1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud: An Introduction and Study Guide 9780567697028, 9780567697011, 9780567697059, 9780567697042

Citation preview

T&T CLARK STUDY GUIDES TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yahud Series Editor Adrian Curtis, University of Manchester, UK Published in association with the Society for Old Testament Study

Other titles in the series include: Amos: An Introduction and Study Guide 1 & 2 Kings: An Introduction and Study Guide 1 & 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Study Guide Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Study Guide Exodus: An Introduction and Study Guide Ezra-Nehemiah: An Introduction and Study Guide Hebrews: An Introduction and Study Guide Lamentations: An Introduction and Study Guide Leviticus: An Introduction and Study Guide Jeremiah: An Introduction and Study Guide Job: An Introduction and Study Guide Joel, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah: An Introduction and Study Guide Joshua: An Introduction and Study Guide Psalms: An Introduction and Study Guide Song of Songs: An Introduction and Study Guide Numbers: An Introduction and Study Guide T&T CLARK STUDY GUIDES TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 1 & 2 Thessalonians: An Introduction and Study Guide 1 Peter: An Introduction and Study Guide 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Study Guide Colossians: An Introduction and Study Guide Ephesians: An Introduction and Study Guide Galatians: An Introduction and Study Guide James: An Introduction and Study Guide John: An Introduction and Study Guide Luke: An Introduction and Study Guide Mark: An Introduction and Study Guide Matthew: An Introduction and Study Guide Philemon: An Introduction and Study Guide

Philippians: An Introduction and Study Guide Romans: An Introduction and Study Guide The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Study Guide The Letters of Jude and Second Peter: An Introduction and Study Guide

iv

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud An Introduction and Study Guide Leslie C. Allen

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2021 Copyright © Leslie C. Allen, 2021 Leslie C. Allen has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. Cover design by clareturner.co.uk All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Allen, Leslie C., author. Title: 1 & 2 Chronicles : a message for Yehud : an introduction and study guide / Leslie C. Allen. Other titles: First and Second Chronicles Description: [New York] : Bloomsbury, [2021] | Series: T&T Clark’s study guides to the Old Testament | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Leslie Allen introduces students to the 1 & 2 Chronicles in the Old Testament, incorporating insights from over two decades of previous scholarship while grounding his analysis in earlier key works. ‘A Message for Yehud’ sums up what has been judged to be a fundamental motivation underlying the whole book, a conviction that the obligation to ‘seek the Lord’ in the light of the Torah and prophetic texts must be laid on the hearts of the community of Yehud in the fourth century BCE. To this end, using Samuel-Kings as a basis, Chronicles reviewed pre-exilic royal history for positive and negative clues as to how the generation for which it was written might achieve this spiritual ideal. In the book, Allen shows how this program was communicated all through the book by literary and rhetorical means”– Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021001247 (print) | LCCN 2021001248 (ebook) | ISBN 9780567697011 (paperback) | ISBN 9780567697028 (hardback) | ISBN 9780567697035 (ebook) | ISBN 9780567697042 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Chronicles–Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS1345.52 .A45 2021 (print) | LCC BS1345.52 (ebook) | DDC 222/.6061–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021001247 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021001248 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-9702-8 PB: 978-0-5676-9701-1 ePDF: 978-0-5676-9704-2 eBook: 978-0-5676-9703-5 Series: T&T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters

Contents Preface  viii Series Preface  ix Permissions  xi Abbreviations  xii

1 Introduction  1 2 Chronicles as Communication  11 3 Israel: Elect, Inclusive, and Resilient (1 Chr 1:1–9:34)  25 4 David and Solomon as Spiritual Models (1 Chr 9:35-2 Chr 9:31)  39 5 Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom (2 Chr 10:1–28:27)  63 6 Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Single Kingdom (2 Chr 29:1–36:23)  81 7 The Spirituality and Theology of Chronicles  91 Bibliography  104 Index of Authors  118 Index of Biblical References  120

Preface

This study guide is the successor to the earlier one written by Gwilym H. Jones and published in 1993 by JSOT Press on behalf of the Society for Old Testament Study. It remains a useful guide. Since then, however, there has been a great profusion of scholarly work published in this area, far too much to be surveyed adequately. Accordingly, I have decided to set out a basic approach to Chronicles, one that incorporates insights from over two decades of subsequent scholarship, yet remains grounded in earlier works of substance. The guide is intended for beginners in Chronicles and includes literary leads for more advanced study. Like one of its temple gatekeepers, my task is to open a closed door and welcome people in. The subtitle, A Message for Yehud, sums up what has been judged to be a fundamental motivation underlying the whole book, a conviction that the obligation to “seek the LORD” in the light of the Torah and prophetic texts must be laid on the hearts of the community of Yehud in the fourth century BCE. To this end, using Samuel-Kings as a basis, Chronicles reviewed preexilic royal history for positive and negative clues as to how the generation for which it was written might achieve this spiritual ideal. It has been my concern to show how this program was communicated all through the book by literary and rhetorical means. Thus was produced a new master narrative of challenge and opportunity. New Testament texts have been compared at times for the secondary purpose of contributing to the exegesis of Chronicles. I have employed the NRSV as the primary biblical text to work from, with some citations of the KJV and the 2011 version of the NIV. Differing versification in the Hebrew text has been indicated in parentheses. I am grateful to the series editor, Dr. Adrian Curtis, for the invitation to me, as a member of the Society, to participate in this series and both to him and to the staff at Bloomsbury for their helpfulness in the complex task of preparation and publication. I must also put on record my earnest thanks to the staff of the D. A. Hubbard Library at Fuller Theological Seminary for their willingness to add at my request print books and e-books to the already good stock of works on Chronicles and especially for help as response to the pandemic eased somewhat.

Series Preface

How can a potential reader be sure that a Guide to a biblical book is balanced and reliable? One answer is “If the Guide has been produced under the auspices of an organisation such as the Society for Old Testament Study.” Founded in 1917, the Society for Old Testament Study (or SOTS as it is commonly known) is a British and Irish society for Old Testament scholars, but with a world-wide membership. It seeks to foster the academic study of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible in various ways, for example, by arranging Conferences (usually twice per year) for its members, maintaining links with other learned societies with similar interests in the British Isles and abroad, and producing a range of publications, including scholarly monographs, and collections of essays by individual authors or on specific topics. Periodically it has published volumes seeking to provide an overview of recent developments and emphases in the discipline at the time of publication. The annual Society for Old Testament Study Book List, containing succinct reviews by members of the Society of works on the Old Testament and related areas which have been published in the previous year or so, has proved an invaluable bibliographical resource. With the needs of students in particular in mind, the Society also produced a series of Study Guides to the books of the Old Testament. This first series of Old Testament Guides, published for the Society by Sheffield Academic Press in the 1980s and 1990s, under the general editorship of the late Professor Norman Whybray, was well received as a very useful resource which teachers could recommend to their students with confidence. But it has inevitably become dated with the passage of time, hence the decision that a new series should be commissioned. The aim of the new series is to continue the tradition established by the first Series, namely to provide a concise, comprehensive, manageable, and affordable guide to each biblical book. The intention is that each volume will contain an authoritative overview of the current thinking on the traditional matters of Old Testament/Hebrew Bible introduction, addressing matters of content, major critical issues, and theological perspectives, in the light of recent scholarship, and suggesting suitable further reading. Where

x

Series Preface

appropriate to the particular biblical book or books, attention may also be given to less traditional approaches or particular theoretical perspectives. All the authors are members of the Society, known for their scholarship and with wide experience of teaching in Universities and Colleges. The series general editor, Adrian Curtis, taught Old Testament/Hebrew Bible at the University of Manchester for many years, is a former Secretary of the Society, and was President of the Society for 2016. It is the hope of the Society that these Guides will stimulate in their readers an appreciation of the body of literature whose study is at the heart of all its activities.

Permissions

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Biblica. Copyright © 1989 The Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. Scripture quotations marked NIV are from The Holy Bible, New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of Biblica.

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies BEATAJ  Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament BN Biblische Notizen BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL The Forms of the Old Testament Literature FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HB Hebrew Bible HMS Harvard Monograph Series Int Interpretation JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Series KJV King James Version LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies NCB New Century Bible NIV New International Version (2011 edition) NRSV New Revised Standard Version OTA Old Testament Abstracts OTG Old Testament Guides OTL Old Testament Library

Abbreviations

OTS SBL SBLDS SBLMS SNTSMS VTSup WBC WTJ ZAW

Oudtestamentische Studiën Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xiii

xiv

1 Introduction Judaism honored Chronicles when a widespread tradition placed it at the climactic close of the Hebrew Bible (HB), presumably for recapitulating its history from Adam to the postexilic period. Its alternative placement at the beginning of the Writings also witnesses to its value, with its hero, David, paving the way for the Davidic Psalms (cf. Goswell 2017). Chronicles fits well into the pattern of the theological progression of the three parts of that canon sketched by Marvin A. Sweeney (1997: 365–71). The Torah prescribes the ideal of a covenantal relationship between God and Israel on the world’s behalf; the Former and Latter Prophets point to the disruption of that ideal because of Israel’s failure to implement it, while the Writings present a potential for the implementation of the Torah’s ideal by the restored postexilic Jewish community. Christianity has dealt Chronicles an unintended blow since in its continuing canon it reads the Latter Prophets at the end of the Old Testament (OT), as a bridge to the fulfillment of their prophecies claimed in the New Testament (NT), especially in the First Gospel. With a cruel logic that at least respected its historical basis, Chronicles has been relegated to a position after Samuel-Kings. Because our book mined the quarries of Samuel-Kings extensively for its re-presentation of Israel’s history, the juxtaposition leaves readers wondering why they should bother to read this literary copycat. Now its grand panorama of human history from Adam to Cyrus is overlooked. Its final chapter that contrasts the shameful degradation of deportation with a new postexilic beginning, when Cyrus was inspired to challenge God’s people to reclaim their spiritual heritage, goes unheard. What should be the aim of a study guide to Chronicles? It should surely attempt to give back to the book the honor it warrants, as an incentive for further study. Chronicles reflects a sophisticated complexity characteristic of a later type of literature that builds discriminatingly upon a mass of earlier

2

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

traditions and covers centuries of historical background up to its own era. The book focuses upon the past, not for its own sake but as having implicit significance for the generation for whom it was written. For the Chronicler, as for Dionysius of Halicarnassus, history was philosophy teaching by examples. Along the way, his work raises a host of difficult questions a commentator has to grapple with. Ralph W. Klein, at one point in his commentary (2012: 169), urges readers to get beyond the necessary historical and exegetical details of the text by appreciating its organizational clarity and theological message. His advice works as a virtual prescription for this guide, as a preliminary approach to the book. A mass of details can obscure the message. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (1998: 286) has similarly distinguished between knowing about a biblical text and knowing what that text is about.

Spiritual Exhortation Chronicles was written for members of a little province known by the Aramaic name of Yehud (Ezra 5:8 in the HB). It was part of the Beyond the River satrapy of the Persian Empire, west of the Euphrates (Ezra 4:17). The book demonstrates in its own way the general principle that storytelling preserves the traditions of a people in order to constitute their moral fiber (Coats 1983: 7). Accordingly, it presents the era of David and Solomon as a period of divine revelation that should encourage them to stand tall and live in the light of that glorious and sacred past, understood in terms of the Torah and Prophets. These kings function as models for seeking God in worship and in their way of life. They establish a pattern against which later kings could be evaluated and implicitly postexilic hearers/readers could judge their own spiritual state. H. G. M. Williamson (1982: 33; 1997: 473) compared the book with its exhortatory purpose to a so-called Levitical sermon. It is like the Letter to the Hebrews in the NT, which challenges its readers with negative warnings, positive directives, and reasoned arguments to persevere in their faith. Hebrews 11 approximates to Chronicles’ presentation of its own heroes. The concluding call in Heb 12:1, “let us also…,” matches the closing challenge in 2 Chr 36:23, implicitly to each postexilic reader, “Let him go up”—to a form of worship and way of life that glorified God. The author has adapted Samuel-Kings, as necessary, to create a wide-ranging program of “seeking the Lord” that he urges his generation of believers to adopt.

Introduction

There are important concerns in Chronicles that lie on the fringes of this multifaceted purpose, its reassurance to Benjamin of its close relationship with Judah (Giffone 2016) and the book’s advocacy of the Levites’ roles in worship (Kim 2014), as elements belonging to its themes of “all Israel” and worship respectively. But appreciation of its overall persuasive message is the key that opens the door to understanding Chronicles. Accordingly, this study guide will focus on the rhetorical and literary features of the book in order to capture the essence of the book. Chapter 2 will look at how Chronicles communicates; Chapters 3–6 will review how it achieves its purpose throughout each of the structural divisions of the book by adopting, adapting, reducing, and adding to its main literary sources; and Chapter 7 will discuss the book’s spirituality and theology. Nevertheless, this Introduction must first set the scene by glancing at some pertinent issues. There is a rich plethora of relatively recent books and articles on Chronicles, much of which falls outside the limited range of this guide. Access to relevant literature has been facilitated by the surveys of John W. Kleinig (1994), covering 1982–93, and of Rodney K. Duke (2009), covering 1994–2007, while the extensive commentaries of Gary N. Knoppers (2003b, 2004), P. B. Dirksen (2005), and Klein (2006, 2012) are also valuable in this regard. Internationale Zeitschriftenschau für Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete/International Review of Biblical Studies (up to a publication date of 2009–10) and OTA supply summaries of subsequent literature.

Authorship Scholars tend to refer to the putative author of Chronicles only with a label derived from the literature, “the Chronicler.” The Babylonian Talmud cites in the tractate Bava Batra (15a) an anonymous baraita, a ruling made by the earlier Tannaim (rabbis of the period c. 70–200 CE), but not included in the Mishnah. The baraita claims that for the book of Chronicles, Ezra wrote the genealogies up to his own time and Nehemiah finished it. The postexilic setting of both Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah obviously suggested the involvement of both Judean leaders, and portions of EzraNehemiah do appear in Chronicles. Academic scholarship up to fairly recent times continued to speak of “the Chronicler” as responsible for both works. However, a majority of scholars now separates the two books. It is doubtful whether linguistics provides any help in this issue, but content is a vital factor.

3

4

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

Two significant treatments deserve mention. First, H. G. M. Williamson (1977a: 60–9) outlined six main thematic differences between the books: (i) the absence of Ezra-Nehemiah’s condemnation of mixed marriages in Chronicles; (ii) the quite different treatment of the early history of the nation, highlighting not Abraham but Jacob, generally known as “Israel,” and downplaying the exodus from Egypt in favor of David and Solomon’s era as inaugurating God’s new work for Israel; (iii) the lack of mention of foreign settlement of northern Israel, in contrast to Ezra 4; (iv) the Chronicler’s dominant doctrine of immediate retribution, which is absent from Ezra-Nehemiah; (v) over against the minimal mention of prophets in Ezra-Nehemiah, his emphasis on the role of prophecy, which involves miracles, inflates numbers, and idealizes situations into moral lessons, in contrast to Ezra-Nehemiah’s matter-of-fact presentation; and (vi) his wide concept of “all Israel,” rather than identifying Israel as Judah and Benjamin. Second, Sara Japhet wrote an essay reviewing the issue (1991), in which she mentions further differences between the two works, notably (vii) hopes for redemption she found in Chronicles versus acceptance of an unchanging political present in the other work, (viii) the latter’s major function of the exile as the embodiment of Israel’s identity, (ix) Ezra-Nehemiah’s view of foreign rulers as agents of God’s benevolence in restoring Israel, something not stressed in Chronicles, and finally three literary features, (x) the lack in Ezra-Nehemiah of the type of speeches that abound in Chronicles, which von Rad famously called “the Levitical sermon,” (xi) the absence from Chronicles of the confessions of Ezra 9 and Neh 9, necessarily so since they involved accumulated sin, conflicting with the Chronicler’s notion of immediate retribution, and (xii) the Chronicler’s resume of a king’s reign, a genre taken over from Samuel-Kings, which has no parallel in Ezra-Nehemiah. The term “Chronicler,” most often restricted to Chronicles, remains in general usage. It has survived a literary-critical shift to speaking of an impersonal text rather than an author. This is because of the strong sense of consistency that emerges from reading this lengthy book right through. Nevertheless, it reminds us that we know nothing explicit about the author from its contents. Strictly we may speak only of the implied author, a textual construct that credits the book’s overall coherence to the mind of an originator who invites his readers’ trust. Culturally we are obliged to think of a male author in view of the common allocation of gender roles and occupations in Yehud (Ben Zvi 2011: 17 n. 15). Should one speak instead of authors, envisioning the incorporation of redactional material? This has been a bone of contention in Chronicles scholarship, but the book now tends

Introduction

to be regarded as a substantial unity. Hesitation remains in a few places, such as concerning the genealogies in 1 Chr 1–9 and the priestly material in chs. 15–16 and parts of chs. 23–7 as a later, more normative balancing of the Chronicler’s general pro-Levite cultic stance. One must take into account both that the Chronicler was himself an editor in his citing and adaptation of lists and other literary sources and that any redactional material was a stage toward the canonical book. It has often been suggested that the Chronicler was a Levite. This would help to explain the singular emphasis throughout his work on the roles of Levites in the running of the cult and elsewhere. Some of the Levites in his period were evidently scribes. Christine Schams, in her study of Jewish scribes in the Second Temple period (1998: 65–9), has focused on 1 Chr 24:6, where in David’s reign a scribe who was also a Levite is mentioned as recording the priestly courses, and on 2 Chr 34:13, where in Josiah’s reign some of the Levites are said to have been scribes, though the parallel 2 Kgs 22:3-7 does not mention Levites. She has concluded from the latter text that it probably reflects Levitical organization in the Chronicler’s own period, when some scribes were Levites. Jon L. Berquist (1995: 175 n. 28) has observed that the four times Chronicles mentions scribes have no parallels in Samuel-Kings, so that it shows a bias toward scribes and their role in society. A combination of Levite and scribe would be appropriate for the author of Chronicles. It is also significant that in the postexilic period Levites had the role of teachers. It was Levites who “instructed the people in the Law” in Neh 8:7 (NIV), while in 2 Chr 17:7-8 Levites make up the majority in a team assigned by Jehoshaphat to a similar teaching ministry and 35:3 mentions “Levites who taught all Israel.” A number of scholars have acknowledged that the Chronicler must have been a member of the elite literati in Jerusalem (e.g., Ben Zvi 2007, 2011; Goltz 2008; Davies 2015). It is relevant to note that academic work has been done on the role of torah as “instruction” in postexilic literature. J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (1992) has referred to its use in Ps 1:2 (NRSV “law”) to describe the book of Psalms. Accordingly, we can appreciate that the Chronicler’s composite psalm in 1 Chr 16:8-36 has value as torah. John Barton (1988: 16–21, 154–6) has observed that in rabbinic times both prophecy and history were regarded as giving instruction (torah) on living in line with the covenant. He observes that Chronicles itself treats history in this way and regularly presents prophetic messages as so doing (1988: 157–8, 292 n. 8). One may include in this torah emphasis what Rex Mason (1990: 258) has called a temple tradition of teaching and preaching that pervades relatively early postexilic biblical literature.

5

6

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

Dating As to the general dating of Chronicles, its content shows that it is a postexilic document. There are explicit references to the exile and return in 1 Chr 9:1-3; 2 Chr 36:20-3. Such literary evidence has for long encouraged scholars to brand the sort of Hebrew used in Chronicles as a core example of Late Biblical Hebrew in a variety of linguistic forms. Further precision is inhibited by the fact that the Chronicler concentrates his attention on Israel’s preexilic history and does not drop explicit clues about his own situation or that of his readership, though his descriptions of temple worship appear at times to reflect that of his own period—unless they represent changes he was advocating (Schweitzer 2007: 132–75; Kim 2014: 191–2) or are a mixture of both. As for particular periods for the composition of Chronicles, three have been suggested: the early postexilic period, the last years of the Persian period from the middle of the fourth century BCE onward, and the Hellenistic period after Alexander’s conquest in 332 BCE. The common separation of Chronicles from Ezra-Nehemiah speaks against the first option. The third period has been favored especially by scholars who hold that much OT literature originated in that time frame. Much recent study has settled on the middle dating. Kai Peltonen in an essay (2002) has surveyed the three options; so has Isaac Kalimi (2005a: 41–65). Both have pointed to the lack of Hellenistic traces in the book. Peltonen opined that if this indicates the Chronicler’s lack of knowledge of Hellenism, his date must have been in the Persian era or at the very beginning of the Hellenistic era before the new government’s influence had taken a hold. Knoppers (2003b: 102–5, critiqued by Kalimi 2005a: 49–50), while inclined to date Chronicles in the late fourth century or the early third century (2003b: 116), does find some Hellenistic influence that suggests cross-cultural influence even before Alexander’s conquest. The passages in 1 Chr 9; 2 Chr 36 that refer to the initial return from exile and/or to Cyrus and the postexilic temple—the latter topic implicitly via its personnel in the former case—surely have a significant role to play. Since they appear to function as parallel endings to the two literary divisions of the book, it must be asked whether they do not provide such a firm anchoring for the book in the Persian period that one can assume its continuance, in the absence of any reference to a change of imperial control. Then the Chronicler and his implied readers were essentially subjects of the Persian Empire, as for example Williamson (1997: 467) and Klein (2006: 16) hold.

Introduction

Peltonen (2002: 229–30) has also reviewed traces evidently related to the Persian era that have been detected in Chronicles and regards them as suggesting a dating beyond the early period. “Darics,” mentioned in 1 Chr 29:7, were Persian coins originated by Darius I (522–486 BCE). A lapse of time would have been required before they could feature as an acceptable anachronism referring to the age of David. Second Chronicles 15:5; 16:9 contain quotations of Zech 8:10; 4:10 respectively. First Zechariah prophesied 520–516 BCE and again time had to pass before his message would have been invested with the authority given to preexilic prophets. Use of Ezra-Nehemiah is likely in 1 Chr 9:2-17 (cf. Neh 11:3-19); 2 Chr 36:22-3 (cf. Ezra 1:1-3), which warrants a later dating for Chronicles than for EzraNehemiah. Such evidence points away from the early Persian period, which leaves us with the middle option. The exceedingly long Davidic genealogy in 1 Chr 3 does little to settle the dating since complex issues are involved, such as whether the genealogy was meant to extend down to the Chronicler’s own time. The span of at least two generations between Zerubbabel and the last one does not support an early dating for the book. Another complexity is that there are two textual traditions in v. 21, that of the Masoretic Text and that of the Greek Septuagint, which has four more generations. The former is followed by the NIV and the latter by the NRSV. And how many years are to be assigned to a generation? Knoppers (2003b: 115–16, 322–3, 329–32) assumes a chronological gap of twenty years between generations because it is a typical figure used by anthropologists, though many biblical scholars work with a gap of twenty-five or thirty or more years. His calculations arrive at a closing date for the genealogy’s span of about 426 BCE for the shorter, masoretic version and about 346 BCE for the Greek-based one.

Sources Long before fixed and closed conceptions of canon came about, there were books that were recognized as having religious and moral authority, which were available for Chronicles to use. William M. Schniewind (1999: 159–62, 179) and Eugene C. Ulrich (2002: 29–30) speak for a number of scholars in distinguishing between a fixed canon and an authoritative Scripture of earlier sacred writings. Steven J. Schweitzer (2011) has provided a useful survey and discussion of the Chronicler’s sources. The literary basis on

7

8

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

which Chronicles selectively draws most often is Samuel-Kings in the Deuteronomistic History or Former Prophets. The two works contain a high degree of continuity as well as discontinuity (see Ben Zvi 2009). The Chronicler used Samuel-Kings as his starting point, but reworked it according to his own perspectives and the needs of a different community (see Knoppers 2012). In general, in assessing the Chronicler’s perspectives, it is important to base consideration not only on his independent material but also on his use of source texts. Students of the English text will find convenient a reference work that sets out the parallels, edited by Endres, Viviano, and Fitzgerald (1988), while Hebraists will appreciate J. Kegler and M. Augustin’s counterpart (1991). Steven L. McKenzie (1985; cf. the discussion of Nihan 2013) has concluded that the Kings source used in Chronicles reflected the same proto-rabbinic text type that appears in the masoretic Kings, but its Samuel source was different from the masoretic Samuel and corresponded to the Qumran fragments of 4Q51 (4QSama). This factor has to be taken into account in evaluating the contribution of Chronicles and will be addressed, as appropriate, in later chapters. A separate text-critical issue is the state of preservation of our present Hebrew text of Chronicles. The NRSV’s textual notes indicate the need for such considerations. Klein (2006: 26) has judged that the original text has been fairly well preserved. Both Knoppers (2003b: 52–65) and Klein (2006: 26–30) have provided general introductions to this field, as well as discussing particular cases in their commenting. Mention must be made of A. Graeme Auld’s striking and detailed proposal (1994, 2011, 2017) that both Samuel-Kings and Chronicles depend on a common source that can be reconstructed from the text shared by these fuller works, into which their different ideological concerns were incorporated. His thesis, which Peltonen (1996: 761–6) has discussed on the basis of Auld’s 1994 work, has important consequences for how the narratives in Chronicles are viewed, but it has won little academic support as yet (see the misgivings of, e.g., Van Seters 2007; Tiňo 2010: 23–9; Janzen 2017: 24–33) and so has not been pursued in this guide. In the royal epilogues the Chronicler generally cites written sources, copying the custom in Kings, and often associates them with prophets active in particular reigns. Katherine M. Stott (2008: 60–7) has provided a general discussion of these citations, while Schweitzer (2011: 63–5) has tabulated the prophetic references. This guide judges that these citations generally refer to the form of Samuel-Kings available to the Chronicler, though occasionally they have only a rhetorical purpose. By such means the Chronicler apparently intended to acknowledge the inspired nature of his

Introduction

source texts and their factual reliability. If so, this raises the question why he felt free to change them, as he reused their narratives to provide the medium for his prime purpose. Presumably he judged that his spiritual message, itself based on other Scriptures, had priority and gave him freedom to do so (cf. Schweitzer’s reference to this as a better alternative reality [2016: 97]). His fellow literati evidently found it culturally acceptable that he adapted Samuel-Kings to create a wide-ranging program of “seeking YHWH” for his own generation to adopt. A related claim was to regard current Levitical psalmody as conveying scriptural revelation (1 Chr 25:1-5; Knoppers 2004: 859–60), a claim that underscores the significance of the composite psalm in 1 Chr 16:8-36. As for the spiritual message itself, it is often expressed in addresses attributed to mostly prophetic figures otherwise unknown, presumably as the Chronicler’s way of indicating its revelatory value. Because he regarded the message in these addresses as God’s will revealed elsewhere in prophetic Scriptures, he endowed them with prophetic authority (Amit 2006: 96–7). This value is reinforced by references to material from OT prophetic books incorporated in the addresses, some of which belong historically to times later than the reigns in which they are set. Jehoshaphat’s injunction, “Believe [YHWH’s] prophets” (2 Chr 20:20), reflects the Chronicler’s own conviction. A factor that influenced the Chronicler’s need to adapt or amplify Samuel-Kings was his respect for the authority of the written Torah of Moses in the Pentateuch and its relation to traditions practiced in his postexilic community (Schniedewind 1999: 166–80). One of the Chronicler’s concerns is to harmonize discrepancies he found in the Torah. Pentateuchal and other OT material was mainly used for the genealogies; it was supplemented by military census lists available to the Chronicler. In general, when reading his own material, one cannot know whether it does depend on sources. Peltonen (1996: 710–14, 774–84) has discussed the similar views of Williamson, who applied a concept of informed conjecture (1982: 19) to the availability of extra-biblical sources or the possibility of a historical nucleus, and of Japhet, who used as a criterion historical probability (1997: 480, 514–15 = 2009: 374, 402) and in some of her case-by-case commentary work envisioned the Chronicler’s attribution of available material to different chronological contexts. In the guide suggestions will be mentioned as appropriate; for a study relating to royal reforms, see Knoppers (1997). With Meir Steinberg (1985: 26), we must be ready to distinguish between the historical value of data and the historiographical force of their representation. That the Chronicler felt free

9

10

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

to change his biblical sources is evident from the alterations he made in 1 Chr 16:8-36 to adjust postexilic temple psalms to a pre-temple setting. A relatively new approach to OT narratives, to which Ehud Ben Zvi has prominently contributed, is social memory, borrowed from sociology. It bypasses historicity, yet sees the role of the past as vital for the present. Ben Zvi has particularly referred to Chronicles in a general essay (2011) and as contributing to collective, society-changing memories with reference both to its treatment of preexilic prophets (2013a) and to its reshaping of Manasseh’s memory (2013b). In the second study he made five points in which Chronicles supplemented, rather than replaced, Samuel-Kings: (i) Prophets could be successful in their own periods—a factor that created expectation of their success in preaching to the audience of Chronicles— though they were sometimes unsuccessful. (ii) They were not necessarily focused on the far future, but had relevance for present times. (iii) They provided divine instruction and warning. (iv) They covered a wide range in mediating divine knowledge, including kings, priests, and Levites, and in their roles, also composing music and recording history. Finally, (v) though the prophets were historical figures, their significance continued into the present.

2 Chronicles as Communication P. R. Ackroyd (1991: 64) perceptively observed the rhetorical nature of Chronicles in his comment that it could have been used as a series of connected homilies, while William M. Schniedewind (1995: 250–2) has elaborated this role for both its speeches and narratives as messages to the book’s postexilic community. There are various ways in which Chronicles’ rhetorical features are evident in a single, comprehensive message repeated time and time again, in its speech and narrative patterns.

A Macrostructural, RhetoricalCritical Approach James Muilenburg inaugurated an influential approach to the importance of rhetorical criticism for the OT through his 1968 SBL presidential address published in an article (1969). It called for supplementing a general formcritical perspective with a concentration on a passage’s particular rhetorical style and structuring. His approach was eventually overshadowed by NT scholars’ applying to their Hellenistic texts the rhetoric of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintillian and thus uncovering the essential component of persuasive communication to an intended audience, to which stylistic matters contribute a small, though still valuable, element. Rodney K. Duke has applied this wider methodology to Chronicles in a book (1990) and supplementary essays (1999, 2002), and traced a consistent rhetorical pattern that runs all through Chronicles and stands out as a predominant feature. He has boldly viewed Chronicles through Aristotelian lenses, justifying so doing by claiming that persuasive rhetoric employed in speaking and narrating was a

12

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

universal human practice (1990: 37–9; 2002: 128–9). His claim is supported by the close match he can find between these lenses and the evidence of Chronicles. He extends beyond speeches to narratives Aristotle’s usage of the enthymeme in the book entitled Rhetoric, a usage we will explain shortly. John W. Kleinig (1994: 49) has objected to Duke’s reapplication, but the enthymeme is essentially conveyed through its speeches and then exemplified in narrative by using the same vocabulary. Duke has given a fresh presentation of the message others had found in Chronicles and called “immediate retribution,” which includes the key concepts of seeking and a cause-and-effect pattern, and uses “retribution” in an older sense of recompense, whether positive or negative. His thesis has the merit of being capable of weaving the Chronicler’s work into a single thematic tapestry. His distinctive contribution has been to provide a new definition in terms of rhetorical criteria employed in the Graeco-Roman world and applying them to Chronicles as an overall and consistent unit of purposeful communication. The Chronicler used seeking YHWH as a master theme, employing two Hebrew verbs, drš and, less often, bqš; this theme was intended as the ideal life-principle for his constituency to adopt. Thus David exhorted Israel’s leaders: “Now set your mind and heart to seek the LORD your God. Go and build the sanctuary of the LORD” (1 Chr 22:18-19). Such seeking related to temple worship and to the spiritual values such worship upheld, such as trusting, obeying, self-humbling, praying, and repenting. To do so would result in an aspect of God’s blessing as “success” or “prosperity” (e.g., 22:11, 13), such as military victory, economic wealth, procreation, or physical healing. Not seeking YHWH was Saul’s fatal flaw in 1 Chr 10:13-14 (“seek guidance from”; NIV “inquire of ”). Not doing so typically resulted in some bad experience by divine intention, such as Saul’s defeat and death. Duke has proposed that these alternatives are very often expressed in Chronicles in terms of Aristotle’s enthymeme, a rhetorical way of stating an argument in an evaluating pattern of cause and effect. It is a development of a philosophical syllogism, a case of deductive inference with two premises and a conclusion, such as (i) all humans are mortal, (ii) Socrates is human, and so (iii) Socrates is mortal. The enthymeme can explicitly mention three elements, two premises, the first of which is a generalization, and a conclusion, or else imply one or two of the three; it can be positive or negative. Enthymemes have been recognized in the NT. For instance, John D. Moores (1995: 46–7) has defined Rom 1:18-21 in the underlying terms of positive

Chronicles as Communication

and negative enthymemes combined in two stages. The first, positive one involves (i) a major premise, that God, once recognized, requires worship and gratitude, (ii) a minor premise, that recognition of God is available to humans in the created order, and (iii) a conclusion, that humans should worship and give thanks to God. Only the minor premise is expressed. At the second, negative stage, the major premise, that not to worship and give thanks to God is inexcusable, is suppressed, but the minor premise, that humans have failed to worship and give thanks to God, and the conclusion, that this is inexcusable, are expressed. Similarly, Saul’s case in 1 Chr 10:13-14 represents a negative enthymeme, set in a narrative comment. It can be restated as an enthymeme composed in terms of a general premise, that the one who does not seek YHWH will be punished, a specific premise, that Saul did not seek YHWH, and a conclusion that Saul was punished, with the general premise unexpressed (Duke 1990: 84). Duke has a useful appendix (1990: 155–76), with analytical lists of the types of enthymeme employed in speeches, prayers, and statements, and in both synoptic material from Samuel-Kings and unique material. Prophetic or royal addresses bring to the fore aspects of the basic enthymeme. While the Chronicler used the enthymeme in a speech or in a narrative event, persuasive reasoning was also presented in narratives in terms of another of Aristotle’s means, the “example” (Duke 1990: 82–6). Duke ties the Chronicler’s uses of the enthymeme and the example into Aristotle’s rational mode of persuading the audience to receive the message and adopt it (1990: 81–104). The example was used positively, as in the case of Rehoboam in 2 Chr 12:1-8, or negatively, as with reference to Asa in 14:9-13 (8-12). He also finds evidence of Aristotle’s ethical mode, whereby a speaker presented himself as credible and trustworthy (1990: 105–38). The Chronicler did so by writing authoritative-sounding historiography, citing or referring to his sources, never calling attention to himself, but speaking to his audience through kings and prophets, using objective lists and genealogies, and offering a traditional theology of a moral God active in history. Still in line with Aristotle, Duke also finds a third mode of persuasion to carry weight with the Chronicler’s audience, an emotional mode (1990: 139–47). He used emotive language to induce desired feelings, such as appealing to the awesome figures of Moses and David, portraying the joy of temple worship, presenting the potential of happy endings, and reaching out to his audience through exhortatory speeches within the narrative.

13

14

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

The Literary Structure of Chronicles It is necessary to look closely at the structure of the book since structure conveys meaning by arranging content. It is pertinent, therefore, that Duke applies his rhetorical approach to the overall structure of Chronicles (1990: 51–74). He finds that Aristotle’s own pattern of a statement of the case and an argument, often with an introduction and an epilogue, has a counterpart in three parts in Chronicles, which function as an introduction, a statement of the case, and a demonstration of the case. Others have divided the book along Duke’s tripartite lines, but he claims Aristotelian grounds for doing so. The introduction employs the genealogies of 1 Chr 1–9 to identify the main subjects of the following narrative, namely Judah, David and the temple personnel, and the theological concerns of the narrator; they also include narrative asides that indicate the principles at work. Then a second part, 1 Chr 10–2 Chr 9, provides the book’s main thesis, a paradigm for seeking YHWH in the reigns of David and Solomon. This paradigm, grounded in temple concerns, implicitly offers an archetypal model for the audience to adopt, with the incentive of blessing for their lives or with the deterrent of loss. However, it should be mentioned here that, over against what is a general consensus, Yong Ho Jeon (2013) and Sean E. Cook (2017) consider that Solomon is not so idealized in Chronicles as is often thought. At least, Japhet (1993: 657) rightly says that 1 Kgs 12 presented the Chronicler with a theological dilemma that he failed to resolve in 2 Chr 10. Nevertheless, he evidently required the blame of Solomon mentioned there for his overbearing portrayal of Rehoboam. A final part of the book, 2 Chr 10–36, features a series of negative and positive demonstrations of this paradigm, taking as types the reigns of the Davidic successors of David and Solomon. Duke’s work has shown insight in understanding the purpose of Chronicles and the means whereby the Chronicler hoped to achieve that purpose. Yet is there more to say about the book’s structure? Mark A. Throntveit had earlier proposed a more complex structure for Chronicles while studying royal speeches and prayers in Chronicles (1987: 109–23). He divided 2 Chr 10–36 into two, chs. 10–28 and 29–36, as separate treatments of the divided monarchies and the single monarchy, after the section on the united monarchy of David and Solomon that is generally recognized in recent study. This “periodization” of the monarchy builds upon an observation of Otto Plӧger that the speeches of Abijah and Hezekiah (13:4-12; 30:6-9) are structural markers as both spiritual calls to the Northern Kingdom; they

Chronicles as Communication

serve as a demarcation by parallel beginnings. Throntveit also saw in the five intervening royal speeches a chiasm based on seeking (drš). Before Throntveit, H. G. M. Williamson had spoken in favor of a divided-monarchy section of chs. 10–28 (1977a: 97–118; 1982: 237). He too understood Abijah’s speech as embodying a positive purpose. He drew attention to two significant links between the beginning and end of the section: the confession of the northerners in 28:13 (cf. v. 10), as a move toward reversing Abijah’s statement of the situation in ch. 13, and the matching of the northerners’ military disaster (13:15-17) and that of the southerners under Ahaz (28:5-6)—both at YHWH’s hands and both in reprisal for abandoning YHWH (13:11; 28:6). For Williamson these links tie in well with his contention that the word “Israel” in this section is used theologically of both the Southern and the Northern Kingdoms. Moreover, they were both “brethren” (KJV 11:4; 28:8, 11), members of God’s family, as they had been back in David’s time (KJV 1 Chr 12:39 [40]; 13:2). Some northerners acknowledged their sinful state in 2 Chr 28:12-13. The time was ripe for a new beginning under Hezekiah as a foretaste of what could happen in the Chronicler’s own era. Duke (1990: 52 n.3) did not mention Williamson’s arguments, but has addressed Throntveit’s fourfold structure of Chronicles, finding some fault with his chiasm and claiming that the correspondences were spread over too wide an area to have had much persuasive effect on listeners. However, did not the Chronicler expect that his fellow literati—mentioned in Chapter 1—would recognize such intended correspondences by close and sustained study? These literati were evidently the primary recipients of the Chronicler’s work, his “inner audience” (Ristau 2009: 240–1). The pattern of a keyword running through the closing chapters of 2 Chronicles lends support to Williamson’s and Throntveit’s structuring. David A. Glatt-Gilad (2002) has drawn attention to what he calls a rhetoric of periodization there, evidenced in the frequency of the Hebrew root kn‘ with the positive sense of human self-humbling before God. His article includes the case involving Ahaz in 28:19 (2002: 254–5), though earlier he rightly gave that instance a different, military sense (2002: 252 n. 21). In fact, Williamson saw evidence of a framing verbal parallelism meant by the occurrence of the verb in this other, negative sense in both 28:19 and 13:18, so that the reigns of Rehoboam and Ahaz are framed (1977a: 116). Accordingly, a rhetorical shift begins with the reign of Hezekiah, not that of his predecessor. Self-humbling is mentioned nine times in chs. 30–6, positively in the reigns of Hezekiah (30:11; 32:26), Manasseh (33:12, 19),

15

16

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

and Josiah (34:27 twice; cf. 2 Kgs 22:19) and found wanting in the reigns of Amon (33:23, twice) and Zedekiah (36:12). The repeated cases of the verb in this closing section provide a powerful series illustrating the principle enunciated in 2 Chr 7:14 that involved such self-humbling. This adjustment to Duke’s work permits another question, whether 1 Chr 1–9 is adequately understood as an introduction or whether the Chronicler has developed it into something more (cf. N. Klein 2016: 241–3 and the review and proposal of Janzen 2018). The bulk of these chapters is much greater than one might expect of an introduction, though Duke receives support from Manfred Oeming’s use of “Vorhalle,” or vestibule, in the title of his book on the genealogies (1990), echoing earlier German scholars, while Kalimi (2005b: 50) has compared the use of genealogies in Genesis, with Gen 5:1-32 serving as a prelude to the flood story in chs. 6–8 and Gen 10–11 to the patriarchal stories in chs. 12–50. However, in this case its large size points in another direction. This section appears to form a counterpart to the rest of the book, indicated most obviously by their parallel endings that refer to the return from exile and reestablishment of temple worship. Whereas the second part of the book highlights David and Solomon as the community’s spiritual pacesetters, the first part fastens upon Israel/Jacob’s sons as the community’s founding fathers. Both sets of pioneers have crucial value for the book as a whole in the establishing of the community’s identity and role. A narrative style, hitherto largely confined to asides, takes over. While David’s royal successors are listed in the course of the first part, in the second he and they are treated individually. And while 1 Chr 1 provides a preliminary background for Israel’s existence in the larger world that includes Edom as a negative counterpart to Israel, ch. 10 provides a negative counterpart to David in the person of Saul, so that both Israel and David are the outshining points of the book’s focus. Simon J. De Vries (1989: 14–15) is among those scholars who have divided the book into 1 Chr 1:1–9:34 and 9:35-2 Chr 36:23. He describes it as made up of genealogies that tell who Israel is and of narratives that tell what happened to it. John W. Wright (1999: 148, 154) finds in the second part a slower-paced repetition of what has already been narrated in a genealogicalchronological sequence. Japhet (1997: 278 n. 52 = 2009: 218 n. 52) disputes such a view since the first section lacks consistent chronological continuity; however, it does have some credibility in view of its overall movement from preexilic to postexilic times. As to De Vries’s description of it, she rightly adds, it identifies the geographical territory in which Israel resided (1997: 352–3 = 2009: 275).

