1 Chronicles29:26–30

Satisfied of days: the patriarchal formula laid on a king verbal / quotation: confirmed

The two words that close David's life, בְּשֵׂיבָ֣ה (sêybâh, H7872) and שְׂבַ֥ע (sâbêaʻ, H7649), are the words used of Abraham at Genesis 25:8, of Isaac at Genesis 35:29, and of Job at Job 42:17. The Verifier confirms both lexemes shared with Genesis 25:8, and sâbêaʻ is genuinely rare: ten verses in the canon. Ellicott makes the same connection from the other direction, citing Genesis 15:15 and Genesis 35:29 on this verse, and adding the LXX and Vulgate renderings. The effect of the borrowing is that David is filed with the patriarchs rather than with the kings who will follow him; every later monarch in Chronicles gets the succession formula of v. 28b, but almost none gets this one.

Genesis 25:8 · Genesis 35:29 · Job 42:17

basis: Verifier: Genesis 25:8 shares H7872 sêybâh (in 19 vv) and H7649 sâbêaʻ (in 10 vv); Genesis 35:29 and Job 42:17 share H7649 sâbêaʻ. The rare lexeme sâbêaʻ carries the verbal link. No quotation is claimed in either direction: this is a shared death formula, not a citation.

Rôʼeh and chôzeh: two words for seer, and the argument about them verbal / quotation: confirmed

Verse 29 names Samuel הָרֹאֶ֔ה (rôʼeh, H7203) and Gad הַחֹזֶֽה (chôzeh, H2374), and English collapses both to Seer. The Verifier ties this verse to Isaiah 30:10, where the same two nouns stand together as the people tell the seers not to see, and to 1 Samuel 9:18-19 and 1 Chronicles 9:22 and 26:28, where rôʼeh attaches to Samuel. Both lexemes are uncommon: eleven verses and seventeen verses. Barnes reads the difference as rank, Samuel's title being higher and Gad's the common one; Pulpit reads it as chronology from the aside at 1 Samuel 9:9, where the old word rôeh is said to have been superseded by nâbîʼ, and concludes that no insidious comparison is possible. Both are in the brief, and the Hebrew of this verse adjudicates neither.

Isaiah 30:10 · 1 Samuel 9:19 · 1 Chronicles 9:22

basis: Verifier: Isaiah 30:10 shares H7203 rôʼeh (in 11 vv) and H2374 chôzeh (in 17 vv); 1 Samuel 9:19 and 1 Chronicles 9:22 share H7203 rôʼeh with H8050 Shᵉmûwʼêl (in 120 vv). Both shared nouns are rare, which is what carries the verbal tier; no direction of quotation is asserted.

The chronicler's closing formula: Solomon gets the same bibliography structural / thematic: confirmed

The pattern of vv. 29 to 30 is not unique to David. At 2 Chronicles 9:29 the chronicler closes Solomon's reign the same way, with his acts כְּתוּבִ֗ים (kâthab, H3789) in the words of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah, and the visions of Iddo the chôzeh. The Verifier records H8010, H3789 and H2374 shared between the two verses. Cambridge and K&D both refer the reader to their Introductions on what these sources were; Barnes does the same. The recurrence matters for how this unit is read: the closing notice is a formula the chronicler applies to reigns he has finished with, which is why David's death gets no lament. Whether the named documents survived is a separate question, and Geneva's marginal note that the books of Nathan and Gad are thought to have been lost in the captivity is reported as a tradition, not a fact.

2 Chronicles 9:29 · 2 Chronicles 12:15

basis: Verifier: 2 Chronicles 9:29 shares H8010 Shᵉlômôh (in 263 vv), H3789 kâthab (in 212 vv) and H2374 chôzeh (in 17 vv) with this unit. All three are common enough that the real link is the repeated closing formula rather than any quotation; 2 Chronicles 12:15 is added on the same first-and-last pattern and is not in the Verifier's candidate list.

The times that went over him: a phrase with no twin structural / thematic: confirmed

Pulpit calls וְהָעִתִּ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָבְר֤וּ עָלָיו֙ a hapax legomenon, and that assessment governs this thread's tier. No shared rare lexeme underwrites a verbal link, because the phrase itself is unrepeated; what exists is a cluster of passages the commentators themselves gather for the sense of עֵת (ʻêth, H6256) as an allotted season. Ellicott cites 1 Chronicles 12:32, Psalm 31:16, Job 24:1 and Daniel 9:25; K&D cites Psalm 31:16 and Job 24:1 for the times with their joys and sorrows; Barnes and Poole both cite Psalm 31:15; Pulpit adds Esther 1:13 and Daniel 7:25. Cambridge glosses the word as the changes, vicissitudes, Geneva's margin as the troubles and griefs. Maclaren's sermon on this verse pushes the noun toward epochs of opportunity, which is a reading, not a lexical fact.

Psalm 31:15 · Job 24:1 · 1 Chronicles 12:32

basis: Not in the Verifier's candidate list, and deliberately not tiered verbal: Pulpit records the phrase as a hapax legomenon. The recorded basis is the commentators' own converging cross-references for H6256 ʻêth in this sense (Ellicott, K&D, Barnes, Poole and Pulpit all cite Psalm 31:15 or 31:16 and Job 24:1; Ellicott and Cambridge add 1 Chronicles 12:32).

He died, and was buried: how the apostles handled David's death structural / thematic: confirmed

Chronicles states David's death and passes straight to the succession and the sources. Two apostolic speeches in Acts make that same bare fact an argument: Peter at Pentecost reasons from David's death and tomb, and Paul at Antioch from David's having served his own generation and then having been laid with his fathers. This is a cross-Testament link, Hebrew to Greek, so no shared Strong's lexeme is available and none is claimed; the connection is the shared use of a king's ordinary death as the fixed point from which something else must be inferred. Chronicles infers a successor and a bibliography; Acts infers a resurrection that David himself did not receive. No commentator in this unit's brief draws this line, so the pairing is this tool's own and is tiered accordingly.

