Deeper Commentary
1Ch 28:1 David assembled all the princes of Israel, the princes of
the tribes, the captains of the companies who served the king by division,
the captains of thousands and hundreds, and the rulers over all the
substance and possessions of the king and of his sons, with the officers and
the mighty men, even all the mighty men of valour, to Jerusalem-
See on 1 Chron. 24:1. We note again that there was "all the substance and possessions of the
king and of his sons". David came from poverty, but now at the end of his
life he has personal ownership of substance and possessions. David had his
own extensive personal wealth,
including vineyards (1 Chron. 27:27) and servants who worked the ground (1
Chron. 27:26). This was
exactly what Samuel had warned Israel about; a human king would take
Israel's men to till their ground, and would take their vineyards from
them (1 Sam. 8:12,14). That all suggests that David slipped spiritually at
the end of his life. For he came from a poor family, and to have all these
things meant he had taken them for himself, and had ignored these warnings
of his one time mentor Samuel. We noted that the overseers over this
(Ezri, Shimei in 1 Chron. 27:27 and Baal Hanan in 1 Chron. 27:28) don't have
Godly names but rather secular names.
1Ch 28:2 Then David the king stood up on his feet-
As if standing was now difficult for him, with reduced strength and
faculties in his old age.
And said, Hear me, my
brothers and my people! As for me, it was in my heart to build a house of
rest for the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and for the footstool of our
God; and I had prepared for the building-
See on Ps. 132:8. The ark is called both the throne of God and also His
footstool (Ps. 94:5; 132:7,8; 1 Chron. 28:2). Above or sitting upon the
cherubim, the pagan mind expected to see Israel's God. But there was (to
their eyes) an empty throne. Yahweh had to be believed in by faith. And
His supreme manifestation was through the blood of sacrifice. Cassuto
gives evidence that the Egyptians and Hittites placed their covenant
contracts in a box beneath the throne of their gods; and the tables of the
covenant were likewise placed beneath the throne of Yahweh. This
similarity begged the comparison yet stronger- Israel's God was not seated there. He had
to be believed in by faith. Such a concept of faith in an invisible god was
quite foreign to the pagan mind; and yet the whole tabernacle plan was
designed to have enough points of contact with the pagan tabernacles in
order to elicit this point in very powerful form: the one true God is
invisible and must be believed in.
1Ch 28:3 But God said to me, ‘You shall not build a house for My name,
because you are a man of war, and have shed blood’-
1 Chron. 22:8; 28:3 are reported speech by David. We wonder if David
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.
1Ch 28:4 However Yahweh, the God of Israel, chose me out of all the house
of my father to be king over Israel forever. For He has chosen Judah to be
prince; and in the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the
sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel-
David is arguing that Judah had been chosen as the kingly tribe, and
then the family of Jesse chosen, and then David. But there is no evidence
for these statements. God chose Saul of Benjamin, and worked to provide
him every potential to be the king of Israel. It was only because of his
failure that God removed him, and then chose not Judah nor Jesse's family,
but David personally. That calling was by grace, and in personal response
to the spiritual heart which David had at that time. But David now
repositions all that, because he is leading up to arguing that therefore
Solomon has likewise been "chosen" in a sovereign way by God. But that too
was really a forcing of God to fit the narrative which David had decided
upon.
1Ch 28:5 Of all my sons (for Yahweh has given me many sons), He has chosen
Solomon my son to sit on the throne of Yahweh’s kingdom over Israel-
1Ch 28:6 He said to me, ‘Solomon, your son, shall build My house and My
courts; for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his father-
David specifically claims God has stated the promise of having a son would be fulfilled in Solomon. But the promise itself said this would happen after David slept with his fathers. And the NT specifically applies these words to Jesus and not Solomon.
There can be no doubt that David was proud about his sons; his soppy
obsession with Absalom indicates that he cast both spirituality and
rationality to the winds when it came to them. The words of 1 Chron.
