Original Meaning

David’s Census (21:1–22:1)

THE STORY OF DAVID’S census follows the structure of the synoptic parallel in 2 Samuel 24 but is somewhat longer and contains numerous variations peculiar to the literary and theological interests of the Chronicler. Chronicles disconnects the census narrative from its logical counterpart in Samuel, the anger of the Lord against Israel over King Saul’s mistreatment of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21; note the Chronicler omits 2 Sam. 24:1a, “Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel”). The report of David’s sin in the census-taking is somewhat awkwardly placed in the Chronicler’s narrative as well, following as it does the announcement of the Davidic covenant (1 Chron. 17) and the report of David’s military victories (chs. 18–20).

The Chronicler, however, brings his own unique perspective to bear on the census. His primary concern is the relationship of the census-taking story to the centerpiece of his retelling of Israelite history—the Jerusalem temple. The eventual site for Yahweh’s temple becomes the threshing floor David purchases in order to offer sacrifices to stay God’s judgment against Israel for his sin in decreeing the census. The Chronicler emphasizes God’s mercy and forgiveness in responding to David’s prayer and sacrificial offering as he seeks atonement for the census-taking.

In retrospect, the purchase of the threshing floor becomes the foundational event for a series of actions by David to make ready for the building of Yahweh’s temple. In the Chronicler’s mind, what better place for God’s permanent sanctuary than the site identified as the prime location for repentant prayer and divine absolution? As Thompson has aptly noted, God has empowered Israel to defeat their human enemies, and now he provides a place of atonement where they can (at least) hold at bay their spiritual enemy—Satan.2

The genre of David’s census-taking is considered “historical story,” after the pattern of David’s campaign against the Ammonites (19:1–20:3). This story is a self-contained report that recounts how a particular event happened by developing a simple plot with multiple episodes.3 The structural relationship of Chronicles to the Samuel parallel is outlined below:

Braun has conveniently summarized the most significant variations between the accounts of the census-taking in Samuel and Chronicles.4

(1) The Chronicler refers to an “adversary” or “Satan” (so NIV for Heb. śaṭan, 21:1).

(2) Numerous alterations in the Chronicler’s account actually increase David’s culpability in calling for the census of the Israelites (e.g., 21:3, 8, 17).

(3) The story in Chronicles has a stronger emphasis on God’s initiative (e.g., 21:9, 15, 26).

(4) Even as David’s guilt is heightened by the Chronicler, so too his righteousness in seeking God’s mercy to stay the judgment and in his securing of the site of the future temple.

(5) Chronicles places more dramatic emphasis on the intervention of the angel of Yahweh in the sequence of events related to divine judgment.

(6) There is a variance is the tally in Chronicles (1,570,000 militia, 21:5) when compared to the tally in Samuel (1,300,000 militia, 2 Sam. 24:9).

(7) The Chronicler reports God’s acceptance of David’s prayer and sin offering with fire from heaven, just like Elijah’s sacrifice in the contest with the prophets of Baal (cf. 1 Kings 18:38). It is this divine approval that becomes the basis for claiming this threshing floor as the future temple site.

(8) Finally, the Chronicler’s account is overlaid with subtle allusions to other Old Testament events concerned with altars and holy places.

The story of David’s census-taking consists of three main episodes, to which the Chronicler has appended a conclusion: (1) David orders Joab to count the Israelites (21:1–7); (2) God is displeased with David’s census and sends his judgment against Israel (21:8–17); (3) God stays his wrath against Israel by means of David’s sacrificial offering at the threshing floor of Araunah and his securing of that site for the future temple of Yahweh (21:18–27). The conclusion (21:28–22:1) explains the Chronicler’s omission of geographical, chronological, and other details from the earlier parallel in Samuel. The writer artfully develops the spiritual backdrop for the narrative by placing emphasis on the linkage of the location of David’s atonement for the sin of the census with the future site of the temple of Yahweh.

Episode 1 (21:1–7). The first episode offers no rationale for David’s census, although Joab’s objections are duly noted. Essentially there were two reasons for a census-taking in the biblical world: to levy taxes (e.g., Ex. 30:12; Num. 3:40–51) or to register adult males for military service (e.g., Num. 26:1–4). Joab’s report to King David indicates that the purpose of this census is the latter (1 Chron. 21:5). Most likely the tally of the census (1,570,000 fighting men) should be understood as 1,100 units or cohorts (of an unspecified number of soldiers) of militia or even 1,100 “chiefs” or “outstanding warriors” (for the Heb. ʾalapim, “thousand”).5

The harmonization of the tallies given in 2 Samuel 24:9 with those of the Chronicler (1 Chron. 21:5) proves more difficult, but both the rounding off of totals and the omission of certain tribes in the latter tally help explain the variances.

More significant theologically is the Chronicler’s understanding of the role of Satan in inciting David to take the census of Israel (21:1). The word “Satan” is simply the transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning “adversary” (śaṭan); in the Old Testament it is not so much a personal name as it is a role or function. The NIV, however, understands “Satan” as a personal name, the personification of the adversarial function. The fact that the Chronicler attributes the inciting of David’s census to Satan and not to the Lord (as in 2 Sam. 24:1) reveals subtle developments in Old Testament theology from the time of David to that of the Chronicler. As a result of God’s progressive revelation during those intervening centuries, the Hebrews came to understand the agency of Satan in relationship to God and the problem of evil. That is, as sovereign Lord, it is God’s prerogative to use Satan as his agent of testing and/or judgment to accomplish his redemptive purposes in the created order.6 This fact, however, does not absolve David of his personal guilt in the matter.

Episode 2 (21:8–17). This episode opens with David’s confession that he has “sinned greatly” (21:8). Yet the exact nature of David’s sin eludes us. Perhaps he is guilty of some breach of ritual in taking the census since those enrolled for military service were required to pay a ransom of a half-shekel (cf. Ex. 30:12). More likely, however, it seems that the offense is not so much a breach of ritual protocol as it is David’s motive. Joab’s strenuous objection to the king’s request suggests that David orders the census as a tribute to his own strength and power rather than a testimony to God as the true warrior of Israel and the builder of Israel’s army (21:3).

This episode also introduces Gad the prophet as David’s “seer” (21:9; ḥozeh, the title denotes the official diviner of the royal court). God sends him to David in response to the king’s initial prayer of repentance for his action (21:8), and he offers the king three possible punishments as divine judgment for the folly of numbering of Israel (21:10–12). David opts for the punishment of shortest duration and the one most directly controlled by God (21:13). There is a cruel irony in this, though, as God strikes Israel—the very object of David’s foolish pride.7

The reaction of David and the elders of Israel to the sight of the destroying angel suggest they expected greater leniency in submitting to three days of the sword of Yahweh (21:16; note, however, the angel’s sword remains drawn until 21:27!). Only then is David fully aware of the depth of his sin and the horrific consequences of his choice of punishment. All this brings David full circle to reiterate his admission that the census was his doing and that the people of Israel are “sheep,” that is, innocent (21:17).

Episode 3 (21:18–27). This episode continues the involvement of Gad as a mediator in appeasing God’s wrath against Israel on account of David’s census (21:18). Later Gad helps David organize the Levitical musicians (2 Chron. 29:25); he also writes a history of David’s reign (1 Chron. 29:29). The Chronicler interprets the divine command through Gad to build an altar at the site of Araunah’s threshing floor as legitimizing a new altar for the sacrificial worship of the central shrine (cf. 21:28–29). The dire urgency of the situation is seen in the fact that the destroying angel is already at the threshing floor, presumably ready to kill Araunah and his sons (21:20).

The fire sent from heaven on the altar in answer to David’s prayer of mercy is reminiscent of Elijah’s contest with the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:38). The sign of this fire confirms God’s approval of David’s atoning prayer and sacrificial offerings, as evidenced by the staying of the plague (21:26–27).

We must not forget that the sacrificial ritual prescribed by the Mosaic law was God’s means of providing atonement for the sin of his people. Naturally, genuine repentance is a necessary requisite for the ritual act, as David well knows (cf. Ps. 51). McConville has smartly observed that this passage helps us make a distinction, in terms of maintaining an undisturbed relationship with God, between cost that is subjective and cost that is objective.8 The subjective cost of enjoying fellowship with God is the penitence and intercession by the one who seeks to restore relationship with God (as in David’s case here). The objective cost is the divinely ordained sacrificial ritual for atoning for individual and national sin among God’s people. The temple itself was the symbol of that objective cost for the nation of Israel (cf. 2 Chron. 7:12).

The difference in the price paid for Araunah’s threshing floor as recorded in the parallel accounts of the transaction is usually attributed to the cost differential between the threshing floor proper (fifty shekels of silver, 2 Sam. 24:24) and the tract of adjacent land required beyond the site for the altar in order to accommodate the entire temple complex (six hundred shekels of gold, 1 Chron. 21:25). The NIV follows the MT in breaking the paragraph at 21:26, although most biblical commentators understand the report of the destroying angel sheathing his sword (21:27) as the logical conclusion of the episode addressing the staying of divine judgment against Israel.

Conclusion (21:28–22:1). The Chronicler adds a conclusion to this story to demonstrate the God-ordained continuity between worship centered in the Mosaic tabernacle (located in Gibeon) and the future temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. The answer to David’s prayer for God’s mercy by the sign of fire sent from heaven upon the altar is presented as divine confirmation of this shift in the location for Israel’s worship center (21:26). The theological addendum also explains why the Israelite sanctuary is transferred from Gibeon to Jerusalem, since David is unable to go to Gibeon to inquire of the Lord because of the “destroying angel” (cf. 21:16).

The continuity in Israelite worship from the Mosaic tabernacle to the Solomonic temple is further solidified by the association of the temple site with Mount Moriah, the place of Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac (2 Chron. 3:1; cf. Gen. 22:2). God’s responsiveness to David’s prayer and burnt offerings indicate that this site, in one sense, has already become a house of prayer and a temple for sacrifices (cf. 2 Chron. 7:12). The emphatic position of the phrase “to be here” [zeh huʾ ] in the syntax of the original language further underscores David’s understanding that this is to be the site for the new altar and the new house of God (22:1). As Wilcock has noted, the threshing floor of Araunah becomes the meeting place of divine wrath and divine mercy—foreshadowing the cross of Christ.9

Toward bridging contexts. King David’s preparations for the Jerusalem temple highlight two great theological continuities between the Old and New Testaments: the theme of leadership and the theme of worship. Two cues from this section about the debacle of David’s census that point toward the contemporary significance of the larger literary unit (21:1–29:9) are the ideas of that biblical leadership must take responsibility for decision-making—whether good or bad—and that worship is a form of spiritual warfare.

