In the same way that Deuteronomy offers a second presentation of the law, the books of Chronicles offer a second recounting of the history of Israel. Christian Bibles include 1 and 2 Chronicles among the “historical books” after 1 and 2 Kings. In the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish tradition, both books of Chronicles constitute a unity, with the name of dibrê hayyāmîm (“the events of the days”) and are found in the Writings (ketubim), the third section of the Hebrew Bible. Chronicles had already achieved authoritative status by the second century BCE, but with the exception of Jerome, the church fathers didn’t pay much attention to Chronicles. Neither did it enjoy a prominent place in Jewish tradition. The great Jewish scholar Don Isaac Arbarbanel (1437–1509) stated, “my transgressions do I mention today; I have never read this book in my life and never researched its issues—never before today!” (Kalimi 2009a, 236).
The book itself, like most of the literary works composed before the Hellenistic period, does not include a title or the name of its author. The name given to it by the Jewish sages and church fathers reflects their intention to describe or qualify its content.
The Talmud attributes part of the authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah to Ezra, and part of it to Nehemiah (b. Bat. 15a). Medieval Christian scholars were not so certain. Hugh of St. Cher (c. 1200–1263 CE), a French Dominican, affirmed that the author was unknown, although he trusted the veracity of its content (Saltman, 55).
In the nineteenth century, the great majority of biblical scholars considered the book of Chronicles to form a unity with Ezra and Nehemiah. Nowadays, pioneered by the work of Sarah Japhet (1968; 1993) and Hugh G. M. Williamson (1977), the consensus has moved into considering the book of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah as two different and independent works. The major arguments behind such a shift are differences in language and style peculiarities (Japhet 1968) and the “substantive differences in theology, purpose, and perspective” (Klein 2006, 10) between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Immediate divine retribution, a central theological motif in Chronicles, is not that relevant in Ezra-Nehemiah. The almost complete disregard for the exodus tradition and the Mosaic tradition is not as significant in Chronicles as it is in Ezra-Nehemiah. In Chronicles, there is hope of a future reunification with the northern kingdom (2 Chr. 30:1-31), something absent in Ezra-Nehemiah. The “Levitical sermons,” a prominent feature of Chronicles, are completely absent in Ezra-Nehemiah. The most recent major commentaries on Chronicles by Gary Knoppers (2003) and Ralph Klein (2006) have both adopted such a position.
There is a certain agreement among scholars that Chronicles is a postexilic composition. But as Klein states, “the evidence for a more specific date within that period is thin and ambiguous” (2006, 13). The suggested dates by scholars range from 520 BCE to 160 BCE. Chronicles doesn’t indicate any Hellenistic influence, so there is some consensus to date the book during the Persian period (539–332 BCE) (Kalimi 2005a, 65).
Chronicles begins with a long genealogical section focused on biblical characters who are significant for the author’s theological purposes. Genealogies fulfill various functions in the Bible. Some are meant to show the relationship between Israel and the neighboring nations (Gen. 10:1-32; 19:36-38; 22:20-24; 25:1-6); others are used to bridge the temporal gap between events (Gen. 5:1-32; 11:10-27; Ruth 4:18-22); and others to bring together traditions from different origins (Gen. 5:1; 6:9) (Wilson 1977; Johnson 1988, 77–82). One of the characteristics of ancient historiography was the inclusion of discourses or speeches. As the Greek historian Thucydides (fifth century BCE) stated regarding the uses of speeches in his history, “the speeches are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subject under consideration, the sentiments most befitting the occasion” (History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22). Chronicles includes several speeches and prayers: Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple (2 Chron. 6:14-42); Jehoshaphat when facing the Ammonites and Moabites (2 Chron. 20:6-12); and a number of speeches labeled by Gerhard von Rad as “Levitical sermons” (2 Chron. 15:2-7; 16:7-9; 19:6-7; 20:15-17, 20; 29:5-11) (von Rad 1966, 269–76). These speeches and sermons are a valuable source of information about Chronicles’ theological perspectives.
With the emergence of history as a scientific discipline under the leadership of figures like Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886), the positive valorization of Chronicles by the church fathers and medieval scholars suffered a strong blow. A more positive attitude toward the Chronicler was developed during the second half of the twentieth century under the influence of scholars like Gerhard von Rad (1901–1971) and Martin Noth (1902–1968). Contemporary scholarship tends to accept Chronicles as a valid historiographical work (Graham, Hoglund, and McKenzie; Kalimi 2005a; 2005b). As Japhet (1993, 32) states, “A consideration of the work’s relevant features, such as aim, plan, form, and method, must lead to the conclusion that Chronicles is a history, an idiosyncratic expression of biblical historiography.” The Chronicler acts as a historian when he gathers material and sources about the past of his community, decides what is significant for his time, and connects diverse events from his sources to produce a coherent narrative about the past. The difference between a mere past event and a historical event is, after all, how significant that event is for the present community. As Isaac Kalimi (2009b, 192) states, Chronicles “represent the principle of ‘each generation with his own historiography and historian.’ . . . Chronicles is the ‘right’ composition, ‘the true one,’ for its time, place, and audience.”
Chronicles abounds in citations of works used by the author to compose his narrative. The book of the kings of Israel and Judah is cited several times, although sometimes with a slightly different name (2 Chron. 16:11; see 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:18; 35:26; 36:8); there is also a mention of the midrash of the books of Kings (2 Chron. 3:22; 24:27). The Chronicler also refers to prophets or prophetic records like the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad (1 Chron. 29:29), the prophecy of Ahijah, and the visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29). The Chronicler is also familiar with the genealogical information provided by the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Samuel, and Ruth. There is a citation of what is written “in the law of the Lord” (1 Chron. 16:40), which possibly refers to the Pentateuch; and a reference to a book of laments, unknown to us, that included a “lament of Josiah” (2 Chron. 35:25). The author seems to know the books of Isaiah (2 Chron. 28:16-21), Jeremiah (2 Chron. 36:21), and Zechariah (2 Chron. 36:9). The Chronicler also used information from lists (1 Chron. 6:1-15), and three canonical psalms (Psalms 96; 105; 106) are cited in 1 Chronicles 16. Without being exhaustive, this list of sources shows evidence of a dedicated historian at work.
The genealogical register of Israel is further divided into subsections, which will be listed below.
Israel’s Ancestors (1:1—2:2)
The first chapter of Chronicles is based on genealogical information from the book of Genesis. The author distinguishes an antediluvian generation (1:1-23) and a postdiluvian generation (1:24—2:2), similar to Assyrian and Babylonian cosmogonic genealogies. The Chronicler begins the genealogy with Adam in order to emphatically place the people of Israel in the context of universal history. “Indeed, one can only appreciate the experience of Israel within its land if one has some understanding of lands and peoples relevant to Israel and how they are related to Israel” (Knoppers 2003, 295).
Judah’s Lineage (2:3—4:23)
This section consists of three parts: (a) 2:3-55, the genealogies of the tribe of Judah; (b) 3:1-24, the house of David; and (c) 4:1-23, additional genealogies of the house of Judah. The first part (2:3-55) stresses both the divine election of Judah and God’s intolerance toward unfaithfulness as exemplified in the case of Er, who “was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death” (v. 3), and of Achar, “the troubler of Israel who transgressed in the matter of the devoted thing” (v. 7). The importance of Ram (2:9-17), who is not the firstborn but occupies the first place on the list, is due to his ancestral relationship to David. In 2:13-15, David is listed as the seventh son of Jesse (according to 1 Sam. 16:6-9; 11-13; 17:13-14, Jesse had only four sons). Later tradition adopted the Chronicler’s view, as represented in the Dura-Europos fresco (Kalimi 2009a, 123–32). David’s sisters are only mentioned here (2:16-17).
The descendants of Caleb are listed in 2:18-24. The first part of the genealogy (2:18-20) deals with Bezalel, a silversmith (see Exod. 31:2; 35:30), who although belonging to a period prior to David, is associated with David and the tabernacle in view of the future construction of the temple by Solomon. The second part (2:21-24) establishes a connection between Judah and a group of descendants of Gilead. It follows the descendants of Jerahmeel (2:25-41), and an additional list of descendants of Caleb (2:42-55).
David’s nineteen sons are enumerated (3:1-9), as are the kings of Israel (3:10-16) and the postexilic generation (3:17-24). The extension of David’s genealogy to such a late period reflects the importance of David’s descendants even during the restoration period (see Haggai 2). The best known of the genealogies contained in 4:1-23 is the one dedicated to Jabez (4:9-10) and his prayer granted by God. The Hebrew version of this prayer presents some difficulties and perhaps would be best translated, “if you blessed me and enlarged my borders, and if your hand might be with me, and that you would extend lands of pasture.” This way, the greatest honor Jabez deserves could be attributed to the extension of his territory due to prayer and not to military force. The two genealogical sections of Judah (2:3-55 and 4:1-23) “form an envelope around the genealogy of David and his descendants, who are the centerpiece of the tribe of Judah in chapter 3” (Klein 2006, 142).
Descendants of Simeon (4:24-43)
The tribe of Simeon comes after that of Judah due to geographical proximity. The cities that are listed in 4:28-33 were considered part of Judah from ancient times (see Josh 19:2-8). In times when the people of Israel are dispersed and the prophets are proclaiming the future restoration of Israel (Jer. 16:14-15; 23:7-8; Zeph. 2:7-9), “the author revives the ideal of a larger tribal federation” (Knoppers 2003, 374).
