Deeper Commentary
1Ch 22:1 Then David said, This is the house of Yahweh God, and this
is the altar of burnt offering for Israel-
"Then..." suggests this was David's proclamation of the site he had just bought from Ornan as the only acceptable place for sacrifice. But this was David's own decision. The Law states that sacrifice would be offered at a location Yahweh would choose. David makes that choice for God; there is no word from God stating He had decided upon Jerusalem. David elsewhere claims God chose the place, but clearly it was his choice, and he was trying to railroad God into accepting it. Yet God graciously goes along with this without directly challenging it. His Son was later to teach that it was not in Jerusalem but in the hearts of men, in spirit and truth, that God sought worship. But that was in fact ever the case.
Or we could reason that the certainty of God’s foreknowledge is reflected in the sureness
of His word. Biblical Hebrew has a ‘prophetic perfect’ tense, which uses the
past tense to describe future things which God has promised. Thus David
said, “This is the house of the Lord God”, when as
yet the temple [as David understood it] was only promised by God. Such was his faith in that word of
promise that David used the present tense to describe future things.
Scripture abounds with examples of God’s foreknowledge. God was so certain
that He would fulfill the promises to Abraham, that He told him: “Unto your
seed have I given this land...” (Gen. 15:18) at a time when
Abraham did not even have a seed. During this same period before the seed
(Isaac/Christ) was born, God further promised: “A father of many nations
have I made you” (Gen. 17:5). Truly, God “calls those things which be
not as though they were”.
1Ch 22:2 David gave orders to gather together the foreigners who were in
the land of Israel; and he set masons to cut worked stones to build God’s
house-
It certainly looks appropriate in the type for us to see Gentiles
working towards building up the house of God. But the reality was that
this was a form of racism, using foreigners to do dogs body work; the more
shameful if indeed they were as LXX "proselytes". It was repeated by
Solomon. We also marvel at David's pointed disobedience to God's statement
that "You shall not build Me a house to dwell in" (1 Chron. 17:4).
This marshalling of labour is the same essential sin David committed when he numbered Israel in the previous chapter. He repents, is forgiven, but slips from that level of intensity. And returns to the essence of the sin, and in this case, dies in that mindset. Yet will be ultimately saved! Solomon used 150,000 of these people as labourers and stone-cutters (1 Kings 5:15; 2 Chron. 2:16.). This reflects the ridiculous scale of David's self created narrative. This again shows how once we create and feed a false narrative, that narrative expands in size. The person who after twenty years saw their partner drunk on two occasions develops the narrative over the years to proclaim their partner an alcoholic... we see this going on all the time. As John's Gospel makes clear, the death of the Lord Jesus, His cross, His salvation and real forgiveness for us... is a call to absolute, radical truth. All the way through, David is living in denial of the actual commandment to him not to build a temple: ""Shall you build me a house for me to live in? (2 Sam 7:5)... You shall not build me the house to live in" (1 Chron. 17:4), and God's laboured redefinition of what a "house" for Him must be- a group of people, hearts indwelt by His Spirit. Not a building. And God's insistent grace, that He will build a house for David, and not David building for Him. David is simply trying to get around this by vicariously building the house through Solomon; he made the plans for it [wrongly claiming they were given by God], and makes huge efforts to virtually build it. And we see here the vicarious nature of so much modern sin; not murdering, fornicating or whatever, but doing these things vicariously through the experiences we choose in our screen life.
1Ch 22:3 David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of
the gates, and for the couplings; and brass in abundance without weight-
David prepared for the temple right down to the nails and hinges. He
was obviously reasoning that he could 'get around' the prohibition against
building a temple by getting Solomon to do it after his death. Or it could
even be that David was planning to get Solomon to build it once Solomon
was old enough to do so, even within David's lifetime. The reasons given
as to why God didn't want a temple built were relevant for all time, and
not just to David.
