Book Write-Up: A Commentary on 1&2 Chronicles, by Eugene H. Merrill

Eugene H. Merrill.  A Commentary on 1 & 2 Chronicles.  Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015.  See here to purchase the book.

Eugene H. Merrill is professor emeritus of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.  He has degrees from Bob Jones University, New York University, and Columbia University.  He has two PhDs!

Here are some thoughts about Merrill’s commentary on I-II Chronicles:

A.  Overall, Merrill believes in biblical inerrancy.  He does treat the Chronicler and the Deuteronomistic Historian (a term he uses for convenience) as having distinct agendas, which influences what they include and omit and how they tell the story.  Yet, he tends to regard their histories as complimentary rather than contradictory, and he also seems to treat their histories as faithful accounts of what actually happened.  Granted, this can lead to interesting insights: Merrill, for example, attempts to account for an apparent discrepancy between Chronicles and Kings by exploring ancient Mesopotamian historiography.  An inerrantist approach can make one sensitive or open to certain possibilities or avenues, whereas simply saying that the Bible is wrong can shut down exploration or further discussion.  At the same time, an inerrantist approach is difficult to sustain.  If the Deuteronomistic Historian and the Chronicler are telling the same story and give different numbers in saying how many troops there were in a battle, one of them has to be factually incorrect, right?

B.  Because Merrill had more of a harmonizing, or Christian inerrantist, approach, he tended to flatten or suppress the Chronicler’s own distinct theological voice.  Many other commentaries on Chronicles mention aspects of the Chronicler’s ideology: about priests and Levites, about trusting in God, etc.  Merrill, however, chose to focus on what he believed was one aspect of the Chronicler’s ideology: the Chronicler believes that God will send a Messiah, and that the Davidic kings foreshadow this.  Merrill’s belief that this Messiah is Jesus shapes how he interacts with Chronicles.  According to Christianity, Jesus is a priest and a king.  The Chronicler, by contrast, distinguishes the priestly roles from the monarchical roles, going further than the Deuteronomistic Historian on this.  To his credit, Merrill does interact with this issue.  (There were a number of tensions that he did not interact with, as far as I can recall.)  But he downplays its significance.

C.  Overall, I do not care for harmonizing or inerrantist approaches to the Bible.  But they do interest me, perhaps because there is a part of me that likes to see how theological tensions can co-exist in a coherent picture (assuming that they can).  That said, there were times when I was hoping that Merrill would wrestle with a tension, but he did not do so.   For example, Merrill speculates about why David’s wife Michal was so upset about David’s dancing before the Ark in I Chronicles 15.  Her stated reason, according to Merrill, was “her disgust at seeing David expose himself in this joyous celebration (1 Chr 15:29; 2 Sam 6:16)” (page 198).  Merrill doubts, however, that her disgust was rooted in Torah laws that prohibit nakedness in the worship of God (Exodus 20:24-16; 28:42-43).  That only raises other questions, though: Is the Chronicler portraying David doing something that the Torah forbids, without criticizing David?  If so, why?  Merrill brought up an interesting consideration but did not follow through on it.

D.  There were times when Merrill left a question unanswered, and I was hoping that he would wrestle with it some more.  For example, Merrill says that we do not know why some kings were buried where they were (i.e., in Jerusalem or outside it, in the royal tombs or outside of them), and that their righteousness or wickedness are not an adequate explanation.  Merrill does well to notice problems with that explanation, but it would have been nice had he attempted to provide some alternative explanation, since the Chronicler (for some reason) more than once makes a note about where kings were buried or not buried.

E.  There were questions that Merrill addressed, and I appreciated him addressing them, even if I was not always satisfied with his answers.  For example, in II Chronicles 26:3, the king of Egypt changes Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim.  Merrill wonders why a pagan king would change a Judahite king’s name to one that honored YHWH, the God of Israel.  Merrill proposes that the king of Egypt was saying that the God of Israel was God of Israel alone, not everyone else.  For Merrill, the “El” in Eliakim implied that the God of Israel was a universal God.  The name “YHWH,” by contrast, is God’s covenant name with Israel.  For Merrill, the king of Egypt was denying that the God of Israel was a universal, all-powerful God, choosing to focus on God’s covenant name with Israel.  This is interesting, but I question whether that works as an explanation, since there were times when pagan kings changed a Judahite’s Yahwistic name to another Yahwistic name (i.e., Mattaniah to Zedekiah).

F.  Merrill’s discussion of the authorship of Chronicles was mixed.  Merrill referred to the view that Ezra wrote I-II Chronicles, without interacting with strong arguments to the contrary (i.e., Ezra opposed intermarriage between Israelites and Gentiles, whereas such intermarriages are mentioned without criticism in the Chronicler’s genealogies).  On the other hand, Merrill did offer ideas about the Chronicler’s different sources, which I have not encountered in other commentaries about I-II Chronicles that I have read.

G.  Merrill argues that I-II Chronicles expresses a Messianic hope—-the hope of a Messiah who would bless Israel and the nations.  He did well to show that such a hope was a part of the Chronicler’s post-exilic reality, or at least that it occurred in other post-exilic biblical writings.  (And, interestingly, Merrill says that Haggai hoped Zerubbabel would be the Messiah, a view that some conservatives try to distance themselves from because that would make Haggai wrong.)  Merrill’s argument that the genealogies in Chronicles culminate in Judah (which had the Davidic dynasty) is another fairly strong point in terms of his thesis.  Merrill’s thesis may also explain why the Chronicler omits some of David’s sins: David is a type of the Davidic Messiah.  (Of course, as Merrill acknowledges, the Chronicler mentions certain sins or flaws of David and his offspring, so the thesis is not exactly infallible, in my opinion.)  My problem with his thesis, however, is that eschatology is not overly explicit in I-II Chronicles.  Merrill could have fit the content of Chronicles better with his thesis.

H.  Merrill often regurgitates the plot in discussing I-II Chronicles, but he sometimes offers historical information that the reader may find valuable.

I give this commentary three stars.  It raised some interesting points.  Yet, it tended to flatten Chronicles on account of its harmonizing, Christian inerrantist approach.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

II Chronicles 36

II Chronicles 36 is the last chapter of the Book of II Chronicles.  It goes from the reigns of King Josiah’s successors, through the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the sixth century B.C.E., to King Cyrus’ proclamation that exiled Jews can return to Palestine to rebuild the Temple.