The Tribes of Transjordan: Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (5:1-26)
This section enumerates the descendants of Reuben (5:1-10), Gad (5:11-22), and the half-tribe of Manasseh (5:23-26). At the beginning of this section, the Chronicler clarifies the reason why Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, does not come first in his genealogy (see Gen. 29:31-32). The author’s interest in demonstrating that God often discards the firstborn (see 1 Chron. 2:3; 26:10) seems to emphasize the fact that before God there are no natural rights, only the benefit of divine election. The section dedicated to Gad (5:11-22) points to the theology of the Chronicler when explaining the reason for military success. They cried to God in the battle (see 2 Chron. 14:11-15; 20:5-30; 32:20-21) and God granted their wish (see 1 Chron. 12:19; 15:26; 2 Chron. 25:8; 32:8) because they trusted in him (see 2 Chron. 32:10); therefore, the Hagrites and all those who were with them “were given into their hands” (5:20). The section dedicated to Manasseh (5:23-26) explains the reason for the exile of the northern tribes (see 2 Kgs. 17:7-23). Israel had transgressed against God (see 2 Chron. 36:14), idolatry being one of the main issues; thus God sends a foreign army to punish his people (see 2 Chron. 36:17), and the consequence is the exile (see 2 Chron. 36:18-20).
Descendants of Levi (6:1-81)
The section is divided into two parts: the genealogy of the Aaronide priests and other Levites (6:1-53), and the settlements of the Levites (6:54-81). The lineages of David and Aaron (see 1 Chron. 2:10-17; 3:1-16) are the only cases in which the generations are enumerated from the patriarchal era until the exile. The importance the Chronicler attributes to the Levites is evident in the number of verses dedicated to the tribe of Levi. Together with Judah and Benjamin, they capture the attention of the Chronicler in the genealogy section.
Tribes of the Central Mountainous Region (7:1-40)
Surprisingly, in the genealogies of both Manasseh and Ephraim, there is no mention of any stay in Egypt. Manasseh appears to be associated with Aramean groups in Canaan, from where he takes his wife (7:14-19), leaving aside the tradition of the stay in Egypt and emphasizing the continuity of the occupation of his territory (the northern part of the territory east of river Jordan). Something similar happens with the genealogy of Ephraim (7:20-29), who according to the Genesis narrative is born and dies in Egypt (Gen. 41:50-52; Exodus 16). However, in Chronicles, Ephraim is in no way associated with Egypt. Rather, Ephraim is presented as originally from and settled in Canaan. The narrative of the murder of his sons as the result of a conflict with Gath’s men and the foundation of three cities by his daughter Seerah, “who built both Lower and Upper Beth-horon, and Uzzen-sheerah” located in Canaan, does nothing but reinforce the local Canaanite emphasis, which the author of Chronicles places on Ephraim’s sons. In a similar vein, Joshua is presented as already established on the land, in contrast to the conqueror role he is given in the book that bears his name. His leadership in the conquest is omitted in Chronicles.
Additional Descendants of Benjamin (8:1-40; 9:1a)
This new chapter, concerning the tribe of Benjamin, is structured in two sections: a list of Benjamite ancestral houses (8:3-32), and a genealogy of the family of Saul (8:33-40). While the previous section dedicated to Benjamin was centered on the military census (7:6-12), the current chapter is centered on geographical distribution.
The Postexilic Community (9:1b-44)
On concluding the descendants of Jacob (1 Chronicles 1–8), the Chronicler adds a final section listing the inhabitants of Jerusalem, paying special attention to the priestly families (9:10-13), the Levitical families (9:14-16), and the gatekeepers (9:17-33).
The fact that many of the names found in this section are not found in other books of the Hebrew Bible led the Jewish sages to argue that the people listed in the genealogies are actually people mentioned in other parts of the Bible, but under different names. The medieval Jewish scholar David Kimh.i commented that “even though what is written here cannot be found in any of the prophetic books you should not ask how Ezra [the author of Chronicles according to Kimh.i] knew all these things . . . for they are all traditions” (Berger, 69). Theodoret of Cyrus commented that the purpose of the genealogies was to establish that “all human beings are derived from a single man and how our Savior, the Son of God descended from it.” Some chapters deserved especial attention by Theodoret, like the genealogy of Judah, because of its connection with the genealogy of Jesus (Conti, 246).
The genealogical section has a provisionary summary in the opening of chapter 9: “So all Israel was enrolled by genealogies; and these are written in the Book of the Kings of Israel” (9:1). It is likely that its main purpose is to delimit the essential character of exilic Israel; those who cannot prove their genealogically “pure” connection with the ancestors become suspicious. As with many contemporary communities of faith, the exilic community struggled to set standards that would clearly establish who belonged to the community and who did not. In times of crisis, when what is perceived as the core set of beliefs and practices is threatened, those criteria that determine who is and who is not a member of the community tend to become more specific and enforceable. Could this be the intention of the God who claimed through Isaiah of the exile, “I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?” (Isa. 43:19). Do statements of faith or genealogies serve or hinder the expected inclusive character of the community of the kingdom, here and now?
The death of Saul (10:1-14) is paralleled in 1 Sam. 31:1-13. For the Chronicler, the reign of Saul is more than a prologue to the history of David. Saul’s unfaithfulness will be remembered throughout the Chronicler’s work (2 Chron. 26:16, 18; 28:19, 22; 29:5-6, 19; 30:7; 33:19; 36:14). It is summarized in 10:13, where Saul dies for disobeying the Lord by not keeping his commands and for seeking guidance from a medium instead of the Lord.
The account of the death of Saul and his sons begins after 9:35-44. The battle takes place on Mount Gilboa, and the results are disastrous. Saul is terrified of what might happen to him if he falls into enemy hands. His apparent self-inflicted death on the battlefield is the only case of suicide in the Bible (see 2 Sam. 1:10, where Saul dies instead at the hand of an Amalekite). The Chronicler replaces “his armor-bearer and all his men” from 1 Sam. 31:6 with “all his house died together,” highlighting the end of the dynasty (10:6).
This is the only place in Chronicles where Yahweh directly intervenes to make a dynastic change. The Chronicler clearly points out that the death of Saul is a punishment for his sins. As Klein states, “What happened in the transition from Saul to David . . . was divine retribution at work, and even more, divine providence” (Klein 2006, 291), two essential elements of Chronicles’ understanding of history.
King David’s coronation is described in 11:1—12:40. Even though the material for this section comes from 2 Samuel 5, the Chronicler presents it with intent to highlight the divine intervention in favor of David. During Saul’s reign, David established his power center in Hebron (1 Sam. 30:31), and according to 2 Sam. 2:4, this is exactly the place where he is anointed king over the house of Judah. In Chronicles, all Israel is “together with” David, while in Samuel the tribes only “came” to David. Then David made a covenant with all the elders who had declared their union with the house of David: “we are your bone and flesh.” According to the Chronicler’s theological perspective, all this happened in accordance with what God had already announced through Samuel (1 Sam. 15:28; 16:1-3).
The new dynasty needs a capital in neutral territory, and Jerusalem is the chosen place (11:4-9). Once again, it is “all Israel” who marches instead of “the king and his men” (2 Sam. 5:6). From this moment and until today, Jerusalem will be the city of David par excellence. The verse “David became greater and greater, for the Lord of hosts [sabaoth] was with him,” summarizes the essential elements of David’s ascent to the throne (1 Chron. 11:9 // 2 Sam. 5:10); “popular and divine election coalesce in establishing David’s rule” (Knoppers 2004, 575).
Rabbinic commentaries on the death of Saul focus on the question of whether it is legitimate to take one’s life when the alternative is facing unbearable pain or torture. The rabbis portrayed the transition from the house of Saul to the house of David as inevitable, irrespective of Saul’s behavior, because the “scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Gen. 49:10). Saul’s reign was, therefore, provisional and did not have any future. Gregory of Nazianzus compared the transition from Jebus to Jerusalem with the Christian transition from temple to word (Conti, 248). Augustine read the destiny of David as an example of how futile it is to resist the will of God. Commenting on all the men who come to Hebron, Augustine states: “Obviously it was of their own will that these men made David king; the fact is clear and undeniable. Nevertheless, it was God, who effects in human hearts whatsoever he wills, who wrought this will in them” (Admonitions and Grace 14.45, in Conti, 248).
Around the year 1000 BCE, Jerusalem became the capital of the nation of Israel and its religious and political center. Since then, the “City of David,” which never ceased to be the religious center of the Jewish people, has witnessed wars; famine; destruction and rebuilding; and foreign occupation by Greeks (Hellenistic), Romans, Byzantine Christians, Muslims, the Ottomans, the British, and Jordanians throughout the centuries. It was not until 1967 that Jerusalem was reunited and reestablished as the capital city of Israel. Today, the ancestral Jewish claim is challenged by Islam, which after its expansion out of the Arabian Peninsula and violent conquest of Jerusalem in 637 CE, occupied the land and built the Al-Aqsa Mosque (completed in 705 CE) on top of the Temple Mount. Alternative narratives are sometimes not equally legitimate and should be examined thoroughly, but is the loss of human life in these successive occupations worth being right?
