What Did David Understand About The Promises In The Davidic Covenant?

By Andrew E. Steinmann

[Andrew E. Steinmann is Distinguished Professor of Theology and Hebrew, Concordia University, Chicago.]

If there is one certainty about the identity of the Messiah in the New Testament, it is that he is a royal descendant of David. In the Synoptic Gospels those who appeal to Jesus as the Christ often refer to Him as “son of David” (Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47-48; Luke 18:38-39; cf. Matt. 1:1). Moreover, in a well-known conversation about the Messiah, even Jesus’ opponents acknowledge that He is the son of David (Matt. 22:42-45; cf. Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44).

Luke’s narratives leading to Jesus’ birth emphasize His Davidic connection: Gabriel announces that Mary’s child will occupy the throne of David (Luke 1:32); John the Baptist’s father Zechariah prophesies the salvation to come from the house of David, for which his son will prepare the way (Luke 1:69; cf. vs. 76); the angel of the Lord announces Jesus’ birth in the city of David (Luke 2:11; cf. John 7:42). Paul also emphasized Jesus’ descent from David (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8), and this was, no doubt, part of his “proving that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 9:22; cf. 17:2-3). In the Apocalypse Jesus is identified three times as the scion of David’s house (Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16).

Of course this emphasis on the Messiah as a descendant of David follows the trajectory set forth in the prophets (Isa. 9:6-7; 16:3-5; Jer. 23:5; 33:15). The identity of the Messiah is so closely bound up with David that at times the prophets simply call the promised Savior “David” (Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos. 3:5). But what substantiated this claim by the prophets? Was it simply asserted based on prophetic authority by Hosea, Micah (Mic. 5:2), or Isaiah in view of Nathan’s prophecy to David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; 1 Chron. 17:11-14) and/or subsequent psalms (by David [cf. Pss. 18:50; 132:11-18] or others [e.g., Ethan the Erzahite; cf. 89:3, 20, 35, 49])? Was it simply accepted as part of God’s progressive direct revelation to the eighth-century prophets that built on previous messianic prophecies? Or was it based on David’s own understanding of the implications of Nathan’s prophecy? The key to answering this question lies in 2 Samuel 7:19 and 1 Chronicles 17:17, which record David’s own words to God in reaction to Nathan’s prophecy.

The Messianic Nature Of Nathan’s Prophecy

The New Testament assertion of the Davidic identity of the Messiah certainly draws on the prophets’ depiction of a specific descendant of David as the coming Savior and King (Isa. 9:6; 16:5; Jer. 23:5; 30:9; 33:15; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos. 3:5; cf. Isa. 11:1, 10). But was the identification of an individual king from David’s line as the Messiah a new thing with the prophets of the eighth century (Hosea, Isaiah, Micah—see Mic. 5:2-4), or was it already evident in Nathan’s prophecy to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 17:11-14?[1] The problem with appealing to 2 Samuel 7:12-16 is that it does not on its surface speak of an individual messianic king: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not turn away from him, as I turned it away from Saul, whom I turned aside before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.”[2]

The prophecy is about someone who would come from David’s “internal organs” (מעה). Elsewhere this term always refers to animmediate descendant in the next generation.[3] This descendant would build a house for God, a clear reference to the temple David wished to build (2 Sam. 7:1-3). Most importantly, this descendant of David would sin and be disciplined, though God promised never to take His favor from him (2 Sam. 7:14b–15). This is hardly a description of the Messiah.[4] The chronicler may have understood this to be a reference to Solomon, as shown by his omitting the material concerning the descendant’s sin (1 Chron. 17:13). This is in keeping with the chronicler’s omitting any reference to Solomon’s sin of idolatry and its consequences. Moreover, the chronicler knew that David identified Solomon as this promised descendant: “He [Yahweh] said to me [David], ‘Your son Solomon will build My house and My courtyards, because I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his father” (1 Chron. 28:6; cf. 1 Chron. 17:13; 2 Sam. 7:14).

