Outline of Chapter 14:

         vv.     1–2           Hiram King of Tyre Builds David a Palace

         vv.     3–7           The Line of David in Jerusalem

         vv.     8–12          David’s First War with the Philistines

         vv.    13–16         David’s Second War with the Philistines

         v.       17           David’s Fame

Charts, Short Doctrines and Maps:

         Introduction         Clarke’s Outline of 1Chronicles 14

         Introduction         The Authorship of the Book of Chronicles

         Introduction         Why Do we Have 1Chronicles 14 in the Bible?

         Introduction         Why Is 1Chronicles 14 Placed Here?

         Introduction         Martin Selman: Why 1Chronicles 14 is Placed Here

         v.       2              Whose Kingdom? Whose People?

         v.       3              The Key Theme of 1Chronicles 14 is Jerusalem

         v.       3              David’s Sons and Daughters

         v.       6              The Parallel Genealogies—David’s Children

         v.       8              Why Do the Philistines Continually War Against Israel?

         v.       9              A Map of David’s Movements and the Philistine Aggression

         v.      10              Why David Needs to Ask for God’s Guidance Here

         v.      11              Personal Application of David’s War with the Philistines

         v.      14              What About the Believer and Wars His Country Engages in?

         v.      14              David’s Tactics in the Second Philistine War

         v.      14              Keil and Delitzsch Show how 2Samuel 23 and 1Chronicles 14 Agree

         v.      14              Some Fundamental Principles of Textual Criticism

         v.      16              Keil and Delitzsch on Gibeon or Geba

         v.      16              Gibeon and Geba

         v.      16              The Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Syriac: Gibeon, Gezer and Geba

         v.      16              Summary: Is it Gibeon or should this Passage Read Geba?

         v.      17              What are the Differences between 2Samuel 5:11–24 and 1Chronicles 14?

         v.      17              David and Saul, Contrasted by the Author/Editor of Chronicles

         v.      17              A Complete Translation of 1Chronicles 14

I ntroduction: Just as 1Chron. 13 was a close parallel to 2Sam. 6, so 1Chron. 14 is almost identical to 2Sam. 5 (specifically, to 2Sam. 5:11–25). Now, I found out a great many more things when I studied 1Chron. 13 immediately after 2Sam. 6, even though much of the text was identical. I am assuming that, if I am on my game, that the same will be true of this chapter.

The way that I am beginning this is, I have copied all of the 2Sam. 5 exegesis into this document, and I will heavily edit and fix whatever is different in the specific exegesis. Some of the commentary will be identical; some of the charts, short doctrines and will also be identical. However, as I study this chapter, a great deal of new information will be added.

My personal opinion is, the writer of Chronicles had a copy of Samuel to work from, as well as some additional ancient manuscripts. The text throughout this chapter and 2Sam. 5 is just too close to be a matter of accident. One might say, well aren’t these words inspired by God the Holy Spirit? And they are, but that is not why they are so similar. Some portions of Scripture are dictated: much of Exodus–Numbers is dictated directly from God to Moses, and it is carefully noted as such. However, most of Deuteronomy are the words of Moses; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and Kings are primarily historical narratives where there is no indication that God dictated the words found therein. Each book of the Bible has a distinct literary style. John’s writings are very simple and the first year Greek student can translate most of John’s gospel and letters. However, one gets a closer examination of certain Apostles in John’s gospel than in any of the other 3 gospels. Paul’s writings are more involved, and he may carry logical thought streams through several verses and, at times, through several chapters. Luke tends to be very precise and chronological. These various books have different styles because they were written by different men. They are inspired by God the Holy Spirit, but each book is fully the words of these men and fully the words of God. There is an exact parallel in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God. He is fully man and fully God, in One Person forever. My point in this is, the similarity between this chapter of Chronicles and 2Sam. 5 is not simply a matter of being inspired by God the Holy Spirit. That fact does not require the human styles or vocabularies to be identical. Therefore, it is more reasonable that the writer of Chronicles used the Samuel text in preparing his own work (along with other ancients texts, long lost to us).

We use similar reasoning when it comes to the recording of certain events. Of course, we could at any time, say, “Well, Moses prophetically wrote about his death (Deut. 34); or Samuel through God the Holy Spirit was able to observe Jonathan’s victory over the Philistines (1Sam. 14)” but that is stretching the function of God the Holy Spirit into a different realm of supernatural influence. Nowhere in Scripture, when an incident is recorded, do we have any indication that the writer was not there and somehow saw this in a vision or in a dream. Now, there are a number of times in Scripture when the means of God’s conveyance of knowledge is not specified; but there are enough times when it is specified, that we can at least make a reasonable guess. My point is, people record the most accurate narratives when they actually observe the events firsthand. We may reasonable assume that this describes the writings of Moses, Joshua, Matthew and John. We may reasonably assume that there are instances when the writer of Scripture obtained his information from a firsthand source. Luke is a good example of this; he accompanied Paul on some missionary journeys, and was a firsthand observer of those events. However, he also came into contact with a number of other believers during his tenure with Paul who observed the events of the gospels and of Acts, and from their testimonies (and quite possibly from the writings of Matthew and Mark), Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts. Furthermore, Luke testifies to this at the beginning of both of his books. He does not present himself as an eyewitness, but as a historian who researched these events, living at a time when eyewitnesses were alive and willing to share what they observed.