A topic of interest to me as I read this chapter was name changes.  According to II Chronicles 36:3, the King of Egypt made Eliakim king of Judah and Jerusalem and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim.  “Eliakim” means “My God raises” or “My God sets up” (I loosely draw from Strong’s language here).  “Jehoiakim” means “the LORD raises” or “the LORD sets up.”  The two names essentially mean the same thing, only the latter one identifies God by his personal covenant name.  The king of Egypt changed Eliakim’s name to a name that was devoutly Yahwist, Israelite, and similar in meaning to Eliakim.

A Gentile sovereign changes an Israelite’s name in at least three other cases in the Hebrew Bible.  In Genesis 41:45, the Pharaoh changes Joseph’s name to “Zaphnathpanneah.”  In Daniel 1:7, Nebuchadnezzar gives Daniel and his three friends new names: Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  In II Kings 24:17, the king of Babylon changed Mattaniah’s name to Zedekiah.  On the new names of Joseph, Daniel, and his new friends, there appears to be some difference of opinion as to whether those new names honored a pagan deity: Strong’s says “no” on every case except for that of Abednego, whereas the articles about these names in the Anchor Bible Dictionary seem to suggest that the new names originally could have honored a pagan deity, on some level, but they are in the Hebrew Bible in a distorted form.  My speculation is that this could be because the biblical writers in these cases did not want to write a name that honored a pagan deity, or the writers were mocking the name change by themselves changing the names.  The case of Zedekiah, however, is similar to that of Jehoiakim: the Gentile king changes the Israelite’s name to one that honors the God of Israel.  “Zedekiah” means “Yah is righteous” (Strong’s).

Why would a Gentile sovereign change an Israelite’s name to one that honored the Israelite god?  I found a variety of proposals: that the Gentile sovereign allowed the Israelite to pick his new name (most of the E-Sword commentaries, including Keil-Delitzsch); that the Gentile sovereign had to honor Israelite religion to prevent a revolt from Israel (IVP Bible Background Commentary), and that the Gentile sovereign was making a point with the new name—-Zedekiah’s meaning of “Yah is righteous” may be expressing the king of Babylon’s hope that the LORD would righteously punish Zedekiah if Zedekiah rebels.  Within the Hebrew Bible, we do see that Gentile kings recognize and respect that the LORD is the God of Israel, even if the king does not worship the God of Israel or necessarily recognize the Israelite god as the highest deity: the King of Babylon made Zedekiah swear an oath of loyalty to Babylon in the name of God, presumably the God of Israel (II Chronicles 36:13), and Nebuzaradan, the captain of Babylon’s guard, attributed Babylon’s success against Israel to Israel’s deity (Jeremiah 40).  Here is an idea: maybe the King of Egypt was changing Eliakim’s name to a Yahwistic name in order to remind Eliakim that Eliakim had sworn loyalty to Egypt in the name of the God of Israel, YHWH.

The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll Commentary refers to Radak’s view that the new name of Jehoiakim implies that, though people spurned him by choosing his younger brother over him to be king, the LORD raised or set up Jehoiakim as king.  Could that imply that the king of Egypt is buttering Jehoiakim up, on some level: that the king of Egypt is not just exercising power by appointing Jehoiakim but is gaining Jehoiakim’s loyalty by presenting himself as the means by which the God of Israel is giving Jehoiakim what is his by right?  Could the king of Egypt be playing on Jehoiakim’s resentment that his younger brother had been king instead of him?  It is interesting to play with these ideas, but maybe Radak is over-interpreting.  Eliakim and Jehoiakim mean essentially the same thing, only Jehoiakim contains God’s personal covenant name.

In any case, most commentaries that I read made the point that a king changing someone’s name was an exercise of power.  It is interesting to me, though, that, in some cases, the new names recognized that the God of Israel had power.  The Gentile king was trying to exercise power but recognized that what he could do was limited, and that there were other powers greater than him.

II Chronicles 35

II Chronicles 35 is about the Passover celebration under King Josiah of Judah, as well as Josiah’s death.

I have five items.

1.  II Chronicles 35:3 states: “And [Josiah] said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel” (KJV).

Drawing from the MacArthur Study Bible, the Nelson Study Bible, and Rashi, the picture I got was that King Manasseh had displaced the Ark of the Covenant with the idol (probably an Asherah) that is mentioned in II Chronicles 33:7, 15, leaving the Ark with no place to rest.  King Josiah tells the Levites to return the Ark to the Temple, and then he says that the Ark will no longer be upon their shoulders.  According to Rashi, Josiah tells them that part about the Ark not being a burden on their shoulders to communicate to them that they should get going on their new responsibilities: they can now leave behind carrying the Ark for good, and they should now help out with the Passover celebration.

According to the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary, however, some ancient interpreters then had a question: Why did it take Josiah so long to return the Ark to the Temple?  Didn’t he start his reform long before his Passover?  Referring to Babylonian Talmud Yoma 52b, the Artscroll mentions the idea that the Levites were not taking the Ark to the Temple or the Holy of Holies, but rather were hiding it in a safe place, in light of the destruction that the prophetess Huldah predicted for the Temple in II Chronicles 34:24.  But does not II Chronicles 35:3 say that the Levites are to take the Ark to the house of the LORD?  The Artscroll explains that, according to this interpretation, the safe place for the Ark is the House of the LORD—-it is one of the few holy places around, after Kings Manasseh and Amon had defiled the Temple.  And why does Josiah tells the priests that they no longer have to carry the Ark, according to this interpretation?  Because they would have to grow accustomed to the Ark not being present with them, since they would be in Babylon.

2.  King Josiah donates animals for the Passover offerings.  The priests, Levites, and people offer Passover offerings for themselves.  Because the priests are also busy with the burnt offerings, the Levites prepare their own and the priests’ Passover offering.  The Levites ensure that things run smoothly.  According to v 12, the Levites give the burnt offerings to the families of the Israelite people, perhaps so the families can then present the burnt offerings themselves.  Is that much of a sacrifice on the people’s part, since they are presenting as a burnt offering an animal that was given to them, rather than their own animal?  I do not know.  I do see here, however, the lesson of worship being given to us as a gift, and yet we are still participants.  As a Christian, I think of Jesus dying on the cross to grant me the right to worship God, and to make possible any service that I offer to God.  Yet, I still participate by offering myself in worship and service.