So, if Nathan’s prophecy about David’s descendant is about Solomon, how is it messianic? The answer lies in the eternal house, throne, and kingdom promised to David (2 Sam. 7:13, 16; 1 Chron. 17:12, 14). This is not a prophecy about the person of the Messiah per se, but about the nature of the messianic kingdom. This appears to be the understanding of Nathan’s prophecy by Ethan the Ezrahite in Psalm 89 (esp. vv. 5, 30, 37-38 [Eng. vv. 4, 29, 36-37]). As such 2 Samuel 7:14 serves as only an oblique messianic reference. One can connect it to the Messiah via earlier messianic promises such as Genesis 49:8-12 or Numbers 24:17.[5]

David’s Understanding Of The Messianic Nature Of Nathan’s Prophecy

Since Nathan’s prophecy is only obliquely messianic, this raises the question of whether David understood the prophecy as speaking about the Messiah. It has been long recognized that David’s response to the prophecy as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:18-29 and 1 Chronicles 17:16-27—particularly 2 Samuel 7:19 and its parallel 1 Chronicles 17:17—is key to answering this question.

Second Samuel 7:19 is fairly straightforward: “Yet this was a small thing in your eyes, my Lord Yahweh, and you have also spoken about your servant’s house for a long while to come, and this is the teaching about the man/humanity, my Lord Yahweh.” Critics have long deemed this verse impossible to understand and have resorted to emendation to understand it, sometimes with reference to 1 Chronicles 17:17.[6] However, the verse is not so difficult as claimed, and evangelicals and others have long held that it is relatively clear and has messianic implications.[7]

The Critical Issue In 2 Samuel 7:19b: Understanding האדם

A proposal by Kaiser for understanding 2 Samuel 7:19 has been the most influential among evangelical scholars in the last forty years. He believes that 2 Samuel 7:19b ought to be understood as “the charter for humanity, my Lord Yahweh.”[8] In this proposal Kaiser rejects earlier understandings of האדם as (1) “Adam” (e.g., the Vulgate) or as (2) “the man” followed by the appositive אדני יהוה, that is, “the man, my Lord Yahweh” or “the man who is my Lord Yahweh.” In the latter case Kaiser rejects the view of Pink, apparently unaware that this view is at least as old as Luther.[9] Kaiser’s argument turns on the observation that the words אדני יהוה are unlikely to be an appositive, but are more probably a vocative phrase, as is common elsewhere in David’s response to Nathan’s prophecy.[10] However, Kaiser’s rejection of אדני יהוה as an appositive does not necessarily invalidate reading האדם as “the man” (i.e., the Messiah) followed by a vocative phrase. He avoids a discussion of whether this word is used as a collective (“humankind”) or as a specific (“the man”), falsely assuming that since he has disproven Pink’s contention concerning the words אדני יהוה, he has also proven that האדם must be used as a collective.

האדם As “The Man” In 2 Samuel 7:19b And 1 Chronicles 17:17b

That האדם is often used as a collective (i.e., “mankind”) is beyond dispute.[11] However, it can at times also be used as a specific (“the man” (Lev. 18:5; Num. 19:13; Josh. 14:15; Prov. 27:19; Eccles. 2:12; 3:22; 6:7; 7:14; 8:9; 10:14; 11:8; Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21).[12] The difference is critical. If וזאת תורת האדם is to be understood as “this is the teaching for humankind,” then David’s response to God is as obliquely messianic as Nathan’s prophecy. However, if this phrase is to be understood as “this is the teaching about the man,” then David is telling God that he understood that Nathan’s prophecy entailed the promise that David would be the ancestor of the Messiah. This would make a strong case that 2 Samuel 7:19 is the source of subsequent identifications of the Messiah as the Son of David in the prophets and in the New Testament.

1 Chronicles 17:17. What can arbitrate between the two possible uses of האדם? Perhaps a close look at the chronicler’s parallel to 2 Samuel 7:19 at 1 Chronicles 17:17 is in order. David’s words are below. (The underlined Hebrew words are also in 2 Samuel 7:19; and the points of ellipsis in the translation mark words to be discussed.)

ותקטן זאת בעיניך אלהים ותדבר על בית עבדך למרחוק וראיתני כתור האדם

המעלה יהוה אלהים׃

(“And this is a little thing in your eyes, God, that you have spoken about the house of your servant for the distant future. So you have seen me according to the . . . of mankind/the man . . . Yahweh God.”)

This makes 1 Chronicles 17:17 somewhat different from 2 Samuel 7:19. However, a number of the differences are minor:

• The chronicler omits עוד and גם.
• The chronicler’s first vocative ךס אלהים אס compared to אדני יהוה in 2 Samuel.
• על is substituted for אל, as is common in postexilic Hebrew.
• The chronicler’s second vocative is יהוה אלהים as compared to אדני יהוה in 2 Samuel.