The point I am trying to make is, when it comes to the authorship of this or that chapter, or this or that book, we should gravitate to the means and to the author which make the most sense, based upon the contents of the book. In this case, we have a chapter which, in parts, is almost word-for-word identical to 2Sam. 5:11–25. The most logical explanation of this is, the writer of Chronicles (who composed his book even as late as 580 b.c.), had at his disposal, the works of Samuel. The writer of Chronicles was not an eyewitness to most of the events of Chronicles; therefore, he had to get his material from somewhere. Since there is really no precedent for a narrative to be dictated by God the Holy Spirit to a writer of Scripture, we must look to the most logical human explanation, which is, the writer of Chronicles is principally an editor, and his work is based upon other writings which existed at his time—most of which were written as eyewitness or 2^nd hand reports of the historical events covered.

Hiram King of Tyre Builds David a Palace

2Samuel 5:11–12

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so sends Hiram king of Tyre messengers unto David and trees of cedars and engravers of a wall and engravers of wood to build for him a house.

Septuagint                              And Chiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar timbers, and masons, and carpenters, to build a house for him.

Significant differences:           None; the differences between this text and the Hebrew of 2Sam. 5 is slight and will be covered in the exegesis.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       King Hiram of Tyre sent some officials to David. They brought along carpenters and stone workers, and enough cedar logs to build David a palace.

NAB                                       Hiram, king of Tyre, sent enjoys to David along with masons and carpenters, and cedar wood to build him a house.

TEV                                        King Hiram of Tyre sent a trade mission to David; he provided him with cedar logs and with stonemasons and carpenters to build a palace.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         King Hiram of Tyre sent messengers to David, along with cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build a palace for David.

HCSB                                     King Hiram of Tyre sent envoys to David, along with cedar logs, stonemasons, and carpenters to build a palace for him.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also masons and carpenters to build a house for him.

Young's Updated LT              And Huram king of Tyre sends messengers unto David, and cedar-wood, and artificers of walls, and artificers of wood, to build to him a house.

What is the gist of this verse? The king of Tyre sends a wonderful present to David: he sends David an army of carpenters and masons to build a great palace for David.

Differences between the Samuel and Chronicles text will be noted as we go along.

Translation: Hiram, king of Tyre, sent messengers to David... Tyre is a Phœnician city along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, north of Israel. I would assume that this area was also well-known for its cedars in that era, just as Lebanon was. Hiram is sending a great many things to David, so he first sends messengers to explain to David what he is doing.

Translation: ...with cedar trees,... Along behind these messengers we have a number of cedar trees, which no doubt are brought along by a large number of men who somehow transport these trees (in what manner, I don’t know).

Translation: ...and wall-builders;... Literally, this reads craftsmen of a wall, which, taken together, mean craftsmen of stone walls; which is a different set of skills from the carpenters named above. The idea of a wall is to keep people out and to keep those on the other side of the walls safe. Even though there was apparently a wall built already around Jerusalem, additional walls provided additional safety.

Translation: ...carpenters... Literally, we have here craftsmen of wood; men whom we would call carpenters today. Now, even though many of the tools we have today, they had then, I imagine that they were quite dissimilar, and therefore, these artisans of wood had great skills, but those which are different from carpenters today.

In any case, Hiram was showing great respect to David by sending these men to him—he sends much of the raw material along with the men who know how to work with this raw material, with the result that a great palace will be built for David.

For whatever reason, up until this time, the Jews were not generally known for their building projects, apart from the reign of Solomon. What appears to be the case is, they seemed to live primarily in tents, and that, when they took the land of promise, that they inherited the buildings of the cities whose people they defeated. It is reasonable to postulate that they really did not need to develop building skills at first. I’ve used my own house as an example; I am in the process of adding on a substantial addition, and this has required me to learn, either by observation or by actually doing the work, each process in constructing this house—framing, electrical, plumbing, etc. Prior to this, my knowledge of such things increased as I did this or that repair, but, I had no actual complete knowledge of any individual system, as I only would work on a portion of it. At first, the Jews had no reason to learn building skills; what they needed had already been provided. In fact, it is possible that for some Jews, building was too closely associated with their slavery under Egypt, and they possible avoided this profession for that reason.

Translation: ...to build for him a [royal] residence. Even though this simply says that these men built a house for David, we are probably talking a wonderful, royal palace. This is an incredible gesture by the king of Tyre, and much different than those of the Mideast today.

There are some details that I should dispense with here. Hiram (which may be short for Ahiram) seems to have more interaction with Solomon, David’s son, than with David. For this reason, some have suggested that this palace was build for David during the 2^nd half of his reign. David would have been well-established as king, he would have been an older man, and perhaps Hiram was a young king who looked up to David. Selman offers a lot of dates at this point, but it is unclear whether these are the dates for Hiram’s reign or for the 2^nd half of David’s reign. The point the author of Chronicles is making (in this verse and the next) is, God has clearly established David as king over Israel in contrast to Saul, whom God clearly rejected.

Why do we find this verse here? What is the purpose? I see it as twofold: (1) This chapter seems to be inserted between David’s unsuccessful and successful attempts to move the Ark to indicate that God did not withdraw His blessing from David, despite his failure in the previous chapter to transport the Ark. (2) Hiram is being presented as a believer in Jehovah Elohim, given his relationship with David, and given other references to him (1Kings 5 2Chron. 2:11–12). This would suggest that some evangelism has taken place outside of Israel, although the exact nature of this evangelism is unknown to us. Perhaps simply the fact that Israel went from slavery to a nation in two generations and that their God accompanied them and supported them with signs and wonders caused some to believe.

