17 This was a small thing in your eyes, God; but you have spoken of your servant's house for a great while to come, and have respected me according to the estate of a man of high degree, Yahweh God.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Hast regarded me - i. e., "Thou hast elevated me above other men, by making my kingdom perpetual, regarding me as if I were a man of high degree." Compare the 2-Samuel 7:19 note.
And [yet] this was a small thing in thine eyes, O God; for thou hast [also] spoken of thy servant's house for a great while to come, and hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of (o) high degree, O LORD God.
(o) You have promised a kingdom that will continue to me and my posterity and that Christ will proceed from me.
Instead of the words האדם תּורת וזאת (2-Samuel 7:19), the Chronicle has המּעלה האדם כּתור וּראיתני, and sawest me (or, that thou sawest me) after the manner of men; תּור being a contraction of תּורה = תּורה. ראה, to see, may denote to visit (cf. 2-Samuel 13:5; 2-Kings 8:29), or look upon in the sense of regard, respicere. But the word המּעלה remains obscure in any case, for elsewhere it occurs only as a substantive, in the significations, "the act of going up" (or drawing up) (Ezra 7:9), "that which goes up" (Ezekiel 11:5), "the step;" while for the signification "height" (locus superior) only this passage is adduced by Gesenius in Thes. But even had the word this signification, the word המּעלה could not signify in loco excelso = in coelis in its present connection; and further, even were this possible, the translation et me intuitus es more hominum in coelis gives no tolerable sense. But neither can המעלה be the vocative of address, and a predicate of God, "Thou height, Jahve God," as Hgstb. Christol. i. p. 378 trans., takes it, with many older commentators. The passage Psalm 92:9, "Thou art מרום, height, sublimity for ever, Jahve," is not sufficient to prove that in our verse המּעלה is predicated of God. Without doubt, המּעלה should go with וגו ראיתני, and appears to correspond to the למרחוק of the preceding clause, in the signification: as regards the elevation, in reference to the going upwards, i.e., the exaltation of my race (seed) on high. The thought would then be this: After the manner of men, so condescendingly and graciously, as men have intercourse with each other, hast Thou looked upon or visited me in reference to the elevation of myself or my race, - the text of the Chronicle giving an explanation of the parallel narrative.
(Note: This interpretation of this extremely difficult word corresponds in sense to the not less obscure words in 2nd Samuel, and gives us, with any alteration of the text, a more fitting thought than the alterations in the reading proposed by the moderns. Ewald and Berth. would alter וראיתני into והראיתני (hiph.), and המעלה into למעלה, in order to get the meaning, "Thou hast caused me to see like the series of men upwards," i.e., the line of men who stretch from David outward into the far future in unbroken series, which Thenius rightly calls a thoroughly modern idea. Bttcher's attempt at explanation is much more artificial. He proposes, in N. k. Aehrenlese, iii. S. 225, to read למעלה...וּראיתני, and translates: "so that I saw myself, as the series of men who follow upwards shall see me, i.e., so that I could see myself as posterity will see me, at the head of a continuous family of rulers:" where the main idea has to be supplied.)
The divergence in 1-Chronicles 17:18, את־עבדּך לכבוד אליך instead of אליך לדבּר (2-Samuel 7:20), which cannot be an explanation or interpretation of Samuel's text, is less difficult of explanation. The words in Samuel, "What can David say more unto Thee?" have in this connection the very easily understood signification, What more can I say of the promise given me? and needed no explanation. When, instead of this, we read in the Chronicle, "What more can Thy servant add to Thee in regard to the honour to Thy servant?" an unprejudiced criticism must hold this text for the original, because it is the more difficult. It is the more difficult, not only on account of the omission of לדבּר, which indeed is not absolutely necessary, though serving to explain יוסיף, but mainly on account of the unusual construction of the nomen כבוד with את־עבדּך, honour towards Thy servant. The construction יהוה את דּעה is not quite analogous, for כבוד is not a nomen actionis like דּעה; את־ כבד is rather connected with the practice which begins to obtain in the later language of employing את as a general casus obliquus, instead of any more definite preposition (Ew. 277, d, S. 683f., der 7 Aufl.), and is to be translated: "honour concerning Thy servant." The assertion that את־עבדּך is to be erased as a later gloss which has crept into the text, cuts the knots, but does not untie them. That the lxx have not these words, only proves that these translators did not know what to make of them, and so just omitted them, as they have omitted the first clause of 1-Chronicles 17:19. In 1-Chronicles 17:19 also there is no valid ground for altering the עבדּך בּעבוּר of the Chronicle to make it correspond to דּברך בּעבוּר in Samuel; for the words, "for Thy servant's sake," i.e., because Thou hast chosen Thy servant, give a quite suitable sense; cf. the discussion on 2-Samuel 7:21. In the second half of the verse, however, the more extended phrases of 2nd Samuel are greatly contracted.
*More commentary available at chapter level.