1Ch 22:4 and cedar trees without number; for the Sidonians and Tyrians
brought cedar trees in abundance to David-
David's own house was built of cedar (1 Chron. 17:1), and there was a
very good spiritual reason God's dwelling place was not in cedar but
beneath tents (1 Chron. 17:3-6). But David was driven by guilt because of
his cedar house; and instead of trusting God to remove that guilt, he
wanted to build God a cedar house. And the same kind of quasi spiritual
psychologies go on in Christian minds today.
1Ch 22:5 David said, Solomon my son is young and tender, and the house
that is to be built for Yahweh must be exceedingly magnificent, of fame
and of glory throughout all nations. I will therefore make preparation for
it. So David prepared abundantly before his death-
"David said" may mean that he said this in his heart (as in 1 Sam.
27:1). He speaks of how "the house is to be built for Yahweh", but totally
misses the point- that God rejected that and instead offered to build a
house for him. But the grace of it all seemed too much, and he wanted to
instead do works. God had promised that He would build up Israel, the
faithful community, the house of David, to have "fame and glory" in the
Gentile world (Dt. 26:19 s.w.). But David wanted to make a building of
bricks and mortar which would have "fame and glory". He is totally missing
the point. "Fame" is the word for "name"; and it was Yahweh's Name which
was to be made glorious through His people's manifestation of that Name in
their characters (s.w. Is. 63:12,14; Jer. 13:11). This was to be the
witness to "all nations", and not a magnificent building in Jerusalem.
After conviction of his sin with Bathsheba, David had vowed to take the message of God's grace to the Gentile world, based on his example. He never did that. Instead now he focuses on the idea that a grandiose temple will attract the surrounding nations to Jerusalem. He has slipped from spirituality to mere religion, and died like that- to be saved ultimately by grace. God's promise was that He would build David a house. But David is now obsessed with building God a house. He shied away from the huge grace shown to him in the promises made to him.
1Ch 22:6 Then he called for Solomon his son, and commanded him to build a
house for Yahweh, the God of Israel-
This sounds as if David asked Solomon to do this during David's
lifetime. He was clearly seeking to 'get around' God's forbidding of
himself to do it, by getting it done in Solomon's name. But that was to
miss the point of all the reasons given as to why God didn't want a temple
built.
1Ch 22:7 David said to Solomon his son, As for me, it was in my heart to
build a house to the name of Yahweh my God-
God's response to this had been to tell David that He would build
David a house for His Name to dwell in; the idea being of a community of
people who would manifest the characteristics of that Name (2 Sam. 7:13).
God's Name was already dwelling in the sanctuary (Dt. 12:5), and David had
been wrong to suggest that this Name would dwell in a physical building.
But he ignores God's perspective on this, and claims that God was "for"
his project, but just had some hang ups about David doing it. This is a
misrepresentation of the reasons God gave for forbidding David to build
the temple (1 Chron. 17:4-7).
1Ch 22:8 But the word of Yahweh came to me saying, ‘You have shed blood
abundantly, and have made great wars. You shall not build a house to My
name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight-
Given the fact that David has willfully misrepresented God's response
to him and the prohibition of 1 Chron. 17:4-7, I suspect this was not what
God said. It was David's attempt to justify God's refusal of his plan.
God had said that David would not build a house because He
was going to build a house and place David and his Messianic Son in it,
eternally- at some point after David had died, thereby implying
resurrection at the last day. David has twisted that just as folk today,
taking a word or two of a Bible verse out of context and building an
entire narrative upon it. And that narrative directly contradicts the
spirit and essence of God's revelation. In 1 Kings 5:3 Solomon tells Hiram
that David couldn't build the temple because he was busy fighting Yahweh's
wars. Again the envelope has expanded. Once you start a false narrative,
others repeat it and take it as gospel truth, but in their turn add to it
and twist and transform it. David falsely claims that God debarred him
from temple building because he had shed much blood. There is no ethical
reason why blood shedding of itself precluded from building a temple.
David twists this narrative further to say that therefore no iron weapon
or tool must be used on the stones of the house. His false assumptions led
to more wrong and at best irrelevant thinking. Solomon in turn twists this
narrative to say that it was because David had fought Yahweh's battles
that he couldn't build a temple. False narratives always gets expanded,
and the expansion is likewise false.