3.  Rashi in his interpretation of II Chronicles 35:18 says that Jeremiah had returned the ten tribes of Israel to Israel by the time of Josiah.  So, according to this view, I assume, the ten tribes of Israel are not lost, for they were returned.

4.  In II Chronicles 35, King Necho of Egypt is going north to fight Carchemish by the Euphrates River, and Josiah tries to stop him.  According to many scholars, Necho was trying to assist the Assyrians, and Josiah wanted to stop Necho from doing this so that the Assyrians could be defeated and Josiah would no longer be under their thumb, allowing Josiah to regain glory for Judah.  Necho tells Josiah that this is not Josiah’s fight and that God was the one who commanded Necho to go north. Josiah disregards this message and dies.

Interpreters have debated what Necho meant when he said that God told him to go north.  The commentator on Chronicles in the Jewish Study Bible says that we see here an example of spontaneous prophecy: the Chronicler depicts God having spoken to this Gentile king.  I Esdras 1:28 states that Jeremiah the prophet warned Josiah.  Two Jewish views, which the Artscroll mentions, are that Necho had in mind Isaiah 19:2’s statement that God will set Egyptian against Egyptian (how that relates to Necho going north to help Assyria, I have no idea), and that Necho was told by an Egyptian god (elohim can be a term for a god) to go north.

In my post here, I refer to an article by Stanley Frost that notes that, in II Kings 18:25, the Assyrians besieging Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah claim that God told them to attack, and yet God delivered Jerusalem.  The Assyrians’ “Thus saith the LORD” seems to have carried no water; why, then, would one expect Josiah to listen to another Gentile king’s “Thus saith the LORD”?  I would say that one could ask a similar question about the other interpretations of Necho’s words: Why should Josiah care what an Egyptian god told an Egyptian king?  Or so what if Necho is following Isaiah?  The King of Assyria during Hezekiah’s reign could arguably claim to follow Isaiah, too, for God in Isaiah 10:5 calls the Assyrian the rod of his anger, and yet God still delivered Jerusalem from the Assyrians.  I Esdras went the route of saying that Jeremiah was delivering the prophecy, and that makes a degree of sense, for Jeremiah was a prophet whom Josiah may have known and trusted.  According to the commentator on Chronicles in the Jewish Study Bible, the Aramaic Targum says that “Josiah died because he did not seek instruction from the LORD.”

5.  II Chronicles 35:25 states: ” And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations” (KJV).

It is remarkable that, even up to the time of the Chronicler, people were weeping the death of Josiah, a righteous king who had a tragic death.  Josiah’s death had a lasting effect on the Jews’ consciousness.

II Chronicles 35:25 says that Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and there is a rabbinic view in Tosefta Ta’anit 2:10 that part of Lamentations is about Josiah’s death (and, according to the Artscroll, the sages say that Lamentations 4 concerns Josiah). Ibn-Ezra disagreed, however, saying that Lamentations is about events after the time of Josiah, which is probably what most biblical scholars say.

Raymond Dillard in the Word Biblical Commentary says that, in Jeremiah 22:10, Jeremiah tries to discourage Judahites from continuing to weep for Josiah.  The verse states: “Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country” (KJV).  Jeremiah is probably saying this to tell the Judahites about the disaster that they will face if they do not repent.  They should not weep for Josiah, but for themselves, Jeremiah appears to be saying.  Moreover, in v 16, Jeremiah seems to appeal to how Josiah had shown that he knew God by judging the cause of the poor and needy, whereas Judahites now (when Jeremiah is making this prophecy) oppress others.  Jeremiah may be saying: Look, if you want to honor Josiah’s memory, don’t make lamentations; do what Josiah did.

II Chronicles 34 (Rambling)

II Chronicles 34 is about the reign of King Josiah of Judah.  The Chronicler considers Josiah to be a righteous king, as does II Kings 22.  II Chronicles 34 and II Kings 22-23 tell Josiah’s story differently, however.

In II Chronicles 34, Josiah seeks the LORD at an early age, and that leads him to eradicate idolatry and false worship in Judah and Northern Israel.  (According to Raymond Dillard in the Word Biblical Commentary, Josiah could exercise control over Northern Israel because the Assyrian empire was on the decline.)  Josiah decides to repair the neglected Temple, and, in the process of this repair, the Torah is found there.  The Torah condemns Israel for disobedience and idolatry, and Josiah tears his clothes in dismay.  The prophetess Huldah says that God will bring evil against “this place” but will delay the punishment because Josiah humbled himself.  Josiah then leads Judah and Jerusalem to make a covenant of obedience to God, and forces Northern Israel to serve the LORD.  II Chronicles 35 is about Josiah’s Passover celebration.

In II Chronicles 34, Josiah is conducting a religious reform before the Torah is discovered.  II Kings 22-23, however, seems to depict Josiah’s anti-idolatry reform as occurring after the discovery of the Torah.  That is followed by Josiah’s Passover celebration.

Here are some thoughts:

1.  Why did the Chronicler depict an order of events that differed from the order in II Kings?  Dillard refers to M. Cogan’s view that the Chronicler wants to present Josiah’s piety as early and “self-motivated” (Dillard’s word), and Cogan mentions an Assyrian inscription about King Esarhaddon of Assyria’s piety as a youth.  That could be, and yet the commentator in the Jewish Study Bible raises a question: What exactly changed after Josiah discovered the Torah?  Josiah was already doing what the Torah commanded before the Torah was discovered.  The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary mentions the view that the outcome of the discovery of the Torah in II Chronicles was the Passover celebration.  There may be some truth to that, as far as the Chronicler’s presentation is concerned, and yet what disturbs Josiah in II Chronicles 34 after the discovery of the Torah is the Torah’s statement that God will punish Israel for idolatry.

One can ask another question.  How would Josiah know what pleases God before the Torah is even discovered?  Perhaps Josiah was tutored by the people of the land, those who killed the assassins of his father and elevated Josiah to the throne (II Chronicles 33:25).  According to the Artscroll, Halevi maintained that Josiah started his reform at age 16 rather than prior to that age because he was under the influence of the people of the land, whom Halevi says supported the wicked policies of Kings Manasseh and Amon.  But perhaps the people of the land were righteous, according to the standards of the Chronicler, and they taught Josiah to uphold exclusive Yahwism and to oppose idolatry.  Or maybe Josiah was familiar with the policies of his grandfather Manasseh after Manasseh had repented—-Manasseh’s policies of trying to overturn idolatry—-as well as the anti-idolatry policies of his great-grandfather, Hezekiah.  Or could Josiah, in seeking the LORD, have learned directly from the LORD what is pleasing to him?