Bridging Contexts

CONTINUITIES. One of the Chronicler’s concerns is to demonstrate the continuity between the reigns of David and Solomon in the passing of the scepter from father to son. Among the “continuities” identified between the two Davidic generations are the imperative to seek God, the priority of obedience to the Torah of God, and the centrality of the worship of Yahweh alone for the well-being of God’s people (cf. 22:11–13; 28:9–10).

What rationale motivates the Chronicler’s search for continuity in the story of Solomon’s succession to David’s throne? Ultimately his interest lies in assuring his audience of the inherent authority, integrity, and goodness of God’s sovereign rule of Israel and the nations for his redemptive purposes. This divine sanction was expressed in two forms: in the validation of the successor as God’s agent to carry on the office and ministry of his predecessor, and in the authentication of that program of service as God’s plan for his people. According to Allen, “the badge of authenticity which the new development must wear is an underlying consistency, whereby the old is not simply repeated but transmuted into the new.”64

The question is how to illustrate this continuity in the transition from the “old” to the “new.” One method the Chronicler uses involves the principle of typology, which “traces between the historical phases of God’s revelations correspondences which serve to endorse them as the ongoing work of the same God.”65

Intertestamental typology is a method of exegesis that establishes historical (and theological) correspondence between Old Testament events, persons, or objects and similar New Testament events, persons, or objects by way of foreshadowing or prototype. Typically, the Old Testament correspondent is identified as the “type”; the New Testament correspondent expressing the Old Testament truth in a greater way is regarded the “antitype.” For example, the writer of Hebrews understands the priesthood of Melchizedek in the Old Testament (Gen. 14:17–24; Ps. 110:4) as the prototype of the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:1–22). In the same manner, the tabernacle (and later the temple) are symbols or types of the new covenant, foreshadowing Christ’s eternal sacrifice for human sin (Heb. 9:6–14).

We might call the Chronicler’s principle of typology “intratestamental typology,” or an innerbiblical exegesis of the Old Testament documents. That is, the Chronicler demonstrates the underlying consistency of the “old” (i.e., David’s reign) and the “new” (i.e., Solomon’s reign) by appealing to earlier precursors as exemplars. Especially striking here are the parallels drawn with the experiences of an earlier pair of Old Testament saints in the transition of leadership. Thus, in describing the preparations for and the construction of the temple of Yahweh, the Chronicler portrays David as a “second” Moses and Solomon as a “second” Joshua.

Specifically, David is prohibited from completing the temple just as Moses was denied the privilege of leading the Hebrews into the land of covenant promise (cf. Num. 20:2–12; 1 Chron. 22:8). Likewise, Solomon exemplifies Joshua in that he, like Joshua, is chosen as a successor privately and then given public acclaim; both are exalted by God, and both lead God’s people into an era of “rest” and “blessing.” Similarly, Joshua and Solomon both receive the same charge in assuming their leadership roles: “Be strong and courageous” (Deut. 31:7; cf. 1 Chron. 22:13) because “the LORD goes before you” (Deut. 31:8, 23; Josh. 1:5, 9; cf. 1 Chron. 22:11, 16), and “he will never leave you nor forsake you” (Deut. 31:8; Josh. 1:5, 9; cf. 1 Chron. 28:20). Naturally, the contemporary value of this charge for the commissioning of any servant of God entering a new work of ministry is self-evident.

Numerous continuities between the Chronicler’s retelling of David’s preparations for the building of Yahweh’s temple and contemporary Christianity may be identified as well. The report of Satan’s “inciting” David to take a census of Israel (1 Chron. 21:1) forces both the ancient and modern reader to consider the idea of theodicy, or the problem of evil and God’s relationship to temptation, sin, pain, and suffering. Granted, dark theological mysteries swirl about this topic, yet a certain pattern in the human predicament emerges in the Old and New Testaments. Each individual is tempted when personal desires drag him or her into sin, and it is Satan who incites that evil desire into sin (1 Chron. 21:1; James 1:14–15). When human beings yield to their own sinful desires and succumb to the temptation of Satan, sin is birthed in wicked and godless behavior (cf. Rom. 1:18–25). God has no recourse but to punish evil—although in one sense sin punishes itself because when sin matures, it births death (James 1:15; cf. 1 Chron. 21:7). Like David, we are without excuse before God in our sin, because “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone” (James 1:13; cf. 1 Chron. 21:8).66

A second link between the message of Chronicles and the teaching of the New Testament is the continuity of intercessory prayer resulting in atonement for sin against God and fellow human beings. After his sin of foolishly numbering the people of Israel, David first confesses his own guilt (21:8), and then he and the elders raise intercession for the people of Israel (21:16–17). David’s intercession results in atoning for the sin of the census-taking, as evidenced by the staying of the plague of God’s judgment against Israel.

There is a great legacy of intercessory prayer among God’s people in the Old Testament, beginning with Abraham and continuing with Moses and the prophets (Gen. 18; Ex. 32:30; Dan. 9). That Old Testament heritage is embodied and ultimately realized in the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ (cf. John 17; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17). As ambassadors of Christ, all Christians are encouraged to carry on this ministry of intercession for everyone (2 Cor. 5:20; 1 Tim. 2:1–2).

Both covenants admit no efficacy in the acts of ritual sacrifice accompanying intercessory prayer but regard them as merely external symbols of internal and spiritual realities (cf. Ps. 51:16–17; Heb. 10:3–7). The complex interplay of divine judgment and mercy is bound up in the holiness and righteousness of the character of God. This means God freely pardons sinners because he is gracious and compassionate and slow to anger (Isa. 55:7; cf. Ex. 34:6). Yet God declares he will not leave the guilty unpunished, for he will someday punish sinners (Ex. 34:7; cf. 32:34). This is why the Lord “is to be feared above all gods” (1 Chron. 16:25; Ps. 96:4).

Additional continuities may be found in the nature and character of priestly duty and Levitical ministry. The Chronicler’s delineation of the differing tasks among the priests and Levites is not to establish a hierarchy of value in the types of temple service rendered. Rather, his intent is to underscore the dignity and equanimity of all the priestly and Levitical service offered to the Lord. As Allen has noted, a part of the Chronicler’s purpose is to call for a “round of applause” for the labors of all the temple ministers.67 McConville has cogently observed that “the readiness of small and great alike to be subject to the random decrees of the ‘lot’ (1 Chron. 25:8) is a testimony to a great humility.”68 The repeated emphasis on the organization of the priestly and Levitical divisions and the orderliness of their temple ministry is noteworthy.

The Chronicler also reiterates the skill and ability with which the priests and Levites apply themselves to the tasks of temple service, especially the duties of Levitical singers and musicians. Such order and excellence are inherent to the proper worship of God, given the holiness that marks his impeccable character. Even the commendable trait of a cooperative spirit may be seen in the flexibility of the Levitical corps to adapt to new responsibilities in light of the new demands created by replacing the portable tent-shrine with a permanent sanctuary.

Each of these characteristics of priestly service and Levitical ministry in the Old Testament has its counterpart in the worship and spiritual life of the church. Though there are differing “gifts” yielding a diversity of functions or ministries in the church, all are bestowed by the same Spirit for the common good (1 Cor. 12:4–7). In a fashion somewhat akin to lot-casting, Paul reminds us that these gifts are distributed as God determines (12:11). This reality should prompt a like-minded humility in the Christian as each considers the manifold grace of God in equipping his church for worship and service to the world. His analogy of the interplay of the spiritual gifts in the life of the church to the interdependence of the parts of the body to the intricacies of bodily functions is well known (12:12–26).

In a related matter, Paul instructs the church that much like the temple worship of the Old Testament, the exercise of these gifts of the Holy Spirit in Christian worship must “be done in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Cor. 14:40). In imitation of the polished skill of priestly and Levitical service, Paul encourages the Christian to adopt “the most excellent way” in one’s worship of God and service to others—the way of love (12:31b–13:13). Even the adaptability of ministry may be mirrored in the spontaneous prompting of the Spirit as the church gathers for worship, naturally tempered by a careful discerning of the spirits (14:26–28; cf. 1 John 4:1–3).

A final example of continuity between the messages of Chronicles and the New Testament is in David’s private charge and public commission to Solomon as his successor to the throne. On both occasions, David admonishes his son to be careful to obey the commandments that the Lord God gave Moses (22:12–13; 28:8). Moses himself summarized the covenant demands of God in one great requirement: “to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees” (Deut. 10:13). Here David uses the same verb as Moses, “to observe” (šmr), in the sense of guard or keep or pay strict attention to practicing God’s decrees. The observance of Yahweh’s covenant law is intertwined with other aspects of personal devotion for the Israelite, including repentance, drawing near to God, and the fear of the Lord (Deut. 4:6–8; 13:3–4).

More important, a lifestyle of covenant obedience was a sign of genuine love for the Lord God on the part of the righteous (Deut. 30:19–20). This willful submission to the authority of divine revelation is still an appropriate response of religious devotion to God. In a similar fashion Jesus challenges his own disciples: “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15). This response of devotion is the litmus test for certifying the true children of God, for those who know Christ and live in him “obey his commands” (1 John 2:3; 3:24).

Beyond this, two exceptional continuities bridging the message of Chronicles to the message of the rest of the Old Testament and the New Testament require special attention. The theological center (and nearly the literary center) of 1–2 Chronicles is the lengthy reports rehearsing the kingships of David and Solomon. The defining achievement of the reigns of this father and son duo is the temple of Yahweh, with David as the planner and Solomon as the builder. Herein lies those two great theological themes that attract our attention: leadership and worship. We will now take a closer look at these two themes.

Contemporary Significance

LEADERSHIP: A DAVIDIC PARADIGM. Leadership is a matter of universal importance, and effective supervision is essential to the survival of any social group, political organization, or religious institution. The impact of good or bad leadership has been felt by every generation of human history. The same is no less true today—and perhaps more so, given the “global village” that the new communications technologies have created. The challenges confronting effective leadership, however, are timeless because basic human needs remain essentially the same regardless of the historical period. Naturally, successful management principles discovered by leaders in bygone eras are often understood to be transferable as the plethora of self-help books appealing to historical figures as models for today’s executives attest.