28:5,6 indicate this: "Of all my sons (for the Lord hath given me many
sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the Kingdom
of the Lord over Israel. And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall
build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be
my son, and I will be his father". We have to ask: Is this what God
actually said? The records of the promises to David in 2 Sam. 7 and 1
Chron. 17 contain no specific reference to Solomon, nor do they speak of
him building physical courts for God. The Davidic
promise is fundamentally concerning David's greater household, rather than
a physical house. So it seems that David became obsessed with the idea of
Solomon being the Messiah, building a physical house for God, and being
king over the eternal Messianic Kingdom. The words of Ps. 110:1 are
applied by the NT to Jesus, but there is no reason to think that they were
not primarily spoke by David with his eye on Solomon, whom he addresses as
his Lord, such was his obsession: “The Lord saith unto my Lord…” (RV), and
the rest of the Psalm goes on in the language of Ps. 72 to describe
David’s hopes for Solomon’s Kingdom. ‘Solomon’ was actually called
‘Jedidiah’ by God through Nathan (2 Sam. 12:25). The ‘beloved of God’ was
surely prophetic of God’s beloved Son. When God said “This is my beloved
Son”, He was surely saying ‘Now this is the Jedidiah, whom I wanted
Solomon to typify’. But David calls him Solomon, the man who would bring
peace. I suggest that David was so eager to see in Solomon the actual
Messiah, that he chose not to use the name which God wanted- which made
Solomon a type of a future Son of God / Messiah. And this led to Solomon
himself being obsessed with being a Messiah figure and losing sight of the
future Messiah.
1Ch 28:7 I will establish his kingdom forever, if he continues to
do My commandments and My ordinances as he does at this time’-
It is clear from :8 that David didn't understand "forever" as meaning
'eternal life' but rather passing on an inheritance down generations
without end. But in his earlier Psalms, David had indeed understood the
idea of life eternal at the resurrection of the body. He seems to have
slipped from that in his old age. David recognizes the conditional nature
of the promises to him about his seed, but then he seems to say that the
condition of the seed's obedience will be met if the leaders are obedient
(:8). All the time, David is wriggling out of the clear statements of God.
He had told David not to build a temple for reasons quite other than
David's personal history.
1Ch 28:8 Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of
Yahweh, and in the audience of our God, observe and seek out all the
commandments of Yahweh your God; that you may possess this good land, and
leave it for an inheritance to your children after you forever-
The phrase for "inherit good" is used by Solomon in Prov. 28:10, as the
reward for the "blameless". But to describe the wise as "blameless" is an
example of his over simplistic worldview. All have sinned, none are
blameless (Rom. 3:23), as David reflected in his Bathsheba Psalms. But
Solomon had whitewashed his parents' sin, and knew nothing of the grace
David had discovered at that time. The Lord's parables of the lost in LK.
15 may be seeking to deconstruct Solomon's attitude. The self righteous
older son, who considered himself blameless, connects with the 99 sheep
who "need no repentance". But "all we like sheep have gone astray", those
99 only thought they needed no repentance, and being so snug in their
sheepfold actually only enhanced their sense of self righteousness, and
that they were not in fact the lost. The phrase "inherit good" is only
found again here in 1 Chron. 28:8, where David says that this is to be the
outcome for those who "seek" for obedience to God's ways. But 'seeking' is
not being "blameless". None are blameless, but the spiritually minded seek
for God's ways and will therefore "inherit good". Solomon totally lacked
this humility and spiritual reality of David.
1Ch 28:9 You, Solomon my son, know the God of your father, and serve Him
with a perfect heart and with a willing mind;
To know God is to serve Him, and eternal life will be about knowing God,
as it is now (Jn. 17:3). Despite evidence for a spiritual slip in his old
age, David quite rightly emphasizes the place of a willing and united
heart in serving God. Although we wonder whether he had in mind the idea
that Solomon would be literally "perfect". Solomon seems to have assumed
that, as he clearly had no conscience of personal sin or possibility of
spiritual failure. And this pride led to his undoing.
For Yahweh searches all hearts, and
understands all the imaginations of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will
be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever-
In :8, Solomon has directed the elders of Israel to seek God. And
perhaps he is directing this sentence to them rather than Solomon, whom he
liked to think would be "perfect" before God.
