Original Meaning

Saul’s Death (10:1–7)

THIS FIRST SECTION of chapter 10 recounts King Saul’s death and its aftermath, the rout of Israel by the Philistines. Saul was anointed king over Israel in order to deliver God’s people “from the hand of the Philistines” (1 Sam. 9:16). Ironically, Saul and his sons were killed by these very same Philistines. In the end, Israel actually lost more territory than it gained in these wars. The national hopes that fueled the fervent clamor for a king were dashed at Mount Gilboa (cf. 1 Sam. 8:20). The chant of victory slogans (e.g., “Saul has slain his thousands,” 1 Sam. 18:7) gave way to the wail of the funeral dirges (“How the mighty have fallen!” 2 Sam. 1:19).

The dramatic narration of the inexorable “press” of the battle against King Saul and his sons (10:2) helps illumine the Chronicler’s assessment of the conflict: “so the LORD put him [Saul] to death” (10:14). In like manner, the naming of Saul’s slain sons (10:2; cf. 1 Sam. 31:6, where Saul’s fallen sons are unnamed) foreshadows the Chronicler’s commentary on the cessation of his royal dynasty (1 Chron. 10:6). The reference to Jonathan (10:2) no doubt stirs memories in the Chronicler’s audience of Jonathan’s covenant of friendship with David and King David’s eulogy of King Saul and Jonathan (cf. 1 Sam. 20:16–17; 2 Sam. 1:17–27). Tragically, Jonathan was everything Saul was not, but the crown prince recognized that he would never succeed his father (cf. 1 Sam. 20:13–14).

The battle at Mount Gilboa was staged on the southeast side of the plain of Esdraelon. Selman has suggested that fear and desperation drove Saul to engage the enemy in a precarious position, a crossroads permitting the Philistines optimum use of their chariots (cf. 1 Sam. 28:4–5).4 Japhet has observed that fear is a dominant emotion in the Samuel narrative, motivating Saul’s actions and predetermining his defeat.5 Samuel’s word of doom to Saul from beyond the grave induced a paralyzing dread in the king, no doubt inciting his request to his armor-bearer to kill him before the Philistines could capture him (1 Chron. 10:4; cf. 1 Sam. 28:19–20).

Both Samuel and Chronicles agree as to the wounding of King Saul by Philistine archers (10:3; cf. 1 Sam. 31:3). The refusal of his armor-bearer to honor Saul’s request to kill him with the sword prompts the first king of Israel to fall on his own sword. Whether the armor-bearer’s reluctance is related to respect for the Lord’s anointed (e.g., 1 Sam. 24:10; 26:11) or fear of retaliation by way of a blood-vengeance custom is uncertain. The Chronicler offers no theological commentary on the propriety of Saul’s suicide, a rare occurrence in the Bible.6 Clearly, suicide was preferable to torture and public humiliation at the hands of a pagan enemy. The report of the desecration of Saul’s body indicates his fear of abuse by the enemy is justified (1 Chron. 10:9–10). As Japhet has aptly commented, the suicide of the anonymous armor-bearer (10:5) underscores the bitter end of the battle against the Philistines.7 The glory of Israel “lies slain on [the] heights” (2 Sam. 1:19).

Chronicles omits entirely the report of King Saul’s death as told to David by the Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:1–16). Beyond this, the Chronicler inserts “and all his house died together” (1 Chron. 10:6) for “and all his men died together” in the Samuel parallel (1 Sam. 31:6). Most commentators acknowledge the “dynastic” implications of the change. As Williamson has explained, in the theological light of God’s plans for Israel, “Saul’s dynasty was judged, and was therefore to all intents and purposes at an end.”8 This does not mean that the Chronicler is unaware of the surviving descendants of King Saul, as some suggest.9 Saul’s fourth son, Esh-Baal, and his grandson, Merib-Baal, find their place in the Benjamite genealogy (1 Chron. 8:33–34; 9:39–40). But another has already been anointed king over Israel (1 Sam. 16:12–13), and for the Chronicler the direct and immediate theological outcome of the battle of Mount Gilboa is David’s kingship over all Israel.10

The deaths of Saul and his sons at Mount Gilboa have the practical outcome of demoralizing the Israelite militia, who flee the battleground (1 Chron. 10:7; cf. 1 Sam. 31:6, where the clause “all his men died” should be probably be understood as a small cohort of mercenary soldiers, much like David’s band of “mighty men,” 2 Sam. 23:8–39). News of the rout also causes the nearby Israelite civilian population of the Jordan River valley (1 Chron. 10:7), and even the region beyond the Jordan (1 Sam. 31:7), to evacuate and abandon their villages and towns to the Philistine army.

Bridging Contexts

THE CHRONICLER WELL understands the truth of the old adage that “no one declares independence, only allegiance.” The biblical world knows only two paths: the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1). There is no neutrality when it comes to relationship with God. Both the Old and the New Testaments prescribe an unswerving loyalty to God. For example, the stipulations of the Sinai covenant make this unmistakably clear: “You shall have no other gods before me … for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Ex. 20:3–5); and “fear the LORD your God, serve him only … do not follow other gods” (Deut. 6:13–14).

Attempts to maintain divided loyalties are equally forbidden. We need only recall Elijah’s rebuke of Israel in the contest with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). The teachings of Jesus affirm simply but forcibly the exclusive nature of the relationship to God: “He who is not with me is against me,” and “no one can serve two masters … you cannot serve both God and Money” (Matt. 6:24; 12:30).

The heroic story of David’s passage from fugitive to king hinges on the principle of allegiance or loyalty. It was the disloyalty of King Saul that disqualified both him and his descendants from establishing a royal dynasty (10:13–14). In fact, the Chronicler registers three specific counts of disloyalty against King Saul: disobedience to God’s word, consultation with a medium or witch, and a failure to inquire of God (10:13; cf. Saul’s neglect of the ark of the covenant, 13:3). Impetuous Saul sought to balance his divided loyalties to both God and other (Canaanite) gods through the mediation of the prophet Samuel and mediums like the witch of Endor. In an ironic twist, God’s final message to Saul—that of his impending death and the end of his dynasty—was conveyed through the spirit of the dead prophet by means of a terrified medium (cf. 1 Sam. 28). Disloyalty to God inevitably results in disaster, whether Saul on an individual level or Israel on a national level (cf. 1 Chron. 9:1).