First Chronicles 13:1-4 contains an episode not found in the book of 2 Samuel. It introduces the first failed attempt to transfer the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, which could in no way be the religious center of Israel if the ark was not there. David’s procedure indicates his role as popular leader. It is not by royal decree that the decision is made, but rather after consulting with the commanders and leaders. Such a move needed to have the support of all Israelites, and their priests and Levites (13:1-2). The festive occasion, a narrative climax, precedes the tragedy that follows—from general rejoicing to experiencing the fear of divine mystery. Uzzah, who with all good intentions tries to stop the ark from falling, is killed by God and causes quite a stir (13:10). David retracts his original idea as a response to the uncontrollable divine action, and decides not to take the ark “into his care into the city of David” (13:13). Rather, he takes it to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. Paradoxically, the ark ends up in the house of a Philistine at the service of the royal household. Contrary to David’s fears, “the Lord blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that he had” (13:14).
In 2 Samuel, the first attempt to take the ark to Jerusalem is immediately followed by a second try, this time successful (2 Sam. 6:12-19). In 2 Sam. 6:12, the transfer is triggered by the news that David receives of the Lord’s blessing of the house of Obed-edom. In Chronicles, David’s religious zeal is presented as the initial cause of this new attempt. According to Knoppers, the Chronicler’s accounts of David’s attempt to retrieve the ark “ultimately ratify the historical primacy, central status, and continuing privileges of the Jerusalem Temple” (2004, 593).
The Chronicler points out the distinction between the Levites and the “descendants of Aaron,” the Aaronide priests (15:4), and then sets out the list of Levites according to their families (Kothar, Merari, Gershom, and so forth): “no one but the Levites were to carry the ark of God” (15:2). In 2 Samuel, the ark is transferred by David, while in Chronicles it is a collective endeavor in which the elders of Israel and the military leaders also take part. Chronicles emphasizes that the Levites are the ones who carry the ark, followed by the main strata of the Israelite society, the military, civilian, and religious groups.
The organization of worship that follows (16:4-42) has no parallel in the Deuteronomistic history and can be attributed to the Chronicler’s composition. Once again, David is the one to name ministers, to invoke—literally to “remember”—praise, and to thank the Lord. As a corollary to the above description, the Chronicler includes a song of thanksgiving and praise ordered by David, “by Asaph and his kindred” (16:7-38). The reference to Asaph is important, as the texts that mention him in place of Heman or Ethan are considered very ancient. The psalm of the Chronicler includes parts of Psalm 105 (vv. 1-5); 96 (vv. 1-3); and 106 (vv. 47-48). By including these postexilic psalms, “the Chronicler establishes a continuity between the worship life established by David and that of his own day” (Klein 2006, 370).
The unexpected death of Uzzah while transporting the ark demanded an explanation. David Kimh.i suggested that it was David’s mistake to try to carry the ark on a wagon (Num. 7:9 states that sacred objects had to be carried on shoulders) and proposes that David reasoned that God’s commandment was only valid for the time of the wilderness (Berger, 126). Salvian the Presbyter stated that Uzzah “was undutiful in his very act because he went beyond his orders,” and because “even what seems to be a very little in fault is made great by the injury to God,” he deserved his punishment (Franke, 344).
The ark narrative seems to value the sacredness of objects more than human life. Uzzah’s good intentions expressed in his attempt to prevent the ark from falling from the wagon do not mitigate God’s anger and subsequent reaction. A contemporary commentator justifies God’s behavior by stating that “the fate of Uzzah is a fearful warning against over-familiarity with God. His attitude to the thing should have been as reverent as his attitude to the Person” (Wilcock, 67). I disagree. Uzzah’s literary killing (of course, gods do not kill people) justifies the death of another innocent victim, adding to the long list of religion-based (literary and real) murders.
Nathan’s oracle (17:4-14) is of fundamental importance for the development of the concept of covenant between God and Israel. In both Samuel and Chronicles, Nathan’s oracle is preceded by an introduction (1 Chron. 17:1-2; 2 Sam. 7:1-3). The Chronicler omits the second part of 2 Sam. 7:1, “the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him,” and substitutes the rhetorical question in Samuel—“Are you the one to build me a house to live in?” (2 Sam. 7:5)—with a negation: “You shall not build me a house to live in” (1 Chron. 17:4). This clarifies that God is not against the construction of the temple, but rather against the man who was ready to begin the construction. God offers the reasons by means of the prophet, explaining that since leaving Egypt, God has lived in a tent and tabernacle. Both of these are synonymous and contrast with “house,” which indicates a construction with walls. The passage then turns from the negative statement (it won’t be David who builds the temple) to the positive one: it will be God who builds the house of David to assure his descendants, and it will be from these descendants that the person who will build the temple will come (17:7-15 // 2 Sam. 7:8-16). God’s covenant with David will be perpetuated in Solomon, from whom God will never withdraw his steadfast love (17:13)—the opposite of what happened with Saul, David’s predecessor.
David responds to Nathan’s oracle with a prayer (17:16-27), which consists of two parts: 17:16-22 and 23-27. The first responds to the content of the first part of Nathan’s prophecy: God’s benevolence toward David (vv. 7-8). David responds, praising God for his promise to establish David’s house, and the enumeration of God’s promise to Israel (vv. 9-10a). David also refers to the exodus, conquest, and the covenantal relationship between God and Israel (vv. 20-22). The second part of the prayer (vv. 23-27) claims the fulfilling of God’s promise on the establishment and continuity of the Davidic dynasty.
Chapters 18–20 present a summary of David’s battles against the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Arameans based on 2 Samuel 8–21. In what follows, David orders a census and acquires the land to build the temple (21:1—22:1 // 2 Sam. 24:1-4, 8-25). The Chronicler follows the narrative of 2 Samuel in this case as well, noting, however, that it was not God who incited David to “go, count the people of Israel and Judah” (as in 2 Sam 24:1) but “Satan,” who perhaps shouldn’t be understood as the devil but as “an emissary of the deity carrying out God’s punishment of Israel” (Stokes, 106).
Eusebius of Caesarea, commenting on Nathan’s prophecy, suggests that Solomon is not the subject of the prophecy, or even the subsequent Davidic kings, who didn’t last, but the Messiah (“Christ” in Eusebius’s mind), “whose kingdom continues and will continue lasting for endless time” (Conti, 260). After the destruction of the second temple by the Roman army in 70 CE, Jewish interpreters also projected into the messianic era some of the promises to David: “More than God wishes to dwell in a house, He wishes to dwell in Israel’s hearts. It is the function of the Messiah to make the hearts of Israel the true House of HaShem” (Eisemann 1987, 248). Regarding the coronation of David (20:2), Kimh.i comments on how David could stand a crown that weighed a talent of gold, mentioning previous medieval interpreters that assumed that actually the crown was suspended over his head (the precious stone on top of it was a drawing stone, keeping the crown in the air), but concluding that David wore the crown only for brief periods, therefore being able to withstand its weight.
The project to build a temple, faced by a prophetic reminder of the continuous presence of the God of Israel with his people and with David, makes it clear that God doesn’t need a house, and that God is happy with a mobile structure (tent, tabernacle). Communities of faith spend fortunes to improve their “temples.” The transformation from “sacred places” to “sacred hearts” (hearts are also mobile!) as proposed above by Moshe Eisemann is a healthy development within religious traditions. Once fiercely attached to certain sacred real estate and ready to wage savage wars to defend or conquer those places, such a movement focuses on the inner presence of God instead of his territorial presence in a place of worship. Paul writes, “Our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you” (1 Cor. 6:19). Would it be more in accordance with the divine will to reallocate all the resources spent on “houses of worship,” in “sacred places,” toward enriching the lives of those sacred vessels that are human beings? It is noticeable that, as described in Revelation (21:22), there is no temple in the new Jerusalem.
This section is structured around David’s decisions before his death regarding the building of the temple. Chapter 22 consists of three sections: verses 2-5 describe David’s initial preparations; verses 6-16, the charge to Solomon; and verses 17-19, his command to the leaders of Israel. Each of these sections has a rhetorical center—David’s thoughts (v. 5); David’s words to Solomon (vv. 7b-16); and his words to the leaders (vv. 18-19). Each of the following subsections begins with “David said” or “David commanded,” emphasizing David’s leadership in the whole project. In this way, Nathan’s oracle in 1 Chron. 17:11-14 begins to be fulfilled: “I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever.” In this project, it will not be the Israelites who will be subjected to forced labor (as Solomon would do in 1 Kings 5:27), but rather “aliens residing in the land.” The term gerim is used in Chronicles when referring to the Canaanites who remained in Israel (2 Chron. 2:16); 8:7-10) as free men with limited legal rights. The description of Solomon as “young and inexperienced” is in harmony with the description of him in 1 Kings 3:7, a young child “who does not know how to go out or come in” (see also 1 Chron. 29:1, where David describes him as “young and inexperienced”). Rehoboam is the other king to whom a similar description applies (“young and irresolute,” 2 Chron. 13:7), which suggests that these are not mere descriptive terms but rather pejorative reflections of the immaturity that characterizes both kings.
