Kevin D. Zuber

The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, originally one book, were given the title Chronicles by Jerome in the fourth century AD, because it seemed to him to be a more descriptive title than the Greek (LXX) title Paraleipomena, "the things omitted." The Greek translators apparently considered these books to be something of an addendum or an appendix to the main historical accounts of Samuel and Kings. Unfortunately, that opinion about the books of Chronicles still prevails in many places today (and the fact that these books appear last in the Hebrew Bible has reinforced that idea.) It is something of a cliché to suggest that 1 and 2 Chronicles are among the most neglected, least read and studied (especially in key parts of the book such as the genealogies in chaps. 1–9), and least understood books in the Bible. Actually, the term Chronicles is a good idiomatic expression for the Hebrew title dibre hayyamim [lit., "the words of the days"]. The books of the Chronicles are "annals, records, histories" of the nation of Israel with a particular focus on the family and dynasty of David (cf. 1Ch 27:24). They are "theological histories." As such, they are an invaluable portion of the inspired Word of God, and it is a serious mistake to overlook them.

Author. Old Testament scholars generally speak of two major strands of historical narrative—the Deuteronomistic History (hereafter DH—Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings) and the Chronicler’s History (hereafter CH—1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah). In broad terms the former is a history of Israel from a perspective that reflects preexilic and exilic views, and the latter from a generally postexilic perspective. For instance, the DH traces the history of Israel in the light of her faithfulness, or lack thereof, to the law, the Mosaic covenant. The failure of the nation as a whole to live by that covenant led to the exile as a judgment for serial idolatry. The CH understands the exile as a judgment on Israel for her failure to "seek the Lord," and for "forsaking the Lord" (see below under "Purpose and Themes"). These are not mutually exclusive concepts, but a matter of perspective. While this contrast is helpful in identifying different themes and emphases (especially where the two histories overlap) there are serious questions about the notion of a single "Deuteronomistic historian" and the identity of "the chronicler."

Jewish tradition, followed by a number of later scholars and commentators, attributes authorship of the books of Chronicles to Ezra the priest and scribe (Ezr 7:1–6), author of the book by the same name (and likely the author of Nehemiah). The strongest argument for this tradition is that the last verses of 2 Chronicles (2Ch 36:22–23) contain wording identical to that of the opening words of Ezra’s book (Ezr 1:1–3). Furthermore, internal analysis of the books of the Chronicles makes it clear that there was a single author who used a variety of sources, a person who was intimately familiar with the temple and the services in the temple (cf. 1Ch 23; 24; 2Ch 2–5). There is a consistency of literary style and vocabulary, as the commentary will show, and a consistent theological perspective (cf. Payne, J. Barton, "1, 2 Chronicles," in vol. 4 EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988], 305). This person was in a unique position to understand the need for such a book as Chronicles and also had the ability to write it.

While Ezra seems to fit all of these criteria, scholarship (evangelical and otherwise) is still divided on the question of his authorship of these books. The author of Chronicles appears to have had some ideas that were dissimilar to those of Ezra. The Chronicler (as it has become custom to refer to the author of these books) seems to have had a more open view with respect to mixed marriages (Jews and non-Jews) than does Ezra (see Neh 13:26; but not a word in protest appears about Solomon’s wives from the Chronicler; 2Ch 8:11). Ezra, Nehemiah, and those who returned from the captivity often found themselves at odds with those who had remained in the land through the captivity (epitomized later in the conflict between the Samaritans and the Jews). Yet the Chronicler has given no evidence of such a conflict.

Indeed, the Chronicler seems to have intentionally included in his community any and all who could trace their heritage to the Israel of the United Monarchy. While his focus was on the Davidic dynasty and the southern kingdom of Judah, he regularly included, and had, in contrast to the author of Kings, a generally positive attitude toward the northern kingdom. The tribes of the northern kingdom are often included when he uses the expression "all Israel"; for instance, in the acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the Davidic king (1Ch 11:3) and the primacy of the temple in Jerusalem as the locus for true worship (1Ch 13:5; 28:1; cf. 2Ch 30:11, 18–19). These differences tend to militate against identifying Ezra as the Chronicler.

It seems best simply to affirm that the author of the Chronicles was likely a Levite, or at least one who served in the temple services, who sought by his extensive but selective history to bring encouragement and unity to the postexilic Jewish community.

Date. The internal evidence of the books of the Chronicles suggests that they were written sometime between 450 and 430 BC. The decree of Cyrus, King of Persia noted in 2Ch 36:22 was made in 538 BC, and the decree was carried out soon after that. In 1Ch 3, the genealogy of David’s family is traced through Zerubbabel, the leader of those who first returned to Jerusalem (Ezr 2:2) around 520 BC. After Zerubbabel the Chronicler identified several more generations. If each generation is calculated to be 15 to 20 years, the dates for composition would be, as suggested, sometime in the second half of the fifth century BC. Furthermore, if we accept the view that 1Ch 9 is a genealogy of "the first who lived in their cities" after the exile (1Ch 9:2) and we compare this list to the lists in Nehemiah chaps. 11 and 12, we may legitimately presume that the books were written after the third generation of returnees, again in the range of 450–400 BC. While further precision in dating the book is probably unattainable, it seems that the Chronicles were written to the postexilic community of Jewish people living in the land promised by God to Abraham (see Gn 12:1–3; 15:18–21) near or in the city of Jerusalem.

The dating of the kings of Israel and Judah has been a source of frustration for the readers of the narrative and of scholarly debate for centuries. Many fine and detailed studies have attempted to unravel the complexities of the chronology of the Hebrew kings, and the reader is urged to consult them (cf. esp. Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, new rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983]). No attempt will be made in this commentary to date the reigns of the kings or to correlate the narrative to other secular histories.

Purpose and Themes. As noted above, Chronicles was written using the Deuteronomistic history as a source and a guide for the "pure history" of the nation. That is, the Chronicler was not trying to rewrite the history but to give his generation a perspective on that history that would encourage and sustain them in difficult times. The genealogies were meant broadly to ensure the legitimacy of his generation’s claim to the covenant promises (to Abraham and David) and specifically the legitimacy of the Levitical institutions that had been revived in his day. In both of these the legitimacy is proven by the continuity of the generational lines. In effect he was saying to his generation, "We are the legitimate heirs of those promises and institutions." His history was selective for the same reasons. He expected his readers to know the DH, and he selected those parts of the narrative that would support the claims of legitimacy and continuity with the nation’s past—particularly the history of the Davidic dynasty based as it was on the Davidic covenant.

The Chronicler was not shy about his predilection for the Davidic dynasty. Throughout the entire work—from the genealogies to the accounts of the last kings of Judah—the Chronicler demonstrated his concern for the dynasty of David. He consistently sought to present a positive view of David and the descendants of David who sat on his throne after him, going so far as to omit accounts from Samuel and Kings that are unfavorable (e.g., David’s sin with Bathsheba; the negative influences of Solomon’s many foreign wives). Even where he had to acknowledge sin and apostasy, he was quick to interpret the matter in a providentially positive manner (i.e., David’s census in 1Ch 21) or to offer a mitigating turn of events (i.e., Manasseh’s repentance in 2Ch 33).

The Chronicler emphasized that God had chosen (elected) David and given him and his descendants the covenant (1Ch 17:1–15) that ensured a kingdom forever (17:14). That note would have had singular significance for the Chronicler’s readers. This covenant was an extension of the Abrahamic covenant (Gn 17:6–8). In that covenant God had promised Abraham "kings will come forth from you" (17:6), and that "all the land of Canaan" would belong to his descendants "for an everlasting possession" (17:8). The Chronicler wanted his generation of Jews, those whose great-grandparents had come back into the land after the captivity, to know that the Lord was still faithful to those promises. His message was, "In accord with the promises He made to the Fathers, the Lord has chosen, made promises to, and preserved the Davidic dynasty through the tumultuous decades before the captivity. Therefore, we can be sure that He can be trusted to be faithful to those promises in our day." The Davidic dynasty was God’s instrument for nurturing and preserving the promises and for maintaining the temple and its services as the place and means for the nation to experience the blessings of those promises.

The Chronicler was also devoted to the temple and took a keen interest in the worship and services of the temple. The temple was the locus of God’s presence with His people. Proper worship was the outward evidence of a genuine inward faith in the Lord; proper worship was "seeking the Lord" and failure in proper worship was "forsaking the Lord." In this emphasis, the Chronicler was not advocating mere formalism, but he was concerned about true worship from the heart; the term "heart" appears some 30 times in Chronicles (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 318). For the Chronicler the temple was inextricably tied to the Davidic dynasty. The king was to establish and preserve the temple (as in the case of David and Solomon), and if need be restore it (as did Hezekiah and Josiah) and its proper services. For the Chronicler one of the main reasons for God’s choice of David’s line was to build, care for, and safeguard the temple. Part of this entailed the appointment of the proper functionaries in the temple—for example, the Levites, the priests, and the musicians (see 1Ch 23–26). For the Chronicler, when the kings took an interest in the temple it was a tangible expression of their faith and confidence in the promises the Lord made with David (1Ch 17).

The Chronicler was concerned to include "all Israel" in the restoration of the nation after the exile. All who will "seek the Lord" and who will acknowledge the temple as the only legitimate locus of worship are included in the blessings of the national relationship with the Lord. Accordingly, in his history the Chronicler downplayed the issues that divided the nation between northern and southern kingdoms and highlighted those institutions (David’s regnancy 1Ch 11:1; Solomon’s regnancy, 2Ch 1:2; the temple, 2Ch 6:3) and events (Hezekiah’s restoration of Passover, 2Ch 30:1; Josiah’s restoration of Passover, 2Ch 35:18) that brought "all Israel" together.

The Chronicler was concerned about the issues of faithfulness ("seeking the Lord") and apostasy ("forsaking the Lord"). These expressions appear regularly in his narrative—ideal Davidic kings "seek the Lord," and apostates "forsake the Lord." Failure to do the former while pursuing the latter brought the chastisement of the Lord. This was a key lesson from the nation’s history that the Chronicler sought to teach his generation. It explained why the nation had gone into captivity and how those who returned could experience God’s blessings. The Chronicler was very clear about retribution—the notion of "whatever man sows that shall he also reap." Yet he was equally interested in restoration—the notion that humble repentance and renewed obedience will restore a sinner (and the nation) to fellowship and blessing (see 2Ch 7:12–18). The experience of several later kings bore out this principle, and it was the message the Chronicler’s generation needed to hear.

The Chronicler believed in prayer. Those who pray—from Jabez (1Ch 4:10) to David (17:1) and Solomon (2Ch 1:8; 6:12), to Rehoboam (12:6), Asa (14:11), Abijah (13:14), Jehoshaphat (18:31; 20:6–12), Hezekiah (32:20–21; 32:24), and even Manasseh (33:12–13, 18)—find that God hears and answers with blessing and forgiveness. The Chronicler was urging his generation to pray for God’s blessing. This emphasis on prayer is a part of the general theme, noted several times already, of "seeking the Lord." The Chronicler was urging his generation to "seek the Lord" as David and his descendants had—through proper worship, through repentance, through prayer, and through obedience to the Word of God. The dangers of "forsaking the Lord" are also vividly (if minimally) noted by the Chronicler, not to warn of impending calamity (the perspective of the DH), but to encourage his generation to "seek the Lord" who is faithful to His promises (1Ch 16:11; 22:17; 28:9; 2Ch 15:2; 17:4; 30:9, 18b–19; 33:12, 19; 34:3).

The Chronicler was a man of hope and optimism, but this was not based on a superficial view of human nature or human history—a vague notion of "progress" and "prosperity." His hope was in the promise of God, in the covenants the Lord had made with Abraham and David. His hope was "Messianic" and will be vindicated when the Greater Son of David—the Lord Jesus Christ—fulfills those promises fully, literally, and forever.

Background. In composing his work the Chronicler used a number of sources, some of which he identified for the reader. It is likely that he used the canonical books of Samuel and Kings (1Ch 9:1; 2Ch 16:11; 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 35:27; 36:8). He also used other canonical sources such as Genesis in the genealogies in chaps. 1 and 2 of 1 Chronicles and Psalms in 1Ch 16. He used a number of other sources identified as "chronicles" (1Ch 27:24, 29), "prophecy" (2Ch 9:29), "vision" (2Ch 9:29; 32:32), and "records" (2Ch 12:15; 33:19). The Chronicler has not simply "cut and pasted" his work from these sources, but has selected, crafted, and created from these sources his own skillfully composed literary product. First and Second Chronicles are not mere supplements to the histories of Samuel and Kings. The Chronicler had a unique message and provided his readers with a much-needed perspective on the history of his people. While he assumed that his readers were familiar with the histories in Samuel and Kings, he added a viewpoint intended to enrich their understanding and appreciation of that history.

