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?