The changes in the obligations of the Levites after the construction of the temple are explained in 23:26-28. Because they will no longer need to transport the tabernacle, they are assigned additional tasks established in the Pentateuch (23:25-26) as assistants to the Aaronide priests, emphasizing the subordination of the Levites to the priests (23:28-32). Music is central to the worship service and here related to the task of worship prophets. It seems evident that Levites also played this role (see 2 Kings 23:2 // 2 Chron. 34:30).
The army is organized in twelve divisions (27:2-15), each of them of consisting of 24,000 men. All the chiefs are part of the list of the heroes of David (2 Sam. 23:8-11; 1 Chron. 11:10–30). Jashobeam of the tribe of Judah is one of the sons of Judah, and is assigned to lead the first division during the first month (Nisan = March–April). He is also named commander in chief of the army during that period. In a similar fashion, all commanders for the rest of the months are listed.
A midrash reports that God says to David: “ ‘If you were to build it, it would stand eternally, and never be destroyed.’ And David said to Him, ‘Would this not be all the good?’ But God answered him, ‘I know that [Israel] will one day sin before Me. I intend to pour My anger upon the [physical] building [rather than on the people themselves, for that reason I do not want a temple which can never be destroyed]” (Yalkut Shimoni to Samuel 145; interpolations by Eisemann 1987, 288).
Some Christian interpreters focused especially on 22:9-10, stating that the reign of Solomon (whose name means “peaceable”) was not that long, came to an end, and that the name Solomon was also given to Christ (“he is our peace,” Eph. 2:14) (Theodoret of Cyrus, in Conti, 264). Eusebius also argued that Nathan’s prophecy (22:10) was really fulfilled by Jesus (Proof of the Gospel 6.12, in Conti, 264).
The allocation of such a large amount of materials and human effort to the construction of a place of worship makes us wonder: What is the best way to allocate the resources of religious communities? A symbol of power and prestige for the Jerusalem elite, the temple would hardly serve in any way the well-being of the rest of the population, and it reminds us of the failed intention of Gen. 11:4—“let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” David’s existential needs (a memorable building, an everlasting lineage) are the literary reflection of our human “unbearable lightness of being.”
Although chapters 28–29 relate Solomon’s enthronement, the central figure is David. David gathers all Israel’s officers (28:1), David says (28:2), David provides (29:1), David says (29:10, 20), David calls to bless the Lord (29:20). This version is different from the story in 1 Kings 1–2, where the people play a mere anecdotic role (see 1 Kings 1:39b-40). In these two chapters, their role is fundamental.
David’s speech (28:2-10) focuses on three topics: the construction of the temple, Solomon’s divine election, and an exhortation to keep the commandments of God. In the same way that Moses could not enter the promised land and it fell to Joshua to lead in the final possession of this promised land, it will be Solomon and not David who will lead the construction of the temple. The promise of a lasting kingdom for Solomon, which in 1 Chron. 17:4 is unconditional, appears conditioned here depending on his effort to keep God’s commandments and ordinances. The conditional character of the divine promise extends to the leaders of all Israel (28:8). From the perspective of the postexilic community, it is clear that the motive by which the Davidic dynasty had been displaced and the people taken into exile was the king and his leaders’ lack of observance of the divine commandments. In the same way that the plans of the tabernacle were revealed to Moses and then drawn (Exod. 25:9, 40), so too the plans of the temple were revealed to David and then drawn up (28:2, 12, 18-19). The difference between the times of Moses and the Chronicler is that Moses receives the revelation orally, while the revelation to David is in writing (28:19). For the postexilic community, the inspired word has become the inspired text. David becomes not only the architect of the temple but also the one who dictates the order of service and establishes the hierarchical order of the staff who serve the temple. Even if Solomon is the builder, David is the intellectual author of the whole project.
David’s prayer (29:10-19) contains three parts: the doxology (vv. 10b-13), the presentation and dedication of the voluntary offering to God (vv. 14-17), and the supplication (18-19). David asks God that Solomon may faithfully uphold “your commandments, your decrees, and your statutes,” a clear reference to the Torah, so the temple may be built.
If it were not for the narrative in 1 Kings 1–2 describing the way Solomon reaches the throne, it would be impossible to understand the bloody family conflicts and palace intrigues that facilitated his ascent to the throne in the narration of the Chronicler (29:20-25). The Chronicler adds the offering of sacrifices by “all the assembly” (29:21) to the narrative of 1 Kings, pointing to the unity of the people in support of the new king (“and all Israel obeyed him,” 29:23).
The Chronicler then presents a summary of David’s reign (29:26-30), highlighting David’s reign over “all Israel” (29:26) without mentioning the fact that while he reigned in Hebron, the territory under his command covered only the tribe of Judah (see 1 Kgs. 2:11). In 29:28, he points out that David achieved everything a king could wish and died “in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor.”
John of Damascus interpreted God’s refusal to allow David to build the temple as a clear indication of the need to separate the political from the religious office. He writes, “Emperors have not preached the word to you, but apostles and prophets, shepherds and teachers” (On Divine Images, Second Apology 12, in Conti, 270). Augustine used 1 Chron. 28:9 to argue for the choice of free will, but also maintained that God’s grace does not depend on it (On Grace and Free Will II, in Conti, 271). Bede interpreted the measures of the temple allegorically. Its height, one 120 cubits, was connected with the pouring of the Spirit onto the same number of men (Conti, 271).
The conditional aspect of the blessings promised to God’s servants is perhaps one of the most important components of the evolving theology of the Hebrew Bible that has been left behind by contemporary communities of faith. Was the church of Germany still in a covenantal relationship with God after supporting Hitler’s program? Were the communities of the United States that supported slavery and segregation? Are those who discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation? On the other hand, how can contemporary communities of faith living in a world where gods do not intervene in human affairs interpret the consequences of departing from faithfulness?
See parallels to these verses in 1 Kgs. 3:1-15 and 1 Kgs. 10:26-29. First Chronicles 29:28 shows Solomon already sitting on David’s throne, and the opening verse of 2 Chronicles states that he “established himself in his kingdom” (see 1 Kgs. 2:12; 2:46b), an expression that denotes the king’s overcoming certain obstacles or conflicts (see 1 Chron. 11:10; 2 Chron. 12:13; 13:21; 17:1; 21:4). Solomon’s convocation (1:2-6.) resembles David’s in 1 Chron. 28:1. The purpose is to demonstrate that “all Israel” is present in this act of worship.
The Chronicler omits God’s appearance to Solomon in a dream and moves directly to God’s speech (1:7-13) following its parallel in 1 Kgs. 3:5-14: God’s question (2 Chron. 1:7b), Solomon’s response (2 Chron. 1:8-10), and God’s reaction (2 Chron. 1:11-12). Solomon, previously described as “young and inexperienced” (1 Chron. 29:1), will demonstrate maturity and humility when he asks for wisdom to lead his people. God provides him with “riches, possessions, and honor” (1:12) because of this request, which “demonstrated that Solomon indeed had the wherewithal to build the temple” (Klein 2012, 28).
Solomon’s request for wisdom (1:10) has offered biblical interpreters a rich source for homiletic applications. John Chrysostom commented that the believer should “ask nothing worldly, but all things spiritual, and you will surely receive” (Conti, 274). The nineteenth-century rabbi Malbim (Meïr Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser) clarifies that “wisdom” refers to value (ethical) judgment while “knowledge” refers to information or axiomatic truths (Eisemann 1992, 5). Gregory of Nazianzus praised Solomon as “the wisest of all people, whether before him or in his own time,” who also knew “the furthest point of wisdom to be the discovery of how very far off it was from him” (Conti, 274).
Solomon is certainly a controversial figure. The biblical portrait exalts him as a man of prudence and a great builder, but also as a king who burdened the people with excessive taxation and subjected them to forced labor. “Wisdom and knowledge” are essential components of good leadership, but there is a change in attitude from the very beginning of Solomon’s reign. Solomon’s sense of entitlement eventually moves away from the best interest of his people. It is too common a development of political leaders.
David has already charged Solomon with completing the preparations for the building of the temple (1 Chron. 22:14), which prompts Solomon to force seventy thousand men “to bear the burdens” and “eighty thousand to quarry in the hill country” (2 Chron. 2:2). He also requests the help of Huram (“Hiram” in Kings), king of Tyre, who provides skilled craftsmen, cedar, cypress, and algum timber for the project. The Chronicler emphasizes that the laborers forced to work on the temple are not native Israelites but foreigners (2 Chron. 2:17-18; see 1 Chron. 20:3; 22:2; and 1 Kgs. 5:13-18). Solomon builds the temple on the site God showed to David (1 Chron. 21:28—22:1); the site is also identified as Mt. Moriah, where Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:2), also known as God’s mountain (Gen. 22:14).
After its construction, the temple is dedicated to the Lord (5:2—7:22 // 1 Kgs. 8:1—9:8). The assembly gathers in Jerusalem during the seventh month (named Tishri after the exile, but Ethanim in the preexilic period, see 1 Kings 8:2) to bring the ark to the temple. The assembly includes the leaders and “all the Israelites” (5:3). The seventh month is the month of the Feast of the Tabernacles (Sukkot, Lev. 23:34; Deut. 16:13-16; 31:10). In 1 Kings, the priests are in charge of moving the ark, but here the task falls to the Levites, according to what David prescribed (1 Chron. 15:2; see Deut. 10:8; 31:25; Num. 3:31). The sacrifices offered by Solomon and “all the congregation of Israel” resemble the sacrifices offered by David and the people when the ark was moved from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 13:5).