The major difference is found in the second half of the verse, which has proved notoriously difficult—so much so that some have simply labeled the passage corrupt or impossible.[13] Only one word in 1 Chronicles 17:17b is identical to 2 Samuel 7:19: האדם. While 1 Chronicles 17:17b is difficult, it is not beyond understanding.

In place of וזאת in 2 Samuel, the chronicler has וראיתני, “you have viewed me.” This is not difficult, though some have sought to emend it to a Hiphil form: “you have shown me.”[14] This emendation, however, is based on conjecture alone and ought therefore to be rejected.

Proposals for the Meaning of כתור and המעלה. Several interpretive options are possible for כתור. Some take it to be the preposition כ plus the noun תור meaning “turn.” It is used in Song of Songs 1:10 and 11 to mean apparently a turning or braiding of hair. It also occurs in Esther 2:12 and 15, where it has the sense of an opportunity (as when Esther’s turn came to see the king). In 1 Chronicles 17:17 the phrase in which it occurs is often taken to mean “according to the turn of mankind coming up,” that is, “according to the coming generation.”[15] This interpretation suffers from two flaws, however. One is that the meaning “turn of mankind” would present an otherwise unattested sense for תור. The other is that the noun מעלה does not denote an upcoming event or era.[16]

A second option is to understand תור as a postexilic form of the noun תואר (“form, stature”) with quiescent א.17 In this case David would be describing himself as “like a man of human stature.” This suggestion founders for lack of evidence that the א was ever omitted in this noun in the Old Testament era.

A third option is to take כתור האדם המעלה as a three-word construct chain and to translate 1 Chronicles 17:17b as “you have regarded me as a man of high degree” or “you have looked upon me as a man embarked on a high career.”[18] This is grammatically suspect, however, because of the article with האדם. Not only does the translation ignore this article, but it ought to be noted that an article is not commonly used with a noun in the construct state.

A fourth option is to follow the reading found in a few Masoretic manuscripts—˚ בתו (“in the midst of”) instead of כתור, apparently assuming a double graphic confusion: כ for ב and ר for ך. Thus the reading might be וראיתני בתוך האדם, “you have seen me in the midst of mankind” or “you have seen my humanity.” This reading has the support of the Septuagint: “you have looked at me as a man’s visage.” However, it has little else to commend it, since the following word המעלה is inexplicable. The Septuagint translator apparently read it as the participle המעלה and rendered it καὶ ὕψωσάς με, “and you exalted me.” This rendering is difficult to substantiate, however, since the Septuagint’s direct object με lacks any Hebrew counterpart. There is, therefore, little to recommend this option, and even the reading בתו is suspicious, since it appears to substitute a more common expression for a very rare one.

A fifth option is to understand כתור either as an apocopated form of כתורת, “according to the teaching” or simply as a scribal error where the final ת was accidently omitted.[19] While this option relies either on an unattested apocopation or an unsubstantiated scribal mistake, it has one important advantage over the other options: it aligns nicely with the reading in 2 Samuel 7:19, making 2 Chronicles 17:17 an interpretive paraphrase of David’s words there. This option is endorsed by several evangelical commentators, following the lead of Kaiser, who appealed to Beecher’s translation of כתור האדם המעלה as “according to the upbringing tôrah of mankind.” This is supposed to mean something like “according to the elevating charter of mankind.”[20]

Yet there is a problem with Kaiser’s interpretation. Beecher’s reading apparently understands המעלה as a Hiphil stem participle used adjectivally. This is impossible, however, since the verb would be transitive in the Hiphil stem, and there is no direct object for the participle.[21] Kaiser seems to sense this problem, and he seeks to explain המעלה as a noun in apposition used adjectivally.[22] Yet he only cryptically explains in what sense the charter “elevates.” His appeal is to the use of the verbal root עלה in Ezekiel 19:3, where it apparently signifies the “raising,” that is, the training, of a lion cub by its mother.[23] Yet how God’s promise trains is left unexplored and unsubstantiated. What kind of training is meant? Who or what is being trained?[24] What is the purpose of the training? Nothing seems obvious in the context of David’s remarks or in the rest of Scripture that answers these questions raised by Kaiser’s proposal. Moreover, it relies on a rare denotation of the verbal root עלה that is not documented for the noun המעלה, which normally denotes steps, a staircase, or someone’s ascent.[25]

