In order to understand why the chronicler entirely recasts the graphic and
candid history of David given in the book of Samuel, we have to consider
the place that David had come to fill in Jewish religion. It seems
probable that among the sources used by the author of the book of Samuel
was a history of David, written not long after his death, by some one
familiar with the inner life of the court. “No one,” says the proverb, “is
an hero to his valet”; very much what a valet is to a private gentleman
courtiers are to a king: their knowledge of their master approaches to the
familiarity which breeds contempt. Not that David was ever a subject for
contempt or less than an hero even to his own courtiers; but they knew him
as a very human hero, great in his vices as well as in his virtues, daring
in battle and wise in counsel, sometimes also reckless in sin, yet capable
of unbounded repentance, loving not wisely, but too well. And as they knew
him, so they described him; and their picture is an immortal possession
for all students of sacred life and literature. But it is not the portrait
of a Messiah; when we think of the “Son of David,” we do not want to be
reminded of Bath-sheba.
During the six or seven centuries that elapsed between the death of David
and the chronicler, the name of David had come to have a symbolic meaning,
which was largely independent of the personal character and career of the
actual king. His reign had become idealised by the magic of antiquity; it
was a glory of “the good old times.” His own sins and failures were
obscured by the crimes and disasters of later kings. And yet, in spite of
all its shortcomings, the “house of David” still remained the symbol alike
of ancient glory and of future hopes. We have seen from the genealogies
how intimate the connection was between the family and its founder.
Ephraim and Benjamin may mean either patriarchs or tribes. A Jew was not
always anxious to distinguish between the family and the founder. “David”
and “the house of David” became almost interchangeable terms.
Even the prophets of the eighth century connect the future destiny of
Israel with David and his house. The child, of whom Isaiah prophesied, was
to sit “upon the throne of David” and be “over his kingdom, to establish
it and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness from henceforth
even for ever.”(139) And, again, the king who is to “sit ... in truth, ...
judging, and seeking judgment, and swift to do righteousness,” is to have
“his throne ... established in mercy in the tent of David.”(140) When
Sennacherib attacked Jerusalem, the city was defended(141) for Jehovah’s
own sake and for His servant David’s sake. In the word of the Lord that
came to Isaiah for Hezekiah, David supersedes, as it were, the sacred
fathers of the Hebrew race; Jehovah is not spoken of as “the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” but “the God of David.”(142) As founder of the
dynasty, he takes rank with the founders of the race and religion of
Israel: he is “the patriarch David.”(143) The northern prophet Hosea looks
forward to the time when “the children of Israel shall return, and seek
the Lord their God and David their king”(144); when Amos wishes to set
forth the future prosperity of Israel, he says that the Lord “will raise
up the tabernacle of David”(145); in Micah “the ruler in Israel” is to
come forth from Bethlehem Ephrathah, the birthplace of David(146); in
Jeremiah such references to David are frequent, the most characteristic
being those relating to the “righteous branch, whom the Lord will raise up
unto David,” who “shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute
judgment and justice in the land, in whose days Judah shall be saved, and
Israel shall dwell safely”(147); in Ezekiel “My servant David” is to be
the shepherd and prince of Jehovah’s restored and reunited people(148);
Zechariah, writing at what we may consider the beginning of the
chronicler’s own period, follows the language of his predecessors: he
applies Jeremiah’s prophecy of “the righteous branch” to Zerubbabel, the
prince of the house of David(149): similarly in Haggai Zerubbabel is the
chosen of Jehovah(150); in the appendix to Zechariah it is said that when
“the Lord defends the inhabitants of Jerusalem” “the house of David shall
be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.”(151) In the later
literature, Biblical and apocryphal, the Davidic origin of the Messiah is
not conspicuous till it reappears in the Psalms of Solomon(152) and the
New Testament, but the idea had not necessarily been dormant meanwhile.
The chronicler and his school studied and meditated on the sacred
writings, and must have been familiar with this doctrine of the prophets.
The interest in such a subject would not be confined to scholars.