Solomon’s speech (6:3-42) follows the pattern of David’s speech in 1 Chron. 28:2-10. After his speech, Solomon turns to the bronze altar, extending his hands in prayer (see Exod. 9:29). Solomon praises God for fulfilling his promise to David, and asks that God keep his promise that the Davidic dynasty be perennial, as long as “your children keep to their way, to walk in my law as you have walked before me” (6:16). The general statement of 1 Kings “to walk before me as you have walked before me” becomes more specific in Chronicles: “to walk in my law as you have walked before me.” After the exile, to walk before God becomes to walk in God’s law (torah). Second Chronicles 6:18-21 reflects tension between a belief in God’s transcendence (see 2 Chron. 2:4-5; Isa. 56:7) and his presence in the temple. Solomon’s prayer (6:22-23) suggests that oaths previously made in the tent of meeting or other sacred place (see Lev. 6:3-6; Num. 5:13; Judg. 11:11; Amos 8:14) should now be made in the temple.
The final act of the temple’s dedication is the offering of sacrifices. The Chronicler adds two miracles to the story narrated in 1 Kings (7:1-10 // 1 Kgs. 8:54-66). First, fire descends from heaven, consuming the burnt offering (7:1), in the same way that fire from heaven consumed David’s offering (1 Chron. 21:26). Second, God’s glory fills the temple, preventing the priests from entering the precinct (7:1b-2).
God’s answer to Solomon’s prayer (7:11-22 // 1 Kgs. 9:1-9) offers a good example of the Chronicler’s theology of retribution (7:13-15). The people complete four actions, which lead to God’s forgiveness: “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land” (7:14). The notion of humbling oneself appears previously in 1 Chron. 17:10; 18:1; 20:4, and becomes a key element in the Chronicler’s theology from this point forward (see 2 Chron. 16:6-7; 30:11; 32:26; 33:12, 19, 23; 34:7; 36:12). Praying has been connected to the rebuilding of the temple (see 1 Chron. 17:25; 2 Chron. 7:1) and to petitions for salvation (2 Chron. 32:20-24; 33:13). To seek God’s face (2 Chron. 11:16; 15:4, 15; 20:4) and “to turn from their wicked ways” also appear as theological concepts in 2 Chron. 15:4; 30:6, 9; and 36:13.
In 8:1-18, the Chronicler contradicts the story in 1 Kgs. 9:11-14. In 1 Kings, Solomon gives away the cities to Hiram of Tyre for 120 talents of gold. The Chronicler considers the promised land sacred, and giving it away is not a proper act for a king like Solomon.
The visit of the queen of Sheba (9:1-28 // 1 Kgs. 10:1-28) follows the parallel story in Kings with little variation. As no other king before or after, he is a source of wisdom beyond the borders of Israel. Verses 13-28 again highlight the wealth of Solomon and his passion for luxury items: he orders “two hundred large shields of beaten gold” and three hundred smaller shields also of beaten gold (9:15-16).
The temple built by Solomon received a number of allegorical interpretations. Origen states, “Let us seek to find in the Church the truth of each statement made about the temple. If all Christ’s enemies are made the footstool of His feet, and Death, the last enemy, is destroyed, then there will be the most perfect peace. Christ will be Solomon, which means ‘Peaceful,’ and the prophecy will find its fulfillment in Him” (On John 23). Bede commented on the visit of the queen of Sheba, “The sending of the Ethiopian queen of the treasures of the nations to Jerusalem signifies that the Church would bring gifts of the virtue and of faith to the Lord” (Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, in Conti, 68). The Jewish sages, however, interpreted such visits in more somber ways; Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king that would destroy Solomon’s temple, was a descendant of the fruit of her visit (Alphabet Ben Sira 21b).
Today, The Temple Mount is an issue of contention. Now, the Al Aqsa mosque (the third most sacred place for Sunni Muslims) stands on top of where the temple stood, and Jews are not allowed to pray in any portion of the 1,555,000-square-foot plaza. According to Arab leaders like Yasser Arafat, there was never a Jewish temple in Jerusalem and there is no connection between the city and the Jewish people. This is a widespread belief in Muslim countries. Israeli security forces are on guard (especially during the anniversary of the destruction of the temple) against a handful of Jewish religious radicals who believe that destroying the Al Aqsa mosque would allow the third temple to be built. Perhaps our species will reach a day when our mother Earth will be considered humanity’s one and only sacred place, and every human being her priest and caretaker.
After the death of Solomon, the nation of Israel experiences a political schism (10:1—11:4). When the assembly of northern tribes challenges the oppressive taxes that enabled Solomon to pursue his building projects, his son Rehoboam chooses to heed the advice of his young friends and punish the people’s disrespect with additional oppressive measures instead of following the advice of Solomon’s advisers. As a result, the northern tribes reject Rehoboam as their king and secede. The Chronicler shows that he believes Judah is still part of his ideal “all Israel” by replacing “all the house of Judah and Benjamin” (1 Kgs. 12:23) with “all Israel in Judah and Benjamin” (11:3). As Japhet states, “the people remains one even after the monarchy is split into two, and all its elements and tribes continue to be represented in the kingdom of Judah” (1989, 230).
Afterward, Rehoboam engages in some building projects (11:5—12:16). The list of cities fortified by Rehoboam (11:5-12) does not have a parallel story in Kings. In the northern kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam undertakes religious reforms that revoke the Levites’ ability to function as priests. As a result, the priests migrate to the southern kingdom of Judah (11:13-17 // 1 Kgs. 12:31-32; 13:33). For the Chronicler, everything Jeroboam does in matters of religion is reprehensible.
In addition to the reference to David’s wives and concubines, 11:18-21 is the only place in Chronicles where the author mentions the names of wives, concubines, and children of a king (Rehoboam in this case). Rehoboam favors Maacah, daughter of Absalom, over the rest of his wives and appoints her son, Abijah, as his successor. Following Solomon’s example, Rehoboam appoints his sons in strategic positions to assure his control of the country.
Chronicles adds parenthetical comments to the parallel story in Kings about Pharaoh Shishak’s attack on Judah (12:1-12 // 1 Kgs. 14:25-28). The first refers to the consolidation of Rehoboam’s dominion and his unfaithfulness to God’s law (12:1). The narrative sequence makes clear that Shishak’s attack results from Rehoboam’s and the people’s infidelity. Shishak lists 150 cities captured during his campaign in his inscription at Karnak, most of them situated in northern Israel. This passage is composed with Sennacherib’s campaign in mind (2 Kings 18–19). In the cases of both Rehoboam versus Shishak, and Hezekiah versus Sennacherib, the stories highlight the consolidation of power and the subsequent arrogance that brings divine punishment. Also in both cases, the humbling of the leaders and kings prevents the destruction of Jerusalem.
Rehoboam does not receive a favorable judgment: “He did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord” (12:14). “To set one’s heart to seek the Lord” will become an essential component of the Chronicler’s definition of faithfulness. Not to do so leads one to sin.
When elaborating on the confrontation between Rehoboam and the people in Shechem, some commentators try to portray it as a misunderstanding; Arbarbanel, for example, states that Rehoboam should have explained to the people how beneficial Solomon’s reign had been to them instead of conceding that he oppressed them with a heavy yoke (10:11) (Eisemann 1992, 77). The medieval Jewish scholar David Kimh.i also considered the complaints unjustified considering the peace the land enjoyed during Solomon’s reign (Eisemann 1992, 76). Ambrose, however, highlights the fact that justice serves political leaders well while injustice undermines their rule. Augustine condemns Rehoboam for rejecting the counsel of the elders, but emphasizes that this happened to fulfill God’s plan (Conti, 78–79).
The oppressive practices of Solomon are evident in this passage, but as the reception history shows, it was hard for some interpreters to accept that the complaint by the people and their request for lower taxes was fair. Communities of faith find it difficult to criticize biblical heroes like Solomon. The question remains, How one can adjudicate a political confrontation like the one depicted here without any additional evidence? It is clear that Rehoboam’s reaction was neither wise nor practical, but was the peace and tranquility under Solomon worth the heavy taxes?
Rehoboam’ son Abijah follows him to the throne of Judah (13:1—14:1 // 1 Kgs. 15:1-2; 6-8). His sermon in 13:4-12 belongs to a significant literary form in Chronicles called “Levitical sermons.” The theological message is clear: The northern kingdom has not only rebelled against the Davidic dynasty but also against God himself. In 13:13-21, Chronicles departs from the narrative in Kings to tell the story of the victory of Judah against Israel. Israel has a larger army, but they are no match for God’s chosen dynasty. Judah triumphs “because they relied on the Lord, the God of their ancestors” (13:18). Later, Chronicles makes it clear that God himself struck Jeroboam, causing his death.
Asa, son of Abijah, follows his father (14:2—16:14 // 1 Kgs. 15:1-24), and enjoys ten years of peace (14:2-15). He acts as Davidic kings are supposed to act (14:2). Asa “took away the foreign altars and the high places, broke down the pillars, hewed down the sacred poles” (14:3), and also kept the laws and commandments. The blessings are manifested in a period of peace and in the success of his building program. According to the Chronicler, prosperity is a direct consequence of being faithful. God’s peace is challenged by a foreign invasion (14:9-15). An Egyptian army led by a Cushite king (perhaps Osorkon I) attacks Judah, and Asa brings his troops to face an enemy much more numerous and powerful. But Judah is not alone. Asa cries to the Lord and the Lord acts by defeating the enemy.
