It may well be that no book of the Bible is less read as a whole than Chronicles—in Hebrew manuscripts I and II Chronicles are one book, though the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible follow our division into two. It is a safe guess that certain of its chapters are read virtually only by those that find themselves committed to it by some scheme of Bible reading, and we may hazard the suggestion that they all too often skimp their task here. When we hear someone repeating the old saying, “All Scripture is inspired, but some parts are more inspiring than others,” it is fairly certain he is thinking of some of the lists of names of Chronicles.
The reason for all this lies less in the book itself and more in our wrong approach to it. Already in the Septuagint, the Greek translation made before the time of our Lord, it is called Paraleipomena (a name that lives on in the Vulgate), meaning things omitted. The name implies that here we have the bits and pieces for which no room could be found in Samuel and Kings. That is how we all too often read it, almost intuitively comparing and contrasting its information with that of the other books. To get the full value out of Chronicles we must discover why it was written and read it accordingly.
AUTHORSHIP, DATE AND SOURCES
Like all the other historical books it is anonymous. The closing verses of II Chronicles make it clear that it must have been written after the return from the Babylonian exile. If the almost universal modern view is correct that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally part of Chronicles, then it cannot be earlier than Ezra. Young, while rejecting this view, puts the book in the same general period as Ezra. Jewish Talmudic tradition seems to attribute it to Ezra, but The Jewish Encyclopedia maintains that it is merely affirming that he collected the opening genealogies. Delitzsch suggested that Ezra was the collector of much of the material, while Albright argues for Ezra’s authorship. It seems best to respect the anonymity the Holy Spirit has given the book and simply call the author the Chronicler. We can date it with reasonable confidence around 400 B.C. and link it with Ezra’s religious settlement.
Quite apart from his obvious use of earlier canonical books the Chronicler mentions 20 sources (seven in I Chronicles) from which he has drawn his information. There is no doubt that some are alternative titles for the same work, and we cannot be sure whether some of the others still existed in their own right or whether they had been incorporated into a larger work. What is important is his way of handling them. Where he covers the same ground as Samuel and Kings he normally quotes verbatim. What differences there are, apart from occasional abbreviation, may be due for the most part to his access to the authorities used by the earlier works or to a larger edition of them. All the other matter has been transformed and appears in the Chronicler’s own typical style. This can only mean that he is openly recognizing Samuel and Kings as authoritative and is inviting the reader to interpret his work in their light. It is a commonplace in modern scholarship to speak of the Chronicler’s “distortion” of history, but this is unreasonable in the light of his constant reference to an earlier norm.
If any think this argument too far-fetched, let them consider 1 Chronicles 10. Apart from Saul’s genealogy this is all we are told of him. Any intelligent reader would immediately want to know more, and indeed 10:13 is a clear indication that there is a source where his interest can be satisfied. Equally the passing references to David’s years of flight are intelligible only if the reader is expected to know the story from another source, for example, 11:2; 12:1, 8, 17, 19; 20:5. Just as the abbreviated genealogies of chapter 1 presuppose a knowledge of Genesis, so the narratives assume familiarity with Samuel and Kings.
ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS
The outstanding feature of Chronicles is its large number of additions and omissions. Most of the former are linked with the Temple and its worship, though some are meant to enhance the glory of the monarchy. The omissions are almost entirely of matter which is derogatory to or expressive of opposition to the Davidic dynasty. In I Chronicles the reign of Saul (all but his death) and the early years of David are passed over in silence. The same is true of almost all in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1; 2. To suggest that this was because the stories were derogatory to David is foolish. Not only is very much that is altogether to David’s credit omitted, but he did not hesitate to tell the story of the census (chap. 21). It has long been recognized that in II Samuel we have two more or less parallel histories, chapters 2–8 dealing with David as king, and chapters 9–20 portraying him as a man. It is precisely these latter chapters that have been omitted except for a few verses, for it was with the king that the Chronicler was particularly interested.