In II Chronicles 34, after the Torah is discovered, Josiah fears for his nation, even though Josiah had already eradicated (or begun to eradicate) the idolatry that the Torah condemned.  Why?  Is this plausible?  Maybe Josiah questioned whether God truly forgave past sins.  I remember a Jewish theology professor saying that, in the Torah, the idea is that Israel has to pay her penalty for sin, then she can receive a new beginning (see Deuteronomy 30:1-10).  There may be something to that, as far as the Torah goes.  There is atonement for sin in the Torah, yet God takes a tough stance against high-handed sins (Numbers 15:22-21).  Even in II Chronicles 34, we see the idea that Judah must still be punished, and yet God postpones Judah’s punishment on account of Josiah’s humility.  Maybe Josiah did not feel entirely clean, his reforms notwithstanding, or he thought that he and the people needed to get serious and make a deeper commitment to God and God’s law, which he would lead.  Josiah had a relationship with God, but he still felt a need to be under the authority of the Torah after its discovery.  Even if Josiah was already on the right path in II Chronicles 34, the Torah still shook him.

2.  Josiah led Judah and Jerusalem to make a covenant with God, but he actually sought to force the Northern Israelites to serve the LORD.  Keil-Delitzsch say that this repentance was not heart-felt and did not last.  Was Josiah right to try to force Northern Israelites to serve God?  Serving God is right, so was not Josiah right to compel the Northern Israelites at least to go through the outward motions of desisting from idolatry and performing rituals of worship for God?  Josiah’s great-grandfather Hezekiah, in II Chronicles 30-31, likewise took forceful action against idolatry and commanded people of Jerusalem to give the priests and Levites what the Torah said was their due.  Yet, Hezekiah did not try to compel the Northern Israelites to attend the Passover but resorted to persuasion and appeal, saying that God will restore the Northern Israelites’ exiled relatives if the Northern Israelites turned to God (II Chronicles 30:9).  Some Northern Israelites mocked, but some humbled themselves and accepted Hezekiah’s invitation.  Maybe Hezekiah would have been more heavy-handed, like Josiah, if Hezekiah had more power.  Interestingly, according to II Chronicles 30:12, God gave the people of Judah the heart to cooperate with Hezekiah’s religious reform.  The fact that so many Judahites were on board was an indication to the narrator that God was behind Hezekiah’s endeavor; yet, strangely, God did not move every Northern Israelite to cooperate.

I cannot judge whether or not Josiah was right or wrong in his context to enforce the worship of God.  I do not believe that such a policy should exist in the United States, for I respect religious freedom—-the right of people to follow their conscience (albeit not when it hurts someone else).  There is something authentic about following one’s conscience—-about doing what is right because one loves what is right, not because one is forced to do what one does not believe.  That, which may be inspired by God in certain seasons (or always), is more likely to effect lasting change than compelled outward obedience—-and we see in the story of Josiah that compelled outward obedience did not result in lasting righteousness.  While I believe in religious freedom, though, I, as a Christian, have to admit that when Jesus Christ comes to rule the earth, everyone will worship God.  Many will want to do so; some may not.  Some believe that those who choose not to do so will be in hell; some universalists, however, think that God even then will try to persuade them and woo them to follow him, as Hezekiah did with the Northern Israelites.  Hard-core Calvinists can simply say that some people are not chosen and that is why they do not follow God, as the Northern Israelites who mocked Hezekiah’s invitation were not given that heart for obedience that God gave to the Judahites.  Maybe the time of Hezekiah was just not the right time, though, for the Northern Israelites to repent; they were not ready yet, and they did not have the heritage of godliness that Judah had.

3.  II Chronicles 34:12 states that the musician Levites were supervising the repair of the Temple.  Why does the Chronicler mention the detail that they were musicians?  Dillard says that the “use of music during a construction project is well attested from the ancient Near East”, but he seems to prefer the idea that the Levites’ musical ability is mentioned to highlight that the Levites were the ones supervising: music was a mark of a number of Levites.  Matthew Henry says that the Levites’ musical ability meant that they had aptitude in mathematics, and that qualified them to supervise the repair of the Temple.

II Chronicles 33

II Chronicles 33 is about King Manasseh of Judah.  In both II Chronicles 33 and II Kings 21, Manasseh is considered to be an especially wicked king.  In II Chronicles 33, however, Manasseh repents after the Assyrians capture him and take him to Babylon.  Here are some items:

1.  More than one commentary that I read said that, according to Assyrian sources, Manasseh was a loyal and reliable vassal of Assyria.  Raymond Dillard, in the Word Biblical Commentary, identifies the Assyrian sources as ANET 291 and 292.  According to Assyrian sources, Manasseh helped out with the construction of the Assyrian city of Nineveh and was part of a military campaign against Egypt.

Why did the Assyrians capture Manasseh, if he was such a loyal vassal?  One proposal that Dillard mentions is that Manasseh may have joined Babylon in an unsuccessful attempt to rebel against the Assyrians.  That would explain why Manasseh was taken captive to Babylon rather than an Assyrian city, a detail of II Chronicles 33 that has puzzled more than one commentator.  (Some see that detail as a foreshadowing of the Jews’ exile in Babylon.)

I should also add that, according to the Intervarsity Press Bible Background Commentary, there is evidence that the Assyrians allowed kings who “repented” by submitting to them to return to their thrones.  For the Chronicler, the building projects that Manasseh undertook after resuming the throne were probably an indication of God’s blessing on him now that he had become righteous.  Dillard, however, mentions the view that the building projects under Manasseh were actually an attempt to strengthen the southern border of the Assyrian empire against Egypt.

2.  In the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, conservative biblical scholar Gleason Archer addresses the question of how Manasseh’s repentance can be historical if II Kings does not mention it.  II Kings 23:26 actually says that, notwithstanding the righteous reforms of Manasseh’s grandson Josiah, God did not turn God’s wrath from Judah on account of the deeds of Manasseh, which provoked God to anger.  Does Manasseh sound forgiven there?  In II Kings, God stayed mad at Manasseh for a long time, even after Manasseh’s death.