Another way to explain this phrase also takes המעלה adjectivally: האדם should be understood as denoting a specific man, while וראיתני כתור האדם המעלה should be translated as “you have viewed me according to the teaching about the ascending man.” This would then be a statement by David that in making a promise of an everlasting house, kingdom, and throne to David (2 Sam. 7:16), God viewed him in light of a future ascending man—the Messiah (see Prov. 30:4; John 3:13; Eph. 4:10). Therefore, since 2 Samuel 7:19 is clearly parallel to 1 Chronicles 17:17, the chronicler’s parallel is his expanded version of David’s understanding of the implication of God’s words delivered through Nathan. This leads to the conclusion that both passages are speaking about the man, θהאי—the one who will be the fulfillment of the messianic promise.

How Did David Conclude That Nathan’s Message Incorporated The Messianic Promise?

This raises the question, however, as to how David deduced that the promise to him entailed the messianic promise. The answer lies in the promises given to David. Nathan’s words promised that David’s name would be made great (2 Sam. 7:9; 1 Chron. 17:8). Only three great names are in the Old Testament: Yahweh, Abraham, and David.[26] Abram at his call from Haran was promised a great name (Gen. 12:2). The promise to David of an everlasting kingdom is similar to the promise to Abram that he would be a father of kings (17:6). This promise was associated with the changing of his name to Abraham (v. 5), the name by which he would be known henceforth. The great patriarch of Israel was also promised a descendant who would do the royal work of conquering the gates of His enemies and through whom the nations would be blessed (22:17b–18).[27] In addition, the promise to Abraham included the promise of the land of Canaan for the people of Israel (12:7; 15:7, 18), a promise reiterated to David (2 Sam. 7:10). It is impossible to escape the conclusion that David had been made Abraham’s heir and received the promises first given to the patriarch.

Genesis traces the promise made to Abraham as it is transmitted first to Isaac and then to Jacob. In Jacob’s deathbed prophecy to his sons (Gen. 49:1-29), the royal promise is granted to Judah, David’s ancestor (49:8-12; esp. v. 10).

Thus David concluded that his being granted a great name and an everlasting house, throne, and kingdom also entailed the messianic promise. This is not only logical, it is a sign of his faith, and part of what makes him a man whose thoughts are aligned with God’s thoughts (1 Sam. 13:14).[28] The poet who wrote Psalm 132, a prayer about God’s covenant with David, also concluded that Nathan’s words entailed the messianic promise. This is clearest in Psalm 132:17-18: “There [i.e., in Zion] I will make a horn grow for David; I have prepared a lamp for My anointed one. I will clothe His enemies with shame, but the crown will be glorious on Him.” The psalmist even notes that God, as He had promised, would always remember His messianic pledge to David despite Solomon’s later sin. This is emphasized at 1 Kings 11:36 in Ahijah’s prophecy to Jeroboam: “I will give one tribe to his son [i.e., Solomon’s son Rehoboam], so that there will always be a lamp for My servant David in My presence in Jerusalem, the city I chose for myself in order to put My name there.” This promise of a lamp is messianic and is referenced three times at junctures where either the writer of Kings or the chronicler notes that despite the sins of the kings of Judah, God maintained David’s house so that David would have a lamp (1 Kings 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chron. 21:7). The psalmist connects this lamp with the Messiah, God’s anointed one, who will be the king to come from David’s line.

Conclusion

While a number of exegetical difficulties surround David’s words as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:19 and 1 Chronicles 17:17, on close examination it ought to be concluded that David knew that God had made him the promise that he would be the ancestor of the promised man to come. As an Israelite who was chosen to be king because his heart was aligned with God’s own heart, David understood this immediately on receiving Nathan’s words. This, then, is the source that gives rise to the rich messianic passages in both the Old and New Testaments that emphasize the Messiah as a descendant of David.

