1 Chronicles 16-20

More awesomeness of David! Woohoo!

After the celebration of bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, David gives every person in Israel some bread, meat, and raisin cake. Not quite a chicken in every pot, but it will do! Way to be awesome, David.

Though the Ark is now in Jerusalem, there's still no house for it. Here, the Chronicler gives us an explanation for why David never got around to building the Temple. It wasn't David's fault, for David is awesome and totally wanted to build the Temple. But, the prophet Nathan had a dream where God said that David shouldn't build the Temple. Instead, David should work on consolidating power across the land, establishing a greater peace and stability, and obtaining riches from the spoils of war that will later be used for the construction of the Temple. God says that one of David's sons will eventually build the Temple instead.

So, David sets aside the idea of building the Temple and goes off to war, winning many battles against Israel's neighbors, such as the Philistines, Moabites, Arameans, and the Edomites. Interestingly, in 2 Sameul 8:13, this particular victory over Edom is attributed directly to David. But here, in 1 Chronicles 18:12, the Chronicler credits Abishai as the victor. Why, Chronicler? Why take the glory away from David? That seems to go against your modus operandi of writing about how awesome David is. Did you want to distance David from that battle for some reason? Though it was a victory, did some nastiness occur that you'd rather not be associated with David? In fact, I have absolutely no real idea why this possible discrepancy occurs, and all I have to say on it is mere conjecture. Remember that, you impressionable readers, you.

Perhaps 2 Samuel just generalizes that the battle was won by David since he is the king and, therefore, leader over all the Israelite forces. Maybe the Chronicler gets more specific and recognizes that Abishai was the direct commander at that particular battle. This seems plausible, since Abishai was the brother of Joab, commander of the entire army, second only to David.* Indeed, in the very next chapter, Israel faces an alliance between the Arameans and Ammonites. Joab split up the Israelite forces and gave half to Abishai's command to battle the Ammonites while he led the other group against the Arameans. Of course, Israel totally won this battle.

More battles ensue** and this time there's giants! Lahmi, the brother of none other than Goliath enters the fray. Like his better known brother, Lahmi is also killed, this time by Elhanan.*** David's brother Jonathan is also credited with killing a twelve fingered, twelve toed giant from Gath. Apparently there were a lot of giants in Gath. Good for them.


*Isn't context fun? CIE!

**David stayed home in Jerusalem during this period of battles. Although this occurs completely without incident in Chronicles, in Samuel this results in David viewing Bathsheba from afar, sleeping with her, and hastily trying to cover up his tracks which leads to the death of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite. Now, the Chronicler isn't specifically saying that this incident never occurred, he's just omitting it and focusing, rather, on the awesomeness of David. Apparently the Chronicler doesn't deem adultery and indirect murder as awesome.

***Here we run into troubled waters, my friend. In 1 Samuel 17:50, it says that David does indeed kill the giant Goliath of Gath. In 2 Samuel 12:19, though, it says Elhanan kills the giant Goliath the Gittite. Are these two takes on the same story, or were their several giants at the time named Goliath? Well, as we've seen with the kings of Israel and Judah, certain names of the time were certainly very common. However, to help smooth this problem out, the Chronicler changes the name of the second Goliath to Lahmi and makes him the brother of David's Goliath.

But what of this Elhanan fellow? In Samuel he's the son of Jaare-oregim, while in Chronicles he's the son of Jair. Is Jaare equivalent to Jair? I don't know, but since the two events are otherwise similar, it would be safe to assume that they describe the same Elhanan. Now, there is a member of the elite Thirty named Elhanan, but he's the son of Dodo of Bethlehem. However, in 2 Samuel it says that Elhanan of Jaare-oregim is also of Bethlehem.

Could these two Elhanans be the same warrior? I can't say for sure. But if they were, it would make sense that an enemy giant would be felled by one of Israel's most elite warriors. It certainly seems more feasible that Elhanan, one of the top soldiers in all of Israel, could kill a giant rather than, say, a young, untrained boy with but a sling. Seeing as how Elhanan was a soldier for David and many, if not most, battles were credited almost exclusively to David by name, it seems plausible that eventually the tale could have been turned into how David personally killed Goliath. Maybe, after more time still, the story developed into how David, as a young boy, killed the mighty Goliath. David was a popular and iconic figure of Israel's greatness, and the people of ensuing generations adored him, such as the Chronicler himself. Is it really that far fetched that they might have clung to legendary, and perhaps exaggerated, stories of the awesomeness of their great king?

Wait, wait, wait. Are you telling us that David didn't kill Goliath? Well...no. I'm not saying that. I am saying that when one takes into account the context, history, and nature of humans, the preceding explanation could be considered possible. But, on the other hand, David very well could have literally killed Goliath personally as a young lad. Maybe by the time Elhanan met up with Lahmi, the name Goliath had become so synonymous with a giant (as it is in our culture today) that the author of Samuel could have mislabeled Lahmi as his brother Goliath. The Chronicler, in turn, clarifies this and helps correct the problem.

In either case, though, the message remains the same. Even if David didn't actually kill Goliath, we still have the message that, though we may be small, God will help us conquer our biggest problems. Sometimes the message is more important than the historical "truth." Did George Washington actually cut down a cherry tree as a young lad? Probably not. But we still teach our kids this story in kindergarten because its a good moral lesson. Remember, these are not objective histories, but theological narratives. They're meant to teach us truths about God as much as (or more than) recount the history of God's people.