A question related to the Chronicler’s use of sources is the matter of historical accuracy and reliability. One area where the Chronicler has been questioned is his numerical citations. He has been accused of inflating the numbers (see 1Ch 18:4 compared to 2Sm 8:4; 1Ch 19:18 compared to 2Sm 10:18) and deflating the numbers (see 2Ch 8:10 compared to 1Kg 9:23; 2Ch 9:25 compared to 1Kg 4:26) and other anomalies. However, careful examination of these discrepancies shows that the apparent problem can be explained by scribal errors, or that the supposed discrepancy is a matter of alternative methods of counting (for an explanation of these details, see the comments on the relevant verses). The Chronicler has been shown to be highly reliable as a historian, even in somewhat incidental details (see J. B. Payne, "The Validity of the Numbers in Chronicles," BibSac 136 [1979], 109–28).

The genealogies of 1Ch 1–9 have several purposes: first, they are a prologue to the history to follow, providing a "background of heritage" for the narrative to follow. In a sense these genealogies are something like a "collapsed history" of Israel. (R. K. Duke, "Chronicles: Books of," Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Book, ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005], 172). In recording these genealogies the Chronicler expected his readers to have a working grasp of the narrative of Genesis and the rest of the Deuteronomistic History (see Introduction: Author). So, for instance, as he listed the names of Noah, Abraham, Israel, and the rest, he expected his readers to mentally review their stories.

Furthermore, the genealogies provide clues about the Chronicler’s priorities; that is, they begin to point to some of his main concerns—the Davidic dynasty, worship, and prayer. But mostly they are intended to "define Israel’s identity and promote the unity of all twelve tribes" of Israel. (Steven L. McKenzie, "Historiography, Old Testament," Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Book, ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005], 424).

1:1–18. Beginning with Adam, the Chronicler moved quickly through the families of Noah, in order to come to Abraham and his descendants, and then shortly to David’s main family line. By this device the Chronicler effectively tied world history to redemptive history. The Chronicler was mindful that God’s purposes extend to all the nations (see Gn 12:3; Zch 8:22). "A summary of the ‘generations’ of Genesis, from Adam to Edom/Esau, shows that all the nations were God’s creation and therefore part of his special purposes for Israel" (Selman, Martin J., 1 Chronicles. TOTC [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994], 86). In particular, the Chronicler is linking the house and line of David (and eventually the Greater Son of David, the Messiah) to Adam and the whole of mankind. Through the line of, and promise to, David, "God is reaching to all mankind" (Sailhamer, John, First and Second Chronicles, Everyman Bible Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1983], 21). Luke was essentially making the same point in his genealogy of Jesus in Lk 3:23–38 (see the comments there).

The source of this first genealogy is apparently the "Table of Nations" in Gn 10. The sons of Japheth are the peoples of Europe along with northern and parts of western Asia. The sons of Ham are the peoples of Africa and parts of southwestern Asia. The sons of Shem are the peoples of west-central Asia and the Middle East.

1:19–27. The note about Peleg that in his days the earth was divided refers to the division that occurred at the tower of Babel (Gn 11:1–9). The name Peleg means "divided."

The climactic name on this list is, of course, Abraham (v. 27). Although the Chronicler does not specifically refer to the covenant promises made to Abraham (cf. Gn 12:1–3; 15:1–20; 17:1–14), the promises of many descendants and of the land are never far from his mind—those promises are the presuppositions of his narrative.

1:28–54. The Chronicler next took up the descendants of Abraham, dealing first with the family of Ishmael (vv. 29–30) and the sons of his concubine (the term is not found in Gn 25; it means a sexual partner who is not on the same social level as a wife) Keturah (vv. 32–33). In Gn 25:1 Keturah was called "another wife." The title concubine was probably used here to make the point that the children she bore for Abraham were not children of the promise (see Gn 25:5–6 and the contrast with Isaac). The Chronicler then listed the sons of Isaac, dealing first with the family of Esau, from whom came the Edomites (vv. 34–54). Edom was an area southeast of the land of Israel/Judah on the other side of the Dead Sea, in the area of modern Jordan. The Edomites figured prominently in Israel’s history all the way up to the time of Christ.

In the presentation of his genealogies the Chronicler employed a literary method (used in other Hebrew narratives such as Genesis) in which the author would carry the story, or describe the family, of a secondary character (here Esau, v. 34) to a suitable terminus and then backtrack to pick up the main story line at the point where the secondary character was introduced (compare 1:34 and 2:1). This gives a layered or segmented quality to the genealogy or narrative (see Braun, 1 Chronicles, 1–2).

The Chronicler has used the lists from the book of Genesis (chaps. 5; 10; 25) to compile these opening genealogies. In doing this he not only gave evidence of his confidence in the historical reliability of Genesis, he was tying the narrative of David (1Ch 11–29) and the promises (covenant) the Lord would make with him (1Ch 17; cf. 2Sm 7) to the covenant promises God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) (Gn 12:1–3; 15:1–21; 17:1–27; 28:13–15). He wanted his readers to see the continuity of God’s purposes from the patriarchs to David’s dynasty to their own place in that lineage.

2:1. The Chronicler began a major section of his genealogical survey with a list of the sons of Israel (Jacob). The list in 2:1 is probably from the list in Gn 35:22b–26; cf. 46:8–25. However, the list given there is not followed exactly in the following genealogies. In the chapters that follow, the tribes of Dan and Zebulun are not included. While a number of explanations have been advanced to explain this, it seems best to see no negative implication in this omission since both tribes are included in this opening list and in the list in Ezk 48 (the distribution of the land in the millennium). Especially noteworthy is that Reuben is listed after Judah and Simeon. The Chronicler explained Reuben’s demotion in 1Ch 5:1–2 (cf. Gn 35:22; 49:3–4). The most important variation is the promotion of Judah to the front of the list. This is because Judah was recognized as the line from which the kings of Israel will come (Gn 49:10) and thus Judah was the tribe of David (1Ch 2:15). The choice (election) of Judah and David and his descendants is a major theme of the Chronicler, exemplifying God’s sovereign grace, as David later recognized about his own elevation to kingship and God’s promise (see 1Ch 17:16–17).

2:2–55. The genealogy of Judah reflects once again the Chronicler’s use of Genesis (Gn 38). Here he also used the book of Ruth (compare 1Ch 2:11–15 with Ru 4:18–22) and possibly 1Sm 16. The Chronicler traces the line of Judah through his son Perez, grandson Hezron (vv. 5, 9), and great-grandsons Ram (vv. 10–17), Jerahmeel (vv. 9–42), and Caleb (Chelubai in v. 9) (vv. 18–20, 42–55).

3:1–24. Having traced out David’s extended family line, the Chronicler turned to David’s immediate family line and traced it through his sons born to him in Hebron (v. 1) and those born to him in Jerusalem (v. 5). The line is recorded through Solomon (v. 10), through Zerubbabel (v. 19), to the generations that were roughly the Chronicler’s contemporaries. This family was of crucial importance: the line of David held the promise of God’s continued blessing—the promise of the land, the kingdom, and the presence of God (see 1Ch 17:1–15; 2Sm 7:8–17). Ultimately, this line held the promise of the Messiah—Savior and King.

4:1–23. Before turning to the genealogies of the other tribes, the Chronicler completed the family tree of Judah. The prayer of Jabez (v. 10) was noted as an example of the faith and reliance upon God that is blessed by God. His mother gave him the name Jabez—he causes pain (v. 9)—but his prayer "became an occasion of grace, so that God kept and blessed him" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 341) so that his life did not live up to his name.

4:24–43. The tribe of Simeon lived close to Judah and was listed next in the genealogies of the tribes. The Chronicler here (vv. 28–31, 39–43) and in other places (2:22–23; 5:9–10, 16, 22, 23; 7:28–29) made a special note of the cities or the territory (the land) possessed by the tribes. He wanted his readers to know that their presence "in the land" was based on ancient tribal claims.

5:1–26. Next the Chronicler listed the names of those tribes that settled in the territories east of the Jordan River—Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh (see Nm 32). Reuben was the firstborn but lost the birthright because of his immorality (1Ch 5:1; see Gn 35:22; 49:4). This chapter contains notes about victory and blessing (1Ch 5:18–22) when the nation cried out to God in prayer and trusted in Him (v. 20) but also judgment and loss (vv. 25–26) when the nation acted treacherously against the God of their fathers by practicing idolatry (v. 25). This is a message and lesson that the Chronicler will deliver over and over—faithfulness and obedience bring God’s blessing but disobedience, and especially idolatry, will bring God’s discipline and captivity.

6:1–53. The list of the Levites traces the family line from Levi (v. 1), through Aaron (v. 3), and through Jehozadak (v. 15) who was among those carried … away into exile. The emphasis is again on continuity, for it would be very important to the Chronicler’s community to have qualified priests serving in the temple (see Neh 7:63–65). "Authentic genealogy, indeed, was essential for investiture (cf. 7:59–63)—hence [there was a] practical relevance of this chapter to the Chronicler’s day" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 350).

An important figure appears in this list of the Levites; he is Zadok (v. 8). While some critical scholars question Zadok’s Hebrew/Levitical ancestry, this genealogy established him as a Levite, and he was a significant figure in David’s administration (cf. 2Sm 18:17; 15:24). He appears later in 1Ch 12:28 and is described as "a young man mighty of valor," one of David’s mighty men. At the time of Absalom’s rebellion Zadok supported David (2Sm 19:11–14; 15:24–29, 36; 17:17–20; 18:19, 22, 27). David appointed Zadok to priestly service at the tabernacle in Gibeon (1Ch 16:39; cf. 29:22b), and he and his sons assumed the priestly administration of the temple until the time of the exile. Zadok was the priest who, along with Nathan the prophet, anointed Solomon as king (1Kg 1). Ezekiel prophesied that the priests who will serve in the millennial temple will be from "the sons of Zadok," who are "from the sons of Levi" (Ezk 40:46; cf. 43:19; 44:15; 48:11).

6:54–81. The list of the Levites is followed by a section detailing the allotment of the cities and lands of the Levites (vv. 54–81; see Jos 21). Once again the Chronicler showed that he was interested in the physical land and was very precise concerning its allotment. The promise of the land was always a central aspect of Israel’s hope.

7:1–40. The genealogies of the tribes of Issachar (vv. 1–5), Benjamin (vv. 6–12), Naphtali (v. 13), Manasseh (vv. 14–18), Ephraim (vv. 20–27), and Asher (vv. 30–40) are recorded in a somewhat cursory fashion. As noted in the Introduction, the Chronicler’s purpose is to bring "all Israel" into the narrative he is about to unfold.

8:1–40. Here the Chronicler repeats and expands his genealogy of the tribe of Benjamin introduced in 7:6–12. This tribe is singled out for this extra coverage perhaps because of its close association with Judah or perhaps because it was the tribe of Saul (8:33), who will shortly, but briefly, become the focus of the narrative.

9:1. This verse is a summary of the tribal lists the Chronicler has just completed and, somewhat enigmatically, notes Judah was carried away into exile to Babylon for their unfaithfulness. This note was probably meant to indicate that the list to follow concerns those who returned to the land after the captivity.

9:2–34. This list of the first who lived in their possessions in their cities (v. 2) is a list of the Jewish people who had returned to repopulate the land of promise. The list of "common folk" (vv. 3–9), priests (vv. 10–13), Levites (vv. 14–16), gatekeepers (vv. 17–27), and other functionaries (vv. 28–34) was intended to show that among those who returned were those who could lead the people in government, establish true worship, and do the hard work of restoration. The Chronicler wanted his readers to be reassured that Israel had indeed survived the captivity. They, his readers, were not cut off from, but were vital participants in, God’s ongoing purposes, and they were part of that nation with ongoing promises.

Many commentators argue that the focus of this section is on the end of Saul, and there is much to be said for that view. In 9:35–44 the Chronicler recorded the genealogy of Saul, and in 10:1–10 he recorded the Saul’s defeat and death. However, given the overall emphasis on David in the Chronicles, it may be argued that the key verse is 10:14 and the main focus is not on Saul’s end but David’s rise to kingship.

9:35–44. The mention of Gibeon was perhaps a subtle reminder that Saul’s capital was not chosen by God—Gibeon is not Jerusalem. That the record of Saul’s family line included several generations was a generous concession by the Chronicler. Since the Chronicler’s history was in part meant to highlight the prominence of the Davidic line and given Saul’s opposition to David, the Chronicler may have chosen to ignore the line of Saul altogether (thus diminishing that line’s eminence). However, even though Saul was removed from the regnancy, his family remained a part of "all Israel" and his line is included among those who gave allegiance to David.

The Chronicler passed over the reign of Saul, although he apparently assumed his readers were familiar with the story. His main concern was the person and reign (and family) of David, and he moved quickly past Saul to begin David’s story. Accordingly, the only significant part of Saul’s reign as far as the Chronicler was concerned was its end.

10:1–3. The accounts of Saul’s last battle with the Philistines, the defeat of his army, and the deaths of his sons are starkly and sparely reported. The Chronicler does not revel in Saul’s defeat. His readers were looking for encouragement and did not need to be reminded of the several "bad episodes" in the nation’s history. (The Chronicler did his best to minimize the negative and accentuate the positive episodes of the nation’s history.) There may be a "providential" element in that Saul was wounded by the archers (v. 3) (see 18:33). Thus it was the Lord and no other person who was responsible for Saul’s defeat.