David does have a well-deserved reputation, which could also have impacted Hiram’s choice to honor him. As one of Saul’s generals, David has guided his troops in and out of battle and they, in turn, developed a great respect for him as a leader. Such information would be available to Hiram. Although one could argue that Hiram cultivated David’s friendship in order to retain his trade routes, one could also argue that allying himself with the Philistines might have done the same thing. However, the key here is really positive volition. Those who showed positive volition toward the Jew often believe in Jehovah Elohim, God of the Jews. Those who allied themselves against the Jews obviously did not believe in Jehovah Elohim, as who would be so foolish as to oppose the God of the Universe?

The Philistines were Hiram’s polar opposite; whereas, he extends the hand of friendship to David while the Philistines were continually at war with Israel (with the possible exception of Achish, king of Gath ). Their negative volition toward David indicates negative volition toward the God of David, Jehovah Elohim.

I think that we learn a great many things in this particular chapter: we find out that there were those in David’s periphery who respected him, were allied with him, and were likely believers for the most part. Surely there were more groups of people besides Hiram. On the other side of the coin, also covered in this chapter, are the Philistines, who, for the most part, were very antagonistic toward the Jews, which suggests that they were equally antagonistic toward Jehovah God.

In case you need more examples of this, examine the countries involved with Israel today. Lebanon was, at one time, quite neutral with respect to the Jews, and their country appeared to be greatly blessed as a result. Most recently, evil forces have gained a foothold in Israel (Hamas), and these forces have been quite antagonistic toward Israel, and the end result has been great instability within Lebanon itself, which, for awhile, was one of the few functioning democracies in the Middle East (Israel being the other; and Iraq, at this point in time, might become a reasonable democracy). Most of the other nations in that region are very hostile toward Israel and their lives reflect a distinct lack of blessing as a result. In fact, one might compare the relative antagonism of the people of a country to Israel and show a direct relationship between that and their sorry lives. Some of these countries have a greater per capita income than we have in the United States, and yet, the vast majority of their people are far worse off than those in our country who are thought to be in poverty (I know people today who are considered to be far below the poverty line, and they live with much greater material blessings than I had growing up).

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                          And David perceived that the Lord had confirmed him king over Israel, and that his kingdom was exalted over his people Israel.

Masoretic Text                       And so knows David that established him Y^ehowah to king over Israel and that was lifted up to a higher [place] his kingdom because of His people Israel.

Peshitta                                  And David perceived that the Lord had chosen him to be king over Israel, for his kingdom was exalted because of his people Israel.

Septuagint                              And David knew that the Lord had prepared him to be king over Israel; because his kingdom was increased in height [i.e., highly exalted], on account of his people Israel.

Significant differences:           Interestingly enough, the verbs are all different when it comes to Jehovah making David king over all Israel (I use the English translations of the Latin and Syriac, so I am assuming the verbs are different).

At the end, the Latin is interesting, as we find in it, one of the very few times that one might say, aha, the Catholic church altered the text for their own benefit! First of all, it is Jerome who translated the text, and, although there might have been some pressure from the Catholic church, his translation of the Old Testament, insofar as we have gone, seems to be right on target. Furthermore, the translation that we find in the Latin (again, the English translation of the Latin) is a legitimate rendering from the Hebrew text. Now, I am not in any way an apologist for the Catholic church. They promote false doctrine and they represent centuries of evil. However, Jerome’s text appears time and time again to be very accurate and to reflect little influence of any higher body with an agenda.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       David now knew that the LORD had made him a powerful king of Israel for the good of his people.

The Message                         Then David knew for sure that GOD had confirmed him as king over Israel, because of the rising reputation that GOD was giving his kingdom for the benefit of his people Israel.

NJB                                        David then knew the Yahweh had confirmed him as king of Israel and, for the sake of his people, had extended his sovereignty.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         So David realized that the LORD had established him as king of Israel and that his kingdom was made famous for the sake of Israel, the LORD'S people.

HCSB                                     Then David knew that the LORD had established him as king over Israel and that his kingdom had been exalted for the sake of His people Israel.

JPS (Tanakh)                         Thus David knew that the Lord had establish him as king over Israel, and that his kingship was highly exalted for the sake of His people Israel.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

MKJV                                     And David saw that Jehovah had confirmed him king over Israel, for his kingdom was lifted on high, because of His people Israel.

Young’s Updated LT             And David knows that Jehovah has established him for king over Israel, because of the lifting up on high of his kingdom, for the sake of His people Israel.

What is the gist of this verse? At this point in time, David realized that God had established him as king over all Israel, as God had promised; and that his kingdom would be stable and that God did this for His people Israel.

Translation: Then David realized [or, perceived] that Y^ehowah had established [or, prepared] him as [lit., for a] king over Israel... The verb to know can indicate that David suddenly realized all that God had done on his behalf. Now, we mostly know about David over many years of studying; and it all seems just what we would expect—that God would exalt him. Furthermore, Samuel anointed David. So, why am I saying that David suddenly realized what God did on his behalf? When I was younger, a new believer, I heard about testing of different types and I heard about prosperity testing and I thought, okay, God, give that to me. Well, years and years later, I looked around at where I was one afternoon in my house, and realized that God answered that prayer. Whereas, I am not a member of the super-rich, by any means, I am in a very good situation with respect to finances and living conditions. My first house, when I moved out from my parents was one where a motorcycle gang drove in and out of via ramps at the front and back doors (they were squatting when I rented the house). The shower walls were bright red, peeling paint. I had to sell most of my valuable possessions in order to buy food at that time. Most of the carpet came from carpet scraps which I had glued together (it looked cool!). When I took a teaching job in Texas, the salary was so low, women who found out that I was a teacher would pretty much stop talking to me (this occurred several times). In other words, when I spoke to God about these things, I was in a moderately impoverished condition. Now, years later, it is much different. I live reasonably well and retired at the age of 51. Now, on the other hand, there are a plethora of problems when you live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood. You may think that money solves everything, but it doesn’t. With money comes problems; and sometimes, significant problems.

