Perhaps Psalm 132 provides the best context in which to
consider one of the most striking differences between 1 Chronicles 17 and its Vorlage,
the omission of 2 Sam. 7.14b: אשׁר בהעותו והכחתיו בשׁכט אנשׁים. The absence of
this clause has been variously explained: the Chronicler presents the more
original reading which the Deuteronomistic Historian has expanded; the lack is
to be explained by the Chronistic idealization of David and Solomon; or the
Chronicler omits the phrase to accommodate his messianic hope.
While suggesting a messianic explanation for the
omission, Botterweck notes that the lack of this phrase has reduced the
unconditionality of Yahweh's favour towards the House of David, a suggestion
reinforced by Japhet with reference to ancient Near Eastern parallels. This
observation assumes added strength if one postulates that the hope for Davidic
restoration was missing in the Chronicler's outlook. The absence of the phrase,
together with the new emphasis on Solomon in the oracle, allows for the
possibility that lack of faithfulness may lead to an end to the dynastic
promise, at least in its political expression, just as the Chronistic
expressions of the oracle allow the possibility of an everlasting dynasty if
the kings remain faithful (cf. 1 Chron. 28.7). The omission of 2 Sam. 7.14b
displays greater consistency with Ps. 132.12 as read in the non-monarchical post-exilic
context, for it removes the safety valve (unknown to Ps. 132) which could be
seen as guaranteeing the rule of individual members of the dynasty even in the
face of overwhelming unfaithfulness to Yahweh. That such an unconditional
guarantee does not form part of the Chronicler's picture is demonstrated by the
warning to Solomon in 1 Chron. 28.9. The omission of 2 Sam. 7.14b, and of the
unconditional promise that it can be made to imply, eventually allows the
Chronicler to bring the story of the dynasty to the historical end known to
him, and to do so in line with both his Saul paradigm and his vision of divine
retribution.
The conditionality of Nathan's oracle, especially in
relation to the Solomonic focus of its Chronistic form in 1 Chronicles 17,
receives its most lucid expression in the assurance, or warning, of David to
Solomon in 1 Chron. 28.9b: אם-תדרשׁנו ימצא לך ואם-תעזבנו יזניתך. Even though he
is the son upon whom the promise of 1 Chronicles 17 centres, Solomon must be
warned that his actions could make Yahweh forsake him forever.1 The presence of
the verb דרשׁ in the first condition of this admonition, as well as the adverse
possibility contained in the second condition, invoke the Saul paradigm for the
very first successor in the Davidic line. In Solomon, the Chronicler's David
seems to be addressing the entire Davidic dynasty to come, placing the
conditionality of the dynastic promise in plain terms before the narrative of
the subsequent members of the dynasty begins.
In this context of a conditioned covenant, the
significance of the Chronicler's alterations in 1 Chron. 17.14 becomes more
obvious: the oracle is brought to a final crescendo with the promise שהעמדתיהו בביתי
ובמלכותי עד-העולם וכסאו יהוה נכון עד-עלום. The oracle culminates in the promise
that Solomon will be a vassal to Yahweh, stationed for duty in the Temple, and
that Solomon's throne (not David's) will be established in perpetuity. The
Chronicler affirms that the kingship and the kingdom belong to Yahweh, not to
the House of David—an affirmation which is repeated in the great doxology at
the end of the Davidic narrative (1 Chron. 29.11-12).
The Chronicler's interest in the Davidic dynasty can
therefore be seen as more concerned with the role of the dynasty in relation to
the Temple than with the dynasty's unending rule over Israel, and this interest
manifests itself as early as the Chronistic presentation of Nathan's oracle.
The narrative stage is set not so much for an eternal dynasty as for David's
dynastic successor whose primary function is to finish what David has begun in
bringing the Ark to Jerusalem (Although David has brought the Ark to Jerusalem,
he has left the Tent at Gibeon according to 1 Chron. 16.39. From a narrative
consideration the presence of the Tent outside Jerusalem points to the incompletion
of the Jerusalem cultus in David’s day and sets the story firmly on the road
towards its eventual completion under Solomon) and to carry out the תבנית given
to David. For the Chronicler, the centre of the covenant with David is not
formed by the dynastic promise, but by the task of temple-building, and the
fulfilment of the covenant is to be sought in the completed Temple rather than
in an unending Davidic rule.
Yet even within the Davidic material, the Chronicler may
have indicated the terminus ad quem for the dynastic promise in the
eventuality that the dynasty prove unsatisfactory. This indication of a
possible terminus is contained in the final Davidic admonition to
Solomon in Chronicles:
And David said to Solomon his son, 'Be strong, be brave
and act! Do not fear and do not be terrified, for Yahweh God, my God, is with
you; he will not forsake you and he will not abandon you before all the work of
the service of the House of Yahweh is finished' (1 Chron. 28.20).
Commentators sometimes propose that this passage depends
upon Josh. 1.5-7 in which there is not only a great correspondence of
vocabulary, but also of occasion. However, there is nothing in Josh. 1.5-7
which corresponds to the temporal clause עד-לכלות כל-מלאכת עבודת בית-יהוה in 1
Chron. 28.20. This clause certainly 'serves to point to the goal of the
divine presence, the construction of the temple';1 it may also indicate the
goal of the election of the dynasty, and the point to which the rule of that
dynasty is guaranteed.
True to the paradigm established in his Saul narrative,
the Chronicler presents his audience with a view of the dynastic promise
through a cultic lens. David's cultic concern has ensured that he did not
become another failed king like his predecessor; instead, his reign is
presented as an idealized Urzeit for both the dynasty and the cultus.
David, the second founder of the cultus, becomes the founder of the dynasty to
which fell the task of putting the Davidic תבנית for the Temple and its
services into effect; the task and the promise will be especially important in
the Chronistic narrative concerning Solomon which complements the Davidic
story. The Chronicler's insights into king and cultus, contained initially in the
Davidic Urzeit, etched their own pattern on his record of how David's
legacy was to fare in the hands of his descendants, as shall be seen. (William
Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of
History [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 160;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 72-76)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