REVELATION OF GOD
In the Hebrew Bible Samuel and Kings are reckoned among the Former Prophets, not because they may have been written by the prophets, but because they reveal how history can be a revelation of God. They are interested less in the history of Israel and more in how it reveals God, his will, and his dealings with men. Chronicles, which is the last book in the writings and in the Hebrew Bible, is also not particularly interested in the history of Israel as such; it is concerned with the revelation of God in two institutions: the Davidic monarchy and the Temple. In spite of the promise of 1 Chronicles 17:11–14 the monarchy was in abeyance, but the rebuilding of the Temple in spite of all difficulties was the guarantee of the monarchy’s restoration as well. Though we live after the King has come, we live in an age where we must trust His promise of coming again. We have, however, the continuation of the Temple, one not made with hands, the Church, as the visible demonstration that our hope is not an empty one. So for us Chronicles has a message even as it had for the generation for which it was written.
GENEALOGIES
In this message the genealogies of chapters 1–9 have a very important part to play. Those in chapter 1 assure us of the principle of continuity. The “dispensations” are not sudden changes in God’s activity, creating a sudden break with what had gone before, but are steps in the working out of a purpose which existed before the foundation of the world. The mention of Ishmael’s and Esau’s descendants are the affirmation that God’s election does not involve the rejection of those He did not elect. In the chapters that follow, probably all the tribes are mentioned, for I consider the modern view almost certainly correct that in the difficult Benjamite genealogy of 7:6–12 are hidden through textual corruption those of Zebulon and Dan. But though none were omitted, how different is their treatment!
The Bible student who is prepared to consider each set of names, in spite of the often very difficult text, in the totality of the information given us elsewhere can easily see the mingled rebuke and praise, sympathy and depreciation implied. The sudden, otherwise unknown pieces of historical information tell us that however much has been omitted from Scripture for reasons that seemed good to the Holy Spirit, there is a greater chronicle where all man’s acts are recorded; God does not forget when he selects. The genealogies of Benjamin (chap. 8) are given at special length because of his loyalty to the Davidic monarchy. Those who returned after the exile have their mention too (9:1–34), not so much as an honor as a guarantee that they were playing as essential a part in God’s purposes as the great names that had gone before them.
The high-priestly list is carried down only to the Exile (6:15), because it is continued in Nehemiah 12:10, 11 with the first six post-exilic high priests. On the other hand the Davidic line is continued apparently for six generations from Zerubbabel (3:19–24), though many reckon only two and the Septuagint finds eleven. In neither case do these lists provide any clue to the time of writing, for they could easily have been kept up to date by scribes.
Saul is introduced by his genealogy (9:35–44) and is dismissed by his death (chap. 10) lest any should think that David was merely the man who made good and was therefore approved of by God. God had shown by his rejection of Saul what He did not approve of before he set his divine promise on David’s house (17:11–14). For the same reason we are not given details of David’s young manhood nor of his great sin. His dynasty was based neither on his nobility of character nor on God’s grace to him in his fall, but on its being the institution of God’s choice. It is worth noting that the two sins that led to Saul’s rejection (1 Sam. 13:8–14; 15:8, 9) both represented attempts to exceed his royal authority. It is quite natural that a list of those who were conspicuously loyal to or who welcomed the setting up of the monarchy of God’s choice should be mentioned in chapter 12.
In chapters 13–20 the Chronicler follows the acts of David the king as given in II Samuel but gives special stress and priority to the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem. In chapter 21 he uses the story of the plague that followed the census as a transition to the preparations for the building of the Temple.
We know from I Kings that Solomon’s accession was linked with a sordid court intrigue. 1 Chronicles 29:22 shows the Chronicler’s knowledge of it, but in chapters 23–27 we see a well-organized country being handed over to Solomon’s rule by due process of law (chaps. 28; 29). It is evident that the shock of Adonijah’s intrigue stirred David out of the senile indolence into which he had allowed himself to slip after the heartbreak of Absalom’s revolt.
Modern commentaries are normally at their poorest in dealing with a book like Chronicles. There has been little of value written from the conservative standpoint since Keil’s and Zockler’s commentaries in the last quarter of the last century.
H. L. ELLISON
Wallington, Surrey, England
