1 Sam. 16-17 chronology

Not open for further replies.


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 can only guess as to the reason, but suppose it often has something to do with 17:55 & 58, in which Saul speaks in what sounds like ignorant words (if one has no disposition to interpret them rationally, admitting the background of ch.16 and other cultural/historical factors).
Could you help me understand why that poses a problem for a chronological interpretation? Either Saul wasn't previous familiar with David's lineage - or he was asking for details regarding his future son-in-law - or he was simply forgetful / didn't recognize a more mature David - or mentally disheveled. None of those seem like far-fetched possibilities especially in a pre-technology age where constant exposure to someone's likeness was not a given.
I don't personally hold that those vv present a real problem for the (general) chronological--I would prefer the term "sequential'--reading of ch.16-17. You and I don't read those vv with a narrow or prejudicial squint, unable or unwilling to recognize Saul is not professing ignorance or bewilderment, actual or pretended. But some people read those vv in ch.17 as if they present the reader with a Saul incompatible with a ch.16 Saul.

For a variety of reasons, none of which is worthy in my opinion, some of which may still be maintained by Christian believers, there are readers who do not reconcile the passages.
Not open for further replies.