Doubtless the downtrodden people cherished with ever-growing ardour the
glorious picture of the Davidic king. In the synagogues it was not only
Moses, but the Prophets, that were read; and they could never allow the
picture of the Messianic king to grow faint and pale.(153)
David’s name was also familiar as the author of many psalms. The
inhabitants of Jerusalem would often hear them sung at the Temple, and
they were probably used for private devotion. In this way especially the
name of David had become associated with the deepest and purest spiritual
experiences.
This brief survey shows how utterly impossible it was for the chronicler
to transfer the older narrative bodily from the book of Samuel to his own
pages. Large omissions were absolutely necessary. He could not sit down in
cold blood to tell his readers that the man whose name they associated
with the most sacred memories and the noblest hopes of Israel had been
guilty of treacherous murder, and had offered himself to the Philistines
as an ally against the people of Jehovah.
From this point of view let us consider the chronicler’s omissions
somewhat more in detail. In the first place, with one or two slight
exceptions, he omits the whole of David’s life before his accession to the
throne, for two reasons: partly because he is anxious that his readers
should think of David as king, the anointed of Jehovah, the Messiah;
partly that they may not be reminded of his career as an outlaw and a
freebooter and of his alliance with the Philistines.(154) It is probably
only an unintentional result of this omission that it enables the
chronicler to ignore the important services rendered to David by Abiathar,
whose family were rivals of the house of Zadok in the priesthood.
We have already seen that the events of David’s reign at Hebron and his
struggle with Ishbosheth are omitted because the chronicler does not
recognise Ishbosheth as a legitimate king. The omission would also commend
itself because this section contains the account of Joab’s murder of Abner
and David’s inability to do more than protest against the crime. “I am
this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are
too hard for me,”(155) are scarcely words that become an ideal king.
The next point to notice is one of those significant alterations that mark
the chronicler’s industry as a redactor. In 2 Sam. v. 21 we read that
after the Philistines had been defeated at Baal-perazim they left their
images there, and David and his men took them away. Why did they take them
away? What did David and his men want with images? Missionaries bring home
images as trophies, and exhibit them triumphantly, like soldiers who have
captured the enemy’s standards. No one, not even an unconverted native,
supposes that they have been brought away to be used in worship. But the
worship of images was no improbable apostacy on the part of an Israelite
king. The chronicler felt that these ambiguous words were open to
misconstruction; so he tells us what he assumes to have been their
ultimate fate: “And they left their gods there; and David gave
commandment, and they were burnt with fire.”(156)
The next omission was obviously a necessary one; it is the incident of
Uriah and Bath-sheba. The name Bath-sheba never occurs in Chronicles. When
it is necessary to mention the mother of Solomon, she is called Bath-shua,
possibly in order that the disgraceful incident might not be suggested
even by the use of the name. The New Testament genealogies differ in this
matter in somewhat the same way as Samuel and Chronicles. St. Matthew
expressly mentions Uriah’s wife as an ancestress of our Lord, but St. Luke
does not mention her or any other ancestress.
The next omission is equally extensive and important. It includes the
whole series of events connected with the revolt of Absalom, from the
incident of Tamar to the suppression of the rebellion of Sheba the son of
Bichri. Various motives may have contributed to this omission. The
narrative contains unedifying incidents, which are passed over as lightly
as possible by modern writers like Stanley. It was probably a relief to
the chronicler to be able to omit them altogether. There is no heinous sin
like the murder of Uriah, but the story leaves a general impression of
great weakness on David’s part. Joab murders Amasa as he had murdered
Abner, and this time there is no record of any protest even on the part of
David. But probably the main reason for the omission of this narrative is
that it mars the ideal picture of David’s power and dignity and the
success and prosperity of his reign.
The touching story of Rizpah is omitted; the hanging of her sons does not
exhibit David in a very amiable light. The Gibeonites propose that “they
shall hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the
Lord,” and David accepts the proposal. This punishment of the children for
the sin of their father was expressly against the Law(157); and the whole
incident was perilously akin to human sacrifice. How could they be hung up
before Jehovah in Gibeah unless there was a sanctuary of Jehovah in
Gibeah? And why should Saul at such a time and in such a connection be
called emphatically “the chosen of Jehovah”? On many grounds, it was a
passage which the chronicler would be glad to omit.