1Ch 28:10 Take heed now; for Yahweh has chosen you to build a house for
the sanctuary-
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 (1 Chron.
22:19). 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.
Be strong, and do it-
This is quoted in Ezra 10:4 about the work of the restoration of the
temple.
1Ch 28:11 Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch of
the temple, and of its houses, and of its treasuries, and of the upper
rooms of it, and of the inner rooms of it, and of the place of the mercy
seat-
This sounds as if David handed over to Solomon some architectural
plans at this formal gathering, before all Israel (:1). The emphasis upon
the porch must be noted. There was no such equivalent to this in the plan
of the tabernacle; this was purely of David's grandiose device. Nor were
there any "upper rooms" in the tabernacle. "The inner rooms" presumably
refer to the holy and most holy places. Yet God had stressed that the ark,
upon which was "the mercy seat", the lid of the ark where the cherubim
were, was to dwell in "tents". This was His desire, but David speaks of
"rooms" for it. If these plans were indeed from God, we would expect to
read about the point when a prophet declared them by a "word of the Lord".
But instead we have David presenting his plans and visions for the
divisions of the Levites, and only then claiming that this was from God's
revelation to him (:19).
1Ch 28:12 and the pattern of all that he had in mind for the courts of the
house of Yahweh, and for all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of
God’s house, and for the treasuries of the dedicated things-
See on 1 Chron. 24:1.
The key phrase is that this was all that David "had in mind". He will
later claim in :19 that God made him understand this. But that would
require God to have totally reversed His reasons for not wanting a temple,
which He clearly stated when David first had the idea. I suggest David
wriggled around those reasons by assuming it was because he personally had
shed much blood and Israel was not peaceful enough. He became obsessed
with his plans, and assumed that these were in fact from God. When they
were of his own device.
David seems to have become obsessed with preparing for the physical
building of the temple in his old age. He truly commented: "The zeal of
Your house has eaten me up" (Ps. 69:9). The
RV margin of 1 Chron. 28:12
makes us wonder whether the dimensions of the temple were in fact made up
within David’s own mind: “David gave to Solomon his son the pattern… the
pattern that he had in his spirit [AV “by the spirit”] for the… house
of the Lord”.
1Ch 28:13 also for the divisions of the priests and the Levites, and for
all the work of the service of the house of Yahweh, and for all the
vessels of service in the house of Yahweh-
We have been reading of these divisions in the previous chapters, and
David is going to claim in :19 that all this was from God's direct
revelation. Yet throughout those chapters we noted David's preference for
appointing leaders not from all Israel, but mainly from Judah and his own
inner circle. And some of the people mentioned, such as Asahel and David's
uncle, had already died. So the schema needed revision. Yet David claims
this whole packet of documentation was all directly inspired and revealed
by God (:19), when instead, as noted on :12, it was all from David's mind
and spirit.
1Ch 28:14 of gold by weight for the gold, for all vessels of every kind of
service; for all the vessels of silver by weight, for all vessels of every
kind of service-
This was indeed a measure of David's obsession, calculating the exact
weight of gold for each vessel. Even though this was not specified in the
commands for building the tabernacle. 1 Kings 7:47 implies Solomon tried
to calculate the total weight of all the vessels once they had been made,
but the inventory was so huge that he left off. Yet so many vessels were
not required by the tabernacle service. This was a completely different,
grandiose religious system of David's own device; and in the end, all
these vessels of mere religion were taken off into captivity (2 Kings
25:14-16 emphasizes this).
1Ch 28:15 by weight also for the lampstands of gold, and for its lamps, of
gold, by weight for every lampstand and for its lamps; and for the
lampstands of silver, by weight for every lampstand and for its lamps,
according to the use of every lampstand-
See on :14. "The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in
the law of Moses in the singular, but here David has decided there were to
be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of
the one candlestick, such was his obsession with mere religion.
