WHY IS I-II CHRONICLES IN THE BIBLE?

 

If I had to make the hard choice of a book in the Bible to omit, I guess it would be the combined book of I-II Chronicles. The reason is fairly obvious: not only is most of it taken almost word-for-word from II Samuel 5-II Kings 25, but many of the most interesting stories in Samuel-Kings are missing.

In comparing Chronicles side-by-side with Samuel-Kings, a helpful resource is A Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles by William Day Crockett. The four things I looked for were items omitted in Chronicles, items in Chronicles that were not in Samuel-Kings, minor differences in wording between the two books, and their overall literary shape or structure. If the differences only accomplish one thing for the readers, it is to provide a foretaste of what is in store in studying the four gospel accounts.

Material Omitted in Chronicles

A complete listing of these items would be quite long, but the major stories finding no place in Chronicles include

A. All the conflicts between David and Saul prior to David being elevated to king

B. David's sin with Bathsheba

C. Family problems involving David's sons Amnon and Absalom

D. Absalom's rebellion, David's flight and subsequent return

E. Fight for leadership as David approaches death

F. Solomon's alliances with pagan women and his construction of a royal palace

G. Solomon's spiritual fall

H. The evil reigns of the kings of Israel

I. The ministries of Elijah and Elisha in Israel

The pattern you can see above for the period of the Unified Kingdom (items A-G) is a fairly clear one. The Chronicler has omitted practically all negative references to David and Solomon in order to present a sort of ideal picture of that period of Jewish history. And note that the author quite pointedly only begins his story after King Saul is totally out of the picture. However, I must admit that another explanation for the rationale behind the Chronicler's approach is that he has also eliminated most of the stories that give insight into the main characters' personal lives but instead is solely interested in their official roles as leaders of the nation.

In addition, concerning item F, the I Kings material concerning Solomon' palace is found right in the middle of a detailed description of the construction of the temple. By removing this "distracting" story, the Chronicler has brought the focus back on the temple itself.

After the kingdom becomes divided, another point becomes very obvious. The Chronicler has absolutely no interest in the affairs of Israel, the Northern Kingdom. Thus, he has omitted the practically half of I-II Kings dealing with Israel. One could posit two reasons for the Chronicler's choice of material for this time period. He may have come from the Southern Kingdom, Judah, and simply did not care what happened up north, or he may have considered them an apostate nation whose story did not fit in with his somewhat rosy view of Judah. To determine which explanation is the most likely, one must turn to his subsequent story of Judah alone after Israel's fall.

From II Chronicles 32 on with Israel out of the way, the omissions from the accounts in II Kings 18-25 become minor ones, but they are still telling.

A. All interactions between Isaiah and King Hezekiah

B. The Rabshakah's taunt of King Hezekiah and the people

C. The prophets speak to King Manasseh

D. There was no king like Josiah

E. Detailed list of Josiah's spiritual reforms

F. God sends the Chaldeans against Judah

G. Jehoiakin and the leading citizens of Judah sent away into Babylonian captivity

H. Gedeliah, the interim governor, is murdered and Jehoiakin is set at liberty

Items A and C may help clarify why the Chronicler earlier omitted all references to Elijah and Elisha. Apparently, it was not due the fact that their ministries were with the Northern Kingdom. Instead, it appears that the Chronicler may have wanted to stress temple worship as the main way that God interacted with His people. If so, we also see hints in the NT of this minor conflict between spiritual leadership coming from officials such as the elders and from those in the congregation with various spiritual gifts, including prophecy.

The omissions of B and F are understandable in that they show up Judah's faults too much. The same is true with E, which also fits in with D in elevating Josiah even above David and Solomon as the ideal leader of the people.

The ending of II Kings is rather pessimistic, with a weakly positive notice that King Jehoiakin was at least treated well in captivity. Therefore, the accounts in G and H were omitted by the Chronicler, who instead put a positive spin on the end of his book by jumping ahead to the time when the Jews were released from captivity under the Persian rule.

Material Added in Chronicles

The last item above is a fitting introduction to this next category of differences between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings. The largest block of material not found in the latter books consists of I Chronicles 1-9, which provides a detailed genealogical summary of the generations from Adam to Solomon. In addition, these chapters contain the following information.

I Chronicles 5:18-22: War with the Arab Nations

I Chronicles 9:1-34: The Inhabitants of Jerusalem

The next new material isn't found until I Chronicles 12:1-7,19-22 where it enumerates the men who were with David at Ziglag.

II Chronicles 11:5-23 describes King Rehaboam's support from the Levites and other pious Jews as well as a description of his family and his fortifications. Notice that these early expansions up to now indicate the Chronicler's greater interest in genealogical details than found in Samuel-Kings.

Much more detail is given in II Chronicles 17-20 concerning the reign of King Jehoshaphat than found in I Kings, including God's answer to the king's prayer for deliverance from the Moabites and Ammonites.

In relating the reign of King Jehoram in II Chronicles 21, we are given additional information not found in I Kings.