Acts 2:29 · Acts 13:36

basis: Cross-Testament (Hebrew to Greek), so shared Strong's numbers cannot be computed and the verbal tier is unavailable by rule. Structural basis: both Acts passages take David's death and burial as an established, unembellished datum and reason forward from it, which is the same rhetorical use 1 Chronicles 29:28 makes of it. Not supported by any voice in this brief.

What were the words of Samuel, Nathan and Gad? A contested citation flagged: verify source

This thread is flagged because the brief's own witnesses disagree about what v. 29 cites. Benson and Poole both offer two options, our two books of Samuel (begun by Samuel and continued after his death by Nathan and Gad) or separate royal annals kept by prophets who were also, in Benson's word, historiographers. Gill gives both and leans the other way, taking the book of Samuel to mean 1 Samuel and the books of Nathan and Gad to mean 2 Samuel. Cambridge and K&D both refer the reader to their own Introductions, which are not part of this brief, and so does Barnes. Geneva's margin adds a tradition with no textual support, that the books of Nathan and Gad are thought to have been lost in the captivity. What can be verified is only that the same three names recur elsewhere in the chronicler's own work with the same titles: Nathan at 2 Samuel 7:2 and 1 Chronicles 17:1, Gad as David's chôzeh at 2 Samuel 24:11 and 1 Chronicles 21:9, and both together at 2 Chronicles 29:25. The parenthesis at 1 Samuel 9:9, that what is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer, is the one datum in Scripture that bears directly on the titles. The identity of the documents themselves cannot be settled from anything in this unit.

2 Chronicles 29:25 · 2 Samuel 24:11 · 1 Samuel 9:9

basis: Verifier: 2 Chronicles 29:25 shares H2374 chôzeh (in 17 vv), H5030 nâbîyʼ (in 288 vv) and H1410 Gâd (in 69 vv) with this unit, which establishes the recurring pairing of the two named men but not the identity of the cited documents. Flagged, not confirmed, because the provenance is contested inside the brief itself (Benson, Poole and Gill divide over whether these are our books of Samuel or lost prophetic annals; Cambridge, K&D and Barnes defer to Introductions not supplied here) and because Geneva's loss-in-the-captivity claim is a reported tradition with no textual basis. 2 Samuel 24:11 and 1 Samuel 9:9 are the commentators' cross-references, not Verifier candidates.

A dying man on the throne of the LORD ancient/widely-held

⚙ The chronicler has already done something no other biblical writer does: at 1 Chronicles 28:5 he calls David's seat the throne of the kingdom of the LORD, and at 29:23 he says Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD. Barnes gives the reason plainly in this unit's brief, that it is so called because God had set it up and had promised to establish it. Now, four verses later, the occupant of that throne dies, and the throne does not. That is the pressure the text itself creates: a permanent seat and a succession of mortal men, the second of whom is introduced in the same breath as the first one's death (תַּחְתָּֽיו, in his place). Henry, in the brief's concise note on this chapter, states the traditional reading directly, that Solomon's kingdom typified the kingdom of the Messiah, whose throne is the throne of the Lord. Luke's annunciation makes the same identification of an unending throne with the throne of David. The reading is ancient and not novel; what this unit adds is the sharpness of the contrast, since the chronicler sets the eternal throne and the phrase in his place within five verses of each other.

1 Chronicles 28:5 · 1 Chronicles 29:23 · Luke 1:32-33

Satisfied of days, and a Son not satisfied of days ancient/widely-held

⚙ The verdict on David is שְׂבַ֥ע יָמִ֖ים, satisfied of days, a patriarchal blessing (Genesis 25:8; Genesis 35:29; Job 42:17). It is precisely the blessing the Servant of Isaiah 53 does not receive: he is cut off, and the question of his generation is left open. Peter's Pentecost argument works on exactly this asymmetry. David died, his flesh saw corruption, his tomb was still standing when Peter spoke, and therefore the promise of an undying heir had to land on someone else. Paul makes the same move at Antioch. Neither apostle disparages David's good old age; they use it. A man who is satisfied of days is a man whose days ended, and the chronicler's own closing sentence, which pushes past David to Israel and then to all the kingdoms of the lands, wants something larger than the man it just buried. Gill, reading v. 28, reaches for the same enlargement, though by homiletical rather than textual means, when he says David was taken to eternal life, durable riches and honours that fade not away. That is Gill's extension, not the Hebrew's claim, and it is marked as such in this unit's voices.

Acts 2:29-31 · Acts 13:36-37 · Isaiah 53:8

The acts of the king, written: a bibliography as a shape novel

⚙ Offered as this tool's own reading, and marked novel. 1 Chronicles ends by refusing to be the whole record. David's דִּבְרֵי, his words and deeds, stand written upon the words of three named men who saw him, and the reader is sent to them. Nothing in the unit's brief connects this to the Gospels, and no commentator here makes the move. But the shape is worth noticing: the memory of Israel's king is entrusted not to a monument but to witnesses with names, and the evangelists close their accounts the same way, John insisting that his record is partial and selective and that a witness stands behind it, Luke grounding his on those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. If there is a typology here it is a typology of testimony rather than of person, which is a weaker and more honest claim than the two readings above. The chronicler's instinct, that a kingdom outlives its king only if its witnesses are named, is an instinct the New Testament writers share.

John 20:30-31 · John 21:24 · Luke 1:1-4