1Ch 28:16 and the gold by weight for the tables of show bread, for every
table; and silver for the tables of silver-
The table of show bread was to be made of acacia wood (Ex. 25:23),
but David planned to make it of pure gold, and even worked out the weight
of gold required for it (1 Chron. 28:16). And Solomon indeed made it of
gold (1 Kings 7:48), leading to it being known as "the pure table" (2
Chron. 13:11). Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed
content. Likewise the "tables of silver" David ordered to be made (1
Chron. 28:16) do not feature in the tabernacle. He was missing the point-
that God wanted His holiest symbols made of common, weak things like
acacia wood. For His strength and glory is made perfect in weakness. David
claims these plans were from God (1 Chron. 28:19), although as discussed
on 1 Chron. 28:12, they were in fact from his own mind. The way these
things were taken into captivity, with no record of this golden table ever
being returned, surely reflects God's judgment upon this kind of religious
show. He prefers a humble house church in an inner city room, rather than
a gold plated cathedral. The way some exclusive churches speak of
'maintaining a pure table' suggests they have made the same essential
mistake as David did.
1Ch 28:17 and the forks, and the basins, and the cups, of pure gold; and
for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl; and for the silver bowls by
weight for every bowl-
There was little point in making forks and basins of pure gold,
a soft metal. This was all for religious show, and not at all
stipulated in the Divine design for the tabernacle.
1Ch 28:18 and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold
for the pattern of the chariot, the cherubim, that spread out, and covered
the ark of the covenant of Yahweh-
Here we have a clear association between the cherubim and the idea of
a chariot. The idea of the cherubim is that this is God in motion. And so
we behold the contradiction. David wants this cherubim chariot fixed in
one place; whereas God had told David that He didn't want a temple,
because He was a God on the move. His ark and the associated cherubim had
always been moving and therefore the ark was to be portable. But David was
seeking to tie down the ever moving God in one place. This is what
religion ever seeks to do to spirituality.
1Ch 28:19 All this, said David, I have been made to understand in writing
from the hand of Yahweh, even all the works of this pattern-
In the previous chapters, we have David presenting his plans and
visions for the divisions of the Levites, and only now claiming that this
was from God's revelation to him. See on :11,12. If these plans were
indeed from God, we would expect to read about the point when a prophet
declared them by a "word of the Lord". The "said David"
is highly significant. Here we see the difference between inspiration and
revelation. The record of the words is inspired, but this is not Divine
revelation. LXX "David gave all to Solomon in the Lord's handwriting".
This was David's claim, trying to make his plans equivalent to Yahweh's
writing the ten commandments in His handwriting. But there is no record of
this at all. David is desperate to make his narrative God's and even
reasons that his handwriting is God's. And so all expanded narratives end
up a playing God.
1Ch 28:20 David said to Solomon his son, Be strong and courageous, and do
it. Don’t be afraid, nor be dismayed; for Yahweh God, even my God, is with
you. He will not fail you, nor forsake you, until all the work for the
service of the house of Yahweh is finished-
The "service" of Yahweh is never finished, and yet David speaks as if it
will finish when the temple is built. This reflects his obsession with the
project. But maybe the words of David to Solomon here came to the Lord’s mind in Mt. 27:46: "My God (cp. "My God, My God")
is with you... He will not... forsake you". Recognizing He had now been forsaken,
the Lord Jesus agreed "It is finished". Indeed, from the moment He left the Upper Room the work was finished and therefore the presence of the Angel departed (Jn. 17:4 "I have finished the work...").
1Ch 28:21 Behold, there are the divisions of the priests and the Levites,
for all the service of God’s house. There shall be with you in all kinds of
work every willing man who has skill, for any kind of service. Also the
captains and all the people will be entirely at your command-
The language of willing men with skill recalls that of the building of the
tabernacle by skilled workmen (Ex. 35:35), using materials supplied by
willing hearts (Ex. 35:5,21). But David was wrong to imply that this temple
he had conceived was some kind of tabernacle. For on point after point, he
goes against both the letter and spirit of the directions regarding the
tabernacle. But he is shrouding his whole project in the language of the
tabernacle.
Previous Chapter