Chronicles as Communication

For the second part of the book we need to look beyond the standard subdivision of the book as 1 and 2 Chronicles, like that of Samuel and Kings. The practice goes back at least to the Greek Septuagint (1–4 Reigns in the latter case, both already recognized by Philo); it was not adopted in the HB until the late Middle Ages. The practice has often been assumed to originate with the Septuagint. Roger T. Beckwith (1985: 242–5, 257), however, holds that it was taken over from a Hebrew practice of writing Chronicles on two leather scrolls. While the chopping into two halves at David’s death had a scribal utility, it unfortunately severed the double prototype the Chronicler wanted to set before his constituency in a separate section. The combined mention of David and Solomon toward the close of this section and just after the start of the following one (2 Chr 7:10; 11:17; cf. 35:4) is a structural marker for this intention, as Roddy L. Braun (1973: 514–15) and Japhet (1997: 481– 2 = 2009: 375) have observed. Moreover, Ackroyd (1976: 9) drew attention to the turning points in 1 Chr 10:14 and 2 Chr 10:15 (// 1 Kgs 12:15) as another set of markers that have the effect of demarcating the reigns of David and Solomon. YHWH first “turned the kingdom over to David” from Saul (cf. 1 Chr 12:23 [24]) and then Rehoboam’s disastrous alienating of the people that resulted in the division of the kingdom was “a turn of affairs brought about by God.” The Chronicler rhetorically supplemented the turning point in Kings by creating an earlier one that introduced David’s reign. In this guide the book is regarded as consisting of two main parts, 1 Chr 1:1–9:34 and 1 Chr 9:35-2 Chr 36:23, both concluding with postexilic references. The latter part has three sections, 1 Chr 9:35-2 Chr 9:30; 10:128:27; and 29:1–36:23, with the first and longest section laying dynastic, cultic, and spiritual foundations for the next two.

The Rhetoric of Speeches in Chronicles Chronicles is short on dialogue. It prefers speeches because of their directive quality that makes them the primary embodiment of the book’s exhortatory purpose. In an endeavor to investigate the Yehudite community in the Chronicler’s day, Louis C. Jonker (2008) has studied the communicative intention of direct speech in 2 Chr 10–36. The Chronicler very often used speeches for theological pronouncements that affirmed his own convictions

17

18

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

(Dillard 1987: 126). Speeches, though “addresses” would be a more accurate term as referring to any spoken communication (Mason 1990: 2–3), have a distinctive role in the book of Chronicles. Their content conveys their own message in a rhetorical format. Gerhard von Rad’s German article in 1934 on what he called the Levitical sermon in Chronicles was made available to English readers three decades later (1966). This pioneering article deserves a summary, though it can benefit from Mason’s evaluation (1990). Von Rad had in view some of the addresses made by prophets and kings that lack parallels in Samuel-Kings. In terms of genre, he attempted to trace their didactic purpose back to the instruction given by Levites in Neh 8:7-9 (cf. 2 Chr 17:7-9; 35:3) and he claimed that the Chronicler was using standard Levitical homiletic practice for the addresses he composed in his book. Accordingly, the addresses approximate to what we would call sermons. Unfortunately there are no objective traditions of such a genre available to support his form-critical setting—von Rad tried to compare the style of Deuteronomy. Mason (1990: 142–4) has observed that the addresses do reflect Second Temple preaching, in the broad sense of all the oral methods of instruction in what he calls “the tradition,” and that they share many of the stylistic features that appear elsewhere in postexilic literature, including at times themes and vocabulary. The addresses give a contextually appropriate spiritual message in preaching fashion. Mason suggested a definition of a sermon in terms of acknowledgment of the authority of a word of Scripture, affirmation of theological truth, and calling for a response. Von Rad did take care to point out such qualities in the Chronicler’s speeches. He paid special attention to the fact that they appeal to Scripture, though not as a sermonic basis but in a supporting role, often as a climax and with an evident expectation that they would be recognized by the Chronicler’s own audience. Amber K. Warhurst (2011: 171) has rightly objected to his loose use of “quotations” and “citations,” but she acknowledges the Chronicler’s close attention to the form and content of prophetic texts. Zipora Talshir (2019) has proposed an anthological style that incorporates wording and ideas from other writers. The prophetic addresses in 2 Chr 16:7-9; 25:7-8 advocate trust in God alone. The former one makes use in v. 9 of a canonical prophetic text, Zech 4:10b, while Azariah’s prophetic address in 2 Chr 15:2-7 opens by referring to Jer 29:13-14 in v. 2 and closes by using Jer 31:15 (von Rad’s error for 16) in v. 7. Mason (1990: 49–50, 230) finds rather dependence on Zech 8:9-13 throughout 15:5-7, while Japhet (1993: 718–21) and other scholars have found echoes of Jer 29:13-14; Isa 65:1; 55:6; Hos 3:4-5; 5:15; Zech 8:10; Amos 3:9; Zech 11:6; 8:9, 11; Zeph 3:16;

Chronicles as Communication

Jer 31:16. In this last case von Rad detected a sermon outline in three parts: theological doctrine, application to past history by way of illustration, and exhortation. Kings too are portrayed as preachers. Jehoshaphat’s brief address to the judges in 2 Chr 19:6-7 moves from theology to exhortation and closes with references to Zeph 3:5 and Deut 10:17. Mason (1990: 60) mentions no link with the former text, but does find here the language of Deuteronomy, instancing Deut 1:16-17 and 15 (a slip for 16):18-20. In 2 Chr 20:15-17 a Levite is inspired to preach encouragingly that “the battle is not yours but God’s,” taking his text from 1 Sam 17:47. He exhorts the assembly, “Take your position… and see the victory of the LORD on your behalf,” now with Exod 14:13 in view. Mason (1990: 64–8) makes no mention of the former text, but does affirm the latter one. On the same occasion, in 2 Chr 20:20, Jehoshaphat refers to Isa 7:9 in the form, “Believe in the LORD your God and you will be established,” echoing Isaiah’s rhetorical wordplay on the Hebrew root ’mn. Similarly, Hezekiah in 2 Chr 32:7-8 encourages the people not to fear by referring to Josh 10:25 and by alluding in the disparaging phrase “arm of flesh” to making “flesh” one’s “arm” in Jer 17:5 (KJV). However, Mason (1990: 110–13) in the latter case suggests instead an echo of a general prophetic theme, while in the former case he finds significant the repetition of language from David’s words to Solomon in 1 Chr 22:13 as one of a number of indications that the Chronicler related Hezekiah to David and Solomon. In general Mason found homiletical affinity between the Chronicler and other postexilic evidence, all designed with various emphases to preach the spiritual tradition to the community of faith (1990: 260–2). Enough has been said to indicate the persuasive role of addresses in Chronicles by pointing to their sermon-like content and their particular rhetorical-critical intent.

Smaller Rhetorical Units We noticed above that major units in Chronicles can be recognized by repeated or strategically placed keywords. Rhetorical markers of various kinds can also be indicators of smaller pieces that appear throughout the book, which in an article (Allen 1988) I called kerygmatic units that preached their own sermons. In a number of cases the article compiled earlier scholarly work that had noted such rhetorical phenomena as inclusio

19

20

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

(a framing device), chiasm, and recurring keywords. Their presence indicates the creation of smaller sections of the book that highlight various instructive themes. They may be held over until Chapters 3–6, where they will contribute to exegesis, but reference may be made to one such unit as a sample in 1 Chr 11–12. Williamson (1981: 169–70; 1982: 96–7) noticed an intricate concentric pattern (ABCC′B′A′) that governs these chapters. It has the effect of enhancing the people’s increasing recognition of David, in line with YHWH’s own revealed purpose. Earlier, Thomas Willi (1972: 124) had seen that the use of the verb “help” (Heb. ‘zr and ‘dr) as a keyword in ch. 12 was matched by the six names compounded with ‘zr in chs. 11–12, “Eleazar” (11:12 // 2 Sam 23:9), “Abiezer” (v. 28 // 2 Sam 23:27), “Ahiezer” (12:3), “Azarel” and “Joezer” (v. 6 [7]), and “Ezer” (v. 9 [10]). The names serve to reinforce the verb, which, as Williamson (1981: 166–7) observed, comprehensively relates to help from God, help from the godly, and the obligation neither to be helped by the ungodly nor to help them. Such wordplay is typical of Chronicles, as Kalimi (2005a: 67–81) has shown.

Speech-Act Theory In terms of television genres, Chronicles is not a documentary but an infomercial that has something to sell. It offers its readers prescription as well as description, appealing to history as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Accordingly speech-act theory is an approach that should be considered as especially applicable to the book. It is a perspective on language that studies function. It presents a mechanism that can take a place alongside the persuasive aim of rhetorical criticism to measure the force of a communication in its particular context, as distinct from its meaning simply understood from its grammatical sense. A speech act is a basic unit of conventional communication whose types of operation were developed by John R. Searle from earlier work done by his teacher, J. L. Austin. It does things with words; words have a performative function. It takes a “locution,” what is said, and makes it a speech act, giving it an “illocutionary” force of various kinds to express what it is doing. An illocutionary act is what is performed in saying something. A speech act can be classified as one of five categories according to Searle (1969: 12–27). It may be (i) an assertive, telling how things are; (ii) a directive, telling someone to do something; (iii) a commissive, committing oneself to some future action, such as a promise;

Chronicles as Communication

(iv) an expressive, stating a feeling or attitude; or (v) a declarative, which becomes reality simply by being declared, such as firing an employee. The illocutionary point can be expressed in varying degrees of force, a request being weaker than a demand. Moreover, there can be a “perlocutionary” act, which is an act performed by saying something, but is not necessarily verbal. It results from the speaker’s speech and achieves what the speaker intends. Speech-act theory has in view spoken utterances in real-life situations. How can it be applied to written texts? Mary L. Pratt (1977) applied the theory to modern literature, but recognized its relevance for biblical literature as well, while Richard S. Briggs (2005) has written a useful overview on the use of speech-act theory in biblical interpretation. Pratt (1977: 86–97) observed that utterances within a narrative have the same force as utterances in real life, since their relation to the context of the narrative world corresponds to the relation of utterances to the real-life context. This has obvious applicability to Chronicles in view of its heavy dependence on the spoken word to convey its message. But what of the surrounding narrative? Pratt (1977: 101–16) applied the theory to biblical narratives on the ground that the author telling the story invites recipients to be his audience and let him take a turn in a conversation, as it were. This would especially have been more literally the case in ancient situations where reading aloud to a group must have been common, as Jer 36 and Neh 8:2-3 illustrate. Such an application can be readily appreciated in the case of Chronicles, where the intent of narratives coheres so well with the explicit messages of accompanying speeches that they themselves possess an illocutionary or perlocutionary force. Duke’s work can be regarded as so attesting, in the use of narratives as positive or negative examples of causeand-effect truths that are also expressed in the assertives and directives of the Chronicler’s spoken utterances. They have response in view, with the perlocutionary aim either to encourage readers to do the same as the text asserts or to warn them against so doing. For example, the illocutionary command to the people in 2 Chr 31:4 to do their duty by providing food for the temple personnel results in a perlocutionary statement of abundant giving in v. 5. Yet both speech acts also count as having a directive force for readers. One may compare the two modeling roles in Prov 31 via oral instruction and descriptive narrative. In what areas can speech-act theory function in this way? Briggs (2001: 147–82) adopted as his starting point the work of Donald D. Evans, another of Austin’s students, who developed from his teacher’s performative approach

21

22

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

a theory of self-involvement. Evans applied it to the biblical doctrine of creation, especially with reference to Gen 1–2. For instance, creation means for the implied reader that “I look on myself as God’s steward, appointed to this role by His ‘word’” (1963: 159, emphasis original). Briggs (2001: 183– 290) applied this approach in turn to certain NT areas he found relevant. He related it to confessions of faith, forgiveness of sin, and the role of teacher played by Jesus and NT writers in general. In these areas the intended readership finds itself responsively drawn into the text by confrontation with expectations intended for it. Not every text has such a role and those that do are using illocutionary language that has a strong force and invoke what Searle called “institutional facts,” in our case relating to Israel’s religious rites and corresponding values. One can readily see how Briggs’s approach can function as rhetorical criticism’s reinforcing ally. It relates to the Chronicler’s role as a teacher, to which we referred to in Chapter 1. Another of Briggs’s applications finds a parallel in the challenging confession of faith in 1 Chr 16:31 (// Ps 96:10): “The LORD is king!” A further example is “He is the LORD our God” (16:14 // Ps 105:7). This perspective helps readers to begin to appreciate the value of this psalm medley for the Chronicler. Then there are the poetic refrains that celebrate YHWH’s “steadfast love,” which refreshingly punctuate prose narratives at 1 Chr 16:41; 2 Chr 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21. From these two perspectives, confession of faith and teaching, self-involvement theory supplies a rewarding hermeneutical model for Chronicles. Susan S. Lansing (1981: 243) has observed that analysis of speech acts recovers a narrator’s values, which is certainly true in Chronicles. She has also called speech-act theory the bridge between poetics, which refers to literary composition, and rhetoric, which has to do with the strategic implication of the audience (1981: 74). This association works well in the case of Chronicles, especially in respect of the Chronicler’s mantra, “seek the LORD,” with its directive verb, and its narrative elaborations, which are the literary vehicles of his teaching role on behalf of his own generation. Indeed, the Chronicler’s use of Judah’s royal history was a communicative tool that appealed to “our own” heritage. Kirsten Nielsen (1999: 334–6) has pointed to the effect of the imperatives in the composite psalm at 1 Chr 16:836 as spoken to the Chronicler’s hearers and making them contemporary with the text. Similarly, Doan and Giles (2008: 35–43) have examined his contemporizing intention for the psalm from the perspective of performance criticism.

Chronicles as Communication

Genres Genres have an important role to play in communication by specifying how and why something is said. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (2005: 283), commenting on the relationship between genres and speech acts, has called them speech acts of a higher order in that they operate on the level of a whole text. Martin J. Buss (1988: 127) has noted an overlapping parallel between speech acts and genres in that the illocutionary force of a speech act corresponds to the intention of a genre. Use of genres depends on a knowledge of particular patterns of purposeful forms of oral or written speech shared by the communicator and the intended recipients. Only such shared knowledge of their range of rules applied to typical situations can bring about competence in recognition and understanding on the part of the recipients. Genres function as familiar features of their cultural contexts and so require special study for other would-be recipients outside the original culture. It is not surprising that a book on OT genres bears the main title Cracking Old Testament Codes (Sandy and Giese: 1995). In the case of Chronicles a major resource is De Vries’s volume in the FOTL series (1989). His glossary provides a list of genres used in Chronicles, together with definitions and passages, while Eugene H. Merrill (1995: 97–8) gives a summary of the main ones. The glossary also includes related lists of schemata, which are structural patterns that appear in certain literary contexts, and of single-sentence formulas. A genre has (i) a form, the structural set of elements that typically belongs to it; (ii) a function, that which it characteristically does; and (iii) an intention, what it wants to achieve. One factor that makes the issue of genres in Chronicles so complex is that, due to its historical lateness, it is able to cover the wide range of established fields in the OT, narrative, law, prophecy, and psalms, and so may select genres from all those fields. A second factor is that genres tend to develop over time and be associated with other genres and so gain new functions and intentions. It is important to take the literary context fully into exegetical account, in order to discover whether and in what ways a basic genre has been adapted. This is especially true of prophetic oracles, a generic type Chronicles often uses independently of Samuel-Kings. They have been conveniently tabulated with brief descriptions by Throntveit (1987: 127–9) and Duke (1990: 171–2), and extensively discussed by Schniedewind (1995: 84–129). They are often employed directly or indirectly as a medium for the Chronicler’s enthymemes to interpret narratives. Thus they can exhort

23

24

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

to do good, with promise of reward, as in 2 Chr 15:7, or take the form of a judgment oracle to express negative cause and effect, like Elijah’s letter in 21:12-15, or present a negative enthymeme as a rebuke, as in 24:20. They function as generalizing interpretations that accompany narratives with the purpose of driving home their message to readers. The Chronicler proclaimed his own theological interpretation in 1 Chr 10:13-14, presenting this singling out of Saul’s death as a type of the fate that will befall those who do not seek YHWH. As to the genre of the whole book, it is significant that texts can belong to multiple genres simultaneously (Zahn 2012: 276–8). Among suggested genres is midrash, which is an interpretive feature of rabbinic commentaries. De Vries (1989: 15–16) and Kalimi (2005a: 20–3) are among those who do not find that satisfying; if midrashic elements are present, that does not make the whole composition midrash. Knoppers (2003b: 129–34) has critiqued the notion of a rewritten-Bible genre. De Vries has categorized the first part of the book as functionally resembling a table of organization and the second as history, understood in terms of the author’s perspective. However, in light of the apparent overall intention, the genre also looks like instruction (torah) in religious and moral values, presented in a historiographical format that uses Samuel-Kings as its main source. Such a definition would suit the ways De Vries (1989: 20) summarized the book, as a confession, an affirmation of faith, and a call to unswerving piety. Then the canonical book of Psalms, which the editorial Ps 1 intends to be read as torah (McCann 1992: 119; Sommer 2012: 207–8; Wenham 2012), provides a general parallel. The strong narrative basis of Chronicles suggested to Christopher T. Begg (1982: 139) that it functions as an extended parable or series of parables that sounds the same instructional note. In depending so much on Samuel-Kings, the Chronicler’s purpose was that of Paul in describing Israel’s wilderness experiences at 1 Cor 10:6, 11: “These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us”—“so that we might not desire evil as they did.”

3 Israel: Elect, Inclusive, and Resilient (1 Chr 1:1–9:34) The triple structuring of this genealogical part of Chronicles consists of brief initial and closing components, and a long middle one. The first component identifies Israel, an individual and founder of a nation, as singled out by God; the second contributes to the Chronicler’s themes of “all-Israel,” temple worship, and his typical generational perspective—the last by both lists and by narrative asides; while the third covers postexilic relevance in the overall scope. The Bible likes genealogies. Exodus begins with the genealogy of Jacob/Israel, virtually like Chronicles, Matthew’s Gospel traces Jesus’s lineage to David and Abraham, while Luke’s Gentile-oriented Gospel goes all the way back to Adam. The genealogical part of Chronicles starts with Adam, though for different reasons. The Chronicler’s genealogies move in a long literary sweep from Adam to Israel and to Israel’s tribes.

God’s Chosen People (1:1-54 or 2:2) The lopsided division of the preexilic portion up to 9:1 is evidenced in the framing device of 2:1-2 and 9:1a, as well as in the tribal content. As to the structure of ch. 1, De Vries (1989: 31) and Sparks (2008: 319–20) point to the form-critical parallelism of the name lists in vv. 1–4 and 24–7. Both of these staccato name lists function as linear or vertical genealogies, though the first one switches to a segmented or branching one at the close, “Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” Noah’s sons; knowledge of Genesis concerning relationships between the names is assumed. The significance of the parallelism is that Adam and Shem have initiating roles, representing humanity at creation

26

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

and after the flood, with the second name list functioning as a summarizing introduction. These name lists introduce a more extensive structuring. In vv. 1–23 and 24–37, after the brevity of the linear name lists, there is a series of more detailed genealogies, segmented as family trees. Each series begins by picking up the previous closing name, Japheth (vv. 4–5) and Abram/ Abraham (vv. 27–8). Where there is more than one son, the line of the preferred one is put at the end, as preparation for what follows: Shem in v. 17, Isaac in v. 34, and correspondingly Israel in 2:1 (Williamson 1977a: 63). This tight structure breaks down with the mass of more loosely related Esau/Edom/Seir material in vv. 38–54 and also with the extra material about Keturah in vv. 32–3. The logical sequel to 1:37 comes in 2:1. In terms of sources, the Chronicler has drawn on genealogical material in Genesis, from chs. 5, 10, 11, 25, and 36, sometimes following it verbatim, even keeping narrative asides, and at other times abridging it. One wonders whether his copying pen ran away with him at times and caused him to pass on more information than his own structuring warranted; perhaps the Keturah material fits into this category (Johnson 1969: 74). When one takes into account Israel’s lineage in chs. 2–9, it is striking how the overall material expands from Adam to Shem’s international descendants and much more from Shem to Israel and the twelve tribes. It grows from one person to a host of national eponyms in the first case and from one person to a populous nation in the other! The implicit match between the stages of human history and national extension is God’s reiterated blessing of being fruitful and multiplying (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4). This is not surprising since already the Genesis genealogies clarified how such blessing occurred (Westermann 1984: 17–18). As for Edom, Thomas Willi (1991: 46) finds both parallelism and contrast in the Chronicler’s treatment. A respectful need may have been felt to find a parallel of sorts for Esau, Israel’s twin, by amplifying his genealogy. However, the Edomites’ exilic infiltration into the southern area of Judah (cf. 2 Chr 28:17) must have created grounds for Judean animosity. Before the nation of Israel, Edom also had a monarchy (1 Chr 1:43 // Gen 36:31). In this respect at least, Judah scored over Edom. Edom lacked a long-lasting royal dynasty, unlike David’s, and had no fewer than three capitals, unlike time-honored Jerusalem. Did the Chronicler find such use for the king list in Gen 36 by recalling the promise to Jacob in Gen 35:11 that “kings shall spring from you,” which led him to make a disparaging contrast with respect to Esau/ Edom? Elie Assis (2006) regards Edom’s inferiority to Judah as the intention

Israel: Elect, Inclusive, and Resilient

of ch. 1, connoting that Yehud was still God’s chosen people despite the exile and Edomite occupation of Judean territory. Despite no mention of God in this chapter, such a theological purpose is credible. Many scholars, such as Williamson (1977a: 63–4; 1997: 468), Braun (1986: 14, 24), Oeming (1990: 89–91), Martin J. Selman (1994: 46), Brian E. Kelly (1996: 178–9), Paul K. Hooker (2001:16), Klein (2006: 80), and Troy D. Cudworth (2016a: 166), have seen implicit reference to election as God’s special people in this overarching genealogy that begins with human creation and post-flood renewal and culminates in Israel. James T. Sparks (2008: 321) has claimed that Israel’s election is never mentioned in Chronicles. As Williamson pointed out, 1 Chr 16:13 (// Ps 105:6) plainly calls the worshiping people “children of Jacob, his chosen ones.” We noticed in Chapter 1 the revelatory importance of the psalm medley in 1 Chr 16 and there appears to be another instance here, as disclosing the Chronicler’s theological intention in 1:1–2:2. The prophesying function of the sung psalms in Chronicles, also mentioned in Chapter 1, justifies finding general interpretive value in the psalm. Noteworthy too is the mention of “Israel” in the parallel phrase in 16:13, as a substitute for “Abraham” in Ps 105:6, partly suggested by the parallelism of “Jacob” and “Israel” in v. 17 (// Ps 105:10). Apart from 16:13, 17, the Chronicler uses Jacob’s second, God-given name, Israel, as in 1:34b (replacing “Jacob” in Gen 25:25-6); 2:1 in order to express the essential link between the patriarch and his national namesake. The person Israel was the ancestor of the nation Israel; with the name came a legitimating heritage whose continuity was demonstrated via genealogy. Duke found a number of parallels between his rhetorical master theme and chs. 2–9, but none relating to the opening genealogy except as a structural part of the introduction. However, as soon as 16:13 is recognized as its interpretive key, one can see a connection between form-critical and rhetorical approaches. There the “chosen” offspring/children of Jacob/Israel are the vocative addressees of the imperatives, “Remember” in 16:13 and “Seek the LORD” in v. 11. Thus with hindsight the intention of the overall genealogy that extends to 9:1 is both to affirm Israel’s election and to define who is to seek God. The tribal genealogies in 2:3-9:1 imply that Israel’s twelve tribes inherited this ancient privilege and present obligation. Beyond a presentation of Israel as the center of the earth and Jerusalem as Israel’s center in chs. 1–9 (Kartveit 1999: 401) lie these other truths. From the perspective of the seeking paradigm, the Chronicler provided two further elements for it, election and an inclusive commitment.

27

28

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

Israel’s All-Inclusive Role (2:1 or 3–9:1) The first two verses have a double function, both concluding the preceding section as the counterpart to Esau’s sons in 1:35 and introducing the new one as its frame along with 9:1a (Sparks 2008: 269 and n. 2; cf. Klein 2006: 59). As the person “Israel” legitimated the nation, his family legitimated its tribes. The initial name list of Israel’s twelve sons has been distilled from the mother-differentiating Gen 35:23-6, with Dan’s earlier position presumably reflecting his appropriation by Rachel (Gen 30:6). There were at least two biblical ways of reckoning the traditional twelve tribes, usefully listed by Braun (1986: 9): to count Joseph and Levi as two of them, as in 1 Chr 5:1, or to list Ephraim and east and west Manasseh and to leave out two other tribes, as in 2:3–8:40; 27:16-24. Principle, rather than precision, was evidently what mattered. The Chronicler adaptably mixes both traditions in the ensuing material we loosely call genealogies, though a variety of genres are represented. Yet Judah, Levi, and Benjamin stand out as the initial, central, and final ones, forming the Chronicler’s dominant framework, with the other tribes tucked in between as constituent parts, not excluded but enclosed (Williamson 1982: 46–7). Levi’s centrality corresponds to that of the Jerusalem temple later in Chronicles. Judah and Benjamin were the major tribes of the old Southern Kingdom and Yehud. The replacement of Reuben by Judah in first place will be explained in 5:1-2, along with the subsequent division of Joseph (2:2) into Ephraim and Manasseh (5:23-6; 7:14). Next to Judah in 4:24-43 suitably appears Simeon, an ancillary tribe that was administratively absorbed into Judah, as 4:31b hints; it is followed by the Transjordanian tribes in ch. 5. The northern tribes are grouped together after Levi in ch. 7. Benjamin also unexpectedly appears in 7:6-12. Dan and Zebulun are not represented tribally, though Zebulun does receive mention in 6:63, 77 (48, 62) and both feature in later narratives. The Chronicler took over earlier OT texts as the basis for his genealogies and also was evidently able to find independent lists he judged suitable. At the close of the section, in 9:1a, its range of tribal genealogies is summarized as identifying “all Israel,” which will be a key phrase in the later narratives of Chronicles. From a macrostructural perspective, the verb of seeking and the vocatives in 16:11, 13 continue to be relevant. It is the traditional “offspring of … Israel” or “children of Jacob,” who are to “seek

Israel: Elect, Inclusive, and Resilient

the LORD.” The invitation is not issued to Judah, Levi, and Benjamin alone, as Ezra-Nehemiah narrowly claimed in an earlier, evidently more stressful period. We will see a reflection of this great truth in 9:3, where representatives of Ephraim and Manasseh reside alongside Judah and Benjamin in postexilic Jerusalem. It will be heartily reaffirmed in 2 Chr 30:18, in which tribal members of Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun are mentioned as present at Hezekiah’s celebration of the Passover at the Jerusalem temple. The high regard for Judah is explained in 1 Chr 5:1-2. It is initially based on Gen 49:3-4 (cf. 35:22). The Chronicler connected Reuben’s misdeed and loss of prominence there with the blessing of Joseph’s sons in Gen 48:3-6 and held that Reuben, though the firstborn, forfeited the accompanying birthright of inheriting a double portion (cf. Deut 21:17; Kalimi 2005b: 209). It was transferred through Joseph to his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were raised to tribal status reflected in the genealogies commenced after 1 Chr 2:2. Accordingly those tribal genealogies could not put Reuben first. Moreover, YHWH “chose Judah as leader… making [David] king” (28:4)—a statement that sums up this tribal genealogy. The Chronicler derived from Gen 49:8, 10, spoken by Jacob, Judah’s preeminence over other tribes, while his reference to “the ruler” in 5:2 has David in view. The tribe had historical importance, especially as the provenance of the all-important Davidic monarchy. This explains Judah’s priority in the tribal lists and the prominence of David’s lineage in its genealogy. The length of the Davidic genealogy will be considered in Chapter 7. Williamson’s development of earlier scholars’ analysis of 2:3-4:23 as an elaborate chiasm (1979: 358–9; 1982: 49–50, partially critiqued by Braun 1986: 25–8 and Klein 2006: 87) has been widely accepted. Its main elements are traced from the sons of Hezron, Judah’s grandson and Perez’s son, in 2:9: (i) Ram’s descendants, set out in 2:10-17 as far as David’s family and continued in 3:1-9 and 10-24 in terms of the Davidic dynasty; (ii) Caleb/Chelubai’s descendants in 2:18-20, continued in vv. 42–50a and 50b-5; and (iii) Jerahmeel’s descendants in vv. 25–33, continued in vv. 34– 41. But this analysis must be accompanied with the proviso that the whole lacks structural consistency. While the Davidic material (2:10-17; 3:1-24) is clearly delineated, with a resumptive introduction reverting to Judah in 4:1, largely recalling 2:3-5 (cf. Kalimi 2005b: 289–94; Sparks 2008: 236–7), certain other elements are handled unevenly, such as Shelah in 2:3 (to be matched in 4:21-3) and Perez in 4:2 (matched in 2:4-5). The lineage of Zerah (2:6-8) is not pursued in the chiasm and Hezron’s second family (vv. 21–4) is an interruption, if the Hebrew text is correctly placed. In 4:3-20 various

29

30

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

clans are listed with no stated relationship to Perez; the passage consists of genealogical fragments (Knoppers 2004: 344, 355–6; Klein 2006: 86; cf. Williamson 1979b: 356). Moreover, Sparks (2008: 244–6) has observed that the central focus of Judah’s genealogy is Jerahmeel, who was of no special interest to the Chronicler. Yet the disorder may point to a deliberate profusion—not only of generational names but also of clans, territories, work skills, and marital relationships with outsiders—that reflected for him Judah’s greatness and made it the longest of the tribal genealogies. Portions of this genealogy have parallels in earlier biblical texts, such as 2:3-4 with Gen 38:2-7, 29-30, v.6 with 1 Kgs 4:31 (5:11), v. 7 with Josh 7:1, 17-26, and vv. 10–12 with Ruth 4:18-22 or a common source. They have been interwoven with extrabiblical genealogies. De Vries (1989: 43) has argued that 3:1-8 comes from a royal register earlier than 2 Samuel, citing the form “Bathshua” (3:5) for Bathsheba, and that the Solomon genealogy in vv. 10–24 also does not depend on Kings. The separate treatments of David and Solomon anticipate their consecutive key roles in the next section of the book, 9:35-2 Chr 9. There is a significant first mention of Jerusalem in Chronicles, as the city closely associated with David’s long reign and where Solomon was born (3:4-5; cf. Kalimi’s survey of Jerusalem in chs. 1–9 [2005a: 85–93]). Calling Jeconiah “the captive” in v. 17 alludes to the first southern exile in 597 BCE, anticipating 2 Chr 36:10, while the dynastic part of the list is a genealogical summary of the Chronicler’s subsequent royal history. We noticed that in ch. 1 the Chronicler took over narrative asides from Genesis. The Judah genealogy contains three more asides. These have a bearing on the main lesson of Chronicles, that seeking God results in success/ blessing, while forsaking God or its equivalent brings failure/punishment. In 2:3b, taken over as cause and effect from Gen 38:7, Er “was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death.” This established basic support from the Torah for the Chronicler’s own spirituality. The brief aside in 2:7 about Achar presupposes knowledge of the narrative about Achan’s sin and punishment in Josh 6-7. His name is changed to “Trouble” in Chronicles to accord with the wordplay in Josh 7:24-6, where “the Valley of Achor” or Trouble Valley commemorates Achan as the cause of trouble for Israel. The verb “transgressed” (Heb. m‘l), along with its related noun, is a key negative term in Chronicles, the polar opposite of seeking God. The term will recur in the genealogical section at 5:25 (NIV “were unfaithful to”); 9:1 (“unfaithfulness”). In 4:9-10, a passage popularized by Bruce H. Wilkinson’s best-selling little book (2000) that had mixed reviews, an unexpected success story is explained, though no explicit connection with Judah is mentioned.

