Chronicles: A Theological Commentary

By Paul Kragt

This short volume is a theological commentary on the Old Testament books of Chronicles. As commentary written for the educated layperson, it assumes the reader will already have some familiarity the stories and literature of the Old Testament/Tanakh. Paul Kragt is a lay theologian, artist, and educator.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Paul Kragt
• Release date: Jan 4, 2014
• ISBN: 9781311699008

Book preview

Preliminary doubts

Whether in the popular or in the expert evaluation, Chronicles has suffered from comparisons made to that more highly regarded historical compilation of Samuel-Kings. Chronicles is considered to be later, derivative, historically unreliable, slight in theological importance, even artificial or contrived. But is it not the very conventional if (also) excessive success itself of Samuel-Kings which has led to some of these negative notions? The conventional success of the theological theme of Jesus’ training of a small group of twelve in Mark’s gospel, makes it difficult, it seems to me, to present Luke’s more democratic-prophetic interest in Jesus’ training of a larger number of disciples. So the popularity or prevalence of themes deriving from Samuel-Kings prevents readers from seeing what is being presented theologically in Chronicles. As pragmatic necessity then I need to begin by clearing away some of that vegetative undergrowth which has its origin in Samuel-Kings. Certain familiar themes may need to be cordoned off-before we can even begin to identify and appreciate the native vegetative species, the themes peculiar to Chronicles.

In this first chapter, then, I wish to make two brief attempts to place at least some small seed of doubt in the reader’s mind. My first example will attempt to challenge the assumption that Samuel-Kings must be more historically reliable than Chronicles. My second example will question the assumption that Samuel-Kings is sufficiently comprehensive or complete in its coverage as historical account.

Chronicles is certainly more limited in scope than Samuel-Kings. It includes, for example, almost no stories/narratives of a personal sort. It lacks the story of Hannah, Samuel’s mother, dedicating Samuel to temple work; it lacks most of those stories of Saul and David, two individuals both anointed and struggling for active political role or function; it lacks the stories of the family trials and tribulations of king David and his son Absalom. Samuel-Kings as well, gives a regular and ongoing attention to the breakaway northern kingdom, and thus includes accounts of Elijah active in the northern kingdom. Elijah is a prophet’s prophet, standing against both corrupt government and a corrupt northern religion, all of this for the sake of those of God’s people who are living in the north. Chronicles will only mention Saul briefly, and then will pay attention exclusively to the southern kingdom with its capital and its temple in Jerusalem. But as a rhetorical question at this point, and leaving aside David and Solomon, which of these two histories are you as reader inclined to trust as being more accurate in describing the late (southern) kings?

It seems obvious to me that a central theological preoccupation of the author of Samuel-Kings is the persistent and thus almost complete failure of any and all political aspirants. The individual who is qualified to be king and who is acceptable to Yahweh–Where shall this one be found? Hezekiah and Josiah are OK, but it is only David who just barely passes muster as sufficient to such lofty standards. But does the tracing of this theme make for good history–as history?

Samuel-Kings has certainly been interesting, effective, and forceful in its presentation of historical and theological themes. Many of us are familiar with many of these stories and accounts. But if the primary author of Samuel-Kings (who, for convenience, I will call the Historian) was a contemporary witness to the growth of the early kingdom under the tutelage of the priestly-prophetic Samuel, and thus lived at the time of David, etc., then this same individual could not have been alive hundreds of years later to witness, for example, the failed kingship of Manasseh. If the early eyewitness accounts are accurate or genuine, then the later narrative cannot be based on this primary-author’s eyewitness accounts.

To re-iterate this point, Moses, living to a hundred and twenty years, might have (feasibly, at least) both lived through, and then also written-up, the exodus events, as well as the laws and ordinances which, as is claimed, were given to him during later years in the desert. But if the primary author of Samuel-Kings was a contemporary of the early years of the Israelite Kingdom, then can we not assume that his themes must have been finished off by a later assistant; someone else must have written about the failures of those kings in the late southern kingdom, after the northern no longer exists–having been destroyed by the Assyrians. May we not assume, then, that the post-exilic author of the Chronicles history could have had comparable access to recent and reliable historical sources as had this hypothetical Samuel-Kings assistant, except that this assistant would have had his ready-made themes which must be followed.

My focus in this example will be on king Manasseh, about whom the two histories give very different evaluations. Samuel-Kings singles out Manasseh (2 Kings 21) as being the worst of the worst, the worst of a very bad lot. Manasseh, in this literary-historical presentation, becomes the one specific and quite individual and evil person, who, given kingly authority, fails so horribly that Yahweh decides that he must put an end to the national kingdom-experiment. All, including Jerusalem and its temple, will be destroyed because of Manasseh. Of course, as a supporter of Chronicles and its themes I would argue at this juncture that Manasseh has become more of a literary than a strictly historical character. Manasseh is presented (it must be) in literary apposition to another individual, the good and noble kingly aspirant, David. And it seems likely to me that the Chronicler presents an alternative historical account of Manasseh not only because the Chronicler has other information about this one king, Manasseh, but because Manasseh also will have thematic significance for Samuel-Kings, and the author of Chronicles wishes to maintain other themes in contra-distinction to those of his predecessor.

Chronicles describes Manasseh (2 Chron 33) as undergoing a great and even exemplary personal conversion experience. Manasseh begins as one of the worst and most apostate of the kings but ends up as one of the best of all of the kings, at least morally or personalistically speaking. This is Chronicles’ version of history. Manasseh’s one-chapter prayer of repentance is included in the OT Canon of some Christian traditions but not included by others. It is used regularly during Lent, for example, in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy.

R. Dillard in his 2 Chronicles commentary (Word Biblical Commentary) notes that Manasseh’s name is mentioned in Assyrian records as being a vassal king. Is it not at least plausible–(and as historical fact)–that this king was bound in chains and (either literally, or at least figuratively) taken to Assyria, where he subsequently has a major change of heart. If Samuel-Kings misses this fact either via choice, or negligence–and this–because of thematic/literary objectives, if in effect the primary-secondary authors of Samuel-Kings choose to vilify the wrong king, then might Chronicles be the more reliable historical account after