Biblical characters are frequently among the mix of past heroes and heroines to whom people look as exemplars of a successful leadership “profile.” For example, Moses and Nehemiah from the Old Testament are often singled out as “case studies” of effective management styles.69 The leadership techniques of Jesus himself have been the focus of recent works appealing to New Testament characters as role models for managers.70

But no biblical character is more prominent as an example of leadership than King David. In a previous essay, Gary Herion and I explored how the dynamic variable of individual faith in Yahweh confounded the management functions of planning, organization, direction, and control during David’s reign.71 Another study has examined the correlation between the modes of disclosure or “truth telling” and the shift in the social organization of Israel under the role of David and Solomon (as a monopoly of power and wealth emerged).72 A third example has investigated David from the perspective of multicultural leadership, since he attempted “to balance native Hebrew cultural concepts of inspired religious authority with the more ‘pagan’ concepts of human political authority that pervaded the royal administration of Jerusalem.”73

One example of such an appeal to the life of a biblical character for leadership principles is Calvin Miller’s helpful, but perhaps forgotten, essay on Christian leadership based on the Old Testament story of King David.74 Miller identified practical principles of leadership from the life of David based on the biblical records of Samuel and Kings. I have summarized the salient points of each of his leadership principles below.

(1) Leaders inherently possess strength of character and tend to be “omnicompetent” in terms of capabilities. The gifts of intellect, will, and skill innately possessed by these individuals are projected to others as a sort of “charisma.” The term may be difficult to define, but people generally recognize charisma when they see and experience it. David had charisma. More important than his abilities, however, was the empowerment of the Holy Spirit in his life (1 Sam. 16:13). Biblical leadership is “Spirit-led” leadership. David knew this truth well, having seen the disintegration of Saul as king when the Spirit of the Lord left him (1 Sam. 16:14). This is why David pleaded with God to graciously permit the Holy Spirit to remain with him as Israel’s leader when his sins concerning Uriah and Bathsheba were exposed by the prophet Nathan (Ps. 51:11; cf. 2 Sam 12:7).

(2) Leaders have a sense of self-esteem and self-confidence that enables them to deal with difficult circumstances and endure the criticism of others. Note David’s persistence with his brother Eliab and other members of the Israelite militia in mounting some type of response to the taunts of the Philistine champion Goliath (1 Sam. 17:28–31). David’s positive self-image was in effect a “God-competence,” rooted in obedience to the word of the Lord (a lesson learned from the negative example of King Saul, cf. 15:22). This is why David’s primary concern was God’s reputation, not his own (cf. 17:46–47).

(3) Leaders develop a matrix of relationships that provide the array of “people resources” necessary for success. Miller identifies six categories of friends, each an important link in a leader’s network of relationship. These categories of friendship include convenience friends, special-interest friends, historical friends, crossroads friends, cross-generational friends, and close friends.75 Close friends are indispensable to leaders in times of crisis. David’s covenant of friendship with Saul’s son Jonathan is well known (1 Sam. 18:3–4; 20:8). What is impossible to assess is the course David’s life may have taken had his covenant friend not died in battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (31:2). As one reads the rest of the narrative of David’s life, it appears that he never again had a “close friend” to rely on—a covenant friend like Jonathan.

(4) Leaders are men and women of vision, and where there is no vision people “cast off restraint” (NIV) or “perish” (KJV; Prov. 29:18). Often an idea or vision for future direction emerges from an “axial point,” a crisis situation that opens a new vista and redefines a person’s life. A personal dream or a national vision has the power to enthuse, and “enthusiasm is the energy that drives every successful idea.”76 The vision of leadership also unites people behind a common cause as well as provides a focus for leadership.

David well understood the importance of vision, as demonstrated in his conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6–10). That victory legitimized King David and propelled Israel into nationhood. It also became the impetus for David’s lifelong quest to build a sanctuary for Yahweh in the very city that God helped him capture (cf. 1 Chron. 22:1).

(5) Leaders must be decisive. One example of this principle from the life of David is his decision to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6). That decision was the defining moment of David’s kingship in one sense because it transformed Jerusalem from the city of David to the city inhabited by the living God (2 Sam. 5:9; cf. Ps. 48:1). Despite the initial setback in transporting the ark into Jerusalem, David persevered—a reminder that sometimes decisive leaders must be willing to postpone crucial decisions (cf. 2 Sam. 6:6–7, 12). The example of David teaches us that decision-making begins and ends with God because he relied on God’s “good Spirit” to lead him on level ground as king of Israel (Ps. 143:10).

Organization is foundational to successful leadership. According to Miller, organizing for leadership requires the concepts of defining, structuring, and motivating.77 Defining is formulating a plan for success or charting a course to move an entity from one level of achievement to a higher tier of performance. Structuring is presenting and enacting the project or idea, leading to completion. Motivating others to catch the vision or support the project is essential to successful leadership. There are numerous ways to motivate people to follow one’s leadership, but affirmation, participation, and modeling are the most effective approaches to encourage others. This section of 1 Chronicles (21:1–29:9) offers an excellent illustration of David’s ability to define the vision (i.e., build a house for Yahweh), structure the plan to accomplish the vision, and motivate others to implement and fulfill the vision.

(7) Miller reminds us that although “politics” are inevitably part of the leadership landscape, the word only secondarily emphasizes competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership.78 Godly leadership practices the “politics of grace,” as David demonstrated to the house of Saul in his treatment of Mephibosheth—the son of Jonathan (2 Sam. 9:7).

(8) Effective leadership shares the visibility and responsibility of governance through the delegation of workload to capable subordinates. Moses learned this principle from his father-in-law, Jethro (Ex. 18:21–22). David clearly understood the benefits of delegating authority to others as evidenced by his roster of cabinet appointees (2 Sam. 23:8–17; 1 Chron. 18:14–17). Paul applied this principle in his instructions to Timothy to entrust the message of Christ to others who were reliable (2 Tim. 2:2). Naturally, with the delegation of authority comes accountability—as we learn from Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt. 25:24–30).

(9) Leaders are prone to abuse their power, given the natural inclinations of fallen people in a fallen culture. David was no exception, as his sordid affair with Bathsheba reveals (2 Sam. 11). Servant leaders must always be mindful that they are the beneficiaries of a gracious divine appointment. Would that David had recalled words similar to his later confession, “but who am I?” (29:14), on the fateful day he happened to spy Bathsheba. Yet, David shows us that a servant-leader can survive a grave mistake, an error of judgment, or a near fatal flaw because of God’s mercy. The act of genuine repentance before God, the turning away from sin back to a habit of obedience to God in humility and contrition, results in restoration—even to a place of leadership (cf. Ps. 51). Here again, the words of Jesus remind us that leaders who demonstrate a spirit of forgiveness may receive a similar spirit of charity when they lapse (cf. Matt. 7:12; 18:28).

(10) Those who lead must learn to cope with difficult people—since people are people and nothing more. Fortunately, God is God and nothing less. The Gibeonites were “difficult people” for King David (2 Sam. 21:1–14). Their story reminds us that sometimes leadership must bury “ghosts of the past” created by the misdeeds of their predecessors, lest their “haunting” undo the work of the present and the plans for the future. All the more reason for leaders to have a “sense of history” as they discharge the duties of their position. According to Miller, the key to handing difficult people is twofold: (a) to understand the difference between difficult people and people with difficulties; (b) to respond to the difficult person in love and deal with him or her in private (rather than berating or rebuking in a public setting).79

(11) Effective leadership must be able to flex, adapt, and adjust because “change happens.” Life, society, and organizations are not static. The ability of a leader to adapt to changing times and situations is a direct measure of the “currency” of his or her leadership. One example of adaptation in David’s role as Israel’s king was the shift from “participation” in battle as “commander-in-chief” to “modeling” his generalship behind the “front lines” (cf. 2 Sam. 11:1; 21:15, 17).

Some are quick to criticize David for remaining in Jerusalem and directing the military campaign from afar, since the move led to his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. Yet, David’s wisdom in accepting the counsel of his senior military officer Joab to stay behind is evident. The nation of Israel is still in a formative stage, and the survival and long-term stability of the empire are dependent on David’s leadership as the “lamp of Israel” (cf. 2 Sam. 21:17). The lack of an appropriate successor to carry on David’s legacy at this time in his reign is even more crucial, as the subsequent narrative reveals.

Miller offers four practical suggestions helpful to a flexible management style: the need to address fatigue or burnout in a growing organization, identifying and/or grooming sources of good counsel in a growing organization, sharing the “giants to be killed” through strategic delegation of authority, and recognizing the importance for the leader of a growing organization to maintain vital family relationships.80

(12) Death is the ultimate “delete key.” Miller aptly concludes that “death eliminates the future.… David died on the threshold of other people’s futures.”81 Effective leadership must be a bridge-builder to the future for the sake of the future of others and of the survival of the organization, society, vision, or idea that the leader has championed. The final acts of David’s kingship included naming his successor and providing that individual with all the resources needed to carry on David’s vision for Israel (cf. 21:1–29:9). David built a bridge to the future through Solomon for all Israel for several centuries beyond his own death. Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem was a symbol of God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel and a beacon of hope for the righteousness of God to one day overwhelm the world—as captive Daniel’s prayer toward Jerusalem through those open windows in Babylon testified (Dan. 6:10).

Worship: A Davidic paradigm. King David’s epitaph marks him as a worshiper of God par excellence—a person after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22). What was worship for David and how does he model worship for the Christian and for the church today? Let’s take inventory of those items contributing to David’s understanding of the proper worship of God as preserved in lyrics of his songs and hymns in the Psalter:

• based on a personal knowledge of God, his essential character, and his basic attributes (e.g., Ps. 23; 25)

• involved a whole-person response to God: mind, emotions, will, bodily movement (e.g., Ps. 35:10)

• reflected in a variety of moods, from joy to lament (e.g., Ps. 13:1–2, 5–6)

• sometimes a casual and spontaneous response and other times formal and planned response (e.g., Ps. 3; 63:2)

• sometimes a private response and sometimes a corporate response (e.g., Ps. 26:12; 63:6)

• ordered by a festival calendar (e.g., Ps. 55:17)

• represented and explained at times in symbols, images, and word pictures (e.g., Ps. 18:2)

• rooted in the revealed word of God (e.g., Ps. 18:30; 33:4; 56:4)

• integrated with music as part of the worship response (e.g., Ps. 33:2–3)

• preparation, including confession and repentance, as a prerequisite for worship (e.g., Ps. 15; 24; 51)

• primarily an internal issue, a matter of right heart, attitude, and motive (e.g., Ps. 51:6, 7, 10, 16–17)

• expressed in a variety of rituals, bodily movements, and external actions (e.g., Ps. 20:3; 30:11)

The point here is not to define worship, although David’s worship reinforces the basic understanding of worship as a Spirit-led response to what we believe God has said and done. Nor is the intent to compile a comprehensive list of characteristics that present a complete profile of David as a worshiper of God. Rather, we seek to distill principles from the worship responses of David that will inform our own worship response to God and his mighty deeds of deliverance. As Marva Dawn reminds us, ultimately worship is all about God, as he is both the subject (i.e., our worship is for him and not ourselves) and the object (i.e., our worship is directed toward him) of right worship.82 King David knew this well.

