Now it would have been a deception to take that thing out.
Got to get rid of this, put it a way, sweep it under the rug and put slip in the Chronicles there.
They will even call it Samuel, no one will know.
No, they exist right there in the same book. You get both accounts.
Here's a good one. Authorial Agendas: 2 Samuel 11 vs. 1 Chronicles 20.
On the left, 2 Samuel 11, you recognize the story right away.
This is the beginning of the tale that leads to David and his sins against God,
with Bathsheba and of course, murdering her husband.
«In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab,
and his servants with him, and all Israel.
And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah.
But David remained at Jerusalem.»
And then we get the whole Bathsheba thing, you know, sordid details.
And then we get to the next chapter in 2 Samuel 12:26
«Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the Ammonites and took the royal city.»
Down there in the red, he took the crown of the king and put it on David's head.
If you go over to the same story, in 1 Chronicles, here's what you get:
You get the same beginning of 2 Samuel 11.
And then it skips all the way to Joab striking down Rabbah,
taking the crown of their king and putting on David's head.
The entire account with Bathsheba and Uriah is omitted. It's gone.
Like it never happened. Now Chronicles was written centuries after Samuel.
In fact, if you read through Chronicles, 1 and 2 Chronicles,
you'll see that David is, I'll use a modern term here, sanitized. Why would the people
who are producing Chronicles, writer or writers, why would they do that?
So here's the part where I shouldn't answer the question, and just move on.
There actually is a discernible reason, now let's think about this.
Chronicles of courses is one of the last books of the Old Testament.
It goes all the way to the Babylonian exile.
And if you're the chronicler, what you're trying to do, I'll just cut to the chase,
what you're trying to do is you're creating a history for the people
who are coming out of exile. And you want them to know
what life would have been like, had David, the man after God's own heart,
not screwed up, and had his son Solomon been faithful.
They want to paint a picture of what life should have been before the exile.
They're not deceiving you, you know why?
Because in the same Bible, you find 1 and 2 Samuel.
Now, it would have been a deception to take that thing out.
Got to get rid of this, put it a way, sweep it under the rug and put slip in the Chronicles there.
They will even call it Samuel, no one will know.
No, they exist right there in the same book, you get both accounts.
But it's the glorification of the monarchy, under David and Solomon.
That's why they do it. This is what it would have been like.
All this bad stuff that the guy who God made the covenant with to be king,
you know, this is why we're in an exile; all this garbage in his life and their failures.
Wouldn't have been much nicer if this wouldn't have happened?
So now that we're coming out of exile, these are the kinds of Kings we should target.
This is what we want. We want unblemished from the line of David.
This is what Messiah should be like, none of this stuff.
We want the king, a king like he was supposed to be.
It's a literary agenda. Very clearly an agenda. You can't mistake it you run right into it.