In 15:1-7, the spirit of God commands his prophet Azariah, Son of Oded, to address the king. The speech is another example of the theology of the Chronicler, and it has also been characterized as a Levitical sermon. In the sermon, the Chronicler promises peace, prosperity, and blessings to those who seek the Lord (15:3-6; see Hosea 3:4). Asa reacts immediately to the prophet’s demands (15:8-19). He receives the support of all the people of Judah, Benjamin, and the refugees that had fled the northern kingdom of Israel and who had remained faithful to God. The reforms conclude with a covenant renewal, where the people “with all their heart and with all their soul” commit to the Lord. As a consequence, God gives them rest and peace. King Asa even decides to remove his mother, Maacah, as the queen mother because of her devotion to Asherah, although she is not put to death, as the people’s oath in 15:13 would have implied. The Chronicler states that Asa was not completely effective in removing all the high places of worship (in clear contradiction with 14:3), but still describes him as a king with a true heart.
Asa cannot counteract Israel’s strategic fortification of Ramah, a city in the territory of Benjamin (4.3 miles north of Jerusalem), and has to resort to an alliance with the King of Aram, Ben-hadad, who resides in Damascus, to prevent its completion (16:1-14). The alliance produces the expected results. After Ben-hadad attacks the northern kingdom, Asa is able to take the fortification materials from Ramah to fortify Geba and Mizpah, two other cities in the territory of Benjamin. The story in Kings does not pass judgment on Asa’s actions, but the Chronicler is critical of this foreign alliance. The prophet Hanani comes to Asa (16:7-10) and expresses God’s condemnation of Asa for his lack of trust in the God of Israel. The theology of the Chronicler demands that kings should put their trust only in God. Asa’s reaction is very different from his reaction to the oracle of the prophet Azariah (15:1-7); instead of obeying, he becomes angry. Instead of returning to God, Asa throws Hanani in jail. A king that leaves God cannot act justly with the people or his prophets. When Asa becomes sick, he fails again to look for God’s assistance (see Exod. 15:26). Of course, nothing good can come from this act of disloyalty to the Lord. Asa does not recover, and dies.
The speech of the prophet Azariah was interpreted by some commentators (Kimh.i and the eighteenth-century rabbi Yechiel Hillel Altschuler (Metzudos) as referring to the future, to what will happen if his message is ignored (Eisemann 1992, 106–7). The future without a “true God” symbolizes the years of exile that are coming, where life among idol worshipers equals a life without God. Theodoret of Cyrus reads it as portraying the impiety of the ten tribes who, because of their unfaithfulness, had been deprived of their priests and teachers (Conti, 281).
Azariah’s speech reflects an ancient cosmic vision dominant in the history of the Western world until the beginning of modernity. Today, the idea of gods that mingle in human affairs is not compatible with our understanding of the universe and should be left behind. We have learned that there is no assurance whatsoever that peace, prosperity, and blessings will come to those who seek the Lord. Perhaps the tragic deaths of Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and millions of observant Jews who perished in the Shoah are a painful reminder of that. We can, however, work with the idea that those who seek the Lord will be able to live a meaningful life, a life with purpose and fulfillment.
A faithful king, Jehoshaphat (17:1—21:1 // 1 Kgs. 15:24b; 22:1-36, 41-50a), is one of the Chronicler’s favorite kings (along with Josiah and Hezekiah). The ongoing hostilities between the northern and southern kingdoms leads Jehoshaphat to fortify cities and to establish garrisons and outposts to prevent Israel from invading Judah. In this unstable situation, Jehoshaphat shows his faithfulness to God by rejecting Baal (17:3) and trusting God. Jehoshaphat’s loyalty to God brings him prosperity and security. The mention of “great riches and honor” is similar to the Chronicler’s rendering of the reigns of David and Solomon (see 1 Chron. 29:28; 2 Chron. 1:12). His educational efforts offer a concrete example of Jehoshaphat’s faithfulness. He sends officials, Levites, and priests to teach God’s law in the cities of Judah. “2 Chronicles 17 is unique in reporting a royal mandate for disseminating torah” (Knoppers 1994, 63–64). This “mission” is, however, peculiar since teaching God’s law was a prerogative of the priests (Lev. 10:11; Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26). The exact nature of the “book of the law” that the group carried with them is uncertain. The existence of such a book is assumed in Deuteronomistic texts (Deut. 28:61; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kgs. 14:5). As a result of Jehoshaphat’s faithfulness, God imposes fear on the surrounding countries, which not only refrain from attacking Judah but also bring Jehoshaphat tribute, increasing his wealth.
The passage 18:1—19:3 describes an alliance between Judah and the northern kingdom intended to attack the Aramean enclave of Ramoth-Gilead. The Chronicler explains, “Jehoshaphat had great riches and honor” (18:1), and did not need to enter into an alliance with Ahab, king of the unfaithful northern kingdom. However, Ahab “incited” him to do it (NRSV, “induced”), an expression that always has a negative connotation and outcome in the Bible. In the midst of optimistic oracles of victory and triumph, Jehoshaphat wants to hear what Micaiah son of Imlah (a prophet Ahab disliked because he always prophesied disasters) has to say. Micaiah reluctantly declares the word of God: disaster will indeed be the outcome of the battle (18:16). The parallel text in 1 Kgs. 22:32 reports that during the battle, Jehoshaphat, surrounded by the enemy, cries to his soldiers for help; in Chronicles, he asked God for help and is rescued (18:31). Ahab is wounded and does not outlive the day (18:34). Jehoshaphat returns to Jerusalem only to be admonished by the seer Jehu, son of Hanani (19:2).
After that, Jehoshaphat continues his reforms (19:4-11) by traveling around the country to bring the people back to the Lord and by appointing judges that will “judge not on behalf of human beings but on the Lord’s behalf” (19:6). Jehoshaphat sets up a final appeals court in Jerusalem presided over by Amariah, the chief priest for religious matters, and by Zebadiah son of Ishmael, for civil matters (19:11).
In 20:1—21:1, the Chronicler reformulates the story in Kings to focus on God’s reward for Jehoshaphat’s piety. As is usual in Chronicles, the author highlights the religious elements, leaving aside the political or economic aspects of the conflict. The Chronicler reports that Jehoshaphat’s reaction to the invasion was pious: “he set himself to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah” (20:3). The Levite, Jahaziel son of Zechariah, proclaims an oracle of salvation: “Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out against them, and the Lord will be with you” (20:17; see Exod. 14:13-14; 1 Sam. 17:47). In the final section, the Chronicler reports again about the destiny of any alliance with the unfaithful. Jehoshaphat of Judah accepts a partnership with Ahaziah of Israel to build a fleet, and as expected the ships wreck and are not able to reach their destination (20:35-37).
Jehoshaphat was praised by Augustine, for he “possessed the justice that David first possessed and did not commit the sins that David later committed” (Against the Pelagians 2.21, in Conti, 282). Basil the Great exhorts one to take God’s forgiving attitude as an example saying, “If you see your neighbor committing sin, take care not to dwell exclusively on his sin, but think of the many things that he has done and continues to do rightly” (On Humility, in Conti, 283). The Jewish sages saw Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab negatively, and stated that Moses himself had to intercede centuries earlier for Jehoshaphat’s life (Sifre to Deuteronomy 33:7). And according to a midrash it was Jehu’s admonition that moved him to reform the judiciary.
The Hebrew Bible contains a strong message against political alliances with the impious, emphasizing trust in God as the only viable source of legitimation, political stability, peace, and prosperity. The risks of such alliances, as reflected in the alliance between Jehoshaphat and Ahab, are great and the danger of compromising the values of God’s people is real. Today, globalization makes it difficult not to engage in alliances and partnership with countries where the freedoms that Western democracies consider basic human rights are limited or nonexistent. How can we work for human rights in countries like China and North Korea, where political persecution is the norm; or Muslim countries, where women are second-class citizens, gays and lesbians, are punished by death, and opting out of Islam also carries the death penalty? How are our values being compromised when we engage in alliances and partnership with such countries?
Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat (21:2—22:1 // 1 Kgs. 22:50b; 2 Kgs. 8:17-24), marries a daughter of Ahab and falls to her idolatrous practices. He systematically kills every other possible candidate to the throne. The questionable behavior of the king naturally brings political calamities, and Jehoram is unable to maintain control over his dominion as the Edomites achieve liberation from the Judahite yoke (21:8-11). The Chronicler includes in this section a letter from the prophet Elijah (21:12-15), which is absent from the parallel story in Kings. The letter clearly reflects the Chronicler’s theology of immediate retribution. Jehoram’s sins are enumerated, and the prophet foretells the consequences of his behavior (21:13-15). This prophecy is fulfilled, and Jehoram dies a painful death (21:16-20).