Robert Webber has argued that any historical or comparative study of the practice of Christian worship must take three essential factors into account: content, structure, and style.83 Primary among the three is the content of Christian worship. The headwaters of Christian worship are found in the worship of the Israelites as recorded in the Old Testament. Hebrew worship and devotion were focused solely on the God of creation (Gen. 1:1–2), the God of covenant relationship (12:1–3), the God of redemptive acts in history (Ex. 12–13), and the God of sovereign rule over the nations (Dan. 2:20–21).

The Israelite exodus from Egypt is the redemptive event of the Old Testament because it was in this act that Yahweh “redeemed” his people (cf. Ex. 15:13; Deut. 7:8: 13:5). Throughout the rest of Old Testament history, Yahweh is known as the One who “brought” Israel out of Egypt (e.g., Ex. 12:51; 13:3; Ps. 80:8; Jer. 2:6). The Passover ritual connected with the Exodus foreshadowed the Christ-event of the New Testament, as Paul affirms that Jesus Christ is “our Passover lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7). More specifically, Christian worship remembers and celebrates the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. The content of Christian worship is nonnegotiable, and Christian worship must be judged by its content, not by its structure or style.

For more than twenty centuries the Christian church has raised the question of how to structure the content of worship. How is worship best ordered so that the story of God’s saving work in history is clearly heard and experienced? This means we must deal with “liturgy” in some fashion. The term liturgy is an unsettling one for many evangelical Protestants, but this need not be the case. It simply means “the work or service of the people in public worship.” All corporate Christian worship is liturgical in one sense in that it organizes the responses of the people to the Christ-event in an order of service. The Old Testament, the New Testament, and church history offer numerous models of worship structure, and human beings remain a vital part of the diverse Christian worship tradition.84

The style of Christian worship pertains to the atmosphere and environment in which the structure of worship is enacted. Worship style includes such things as the architecture of the worship space, aesthetic expression in art and music, the dress of worship leaders and the congregation, an active versus passive approach to congregational involvement (including the engagement of all the senses in worship), and the nature of the pulpit ministry. The style of Christian worship may be formal or casual, traditional or contemporary.

Worship style is the one aspect of Christian worship most easily influenced by popular culture. It is probably safe to say that most of the “worship wars” in the church today take place on this front—worship style. One helpful response to this struggle to achieve both substance and relevance in Christian worship today is the idea of “blended worship” or the “convergence of styles,” in which an array of worship styles are incorporated into the worship experience.85

David’s example as a worship leader has much to offer to those who minister in similar roles today.86 The biblical psalms especially provide insight on David’s approach to the worship of God. For our purposes, Psalm 62 may be effectively mined as a case study in worship leadership with the use of a little imagination.87

David understands that worship has a trajectory through two “audiences” before it reaches its primary “target audience”—God himself. This is implicit in his initial focus on himself (Ps. 62:1–7) before his attention shifts to calling the people to “pour out [their] hearts” in worship to God (62:8–10). Finally, God is the ultimate object of the adoration of David and the people (62:11–12). David knows that these steps in process of the worship response to God are vital to preventing worship from degenerating into heartless ritual or crass performance.

As a prelude to leading God’s people in worship, the worship leader must first restore a right relationship with God as the exclusive spiritual resource for one’s life (note that “salvation,” “refuge,” and “honor” are found “in God alone” (Ps. 62:1–2, 5–7). This instills confidence in God, not self (note the repetition of “I will never/not be shaken,” 62:2, 6). The worship leader is thus enabled, indeed empowered, to exhort the congregation to do the same—thus rejecting society’s reliance on status and wealth (62:9–10) for continual and unwavering “trust in him” (v. 8). Once both leader and people have recentered their lives in the absolute trust of God, they are capable of rendering proper worship to him, fully cognizant of his transcendence (“you, O God, are strong,” 62:11) and his immanence (“you, O Lord, are loving,” 62:12). The reminder that God is the supreme judge of all humanity (62:12) both seals and prompts the worshiper’s commitment to “trust in [God] at all times” (62:8).

The worship leader, like a shepherd, knows the basic needs of her or his “flock.” One need not be clairvoyant to determine these basic human needs since they are widely perceived as universal concerns.

Drawing from other resources, Marva Dawn has compiled a list of seven fundamental needs of our being: identity (i.e., who am I?), master story (i.e., how does it all fit together?), loyalty (i.e., to whom do I belong?), values (i.e., by what shall I live?), power (i.e., how can I protect myself?), meaning (i.e., what is the purpose of my life?), and hope (i.e., why should I go on?).88 The experienced worship leader realizes that meeting human needs through the worship experience cannot be “canned” in some programmatic formula. Happily, the content and form of biblical worship inherently address life issues. When the redeemed creature properly worships the Creator and the Redeemer, the needs of our being are fully met. Meeting human need is not the goal of worship, but one of the results of true worship.

An examination of Psalm 62 indicates that David intuitively deals with similar basic human needs in his song of trust. David’s identity and confidence as a man (62:3) and a spiritual being (note the word “soul”) is bound up in God alone (62:1, 5). The idea that David’s “honor” or reputation (62:7) is tied to God’s reputation casts David’s identity as a creature of dignity made in God’s image. That imago Dei built into our make-up as persons means we have divinely endowed capacities to worship God and enter into fellowship with him (Gen. 3:8; Isa. 43:7). Like God himself, the worship leader “shows no partiality” and views every individual as a person made in God’s image and a potential worshiper of God (2 Chron. 19:7; Acts 10:34).

The master story that gives coherence to personal existence and human history is embedded in that word “salvation” (Ps. 62:1, 6). For David, salvation is the record of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and his personal deliverance from political enemies and his own moral failure—his own sin (cf. 3:8; 25:6–11). For the Christian salvation is the record of Christ’s atoning work on the cross and personal deliverance from our moral failure by faith in God’s effective but mysterious redemptive plan for fallen creation.

The master story is also implied in the fact that “God has spoken” (62:11). The spoken word of God has been inscripturated, and the master story of God is a matter of “public record” in the Bible. Worship celebrates the architect of the “master story”—the triune God. The worship leader, like David, loves God by loving his law (or revealed Word) and “stockpiling” it in his or her heart through reading, prayer, meditation, and memorization (18:1; 19:7–11; 40:8; cf. 119:9–16). The worship leader knows well both the Master and his master story.

David’s loyalty is obvious. There is no question as to whom David belongs, as he takes his “rest” (Ps. 62:1) in God as his mighty rock and refuge (62:7). The emphasis on the personal pronoun “my” reinforces David’s conviction that he indeed belongs to God (62:1–2, 5–7). David’s loyalty to God grows out of his understanding of the idea of covenant in the biblical world. A covenant establishes an inviolable relationship between two parties (unlike a contractual relationship). God has pledged himself to be faithful in a covenant relationship, much like a bridegroom to a bride (Jer. 2:2). Both parties guard this sacred trust jealously (Deut. 5:9; Josh. 24:19; Ps. 18:21, 25). The worship leader facilitates the response of covenant loyalty by the worshiper as a part of the worship experience.89

David’s values are exposed by way of negative example in his admonition against trusting in social status, unlawful activity, or wealth to secure identity and meaning in this life (Ps. 62:9–10). On the positive side, David’s values may be seen in “honor” (or a reputation) that is dependent on God (62:7). I believe David understands the “greatest good” taught in the Bible, the two great commandments: to love God with our whole person and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; cf. Ps. 18:1). The worship leader understands how to translate this into the two great sacrifices of the Bible (Heb. 13:15–16): the sacrifice of praise (i.e., worship) and the sacrifice of doing good (i.e., service to others).

David’s need for protection against those who use power against him (Ps. 62:3–4) is fulfilled in the power or might of his “strong” God (62:11). David understands that worship is a form of spiritual warfare (4:2; 14:1–3; 40:4; 95:3; 96:4). The worship leader must be aware of this cosmic battle as well. Like David, we find empowerment for this “battle” in the ministry of the Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11; 143:10).90

The destination of David’s quest for meaning and purpose in life is found in a “loving” Lord who “rewards” each person according to the life he or she has lived (Ps. 62:12). What can make life any more meaningful than divine judgment of that life (cf. Eccl. 12:13–14)? David’s approach to life anticipates the words of Christ, “Well done … faithful servant” (Matt. 25:21), because he understood his life as a pilgrimage to “joy in [God’s] presence” (Ps. 16:11) and everlasting life “in the house of the LORD” (23:6). The worship leader guides a band of “pilgrims” into the joy of God’s presence.

Finally, David’s hope is not something he manufactures by force of will or cleverness of imagination. Rather, his hope comes from God himself (Ps. 62:5) as a result of his relationship with Yahweh—the name of the covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. David’s hope was rooted in his faithful God (25:10; 33:4). The worship leader’s task is to help the worshiper encounter the faithful God in worship.

Like David, the worship leader ushers the faithful into the presence of God in corporate worship in order to gratefully respond to what we believe this one, triune God has said and done (as revealed in the Bible). In so doing, the worship leader discharges a high calling, because the act of worship touches the core of our humanity, fulfills the purpose for which we have been created, and prepares us for our “normal employment” in the next life—eternal worship in the heavenly realm.

Original Meaning

Preparations for the Temple (22:2–19)

THE REPORT OF David’s preparations for building the temple have no parallel in the books of Samuel or Kings. In fact, while there are allusions in the earlier texts, there are no parallels for this entire literary unit (chs. 22–29). Yet, Selman has noted that the thematic framework for these chapters is borrowed from 1 Kings 2:1–12, which begins with David’s impending death (1 Chron. 22:5) and concludes with the formulaic summary of David’s reign (29:26–30).10

In 22:2–19 the spotlight shifts from a focus on David alone (cf. ch. 21) to a wider angle that highlights the relationship between David and his son and successor, Solomon. Repeated words and phrases indicate that the chapter is all about providing materials and preparing Solomon and Israel’s leaders to build the temple of Yahweh (“build” [bnh] occurs nine times, 22:2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19; the verb to “provide” or “make preparation” [kwn in the Hiphil] occurs five times in 22:3, 5, 14). David’s “extensive preparations” (22:5) for the temple included readying Solomon to accept the charge to build a house for God (22:6–13), making provision for the building materials and skilled laborers (22:14–16), and establishing support for the project among the leadership of Israel (22:17–19). No doubt the Chronicler regards this concern for preparation before embarking on the work of God an important lesson for his own audience.