By stark contrast, David’s loyalty to God propels him into kingship. The next section of Chronicles preserves concrete examples of David’s loyalty to God, including the return of the ark of the covenant (and hence Yahweh) to the national religious life of Israel (chs. 13–15), the reestablishment of Yahweh and his saving deeds as the centerpiece of worship (ch. 16), and the prayer that David’s dynasty will make known Yahweh as Israel’s God to the nations (17:23–24).

David’s loyalty to God also fosters a like-minded response to David himself among those who recognize him as the Lord’s “anointed.” This included the “disenfranchised” of Israel (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2) and defectors from Saul’s camp (e.g., 1 Chron. 12:2). Eventually David inspires the loyalty of all Israel (12:38). The ripple effect of his loyalty to God is not lost on the Chronicler. The subtext of his “sermon” on David’s loyalty may be stated accordingly: Loyalty to God induces the mutual loyalty of the tribes to each other, which results in the blessing of God on Israel. For the Chronicler, nothing less than a similar formula is necessary to restore the postexilic community to the former greatness of Israel united under King David.

The Chronicler views loyalty to God as a catalyst for tribal unity. We must be careful, however, not to reduce this insight into a mechanistic cause-and-effect relationship dependent solely on the emotive and volitional human response of allegiance (to God and/or king). Allen reminds us that in chapters 11–12 we have the “triad of Israel, David, and God cooperating in beautiful harmony.”30 Clearly David is the focal point of the Israelite unity, but the Chronicler unmistakably credits David’s success to the fact that “the LORD Almighty was with him” (11:9). Those defecting from Saul to join with the rival king do so because they also perceive that God’s help rests with David (12:18). Not long afterward all Israel joins together to support David (12:38).

Ultimately, the issue is not one of allegiance conditioned by charismatic personality or military prowess. The psalmist provides ample warning against placing such trust in princes or warriors (Ps. 146:3; 147:10–11). No genuine or lasting help can be found with mortal leaders. Allegiance and loyalty must be rooted in an authority and in principles that transcend human ingenuity and strength. Greater than King Saul or King David is the idea of divinely ordained kingship in Israel (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:1, 13). Greater still is the God of Israel, who has established that sacred office for the purpose of shepherding his people (cf. Ps. 45). This formed the basis, in part, for David’s loyalty to God and explains his reluctance to take any action against Saul despite the repeated attempts against his life by the tormented king (1 Sam. 18:11; 19:1).

David’s loyalty is rewarded and enshrined in a divinely initiated treaty mediated by the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). The divine promises incorporated into this covenant of grant provides for perpetual leadership for the Israelites through a Davidic dynasty, security and rest for Israel among the nations in the land bequeathed to Abraham and Sarah, and the blessing of God’s presence with his people. We must remember that biblical theology tends to be practical theology because God is good (cf. Ps. 25:7–8; 34:8; 100:5). His goodness prompts him to seek the welfare of all through the instrument of Israel as his chosen people and through David as his chosen king (cf. Ps. 86; 89).

The immediately tangible benefits of loyalty to God for the tribes of Israel at David’s accession to the throne included strength, resilience, mutual help in corporate solidarity (12:21–22), a single-mindedness of purpose (12:38), and national joy (12:40). Even as disloyalty to God results in the curse of punishment, so loyalty to God yields the blessing of unity (Ps. 133).

Contemporary Significance

ON LOYALTY. The Chronicler preaches to a people in the throes of crisis, a crisis rooted in issues of allegiance to God and loyalty to each other as fellow Jews. A close reading of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi suggests that early postexilic Judah languishes in apathy and despair. The restoration community is disillusioned with God because they assume his Word had failed, since no David-like king has arisen to shepherd Israel as Jeremiah and Ezekiel promised (cf. Jer. 33:15; Ezek. 34:23–24). In addition, a selfish individualism hinders the development of community spirit as the Jews seek to rebuild after the Exile (Hag. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:12–14). Despite the zealous efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah some two generations earlier, their initiatives for religious and social reform seem to have little lasting impact on the Jerusalem and Judah of the Chronicler’s day.

Two centuries prior to the Chronicler’s “historical sermons,” the prophet Jeremiah pleaded with the ancestors of these people. They too were mired in a crisis of loyalty, glibly dividing their allegiance to Yahweh on the one hand, and the Queen of Heaven on the other (cf. Jer. 7:18–19). Jeremiah forecasted disaster for Judah because of their idolatry, pride, and disregard for social justice (cf. 6:19; 7:9–11; 13:9–10). This was no idle threat on the part of God’s watchman, as the message of the book of Lamentations testifies. The frightening reality of divine judgment took the form of a Babylonian invasion, resulting in the sack of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews from the land of the covenant promise.

Seeking to avert an encore of that catastrophe, the Chronicler echoes Jeremiah’s call to “stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths” (Jer. 6:16). For Jeremiah the “ancient path” was the good way of obedience to God’s law and faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant (cf. Deut. 25:19; 33:12). For the Chronicler, the “ancient path” is one of similar fidelity and loyalty to God—as exemplified in the life of King David.

The writer of Chronicles appeals to David’s example of fierce loyalty to God because the spirit of unity it inspired among the tribes of Israel. After all, support of the Israelite monarchy was essential to the success of the post-exilic community. The Chronicler’s appeal to this earlier historical example is neither a wistful lapse into nostalgia nor a desperate manipulation of Hebrew history for the sake of concocting a magical formula for national success. If we may read accurately between the lines of the Chronicler’s historical “sermon,” he seems to be simply calling his audience to do the right thing—quite apart from the hope of any tangible reward for the individual or the larger community. For the Hebrews the right thing to do—from that first word of promise to Abraham and Sarah to the Mosaic covenant enacted at Sinai and beyond—is to respond to God with unswerving allegiance.

