1 Chronicles 21

            The key thing that the Chronicler highlights here is the way that David chose and acquired the future site for the temple.  That’s part of a larger agenda that will play out over the next few chapters, an agenda to demonstrate that it could just as well be called David’s temple:  he might not have built it, but he was integral to its planning in all phases.
            I suspect, though, that the thing a modern reader will come away with is a question about responsibility.  After all, 2 Samuel 24 says that the Lord incited David to take the census and 1 Chronicles 21 says that Satan stood against Israel.  Which is it?  God or Satan?  Remember that Satan is less a name and more a job description; the word means ‘accuser.’  So, let me throw this out there:  the Satan/the accuser/the prosecutor stood before the Lord and accused Israel of wrongdoing.  Two things to note:  according to Job 1-2, this seems to be exactly what the Satan did.  Second, he probably wasn’t making things up; he probably had all sorts of evidence about worship at high places, etc. to present.  Under this construction, Satan stood against Israel (1 Chron. 21:1); his accusations angered the Lord, who suggested a test, namely, a census to see if David would trust Him.  David failed the test, but repented when he saw the tragedy being inflicted on his people.
            Now, I think that reconstruction is fair to the biblical evidence, but it’s not terribly helpful in sorting through whether God or Satan is responsible for inciting David.  Lutheran theology teaches that God does not tempt for evil but that He does offer tests for good.  Further, it’s a safe statement to say that Satan uses any such test from God as an opportunity to undermine faithfulness.  (That’s certainly what happens in Genesis 2-3:  the Lord sets a boundary that man may honor Him and Satan is right there challenging the boundary.)  Now the distinction between test and tempt is a fine theological distinction, but it’s a little hard to make in practice.  When you’re in the midst of trial, it’s hard to sort out, “Is God offering me a chance to do what is right, or is Satan tempting me to do what is wrong?”  The answer, unfortunately, seems to be, “Yes.”  Sin/Satan seizes the opportunities presented by God’s command to lead us astray (Romans 7:8).

1 Chronicles 18-20

            Chronicles sets out to demonstrate God’s faithfulness to David, and, in the bargain, the Chronicler highlights David as a paradigm of faithfulness, too.  Consequently, a lot of the less savory things David did are skipped over.  This is very clear in today’s reading.  2 Samuel 10 records the war with Ammon and Syria (1 Chronicles 19-20), and 2 Samuel 21 records the war with the Philistines (1 Chronicles 20).  But from 2 Samuel 11 to 2 Samuel 20 we have the stories of David’s adultery, and Tamar’s rape, and Absalom’s revolt—not David’s finest hours!

            This is as good a test case as you’ll find for the idea that the biblical writers wrote for particular purposes, purposes of which we should be aware.  So, neither the author of Samuel nor the Chronicler are interested in history—as we moderns consider history.  Modern history is concerned with neutrality.  (Although I’d argue that historians are not as objective as they like to think; I’m reading a book about American foreign policy in China in the early 20^th century, and while the author is trying hard to balance his approach, his biases do show.  He’s eager to show how, mistakes and all, American policy was fairer to the Chinese than European policy.  I can’t help but think that a Chinese historian would write a considerably different story.)  Anyhow, the writer of Samuel and Kings wants to show that the problems Israel faced were not about military or political issues but about faithfulness to the Lord.  The writer of Chronicles wants to highlight the special place that David occupies in God’s interaction with Israel.  We moderns might call that propaganda; the Bible calls it good story-telling.

            In practical terms, it’s a good lesson on the 8^th Commandment.  The Catechism’s explanation of that Commandment states that we keep it when we put the best construction on everything.  I wonder how willing we are to leave aside the more sordid elements of a story to highlight the positive ones?

1 Chronicles 1-4

            What an unfortunate choice!  To start blogging again in the week that my Today’s Light reading has me running through the first four chapters of 1 Chronicles.  Now if you read the reading, or if you just remember Chronicles, you know that Chronicles 1-9 is almost completely lists of names—genealogies, and very detailed genealogies, at that.  To add insult to injury, the genealogies are not even strictly chronological.  From 2:3-3:24 you have the line of Judah through the kings of the southern kingdom.  Then, without warning, in 4:1 you’re back in Judah’s day with the rest of his clans.  What gives?

            Well, hard as it is to read, it strikes me that there is method in this madness.  I read in an online edition this morning, and the layout wasn’t helpful.  But tonight I’m looking at an NIV print edition, and the editors have titled the text helpfully.  What they have made clear is the Chronicler’s desire to highlight God’s faithfulness to His promises, especially as those promises flow through David.  So, we go from Adam to Noah—that’s easy enough.  Then, the sons of Shem come in for extended treatment, culminating in Abraham.  The Chronicler dispenses with Abraham’s ‘other’ sons briefly, and then gets to Isaac and his boys, Esau and Jacob.  Again, Esau is taken care of first (all the way to Edom, because Edom is a ‘frenemy’ of Israel—ask your teenager what a frenemy is), but the real story is Jacob and his boys, especially Judah, through whom the promise continues to David and to the exile.

            The point of the whole thing, then, is to remind the reader that God has been at work on His promise to restore humanity for a long time.  Given that Chronicles is written in the period after the exile (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:22-23), this was a welcome word for the recipients.  Their temple was a shadow of its former self; their nation was a mere puppet under foreign governance; shoot, until the time of Nehemiah (around 430 B.C.), their city didn’t even have a wall.  Surely, they were thinking (sarcastically), “This is some fine blessing!  Sure we’re the people of God.  Absolutely.  Anyone could see it.”  The Chronicler reminds them that God’s been faithfully working on this story for a long time.  Even if the recipients don’t know what God’s up to, they should rest assured that He knows what He’s up to.

            Not a bad pay off for us either:  We may not know what God’s up to, but we know what He’s done in Jesus, and we know where the stories headed (the final restoration).  We can take comfort in God’s faithfulness to His promises and we can take hope in that, too.