I Chronicles – La Vista Church of Christ

Why was it a sin for David to count the fighting men?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:38:32 +0000

Question:

In I Chronicles 21, why was it a sin for David to take a census?

Answer:

"When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as a contribution to the LORD. Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD. The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves. You shall take the atonement money from the sons of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the sons of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves" (Exodus 30:12-16).

There are a few problems with the census that David proposed. First, it appears he did this numbering without charging the half-shekel that was required by the Law. A second problem is that David just wanted to know the number. It wasn't commanded by God nor was it driven by a need. Perhaps David didn't want to charge half a day's wage just to satisfy his curiosity. But the fee was to remind the entire country that they belonged to God because He rescued them from Egypt. Ultimately the fee limited the number of censuses so that people would rely on God and not on themselves. David's census in the long run shows either a desire for pride in his nation or for making plans for war without God's direction.

Did God cause Saul to commit suicide?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:03:00 +0000

Question:

There are two accounts of Saul's death in the Old Testament. Both say he committed suicide (I Samuel 31:4-5 and I Chronicles 10:14) but the latter one also says that: "the LORD killed Saul because ..." Why the difference?

Answer:

"So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. But he did not inquire of the LORD; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse" (I Chronicles 10:13-14).

The works of I Samuel through II Kings tell us of the events that happened in Israel's history. The focus is more on what happened. I and II Chronicles look at the same events and give us deeper insight as to why things happened as they did.

Saul had several incidences where he did things his own way instead of following God's commands (I Samuel 13:13; 15:22-28). This eventually led to God no longer guiding him. "And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophets" (I Samuel 28:6). Saul thought he could sneak past God by finding a medium to talk with Samuel who was by this time dead. Instead of waiting for God, Saul once again tried to force things to go according to his views and his schedule. Thus, we are told why Saul lost the Philistines, while David fighting on another front defeated the Amalekites.

Saul was mortally wounded by an arrow during the battle with the Philistines (I Samuel 13:3), but Saul could not stand the thought of allowing the Philistines a chance to brag that they had killed him, so he ordered his armorbearer to kill him. The man refused, so Saul fell on his own sword. Saul was going to die in this battle. God had already told him that. Once again, Saul tried to force the situation where he had control and did things on his schedule. What he never realized is that he changed nothing.

Thus, Saul did commit suicide. But it is also true that God slew him because God made sure that Saul lost the battle with the Philistines. God didn't make Saul commit suicide, that was Saul's own foolish idea of trying to control what could not be controlled.

Why was David wrong in numbering Israel?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:02:00 +0000

Question:

In II Samuel 24:1-2, it was written that David commanded Joab to take a census of Israel. After the census was taken, in II Samuel 24:10, David knew that he had sinned and God sends a pestilence upon Israel as a consequence. Why did God consider David commanding a census of Israel sin? And what does Joab's response to David in II Samuel 24:3 and I Chronicles 21:3 mean?

Answer:

Your question is one that has been debated for centuries. What we do know is that at the time of the census, there was no need. Israel wasn't preparing for or involved in a war at the time. Thus, most conclude that David did this out of pride.

Joab argued against the census because it indicated a lack of trust in God. "And Joab answered, "May the LORD make His people a hundred times more than they are. But, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? Why then does my lord require this thing? Why should he be a cause of guilt in Israel?" " (I Chronicles 21:3; see also II Samuel 24:3). With God on their side, the people could be 100 times more numerous and still not make a difference. Joab is saying the numbers don't matter, and he hopes David lives to see the day when Israel's population grows a hundredfold. Joab saw numbering the Israelites as not trusting God.

There was a law that said that if a census is taken, it had to be accompanied by a census tax. "Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: "When you take the census of the children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, that there may be no plague among them when you number them. This is what everyone among those who are numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs). The half-shekel shall be an offering to the LORD. Everyone included among those who are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to the LORD. The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an offering to the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves" " (Exodus 30:11-16). David didn't order the tax, just the census. Notice that when people were numbered, God required the people to redeem themselves and if they didn't, there would be a plague. God kept His word, He sent a plague on Israel because of the census. That plague, by the way, ruined the count that was just made.