David looks around and he suddenly realizes the same thing. He suddenly knows that God has delivered on His promises. No longer was this academic; this was David’s life, as king over all Israel, just as God had promised him back when he was a boy of 12.

Application: If you are a believer who is growing—learning the Word of God and you are consistently filled with God the Holy Spirit (and I don’t mean in some holy roller way), you are going to note changes in your life. There might not be that big of a difference in my life from yesterday to today; however, if I look at my life in 5 year increments, there is a definite improvement in my life from increment to increment. Even though I have a small handful of regrets and certainly wish I could have done this or that differently, God has blessed me nevertheless. Furthermore, there are things which have a occurred, sometimes as a result of a regretful action, that God has made right. We are told that God works all things together for blessing for those who love Him; that means good and bad things. My personal testimony to you is, this is true. All you need to do is to grow spiritually, which is not a difficult thing to do. You find a good pastor teacher, you get under his teaching regularly (daily is preferred) and you name your sins to God regularly when you are out of fellowship. Everything else is going to work itself out.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown make an important comment here. This is an important truth, that sovereigns are invested with royal honor and authority, not for their own sakes so much as for that of their people. But while it is true of all kings, it was especially applicable to the monarchs of Israel, and even David was made to know that all his glory and greatness were given only to fit him, as the minister of God, to execute the divine purposes towards the chosen people. If you don’t understand this, than you should not even have authority over your own pets.

Translation: ...and that his kingdom was exalted exceedingly for the sake of His people Israel. Just as we found in 2Sam. 5:12, we have 4 possible interpretations here. We have two 3^rd person masculine singular suffixes, and to whom should they be applied? Both to David, both to God, one to David and the other to God?

Later, through Nathan the prophet, God will make an incredible promise to David: And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever (2Sam. 7:10–16).

The Line of David in Jerusalem

2Samuel 5:13–16

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so takes David more women in Jerusalem. And so sires David more sons and daughters.

Septuagint                              And David took yet more wives in Jerusalem: and there were born to David more sons and daughters.

Significant differences:           The Greek adds the adverb yet to the first phrase. Even though this is not found in the Hebrew, there is no problem with including it.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       After David moved to Jerusalem, he married more women and had more sons and daughters.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David married more wives in Jerusalem and fathered more sons and daughters.

HCSB                                     David took more wives in Jerusalem, and he became the father of more sons and daughters.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       And David took more wives in Jerusalem, and David fathered more sons and daughters.

Young’s Updated LT             And David takes again wives in Jerusalem, and David sires again sons and daughters;...

What is the gist of this verse? Interestingly enough, David’s wives and children were kept track of based upon where he married them. He took more wives and mistresses when he moved to Jerusalem.

Translation: David took more wives [while] in Jerusalem. The author/editor of Chronicles here assumes that one is familiar with David’s other wives. We know them from the book of Samuel, and we came into contact with them as David did chronologically. However, we do not have that information in Chronicles. David’s line is given in 1Chron. 3, and we can fill in the blanks from there. My impression is, the writer/editor of Chronicles essentially assumes that David’s first 3 wives are so well-known as not to require them to be named. Furthermore, the emphasis of this chapter seems to be the capital city Jerusalem.

I have taken the following commentary from my own commentary on Samuel: According to Clarke, David had 8 wives and 10 mistresses (2Sam. 15:16). For most men, they think this is the perfect arrangement. They have complete power; they have all the financial resources that they need; and they have several wives and mistresses, and it is all out in the open. There is no hiding, no apologizing, no cheating per se. However, the problem with all that is, it simply is not true. Most men think that this would be the ideal situation, but it is not. Despite man’s predilection for infidelity, God has designed the family unit to function as a specific, nuclear family unit; and all other perversions of this do not work, regardless of whatever you read in the NY Times that might indicate otherwise.

Women respond to a man from their soul—this is their makeup. They need to have reenforcement from the man to reenforce their soul response. No doubt, when David would first court a woman, there were be a modicum of exclusivity, and David would give enough of his soul for the woman to respond to. Or, her soul would respond to his wealth and power—however, after a certain point in time, when David was off elsewhere, there was no longer a man to whom this woman could respond to regularly. Her soul had no man to respond to; it became like a vacuum. A phenomenon which we see today, especially with so many split up families, is some women’s souls begin responding to their sons or daughters, as there is no husband for their souls to respond to. There is more than the mother’s love and protectiveness. Now, I don’t mean that there was pedophilia going on; but that the woman’s soul, not having David’s to respond to, would respond to the souls of her children. When it became clear to the woman that she could not jockey for first place with David, then she would attempt to place her children in first place within the palace. She would be in constant competition herself for David’s interest; and she would have her children in constant competition for preeminence within the palace. When it came to David’s wives and mistresses within the palace, there would be daily turmoil. I believe that this would be a fascinating psychological study—women and children and the household dynamic in a polygamous marriage.