10:4–12. It is difficult, if not impossible, to discern with any certainty the Chronicler’s view of Saul in his death. Was he a brave hero who preferred death at the hand of his servant, or even at his own hand, to humiliation and abuse by the uncircumcised (v. 4)? Or was he a coward who took the easy way out and left his defeated nation without a leader and at the mercy of its enemies (v. 7)? It seems that the Chronicler was deliberately ambivalent on these points (see 1Sm 31 for the more detailed account). Saul was the king, and for that he was to be honored, and his dismembered body was to be treated with respect (v. 12). Yet he was a flawed king, and for that he was defeated and mocked by his enemies (vv. 8–10).

10:13–14. The Chronicler’s account concluded with his own distinctive summary, a theological explanation of why Saul was killed. He gave three reasons: (1) Saul was unfaithful to God (1Sm 15:11), (2) Saul did not obey God’s Word (1Sm 13:8–14), and (3) Saul did not "seek the Lord" but sought counsel of a medium (1Ch 10:13; see 1Sm 28:6–7). Also, it was God’s plan to turn the kingdom to David (1Ch 10:14). A man may give every outward indication, and posses all the natural capacities, that would point to success in service to God, but without faithfulness, obedience, and dependence on God he will fail (see 1Sm 15:22–23). Saul had not merely succumbed to the forces of the Philistines—the Lord killed him (v. 14). The Chronicler was well aware that God is in sovereign control of the events of history (cf. Eph 1:11; Dn 2:21).

The years of conflict and civil war (see 2Sm 1–4) are omitted from the Chronicler’s account. This was not because the Chronicler thought he could remove that episode from the nation’s memory of its history or because he thought it unimportant. Rather, he expected that his readers would know the actual history. Therefore, his purpose was as much, if not more, theological as it was historiographical—to "accentuate the positive," not rehash the negative in the nation’s history. There is tacit recognition of David’s reign over Judah from Hebron (11:1, 3) but that time of division did not interest the Chronicler, who was more concerned to highlight the unity of the nation.

The Chronicler introduced this key point in the very first verse of this two-chapter unit (chaps. 11 and 12) when he noted that David’s ascension brought unity to "all Israel" (11:1). "This emphasis on Israel’s unity under David must have had considerable implications for post-exilic Israel" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 137–38). After the captivity the divisions (north and south) and even the "tribal tensions" made less sense and were less consequential than they were before the captivity. The Chronicler knew that those returning to the land after exile needed a sense of "national identity" if the nation was to thrive as they faced the challenges of rebuilding. Part of his purpose was to unify these people. Thus the section begins and ends on this note of national unity.

11:1–3. The theme of the unity of "all Israel" was articulated in several ways. First, there was the unity expressed in the gathering of all Israel to David at Hebron, the headquarters of the first phase of his regency. Unity was expressed by the formula Behold, we are your bone and your flesh (v. 1). Unity was expressed too in the acknowledgment that even as Saul had remained king in name and title it was David who was the de facto leader of the armies. Unity also was expressed in the acknowledgment that David’s reign was according to the word of the Lord through Samuel (1Sm 16). David’s regnancy was described by two key terms: he was to shepherd and be prince (lit., "ruler") over the people (1Ch 11:2). The shepherd’s task was to care for and protect the sheep. The "prince" (nagid) was a military designation and pointed to the task of "kingdom building" and national defense. Both terms may have been used to indicate that the Davidic king was to be a servant answerable to the Owner of the flock (cf. Selman, 1 Chronicles, 139) and the True King of the nation, namely the Lord Himself. These are obviously rich biblical metaphors that point ultimately to the Messiah—the Great Shepherd, the Prince of Peace (cf. Is 9:6).

The Chronicler emphasized one other note, that is, the anointing of David was according to the word of the Lord through Samuel (1Ch 11:3). This makes the point that the events of this history are not random, nor are they the result of socioeconomic or political circumstances but are designed and directed according to God’s sovereign will and purpose. David was the legitimate king of "all Israel" not by the nation’s choice but by God’s choice. The mention of Samuel was significant. Prophets play an important role in the narrative of Chronicles; "it is apparent that the Chronicler understood a major role of the prophets to be that of interpreting the hand of God in history" (Duke, "Chronicles," 178).

11:4–9. Unity was further established through the new location for the capital city—Jerusalem. The choice of Jerusalem was wise. It was centrally located; it had to be conquered because it did not belong to either side—Saul’s or David’s—during the years of conflict between them (hence, it was a neutral site with no prior loyalties that could be questioned or championed over other cities); and its location had strong natural defenses.

11:10–47. Unity was further promoted by David’s Mighty Men—heads (11:10), chief[s] (11:20; 12:3), commander[s] (11:21), captains (12:18), and fighting men who generally were loyal to David. An example of the fierce loyalty of these men to David, and of David’s respect for them, appears in 11:15–19.

12:1–22. This chapter recorded something of a flashback to David’s early days at Ziklag (vv. 1–22) and Hebron (vv. 23–40) (see 1Sm 27 to 2Sm 5) and is included here to complete the list of David’s men. Several of these men are noted for their dexterity—a valuable asset for warriors (1Ch 12:2). That these were Benjaminites—Saul’s kinsmen—is particularly significant, highlighting again the theme of unity around David (vv. 2b–7). Others are from the Gadites (vv. 8–14), and their bravery is noted in one remarkable incident when they crossed the Jordan during the flood season (v. 15) to win a victory. One man, Amasai, epitomized the affection and loyalty of David’s men and was led by the Spirit (v. 18) to compose a verse expressing his loyalty to David: We are yours, O David, And with you, O son of Jesse! Still others, from Manasseh defected to David’s side late in his conflict with Saul (v. 19). Although they were not needed in this battle against the Philistines (cf. 1Sm 29) they did serve David in a later skirmish (1Ch 12:21). In v. 22 the Chronicler explained that day by day men came to David—thereby increasing his stature and authority. David’s army is "compared, poetically, with the heavenly hosts"—like the army of God (v. 22)—they were, so to speak, "on the side of the angels."

12:23–40. The list of the tribes in vv. 23–37 reinforced the main point—all Israel was with David, again, including even some of Saul’s kinsmen from Benjamin (v. 29). This is the third time in this chapter the men of Benjamin have been mentioned (cf. vv. 2, 16–17). These men were warriors (vv. 28, 30), and the weapons they brandished are highlighted in these verses (vv. 24, 34, shield and spear; vv. 33, 37, weapons of war). Furthermore, they understood the times (v. 32)—that is, they knew these were David’s times "thus they cast their lot with David rather than Saul" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 378). They understood the tactics of warfare—who could draw up in battle formation (v. 38a). They all were of one mind, and when they came to Hebron with a perfect heart they made David king over all Israel. It was not only them but all the rest also of Israel were of one mind to make David king (v. 38b). The entire chapter celebrates—and ends with a celebration of (vv. 39–40)—David’s kingship. With his reign there was joy indeed in Israel (v. 40c).

Unity as a theme is carried over into the next major section, centering on the ark of the covenant. David intended to promote the unity of the nation around the ark of God and the worship of God (13:2–3). Note again the emphasis on "all the assembly of Israel, all the people". However, David discovered that worship was not to be taken lightly and never as a means to an end. God’s Word must be obeyed if worship is to be acceptable to Him. "The Ark was no mere symbol of God’s presence. It was the place where God had chosen to center His presence among His people (Ex 25:22)" (Sailhamer, First and Second Chronicles, 38).

13:1–4. David desired to bring the nation together around the iconic symbol of the ark of the covenant. He consulted with the leaders (v. 1), rallied all the assembly of Israel (vv. 2–4), gathered "all Israel together" (v. 5), and proposed that the ark be brought from Kiriath-jearim (about 20 miles west of Jerusalem), where it had languished since its humiliating trip to the land of the Philistines and back. There the ark had remained through all the years of Saul’s reign (see 1Sm 5–6 and 1Sm 7:1–2). David wanted to bring back the ark of our God to us (v. 3) and the thing was right in the eyes of all the people (v. 4).

13:5–8. Amid the celebration (v. 8) the Chronicler noted that the ark was the place where God, the Lord … is enthroned above the cherubim, where His name is called (v. 6). This solemn fact was stated just before the Chronicler incongruously noted that the ark was being moved on a new cart (v. 7) after the fashion of the Philistines (cf. 1Sm 6:7)! Even though the leaders and the people were quite happy with the event, God’s Word was not being obeyed. Even though they had great respect for the ark (it was after all a new cart) they also displayed an unthinking, unacceptably cavalier attitude toward the ark and its significance. Genuine respect for the majesty and holiness of the ark required more than a consensus of what was pleasing to the people—it required obedience to God’s Word on the matter (see the comments below on 13:9–10). It may have seemed a small matter, but God’s Word is often very clear and specific on small matters. God does not make concessions even on small matters when matters of true worship and obedience are at stake.

13:9–10. Nothing in the Chronicler’s account to this point prepared the reader for the shocking turn of events that occurred next. Uzza (Uzzah in 2Sm 6) was one of the drivers of the cart (1Ch 13:7b). When the cart was nearly upset by the oxen he innocently reached out to steady the ark. While this might have seemed to be an act of concern for the ark, an innocent gesture—not meant to show disrespect, but in fact to protect the ark—it was a violation of the clear commands given in the law of Moses. The law stipulated the method and manner of transporting the ark (carried by means of acacia wood poles overlaid with gold inserted through rings on the base of the ark; Ex 25:12–15; Nm 4:5–14), as well as the persons authorized for moving it (the Levites; cf. Dt 10:8). God’s Word, His utter holiness, and His awesome majesty must be acknowledged and respected. Good intentions are no substitute for obedience. David and the nation had focused on the ark itself and the celebration surrounding it and not on the God whose presence was being celebrated in the ark.

13:11–14. Uzza’s death brought the celebration to an abrupt halt. David’s response was shock, anger, and fear (vv. 11–12). The failure to be scrupulous in obeying the law resulted in a delay in bringing the ark to Jerusalem, and it was taken to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite—which means he was or had been "a resident of Gath" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 381), a Philistine city. While David seemed to be afraid of the ark, Obed-edom found it to be a source of blessing (v. 14). The point seems to be that God’s purpose for the ark was not judgment but blessing. Nevertheless, He will not allow His people to lose sight of His holiness and majesty. He is a God of power—for blessing upon obedience, for judgment upon negligence.

This chapter records events that took place prior to those in chap. 13. Once again the Chronicler, while not ignoring unpleasant historical events (like the debacle of the ark in chap. 13), arranged his material to highlight the favor and blessing God gave to David and his house. Thus, in keeping with this theme of the Lord’s blessing of David, the Chronicler recorded three examples of that blessing.

14:1–2, 17. At both the beginning and conclusion of this chapter, the Chronicler gave a word about the respect (perhaps tribute) of other nations that David enjoyed at this time. This was a clear indication that the Lord had established him as king (v. 2).

14:3–7. The note about the increase of his family is in the Chronicler’s view a further indication of the Lord’s blessing (cf. Ps 127:3–5), even though David’s polygamy was not something the Lord endorsed and amounted to "a moral failure, directly contrary to the law (Dt 17:17) … This sin led to a whole series of disasters later on (2Sm 11:27)" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 382). In spite of that, the Chronicler understood that in that time and culture, and in those circumstances, having a large family for a king was a sign of fertility and that was a sign of blessing (cf. 1Ch 3:5–9).

14:8–12. David’s victory over the Philistines takes up the bulk of this chapter and is another striking evidence of God’s blessing. The Philistines had been a continual threat to the nation of Israel throughout Saul’s reign, and they sought to continue that threat when David began his reign (v. 8). However, the Chronicler recorded that the forces that had defeated Saul and were used to end his reign were soundly defeated by Saul’s divinely appointed successor. Two instances of Philistine incursions are noted. First they made a raid in the valley of Rephaim (v. 9). The valley of Rephaim was "southwest of Jerusalem and formed part of the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Josh 15:8)" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 383).

14:13–16. Later they made yet another raid in that same valley (v. 13). In describing these two battles the Chronicler drew the contrast between Saul and David more clearly when he noted that when faced with the Philistine threat (vv. 8–9) David did what Saul had failed to do (cf. 10:14a), namely, David inquired again of God (14:14; cf. v. 10a). In the first instance David did not run ahead of God but looked for, and received, God’s direction and promise—"Go up, for I will give them into your hand" (v. 10b). The Philistines were defeated, and the site was memorialized in the name Baal-perazim ("the Lord breaks through"). David acknowledged that the victory was the Lord’s who "has broken through my enemies" (v. 11). In the second battle David was given the specific strategy of flanking the enemy and waiting for the sound of the wind (sound of marching) in the balsam trees (vv. 14–15a). Apparently, this resulted in some confusion in the Philistine camp since they were unable to perceive the direction of the attack from David, allowing David to achieve a complete victory. But the Chronicler was quick to emphasize that this victory was a result of God having gone out before David (v. 15b) and David having done just as God had commanded him (v. 16). David learned to "seek the Lord," and he found that "obedience brings blessing."

