The Old Testament as Christian Scripture for Vocational Discipleship

The Scriptures clearly teach that faithfulness to the Lord is not limited to the parameters of the church. Whenever Christians go into the public arenas of society, they are to remain faithful to the Lord by fulfilling their secular duties with excellence. Such an act is not considered by the New Testament writers as a lesser form of Christian living, but rather another way to express true fidelity to the Lord. The Apostle Paul makes precisely this point when, in Colossians 3:22–23, he instructs believers who are bondservants to “obey in everything those who are your earthly masters” (ESV). In fact, he makes this abundantly clear when he further articulates the nature of this obedience “not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord” (ESV). Not only does he describe what faithfulness in a public sphere should not look like, but he goes on to describe what it should positively look like: “whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men” (Col 3:23 ESV). In other words, Paul says serve well even your earthly masters because in reality you serve the Lord. This service includes all aspects of life, from our home, our church, and our careers. When Paul says this, he is borrowing from an Old Testament virtue that calls God’s people to be faithful in the totality of their lives. The purpose of this essay is to trace the Old Testament background to such a call to life that includes the private to the public areas of life, from worship of God to our vocational callings. We will begin with an examination of two key Old Testament texts: Deuteronomy 6, which calls us to love God in every aspect of our lives and Genesis 1–2, which shows that love for God is expressed in humanity’s worship and cultural tasks. From there, we will look at two examples of people who loved God in their worship and vocation, Solomon and Daniel.

The Importance of Deuteronomy 6

It is difficult not to begin this discussion of an Old Testament approach to holistic discipleship with Deuteronomy 6:4–9. This passage is known as the shema as it is the first Hebrew word in verse 4 (shema, the imperative to “hear” with an ethical overtone, meaning “to heed” or “obey”). Its importance is best illustrated by the fact that our Lord cites it as the “great and first” commandment in Matthew 22:37–38.

Verse four can easily be overlooked. To do so, however, would be to miss a key foundation for covenantal discipleship. After the initial exhortation to “heed,” this opening verse states the Lord is both “our” God and “one” God. Though the specific translation of the Hebrew is uncertain, the message is not. By calling him “our” God, the corporate community of Israel is identified as the recipient of this mandate (not an individual). By calling him “one” God, the Lord claims to be the one and only God, in contrast to the surrounding nations who appeal to multiple lesser deities. In addition to this, the divine name (Yahweh, the Lord) is used. By using the covenant name, a clearer identity of God is made. This is the same God who liberated the previous generation from harsh labor in Egypt (Exod 6:1–8), who provided and protected them during the forty-year wanderings of the wilderness, who is fulfilling his covenantal promises to their ancient forefathers of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Israelites are, therefore, included as members of a holy community that has professed Yahweh as their God—a community that goes as far back as the days of Noah (Gen 4:25–26), possibly even Adam.

By introducing the identity of the Lord at the outset of this passage, Deuteronomy 6 establishes Israel’s God as their covenant Lord and Israel as his vassal people. This is the context in which they are called to “love the Lord” in verse five, thus confirming the identity of the divine sovereign prior to the covenant commandments. By doing this, Deuteronomy 6 engages in standard treaty operating procedure by which the suzerain establishes his identity and great accomplishments in order to encourage covenant fidelity from his vassal. This identification of God has a direct effect on Israel. Because of the Lord’s redemptive work, Israel is a transformed people—from enslaved to redeemed. The stipulation to love is given based on this new identity. In other words, verse four does not only indicate the Lord’s identity, but Israel’s as well. They are told that they are a liberated people so that they can do what they were unable to do in Egypt, worship and follow his holy commands.

New Testament discipleship is based on this fundamental Old Testament premise, that the imperatives of the believers (i.e., Christian living) rests on their indicative (i.e., transformation through the redemptive work of Christ). This is the reason why, when Scripture describes the life of the believer, it does not begin by focusing on duties and requirements. Instead, it begins with the redemptive work of God. Only when we properly acknowledge what the Lord has made us can we have any hope of living out our calling. Such is the case with Israel in the Old Testament, and thus Deuteronomy 6 begins with a fundamental doctrine of God.^[1]

Once this theological foundation has been laid, Deuteronomy 6 moves on to the requirement for the people, to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (6:5 ESV). Since this immediately follows the ten commandments (5:1–21), the implication is Israel can show their love for God by obeying these commandments. Given this connection, three exegetical observations demonstrate that this call to love God is not limited to one sphere of Israel’s life but rather is all-encompassing. The first is regarding the extent of its recipients. This call transcends age, demographics, and generations. Notice that Israelite parents first are encouraged to love the Lord, then they are to pass this virtue onto their children (v.7). The book of Deuteronomy envisions covenant faithfulness as a virtue that is passed on from one generation to the next, until the entire nation becomes a God-fearing people (sadly, this vision is unrealized).