According to Archer, II Kings is focusing on the effects of Manasseh’s wicked policies, whereas II Chronicles is looking at King Manasseh as an individual.  Even though Manasseh repented and tried to overturn his idolatrous policies, Archer contends, his wickedness still had an effect on the people.  More than one scholar has said that the Chronicler focuses on individual divine retribution: God punishes and rewards individual kings, usually immediately, which is different from punishing succeeding generations for the sins of their fathers.

I would say, though, that the Chronicler, too, has some notion of succeeding generations being punished for the sins of their forefathers, even if the Chronicler does stress divine reward and punishment of individuals in an immediate sense.  In II Kings 32:26, God delays God’s punishment of Judah and Jerusalem for the pride of Hezekiah after Hezekiah repents.  In II Chronicles 34:28, God promises righteous king Josiah that Josiah will not see the evil that God brings to Jerusalem, indicating that Josiah’s repentance postpones God’s punishment but does not eliminate it.

I would agree with Archer, however, that there was some failure in Manasseh’s repentance, that it was not entirely successful in rooting out corruption.  II Chronicles 33:22, after all, states that Manasseh’s wicked son, Amon, sacrificed to and served the carved images that Manasseh made.  Manasseh did not totally destroy the idols, so they were around for Amon to worship.  But Amon’s righteous successor Josiah would smash idols to dust (II Chronicles 34:1-7).

3.  According to II Kings 21:16, King Manasseh killed many innocents.  The commentator on Chronicles in the Jewish Study Bible observes that the Chronicler says nothing about this, focusing instead on Manasseh’s idolatry.  The commentator suggests that the Chronicler perhaps could not picture God forgiving the murder of innocents.  That is an interesting picture: God forgives sins against God, but is reluctant to forgive the murder of innocent human beings.  Of course, there are other biblical books that seem to have a different perspective: God forgives David for killing Uriah in order to take Bathsheba as a wife (II Samuel 11-12).  Of course, the Chronicler does not have that story about David, perhaps because he wants to depict David as, overall, a righteous king, the type who does not shed innocent blood (even though the Chronicler did have a slight problem with David’s wars; see I Chronicles 22:8; 28:3).

4.  According to II Chronicles 33:20, Manasseh was buried in his own house; it does not say that he was buried with other kings in their royal sepulchers.  I cannot make a blanket statement that all wicked kings get bad burials in Chronicles whereas all good kings get honorable burials, in royal sepulchers.  It does seem, though, that the Chronicler goes out of his way to note when wicked kings got bad burials (see here).  By contrast, II Chronicles 32:33 says that Hezekiah, a righteous king notwithstanding his flaws, was buried in the “chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David” (KJV).  Maybe Manasseh, despite his repentance, was given a sub-standard burial on account of the severity and effect of his wickedness, which his repentance could not totally undo.  Still, I would suggest that God in the eyes of the Chronicler still honored Manasseh’s repentance: Manasseh was restored to the throne, reigned longer than most kings of Judah, and undertook building projects.

II Chronicles 32

II Chronicles 32 talks about King Sennacherib of Assyria’s unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah.  It also covers Hezekiah’s pride and death.

In preparation for Assyria’s invasion of Jerusalem, Hezekiah stopped up the water supply outside of the city so that the Assyrians would have nothing to drink, and he diverted water to Jerusalem, so that Jerusalem could withstand a siege.  Hezekiah also repaired walls, made a lot of darts and shields, and appointed captains over the people.  Hezekiah told the captains that God was with them to fight their battles.

Isaiah 22:9-11 was critical of Hezekiah for this, saying that the Judahites were not regarding or respecting God.  The Chronicler, however, does not seem to disapprove of Hezekiah’s policies.
The Chronicler ordinarily does not express disapproval of a Judahite king taking practical steps to fortify Judah and to wage war; according to more than one commentator I have read, the Chronicler actually viewed a Judahite king’s building projects and victories as signs of divine blessing on the righteous king.  The Chronicler, however, does disapprove of Judahite kings entering into alliances with other nations.  For the Chronicler, that is a sign of not trusting God (II Chronicles 16:7), and it is especially awful in God’s eyes when a Judahite king enters into an alliance with someone who is wicked (II Chronicles 19).

According to Raymond Dillard, the Chronicler omits the part of the story about Hezekiah awaiting help from the Egyptians (II Kings 18:20-25) because the Chronicler, overall, wants to depict Hezekiah as righteous, and Hezekiah being in an alliance with Egypt would make him less than righteous.  Granted, later in II Chronicles 32, Hezekiah does have some moral problems, specifically pride, and the Chronicler narrates that God was about to punish Hezekiah, Judah, and Jerusalem for that, but Hezekiah caused the punishment to be postponed through his repentance (which, in my opinion, is contrary to how the Chronicler’s ideology is usually stereotyped—-as supporting individual retribution rather than punishment being postponed to a future time).  In the case of Sennacherib’s invasion, however, God miraculously saved Jerusalem through an angel, who slaughtered Assyrian soldiers, and the Chronicler may have figured that God would not have done that had Hezekiah been less than righteous.

The Chronicler’s ideology has long confused me, specifically when the issue is reliance on God.  The Chronicler deems alliances as a sign of not trusting God, since the Judahite kings are seeking security in the alliances rather than God.  Yet, the Chronicler has no problems with kings taking practical steps to defend their nation—-fortifications, weapons, soldiers, wars.  Are not these things signs of distrusting God?  If God has one’s back, why should one take any practical steps?

Hezekiah believed that God had Jerusalem’s back, even while he was taking practical steps to defend Jerusalem.  He may have remembered that, while God sometimes unilaterally helps his people without them lifting a finger, there are also times when God blesses the efforts of the Judahites—-and yet they still had to make an effort.  This occurs more than once in Chronicles.  Perhaps Hezekiah did not want to put God to the test by doing nothing to protect Jerusalem; he still recognized that he needed God’s help, though, because his plans were not fool-proof.  The Assyrians were powerful, with a lot of men and resources.  Without God’s help, Jerusalem could fall, notwithstanding Hezekiah’s fortifications, weapons, and captains.  In the end, it seems, God delivered Jerusalem without the Judahites having to lift a finger; maybe the water supply helped the Jerusalemites during the siege, however.