In 2 Sam. xxi. 15-17 we are told that David waxed faint and had to be
rescued by Abishai. This is omitted by Chronicles probably because it
detracts from the character of David as the ideal hero. The next paragraph
in Samuel also tended to depreciate David’s prowess. It stated that
Goliath was slain by Elhanan. The chronicler introduces a correction. It
was not Goliath whom Elhanan slew, but Lahmi, the brother of Goliath.
However, the text in Samuel is evidently corrupt; and possibly this is one
of the cases in which Chronicles has preserved the correct text.(158)
Then follow two omissions that are not easily accounted for. 2 Sam. xxii.,
xxiii., contain two psalms, Psalm xviii. and “the Last Words of David,”
the latter not included in the Psalter. These psalms are generally
considered a late addition to the book of Samuel, and it is barely
possible that they were not in the copy used by the chronicler; but the
late date of Chronicles makes against this supposition. The psalms may be
omitted for the sake of brevity, and yet elsewhere a long cento of
passages from post-Exilic psalms is added to the material derived from the
book of Samuel. Possibly something in the omitted section jarred upon the
theological sensibilities of the chronicler, but it is not clear what. He
does not as a rule look below the surface for obscure suggestions of
undesirable views. The grounds of his alterations and omissions are
usually sufficiently obvious; but these particular omissions are not at
present susceptible of any obvious explanation. Further research into the
theology of Judaism may perhaps provide us with one hereafter.
Finally, the chronicler omits the attempt of Adonijah to seize the throne,
and David’s dying commands to Solomon. The opening chapters of the book of
Kings present a graphic and pathetic picture of the closing scenes of
David’s life. The king is exhausted with old age. His authoritative
sanction to the coronation of Solomon is only obtained when he has been
roused and directed by the promptings and suggestions of the women of his
harem. The scene is partly a parallel and partly a contrast to the last
days of Queen Elizabeth; for when _her_ bodily strength failed, the
obstinate Tudor spirit refused to be guided by the suggestions of her
courtiers. The chronicler was depicting a person of almost Divine dignity,
in whom incidents of human weakness would have been out of keeping; and
therefore they are omitted.
David’s charge to Solomon is equally human. Solomon is to make up for
David’s weakness and undue generosity by putting Joab and Shimei to death;
on the other hand, he is to pay David’s debt of gratitude to the son of
Barzillai. But the chronicler felt that David’s mind in those last days
must surely have been occupied with the temple which Solomon was to build,
and the less edifying charge is omitted.
Constantine is reported to have said that, for the honour of the Church,
he would conceal the sin of a bishop with his own imperial purple. David
was more to the chronicler than the whole Christian episcopate to
Constantine. His life of David is compiled in the spirit and upon the
principles of lives of saints generally, and his omissions are made in
perfect good faith.
Let us now consider the positive picture of David as it is drawn for us in
Chronicles. Chronicles would be published separately, each copy written
out on a roll of its own. There may have been Jews who had Chronicles, but
not Samuel and Kings, and who knew nothing about David except what they
learned from Chronicles. Possibly the chronicler and his friends would
recommend the work as suitable for the education of children and the
instruction of the common people. It would save its readers from being
perplexed by the religious difficulties suggested by Samuel and Kings.
There were many obstacles, however, to the success of such a scheme; the
persecutions of Antiochus and the wars of the Maccabees took the
leadership out of the hands of scholars and gave it to soldiers and
statesmen. The latter perhaps felt more drawn to the real David than to
the ideal, and the new priestly dynasty would not be anxious to emphasise
the Messianic hopes of the house of David. But let us put ourselves for a
moment in the position of a student of Hebrew history who reads of David
for the first time in Chronicles and has no other source of information.