The second observation is that this call to love God is a lifestyle. Verse 7 encourages Israelite parents to teach these commandments to their children “when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (ESV). Two specific parameters are mentioned here. There is a spatial dimension, that they are to teach these commandments wherever they go, whether in the confines of the home (“whenever you sit in your house”) or outside of the home (“whenever you walk by the way”). Second, there is a temporal dimension. They are to teach the commandments “when you lie down and when you rise.” Godly instruction is to be done from the moment they wake until they rest for sleep. Deuteronomy, therefore, also envisions godly instruction to be done all day, every day, at every location the Israelites go.

The third observation is that Israel is to love God with the totality of their person. The call to love God is to be done “with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your might” (6:5). According to Scott Redd, the three-fold spheres of the heart, soul, and might are a development from the innermost of a person’s core to the public aspects of their lives.^[2] The word “heart” refers to the “seat of a person, the core of their inner life out of which the rest of their existence springs.” “Soul” refers to the whole person; it is often used when acts are done to “oneself” (Num 30:5; 1 Sam 18:3; Isa 53:10). The most intriguing analysis is regarding the final sphere of “might.” The Hebrew word here, me’od, is the common adverb “very.” Its use for “might” is rare (cf. Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27 “strength”). Redd traces a tradition that interprets this strength in wide ranging areas of life, including usages in military, family, farming contexts. Given this, he concludes that the term me’od can be best understood by what we mean by “worldly effect” or the “consequences of a person’s life.”^[3] Therefore, there is movement here. The call to love is not meant to be delimited to the privacy of one’s thoughts alone in the heart. Every aspect of the individual is meant to love God—from the inner essence of a person (“heart”) to the entirety of the person (“soul”), even to the public aspects of life (“might”). This is consistent with the ever-expanding nature of the passage—from the individual to the community, from the inner sphere of the home to the public areas of society, from the deepest thoughts to their impact on the world. In all aspects of Israel’s social and community life, they are called to love the Lord and conform to his covenantal norms.

Creational Mandates of the Garden

Although the book of Deuteronomy was not available in the Garden of Eden, we see the same principles of total dedication in the mandates assigned to Adam. Whereas there was the cultural mandate that governed humanity’s relationship with their fellow creatures, so also there was a worship-mandate (i.e., cultic-mandate) that governed their direct relationship with their creator. Above all other virtues, humanity was to offer worship to their God in a holy bond of fellowship, and they undoubtedly did so. In the garden, their relationship with God was void of barriers as there was no sin to corrupt it. There is a priestly component to this aspect of the divine-human relationship best exemplified in Genesis 2:15, where Adam was called to till the garden landscape, but also to “protect” it. Such obligation was descriptive of Israel’s priests who also were to safeguard the sanctity of the holy dwelling of the tabernacle and temple (Num 1:53; 1 Sam 7:1; 2 Kings 12:9). The holy nature of such a task is evident by the fact that it was passed on to the angelic cherubim in Genesis 3:24 after humanity’s failure. That Adam was called to do the same illustrates a priestly element to his duties.

The most common commission is the well-known cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26–28. According to this mandate, Adam was to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28 ESV). This task directly corresponds with their royal identity as image bearers of God as they were to exercise “dominion” (1:26) over all creation. They were sent to “fill the earth” by being “fruitful” and “multiplying.” The purpose of this mission was to establish a cadre of humanity that would grow into a vast community. From a heavenly perspective, what is envisioned is creation covered with the glory of God as the divine-image-bearing humanity spreads over the entirety of the earth. Of course, this community would need basic social order that defines how they are to live together, leadership of some sort (i.e., governance), even some semblance of clearly defined rules and regulations on what activities are deemed permissible. They would also need homes to dwell in, which in turn would require a sophisticated civil infrastructure. In other words, the goal of the cultural mandate was the establishment of a holy civilization, a glorious city with the Creator-God as their heavenly king—a holy kingdom.