Notes

1. While psalms with royal imagery are often understood by Christians to be messianic (e.g., Ps. 2), most of these psalms do not explicitly connect the Messiah with David.
2. Second Chronicles 17:11-14 is nearly identical, omitting only the reference to the king from David’s body going astray and being disciplined for it. All translations in this article are those of the author.
3. Genesis 15:4; 25:23; Ruth 1:11; 2 Samuel 16:11; 2 Chronicles 32:21; Psalm 71:6; Isaiah 49:1. The only possible exception is Isaiah 48:19, which speaks of the descendants of Israel through Judah who were captives in Babylon. However, this may be understood in one of two ways. It may be speaking about the loss of a potential blessing in a large generation that theoretically could have followed the one that was instead taken into captivity. Or it may be hyperbolic and apply an expression to multiple future generations that ordinarily applies only to the next generation. Whichever interpretation one chooses, it is instructive to note that shortly after this statement the prophet returns in Isaiah 49:1 to normal usage of this idiom.
4. One might wish to argue that 2 Samuel 7:14 depicts Solomon as a type of the Messiah in that Jesus would be accounted sinful and bear sin for others (Isa. 53:4; Matt. 8:17; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:21, 24; 3:18). However, if this is what Nathan was hinting, one might expect “when he is considered sinful” (בנחשב לו עון; see 2 Sam. 19:20a) instead of the words “when he sins” (בהעותו). The verbal root עוה in the Hiphil stem always denotes actual sinning, not being made to sin (2 Sam. 19:20b; 24:17; 1 Kings 8:47; 2 Chron. 6:37; Job 33:27; Ps. 106:6; Jer. 3:21; 9:4). While one might argue that Solomon was a type of Christ (Matt. 12:42; Luke 11:31), it is difficult to construe 2 Samuel 7:14-15 as having been understood by David as a description of the Messiah.
5. This is especially possible if in Genesis 49:10 either שילה (ketiv) or שילו (qere) is understood as “the one to whom it belongs” (e.g., the translation in NET and NIV; cf. LXX).
6. Henry Preserved Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899; reprint, 1977), 302; S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel with an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps, 2nd. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha, 1984), 276-77; Robert Henry Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper and Row, 1948), 368-73; Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, 1 & II Samuel: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 282; William McKane, I & II Samuel: Introduction and Commentary, Torch Biblical Commentaries (London: SCM, 1963), 216; Peter R. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1977); P. Kyle McCarter, 2 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 233.
7. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. John H. Skilton, Milton C. Fisher, and Leslie W. Sloat (n.p.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 288-318; Joyce G. Baldwin, I and II Samuel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 217; A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1989), 127; Daniel I. Block, “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 40.
8. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David,” 314-15. Kaiser’s use of “charter” comes from his understanding of תורה as primarily legalistic instruction (Kaiser, “The Blessing of David,” 313), and the charter is “the plan and prescription for God’s kingdom whereby the whole world shall be blessed with the total content of the promise doctrine.” It follows, therefore, that this is not a Gospel promise flowing from God’s grace and favor to humanity and not requiring humanity’s participation. Instead, it is a divinely imposed legal prescription of God for humanity that has a promised blessing attached to it. (For a parallel see the command with a promise at Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Perhaps this is why others, somewhat uncomfortable with Kaiser’s language, have tended to use other words to translate תורה. For instance, Block uses “revelation/instruction concerning humankind” (Block, “My Servant David,” 40, note 82). This would be open to understanding תורה here as Gospel—simple promise without legalistic impositions.
9. Arthur W. Pink, The Life of David (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 1:337; Martin Luther, “The Last Words of David,” Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Hilton C. Oswald (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972), 15:291.
10. See this vocative in 2 Samuel 7:18, 19a, 20, 22, 28, 29; see also the following vocatives: יהוה in 2 Samuel 7:24; יהוה אלהים in 2 Samuel 7:25; יהוה צבאות אלהי ישראל2 Samuel 7:27.