That loyalty to God is not a game chip by which we might barter for God’s favor and blessing was clearly understood by the three Jewish servants of King Nebuchadnezzar. When commanded to disavow the true God and bow to an idol, upon threat of incineration, they refused. They shamelessly confessed to the king that whether God in his infinite wisdom and power chose to deliver them from their peril or not, their oath of loyalty was sworn to him alone (Dan. 3:16–18). As Bennett has compiled in The Book of Virtues:

Our loyalties are important signs of the kinds of persons we have chosen to become. They mark a kind of constancy or steadfastness in our attachments to those other persons, groups, institutions, or ideals with which we have deliberately decided to associate ourselves.31

The Bible, however, is well aware of the relationship between one’s loyalties extrinsically and one’s character intrinsically long before the publication of Bennett’s tome addressing the crisis of character in North American society. For example, Jesus likened the correspondence between the inward character and the outward behavior to the telltale quality of the fruit of trees (Matt. 12:33–37). Inevitably, the loyalties of our heart determine what we count as “treasure” in this life (6:21). To his credit, Bennett has aptly observed that the virtue of loyalty needs to be informed by “both the wisdom to know what the right thing to do is, and the will to do it.”32 The former was certainly no mystery for the Chronicler and his audience. From Moses to Micah, the instruction to the Israelites is consistent and may be easily summarized in two directives: to love God with one’s entire being (Deut. 6:5; or “to walk humbly with … God,” Mic. 6:8) and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self (Lev. 19:18; or “to act justly and to love mercy,” Mic. 6:8).

That these truths are injunctions indicates the will is involved, not just the emotions. Nor is the desired response of obedience to God achieved by the sheer, fist-clenched determination of the suppliant. Rather, allegiance to God is “not too difficult” for the follower of Yahweh because it is accomplished by means of the cooperative work of God’s Spirit (Zech. 4:6). The Chronicler’s summons to show loyalty to God, subtly couched in the biography of King David, echoes Joshua’s charge to “carefully obey” the law of Moses and anticipates Jesus’ teaching about the greatest commandment in the law (Matt. 22:34–40).

The crisis of loyalty addressed by the Chronicler is not as far removed from the Christian church as we might think. Popular culture naturally infiltrates and influences the Christian subculture over the course of time. One example illustrates the point. The contemporary social doctrine of “political correctness” has created a “PC” mindset that now permeates popular culture. To be politically correct means to conform to a belief that language and practices that might offend another sociopolitical or religious group are to be eliminated. As Gaede has noted, the attitude of “tolerance” promoted by the “political correctness” movement erodes loyalty to the God of the Bible by denying the existence of moral and religious absolutes.33

This relativizing of God’s truth as revealed in (Christian) Scripture mutes convictions and thus fosters a pseudo-neutrality that grants the “truth of Islam” or the “truth of Hinduism” as on equal footing with the “truth of Christianity.” Hence, the Christian church is now embroiled in an intramural controversy involving the exclusive claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ and its implications for the doctrine of salvation in this age of religious pluralism.34

In addition to the problem of ambivalence, we also face the challenge of what may be called “competing loyalties.” Veith has rightly observed that the postmodern emphases on pluralism and multicultural awareness have segmented or splintered society into hundreds of subcultures, creating a new tribalism.35 Again, the Christian church has not escaped the effects of this new tribalism as the debates over issues like women’s roles in the church, inclusive-language Bible translation, same-sex marriage, and the ordination of homosexual clergy attest. For these reasons alone, education in biblical morality remains an imperative for the millennial generation of the Christian church.

The Chronicler would have approved of Bennett’s concern for “the time-honored task of the moral education of the young … the training of the heart and mind toward good.”36 He would also agree with the emphasis placed on the need to couple sound instruction with modeling of moral example, although I suspect the Chronicler might take issue with limiting moral education to youth, since the Bible exhorts men and women, young and old, to the daily practice of godly virtues (Deut. 31:12; Titus 2:1–7).

What might that moral education look like in view of the Chronicler’s message? The writing of a primer on moral education lies beyond the scope of this commentary, but I offer these basic categories that seem essential for consideration as a baseline for biblically informed moral education:

• a healthy understanding of what it means to “return” to God in repentance (cf. 2 Chron. 30:6). Only by taking personal responsibility of one’s sin before God can the individual Christian and the Christian church prevent the insidious cancer of “victim status” that ravages the moral fiber of Western society.37

• a thorough knowledge of the Word of God, the Bible (2 Chron. 34:21). In the Old Testament, special attention should be given to the moral law of Moses in the Torah, the precepts of the book of Proverbs as a practical commentary on the Torah, the book of Psalms as an experiential commentary on the Torah, and select minor prophets (e.g., Hosea, Amos) as a hortatory commentary on the Torah. In the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the ethical imperatives of Paul in Romans (chs. 12–14) merit focused study.

• a program of discipleship that takes seriously Paul’s charge to Timothy to “set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). The value of what Bennett calls “the moral power of quiet example” may be seen in both contemporary role models of the Christian faith and virtue and in historical personages, whether by character study of biblical figures or Christian auto/biography. We need the moral example of that “great cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1).38

• a renewed emphasis on teaching the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, especially the biblical injunctions to “be filled with the Spirit” and to “pray in the Spirit on all occasions” (Eph. 5:18; 6:18).

The difference between King Saul and King David is that Saul failed to obey the Word of the Lord (1 Chron. 10:13), so that God’s Spirit eventually departed from him (1 Sam. 16:14). In the end, it was the Spirit of God working through Amasai who engineered the coalition of tribal support for King David (1 Chron. 12:18). It is “‘not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty” (Zech. 4:6).

