The OT lesson in church this morning got me thinking of the differences between the endings of the books of Kings and Chronicles. In this post, I thought I’d sort of “think out loud” about the different goals of these books as seen in their final chapters.
It’s interesting that Kings ends with Judah in exile, but doesn’t treat that in an entirely negative way. It doesn’t end with hope of restoration but still depicts a fairly comfortable situation with Jehoiachin released from prison and seated daily at the table of the king of Babylon. (Note: Babylonian archives from the time period even refer to rations set aside for the royal Judean court.)
Thus the book ends with Jehoiachin functioning in royal role (albeit a very limited one). This is significant because it demonstrates that though Jehoiachin was replaced with Mattaniah/Zedekiah and then later with Gedaliah ben Ahikam (creating a situation somewhat similar to the Avignon papacy, minus the mutual excommunications!), it is Jehoiachin who ultimately DtrH deems to be king; i.e., he is the rightful king of the Judean exiles.
Chronicles seems to want to re-employ the material of Kings for very different ends. Now Kings ultimately shows that the exile was the fault of the kings. (There is some tension even here in Kings; is it Manasseh’s fault? Jeroboam? Solomon?) I noted that Chronicles does (at least) two very interesting things to change the story.
First, he indicts the people for the exile. 2 Chron 36.14 says: “All the officers of the priests and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful, following the abominations of the nations. . . .” and in v. 16: “But they kept mocking the messenters of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against his people until there was no remedy.” It is interesting that unlike 2 Kings 24.20, which makes God’s anger the result of Jehoiachin and/or Zedekiah, Chronicles wants to focus on the people’s responsibility.
Second, Chronicles even seems to suggest that the exile may have been a good thing in one way or another. After all, it allowed the land to “enjoy its sabbaths” (2 Chr 36.21).
Third, Chronicles seems to be addressing the same concern of Ezra: just who is a “true Judean/Israelite?” Ezra indicates that true Israelites are those who (1) actually went into exile in Babylon (Ezra 4.1-2) and (2) could also prove their descent with their genealogy (Ezra 2.59-63). Chronicles leaves out a verse from Kings that makes me think it has similar concerns: “Then all the people [who were remaining in Judah], both small and great, and the captains of the forces arose and went to Egypt, for they were afraid of the Chaldeans” (2 Kings 25.26). The Elephantine Papyri indicate that there was indeed a Jewish community living in Egypt during the Persian period – a community which actually built a temple to the god “Yahu.” By leaving this information out, Chronicles may (I’m just speculating) be trying to limit who is a true Israelite (as did Ezra) to those who went to Babylon, not those who either stayed in the land or went to Egypt.
Well, those are some thoughts. I’ve also got some thoughts on Josiah’s death at the hands of Neco (as presented in Kings and Chronicles), but that’s for another post. I’ve skimmed Marvin Sweeney’s Kings commentary on this passage, but haven’t had a chance to check Sara Japhet or Raymond Dillard on Chronicles. Nevertheless, I hope I’ve drawn attention to just one of the fascinating differences between the respective goals of Kings and Chronicles.
__________
Andrew
JVE thinks Chronicles is all about eschatologizing tendencies. For example, when David conducts the census in Chron, he then sacrifices to appease the wrath of Yahweh, which sacrifice is consumed by fire from heaven, and the spot becomes the altar of the temple. This heightens the typology of David, making him look like our Great High Priest a little more. I wrote an exegetical paper on it.
Anyway, find this book at your library, if you’re interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Retribution-Eschatology-Chronicles-Jsot-Supplement/dp/1850755795/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
Oh – I forgot to add why I was bringing that up. David and Solomon in particular are heightened in this way, and then from there it’s all downhill. So I think there’s still a heavy emphasis on the office of king in Chron.
The weird thing is that when Chronicles is written, the “king” is Persian. This shows an interesting shift in Israelite thought. Initially the king was from Benjamin, then from Judah. Now the king doesn’t even have to be from one of the 12 tribes. There is such a fascinating progression through OT history as reinterpretation is motivated by crisis and revelation thereby continues to unfold progressively. Chronicles (and other post-exilic literature) are such fascinating books!
I just finished reading Jeremiah and noticed that the prophet ends his book with the same story of Jehoiachin being restored in some sense while in exile. Would you say that Jeremiah is saying the same thing or is this story utilized in a different way?