So that I make myself abundantly clear here, and many men can attest to this—if the woman of the house is not happy, then their soul response or their soulish reaction is going to make most everyone else in that house unhappy. Off in the future, as we study David’s life, we are going to find him on the roof watching a woman from afar. Remember, he’s got a house full of women, but where is he? He is on his roof where he can get away from his sons, daughters, wives and mistresses; and what is going through his mind? Sexual fantasies. He’s got multiple wives to go to, and David’s mind is still absorbed with sexual fantasies which they cannot fulfill.

After studying David, Solomon will be next, and Solomon will have a 1000 wives and mistresses, and yet, he will get all out of joint over one woman whom he writes about in Song of Solomon. The number of women which Solomon has is not enough. 1000 women is not enough!

The focus of Scripture is certainly not monogamy versus polygamy; but now and again we are going to come across passages and, at times, whole books, which indicate that the fantasy of some men is a pretty unhappy reality.

The Bible does speak to polygamy and to those who were most able to have several wives: Neither should the king multiply wives to himself, so that his heart is not turned away; neither should he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold (Deut. 17:17). No one more than a king could gather up as many wives and as much money as he wants; and God explicitly tells them not to.

McGee comments: Now perhaps you are saying, “And God permitted this [David to have a multiplicity of wives]!” Yes, God permitted a multiplication of wives, but God did not approve of it. In fact, this will eventuate in God judging him, and it will bring srrow to him for the rest of his life. It is wrong. This record is not given to us because God approved of it. But God wants us to know that this is exactly what happened. This is an historical record, and as we follow it, we will discover God’s attitude. Let me add that, God does not necessarily need to judge all sins and discipline us for each and every sin; many sins carry with them inherent problems. David’s multiple marriages will cause him all kinds of problems. Did God specifically punish David for these marriages? I don’t really know; however, there are a number of incidents which make David’s life difficult, and they all stem from having many wives.

Now I am ready to tell you another reason why we find this chapter sandwiched between David’s attempts to move the Ark. David, from 1Chron. 13 to 1Chron. 15 finds out how to move the Ark from point A to point B (see 1Chron. 15:2). How do you think that he figured this out? He read his copy of the Bible; he read his copy of the Mosaic Law. David probably did not have his own copy of Strong’s Concordance, so we might reasonably suppose that he read a great deal of the Mosaic Law, including the passage above about not making himself rich and not marrying tons of women. David marries many women; God allows him to marry many women; and God blesses David with many children. However, this is not God’s first choice for David. His life could have been a lot simpler without all of these wives. His life would have been even more filled with blessings without all of these wives, even though you men may not grasp that fact.

Translation: David also sired more sons and daughters [as well]. Generally speaking, sons and daughters are a blessing to any husband and wife. However, when these sons and daughters are not raised properly, they become extremely troublesome, as we will find with David’s extremely dysfunctional family.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And these names of those born who are to him in Jerusalem: Shammua and Shobab and Solomon...

Septuagint                              And these are the names of those that were born, who were born to him in Jerusalem; Samaa, Sobab, Nathan, and Solomon,...

Significant differences:           The big difference is the Greek, Latin and Syriac all have the name Nathan here (as is also found in the parallel Samuel text).

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       His children born there were Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon,...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

HCSB                                     His children born there were Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Beeliada, and Eliphelet,...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       These are the names of the children born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon,,...

Young's Literal Translation     And these are the names of the children whom he has in Jerusalem: Shammua, and Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon,...

What is the gist of this verse? This verse begins naming off the sons who David sired when in Jerusalem: Shammuah, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon.

Translation: These are the names of those who are born to him in Jerusalem:... Again, it is clear that we are getting an overall view of David over several decades as king over all Israel.

Translation: ...Shammua,... We begin with the 4 sons of David by Bathsheba, who, obviously has not been introduced to us yet, and will not come on the scene for several years. What we are getting is a few verses which summarize David’s life; then we will examine David’s life from his move to Jerusalem. Shammua is found only here and in 1Chron. 3:5 14:4, all genealogical passages. It is possible that David named him after Samuel (their names are not exactly the same, but they are very similar).

Translation: ...Shobab,... Shobab is another of David’s sons by Bathsheba, and is only found in genealogies: 2Sam. 5:14 1Chron. 3:5 14:4.

Interestingly enough, the parallel passage in Samuel inserts and Nathan at this point. Our Lord is descended through Nathan and not Solomon because of the Coniah curse. Now, if anything, I would have expected Nathan to be left out of the genealogy in Samuel and found here; instead, it is just the opposite. I lean toward this being a simple copyist error (or a defective manuscript), as the Greek, Latin and Syriac all have Nathan’s name at this point in Chronicles.

Translation: ...Nathan,... The paternal/legal line to our Lord is through Solomon; the maternal line is through Nathan. Jesus Christ is not born of Joseph, He is born of God the Holy Spirit. The old sin nature is passed down through the man, and there was no man involved in the conception of Jesus Christ. Jesus is born of Mary and the woman does not pass down the old sin nature.

God pronounced the Coniah curse through Jeremiah (Jer. 22:24–30). Coniah, a royal descendant of Solomon, was so evil, that God said that no man of his seed would be blessed as a sitting king; that his royal line would be cut off. Joseph is descended through Coniah (also known as Jeconiah—Matt. 1:11). Joseph was descended through Coniah. Mary, the mother of the humanity of Jesus Christ, was descended through Nathan (Luke 3:31), so Coniah is not in her line, thus fulfilling the Coniah curse (which we will cover in greater detail if and when we get to Jeremiah).