Israel: Elect, Inclusive, and Resilient

Jabez’s name, associated by wordplay with his mother’s “pain,” cast a shadow over his life. It was dispelled by offering prayerful pleas to “the God of Israel” for blessing and protection from “pain” (NIV). This next generation was enabled to shake off a threatening past (Heath 2001: 12). Prayer is a form of seeking God (cf. 2 Chr 20:3-13), while the Hebrew verb š’l (“asked”) has a minor role in the vocabulary of seeking (1 Chr 10:13 “consulted”; 14:10, 14 “inquired”; 2 Chr 1:7, 11). The episode anticipates later royal prayers to God for victory over great odds (cf. 5:19-22; cf. Duke 1990: 56, 159). The genealogies of Simeon and the Transjordanian tribes follow in 4:24-5:26. They form a rhetorical unit by counterbalancing their different destinies with the parallel “to this day” in 4:43 (cf. v. 41); 5:26 (Allen 1988: 28–9; 1999: 336; Sparks 2008: 178–84). The eastern tribes, viewed as a single group (5:18, 26), “were unfaithful to the God of their ancestors” (v. 25 NIV) by resorting to Canaanite worship and were defeated at divine instigation and deported to Assyria. On the other hand, the Simeonites enjoyed a double military victory after population growth led some of them to migrate. They secured a “quiet and peaceful” land in the first case and expanded to the east in the second—blessings elsewhere associated with seeking God (cf. 2 Chr 20:4, 29-30)—and survived. The contrast was meant as a homiletic option for readers, like the parable of the two houses in Matt 7:24-7. Emphasis on the land develops Jabez’s prayer in 1 Chr 4:10 for an enlarged border and also the prevalence of the phrase “the father of ” persons as eponyms for places in Judah’s genealogy (cf. Japhet 1997: 352–5 = 2009: 275–7). Possession of the land was not an automatic right for Israel but depended on a continued right relationship with their God (cf. 28:8; 2 Chr 33:8). Likewise, the psalm in 1 Chr 16 celebrates God’s gift of the land to the patriarchs in “an everlasting covenant,” but balances it with the obligation, “Seek the LORD … continually” (vv. 11, 15–18). The geographical component strongly featured in Simeon’s genealogy is part of a general interest in chs. 2–7. These genealogies are form-critically mixed. Simeon’s begins with a name list meant as a linear genealogy in 4:24, extracted from Num 26:12-14 (see Dirksen 2005: 76), moves to a further genealogy from an unknown source with an added observation in vv. 25–7, and then to a list of towns and villages in vv. 28–33, taken from Josh 19:2-8. Verses 34–8 supply a list of military clan leaders; two successful battle reports appropriately follow in vv. 39–43. Reuben’s genealogy starts in 5:1-3 with a genealogical name list extracted from Num 26:5-6 and an inserted observation. There is a genealogy of an exiled tribal leader in vv. 4–6 and one of other leaders in vv. 7–8a. Tribal territory is described in vv. 8b-10, including a battle report

31

32

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

of eastern expansion. As for Gad’s genealogy, territory is described in vv. 11 and 16. The list of tribal chiefs in v. 12 and of military clan leaders in vv. 13–15 is dated about 750 BCE in v. 17. Verses 18–22, developing v. 10, provide a battle report of a joint campaign of the eastern tribes against an Arabian confederation. The Chronicler typically ascribes its hyperbolically overwhelming success to their prayer to God, but concludes on a sinister note, that they only occupied their new territory “until the exile” at Assyrian hands. The half-tribe of Manasseh has no real genealogy; instead, it contains territorial information in v. 23, which reads more clearly in the NIV, and a list of military clan leaders in v. 24. In the closing narrative aside in vv. 25–6, loosely based on 2 Kgs 15:19, 29; 17:6; 18:11-12, the Chronicler summarizes the divinely instigated fate of the eastern tribes, as to why and how the exile impending in v. 22 actually occurred. The negative language contrasts with that of the earlier victory in vv. 18–22. The spiritual warning for readers is that yesterday’s faith-based success does not guarantee the outcome of tomorrow’s challenge. The tribe of Levi stands at the very center of Israel’s genealogies (6:1-81 [5:27-6:66]). Its importance is also indicated by its size: eighty-one verses long, over against a hundred for Judah and fifty-seven for Benjamin. Its position and size reflect the temple-centered nature of the ensuing narratives in Chronicles, standing at the very heart of the faith community of Yehud and representing the potential spiritual home of its tribal neighbors. The Chronicler was doubtless influenced by the arrangement of the tribes as they camped during the wilderness trek (Num 2:1-34; McKenzie 2004: 89).They were positioned in a square, with Levi in the center, surrounding the tent of meeting. The Chronicler equated the tent of meeting and the portable tabernacle (1 Chr 6: 32 [17]; 2 Chr 1:3-6). Before the temple was built, the ark—God’s “footstool” (1 Chr 28:2)—was temporarily housed in another tent (15:1; 16:1), and there the psalm was sung by the choral Levites, with its invitation, “Seek the LORD… seek his presence” (16:11). It was a real but partial presence (see 2 Chr 2:4a, 6a [3a, 5a]; 6:5 [// 1 Kgs 8:16], 18 [// 1 Kgs 8:27], 20 [cf. 1 Kgs 8:20]; 7:16 [// 1 Kgs 9:3]; 20:9; 33:7 [// 2 Kgs 21:7]), symbolized by the ark in preexilic times. Thus implicitly the temple, the tabernacle’s eventual successor as home for the ark, was woven into the theme of the book. Such seeking essentially included the cultic elements of worship and prayer. As in other postexilic writings, the Chronicler assumed the continuity of Solomon’s temple and the ark-less postexilic temple. Moreover, he felt it necessary, as much as possible, to establish the continuity of the old

Israel: Elect, Inclusive, and Resilient

tabernacle/tent of meeting in the Mosaic Torah with the temple and its contemporary practices. The Torah had only two references to the temple, in the annotation at Gen 22:14 and in Deut 12:10-11, both of which the Chronicler will mention later (1 Chr 22:18-19; 2 Chr 3:1). As postexilic Israel was the heir of ancestors highlighted in the Torah, so its temple worship was grounded in its traditional ministry of priests and Levites. True, in two respects that old wilderness dispensation had been succeeded by a new dispensation, but the Chronicler maintained that the Levites’ ministry of song carried the authority of David, the founder of the land-based temple dispensation (1 Chr 6:31 [16]), while he could have claimed from Scripture that the Levitical cities involved in the post-Torah settlement in the land had the anticipated sanction of Moses (Num 35:1-8; Josh 21:2). Chapter 6 concentrates on the preexilic period (cf. v. 15 [5:41]), like most of chs. 1–8; there will be a shift to the postexilic period in 9:10-34. Williamson (1982: 68–70), by comparing the list of Levitical settlements in 6:54-81 (39– 66), has analyzed the similar scheme of descent that underlies the whole of vv. 1–47 (5:27-6:32), which assures him that it is the Chronicler’s own work. Neither Aaron nor the priesthood is the Chronicler’s main concern, but a wider scope that allows him to develop the role of the nonpriestly Levites (Willi 2006: 196). The three sons of Levi, Gershom (or Gershon), Kohath, and Merari, are provided with three separate lines, two of which are introduced with the same heading in vv. 1, 16 (5:27, 6:1). One line is divided into two further groups descended from Gershom: (i) through his son Libni the general class of Levites (vv. 17, 20–1 [2, 5–6], cf. v. 48 [33]) and (ii) through his son or grandson Shimei the Levitical singers belonging to the guild of Asaph (vv. 17, 39–43 [2, 24–7]). The second line is divided into three groups through Kohath: (i) the high-priestly line through Kothath’s son Amram, which is supplied in a telescoped form in vv. 2–15 (5:28-41); (ii) the general class of Levites through his son Amminadab (vv. 22–8 [7– 13], cf. v. 48 [33]); and (iii) through his son Izhar the singers who belonged to the guild of Heman (vv. 33b-8 [18b-23]). The third line is divided into two groups through Merari: (i) the general class of Levites through his son Mahli (vv. 19a, 29–30 [4a, 14–15], cf. v. 48 [33]) and (ii) through his son Mushi the singers belonging to the guild of Ethan (vv. 44–7 [29–32]). This material is shaped differently in the text, according to cultic functions, in terms of (i) what is generally regarded as the high-priestly line in vv. 2–15 (5:28–41), ending with a historical note about the divinely instigated exile of the Southern Kingdom as marking the close of the preexilic line; (ii) the clan genealogies of the general class of Levites in vv. 16–30 (6:1–15]; and

33

34

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

(iii) the pedigrees of the singing guilds in vv. 31–47 (16–32), prefaced with a historical reference to David’s reorganization. References to their functions are clustered at the close in a reverse chiastic order. Apart from v. 31 (16), details of the singing guilds with regard to their ceremonial positions in the temple court are listed in vv. 39 (24) and 44 (29), with pride of place and size of pedigree belonging to the guild descended from Kohath (cf. 25:5), while in 6:48 (33) the regular duties of the general class of ancillary Levites are mentioned and in v. 49 (34) there is a summary of priestly duties, which carried over from the old era. The closing short genealogy of Aaron that accompanies the list of duties in vv. 50–3 (35–8) supplies a companion list of early high priests that stops at the time of David, in line with v. 31 (16). The high-priestly list at the beginning is comparable with Exod 6:1625; Ezra 7:1-5. Two interesting details of names that appear in this chapter are the mention of Miriam in v. 3 (5:29) and of Samuel in vv. 28, 33 (6:13, 18). The former was evidently added to the source list in view of her role in Pentateuchal narratives (cf. Num 26:59). The insertion of the latter marks the adoption of this Ephraimite into the Levitical chain to legitimate from a Torah perspective his religious activity (1 Sam 1:1, 28; 2:18). In v. 33 (18) his name enhances Heman’s line. Overall, the dominance of nonpriestly Levites reflects the Chronicler’s general concern to promote their cause. As to ancestry, the guilds of singers are assigned the same impeccable roots as priests (Knoppers 2003a: 128).The functional division of the tribe of Levi into priests and assisting Levites reflects a perspective present in the Priestly tradition of the Pentateuch, but the incorporation of singers as Levites is a legitimating development from earlier in the postexilic period, when they were regarded as a separate group (cf. Ezra 2:40-1 // Neh 7:43-4; Ezra 10:23-4). Later lists in Ezra 3:10; Neh 11:15, 17; 12: 8-9, 24 reflect their incorporation as Levites. The particular naming of their guilds in 1 Chr 6:31-48 (16-33) appears to reflect the latest stage in Chronicles, as in 1 Chr 15:16-22, which replaced an earlier Jeduthun (cf. Neh 11:17; 1 Chr 16:3742; 25:1-8; 2 Chr 29:14; 35:15) with Ethan (cf. the survey of research in Ko 2017: 9–17). Williamson (1982: 121–2) regards this last stage as current in the Chronicler’s day. Psalm headings ascribe Pss 50, 73-83 to Asaph; Ps 88 to Heman; Ps 89 to Ethan; and Pss 39, 62, and 77 to Jeduthun, presumably as belonging to choral repertoires. The list of settlements in the land for priests and Levites in 6:54-65, 66-81 (39-50, 51-66) continues the geographical interest earlier in the genealogies. It is generally regarded as an extraction from and adaptation of Josh 21 (cf. Num 35:1-8; see De Vries 1989: 65–7), now not with a future perspective but

Israel: Elect, Inclusive, and Resilient

as achieved. “Levites” in v. 64 (49) has a tribal sense, as in the source, Josh 21:3, 8. The tribe of Levi had no separate territory comparable to that of the other tribes. Apart from religious tithes and offerings (cf. 2 Chr 31:11-19), they are represented as dependent on the leasing of these cities and surrounding grazing land for their cattle from other tribes, as areas to live in when not on duty and to maintain themselves and their families. Most of the cities were outside postexilic Yehud, while Yehud no longer matched even the extent of Judah in this list; it seems to be intended not only as a preexilic representation of an all-Israel arrangement but also as an idealistic one for the future (cf. Schweitzer 2007: 68–9). References to David and Solomon in this chapter anticipate what the Chronicler will elaborate in the second part of his book. First Chronicles 7:1-40 continues with the scheme of all Israel by incorporating the northern tribes. The omission of Dan and Zebulun does not appear to be due to the unavailability of sources; material in Gen 46, Num 26, and Josh 19, used in other tribal genealogies, could have been employed. Unless textual error is to blame, a desire to conceive of a twelvefold Israel appears to be the reason, in view of the division of Joseph (2:1-2) in the rest of the genealogical section into Ephraim and Manasseh, and the splitting of Manasseh into eastern and western areas. The scantiness of the records for the eastern and northern tribes, contrasted with the extensive treatment of the mainstay tribes, Judah, Levi, and Benjamin, serves as a literary illustration of the spiritual gap that lay between the Chronicler and the realization of his expansive hope, a distance his book endeavored to overcome. The Issachar genealogy consists of extracts from Num 26:23-4 in v. 1 and from a military clan census in vv. 2 and 3–5. The seemingly intrusive Benjamin genealogy in vv. 6–12, over against the expected long one in ch. 8, reflects the partial attachment of the tribe to the Northern Kingdom (Oeming 1990: 161–3; Giffone 2016: 187). Verses 6–11 are taken from a military census document, while v. 12 gives a fragment of genealogy linked to Num 26:39 (De Vries 1989: 75). The tiny record of Naphtali is derived from Gen 46:24-5. In vv. 14–27 the genealogies of the two Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, appropriately belong together; the geographical details of vv. 28–9 so disclose, with west Manasseh now in view. The Manasseh material consists of a series of disconnected birth reports that overlap in places with tribal names found elsewhere in the OT. The Ephraim material in vv. 20–7 also does not depend directly on a biblical source. It consists of two linear genealogies interrupted by a narrative aside in vv. 22–4. As at times

35

36

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

in the royal narratives, two generations are contrasted: on the one hand, a father, the killing of whose cattle-rustling sons caused him inconsolable grief reflected in the punning name he gave his son (“In-misfortune”), and on the other hand a daughter blessed with building success, which will be associated with seeking God in 2 Chr 26:5-6. The intended moral is that misfortune need not hold the next generation hostage. Asher closes this northern group of tribal genealogies, in vv. 30–40. Verses 30–1a, which come from Gen 46:17, introduce the segmented genealogy of vv. 30–3, while a census of military clan commanders follows in vv. 34–9, concluded by an appreciative description of them and their troops. Some names in the census indicate that the reference is not to Asher in its far-northern territory but to an Asherite enclave in Ephraim (Edelman 1988: 13–15). The genealogy of Judah-related Benjamin suitably closes the section, as the remaining cardinal tribe in Yehud, along with Judah and Levi. After a short genealogy of the patriarch Benjamin’s sons and grandsons in 8:1-5, similar in a few cases to Num 26:38-40, there is a series of lists of military clans (De Vries 1989: 87) based on various places. The tribe’s links to Jerusalem are emphasized. The city was actually on the border between Judah and Benjamin (cf. Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21), though this passage regards it as being within Judah (Japhet 1993: 195). Then vv. 33–40a provide a long genealogy of Gibeon-based Ner, mentioned in v. 30 (NIV; cf. 9:36). This genealogy, which may extend to the Judean exile like that of the high priests in 6:2-15 (5:28-41), is important as the lineage of King Saul, Benjamin’s most important scion, as David was for Judah, and so having a prominent family. A summary in v. 40b rounds off the whole tribal genealogy. A grand summary for the genealogies of “all Israel” appears in 9:1a. Scrappy though some of them are, they have been sufficient to establish the inclusive principle of Israel as a traditional ideal that Yehud should cherish. The royal source claimed for it, matched in 2 Chr 20:34, here feasibly refers to the military census information drawn on for a number of the tribes (Williamson 1982: 87) and accords with the preexilic setting of the genealogies (cf. 5:17). A somber note of exile had been struck two times earlier, for the eastern tribes in 5:25-6 and for Judah in 6:15 (5:41). Now, in 9:1b, the latter can be repeated as the prelude to a happier tune. It repeats the grim term “unfaithful,” used in 5:26 (NIV), and so presents the shadow side to the shining ideal of seeking YHWH. The Southern Kingdom had been just as bad as the Northern Kingdom. The royal narratives that follow will provide the opportunity for the Chronicler to establish his case and to demonstrate God’s way of reinstatement.

Israel: Elect, Inclusive, and Resilient

A New Lease on Life (9:2-34) The Chronicler moves briefly into his own world of nearly contemporary history—perhaps contemporary at v. 18 (NIV “up to the present time”). He will do something similar at the end of the second part of the book, in 2 Chr 36:22-3, where return is associated with rebuilding the temple. Here too temple concerns loom large, with Levites brought to the fore, as in 1 Chr 6. “Again” (9:2; cf. NIV “resettle”) is not in the Hebrew, but is implied both by the previous mention of exile and by the postexilic setting that the list used in vv. 3–17a is given in Neh 11—unless the Chronicler transferred the list to a preexilic time frame (Japhet 1993: 207–8; Willi 2009: 285–6, 308–9). This list of repatriates, especially to Jerusalem, which features both as intertribal capital and as the home of the sanctuary, is adapted from one already used in Neh 11:3-24, unless both were taken from a common source. The preexilic community survived in these postexilic groups, implicitly with the same privilege of divine election and explicitly with the same responsibility of inclusiveness. As for the former, in light of v. 1b restoration had tacitly been to divine favor. As for the latter, “Ephraim and Manasseh” in v. 3 appear to be the Chronicler’s addition because it fits his ideology of “all Israel” and these tribes are not elaborated in the following list. Unless they are shorthand for non-Yehudite tribes as a whole (Klein 2006: 267), they are meant as a first stage. This was the dawning of a new day; its nature as a starting point (“first”) foreshadows for the Chronicler future restoration on a grander scale (cf. 28:8). As for the tribes being represented in Jerusalem, was he as much influenced by the gates of the new Jerusalem being representatively named after the twelve tribes in Ezek 48:30-4 as by the social relocation in Neh 11:1-2? The list sketches the repatriates as representing lay Israelites and groups of temple staff. The emphasis on the latter from 1 Chr 9:10 onward claims the continuity of the rebuilt temple with its preexilic predecessor, as mention of the former does for the lay community. Judah was represented by the three clans of Perez, Shelah (NIV “Shelanites”), and Zerah (cf. 2:4; 4:21), while Benjamin had four clans to represent it. Apart from other priests, three priestly families are singled out: Ahitub, Malchijah, and Immer. Members of one clan and two families of Levites are named: Merari, Asaph, and Jeduthun. The last two were singing groups (cf. 6:39 [24]; 25:1), while Merari had a variety of temple roles. A fresh list in vv. 17–34, overlapping with the previous list at v. 17a, features duties for gatekeepers or security guards in vv. 17–27 and for those

37

38

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

with other responsibilities: maintenance and supplies, baking the daily temple offerings and the weekly bread of the Presence (cf. Exod 25:30; Lev 24:5-9), and singing. The gatekeepers are regarded as Levites (v. 26 and implicitly v. 18), as in 26:1-19, unlike in the Nehemiah list and elsewhere in Ezra-Nehemiah. In Ezek 44:10-11 Levites were to take over this duty in the future temple from palace guards, while in Neh 13:22 Nehemiah assigned Levites to guard city gates on the Sabbath. The Chronicler credits them with an ancient lineage in v. 19 (cf. 26:1, 10, 19). The reference to Phineas in v. 20, with its little narrative aside, presupposes knowledge of his action in Num 25:6-13 (cf. Ps 106:28-31) at the entrance of the tent of meeting; in this context it further legitimates the gatekeepers’ status (Japhet 1993: 216). Underlying the reference to “the seer Samuel” in v. 22 as a fellow founder of the temple gatekeepers in addition to David (cf. ch. 26) is presumably his service at the Shiloh sanctuary, which included opening doors (1 Sam 3:15). Verses 30–4 refer to chief Levites who were singers and resided in Jerusalem, unlike the rank and file who commuted to Jerusalem for their spells of duty, like the gatekeepers in v. 25. Verse 34 has been borrowed from 8:28 and adapted to a non-Benjaminite context (Klein 2006: 279). A striking feature of this list is the correlation of the temple and the wilderness tabernacle in order to legitimate worship in the postexilic period. The tabernacle itself is in view in v. 19b, while there are typological allusions that refer to the temple in tabernacle terms at vv. 18b, 19a, 21, and 23.

4 David and Solomon as Spiritual Models (1 Chr 9:35-2 Chr 9:31) We referred in Chapter 2 to the rhetorical masterplan that the Chronicler is pursuing in his book. In that plan David and Solomon had vital roles as models for seeking God, roles demonstrated in preparing for and completing the temple, which gave their reigns a joint significance. Attention was also drawn there to the structural demarcation of their joint reigns as significant turning points, in 1 Chr 10:14 and 2 Chr 10:15. Nearly half the book is devoted to this new section. The Chronicler is moving beyond his earlier genealogies where the composition of “all Israel” was the key element. That prompts a question, however. How should one evaluate Saul, who like his two successors also reigned over “Israel” (1 Sam 13:1; cf. “all Israel,” v. 4)? An answer is provided rather than immediately introducing David and Solomon. It poses an antithesis between royal generations, a procedure also featured later in Chronicles.

Saul and David Contrasted (9:35-12:40 [41]) First Chronicles 9:35-10:14 forges its own explicit link with the genealogies. The charge of being “unfaithful” to God, brought against the eastern tribes (5:25 NIV) and Judah (9:1), proves to be the disqualifying factor for Saul (10:13). The older exegetical view of contrast between Saul and David is still viable; it is maintained by Jozef Tiňo (2010: 30–1). However, Rudolf

40

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

Mosis’s once influential understanding of the contrast as implicitly based on a paradigm of exile and restoration (1973: 17–43) has received less support in recent study. The contrast enhances David’s kingship by using negative and positive cause-and-effect principles (Duke 1990: 57). First, a genealogy of Saul is provided in 9:35-44, repeated from 8:29-38 as an introduction to the following narrative after the use of 8:28 in 9:34. Was the nonuse of 8:39-40 meant to indicate that Saul’s unfaithfulness did not apply to Benjamin in general (Klein 2006: 280–1)? Moreover, does mention of “Gibeon” in v. 35 take on a special relevance here? In the OT it is largely associated with battles, bloodshed, and deception, while in 1 Kgs 3:3-4 Solomon’s worship at the high place there receives an apologetic mention. In Chronicles, however, that Benjaminite sanctuary is honored as containing the Mosaic tabernacle for a period (1 Chr 16:39-40; 2 Chr 1:3-5), though elsewhere in the OT the tabernacle is associated only with Shiloh in the land of Israel (e.g., Josh 18:1; Ps 78:60 NIV). Such respect suggests that the Chronicler, as in 1 Samuel, regarded King Saul, who is assumed to have worshiped there as initially on the right side of a spiritual divide. Saul will get a positive mention at 1 Chr 26:28 for dedicating spoils, plausibly at the Gibeon sanctuary for the Chronicler. Eventually he degenerated, as 13:3 will attest. However, the intervention of the citizens of Jabesh-Gilead in 1 Chr 10:11-12 (// 1 Sam 31:11-13) assumes familiarity with their gratitude to an earlier Saul who had enjoyed God-given victory (cf. 1 Sam 11:1-13). Was the long genealogy the Chronicler’s way of paying tribute to that prior period? In ch. 10 the Chronicler uses 1 Sam 31 to rush to what for him is the inevitable bad effect of such degeneration, in this case military defeat and death, as the reason for the divine replacement with David. The changing of “the men of Israel” (1 Sam 31:7) to “all the men of Israel” (1 Chr 10:7) hints negatively at the “all Israel” motif (Willi 2009: 327). From Saul’s face-saving suicide the narrative fans out to the lost chance of a dynasty, unlike David later. “All his house” (10:6) is the Chronicler’s own phrase (cf. 1 Sam 31:6; Nihan 2013: 199–200 presents another view); his sons’ deaths so signified in effect. From these grim outcomes the Chronicler turns in 10:13-14a to give his own evaluation of their cause. It presents the negative side of the “seeking” theme. The strong general term “unfaithfulness” is spelled out in terms of 1 Sam 13:13-14; 15:23, 26; 28:7. The last case provides by contrast an opportunity for the Chronicler’s favorite phrase, “seek (guidance from) the LORD,” using Hebrew drš here in a narrow sense. YHWH’s fatal intervention develops 1 Sam 28:19. Most of these source texts involve Samuel’s prophetic messages (“the word of the LORD,” 10:13 NIV), while the last case also

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

presupposes Torah references, Lev 19:21; Deut 18:10-11. The somber lessons for informed readers are to heed the Law and the Prophets by respecting ritual rules and staying within the bounds of Yahwism. The close of v. 14 serves as a headline for the new reign; it will be elaborated in 1 Chr 11:1–12:40 (41) in terms of the human outworking of the divine transfer. God’s “kingdom” represented by a human viceroy is in view, as elsewhere in Chronicles (e.g., 17:14; 28:5; 2 Chr 13:8). Chapters 11–12 also provide a threefold process of arguing for the spiritual legitimacy of David’s reign over against that of Saul. First, the union of all Israel under Saul had been lost according to 10:7; now God and all Israel made David king (11:1-3; Knoppers 2004: 578). Second, countering the negative “word of the LORD” regarding Saul, David’s reign was abundantly verified by prophetic endorsements (11:2-3, 10; 12:18, 23 [19, 24]). The reference in 11:2-3 seems to be to 1 Sam 15:28; 16:1-13, verbally influenced by 2 Sam 7:7 (// 1 Chr 17:6). YHWH was indeed on David’s side (11:9; 12:18 [19]). Third, over against the defeat of Saul’s army, David gained military prowess, a mark of divine blessing in Chronicles and the means whereby Saul’s kingdom was transferred to him (12:23 [24]). The contrasting will overflow into later material. In 13:3 Saul’s neglect of the ark is reversed. Two further contrasts occur in ch. 14 (Kalimi 2005b: 327, 330–1). In 14:4-7 (// 2 Sam. 5:14-16) David’s blessing of many sons contrasts with Saul’s loss of three sons (10:6-8, 12). In 14:10, 14, David inquired of God, unlike Saul in 10:13 (“consulted”); in both cases a Hebrew verb š’l occurs. Finally, David’s successor would not lose God’s steadfast love like Saul (17:13 // 2 Sam 7:15). Tiňo (2010: 36) ties ch. 10 into the book by regarding it as an expansion of 17:13. The account shifts backward and forward, mostly in a concentric pattern, ABCDD′C′B′A′ (Williamson 1981: 168–70), which suggests for him its derivation from the Chronicler. It begins and ends at Hebron with David’s coronation and its celebration involving “all Israel,” strictly soldiers from all the tribes as representatives of both them and their intention (11:13 // 2 Sam 5:1-3, A; 12:38-40 [39-41], A′). The military attendees were (i) individual warriors in 11:11-41a (// 2 Sam 23:8-39, B), introduced by the Chronicler with 11:10 and supplemented with another list at vv. 41b-7 that he added, and (ii) tribal troops in 12:23-37 (24-38, B′), a passage that includes numerical hyperbole in the case of non-Yehudite tribes, which expresses the Chronicler’s broader hope (Klein 2006: 315). This happy event was the culmination of earlier support at Ziglag during Saul’s reign (12:1-7 [8], C; vv.19-22 [20-3], C′). Yet supporters had joined him even earlier, at a time of uncertainty in the wilderness “stronghold” when David was an outlaw from

41

42

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

Saul and nervously checked out self-claimed supporters (12:8-15 [9-16], D; vv. 16-18 [17-19], D′). Knoppers (2004: 574–5) has observed the tribal differentiation in the pattern, which develops the intertribal feature of B′: Benjamin in C, Gad in D, Benjamin and Judah in D′, and Manasseh in C′. There is also mention of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali in A′. This long trail, traced with landmarks and tribe by tribe, ultimately reached a successful climax. It depended on the support of “all Israel,” which, apart from 11:1, at v. 4 significantly replaces “his men” in the underlying 2 Sam 5:6. It shows the importance of the united people for the Chronicler as an ideal that was also a challenge for the present and a hope for the future. The incident in 11:17-18 accentuates David’s sense of indebtedness to his followers’ loyalty. We listed in Chapter 2 the number of names in the account involving the Hebrew for “help”; they reinforce the element of national support, in addition to frequent direct mention of human help. Included in the concentric pattern of support for David is a structural scheme that fittingly pursues the military agenda (Willi 1972: 224 n. 30). It adds in 11:6 a reference to Joab not only as conqueror of Jerusalem but as David’s commander in chief (cf. 2 Sam 8:16) before referring to other commanders in 11:10-47, “warriors” in 12:1-21 (22), and the rank and file in 12:22-37 (23-38). Outside the pattern, in 11:4-9 the Chronicler took the opportunity to continue using the source text with its report of the capture of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6-10), YHWH’s chosen city for the temple (e.g., 2 Chr 33:7 // 2 Kgs 21:7) and future capital for the dynasty and Israel. The report was necessary as background to chs. 13–16. His building work there was a mark of blessing, as v. 9 explains.

Bringing the Ark to Jerusalem (13:1-16:43) This account is a key part of the book, highlighted by the psalm at its close. It prioritizes David’s own seeking of YHWH via the ark, reversing Saul’s neglect (13:3, using drš, “seek” [NRSV “turn to”]). It functions as a didactic parable for his intended readers, mutatis mutandis. It was literally irrelevant since the postexilic temple no longer contained the lost ark. But the continuation of YHWH’s cultic presence, formerly symbolized by the ark (13:6, 10; 16:1; Exod 25:22; Num 7:89), was generally assumed. It was still “the LORD’s house” (Hag 1:2) and still “the LORD dwells in Zion”

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

(Joel 3 [4]:17, 21; Ps 135:21), while at 2 Chr 36:22-3 the postexilic temple is implicitly sanctioned as the successor to Solomon’s. Moreover, in 1 Chr 16:29 “come into his courts” (Ps 96:8) was replaced by “come before him,” using the same Hebrew noun as in 16:11 (// Ps 105:4), “seek his presence.” In postexilic times YHWH’s presence evidently was still a temple factor. The Chronicler, independently of his source, also uses a longer OT title, “the ark of the covenant,” in 15:25-6, 28-9; 16:6, 37; 17:1, clustering it around the theological references to the covenant in 16:15-17. The phrase relates to Deuteronomy’s view of the ark as containing the two tablets (Deut 10:5; 1 Kgs 8:9 // 2 Chr 5:10), but in this context it is used to draw attention to the psalm reference (Jonker 2015: 422–4; Ko 2017: 193). The ark becomes a reminder of the everlasting patriarchal covenant and perpetuates its validity. Apart from the ark theme, the coherence of the unit is indicated by the framing summons and dismissal of the people (“all Israel,” 13:5-6 [cf. 15:3, 28]); “all the people,” 16:43). No longer were their military representatives (12:38) sufficient; this momentous occasion demanded their total assembling, including “our brethren… left in all the land of Israel” (13:2 KJV), referring to members of God’s family, and “also the priests and Levites” (v. 4 NIV) from their own cities, who will eventually play a major role in the sacred procession. The family reference attested to the Chronicler’s contemporaries the spiritual bond between south and north; it anticipates the framing use in 2 Chr 11:4; 28:11. Throntveit (1987: 33) has compared Hezekiah’s invitation in 2 Chr 30:6-9. Second Samuel 6:1-11 is largely the basis of 1 Chr 13:5-13, though here the company is expanded and Israel’s frontiers are idealistically portrayed as far greater than those of little Yehud. The venture failed after Uzzah intended to take hold of the holy ark that symbolized divine presence. Probably his mere intention was already in the Chronicler’s text of 2 Sam 6:6 (McKenzie 1985: 49). For him this well-meant expedient was ritually wrong, violating the Torah principle of Num 4:15 (cf. 1 Chr 15:2, 13, 15), and was duly punished. David’s visceral reactions of anger and fear in the source text are felicitously retained as a complex grief process. In ch. 14 the three-month interval before the next attempt is given a literary fill-in by using 2 Sam 5:11-25 for a cause-and-effect purpose, in which burning idols at 14:12 has adapted to a Torah standard (cf. 2 Sam 5:21; Deut 7:5, 25; Kalimi 2005b: 154–6). The change of order, as 14:2 now hints, illustrates various aspects of God’s blessing—a building project, marriage and family, military victories, and fame—on the good intentions displayed in the initial seeking (Mosis 1973: 60–1). “Because David is attentive to the ark, good fortune follows” (Eskenazi 1995: 266).

43

44

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

One expects the next attempt to begin at 15:1, but first the Chronicler provided the ritual groundwork for the procession in 15:1-24 as the accredited basis for seeking God (v. 13b; Heb. drš, KJV “sought,” NIV “inquire of ”) before using 2 Sam 6:12-19 for 15:25-9; 16:1-3, 43. He looked at the different method of conveying the ark in 2 Sam 11:13 with Torah-enlightened eyes. Only the Levites could carry the ark (15:2; cf. Num 4:15; 7:9); actually the Chronicler cites Deut 10:8, replacing setting apart with choosing, though that text referred to the wider tribe of Levi rather than the Levites (Begg 2003: 137 n. 15). That was why the first attempt had failed, because had they done so, they would also have used poles inserted through rings in the ark (15:15; cf. 2 Chr 5:9 // 1 Kgs 8:7-8), in accord with the Priestly Torah (Exod 25:14-15). Moreover, the singing and music in the first attempt were now to feature the singing voices and playing hands of the Levitical guilds (15:15-22), a postexilic development we have met before in ch. 6 at a slightly earlier stage, while blowing the trumpet of 2 Sam 6:15 was properly a priestly task (15:24a; cf. Num 10:10; Ezra 3:10). The procession included Levites responsible for the ark’s security (15:18b, 23, 24b). Accordingly, the second attempt was a success, with general acclaim. Only David’s wife Michal, her father’s daughter, was typically the odd one out. The closing narrative falls into two parts, 16:1-7, 36b-43, an expansion of 2 Sam 6:17-20a. The Chronicler envisioned religious continuity whereby the Mosaic tabernacle not only survived (1 Kgs 8:4 // 2 Chr 5:5) but was present in the Gibeon sanctuary. Williamson (1982: 130–2) has argued that this may depend on an inherited tradition; similarly Japhet (1993: 323), though by a midrashic process. An interim double system of worship was necessary, now that the ark had been recovered and resided in the tent shelter David had prepared in Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:1). So priestly sacrificing according to the Torah model (Exod 27:1-8) continued at Gibeon, accompanied by the psalm singing of two Levitical guilds, while concurrently the third guild sang and priests sounded a trumpet fanfare in Jerusalem (16:4-6, 37-42; cf. 2 Chr 8:14; Kleinig 1993: 51–4). David’s returning home to pray for blessing on his “household” or “family” (NIV; // 2 Sam 5:20a) here sets the scene for ch. 17, where God will answer the prayer with the promise of a “house”—the same Hebrew word—in a dynastic sense. Sandwiched in between the two parts of the narrative and concluding the whole section is the song in vv. 8–36a. The Chronicler’s atypical recourse to poetry indicates that this is a grand moment in Israel’s history, just as the Song of the Sea commemorated the exodus (Exod 15; Eskenazi 1995: 269). The song is a composite one that the Chronicler has re-created to celebrate

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

its present setting; it is made up of parts of three canonical psalms, Ps 105:115 in vv. 8–22, Ps 96:1b-13a substantially in vv. 23–33, and Ps 106:1, 47-8a in vv. 34-6. They were temple songs with which the author and his first readers were presumably familiar. So he had to make adjustments for a pre-temple context, replacing “in his sanctuary” with “in his place” (v. 27), harking back to 15:1, 3, 12, and “in his courts” with “before him” (v. 29). A probable third case is the blatantly (post)exilic “and gather us” (v. 35 KJV), which was replaced by “and rescue us,” borrowed from Ps 79:9 in a psalm that has affinity with Ps 106. The Greek Septuagint lacks the first verbal phrase and our Hebrew text appears to be conflated, mixing both literary traditions (Allen 1974: 1.217; Japhet 1993: 319). The Chronicler presents the new psalm as sung “on that day” by a Levitical choir (cf. 16:7, 37), as its parts presumably were in his times. The importance of this association cannot be overestimated because it meant that they were engaged in “prophesying” according to 1 Chr 25:1-3, including Asaph, who is called “the seer” in 2 Chr 29:30. So here was prophetic torah that could provide theological deliberation about the relocated ark. As often in Chronicles, narrative and interpretive prophecy are integrated. The two are formally bonded as illustrating the singing Levites’ roles in v. 4: “to invoke [literally ‘cause to be remembered’; cf. ‘Remember,’ vv. 12, 15], to thank [cf. vv. 8, 34–5], and to praise the LORD [cf. vv. 25, 35].” The exegetical and rhetorical structuring of the song has received various academic interpretations, three of which Throntveit (2003) has usefully discussed. The Ps 105 extract was put first because of the fundamental importance of its content; source arrangement was important for the Chronicler, as his new placing of 2 Sam 5 demonstrated. From Ps 105, a historical hymn, he selected the introductory call to praise, here vv. 8–13, and the first part of its grounds for praise, here vv. 14–22. Verse 11 is a summons to “seek (drš) the LORD” and “seek (bqš) his presence” (cf. v. 10). It commends proper worship and also celebrates the proper ark-related seeking, after 13:3; 15:13. The vocatives in v. 13 significantly identify the addressees. The direct speech reminds us of its function in speech-act theory, explained in Chapter 2, to have an illocutionary force for the hearers, who were not only David’s contemporaries but also the Chronicler’s. It is evident in the new imperative “Remember” at v. 15 that replaces “He remembers” in Ps 105:8 (NIV). Another key change is “Israel” in v. 11 as personal founder of the chosen people for the Chronicler, instead of “Abraham” in Ps 105:6. Further features with a contemporary appeal appear in the grounds for praise. The identity of “the LORD our God” who is to be sought is

45

46

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

expounded in terms of “an everlasting covenant,” which entails the gift of the land, as in the Priestly Gen 17:7-8, which was confirmed to Jacob in Gen 35:12; 48:4. His clustering seven cases of “ark of the covenant” around “covenant” in 16:15-17 highlighted the term. Here we can find justification for understanding earlier Israel-related geographical references as implicit promises for Israel’s future. Another ground for praise is divine protection of the powerless patriarchs in Canaan, “few in number, of little account,” a code easily deciphered by audiences in the small province of Yehud. The extract from Ps 96, a hymn of divine kingship, extends that motif by countering human “kingdom/kings” (vv. 20–1) with the superior role of YHWH as “king” (v. 31). This kingship develops the association of the ark with YHWH who is “enthroned on the cherubim” in 1 Chr 13:6. The grounds for praise trace to the work of creation the all-powerful kingship (vv. 26, 30b; cf. Pss 29:10; 93:1-4; 99:1), which one day would be consummated worldwide (vv. 28–30a). The calls to praise issued to forces of nature and other nations (vv. 31–3) share these universal implications. The closing extract begins in v. 34 by recalling the everlasting covenant motif: “his steadfast love endures forever”; it will be echoed in v. 41. Both of Psalm 106’s genres—a hymn and a prayer lament—are captured in the Chronicler’s summary. The prayer is given special emphasis by the added preface “Say also” as a component that carried to the Chronicler’s own hearers a message that invites comparison with the implicit appeals in Ezra 9:9; Neh 9:36-7. He turned praise of God’s presence, patronage, protection, and power into grounds for prayer, which, once answered, would stimulate further praise. So petition is subordinated to praise (Kleinig 1993: 148). In v. 36a he wove into the song the first part of the editorial doxology, while in v. 36b he transformed the second part and the framing “Hallelujah” (cf. Ps 106:1) by historicizing them as the people’s liturgical responses of amen and hallelujah (NIV; cf. Neh 5:13b; 8:6). The responses bring us back to the ark narrative, specifically the “shouting” of 15:28.

A Promise Made and Another Promise Kept (17:1-20:8) Chapter 17, with its promise of a temple and dynasty, is one of the highwater marks of the book. Tiňo (2010: 31–2, 35–75) considers 17:7–14 the kernel of the whole book, clustered around temple and palace, while Selman (1994: 174) regards Chronicles as constructed around the two

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

oracles of 17:3-15 and 2 Chr 7:12-22. At least it begins an arc concerning David’s part in building the temple, which extends to ch. 29. Chapters 17–20 are the prologue to that task. On a larger scale, the pattern of chs. 13–15 can also be viewed as virtually repeated in the next stages of chs. 17–20, in terms of David’s proposal, reckoning with a divine setback, and receiving blessings as a reward for the original intention (cf. Willi 2019: 163, who includes ch. 21). Moreover, chs. 17–20 show evidence of rhetorical unity in their structural markers. The promise to “subdue all” David’s “enemies” (17:10) in order to establish a safe place for Israel (v. 9) introduces a key verb. It changes the parallel 2 Sam 7:11, whose privilege of rest is reserved for Solomon’s reign in Chronicles after its achievement by David in God-assisted warfare (1 Chr 22:18 NIV; 23:25). The verb is resumed as fulfilled at 18:1 (// 2 Sam. 8:1) and the unparalleled 20:4. Subduing the land is presented as the initial outworking of the covenant. One purpose of this section is to develop through David the basic promise of the land-oriented 16:18, even while another promise relating to temple and dynasty is made. The link between them is that subduing the land prepares for temple building (Cudworth 2016a: 35–6; cf. 22:18–19). More extensively, the prayer to the “God of our salvation” to “save” in 16:35 (cf. Ps 106:47) is also answered by reuse of the same Hebrew verb at 18:6, 13 (“gave victory”; // 2 Sam 8:6, 13). Chapters 13–16 and 17–29 also exhibit parallel endings by matching the psalm in ch.16 with David’s own praise and prayer in ch. 29, concluding two phases of his temple preparations. There is diverse structural interweaving as the overall story develops on different fronts. Chapter 17 substantially copies 2 Sam 7, which suited the Chronicler’s purposes well. David proposed to build God a “house,” embarrassed by his own expensive house, already built (14:1 [// 2 Sam 5:11]; cf. 15:1a). The proposal met with Nathan’s approval in principle, but required oracular correction as to when and who. God could wait a little longer! The prohibition in v. 4, stronger than 2 Sam 7:5, is borrowed from 1 Kgs 8:19 (Avioz 2004: 548). “The house”—not “a house” (NRSV)—taken over in the Hebrew, now indicates the exclusivity of the Jerusalem temple (Schniedewind 1999: 165). Instead, David’s role was a preparatory one to provide territorial stability for God’s people, which implicitly would also serve as the background to temple building, after the capture of Jerusalem in 11:4-8. Later, in 22:8; 28:3, the reason will be presented in a negative way, whereas here it is positive (Dirksen 2005: 241). Nevertheless, in line with other favors, past and future, YHWH matched David’s generous offer by using wordplay, promising

47

48

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

in a cause-and-effect formulation to “build a house” or dynasty for him, in return for his good intentions to build the temple (contrast “make,” 2 Sam 7:11; cf. 2 Chr 6:8 // 1 Kgs 8:18). David will pick up this effect in vv. 23–7. In the next generation the dynasty was to provide as builder for God’s “house” a particular son—to be identified as Solomon in 22:9-10; 28:5-6— who would have a close father-son relationship with God, as viceroy in God’s kingdom. Building the temple was one of the conditions that would secure the permanence of the dynasty (v. 12; Williamson 1983: 317–18). The issue of his possible wrongdoing in 2 Sam 7:14b has been dropped as not fitting the Chronicler’s lily-white presentation of Solomon and so irrelevant (Williamson 1982: 135–6, critiqued by Avioz 2004: 550). Certainly this son of David would not lose the covenant-related “steadfast love” this relationship would involve, unlike Saul (v. 13 // 2 Sam 7:15). He would be “set over” (v. 14 NIV) the temple and God’s kingdom—rather than David’s royal house and kingdom (2 Sam 7:16)—taking both religious and political responsibility (Knoppers 2004: 673). The focus here is on David’s heir as temple custodian and dynastic successor, repeating v. 12. A fresh theological era was opening up, symbolized by the new temple and inaugurated by its cofounders in a new dynastic role. The covenant with the patriarchs that entailed everlasting steadfast love between YHWH and Israel (16:15-17, 34, 41) was to take a leap forward with the creation of an everlasting Davidic dynasty (cf. 2 Chr 21:7). David’s answer focuses on God’s promise of a dynasty as pure grace. Significant changes of the source text highlight YHWH’s guarantee of the dynasty as a permanent entity (Beentjes 2008: 42–4). He offered profuse, heartfelt gratitude that no words could adequately express, but God could read his heart (cf. Ps 139:1-2). Indeed, his gratitude was later to be shown practically, in the preparations he would make for Solomon’s building of the temple, and so this other concern of the oracle was to be taken up as a royal obligation. David reviewed God’s previous dealings with Israel in terms of exodus, Sinai, and conquest, the next steps after the patriarchal interaction in 16:15-22. That theological history now found a further advance in the form of this permanent dynastic promise. In v. 24 the king repays the divine promise of a great “name” for David (v. 8) with an acknowledgment that thus YHWH’s own “name” would be made great. Chapters 18–20 leave to one side the dynastic and temple promises (apart from 18:8b, probably present in the source’s textual tradition [Klein 2006: 387]). They concentrate on the divine blessing inherent in the preliminary military promise of 17:10a and consequent upon David’s good intentions

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

in wanting to build a temple. These chapters use as a frame the capture of territory “from the hand” of foes (18:1 KJV // 2 Sam 8:1) and the downfall of foes “by the hand” of David and his servants (20:8 // 2 Sam 21:22). The frame rhetorically unifies three different sources the Chronicler has combined: the reports of 2 Sam 8:1-18 in 1 Chr 18:1-17, the narrative of 2 Sam 10:1-11:1; 12: 26, 30-1 in 1 Chr 19:1–20:3, and the reports of 2 Sam 21:18-22 in 1 Chr 20:4-8. Another unifying feature is that these three separate accounts begin symmetrically with “In the course of time” (18:1; 19:1; 20:4, all NIV), a phrase the Chronicler borrowed from 2 Sam 21:18. Harmonization of two traditions about who killed Goliath (1 Sam 17; 2 Sam 21:19) features in 20:5, whether made by the Chronicler or made earlier (Japhet 1993: 369). The conquests fanned out in all directions: westward to the Philistines; eastward to Moab, Edom, and Ammon; and northward to Zobah and Damascus, while Hamath in the far north became an ally. The larger numbers in 18:4 (7,000 cavalry instead of 1,700 in 2 Sam 8:4); 19:7 (32,000 chariots in place of 20,000 infantry in 2 Sam 10:6) in this case appear in the textual tradition of 2 Samuel; so do the thousand silver talents in 19:6, absent from our form of the source text at 2 Sam 10:6 (McKenzie 1985: 53– 4). Verses 14–17 find room for commending the royal administration over “all Israel,” civic and religious as well as military. The exploits of David, his army, and his dueling champions are regarded as the outworking of YHWH’s own work in view of the common verb “subdue” at 17:11; 18:1 (// 2 Sam 8:1); 20:4, and this work receives acknowledgment in the shared clause at 18:6, 13 (// 2 Sam 8:6, 13), with which 19:13 (// 2 Sam 10:12) may be compared. Fittingly then, in 18:11 (// 2 Sam 8:11) David dedicated precious spoils to Yahweh. Verse 8b reminds readers of the temple promise and looks ahead to Solomon’s work.