- When told to slay 100 Philistines, he slays 200 for good measure (1 Sam.
18:25,27)
- David’s eager taking of the sword of Goliath (1 Sam. 21:9- “There is
none like that; give it me”) contrasts sadly with his earlier rejection of
such weapons in order to slay Goliath. And David later reflects how he
knew that his faithless taking of that sword and the shewbread would lead
to the death of Abiathar’s family ((1 Sam. 22:22). But still he did it.
- His anger with Nabal and desire to slay all “that piss against the wall”
who lived with “this fellow” ((1 Sam. 25:21,22 AV) is expressed in crude
terms; and he later thanks Abigail for persuading him not to “shed blood”
and “avenging myself with mine own hand” ((1 Sam. 25:33)- the very things
he elsewhere condemns in his Psalms (e.g. Ps. 44:3). Time and again in the
Psalms, David uses that Hebrew word translated “avenging myself” about how
God and not man will revenge / save him against his enemies, for God saves
/ avenges the humble in spirit not by their strength and troops but by
His. But in the anger of hot blood, David let go of all those fine ideas.
He had some sort of an anger problem.
- David says that the servants of Saul are “worthy to die” because they
fell asleep as a result of “a deep sleep from the Lord” which fell on
them, and therefore didn’t protect Saul (1 Sam. 26:12,16). Were they
really that guilty of death for this? There doesn’t appear to be any
Biblical command David was quoting.
- “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul” is surely a collapse of
faith (1 Sam. 27:1). And it led to the way in which David deceived Achish
by pretending he was attacking Jewish towns, when in fact he was going out
and attacking the Amalekite settlements, killing all men, women and
children in them so that nobody was left alive to tell that it was David
who had attacked them (1 Sam. 27:8-10). Innocent people were slain by
David’s sword for the ‘political’ reason that he had to keep Achish ‘in
the dark’ about what he was really up to. And so in case a 5 year old say
something incriminating later, David simply killed the little boy. We get
the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the
shedding of blood (1 Chron. 22:8). Indeed, when Achish later says that
David would be best not to go with him to fight Saul, David hypocritically
says: “But what have I done? And what have you found in your servant so
long as I have been with you unto this day, that I may not go fight
against the enemies [i.e. Saul] of my lord the king?” (1 Sam. 29:8). This
was hardly an example of the “integrity” and “uprightness” which David
glorifies in his Psalms, and which he insisted he was full of (Ps. 25:21).
Indeed he claims that his integrity is the basis of his acceptance by God
(Ps. 26:1).
- It’s recorded that in the ethnic cleansing which David performed, he
took the spoil of those settlements for himself (1 Sam. 27:9). Indeed when
he destroyed Ziklag, he took away their herds “and said, This is David’s
spoil” (1 Sam. 30:20). We get the impression this was another example of
his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (1 Chron. 22:8).
- When Saul is killed, a young Amalekite hopeful comes to David with the
story that he had killed Saul, trying to curry favour with David and
secure his own release as a prisoner of war. David executed him (2 Sam.
1:15). It seems to me that this was an over the top reaction, and yet
again betrays a lack of value and meaning attached to the human person.
There was no attempt to convert the frightened young man to grace, to the
God of Israel. The summary slaying of Rechab and Baanah has some
similarities (2 Sam. 4:12).
- David made the captives lay down in three lines. He arbitrarily chose
one line to keep alive, and killed the other two lines (2 Sam. 8:2). This
can’t be justified as some careful obedience to some Mosaic law. It reads
like something out of the Holocaust, an arbitrary slaying of some in order
to exercise the whim of one’s own power. No wonder David was barred from
building the temple because of his attitude to bloodshed. Likewise when
Rabbah is captured, David proudly puts the crown of the king on his head,
grabs their spoil for himself (not following Abraham's example), “and he
brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and
under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through
the brick kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of
Ammon” (2 Sam. 12:31). Now all that is torture. It’s one thing to obey
Divine commands about slaying enemies; it’s another to willfully torture
them, Auschwitz-style. These incidents reveal David at his worst. And
again- did he really have to ensure that every male in Edom was murdered
(1 Kings 11:15,16)- was that really necessary? What about the mums, wives,
sisters left weeping, and the fatherless daughters, left to grow up in the
dysfunction of a leaderless Middle Eastern home? Those men were all
somebody’s sons, brothers, fathers, grandfathers. Was David really obeying
some Divine command here, or was this the dictate of his own anger and
dysfunctional bloodlust?