11. This is the most common use, including its use in the phrase בני האדם (Gen. 6:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; 7:21; 8:21; 9:5, 6; 11:5; 25:30; Exod. 9:9, 19, 22; 33:20; Lev. 5:4, 22; 27:29; Num. 5:6; 12:3; 16:29, 32; 18:15; 31:28, 30, 47; Deut. 5:24; 8:3; 20:19; Josh. 11:14; Judg. 16:7, 11, 17; 1 Sam. 16:7; 26:19; 2 Sam. 7:19; 1 Kings 5:11; 8:38, 39; 1 Chron. 17:17; 2 Chron. 6:18, 29, 30; 32:19; Job 7:20; Pss. 33:13; 104:14; 116:11; 145:12; Prov. 27:20; Eccl. 1:13; 2:3, 8; 3:10, 11, 13, 18, 19 [twice], 21, 22; 5:18; 6:1; 7:2, 29; 8:6, 11, 17; 9:1, 3, 12 [second occurrence]; 12:5, 13; Isa. 2:17, 20, 22; 6:12; 17:7; Jer. 4:25; 7:20; 9:21; 21:6; 27:5; 33:5; 47:2; Ezek. 4:12, 15; 38:20; Jon. 3:7-8; Zeph. 1:3; Hag. 1:11; and Zech. 8:10; 11:6).
12. To this could be added the first occurrence in Ecclesiastes 9:12 as well as the places where it refers to Adam (Gen. 1:27; 2:7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, 20, 22, 24).
13. Edward Lewis Curtis and Albert Alonzo Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1910), 229; Peter R. Ackroyd, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Torch Biblical Commentaries (London: SCM, 1973), 68; H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 137; Roddy Braun, 1 Chronicles, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 197; and J. A. Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 149.
14. Gary Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10-29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 678; and Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006).
15. J. Barton Payne, “1 Chronicles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, rev. ed., vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 233. In a variation on this, כתורis emended to כדור, “according to the generation” following a suggestion by Wellhausen. See Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 339.
16. This denotes someone’s ascent or a staircase (see discussion below). Even if one took this word to be the participle המעלה, the sense would be “to bring up,” and it would require a direct object; for example, “the generation that would bring X up.”
17. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10-29, 678.
18. I. W. Slotki, Chronicles: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, Soncino Books of the Bible (London: Soncino, 1952), 100; and R. J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, Cambridge Biblical Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 95.
19. Willis J. Beecher, “Three Notes,” Journal of Biblical Literature8 (1888): 137-39; and Kaiser, “The Blessing of David,” 315.
20. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David,” 315-16. At this point Kaiser follows the suggestion of Beecher, “Three Notes,” 138.
21. The Hiphil stem participles of the verbal root עלהoccur in Leviticus 11:3-6, 26, 45; Deuteronomy 14:6-7; 20:1; Joshua 24:17; 1 Samuel 7:10; 2 Samuel 1:24; 6:15; 2 Kings 17:7; 1 Chronicles 15:28; 2 Chronicles 24:14; Ezra 4:2; Psalms 81:11; 135:7; Isaiah 8:7; 63:11; 66:3; Jeremiah 2:6; 33:6, 18; 48:35; 50:9; and Nahum 3:3. In all but two instances the direct object is explicitly used in the text. In the other two instances the direct object is clearly implied by the context: עולה (“sacrifice”) in Jeremiah 48:35 and רכב(“chariot”) in Nahum 3:3.
22. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David,” 316. For some examples seeייןתרעלה (“intoxicating wine,” Ps. 60:5); לשון רמיה (“deceitful tongue,” Ps. 120:3); אמרים אמת (“true words,” Prov. 22:21); העבד העברי(“the Hebrew servant,” Gen. 39:17);העבתת הזהב (“the gold cords,” Exod. 39:17).
23. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David,” 316.
24. If mankind receives the training, then the adjectival מעלה should be understood to modify האדם, not כתור: “according to the law that trains mankind.”
25. Exodus 20:26; 1 Kings 10:19-20; 2 Kings 9:13; 20:9-11; 1 Chronicles 17:17; 2 Chronicles 9:18-19; Ezra 7:9; Nehemiah 3:15; 12:37; Psalms 120:1; 121:1; 122:1; 123:1; 124:1; 125:1; 126:1; 127:1; 128:1; 129:1; 130:1; 131:1; 132:1; 133:1; 134:1; Isaiah 38:8; Ezekiel 11:5; 40:6, 22, 26, 31, 34, 37, 49; 43:17; Amos 9:6.
26. For God’s great name see Joshua 7:9; 1 Samuel 12:22; 2 Samuel 7:26; 1 Kings 8:42; 1 Chronicles 17:24; 2 Chronicles 6:32; Psalms 76:1; 99:3; 138:2; Jeremiah 10:6; 44:26; Ezekiel 36:23; Malachi 1:11. These passages connect the noun “name” (שׁם) with either the verbal root גדל or its associated adjective גדול.
27. While many understand this to be a collective that refers to Abraham’s descendants in general, the grammar of the passage indicates that it is to be understood as referring to a specific descendant. See T. Desmond Alexander, “Further Observations on the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis,” Tyndale Bulletin48 (1997): 363-67. Alexander’s work builds upon Jack Collins, “A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural?” Tyndale Bulletin48 (1997): 139-48.
28. This is the force of כלבבו in 1 Samuel 13:14 (compare the same expression in 1 Sam. 14:7).