David conscripts workers and gathers materials (22:2–5). The emphasis in this paragraph is on the comprehensive nature of David’s preparations for the building of the temple. The proximity of his own death and Solomon’s youth and inexperience combine to motivate David’s remarkable effort to organize the labor and secure the raw materials for the monumental project. In one sense, David is the prefabricator of Solomon’s temple. The Chronicler stresses the great quantities of materials involved as justification for the superlatives used to describe the edifice on the drawing board—“magnificence” and “splendor” (note the repetition of Heb. larob, “great, more, many” in 22:3, 4, 5).

Four types of craftsmen are drafted into service as laborers for the temple project: stonecutters, masons, carpenters, and metal workers (22:2, 15; cf. 2 Chron. 2:17–18). The “aliens” (1 Chron. 22:2) are non-Israelite inhabitants of territories occupied and controlled by Israel. David’s conscription of “aliens” fits the pattern in the ancient Near East of using prisoners of war and subjugated people as forced laborers for major building projects. Typically, the resident aliens were free citizens with limited legal rights. They enjoyed the rights of assistance, protection, and religious participation in the Israelite community under Mosaic law (Deut. 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:14). The alien was under divine protection, and the Israelites were to love aliens as themselves, since they had been aliens once in Egypt (Deut. 10:18–19). It is assumed these legal principles inform the Israelite treatment of the aliens levied in the labor details. We know from the register of David’s cabinet members that Adoniram is supervisor of the forced labor units, a position he held under kings Solomon and Rehoboam as well (2 Sam. 20:24; cf. 1 Kings 12:18).

The temple craftsmen work with four types of raw materials: stone, iron, bronze, and wood (22:2–4). The gifts of gold, silver, and semiprecious and precious stones for the decoration of the temple are reported at the end of this larger section (29:1–9). The stone was probably limestone quarried near Jerusalem. Previously it was reported that some of the bronze taken as booty in David’s wars was given to the sanctuary treasuries (18:8, 11). David’s defeat of the Philistines may have provided the iron for the building project (cf. 12:19–22).

Some of the raw materials were probably secured through trade agreements of some sort, much like Solomon’s bartering with the king of Phoenician Tyre for additional lumber with payments of grain (1 Kings 5:10–12). The cedar timbers imported from the Sidonians and Tyrians are one of the temple’s outstanding features (cf. 1 Chron. 17:1, 6). These logs are one of the defining characteristics of the second temple as well (cf. Ezra 3:7). Selman has reminded us, however, that the magnificence and splendor of Yahweh’s temple is not about the celebration of the edifice as an architectural wonder.11 Rather, the temple is a theological statement to the nations (1 Chron. 22:5) about God’s faithfulness to his covenant with David and the embodiment of his kingdom in the Israelite monarchy.

David’s charge to Solomon (22:6–16). The suggestion that chapters 22–29 are an expansion of the report of David’s “last days” in office has considerable merit (cf. 1 Kings 2:1–12).12 If this is indeed the case, the events narrated in 1 Chronicles 22 and 28–29 may have taken place during a brief coregency shared by David and Solomon after the coup of Adonijah (1 Kings 1). It is likely, then, that David’s counsel recorded here in 1 Chronicles 22:6–16 is a private charge to his son Solomon to build Yahweh’s temple, in anticipation of the later public commissioning of the crown prince (cf. 28:9–10). The section contrasts David as a “man of wars” with Solomon as a “man of peace and rest” (22:9) and is laden with allusions to Joshua’s succession of Moses as Israel’s leader (cf. Deut. 31; Josh. 1).

While the introduction to David’s charge to Solomon (22:7–10) contains no explicit references to 2 Samuel 7 or 1 Chronicles 17, the passage is generally understood to be a commentary of sorts on the Davidic covenant. The prophet Nathan’s announcing the Davidic dynasty has been amplified in three ways: David may not build Yahweh’s temple, Solomon may build the temple because the land now has “rest,” and Solomon is recognized as the heir of the promise for the continuation of Davidic kingship (cf. 17:11).

The prohibition restraining David as the builder of the temple (22:8) is not mentioned in the formulation of the Davidic covenant (cf. 2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). It is often suggested that David’s disqualification as the builder is the result of some type of ritual uncleanness because he “shed much blood” (1 Chron. 22:8). Yet the reports of David’s wars sound no indictment of his military campaigns but rather place them in the context of doing God’s bidding in bringing “rest” to the land (cf. 1 Kings 5:3–4). Possibly David’s disqualification is simply a foil to heighten the peace and rest secured by David but enjoyed by Solomon as the necessary preconditions for building the temple (cf. Deut. 12:11). Selman appropriately informs us that Yahweh’s temple not only points to God’s gift of peace and forgiveness to Israel (and the nations) but also stands as a symbol of his faithfulness in keeping promises about the land bequeathed to Abraham—only fully realized during King Solomon’s reign.13

The repetition of theme and the transfer of royal authority from David to Solomon reflect the commissioning of Joshua by Moses as his successor (22:11–13; cf. Deut. 31; Josh. 1). For example, both Moses and David are disqualified from achieving their ultimate goals, while both Joshua and Solomon lead God’s people into an era of “rest” and “blessing.” Beyond this, the language of David’s charge to Solomon clearly demonstrates the influence of the parallel event. Specifically, the invocation “the LORD be with you” (1 Chron. 22:11) occurs in both accounts of Moses’ charge to Joshua (cf. Deut. 31:6, 8, 23; Josh. 1:5, 9). The statement “when [the LORD] puts you in command” has parallels in Deuteronomy 31:14, 23 and Joshua 1:9. Likewise, the exhortations to “be strong … do not be afraid” (1 Chron. 22:13) have their counterparts in Deuteronomy 31:7, 23; Joshua 1:6, 7, 9. All this has led some to identify David as a “second” Moses and Solomon as a “second” Joshua. Whether addressed to Joshua or Solomon or the Christian servant today, the exhortation has retained its currency!

The phrase “discretion and understanding” (śekel ubinah, 22:12) occurs elsewhere only in King Hiram’s letter to King Solomon, affirming these qualities in David’s successor (2 Chron. 2:12). This expression combines the ideas of intelligence and insight. As in the case of Joshua’s commission, however, true wisdom is connected to obedience to God’s law (Josh. 1:7–8). King Solomon himself prays for such wisdom as he begins the task of building Yahweh’s temple (cf. 1 Kings 3:6–9). This emphasis on law-keeping provides the theological foundation for the Chronicler’s retribution principle (i.e., divine blessing or curse based on the response to God’s law) since Solomon’s success is conditioned by observance of the law (cf. 1 Chron. 28:9).

David’s actual charge to Solomon to build the temple is an invocation or prayer that offers encouragement, delineates the task at hand, and gives assurance of divine help. This threefold structure has been identified as the pattern in what is called the “induction into office” formula in Old Testament literature. Typically, the induction formula begins with a word of encouragement to the one about to enter the office. It then includes a description of the task to which the individual is called and concludes with the promise of divine accompaniment as enablement for the successful completion of the commission (cf. Moses’ charge to Joshua, Josh. 1:6–9).14 In this case, the installation of office formula authorizes or establishes Solomon as the builder of Yahweh’s temple. The installation formula reminds Solomon (and the Chronicler’s audience) that God’s call invariably includes the means to accomplish it—even as Moses learned when God called him and equipped him to deliver Israel from Egypt (cf. Ex. 3–4).

Many scholars consider the astronomical amounts of gold and silver that David provides for the temple project a form of hyperbole common in the biblical world (22:14; cf. NIV text notes: 3,750 tons of gold and 37,500 tons of silver). To these scholars, the hyperbole means that David gathers materials in quantities “beyond measure” or that he spares no expense in making extravagant provisions for Yahweh’s temple. Payne, one of the few commentators willing to assert the factuality of the fabulous amounts of precious metals stockpiled by David, says that “the historical reliability of these two passages in 1 Chronicles is better explained by ‘the special providence of God, in bestowing on His servant David a weight of riches commensurate with their intended employment for the house of His glory.’”15

Whether or not the Chronicler’s figures are a literary device or reflect reality, most biblical commentators miss the main focus, which is not on the opulence of the temple but on David’s understanding of the inestimable worth of God (cf. Ps. 68). More practically, the inventory of materials and roster of ready workers mean that any delay in commencing with the building project is unnecessary because everything is in place to begin construction (22:14–15). The repetition of two elements of the installation formula framing David’s charge to Solomon reinforce his commission as temple builder (“now begin the work,” 22:16b) and acknowledge that the project will succeed only with God’s help (“the LORD be with you,” 22:16c).

David’s charge to Israel’s leaders (22:17–19). Following the private charge to Solomon, David issues a royal edict (22:17) to all the leaders of Israel, who are expected to “help” Solomon—a tacit admission that undertaking a building project of this magnitude demands the full support of the nation. The word “help” (ʿezer) recalls the “help” David received earlier from the people of Israel (cf. 12:1, 18 [2×], 21, 22). The occasion for this summons to the leaders is unknown, although it may have been associated with the general assembly of the nation to witness David’s public charge to Solomon (28:1, 8). Previously Moses indicated that a God-given “rest” from their enemies was a precondition for building a sanctuary for the Lord (Deut. 12:10–11). Through the rule of King David God has granted that “rest” (nawḥ) so that the land of the covenant promise is now subject to the Lord and his people (1 Chron. 22:18).

The same contingency for success given to Solomon applies to the leaders of Israel (cf. 22:12). They too must “seek” the Lord, recognizing that this is the act of obedience to God’s law, not a search for divine guidance.16 David envisions two distinct purposes for the temple as the sanctuary of God: housing the sacred vessels and furniture essential to Israel’s worship, especially the ark of the covenant, and exalting the name of the Lord before his people and the nations (22:19; cf. 2 Chron. 5:5 on the “sacred furnishings” of the Tent of Meeting that are transferred to the temple). The rhetorical question affirming God’s presence with the leaders assures them that God’s interests do not lie with Solomon alone (22:18; cf. 22:11). The phrase “God be with you” is a covenant formula and has implications for the “Immanuel” theology that will continue with the temple even as it began with the tabernacle (cf. Ex. 25:8).