Given the presence of these two mandates, five conclusions can be drawn. First, the depiction of life in the garden was one of total consecration to the Lord. Humanity’s cultural task dealt with their horizontal dominion over the entirety of creation. The cultic task was focused on a vertical relationship with the Lord as their Creator-King, who is worthy of all worship, adoration, and praise. Together, both covered every aspect of covenant life and accomplished as an expression of love to the Lord (Deut 6:4ff.).

Second, the city-construction task would have required the full utilization of humanity’s God-endowed abilities, both intellectual and physical. They began as priestly gardeners to care and work the garden of God (Gen 2:15). This would have progressed beyond agricultural tasks to those more urban in nature. Construction of a city-wide project would have required the preparation of material goods subdued from creation (Gen 1:28). The designing of such work would have permitted for artistic expression—a skill that was also seen in the designing of the tabernacle (Exod 31:2–5; 36:1). Meredith G. Kline states this memorably when he says, “The cultural mandate put all the capacity of human brain and brawn to work in a challenging and rewarding world to develop the original paradise home into a universal city.”^[4]

Third, and related to the previous point, human work was mirrored by the Lord’s work of creation. Four Hebrew words are used to describe the divine task in Genesis 1. The first is the word bara’ (1:1). This word is often overly theologized to mean creation-ex-nihilo, when it also occurs to describe human actions such as birth (Ps 102:18 [MT 18]), the clearing of previously existing grounds (Josh 17:15), and the making of signposts (Ezek 21:19 [MT 24]). A second “creation” word is the Hebrew ‘asah (1:7, 16), which is commonly used throughout the Old Testament for basic and daily activities, even human construction projects (Exod 37:24; Isa 44:17). A third is yasar meaning “to fashion” (2:7, 19), which describes the precision work of artisans (Isa 29:16; 44:9). The fourth and most unexpected is banah meaning “to build” (2:22), which is the verb used in all kinds of construction projects. The use of these verbs depicts the Lord engaged in the activities similar to those of the average Israelite. Such a depiction parallels the vocation of humanity as being an earthly expression of the divine work of creation. As humanity is given a theophoric description (image of God), so the Creator-God is given an anthropomorphic one, which is used in Exodus 20:11 to encourage Sabbath observance.^[5] This also gives human vocation a divine integrity which cannot (and dare not) be minimized as a lesser expression of love for God than worship.

Fourth is the primacy of the cult (i.e., worship). The creation week climaxes with the Sabbath day. According to Genesis 2:2–3, the Lord completed his work of creation on this day, and thus this was a day of rest. The Lord’s rest was the explanation for human rest on the sabbath day (Exod 20:11). Hebrews 4:4–9 interprets the Sabbath not as a day of the week (temporal), but rather as a reference to a place of heavenly and consummated rest (locative). In a word, it refers to the eternal kingdom of God. The fact that Hebrews interprets the eternal kingdom as a “Sabbath-rest” suggests that this kingdom will be marked by the cessation of work. If this is correct, then this possibly might offer a correction on a false impression that has been made by many Christian leaders—that heaven is a time when there will be no pastors (thus no worship by implication) but is rather a time of perfected and glorified work. The argument is that there is no need for preachers since this is a time of eternal consummate glory for a consummated and glorified humanity. What need does an incorruptible community have for preaching and worship? Scripture does not give a clear description of the relationship of worship and vocation in the eternal kingdom; thus one cannot be dogmatic on this point. The eternal kingdom will be a time when humanity will have perfected love for God (cultic mandate), but also a perfected love for their neighbor (cultural mandate). If this Sabbath imagery is correct, then this also informs the value of human vocation as a blessed service for humanity in the present that may, or may not, continue in glory. A higher and more significant blessing than service/work is rest, where God’s people can rejoice in their identity not only as servants but as sons (i.e., children) of God.