Original Meaning

Saul’s Burial (10:8–12)

THE CHRONICLER’S NARRATIVE differs from the Samuel parallel in certain details of the reporting of Saul’s death (cf. 1 Sam. 31:1–13). For example, Chronicles omits the beheading of Saul and the public exposure of Saul’s corpse on the city wall of Beth Shan (cf. 31:9–10). The Chronicler adds the detail of Saul’s head displayed as a trophy of war in the temple of Dagon. Earlier the sword of Goliath had been preserved in the Israelite sanctuary as a souvenir of God’s victory over the Philistines through the valor of David. Now King Saul’s armor becomes a relic in the temple of Ashtoreth, symbolizing the Philistine triumph over the Israelites (31:10). More significantly in the minds of the Philistines, the booty is public testimony to the supremacy of Dagon and the Ashtoreths over Yahweh of the Hebrews.

The rescue of the exposed corpses of Saul and his sons by the valiant men of Jabesh Gilead (10:11–12) may have been prompted by King Saul’s deliverance of Jabesh Gilead from the aggression of Nahash the Ammonite (1 Sam. 11:1–11). Burning is mentioned as a penalty for certain sexual sins in Mosaic law (e.g., Lev. 20:14; 21:9; cf. Gen. 38:24). The burning of human remains is mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Amos 6:10 (presumably to prevent the spread of plague during the siege of a city). The remains of Saul and his sons may have been burned (see 1 Sam. 31:12) as an act of purification since their corpses had been desecrated by pagan foes (see 1 Chron. 10:12, although the Chronicler omits the reference to the burning of the remains of Saul and his sons). This may have been necessary for an honorable burial of Israel’s fallen king and princes.

The burial site under “the great tree in Jabesh” was an important local landmark and probably a sacred site. Fasting was a mourning custom in ancient Israel (10:12; cf. 2 Sam. 1:12; 3:35). The seven-day duration of the fast by the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead attest their fierce loyalty and high regard for King Saul. Sometime later the remains of Saul and his sons are exhumed and removed to the family tomb of Kish at Zela in the territory of Benjamin (2 Sam. 21:12–14).

Bridging Contexts

THE CHRONICLER WELL understands the truth of the old adage that “no one declares independence, only allegiance.” The biblical world knows only two paths: the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1). There is no neutrality when it comes to relationship with God. Both the Old and the New Testaments prescribe an unswerving loyalty to God. For example, the stipulations of the Sinai covenant make this unmistakably clear: “You shall have no other gods before me … for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Ex. 20:3–5); and “fear the LORD your God, serve him only … do not follow other gods” (Deut. 6:13–14).

Attempts to maintain divided loyalties are equally forbidden. We need only recall Elijah’s rebuke of Israel in the contest with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). The teachings of Jesus affirm simply but forcibly the exclusive nature of the relationship to God: “He who is not with me is against me,” and “no one can serve two masters … you cannot serve both God and Money” (Matt. 6:24; 12:30).

The heroic story of David’s passage from fugitive to king hinges on the principle of allegiance or loyalty. It was the disloyalty of King Saul that disqualified both him and his descendants from establishing a royal dynasty (10:13–14). In fact, the Chronicler registers three specific counts of disloyalty against King Saul: disobedience to God’s word, consultation with a medium or witch, and a failure to inquire of God (10:13; cf. Saul’s neglect of the ark of the covenant, 13:3). Impetuous Saul sought to balance his divided loyalties to both God and other (Canaanite) gods through the mediation of the prophet Samuel and mediums like the witch of Endor. In an ironic twist, God’s final message to Saul—that of his impending death and the end of his dynasty—was conveyed through the spirit of the dead prophet by means of a terrified medium (cf. 1 Sam. 28). Disloyalty to God inevitably results in disaster, whether Saul on an individual level or Israel on a national level (cf. 1 Chron. 9:1).

By stark contrast, David’s loyalty to God propels him into kingship. The next section of Chronicles preserves concrete examples of David’s loyalty to God, including the return of the ark of the covenant (and hence Yahweh) to the national religious life of Israel (chs. 13–15), the reestablishment of Yahweh and his saving deeds as the centerpiece of worship (ch. 16), and the prayer that David’s dynasty will make known Yahweh as Israel’s God to the nations (17:23–24).

David’s loyalty to God also fosters a like-minded response to David himself among those who recognize him as the Lord’s “anointed.” This included the “disenfranchised” of Israel (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2) and defectors from Saul’s camp (e.g., 1 Chron. 12:2). Eventually David inspires the loyalty of all Israel (12:38). The ripple effect of his loyalty to God is not lost on the Chronicler. The subtext of his “sermon” on David’s loyalty may be stated accordingly: Loyalty to God induces the mutual loyalty of the tribes to each other, which results in the blessing of God on Israel. For the Chronicler, nothing less than a similar formula is necessary to restore the postexilic community to the former greatness of Israel united under King David.

The Chronicler views loyalty to God as a catalyst for tribal unity. We must be careful, however, not to reduce this insight into a mechanistic cause-and-effect relationship dependent solely on the emotive and volitional human response of allegiance (to God and/or king). Allen reminds us that in chapters 11–12 we have the “triad of Israel, David, and God cooperating in beautiful harmony.”30 Clearly David is the focal point of the Israelite unity, but the Chronicler unmistakably credits David’s success to the fact that “the LORD Almighty was with him” (11:9). Those defecting from Saul to join with the rival king do so because they also perceive that God’s help rests with David (12:18). Not long afterward all Israel joins together to support David (12:38).