Toward bridging contexts. King David’s preparations for the building of the Jerusalem temple highlight two great theological continuities between the Old and New Testaments: the theme of leadership and the theme of worship. One theme from chapter 22, in which David takes steps to secure both the raw materials and labor for building the temple, that points toward the contemporary significance of the larger literary unit (21:1–29:9) is the understanding that Yahweh will be exalted among the nations (22:5). From the beginning, God’s redemptive plan has been directed to the nations—starting with the promise to bless all nations through Abram and Sarai (Gen. 12:1–3), being fulfilled in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who is the light of revelation for the nations and the glory of Israel (Luke 2:30–32), and evident eternally in the worship of people from every nation (Rev. 5:9–10).

Bridging Contexts

CONTINUITIES. One of the Chronicler’s concerns is to demonstrate the continuity between the reigns of David and Solomon in the passing of the scepter from father to son. Among the “continuities” identified between the two Davidic generations are the imperative to seek God, the priority of obedience to the Torah of God, and the centrality of the worship of Yahweh alone for the well-being of God’s people (cf. 22:11–13; 28:9–10).

What rationale motivates the Chronicler’s search for continuity in the story of Solomon’s succession to David’s throne? Ultimately his interest lies in assuring his audience of the inherent authority, integrity, and goodness of God’s sovereign rule of Israel and the nations for his redemptive purposes. This divine sanction was expressed in two forms: in the validation of the successor as God’s agent to carry on the office and ministry of his predecessor, and in the authentication of that program of service as God’s plan for his people. According to Allen, “the badge of authenticity which the new development must wear is an underlying consistency, whereby the old is not simply repeated but transmuted into the new.”64

The question is how to illustrate this continuity in the transition from the “old” to the “new.” One method the Chronicler uses involves the principle of typology, which “traces between the historical phases of God’s revelations correspondences which serve to endorse them as the ongoing work of the same God.”65

Intertestamental typology is a method of exegesis that establishes historical (and theological) correspondence between Old Testament events, persons, or objects and similar New Testament events, persons, or objects by way of foreshadowing or prototype. Typically, the Old Testament correspondent is identified as the “type”; the New Testament correspondent expressing the Old Testament truth in a greater way is regarded the “antitype.” For example, the writer of Hebrews understands the priesthood of Melchizedek in the Old Testament (Gen. 14:17–24; Ps. 110:4) as the prototype of the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:1–22). In the same manner, the tabernacle (and later the temple) are symbols or types of the new covenant, foreshadowing Christ’s eternal sacrifice for human sin (Heb. 9:6–14).

We might call the Chronicler’s principle of typology “intratestamental typology,” or an innerbiblical exegesis of the Old Testament documents. That is, the Chronicler demonstrates the underlying consistency of the “old” (i.e., David’s reign) and the “new” (i.e., Solomon’s reign) by appealing to earlier precursors as exemplars. Especially striking here are the parallels drawn with the experiences of an earlier pair of Old Testament saints in the transition of leadership. Thus, in describing the preparations for and the construction of the temple of Yahweh, the Chronicler portrays David as a “second” Moses and Solomon as a “second” Joshua.

Specifically, David is prohibited from completing the temple just as Moses was denied the privilege of leading the Hebrews into the land of covenant promise (cf. Num. 20:2–12; 1 Chron. 22:8). Likewise, Solomon exemplifies Joshua in that he, like Joshua, is chosen as a successor privately and then given public acclaim; both are exalted by God, and both lead God’s people into an era of “rest” and “blessing.” Similarly, Joshua and Solomon both receive the same charge in assuming their leadership roles: “Be strong and courageous” (Deut. 31:7; cf. 1 Chron. 22:13) because “the LORD goes before you” (Deut. 31:8, 23; Josh. 1:5, 9; cf. 1 Chron. 22:11, 16), and “he will never leave you nor forsake you” (Deut. 31:8; Josh. 1:5, 9; cf. 1 Chron. 28:20). Naturally, the contemporary value of this charge for the commissioning of any servant of God entering a new work of ministry is self-evident.

Numerous continuities between the Chronicler’s retelling of David’s preparations for the building of Yahweh’s temple and contemporary Christianity may be identified as well. The report of Satan’s “inciting” David to take a census of Israel (1 Chron. 21:1) forces both the ancient and modern reader to consider the idea of theodicy, or the problem of evil and God’s relationship to temptation, sin, pain, and suffering. Granted, dark theological mysteries swirl about this topic, yet a certain pattern in the human predicament emerges in the Old and New Testaments. Each individual is tempted when personal desires drag him or her into sin, and it is Satan who incites that evil desire into sin (1 Chron. 21:1; James 1:14–15). When human beings yield to their own sinful desires and succumb to the temptation of Satan, sin is birthed in wicked and godless behavior (cf. Rom. 1:18–25). God has no recourse but to punish evil—although in one sense sin punishes itself because when sin matures, it births death (James 1:15; cf. 1 Chron. 21:7). Like David, we are without excuse before God in our sin, because “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone” (James 1:13; cf. 1 Chron. 21:8).66

A second link between the message of Chronicles and the teaching of the New Testament is the continuity of intercessory prayer resulting in atonement for sin against God and fellow human beings. After his sin of foolishly numbering the people of Israel, David first confesses his own guilt (21:8), and then he and the elders raise intercession for the people of Israel (21:16–17). David’s intercession results in atoning for the sin of the census-taking, as evidenced by the staying of the plague of God’s judgment against Israel.

There is a great legacy of intercessory prayer among God’s people in the Old Testament, beginning with Abraham and continuing with Moses and the prophets (Gen. 18; Ex. 32:30; Dan. 9). That Old Testament heritage is embodied and ultimately realized in the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ (cf. John 17; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17). As ambassadors of Christ, all Christians are encouraged to carry on this ministry of intercession for everyone (2 Cor. 5:20; 1 Tim. 2:1–2).

Both covenants admit no efficacy in the acts of ritual sacrifice accompanying intercessory prayer but regard them as merely external symbols of internal and spiritual realities (cf. Ps. 51:16–17; Heb. 10:3–7). The complex interplay of divine judgment and mercy is bound up in the holiness and righteousness of the character of God. This means God freely pardons sinners because he is gracious and compassionate and slow to anger (Isa. 55:7; cf. Ex. 34:6). Yet God declares he will not leave the guilty unpunished, for he will someday punish sinners (Ex. 34:7; cf. 32:34). This is why the Lord “is to be feared above all gods” (1 Chron. 16:25; Ps. 96:4).

Additional continuities may be found in the nature and character of priestly duty and Levitical ministry. The Chronicler’s delineation of the differing tasks among the priests and Levites is not to establish a hierarchy of value in the types of temple service rendered. Rather, his intent is to underscore the dignity and equanimity of all the priestly and Levitical service offered to the Lord. As Allen has noted, a part of the Chronicler’s purpose is to call for a “round of applause” for the labors of all the temple ministers.67 McConville has cogently observed that “the readiness of small and great alike to be subject to the random decrees of the ‘lot’ (1 Chron. 25:8) is a testimony to a great humility.”68 The repeated emphasis on the organization of the priestly and Levitical divisions and the orderliness of their temple ministry is noteworthy.

The Chronicler also reiterates the skill and ability with which the priests and Levites apply themselves to the tasks of temple service, especially the duties of Levitical singers and musicians. Such order and excellence are inherent to the proper worship of God, given the holiness that marks his impeccable character. Even the commendable trait of a cooperative spirit may be seen in the flexibility of the Levitical corps to adapt to new responsibilities in light of the new demands created by replacing the portable tent-shrine with a permanent sanctuary.

Each of these characteristics of priestly service and Levitical ministry in the Old Testament has its counterpart in the worship and spiritual life of the church. Though there are differing “gifts” yielding a diversity of functions or ministries in the church, all are bestowed by the same Spirit for the common good (1 Cor. 12:4–7). In a fashion somewhat akin to lot-casting, Paul reminds us that these gifts are distributed as God determines (12:11). This reality should prompt a like-minded humility in the Christian as each considers the manifold grace of God in equipping his church for worship and service to the world. His analogy of the interplay of the spiritual gifts in the life of the church to the interdependence of the parts of the body to the intricacies of bodily functions is well known (12:12–26).

In a related matter, Paul instructs the church that much like the temple worship of the Old Testament, the exercise of these gifts of the Holy Spirit in Christian worship must “be done in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Cor. 14:40). In imitation of the polished skill of priestly and Levitical service, Paul encourages the Christian to adopt “the most excellent way” in one’s worship of God and service to others—the way of love (12:31b–13:13). Even the adaptability of ministry may be mirrored in the spontaneous prompting of the Spirit as the church gathers for worship, naturally tempered by a careful discerning of the spirits (14:26–28; cf. 1 John 4:1–3).

A final example of continuity between the messages of Chronicles and the New Testament is in David’s private charge and public commission to Solomon as his successor to the throne. On both occasions, David admonishes his son to be careful to obey the commandments that the Lord God gave Moses (22:12–13; 28:8). Moses himself summarized the covenant demands of God in one great requirement: “to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees” (Deut. 10:13). Here David uses the same verb as Moses, “to observe” (šmr), in the sense of guard or keep or pay strict attention to practicing God’s decrees. The observance of Yahweh’s covenant law is intertwined with other aspects of personal devotion for the Israelite, including repentance, drawing near to God, and the fear of the Lord (Deut. 4:6–8; 13:3–4).

More important, a lifestyle of covenant obedience was a sign of genuine love for the Lord God on the part of the righteous (Deut. 30:19–20). This willful submission to the authority of divine revelation is still an appropriate response of religious devotion to God. In a similar fashion Jesus challenges his own disciples: “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15). This response of devotion is the litmus test for certifying the true children of God, for those who know Christ and live in him “obey his commands” (1 John 2:3; 3:24).

Beyond this, two exceptional continuities bridging the message of Chronicles to the message of the rest of the Old Testament and the New Testament require special attention. The theological center (and nearly the literary center) of 1–2 Chronicles is the lengthy reports rehearsing the kingships of David and Solomon. The defining achievement of the reigns of this father and son duo is the temple of Yahweh, with David as the planner and Solomon as the builder. Herein lies those two great theological themes that attract our attention: leadership and worship. We will now take a closer look at these two themes.