A fifth and final observation is that the cultural and cultic mandates function as two sides of a theocratic order, since both tasks were holy mandates. However, after the fall, humanity found themselves in the common grace realm of a non-holy world. The cultural and cultic tasks continue, yet they are now distinguished from each other where only the cult remains holy. The cultural task now takes on the characteristics of common grace virtues and is no longer holy. This does not diminish the importance of culture formation, but rather provides it with proper goals. Though still done with devotion and love for God, the cultural task for humanity is for the good of both the reprobate and elect alike without discrimination or prejudice. This is the foundation for vocation moving forward with the exception of those times where a theocratic order intrudes within human history (e.g., the ark of Noah, the nation of Israel).^[6]

The Example of Solomon

These are the programmatic principles that establish a proper Old Testament understanding of vocation in covenant living. To illustrate this vocation, we now examine two examples of Solomon the king of Israel and Daniel the Judean statesman in Babylon.

Solomon is best known for a divinely endowed wisdom that far surpassed all other sages and wisemen of his day (1 Kings 4:29–32). When he was coronated as king, he appealed to the Lord for wisdom because he seemed aware of his inability to govern Israel well (3:4–14). So impressed by the fact that Solomon did not request wealth, long life, or military victories, the Lord blessed him with this extraordinary wisdom along with all these other blessings. He immediately applied this wisdom by settling the dispute of two prostitutes over the single infant (3:16–27). This provided an opportunity to showcase his newly endowed wisdom before all of God’s people (3:28).

The application of Solomon’s wisdom was extended well beyond the development of Israel’s system of legal jurisprudence. 1 Kings 4 describes the application of the Solomonic wisdom in domestic matters within Israel. David, his father, had spent the entirety of his reign engaged in military warfare against his enemies, both foreign and domestic. 2 Samuel 2–4 describes David’s long conflict against pro-Saul forces. 2 Samuel 5 and 8 describes his war against the surrounding nations.

Solomon appears to have inherited the political stability established by his father. This stability, in turn, allowed him to focus his efforts on the growth of Israel as a people with their own distinct identity—that is, he began to develop an Israelite culture. 1 Kings 4 mentions the officials of Solomon’s royal court (4:1–6). He organized Israel into twelve districts, each with their own local administrator with one overarching governor (4:7–19). Their task was to provide for the daily food provisions of the royal community in a rotational cycle. This distribution of labor meant that no single area was overly burdened in work, the result being the steady provision of rations for the king and for all Israel so that “they ate and drank and were happy” (4:20 ESV).

Not only did Solomon apply his wisdom to establish these social programs, but he also developed Israel’s first standing military (4:26). 1 Kings 9:26 and 10:22 mentions a fleet of ships that were used for the importing and exporting of material goods to develop Israel’s economy. 1 Kings 4:29–32 describes the growth of Israel’s art and literature. Even linguistically, a new standard literary Hebrew (or Classical Biblical Hebrew) was established in the days of Solomon which was used when writing literary works. In other words, all the social factors in forming a culture began to arise during this stage and Israel began to grow as a distinct nation with their own set of cultural expressions. So significant was this growth that the great German scholar Gerhard Von Rad called this rise of Israel’s identity a “Solomonic humanism.”^[7] Since the biblical text in Kings makes frequent intertextual references to the Pentateuch, I prefer to call this a “Solomonic Renaissance,” a retrieval of ancient Mosaic writings and the recognition of ancient covenantal promises.

A large part of this Solomonic Renaissance included the construction of significant building projects. The most noteworthy of these was the temple. The task of temple construction was explicitly stated in the covenant of David (2 Sam 7:13) and Solomon is depicted as fulfilling that cultic task. The importance of the temple is reinforced by its central location in the chiastic organization of 1 Kings 3–11:

A 3:1–3  Marriage to Egyptian princess

B 3:4–19  Solomon’s request for wisdom

C 3:16–28  Demonstration of wisdom (two mothers)

D 4:1–34  Governmental organization

E 5:1–9:14  Temple construction and dedication

D’ 9:15–28  Governmental overview

C’ 10:1–13  Demonstration of wisdom (Queen of Sheba)

B’ 10:14–29  Solomon’s great wisdom and wealth

A’ 11:1–43  Marriage to foreign women

The Book of Second Chronicles has a similar chiasm that also has a central location for the temple construction:

A   2 Chr. 1  Solomon’s endowment of wisdom and wealth

B   2 Chr. 2  Solomon’s International assistance for temple construction

C   2 Chr. 3–5:1  Construction of the temple

D   2 Chr. 5:2–7:10  Dedication of the temple

D’   2 Chr. 7:11–22  God’s response to Solomon

C’   2 Chr. 8:1–16  Solomon’s other building projects

B’   2 Chr. 8:17–9:21  Solomon’s International relations

A’   2 Chr. 9:22–28  Solomon’s wisdom and wealth

One outstanding difference between Kings and Chronicles is the fact that Kings portrays Solomon as a creator of the culture of Israel and the temple of God. Chronicles, however, depicts Solomon as a temple builder exclusively. Little is said regarding his interest in culture formation. The reason for this absence is not given. Since Chronicles (a post-exilic text) was written in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple, it is possible that Solomon’s exclusive concern with the temple was to encourage the post-exilic Judeans to prioritize the reconstruction of the Solomonic temple and reestablish the vertical connection with the Lord in worship.^[8]

Therefore, Solomon illustrates an Israelite king who exercises his wisdom to establish Israel as a nation (cultural task). As significant as that may be, his primary interest was in the construction of the temple (cultic task). This is affirmed by the central location of the temple construction in the organizational structure in Kings and Chronicles. In that regard, Solomon mirrors the same tasks that Adam had in the garden. Adam also used all his intellect, skill, and strength to build a glorious city for the growing population of image-bearers. This city was holy, a temple-city where the people can rejoice in the primary interest of living in consummated fellowship with their Creator-King for all eternity.

The Example of Daniel

Daniel is another example that illustrates the proper approach to vocational engagement. In comparison to Solomon, Daniel’s situation differed significantly. Unlike Solomon whose career was within the boundaries of the holy-kingdom realm of Israel, Daniel’s vocational career was in the non-holy land of Babylon. Unlike Solomon who was the creator of culture, Daniel lived and worked in a pre-existing culture. His entire professional career was as a servant in the court of pagan kings. He began as a court official under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and continued until the reign of Cyrus the Great, a span of over seventy years. During that time, Daniel appeared to adapt and accept the cultural norms of his new setting. He appeared to “seek the welfare of the city” where the Lord had sent him (cf. Jer 29:7), even though this was a city (and king) who decimated his people and his city Jerusalem. In other words, Daniel’s life has similarities with the contemporary situation of Christian believers who also are called to do work as spiritual “sojourners and exiles” (1 Pet 2:11) in a spiritually hostile context. For that reason, the life of Daniel is instructive for us today.

There is a significant observation to note regarding Daniel: he was young, intelligent, and handsome who hailed from either a royal or noble family (Dan 1:3–4). These were the selection criteria that Nebuchadnezzar used to determine who among the Judean exiles would be trained in Babylonian cultural distinctives. There are several reasons why these people were selected. First, they are from the higher echelons of the Judean community. If the social elite were to acknowledge Babylonian supremacy, this would persuade their fellow Judeans to comply to the social norms of their captors and establish a submissive spirit to their cultural overlords. Second, they are handsome. Since these youths were expected to serve in the royal court, a way for a king to establish his superiority to visiting royal dignitaries was by showcasing the physical beauty of his court-servants. Third, they were intelligent. They needed to show they possessed the skills to do the work of statecraft, serve in an advisory and diplomatic role, and even offer strategic military counsel whenever needed. Since Daniel met these criteria, he was a logical person to go through the rigorous cultural assimilation program of Babylon (Dan 1:4).

In each stage of this re-culturalization process, Daniel embraced the new societal norms placed upon him. The first stage of his assimilation was to become a eunuch. It was a common practice in the ancient world for prisoners-of-war to be made eunuchs. The fact that Daniel has the “chief eunuch” (1:3 ESV) with oversight over him suggests that Daniel shared that similar experience.^[9] Since the Hebrew word for “eunuch” (saris) can also mean “official,” we cannot be dogmatic on this point. If correct, it testifies to the extent that Daniel was willing to conform to the cultural norms of his surroundings.