Ultimately, the issue is not one of allegiance conditioned by charismatic personality or military prowess. The psalmist provides ample warning against placing such trust in princes or warriors (Ps. 146:3; 147:10–11). No genuine or lasting help can be found with mortal leaders. Allegiance and loyalty must be rooted in an authority and in principles that transcend human ingenuity and strength. Greater than King Saul or King David is the idea of divinely ordained kingship in Israel (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:1, 13). Greater still is the God of Israel, who has established that sacred office for the purpose of shepherding his people (cf. Ps. 45). This formed the basis, in part, for David’s loyalty to God and explains his reluctance to take any action against Saul despite the repeated attempts against his life by the tormented king (1 Sam. 18:11; 19:1).

David’s loyalty is rewarded and enshrined in a divinely initiated treaty mediated by the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). The divine promises incorporated into this covenant of grant provides for perpetual leadership for the Israelites through a Davidic dynasty, security and rest for Israel among the nations in the land bequeathed to Abraham and Sarah, and the blessing of God’s presence with his people. We must remember that biblical theology tends to be practical theology because God is good (cf. Ps. 25:7–8; 34:8; 100:5). His goodness prompts him to seek the welfare of all through the instrument of Israel as his chosen people and through David as his chosen king (cf. Ps. 86; 89).

The immediately tangible benefits of loyalty to God for the tribes of Israel at David’s accession to the throne included strength, resilience, mutual help in corporate solidarity (12:21–22), a single-mindedness of purpose (12:38), and national joy (12:40). Even as disloyalty to God results in the curse of punishment, so loyalty to God yields the blessing of unity (Ps. 133).

Contemporary Significance

ON LOYALTY. The Chronicler preaches to a people in the throes of crisis, a crisis rooted in issues of allegiance to God and loyalty to each other as fellow Jews. A close reading of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi suggests that early postexilic Judah languishes in apathy and despair. The restoration community is disillusioned with God because they assume his Word had failed, since no David-like king has arisen to shepherd Israel as Jeremiah and Ezekiel promised (cf. Jer. 33:15; Ezek. 34:23–24). In addition, a selfish individualism hinders the development of community spirit as the Jews seek to rebuild after the Exile (Hag. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:12–14). Despite the zealous efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah some two generations earlier, their initiatives for religious and social reform seem to have little lasting impact on the Jerusalem and Judah of the Chronicler’s day.

Two centuries prior to the Chronicler’s “historical sermons,” the prophet Jeremiah pleaded with the ancestors of these people. They too were mired in a crisis of loyalty, glibly dividing their allegiance to Yahweh on the one hand, and the Queen of Heaven on the other (cf. Jer. 7:18–19). Jeremiah forecasted disaster for Judah because of their idolatry, pride, and disregard for social justice (cf. 6:19; 7:9–11; 13:9–10). This was no idle threat on the part of God’s watchman, as the message of the book of Lamentations testifies. The frightening reality of divine judgment took the form of a Babylonian invasion, resulting in the sack of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews from the land of the covenant promise.

Seeking to avert an encore of that catastrophe, the Chronicler echoes Jeremiah’s call to “stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths” (Jer. 6:16). For Jeremiah the “ancient path” was the good way of obedience to God’s law and faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant (cf. Deut. 25:19; 33:12). For the Chronicler, the “ancient path” is one of similar fidelity and loyalty to God—as exemplified in the life of King David.

The writer of Chronicles appeals to David’s example of fierce loyalty to God because the spirit of unity it inspired among the tribes of Israel. After all, support of the Israelite monarchy was essential to the success of the post-exilic community. The Chronicler’s appeal to this earlier historical example is neither a wistful lapse into nostalgia nor a desperate manipulation of Hebrew history for the sake of concocting a magical formula for national success. If we may read accurately between the lines of the Chronicler’s historical “sermon,” he seems to be simply calling his audience to do the right thing—quite apart from the hope of any tangible reward for the individual or the larger community. For the Hebrews the right thing to do—from that first word of promise to Abraham and Sarah to the Mosaic covenant enacted at Sinai and beyond—is to respond to God with unswerving allegiance.

That loyalty to God is not a game chip by which we might barter for God’s favor and blessing was clearly understood by the three Jewish servants of King Nebuchadnezzar. When commanded to disavow the true God and bow to an idol, upon threat of incineration, they refused. They shamelessly confessed to the king that whether God in his infinite wisdom and power chose to deliver them from their peril or not, their oath of loyalty was sworn to him alone (Dan. 3:16–18). As Bennett has compiled in The Book of Virtues:

Our loyalties are important signs of the kinds of persons we have chosen to become. They mark a kind of constancy or steadfastness in our attachments to those other persons, groups, institutions, or ideals with which we have deliberately decided to associate ourselves.31

The Bible, however, is well aware of the relationship between one’s loyalties extrinsically and one’s character intrinsically long before the publication of Bennett’s tome addressing the crisis of character in North American society. For example, Jesus likened the correspondence between the inward character and the outward behavior to the telltale quality of the fruit of trees (Matt. 12:33–37). Inevitably, the loyalties of our heart determine what we count as “treasure” in this life (6:21). To his credit, Bennett has aptly observed that the virtue of loyalty needs to be informed by “both the wisdom to know what the right thing to do is, and the will to do it.”32 The former was certainly no mystery for the Chronicler and his audience. From Moses to Micah, the instruction to the Israelites is consistent and may be easily summarized in two directives: to love God with one’s entire being (Deut. 6:5; or “to walk humbly with … God,” Mic. 6:8) and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self (Lev. 19:18; or “to act justly and to love mercy,” Mic. 6:8).

That these truths are injunctions indicates the will is involved, not just the emotions. Nor is the desired response of obedience to God achieved by the sheer, fist-clenched determination of the suppliant. Rather, allegiance to God is “not too difficult” for the follower of Yahweh because it is accomplished by means of the cooperative work of God’s Spirit (Zech. 4:6). The Chronicler’s summons to show loyalty to God, subtly couched in the biography of King David, echoes Joshua’s charge to “carefully obey” the law of Moses and anticipates Jesus’ teaching about the greatest commandment in the law (Matt. 22:34–40).

