1 & 2 Chronicles
by Our Daily BreadThe Teacher’s words in Ecclesiastes 4:13 sum up much of today’s text: “Better a poor but wise youth than an old but foolish king who no longer knows how to heed a warning.”
The first major block of narrative in Chronicles begins with Saul’s death in battle, and continues with David replacing him as Israel’s king. The Chronicler could have begun with, say, the exodus or the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, or even with an account of Saul’s reign. Instead, he passes over centuries of Israel’s history and focuses our attention on David. David’s kingship, his rule over Israel, will be the theme of the rest of 1 Chronicles.
The Chronicler comes to the point immediately, effectively setting Saul’s kingship aside: Saul led Israel into a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Philistines (1 Chronicles 10:1), suffered a shameful death (vv. 4–10), and, above all, turned away from God. Saul “was unfaithful to the Lord . . . did not keep the word of the Lord . . . and did not enquire of the Lord”, and instead sought guidance through a medium (vv. 13–14). The three words in italics are key terms in the Chronicler’s theology.
Saul is a negative example: he shows us how not to be Israel’s king. His death was an expression of God’s judgment: God “put him to death” and made David king instead (v. 14). The Chronicler is sending a clear message here: any future king of Israel should come from David’s line.
God’s choice of David finds expression in human choices. After Saul dies, all the tribes come to David at Hebron and swear allegiance to him (11:1). Even during Saul’s reign, they say, David was Israel’s true leader, chosen by God to shepherd His people (v. 2). So they anoint him king at Hebron, in fulfilment of God’s word through Samuel (v. 3). Here the Chronicler seems to assume his audience’s knowledge of texts like 1 Samuel 13:13–14, 15:26–28, and 28:17–19.
David’s first act as king is to capture Jerusalem, which becomes his royal capital, the “City of David” (1 Chronicles 11:7). In all this, we read, God was with David (v. 9).
The Chronicler stresses that the tribes were united in their support of David: “all Israel” chose him as king (v. 1), and “all the Israelites” helped him to capture Jerusalem (v. 4). Chapters 2–8 had set out part of the Chronicler’s vision of Israel: it is ideally a 12-tribe people. To this, chapter 11 adds that Israel must be a people united under the rule of David’s line, with Jerusalem, the stronghold which David captured, as their capital city. For the Chronicler, commitment to the line of David and to the temple in Jerusalem were non-negotiables. That had been true before the exile, and it remained true in his own day.
See also 1 Samuel 31; 2 Samuel 5:1–10.
Post-exilic Israel was not an independent nation, nor was it ruled by kings from David’s line—yet the Chronicler remains committed to the line of David. Why would David be of any significance to the Chronicler’s audience? What significance does the line of David hold for us today?
For the Chronicler, commitment to the line of David and to the Jerusalem temple were non-negotiables. As a Christian, what do you consider to be non-negotiables?
COMMENTS (0)