David had learned the lesson—from his victories and from the tragedy of Uzza’s death—that obedience, paying strict attention to the Word of the Lord, was the key to the blessing of the Lord. Thus when he resumed the project of moving the ark he instructed the proper authorities, the Levites (cf. Dt 10:8), "to carry the ark of God (1Ch 15:2) and to do so according to the ordinance (15:13) as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord" (15:15; cf. Ex 25:12–15). The account of moving the ark from the house of Obed-edom to the place David had prepared (1Ch 15:1) was recorded in three phases.

15:1–15. David simply and clearly laid out the instructions for moving the ark: No one is to carry the ark of God but the Levites (v. 2a). No similar preparation of any kind preceded the first attempt, the Chronicler noted (v. 13). The list of the names of the Levites here was designed to show the care with which this move was undertaken. Only those with proper credentials (that is, of the right tribe and ancestry) could perform the task of transporting the ark. Having the proper priestly credentials was very much an issue in the Chronicler’s day; see Ezr 2:59–63. This time everything was done according to the word of the Lord (1Ch 15:15b).

In addition to making the obvious point that David and "all Israel" had learned the lesson of obedience to the Word, the Chronicler made another key point in this chapter: it was David who assumed the responsibility for ensuring a place for and proper respect for the ark. David also assumed the responsibility to organize the Levites and the musicians (in the next section). David assumed the role of a "second Moses" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 161), and the Davidic dynasty was henceforth understood as the patron and protector of the worship and services of the temple. This meant more than simply maintaining the proper forms and ceremonies. Temple worship was the heart of the relationship between the Lord and His people. Proper worship was the privilege and blessing of His people. Failure at, or forsaking of, that worship was the cause of calamity and chastisement. "For the Chronicler, the Levitical priesthood operated jointly with the Davidic monarchy in preserving the correct forms of seeking Yahweh, of maintaining the proper relationship with God" (Duke, "Books of Chronicles," 177).

15:16–28. After scrupulous care had been taken to ensure everything was done according to the Word of the Lord to transport the ark, the Chronicler recorded that equal care was given to proper reception of the ark. This time, instead of "all Israel" celebrating "with all their might" (13:8a), everyone using whatever instrument they chose (13:8b), now the appointed musicians (15:16), those with skill (v. 22) were employed. Now proper and appropriate sacrifices were made (v. 26; 16:2). Now, God was helping the Levites who were carrying the ark of the covenant (15:26)—that is, since the ark was being transported in the manner prescribed by the law, God was with the Levites and "they were not struck down, as Uzzah had been (13:10)" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 388). It was, in short, a time of enthusiastic and full-hearted worship; it was a joyful but mindful celebration "in spirit and in truth" (cf. Jn 4:24). David’s robe of fine linen and ephod of linen (1Ch 15:27) were the garments of "priestly" dress, and they identified David as having a part in such service.

15:29. The brief reference to Michal the daughter of Saul (15:29) and her disgust over David’s part in the activities (apparently his enthusiasm was too undignified for her taste) showed her insensitivity to the value and meaning of the ark (no doubt an attitude held by others) and was thus "a further demonstration of the unfitness of Saul’s house to lead the people of God" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 166).

This praise psalm is a compilation of Pss 105; 96 and 106. (For more detailed comment see the commentary on those Psalms.)

16:7–13. The call to praise employs several imperatives: give thanks, make known, sing, speak, glory, seek, remember (16:8–13). For the Chronicler the keynote of this praise is found in 16:11 in the imperative to seek the Lord and His strength; Seek His face continually. (See Introduction: Purpose and Themes on the importance of the theme of "seeking the Lord.")

16:14–22. The covenant promise given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was at the heart of the Chronicler’s faith and hope (vv. 14–17). The experiences of the patriarchs were to be "remembered." The grace of God in calling and preserving the fathers was recalled and stood as a promise that by His grace believers during the Chronicler’s day also shall be preserved. The note that this is an everlasting covenant (v. 17) would have been particularly important to the Chronicler and his generation. God’s gifts—the land of Canaan (v. 18) and calling (His anointed ones, v. 22) are irrevocable (cf. the comments on Rm 11:28–29). The story of the sojourn of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) included encounters with kings, such as Abimelech (Gn 20; 26). But God protected His anointed ones, and He reproved those kings (vv. 21–22; cf. Gn 20:3, 7). Because His promises are everlasting His people can count on His continued protection.

16:23–24. The call to praise employed more imperatives: sing, proclaim, tell (vv. 23–24). Here the breadth of the message was expanded to all the earth and all the peoples. This too was in keeping with the promise to Abraham, for in and through that covenant promise "all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gn 12:3).

16:25–27. His superiority over idols and His transcendent majesty are noted as reasons that He is to be praised and feared (v. 25). The idols are impotent, but the Lord is the Creator God; He alone possesses splendor and majesty (v. 27; see Is 44:9–20 on the folly of idolatry and Is 6:1–6 on His majesty and glory).

16:28–33. Again the Psalmist widened the picture and called for praise from the peoples of the earth as well as praise from the rest of God’s creation. The threefold use of ascribe (lit., "give") (vv. 28–29) heightened the sense of worship; the focus is on the Lord. The nature of true worship was indicated by the call to worship (lit., "bow down") and tremble (vv. 29, 30), indicating the need for creaturely humility and submissiveness and at the same time the call to be glad and rejoice (v. 31) indicating the need for joy and celebration. The opposites earth and heavens, the sea and field (vv. 31, 32) indicate that worship is a primary responsibility of all creation, because His reign (v. 31b) is universal.

16:34–36. Thanksgiving appropriately concludes this hymn: He is good and loving, and He delivers (saves) and keeps His covenant. Once again, the emphasis is on the everlasting (vv. 34, 36) nature of His lovingkindness (chesed; meaning something like "loyal love," or "devotion in a covenant-based relationship"). The Chronicler’s encouragement to his generation was very much in view: He is the God of our salvation, here specifically defined in terms of the people being gathered and delivered from the nations (v. 35).

16:37–43. This brief note brings the reader back to the historical setting. Having established a place for the ark (v. 39; Gibeon is about five or six miles northwest of Jerusalem) David provided for a daily ministry centered on the ark and for proper care of the ark. The appropriate offerings are mentioned, and authorized priests are listed (vv. 37–42) to establish that a "primary sanctuary for sacrifice" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 393) was now available. These verses simply reiterate the point that now (in contrast to the debacle with the ark recorded in chap. 13) all services done with respect to the ark were undertaken with the proper attention to detail and decorum. Everything was now in place—and in a better place since the ark was no longer in Philistine territory—in order for David and the nation to have a prosperous reign (v. 43).

It would be difficult to overemphasize the significance of the contents of this chapter. Here the Chronicler recorded his version of the Davidic covenant (see 2Sm 7; Ps 89). This is "the heart of Chronicles" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 395), the first of seven texts in Chronicles that state and restate this covenant (17:7–27; 22:6–16; 28:6–7; 2Ch 6:8–9, 16–17; 7:17–18; 13:4–5; 21:7). By his emphasis on this covenant the Chronicler gave it a greater significance than does the narrative of Samuel/Kings. In particular, and of special interest to his readers, the Chronicler emphasized two points: he was concerned to locate the fulfillment of the promise, Jerusalem; and he was concerned to emphasize that the promise was forever (a term used several times in this chapter; 17:12, 14). This promise has significance for David and his descendants, for the nation of Israel, and for all the nations of the earth. The reason is that this covenant promises that the Messiah will come (vv. 13–14; Lk 1:32–33) through David’s line, to sit on David’s throne, to rule in David’s city, Jerusalem, over an everlasting kingdom, and that He will bring salvation that will "reach to the end of the earth" (Is 49:6; see the comments on Mt 3:1–4).

In form and even in expression, this unconditional promise to David and his descendants is noticeably and purposefully reminiscent of the Abrahamic covenant (Gn 12:1–3) on which it is built. The covenant with Abraham established the Lord’s promise to make a great nation (Gn 12:2)—which He had done. The Lord had also promised Abraham that He would raise up kings (Gn 17:6)—which He was now doing with David. The unconditional nature of the promise is highlighted by the Lord’s emphatic first-person pronouns describing His past but sovereign care of David ("I have gone" … "I have walked" … "I took") (17:5–7), combined with the personal promissory declarations for the future ("I will make" … "I will appoint" … "I will plant" and most vitally, "I will build") (vv. 8–10). While the author of 2 Samuel noted in his version of this promise that any particular individual descendant (king) of David (or one in the Davidic line) may fail to enjoy the promises of this divine blessing (cf. 2Sm 7:14), here in the Chronicler’s version the Lord gave David unqualified assurance that One of David’s descendants would enjoy a unique Sonship (cf. Heb 1:5; Is 9:6) and would experience the assured and permanent blessings of this covenant (17:11–14). Note the emphasis on the throne (vv. 12, 14). This speaks of the "place and right to rule." Emphatically (mentioned twice in this brief space), this part of the promise is forever. The term "covenant" (berith) does not appear in these verses, but the promises made here are referred to as a covenant in several later texts (see 2Sm 23:5; 2Ch 13:5; 21:7; 23:3; Ps 89:3, 28, 34, 39; Is 55:3; Jr 33:16–26).

17:1–2. The account opened with David secure in his own house (v. 1; notice also the use of the term house in the previous transitional verse, 16:43). At first this seemed to be a somewhat mundane observation, but the various nuances of the word house (bayit) were meant to provide the reader with the focal points in this narrative and promise. The Chronicler used this term house (bayit) to refer to David’s palace, to the temple (in prospect), and to David’s dynasty. David drew the contrast between his house of cedar and the location of the ark under curtains (17:1b). He apparently considered his house of cedar to be a more appropriate dwelling for the ark than the tabernacle (of "curtains"); the Lord corrected David’s perspective in the word from Nathan. David was exhibiting the quality of a good king and man of God by seeking the counsel of the prophet Nathan, but Nathan’s encouragement (v. 2) was proven to be premature. Interestingly, Nathan was not rebuked for this presumption; nevertheless he received a timely correction.

17:3–4a. The opening expression, It came about the same night revealed the urgency of preventing David from proceeding with his plans. David was called My servant by the Lord, indicating that the Lord was not displeased with David’s heart and intent.

17:4b–6. Here in Chronicles the Lord’s prohibition, You shall not build a house for Me to dwell in (v. 4b), was much more directly, even bluntly, stated than in the parallel version in 2Sm 7. The Lord corrected David’s estimate of the appropriateness of the ark’s current abode by reminding him, I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up Israel to this day (1Ch 17:5a). In other words, this was the Lord’s plan from the beginning. The Lord chose this migratory arrangement by His own design. By this arrangement He walked with all Israel (v. 6). He had not asked for or commanded a house of cedar (a clear if mild reproof of David’s estimate of the relative value of a house of cedar) to be built because His very presence is the glory of His people—not the container it comes in. (When Solomon later built the temple, he would make this same point: the presence of the Lord is more important than the earthly vessel in which He comes, no matter how grand or modest. When the Messiah came in humility essentially the same point was made once again; see Lk 2:11–12). The Lord was telling David, "I will choose the appropriate dwelling, for My reasons, according to My purpose, at the time of My choosing" (see Dt 12:5). The Lord deliberately chose the tabernacle that the people might be in awe of the presence of the Lord Himself, not the magnificence of the structure in which He manifested that presence. (See 1 Ch 22:8 for another reason for not allowing David to build the temple.)

The Lord then turned the tables and revealed His plans for David and David’s "house."

17:7–8a. The Lord recalled His election and elevation of David (and David would have no doubt recalled the events of 1 Samuel at this point). As with His choice of a dwelling, His choice of David was "contrary to expectation." God’s man was not the people’s choice—not Saul (1Sm 16:1), not one of David’s elder brothers who would have been a more natural choice (1Sm 16:6, 8–10), but the young shepherd boy of the family (1Sm 16:11). "For God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance," for God’s house or God’s leaders, "but the Lord looks at the heart" (1Sm 16:7). The Lord reminded David that his success in battle (a point to be reiterated in the next chapter) was because of His presence (I have been with you) and His power (and have cut off all your enemies from before you, 1Ch 17:8a), a point that reiterates God’s sovereignty over all matters.