The Chronicler may have a problem with alliances because they can lead to compromise.  A king fortifying his nation is one thing.  Relying on somebody else, who worships other gods, is another.  Alliances can also impose obligations on its members.  Would I say that the Chronicler is misanthropic?  I am not sure if I would go that far, but relationships can easily lead to compromise.  Yet, in my opinion, the larger counsel of the Bible is not that we should avoid relationships but should pursue and enjoy them, while being careful.

I would agree with the Chronicler that a good policy is for one to trust in God, while also taking action.  My dissertation won’t write itself.  To find work, I need to apply.  Yet, God can bless my efforts.  If there is anything of which the Chronicler disapproves in II Chronicles 32, however, it is pride, which was made evident when Hezekiah showed off his wealth to the visiting Babylonians.  In being proud, Hezekiah forgot that God was the source of his wealth, that he depended on God.  That can be dangerous territory.  Even if one is an atheist, a bit of humility is good, since so much wealth comes from factors beyond an individual’s control: intelligence, social skills, resources, opportunities, and sometimes just plain luck.

II Chronicles 31

In II Chronicles 31, the righteous King Hezekiah of Judah arranges for the support of the priests and the Levites.  He commands the people of Jerusalem to give the portion to the priests and the Levite—-probably the firstfruits of grain, wine, and oil for the priests (Numbers 18:12-13), and the tithe to the Levites (Numbers 18:21)—-and the children of Israel and Judah living in the cities of Judah then bring firstfruits and tithes.  Hezekiah says that this is so that the priests and the Levites could be strong in the Torah of the LORD.  Having a lot in the Temple, priests and Levites distribute portions and freewill offerings to priests and Levites in Judah, while the priests on Temple duty, along with their sons at or above the age of three, eat what is in the Temple.

Here are some items:

1.  Why does Hezekiah only command the people of Jerusalem to give portions and tithes to the religious leaders of Judah, when the Torah commanded all Israelites to tithe and to give portions, not only Israelites in one city?  Perhaps Hezekiah felt that he could only exercise authority over the people of Jerusalem, that Israelites outside of Jerusalem would not listen to him.  He was wrong, though.

2.  Hezekiah said that the priestly portion and the tithes were to make the priests and Levites strong in the Torah of the LORD.  What does this mean?

Raymond Dillard lists two possibilities, which have also been mentioned by other commentaries I have read.  The first is that the priests and Levites are strong in the Torah when they perform their duties as priests and Levites, as mandated in the Torah: the priests offer sacrifices, and the Levites assist in that.  The second is that the priests and Levites study the Torah, and the Levites teach the people, which II Chronicles 35:3 says that the Levites do.

Both are probably important, in the mind of the Chronicler, for sacrifices are needed for the worship of God, and the Levites need to learn and teach Torah so that Israel obeys God, all of which are crucial for Israel’s prosperity and fulfillment of her role as a holy people.  Hezekiah wants for the priests and Levites to focus on the Torah rather than being preoccupied with trying to survive by growing their own food.

I think of two New Testament texts.  In Acts 6, when the Hellenists and the Palestinian Jewish Christians are in conflict over the distribution of church charity, the apostles appoint deacons to handle the distribution fairly, and the apostles say that it is not fitting for them (the apostles) to neglect the word of God to serve tables.  The apostles have a responsibility to proclaim the word of God, and they cannot be preoccupied with other matters, as important as those matters may be, so they appoint other people to handle those matters.

There is also I Corinthians 9, where Paul says that he deserves to be supported by the Corinthian Christians because he has brought them the word of God.  Paul does something beneficial for the spiritual well-being of the Corinthian Christians, as the priests and Levites during Hezekiah’s reign performed important roles that were for the benefit of the Israelite people.  Giving to those spiritual leaders was a way to say “thank you” and to enable the leaders to continue their work of ministry.
Personally, I do not think that a spiritual leader should just study.  I like spiritual leaders who are out there doing things for people in the congregation, hearing their needs and offering care and compassion.  Still, they do need time to study so that they can encourage and challenge the people of God.

3.  II Chronicles 31:14-16 are difficult verses for me to understand, for they seem to suggest that freewill offerings were distributed to priests outside of Jerusalem, except for the ones that were left in the Jerusalem Temple for the priests serving there.  Keil-Delitzsch say that these freewill offerings were offerings that the priests ate in the holy place, so why would they be taken to priests outside of Jerusalem?  Why couldn’t they be kept in the Temple?  Or am I interpreting these verses incorrectly?

4.  II Chronicles 31:16 says that priestly males at and above three years old entered the Temple.  Three years old?  Dillard says that there are ancient versions that have “thirty” years old (cp. I Chronicles 23:3).  But two Jewish interpreters, Malbim and Mikra U Massores, say that priests began to be trained at age three.  Christian commentator John MacArthur notes that, at age three, the child ceased relying on his mother for food, and thus was ready to eat from the priestly portion.

II Chronicles 30

II Chronicles 30 is about righteous King Hezekiah’s Passover, which Judahites and some Northern Israelites attended.

There is debate about whether or not Hezekiah’s Passover actually happened.  After all, does not II Kings 23:22 state regarding the Passover of a later king of Judah, Josiah: “Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah” (KJV)?  Why would that passage say that, if the author was aware of a previous Passover under King Hezekiah?

Raymond Dillard, in his Word Biblical Commentary, refers to a couple of arguments that may coincide with the historicity of Hezekiah’s Passover.  One argument is that the Deuteronomist in II Kings wants to exalt King Josiah, and that he may have chosen not to mention Hezekiah’s Passover so as not to detract from the Passover of Josiah; II Kings 23:22, therefore, does not mean that Hezekiah’s Passover did not occur, according to this argument, but that the Deuteronomist, for ideological reasons, chose not to mention it.

Another argument is that the Chronicler, who values the cult, would not invent the sort of chaotic Passover that we see in II Chronicles 30.  In II Chronicles 30, the Israelites are simply not ready to observe the Passover, and so the festival is pushed forward by a month, and Hezekiah asks God to show mercy to the Northern Israelites who eat the Passover in a state of ritual uncleanness.

There may be something to the first argument.  At the same time, I should note that the Chronicler himself makes a statement similar to that in II Kings 23:22.  II Chronicles 35:18 states regarding the Passover of King Josiah: “And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (KJV).  The Chronicler could simply be relying on II Kings here, but I doubt it, for the verses are not entirely similar: the Kings passage mentions the judges, whereas the Chronicles passage mentions Samuel the prophet.  Dillard may have a point about why the Deuteronomist fails to mention Hezekiah’s Passover, or perhaps the Deuteronomist does not mention it because, as far as he is concerned, Josiah was the first king to hold a national Passover.

