No comment is offered by the Chronicler concerning David’s polygamy. Commentators tend either to gloss over this fact entirely or otherwise excuse it by stating that the practice was culturally acceptable in those days. Most evangelical writers are more interested in reminding their readers that David’s actions were in violation of Deuteronomy 17:17. They ignore the fact that the interpretation of a biblical passage must be in accordance with the author's theme and the history of the times. They also ignore the fact that in the culture of the ancient Near East, many of the marriages of the Old Testament kings were entered into to confirm treaties. It was a part of the cultural milieu.1
The Lord did indeed abundantly bless David with fertility, but the Chronicler’s point is the contrast between the increase of David’s household and that of Saul. Unlike King Saul’s dynasty, which died out (1 Chronicles 10:6), David’s house is a fruitful vine
(Psalm 128:3). Furthermore, the inclusion of Solomon in the list of sons in 1 Chronicles 14:4 is significant: the purposes of God for his people were to go beyond David and were to embrace Solomon. There is a hint of a continuing dynasty. For the Chronicler the future of Israel was bound up with a descendant of David. The establishment of the dynasty created a hope still dear to his heart and shaped his understanding of Israel’s future under God.2
That David took more wives was a historical fact but a moral failure, directly contrary to the law (Deuteronomy 17:17). This sin led to a whole series of disasters later on (2 Samuel 11:27; see the implications in 2 Samuel 13:4, 2 Samuel 13:32, and even 1 Kings 1:5–6). Philip Barker offers this sad commentary:
As a matter of course, we do not look in this connection for any remarks to be made by the writer condemnatory of David’s enlargement of the harem, or of his having a harem at all. Yet it is open to us to note how, at a time when polygamy was
winked at,and no sin was necessarily to lie on this account at the door of David, yet by this very thing he was undermining the peace and unity of his own family, the comfort of his declining years once and again, and the very stability of his house in the days of Solomon his son. The less necessitated we are to regard David’s polygamy in the light of individual sin, the more emphatic in the light of history does the tendency of the practice proclaim itself as thoroughly and irredeemably bad.3
3 And David took more wives in Jerusalem, and David fathered more sons and daughters.