Contemporary Significance

LEADERSHIP: A DAVIDIC PARADIGM. Leadership is a matter of universal importance, and effective supervision is essential to the survival of any social group, political organization, or religious institution. The impact of good or bad leadership has been felt by every generation of human history. The same is no less true today—and perhaps more so, given the “global village” that the new communications technologies have created. The challenges confronting effective leadership, however, are timeless because basic human needs remain essentially the same regardless of the historical period. Naturally, successful management principles discovered by leaders in bygone eras are often understood to be transferable as the plethora of self-help books appealing to historical figures as models for today’s executives attest.

Biblical characters are frequently among the mix of past heroes and heroines to whom people look as exemplars of a successful leadership “profile.” For example, Moses and Nehemiah from the Old Testament are often singled out as “case studies” of effective management styles.69 The leadership techniques of Jesus himself have been the focus of recent works appealing to New Testament characters as role models for managers.70

But no biblical character is more prominent as an example of leadership than King David. In a previous essay, Gary Herion and I explored how the dynamic variable of individual faith in Yahweh confounded the management functions of planning, organization, direction, and control during David’s reign.71 Another study has examined the correlation between the modes of disclosure or “truth telling” and the shift in the social organization of Israel under the role of David and Solomon (as a monopoly of power and wealth emerged).72 A third example has investigated David from the perspective of multicultural leadership, since he attempted “to balance native Hebrew cultural concepts of inspired religious authority with the more ‘pagan’ concepts of human political authority that pervaded the royal administration of Jerusalem.”73

One example of such an appeal to the life of a biblical character for leadership principles is Calvin Miller’s helpful, but perhaps forgotten, essay on Christian leadership based on the Old Testament story of King David.74 Miller identified practical principles of leadership from the life of David based on the biblical records of Samuel and Kings. I have summarized the salient points of each of his leadership principles below.

(1) Leaders inherently possess strength of character and tend to be “omnicompetent” in terms of capabilities. The gifts of intellect, will, and skill innately possessed by these individuals are projected to others as a sort of “charisma.” The term may be difficult to define, but people generally recognize charisma when they see and experience it. David had charisma. More important than his abilities, however, was the empowerment of the Holy Spirit in his life (1 Sam. 16:13). Biblical leadership is “Spirit-led” leadership. David knew this truth well, having seen the disintegration of Saul as king when the Spirit of the Lord left him (1 Sam. 16:14). This is why David pleaded with God to graciously permit the Holy Spirit to remain with him as Israel’s leader when his sins concerning Uriah and Bathsheba were exposed by the prophet Nathan (Ps. 51:11; cf. 2 Sam 12:7).

(2) Leaders have a sense of self-esteem and self-confidence that enables them to deal with difficult circumstances and endure the criticism of others. Note David’s persistence with his brother Eliab and other members of the Israelite militia in mounting some type of response to the taunts of the Philistine champion Goliath (1 Sam. 17:28–31). David’s positive self-image was in effect a “God-competence,” rooted in obedience to the word of the Lord (a lesson learned from the negative example of King Saul, cf. 15:22). This is why David’s primary concern was God’s reputation, not his own (cf. 17:46–47).

(3) Leaders develop a matrix of relationships that provide the array of “people resources” necessary for success. Miller identifies six categories of friends, each an important link in a leader’s network of relationship. These categories of friendship include convenience friends, special-interest friends, historical friends, crossroads friends, cross-generational friends, and close friends.75 Close friends are indispensable to leaders in times of crisis. David’s covenant of friendship with Saul’s son Jonathan is well known (1 Sam. 18:3–4; 20:8). What is impossible to assess is the course David’s life may have taken had his covenant friend not died in battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (31:2). As one reads the rest of the narrative of David’s life, it appears that he never again had a “close friend” to rely on—a covenant friend like Jonathan.

(4) Leaders are men and women of vision, and where there is no vision people “cast off restraint” (NIV) or “perish” (KJV; Prov. 29:18). Often an idea or vision for future direction emerges from an “axial point,” a crisis situation that opens a new vista and redefines a person’s life. A personal dream or a national vision has the power to enthuse, and “enthusiasm is the energy that drives every successful idea.”76 The vision of leadership also unites people behind a common cause as well as provides a focus for leadership.

David well understood the importance of vision, as demonstrated in his conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6–10). That victory legitimized King David and propelled Israel into nationhood. It also became the impetus for David’s lifelong quest to build a sanctuary for Yahweh in the very city that God helped him capture (cf. 1 Chron. 22:1).

(5) Leaders must be decisive. One example of this principle from the life of David is his decision to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6). That decision was the defining moment of David’s kingship in one sense because it transformed Jerusalem from the city of David to the city inhabited by the living God (2 Sam. 5:9; cf. Ps. 48:1). Despite the initial setback in transporting the ark into Jerusalem, David persevered—a reminder that sometimes decisive leaders must be willing to postpone crucial decisions (cf. 2 Sam. 6:6–7, 12). The example of David teaches us that decision-making begins and ends with God because he relied on God’s “good Spirit” to lead him on level ground as king of Israel (Ps. 143:10).

Organization is foundational to successful leadership. According to Miller, organizing for leadership requires the concepts of defining, structuring, and motivating.77 Defining is formulating a plan for success or charting a course to move an entity from one level of achievement to a higher tier of performance. Structuring is presenting and enacting the project or idea, leading to completion. Motivating others to catch the vision or support the project is essential to successful leadership. There are numerous ways to motivate people to follow one’s leadership, but affirmation, participation, and modeling are the most effective approaches to encourage others. This section of 1 Chronicles (21:1–29:9) offers an excellent illustration of David’s ability to define the vision (i.e., build a house for Yahweh), structure the plan to accomplish the vision, and motivate others to implement and fulfill the vision.

(7) Miller reminds us that although “politics” are inevitably part of the leadership landscape, the word only secondarily emphasizes competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership.78 Godly leadership practices the “politics of grace,” as David demonstrated to the house of Saul in his treatment of Mephibosheth—the son of Jonathan (2 Sam. 9:7).

(8) Effective leadership shares the visibility and responsibility of governance through the delegation of workload to capable subordinates. Moses learned this principle from his father-in-law, Jethro (Ex. 18:21–22). David clearly understood the benefits of delegating authority to others as evidenced by his roster of cabinet appointees (2 Sam. 23:8–17; 1 Chron. 18:14–17). Paul applied this principle in his instructions to Timothy to entrust the message of Christ to others who were reliable (2 Tim. 2:2). Naturally, with the delegation of authority comes accountability—as we learn from Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt. 25:24–30).

(9) Leaders are prone to abuse their power, given the natural inclinations of fallen people in a fallen culture. David was no exception, as his sordid affair with Bathsheba reveals (2 Sam. 11). Servant leaders must always be mindful that they are the beneficiaries of a gracious divine appointment. Would that David had recalled words similar to his later confession, “but who am I?” (29:14), on the fateful day he happened to spy Bathsheba. Yet, David shows us that a servant-leader can survive a grave mistake, an error of judgment, or a near fatal flaw because of God’s mercy. The act of genuine repentance before God, the turning away from sin back to a habit of obedience to God in humility and contrition, results in restoration—even to a place of leadership (cf. Ps. 51). Here again, the words of Jesus remind us that leaders who demonstrate a spirit of forgiveness may receive a similar spirit of charity when they lapse (cf. Matt. 7:12; 18:28).

(10) Those who lead must learn to cope with difficult people—since people are people and nothing more. Fortunately, God is God and nothing less. The Gibeonites were “difficult people” for King David (2 Sam. 21:1–14). Their story reminds us that sometimes leadership must bury “ghosts of the past” created by the misdeeds of their predecessors, lest their “haunting” undo the work of the present and the plans for the future. All the more reason for leaders to have a “sense of history” as they discharge the duties of their position. According to Miller, the key to handing difficult people is twofold: (a) to understand the difference between difficult people and people with difficulties; (b) to respond to the difficult person in love and deal with him or her in private (rather than berating or rebuking in a public setting).79

(11) Effective leadership must be able to flex, adapt, and adjust because “change happens.” Life, society, and organizations are not static. The ability of a leader to adapt to changing times and situations is a direct measure of the “currency” of his or her leadership. One example of adaptation in David’s role as Israel’s king was the shift from “participation” in battle as “commander-in-chief” to “modeling” his generalship behind the “front lines” (cf. 2 Sam. 11:1; 21:15, 17).

Some are quick to criticize David for remaining in Jerusalem and directing the military campaign from afar, since the move led to his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. Yet, David’s wisdom in accepting the counsel of his senior military officer Joab to stay behind is evident. The nation of Israel is still in a formative stage, and the survival and long-term stability of the empire are dependent on David’s leadership as the “lamp of Israel” (cf. 2 Sam. 21:17). The lack of an appropriate successor to carry on David’s legacy at this time in his reign is even more crucial, as the subsequent narrative reveals.

Miller offers four practical suggestions helpful to a flexible management style: the need to address fatigue or burnout in a growing organization, identifying and/or grooming sources of good counsel in a growing organization, sharing the “giants to be killed” through strategic delegation of authority, and recognizing the importance for the leader of a growing organization to maintain vital family relationships.80

(12) Death is the ultimate “delete key.” Miller aptly concludes that “death eliminates the future.… David died on the threshold of other people’s futures.”81 Effective leadership must be a bridge-builder to the future for the sake of the future of others and of the survival of the organization, society, vision, or idea that the leader has championed. The final acts of David’s kingship included naming his successor and providing that individual with all the resources needed to carry on David’s vision for Israel (cf. 21:1–29:9). David built a bridge to the future through Solomon for all Israel for several centuries beyond his own death. Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem was a symbol of God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel and a beacon of hope for the righteousness of God to one day overwhelm the world—as captive Daniel’s prayer toward Jerusalem through those open windows in Babylon testified (Dan. 6:10).