A second stage in Babylon’s assimilation was reeducation, to “teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (1:4 ESV). The “language of the Chaldeans” was the east-semitic language of Akkadian, which was written using cuneiform signs. This is a difficult writing system for a complex language. Their “literature” was vast, ranging from basic economic texts to elevated epic poems. Omen texts particularly seemed to have fascinated Nebuchadnezzar since he was interested in “magicians and enchanters” (1:20). Daniel must have studied well as he excelled academically in all these areas, becoming a very competent philologist. This made him an entrusted scribe and sage for numerous kings throughout his career.

A third stage was the reception of a new name; Daniel was renamed “Beltshazzar” (1:6–7). A new name has two effects. One, it gave Daniel a new cultural identity. By receiving a Babylonian name, the strategy was that Daniel slowly forget his Judean origins and embrace Babylon as his home. Two, it reminded him that he was prisoner under a higher authority, specifically the Babylonian king who renamed him.

Surprisingly, Daniel was willing to conform to these cultural standards without raising any issues. He did not rebel against these changes, he did not argue or complain about them, nor did he attempt to transform Babylon. Instead, he accepted them and “prospered” (Dan 6:28), even to his own physical detriment (i.e., eunuch). However, the only time he refused to comply was when he was required to eat the royal meal of the king. For Daniel, to partake of this meal would “defile himself” before God (1:8). He wanted to live in peace with Babylon, but not at the expense of losing his vertical access with his God. For that reason, he was “resolved” not to eat these foods, even if that put him in harm’s way.

This was not the only time Daniel stood firm in opposition to his authorities. He would again revolt against a human king in Daniel 6 (Darius the Mede) when a royal edict demanded all peoples to direct their prayers to the earthly monarch, not to their gods. In Daniel 3, the three friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego also stood their ground in defiance to a royal decree that mandated the worshipping of a pagan idol in the image of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, it seems that Daniel and his three friends had a modus operandi for life in exile: they were willing to participate in the assimilation process and the daily routines of life until their fidelity to the Lord was challenged and they were no longer permitted to “have no other gods” before the one and only God (Exod 20:3; Deut 5:7). In other words, Daniel eagerly and wholeheartedly loved his neighbor as himself (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39; Mark 12:31), but not if this meant compromising his heart to love God with all his heart, soul, and might (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37–38; Mark 12:30). Such priority is applicable for us, even in our day today as we engage in our vocational calls as pilgrims in unholy land.

Conclusion

What we see in the Old Testament is a call to love the Lord. This is the highest of virtues in covenant living. This is true throughout the entirety of the Holy Scriptures, both in the Old and the New. Love for God is not partitioned to narrow areas of an individual’s life, nor is limited to specific days or times of the year. Love for God is done with every fiber of our being in every area of our lives—in our acts of worship and the duties of our professions. Because we ultimately do all our works in service to the Lord, nothing short of our best efforts is expected. All our abilities, intelligence, skills, strengths are to be in service to our God. There will come a time when our vocations will be transformed. They will either become glorified thus productive, meaningful, satisfying, devoid of any corruption by sin; or they will come to a terminus so that we may enjoy the eternal and consummated Sabbath-rest. Regardless, we are called now to work and to do so with excellence. Solomon did so, as did Daniel. By faith in the Lord, so we can as well.

______________________

[1] Notice Deut 6:20–25 where a child asks about the commandments. The response is not to begin by commenting on the commandments, but rather by remembering the redemptive work of God.

[2] Scott Redd, The Wholeness Imperative: How Christ Unifies our Desires, Identity and Impact in the World (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2018), 19–21.

[3] Redd, Wholeness, 22.

[4] Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundation for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 70.

[5] See Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 96–98, where he says God invited Adam and Eve to “participate in his creative work.”

[6] See Gen 9:7, where the cultural mandate is reissued after the flood, yet in a common grace order. For a description of the covenant of Noah in Genesis 9:9 as a common grace covenant, see David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 78–81.

[7] Gerhard Von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 83.

[8] Solomon’s polygamy and apostasy is also excluded in the Chronicler’s account. It is possible that the Chronicler is attempting to develop an identity of the kind of Davidic son that is needed, one that is faithful, obedient, and focused with the primacy of the temple construction to restore proper worship to the Lord. Cf. Zech 6:9–12 that describes the messianic “branch” whose primary task is to build the temple of the Lord.

[9] Cf. Isa 39:7 that warns Israelite sons will be made eunuchs in the exile.