17:8b–14. As noted, the Lord’s covenant with David was reminiscent of the covenant promises the Lord gave to Abraham (Gn 12:1–3). The promises consisted of a word for David himself (1Ch 17:8), a word for the nation (v. 9), a word for both David and the nation (v. 10), a word to David’s son Solomon (v. 11), and a word concerning David’s Greater Son—the Messiah (vv. 12–14). Note again, the repeated phrase I will. As with the promise the Lord made to Abraham (see Gn 15) this promise was one-sided—the Lord obligated Himself. It was a promise based on sovereign grace, and it was unconditional—no obligation was laid on the recipient. David needed only to believe and trust God to keep this word (as with the Abrahamic covenant; see Gn 15:6). The Chronicler was well aware that neither Solomon nor any other Davidic descendant had ever met the requirement of full obedience ("If you will walk in My statutes, and execute My ordinances and keep all My commandments by walking in them, then I will carry out My word with you which I spoke to David your father," 1Kg 6:11–12 [italics added], cf. 1Ch 28:6–7). Therefore his narrative of the kings demonstrated that each one ultimately failed, even the good ones, and that the reader should continue to look for the messianic Son of David to fulfill the promise to David.

As a result, the prophets after David never saw the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (found here and in 2Sm 7:12–16) in Solomon or any other Davidic king. Rather, they understood the Davidic covenant as the basis for an expectation that only the Messiah would fulfill this promise to David (cf. Is 9:6–7; 11:1, 10; 16:5; Jr 23:5; 30:9; 33:15–17; Ezk 34:23–24; 37:24–28; Hs 3:4–5; Am 9:11–15). Intertestamental Judaism also recognized the Davidic covenant as the basis for their expectation that the Messiah would be the Son of David (PsSol 17:21–25, 33–34, 44–45; 18:8; TLev 18:2–3; TJud 24:5–6; SibOr 3:652–53).

Thus the Chronicler was painfully aware that many of the kings, if not every king who followed David, had failed to enjoy the blessings of the Lord’s promise. Therefore, in his rendering of the Davidic promise, the Chronicler chose to highlight the unqualified pledge of the Lord that assured his readers the Davidic dynasty had not been lost and the promise had not been voided. Men failed—but the promise remained, and a Greater Son of David would come (cf. Ps 89:24–29; Mt 1:1; Lk 1:32).

17:8b. David was promised a great name (again, very like the promise God had made to Abraham, Gn 12:2) like the name of the great ones who are in the earth (1Ch 17:8b). David’s renown as a military leader (14:17), his singular stature as the model of the ideal, godly king (see 2Ch 28:1; 29:2; 34:2), and his reputation as a prophet (Ac 2:30) were all indications that this promise was literally fulfilled.

17:9–10a. The nation, My people Israel, was promised a place to dwell; the Lord affirmed, I will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and not be moved again (v. 9). No doubt this promise recalled the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant (see Gn 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8). This promise would have had immediate significance for the generation of the Chronicler. That generation knew this was no guarantee that they, or any particular generation (or generations) would never be removed from the land. After all, their immediate forbearers had just returned from the captivity. But this promise meant they had a right to this land in their day and that future generations could look forward to a day when the promise would mean possession of the land forever. The nation was also promised rest from all your enemies (1Ch 17:10a). Both of these promises will be kept when the nation experiences the blessings of the millennial kingdom (Hs 2:18; Mc 4:3; Rv 20).

17:10b–11. To David and the nation the Lord promised to build a house for you (v. 10b). Here the term house refers to a dynasty; "God’s promise to ‘build a house’ for David is a play on words: the king could not build God a house, i.e., a structure ‘of cedar’ (v. 6) but God would build him one, a dynasty of descendants" (17:11) (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 396). All in all, this would mean that the nation would continue to have a "servant," a shepherd for the people, a patron and protector of the temple (to come) and the Levitical institutions, a leader who would seek the Lord and bring the blessings of God’s grace and lovingkindness.

17:12–14. Of course, this would be true only if the Davidic king continued to "seek the Lord" and did not "forsake the Lord." But that possibility (and the warning of 2Sm 7:14) is not in view here, as the Chronicler chooses to focus on the positive promise and the grace of God. The Lord promised I will not take My lovingkindness (chesed; "loyal love, covenant love") away from him (v. 13), not because of anything in the king himself, but solely because of God’s word.

To David’s son Solomon the promise was He shall build for Me a house (v. 12a). This promise would be reiterated and applied and fulfilled in later contexts in 1 and 2Ch.

Finally, there was a word about another, one who would be a Son to the Father (v. 13a; cf. Ps 89:27). That the Chronicler had in mind not Solomon (or any other of the kings named in the following history) may legitimately be understood because of the special nature of this promise: I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever (v. 14). David’s dynasty and Solomon’s kingdom will be established, but this One will reign, His throne will last in perpetuity—forever. This is "a feature made possible by Jesus Christ, who, as God’s Son (next verse), is the only one to possess a rule that is endless" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 396). "No possibility is entertained that this covenant will be abrogated, or will need to be abrogated (v. 13); no less than five times the writer repeats that it will be forever" (Roddy Braun, 1 Chronicles, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1986], 200).

The Chronicler was well aware that no king in his narrative fulfilled, or could fulfill, this promise. The promise was not, and could not be, fulfilled until the angel spoke to Mary and revealed that her Son "will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end" (Lk 1:32–33). Only He, the One who lives forever and ever (Rv 10:6), can occupy a throne forever. "Ultimately it leads to Jesus, in whom this promise is finally and perfectly fulfilled. In the light of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, the early church constantly saw this as the supreme Old Testament promise concerning Jesus as the Son of God, frequently referring to this and similar passages (e.g. Acts 2:30; 13:22–23, 33–34; Rom 1:3–4; Heb 1:5, 8–9; 5:5)" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 179–80).

17:15. The note that Nathan carried out the task of communicating the word of the Lord to David completely (all these words … according to all this vision, v. 15) is another instance of the Chronicler’s high regard for faithful prophets.

David responded in an extraordinary prayer of humility (17:16–19), of praise (17:20–22), and of faith in God’s promise (17:23–27).

17:16–19. David’s humility here was remarkable: Who am I … and what is my house (v. 16). He knew that there was no inherent greatness in himself. David recognized that this great blessing was a small thing in Your eyes (v. 17a), that is, it took no effort or strain for God to accomplish something David could never have imagined by his own strength. David was given a "great name" only because the Lord regarded him as a man of high degree (v. 17b). David confessed that he was at a loss for words to express his humble appreciation for the Lord’s utterly gracious promise (v. 18), a promise made solely according to Your own heart (v. 19), that is, utterly by grace. This promise was a demonstration of "the surpassing riches of His grace" (Eph 2:7), a promise "more abundantly beyond all that [David could] ask or think" (Eph 3:20).

17:20–22. David’s praise was in two parts. First he recognized the absolute uniqueness of God Himself, O Lord, there is none like You (v. 20), and second the uniqueness of God’s choice of Israel (v. 21). David did not have a "sterile theology" but rather a rich appreciation of the sovereign, all-powerful gracious Lord. God had just given him a promise of incalculable value—and he was appropriately overwhelmed.

17:23–27. This part of the prayer betrayed no suggestion that David thought God’s promise might not come to fruition. His prayer let the word You have spoken … do as You have spoken (v. 23) betokened his hearty approval and delight in the prospect. He desired that God fulfill His word in order that Your name be established and magnified forever (v. 24). In other words, "Do Your will, Lord, so that all the earth will acknowledge and exalt You." David concluded with another acknowledgment of the promise to build … a house (v. 25), and he specifically claimed one precious feature—the promise was forever (v. 27). This model prayer expresses humility, utter trust, rich theological confession, and simple trust. The Chronicler included it as a model prayer and attitude for his own people.

These chapters record the expansion and consolidation of David’s kingdom. The material here is not chronological and follows roughly "the sequence found in 2 Samuel" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 398). In Chronicles the accounts of victory over enemies are intended to show David’s military prowess (by the Lord’s enablement), the loyalty and bravery of his men, and the unity of "all Israel" (cf. 19:17). The Chronicler was telling his generation that their victories would likewise require godly and divinely ordained national leadership, the loyalty and courage of each man (and woman), serving and working in unity—lessons for God’s people of all ages. Thus, these accounts functioned as illustrations of the Chronicler’s message and were not intended to be read as if they were in chronological order.

18:1–13. David’s victories over the Philistines (18:1), the Moabites (18:2), Hadadezer (18:3–11), and the Edomites (18:12–13) came about because the Lord helped David wherever he went (18:6b, 13b). This was in accord with the promise of 17:8. "The lesson of that collage of warfare is the same as that celebrated in Psalm 2: the kings of the earth can devise only an empty plan against the Lord and His Anointed (Ps. 2:1–2)" (Sailhamer, First and Second Chronicles, 51).

18:14. This summary verse served to drive home once again the point that David reigned over all Israel and added that the success of his reign could be attributed to the qualities of justice and righteousness (v. 14). The Chronicler was not simply saying David’s was a fair and equitable administration, that he was an even-handed ruler. He was all of that. But even more, these are the qualities of the perfect administration to come at the hand of the ultimate Son of David, the Messiah (Is 1:26–27; 11:1–5; 32:16; 33:5). David’s reign was one that his descendants would either emulate, resulting in the nation’s prosperity and blessing, or deviate from, to the nation’s regret and judgment.

This brief listing of some of David’s key men was placed here to prepare the reader for the role of Joab (18:15; 19:10) and the "choice men" in the next account. While there is much emphasis in Chronicles on the leadership of the king, the author also wanted his readers to be aware that leaders cannot win victories alone. God blessed David with loyal and courageous men from the beginning of David’s reign (cf. 11:10–47).

This chapter shows not only that David was a fierce adversary militarily, but also that he could be diplomatic and cordial with his friends. However, when his overtures of friendship were rebuffed his power was to be feared.

19:1–5. David sent what amounted to a "delegation of consolation" to Hanun the son of Nahash upon the death of Nahash (v. 2; cf. 1Sm 11:1, 2) the king of Ammon. The Ammonites had been enemies of Saul, and there had apparently been a treaty of some sort between Nahash and David during the period of their common enmity with Saul. This kindness is actually chesed or "loyalty," a term often used in covenants and treaties, and typically used for God’s unending covenant love for Israel. David was not merely repaying an act of benevolence, but he also was living up to his treaty obligations. Hanun’s advisers mischaracterized the purpose of the delegation and humiliated the messengers by having their beards shaved (specifically half-shaved in 2Sm 10:4) and their clothing cut (exposing them immodestly, 1Ch 19:4). These developments were reported to David (v. 5) setting the stage for the confrontation.

19:6–9. Each stage in the following account begins with the formula, "When [someone] saw that …" The Ammonites prepared for the battle by hiring mercenaries. David prepared for battle by sending out Joab and all the army, the mighty men (v. 8). David had neither desired nor invited this battle, but he was ready for it because he had previously cultivated the loyalty of a core of mighty men (fighters) and he had enlisted faithful generals (cf. 18:15–17). This was a battle between those who were paid to fight and those who fought on the basis of personal loyalty and for a cause greater than themselves.

19:10–15. The battle array of the Ammonites was impressive (cf. 19:9), and when Joab saw it he embarked on a bold strategy. He himself led all the choice men of Israel (v. 10) against the mercenary Arameans (Syrians), and he set his brother Abshai against the main force of the Ammonites (v. 11). Each force was to act as the reserve for the other (v. 12). Joab’s pre-battle speech is a motivational classic in three parts: First, he appealed for "personal courage"—Be strong, and let us show ourselves courageous. Second, he appealed on the basis of national pride—for the sake of our people and for the cities of our God. Third, his appeal was grounded in faith and trust in God—and may the Lord do what is good in His sight (v. 13). This was a message designed for the Chronicler’s generation, and for all generations of God’s people. Joab’s faith was proven well-placed and his strategy well executed, and both the Arameans and Ammonites fled before him and his brother (vv. 14–15).

19:16–19. The victory of Joab and Abshai was not the final battle. When the defeated Arameans called for reinforcements David himself gathered all Israel (v. 17), went across the Jordan river, drew up in battle array, and defeated them. This defeat was devastating (v. 18; on the numbers see Introduction), complete, and led to a time of peace with the leader of the Arameans, Hadadezer (v. 19).

20:1–8. A final victory over the Ammonites and three vignettes from the wars with the Philistines conclude this record of David’s victories. The Chronicler pointed out that while Joab led out the army and David stayed at Jerusalem (v. 1), yet the victory was David’s by the hand of his servants (v. 8b). This presents a slightly different picture from that drawn in 2Sm 11:1. In that context there is an implication of negligence on David’s part—he should have been out fighting with his men and instead he found himself at home tempted by Bathsheba (2Sm 11:2). The Chronicler, however, may be seeking to indicate that "plurality in leadership among God’s people is essential, if only to make up for the deficiencies of others (cf. Eph. 4:11–13; Ac. 13:1–3; Phil. 1:1)" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 197).

The brutality indicated in 1Ch 20:3 may not be what it seems. The original is not altogether clear and the parallel in 2Sm 12:31 ("set them under" meaning "forced them to use") may indicate that this was an instance of forced labor (cf. Selman, 1 Chronicles, 197); "David could be ruthless … but he was not cruel" (cf. Payne, "1 Chronicles," 402–403). The "giants" among the Philistines were apparently large men, with some physical oddities (v. 6) and some impressive weaponry (v. 5). However, these advantages were of no avail, and they were defeated by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants (v. 8b).