Azariah, the youngest son of Jehoram, is then made king by the people (22:2-9 // 2 Kgs. 8:25—10:14). All of his older brothers had perished. Several kings appear in the Bible as being put in office by the people (Joash, Uzziah, Josiah, and Jehoahaz; see 2 Kgs. 11:12-20; 14:21; 21:24; 23:30 // 2 Chron. 23:1-3; 26:1; 33:24; 36:1). The Chronicler adds to the story in 2 Kings, suggesting that it was his mother and bad counselors who led him astray (22:3-4). The Chronicler alters Ahaziah’s death story to reflect his pernicious alliance with the northern kingdom. His father’s piety, however, prevents him from incurring the ultimate dishonor, and his body is properly buried.
Athaliah, mother of Ahaziah, follows him to the throne (22:10—23:21 // 2 Kgs. 11:1-20). In this section, the Chronicler follows the parallel story in Kings with only minimal variations. Details surrounding the foreign character of the troops brought to the house of the Lord (2 Kgs. 11:4) are omitted because they do not suit the theology of the Chronicler. Joash becomes king and Athaliah is sentenced to death by the priest Jehoiada, who leads a religious reform to return to traditional Yahwism.
Augustine used the Philistines and Arab invasion of Judah (21:16-17) as an example of God’s stirring up enemies “to lay waste those countries that he judges to be deserving of such punishment” (On Grace and Free Will, 21:42; Conti, 284–85). In a similar vein, Rabbi Yechiel Hillel Altschuler Metzudos explains that “God stimulated Philistia’s natural greed” (Eisemann 1992, 156). Athaliah’s story, however, is what captured most of the attention of the Western world. In 1691, Jean Racine wrote a play about her, and Mendelssohn and Handel used it as the basis for musical compositions.
Religious-based violence was a common phenomenon in the world of the Bible, but today, with some exceptions, violence in the name of religion or religious orthodoxy is something that most religions reject. Centuries ago, however, millions died as a result of religious wars. The Islamic conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, and half of the Iberian Peninsula (seventh to eighth centuries); the Christian Crusades (eleventh to thirteenth centuries) and the Spanish Reconquista (eighth to fifteenth centuries); and the European religious wars among Christian factions of sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are just a few clear examples of how religious irrationality can lead people to abhorrent, violent behavior. Violence in the name of religion makes many wonder if religious convictions are the cause for more harm than good.
Joash’s reign (24:1-27 // 2 Kgs. 11:21—12:21) is clearly influenced by the life and death of Jehoiada the priest. While Jehoiada is alive, Joash acts faithfully (24:2). After Jehoiada dies, the king abandons the beliefs of his advisor and faces the disastrous consequences of such defiance. During his faithful period, the king restores the temple, but after the death of Jehoiada, the king and the nobles reject the faithful priest’s reforms and even kill Jehoiada’s son, the prophet Zechariah. His last wish, “May the Lord see and avenge!” (24:22) will be fulfilled. Verses 23-27 provide additional information to the story about Joash in Kings: the army of Aram attacks Judah and Jerusalem “with few men” (24:24), but they achieve a decisive victory because God has abandoned Joash. He is wounded in battle and killed in his bed by his own servants.
The reign of Amaziah (25:1—26:2 // 2 Kgs. 14:1-17) follows a similar pattern to the reign of Joash. There is a period of faithfulness and prosperity during which the king listens to God’s prophet and accepts his advice (25:1-13), followed by unfaithfulness and disaster when the king disregards the message of the prophet (25:14-24). His first action is to take revenge for his father’s death, killing those responsible but not their children (see Deut. 24:16; Jer. 31:29-30; Ezek. 18:20). The Chronicler expands the only verse in Kings about the campaign against Edom. There is a census before the campaign (see 1 Chron. 21; 2 Chron. 14:8; 2 Chron. 17:14-19), and the king hires mercenaries from the northern kingdom, but a prophet prevents them from participating in the battle. God is not with Israel. Still, if the people of the northern kingdom return to God with all their hearts, God will return to them (see 2 Chron. 15:2). The victory is not the result of human efforts but the direct consequence of relying on God. Paradoxically, it is the booty that Amaziah brings back with him that causes his future downfall. He takes the Edomite gods and worships them. A prophet rebukes the king, but is threatened. Amaziah’s destiny is sealed.
The theology of the Chronicler is evident in the differences from the story in Kings, particularly when narrating Amaziah’s war against Joash, king of Israel (25:17-28). The announcement of the prophet of God to Amaziah is fulfilled (25:20), and the king faces a terrible defeat, followed by the plundering of the royal residence and the temple.
Two different periods marked by the king’s faithfulness (16:3-15) and unfaithfulness to God (26:16-23) also characterize the reign of Uzziah (26:3-23 // 2 Kgs. 14:21—15:4). In his youth, the king follows the good counsel of Zechariah, “who instructed him in the fear of God; and as long as he sought the Lord, God made him prosper” (26:5). But arrogance leads to transgression, and the king encroaches on the privileges of the priests to make the offerings (26:18). The story in Kings does not explain why Uzziah becomes leprous. For the Chronicler, it is clear; God struck him (26:20). Before falling in disgrace, Uzziah leads successful military campaigns. His building projects improve the defense system of the city of Jerusalem and support agriculture, “for he loved the soil” (26:10). His last days are spent in isolation due to his illness, and his son Jotham exercises authority until Uzziah dies. The sequence of faithfulness, prosperity, arrogance, and disgrace is apparent here once more.
Uzziah’s leprosy is a living example for Jotham, his son, of the consequences of violating the sanctuary’s holiness (27:1-9 // 2 Kgs. 15:33-38). He continues to reinforce the defensive fortifications in Judah. The Chronicler adds to his canonical source in 27:3b-6. Jotham’s triumphs in battle and the tribute he receives are the result of his faithfulness because “he ordered his ways before the Lord” (27:6).
The Chronicler portrays Ahaz, son of Jotham, quite negatively (28:1-27 // 2 Kgs. 16:1-12). While in Kings one finds the expression “the Lord his God” (2 Kgs. 16:2), the Chronicler omits “his God,” emphasizing the distance between this king and God. The most important event during his life is the Syro-Ephraimite War (see 2 Kgs. 15:27; 16:5; Isa. 7:1-17; Hosea 5:8-15). The result of this war, which exemplifies Ahaz’s unfaithfulness, differs considerably in Chronicles from the text in Kings. Jerusalem does not fall in Kings; it does in Chronicles, and booty and captives are taken away from the sacred city. The captives taken by the northern kingdom will return, however, due to the intervention of the prophet Oded. The prophet points out that despite the constant strife between the northern and southern kingdoms, they are still one people.
God shows his displeasure with both Judah and Israel, but denounces the northern kingdom for repeated unfaithfulness (28:13b). The war leaves Judah vulnerable, whereupon the Edomites and the Philistines take advantage of the situation. Ahaz should ask the Lord for help, but against Isaiah’s advice (Isaiah 7), he asks the king of Assyria for help (28:16), and Ahaz is forced to accept Assyrian hegemony. The temple of God is shut down and the Baals are worshiped. It is possible that Ahaz even used the temple to worship pagan deities (see 2 Kings 16), but the Chronicler omits that possibility in order to preserve the sanctity of the temple. According to the Chronicler, Ahaz’s burial outside of the royal burial ground, separated from his ancestors, is his punishment (see 2 Kgs. 16:20).
Uzziah’s punishment for encroaching on the rights and privileges of the priests was used as a model in the early church to assure the exclusive rights of priests and bishops to perform their duties: “so also do you do nothing without the bishop. . . . So every lay person shall not be unpunished who despises God, and is so mad as to affront his priests and unjustly to snatch that honor to himself” (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 2.27, in Conti, 292). Also Pseudo-Dionysius stated, “Surely, there was nothing unseemly in the fact that Uzziah burned incense in honor of God. . . . And yet the Word of God bars anyone who has taken over a task that is not for him” (Letter 8, in Conti, 293). The Jewish sages interpreted Uzziah’s transgression as sinful pride and concluded that “one of the causes of leprosy is unjustified pride” (Tanchuma Metzora 3, in Eisemann 1992, 205).
The example of Uzziah is instructive in the sense that he tries to prevent the political powers from encroaching on the religious realm, thereby preventing an unsafe concentration of power. Such radical separation of “church and state” is one of the bases of Western democracies and the natural outcome of the Enlightenment. Within the religious communities themselves, however, the exclusive rights of priests to perform certain functions and rites has developed in a tradition of discrimination against females and sexual minorities, who have been traditionally excluded from clergy positions. Islam and Roman Catholicism are examples of such discriminatory practices.
The restoration of the temple and the renovation of the covenant are the first steps in Hezekiah’s religious reform (29:1-36). Hezekiah’s speech offers another good example of the Chronicler’s theology. The sin of the ancestors brought God’s ire on the people, but Hezekiah becomes an agent of divine reconciliation. The sacrifices for the rededication of the temple follow the instructions of Lev. 17:6 and Num. 18:17, including offerings and burnt offerings (see Leviticus 1), and sacrifices of peace (see Lev. 7:11).
From a private family celebration (Exod. 12:1-2), the Passover became a public festival (30:1-27). It also offered the occasion to call the northern kingdom to return to God (30:6). The Passover is celebrated by all the people at the temple. Letters are sent to all Israel emphasizing the religious unity of the people and inviting them to return to the Lord (30:6, 9). The holy city is cleansed from shrines for Baal, and the Levites offer sacrifices for the people. The arrival of ritually impure refugees from the northern kingdom presents a theological challenge that the Chronicler resolves by inserting Hezekiah’s prayer, asking God to pardon those people.