Translation: ...Solomon,... Solomon is David’s most famous son, and because of him, and because of the many children that they had, it appears as though David’s right woman was Bathsheba. Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. He will become the 3^rd king over Israel.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic text                        ...and Ibhar and Elishua and Elpelet;...

Septuagint                              ...and Baar, and Elisa, and Eliphaleth,.

Significant differences:           None.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       ...Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet,...

Young's Literal Translation     ...and Ibhar, and Elishua, and Elpelet,...

What is the gist of this verse? Three more sons of David are named: Ibhar, Elishua, and Elpelet.

Translation: ...Ibhar,... His name means whom Jehovah chooses; and marks the time when David was still giving his children meaningful names. Smith tells us that he must have been born after 1044 b.c. (although I have no idea why).

These four sons are found in 3 passages and their names appear to be accurately recorded; however we known next to nothing about them.

Translation: ...Elishua,... At this point, David was still giving his sons names which seem to indicate divine viewpoint; Elisha means my God is wealth or God is salvation; and David was no doubt declaring his wealth and deliverance by God by the name of this son.

He has the name Elishama in 1Chron. 3:6; which is either a different spelling, a nickname, or a scribal error.

Translation: ...and Elpelet. This final young man has the name God is deliverance; but we know nothing more about him. Although Strong treats this name as identical to Eliphelet; I don’t believe it is, as that name will occur in 1Chron. 14:7.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       ...and Nogah and Nepheg and Japhia and Elishama and Beeliada and Eliphelet.

Septuagint                              ...and Nageth, and Naphath, and Japhia, and Elisamae, and Eliade, and Eliphala.

Significant differences:           Although there was apparently a great deal of discrepancy with the Greek and Hebrew of the parallel Samuel passage, here there are no differences in the text. Does this mean that the Greek text is all messed up in Samuel? Not necessarily. There may have been more in the Samuel line; this may have been lost to us; and later restored, as best as could be, from the Chronicles text.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       ...Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Beeliada and Eliphelet.

Young's Literal Translation     ...and Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, and Elishama, and Beeliada, and Eliphalet.

What is the gist of this verse? 6 more names are added to David’s line. The Greek text in the parallel Samuel passage adds a baker’s dozen additional names.

Translation: ...Nogah... We find Nogah here and in the 3 chronologies; we don’t know anything else about him.

Translation: ...Nepheg... Nephew is mentioned in 3 passages, but only in genealogies and with nary a detail. His name means a root, a sprout and possibly weak, slack. I would guess that he was a very small and puny baby, and was so named by David.

Translation: ...and Japhia;.. Japhia is mentioned here and in 1Chron. 3:7 14:6. We know nothing about him, except that he was born to David in Jerusalem.

I don’t really know why Japhia would be called shining or bright. If his name actually means appearing, this could simply describe his being born.

Translation: ...Elishama,... This is a son of David, where his name refers to something which God is or something which God does. Here, his name means God has heard, which perhaps references his wife’s (mistress’s) desire for a child by David.

Translation: ...Beeliada... God named this child God knows. We know nothing more about him. He is doubtless equivalent to Eliada from the parallel Samuel genealogy. The equivalent Greek name here lacks a β (beta; bêyth in the Hebrew); the same is true of the Syriac and Arabic. We don’t know if the translators of the Greek (Syriac and Arabic) tried to smooth things out by leaving the β out (so that it matches the parallel passage in Samuel) or if that change had been made in the Hebrew text which they used (either purposely or unintentionally). It is fascinating that God allowed errors to creep into His text; but that these errors, although a matter for some discussion, have no effect upon any doctrine.

Translation: ...and Eliphelet. This final young man has the name God is deliverance; but we know nothing more about him. However, since we find him here and Elpelet listed earlier, this suggests to me that they are two different people, and not alternate spellings of the same name. Now, could David have given the same name to two sons, and Elpelet is a nickname for one? That is also a possibility.

David’s First War with the Philistines

2Samuel 5:17–21

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so hear Philistines has been anointed David to king over all Israel and so go up all the Philistines to seek David. And so hears David and so he goes up to their faces.

Septuagint                              And the Philistines heard that David was anointed king over all Israel: and all the Philistines went up to seek David; and David heard it, and went out to meet them.

Significant differences:           Although the Hebrew text does not say that David went out to meet them; it is pretty much a synonym for that. Therefore, we should not fault the Greek translator or think there are any problems with the text here.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       When the Philistines heard that David had become king of Israel, they came to capture him. But David heard about their plan and marched out to meet them in battle.

REB                                       When the4 Philistines learnt that David had been anointed king over the whole of Israel, they came up in force to seek him out. David, getting wind of this, went t to face them.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king of Israel, all of them came to attack David. But David heard about it and went out to meet them.

HCSB                                     When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over all Israel, they all went in search of David; when David heard of this, he went out to face them.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over all Israel, all the Philistines went up to search for David. But David heard of it and went out against them.

NRSV                                     .

Young’s Updated LT             And the Philistines hear that David has been anointed for king over all Israel, and all the Philistines go up to seek David, and David hears and goes out before them.

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistines hear that David has been made king over all Israel, so they go up to oppose him. David hears about this and goes out to meet them.

Translation: When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed as king over all Israel,... It is clear from 1Samuel 29 that the Philistines are well aware of who and what David was. David lived near the Philistines on Philistine land for about a year and a half, but essentially had no dealings with the Philistines themselves (except, apparently, to periodically report to Achish, king of Gath). However, the first time that David was called upon to join with the Philistines to fight against Israel, he went (surprisingly enough), despite the fact that he had two times in the past resisted taking King Saul’s life. Prior to this, when David and Saul were on good terms, David was a great warrior against the Philistines, and it seemed likely to the Philistines that he may return to that mindset again. Therefore, the Philistines decided to be proactive here and take out David before he became too powerful with the Jews.