Transition to the New Tradition (21:1-22:19) These two chapters, actually 21:1-22:1; 22:2-19, the latter unique to the Chronicler, form a pair, despite their diverse content. The clue is the closing parallelism in 21:30; 22:19, which uses the Chronicler’s keyword drš, rendered “inquire of God” and “seek the LORD your God” with sanctuary connotations. Resort to God was no longer to be via the Torah-mandated

49

50

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

tabernacle with its portable altar of burnt offering (cf. Exod 27:1-8) but by means of an altar and temple in Jerusalem. First Chronicles 21:29-22:1 move beyond the temporary arrangement of two centers of worship in 16:37-42. Now 22:1 will declare the site for the new sanctuary. The first account reveals the new era of worship, to which David can respond by preparing for it in the second. As the basis for ch. 21 the Chronicler used the narrative in 2 Sam 24:1025. His source text was closer to the Qumran text 4Q51 (4QSama), in which only vv. 16–22 have survived (see Ulrich 1978: 151–64; 2007: 158; McKenzie 1985: 55–8; Cross 2006), but he did amplify it and make changes. He needed to replace YHWH as the source of wrath (2 Sam 24:1). Divine wrath does sometimes refer to a mysterious, amoral characteristic in the OT (e.g., Ps 102:10 [11]), but this did not fit the book’s tight scheme in which God’s wrath related only to cultic or moral retribution, as in the NT in the latter case (cf. 1 Chr 27:24). Help may have come from the vocabulary of Zech 3:1, where a supernatural adversary, “the satan,” was “standing” to accuse the high priest, and of Job 2:3, where he “incited” God against Job. If so, these similarities suggest the interpretation of the disputed satan or adversary except that here “Satan” appears as a name, unless it is a particular celestial satan (Rudman 2008: 208). They counter a human interpretation of the figure (e.g., Japhet 1993: 373–5; contrast Evans 2004; Stokes 2009). What was wrong with the census is not clarified (see Evans 2013). As pointers to an offense, the Chronicler added Joab’s reference to “guilt” in v. 3, his abhorrence in v. 6, and the clause, “But the thing David had done displeased the LORD,” in v. 7, which echoes the very similar 2 Sam 11:27b (Kelly 1996: 81). The Chronicler evidently regarded the Bathsheba affair and cover-up as a comparable sin, though his general cultic emphasis left no room for it. Theologically the story also permitted him to bring to the fore God’s “mercy” in mitigating the communal punishment incurred by the king’s corporate responsibility, of which Joab had warned (v. 3bb; Ristau 2005: 211 and n. 23). The mercy is “very great” after David’s sinning “greatly” (vv. 8 [// 2 Sam 24:10], 13); it is displayed not merely in a divine and natural means of punishment, rather than in a human one, but also in God’s taking note of his renewed confession and relenting (vv. 15, apparently the Chronicler’s preliminary summary of vv. 16–27, 17 // 2 Sam 24:17). In the book this mercy paves the way for the promise of temple-related divine forgiveness given to the repentant people at 2 Chr 7:14-15, in response to Solomon’s requests at 6:27, 30, 39, and for the similar opportunity for errant Manasseh in ch. 33. Already David provided the model for repentant sinners (Knoppers 1995),

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

while the temple became the lasting symbol of God’s will to forgive (De Vries 1989: 266). The Chronicler impressed on readers the revelatory role of the narrative in two ways. First, he added references to “the angel of the LORD” in vv.18 and 30—the case in v. 15 accords with 2 Sam 24: 16, while the one in v. 16 was taken over from his source text—in the latter case as wielding forcible constraint for David to sacrifice on the spot (“there,” v. 28). The second way was the divine response to David’s sacrificing with “fire from heaven” (v. 26), suggested by Gideon’s experience at Judg 6:28, where “the angel of the LORD” was also active, and also by Lev 9:24. That celestial fire will significantly reappear in Solomon’s reign at 2 Chr 7:1; in both cases the Chronicler was claiming divine validation for the temple enterprise. Now that the temple site had been identified, he could proceed in 1 Chr 22:2-5, independently of 2 Samuel, to David’s provision of craftsmen and raw materials galore as practical preparation for the building. He could not leave this to Solomon for two reasons: his youthful inexperience (cf. 1 Kgs 3:7) and the opportunity to show the world a “magnificent” edifice worthy of Israel’s God. The concerted efforts of David and Solomon were necessary. His address to his son begins in vv. 7–10 by summarizing 17:1-14, but goes further by identifying him as God’s intended builder and by arguing with the aid of wordplay (šelomoh, “Solomon”/šalom, “peace,” v. 9) that David’s earlier military preparations at God’s behest had made him ritually unclean and debarred him from the task, which required the rest enjoyed in Solomon’s reign. The argument is a development of 1 Kgs 5:3-5 (17–19). The implicit rationale for it here and in 28:3 was evidently Num 35:33-4, where shedding another’s blood, defined in terms of homicidal killing in v. 30, defiled the land. This text was related to military killing by comparing Num 31:19-24, where such killing—a different Hebrew word—necessitated a seven-day purification ritual (Murray 2010: 465–71). In David’s case, as Knoppers (2004: 774–5) has observed, the consequences were far greater because he had shed “much blood,” mentioned twice in 1 Chr 22:8, and also implicitly because the task was to build “the holy house” (29:3). In line with the program of Deut 12:10-11, the “rest” (NIV) that was to mark Solomon’s reign, God-given through David’s battles (1 Chr 23:25), was to be the signal for the sanctuary project. Again, both kings were needed. In 22:11-16 David’s private commissioning of Solomon to prepare him for temple building follows a threefold schema of encouragement for a task (Mason 1990: 24–5): a reassuring wish for God’s supportive presence as a frame in vv. 11a, 16b, a description of the task in v. 11b, and encouragement

51

52

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

in v. 13. Wishing for God’s help is amplified in v. 12 in terms of wisdom (cf. 2 Chr 1:10-12a // 1 Kgs 3:9-12), which is explained as keeping the Torah (cf. 1 Kgs 3:15). Such obedience would typically lead to success (NIV; NRSV “prosper”). It would implicitly take the form of wealth that Solomon could devote to the construction of the temple (cf. 2 Chr 1:12b // 1 Kgs 3:13). The close parallels to Josh 1:6-9 in nearly all these respects suggest typology that compares David and Solomon’s roles with those of Moses, debarred from entering the land, and Joshua, taking possession of the land (Williamson 1976). A new dispensation was dawning whose pattern corresponded to, and so was legitimated by, the old one. David’s own generosity is recounted in vv. 14–16a as an incentive to Solomon. The colossal numbers for further materials add pizazz to the prosaic “beyond weighing” in vv. 2, 14 and “without number” in vv. 4, 15. The king’s lobbying speech to the national leaders uses the same schematic elements as to Solomon to urge their support. Responsibility for David and Solomon’s joint venture to give the ark a permanent home rested on Israel as well. The inclusion of “holy vessels” would have appealed to the Chronicler and his readers because restoration of the temple’s vessels for use in the postexilic temple (Ezra 1:7-11; 5:1415; 6:5) established material continuity for the latter (cf. 2 Chr 36:7, 10, 18; Ackroyd 1972). The reference also pointed them to an important way they should wholeheartedly “seek the LORD.”

Transitional Steps to Solomon’s Reign (23:1-29:30) These chapters are unique to the Chronicler. First Kings 2:1-12 provided a frame for them, namely the initial notice of David’s impending death and the concluding epilogue to his reign, with unfinished political business replaced by David’s cultic preparations (Selman 1994: 212). In general, the chapters develop the concerns of ch. 22, mostly crediting David with further preparations for the new sanctuary in chs. 23–7 before renewed commissioning of Israel’s leaders (28:1-8) and Solomon (vv. 9–21). This double commissioning is now put in a public setting after the private sessions in 22:6-19. The book’s keyword drš reappears in both commissions, at 28:8 (“search out”), addressed to the assembly, and at greater length at v. 9. The first occurrence repeats the communal context of 22:19, while the

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

second transfers to Solomon David’s obligation to seek (“inquire”) in 21:3022:1, with reference to the sanctuary. A lesson the Chronicler wanted his contemporaries to learn shines through once more. David and Solomon, as cofounders of the temple, were meant as models for them also to be sanctuary-seekers. So 28:8 hints by including in this enterprise a host of representatives of “all Israel, the assembly of the LORD.” Many regard the meeting in 23:2 as separate from the one in 28:1, but then it is oddly undeveloped. One expects the two Hebrew verbs of assembly to be accompanied by a direct statement of purpose in a narrative or speech, as usual in Chronicles (e.g., 15:3–12), neither of which appear in this first case. By rendering both verbs “assembled,” the NRSV assumed that the first verb anticipates the second one. John W. Wright (1991: 231–2) argues for the verbs’ different meanings, but they are sufficiently close to connote resumption in 28:1, which can imply intentional digression rather than a redactional role for the intervening material. The whole section has a chronological frame by mention of David’s old age and Solomon’s succession (23:1; 29:28) and an inset wider frame by developing the meeting of 23:2 in 28:1-29:24 in terms of the royal speeches, communal financial participation, David’s public prayer, and communal worship. The intervening material at first glance looks like an enormous foreign body. However, in addition to this section’s connections with chs. 21–2, closer examination shows it is linked to its frames in several ways. First, the material seems intended to present the king’s religious arrangements in old age, his legacy at the close of a forty-year reign (26:3l; 29:27), after earlier arrangement mentioned in 16:37–42 (cf. 9:22). The function of these chapters is to legitimate these arrangements as authorized by David (Wright 1991: 233–7). Second, ch. 27 serves as a civil guest list for the assembly that met for the great royal and religious occasion (28:1; 29:6). A last and not least structural factor emerges from the mention of categories of religious personnel in 28:13a as being part of David’s temple plan (De Vries 1989: 219). Opportunity was taken in the preliminary chapters to provide explanations of these and their duties. The identification of “the leaders of Israel and the priests and the Levites” (23:2) in the course of 23:3-27:34 is supplied within an ABB′A′ chiasm: religious officials throughout 23:3-26:32 and secular leaders in ch. 27. The census list of Levites as a whole group used in 23:3-6a (cf. Num 3:14-39; 4:1-49) includes gatekeepers and singers, and so is postexilic. Its four subgroups provide the framework for the subsequent lists. In 23:6b24 there is another list that provided current family heads of the three traditional clans; v. 24 suggests it refers to maintenance workers. Kohath’s

53

54

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

priestly relatives and their duties, including benediction (cf. Num 6:22-7), are slipped into the list in vv. 13b-14. Another list in vv. 25–32 supplies the Levites’ duties, indicating their ancillary roles that complemented the priests’ sacrificial duties. Verses 28–9 have maintenance and supply staff in view and note their temple tasks in the new dispensation instead of being ark and tabernacle porters (cf. 15:2; Num 4:15; 10:17), while vv. 30–1 append the singers that accompanied sacrificing (cf. 6:31 [16]). Verse 25 is a welcome reminder of the bigger theological picture. A priestly roster for periods of temple duty, more reader-friendly in the NIV, follows in 24:1-19. The system of twenty-four divisions appears to have been a postexilic development (cf. Ezra 2:36-9; Neh 12:1-21). A corresponding roster for Levites, added in vv. 20–31, is closely related to the maintenance staff list earlier, though lacking Gershonites and updating it by a generation; it portrays them as assistants to priests. Chapters 25–6 are devoted to the three other classes of Levites mentioned in 23:4-5, with a special interest in singers and gatekeepers. It is striking that in ch. 25 the music-playing singers, who featured in 6:31-48 (16–33) and performed in chs. 15–16, are repeatedly viewed in prophetic terms at vv. 1–3, while Heman is called “the king’s seer” at v. 5. The two other guild founders, regarded as contemporary with David, prophesy in vv. 2–3, but the sons do so in v. 1. Authorship seems to be in view in the founders’ case (cf. 2 Chr 29:30) and singing in the other for transmission of the authoritative collection of psalms (Knoppers 2004: 859–60; cf. Kleinig 1993: 154–7; Ko 2017: 42–6, 160–1). In the list of vv. 1b-6 the development stands at a prefinal stage, but Heman is regarded as in process of becoming the leading guild founder, a position attained in chs. 6, 15, and 16 (Petersen 1977: 61, 67–8). The singers’ roster in vv. 7–31 is modeled on the priestly one earlier. Chapter 26:1–19 moves to the gatekeepers, who had featured in 9:17-27 and briefly in chs. 15–16, and to their respective guard locations. As part of their duties as security officers, 2 Chr 23:19 and the entrance-liturgy material in Pss 15; 24:3-6; 118:19-20 shed light on their religious and moral responsibilities. Finally, the last two categories of Levites are dealt with in vv. 20–8 and 29–32. The first category managed temple stores of sacred vessels and sacrificial materials, and a collection of dedicated war spoils (cf. 18:11). The second group had judicial roles as law-court clerks and judges. The four lists in ch. 27 have the organization of lay leaders in view. The first in vv. 1–15 lists monthly groups of conscripts for unstated royal purposes (cf. 1 Kgs 4:7-19). Its leaders closely correspond to David’s warriors in 11:1112, 26-31. In vv. 16–24 the second list relating to leaders of the twelve tribes

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

promotes Chronicles’ concept of all Israel. Its numerical nature, counting Aaron as a tribe and lacking Asher and Gad, is reckoned in a unique way, but is close to Num 1:5-15. Verses 23–4 relate to David’s census in ch. 21, making the claim in the king’s defense that he followed the Torah’s prescription for a census (Num 1:3) and so respected the mystery of God’s promise to Abraham (Gen 22:17), while blame is laid on Joab (but see Knoppers 2004: 902–3). The list of administrators of crown property in vv. 25–31 is generally recognized as associated with David, and so is the list of the privy council in vv. 32–4. Having reviewed the contents of this section, we are able to broach the issue of how much, if any, is later than the Chronicler. One must remember that in principle questions of redaction are part of the biblical scholar’s task and entail assessment of later contributions to the final, canonical form of a book. Answers concerning redaction have ranged from “all of it,” mainly in older academic study, to “none of it” (e.g., Wright 1991; Kim 2014: 26– 32; virtually Japhet 1993: 406–9, apart from 23:27; 24: 20b-30; 27:23–4). Williamson’s intermediate view of a widespread pro-priestly revision to redress the Chronicler’s pro-Levitical stand (1979a), added a generation later than the Chronicler, has in principle won much support. This includes not only 23:13b-14, 25-32; 24:1-19 but also passages influenced by the priestly material or otherwise problematic, 24:20-31; 25:7-31; 26:4-8, 12-18; ch. 27. In more recent study, Knoppers (2004) and Klein (2006) have provided useful discussions of earlier work. Knoppers finds much less secondary material. He regards the updated list in 24:20-31 as later and concedes 25:7-31 may be secondary (2004: 838, 853-4). He argues in support of 26:4-8, 12-18 and of ch. 27, though vv. 23–4 may be secondary (2004: 869–71, 899–903). Klein finds 25:4b-5, 7-31; 26:4-8, 12-18; and 27:23-4 to be secondary (2006: 477–9, 487, 504–6). He regards 23:25-32 and ch. 24 as probably secondary (2006: 447, 462) and has doubts about 27:16-22 (2006: 514). Chapters 28–9 bring David’s reign to a grand finale by tracing literary arcs back to the theological praise and prayer of ch. 16 (Williamson 1982: 185–6) and to the spiritual commissioning of prince and people in ch. 22. David’s calling the future temple “a house of rest” and the ark God’s “footstool” (28:3) echoes Ps 132:7-8, from a psalm to be cited again in 2 Chr 6:41-2. David’s negative role in 22:8 is reiterated, but so is the motif of divine election from 16:11 (// Ps 105:6), there relating to Israel, but now by a narrowing process to the tribe of Judah (cf. 5:1-2), David’s family, David (cf. Deut 17:15), and even to Solomon as king and temple builder. Alongside the temple mandate, a Torah mandate is reaffirmed from 22:13. In so doing, Solomon is to be a

55

56

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

model for the people; both are addressed in the Hebrew plural verbs and pronouns of v. 8. Behind the rendering “search out” relating to the Torah lies the book’s favorite verb drš (KJV “seek for”), expanding its applicability to studying a scriptural text (Schniedewind 1999: 168). As in 16:11, 12-18 (// Ps 105:4, 8-11), the verb is linked with the covenantal promise of land, which the phrase “ark of the covenant” in 28:2, 18 serves to reinforce once more. This keyword is repeated in v. 9, with a divine object and the same general emphasis, but now associated with engaging in a positive relationship with God by living in light of the divine nature and expectations. There is an appropriate quotation from Jer 29:13-14 that refers to return to the land; it is here hedged with cautionary references to God’s own investigative seeking (“searches”; cf. 1 Chr 29:17) and to a grim alternative. Solomon’s seeking is tied conditionally to consequences for a permanent dynasty (v. 9 in light of v. 7), going beyond 22:13 (Williamson 1983: 313–14). David’s written and inspired “plan” for the temple, which is a frame in vv. 11–19, is the beginning of a fresh Moses/Joshua typological parallel earlier observed in ch. 22; the Hebrew echoes the God-given “pattern” of the tabernacle in Exod 25:9, 40. This antitype affords to David revelation equal in authority to that of Sinai (De Vries 1988: 626). As in 22:11-16, a further parallel appears in the speech to Solomon at vv. 20–1. These parallels legitimate the transfer from Priestly tabernacle to temple, some of whose “vessels” at least provided material continuity with the postexilic temple. The double support for Solomon recalls the divine and human help David received in chs. 11–12. Chapter 29:1–19 has the verb “provide” as its keyword (vv. 2, 3, 16, 19 NIV). The representative assembly was not only to encourage Solomon but also to make their own provision. Giving “wholeheartedly” was to match Solomon’s “wholehearted” service earlier (NIV 28:9; 29:9), a favorite term in Deuteronomy. David’s own generosity in vv. 2–5a, mentioned earlier in ch. 22 and here expressed with enthusiastic hyperbole, was meant as an example for them to follow as givers and volunteers in acts of consecration (v. 5b). They gave with equal enthusiasm. Using the contemporary Persian currency of “darics” in v. 7 was the Chronicler’s tactic to reach his own generation, as explicitly at v. 18. Once more from a typological perspective, as in Moses’ time (Exod 25:1-9; 35:4-29), appeal met with response. David’s blessing of the offering incorporates praise of God’s power, thanksgiving for the assembly’s gifts, and closing petitions that all complement ch. 16, but are now oriented toward giving. An exception is the reminder of Solomon’s double mandate in v. 19, the first backed by God’s being “pleased with integrity”

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

(v. 17 NIV). The patriarchal focus in vv. 10, 15 mirrors that in 16:13, 16-22 (// Ps 105:6, 9-15), assuring of continuity with age-old tradition. Land-wise and in spiritual terms, the people were still “aliens and transients” like the patriarchs—an echo of Ps 39: 12 (13) based on Lev 25:23—owning nothing and owing all to their divine patron. Verse 11 gave rise to the liturgical ending to the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13 mg.). After a response of worship and feasting, all that remained to be said was about transfer: Solomon’s coronation as God’s viceroy (cf. 2 Chr 9:8), along with installation of a high priest for the temple, and commemoration of David’s reign (cf. 1 Kgs 2:11-12) and his dying a good death. The Chronicler’s key phrase “all Israel” is applied to both reigns; it was anticipated in v. 21. The source notice for his rise to power and reign in 1-2 Samuel is here phrased in prophetic terms, anticipating the later designation “Former Prophets” for Joshua-Kings. Already the source text had revelatory value and could speak afresh to later generations. Solomon’s reigning finds no challenge from any of his brothers (v. 24; contrast 1 Kgs 1:5–2:25), while the two royal periods, good and bad, in the Kings version will be replaced by two good ones with cause-and-effect structuring, 2 Chr 1:1–2:18 (17) and 3:1-9:28.

Solomon Carries Out Both Mandates (2 Chr 1:1–9:31) That double mandate in 29:19 leads into the account of Solomon’s reign as providing a Torah- and temple-related model for contemporary readers. The anticipatory reference to his prospering in v. 23 was already an indication that he did obey the Torah, in light of 22:12-13. Moreover, David’s commendation of Solomon’s current Torah-compliance as a dynastic condition in 28:7 is not disputed in the subsequent narrative, while the omission of “or your children” (1 Kgs 9:6) from 2 Chr 7:19 points to his exclusive royal role (Williamson 1983: 317 nn. 33, 44). There is wordplay in 29:19 that reinforces the “wholehearted devotion” (NIV; Heb. lebab šalem) of Solomon (šelomoh); it counters Solomon’s heart not being “fully devoted (šalem) to the LORD” in 1 Kgs 11:4 (NIV). The Chronicler did not simply overlook the indictment of foreign marriages and their consequences in 1 Kgs 11. Apparently he was also challenging Neh 13:26, where Solomon’s marrying foreign women is used as a postexilic warning; dissatisfaction with Neh 13 triggered his

57

58

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

difference from1 Kgs 11. Times had changed and he could advocate a less exclusive attitude with which a bolder faith and probable easing of political tension could cope, one shared by Ps 45 and more generally by the book of Ruth. When viewed from this perspective, the general internationalism of 1 Chr 16:24, 31 (// Pss 96:3, 10) takes on relevant meaning, while the king’s friendly relations with Huram (Hiram in Kings) and the Queen of Sheba in 2 Chr 2:1-16 (1:18:2-15); 8:17-9:12 are also relevant. One may compare the six cases of mixed marriage in the genealogy of Judah, which undercut the stance of Ezra-Nehemiah (Japhet 1997: 346–51 = 2009: 271–4; Knoppers 2001: 19–23, 28–30; Lӧwisch 2011). Furthermore, regarding Solomon’s building high places (1 Kgs 11:9) and the people’s and his worshiping at the high place at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:2-4), the Chronicler did not present his visit as a private one but flaunted it as a representative pilgrimage of “all Israel,” expecting it to be read in light of David’s arrangements in 1 Chr 16:29-42, which established its legitimacy for sacrifice. The Chronicler used for Solomon’s reign a structure scholars have variously tried to define in chiastic terms. Correlation with all the divisional markers in 2:1 (1:18); 3:1; 5:1; 7:11; 8:16 has proved problematic. At least there are two key features: an outer concern for Solomon’s political kingdom and an inner one for the temple (Duke 1990:65). Moreover, in the latter case temple theology has a dominant role expressed at 6:12-7:22 in Solomon’s dedicatory prayer and YHWH’s response (Dillard 1987: 5–7). When these features are related to Duke’s tables relating to the Chronicler’s overall theme of cause and effect (1990: 160, 164), a clearer pattern emerges. The basic spiritual principles of seeking or forsaking God appear in 7:13-22. They are applied positively to Israel in terms of repentant prayer at the temple in vv. 13–16, with the promise of forgiveness perpetually offered there, and to Solomon in terms of Torah-compliance in vv. 17–18, with consequent dynastic blessing, and negatively to king and people in terms of Torahdeviance in vv. 19–22, with consequent punishment of exile and destruction of the temple. Two ways of divine acceptance relating to the Torah are offered: via compliance or via repentant prayer after failure to comply. Overall, in Chronicles Solomon modeled the first, unlike1 Kgs 11:4, and David the second (1 Chr 21:8, 26). Accordingly, in Solomon’s case, the success of 1 Chr 29:23 is doubly unpacked in 2 Chr 1–9 as God’s recompense of blessing: (i) before the building of the temple, in God’s gifts of wisdom and wealth, and in international recognition (2 Chr 1:7–2:18 [17]), as acknowledgments of both his Torah-compliance up to now (cf. 1 Chr 22:12-13; 28:7) and his seeking (drš, “inquired at it” [or “of him” NIV]) the Gibeon sanctuary with its

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

Mosaic accouterments (2 Chr 1:5); and (ii) after the building of the temple— Solomon’s second mandate—in further evidence of blessing: other building projects (8:1-16), more international recognition (8:17-9:12), and additional evidence of wisdom and wealth (9:13-28). The notices of successive stages indicate such chronological progression. For most of his material the Chronicler was able to draw on 1 Kgs 1-10, which served much of his purpose. To balance the blessings yet amplify the second one, he used 1 Kgs 10:26-9 in 2 Chr 1:14-17 and 1 Kgs 10:22-9 in 9:22-8, where he also worked in references to 1 Kgs 4:21, 26 (5:1, 6) at vv. 25–6. The private epiphany promising wisdom and wealth in 1:7-13 is drawn from 1 Kgs 3:5-15. The letters to and from Huram in 2:3-16 (2-15) are based on 1 Kgs 5:2-12 (16-26), but here Solomon adds the function of the temple as the new site of sacrificial worship that honors Torah prescriptions and as a theological reflection of God’s greatness (cf. Ps 135:5). Huram adds his own testimony of faith, developing 1 Kgs 5:7b (21b) in virtual response to 1 Chr 16:23-31 (// Ps 96:1b-10). Now the divine gift of wisdom is oriented toward building. The building and furnishing of the temple in 2:17 (16)-5:1 are sketchily taken from 1 Kgs 5:13 (27)-7:51, showing they measured up to the magnificence David deemed worthy of God (1 Chr 22:5; 29:1). Moreover, a continuity theme aligns the temple with various Torah prescriptions for the sanctuary (Van Seters 1997); parallels drawn with the tabernacle at 4:7, 20; 8:14 claim compliance with the Torah (Spawn 2012: 320–3). In support of 1 Chr 21:18; 22:1, a new endorsement of the site is provided in 3:1 by identifying it with the mountain in Moriah, where Abraham made a burnt offering (Gen 22:2, 13–14), which was associated with a tradition of future revelation (Gen 22:14b mg.) “on the mount of the LORD.” This new claim enhanced the sanctity of the Jerusalem temple. In 5:1 (// 1 Kgs 7:51) wordplay celebrates Solomon’s finishing (Heb. šlm) building the temple. The installation of the ark, tent of meeting, and holy vessels and the more intense presence of the cloud of glory as God’s seal of approval in 5:2-14 depend on 1 Kgs 8:1-11, but here Levites carry “the ark of the covenant” in the procession, as in 1 Chr 15:2, and the guilds of singing Levites praise YHWH’s covenantal love, as in 16:34, 41, but now inaugurating their regular temple duties. For the Chronicler the transfer of the tent of meeting/ tabernacle (from Gibeon, 16:39) brings to a close a carefully documented claim of legitimacy for the new sanctuary. Accordingly, the longer phrase “ark of the covenant” (2 Chr 5:2, 7 // 1 Kgs 8:1, 6) now evokes the Mosaic covenant (5:10 // 1 Kgs 8:9), rather than the Abrahamic one in 1 Chr 15-17. In 2 Chr 6:1-11 the king’s declaration of his accomplished temple mandate

59

60

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

and his blessing of the assembled people on the same lines accord with 1 Kgs 8:12-21. His prayer of dedication of the temple in 6:12-42 as a place of prayer where human needs are met matches 1 Kgs 8:22-53 to a large extent; two exceptions are the practical detail of a platform at the beginning (perhaps earlier in the source text; De Vries 1989: 258) and the addition of the royal prayer in Ps 132:8-10 at the close. The closing petition imports a novel element that employs a Hebrew plural noun rendered God’s “steadfast love” for David. However, the usage of this Hebrew plural form elsewhere in Chronicles is a weighty argument for a different interpretation, a king’s “good deeds” (32:32; also Neh 13:14) or “faithful deeds” (35:26). Then the reference is to David’s efforts in bringing the ark to Jerusalem (cf. Ps 132:1), while the double petition now promotes both Solomon (“your anointed one”) and David along with their dynastic and cultic relevance respectively (Williamson 2019: 417–21). The exodus reference in 1 Kgs 8:53 is displaced, thereby changing the basis for Solomon’s prayer (Balentine 1997: 253). It reflects the Chronicler’s greater focus on David and Solomon, though overall the exodus is not ignored, being mentioned in 1 Chr 17:21 (cf. 2 Sam 17:23); 2 Chr 5:10 (// 1 Kgs 8:9); 6:5 (// 1 Kgs 8:16); 7:22 (// 1 Kgs 9:9); 20:10 (Avioz 2004: 546–7; Schweitzer 2016: 90–2). The addition from the psalm exploits its mention of “resting place” for the ark, the symbol of God’s regular presence; it complements the national rest associated with Solomon’s reign and gives it a cultic dimension, as in 1 Chr 6:31 (16); 28:2, which latter text also had Ps 132 in view. Solomon’s blessing of the people in 1 Kgs 8:54-61 was omitted, doubtless because its initial thanksgiving for the people’s rest was replaced by the psalm petitions beginning with divine rest. Second Chronicles 7:1-3 uniquely mentions fire consuming the sacrifices, which complements 1 Chr 21:26 as a divine endorsement of both royal partners’ work, and perpetuation of God’s glory (Williamson 1982: 222), and also the people’s response of worship that is a theological comment on the ark of the covenant at rest. The praise refrain here features as a communal response. Then the Chronicler returns at 7:4-11 to 1 Kgs 8:62-6, adding the musical contribution of priests and Levites, and the success of turning temple planning into reality. The Feast of Tabernacles (cf. 5:3 // 1 Kgs 8:2) lasted seven days in 1 Kgs 8:65-6, but the Chronicler scrupulously added an eighth day of celebration in v. 9 to match the Torah (Lev 23:36; Num 29:35) and postexilic practice (Neh 8:18). A second divine epiphany in 7:12-22, corresponding generally to 1 Kgs 9:1-9, provides a private answer to Solomon’s public prayer about prayer.

David and Solomon as Spiritual Models

The added v. 12 is a reminder that the temple was the chosen place for sacrifice after Solomonic rest had been achieved, in line with Deut 12:5-11 and as in 2 Chr 2:4 (3), rather than meant simply for prayer as in Solomon’s prayer (Nihan 2013: 263). Verses 13b-16a, inserted into 1 Kgs 9:3, include a divine promise that is an answer to the earlier petitions for forgiveness in Solomon’s prayer, so that healing relates to the providential punishments of 6:26, 28. The promise embodies the Chronicler’s key theme of seeking (now bqš), here in relation to prayer that requests God’s forgiveness after the penitential petitions (cf. 6:27, 30, 39). David had been a role model for it in a cultic setting (1 Chr 21:8, 26; 22:1); now it is shown to apply generally to the people. This type of seeking is another aspect of seeking God via the temple and is presented as a valid complement to seeking through observance of the Torah, like Solomon (cf. 2 Chr 6:14 // 1 Kgs 8:23). Verses 17-18 take up 6:16-17 and imply a promise of a permanent dynasty in light of Solomon’s obedience in the Chronicler’s eyes. King and people are addressed in v. 19, while in vv. 20–2 the people (mg., NIV; cf. “Israel” twice in 1 Kgs 9:7) are in view. There was a shadow side to this promise, that forsaking God without repentance would lead to deportation and to destruction of temple and land, a fate that 36:1-21will sadly record. Solomon’s further blessings in the form of more building projects in 8:111 were extracted from 1 Kgs 9:10-24, but reversed the gifting of cities in v. 2. The addition of Solomon’s military victory in v. 3 represents further evidence of blessing, though it breaks the pattern of peace in his reign (Japhet 1997: 488 = 2009: 380). The touchy topic of a foreign marriage is included in v. 11; the Chronicler adds Solomon’s motivation of cultic purity to 1 Kgs 9:24, which may have female gender in view rather than foreignness (Dillard 1987: 65; Japhet 1993: 626). In 8:12-16 inauguration of the temple services in accord with the Torah (cf. the Chronicler’s additions in 4:7, 20) and the installation of David’s prescriptions of cultic personnel in 1 Chr 23–6 are an expanded rewriting of 1 Kgs 9:25. Further international recognition in 8:17-9:12 corresponds to 1 Kgs 9:26-10:13, while more about his wealth and wisdom is told in 9:13-28, largely matching 1 Kgs 10:14-29 but with the prestigious v. 26 moved from the earlier 1 Kgs 4:21 (5:1). The vast extent of his kingdom sets up an ideal of hope. The epilogue to Solomon’s reign in 9:29-31 is modeled on 1 Kgs 11:41-3. The prophetic twist to the Chronicler’s source aligns with 1 Chr 29:29; here it refers to unused material in 1 Kgs 1:22-40; 11:1-40; 13:1-10 (Schniedewind 1995: 220–3). What remains to be seen is how future Davidic kings would measure up to the foundational modeling shown by Solomon and his father.

61

62

5 Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom (2 Chr 10:1–28:27)

The reigns that follow are meant to be general case studies of the Chronicler’s overall theme, and particular evaluations of the models he has shown to be established by the combined reigns of David and Solomon (cf. 2 Chr 6:42; 7:10 [contrast 1 Kgs 8:66]; 11:17; 35:4). Both the narratives and the addresses in the presentation of those previous reigns have contributed to that modeling. Every reign, from Saul onward, is designed to be not abstract theologizing or a medium of historical information for its own sake but an appeal for the Chronicler’s own generation to act upon by embracing the good and renouncing the bad. Incentives and deterrents are appended to coax or caution. Each reign is like a parable story aimed at his generation, with explicit addresses providing the moral. Material from Kings is used to these ends, while any gaps in the evaluations are filled in. In principle the Chronicler is developing the approach of Kings itself, which judges each reign separately; yet, his criteria are more varied than those in Kings (Japhet 1997: 165–8 = 2009: 129–31). Solomon’s temple was built as a perpetual monument to the God who called Israel to walk in the good way of the Torah (6:16 [cf. 1 Kgs 2:4], 27 [// 1 Kgs 8:36]) and yet could reverse their sinful detours from that way (7:14) because God’s “mercy is very great” (1 Chr 21:13), so that spirituality was attained by one means or the other. For these different perspectives Japhet (1997: 161–4 = 2009: 126–8; cf. Dillard 1987: 80–1) has compared Ezek 18. Kelly (1996: 34, 102) worries that a wrong individualistic interpretation of that chapter underlies Japhet’s and Dillard’s comparison with Chronicles, but he does find a parallel in the father-son-grandson sequence of 2 Chr 27–32, while Selman (1994: 451, 459) adds chs. 24–5. The lesson of Ezek 18,

64

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

taken over by Chronicles, is that each generation is morally responsible for itself and independent of previous generations (Kaminsky 1995: 165–6, 177–8). Japhet finds two differences from Ezek 18, applications to a royal and national level, in line with the book’s own interests, and to the past rather than to the future. The Chronicler’s pastoral intention in portraying each king’s eventual fate or good fortune as tied to his own previous behavior was the same as the prophet’s, to persuade his generation to reflect God’s standards in the way they lived by making appropriate adjustments. In Ezek 18 there are four types of generational reward or punishment based on lifestyle decisions, with the first and third repeated in an ABACDC pattern. Each generation is presented in individual terms, which from v. 21 onward the NIV is better at conveying. The generational perspective is indicated in vv. 30–2 by the switch to Hebrew plural cases of “you” and “your” in the application to the prophet’s hearers. An individualistic viewpoint appears with mention of “each of you” (NIV) in v. 30, reinforcing the communal aspect as an experience pervading the whole group. The two kinds of overall cases, first of father-son changes and then of mid-life changes, indicate that a generation is not locked into the consequences of choices made by the previous one nor into those of choices they themselves have already made, but is free to choose and to choose again. Ezekiel’s four overall generational options of (i) good or (ii) bad or (iii) changing within a generation from bad to good or (iv) from good to bad are all reflected in the kings of Chronicles in their typical father-son succession. I have earlier judged Saul to be in the last group, while 1 Chr 21 puts David in the third and Solomon was presented as in the first, both acceptable categories of “seeking” God. This generational approach is related to the focus on genealogies in 1 Chr 1–9 and their pinpointing of particular generations. There narrative asides drew regular attention to examples of categories of generational reward and punishment (2:3; 4:9-10; 5:19-22, 256; 9:1b; Duke 1990: 56). Japhet (1997: 165–76 = 2009: 129–49) has set out the principles of generational recompense worked out in the main narratives of Chronicles and provided some examples.