Having a tax associated with the census was a discouragement from taking census often, or for no particular purpose. God wanted Israel to trust in Him. However many of them there were, they would always be enough. Numbering the people changed matters from relying on God to relying on men. "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the LORD our God" (Psalms 20:7). Decisions about whether to go to war would no longer be solely a question of right versus wrong but whether Israel is more powerful than the ones attacked. This is not how God wanted Israel to operate.

How can Sheshan have no sons, when a son named Ahlai is mentioned?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 28 May 2011 01:47:00 +0000

Question:

In I Chronicles 2, it says that Sheshan had no sons, only daughters, so he gave his daughter to his servant, who gave him Attai. So because Sheshan gave his daughter to his servant, does that mean that Attai carries on Sheshan's name in the family? Is that why he did that? And secondly, why did he need to do that in the first place and why does it say that he didn't have a son, when just a few verses beforehand, it says that he had a son named Ahlai? Did that son die and that's why he needed a new son?

Answer:

"The son of Appaim was Ishi, the son of Ishi was Sheshan, and Sheshan's child was Ahlai" (I Chronicles 2:31).

Depending on your translation, it might say the son of Sheshan was Ahlai. The Hebrew is ben which normally means "son" but in this particular case Ahlai is a female name that means "wishful." "Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters" (I Chronicles 2:34). Because he had only daughters, Ahlai would be his firstborn child, and ben can be applied to the firstborn, the one who inherits the double portion at the father's death. The fact that in this case, it went to a daughter is a bit unusual, but not unheard of.

When a man only had daughters, they were restricted to marry only members of the same tribe. "This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, 'Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father's tribe.' So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father's tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. Thus no inheritance shall change hands from one tribe to another, but every tribe of the children of Israel shall keep its own inheritance" (Numbers 36:6-9). Without this rule, the boundaries of the tribes would eventually get scrambled as ownership of land was associated with a man's ancestor.

Sheshan did something a little more unusual. Instead of marrying his daughter to another member of the same tribe, he gave her to his servant. "And Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant as wife, and she bore him Attai" (I Chronicles 2:34-35). It was the unusual nature of the marriage that caused it to be recorded. Because Jarha was Sheshan's servant, he would be considered a part of Sheshan's tribe. Because he wasn't from another tribe, it didn't cause a problem with the tribal boundaries.

Ahlai is only mentioned one other time, in I Chronicles 11:41, as being the parent of Zabad. From I Chronicles 2:35-36 we realize that she was actually Zabad's great-grandmother. Zabad was one of David's mighty men. The Hebrews had a looser concept of ancestry than we do, and frequently skipped generations to mention the main or outstanding ancestors. Women don't often appear in Hebrew genealogical lists unless they had done something particularly noteworthy. Ahlai stood out enough that Zabad was known as the child of Ahlai.

Did Jesse have seven or eight sons?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:30:46 +0000

Question:

A visiting preacher referred to I Chronicles 2:13-15 to show that Eliab was the eldest. In that section, it shows that Jesse had seven sons and that David was the seventh. But I Samuel 17:13 says that Jesse had 8 sons. The reason it caught my attention is that I had just worked up lessons on this section a couple of quarters ago for the primary class that I teach. I remember distinctly having questions that referred to Jesse having eight sons and David being the eighth. I want to make sure I have the correct answer so that I don't teach it incorrectly and make the corrections to the materials I wrote if need be.

Answer:

"Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, whose name was Jesse, and who had eight sons. And the man was old, advanced in years, in the days of Saul. The three oldest sons of Jesse had gone to follow Saul to the battle. The names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. David was the youngest. And the three oldest followed Saul" (I Samuel 17:12-14).

"Jesse begot Eliab his firstborn, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, and David the seventh" (I Chronicles 2:13-15).

The difference is due to the time frame in which these two accounts were written. Jesse had eight sons and two daughters (I Chronicles 2:16) at the time that I Samuel was written. The most natural conclusion is to suppose that one of Jesse's sons died at a young age. At the time I Chronicles was written, only seven sons were living. Because I Chronicles is the only list of names for Jesse's sons, we don't know the name of the son who died.

The Hebrews were no different than we are today. If a person dies young before he marries, has children, or does something significant in the world, he tends to be skipped. For instance, I have a brother with who lost a son at the age of two weeks. He and others often talk about his four sons even though he had five sons. Often talking about the four sons is easier because it doesn't lead to awkward questions and stir up the heartache of the lost son. A genealogist is interested in the detailed list, but in day-to-day life, we are more interested in who has an active part in life.