The crisis of loyalty addressed by the Chronicler is not as far removed from the Christian church as we might think. Popular culture naturally infiltrates and influences the Christian subculture over the course of time. One example illustrates the point. The contemporary social doctrine of “political correctness” has created a “PC” mindset that now permeates popular culture. To be politically correct means to conform to a belief that language and practices that might offend another sociopolitical or religious group are to be eliminated. As Gaede has noted, the attitude of “tolerance” promoted by the “political correctness” movement erodes loyalty to the God of the Bible by denying the existence of moral and religious absolutes.33

This relativizing of God’s truth as revealed in (Christian) Scripture mutes convictions and thus fosters a pseudo-neutrality that grants the “truth of Islam” or the “truth of Hinduism” as on equal footing with the “truth of Christianity.” Hence, the Christian church is now embroiled in an intramural controversy involving the exclusive claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ and its implications for the doctrine of salvation in this age of religious pluralism.34

In addition to the problem of ambivalence, we also face the challenge of what may be called “competing loyalties.” Veith has rightly observed that the postmodern emphases on pluralism and multicultural awareness have segmented or splintered society into hundreds of subcultures, creating a new tribalism.35 Again, the Christian church has not escaped the effects of this new tribalism as the debates over issues like women’s roles in the church, inclusive-language Bible translation, same-sex marriage, and the ordination of homosexual clergy attest. For these reasons alone, education in biblical morality remains an imperative for the millennial generation of the Christian church.

The Chronicler would have approved of Bennett’s concern for “the time-honored task of the moral education of the young … the training of the heart and mind toward good.”36 He would also agree with the emphasis placed on the need to couple sound instruction with modeling of moral example, although I suspect the Chronicler might take issue with limiting moral education to youth, since the Bible exhorts men and women, young and old, to the daily practice of godly virtues (Deut. 31:12; Titus 2:1–7).

What might that moral education look like in view of the Chronicler’s message? The writing of a primer on moral education lies beyond the scope of this commentary, but I offer these basic categories that seem essential for consideration as a baseline for biblically informed moral education:

• a healthy understanding of what it means to “return” to God in repentance (cf. 2 Chron. 30:6). Only by taking personal responsibility of one’s sin before God can the individual Christian and the Christian church prevent the insidious cancer of “victim status” that ravages the moral fiber of Western society.37

• a thorough knowledge of the Word of God, the Bible (2 Chron. 34:21). In the Old Testament, special attention should be given to the moral law of Moses in the Torah, the precepts of the book of Proverbs as a practical commentary on the Torah, the book of Psalms as an experiential commentary on the Torah, and select minor prophets (e.g., Hosea, Amos) as a hortatory commentary on the Torah. In the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the ethical imperatives of Paul in Romans (chs. 12–14) merit focused study.

• a program of discipleship that takes seriously Paul’s charge to Timothy to “set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). The value of what Bennett calls “the moral power of quiet example” may be seen in both contemporary role models of the Christian faith and virtue and in historical personages, whether by character study of biblical figures or Christian auto/biography. We need the moral example of that “great cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1).38

• a renewed emphasis on teaching the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, especially the biblical injunctions to “be filled with the Spirit” and to “pray in the Spirit on all occasions” (Eph. 5:18; 6:18).

The difference between King Saul and King David is that Saul failed to obey the Word of the Lord (1 Chron. 10:13), so that God’s Spirit eventually departed from him (1 Sam. 16:14). In the end, it was the Spirit of God working through Amasai who engineered the coalition of tribal support for King David (1 Chron. 12:18). It is “‘not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty” (Zech. 4:6).

Original Meaning

Demise of Saul’s Dynasty (10:13–14)

THE CHRONICLER CONCLUDES the story of Saul’s death with a unique theological commentary on Saul’s reign. Saul fails miserably on three crucial counts: He was unfaithful, he did not keep the word of the Lord (including consultation with a medium or witch, cf. 1 Sam. 28:7–25), and he neglected to seek guidance from the Lord. Unfaithfulness and failure to seek the Lord are prominent themes in Chronicles and inevitably result in divine judgment (e.g., 2 Chron. 12:2, 14; 15:13; 26:16, 18; 28:19, 22).

Saul’s tragic death serves as a grim reminder of God’s sovereignty over Israel and all the nations—a theological truth not lost on the Chronicler’s audience as they languish in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile. The Philistines were merely agents of God’s just punishment of King Saul’s disobedience (even as the Babylonians were instruments of divine judgment in the exile of Judah). Finally, the Chronicler’s narrative of Saul’s death has a twofold purpose: (1) The Israelite kingdom and kingship belong to God; (2) God had good reason for transferring the kingdom from the family of Saul to the family of David.

Bridging Contexts

THE CHRONICLER WELL understands the truth of the old adage that “no one declares independence, only allegiance.” The biblical world knows only two paths: the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1). There is no neutrality when it comes to relationship with God. Both the Old and the New Testaments prescribe an unswerving loyalty to God. For example, the stipulations of the Sinai covenant make this unmistakably clear: “You shall have no other gods before me … for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Ex. 20:3–5); and “fear the LORD your God, serve him only … do not follow other gods” (Deut. 6:13–14).

Attempts to maintain divided loyalties are equally forbidden. We need only recall Elijah’s rebuke of Israel in the contest with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). The teachings of Jesus affirm simply but forcibly the exclusive nature of the relationship to God: “He who is not with me is against me,” and “no one can serve two masters … you cannot serve both God and Money” (Matt. 6:24; 12:30).

The heroic story of David’s passage from fugitive to king hinges on the principle of allegiance or loyalty. It was the disloyalty of King Saul that disqualified both him and his descendants from establishing a royal dynasty (10:13–14). In fact, the Chronicler registers three specific counts of disloyalty against King Saul: disobedience to God’s word, consultation with a medium or witch, and a failure to inquire of God (10:13; cf. Saul’s neglect of the ark of the covenant, 13:3). Impetuous Saul sought to balance his divided loyalties to both God and other (Canaanite) gods through the mediation of the prophet Samuel and mediums like the witch of Endor. In an ironic twist, God’s final message to Saul—that of his impending death and the end of his dynasty—was conveyed through the spirit of the dead prophet by means of a terrified medium (cf. 1 Sam. 28). Disloyalty to God inevitably results in disaster, whether Saul on an individual level or Israel on a national level (cf. 1 Chron. 9:1).