Rehoboam (10:1-12:16) From a human perspective, the Chronicler at this stage held Rehoboam, rather than Solomon (1 Kgs 11:31-3), responsible for the tragic separation into two kingdoms (cf. Cudworth 2014), as a consequence of his idealizing

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom

the former king. Yet he awkwardly retained Solomon’s fault as warrant for the northerners’ secession (10:4, 9-11 // 1 Kgs 12:4, 9-11; cf. Ben Zvi 2006: 120–3). The Southern Kingdom was his prime concern in this section of his book, unlike 1 Kgs 12-2 Kgs 17. This was because of (i) his implicit hermeneutical appeal to Yehud’s own heritage, (ii) his twin theological commitments to the legitimacy of “the house of David” and the Jerusalem temple (10:19 [// 1 Kgs 12:19];11:13-16 [cf. 1 Kgs 12:31; 13:33]), and (iii) the loss of an “all Israel” ideal (10:1, 3 [// 1 Kgs 12:1, 3]), though the northerners were still “brethren” (KJV 11:4 // 1 Kgs 12:24), members of God’s family. Rehoboam’s reign presented him with a chaotic novel situation. He found it impossible to categorize the textual tradition in a simple way, slotting him into a double version of the second category in Ezek 18, with shifts from bad to good and from bad to relatively good, yet finally highlighting his second bad instance as not setting “his heart to seek the LORD” (12:14). First Kings 12:1-19 is followed in 10:1-19. So is 1 Kgs 12:21-4 in 11:1-4, where the king’s obeying the prophetic word becomes the prelude to evidence of three types of blessing in the independent account of vv. 5–23: (i) building operations in vv. 5–12a, taken from a later royal list according to Klein (2012: 169–72; cf. Ben Zvi 1997: 134, 142–3); (ii) spiritual support from the migration of religious personnel in vv. 13–15, developing 1 Kgs 12:31, and of lay northerners to Judah in v. 16 in order to “seek (bqš) the LORD” in true worship—a future ideal for the Chronicler; and (iii) a large royal family in vv. 18–23. In 10:15; 11:2-4 (// 1 Kgs 12:15, 22-4; cf. 1 Kgs 11:37-9) the break was legitimized by prophets as God’s will for now, until Jeroboam introduced false worship (11:14-15 [cf. 1 Kgs 12: 26-33; 14:7-10]; 13:8-9) and Abijah, a faithful king, ruled in the south (Williamson 1977a: 110–14). First Kings 14:22-8 is the basis for 12:1-14. But, whereas apostasy and Shishak’s invasion were simply juxtaposed in Kings, for the Chronicler they become providential cause and effect, with a double use of “abandon” (v. 5; cf. 1 Chr 28:9) in the added prophetic oracle. At v. 14 he was probably following for 1 Kgs 14:22-3 a source text like the Septuagint, which involved Rehoboam as well as the people. His negative spiritual vocabulary is used to summarize the pagan worship described there; he “abandoned” the Torah and “was unfaithful” (v. 2), as in 1 Chr 5:25 NIV; 10:13. Rehoboam’s emphasized self-humbling (vv. 6–7, 12) after the hubris of his apostasy, in positive response to the prophetic word and in line with 2 Chr 7:14, brings in this case a measure of deliverance, which mitigates the punishment, and blessing (vv. 7–8 [if “some” is the correct rendering], 12). As Mason (1990: 36–7) observes, this puts Judah in circumstances similar to those of Yehud.

65

66

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

The community was grateful to God yet hoping for more, somewhat as in Ezra 9:8-9; Ps 126. In 12:13-16 the epilogue to his reign, modeled on 1 Kgs 14:21-2, 29-31, includes what is probably an interpretation of his source in prophetic terms.

Abijah and Asa (13:1-16:14) These reigns are a pair in Chronicles. The Chronicler put his own rhetorical stamp on these chapters by using five times the Hebrew verb š‘n, “rely,” literally “lean,” in 13:18; 14:11 (10); 16:7 (twice), 8 (Allen 1988: 29; 1999: 527). This verb occurs only here in Chronicles, always in nonsynoptic passages, though the general motif of turning to God in times of crisis is common. The unit is designed to promote the ideal of exercising trust in God when unjustified crisis strikes. Psalm 18:18 (19) provides a parallel, where “support” renders a noun from the same Hebrew stem. There are three sections: (i) 13:1-14:1aa (13:23aa) contrasts such faith with abandoning God; (ii) 14:1ab (13:23ab)– 15:19 exemplifies true faith; and (iii) 16:1-14 contrasts it with misplaced faith. The first section uses 1 Kgs 15:1-2, 7b in 13:1-2. Only here does Chronicles use a synchronism from Kings, because the narrative polarizes the rival kings. The positive picture of Abijah (Abijam in 1 Kings) the Chronicler goes on to paint is completely different from that of his source text. It was perhaps deduced from the gifts the Judean king piously dedicated to the temple (15:18 // 1 Kgs 15:15), which he interpreted as spoils of victory after a battle (cf. 1 Chr 26:27); the border gains in 13:19 may suggest an independent tradition for the battle (e.g., Japhet 1993: 687–8). It is presented as an instance of the warfare of 1 Kgs 15:7b (// 2 Chr 13:2b). Abijah’s sermon on the mount is perhaps as vital for Chronicles as that of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel. The speech is used to retell the story of the secession. The king warns that God was—and implicitly still remains— on the side of the south because of Judah’s divinely ordained Davidic dynasty and religious orthopraxy in line with the Torah with respect to the priesthood. Jeroboam and his followers were now in the wrong because of his recent descent into religious apostasy, altering the northerners’ own earlier tradition set out in the Torah (v. 11b). These negative perceptions qualify the fraternal role between north and south (11:4) without denying it. Here they encourage further characterizations of Jeroboam as a rebel

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom

and correspondingly of Rehoboam as inexperienced and unfairly treated. Knoppers (1993: 524–32) has categorized the battle as an inner-Israel conflict against Israelite wrongdoers, comparable to those laid down in Deut 13:12-18 (13-19) and illustrated in Judg 19-21. Jeroboam’s greater numbers and clever pincer attack proved unavailing after the Judean army’s prayerful cry of reliance upon YHWH (cf. v. 18; Josh 6:5, 16, 20). Jeroboam died—eventually according to 1 Kgs 15:9—at God’s hands, while Abijah was rewarded with more blessings, empowerment and a large family. So in the generational terms of Ezek 18 he matched the first type of goodness, like Solomon in fact, despite his brief reign. In the royal epilogue (13:22-14:1a [2a]; cf. 1 Kgs 15:7a, 8) the source reference has in view 1 Kgs 13:1-10 as background to Abijah’s speech (cf. 2 Chr 12:15). Asa’s long reign is divided in Chronicles into a long good period— called in 17:3 his “earlier ways”—and a short bad one by shuffling the record in 1 Kings. The Chronicler thus countered the accolade of near perfection in 1 Kgs 15:11, 14 and paralleled his reign with the schematic type of generational cause and effect in Ezek 18:24, 28. He did so because he interpreted Asa’s alliance with Aram Damascus and his serious illness negatively. However, this second section of the literary unit focuses on Asa’s positive period. The message of his reliance on God in the recent battle is enhanced by coordinating it with eight references to seeking God, using drš in 14:4 (3, adding a Torah reference to 1 Kgs 15:11), 7 (6, twice); 15:2, 12, 13, and bqš in 15:4, 15. Asa’s cultic reforms in 14:3-5 (2-4) seem to depend on the deviations credited to Judah in Rehoboam’s reign in 1 Kgs 14:22-4 (cf. 1 Kgs 15:12, but also 14a). These reforms and encouragement of a Torah-based lifestyle resulted in the blessings of peaceful rest, building cities (cf. 1 Kgs 15:23), and military strength. The nonpunitive battle with Zerah, unparalleled in Kings and mentioned here to illustrate the blessing of eventual victory, is portrayed as worse than Shishak’s. The mention of place names may indicate some historical basis for an invasion (e.g., Williamson 1982: 263–5). The dramatic hyperbole of “a million men” is captured by “thousands upon thousands” (NIV), while the African translation “Ethiopian(s)” (NIV “Cushite[s]”), with the sense of Nubian(s), fits the coupling with Libyans in 16:8 (cf. 12:3). The battle was won through Asa’s prayer of faith. Azariah’s temporary gift of prophecy (Schniedewind 1995: 70–4, 113–14), unparalleled in 1 Kings, encourages Asa, but anticipates his backsliding by warning him of conceivable consequences at God’s hands. We examined this typical prophetic speech in Chapter 2. The alternatives of either seeking or abandoning God are explored, as in 1 Chr 28:9, and

67

68

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

both the judges’ period and the positive reversal in Zech 8:9-13 are used as encouraging illustrations. Asa responds with further cultic reforms and enjoys the support of faithful northerners. The spoils from the battle are used for festive worship, while the people enter into an uncompromising commitment “to seek the LORD with all their heart and with all their soul,” as in Deut 4:29. There is further rest, for now. First Kings 15:13-15 is cited in 2 Chr 15:16-18 as evidence for the king’s cultic reforms and devotion. In the third section, ch. 16, while 1 Kgs 15:16-22 expressed no disquiet over Asa’s alliance with Aram Damascus, Chronicles does so after substantially quoting it in 16:1b-6. Knoppers (1996) has observed that this is one of five cases where the Chronicler objected to military alliances, three times with northerners and twice with foreigners, a stance in keeping with preexilic prophecy (e.g., Isa 31:1, using the verb “rely”; cf. 2 Kgs 18:21 // Isa. 36:6), and that in this respect he was closer to Ezra-Nehemiah than is generally thought in urging independence for Yehud, small though it was. The Chronicler so argues through the prophet Hanani, who issued a judgment oracle that interprets the alliance by using the keyword “rely” three times in a battle context. Victory had come at too high a price and so more warfare would ensue. In the epilogue to Asa’s reign, the Chronicler uses 1 Kgs 15:23-4, but makes two changes. First, he provides a cause for the worsening of Asa’s illness as due to his seeking physicians instead of YHWH. But he also gives him a lavish funeral as a positive assessment of his long years of faithfulness, atypically using a royal funeral to reflect his assessment of a reign (Schweitzer 2007: 119–25). He was disinclined to apply Ezekiel’s rigorous standard of blotting out those years (Ezek 18:24) and later he will commend him (2 Chr 21:12). It is a balancing act he also performed at 12:14, though the other way.

Jehoshaphat (17:1-21:1) The formula of divine supportive presence, that God is “with” someone, has often appeared in Chronicles earlier, but now it becomes a basis for the unit’s sections, in light of its frequency in nonsynoptic material and the switch of a synonymous preposition in the source text at one point (Allen 1988: 30; 1999: 544). The Hebrew preposition ‘im, “with,” occurs at 17:3, 9; 18:3 (cf. 1 Kgs 22:4 [’et]); 19:6, 11; 20:17, 35-7. These cases create six sections: 17:1–6, 7–19; 18:1–19:3; 19:4–11; 20:1–30, 35–7. The Chronicler’s

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom

long account of Jehoshaphat’s reign is presented as a virtual sermon on the alternatives of divine or human association and so takes further the teaching of chs. 13–16, where our formula occurred at 13:12 (contrast v. 8); 15:2, 9, while God’s watchful care for the faithful was cited in 16:9 from Zech 4:10. There are four positive lessons and two negative ones in a double series, AAB/AAB. On the one hand, there were opportunities to enjoy YHWH’s supportive presence, in blessing that follows obedience (17:3-5), in the maintenance of social justice (19:6), and in finding deliverance from external threat (20:17). That presence was mediated by use of a Torah book (17:9). On the other hand, there were temptations to associate with ungodly kings, represented here by the northern Ahab and Ahaziah (18:3; 20:37). In the rhetorical macrostructure of Chronicles divine presence is a blessing linked with seeking and finding God (15:2; 17:3-4) and so is the opposite of being forsaken by God (1 Chr 28:20). It is also expressed in Chronicles by the verb “help,” especially in 1 Chr 11–12. It recently occurred in 2 Chr 14:11 (10) and was reinforced by wordplay at 15:1, 8 with the prophet’s name “Azariah,” which means “YHWH helps.” It will recur in 18:31, be used negatively at 19:2 in an accusation of helping the wicked, and in 20:37 reappear provocatively in a prophet’s name, Eliezer (“My God is a help”), an accusation in itself. Chapter 17 opens in the first section, vv. 1–6, with a basic description of the king’s seeking God (vv. 3–4; cf. 18: 4, 6, 7 “inquire” [// 1 Kgs 22:5, 7, 8]; 19:3; 20:3) and consequent blessing: “The LORD was with Jehoshaphat” (v. 3). The striking expression at the close, literally “His heart was high,” here uniquely refers to his high regard for “the ways of the LORD.” Blessings came in the form of a defense system and wealth, in response to a lifestyle committed to the Torah and a concern for proper worship. Over against such high ideals looms the shadow of the Northern Kingdom (v. 4b), assuming knowledge of 1 Kings in anticipation of the negative sections. The Chronicler has used 1 Kgs 15:24b in v. 1a and adapted 1 Kgs 22:43a in v. 3, while the negative religious comment in 1 Kgs 22:43b is held back until 20:33. The rest of vv. 1–6 builds on the general commendation of 1 Kgs 22:43a. Verses 7–9 unpack the Torah commitment in terms of an itinerant teaching mission to the people that taught directly from a Torah book (“with them,” v. 9); it wins the consequent blessings of international respect and support, peace, wealth, building projects, and military strength in vv. 10–19. This second section has no parallel in 1 Kings. Verses 7–9 may represent a specific development of Jehoshaphat’s related judicial reforms in ch. 19, here with an associated Torah emphasis (Japhet 1993: 748–9). A list of commanders of a conscript

69

70

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

army, with exaggerated numbers, appears in vv. 14–18 as a supplement to the standing army in v. 19. The third section, 18:1–19:3, returns to the theme of alliance with neighboring states that the Chronicler initiated in the previous reign. Verse 1 mentions a royal marriage, which was later to endanger the Davidic dynasty (cf. 22:2–5, 10), as the basis of Ahab’s hospitality and the background to a military alliance. The story in 18:2a, 3–34 closely follows 1 Kgs 22:2, 4-35, but there is a change of focus from the doomed King Ahab to Jehoshaphat, shown by not only omitting 1 Kgs 22:36-8 but incorporating fresh material in 18:2b, 31b; 19:1-3. The additions in 18:2b, 31b point to three parts for the story: human manipulation in vv. 1–3, countered by divine manipulation in vv. 4–27; 28–34 (Allen 1988: 30–1; 1999: 551). The enticement of vv. 19–21 (// 1 Kgs 22:20-2) is now a divine reprisal—by sending prophetic misinformation—for Ahab’s scheme of inducement, using a closely related Hebrew verb, to get Jehoshaphat involved in a military alliance (v. 2b; see in general Newkirk 2015). And, when Jehoshaphat was the enemy target in v. 31, “God drew them away from him,” using the same Hebrew verb as in v. 2b, so that Ahab’s plot to deflect attention from himself to Jehoshaphat was foiled. In both cases the Chronicler typically delineates generational cause and effect, here for a broader goal of divine justice in protecting Jehoshaphat and punishing Ahab. When Jehoshaphat cried out, “the LORD helped him”—a clause that may have been in the source text (McKenzie 1985: 101; Klein 2012: 258). The cry in 1 Kgs 22:32 is interpreted as a prayer for help (cf. 1 Chr 5:20; 2 Chr 6:34-5 [// 1 Kgs 8:44-5]; 14:11; 20:9). The added oracle in 19:1-3 spells out the moral of the story that wrongful alliance with enemies of God had led the king into divinely sanctioned danger and defeat (“wrath”), but his earlier record of religious reform and determined seeking of God had been taken into account in his survival. The fourth section, 19:4-11, permitted the reinforcement of wordplay. “Jehoshaphat” means “YHWH judges,” and the connection between human and divine justice is evident throughout. The unit’s keyword “with” features prominently, at the start of the first royal speech as a precautionary assurance of God’s presence and at the close of the second as an encouraging wish. The spirituality of v. 4, which is exemplified in terms of judicial reform in vv. 5–11, shows the king’s concern for the people already seen in 17:9. The king is walking in the footsteps of David and Solomon (1 Chr 18:14 [// 2 Sam 8:15]; 26:29; 2 Chr 9:8 [// 1 Kgs 10:9]) and modeling himself on them in a detailed reform. A double system is set up, a nationwide one based on the fortified cities under royal control, and a Jerusalem-centered appellate court

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom

divided into religious and secular departments (cf. Exod 18:19-26). The two royal commissioning speeches emphasize the judges’ spiritual responsibility as God’s representatives, which features allusions to the Torah, Deut 16:1820 in the first speech and Deut 17:8-13 in the second. The deterrent of divine wrath applies to the judges the lesson Jehoshaphat learned in 2 Chr 19:2. The speeches in their blunt directness must have had a powerful effect on the Chronicler’s listening community. The historicity of this reform has been disputed, with weighty scholarship on both sides. Knoppers (1994) has denied historicity, emphasizing dependence on Exodus and Deuteronomy material. Tiňo (2010: 79–83) has critiqued Knoppers and claimed a source adapted to the Chronicler’s theology. Klein (2012: 272–4, 278; cf. McKenzie 2004: 308–10) has reviewed the discussion and found the evidence for historicity weak, seeing here the Chronicler’s prescription for justice for his own community to follow. The fifth section, 20:1–30, assures of God’s supportive presence at the close of a prophetic speech: “the LORD will be with you” (v. 17). It is the divine response to Judah’s seeking (drš and bqš) YHWH by the religious means of fasting and prayer (vv. 3–4). The section raises to a new level the thwarted attacks of Shishak and Zerah in chs. 12 and 14 by drawing on Israel’s holy war traditions (see De Vries 1989: 325–8). It commends a radical trust to the believing community. One can compare Paul’s description of believers as super-conquerors in facing persecution, peril, and sword (Rom 8:35-7). Knoppers (1999: 76) finds in the account the continuing relevance of the temple as the matrix for God’s victory over the nations, assuring worshipers of YHWH’s universal power. The overall narrative, which replaces the different campaign in 2 Kgs 3:4-27, is widely regarded as a dramatic heightening of a coalition’s attack northwest of the Dead Sea because of the ethnic and local names; Klein (2012: 282–3) leaves open the issue of basic historicity. Jehoshaphat engages in a communal prayer of lament. Its frame pits divine power (cf. 1 Chr 29:12) against Judah’s powerlessness. Old Torah-based traditions associated with Abraham and Moses are coupled with the new temple tradition that God answers prayer in crisis (cf. 2 Chr 6:24-31 [// 1 Kgs 8:33-40]; 7:13-15) as joint assurances for God to comply with. The series of three rhetorical questions, used to express covenantal expectations, imparts to the prayer a strongly persuasive appeal. “Execute judgment” (v. 12) is a further example of wordplay on the king’s name as part of that appeal (Beentjes 2008: 70). Such laments could be answered by a priestly or prophetic salvation oracle with a characteristic “Do not fear” (cf. Lam 3:55-7; Joel 2:17-27).

71

72

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

In this case it incorporates a summons to holy war (Mason 1990: 74). In v. 17 a Levitical singer, given temporary inspiration (cf. 15:1), echoes the assuredness of Exod 14:13-14 in a similar military context. The varied praise that follows is comparable to an anticipatory song of thanksgiving sung by faith in the oracle, like Ps 22:22-31 (23-32) after “you have answered me” (v. 21 [22] mg.). The king’s exhortation in v. 20b uses positively the negative Isa 7:9b with its Hebrew wordplay that associates firm faith in God with standing firm. It reinforces the standing firm (a different Hebrew verb) in Exod 14:13. The call to believe God’s prophets—the NRSV unaccountably omits the following clause, “and you will succeed” (cf. NIV)—includes a reference to the prophetic books (Schniedewind 1995: 183–4), which cap disaster with salvation (cf. 36:21-2). Accordingly, military victory was God’s gift to Judah, along with the blessings of international recognition and rest. The epilogue in 20:31-21:1 draws on 1 Kgs 22:41-50. In light of 2 Chr 17:6, at v. 33 (// 1 Kgs 22:43b) a reintroduction of high places may be intended, with the Chronicler laying blame on the people’s lack of spirituality (Schweitzer 2007: 99). The reference to Jehu in v. 34 draws attention to his oracle condemning a northern king in 1 Kgs 16:1-4, 7 (cf. Schniedewind 1995: 224). The reference supplements his oracle to Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr 19:2 and implicitly deprecates the king’s renewed alliance with the north in vv. 35–7. This sixth section in the association series has been adapted from 1 Kgs 22:48-9 into a negative cause-and-effect narrative. In this case the preposition “with” is used adversely about a disastrous maritime alliance, once in the narrative and once in an oracle. The ratio of four of the six sections commending Jehoshaphat and two condemning him led the Chronicler to give the king an overall favorable evaluation in 21:12; 22:9, as in 19:3, and so in general line with 1 Kgs 22:43a.

Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah (21:2-23:21) These three reigns make up a single unit supplied with rhetorical markers. It consists of two sections, 21:2-22:9 and 22:10-23:21. The first section links the reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah (“also,” 22:3 // 2 Kgs 8:27). It takes over three cases of the sinister phrase, “the house of Ahab,” in 2 Kgs 8:18, 27 (// 2 Chr 21:6; 22:3, 4) and adds a fourth in 21:13. A contrasting phrase, “the house of David,” is created at 21:7 in place of “Judah” in 2 Kgs 8:19, while

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom

the existing “David” in that verse is retained and “David” is added in 21:12. In the second section, “the sons of David” get an independent mention in 23:3 and so does “David” twice in 23:18. The dynastic shift accords with the eventual triumph of the southern model of kingship. At length a dire threat to the Davidic dynasty and to temple worship inaugurated by its founder is averted. Accordingly, in the second section there is also a religious predominance, all derived from 2 Kgs 11 except for 23:6, 18: “the house of God/the LORD” (22:12; 23:3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 18–20) over against “the house of Baal” (23:17). The problem had started with the marriage alliance in 18:1. The wife of Jehoram was Athaliah, Jezebel’s daughter. Until the tables are dramatically turned, there is a worsening trend, with both Davidic kings conforming to the second, deplorable type in Ezek 18:10-13. It begins with fratricide, for which an independent tradition may have been used in 21:2-4, though Ilan Abecassis (2015) argues otherwise. Envy over possessions (v. 3) is implied, according to the recompense in vv. 14 and 17. Verses 5–7 (// 2 Kgs 8:1719) close with the assurance of God’s everlasting promise—guaranteed by “the covenant with David,” the Chronicler pointedly adds—which counters this first threat to the dynasty. The Chronicler caps the loss of Edom and Libnah in vv. 8–10a (// 2 Kgs 8: 20-2) with a typical explanation of its spiritual cause in v. 10b (cf. 2 Chr 15:2). He makes a charge of religious promiscuity in worshiping Baal in vv. 11, 13 (NIV), borrowing the language of Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, as in 1 Chr 5:25 about the eastern tribes. The letter from Elijah, the great northern anti-Baal prophet, ghostwritten in the Chronicler’s style and generally regarded as nonhistorical, indicates a deplorable spiritual blurring between the two regimes. Its judgment oracle, in reprisal for Jehoram’s two offenses, threatens nationally “a heavy blow” (v. 14 NIV) and personally a severe illness, which both occur in the independent vv. 16–19a. The repetition of v. 5 draws fateful attention to the brevity of his reign. The Chronicler adds his inglorious funeral and burial as an apt obituary. No source is cited for this reign or the next; they are best forgotten. In 22:1b-6 the reign of his remaining son Ahaziah, called in reverse Jehoahaz in 21:17, follows 2 Kgs 8:25b-9 fairly closely. In vv. 3–5 the Chronicler introduces three references to bad counselors or advice from the northern regime, especially from Athaliah, now the queen mother. This was the primary cause of his eventually being killed; it led to his military alliance with the northern king and visit to him. In vv. 7b-9a knowledge of 2 Kgs 9:1-28; 10:12-14 is assumed, here with a focus on the southern king and some different details, while vv. 7a and 9b provide an interpretive frame of

73

74

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

divine providence, a decent burial out of respect for Jehoshaphat, a seeker par excellence, and a royal dilemma. Horror of horrors, Athaliah, a non-Yahwist and a non-Davidide, seizes power! The thrilling sequel of the kidnapping of a baby heir to the throne and the high priest’s eventual counter coup is based on 2 Kgs 11:1-20, with five significant changes (cf. Pakkala 2012: 244–56). (i) The princess who rescues the baby is also called the high priest’s wife, so that she fittingly reflects the two contextual concerns, royal and religious. (ii) Ahaziah’s hiding in Samaria (22:9) and her hiding the baby in the temple precincts (v. 12 // 2 Kgs 11:3) create a contrast of types (Bodner 2013: 163–6). (iii) Palace guards, who included foreigners, are replaced at the temple by Levitical gatekeepers, who were probably responsible for temple security in the Chronicler’s day (23:19; cf. 2 Kgs 11:4, 19; 1 Chr 9:22; 26:1-19; Ezek 44: 6-14), while Levitical singers are given a part to play at 23:13, unlike 2 Kgs 11:14. (iv) The people are given a substantial role in the coup (played down in the NIV). The Chronicler, encouraged by mention of “the people/all the people of the land” in 2 Kgs 11:13-14 (// 2 Chr 23:12-13), makes room for them earlier by putting back to 23:3 the second of two covenants in 2 Kgs 11:17, the one “between the king and the people,” leaving in 23:16 only the first covenant “between the LORD and the king and people” (Japhet 1993: 830, 835; contrast 2 Kgs 11:4). (v) Opportunity is taken to ensure Mosaic norms of sacrifice and Davidic norms of divisions and singing in temple procedures (23:18, expanding 2 Kgs 11:18b). The quiet that prevailed in 23:21 (// 2 Kgs 11:20) is for the Chronicler God’s seal of blessing on the courageous ventures of a husband and wife.

Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah (24:1-26:23) There are good grounds for grouping these three reigns together as an overall unit. They present three Jekyll and Hyde sequences of initial obedience and subsequent apostasy. By such repetition they drive home to the reader the danger of the type of lifestyle pattern deplored in Ezek 18:24-6. As for rhetorical signals, in each case there is the initial summarizing sequence of a commendatory formula, “did what was right in the sight of the LORD” followed by some negative comment (24:2 // 2 Kgs 12:2 [3] NIV; 25:2 // 2 Kgs

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom

14:3; 26:4-5 [cf. 2 Kgs 15:3]). Common features variously overlap. In the first and third cases good advice is heeded in the early period (24:2 // 2 Kgs 12:2 [3]; 26:5) and in the first and second is rejected in the later period (24:17, 202; 25:15-16, 20), while in the second and third cases pride is the shared sin (25:19 // 2 Kgs 14:10; 26:16). In all three cases an opportunity for repentance is rejected (24:19; 25:15-16; 26:18-19). Chapter 24 provides a parade example of the Chronicler’s schema of generational cause and effect, in this case involving good and bad periods. Jehoiada’s death is made the turning point, gleaned from 2 Kgs 12:1-2 (3-4). Accordingly, the cultic deviation of 2 Kgs 12:3 (4) is reserved until 2 Chr 24:18a in an adapted form, while royal family growth is added as a measurefor-measure blessing, one sorely needed after its earlier depletion. Repairing the temple is adapted from 2 Kgs 12:4-16 (5-17) as an example of what Joash did right. The Chronicler introduces Levites as financially involved, a role broached in 1 Chr 26:20 and presumably a contemporary one. He loosely relates the individual assessment of 2 Kgs 12:4 (5) to the tabernacle tax in the Torah (24:6, 9; cf. Exod 30:12-16; Neh 10:32-3 [33-4]), though here it was voluntary (Kim 2014: 77, 81, 131). The temple matched what the tabernacle had meant for Israel in the wilderness period. The people proved to be cheerful givers (cf. 1 Chr 29:9) and so the expense of the daily temple sacrifices could be more than met—both desirable ideals for the Chronicler’s own age. Jehoiada died at last and is uniquely honored with a royal burial, which is later denied to the by-then undeserving king (contrast 2 Kgs 12:21b [22b]). He heeded bad advisers, and now the negative Hebrew verb ‘zb is spread over vv. 18–25 to signify either wrongdoing or retribution, in line with 15:2. It is variously rendered “abandoned,” “forsaken,” “abandoned,” and “leaving” in vv. 18, 20, 24, 25. The efforts of prophets to “bring back” from apostasy— employing in Hebrew a causative form of “turn” in the divine promise of forgiveness at 7:14—yielded no repentance. Jehoiada’s son, given a temporary gift of prophecy (cf. 15:1), spelled out the narrative’s spiritual lesson in a judgment oracle. His dying words, later endorsed by Jesus according to Luke 11:50-1, launched the outworking of the wrath of v. 18b. There is now logical room in the account for the Arameans’ attack in 2 Kgs 12:17-18 (18-19). Two further negative effects are added: their killing the corrupting officials of 24:17 and “leaving” the king badly wounded. The fatal conspiracy in 2 Kgs 12:20-1 (21-2) is the coup de grace for the backsliding king. The Chronicler’s version of the literary source appears to be a rhetorical device to sum up the diversity of Joash’s reign.

75

76

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

The account of Amaziah in 2 Kgs 14:1-14, 17-20 gave him a good assessment apart from permitting high places. It told of a Torah-respecting decision, a victory over Edom, and yet a disastrous defeat inflicted by the northern king and death at the hands of conspirators. The Chronicler adapted this amorphous mixture to his typological program by including 25:14-16 concerning worship of Edomite gods as a reason for the negative outcomes. This became the pivot that brought coherence to ch. 25 (Graham 1993: 80–4). It is connected to the ancient Near Eastern notion that gods of a defeated nation joined the victorious side, to which their images were brought (Dillard 1987: 201). The Chronicler’s modification of approval in v. 3, “but not wholeheartedly” (NIV), anticipates the pivot, while his reminders in vv. 20 and 27a look back to it. The pivot incorporates the keyword “seek” (Heb. drš), here with the general sense of worship of the wrong gods (Japhet 1993: 866), rendered “resorted to” in v. 15 and “sought” in the recapitulating v. 20. The sparing of the conspirators’ children in v. 4 (// 2 Kgs 14:6), based on Deut 24:16, was important for the Chronicler, not only as honoring the Torah and as evidence from Kings for generational independence but also because in Ezek 18:20 it was the judicial parallel the prophet adduced as support for his single-generation teaching about theological recompense (Fishbane 1985: 337–41). The Edomite victory, one verse in the source text, is greatly expanded, incorporating a heeded prophetic warning against hired Israelite reinforcements as part of the Chronicler’s theme of opposing military alliances that replaced trust in God. Consequent loss must be accepted for now. Underlying the violence of vv. 11–12 is postexilic animosity against Edom as an archenemy, illustrated in Ps 137 and the book of Obadiah. In v. 20 the Chronicler credits punitive divine providence for the grim results of Amaziah’s not heeding the northern king’s fable and accusation of overweening pride that were taken over from the source text. Correspondingly, in v. 27 he traces the fatal conspiracy to a resistance movement that originated at the time of the king’s apostasy. Against such a coalition Amaziah could not win. The expanded account of Uzziah’s reign in ch. 26 is a climactic conclusion for a trilogy of falls from grace, which amounts to a sermonic warning to “hold our first confidence firm to the end” (Heb 3:14). Not only its new length but also its extremes of grace and disgrace make the chapter stand out with rhetorical impact. The Chronicler took seven out of the nine verses in 2 Kgs 14:21-2; 15:1-7, which already supplied a cause-and-effect sequence of spiritual conformity and success, but unaccountably added a contrasting

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom

failure. He wove them into his typical pattern by amplifying the success and providing a spiritual reason for the failure. Uzziah is mainly called Azariah in the source text and also in 1 Chr 3:12, but the name “Uzziah” appears in 2 Kgs 15:13 and elsewhere, including Isa 6:1. The Chronicler, assuming his readers knew both royal names, backed his recital of blessing with double wordplay that runs through vv. 6–15 and also with reference to a high priest called Azariah in vv. 17–20. “Azariah” means “YHWH helps” and correspondingly divine help is featured in vv. 7 and 15, while “Uzziah” means “YHWH is my strength” and so references to the king’s strength appear in vv. 8, 15–16 by using a synonymous Hebrew verb. His names proved good omens. The spirituality of v. 4 (// 2 Kgs 15:3) is typically identified in v. 5 as seeking YHWH; it is tellingly qualified as both rewarded with success and impermanent. In vv. 6–8 external success is spelled out in terms of victory, building, and international recognition, while in vv. 9–16 internal success is defined in terms of building, agriculture, military power, and further international prestige. Basically such success is historically feasible in a long and stable reign, in parallel with the reign of Jeroboam II in the north. The punitive leprosy of 2 Kgs 15:5 cried out for a reason, which for the Chronicler was a cultic form of unfaithfulness (NIV 2 Chr 26:16, 18), one of his key terms. It was prompted by pride in misjudging God-given strength as self-sufficiency. Perhaps his particular sin was suggested by the people’s behavior in 2 Kgs 15:4 (Beentjes 2008: 82). He was sinning against both the sanctity of the temple building and the priestly prerogatives prescribed in the Torah (Exod 30:7; Num 16:39-40). The direness of the retribution lay in its rendering the victim ritually unclean (Lev 13:34-6). Yet the punishment did not take immediate effect; it came only after the king had defied a plain warning, instead of repenting. He lost not only his chance of making good but also temple worship and royal responsibilities and perquisites. The literary reference in v. 22 appears to assume that Isaiah wrote the Kings’ account, so that it had prophetic authority; the presence of its material on Hezekiah’s reign in the book of Isaiah may have so suggested (cf. 2 Chr 32:32).

Jotham and Ahaz (27:1–28:27) These two chapters polarize good and bad reigns. The further function of ch. 28 to represent the close of the period of the divided monarchy accounts for its greater length and special features. Rhetorical markers are taken over

77

78

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

from 2 Kings: the positive and negative evaluations in 27:2 (// 2 Kgs 15:34); 28:1 (// 2 Kgs 16:2) and the parallel sixteen-year length of reign in each case, in 27:1 (// 2 Kgs 15:33), repeated in v. 8; 28:1 (// Kgs 16:2). A good example is followed by a bad one, as in Ezek 18:5-13; in both cases the contrast throws into relief the son’s faults and failures. The Jotham account in 27:1-9 reflects 2 Kgs 15:33-8 pretty closely, but for consistency’s sake, the Chronicler needed to mention Uzziah’s sin; omit the military threat in 2 Kgs 15:37; expand the blessing component with further building, military victory, and wealth; and present it invitingly as the outcome for faithfully ordering “his ways before the LORD his God” (27:6). The reference to “wars” and “ways” in v. 7 seems to simply call attention to the Chronicler’s own features. These two reigns challenge readers as to which path to choose—not that of Ahaz hopefully. In ch. 28 the familiar terms “abandon the LORD” (v. 6), “unfaithful” (NIV vv. 19, 22), and “provoking to anger the LORD” (v. 25) put the Chronicler’s negative stamp on aspects of his reign. Similarly, for “help” Ahaz turned not to YHWH but ruinously to an Assyrian alliance (vv. 16, 21) and to Aramean gods (v. 23). In fact, “all Israel,” in both south and north, suffered as a result of Ahaz’s apostasy (Bae 2005: 59–60, 108). Beyond display of the Chronicler’s distinctive negative vocabulary, ch. 28 is based to a large extent on 2 Kgs 16, but subordinated to his own perspectives. In 28:1b-7 he could use 2 Kgs 16:2b-5 as cause and effect, relating to Ahaz’s polytheistic practices and worship at illegitimate sanctuaries and his providential losses in the Syro-Ephraimite war, but he amplified the consequences. Ahaz’s appeal and payment of costly tribute to the Assyrian king (2 Kgs 16:7-8) are summarized negatively in 28:16, 21. Instead of mentioning the successful outcome (2 Kgs 16:9), in 28:17-18, 20 the foreign alliance is said to have been motivated by territorial losses not only to Edom (// 2 Kgs 16:6) but also to the Philistines as implicit punishment for apostasy, while its effect was “trouble” (NIV), alluding to the loss of Judean independence. The king’s deduction from the earlier military success of Damascus (vv. 5, 23) and his copying an altar seen in Damascus and using it as a replacement altar for the daily offerings in 2 Kgs 16:10-16 are interpreted in terms of worship of Aramean gods in 28:23 (cf. 25:14). Ahaz’s other religious innovations (2 Kgs 16:17-18) are related in 28:24-5 to closing the temple and worshiping in new, illicit sanctuaries. No wonder the Chronicler denied him burial in the royal cemetery (28:27; contrast 2 Kgs 16:20).

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Divided Kingdom

We mentioned in Chapter 2 the structural importance of 2 Chr 28 as closing a narrative section that began with ch. 10. Hebraists will appreciate the use of kn‘ to refer to Judah’s downfall in 28:19, “the LORD brought Judah low,” and its parallel in 13:18, where it was said of the Northern Kingdom, “the Israelites were subdued” by divine providence (v. 16). Now both northerners and southerners endured divine wrath as the result of radically abandoning YHWH (28:9, 11). Another case of parallelism surfaces within the added 28:8-15. A prophet successfully challenges the northerners to repatriate rather than enslave their Judean prisoners of war, on the grounds that they are their “kin” or “kindred” (vv. 8, 11, cf. Lev 25:44-6), more literally “brethren” (KJV), using the same term as in 11:4 concerning the continuing relationship of the now divided tribes in a spiritual family. This remarkable incident is widely judged to have been the literary inspiration for the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 (cf. Evans 2006; Kalimi 2009). In the parable brotherhood is replaced by the Torah’s neighborliness within the covenant community in Lev 19:18b as indicating spiritual solidarity (cf. Proctor 2019: 212–13). The two sentiments are combined as parallel concepts in some NT texts (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:1315; Jas 2:8, 14). The double framing of the section points to a significant juncture and the possibility of a fresh start. The Chronicler was aware that around this time the Northern Kingdom fell and suffered deportation—the admission of its “great guilt” as already bearer of “fierce wrath” (28:13) so intimates, while the kingless v. 14 appears to assume it (Bae 2005: 108). Next, a single, Davidic king will restore the temple, relate positively to a northern remnant, and revive southern fidelity (29:1-30:12)—factors that were ideals for the Chronicler.

79

80

6 Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Single Kingdom (2 Chr 29:1–36:23) Although one can hardly characterize the new situation with the fall of the Northern Kingdom as establishing a reunited kingdom, the single role of Judah’s legitimate monarchy did create new significance in defining Judah’s roles vis-à-vis both God and its king-less members of God’s family. Judah was still a vassal state under Assyria, while the northerners were now governed in their Assyrian provinces—an imperial situation closer to postexilic conditions than hitherto. This gave the Chronicler opportunities to intensify his appeals to his Yehudite readership. Both postexilic Yehud and royal Judah faced a common challenge of living up to their traditional faith based on the Mosaic Torah and the temple founded by David and Solomon, and so of attempting to re-create ancestral spiritual bonding with their northern neighbors. For Judah these potentials were initially realized with the aid of repentance, but destructive evil finally prevailed, with repentance disdained. Yet the book closes with the offer of a new opportunity for Yehud to embrace, centered on a rebuilt temple.