At this point the Chronicler chose to omit the account of David’s sin with Bathsheba and the subsequent events: the murder of Uriah (2Sm 11), the rebuke of Nathan and loss of a child (2Sm 12), the turmoil in David’s house (2Sm 13), including the revolt of Absalom (2Sm 14–19) and the lesser revolt of Sheba (2Sm 20). Between the end of 1Ch 20 and the account of the census to follow in 1Ch 21 (1Sm 24) there is a gap of about 20 years filled with these tumultuous events. The Chronicler is not attempting, by this intentional omission, to deny these events or rewrite history. He knew his readers were familiar with the accounts in 1 Samuel. "His reasons for a gap of this length are not difficult to surmise: little of what transpired during those two decades would encourage a postexilic Judah" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 406). The Chronicler’s purpose was to highlight the positive from Judah’s past in order to give encouragement to her present.

Nevertheless, the Chronicler did include the narrative of David’s sinful census (perhaps because to omit it would leave unexplainable gaps in the narrative). The Chronicler mitigated this surprising development somewhat by revealing that Satan (v. 1) instigated David’s action. Satan is sometimes used by the Lord (in His sovereignty, yet with Satan doing just as he pleases) to accomplish His purposes (cf. Jb 1:8–2:10; Lk 22:31, 32). However, the parallel in 2Sm 24:1 indicates that it was the "anger of the Lord" (against David for relying on the number of his forces rather than on the Lord) that incited David to this action. In other words, it would appear that God, in His anger (for some unspecified sin, 2Sm 24:1), used the instrument of Satan, "the adversary of God’s people" to incite David to sin. (Some suggest that this means simply "an adversary," indicating that Satan was used to provoke a rival nation to attack David.) This appears to be an instance of "compatibilist determinism" or the view that God can be the author of "nonconstraining causes" that nevertheless inexorably accomplish His will and yet do not make Him responsible for the free actions of men who act on those causes.

"Nonconstraining causes" are those that do not force a person to act against his will but are sufficient to assure a determined outcome—an outcome determined by God. Here the Lord sends a cause [the adversary] that does not force David to respond by this sinful act. Yet given David’s propensity [self-seeking and sinful, as all men are] the Lord knows this cause is sufficient to move David to take this census—that is, David sins. In this case David sinned because of his own will [even though the provocation, the adversary sent by the Lord, ensured that that is exactly what he would do] and therefore he is responsible. "This view is often referred to as soft-determinism or compatibilism, for genuinely free [and responsible] action is seen as compatible with nonconstraining sufficient conditions which incline the will decisively in one way or the other" (John S. Feinberg, "God Ordains All Things," in Predestination and the Will of God: Four Views on Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986] 24–25). By ordering this census David brought the judgment of the Lord on the nation (1Ch 21:7, 14). Therefore, that David was "moved" (21:1) to order this census does not absolve him of personal responsibility, even if it explains his uncharacteristic disobedience. However, even this was not the final word, for upon David’s confession and repentance the Lord not only mitigated the judgment but also turned the occasion to one of providential blessing—the place of the judgment became the location for the temple.

21:1. The appearance of Satan at this point is quite unexpected. Indeed, this is the first time Satan appears without the definite article in Scripture (see Jb 1–2; Zch 3:1–2, hasatan "the adversary"; but see comments above). In some fashion (perhaps through an intermediate means like a pagan nation in opposition) Satan stood up against Israel (1Ch 21:1). Whatever God’s motives in using Satan for His purposes (see the discussion on God’s use of non-constraining causes and free will) (or whatever Satan means) Satan remained malevolent and his intentions were always destructive of God’s people (cf. 1Pt 5:8; for Satan as an instrument of chastisement under God’s providential oversight, see 2Co 12:7; 1Tm 1:20).

21:2. David gave his orders for this census to Joab and to the princes of the people (21:2). The command was comprehensive—from Beersheba in the extreme south even to Dan, the northernmost point of the tribally occupied land. The phrase that I may know their number may give a subtle clue as to David’s motive: perhaps he was congratulating himself on the expansion of the kingdom, or perhaps this census was something of a poll of David’s popularity, or perhaps designed to assess his military strength or economic power. Whatever the motive "he seems to have forgotten that the people were not his but God’s" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 205). God had commanded that Moses number the people (Nm 1; 26) but He had not so commanded David. This census seems to be motivated by David’s pride and self-importance.

21:3. Joab seems to have understood that this action was a mistake, and he said that such an act would be a cause of guilt (v. 3c). Because of this (and further showing he considered it a wrong thing to do) he attempted to dissuade David. His attempt was tactful (But, my lord the king …) but direct. He acknowledged that having a large population would be a blessing from the Lord, and he reminded David that they were all his servants no matter how many (or few). Perhaps Joab was thinking of the victories of the smaller Israelite forces over the larger armies of the Ammonites and Arameans. His subtle point would be, "We do not need to know the number. We need only to know they are your loyal servants." He then directly confronted David to inquire into his motives: Why does my lord seek this thing? In short, what purpose would this accomplish since the number of people was what it was by the Lord’s will and blessing? Finally, he identified the real problem with this census: it amounted to a cause of guilt to Israel. The term guilt is a strong term usually used for acts that warrant God’s wrath (2Ch 24:18; 28:10; 33:23).

21:4–6. Joab’s boldness was commendable and his tact exemplary, but his objections did not change David’s mind—the king’s word prevailed (v. 4). The census went forward. However, Joab’s heart was not in this task. In fact the king’s command was abhorrent to him, and so the census was only partially done (v. 6) and not actually finished (cf. 27:24). No doubt the Levites were not numbered because they were never a part of the fighting forces (cf. Nm 1:47–54). Benjamin may have been left unnumbered simply because God’s displeasure fell (1Ch 21:7) before the count could be completed and David stopped it. This was a sad and serious error on David’s part that threatened the esprit de corps that existed between David and his men as the result of many years of fighting and serving together. The surest way for leaders to achieve excellence in God’s work is to enlist likeminded and loyal coworkers (see the victories in 1Ch 18–20). But the surest way for leaders to undermine God’s work is to command those under them to do as they are told while overruling their legitimate objections.

21:7–8. The Divine’s response to this census is startlingly and starkly recorded in v. 7: God was displeased with this thing, so He struck Israel. The principle that "the king stands for the nation" is behind this action. While it may seem unfair in this setting (and in every instance where the nation is punished for the king’s disobedience), it is a principle that more often works in the nation’s favor. Whatever this first "striking" was, it brought a swift and heartfelt confession from David. Here (v. 8) is a model of confession of sin. First, David called this act what it is in God’s sight (a sin; David sinned greatly; cf. Ps 51:4). Second, he took personal responsibility—I have done this thing … I have done very foolishly (cf. Ps 51:1–3, noting the personal pronouns). Third, he asked for the removal of guilt, and for cleansing (cf. Ps 51:9–10).

21:9–12. The confession and forgiveness of sin may bring God’s mercy (cf. 21:13), but this does not eliminate all consequences for sin. Gad, the seer (prophet) made his first appearance in Chronicles here (vv. 9–10). The Lord called him to present David with three alternative punishments to be visited on the nation. One option was three years of famine; a second option was three months to be swept away before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you (v. 12; that is, three months of successive military losses); and the third was three days of the sword of the Lord, even pestilence in the land. (The parallel of "threes" makes it more likely that Chronicles is correct here as opposed to the "seven years" of 2Sm 24:13. The seven years in the latter text may simply be textual anomaly or a copyist error.) The alternatives ranged from relatively mild but extended hardship, to difficult but moderate losses, to intense but shortened catastrophe—in short, they were equally unpalatable. The last alternative was to be carried out by the angel of the Lord (v. 12b) also called "the destroying angel" (21:15). Since this angel did not come to bring a word of revelation from God (see Gn 16:7–12; 22:11–18; Nm 22:22–35; Jdg 6:11–23; 13:2–5), it seems likely that this entity is not the same as the angel of the Lord in those other instances. Gad admonished David to weigh the answer carefully (v. 12c) indicating that no other alternatives were available.

21:13. David was unable to make a choice, being in great distress, and so he cast himself and the nation into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are very great. This was a remarkable confession given the inevitability of the punishment to come. It was the confession of one who knew God well, for even if the judgment fell, David knew it would be just and it would come with mercy in its wake.

21:14–15. The Lord sent the third alternative, pestilence dispensed by the angel; 70,000 men of Israel fell (v. 14), and then the angel approached Jerusalem itself (v. 15). The Chronicler built tension into his narrative at this point. The angel came to destroy, he was about to destroy, and then at the crucial moment the aforementioned mercy came into the narrative—the Lord saw … and said … It is enough (v. 15). The note that the Lord saw and was sorry over the calamity should not be taken to suggest that God "changed His mind"—this is not a contradiction to His immutability or omniscience.

Statements like these in Scripture are "anthropopathic," describing God using the terminology descriptive of human feeling. God does not alter His moral character to fit the circumstance, but He remains constant in both holy righteousness and compassionate mercy. However, the use of "anthropopathic language" is not meant to hide something (unfathomable) about God but to reveal something (true) about God. "When God is said to repent, it indicates his awareness that the human situation has altered and his desire to act in a way fitting to this changed situation." Furthermore, "when God is said to repent, it indicates his real experience, in historically unfolding relationships with people, of changed dispositions or emotions in relation to some changed human situation" (Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000], 90–91). Thus, for example, in the circumstance of a truly repentant Nineveh (see Jnh 3–4), the unchanging purpose of a God who is always perfectly just and perfectly merciful may, from the human perspective, be described as "God relenting." When sin is confessed and repentance is genuine, just to be the "constant, faithful, good God" that He is, He will be merciful.

At the moment when the Lord called His angel to relax your hand (v. 15c) the angel was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (v. 15d). Jebus was the ancient name of Jerusalem, and the threshing floor of Ornan appears to be the very place where the temple eventually would be built (see below on 21:18–22:1).

21:16–17. Immediately David’s heartfelt repentance was again in focus and appeared to be the reason for eliciting the Lord’s mercy. At this climactic moment, as the angel of destruction stood poised to enact his calamitous mission with sword drawn, David offered himself as the substitute for further punishment, rightly arguing that the sin was his and the sheep should not suffer for his wickedness. David’s sincerity was very much in evidence in the expression O Lord my God, please let Your hand be against me (v. 17).

21:18–27. In an amazing example of God’s providence, the very place where the destruction of Israel was halted was to become the place of atonement for Israel’s sin. The Lord commanded David to build an altar to the Lord on this very spot (v. 18). The significance of this act would not be lost on the Chronicler’s readers. That David purchased the threshing floor of Ornan for the full price (v. 24) meant that as long as there was a Davidic line, this land belonged to the nation of Israel. Here is where David built the altar; here he offered sacrifices (v. 26a). The proof that the Lord approved of this was twofold: He answered him with fire … on the altar, and He commanded the angel to put his sword back in its sheath (vv. 26b, 27).

21:28–22:1. In what Selman calls "a brief theological supplement" (1 Chronicles, 210), the Chronicler first explained that the tabernacle was yet in the high place at Gibeon at that time (21:29). At the same time, the Chronicler noted that David had established an altar at the threshing floor of Ornan, and that he was afraid to abandon that location (v. 30). However, this arrangement could not last for David needed to inquire of God ("seek the Lord"). The solution was clear—the place of David’s altar must become the house of the Lord God (22:1).

The remaining chapters of 1 Chronicles and the opening chapters of 2 Chronicles are focused on the temple. The Chronicler recorded first David’s preparations for, and then Solomon’s actual construction of the temple. Once again, the Chronicler expected his readers to have a grasp of the general flow of the nation’s history with the narratives of 2 Samuel and Kings in mind. For his particular purposes he left out the details of 1Kg 1 and 2, which record the transition from the reign of David to Solomon.

The theme of chaps. 22 through 27 is "preparation" (cf. 22:3, 5, 14). The materials for the temple had to be gathered, the Levites and priests and temple personnel had to be organized, and preeminently the builder, Solomon, had to be prepared. Since David had purchased the place for the temple (21:24–26), it was time to prepare "to build the house of God" (22:2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19). The Chronicler’s emphasis on the temple had an application for his own generation. The people of his day were not as zealous for the temple as they ought to have been. The construction of the second temple after the exile, when the Chronicler wrote and his readers lived, was a difficult undertaking (cf. Ezr 3–6), and from time to time his people needed to be "shaken up" (cf. the comments on Hg 1:14; 2:7, 20) to keep working on it. They needed to be instructed on the seriousness of temple worship (cf. Mal 1:6–14) and the value of faithful adherence to the precepts of the law (cf. Zch 7–8; Mal 3:8–18).