Sennacherib reigned in Assyria from 721 to 681 BCE. His campaign in Canaan aimed, among other things, at punishing disloyal vassals. The story in Chronicles of the Assyrian invasion (32:1-33) contains differences from the story in Kings: it adds a description of the defense system prepared by Hezekiah, omits the alliance with Egypt (an act for which previous kings have been punished), and omits the paying of tribute to Assyria. These omissions are meant to uphold the image of Hezekiah as a just king, who dies honored and respected by all the people (32:33).
Manasseh becomes king when he is only twelve years old, and the Chronicler portrays the first part of his fifty-five-year reign (33:1-20) as a systematic program to overturn the religious reforms of his father, Hezekiah. Immediate retribution follows, and Manasseh is taken captive by the Assyrians. When he prays to God (33:12), God hears his prayer and restores him (an event not mentioned in Kings). The Chronicler demonstrates that God hears the prayers of the humble (see 2 Chronicles 6). After Manasseh turns back to God, he begins a building program to repair the walls of Jerusalem (33:14; see 1 Chron. 11:8; 2 Chron. 26:9; 27:3-4), reorganizes the army in Judean cities (see 2 Chron. 11:5-12; 14:6; 17:12-19), and restores the Yahwistic faith. All of these actions are appropriate for a just king. The summary of Manasseh’s reign reflects two aspects of his behavior: his apostasy and his repentance. The brief reign of Amnon (33:21-25) closely follows the description in Kings (2 Kgs. 21:21-22), adding that Amnon never repented (33:23). He is portrayed as an evil king whose death at the hands of his servants seems to be the natural consequence of his impiety.
John Chrysostom writes, “For so Manasseh had perpetuated innumerable pollutions, having both stretched out his hands against the saints, and brought abominations into the temple, and filled the city with murders and wrought many other things beyond excuse, yet nevertheless after so long and so great wickedness, he washed away from himself all these things. How and in what manner? By repentance and consideration” (Homilies in the Gospel of Matthew 22:6, in Conti, 299).
The Bible postulates that repentance leads to God’s forgiveness and restoration. No matter how serious the crimes of the kings of Israel, there is always a chance to return to God and make amends. The rabbis came to terms with the fact that leaders are prone to sin. Sforno commented on the expression “When a leader sins . . .” (Lev. 4:22): “for, after all, it is expected that he will sin.” Today we see quite often how political leaders trespass accepted social norms or engage in questionable behavior, and ask for forgiveness from their families and constituents. After a while, they are back running for office. While forgiveness seems to work well within the political realm, there are few attempts to introduce the concept of forgiveness in our legal system, which more often than not fails to reach those in positions of leadership. Should the Chronicler’s concept of repentance-forgiveness-restoration have a wider role in the way we deal with social trespasses and crimes?
Josiah (34:1—36:1 // 2 Kgs. 22:1—23:30 // 1 Esd. 1:1-33), along with David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, belongs to a select group of kings favored by the Chronicler. He becomes king at a very young age, which suggests that the group who brought him to power, the “people of the land,” dictated most of his policies. The Chronicler reinforces the positive evaluation of Josiah found in 2 Kgs. 22:1-2 by adding information about his early piety (34:3-7).
In Chronicles, the discovery of the book of the law (34:8-33) is the consequence of a program of religious reform already in place instead of, like in Kings, the result of a fortuitous finding. Josiah’s reforms seem to be patterned according to the regulations of Deuteronomy 12 (cf. 2 Chron. 34:24 with Deut. 27:9-26; 28:15-68). The book makes Josiah aware of how unfaithful his father has been. The prophet Huldah confirms his sense that God’s punishment is on the horizon (34:24), but the imminence of the punishment does not prevent the renewal of the covenant. The book of the law then becomes the book of the covenant (34:30). The narrative closely follows the story in Kings, but prophets become Levites in Chronicles (34:30; cf. 2 Kgs. 23:2) in harmony with the Chronicler’s attribution of prophetic ministry to the Levites (see 1 Chron. 25:1; 2 Chron. 20:14; 29:30).
The Passover celebration is the climax of Josiah’s reign. It takes place in Jerusalem, following the precedent established by Hezekiah. The Chronicler considers this celebration a return to the faithful days of Samuel. Paradoxically, the faithful king Josiah dies tragically for not heeding the word of God conveyed to him by Pharaoh. Instead of retreating from battle, Josiah rides to his death.
The death of Josiah leaves the “people of the land” in power again. They skip the firstborn Eliakim and set Jehoahaz on the throne (36:1-4). Pharaoh Neco intervenes, deposing and deporting him to Egypt. Neco declares Eliakim the new king, changing his name to Jehoiakim.
Eliakim/Jehoiakim reigns for eleven years (36:5-8), but the destiny of Judah has already been decided. Their alliance with Egypt makes them an enemy of Babylon, and Egypt is no match for the powerful Babylonians. After they defeated the Egyptian army in 605 BCE, there was no one who could oppose their might. The city of Jerusalem was captured on March of 597 BCE and the elite deported to Babylon. According to Kings, Jehoiakim dies in Jerusalem, but in Chronicles he is taken captive to Babylon.
Jehoiachin, son of Eliakim/Jehoiakim, seems to have been a precocious rebel. The Chronicler reports that at the age of eight he has already begun to do what is bad in the eyes of the Lord (36:9-10). Immediate retribution follows, and within a year he is taken captive to Babylon with the rest of the vessels of the temple.
Jehoiachin’s brother Zedekiah was supposed to rule under Babylonian supervision (36:11-13), but the urge to rebel was growing among the elite and the people. After eleven years, Zedekiah rejected Jeremiah’s message and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. The consequences were tragic; in July 587, after a short-lived rebellion, the Babylonians destroyed the city and the Temple and took thousands as exiles to Babylon.
The last verses in Chronicles (36:14-23 // Ezra 1:1-3) fulfill Jeremiah’s words of hope (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10), as Kalimi states, “showing the fulfillment of God’s word in history is one of the Chronicler’s literary features” (2005a, 148). The exile comes to an end, and the people return to the land. God has kept his promise.
Kimh.i quotes the sages (b. Yoma 52b) who clarified that the scroll was found rolled to the passage of the admonitions (Deut. 28:15), “the Lord will drive you” and so on, as one of the consequences of the passage that begins “But if you will not obey the Lord . . . , then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you” (Berger, 274). Josiah’s reform received high praise, which tended to expand its reach. Some commentators note, “With zeal immense, Josiah, himself a prince, acted in such a way as no one before or after him had ever done!—Idols he dethroned, destroyed unhallowed temples. Burned with fire priests on their altars; all the bones of false prophets were dug up; the altars burned. The carcasses to be consumed did serve for fuel” (Pseudo-Tertullian, ANF 4:153–54, in Conti, 301). Josiah’s tragic death was explained as a result of his not listening to the words of the Lord (Jerome, Against the Pelagians 2.22, in Conti, 302).
Religious tolerance is one of the values sorely missing in Scripture. Religion played a different role in ancient societies, where there was no difference between a secular and a religious realm as understood today by most Western societies. On the one hand, it would be extremely difficult for us to grasp what was really at stake behind such religious zeal. On the other hand, it would be a terrible mistake to accept or to justify contemporary expressions of religious intolerance because they are based on ancient texts that religious communities today accept as divinely inspired.
Ben Zvi, Ehud. 2006. History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. London: Equinox.
Berger, Yitzhak. 2007. The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimh.i to Chronicles: A Translation with Introduction and Supercommentary. BJS 345. Providence: Brown University.
Conti, Marco, ed. 2008. 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament 5. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Eisemann, Moshe. 1987. Divrei Hayamim I. New York: ArtScroll.
______. 1992. Divrei Hayamim II. New York: ArtScroll.
Franke, John R. 2005. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament 4. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Graham, M. Patrick, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L. McKenzie, eds. 1997. The Chronicler as Historian. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press.
Japhet, Sara. 1968. “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.” VT 18:330–71.
______. 1989. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
______. 1993. 1 and 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Johnson, Marshall D. 1988. The Purpose of Biblical Geneaologies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Geneaologies of Jesus, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalimi, Isaac. 2005a. An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing. Aasen, Norway: Van Gorcum.
______. 2005b. The Reshaping of Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
______. 2009a. The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature: A Historical Journey. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
______. 2009b. “Placing the Chronicler in His Own Historical Context: A Closer Examination.” JNES 68:179–92.
Klein, Ralph W. 2006. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
______. 2012. 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Knoppers, Gary N. 1994. “Jehoshaphat’s Judiciary and the Scroll of YHWH’s Torah.” JBL 113:59–80.
______. 2003. 1 Chronicles 1–9. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12. New York: Doubleday.
______. 2004. 1 Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12. New York: Doubleday.
Rad, Gerhard von. 1966. “The Levitical Sermons in I & II Chronicles.” In The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 267–80.
Saltman, Avrom. 1978. Stephen Langton Commentary on the Book of Chronicles. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press.
Stokes, Ryan E. 2009. “The Devil Made David Do It . . . Or Did He? The Nature, Identity, and Literary Origins of the Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1.” JBL 128:91–106.
Wilcock, Michael. 1987. The Message of Chronicles. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1977. Israel in the Book of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Robert R. 1977. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale University Press.