Donald F. Murray, «Under Yhwh’s Veto: David as Shedder of Blood in Chronicles», Vol. 82 (2001) 457-476
As grounds for Yhwh’s veto on David’s building the temple, the charge of shedding blood, in Chronicles made against David alone (1 Chr 22,8; 28,3), poses questions both about what is being referred to, and how the charge explains the veto, given that in the Hebrew Bible no other Israelite warrior incurs the charge for killing in warfare. This article explicates the charge, highlights how surprising it is, and then develops a line of argument, drawn principally from Num 31 and 35, that can explain how the Chronicler understood the charge both to be warranted, and to justify Yhwh’s veto.
Yhwh’s objection in Chronicles is not, however, to a temple being built, but to David as its builder. The ‘house of rest’ (hxwnm tyb [1 Chr 28,2]) that David as a ‘man of wars’ (twmxlm #y) [28,3]) had been prohibited from building, his son as a ‘man of restful peace’ (hxwnm #y) [22,9]) has been chosen to build (28,5-6). Thus in his public address (28,2-10) David presupposes the content of his earlier address to Solomon (22,8-10), namely Yhwh’s explicit announcement to David of the birth and future destiny of a son14. Hence Chronicles presents us with a simple binary opposition, between a David who, as ‘man of wars’, is manifestly unfit to build the ‘house of rest’ (28,2-3), and his son Solomon who, as ‘man of restful peace’, is divinely denominated to be its builder (22,9-10).
3. Interim appraisal
Hence at this point in our investigation we might be seduced into thinking that not only have we answered our prior question above—where did Chronicles derive the grounded veto on David’s building the temple in 1 Chr 22,8; 28,2?— but also our main question—how does the ground Yhwh puts forward explain his veto?— since the notion of David as ‘a man of wars’ being disqualified from building ‘a house of rest’ may seem a sufficiently satisfying account of this15.