The Chronicler’s narrative was intended to reinforce those messages. He wanted his readers to understand that the fulfillment of the great promises of the Davidic covenant—promises on which they rested their hopes and included the guarantee of possessing their land—was intimately connected to the temple. The temple was the symbol, and more than a symbol, of the Lord’s presence with His people. The temple ensured an ongoing relationship between the nation and the Lord. It was the place of God’s mercy and of atonement, and the temple "was a permanent symbol that God had kept His promise about the land" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 215).

Taking the temple and its services and its worship seriously and devoutly meant taking the Lord seriously and serving Him devoutly. Ignoring it or "disdainfully sniffing" at its services (Mal 1:13, "taking lightly") meant ignoring Him, taking Him lightly. This would not only diminish their lives and corrode their hope, it also invited His chastisement. Second Chronicles records that those kings who honored the temple and sought the Lord were blessed, but those who defiled the temple and forsook the Lord were judged. The Chronicler wanted his generation to understand that for David, the temple was tied to the covenant promises—the assurance of the promise is the presence of the temple. For Christians the promise of salvation is tied to another temple—the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 2:21–22)—and the assurance of the believer’s salvation is the resurrection!

The gathering of materials for the construction of the temple, and its actual building, as well as the transition from David to Solomon in 1Ch 22, may have been intended by the Chronicler to parallel Moses’ preparation and building of the tabernacle as well as the transition from Moses to Joshua (the parallels will be noted in the comments below). The narrative here "does not have a parallel in the other historical books. The chronicler, drawing on his own sources of information … shows that David was responsible for gathering the building materials and workers (24:1–4, 14–19) and for ensuring that the temple plans corresponded to the promise of God (22:5–13)" (Sailhamer, First and Second Chronicles, 55).

22:2–5. The preparations began with several mundane matters. First, David gathered skilled workers (cf. 2Ch 2:7; Ex 31:1–11) to build the house of God (1Ch 22:2). These foreigners may have been some who were taken as captives in battle or simply local artisans who, being familiar with the local materials were the best qualified for the technical and artistic aspects of the work. Second, David gathered the raw materials for building—iron … bronze … timbers of cedar logs (vv. 3–4). The note about large quantities of iron indicated that David had overcome the technology gap with the Philistines (cf. 1Sm 13:19–21). The bronze had been recovered as the spoils of war from the Arameans (1Ch 18:8). The timber came from Lebanon from David’s ally Hiram (1Ch 14:1).

Third, David needed to prepare his son Solomon (v. 5). Solomon was probably in his mid-twenties at this time, but David’s point does not pertain to his age so much as to his inexperience. From the comments that follow in this verse it seems David needed to impress his son with the magnitude of the undertaking and its significance. This temple was not to be built so as to please men but for the Lord. It was to be exceedingly magnificent (v. 5) so as to impress the nations with the magnificence and glory of the Lord. The emphasis was not on the greatness of the builder but the majesty of the Occupant—this temple was to be for "the name of the Lord" (cf. 22:7).

22:6–10. David began his charge to Solomon with an explanation of his intent to build the temple and of God’s restriction (vv. 6–10). In this statement he gave an interesting reason for the Lord’s denying him the privilege of building the temple: David was a man of war and bloodshed (v. 8). There does not seem to be any ceremonial impurity attached to being a man of war (indeed, God had called David to the work of war and blessed him with victories). The restriction seemed to be simply a matter of what was more fitting for the temple—a man of war like David or a man of peace as Solomon was (whose very name is related to the word for "peace"; v. 9). The temple was to be a symbol of the peace and quiet to Israel in his days (v. 9).

Three items from the Davidic covenant (cf. 1 Ch 17:11–14) are noted in v. 10. First, it was the Lord’s intent that David’s son (here referring to Solomon) shall build a house for My Name. Second, this son would enjoy a unique filial relationship with the Lord. Third, the Lord reiterated the promise that the throne and kingdom established by God would be forever. "Alongside this direct focus on Solomon, the words for ever are an unmistakable hint that both covenant and temple have an eschatological dimension that will far outlast Solomon" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 215).

22:11–13. David’s prayer (another example of "seeking the Lord") for his son (vv. 11–13) was a model of prayer for success in serving the Lord. It included a petition for the continued presence and guidance of the Lord through this project—the Lord be with you; a petition for discretion and understanding; a petition that Solomon would be careful to observe the statutes and the ordinances of the law; and a petition that he be strong and courageous, and that he should not fear nor be dismayed. Here are principles for success in the service of the Lord: communion with the Lord, wisdom from the Lord, obedience to the Lord, and courage from the Lord. The language here is reminiscent of the charge from Moses to Joshua (cf. Dt 31:1–7; cf. Jos 1:1–9). In addition, the charge in both circumstances follows an admission, whether by Moses or David, of failure to carry out his original intentions and the delegating of that task to a divinely appointed successor (Joshua and Solomon, respectively). If this parallel was intentional it would have served to remind Solomon of the importance of the task and to encourage him about the prospect for success.

22:14–16. The theme of preparation continued and returned to mundane matters. Here David indicated to Solomon that the finances (v. 14) and the skilled workers (v. 15; cf. v. 2) had been assembled and it only remained for him to arise and work (v. 16). The Lord be with you (vv. 11, 16) "is not just conventional good wishes, but a vital piece of Old Testament theology; it guarantees Solomon’s ultimate success" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 216).

22:17–19. David knew that Solomon alone would not do the work, so he turned his attention to the leaders to enlist them in mutual service. He reminded them of the Lord’s blessings of past victory and present rest (vv. 17–18). His admonition to them is a theme of Chronicles as a whole—Now set your heart and your soul to seek the Lord your God (v. 19a; see Introduction: Purpose and Themes). No enterprise undertaken for God will prosper if that dimension, the heart, is not right with God going in. He added, arise, therefore, and build the sanctuary of the Lord God (22:19b). Once the heart is set on God and His glory, the hands must work! Once again all are reminded that this house was to be built for the name of the Lord (22:19c). The Chronicler, through David’s words in v. 19, drew several lines of the narrative together at this point. His objective was to bring the ark (chaps. 13–16) to the place (chap. 21) designated by the Lord as the location for His house (chap. 22).

These chapters highlight an often-overlooked quality of David. David’s courage and military prowess are well known, as is his genius for worship and psalmody. But these chapters reveal that David was also a man of unusual administrative ability. The value of the details of organization revealed here may be lost on most readers today, but they would have been recognized and appreciated by the people of the Chronicler’s generation as they sought to revive and restore the "practical workings" of the temple in their day. The basic organization that David established in these chapters served his successors in Judah for decades and even centuries. Here was the basic pattern and plan employed in the revivals of Hezekiah and Josiah (cf. 2Ch 35:3) and of the Levitical order in Nehemiah’s day (cf. Neh 12). It "continued to meet the needs of God’s worshiping people on into NT times (cf. 24:10 as reflected in Luke 1:5, 8)" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 418).

David understood that "the people who serve God are just as important as the architectural splendor of the building in which they worship" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 222). Indeed, the worship leaders may have been more important than the building. The Chronicler had several purposes in relating all this information. First, he was highlighting David’s wisdom (like that of Moses). Second, he sought to impress his readers with the importance of the temple services by indicating how much care David took for them. Third, and most practically, he was helping his own generation to "get organized" themselves. These chapters indicate that in Israel the worship of God is not something to be thrown together carelessly by any and all who desire simply to "participate." Although "nonprofessionals" may indeed lead worship in the church today, those who lead should understand its purpose, be spiritually prepared to do it, and strive to do it well.

23:1–6. The note that David made his son Solomon king over Israel (v. 1) was probably placed here to make the point that the organization that David set in place began with his appointment of the king—the divinely established patron and protector of the temple and all who serve in it.

The Chronicler gave a brief inverted forecast of chaps. 23–26 in 23:2: And he gathered together all the leaders of Israel (see 27:1–34) with the priests (24:1–19) and the Levites (23:3–32; 24:20–31). In addition the Chronicler listed the musicians (25:1–31) and the gatekeepers (26:1–32). In the chapters to follow, the Chronicler moved from those closest (Levitical priests) to those who served furthest (military officers; 27:1–15) from the temple. All of this organizational activity took place in "the fortieth year of David’s reign" (26:31), his last year of life (probably 971–970 BC).

The Chronicler noted that the total number of Levites was 38,000 (23:3). The age, thirty years old and upward, is based on Nm 4:3. The 38,000 were divided into four groups: 24,000 were to oversee the work of the house of the Lord (23:4a), that is, they were the ones actually functioning as priests (24:1–19); 6,000 were officers and judges (23:4b), that is, the ones assigned duties away from the temple (26:29–32); 4,000 were gatekeepers (23:5a), that is guards along with "treasurers" (26:1–28); 4,000 were praising the Lord with the instruments (23:5b), that is, the musicians (25:1–31).

23:7–32. The Chronicler began this section with a census of the Levites (v. 24); three families are mentioned—that of Gershon (vv. 7–11), Kohath (vv. 12–20) and Merari (23:21–23). The Levites were originally assigned the task of carrying the tabernacle and its furnishings (v. 26) during the wandering in the wilderness. With the establishment of the permanent temple their duties were amended to the upkeep of the temple (v. 28), providing the appropriate elements for worship (v. 29), and offering daily prayers as well as regulating the festivals according to the prescribed calendar (cf. Nm 28–29). In sum, they were to keep charge of things (v. 32) in and around the temple.

24:1–19. As noted, these lists show David’s administrative ability, in turn serving as a model for the Chronicler’s people. The work of the priests was limited to the descendants of Aaron (v. 1). "The duty of the priest was to attend to the altar and perform service ‘inside the veil,’ that is, within the temple itself (cf. Num. 18:1–7)" (Sailhamer, First and Second Chronicles, 57). The priesthood was divided into 24 divisions, 16 from the house of Eleazar and eight from the house of Ithamar (v. 4). They were chosen by lot (v. 5a) with witnesses, so as to avoid any suggestion of favoritism (vv. 5b–6). The eighth division, that of Abijah, was the division of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist; cf. Lk 1:5. The summary statement in 1Ch 24:19 was meant to reinforce the point that these Levites, and only these Levites, were the legitimate priests. They alone had the right to serve in the temple. King Uzziah later discovered, to his great sorrow, that this restriction must be respected (see 2Ch 26:16–23).

24:20–31. This list records the remainder of the Levites and once again is evidence of David’s thoroughness in ordering the servants of the temple. No detail was too small to leave unaddressed. For the important character Zadok, see the comments on 6:8.

25:1–7. The service of the musicians was a matter, no doubt, close to David’s heart. The note that they were to prophesy with lyres, harps and cymbals (25:1) simply means they were "telling forth," that is, praising God with instruments. "Much of Hebrew poetry was religious and could be called ‘prophecy’—not necessarily in the sense of special revelations from God’s Spirit, but in the sense of general ascriptions of praise or of repetition in worship of prophecies or psalms that had already been revealed and recorded as Holy Scripture" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 424). The musicians were said to be all who were skillful (25:7), perhaps a corrective to those who suggest one need only make a "joyful noise" (cf. Ps 66:1) to worship God. Apparently David required skilled musicians and singers.

25:8–31. The musicians were also divided by lots (v. 8) and divided into 24 divisions (vv. 9–31) on the pattern, no doubt, of the priests. "The singers ‘cast lots’ to determine without prejudice the arrangement of the twenty-four courses" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 425).

26:1–19. The third branch of Levites included the gatekeepers, the guards. They are described only as mighty men (v. 6) and valiant men (v. 9) indicating something like "warriors" or "good fighters." Their other duties are listed in 1Ch 9:18–32. In keeping with the attention to detail, the very gate and hourly assignments are recorded in vv. 12–19, as were the other various locations (storehouses; gates; Parbar [precinct, court or colonnade]) where security was needed. The need for a "security detail" is not a modern phenomenon.

26:20–28. The treasurers were not "book-keepers" but, as they were associated with the guards, were the officials charged with protecting the treasures of the house of God (26:20). Much of this treasure was spoil won in battles (v. 27) by previous leaders of the Jewish people (v. 28).

26:29–32. The Chronicler listed the final branch of the Levites in a short paragraph that mentions outside duties (v. 29). It is not immediately clear what duties were in view, but they might have included Levitical duties that were required away from the temple, such as teaching the law (cf. Dt 33:10) or serving as magistrates (cf. Dt 17:9–10).

27:1–34. The Chronicler finished the listing of temple servants and functionaries, and in characteristic thoroughness provided the reader with a listing of civil servants. Four groups are listed: first, the commanders of the army (vv. 1–15); second, the chief officers of the tribes of Israel (vv. 16–22); third, a list of officers in charge of the king’s property (vv. 25–31); and finally, a list of David’s counselors, in effect, his cabinet officers (vv. 32–34). While there was no direct purpose given for including this list, in the greater context of these chapters on "preparation for the temple," it seems likely that it indicated the nation’s uniting to build the temple (see Selman, 1 Chronicles, 244). Indeed, even as David’s organizational genius is on display in these chapters, literally hundreds of people, in every conceivable occupation, were enlisted to facilitate the erecting of "the house … for the name of the Lord" (22:19d).