Our first impression as we read the book is that David comes into the
history as abruptly as Elijah or Melchizedek. Jehovah slew Saul “and
turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.”(159) Apparently the
Divine appointment is promptly and enthusiastically accepted by the
nation; all the twelve tribes come at once in their tens and hundreds of
thousands to Hebron to make David king. They then march straight to
Jerusalem and take it by storm, and forthwith attempt to bring up the Ark
to Zion. An unfortunate accident necessitates a delay of three months, but
at the end of that time the Ark is solemnly installed in a tent at
Jerusalem.(160)
We are not told who David the son of Jesse was, or why the Divine choice
fell upon him, or how he had been prepared for his responsible position,
or how he had so commended himself to Israel as to be accepted with
universal acclaim. He must, however, have been of noble family and high
character; and it is hinted that he had had a distinguished career as a
soldier.(161) We should expect to find his name in the introductory
genealogies; and if we have read these lists of names with conscientious
attention, we shall remember that there are sundry incidental references
to David, and that he was the seventh son of Jesse,(162) who was descended
from the Patriarch Judah, through Boaz, the husband of Ruth.
As we read further we come to other references which throw some light on
David’s early career, and at the same time somewhat mar the symmetry of
the opening narrative. The wide discrepancy between the chronicler’s idea
of David and the account given by his authorities prevents him from
composing his work on an entirely consecutive and consistent plan. We
gather that there was a time when David was in rebellion against his
predecessor, and maintained himself at Ziklag and elsewhere, keeping
“himself close, because of Saul the son of Kish,” and even that he came
with the Philistines against Saul to battle, but was prevented by the
jealousy of the Philistine chiefs from actually fighting against Saul.
There is nothing to indicate the occasion or circumstances of these
events.(163) But it appears that even at this period, when David was in
arms against the king of Israel and an ally of the Philistines, he was the
chosen leader of Israel. Men flocked to him from Judah and Benjamin,
Manasseh and Gad, and doubtless from the other tribes as well: “From day
to day there came to David to help him, until it was a great host like the
host of God.”(164)
This chapter partly explains David’s popularity after Saul’s death; but it
only carries the mystery a stage further back. How did this outlaw and
apparently unpatriotic rebel get so strong a hold on the affections of
Israel?
Chap. xii. also provides material for plausible explanations of another
difficulty. In chap. x. the army of Israel is routed, the inhabitants of
the land take to flight, and the Philistines occupy their cities; in xi.
and xii. 23-40 all Israel come straightway to Hebron in the most peaceful
and unconcerned fashion to make David king. Are we to understand that his
Philistine allies, mindful of that “great host, like the host of God,” all
at once changed their minds and entirely relinquished the fruits of their
victory?
Elsewhere, however, we find a statement that renders other explanations
possible. David reigned seven years in Hebron,(165) so that our first
impression as to the rapid sequence of events at the beginning of his
reign is apparently not correct, and there was time in these seven years
for a more gradual expulsion of the Philistines. It is doubtful, however,
whether the chronicler intended his original narrative to be thus modified
and interpreted.
The main thread of the history is interrupted here and later on(166) to
insert incidents which illustrate the personal courage and prowess of
David and his warriors. We are also told how busily occupied David was
during the three months’ sojourn of the Ark in the house of Obed-edom the
Gittite. He accepted an alliance with Hiram, king of Tyre; he added to his
harem; he successfully repelled two inroads of the Philistines, and made
him houses in the city of David.(167)
The narrative returns to its main subject: the history of the sanctuary at
Jerusalem. As soon as the Ark was duly installed in its tent, and David
was established in his new palace, he was struck by the contrast between
the tent and the palace: “Lo, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of
the covenant of the Lord dwelleth under curtains.” He proposed to
substitute a temple for the tent, but was forbidden by his prophet Nathan,
through whom God promised him that his son should build the Temple, and
that his house should be established for ever.(168)
Then we read of the wars, victories, and conquests of David. He is no
longer absorbed in the defence of Israel against the Philistines. He takes
the aggressive and conquers Gath; he conquers Edom, Moab, Ammon, and
Amalek; he and his armies defeat the Syrians in several battles, the
Syrians become tributary, and David occupies Damascus with a garrison.