As far as the Chronicler goes, the Chronicler may mean that no such Passover was held until the Passover of Josiah in the sense that Josiah’s Passover was the best, better than the one that Hezekiah held.  (Abarbanel held this sort of view.)  Indeed, in II Chronicles 35, Josiah’s Passover does run smoothly, due to the help of the Levites.  Moreover, while, in II Chronicles 30, there were Northern Israelites who were unwilling to attend Hezekiah’s Passover, Josiah’s Passover may have gathered more Northern Israelites.  II Chronicles 34:33 seems to indicate that Josiah compelled Northern Israelites to worship God, and 35:3 affirms that the Levites taught all Israel.

On the second argument—-that the Chronicler would not invent a chaotic Passover like Hezekiah’s Passover in II Chronicles 30, and thus the Chronicler was reporting what happened—-I am not convinced.  The reason is that, a couple of other times in Chronicles, we see stories about the religious leadership of Judah delaying what it is supposed to do to honor God (II Chronicles 24:5-6; 29:34).  That tells me that one could have reason to believe that a theme of delay is part of the narrative ideology of the Chronicler, and thus it is not unreasonable to think that he could invent a chaotic Passover.

Could this reflect Israel’s post-exilic period in any way, the period in which many scholars believe the Chronicler wrote?  I think so, for the prophet Haggai rebukes the returned Jewish exiles for failing to rebuild the Temple.  Could the Chronicler, by mentioning the theme of delay, be exhorting the post-exilic Jews to get on the ball?  And could his depiction of Josiah’s Passover be designed to show post-exilic Jews about what could happen if they take their first step to the construction of the Temple: that, even if there may be chaos, eventually things will pan out and go more smoothly?

II Chronicles 29

II Chronicles 29 is about the reign of righteous King Hezekiah, particularly his attempts to repair the Temple and re-establish Temple worship.

II Chronicles 29:34 states: “But the priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt offerings: wherefore their brethren the Levites did help them, till the work was ended, and until the other priests had sanctified themselves: for the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests” (KJV).

Here are some thoughts:

1.  David Rothstein in The Jewish Study Bible states that “The author treats the Levites preferentially” in this verse.  After all, here the Levites were, filling a need, diligently sanctifying themselves and helping the priests do what many of the priests had disqualified themselves from doing by not sanctifying themselves.  In discussing the ideology of I-II Chronicles, R.H. Pfeiffer in the Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary states that the Chronicler actually gives the Levites a higher status than the Priestly Code does.  He notes, for example, that Numbers 4:15-20 and 18:3 says that the Levites would die if they touched holy objects, whereas I Chronicles 9:28 and 23:28 present the Levites as in charge of the holy objects.  Pfeiffer also observes that Levites in I-II Chronicles are teachers, judges, scribes, and prophets.  Is II Chronicles 29:34 yet another example of the Chronicler’s love for the Levites?

I have a slight critique of some of these arguments, or, at least, I think that certain things need to be pointed out to balance them out.  First of all, overall, the Chronicler still does elevate the Aaronide priests above the Levites.  In II Chronicles 29:16, we read that only the priests could enter the house of the LORD to purify it.  I am not saying that Rothstein, Pfeiffer, or those agreeing with them have said otherwise, but I just want to point that out.  Second, the Chronicler does not provide a consistently positive picture of the Levites.  II Chronicles 24:5 depicts the Levites as not acting hastily in response to King Joash’s command to collect taxes for the repair of the Temple.  Maybe that does not overthrow Rothstein’s point that the Chronicler has a preference for the Levites, though.  Perhaps, according to the Chronicler, the priests and the Levites were both slow to follow God, but the Levites were quicker to repent and to correct their behavior.  Does a positive portrayal necessarily entail depicting a person as always doing right, or can it include presenting a person who repents and learns from his or her mistakes?

I was initially skeptical about Pfeiffer’s argument that the Chronicler contradicts the Priestly Code on whether the Levites could handle the holy objects.  After all, I reasoned, the Book of Numbers does not say that the Levites are to have nothing to do with the holy objects.  The Levites in Numbers are the people who transport them, but they have to cover the holy objects and cannot touch them directly, lest they die.  As I look at I Chronicles 9:28 and 23:28, however, I can see that Pfeiffer may have a point.  I Chronicles 23:28 says that the Levites purify the holy things.  That might be difficult for them to do, if they cannot touch them.  Difficult, but not impossible.  Perhaps they could pick up the holy object with a rag when trying to wash it to avoid touching it.

2.  I read a variety of ideas about why the priests were so slow to purify themselves.  Some ideas are more prone to give the priests the benefit of a doubt than other ideas.  Some positive ideas are:

—-There were not too many priests because they disqualified themselves by being idolatrous, so a number of priests were demoted to being Levites.  That explains the dearth of priests.  Yet, these priests-turned-Levites repented of their idolatry and were enthusiastic to contribute their services to Hezekiah’s reform (Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary).

—-There were a lot of offerings, as II Chronicles 29:35 seems to indicate.  No wonder there were not enough priests to flay them (Keil-Delitzsch)!

—-The priests, Levites, and God-fearing in Judah had previously lived under wicked kings, who hated the proper worship of the LORD, so these God-fearing people had to disguise themselves and could only sanctify themselves gradually; thus, many of them were not ready and sanctified by the time that Hezekiah came on the scene and rapidly inaugurated his reform (Rashi).

—-King Hezekiah’s predecessor, King Ahaz, had taken away the duties of the priests and Levites.  Thus, Hezekiah had to reconsecrate older priests and commission younger priests.  The reform was proceeding rapidly, though, so a lot of priests were not ready and sanctified (Nelson Study Bible).

More negative explanations of the priests’ failure to sanctify themselves include the following:

—-The priests did not believe that Hezekiah was serious about reform, so they failed to sanctify themselves (Artscroll).

—-Many priests were still tied to Ahaz’s idolatrous policies.  The priest Uriah, for example, had promoted King Ahaz’s Syrian-style altar, according to II Kings 16:16 (Artscroll).