- David’s murder of Uriah and his sin with Bathsheba again reflects this
same lack of value of the human person, even of his faithful friends.
- When David is asked to give seven men of the family of Saul as a blood
sacrifice to appease the rain god who was not sending rain, David agrees.
He doesn’t make the Biblical argument that rain being withheld indicates
the need for repentance before Yahweh, and that sacrificing humans is
wrong and won’t change anything in this context. He gives in to the false
understanding of the Gibeonites, breaking his undertakings to Saul and
Jonathan by doing so, and selects seven men to be slain and hung up. We
read of the mother of two of them, Rizpah, lovingly watching over the
bodies of her sons day and night, with all the distraction of true love (2
Sam. 21:10). David didn’t have to do this. But he did. We get the
impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding
of blood (1 Chron. 22:8). He doesn’t seem to have cared for the mother’s
feelings, nor for the lives of her sons. And note that David makes up the
total of seven men by having the five foster sons of his own estranged
wife Michal slain. Was this not David somehow hitting back at Michal, who
had mocked him for his style of worship in 2 Sam. 6? And how did Adriel,
the father of those five sons, feel? He wasn’t of the house of Saul, but
because of David’s desire to placate someone else, he lost all his sons,
just because his wife had died and Saul’s daughter had raised them. And
yet this same David is recorded as saying soon afterwards: “I have kept
the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all
his ordinances were before me; And as for his statutes, I did not depart
from them. I was also perfect toward him; And I kept myself from mine
iniquity. Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my
righteousness, According to my cleanness in his eyesight” (2 Sam.
22:22-25).
- David seems to glory in how he destroyed his enemies- “I might destroy
them that hate me… then did I beat them as small as the dust of the earth,
I did stamp them as the more of the street, and did spread them [i.e.
their body parts] abroad” (2 Sam. 22:41-43). Can this really be justified
as obedience to Divine commands? Is this not the expression of blood lust
and anger? And isn’t it therefore self-righteous to style himself “the
anointed of the God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sam. 23:1)?
Was he really “sweet”?
- David earlier forgave Shimei for cursing him. But he tells Solomon to
bring down that old man’s white hairs to the grave with blood on them-
again, a crude image for the murder of an old man. And he uses the same
awful turn of phrase to ask Solomon to do this also to his lifelong friend
Joab (1 Kings 2:6,9). Surely grace would’ve found another way?
1 Chron. 22:8; 28:3 are reported speech by David. We wonder if he
wasn’t imagining this. Why should it be morally objectionable for David to
build the temple because he was a man of war? Yahweh is a man of war, yet
He was to build David's house. We only learn about God's objection to
David building the temple from the passages where David reports what God
apparently told him, and from Solomon repeating this. If God did actually
say this, then there is a logical contradiction between this and His
statements about not wanting a house at all. If He was saying 'I want a
physical house, but not built by David', then this appears irreconcilable
with the reasons He is actually recorded as giving David for not wanting a
house (see on 2 Sam. 7:7-11). Either God wanted a house or He didn't. See
on 1 Chron. 28:5,6.
Solomon's take on this is in
1 Kings 5:3: "You know how that David my father could not build a house
for the name of Yahweh his God for the wars which were about him on every
side, until Yahweh put his enemies under the soles of his feet". Solomon had a way of spinning things, even God’s word, in his own
selfish way. David had insisted that God had told him that he couldn’t
build the temple because he had shed so much blood in war (1 Chron. 22:8).