Hezekiah (29:1-32:33) After Jotham and Ahaz, Hezekiah represents the third, good generation in Ezek 18:14-17. Wilhelm Rudolph (1955: 309, 377) drew attention to the cause-and-effect pattern of a positive evaluation and prosperity, which frames the Chronicler’s account of the reign. The causal headline in 29:2

82

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

(// 2 Kgs 18:3) is repeated in 31:20, while “and [in] every work… he prospered” in 31:21 (cf. 2 Kgs 18:7) is recapitulated in 32:30, “Hezekiah prospered in all his works.” His bipartite reign is meant to portray his spirituality and incentivize it as a commendable pursuit. The Chronicler gives three examples of Hezekiah’s faithfulness to YHWH. In 29:3-36 royal priority is given to purifying the temple, abused and neglected by Ahaz (28:24). R. A. Young (2012: 199) finds it a free composition of the Chronicler. The Chronicler’s prioritizing reminds Christian readers of the placing of Jesus’s temple cleansing in John 2:13-22, contrary to the Synoptic Gospels. Hezekiah lives up to his name: the Hebrew word for “repaired” (ḥzq, v. 3) plays on Hezekiah’s name, which means “YHWH strengthens.” His speech is addressed to Levites responsible for cleaning work (cf. 1 Chr 23:28), though the work also required priestly participation. It uses calls to get to work as a frame (vv. 5, 11), while its substance presents the need for a spiritual new broom. It repeats the forsaking and unfaithfulness of 28:6, 19 (NIV), sums up Ahaz’s own cause and effect—his sins against the temple and the divine wrath of 28:25—and states the king’s plan for an appeasing pledge of commitment (“covenant”) to YHWH. Part of Jer 29:18, which has a post-586 BCE situation in view, is reapplied in v. 8b as a somber foreboding of exile, and so a reference to prophetic “words” in v. 15 is warranted (cf. 30:12). For the Chronicler’s postexilic contemporaries, to whom he is really speaking, such cultic endeavors were also necessary to exorcise their own demons. After this religious spring-cleaning, in vv. 20–35a the pledge was actualized as a perlocution in a complex ceremonial service of cleansing and reconsecration involving temple staff and residents of Jerusalem representing “all Israel” (v. 24; cf. 30:2). At this service the priestly sacrificing with Levites’ help was accompanied by Levitical singing and music conforming to Davidic protocols that were backed by prophetic revelation. The Davidic emphasis expounds the initial reference in v. 2 (// 2 Kgs 18:3), while v. 35b recalls 8:16 about Solomon in the Hebrew wording. Alternatively v. 30 refers to an authoritative collection of psalms of David and Asaph (e.g., Kleinig 1993: 61–2, 68–9). The second example of faithfulness consists of a grand celebration of the combined festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread at the Jerusalem temple (30:1-31:1), which Young (2012: 254–5) regards as at least preexilic. It was meant as a model to be hopefully emulated in the Chronicler’s own time, for it was intended for “all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan” (v. 5; cf. 31:1), the range of David’s kingdom (1 Chr 21:2). Williamson (1982: 363–5, critiqued

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Single Kingdom

by Klein 2012: 430–1) has argued that Hezekiah’s interest in the north had a historical basis and that the Chronicler was developing along contemporary lines a tradition associating the king with the Unleavened Bread festival. A Torah-based concession, loosely reapplying Num 9:6-11, was made for northern pilgrims with a long journey, while the delay conveniently suited Judeans, for whom also it was too late for normal timing in the first month (Exod 12:2, 6, 18; cf. 2 Chr 29:3, 17). It was still to be “as prescribed” (v. 5) by being held in a united celebration at the sanctuary, as in Deut 16:1-8. The royal invitation is couched in spiritual rather than religious terms, though the spirituality was to be demonstrated religiously. It was addressed to all but angled toward nonexiled northerners, though Judah had been described similarly in 29:6, 8-9; it echoes Zech 1:2-6 (Mason 1990: 199–201). In line with Solomon’s prayer dedicating the temple, northern exiles’ returning home is used as an incentive for repentance (30:9; cf. 6:24-5 // 1 Kgs 8:34). The northerners generally rebuffed the couriers, but the offer was worth making. “Nevertheless, some” (30:11 NIV)—increased to “many” by v. 18— accepted, with necessary self-humbling and (re)turning in repentance, as in 7:14, while Judah was enthusiastic, thanks be to God! The people took the opportunity to remove the illicit altars of 28:24 from the city, as the religious staff had cleared the temple. A further concession was afforded to repentant northern pilgrims who were ritually uncleansed according to the Torah, by Levites’ slaughtering their lambs for them and a special dispensation to participate in the Passover meal, as a tribute to their good intentions in setting “their hearts to seek God” (30:19). In this emergency, prayer took the place of purification rites (Boda 2010: 392). Calling YHWH “good” (v. 18) invokes the creedal statement, “For he is good,” as well as echoing v. 9. Healing of their uncleanness ensued (v. 20), loosely echoing 7:14. During the weeklong festival of Unleavened Bread the people’s worshipful joy was stimulated by Levitical musical singing and priestly fanfare. Worship spilled over into a second week of celebration. Readers are meant to recall Solomon’s two consecutive weeks of sacral dedication and festival worship (7:9). The Chronicler, having cited 2 Kgs 18:2-3 in 29:1-2, now returns to the source text by using 2 Kgs 18:4 in 31:1, but Hezekiah’s removal of high places in Judah is now attributed to the returning pilgrims and not only brings religious reform to the Southern Kingdom, thus undoing Ahaz’s wicked work (28:25), but extends it to northern areas. The welcome extended to foreign migrants in the north as well as in the south—remarkably different from the tone of 2 Kgs 17:24-33; Ezra 4:1-5 (Klein 2012: 440 n. 71)—strikes a Solomonic note once more (30:25; cf. 6:32-3 // 1 Kgs 8:41-3). It all expressed

83

84

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

an ideal of worship the Chronicler longed for in his own day: spiritual harmony in a community of faith united around the Jerusalem temple (see Graham 1999: 136–41). Explicit comparison with Solomon in 30:26 (cf. 8:13) crowns the Chronicler’s characterization of Hezekiah as replaying the roles not only of David, but of Solomon (Throntveit 2003; Klein 2012: 413–14). The closing blessing neatly bonds with the next section at 31:10. In 31:2-19 the third example of Hezekiah’s doing what was right concerns efficient temple administration as a further way of seeking his God (v. 21). He organized David’s cultic divisions with their separate tasks, like Solomon (8:14), and replicated Solomon’s inauguration of the Torah’s system of daily offerings and festivals (cf. 8:12–13), arranging for their financing by making his own substantial contribution. The narrative of food support for the religious staff and their families from the people’s contributions of first fruits and tithes (Torah-instituted in Lev 27:30-3; Num 18:8-32) is an implicit sermon to the Chronicler’s contemporaries (cf. Neh 10:35-9 [3640]; Kim 2014: 120–5, 129–30; Japhet 1993: 960–1, 966, who suggests use of a Second Temple document). It was a divine mandate, a human obligation to be willingly borne, and a source of divine blessing. The king also made arrangements for storage and distribution. Spirituality had such down-toearth applications, as “good deeds” (32:32). As 31:21-32:1a announces, ch. 32 turns to the trappings of success that schematically followed wholehearted seeking and in particular to the failure of the nonpunitive Assyrian invasion. The standard blessing of building projects here focuses on a secure water supply (cf. 2 Kgs 20:20) and military preparations for a possible siege of Jerusalem (compare and contrast Isa 22:8b-11). The king’s speech of encouragement for the task assures of YHWH’s supporting presence (vv. 7–8, “with us”; cf. 2 Kgs 18:7a) and help, which supplemented his subjects’ help (vv. 3, 8). The Chronicler was drawing on 2 Kgs 18-20, simplifying and reshaping the source text to reflect his own agenda. He called Hezekiah YHWH’s “servant” (32:16), the only king so honored apart from David (frequently in 1 Chr 17 [// 2 Sam 7]; 2 Chr 6:15-17 [// 1 Kgs 8:24-26], 42) and Solomon (2 Chr 6:19-21 [// 1 Kgs 8:2830]). He dismissed the Assyrians’ communications as propaganda confusing YHWH with pagan gods that were no more than human fabrications. Judah’s royal and prophetic prayers (cf. 2 Kgs 19:4, 15-20) were answered with divine intervention, and the attack was called off. The Assyrian king suffered not only humiliation but assassination, unprotected by his own god. For Hezekiah, however, the blessings of other victories, rest, and international fame followed, along with healing of a nonpunitive sickness accompanied

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Single Kingdom

by a supernatural sign. Andrew G. Vaughn in his specific study (1999) and Japhet in general (1993: 979) have found the blessings of vv. 27–9 feasible from economic and archeological perspectives. A different note is struck with the king’s sin of humanistic pride over the visit of Babylonian envoys, which is the Chronicler’s interpretation of 2 Kgs 20:12-19, but he could weave it into the success story. Whereas postgenerational punishment was forecast in 2 Kgs 20:16-18, Hezekiah’s acquiescence and the lack of consequences in his own lifetime are here amplified by the self-humbling and repentance of 2 Chr 7:14, which recall David’s experience in 1 Chr 21. So divine wrath was averted. Further blessings of wealth and building ensue, while the famous water project is repeated, with 2 Kgs 20:20, adjacent in his source text, in view. The Chronicler related the envoys’ visit to the sign—were not Babylonians astrologers?—and took the visit as a test of Hezekiah’s faith, one that he eventually passed (cf. Deut 8:2, 16, associated with humbling, though a different Hebrew word; for divine testing in Chronicles see Japhet 1997: 191–8 = 2009: 149–55; Ben Zvi 2012). He alluded to the account in Isa 36–8 by citing that other source text in terms of the book’s opening in 1:1. Hezekiah’s grand funeral is a fitting obituary for a king whom Mason (1990: 97) has called the Chronicler’s hero. Yet even such a saint needed to learn repentance and find a way back to God.

Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah (33:1-36:1) The Chronicler crafted these three reigns into a rhetorical unit, largely by developing Kings material (Allen 1988: 32–3). Amon’s negative reign and Josiah’s positive reign became parallels for two phases in Manasseh’s reign, degenerate and regenerate. In the first scheme both Manasseh and Amon “did what was evil in the sight of the LORD” (A, 33:2 // 2 Kgs 21:2; A′, 33:22 // 2 Kgs 21:20). Both “served” other gods (A, 33:3 // 2 Kgs 21:3; A′, 33:22 // 2 Kgs 21:21). A new, emphasized case was created by “images” (A, 33:19; A′, 33:22; 34:3, 4, 7; cf. 2 Kgs 21:7). In the second scheme Josiah and Manasseh were matched. Josiah “humbled” himself (B′, twice in 34:27, // 2 Kgs 22:19 in the first case) and so did Manasseh (B, 33:12, 19, 23, unlike Amon). YHWH told Josiah “I… have heard you” (B′, 34:27 // 2 Kgs 22:19), while in Manasseh’s case God “heard his plea” (B, 33:13). Also Manasseh “commanded Judah to

85

86

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

serve the LORD” (B, 33:16) and similarly Josiah “had all who were present in Israel serve the LORD” (B′, 34:33 NIV). The Chronicler, in pursuit of his agenda, regarded Amon as a copy of degenerate Manasseh, and regenerate Manasseh as a forerunner of Josiah. The parallelism showed that apostasy could be transcended via repentance, intra-generationally or over the span of two generations, in both cases true to Ezek 18 and the Chronicler’s own teaching. Whereas Asa, Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah provided good-turnedbad cases, now Manasseh’s case illustrates the reverse, celebrating a new potential for the postexilic community (Abadie 2003). Manasseh symbolized Yehud as needing to repent; the Chronicler expressed this openly by combining Manasseh and the people in 33:10 (Ben Zvi 2013b: 131, 135–7). Verses 1–9 follow closely the description and evaluation of Manasseh’s religious apostasy in the source text at 2 Kgs 21:1-9, escalating from “evil” to “much evil” to “more evil” than the Canaanites (vv. 2, 6, 9 in both texts), whose fate was a sinister omen. The Chronicler increased the shock reaction of 2 Kgs 21, enhancing the role of Jerusalem and the temple by repeating the “forever” of 2 Kgs 21:17 (// 33:7) in v. 4 and expanding the Torah reference in v. 8. After the prophetic 2 Kgs 21:10-15 was abbreviated in v. 10a and 21:9a was relocated to v. 10b, utterly surprising new material was added in vv. 11–17. It fits into a structural pattern whereby the crucial vv. 11–13 form a pivot around which the prologue and epilogue in vv. 1 and 18–20 and the narratives of apostasy and reformation in vv. 2–10 and 14–17 revolve (Japhet 1993: 1001; Hom 2009: 167–72). Whereas in 2 Kgs 21:7-9 the divine declaration was an unheeded threat of national exile to which Manasseh consigned Judah, the Chronicler was working from a narrower agenda of single-generation retribution. He understood the declaration in terms of a warning that should be heeded (cf. 24:19; 36:15-16). In Manasseh’s case the heeding was slow in coming, after the vassal king had been providentially exiled, as it were, by his Assyrian overlord, so that his experience was a paradigm of Judah’s own exile (Williamson 1982: 389–90). But it did come, provoked by “distress” (cf. Deut 4:30; 2 Chr 15:4; 20:9; contrast 28:22). It took the form of mollifying YHWH’s “face” (literally, v. 12a), self-humbling, prayer, and so divine listening, which all enacted 2 Chr 7:14. His providential return and reinstatement led him to abandon his pagan mindset (v. 13b) in favor of a conviction confirmed by reforms (vv. 15–17). He became both the penitent of Ezek 18:21-2, 27-8 and a role model for the promise to the people in 2 Chr 7:14. Consequently he received blessing in building and military areas

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Single Kingdom

and engaged in religious reform. The worst of sinners could be restored; newness of life beyond exile beckoned. The epilogue in 33:18–20 corresponds to 2 Kgs 21:17-18. One might have expected the first source to refer to 2 Kings and the second to be support for vv. 14–17, but the prayer in the first and negative items in the second do not fit. Mention of sources is probably a device to recapitulate different aspects of his reign, especially the praying. Repentant prayer can make up for a multitude of sins, including the ultimate sin of “unfaithfulness” (NIV). Whether there was a separate source or tradition has been much discussed. Williamson (1982: 391–3) is inclined to see in the account development of a summons to the Assyrian court. Schniedewind (1991), however, has argued that v. 18 does refer to a source relating to Manasseh’s prayer, while Kelly (2002) argues more generally in favor of historicity. The apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh is an attempt to make up the biblical lack. The account of Amon’s reign in 33:21-25 begins a slow-motion repeat of the lessons learned from Manasseh’s reign, now spread over two generations. That a previous generation turned against God was no barrier against the present generation’s starting afresh, as in Ezek 18:10-18. Second Kings 21:19-26 is now the basis, but the Chronicler adapted it to his own portrayal of Manasseh in v. 19. He saw cause and effect in Amon’s faults and fate, and recognized providential reordering in the people’s appointment of Josiah. He drew on 2 Kgs 22:1-2 in 34:1-2, but in vv. 3–7, as the first of much evidence of Josiah’s seeking (drš) “the God of his ancestor David,” he independently posited initial religious reforms in Judah and Jerusalem to undo Amon’s reintroduction of Manasseh’s early sins. Even the high places tolerated by Manasseh were removed and the reforms even covered northern territory. Backdating to earlier stages in his reign, like that ascribed to Hezekiah in 29:3, highlights spiritual priorities. Williamson (1982: 397–8) has discussed historicity. For 34:8-28 the Chronicler found welcome material in 2 Kgs 22:3-20. His own interests surfaced there, involving Josiah’s repair of the temple—but characteristically adding Levites’ participation (Kim 2014: 87–91)—respect for the consequently discovered Torah scroll, and mission to “inquire (drš again) of the LORD” (34:21, 26 // 2 Kgs 22:13, 18), and Huldah’s oracle that Josiah’s repentant self-humbling—now mentioned twice—had earned him the blessings of a hearing from God and exemption from coming national disaster for Judah’s history of forsaking God. A reference to the curses of Deut 29:21 is added in 34:24. In vv. 29–32, depending on 2 Kgs 23:13, there fittingly follows a ceremony of the king’s and people’s pledges of

87

88

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

commitment to the Mosaic covenant, in honor of the scroll, now called “the book of the covenant” (v. 30 // 2 Kgs 23:2). Whereas the discovery triggered detailed reforms in 2 Kgs 23:4-20, 24, it connotes in 34:33a a stimulus to brief continuation. The Chronicler added the people’s compliance with their pledge in v. 33b to indicate that, like the king, this generation was exempt from the disaster forecast in v. 28. Much more is made of Josiah’s Passover in 35:1-19 than in 2 Kgs 23:21-3. It illustrates the people’s involvement in worship (vv. 17–18), in line with their pledge. The Passover at the temple is now the focus of inaugurated worship, rather than the Unleavened Bread of Hezekiah’s celebration. Honor is paid both to the new dispensation of David and Solomon (v. 4) and to the old one of Moses (vv. 6, 12), though the latter claim is questionable (see Williamson 1982: 406). The “written directions” appear to refer to 1 Chr 23–6 and 2 Chr 8:12-15 respectively (De Vries 1988: 630–1). The roles of the Levites are stressed here, both in sacrificial ritual and as singers and gatekeepers. Roasting (literally boiling) the lamb with fire in v. 13 is a harmonization of different Torah rulings in Exod 12:19 and Deut 16:7 (Fishbane 1985: 135–6). The unified participation in view at v. 18 (cf. 2 Kgs 23:22) crowns an allIsrael theme present earlier in 34:6, 7, 9, 21, 33 (cf. 2 Kgs 23:15-16, 19-20). The Chronicler in 35:17-18 maximized on such lines the more restricted sense of “all the people” in 2 Kgs 23:21 for festival attendance (cf. Young 2012: 211–12). The celebration outdid Hezekiah’s festival in lacking its irregularities, which nevertheless had been God-honoring measures. Disaster did befall the king, though not one directly involving a threat to Jerusalem (34:28 // 2 Kgs 22:20). The Chronicler retells 2 Kgs 23:29-30a in 35:20-4a. Josiah interfered in international conflict between Assyria and Egypt on the one hand and Media and Babylonia on the other. Challenging Egyptian passage through Israel’s land near Megiddo, he lost. He died in Jerusalem (v. 24; contrast 2 Kgs 23:29-30) and was buried there, in rough accord with Huldah’s prophecy. The Chronicler needed to provide a cause for such a shocking catastrophe. He did so via a warning message from Neco that claimed divine support (“with me”) for his independent campaign. The Chronicler “Israelized” him, like other foreign rulers (Ben Zvi 1999: 224–8). The message was on the one hand like Cyrus’s proclamation in 36:22-3 in being inspired (“from the mouth of God”) and on the other like prophetic warnings. Josiah “did not listen,” tragically like Ahab, who rejected a prophetic oracle, disguised himself, and was shot by an arrow (18:25-6, 29, 33). The implicit message appears to be that the contemporary generation’s aspiration should not be political control of northern territory (cf. 11:1-4)

Evaluating Judah’s Kings in the Single Kingdom

but rather the spiritual and religious efforts of Hezekiah and hitherto of Josiah. This conviction aligns with the Chronicler’s earlier condemnation of military alliances (Johnstone 1997: 2.256). His narrative of widespread, prolonged mourning for the otherwise good King Josiah, who honored the Torah, verbalizes his own mourning. Jeremiah’s lamenting may have Jer 22:15-16 in view. Overall, Josiah’s “faithful deeds” and respect for the Torah dominated his legacy, so that the brute fact of his tragic passing remained a partially—yet usefully—explained anomaly. The Chronicler made what he could of the literary tradition.

Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah, and Cyrus (36:2-23) Thus far the last section of Chronicles has largely painted pictures of positive potential for the Chronicler’s audience. In this closing literary unit, such an impression might seem to be spoiled by its preponderance of negativity, with each reign matching Ezekiel’s second, ugly type. Indeed, this negativity functions as warning. Yet account needs to be taken of the climactic verses of hope, where a new king breaks the pattern. The Davidic monarchy did slide precipitously downhill. In vv. 2–10 the reigns of three kings are briefly sketched by abbreviating 2 Kgs 23:31–24:17 and emphasizing their fate of exile, with Jehoiakim added to the royal series in v. 6 (contrast 2 Kgs 24:6; Jer 22:18-19; 36:30). In the latter two cases the cause for this effect is mentioned, doing “what was evil in the sight of the LORD his God” (vv. 5, 9 // 2 Kgs 23:37; 24:9), but in the first instance the Chronicler left out this cause (2 Kgs 23:32). The tribute paid to Egypt’s king, Judah’s temporary master, is a sad reversal of the blessing of wealth enjoyed by its good kings. In Jehoiakim’s case his own “abominations” are added to the cause, revising retribution for Manasseh’s sins in 2 Kgs 24:3. Nebuchadnezzar’s removal of temple vessels as part of the effect (v. 7), borrowed from 2 Kgs 24:13, repeated in v.10, and accentuated in vv. 18–19 (cf. 2 Kgs 25:14-15; Jer 27:19-22), contrasts with the care Hezekiah showed at the beginning of the section (29:19). Verses 11–20a are loosely based on 2 Kgs 24:18–25:11, with impassioned, theological amplification. The Chronicler devoted much more space to Zedekiah than to the three earlier kings. He was the replacement for Manasseh as the main cause of Judah’s exile, in keeping with singlegeneration recompense. The narrative builds upon the blame attributed to

89

90

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

the people, “Judah and Jerusalem,” in 2 Kgs 24:20a, which will be typically explained in 36:14 as being “exceedingly unfaithful (m‘l)” by adopting pagan worship (cf. 1 Chr 9:1). The royal “evil” (v. 12 // 2 Kgs 24:19) is amplified by two prophetic means, first in accord with the blanket condemnation of the king in Jer 37:2, now characteristically rephrased as lack of self-humbling. Second, Zedekiah’s rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:20b) is denounced on the lines of Ezek 17:13-21, as breaking an oath of loyalty sworn in YHWH’s name, which became a self-curse when broken. The people incurred most guilt by refusing insistent prophetic warnings given out of divine compassion (cf. 2 Kgs 17:13-15). Echoes of 7:14—begun with royal self-humbling, continued with “his people,” matching “my people” in the promise, and concluded with “remedy” or healing—are heard only in denial. So the shadow side of the promise, described in 7:19-22 in terms of dire destruction and deportation, came to pass, along with the wrath of Huldah’s oracle (34:25). Yet the Chronicler found eventual closure for exile in both the Prophets and the Torah, warranting a double divine “until” (vv. 20b, 21) that capped the negative “until” of v. 16. Jeremiah 29:10 had spoken of a period of “seventy years” as the limit for Babylonian dominance before return to the land. In turn, Lev 26:34-5, 43 envisioned the curse of a Sabbath rest for the desolated land, making up for long-lacking Sabbath observance. This enforced rest the Chronicler understood in light of the Jeremiah text. The land’s fallow season was over; it was time for a fresh start. These Scriptures meant that the door to renewed fellowship with God stood wide open for postexilic generations to choose to enter. The Chronicler clinched his literary assurances by appealing to Ezra 1:1-3, just as he had used Neh 11 at the end of the first part of his book, in 1 Chr 9. The text cited there is Jer 51:1 (Williamson 1985: 9–10), understood as “I am going to stir up the spirit of a destroyer against Babylon” (mg., NIV; cf. Isa 41:2, 25; 45:13). It here refers to the proclamation of the Persian King Cyrus as inspired (Schniedewind 1995: 6 n. 34). Cyrus, now appointed as viceroy of the divine kingdom, proclaimed return for the exiles and delegated to them his divine mandate to build the temple, invoking YHWH’s supporting presence. Implicitly the postexilic temple is authorized as successor to the Solomonic one (Mason 1990: 119). In this temple context, the staccato finale, “Let him go up,” rings out not with migration in view (e.g., Kalimi 2005a: 152, 156–7) but as the Chronicler’s clarion call to each Yehudite hearer (cf. “each of you,” Ezek 18:30 NIV). Usage of the Hebrew verb in this section of the book so suggests. They are invited to honor the rebuilt temple with their own worship and commitment to their God, on lines laid out for such going up in 34:30-2 (// 2 Kgs 23:2-3; cf. 2 Chr 29:20).

7 The Spirituality and Theology of Chronicles Ideology might be expected in the chapter title, but in the case of Chronicles, the term has so often been understood pejoratively as an inferior alternative to history that it can discourage empathy with the book’s own perspectives. “Ideology” itself is a widely defined term. David J. A. Clines (1995: 10–11) has listed four denotations and thirteen connotations of the word, while mainly working with it as a relatively coherent set of ideas, amounting to a worldview or outlook on life that is special to a particular social class or group. Sara Japhet in her magisterial book entitled Ideology (1997, 2009) gave no initial definition, but understood it similarly. It should be mentioned that Jonathan E. Dyck works with Paul Ricoeur’s wider definition of ideology that properly entails both empathy and critique. He has surveyed the ways the Chronicler sought support for the dominant position of the temple as consequences of belief in God (1998: 213–27). The chapter title might also have been expected to begin with theology, as Japhet does (1997: 11 = 2009: 8). That does not reflect the perspective of Chronicles, which is governed by the “seeking” theme as a means of establishing a spiritual identity for Yehud. Theology is primarily presented in the book in reactive terms as a consequence of the faith community’s seeking, though preexistent and proactive elements also turn out to have roles. As for spirituality, this term also covers a spectrum of meaning, from envisioning some notion of transcendence that provides meaning for human living beyond oneself to being a substitute for the older term “piety,” in the sense of believers’ commitment to an established religion. The spirituality advocated in Chronicles calls for the latter sense.

92

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

Seeking and Finding God In modern parlance seekers are persons outside the faith who are inquiring into it, but “those who seek the LORD” in worship at 1 Chr 16:10 (// Ps 105:3) are already believers. As we observed in Chapter 2, the book frequently links the act of seeking (Heb. drš and less often bqš) with exhortation, whether formulated as a direct imperative (e.g., 16:11 (// Ps 105:4); 2 Chr 34:21), as an infinitive of purpose (e.g., 1 Chr 21:30; 2 Chr 30:19), or in a coaxing conditional clause (e.g., 1 Chr 28:9; 2 Chr 7:14). In terms of speech-act theory, considered in Chapter 2, these examples are illocutionary acts, but there are also perlocutionary acts, presented in past tenses, as in 15:4; 22:9. Exhortation, whether direct or indirect, is the Chronicler’s overall purpose (Schniedewind 1995: 251–2). The definition of spirituality in terms of a perennial quest for the divine passed into the NT, notably at Matt 6:33 NIV; Luke 11:9 NIV; Col 3:1. As to its OT roots, seeking and finding are coupled in the OT at Deut 4:29 NIV; Jer 29:13-14; Isa 55:6. The first two texts were important for the Chronicler (cf. especially 2 Chr 15:2-4; 36:21). He used seeking YHWH in a general sense of commitment to a faith centered on the God of Scripture. He defined it more specifically in terms of (i) following the lifestyle and ceremonial order laid down in the written Torah (1 Chr 28:8 “search out” NRSV; cf. 2 Chr 17:4; 24:20), (ii) worshiping God at the Jerusalem temple (e.g., 30:19), and (iii) an intermediate stage of inquiring God’s will via a prophet or by prayer (e.g., 34:21 // 2 Kgs 22:13). It is sometimes accompanied by “heart” to indicate earnest commitment (e.g., 12:14). Another positive term in Chronicles is a verb of trusting, “rely” (Heb. š‘n, literally “lean”), used only as a keyword in the rhetorical unit of Abijah and Asa’s reigns. The opposite of seeking YHWH can be indicated simply with a negative (e.g., 2 Chr 15:13; 16:12) or with wrong objects—a medium at 1 Chr 10:13 (“seeking guidance”), physicians at 2 Chr 16:12, or the gods of Edom at 25:20. Usually a different Hebrew verb, ‘zb, rendered either “forsake” or “abandon,” is employed as an antonym. It too can be used generally or with the first two specific senses mentioned above: for example, (i) at 7:19 and (ii) at 13:10-11. A strong negative Hebrew term favored by the Chronicler is m‘l as a noun or a verb, variously rendered in the NRSV, but uniformly translated “unfaithfulness” and “be unfaithful” in the NIV. It can refer specifically to sacrilege, as it does in the cases of Achar in 1 Chr 2:7 and Uzziah in 2 Chr 26:18, or to idolatry, as in 1 Chr 5:25, but it is more widely used as a general

The Spirituality and Theology of Chronicles

term of utter negativity, especially with reference to Ahaz in 28:19, 22; 29:19 and as a reason for the exile of the eastern tribes in 1 Chr 5:25 and Judah in 9:1; 2 Chr 36:14. The cause-and-effect pattern so prevalent in Chronicles is strikingly presented in terms of opposite divine consequences in David’s words to Solomon at 1 Chr 28:9b, “If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will abandon you forever,” and in a prophetic message at 2 Chr 15:2, “The LORD is with you, while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you abandon him, he will abandon you.” The Chronicler often mentions the supportive divine presence expressed by the preposition “with,” especially as a key term running through the rhetorical unit of Jehoshaphat’s reign and contrasted with two causal cases of wicked alliance “with” northern kings. Another divine consequence in this unit is “help” (Heb. ‘zr) given by YHWH; it comes in 18:31 and is contrasted at 19:2 with wrongful help sought from alliance and ending in disaster. God’s help is notably mentioned in 1 Chr 12. It appears, for instance, in v. 18 (19), but the same verse also speaks of human helpers of David, while this good human consequence occurs four other times in the chapter and is reinforced in chs. 11–12 by a host of warriors with ʿzr in their names. This varied use of help as effect or cause occurs elsewhere in the book, such as God’s help in 15:26; 2 Chr 14:11 (10); 25:8; 32:8, good human help in 1 Chr 22:17; 2 Chr 26:13, and wrongful human or pagan help as a bad cause in 28:16, 21, 23. There is a wide range of human consequences in the book. Two useful studies in this area are articles by Christopher T. Begg (1982) and Raymond B. Dillard (1984). In Duke’s Aristotelian terms, discussed in Chapter 2, the threefold enthymeme in Chronicles is most often articulated in the form of two propositions of cause and human effect or of cause and divine effect. Duke (1990: 78–9; cf. Kelly 1996: 242–3) has a useful table that lists and references positive consequences as military success, building projects, large army or fortifications, popular support, peace or rest, and prosperity or might—to which family may be added—and negative consequences in terms of such points of reversal as being forsaken or humbled, military failure, lost support, and illness or death. These consequences are often mentioned as if simply self-generated, but references to divine providence are frequently explicit as the source of punishment, and God’s hand is meant to be behind them all. The hero David had human helpers, “[f]or your God is the one who helps you” (1 Chr 12:18 [19]). The villain Saul who died was “put to death” by God (10:13-14). (Re)turning to God would enable God’s

93

94

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

own turning again (2 Chr 30:6, 9). The high road led to God-given success, and the low road to God-imposed failure. This dominant pattern of cause and effect in Chronicles may strike readers as naïve and artificial, but it is a common feature of instruction in the OT to speak in ideal terms by encouraging good behavior with the help of such incentives and deterrents. This idealism assumes the truth of a general premise in an enthymeme, which, if not invariable, is regarded as sufficiently prevalent to be the credible basis of behavior. In the Torah, in order to get the high standards of the covenant obeyed, Israel needed the backing of the if-then blessings and curses of Lev 26 and Deut 28, and the presumed logic of the climactic appeal in Deut 30:15-20. In the Prophets, promise and penalty as goads for a right attitude are featured in Isa 1:19-20. Psalm 1 treats the book of Psalms as torah, ethical instruction, that will bring the compliant reader lush growth on the tree of life. In Prov 1:31, 33 Lady Wisdom cautions with a warning and coaxes with a promise. Nor is such motivational instruction absent from the NT, as Matt 6:33; Acts 5:1-5, 9–10; 1 Cor 11:27-31; 2 Cor 9:6-12; Phil 4:18-19; 1 Tim 5:24 attest, while to this day parents teach their children that honesty pays and cheats never prosper. Like the Bible elsewhere, Chronicles added divine providence to the moral mix, as it “instructed in the fear of God” (2 Chr 26:5; cf. Deut 5:29).

The Generational Aspect The Chronicler combined with his “seeking” theme the striking feature that cause and effect occur within a single generation, over against the longer time frame dominant in Samuel-Kings. It is often called immediate retribution, but its generational nature and a clearer word like “recompense” help us understand the sense better. This feature certainly raised the motivational level of his exhortations. It could put him at odds with his source in SamuelKings or force him to supply extra material to accommodate it. Our treatment of 2 Chr 10–36 in Chapters 5 and 6 regularly traced this feature back to Ezek 18; it was set out in principle at the beginning of Chapter 5. In Ezek 18:20 the prophet used the single-generational legal principle of Deut 24:16 to justify his broader guideline, while in turn the Chronicler took it over from 2 Kgs 14:6 at 2 Chr 25:4. For both of them this principle provided a strong incentive and deterrent in a spiritual sense. In Ezek 18:5-18 individuals from two generations, a father and a son, receive fitting outcomes for their respective

The Spirituality and Theology of Chronicles

good and bad living, while a grandson repeats the first pattern. However, two more types are added in 18:21-4, concerning a potential for change within a generation, from bad to good or from good to bad. The positive occurrence of “turn” in Ezek 18:21-32 may also have influenced its use in 2 Chr 7:14; 15:4; 36:13 and as a frame for the Chronicler’s summons to repentance in 30:6-9 (“return”). He took over the range of four types and applied them to Davidic kings for his readers to copy or shun, with David and Solomon as models for the third and first types, and subsequent kings as diverse examples. The first and third types share opting for spirituality, either undeviatingly or eventually. John’s First Letter provides an NT parallel in affirming a tension that offers back and front doors to the divine acceptance of believers in 1:6– 2:2 and in 2:3-6; 5:2-3 respectively. Yet the prophet, historiographer, and elder all focused on their own generations’ getting another chance. Ezekiel gave it a climactic role in 18:30-2, while refusing an opportunity to repent was the ultimate sin in 2 Chr 24:19; 25:16, 20; 35:22; 36:15-16 and Rehoboam’s seizing it averted God’s wrath (12:12). The opportunity to change from bad to good in repentance is presented as a divine promise to Solomon in 2 Chr 7:14, anticipated as David’s own experience in 1 Chr 21, and attributed to Manasseh at 2 Chr 33:12-13. The Chronicler found fitting language to express this reversal in the self-humbling of Lev 26:41, set in a passage that provided him with a cluster of echoes, the others being “unfaithfulness” (Hebrew m’l: m‘ l) in 26:40 (NIV) and the Sabbath rest of exile in v. 43. The Chronicler evidently supplemented the third case in Ezek 18:21-3 concerning turning away from evil with the language of Lev 26. Second Chronicles 36 cites all three echoes of that chapter: (lack of) self-humbling (v. 12), “unfaithful” (v. 14), and the exilic Sabbath-keeping (v. 21). Self-humbling is the opposite of pride, as 32:26 declares; pride is an independent spirit that either defies or ignores God. Uzziah’s violating the priestly prerogative of offering incense (26:16) exemplifies the first alternative, while in Hezekiah’s case (32:25-6), the Chronicler had in view the self-credit for his royal assets he gauged from 2 Kgs 20:12-19. The Chronicler did tone down the stringency of Ezekiel’s preaching style. Whereas God would forget the righteous deeds of backsliders according to Ezek 18:24 and only the latter stage would count, he nevertheless gave the last word to Josiah’s “faithful deeds” (2 Chr 35:26). Jehoshaphat, more saint than sinner, won the Chronicler’s approval at 20:32, in line with 1 Kgs 22:43. Likewise, Asa received a lavish funeral for his earlier faithfulness (2 Chr 16:14; cf. 21:12). But the Chronicler came down hard in the case of Rehoboam’s checkered career (12:14). He was also aware that human life

95

96

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

did not always match his dominant pattern and he could accommodate the unjust persecution of prophets in 16:10; 24:20-2, where suffering was not equated with wrongdoing because it fell outside his range of motivational exhortation (Ben Zvi 2006: 164–6). Moreover, there are nonpunitive military attacks that afforded the faith community opportunities to trust God and achieve victory (13:2b-19; 14:9-15 [8-14]; 20:1-25; 32:1-22; Kelly 1996: 195). Likewise, Hezekiah’s sickness just gave an occasion for prayer and healing (32:24). Furthermore, even good intentions were rewarded (1 Chr 14 in light of 13:3; 17:10b, 12; 2 Chr 30:18-20) and a bad intention from a Torah perspective was punished (1 Chr 13:9). The first part of the book relating to genealogies has its own function in the generational perspective of Chronicles. It sets out the basic principle of human life as a relay race run by each generation before handing its baton to the next one. The linear genealogies portray generational representatives, while the segmented ones pause to present families of siblings, and the census lists similarly pinpoint particular generations. Moreover, data is interspersed with narrative asides that are single-generation snapshots. Concluding with the return from exile in fact or prospect (1 Chr 9:2–34; 2 Chr 36:22-3) serves to assert that postexilic generations also have the right and responsibility to run in Israel’s relay race. Moreover, while the first part of the book teaches the election and inclusiveness of Israel’s offspring celebrated in 16:13 (cf. Ps 105:6), the second part returns to the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chr 3:1-16 and uses it as a framework to spell out in detail the generational outworking of the “seeking” theme. It was meant to be read as a series of spiritual case studies with the pastoral intent that the Chronicler’s postexilic generation should take them to heart in their own worship and way of life. The emphasis in the Chronicler’s exhortations is on the worship aspect—that it should be in line with practices relating to the Jerusalem temple and specifically in conformity with the rules of the Torah and their Davidic and Solomonic supplementation. As to the spiritual nature of such worship, John C. Endres (2003: 186–8) has described temple services as characterized by the praising refrain “For his steadfast love endures forever” and by joy expressed through psalm singing and music, and as helping the participants realize their identity as the people of God through the ritual complex of sacrificing, song, prayer, and eating meals together. As for way of life, its nature is largely taken for granted. It is grounded in the Torah (1 Chr 22:13; 28:8; 2 Chr 17:4). Little specific amplification is given—Jotham, for example, “ordered his ways before the LORD his God”

The Spirituality and Theology of Chronicles

(2 Chr 27:6)—apart from the administration of justice described in 19:5-11 and advocacy of a brotherly spirit in 28:8-15.