Worship: A Davidic paradigm. King David’s epitaph marks him as a worshiper of God par excellence—a person after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22). What was worship for David and how does he model worship for the Christian and for the church today? Let’s take inventory of those items contributing to David’s understanding of the proper worship of God as preserved in lyrics of his songs and hymns in the Psalter:

• based on a personal knowledge of God, his essential character, and his basic attributes (e.g., Ps. 23; 25)

• involved a whole-person response to God: mind, emotions, will, bodily movement (e.g., Ps. 35:10)

• reflected in a variety of moods, from joy to lament (e.g., Ps. 13:1–2, 5–6)

• sometimes a casual and spontaneous response and other times formal and planned response (e.g., Ps. 3; 63:2)

• sometimes a private response and sometimes a corporate response (e.g., Ps. 26:12; 63:6)

• ordered by a festival calendar (e.g., Ps. 55:17)

• represented and explained at times in symbols, images, and word pictures (e.g., Ps. 18:2)

• rooted in the revealed word of God (e.g., Ps. 18:30; 33:4; 56:4)

• integrated with music as part of the worship response (e.g., Ps. 33:2–3)

• preparation, including confession and repentance, as a prerequisite for worship (e.g., Ps. 15; 24; 51)

• primarily an internal issue, a matter of right heart, attitude, and motive (e.g., Ps. 51:6, 7, 10, 16–17)

• expressed in a variety of rituals, bodily movements, and external actions (e.g., Ps. 20:3; 30:11)

The point here is not to define worship, although David’s worship reinforces the basic understanding of worship as a Spirit-led response to what we believe God has said and done. Nor is the intent to compile a comprehensive list of characteristics that present a complete profile of David as a worshiper of God. Rather, we seek to distill principles from the worship responses of David that will inform our own worship response to God and his mighty deeds of deliverance. As Marva Dawn reminds us, ultimately worship is all about God, as he is both the subject (i.e., our worship is for him and not ourselves) and the object (i.e., our worship is directed toward him) of right worship.82 King David knew this well.

Robert Webber has argued that any historical or comparative study of the practice of Christian worship must take three essential factors into account: content, structure, and style.83 Primary among the three is the content of Christian worship. The headwaters of Christian worship are found in the worship of the Israelites as recorded in the Old Testament. Hebrew worship and devotion were focused solely on the God of creation (Gen. 1:1–2), the God of covenant relationship (12:1–3), the God of redemptive acts in history (Ex. 12–13), and the God of sovereign rule over the nations (Dan. 2:20–21).

The Israelite exodus from Egypt is the redemptive event of the Old Testament because it was in this act that Yahweh “redeemed” his people (cf. Ex. 15:13; Deut. 7:8: 13:5). Throughout the rest of Old Testament history, Yahweh is known as the One who “brought” Israel out of Egypt (e.g., Ex. 12:51; 13:3; Ps. 80:8; Jer. 2:6). The Passover ritual connected with the Exodus foreshadowed the Christ-event of the New Testament, as Paul affirms that Jesus Christ is “our Passover lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7). More specifically, Christian worship remembers and celebrates the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. The content of Christian worship is nonnegotiable, and Christian worship must be judged by its content, not by its structure or style.

For more than twenty centuries the Christian church has raised the question of how to structure the content of worship. How is worship best ordered so that the story of God’s saving work in history is clearly heard and experienced? This means we must deal with “liturgy” in some fashion. The term liturgy is an unsettling one for many evangelical Protestants, but this need not be the case. It simply means “the work or service of the people in public worship.” All corporate Christian worship is liturgical in one sense in that it organizes the responses of the people to the Christ-event in an order of service. The Old Testament, the New Testament, and church history offer numerous models of worship structure, and human beings remain a vital part of the diverse Christian worship tradition.84

The style of Christian worship pertains to the atmosphere and environment in which the structure of worship is enacted. Worship style includes such things as the architecture of the worship space, aesthetic expression in art and music, the dress of worship leaders and the congregation, an active versus passive approach to congregational involvement (including the engagement of all the senses in worship), and the nature of the pulpit ministry. The style of Christian worship may be formal or casual, traditional or contemporary.

Worship style is the one aspect of Christian worship most easily influenced by popular culture. It is probably safe to say that most of the “worship wars” in the church today take place on this front—worship style. One helpful response to this struggle to achieve both substance and relevance in Christian worship today is the idea of “blended worship” or the “convergence of styles,” in which an array of worship styles are incorporated into the worship experience.85

David’s example as a worship leader has much to offer to those who minister in similar roles today.86 The biblical psalms especially provide insight on David’s approach to the worship of God. For our purposes, Psalm 62 may be effectively mined as a case study in worship leadership with the use of a little imagination.87

David understands that worship has a trajectory through two “audiences” before it reaches its primary “target audience”—God himself. This is implicit in his initial focus on himself (Ps. 62:1–7) before his attention shifts to calling the people to “pour out [their] hearts” in worship to God (62:8–10). Finally, God is the ultimate object of the adoration of David and the people (62:11–12). David knows that these steps in process of the worship response to God are vital to preventing worship from degenerating into heartless ritual or crass performance.

As a prelude to leading God’s people in worship, the worship leader must first restore a right relationship with God as the exclusive spiritual resource for one’s life (note that “salvation,” “refuge,” and “honor” are found “in God alone” (Ps. 62:1–2, 5–7). This instills confidence in God, not self (note the repetition of “I will never/not be shaken,” 62:2, 6). The worship leader is thus enabled, indeed empowered, to exhort the congregation to do the same—thus rejecting society’s reliance on status and wealth (62:9–10) for continual and unwavering “trust in him” (v. 8). Once both leader and people have recentered their lives in the absolute trust of God, they are capable of rendering proper worship to him, fully cognizant of his transcendence (“you, O God, are strong,” 62:11) and his immanence (“you, O Lord, are loving,” 62:12). The reminder that God is the supreme judge of all humanity (62:12) both seals and prompts the worshiper’s commitment to “trust in [God] at all times” (62:8).

The worship leader, like a shepherd, knows the basic needs of her or his “flock.” One need not be clairvoyant to determine these basic human needs since they are widely perceived as universal concerns.

Drawing from other resources, Marva Dawn has compiled a list of seven fundamental needs of our being: identity (i.e., who am I?), master story (i.e., how does it all fit together?), loyalty (i.e., to whom do I belong?), values (i.e., by what shall I live?), power (i.e., how can I protect myself?), meaning (i.e., what is the purpose of my life?), and hope (i.e., why should I go on?).88 The experienced worship leader realizes that meeting human needs through the worship experience cannot be “canned” in some programmatic formula. Happily, the content and form of biblical worship inherently address life issues. When the redeemed creature properly worships the Creator and the Redeemer, the needs of our being are fully met. Meeting human need is not the goal of worship, but one of the results of true worship.

An examination of Psalm 62 indicates that David intuitively deals with similar basic human needs in his song of trust. David’s identity and confidence as a man (62:3) and a spiritual being (note the word “soul”) is bound up in God alone (62:1, 5). The idea that David’s “honor” or reputation (62:7) is tied to God’s reputation casts David’s identity as a creature of dignity made in God’s image. That imago Dei built into our make-up as persons means we have divinely endowed capacities to worship God and enter into fellowship with him (Gen. 3:8; Isa. 43:7). Like God himself, the worship leader “shows no partiality” and views every individual as a person made in God’s image and a potential worshiper of God (2 Chron. 19:7; Acts 10:34).

The master story that gives coherence to personal existence and human history is embedded in that word “salvation” (Ps. 62:1, 6). For David, salvation is the record of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and his personal deliverance from political enemies and his own moral failure—his own sin (cf. 3:8; 25:6–11). For the Christian salvation is the record of Christ’s atoning work on the cross and personal deliverance from our moral failure by faith in God’s effective but mysterious redemptive plan for fallen creation.

The master story is also implied in the fact that “God has spoken” (62:11). The spoken word of God has been inscripturated, and the master story of God is a matter of “public record” in the Bible. Worship celebrates the architect of the “master story”—the triune God. The worship leader, like David, loves God by loving his law (or revealed Word) and “stockpiling” it in his or her heart through reading, prayer, meditation, and memorization (18:1; 19:7–11; 40:8; cf. 119:9–16). The worship leader knows well both the Master and his master story.

David’s loyalty is obvious. There is no question as to whom David belongs, as he takes his “rest” (Ps. 62:1) in God as his mighty rock and refuge (62:7). The emphasis on the personal pronoun “my” reinforces David’s conviction that he indeed belongs to God (62:1–2, 5–7). David’s loyalty to God grows out of his understanding of the idea of covenant in the biblical world. A covenant establishes an inviolable relationship between two parties (unlike a contractual relationship). God has pledged himself to be faithful in a covenant relationship, much like a bridegroom to a bride (Jer. 2:2). Both parties guard this sacred trust jealously (Deut. 5:9; Josh. 24:19; Ps. 18:21, 25). The worship leader facilitates the response of covenant loyalty by the worshiper as a part of the worship experience.89

David’s values are exposed by way of negative example in his admonition against trusting in social status, unlawful activity, or wealth to secure identity and meaning in this life (Ps. 62:9–10). On the positive side, David’s values may be seen in “honor” (or a reputation) that is dependent on God (62:7). I believe David understands the “greatest good” taught in the Bible, the two great commandments: to love God with our whole person and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; cf. Ps. 18:1). The worship leader understands how to translate this into the two great sacrifices of the Bible (Heb. 13:15–16): the sacrifice of praise (i.e., worship) and the sacrifice of doing good (i.e., service to others).

David’s need for protection against those who use power against him (Ps. 62:3–4) is fulfilled in the power or might of his “strong” God (62:11). David understands that worship is a form of spiritual warfare (4:2; 14:1–3; 40:4; 95:3; 96:4). The worship leader must be aware of this cosmic battle as well. Like David, we find empowerment for this “battle” in the ministry of the Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11; 143:10).90

The destination of David’s quest for meaning and purpose in life is found in a “loving” Lord who “rewards” each person according to the life he or she has lived (Ps. 62:12). What can make life any more meaningful than divine judgment of that life (cf. Eccl. 12:13–14)? David’s approach to life anticipates the words of Christ, “Well done … faithful servant” (Matt. 25:21), because he understood his life as a pilgrimage to “joy in [God’s] presence” (Ps. 16:11) and everlasting life “in the house of the LORD” (23:6). The worship leader guides a band of “pilgrims” into the joy of God’s presence.

Finally, David’s hope is not something he manufactures by force of will or cleverness of imagination. Rather, his hope comes from God himself (Ps. 62:5) as a result of his relationship with Yahweh—the name of the covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. David’s hope was rooted in his faithful God (25:10; 33:4). The worship leader’s task is to help the worshiper encounter the faithful God in worship.

Like David, the worship leader ushers the faithful into the presence of God in corporate worship in order to gratefully respond to what we believe this one, triune God has said and done (as revealed in the Bible). In so doing, the worship leader discharges a high calling, because the act of worship touches the core of our humanity, fulfills the purpose for which we have been created, and prepares us for our “normal employment” in the next life—eternal worship in the heavenly realm.