By stark contrast, David’s loyalty to God propels him into kingship. The next section of Chronicles preserves concrete examples of David’s loyalty to God, including the return of the ark of the covenant (and hence Yahweh) to the national religious life of Israel (chs. 13–15), the reestablishment of Yahweh and his saving deeds as the centerpiece of worship (ch. 16), and the prayer that David’s dynasty will make known Yahweh as Israel’s God to the nations (17:23–24).

David’s loyalty to God also fosters a like-minded response to David himself among those who recognize him as the Lord’s “anointed.” This included the “disenfranchised” of Israel (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2) and defectors from Saul’s camp (e.g., 1 Chron. 12:2). Eventually David inspires the loyalty of all Israel (12:38). The ripple effect of his loyalty to God is not lost on the Chronicler. The subtext of his “sermon” on David’s loyalty may be stated accordingly: Loyalty to God induces the mutual loyalty of the tribes to each other, which results in the blessing of God on Israel. For the Chronicler, nothing less than a similar formula is necessary to restore the postexilic community to the former greatness of Israel united under King David.

The Chronicler views loyalty to God as a catalyst for tribal unity. We must be careful, however, not to reduce this insight into a mechanistic cause-and-effect relationship dependent solely on the emotive and volitional human response of allegiance (to God and/or king). Allen reminds us that in chapters 11–12 we have the “triad of Israel, David, and God cooperating in beautiful harmony.”30 Clearly David is the focal point of the Israelite unity, but the Chronicler unmistakably credits David’s success to the fact that “the LORD Almighty was with him” (11:9). Those defecting from Saul to join with the rival king do so because they also perceive that God’s help rests with David (12:18). Not long afterward all Israel joins together to support David (12:38).

Ultimately, the issue is not one of allegiance conditioned by charismatic personality or military prowess. The psalmist provides ample warning against placing such trust in princes or warriors (Ps. 146:3; 147:10–11). No genuine or lasting help can be found with mortal leaders. Allegiance and loyalty must be rooted in an authority and in principles that transcend human ingenuity and strength. Greater than King Saul or King David is the idea of divinely ordained kingship in Israel (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:1, 13). Greater still is the God of Israel, who has established that sacred office for the purpose of shepherding his people (cf. Ps. 45). This formed the basis, in part, for David’s loyalty to God and explains his reluctance to take any action against Saul despite the repeated attempts against his life by the tormented king (1 Sam. 18:11; 19:1).

David’s loyalty is rewarded and enshrined in a divinely initiated treaty mediated by the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). The divine promises incorporated into this covenant of grant provides for perpetual leadership for the Israelites through a Davidic dynasty, security and rest for Israel among the nations in the land bequeathed to Abraham and Sarah, and the blessing of God’s presence with his people. We must remember that biblical theology tends to be practical theology because God is good (cf. Ps. 25:7–8; 34:8; 100:5). His goodness prompts him to seek the welfare of all through the instrument of Israel as his chosen people and through David as his chosen king (cf. Ps. 86; 89).

The immediately tangible benefits of loyalty to God for the tribes of Israel at David’s accession to the throne included strength, resilience, mutual help in corporate solidarity (12:21–22), a single-mindedness of purpose (12:38), and national joy (12:40). Even as disloyalty to God results in the curse of punishment, so loyalty to God yields the blessing of unity (Ps. 133).

Contemporary Significance

ON LOYALTY. The Chronicler preaches to a people in the throes of crisis, a crisis rooted in issues of allegiance to God and loyalty to each other as fellow Jews. A close reading of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi suggests that early postexilic Judah languishes in apathy and despair. The restoration community is disillusioned with God because they assume his Word had failed, since no David-like king has arisen to shepherd Israel as Jeremiah and Ezekiel promised (cf. Jer. 33:15; Ezek. 34:23–24). In addition, a selfish individualism hinders the development of community spirit as the Jews seek to rebuild after the Exile (Hag. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:12–14). Despite the zealous efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah some two generations earlier, their initiatives for religious and social reform seem to have little lasting impact on the Jerusalem and Judah of the Chronicler’s day.

Two centuries prior to the Chronicler’s “historical sermons,” the prophet Jeremiah pleaded with the ancestors of these people. They too were mired in a crisis of loyalty, glibly dividing their allegiance to Yahweh on the one hand, and the Queen of Heaven on the other (cf. Jer. 7:18–19). Jeremiah forecasted disaster for Judah because of their idolatry, pride, and disregard for social justice (cf. 6:19; 7:9–11; 13:9–10). This was no idle threat on the part of God’s watchman, as the message of the book of Lamentations testifies. The frightening reality of divine judgment took the form of a Babylonian invasion, resulting in the sack of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews from the land of the covenant promise.

Seeking to avert an encore of that catastrophe, the Chronicler echoes Jeremiah’s call to “stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths” (Jer. 6:16). For Jeremiah the “ancient path” was the good way of obedience to God’s law and faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant (cf. Deut. 25:19; 33:12). For the Chronicler, the “ancient path” is one of similar fidelity and loyalty to God—as exemplified in the life of King David.

The writer of Chronicles appeals to David’s example of fierce loyalty to God because the spirit of unity it inspired among the tribes of Israel. After all, support of the Israelite monarchy was essential to the success of the post-exilic community. The Chronicler’s appeal to this earlier historical example is neither a wistful lapse into nostalgia nor a desperate manipulation of Hebrew history for the sake of concocting a magical formula for national success. If we may read accurately between the lines of the Chronicler’s historical “sermon,” he seems to be simply calling his audience to do the right thing—quite apart from the hope of any tangible reward for the individual or the larger community. For the Hebrews the right thing to do—from that first word of promise to Abraham and Sarah to the Mosaic covenant enacted at Sinai and beyond—is to respond to God with unswerving allegiance.