Reactive, Preexistent, and Proactive Theology The savage attack of vengeful mercenaries in 2 Chr 25:13 acknowledges that human experience could fall outside the range of the Chronicler’s spiritual program, but he characteristically worked from a providential perspective. The exhortatory nature of the “seeking” theme necessitated an emphasis on the reactive aspect of the Chronicler’s theology. Divine providence that brings about blessing or bane is a recurring feature of God’s moral activity in Chronicles (Kelly 2003: 213–14). In order to back up disastrous human consequences of failure to seek aright, a theological factor of God’s wrath or anger underlying or expressing a negative outworking often features as a deterrent, using a variety of Hebrew terms. “The anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah” for sacrilege (1 Chr 13:10 // 2 Sam 6:6), causing David to be afraid. Thereafter wrath regularly follows human wrongdoing in Chronicles. It was averted by repentance or reform in five cases (2 Chr 12:7, 12; 28:13-15; 30:8, 11; 32:25-6; 34:25-6 // 2 Kgs 22:17-20) and associated with failure to repent in three others (24:18-19; 25:15-16; 36:16). Theology could also serve as an accompanying support for spirituality, by means of dynamic presence or help, as it does in the NT at Phil 2:12b-13 after broaching a Christological example of cause and effect. Of course, for the Chronicler the very challenge to seek and find God originated in a divine summon from Scripture, in Deut 4:29; Jer 29:1314. By way of incentive, there is also a positive preexistent theology in Chronicles, based on the already-known nature of God and expressed in a series of creedal affirmations. The worshipful cry to praise YHWH, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever,” originally sung at the thanksgiving service (Jer 33:11), was used in a general hymnic sense in postexilic times (Ps 106:1 // 1 Chr 16:34). It is echoed at 16:41; 2 Chr 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21. The Chronicler applied it to David’s transportation of “the ark of the covenant” to Jerusalem and its installation in Solomon’s temple as key historical affirmations of YHWH’s everlasting covenant relationship with Israel via David (cf. 13:5; 21:7; Ezra 3:11), thus making it a proactive

97

98

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

theological feature. Also, God is characterized as one “keeping covenant in steadfast love” (2 Chr 6:14 // 1 Kgs 8:23). The term “covenant” has a number of meanings in Chronicles (Boda 2015; Jonker 2015). It is used for a pledge to seek YHWH in 2 Chr 15:12 (cf. 23:16 [// 2 Kgs 11:17]; 29:10) and so the “seeking” theme is brought to the fore by this means (McCarthy 1982: 31–2). In 34:31 (// 2 Kgs 23:3) the pledge involves recommitment to the Torah. The Mosaic “covenant” also features with reference to the tablets inside the ark at 5:10 (// 1 Kgs 8:9); 6:11 (// 1 Kgs 8:21), celebrating the amalgamation of the Mosaic and Davidic-Solomonic dispensations, while Josiah’s Torah scroll is called “the book of the covenant” in 34:30 (// 2 Kgs 23:2). However, in 1 Chr 16:1518 (// Ps 105:8-11) the Abrahamic covenant is featured, in particular its “forever “ promise of possessing the land of Canaan to Israel’s offspring (cf. 2 Chr 20:7), a promise linked with an emphasis on tribal territory in the genealogical part of Chronicles. This patriarchal covenant is incorporated into the Davidic covenant (13:5; 21:7, with 1 Chr 17:3-15 [// 2 Sam 7:4-17] in view). As a man of war, David achieved initial fulfillment of the land aspect, while its permanent fulfillment conditionally followed from Solomon and his generation’s success in observing and seeking (KJV; NRSV “search out”) the Torah’s commandments in 1 Chr 28:7-8 (cf. 16:15-18 // Ps 105:811). This “forever” feature also applies to the continuance of the Davidic monarchy (17:12, 14 [// 2 Sam 7:13, 16]; 28:4; 2 Chr 13:5; 21:7 [cf. 2 Kgs 8:19]). Israel’s own permanence is predicated in 9:8. The temple too has a “forever” promise attached to it (2:4 [3]; 30:8; cf. 1 Chr 23:25; 2 Chr 6:2 [// 1 Kgs 8:13]; 7:16 [// 1 Kgs 9:3]; 33:7 [// 2 Kgs 21:7]). There are other divine characteristics, expressed as theological assertions. In 1 Chr 29:17 God is said to be “pleased with integrity” (NIV). In 2 Chr 19:7 judges are to judge fairly, with the “fear of the LORD … for there is no perversion of justice with the LORD our God, or partiality, or taking of bribes.” David opted to fall into YHWH’s hands by way of punishment, “for his mercy is very great” (1 Chr 21:13 // 2 Sam 24:14, adding “very”). Although YHWH “keep[s] covenant with” the morally obedient (2 Chr 6:14 // 1 Kgs 8:23), repentance is commended with the incentive, “For the LORD your God is gracious and merciful” (30:9; cf. Deut 4:31). Another characteristic that is proactively expressed is YHWH’s sending of warning prophets urging repentance “because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place” (36:15). Such divine qualities that had the potential to transcend wrath were what gave human repentance its validity. This considerate warning note is itself a Deuteronomistic one (2 Kgs 17:13; cf. Neh 9:26) that reappears in

The Spirituality and Theology of Chronicles

prose sermons at Jer 7:25; 18:7-8 and is provocatively debated in the book of Jonah (Houston 1993: 178–88; cf. Japhet 1997: 176–91 = 2009: 138–49). It is striking that a number of these positive instances and more than half the cases of divine anger at work are set in contexts of repentance, which reinforces the impression that repentance was a major lesson the Chronicler wanted his own generation to learn. Finally, on an international scale “the LORD is king” (1 Chr 16:31 // Ps 96:10) and so “rule[s] over all the kingdoms of the nations” (2 Chr 20:6), a task he delegated to the Persian king (36:23). For now at least, Yehud was under God-willed foreign domination, like Judah in Rehoboam’s reign (12:8). From a national perspective, this divine kingship was the basis of the Chronicler’s insistence that Davidic kings were YHWH’s viceroys, ruling on God’s behalf. It is already clear that the Chronicler could not be satisfied with a purely reactive theology, just as Matthew’s Gospel can accommodate both reactive and initiating features in the sphere of divine forgiveness (Matt 6:12, 14–15; 18:23-35). Ben Zvi (2006: 163–5) has observed his readiness to embrace divine election and future-oriented prophecy as concepts outside of, but contributing to, his prime theme of generational recompense. In Chronicles election is never retracted, which gives it great weight (Knoppers 2015: 142). YHWH’s prior choices are multiple: Levites (1 Chr 15:2; cf. 2 Chr 29:11), David and the tribe of Judah (1 Chr 28:4; cf. Ps 78:68, 70-1), Solomon as king and temple-builder (vv. 5, 6, 10), Jerusalem (e.g., 2 Chr 6:6), and the temple as the authorized sanctuary (7:12, 16), identified in the former case with the sanctuary promised in Deut 12: 5, 11 (Nihan 2016: 263–4). Nor should one play down the choice of the offspring or sons of Israel/Jacob (1 Chr 16:13 // Ps 105:6, but with a significant change), as Japhet does (1997: 94 n. 270 = 2009: 74 n. 270). It is an aspect alternatively expressed in Chronicles in terms of God’s love for Israel (2 Chr 2:11 [10]; 9:8 // 1 Kgs 10:9). First Chronicles 16:13 provides a key to two purposes of the genealogical part of the book, to indicate Israel’s elect role among the nations and its ideal composition as made up of all its traditional tribes. The latter motif aligns with Williamson’s broader study of the Chronicler’s concept of Israel (1977a) and with Japhet’s position (1997: 267–324 = 2009: 209–54); it leaves room for the northerners to return to their spiritual home, prodigal sons though they now were in God’s family. The song also identifies this chosen, inclusive entity as YHWH-seekers (1 Chr 16:10 // Ps 105:3) and so makes its own significant contribution to the “seeking” theme. As for prophecy, Nathan’s dynastic oracle (1 Chr 17:3-15 // 2 Sam 7:4-17) is the backbone of the book. God’s decision to divide the kingdom

99

100

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

was announced in advance by the prophet Ahijah (2 Chr 10:15 // 1 Kgs 12:15), and the seventy years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah are given a weighty role in 36:21, while Huldah’s prediction of coming destruction for Jerusalem (34:24-5, 28) has the same inevitable force it has in 2 Kgs 22:16-17, 20. Historically the Chronicler had to keep to the contours laid out in 1-2 Kings, so that southern kings did not regain the north (2 Chr 11:1-4 [// 1 Kgs 12:21-4]; cf. 13:19; 35:20-2); theologically, he accepted it as the outworking of divine providence narrated in prophetically inspired texts of Scripture. Yisca Zimran (2014: 321–4) has observed the merging of the Chronicler’s two characteristic principles in ch. 21, the transgenerational dynastic promise and generational recompense. With this attention to prophecy within the sweep of the narrative, one may link the forward look beyond it, in the “forever” references of the book. There is a theological backdrop that reassuringly embraces both the past and the future of Israel’s fortunes and includes in its span Israel’s decisive present, Chronicles’ immediate focus. The Chronicler recognizes both an immanent theology and an overarching transcendent one. With regard to the Davidic dynasty and its future, Williamson (1977b, 1983) presented positive exegetical arguments for its eventual reestablishment. Yet this issue has been the most hotly contested in the study of Chronicles. In more recent scholarship William Riley (1993: 157–201) and Kenneth E. Pomykala (1995: 69–111) have spoken for many in subsuming David and Solomon’s reigns as the legitimating basis for postexilic temple worship, a role they do indeed have. Accordingly, Klein (2006: 48) is uncertain about any future Davidic role. Kelly (1996: 156–85), however, affirms a positive interpretation. So does Knoppers (1998: 101–6), despite a fly in the ointment at 2 Chr 6:16 (// 1 Kgs 8:25). Futuristic exegetes look in vain for a clue at the close of the book, which envisions Yehud’s ongoing role within the Persian Empire. Was this to be accommodated by a client monarchy at some juncture (Janzen 2017)? Or should one assume that David and Solomon, operating as independent representatives of God’s kingship—like Cyrus for now—were meant as ultimate models? There are impressive arguments on both sides of the debate. If a main purpose of the book is to present the Davidic monarchy as pinpointing for the contemporary community of Yehud the spiritual pattern they were to embrace, is there room for any future role? The repeated exile of four kings in the closing chapter is reversed by the return of only God’s people from exile. The so-called democratizing of the monarchy in Isa 55:3-5 is a parallel to be reckoned with. Yet David’s genealogy is suggestive in its

The Spirituality and Theology of Chronicles

extended continuance of the Davidic line, while the Chronicler’s adaptation of 2 Kgs 8:19 in 2 Chr 21:7, when the dynasty was endangered, is significant. Accordingly, the both-and proposals of Mark J. Boda (2013) and of Matthew J. Lynch (2015)—the latter in terms of possibility (cf. Japhet 1997: 503–4 = 2009: 392–3; Schweitzer 2007: 126–7)— are attractive. They do justice to the persistent cases of “forever” in the royal texts and enable them to be taken in terms of future expectations, along with hopes for permanence relating to the temple and possession of the land of Israel, while another type of hope was for the international recognition of YHWH mentioned in 1 Chr 16:28-31 (// Ps 96:7-10; cf. 2 Chr 2:11-12 [10-11]; 6:33 [// 1 Kgs 8:43]; 9:8 [// 1 Kgs 10:9]; Ben Zvi 1999: 227–8). If so, from a future perspective the Davidic monarchy featured as a crucial, though unelaborated, part of the Chronicler’s overall theology as well as playing a prime role in his spiritual manifesto. At this stage, however, Israel was to be the practicing heir of the Davidic tradition under the divinely appointed interregnum of the Persian government.

The Development of Tradition The significance of David and Solomon’s reigns for the Chronicler’s interpretation of the past must also be emphasized. They were his basis for understanding the postexilic situation and so for teaching torah or instruction to contemporary Yehud. They brought into force a new dispensation of divine revelation, whereby the Jerusalem temple became the successor to the Mosaic tabernacle, while in other respects the Torah remained valid. Its royal agents became role models for Israel’s temple worship and other aspects of its spirituality. Accordingly, the Chronicler played down the role of the exodus for Israel by replacing in 2 Chr 6:42 its agent, “Moses, your servant” (1 Kgs 8:53), with references to Solomon as “your anointed one” and to “your servant David.” Michael Fishbane (2000: 39) has observed that intertextuality is a form that literary creativity takes when innovation is grounded in tradition. The Chronicler echoed earlier texts and recontextualized them for his own community through his addresses and narratives. As an example of the Chronicler’s weaving together vocabulary for the “seeking” theme, we may cite Fishbane’s comparison of Azariah’s speech in 2 Chr 15:2, 4 with Deut 4:29-30 (1985: 388–9), where the same mixture of the two Hebrew verbs for

101

102

1 & 2 Chronicles: A Message for Yehud

seeking, “find,” “in distress,” and “(re)turn” occurs. “Abandon” in Deut 4:31 should be added. We can appreciate how important that passage, as well as Jer 29:13-14, was for the Chronicler’s “seeking” theme, which he also coupled with the basic range of spiritual attitudes in Ezek 18 and insights from Lev 26:40-43. Mason (1990: 200–1, 252), as part of his impressive thesis that the Chronicler’s teaching reflects the preaching of the postexilic prophets in terms of tradition, pointed to the cause-and-effect wordplay involving turning shared by 2 Chr 30:6, 9 with Zech 1:3 and Mal 3:7, “Return to me and I will return to you.” Moreover, in line with our emphasis of the influence of the generational pattern in Ezek 18 on Chronicles, terminological agreement appears in such turning at Ezek 18:21, 27-32. A scriptural treasury made up the Chronicler’s stock of tradition. The theme of tradition also features in a frequent phrase in Chronicles, “the God of their/your/our/his fathers” (NIV). As for specificity, there is an exodus link in 2 Chr 7:22 (cf. 1 Kgs 9:9) and a patriarchal identification in 1 Chr 29:18—indeed, Cudworth (2016b) has claimed such a sense throughout Chronicles, associated with promise of the land. The NRSV renders inclusively “ancestors,” but I suggested in an essay (Allen 2003: 132) that generally “predecessors” would be appropriate. For the purpose of effective spiritual illustration, Yehud’s royal ancestors were included in this designation. Japhet (1997: 16 = 2009: 13) has observed the juxtaposition of the phrase with a contemporizing formula such as “your God” in 1 Chr 29:20; 2 Chr 28:9-10; 30:7-9; 33:12; 34:33. The pairing also occurs in 1 Chr 12:17-18 (18-19); 29:16-18; 2 Chr 13:10, 12; 20:6-7, while in 36:15-16 the match occurs with God’s compassion for “his people,” a phrase significantly repeated in v. 23 with a postexilic meaning. Such pairing expresses a need to keep the traditional faith, as a challenge to the Chronicler’s own generation to take their turn and run well in life’s relay race.

The Message to Yehud In earlier chapters we have observed the spiritual significance of the text for the Chronicler’s contemporaries. In Chapter 2 we discussed the sermon-like quality of Chronicles and the applicability of speech-act theory to the book, more obviously in its addresses, but also in its narratives. Chapters 3–6 drew attention to passages that reflected the Chronicler’s spiritual purpose and appeared relevant for his own period. He advocated a spirituality centered

The Spirituality and Theology of Chronicles

on the postexilic temple in Jerusalem, as the legitimate successor to both the Mosaic tabernacle and the preexilic temple organized by David and built by Solomon for sacrifice, prayer, and praise. The accounts of their reigns promote worship, obedience to the Torah, and also repentant turning back to God after sinning. The reigns of the later kings of Judah are presented as illustrations for the present generation of Judeans to learn from by backing constant exhortations to “seek the LORD” with incentives and deterrents. With each reign the Chronicler was posing implicit questions to his own generation (Duke 1990: 103–4): “Are you like this or not in your own worship and way of life? Can you see why one king succeeded and another king suffered? Those choices are yours too.” The repeated history of royal folly and failure functioned as a series of warnings his generation needed to apply to their own experience and then to take the opportunity to begin over again with their God, who had made compassionate provision for their recovery. Who knew what manner of blessings would ensue? The Chronicler had a dream. Long ago there had been one nation of Israel, chosen by God from among the nations of the world and descended from the sons of the patriarch Jacob, who gave their names to each of the tribes. The heyday of their history had been the Southern Kingdom of David and Solomon, when the tribes joined together in joyful worship of their God. The Chronicler’s dream was for his generation to invite the northern tribes, separated for centuries in their own kingdom and recently by bad relations, to worship with them in the Jerusalem temple as one people under God, like the good old days when Solomon was king and like when Hezekiah and Josiah had endeavored to relive them. The Chronicler regarded the temple as a focus of unity for the people of God as a whole. For both north and south worshiping there would represent the religious outworking of an underlying spiritual unity. But first, like Manasseh, the Chronicler’s Yehudite generation must seek their own spiritual renewal by finding their way back to a welcoming God.

103

Bibliography

Abadie, P. “From the Impious Manasseh (2 Kings 21) to the Convert Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33): Theological Rewriting by the Chronicler.” In Graham, McKenzie, and Knoppers, The Chronicler as Theologian, 2003, 89–104. Abecassis, I. ‘“He Put to the Sword All His Brothers’ (2 Chr 21, 4)?” BN 165 (2015): 25–42. Ackroyd, P. R. “The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme.” In Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel, edited by G. W. Anderson, P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino, H. Cazelles, J. A. Emerton, E. Nielsen, H. G. May, and W. Zimmerli, 166–81. VTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Reprinted in Studies in the Religious Traditions of the Old Testament, 46–60, 261–3. London: SCM, 1987. Ackroyd, P. R. “The Age of the Chronicler.” In The Chronicler in His Age, 8–86. JSOTSup 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Reprinted from The Age of the Chronicler. Supplement to Colloquium: The Australian and New Zealand Theological Review. Auckland, New Zealand, 1970. Ackroyd, P. R. “The Chronicler as Exegete.” JSOT 1, no. 2 (1976); 2–32. Reprinted in The Chronicler in His Age, 311–44. JSOTSup 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Allen, L. C. The Greek Chronicles: The Relationship of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. Part 1. The Translator’s Craft; Part 2. Textual Criticism. VTSup 25, 27. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Allen, L. C. “Kerygmatic Units in 1 & 2 Chronicles.” JSOT 4 (1988): 21–36. Allen, L. C. “The First and Second Books of Chronicles: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible 3: 297–659. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999. Allen, L. C. “Aspects of Generational Commitment and Challenge in Chronicles.” In Graham, McKenzie, and Knoppers, The Chronicler as Theologian, 2003, 123–32. Amit, Y. “The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Chronicler’s World.” In Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, edited by M. H. Floyd and R. B. Haak, 80–101. LHBOTS 427. New York, London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Assis, E. “From Adam to Esau and Israel: An Anti-Edomite Ideology in 1 Chronicles 1.” VT 56, no. 3 (2006): 287–302. Auld, A. G. Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

Bibliography

Auld, A. G. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Auld, A. G. Life in Kings: Reshaping the Royal Story in the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Avioz, M. “Nathan’s Prophecy in II Samuel 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning.” ZAW 116, no. 4 (2004): 542–54. Bae, H-S. Vereinte Suche nach JHWH: Die Hiskianische und Josianische Reform in der Chronik. BZAW 355. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Balentine, S. E., “You Can’t Pray a Lie’: Truth and Fiction in the Prayers of Chronicles.” In Graham, Hoglund, and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Historian, 1997, 246–67. Barton, J. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Bautch, R. J., and G. N. Knoppers, editors. Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Beckwith, R. T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Beentjes, P. C. “Aspects of Innerbiblical Interpretation in 2 Chronicles 20.” In Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles, 2008, 61–77. Beentjes, P. C. “Nathan’s Oracle and David’s Prayer.” In Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles, 2008, 31–59. Beentjes, P. C. “The Narrative of Uzziah’s Leprosy in 2 Chronicles 26.” In Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles, 2008, 79–90. Beentjes, P. C. Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 52. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Begg, C. T. ‘“Seeking Yahweh’ and the Purpose of Chronicles.” Louvain Studies 9, no. 2 (1982): 128–41. Begg, C. T. “The Ark in Chronicles.” In Graham, McKenzie, and Knoppers, The Chronicler as Theologian, 2003, 133–45. Ben Zvi, E. “The Chronicler as a Historian: Building Texts.” In Graham, Hoglund and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Historian, 1997, 132–49. Ben Zvi, E. “When the Foreign Monarch Speaks.” In Graham and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author, 1999, 209–28. Ben Zvi, E. History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. London: Routledge, 2006. Ben Zvi, E. “The Secession of the Northern Kingdom in Chronicles: Accepted ‘Facts’ and New ‘Meanings.’” In History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles, 2006, 117–43. Ben Zvi, E. “Who Knew What? The Construction of the Monarchic Past in Chronicles and Implications for the Intellectual Setting of Chronicles.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B. C. E., edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz, 349–84. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

105

106

Bibliography

Ben Zvi, E. “Are There Any Bridges Out There? How Wide Was the Conceptual Gap between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles?” In Knoppers and Ristau, Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. 2009, 59–86. Ben Zvi, E. “One Size Does Not Fit All: Observations on the Different Ways That the Chronicler Dealt with the Authoritative Literature of His Time.” In Ben Zvi and Edelman, What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? 2011, 13–35. Ben Zvi, E. “On Social Memory and Identity Formation in Late Persian Yehud: A Historian’s Viewpoint with a Focus on Prophetic Literature, Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic Historical Collection.” In Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature, edited by L. Jonker, 95–168. FAT 2.53. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Ben Zvi, E. “When YHWH Tests People: General Observations and Particular Observations Regarding the Books of Chronicles and Job.” In Far from Minimal: Celebrating the Work and Influence of Philip R. Davies, edited by D. Burns and J. W. Rogerson, 11–20. London, New York: T&T Clark International, 2012. Ben Zvi, E. “Chronicles and Its Reshaping of Memories of Monarchic Period Prophets: Some Observations.” In Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography, edited by M. J. Boda and L. M. Wray Beal, 167–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013a. Ben Zvi, E. “Reading Chronicles and Reshaping the Memory of Manasseh.” In Evans and Williams, Chronicling the Chronicler, 2013b, 121–40. Ben Zvi, E., and A. Labahn. “A Sense of Proportion: An Aspect of the Theology of the Chronicler.” In History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles, 2006, 160–73. Ben Zvi, E., and D. V. Edelman, editors. What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Berquist, J. L. Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Boda, M. J. 1-2 Chronicles. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 5a. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2010. Boda, M. J. “Gazing through the Cloud of Incense: Davidic Dynasty and Temple Community in the Chronicler’s Perspective.” In Evans and Williams, Chronicling the Chronicler, 2013, 215–45. Boda, M. J. “Reenvisioning the Relationship: Covenant in Chronicles.” In Bautch and Knoppers, Covenant in the Persian Period, 2015, 391–407. Bodner, K. The Artistic Dimension: Literary Explorations of the Hebrew Bible. London, New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Braun, R. 1 Chronicles. WBC 14. Waco, TX: Word, 1986.

Bibliography

Braun, R. L. “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles.” JBL 92, no. 4 (1973): 503–16. Briggs, R. S. Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation. Toward a Hermeneutic of Self- Involvement. Edinburgh and New York: T&T Clark, 2001. Briggs, R. S. “Speech Act Theory.” In Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, edited by K. J. Vanhoozer, G. C. Bartholomew, D. J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, 762–6. London: SPCK; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. Buss, M. J. “Potential and Actual Interactions between Speech Act Theory and Biblical Studies.” Semeia 41 (1988): 125–34. Clines, D. J. A. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 205. Gender, Culture, Theory 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Coats, G. W. Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. FOTL 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Cook, S. E. The Solomon Narratives in the Context of the Hebrew Bible Told and Retold. LHBOTS 638. London: Bloomsbury: T&T Clark, 2017. Cross, F. M. “A New Reconstruction of 4QSamuela 24: 16-22.” In Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, edited by P. W. Flint, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam, 77–83. VTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Cudworth, T. D. “The Division of Israel’s Kingdom in Chronicles: A Reexamination of the Usual Suspects.” Bib 95, no. 4 (2014): 498–523. Cudworth, T. D. War in Chronicles: Temple Faithfulness and Israel’s Place in the Land. LHBOTS 627. London: Bloomsbury: T&T Clark, 2016a. Cudworth, T. D. “The God of the Fathers in Chronicles.” JBL 135, no. 3 (2016b): 483–91. Davies, P. R. “The Jerusalem Literary Circle.” In History, Memory, Hebrew Scriptures: A Festschrift for Ehud Ben Zvi, edited by I. D. Wilson and D. Edelman, 301–16. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. De Vries, S. J. “Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles.” JBL 107, no. 4 (1988): 619–39. De Vries, S. J. 1 and 2 Chronicles. FOTL 11. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Dillard, R. B. “Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retribution.” WTJ 46, no. 1 (1984): 164–72. Dillard, R. B. 2 Chronicles. WBC 15. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Dirksen, P. B. 1 Chronicles, translated by A. P. Runia. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Doan, W., and T. Giles. “The Song of Asaph: A Performance-Critical Analysis of Chronicles 16: 8-36.” CBQ 70, no. 1 (2008): 29–43. Duke, R. K. The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis. Bible and Literature Series 25. JSOTSup 88. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990.

107

108

Bibliography

Duke, R. K. “A Rhetorical Approach to Appreciating the Books of Chronicles.” In Graham and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author, 1999, 100–35. Duke, R. K. “The Strategic Use of Enthymeme and Example in the Argumentation of the Books of Chronicles.” In Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts, edited by A. Eriksson, T. H. Olbricht, and W. Ubelacker, 127–40. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002. Duke, R. K. “Research in Chronicles.” Currents in Biblical Research 8, no. 1 (2009): 10–50. Dyck, J. E. The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler. Biblical Interpretation Series 33. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Edelman, D. “The Asherite Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7: 3-40.” Biblical Research 33 (1988): 13–23. Endres, J. C. “Theology of Worship in Chronicles.” In Graham, McKenzie, and Knoppers, The Chronicler as Theologian, 2003, 165–88. Endres, J. C., W. R. Millar, and J. B. Burns. Chronicles and Its Synoptic Parallels in Samuel, Kings, and Related Biblical Texts. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988. Eskenazi, T. C. “A Literary Approach to Chronicles’ Ark Narrative in 1 Chronicles 13-16.” In Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by A. B. Beck, A. H. Bartelt, P. R. Raabe, and C. A. Franke, 258–74. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1995. Evans, C. A. “Luke’s Good Samaritan and the Chronicler’s Good Samaritans.” In Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels. Volume 3: The Gospel of Luke, edited by T. Hatina, 32–42. Studies in Early Judaism and Christianity. Library of New Testament Studies 376. London, New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Evans, D. D. The Logic of Self-Involvement: A Philosophical Study of Everyday Language, with Special Reference to the Christian Use of Language about God as Creator. The Library of Philosophy and Theology. London: SCM: 1963. Evans, P. “Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21: An Overlooked Aspect of the Chronicler’s Theology.” Bib 85, no. 4 (2004): 545–58. Evans, P. S. “Let the Crime Fit the Punishment: The Chronicler’s Explication of David’s ‘Sin’ in 1 Chronicles 21.” In Evans and Williams, Chronicling the Chronicler, 2013, 65–60. Evans, P. S., and T. F. Williams, editors. Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fishbane, M. “Types of Biblical Intertextuality.” In Congress Volume Oslo 1998, edited by A. Lemaire and M, Saebo, 39–44. VTSup 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Giffone, B. D. “Sit at My Right Hand”: The Chronicler’s Portrait of the Tribe of Benjamin in the Social Context of Yehud. LHBOTS 628. New York: Bloomsbury, 2016.

Bibliography

Glatt-Gilad, D. A. “The Root kn‘ and Historic Periodization in Chronicles.” CBQ 64, no. 2 (2002): 248–57. Goltz, T. D. “The Chronicler as Elite: Establishing an Atmosphere of Perpetuity in Jerusalemite Yehud.” In The Function of Historiography in Biblical and Cognate Studies, edited by P. G. Kirkpatrick and T. D. Goltz, 91–110. LHBOTS 489. New York, London: T&T Clark, 2008. Goswell, G. “Putting the Book of Chronicles in Its Place.” JETS 60, no. 2 (2017): 283–99). Graham, M. P. “Aspects of the Structure and Rhetoric of 2 Chronicles 25.” In History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes, edited by M. P. Graham, W. P. Brown, and J. K. Kuan, 78–89. JSOTSup 173. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Graham, M. P. “Setting the Heart to Seek God: Worship in 2 Chronicles 30: 1-31:1.” In Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of John T. Willis, edited by M. P. Graham, R. R. Marrs, and S. L. McKenzie, 124–47. JSOTSup 284. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Graham, M. P., and S. L. McKenzie, editors. The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture. JSOTSup 263. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Graham, M. P., K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie, editors. The Chronicler as Historian, JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Graham, M. P., S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers, editors. The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honour of Ralph W. Klein. JSOTSup 371. London: T&T Clark International, 2003. Hartenstein, F., and T. Willi, editors. Psalmen und Chronik. FAT 2: 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Heath, E. “Jabez: A Man Named Pain: An Integrative Hermeneutical Exercise.” Ashland Theological Journal 33 (2001): 7–16. Hom, M. K. Y. H. “Chiasmus in Chronicles: Investigating the Structures of 2 Chronicles 28: 16-21;33: 1-20;and 31: 20-32:33.” AUSS 47, no. 2 (2009): 163–80 Hooker, P. K. First and Second Chronicles. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Houston, W. “What Did the Prophets Think They Were Doing? Speech Acts and Prophetic Discourse in the Old Testament.” BibInt 1, no. 2 (1993): 166–88. Janzen, D. Chronicles and the Politics of Davidic Restoration: A Quiet Revolution. LHBOTS 655. London: Bloomsbury: T&T Clark, 2017. Janzen, D. “A Monument and a Name: The Primary Purpose of Chronicles’ Genealogies.” JSOT 43, no. 1 (2018): 45–66. Japhet, S. “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.” In Congress Volume Leuven 1989, edited by J. A. Emerton, 298–313. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Reprinted in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands

109

110

Bibliography

of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period, 169–82. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Japhet, S. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Japhet, S. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, translated by A. Barber. 2nd edition. BEATAJ 9. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1997. Reprinted with different pagination. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Jeon, Y. H. Impeccable Solomon? A Study of Solomon’s Faults in Chronicles. Eugene: OR: Pickwick, 2013. Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of the Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. SNTSMS 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Johnstone, W. 1 and 2 Chronicles. 2 vols. JSOTSup 253, 254. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Jones, G. H. 1 & 2 Chronicles. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Jonker, L. C. “Who Constitutes Society? Yehud’s Self-Understanding in the Later Persian Era.” JBL 127, no. 4 (2008): 703–24. Jonker, L. C. “‘The Ark of the Covenant of the LORD’: The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology.” In Bautch and Knoppers, Covenant in the Persian Period, 2015, 409–29. Kalimi, I. An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 46. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005a. Kalimi, I. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005b. Kalimi, I. “Robbers on the Road to Jericho. Luke’s Story of the Good Samaritan and Its Origin in Kings/Chronicles.” ETL 85, no. 1 (2009): 47–53. Kaminsky, J. S. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 196. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Kartveit, M. “2 Chronicles 36. 20-23 as Literary and Theological ‘Interface.’” In Graham and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author, 1999, 395–403. Kegler, J., and M. Augustin. Synopse zum chronistischen Geschichtswerk. 2nd edition. BEATAJ 1. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1991. Kelly, B. E. Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles. JSOTSup 211. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Kelly, B. E. “Manasseh in the Books of Kings and Chronicles (2 Kings 21: 1-19;2 Chron. 33: 1-20).” In Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel, edited by V. P. Long, D. W. Baker, and G. J. Wenham, 131–46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Kelly, B. E. “‘Retribution’ Revisited: Covenant, Grace and Restoration.” In Graham, McKenzie, and Knoppers, The Chronicler as Theologian, 2003, 206–27.

Bibliography

Kim, Y. S. The Temple Administration and the Levites in Chronicles. CBQMS 51. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2014. Klein, N. “Between Genealogy and Historiography: Er, Achar and Saul in the Book of Chronicles.” VT 66, no. 2 (2016): 217–44. Klein, R. W. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Klein, R. W. 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Kleinig, J. W. The Lord’s Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles. JSOTSup 156. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Kleinig, J. W. “Recent Research in Chronicles.” CRBS 2 (1994): 43–76. Knoppers, G. N. “‘Battling against Yahweh.’ Israel’s War against Judah in 2 Chr 13: 2-20.” RB 100, no. 4 (1993): 511–32. Knoppers, G. N. “Jehoshaphat’s Judiciary and the Scroll of YHWH’s Torah.” JBL 113, no. 1 (1994): 59–80. Knoppers, G. N. “Images of Early Judaism: David as Repentant Sinner in Chronicles.” Bib 76, no. 4 (1995): 449–70. Knoppers, G. N. “‘Yahweh Is Not with Israel’: Alliances as a Topos in Chronicles.” CBQ 58, no. 4 (1996): 601–26. Knoppers, G. N. “History and Historiography: The Royal Reforms.” In Graham, Hoglund and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Historian, 1997, 178–203. Knoppers, G. N. “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Content and Conditions of the Davidic Promises.” In King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, edited by J. Day, 91–118. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Knoppers, G. N. “Jerusalem at War in Chronicles.” In Zion, City of Our God, edited by R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham, 57–76. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Knoppers, G. N. “Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah.” JBL 120, no. 1 (2001): 15–30. Knoppers, G. N. “The Relationship of the Priestly Genealogies to the History of the High Priesthood in Jerusalem.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 109–33. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003a. Knoppers, G. N. I Chronicles 1-9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12. New York: Doubleday, 2003b. Knoppers, G. N. I Chronicles 10-29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12A. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Knoppers, G. N. “The Relationship of the Deuteronomistic History to Chronicles: Was the Chronicler a Deuteronomist?” In Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, edited by M. Nissin, 307–41. VTSup 138. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

111

112

Bibliography

Knoppers, G. N. “Judah, Levi, David, Solomon, Jerusalem, and the Temple: Election and Covenant in Chronicles.” In MacDonald, Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, 2015, 139–68. Knoppers, G. N., and K. A. Ristau, editors. Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Ko, M. H. The Levite Singers in Chronicles and Their Stabilising Role. LHBOTS 657. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. Lansing, S. S. The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. Löwisch, I. “Cracks in the Male Mirror: References to Women as Challenges to Patrilinear Authority in the Genealogies of Judah.” In Ben Zvi and Edelman, What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? 2011, 105–32. Lynch, M. J. “The Davidic Covenant and institutional Integration in Chronicles.” In MacDonald, Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, 2015, 169–88. MacDonald, N., editor. Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism. FAT 2: 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Mason, R. Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. McCann, J. C., Jr. “The Psalms as Instruction.” Int 46, no. 2 (1992): 117–28. McCarthy, D. J. “Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah.” CBQ 44, no. 1 (1982): 25–44. McKenzie, S. L. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 33. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985. McKenzie, S. L. 1-2 Chronicles. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004. Merrill, E. H. “History.” In Sandy and Giese, Cracking Old Testament Codes, 1995, 89–112. Moores, J. D. Wrestling with Rationality in Paul: Romans 1-8 in a New Perspective. London and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Mosis, R. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes. Freiburger theologische Studien 92. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1973. Muilenburg, J. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” JBL 88, no. 1 (1969): 1–18. Murray, D. F. “Under YHWH’s Veto: David as Shedder of Blood in Chronicles.” Bib 82, no. 4 (2010): 457–76. Newkirk, M. Just Deceivers: An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015. Nielsen, K. “Whose Song of Praise? Reflections on the Purpose of the Psalm in 1 Chronicles 16.” In Graham and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author, 1999, 327–36.

Bibliography

Nihan, C. “Textual Fluidity and Rewriting in Parallel Traditions: The Case of Samuel and Chronicles.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 4 (2013): 186–209. Nihan, C. “Cult Centralization and the Torah Traditions in Chronicles.“ In The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, edited by P. Dubovsky, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet, 253–88. FAT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Oeming, M. Das wahre Israel: Die genealogische “Vorhalle” 1 Chronik 1-9. BWANT 128. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990. Pakkala, J. “Selective Transmission of the Past in Chronicles: Jehoiada’s Rebellion in 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 22: 10-23:21.”In Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah, edited by E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin, 239–56. FAT 85. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Peltonen, K. History Debated: The Historical Reliability of Chronicles in Pre-Critical and Critical Research. 2 vols. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 64. Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society; Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Peltonen, K. “A Jigsaw without a Model? The Date of Chronicles.” In Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, edited by L. L. Grabbe, 225–71. JSOTSup 317. European Seminar in Historical Methodology 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Petersen, D. L. Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles. SBLMS 23. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. Pomykala, K. E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism. SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 7. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Pratt, M. L. Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977. Proctor, M. A. “‘Who Is My Neighbor?’ Recontextualizing Luke’s Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37).” JBL 138, no. 1 (2019): 207–19. Rad, G. von. “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles.” In The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, translated by E. W. T. Dicken, 267–80. Edinburgh, London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. Reprinted in From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology, edited by K. C. Hanson, 232–42, 265. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Riley, W. King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History. JSOTSup 169. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Ristau, K. A. “Breaking Down Unity: An Analysis of 1 Chronicles 21: 1-22:1.” JSOT 30, no. 2 (2005): 201–21. Ristau, K. A. “Reading and Rereading Josiah: The Chronicler’s Representation of Josiah for the Postexilic Community.” In Knoppers and Ristau, Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, 2009, 219–47.

113

114

Bibliography

Rudman, D. “Zechariah and the Satan Tradition in the Hebrew Bible.” In Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, edited by M. J. Boda and M. Floyd, 191–209. LHBOTS 475. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Rudolph, W. Chronikbücher. HAT 1: 21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Sandy, D. B., and R. L. Giese, Jr., editors. Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Schams, C. Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period. JSOTSup 291. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Schniedewind, W. M. “The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily.” VT 41, no. 4 (1991): 450–61. Schniedewind, W. M. The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period. JSOTSup 197. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Schniedewind, W. M. “The Chronicler as an Interpreter of Scripture.” In Graham and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author, 1999, 158–80. Schweitzer, S. J. Reading Utopia in Chronicles. LHBOTS 442. New York, London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Schweitzer, S. J. “Judging a Book by Its Citations, Sources and Authority in Chronicles.” In Ben Zvi and Edelman, What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? 2011, 37–65. Schweitzer, S. J. “Exile, Empire, and Prophecy: Reframing Utopian Concerns in Chronicles.” In Worlds That Could Not Be: Utopia in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, edited by S. J. Schweitzer and F. Uhlenbruch, 81–104. LHBOTS 620. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Searle, J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Selman, M. J. 1 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary; 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. TOTC. Leicester, Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1994. Sommer, B. D. “Psalm 1 and the Canonical Shaping of Jewish Scripture.” In Jewish Bible Theology: Perspectives and Case Studies, edited by I. Kalimi, 100–221. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Sparks, J. T. The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1-9. Academia Biblica 28. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008. Spawn, K. L. “The Citation and Interpretation of the Law in Chronicles: The Chronicler’s Distribution of Exegetical Devices in the Narratives of Solomon and Hezekiah.” In Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by I. Provan and M. J. Boda, 317–28. VTSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.

Bibliography

Stokes, R. E. “The Devil Made Me Do It … Or Did He? The Nature, Identity and Literary Origins of the Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1.” JBL 128, no. 1 (2009): 91–106. Stott, K. M. Why Did They Write This Way? Reflections on References to Written Documents in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature. LHBOTS 492. New York, London: T&T Clark, 2008. Sweeney, M. A. “Tanak versus Old Testament: Concerning the Foundation for a Jewish Theology of the Bible.” In Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, edited by H. T. C. Sun and K. L. Eades, 353–72. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Talshir, Z. “The Art of Quotation in the Book of Chronicles.” In Hartenstein and Willi, Psalmen und Chronik, 2019, 73–109. Throntveit, M. A. When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles. SBLDS 93. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Throntveit, M. A. “Songs in a New Key: The Psalmic Structure of the Chronicler’s Hymn (1 Chr. 16: 8-36).” In A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, edited by B. A. Strawn and N. R. Bowen, 153–70. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Throntveit, M. A. “The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon in the Books of Chronicles.” In Graham, McKenzie, and Knoppers, The Chronicler as Theologian, 2003, 105–21. Tiňo, J. King and Temple in Chronicles: A Contextual Approach to Their Relations. FRLANT 234. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Ulrich, E. C., Jr. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. HSM 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Ulrich, E. C., Jr. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” In The Canon Debate, edited by L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders, 21–35. Peabody. MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Ulrich, E. C., Jr. “A Qualitative Account of the Textual Profile of 4QSama.” In Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, edited by A. Hilhorst, E. Puech, and G. J. C. Tigchelaar, 147–61. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Van Seters, J. “The Chronicler’s Account of Solomon’s Temple-Building: A Continuity Theme.” In Graham, Hoglund, and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Historian, 1997, 283–300. Van Seters, J. “The ‘Shared Text’ of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles Reexamined.” In Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, edited by R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and B. Aucker, 503–15. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Vanhoozer, K. J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

115

116

Bibliography

Vanhoozer, K. J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Vaughn, A. G. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Warhurst, A. K. “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets.” In Ben Zvi and Edelman, What Was Authoritative in Chronicles? 2011, 168–82. Wenham, G. J. Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Psalms Ethically. Studies in Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Westermann, C. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, translated by J. J. Scallion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Wilkinson, B. H. The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life of Jabez. Sisters, OR: Multinomah Press, 2000. Willi, T. Die Chronik als Auslegung. FRLANT 106. Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Willi, T. Chronik. BKAT 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991– 2019. Williamson, H. G. M. “The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles.” VT 26, no. 3 (1976): 351–61. Reprinted in Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, 2004, 141–9. Williamson, H. G. M. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977a. Williamson, H. G. M. “Eschatology in Chronicles.” Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977b): 115–54. Reprinted in Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, 2004, 162–95. Williamson, H. G. M. “The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses: A Study of 1 Chronicles xxiii-xxvii.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, edited by J. A. Emerton, 251–68. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979a. Reprinted in Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, 2004, 126–40. Williamson, H. G. M. “Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogy of Judah.” JBL 98, no. 3 (1979b): 351–9. Reprinted in Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, 2004, 106–14. Williamson, H. G. M. “‘We Are Yours, O David.’ The Setting and Purpose of 1 Chronicles xii 1-23,” in Remembering All the Way: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland, edited by B. Albrektson, 164–76. OTS 21. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Reprinted in Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, 2004, 115–25. Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Bibliography

Williamson, H. G. M. “The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles.” In Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, edited by A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch, 3: 305–18. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983. Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC 16. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Williamson, H. G. M. “Chronicles 1, 2: Theology of.” In The New International Dictionary of Theology and Exegesis, edited by W. A, VanGemeren, 4: 466–74. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Williamson, H. G. M. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography. FAT 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Williamson, H. G. M. “The Use of Psalm 132 in 2 Chronicles 6:41-42.” In Hartenstein and Willi, Psalmen und Chronik, 2019, 409–24. Wright, J. W. “The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23-27.” JBL 110, no. 2 (1991): 229–42. Wright, J. W. “The Fabula of the Book of Chronicles.” In Graham and McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author, 1999, 136–55. Young, R. A. Hezekiah in History and Tradition. VTSup 155. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2012. Zahn, M. M. “Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment.” JBL 121, no. 2 (2012): 271–88. Zimran, Y. “‘The Covenant Made with David’: The King and the Kingdom in 2 Chronicles 21.” VT 64, no. 2 (2014): 305–25.

