LittleFaith
Puritan Board Freshman
I came across this article recently on the Ligonier site. I have a question about the chronology of 1 Sam. 16-17.
I fully accept that Biblical narrative is not necessarily chronological - though I also tend to think that's fairly plain when it is and isn't. For instance, I don't think it takes much of a leap of the imagination to grasp that the last 4 chapters of 2 Samuel are functioning as an addendum and not as a chronological continuation of the Davidic narrative.
That said, it has always seemed to me fairly plain that 1 Samuel 17 follows the previous chapter in chronological order, especially in light of 17:15. It seems very "forced" to try to fit that verse into a non-chronological reading of this chapter (something even Poole suggests). The reasoning given by Matthew Henry, and the first five reasons given by Poole, seem much more straightforward and less "contorted".
So I guess my question is - without saying all Biblical narrative must be read chronologically, why would one NOT read it chronologically when, as seems to be the case in these two chapters, such a reading is very straightforward and reasonable?
I fully accept that Biblical narrative is not necessarily chronological - though I also tend to think that's fairly plain when it is and isn't. For instance, I don't think it takes much of a leap of the imagination to grasp that the last 4 chapters of 2 Samuel are functioning as an addendum and not as a chronological continuation of the Davidic narrative.
That said, it has always seemed to me fairly plain that 1 Samuel 17 follows the previous chapter in chronological order, especially in light of 17:15. It seems very "forced" to try to fit that verse into a non-chronological reading of this chapter (something even Poole suggests). The reasoning given by Matthew Henry, and the first five reasons given by Poole, seem much more straightforward and less "contorted".
So I guess my question is - without saying all Biblical narrative must be read chronologically, why would one NOT read it chronologically when, as seems to be the case in these two chapters, such a reading is very straightforward and reasonable?