That loyalty to God is not a game chip by which we might barter for God’s favor and blessing was clearly understood by the three Jewish servants of King Nebuchadnezzar. When commanded to disavow the true God and bow to an idol, upon threat of incineration, they refused. They shamelessly confessed to the king that whether God in his infinite wisdom and power chose to deliver them from their peril or not, their oath of loyalty was sworn to him alone (Dan. 3:16–18). As Bennett has compiled in The Book of Virtues:

Our loyalties are important signs of the kinds of persons we have chosen to become. They mark a kind of constancy or steadfastness in our attachments to those other persons, groups, institutions, or ideals with which we have deliberately decided to associate ourselves.31

The Bible, however, is well aware of the relationship between one’s loyalties extrinsically and one’s character intrinsically long before the publication of Bennett’s tome addressing the crisis of character in North American society. For example, Jesus likened the correspondence between the inward character and the outward behavior to the telltale quality of the fruit of trees (Matt. 12:33–37). Inevitably, the loyalties of our heart determine what we count as “treasure” in this life (6:21). To his credit, Bennett has aptly observed that the virtue of loyalty needs to be informed by “both the wisdom to know what the right thing to do is, and the will to do it.”32 The former was certainly no mystery for the Chronicler and his audience. From Moses to Micah, the instruction to the Israelites is consistent and may be easily summarized in two directives: to love God with one’s entire being (Deut. 6:5; or “to walk humbly with … God,” Mic. 6:8) and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self (Lev. 19:18; or “to act justly and to love mercy,” Mic. 6:8).

That these truths are injunctions indicates the will is involved, not just the emotions. Nor is the desired response of obedience to God achieved by the sheer, fist-clenched determination of the suppliant. Rather, allegiance to God is “not too difficult” for the follower of Yahweh because it is accomplished by means of the cooperative work of God’s Spirit (Zech. 4:6). The Chronicler’s summons to show loyalty to God, subtly couched in the biography of King David, echoes Joshua’s charge to “carefully obey” the law of Moses and anticipates Jesus’ teaching about the greatest commandment in the law (Matt. 22:34–40).

The crisis of loyalty addressed by the Chronicler is not as far removed from the Christian church as we might think. Popular culture naturally infiltrates and influences the Christian subculture over the course of time. One example illustrates the point. The contemporary social doctrine of “political correctness” has created a “PC” mindset that now permeates popular culture. To be politically correct means to conform to a belief that language and practices that might offend another sociopolitical or religious group are to be eliminated. As Gaede has noted, the attitude of “tolerance” promoted by the “political correctness” movement erodes loyalty to the God of the Bible by denying the existence of moral and religious absolutes.33

This relativizing of God’s truth as revealed in (Christian) Scripture mutes convictions and thus fosters a pseudo-neutrality that grants the “truth of Islam” or the “truth of Hinduism” as on equal footing with the “truth of Christianity.” Hence, the Christian church is now embroiled in an intramural controversy involving the exclusive claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ and its implications for the doctrine of salvation in this age of religious pluralism.34

In addition to the problem of ambivalence, we also face the challenge of what may be called “competing loyalties.” Veith has rightly observed that the postmodern emphases on pluralism and multicultural awareness have segmented or splintered society into hundreds of subcultures, creating a new tribalism.35 Again, the Christian church has not escaped the effects of this new tribalism as the debates over issues like women’s roles in the church, inclusive-language Bible translation, same-sex marriage, and the ordination of homosexual clergy attest. For these reasons alone, education in biblical morality remains an imperative for the millennial generation of the Christian church.

The Chronicler would have approved of Bennett’s concern for “the time-honored task of the moral education of the young … the training of the heart and mind toward good.”36 He would also agree with the emphasis placed on the need to couple sound instruction with modeling of moral example, although I suspect the Chronicler might take issue with limiting moral education to youth, since the Bible exhorts men and women, young and old, to the daily practice of godly virtues (Deut. 31:12; Titus 2:1–7).

What might that moral education look like in view of the Chronicler’s message? The writing of a primer on moral education lies beyond the scope of this commentary, but I offer these basic categories that seem essential for consideration as a baseline for biblically informed moral education:

• a healthy understanding of what it means to “return” to God in repentance (cf. 2 Chron. 30:6). Only by taking personal responsibility of one’s sin before God can the individual Christian and the Christian church prevent the insidious cancer of “victim status” that ravages the moral fiber of Western society.37

• a thorough knowledge of the Word of God, the Bible (2 Chron. 34:21). In the Old Testament, special attention should be given to the moral law of Moses in the Torah, the precepts of the book of Proverbs as a practical commentary on the Torah, the book of Psalms as an experiential commentary on the Torah, and select minor prophets (e.g., Hosea, Amos) as a hortatory commentary on the Torah. In the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the ethical imperatives of Paul in Romans (chs. 12–14) merit focused study.

• a program of discipleship that takes seriously Paul’s charge to Timothy to “set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). The value of what Bennett calls “the moral power of quiet example” may be seen in both contemporary role models of the Christian faith and virtue and in historical personages, whether by character study of biblical figures or Christian auto/biography. We need the moral example of that “great cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1).38

• a renewed emphasis on teaching the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, especially the biblical injunctions to “be filled with the Spirit” and to “pray in the Spirit on all occasions” (Eph. 5:18; 6:18).

The difference between King Saul and King David is that Saul failed to obey the Word of the Lord (1 Chron. 10:13), so that God’s Spirit eventually departed from him (1 Sam. 16:14). In the end, it was the Spirit of God working through Amasai who engineered the coalition of tribal support for King David (1 Chron. 12:18). It is “‘not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty” (Zech. 4:6).