“And the Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went.” The conquered
were treated after the manner of those barbarous times. David and his
generals carried off much spoil, especially brass, and silver, and gold;
and when he conquered Rabbah, the capital of Ammon, “he brought forth the
people that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of
iron, and with axes. And thus did David unto all the cities of the
children of Ammon.” Meanwhile his home administration was as honourable as
his foreign wars were glorious: “He executed judgment and justice unto all
his people”; and the government was duly organised with commanders of the
host and the bodyguard, with priests and scribes.(169)
Then follows a mysterious and painful dispensation of Providence, which
the historian would gladly have omitted, if his respect for the memory of
his hero had not been overruled by his sense of the supreme importance of
the Temple. David, like Job, was given over for a season to Satan, and
while possessed by this evil spirit displeased God by numbering Israel.
His punishment took the form of a great pestilence, which decimated his
people, until, by Divine command, David erected an altar in the
threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite and offered sacrifices upon it,
whereupon the plague was stayed. David at once perceived the significance
of this incident: Jehovah had indicated the site of the future Temple.
“This is the house of Jehovah Elohim,(170) and this is the altar of burnt
offering for Israel.”(171)
This revelation of the Divine will as to the position of the Temple led
David to proceed at once with preparations for its erection by Solomon,
which occupied all his energies for the remainder of his life.(172) He
gathered funds and materials, and gave his son full instructions about the
building; he organised the priests and Levites, the Temple orchestra and
choir, the doorkeepers, treasurers, officers, and judges; he also
organised the army, the tribes, and the royal exchequer on the model of
the corresponding arrangements for the Temple.
Then follows the closing scene of David’s life. The sun of Israel sets
amid the flaming glories of the western sky. No clouds or mists rob him of
accustomed splendour. David calls a great assembly of princes and
warriors; he addresses a solemn exhortation to them and to Solomon; he
delivers to his son instructions for “all the works” which “I have been
made to understand in writing from the hand of Jehovah.” It is almost as
though the plans of the Temple had shared with the first tables of stone
the honour of being written with the very finger of God Himself, and David
were even greater than Moses. He reminds Solomon of all the preparations
he had made, and appeals to the princes and the people for further gifts;
and they render willingly—thousands of talents of gold, and silver, and
brass, and iron. David offers prayer and thanksgiving to the Lord: “And
David said to all the congregation, Now bless Jehovah our God. And all the
congregation blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down
their heads, and worshipped Jehovah _and the king_. And they sacrificed
sacrifices unto Jehovah, and offered burnt offerings unto Jehovah, on the
morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a
thousand lambs, with their drink offerings and sacrifices in abundance for
all Israel, and did eat and drink before Jehovah on that day with great
gladness. And they made Solomon king; ... and David died in a good old
age, full of days, riches, and honour, and Solomon his son reigned in his
stead.”(173)
The Roman expressed his idea of a becoming death more simply: “An emperor
should die standing.” The chronicler has given us the same view at greater
length; this is how the chronicler would have wished to die if he had been
David, and how, therefore, he conceives that God honoured the last hours
of the man after His own heart.
It is a strange contrast to the companion picture in the book of Kings.
There the king is bedridden, dying slowly of old age; the life-blood
creeps coldly through his veins. The quiet of the sick-room is invaded by
the shrill outcry of an aggrieved woman, and the dying king is roused to
hear that once more eager hands are clutching at his crown. If the
chronicler has done nothing else, he has helped us to appreciate better
the gloom and bitterness of the tragedy that was enacted in the last days
of David.