Furthermore, as we read in 1Chron. 12:23–40, a huge number of soldiers from all over Israel gathered to support David and to celebrate his being made king over a united Israel. More than anything, this would have been a cause of great concern to the Philistines. We have no indication that these soldiers gathered with the intention of taking out the Philistines. Their purpose was one of great celebration, as we read in 1Chron. 12:38–40: All these, men of war, arrayed in battle order, came to Hebron with full intent to make David king over all Israel. Likewise, all the rest of Israel were of a single mind to make David king. And they were there with David for three days, eating and drinking, for their brothers had made preparation for them. And also their relatives, from as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, came bringing food on donkeys and on camels and on mules and on oxen, abundant provisions of flour, cakes of figs, clusters of raisins, and wine and oil, oxen and sheep, for there was joy in Israel. In the back of their minds, no doubt they realized that David would probably lead them in a campaign against the Philistines, as the Philistines had humiliated the Israeli army about 8 years previous, and were probably collecting tribute regularly since then. However, since a number of them had served under David, and had witnessed both his bravery and great intelligence and demeanor, they recognized that he could successfully lead them against the Philistines as well as any other foreign power (a primary purpose of a king, if you will recall—1Sam. 8:19–20).

Translation: ...all the Philistines went up to seek David. I am assuming that, the Philistines determined to strike David before he got this whole king thing going. He was made king of Israel and he was a great leader; however, he had been king for only a very short time. Perhaps they hoped that there would have been little organization in his military. Or, perhaps it was the huge gathering of troops which caught the attention of the Philistines. The Philistines had recently (7 or 8 years previously) defeated Saul’s army; but now, there was a new sheriff in town, and they did not expect David to be cooperative with whatever sanctions they had instituted against Israel (for instance, the Philistines no doubt taxed much of Israel; and, under David, it would be very likely that David would put an end to this). However, all of this requires organization, and the Philistines knew this; so it is to their best interest to deal with David before he can get too organized.

The Open Bible points out: Since the defeat of Saul at Mount Gilboa (1Chron. 10:1–14), the Philistines had been in possession of the main northeast trade routes on the coast and in the Jezreel Valley. The rise of David posed an economic and military threat to this monopoly. We should bear some things in mind: David’s kingship may have had an economic effect upon the Philistines. However, one might argue that his rise to power might have some effect upon Hiram king of Tyre as well. There is much more to it than economics, as will be discussed below.

Application: In the Middle East today, we have continual conflicts between the Jews and the Palestinians. No matter how much land Israel gives up, the violent forces in the Palestinian areas continue to shoot rockets into Israel (this is the year 2007). We have radical Muslim leaders, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran’s present head of government), threatening to level Israel with nuclear weapons (as soon as the attain the technology). From the way the Jews are blamed, one would think that their incursion in the Middle East is rather dramatic. However, the Jews occupy less than 0.2% of the land in the Middle East. Not 2% but a tenth of that! I have not examined their population figures, but I imagine that it is similar. Yet, huge numbers of Muslims see Israel (and the United States) as their biggest and most pressing problem. These people call for the destruction of Israel out of their hatred and negative volition. One thing you can depend upon, just as the sun rises in the east, is continued anti-Semitism in the Middle East and continued unrest.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: ...all the Philistines went up to seek David in the hope of accomplishing his ruin (for so the phrase is used, 1Sam. 23:15 24:2–3) before his throne was consolidated. Their hostility arose, both from a belief that his patriotism would lead him, ere long, to wipe out the national dishonor at Gilboa, and by fear, that in any invasion of their country, his thorough knowledge of their weak points would give him superior advantages. They resolved, therefore, to surprise and crush him before he was fairly seated on his throne. The Jews, except for taking the land, tended to be relatively non-aggressive. As we found in the book of the Judges, even though God had instructed them to take the cities still held by heathen groups, for the most part, they did not. A good historian in the Philistine area could reasonably argue that the Jews would probably not expand. However, David appears to be more aggressive and more willing to do God’s will. Therefore, striking Israel sooner rather than later would have been seen in Philistia as the most reasonable course of action.

Application: Although the Philistines moved against Israel for nefarious reasons, the principle is clear: you strike your enemy at the most opportune time. The avowed enemy of democracy is radical Islam, which first achieved control of a national government in the late 70's in Iran, which has become the radical Islam model. Much of the Middle East is under the control of moderates (e.g., Saudi Arabia) who prosper by doing business with the United States. They may not completely approve of us, but they are certainly willing to do business with us. However, we have Iran, which is given over to a radical government; Lebanon, a true middle eastern democracy, could also end up in the same situation. Whereas, striking Iran now (we know where their 14 nuclear sites are) is the most prudent, such a move would be almost universally criticized (not in Israel, however).

Translation: When David heard [this],... David has some sort of functioning intelligence; how official they are, or whether these are simply some Israelites who decided to take on this responsibility. What I mean is, David may have some troops out guarding the perimeter, and they observe the gathering of Philistines, and come and tell David. Or, this could be simply citizens who observe the influx of Philistines and they make a quick run to David in Jerusalem to tell him what is going on.