But Solomon just slightly spins this when he asks Hiram to come and help
him build the temple, because, he says, his father David hadn’t had the
time to get around to the job because of being busy fighting wars (1 Kings
5:3). He says nothing about David shedding blood; the moral aspect of it
all is nicely ignored by Solomon.
1Ch 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of peace.
I will give him peace from all his enemies all around; for his name shall
be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days-
"Solomon" is what David and Bathsheba named him, seeking to make him a "man of peace" so that he might fulfill the promise that the Son of David would be a man of peace. But 2 Sam. 12:25 is clear that God named him not Solomon but Jedidiah: "The LORD loved the boy and commanded the prophet Nathan to name the boy Jedidiah, because the LORD loved him" (GNB, CEV; ISV "she [Bathsheba] bore a son whom he [David] named Solomon. The LORD loved him, and sent a message written by Nathan the prophet to call his name Jedidiah"). David named the child Solomon because he so itched for the promise to him to be fulfilled in his lifetime. God corrected him on this point, rather seeking to redirect David's attention to His love and grace to that child. But David had fed and nursed his own narrative and now he claims that God had commanded him to name the child Solomon- when in fact the opposite was the case. He named him Solomon and immediately afterwards he gets a message from Nathan to name the child not Solomon but Jedidiah- a name David never once used for the child. There was not peace in Solomon's reign- as the Kings record makes clear, there was much unrest from within and without his kingdom (1 Kings 11:14,23,26). And if indeed David is correct and Solomon was God's named fulfillment of the Messianic "man of peace"... how ever can it be explained that Solomon went so badly wrong and was not at all the Messiah figure? Solomon was really set up for spiritual failure by David. For he assumes that he is the Christ, the Messiah, "the anointed one" (O Lord God, do not reject Your anointed one", 2 Chron. 6:42).
David claimed about Solomon: "Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies". But these words are alluded to and applied to the Lord Jesus: "For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom" (Is. 9:6,7). Clearly God's view is that David was simply wrong to insist upon Solomon as the candidate for His begotten Son, according to His promise to David. The Son was to be the Lord Jesus; He was to be the man / prince of peace, the Son born and given. And David was intended to figure this out. But his obsession with his own narrative led him to depart from the things of the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom.
1Ch 22:10 He shall build a house for My name; and he shall be My son, and
I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over
Israel for ever’-
This again is a misrepresentation of what God said. He said that
David need not build any physical temple, but He would build for David a
house, and this would be achieved through a special Messianic descendant
of David. But the record in 2 Sam. 7 was clear that the achievement of this
was to be conditional upon the obedience of that special Davidic seed. The
essential contradiction with the letter and spirit of the actual promises
is such that I conclude that here we have David stating his assumptions as
God's word. This is a basic human failure we see going on all the time.
"I will establish the throne of his kingdom" contrasts with what God said in 1 Chron. 17:14: "I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever". David is no longer focused upon the kingdom of God, because his narrative has conflated it with Solomon's kingdom.
1Ch 22:11 Now, my son, may Yahweh be with you and prosper you, and build
the house of Yahweh your God, as He has spoken concerning you-
1Ch 22:12 May Yahweh give you discretion and understanding, and put you in
charge of Israel; that so you may keep the law of Yahweh your God-
The conditionality of the promises is rather skirted around here.
David thinks that his prayer can result in God giving Solomon the wisdom
required to be obedient to His law. Solomon's personal volition in that
obedience doesn't seem to figure. And therefore God had to specifically
appear to Solomon and warn him about this. He went wrong exactly because
he assumed that as David's chosen son, he could not go morally wrong.
1Ch 22:13 Then you will prosper, if you observe to do the statutes and the
ordinances which Yahweh gave Moses concerning Israel. Be strong and
courageous. Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed-
Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him
preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (1 Kings 2:4; 1 Chron. 22:13; 2 Chron.