117

Index of Authors

Abadie, P. 86 Abecassis, I. 73 Allen, L. C. 19, 31, 45, 66, 68, 70, 85, 102 Amit, Y. 9 Assis, E. 26 Auld, A. G. 8 Avioz, M. 47, 48, 60 Bae, H. S. 79 Balentine, S. E. 60 Barton, J. 5 Beckwith, R. T. 17 Beentjes, P. C. 48, 71, 77 Begg, C. T. 24, 44, 93 Ben Zvi, E. 4, 5, 8, 10, 65, 85, 88, 96, 99, 101 Berquist, J. L. 5 Boda, M. J. 83, 98, 101 Bodner, K. 74 Braun, R. 17, 27–9 Briggs, R. S. 21, 22 Buss, M. J. 23 Clines, D. J. A. 91 Coats, G. W. 2 Cook, S. E. 14 Cross, F. M. 50 Cudworth, T. D. 27, 47, 64, 102 Davies, P. R. 5 De Vries, S. J. 16, 23–5, 30, 34–6, 51, 53, 60, 71, 88 Dillard, R. B. 18, 58, 61, 63, 76, 93 Dirksen, P. B. 3, 31, 47 Doan, W., and T. Giles 22 Duke, R. K. 3, 11–16, 21, 23, 27, 40, 58, 64, 93, 102 Dyck, J. E. 91

Edelman, D. 36 Endres, J. C. 96 Endres, J. C., W. R. Viviano, and J. B. Fitzgerald 8 Eskenazi, T. C. 43, 44 Evans, C. H. 79 Evans, D. D. 21, 22 Evans, P. S. 50 Fishbane, M. 76, 88, 101 Gaffone, B. D. 3, 35 Glatt-Gilad, D. A. 15 Goltz, T. D. 5 Goswell, G. 1 Graham, M. P. 76, 84 Hom, M. K. Y. H. 86 Hooker, P. K. 27 Houston, W. 99 Janzen, D. 8, 16 Japhet, S. 4, 9, 14, 16–18, 31, 36–8, 44, 45, 49, 50, 55, 58, 61, 63, 64, 66, 69, 74, 84–6, 91, 99, 101, 102 Jeon, Y. H. 14 Johnson, M. D. 26 Johnstone, W. 89 Jones, G. H. ix Jonker, L. C. 17, 43, 98 Kalimi, I. 6, 16, 20, 24, 29, 30, 41, 43, 79, 90 Kaminsky, J. S. 64 Kartveit, M. 27 Kegler, J., and M. Augustin 8 Kelly, B. E. 27, 50, 63, 87, 93, 96, 97, 100

Index of Authors Kim, Y. S. 3, 6, 55, 75, 84 Klein, N. 16 Klein, R. W. 2, 3, 6, 8, 27–30, 40, 41, 55, 65, 70, 71, 83, 84, 100 Kleinig, J. W. 3, 11, 44, 46, 54, 82 Knoppers, G. N. 3, 6–9, 24, 30, 34, 41, 42. 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 67, 68, 72, 99 Ko, M. H. 34, 43, 54 Lansing, S. S. 22 Lӧwisch, I. 58 Lynch, M. J. 101 Mason, R. 5, 18, 19, 51, 65, 72, 83, 85, 90, 102 McCann, J. C. 5, 24 McCarthy, D. J. 98 McKenzie, S. L. 8, 32, 43, 49, 50, 70, 71 Moores, J. D. 12 Mosis, R. 40, 43 Muilenburg, J. 11 Murray, D. F. 51 Newkirk, M. 70 Nielsen, K. 22 Nihan, C. 8, 40, 61, 99 Oeming, M. 16, 27, 35 Pakkala, M. 74 Peltonen, K. 6, 7, 9 Petersen, D. L. 54 Pomykala, K. E. 100 Pratt, M. L. 28 Proctor, M. A. 79 Rad, G. von 4, 16, 19 Riley, W. 100 Ristau, K. A. 15, 50 Rudman, D. 50 Rudolph, W. 81

Sandy, D. H., and R. L. Giese 23 Schams, C. 5 Schniedewind, W. M. 7, 9, 11, 23, 56, 61, 67, 72, 87, 90, 92 Schweitzer, S. J. 6–9, 35, 60, 68, 72, 101 Searle, J. R. 20 Selman, M. J. 27, 46, 52, 63 Sommer, B. D. 24 Sparks, J. T. 25, 27–31 Spawn, K. L. 59 Sternberg, M. 9 Stokes, R. E. 50 Stott, K. M. 8 Sweeney, M. E. 1 Talshir, Z. 18 Throntveit, M. A. 14, 15, 23, 45, 84 Tiňo, J. 8, 41, 46, 71 Ulrich, E. C. 7, 50 Van Seters, J. 8, 59 Vanhoozer, K. J. 2, 23 Vaughn, A. G. 85 Warhurst, A. K. 18 Wenham, G. J. 24 Wilkinson B. H. 30 Willi, T. 20, 26, 33, 37, 40, 42, 47 Williamson, H. G. M. 2, 4, 6, 9, 15, 20, 26–30, 33, 34, 36, 41, 44, 48, 52, 54, 57, 60, 65, 67, 84, 86–8, 90, 99, 100 Wright, J. W. 16, 33, 55 Young, R. A. 82, 88 Zahn, M. M. 24 Zimran, Y. 100

119

Index of Biblical References

Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Genesis 1–2 22 1:28 26 5 26 5:1-32 16 6–8 16 9:1 26 9:7 26 10 26 10–11 16 11 26 12–50 16 17:7-8 46 17:20 26 22:2 59 22:13-14 59 22:14b 59 22:17 55 25 26 25:25-6 27 28:3 26 30:6 28 35:11 26 35:12 46 35:22 29 35:23-6 28 36 26 36:31 26 38:2-7 30 38:7 30 38:29-30 30 46 35 46:17 36 47:27 26 48:3-6 29 48:4 26, 46

49:3-4 49:8 49:10

29 29 29

Exodus 6:16 12:2 12:6 12:18 12:19 14:13 14:13-14 15 18:19-26 25:1-9 25:9 25:14-15 25:22 25:30 25:40 27:1-8 30:7 30:12-16 35:4-29

34 83 83 83 88 19, 72 72 44 71 56 56 44 42 38 56 44, 50 77 75 56

Leviticus 9:24 13:34-6 19:18b 19:21 23:36 24:5-9 25:23 25:44-6 26 26:34-5 26:40-3

51 77 79 41 60 38 57 79 94 90 102

Index of Biblical References 26:41 95 26:43 90, 95 27:1-8 50 27:30-3 84 28:41 95 Numbers 1:3 35 1:5-15 4, 55 2:1-34 32 3:14-39 54 4:1-49 54 4:15 43, 44 6:22-7 54 7:9 44 7:89 42 10:10 44 10:17 54 16:39-40 77 18:18-32 84 25:6-13 38 26:5-6 31 26:12-14 31 26:38-40 36 26:39 35 26:59 34 29:35 60 31:19-24 51 35:1-8 33, 34 35:30 51 35:33-4 51 Deuteronomy 1:16-17 4:29 4:29-30 4:30 4:31 5:29 7:5 7:25 8:2 8:16 10:5

19 68, 92, 97 10 86 98, 102 94 43 43 85 85 43

10:8 44 10:17 19 12:5 99 12:5-11 61 12:10-11 51 13:12-18 (13-19) 67 16:1-8 83 16:7 88 16:18-20 19, 71 17:8-13 70 17:15 55 18:8-32 84 18:10-11 41 21:17 29 24:16 76, 94 28 94 29:31 87 30:15-20 94 Joshua 1:6-9 6:5 6-7 6:16 6:20 7:1 7:17-26 7:24-6 10:25 15:63 18:1 19 19:2-8 21:2 21:3 21:8

52 67 30 67 67 30 30 30 19 36 40 35 31 33 35 35

Judges 1:21 6:28 19:21

36 51 67

Ruth 4:18-22

30

121

122

Index of Biblical References 1 Samuel 1:1 1:18 2:18 3:15 11:1-13 13:1 13:4 13:13-14 15:23 15:26 15:28 16:1-13 17: 49 17:47 28:7 28:19 31:6 31:7 31:11-13 2 Samuel 5:1-3 5:6 5:6-10 5:11 5:11-25 5:14-16 5:20a 5:21 6:6 6:1-11 6:12-19 6:15 6:17-20a 7 7:4-17 7:5 7:7 7:11 7:13 7:14b 7:14-17

34 34 34 38 40 39 39 40 40 40 41 41 19 40 40 40 40 40

41 42 42 47 43 41 44 43 43, 97 43 44 44 44 84 98, 99 47 41 47, 48 98 48 98, 99

7:15 41, 48 7:16 48, 98 8:1 47, 49 8:1-18 49 8:4 49 8:6 47, 49 8:15 70 8:16 42 10:1–11:1 49 10:6 49 10:12 49 11:13 44 11:27b 50 12:26 49 12:30-1 49 17:23 60 21:18 49 21:18-22 49 21:19: 49 23:8-39 41 23:9 20 23:27 20 24:1 50 24:10 50 24:10-25 50 24:14 98 24:16-22 50, 51 24:17 50 1 Kings 1:5–2:25 1:10 1:22-40 2:1-12 2:4 2:11-12 3:2-4 3:3-4 3:5-15 3:7 3:9-12 3:13 3:15

57 59 61 52 51 57 58 40 59 51 52 52 52

Index of Biblical References 4:7-19 54 4:21 (5:1) 59, 61 4:26 (5:6) 59 4:31 (5:11) 30 5:2-12 (16-26) 59 5:3-5 (17-19) 51 5:7b (21b) 59 5:13 (27)-7:51 59 7:51 59 8:1 59 8:1-11 59 8:2 60 8:4 44 8:6 59 8:7-8 44 8:9  43, 59, 60, 98 8:12-21 60 8:13 98 8:16 32, 60 8:18 48 8:19 47 8:20 32 8:21 98 8:22-53 60 8:23 61, 97, 98 8:25 100 8:27 32 8:29-30 84 8:33-40 71 8:36 63 8:41-3 83 8:43 101 8:44-5 70 8:53 60, 101 8:54-61 60 8:62-6 60 8:65-6 60 9:1-9 60 9:3 32, 61, 98 9:6 57 9:7 61 9:9 60, 102

9:10-24 61 9:24 61 9:25 61 9:26–10:13 61 10:9 70, 99, 101 10:14-29 61 10:22-9 59 10:26-9 59 11:1-40 61 11:4 57, 58 11:9 58 11:31-3 64 11:37-9 65 11:41-3 61 12 17 12-2 Kgs 17, 65 12:1 65 12:1-19 65 12:3 65 12:4 65 12:6 17 12:9-11 65 12:15 17, 65, 100 12:19 65 12:21-4 65, 100 12:22-4 65 12:24 65 12:26-33 65 13:1-10 61, 67 13:33 65 14:7-10 65 14:21-2 66 14:22-3 65 14:22-4 67 14:29-31 66 15:1-2 66 15:4 77 15:5 77 15:7a 67 15:7b 66 15:8 67 15:9 67 15:11 67

123

124

Index of Biblical References 15:12 67 15:14 67 15:14a 67 15:15 66 15:16-22 68 15:23 67 15:23-4 67 15:24b 69 16:1-4 72 16:1b-6 68 16:7 72 22:2 70 22:4 68 22:4-35 70 22:5 69 22:7 69 22:8 69 22:17-20 97 22:20-2 70 22:32 70 22:36-8 70 22:41-50 72 22:43 95 22:43a 69, 72 22:43b 69, 72 22:48-9 72 2 Kings 3:14-27 8:17-19 8:18 8:19 8:20-2 8:25b-29 8:27 9:1-28 10:12-14 11 11:1-20 11:3 11:4 11:13-14 11:14

71 73 72 72, 98, 101 73 73 72 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 74

11:17 11:18b 11:19 11:20 12:1-2 (3–4) 12:3 (4) 12:4 (5) 12:4-16 (5–17) 12:17-18 (18–19) 12:20-1 (21–2) 12:21b (22b) 14:1-14 14:3 14:6 14:10 14:17-20 14:21-2 15:1-7 15:3 15:4 15:13 15:19 15:29 15:33 15:33-8 15:34 15:37 16 16:2 16:2b-5 16:6 16:7-8 16:17-18 16:20 17:6 17:13 17:13-15 18-20 18:2-3 18:3 18:3 18:7 18:7a

74, 98 74 74 74 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 76 75, 76 76, 94 75 76 76 76 75, 77 77 77 32 32 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 32 98 90 84 85 82 82 82 84

Index of Biblical References 18:11-12 32 18:21 68 19:4 84 19:15-20 84 20:12-19 85, 95 20:16-18 85 20:20 84, 85 21:1-9 86 21:2 85, 86 21:6 86 21:7  32, 42, 85, 98 21:7-9 86 21:9 86 21:10-15 86 21:17 86 21:17-18 87 21:19-26 67 21:20 85 21:21 85 22:1-2 87 22:3-20 87 22:13 87, 92 22:16-17 100 22:18 87 22:19 85 22:20 88 23:1-3 87 23:2 88, 98 23:2-3 90 23:3 98 23:4-20 88 23:22 88 23:29-30 88 23:31–24:17 89 23:37 89 23:32 89 24:3 89 24:6 89 24:9 89 24:13 89 24:18–25:11 89 24:19 90 24:20a 90

24:20b 25:14-15

90 89

1 Chronicles 1 16 1–9  5, 16, 27, 64 1:1–2:2 27 1:1-4 25 1:1-23 26 1:1–9:34 16 1:4-5 26 1:17 26 1:24-7 26 1:27-8 26 1:32-3 26 1:32-3 26 1:34 26 1:34b 27 1:35 28 1:37 26 1:38-54 26 1:43 26 2–7 31 2–9 26 2:1 26, 27 2:1-2 25, 35 2:2 28, 29 2:3 29, 64 2:3-4 32 2:3-5 29 2:3–4:23 29 2:3–8:40 28 2:3–9:11 27 2:3b 30 2:4 27 2:4-5 29 2:6 30 2:6-8 29 2:7 30, 92 2:9 29 2:10-12 30 2:10-17 29, 30 2:18-20 29

125

126

Index of Biblical References 2:21-4 2:25-33 2:34:31 2:42-50a 2:50b-5 3 3:1-8 3:1-9 3:1-16 3:1-24 3:12 3:17 3:21 4:1 4:3-20 4:9-10 4:10 4:21 4:21-3 4:24 4:24-43 4:24–5:26 4:25-7 4:28-33 4:31b 4:34-8 4:39-43 4:41 4:43 5 5:1 5:1-2 5:1-3 5:2 5:4-6 5:7-8a 5:8b-10 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:13-15 5:16 5:17

29 29 29 29 29 7 30 29 96 29 77 30 7 29 29 30, 64 31 37 29 31 28 31 31 31 28 31 31 31 31 28 28 28, 29, 55 31 29 31 31 31 32 32 36 32 32, 36 32, 36

5:18-22 32 5:19-22 31, 64 5:20 70 5:22 32 5:23 32 5:23-6 28 5:24 32 5:25  30, 39, 65, 73, 92, 93 5:25-6  3, 32, 36, 64 5:26 31 6 44, 54 6:1 (5:27) 33 6:1-47 (5:27–6:33) 33 6:1-81 (5:27–6:66) 32 6:2-15 (5:28-41) 33, 56 6:3 (5:29) 34 6:15 (5:41) 33, 36 6:16 (6:1) 33 6:16-30 (1–15) 33 6:17 (2) 33 6:19a (4a) 33 6:20-1 (5–6) 33 6:22-8 (7–13) 33 6:28 (13) 34 6:29-30 (14–15) 33 6:31 (16)  33, 34, 54, 60 6:31-47 (16–32) 34 6:31-48 (16–33) 34, 54 6:32 (17) 32 6:33 (18) 34 6:33b-8 (18b–23) 33 6:39 (24) 34, 37 6:39-43 (24–8) 33 6:44 (29) 34 6:44-7 (29–32) 33 6:48 (33) 33, 34 6:49 (34) 34 6:50-3 (35–8) 34 6:54-65 (39–50) 34 6:54-81 (39–66) 33

Index of Biblical References 6:63 (48) 28 6:64 (49) 35 6:68-81 (52–66) 34 6:77 (63) 28 7:1 35 7:2 35 7:3-5 35 7:6-11 35 7:6-12 35 7:12 35 7:14 41 7:14-27 35 7:20-7 35 7:22-4 35 7:28-9 35 7:30-1a 36 7:30-40 36 7:34-9 36 8:1-5 36 6:13 84 8:28 38, 40 8:30 36 8:33-40a 36 8:39-40 40 8:40b 36 9: 90 9:1  25, 27, 30, 39, 90, 93 9:1-3 6 9:1a 25, 28, 36 9:1b 36, 37, 64 9:2-17 7, 37 9:2-24 96 9:3 29, 37 9:3-17a 37 9:10 37 9:10-34 33 9:17-27 37 9:17-34 37 9:17a 37 9:18 37, 48 9:18b 38 9:19 38

9:19a 38 9:19b 38 9:20 38 9:20 38 9:21 38 9:22 38, 53, 74 9:23 38 9:26 38 9:34 38, 40 9:35 40 9:35-44 40 9:35–10:14 39 9:35-2 Chr 9:30 17, 30 9:35-2 Chr 36:23 16, 17 9:36 36 10 41, 79 10-2 Chr 9 14 10:6 40 10:6-8 41 10:11-12 40 10:12 41 10:1  31, 40, 41, 65, 93 10:14 17, 39, 41 11-12  20, 41, 56, 69, 93 11:1 42 11:1-3 41 11:1-3 41 11:4 43 11:4-8 47 11:6 42 11:9 41, 42 11:10 41 11:10-47 42 11:11-12 54 11:11-41a 41 11:12 20 11:17-18 42 11:26-31 54 11:28 20 11:41b-7 41 12 93

127

128

Index of Biblical References 12:1-7 (8) 41 12:3 20 12:6 (7) 20 12:8-15 (9–16) 42 12:9 (10) 20 12:16-18 (17–19) 42 12:18 (19) 41, 93 12:22-37 (23–38) 42 12:23 (24) 2:6; 4:2 12:23-37 (24–38) 41 12:38 43 12:38-40 41 12:39 15 13–15 47 13–16 42, 47 13:2 15, 43 13:3  40, 41, 42, 45, 96 13:4 43 13:5-6 43 13:5-13 43 13:9 96 13:10 32, 96 14 43, 96 14:1 47 14:2 43 14:4-7 41 14:10 31, 41 14:12 43 14:14 31, 41 15 54 15–16 54 15–17 59 15:1 32, 44, 45 15:1-24 45 15:1a 47 15:2 43, 45 15:3 43, 45 15:3-12 53 15:12 45 15:13 43, 45 15:13a 44 15:13b 44

15:15 43, 44 15:15-22 44 15:16-22 34 15:18b 44 15:23 44 15:24a 44 15:24b 44 15:25-6 43 15:26 93 15:25-9 44 15:28 43, 46 15:28-9 43 16  21, 47, 54, 55 16:1 32 16:4 45 16:4-6 44 16:7 45 16:8 45 16:8-13 45 16:8-22 45 16:8-36 5, 9, 10, 22 16:8-36a 44 16:10 45, 92, 99 16:11  27, 28, 31, 32, 43, 45, 55, 56, 92 16:12 45 16:12-18 56 16:13  27, 28, 45, 57, 96, 99 16:14 27 16:14-22 45 16:15 45 16:15-17 43, 46, 48 16:15-18 31, 98 16:15-22 48 16:16-22 57 16:17 27 16:20-1 46 16:23-33 45 16:25 45 16:26 46

Index of Biblical References 16:27 45 16:28-30a 46 16:28-31 101 16:29 43, 45 16:29-42 58 16:30b 46 16:31  22, 46, 58, 99 16:31-3 46 16:34  46, 48, 59, 97 16:34-6 45 16:35 45, 47 16:36b 46 16:36b-43 46 16:37 43, 45 16:37-42  34, 44, 50, 58 16:39 59 16:39-40 40 16:41  46, 48. 59, 97 16:43 43 17 47, 84 17–20 47 17–29 47 17:1 43 17:1-14 51 17:2-7 48 17:3-15 47, 98, 99 17:4 48 17:7-14 46 17:6 41 17:8 48 17:9 47 17:10 47 17:10a 48 17:11 40 17:12 48, 96, 98 17:13 41, 48 17:14 41, 98 17:21 60 17:23-7 48

17:23-7 48 18-20 48 18:1 47, 49 18:1-17 49 18:4 49 18:6 47, 49 18:8b 48 18:11 49, 54 18:13 47, 49 18:14 70 18:16-17 49 19:1 49 19:1–20:3 49 19:6 49 19:7 49 19:15 49 20:4 47, 49 20:4-8 49 20:5 49 20:8 49 20:14-17 49 20:17 50 21  47, 50, 64, 85, 95 21:1–22:1 49 21:1-2 53, 82 21:3 50 50 21:3bb 21:6 50 21:7 50 21:8 50, 58, 61 21:13 50, 63, 98 21:15 50, 51 21:16 51 21:16-27 50 21:17 50 21:18 51, 59 21:26 51, 58, 60 21:28: 51 21:29–22:1 50 21:30  49, 51, 52, 92 21:30–22:1 53

129

130

Index of Biblical References 22 52, 55, 56 22:1 50, 59, 61 22:2 52 22:2-5 51 22:2-19 49 22:4 52 22:5 59 22:6-19 52 22:7-10 51 22:8 47, 51, 56 22:9 51 22:9-10 48 22:11 12 22:11-16 51, 56 22:11a 51 22:11b 51 22:12 52 22:13  16, 19, 52, 55, 56, 96 22:14 52 22:14-16a 52 22:!5 52 22:16b 51 22:17 93 22:18 47 22:18-19 12, 33, 47 22:19: 49, 52 23-6 88 23-7 52 23:1 54 23:2 53 23:3-6a 53 23:3–26:32 53 23:3–27:34 53 23:4-5 54 23:6b-24 53 23:13b-14 54, 55 23:24 53 23:25  47, 51, 53, 98 23:25-32 54, 55 23:27 55 23:28 82

23:28-9 23:30-1 24 24:1-19 24:6 24:20-31 24:20b-30 25 25–6 25:1 25:1-3 25:1-5 25:1-8 25:1b-6 25:2-3 25:4b-5 25:5 25:7-31 26:1 26:1-19 26:3 26:4-8 26:10 26:12-18 26:17 26:19 26:20 26:20-8 26:27 26:28 26:29 26:29-32 27 27:1-15 27:3-4 27:16-22 27:16-24 27:23-4 27:24 27:25-31 27:32-4 28–9 28:1

54 54 55 54, 55 5 54, 55 55 54 54 37, 54 45, 54 9 34 54 54 55 34, 54 54, 55 38 38, 54, 74 55 55 38 55 38 38 75 54 66 40 70 54 53–5 54 55 55 28, 54 55 50 55 55 55 53

Index of Biblical References 28:1-8 52 28:1–29:24 53 28:2 31, 56 28:3 47, 51, 55 28:4 29, 98, 99 28:5 41, 99 28:5-6 48 28:6 99 28:7 56–8 28:7-8 98 28:8  31, 37, 52, 53, 56, 92, 96 28:9 52, 56, 65, 67, 92 28:9-21 52 28:9b 93 28:10 99 28:11-19 56 28:13a 53 28:18 56 28:20 69 28:20-1 56 29 47 29:1 59 29:1-19 56 29:2 56 29:2-5a 56 29:3 51, 56 29:5b 56 29:6 53 29:7 7, 56 29:9 56, 75 29:10 57 29:11 57 29:12 71 29:15 57 29:16 56 29:16-18 102 29:17 56, 98 29:18 56, 102 29:19 56, 57 29:20 102

29:21 29:21 29:23 29:24 29:27 29:28 29:29

57 57 57, 58 57 53 53 61

2 Chronicles 1–9 58 1:1–2:18 (17) 57 1:3-5 40 1:3-6 32 1:5 59 1:7 31 1:7-13 59 1:10-12a 52 1:11 31 1:12b 52 1:14-17 59 2:1 (1:18) 58 2:1-16 (1:18–2:15) 58 2:3-16 (2–15) 59 2:4 (3) 4:21; 98 2:6a (5a) 52 2:11 (10) 99 2:11-12 (10–11) 101 2:17 (16)-5:1 59 3:1 33, 58, 59 3:2–9:28 57 4:7 59, 61 4:20 59, 61 5:1 59 5:2 59 5:2-14 59 5:3 60 5:5 44 5:7 59 5:9 44 5:10  43, 59, 60, 98 5:13 22, 97 5:19-22 31

131

132

Index of Biblical References 6:1-11 59 6:2 98 6:5 32, 60 6:6 99 6:8 48 6:11 98 6:12-42 60 6:12–7:22 58 6:14 61, 98 6:15-17 84 6:16-17 61 6:19 61 6:19-21 84 6:20 32 6:20-2 61 6:24-5 83 6:24-31 71 6:26 61 6:27 50, 61, 63 6:28 61 6:30 50, 61 6:32-3 83 6:33 101 6:34-5 70 6:39 50, 61 6:41-2 55 6:42 63, 84, 101 7:1 51 7:1-3 60 7:3 22, 97 7:4-11 60 7:6 22, 97 7:9 60, 83 7:10 17, 63 7:11 58 7:12 61, 99 7:12-22 47, 60 7:13-15 71 7:13-16 58 7:13-22 58 7:13b-16a 61 7:14  16, 50, 63, 65, 83, 85,

86, 90, 92, 95 7:14-15 50 7:16 32, 98, 99 7:17-18 58, 61 7:19 57, 92 7:19-22 58, 90 7:22 60, 102 8:1-11 61 8:1-16 59 8:2 61 8:3 61 8:11 61 8:12-13 84 8::12-15 88 8:12-16 61 8:13 84 8:14 44, 59, 84 8:16 58, 82 8:17–9:12 58, 59, 61 9:8  57, 70, 98, 99, 101 9:13-28 59, 61 9:22-8 59 9:25-6 59 10 14, 79 10–36 14, 17, 94 10:1 65 10:1-19 65 10:1-28 17 10:3 65 10:4 65 10:9-11 65 10:15  17, 39, 65, 100 10:19 65 11:1-4 65, 88, 100 11:2-4 65 11:4  15, 43, 66, 79 11:5-12a 65 11:5-23 65 11:13-15 65 11:14-15 65

Index of Biblical References 11:16 65 11:17 17, 63 11:18-23 65 12 71 12:1-8 13 12:1-14 65 12:2 65 12:3 67 12:4 68 12:5 65 12:6-7 65 12:7: 97 12:7-8 65 12:8 99 12:12 65, 95, 97 12:13-16 66 12:14 65, 92, 95 12:15 67 13-16 69 13:1-2 66 13:2b 66 13:2b-19 96 13:8 69 13:8-9 65 13:10 102 13:10-11 96 13:11 15 13:11b 66, 79 13:12 69, 102 15:15-17 15 13:16 79 13:18  15, 66, 67, 79 13:19 66, 100 13:22–14:1a (2a) 69 14 71 66 14:1ab (13:23ab)-15:19 14:3-5 (2–4) 67 14:4 (3) 67 14:7 (6) 67 14:9-15 (8–14) 96 14:11 (10) 66, 69, 70, 93 15:1 69, 72, 75

15:2  67, 69, 73, 93, 101 15:2-4 92 15:2-7 18 15:4  67, 86, 92, 95, 101 15:7 24 15:8 69 15:9 69 15:12 67, 98 15:13 69, 92 15:15 67 15:16-18 68 15:18 66 16:1-14 66 16:1b-6 68 16:7 66 16:7-9 18 16:8 66, 69 16:9 7, 69 16:10 96 16:12 92 16:14 94 17 44 17:1a 69 17:1-6 68, 69 17:3 67–9 17:3-4 69 17:3-5 69 17:4 92, 96 17:4b 69 17:6 72 17:7-8 6 17:7-9 18, 69 17:9 68–70 17:10-19 69 17:14-18 70 17:19 70 18:1 70, 73 18:1-3 70 18:1–19:3 68, 70 18:2a 70 18:2b 70 18;3 68, 69

133

134

Index of Biblical References 18:3-34 70 18:4 68 18:6 69 18:7 60 18:9-21 70 18:19-21 70 18:25-6 88 18:28-34 70 18:29 88 18:31 70, 93 18:31b 70 18:33 88 19 69 19:1-3 70 19:2  69, 71, 72, 93 19:3 69, 72 19:4 70 19:4-11 68, 70 19:5-11 70, 97 19:6 68, 69 19:6-7 19 19: 7 98 19:11 68 20:1-25 96 20:1-30 68, 71 20:3 69 20:3-4 71 20:3-13 31 20:4 31 20:6 99 20:6-7 102 20:7 98 20:9 32, 70, 86 20:10 60 20:12 71 20:15-17 19 20:17  68, 69, 71, 72 20:20 9, 19 20:20b 72 20:21 22, 99 20:29-30 31

20:31–21:1 72 20:32 95 20:33 69, 72 20:34 36, 72 20:35-7 68, 72 20:37 69 21 100 21:2-4 73 21:2–22:9 72 21:3 72, 73 21:5 73 21:5-7 73 21:6 72 21:7  48, 72, 97, 98, 101 21:8-10a 73 21:10b 73 21:11 73 21:12 68, 73, 95 21:12-15 24 21:13 72, 73 21:14 73 21:16-19a 73 21:17 73 22:1b-6 73 22:2-5 70 22:3 72 22:3-5 72 22:4 72 22:7a 73 22:7b-9 73 22;9 72, 74, 92 22:9b 73 22:10 70 22:10–23:21 72 22:12 73, 74 23:3 73 23:5 73 23:6 73 23:9 73 23:12 73 23:12-13 74 23:13 74

Index of Biblical References 23:16 74, 98 23:17 73 23:18 73, 74 23:18-20 73 23:19 54, 73 23:21 74 24 75 24–5 63 24:2 74, 75 24:6 75 24:17 75 24:18a 75 24:18b 75 24:19 75, 86, 95 24:20 24, 74, 92 24:20-2 96 24:24 75 24:25 75 25 76 25:2 74 25:3 76 25:4 76, 94 25:7-8 18 25:8 93 25:11-12 76 25:13 97 25:11-13 76 25:13 97 25:14-16 76 25:15: 76 25:15-16 75, 87 25:16 95 25:19 75 25:20  75, 76, 92, 95 25:27 76 25:27a 76 26:4-5 77 26:5 75, 77, 94 26:5-6 36 26:6-8 77 26:6-15 77 26:7 77

26:8 77 26:9-16 77 26:13 93 26:15 77 26:15-16 77 26:16 75, 77, 95 26:17-20 77 26:18 77, 92 26:22 77 27-32 63 27:1 78 27:1-9 78 27:2 77 27:6 78, 97 27:8 78 28 77, 79 28:1 78 28:1b-7 78 28:4-5 78 28:5 78 28:6 15, 78 28:8 15, 27, 79 28:8-15 79, 97 28:9 102 28:9-10 102 28;11 15, 43, 79 28:12-13 15 28:13 15, 79 28:13-15 97 28:14 79 28:16 78, 93 28:17 26 28:17-18 78 28:19  15, 78, 79, 93 28:20 78 28:22 78, 86, 93 28:23 78, 93 28:24 83 28:25 78, 82 28:27 78 29:1-2 83 29:1–30:12 79

135

136

Index of Biblical References 29:1–36:23 29:2 29:3 29:3-36 29:5 29:6 29:8-9 29:8b 29:10 29:11 29:14 29:15 29:17 29:10 29:20 29:20-35a 29:24 29:30 29:35b 30:1–31:1 30:2 30:5 30:6 30:6-9 30:7-9 30:8 30:9 30:11 30:12 30:18 30:18-20 30:19 30:20 30:25 30:26 31:1 31:2-19 31:4 31:5 31:10 31:11-19 31:20 31:21

17 81, 82 82, 87 82 82, 83 82, 83 83 82 98 82, 99 34 82 83 98 90 82 82 45, 54, 82 82 82 82 82 94, 102 13, 43, 95 102 97, 98 83, 94, 98 15, 83, 97 82 29, 83 96 83, 92 83 83 84 82, 83 84 21 21 84 35 82 82, 84

31:21-32a 84 32 84 32:1-22 96 32:3 84 32:7-8 19, 84 32:8 84, 93 32:16 84 32:24 96 32:25-6 95, 97 32:26 15, 95 32:27-9 85 32:30 82 32:32 60, 77, 84 33 50 33:1 86 33:1-9 86 33:2 85, 86 33:2-10 86 33:3 85 33:4 86 33:6 86 33:7  32, 42, 86, 98 33:8 31, 86 33:9 86 33:10 86 33:10a 86 33:10b 86 33:11-13 85 33:11-17 86 33:12 15, 85, 102 33:12-13 95 33:12a 86 33:13 85 33:13b 86 33:14-17 86, 87 33:15-17 86 33:16 86 33:18 87 33:18-20 86, 87 33:19 15, 85, 87 55:21-5 87 33:22 85

Index of Biblical References 33:23 34:1-2 34:3 34:3-7 34:4 34:6 34:7 34:8-28 34:9 34:13 34:21 34:24 34:24-5 34:25 34:25-6 34:26 34:27 34:28 34:29-32 34:30 34:31 34:33 34:33a 34:33b 35:1-19 35:3 35:4 35:6 35:12 35:13 35:15 35:17-18 35:18 35:20-2 35:20-40 35:22 35:24 35:26 36 36:1-21 36:2-10 36:5 36:6

16, 85 87 85 87 85 88 85, 88 87 88 5 87, 88, 92 87 100 90 97 16, 87 85 88, 100 87 88, 98 98 85, 88, 102 88 88, 102 88 18 17, 63, 88 88 88 88 34 88 88 100 88 95 88 60, 95 6 61 89 89 89

36:7 52, 89 36:9 89 36:10 30, 52, 89 36:11-20 89 36:12 16, 91, 95 36:13 95 36:14 90, 92, 95 36:15 98 36:15-16 86, 95, 102 36:16 90, 97 36:18 52 36:18-19 90 36:20-3 6 36:20b 90 36:21  90, 92, 95, 100 36:21-2 72 36:22-3  7, 37, 43, 88, 96 36:23 2, 99, 102 Ezra 1:1-3 1:7-11 2:40-1 3:10 3:11 4:1-5 4:17 5:8 5:14-15 6:5 7:1-5 9:1 9:8-9 9:9 10:23-4

7, 90 52 34 34, 44 97 4, 83 2 2 52 52 34 4 66 46 34

Nehemiah 5:13b 7:43-4 8:2-3 8:6

46 34 21 46

137

138

Index of Biblical References 8:7 8:7-9 8:18 9 9:26 9:36-7 10:32-3 (33–4) 10:35-9 (36–40) 11 11:1-2 11:3-19 11:3-24 11:15 11:17 13 13:14 13:26

5 18 60 4 98 46 75 84 37, 90 37 7 37 34 34 57 60 57

Job 2:3

50

Psalms 1 24, 94 1:2 5 15 54 18:18 (19) 66 22:22 (21) 72 22:22-31 (23-32) 72 24:3-6 54 29:10 46 39 34 39:12 (13) 57 50 34 62 34 73-83 34 77 34 78:60 40 78:70-1 99 79:9 45 88 34 89 34 93:1-4 46 96:1b-10 59 96:1b-13a 45

96:3 43, 58 96:7-10 101 96:10 22, 58, 99 99:1 46 102:10 (11) 50 105:1-15 45 105:3 92, 99 105:4 43, 56, 92 105:6  27, 45, 57, 96, 99 105:7 22 105:8 45 105:8-11 56, 98 105:9-15 57 105:10 27 105:47 47 106:1 45, 46, 97 106:28-31 38 106:47-8a 45 118:19-20 54 126 66 132 100 132:1 60 132:7-8 55 132:8-10 60 135:5 9 135:21 43 137 76 139:1-2 48 Proverbs 1:31 1:33 31

94 94 21

Isaiah 1:19-20 6:1 7:9b 31:1 36-8 36:6 41:2 41:25

92 79 72 68 85 68 90 90

Index of Biblical References 45:13 55:3-5 55:6 65:1

90 100 18, 92 18

Jeremiah 7:25 99 17:5 19 18:7-8 98 22:15-16 89 22:18-19 89 27:19-22 89 29:10 90 29:13-14  18, 56, 92, 97, 102 29:18 82 31:15 18 31:16 19 33:11 97 36:21 36:30 89 37:2 90 51:1 90 Lamentations 3:55-7

71

Ezekiel 17:13-21 90 18  63–65, 67, 68, 86, 94, 102 18:5-13 78 18:5-18 94 18:10-13 73 18:10-18 73 18:14-17 81 18:20 76, 94 18:21 64, 102 18:21-2 86 18:21-3 95 18:21-4 95 18:21-32 95 18:24 67, 68, 95

18:24-6 18:27-8 18:27-32 18:28 18:30 44:6-14 44:10-11 48:30-4

74 86 102 67 90 74 38 37

Hosea 3:4-5 5:15

18 18

Joel 2:17-27 3 (4):17 3 (4):21

71 43 43

Amos 3:9

18

Obadiah 20

76

Zephaniah 3:5 3:16

19 18

Haggai 1:2

42

Zechariah 1:2-6 1:3 3:1 4:10 8:9 8:9-13 8:10 8:11 11:6

83 102 50 7 18 18, 68 7, 18 18 18

Malachi 3:17

102

139

140

Index of Biblical References New Testament Matthew 6:12 6:13 6:14-15 6:33 6:14-15 7:24-7 18:23-35

99 57 99 92, 94 99 31 99

Luke 10:25-37 11:9 11:50-1

79 92 75

John 2:13-22

82

Acts 5:1-5 5:9-10

94 94

Romans 1:18-21 8:35-7 13:8-10

12 71 79

1 Corinthians 10:6 10:11 11:27-31

24 24 94

2 Corinthians 7:6-12

94

Galatians 5:13-15

79

Philippians 2:12b-13 4:18-19

97 94

Colossians 3:1

92

1 Timothy 5:24

94

Hebrews 12:1 3:14

2 76

James 2:8 2:14

79 79

1 John 1:6–2:2 2:3-6 5:2-3

95 95 95

141

142

143

144

145

146