What idea does Chronicles give us of the man and his character? He is
first and foremost a man of earnest piety and deep spiritual feeling. Like
the great religious leaders of the chronicler’s own time, his piety found
its chief expression in ritual. The main business of his life was to
provide for the sanctuary and its services; that is, for the highest
fellowship of God and man, according to the ideas then current. But David
is no mere formalist; the psalm of thanksgiving for the return of the Ark
to Jerusalem is a worthy tribute to the power and faithfulness of
Jehovah.(174) His prayer after God had promised to establish his dynasty
is instinct with devout confidence and gratitude.(175) But the most
gracious and appropriate of these Davidic utterances is his last prayer
and thanksgiving for the liberal gifts of the people for the Temple.(176)
Next to David’s enthusiasm for the Temple, his most conspicuous qualities
are those of a general and soldier: he has great personal strength and
courage, and is uniformly successful in wars against numerous and powerful
enemies; his government is both able and upright; his great powers as an
organiser and administrator are exercised both in secular and
ecclesiastical matters; in a word, he is in more senses than one an ideal
king.
Moreover, like Alexander, Marlborough, Napoleon, and other epoch-making
conquerors, he had a great charm of personal attractiveness; he inspired
his officers and soldiers with enthusiasm and devotion to himself. The
pictures of all Israel flocking to him in the first days of his reign and
even earlier, when he was an outlaw, are forcible illustrations of this
wonderful gift; and the same feature of his character is at once
illustrated and partly explained by the romantic episode at Adullam. What
greater proof of affection could outlaws give to their captain than to
risk their lives to get him a draught of water from the well of Bethlehem?
How better could David have accepted and ratified their devotion than by
pouring out this water as a most precious libation to God?(177) But the
chronicler gives most striking expression to the idea of David’s
popularity when he finally tells us in the same breath that the people
worshipped Jehovah and the king.(178)
In drawing an ideal picture, our author has naturally omitted incidents
that might have revealed the defects of his hero. Such omissions deceive
no one, and are not meant to deceive any one. Yet David’s failings are not
altogether absent from this history. He has those vices which were
characteristic alike of his own age and of the chronicler’s, and which
indeed are not yet wholly extinct. He could treat his prisoners with
barbarous cruelty. His pride led him to number Israel, but his repentance
was prompt and thorough; and the incident brings out alike both his faith
in God and his care for his people. When the whole episode is before us,
it does not lessen our love and respect for David. The reference to his
alliance with the Philistines is vague and incidental. If this were our
only account of the matter, we should interpret it by the rest of his
life, and conclude that if all the facts were known, they would justify
his conduct.
In forming a general estimate of David according to Chronicles, we may
fairly neglect these less satisfactory episodes. Briefly David is perfect
saint and perfect king, beloved of God and man.
A portrait reveals the artist as well as the model and the chronicler in
depicting David gives indications of the morality of his own times. We may
deduce from his omissions a certain progress in moral sensitiveness. The
book of Samuel emphatically condemns David’s treachery towards Uriah, and
is conscious of the discreditable nature of many incidents connected with
the revolts of Absalom and Adonijah; but the silence of Chronicles implies
an even severer condemnation. In other matters, however, the chronicler
“judges himself in that which he approveth.”(179) Of course the first
business of an ancient king was to protect his people from their enemies
and to enrich them at the expense of their neighbours. The urgency of
these duties may excuse, but not justify, the neglect of the more peaceful
departments of the administration. The modern reader is struck by the
little stress laid by the narrative upon good government at home; it is
just mentioned, and that is about all. As the sentiment of international
morality is even now only in its infancy, we cannot wonder at its absence
from Chronicles; but we are a little surprised to find that cruelty
towards prisoners is included without comment in the character of the
ideal king.(180) It is curious that the account in the book of Samuel is
slightly ambiguous and might possibly admit of a comparatively mild
interpretation; but Chronicles, according to the ordinary translation,
says definitely, “He _cut_ them with saws.” The mere reproduction of this
passage need not imply full and deliberate approval of its contents; but
it would not have been allowed to remain in the picture of the ideal king,
if the chronicler had felt any strong conviction as to the duty of
humanity towards one’s enemies. Unfortunately we know from the book of
Esther and elsewhere that later Judaism had not attained to any wide
enthusiasm of humanity.