Translation: ...he went up to face them down [lit., before them]. This is quite interesting; in the Samuel text, David goes first to his stronghold, then he inquires from God whether or not he should go up against the Philistines. That text I would have assumed to fit better with Chronicles, as this book is perceived as being more God’s viewpoint than man’s. However, we are simply told that David goes out to meet the Philistines; to face them down.

So, the situation is, David celebrated with a huge number of men from all over Israel, celebrating his becoming king over all Israel. The attempt to move of the Ark in the previous chapter may have occurred already and maybe it did not (this is not the order of Samuel, which tends to be closer to a chronological approach).

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And Philistines came in and so they spread out in a valley of Rephaim.

Septuagint                              And the Philistines came and assembled together in the giants’ valley.

Significant differences:           Interestingly enough, the Hebrew text is at odds with the Greek, the Latin, the Syriac and even with the text of Samuel. This would suggest that perhaps the Hebrew text is incorrect (although that is not a for sure call). However, a strong mitigating factor in favor of the Hebrew text is, to spread out against and to plunder are both meanings for the verb found here (even though it is a different verb than what we find in the Samuel text).

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The Philistines had already camped in Rephaim Valley and were raiding the nearby villages.

NJB                                        When the Philistines arrived, they deployed in the Valley of the Rephaim.

REB                                       When the Philistines came and raided the valley of Rephaim,...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The Philistines had come and raided the valley of Rephaim.

HCSB                                     Now the Philistines had come and made a raid in the Valley of Rephaim,...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

LTHB                                     And the Philistines came and made a raid in the Valley of the Giants.

Young's Updated LT              And the Philistines have come, and they rush into the valley of Rephaim.

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistines move into an area close to where Jerusalem is (and therefore close to where David is).

Translation: The Philistines came [into David’s periphery]... The verb means to come in; and the Philistines came into the general area around Jerusalem in search of David (I’ll discuss below the possibility of David being in Hebron rather than in Jerusalem).

Translation: ...and they spread out in the valley of the Rephaim. Although the verb here can also mean to plunder, I think that the Philistines set themselves up for war against David; afterwards, they would plunder, if victorious.

The Philistines had planned on warring against David, although it is possible that they did not know exactly where David was. Therefore, the spread themselves out in the valley of the Rephaim (or, giants) either in hopes of coming across David or in getting David to respond to them. It is reasonable to assume that they desired to control the battlefield environment, so they set themselves up in Judah to indicate their hostility, but they apparently did not directly attack Jerusalem.

Taken from The MacMillan Bible Atlas; 3^rd Edition; Aharoni, Avi-Yonah, Rainey, and Safrai; MacMillan; ©1993 by Carta; p. 77. I think that David is actually in Hebron during this time period; however, Hebron is about 40 miles south-southwest of Jerusalem and barely visible at the bottom of the map. The location of this valley is in keeping with Joshua 15:8, so Hebron may be too far south to have been David’s location during the first Philistine invasion.

I doubt that they are randomly spread out in this area, but that they are deployed strategically, setting up a camp (or camps) and then sending out divisions from there.

Above is a map from MacMillan’s book of maps, just to give you one idea as to where everything is and who went where near the Valley of Rephaim.

This map suggests to us is that David was in Jerusalem when the Philistines gathered in the Valley of Rephaim. Being so close, this would cause David to go down into the stronghold in order to think this through. If David were in Hebron, then it seems less likely that he would have needed to go anywhere else until the Philistines moved closer to him.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown describe the valley of Rephaim: [It is] a broad and fertile plain, which descends gradually from the central mountains towards the northwest.

The parallel text in Samuel has David going to his stronghold first; his exact movement is discussed in the parallel passage in 2Sam. 5:18.

Let’s talk strategy now: the Philistines spreading themselves out in the Valley of Rephaim accomplishes two things: (1) it drives a wedge between the northern and southern kingdoms (over which David had most recently been named ruler); and (2) they stand as a threat before David, almost camping on his front doorstep, if he is in Jerusalem. The Philistines, being an intelligent people, are going to move on David before he is able to settle into Jerusalem and complete any fortification projects. There is the additional possibility, as Keil and Delitzsch suggest, that the Philistines might be interested in taking Jerusalem themselves.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so asks David in Elohim to say, “Do I go up upon Philistines? And [have] you given them into my hand?” And so says Y^ehowah unto him, “Go up and I have given them into your hand.”

Septuagint                              And David enquired of God, saying, “Should I go up against the Philistines? And will You deliver them into my hand?” And the Lord said to him, “Go up, and I will give them into your hands.”

Significant differences:           The primary difference is that the verb to give is in the future tense in the Greek, which is the way almost every English translator rendered this sentence.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       David asked God, "Should I attack the Philistines? Will you help me win?" The LORD told David, "Yes, attack them! I will give you victory."

NAB                                       David inquired of God, “Shall I advance against the Philistines, and will you deliver them into my power?” The Lord answered him, “Advance, for I will deliver them into your power.”

REB                                       ...David enquired of God, ‘If I attack the Philistines, will you deliver them into my hands?’ The Lord answered, ‘Go, I shall deliver them into your hands.’

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         David asked God, "Should I attack the Philistines? Will you hand them over to me?" The LORD answered him, "Attack! I will hand them over to you."

HCSB                                     ...so David inquired of God, "Should I go to war against the Philistines? Will You hand them over to me?" The LORD replied, "Go, and I will hand them over to you."

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

WEB                                      David inquired of God, saying, Shall I go up against the Philistines? and will you deliver them into my hand? Yahweh said to him, Go up; for I will deliver them into your hand.