Up to this point David’s preparations had been mostly physical and material. Now the account turned to what might be called the spiritual preparations. For the temple to be built one must have the necessary materials and sufficient skilled labor, but without a plan these provisions are of no value. Furthermore, the motivation for building the temple, one that would signify the presence of the Lord and symbolize God’s promise to the nation, needed to be more than loyalty to David or an expression of civic pride. This temple had to be built for "the name of the Lord" (cf. 22:7, 19d). In chaps. 28 and 29, the Chronicler recorded David’s final addresses and prayer. Here David was seeking to direct the hearts and minds of the people (the assembly, 28:1, 2; 29:1, 9, 14), the leaders ("all the officials," 28:1), and Solomon to the task of building the temple as an expression of obedience and devotion to the Lord, "for the temple is not for man, but for the Lord God" (29:1c).

28:1. The list in 28:1 was designed to indicate that the important leaders of the nation were firmly behind David and his intentions. The list does not indicate that only leaders were called to hear this address, since David addressed his audience by calling them "my brethren and my people" (28:2; cf. 29:1). The expression "the entire assembly" (29:1) included the "people" (29:9, 14).

28:2–5. The address itself began with David rehearsing the history that led to this stage in building the temple. First, David reminded the assembly of his intention—providing a permanent home for the ark. In the Chronicler’s history David’s concern for the ark was the first priority after his reign was established (cf. 1Ch 13–16). The description of the ark as the footstool of our God (28:2; cf. Ps 132:7) introduces the theme of "rest." Instead of traveling in a tent, the ark will rest in the temple. For the Chronicler "rest" denotes "fulfilled promises" (cf. Is 14:1–3; 66:1; 30:10), for the nation then returned from captivity was "at rest". The final "rest" will not come through Solomon’s or Herod’s temple, but through the temple to be built by the Greater Son of David (Ezk 40–43; Zch 6:12–13), the One who is the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (see comments above on 1 Ch 17:12–14). David’s concern for the ark led him to make preparations for the temple. However, he was prevented, for David was a man of war (28:3; in contrast to Solomon, called a "man of rest" in 22:9).

Here, for a second time in his history, the Chronicler recorded the basic provisions of the Davidic covenant (1Ch 17:12–14; cf. 2Sm 7:12–16; Pss 89; 132). He emphasized two aspects, namely the Lord’s sovereign election, and the everlastingness of His promise. The word "chose" or "chosen" occurs five times in this context (1Ch 28:4–10). In short order, David recalled a major theme of the Chronicler—God’s sovereign choice of David. This theme began with the genealogies. The Lord chose Judah (v. 4; Judah was the first son of Jacob [Israel] in the genealogies, 1Ch 2:1). The Lord chose David (cf. 1Ch 2:9–3:24; 11:3), and the Lord chose Solomon (cf. 1Ch 17:11; 22:8–9). This promise was specifically stated to be forever (28:4, 7)—a provision that could be fulfilled only by the Greater Son of David (see comments above on 1Ch 17:12–14).

28:6–8. David’s address turned to the one issue that was the catalyst for the enjoyment of the Davidic promises—obedience. The conditional element (if he resolutely performs My commandments and My ordinances, v. 7) and the admonition to obey (observe and seek after all the commandments … so that you may possess the good land and bequeath it, v. 8) are not suggesting that the ultimate fulfillment of the promise depends on Israel’s obedience. If that were the case the late captivity would have indicated an end to the promises, rendering the Chronicler’s history moot. The Chronicler understood the point: the promise to David’s Greater Son is indeed unconditional based on the Word of the Lord—I will be a father to him (v. 6) and I will establish his kingdom forever (v. 7). However, any particular king or any particular generation of Israel may find they are not blessed to enjoy the benefits of the promise because they forsook the Lord, or disobeyed the commandments of the Lord (v. 8). The ultimate fulfillment of the promise was never in question. Yet for any specific generation to experience the blessings of the promise, to actually possess the good land (v. 8), required their obedience. In effect, this is a commentary on the history to follow in 2 Chronicles.

28:9–10. The final part of this address was directed toward Solomon, but the words were intended to be heard by the assembly. Five charges are laid on Solomon: He was to know the God of your father, to serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind, to seek Him (v. 9), to consider (v. 10a; see below), and to be courageous and act (v. 10b).

Solomon was to know God, that is, to have both the theological depth of understanding (see David’s prayer, 29:10–12) and a personal relationship with Him. Solomon was to serve the Lord as David had, with a whole heart, that is with the whole of his being—mind, body, emotions, will (cf. Ps 119:2, 10, 34, 58, 69, 145). He was to be "single minded" for the things of the Lord. He was to seek Him. This was a hallmark of the "good king," just as "forsaking the Lord" is the hallmark of the "bad king" (see Introduction: Purpose and Themes). He was to consider, that is, keep in mind his calling and election (cf. 2Pt 1:10) and to "stay on task." He was to keep his priorities for the Lord’s work in mind at all times (cf. Hg 1:5, 7). Finally, Solomon was to be courageous and act. This again recalled the words of Moses to Joshua (cf. also 1Ch 22:13; Jos 1:6–9). David’s admonition applies to all who undertake a service for the Lord. David reminded Solomon that his service was to be done with a willing mind, for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts (1Ch 28:9).

The Chronicler, like his contemporary Malachi, knew that one of the failures of the nation before and after the exile was insincerity in worship (see Is 1:10–17; Mal 1:6–14). Such worship or service will be rejected by the Lord. He is not interested in "so-called worship" or service that is insincere. The service that pleases and honors the Lord is done in the "fear of the Lord," and He is to be served "in sincerity and truth" (Jos 24:14). This principle is illustrated in the next chapter, where the Chronicler emphasized the willingness of the people who gave sacrificially for the temple (1Ch 29:5c, 6, 9, 17).

28:11–19. This section is all about the plan (tabnit, vv. 11, 12; translated model in v. 18, and pattern in v. 19). This was not so much a set of blueprints as it was a verbal set of directives. These "plans" were given to David from the Lord. The description the Lord made me understand in writing by His hand upon me (v. 19) could mean that David received these directives in writing, that is, "they were given to him in written form from God" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 437). Just as the plans for the tabernacle had been revealed to Moses directly by God (Ex 25:9, 40; 27:8), so David was indicating that the plans for the temple were revealed directly from God as well. They were all that he had in mind (1Ch 28:12). It seems that David was fulfilling a position in relation to the temple parallel to that of Moses in relation to the tabernacle. The main point is that this plan was the Lord’s plan. Note, however, that "The plan itself is not included by the chronicler" (Sailhamer, First and Second Chronicles, 61). The description included some details concerning the architecture—the porch, the buildings and the rooms (vv. 11–12); concerning the personnel—the priests, Levites (v. 13); and concerning the utensils used for every kind of service (vv. 14, 13b–18). Of particular interest are the cherubim (v. 18) that covered the ark of the covenant. These were not the cherubim that formed the lid of the ark (Ex 37:7–9) but apparently were two larger cherubim to shelter the ark in the Holy of Holies in the temple. The picture was of the Lord riding the wings of the cherubim as one might ride a chariot (cf. Ps 18:10; Ezk 1:15).

28:20–21. Once again David evoked the words given to encourage Joshua—be strong and courageous, and act (v. 20). David backed up this admonition with two supports on which Solomon could count. First, God promised to be with Solomon in an extraordinary way: the Lord God … is with you. The words He will not fail you nor forsake you were meaningful to Solomon and must have been a source of genuine optimism and hope for the Chronicler’s generation. Second, David told Solomon that every willing man of any skill will be with you (v. 21), and the officials also and all the people will be entirely at your command. This note must have been particularly inspiring to the Chronicler’s readers, and to ensuing generations of God’s people—when the Lord commands them, no task, calling, or ministry need falter with the promise of an ever-present God and a group of like-minded, dedicated people (cf. Hg 2:4–5; 1Co 16:13).

29:1–5. David again addressed the assembly and again reminded the people of God’s choice of Solomon and Solomon’s need of their participation in the task of building the temple (v. 1). David next spoke of a matter that had not been emphasized to this point—namely, his contributions for the project out of his own personal resources. The amounts indicated here are staggering but well within the capacity of a victorious leader and king like David (vv. 2–5). His appeal was simple and direct: who then is willing to consecrate himself this day to the Lord? (29:5). This call to consecration used a word (consecrate) that was usually associated with an office such as the priesthood (e.g., Ex 28:41—of the priests "and consecrate them"; Ex 29:1—of the priests "to consecrate them"). Its use here indicated that David was not asking for an offering but for a heart commitment that would prove itself tangibly in a willing offering. In other words, this was not a "fund-raising" effort but a call to "spiritual commitment."

29:6–9. David’s call was generously answered by leaders (and we may assume all the people, 29:6–9). The people rejoiced because this offering was generous, was made voluntarily (willingly, v. 6), and was an offering to the Lord (v. 9), that is, it was an evidence of devotion and a vital relationship with Him, made with a whole heart (cf. 28:9; 29:19). It brought joy to the King, and it encouraged others.

29:10–13. David’s response to the generosity of the people was a prayer of thanksgiving (v. 13). "This magnificent prayer demonstrates beyond contradiction that Chronicles’ priority is with the heart of worship rather than its form" (Selman, 1 Chronicles, 259).

The prayer opened with a blessing on the Lord before the assembly (v. 10a). David’s address—O Lord God of Israel—established the solemnity. The words our father refer to Israel (see v. 18).

David began the prayer with theologically rich declarations concerning God. The terms are not a list of divine attributes noted at random. They are the attributes of a Sovereign. The sovereignty of the Lord is the main idea: Yours is the dominion, O Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over all (v. 11). In addition, David acknowledged the benevolence of the Lord. All the blessings of life he knows and his very kingdom come from God (v. 12). For all this God was to be thanked and praised (v. 13).

29:14–17. David next made humble acknowledgements about himself and the people. The phrase who am I and who are my people (v. 14a) was rhetorical and meant, "we are nothing in and of ourselves." He recognized that all of the wealth they had provided for the temple was actually from Your hand (v. 14b, 16). These were not vapid comments, but keenly felt sentiments of dependence and implicit, even plaintive, expressions of trust and hope.

"The truth that ‘everything’ we have ‘comes from’ God is the foundation for the doctrine of stewardship" (Payne, "1 Chronicles," 438). David added to this sense of utter dependence the recognition of the transience of humankind—our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no hope apart from the Lord (v. 15). The idea here is very much like Moses’ in Ps 90—our transient and fleeting lives (Ps 90:2–10) will have meaning only if "the favor of the Lord our God be upon us" and He confirms (makes worthwhile) "the work of our hands" (Ps 90:17). The Chronicler’s generation would be reminded that even living in the land they were still sojourners … and tenants (1Ch 29:15; cf. Ps 39:12). That is, they had rights to the land only through the promise given to the fathers (cf. 1Ch 29:18), and only on the basis of God’s sovereign kindness and covenant faithfulness could they expect to continue to enjoy the blessings.

29:18–20. David knew that the people needed to keep their devotion and remain circumspect in their obedience, so he prayed that the Lord Himself would preserve this forever in the intentions of the heart of Your people, and direct their heart to You (v. 18). This emphasis on the heart continued with a petition for Solomon (v. 19)—give to my son Solomon a perfect heart to keep Your commandments. David knew better than anyone that "man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart" (1Sm 16:7).

This prayer was not just evocative but motivational: how can God’s people remain motivated for the task set before them? They must pray sincerely. Acknowledging God’s sovereignty and their utter dependence, they must maintain a willing and obedient heart. The prayer closes with a blessing on the Lord by the people (1Ch 29:20).

29:21–22a. The assembly ended with sacrifices and offerings and with great gladness (29:21–22a). David had accomplished what he intended for this assembly—the people were unified and spiritually prepared for the great task of building the temple.

On the coronation of Solomon found in 1Ch 29:22b–25, see the commentary on 2 Ch 1.

29:26–30. At the close of David’s story, the Chronicler used a literary form that would serve him well in the narratives of the kings in 2 Chronicles. It was a "closing formula" that usually noted the sources of the narrative and other works with more information on the life of the king. It typically stated the length of the king’s reign, noted the king’s death, and often named his successor. The formula was not rigidly followed, and there were a number of variations to the basic outline.

The closing formula for David had many of the standard features. Of note is the mention of his seven-year reign in Hebron (v. 27), a part of the history that was barely mentioned in the Chronicler’s narrative. Also, the note about the chronicles of the several prophets (v. 29; the terms seer and prophet refer to the same office) was intended to enhance the credibility and reliability of the Chronicler’s accounts.

As noted, the Chronicler used the canonical books of Samuel and Kings as the sources for much of his narrative. The other noncanonical sources were not inspired, but they were apparently quite reliable. The death of David did not bring an end to his considerable influence on the nation. Instead, David became the model of Israel’s ideal king, the picture against which every Davidic king would be compared until the coming of his Greater Son, the Messiah.