the other players, my evaluation of the referee’s calls or the condition of the field / pitch. She
had all the information she needed. On the other hand, during one of the games I spoke with a friend who is the father of one of the opposing players. We talked about the strategies of the two coaches, the changes in strategies since the last time they played and the development and improvement of some of the players on both teams since the last time they played each other. We mentioned almost nothing of the participation of our sons in the game. Our conversation had a different purpose.
Now, if we were to put my descriptions of the game in writing, wait several years and give them to another person to read, the reader might be dissatisfied. Are these really descriptions of the same game? The most important points in narrative A (what I told my wife) are not even mentioned in narrative B. The narratives have very different perspectives. Isn’t narrative A a false or at least inadequate representation of what really happened?
No; in reality, both narratives were given by the same person on the same day of the same event. But there were two different narrative purposes, and that’s why they are so different. Something similar is happening here between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles and on other occasions when the Bible describes the same event from two, three, four or even more perspectives. Without trying to narrate an event like an encyclopedia, the authors of the Bible sometimes tell the same event for different readers in different generations and for different purposes, with everything inspired by the Holy Spirit and telling us about Yahweh. These varied perspectives enrich our perception of His glory.
That’s what it’s like in 1 Chronicles 18 – 20. The Chronicler is explaining to the generations returning from the exile the characteristics that they should imitate of the founder of David’s royal house. “David reigned over all Israel, and he administered justice and equity to all his people” (1 Chronicles 18:14). Without denying that he
sinned (we’ll see another example of his sin tomorrow), the chronicler highlights his devotion to Yahweh and tells us of his military victories and the righteousness and peace that he enjoyed because of His grace. That is how the chronicler portrays the future blessings the God’s people can enjoy if they walk in Yahweh’s paths with all their heart.
Among the impressive military victories in this chapter, we can see a marked difference between the historical narrative of the Chronicler and that of the author in 1 Samuel – 2 Kings. Notice that here the Chronicler passes over almost all of David’s life in
2 Samuel 11 – 21. For example, it seems like we are going to enter into the topic of his sin with Bathsheba when he says, “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle; Joab led out the army and ravaged the country of the Ammonites and came and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem… (1 Chronicles 20:1) It echoes 2 Samuel 11:1 when the sin with Bathsheba was introduced.
But instead of retelling his sin, the Chronicler skips it completely and runs right to the conclusion of the war against the Ammonites: “And David took the crown of their king from his head. He found that it weighed a talent of gold, and in it was a precious
stone. And it was placed on David’s head” (1 Chronicles 20:2), just as in 2 Samuel 12:30. The Chronicler skips almost two whole chapters of 2 Samuel and never mentions the sin with Bathsheba, the one against Uriah, the divine reproof through Nathan nor David’s repentance. Neither does he mention Amnon and Tamar nor the difficulties with Absalom that led to his rebellion. Why doesn’t the chronicler these conflicts and the discipline against David’s house for his sins? Can it be that he is giving us a false representation of Israel’s history?
No. Allow a few observations:
The Chronicler supposes that the reader has Access to other histories and sources of information about the history of Judah and specifically about King David. For example, he mentions the chronicles of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24), the Story of the Book of the Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27), the Book of the Kings of Israel (1 Chronicles 9:1), the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26; 28:26; 32:32) and the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 27:7; 35:27; 36:8). He also mentions: “The acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer, with accounts of all his rule and his might and of the circumstances that came upon him and upon Israel and upon all the kingdoms of the countries” (1 Chronicles 29:29-30). Although he does not mention any of the events that happened in
disciplining David and his house for his sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah the Hittite, we cannot come to the conclusion that the Chronicler is trying to “hide” something; his readers had access to many more sources of information about David than we do, and those events were well-known to the point that they could be referenced in a brief mention and be recognized easily: “David did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5).
Again we should remind ourselves that the Bible does not have an encyclopedic interest in narrating history. The Chronicler is not trying to tell us everything he can about David’s life but only that which corresponds with his narrative interests. He wants to show the exiles who recently have returned to rebuild the Promised Land of the
exemplary acts in David’s life that they should imitate, and the narratives about Bathsheba, Uriah, Tamar, Amnon and Absalom would be a long digression from that purpose.
In fact, the Chronicler does the same thing we do today when we tell someone about an event. Normally we don’t give an encyclopedic retelling of an event but only the pertinent information leading to the conclusion that we want our listener to reach.
For example, the day before yesterday my sons played soccer in two different games, and my wife could not attend either one. When we came home, I told her the most important parts of the game that were of interest to her: one son scored a goal, and the other scored two goals, all of them on penalty kicks. When she heard this information, she asked what happened that caused the referee to call the penalties, then she was satisfied with the information. I never told her about the best plays of the other players, my evaluation of the referee’s calls or the condition of the field / pitch. She
had all the information she needed. On the other hand, during one of the games I spoke with a friend who is the father of one of the opposing players. We talked about the strategies of the two coaches, the changes in strategies since the last time they played and the development and improvement of some of the players on both teams since the last time they played each other. We mentioned almost nothing of the participation of our sons in the game. Our conversation had a different purpose.
Now, if we were to put my descriptions of the game in writing, wait several years and give them to another person to read, the reader might be dissatisfied. Are these really descriptions of the same game? The most important points in narrative A (what I told my wife) are not even mentioned in narrative B. The narratives have very different perspectives. Isn’t narrative A a false or at least inadequate representation of what really happened?
No; in reality, both narratives were given by the same person on the same day of the same event. But there were two different narrative purposes, and that’s why they are so different. Something similar is happening here between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles and on other occasions when the Bible describes the same event from two, three, four or even more perspectives. Without trying to narrate an event like an encyclopedia, the authors of the Bible sometimes tell the same event for different readers in different generations and for different purposes, with everything inspired by the Holy Spirit and telling us about Yahweh. These varied perspectives enrich our perception of His glory.
That’s what it’s like in 1 Chronicles 18 – 20. The Chronicler is explaining to the generations returning from the exile the characteristics that they should imitate of the founder of David’s royal house. “David reigned over all Israel, and he administered justice and equity to all his people” (1 Chronicles 18:14). Without denying that he
sinned (we’ll see another example of his sin tomorrow), the chronicler highlights his devotion to Yahweh and tells us of his military victories and the righteousness and peace that he enjoyed because of His grace. That is how the chronicler portrays the future blessings the God’s people can enjoy if they walk in Yahweh’s paths with all their heart.