7:17); but he didn't preserve nor observe them (1 Kings 11:10,11); despite David
praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (1 Chron. 29:19). We
can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people
against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how
God would keep or preserve the righteous (Prov. 2:8; 3:26), without recognizing
the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true
enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve
his hearers (Prov. 4:4; 6:22; 7:1; 8:32; 15:5), preservation was through
following the example of the wise (Prov. 2:20); rather than stressing
obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple
love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those
who love Him" (Ps. 145:20).
1Ch 22:14 Now, behold, I have made a great effort in preparing for the
house of Yahweh one hundred thousand talents of gold, one million talents
of silver, and brass and iron without weight; for it is in abundance. I
have also prepared timber and stone; and you may add to them-
"Made a great effort" is RVmg. "in my low estate". David makes a
juxtaposition between his own lowness, and the super abundance of wealth
he has given for the temple. He makes an appropriate distinction between
his wealth and himself personally. However the figures seem so exaggerated
and not literal. The more wealthy Solomon only received 666 talents of
gold / year (1 Kings 10:14), so 100,000 talents of gold is an unrealistic
figure. Although if Chronicles was rewritten in exile, the talents may
refer to Persian talents, which were far less than Hebrew talents.
Again we get the impression David was obsessed with numbers and
exaggerated them; as it seems he did later with the numbers of Levites,
comparing his claimed numbers with those recorded in the book of Numbers.
He reduced the age for counting them to 20 (1 Chron. 23:24) and possibly
expanded the definition of a Levite. And it could be argued that the
system David established effectively made all Levites able to serve as
priests, whereas this was not at all the teaching of the Mosaic law; see
on 1 Chron. 23:31.
1Ch 22:15 There are also workmen with you in abundance, cutters and
workers of stone and timber, and all kinds of men who are skilful in every
kind of work-
Solomon however didn't begin the work until after David's death.
David had prepared the workmen at this stage but it seems they were not
used, and so when Solomon began the work, he had to seek such workmen
again (2 Chron. 2:7).
1Ch 22:16 of the gold, silver, brass and iron, there is no number. Arise
and be doing, and may Yahweh be with you-
David makes no reference to how these things were to happen when he
slept with his fathers (2 Sam. 7:12). Rather does he tell Solomon to get
on and begin the building work immediately, now he had the commission.
"Arise and be doing" is quoted in Ezra 10:4 about the work of the
restoration of the temple.
1Ch 22:17 David also commanded all the princes of Israel to help Solomon
his son, saying-
This again sounds like David was asking them to give Solomon their
immediate and instant support. David makes no reference to how these
things were to happen when he slept with his fathers (2 Sam. 7:12).
1Ch 22:18 Isn’t Yahweh your God with you? Hasn’t He given you rest on
every side? For He has delivered the inhabitants of the land into my hand;
and the land is subdued before Yahweh and before His people-
1Ch 22:19 Now set your heart and your soul to seek after Yahweh your God.
Arise therefore, and build the sanctuary of Yahweh God, to bring the ark
of the covenant of Yahweh, and the holy vessels of God, into the house
that is to be built to the name of Yahweh-
Indeed it is the state of the human heart which is critical. But David
wrongly sees the natural outcome of a heart focused upon Yahweh as wanting
to build the temple. Although God had forbidden it. God had clearly stated
that the ark was where He wanted it- in a tent, behind curtains. And He
did not want a brick house around it. And yet David urges people to enable
the very opposite- to build a sanctuary in terms of a physical building,
and to place the ark within it. The whole land was seen by God as a
sanctuary / holy place s.w. Ex. 15:17). "Let them make Me a sanctuary"
(Ex. 25:8) uses a very general word for making / doing, whereas
David is trying to localize and define the sanctuary / holy place and is
implying God had no such holy place- until it had been built according to
his plans. The Kohathites are described as carrying "the sanctuary" (s.w.,
Num. 10:21); it was the ark which was the essential sanctuary or holy
place. But David speaks about the building he proposed around that ark as
being the sanctuary. And so form had replaced content, the external the
internal, as so often happens when the pole of religion overtakes that of
spirituality.
Previous Chapter