II Chronicles 24:20-24 tells of the stoning of the prophet Zechariah and military reverses of Judah. The following chapter describes events in the life of the evil king Amaziah, and chapter 26 elaborates on some of the accomplishments of King Uzziah.

A major expansion is found in II Chronicles 29-32 concerning the reign of King Hezekiah: reconsecration of the temple, celebration of the Passover, his religious reforms, his wealth and building plans, and preparations for an attack by the Assyrians.

The Chronicler adds details concerning the evil King Manasseh's reign after his repentance and restoration.

One could summarize the above additions in II Chronicles by saying that the author, in general, focuses much more on the positive aspects of the reigns of the kings of Judah than found in the generally negative emphasis found in I-II Kings. However, he does not entirely whitewash the history of Judah, as we can see from II Chronicles 24:20-24

Minor Differences in Wording

I am not going to attempt a detailed analysis of all the various difference in wording between parallel accounts in Chronicles and Samuel-Kings, but a few examples will suffice.

A classic example of an apparent contradiction in the Bible is the comparison of the two accounts of David being tempted to conduct a census of the people found in II Samuel 24:1-9 and I Chronicles 21:1-6. Without going into why taking a census was a sin in God's eyes, I want to concentrate on the fact that II Samuel says God tempted while I Chronicles says that Satan did. It seems fairly obvious that the Chronicler wished to take all blame away from God in the matter, but actually both accounts fit together quite well. The situation is really similar to that found in the Book of Job where the tempting of Job was instigated by Satan but only carried out after God had ratified the action.

Another place where a minor addition of one verse in Chronicles has a profound effect on the meaning is found in Solomon's prayer at the consecration of the new temple. In addition to a practically word-for-word repetition of the prayer itself, as given in I Kings 8, we are actually given God's confirmation in II Chronicles 7:1-3. This again has the effect of enhancing the image of Solomon.

In my post entitled “Mathematical Objections to the Bible,” I provide several examples where parallel accounts in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles are practically identical to each other with the exception of some numbers found in the texts. Without going into the details, you can see by the few examples and other numerical discrepancies present between these two books, that (1) the differences actually demonstrate that the inclusion of Chronicles in the Bible is an attempt to capture another different ancient tradition in addition to the one found in Samuel-Kings and (2) no systematic attempt was made by the Chronicler to inflate the number of soldiers in Judah's army or the wealth of their possessions.

Differences in the Overall Structures

My detailed posts on “Chronicles (or Samuel-Kings): Introduction to the Literary Structure” explain how each of these books is structured so as to bring out the central points in the texts. I will not rehearse what is in these posts, the bottom line is that the combined books of Samuel-Kings present several points of emphasis: the reigns of David and Solomon and Elisha inheriting Elijah's mantel. By contrast, the emphasis in I-II Chronicles is divided equally between David and Solomon's reign, with Elijah and Elisha relegated to only a few verses.

Scholarly Opinions

The above are my own observations, but they appear to be generally confirmed by what scholars have to say about the unique contributions of I-II Chronicles to the Bible:

Knoppers: “By placing David and Solomon's achievements at the center of Israelite history, the author underscores the prominence of those Israelite institutions he believed developed, were consolidated, or were transformed during this period....Chronicles, with its positive ending and emphasis on the power of repentance, may be seen as more optimistic that the history of Samuel-Kings, which it has rewritten. As the beginning of Chronicles introduces the people of Israel and charts their emergence in the land, the ending of the book anticipates their return.”

Ellison: “His additions concern mainly the Temple and its services and such incidents as exalted the religious side of the state in contrast to the civil...His omissions show that he is concerned with the development of two divine institutions, the Temple and the Davidic line of kings...it is concerned with the working out of what God has ordained and not, as Samuel and Kings, with the prophetic standpoint of how God dealt with His people and so revealed Himself.”

Howard: “The Chronicler saw that the only hope for the future lay in strengthening of the religious institutions that had survived the Babylonian captivity...His purpose was thus to demonstrate in the first place that the true Israel of God was the one perpetuated in the Davidic kingdom of Judah...The Chronicler viewed the northern kingdom as apostate from the start...This underlines the second main purpose of the Chronicler, which was to emphasize that true worship must be centered in Jerusalem.”

Myers: “One of the chief purposes of the Chronicler...was to demonstrate that the true Israel was the one perpetuated in Judah – the one which began in the David kingdom, continued right through the history of Judah, and more to the point, was now represented in the exilic community...There can be no doubt that the Chronicler was interested chiefly in the religious institution – the house of God or the temple of God...Along with the insistence upon true worship as confined to the house of God at Jerusalem went emphasis upon the proper personnel in the right social conditions.”

Duke: “The author(s), in a prophet-like manner, represents the community's past story from a post-exilic perspective with a focus on the role of David and the Davidic kings, the establishment of the proper temple cultus, and the need for kings and people to seek God.”

Selman: “Chronicles' focus on the Davidic covenant as well as the temple, and its setting of Israel's history in a context of the whole world as well as all twelve tribes, set it apart from the more circumscribed accounts of Ezra-Nehemiah.”