In my opinion, there is some validity to the positive interpretations of the priests’ slowness to sanctify themselves, for Hezekiah’s reform probably was rapid, and there may have been some inertia on the part of the priests; plus, there were a lot of sacrifices.  At the same time, II Chronicles 29:34 does say that the Levites were more upright in heart than the priests, so the Chronicler does appear to interpret the priests’ failure negatively.  Maybe the priests were still tied to idolatry, or perhaps they were simply negligent or indifferent, when they should have been enthusiastic and diligent about serving the LORD.

3.  In II Chronicles 29:34, the priests are flaying the sacrifices, and the Levites are helping them out.  More than one commentator notes, however, that Leviticus 1:5-6 does not say that the priests or the Levites are to flay the skin of the sacrifice; rather, the worshiper bringing the sacrifice is responsible for that task.  Some interpret Leviticus 1:5-6 to say that the priests flay the sacrifice, but that does not seem to me to be the case when I read Leviticus 1:4-6.  What it appears to me to say is that the worshiper puts his hand over the animal that will make atonement for him, kills the animal, and flays it, whereas the Aaronide priests put the pieces of the animal on the altar and burn it.

Why would the priests and the Levites feel responsible for flaying the sacrifices in II Chronicles 29:34?  Were they aware of another set of rules than what is in Leviticus 1?  Interestingly, II Chronicles 30:17-18 depicts the Levites killing the Passover offering for the Northern Israelites, even though Exodus 12:3-6, 21 and Deuteronomy 16:5-6 mandate that the worshipers are to kill their own Passover sacrifice.  The reason given there is that the Northern Israelite worshipers had not sanctified themselves.  Perhaps that accounts for what we see in II Chronicles 29:34.  Hezekiah’s religious reform was a rapid change, and thus many Judahites failed to get on the ball and to purify themselves on time.  As a result, they could not flay their own sacrifices, and the priests (at least the purified ones) and the Levites did so for them.

II Chronicles 28

II Chronicles 28 is about the reign of King Ahaz of Judah.  According to the Chronicler, King Ahaz did evil in the eyes of the LORD.  Here are some items:

1.  Scholars have noted that the account of King Ahaz’s reign in II Chronicles 28 is different from the accounts in II Kings 15-16 and Isaiah 7, and David Rothstein in The Jewish Study Bible also mentions Hosea 5:8-6:6 as an account of events that took place when Ahaz was king of Judah.

In II Kings 15-16, Northern Israel and Syria appear to be in alliance with each other, and they come against Judah.  Although Syria successfully recovers Elath for Syria and drives the Jews out from there, the Syro-Ephraimite alliance is not prevailing against Jerusalem.  King Ahaz of Judah asks Assyria for help against the Syro-Phoenician alliance, and Ahaz sends Temple and royal treasures to Assyria to get Assyria’s assistance.  Assyria agrees to help Judah and captures Syria.  When King Ahaz of Judah goes to Syria to meet with the king of Assyria, Ahaz notices a Syrian altar, and Ahaz orders a copy of that altar to be made for the Temple.

Isaiah 7 is similar to II Kings 15-16 in that a Syro-Ephraimite alliance is trying to attack Jerusalem.  In Isaiah 7, the prophet Isaiah encourages King Ahaz to trust that God will destroy the Syro-Ephraimite alliance.  The child Immanuel is a sign of this.

Hosea 5:8-6:6 is rather cryptic when it comes to the events during Ahaz’s reign, but it appears to forecast the fall and rise of Northern Israel, and the fall of Judah.  Northern Israel seems to seek help from Assyria and King Jabeb, and that does not help Northern Israel.

In II Chronicles 28, the king of Syria smites Judah and takes a number of Judahites captive.  God also delivers Judah into the hands of Northern Israel, which kills and captures many Judahites.  The prophet Oded comes and convinces the Northern Israelites and some of their chieftains to return the Judahite captives to Judah, and the Northern Israelites feed and anoint the captives, carry the weak captives on donkeys, and take them to Jericho, then return to Samaria.  The Edomites and Philistines are smiting Judah, and Ahaz asks the Assyrians for help.  Rather than helping, the Assyrians distress Judah.  Although God is punishing Judah through its distress, Ahaz does not repent, but Ahaz worships Syrian gods, thinking that these gods were behind Syria’s success against Judah.

How are the accounts different, and can they be harmonized?  Well, for one, Raymond Dillard says that the Chronicler does not depict the Syrians and Northern Israelites (Ephraimites) as in an alliance with each other, and Dillard proposes that this is because the Chronicler in II Chronicles 28 is depicting the Northern Israelites positively—-as heading in the direction of repentance—-and the Chronicler does not care for alliances, believing that they indicate a lack of trust in God, so he does not say that the Northern Israelites are allied with Syria.  I do not see this as a great discrepancy, though, for, in all the accounts, Syria and Northern Israel are trying to attack Judah.  The Chronicler appears to mention more successes against Judah on the part of Syria and Northern Israel, but II Kings 15-16 and Isaiah 7 do not say that Syria and Northern Israel were altogether unsuccessful against Judah: they just say that Syria and Northern Israel could not prevail against Jerusalem.

Another difference between II Chronicles 28 and II Kings 15-16 is that the Assyrians in II Chronicles 28 are not helpful to Judah, whereas they are helpful to Judah in II Kings 15-16.  That could be attributed to a matter of perspective, however.  Maybe the Assyrians did help Judah in the short term by coming in and defeating Syria, but, in the end, that was not helpful to Judah because it resulted in Judah’s subordination to Assyria, which exacted a lot of tribute.  Whether there is a real contradiction between the two accounts may depend on what the Chronicler means when he says that the Assyrians distressed the Judahites.

Where attempts to harmonize these accounts possibly fall short is when it comes to the Chronicler’s reference to Ahaz worshiping Syrian gods, thinking that these gods were efficacious because they contributed to the success of the Syrians against Judah.  This puzzles more than one commentator, since the Chronicler’s discussion of Ahaz worshiping Syrian gods comes after Ahaz asking the Assyrians for help.  Why, some commentators inquire, would Ahaz worship the Syrian gods, after the Assyrians had defeated Syria and thereby shown the ineptitude of the Syrian gods?  These commentators (i.e., Keil-Delitzsch, John Gill) suggest that Ahaz decided to worship the Syrian gods before the Assyrians defeated Syria; the Nelson Study Bible says, however, that Ahaz simply disregarded the fact that Assyria defeated Syria when Ahaz decided to worship the Syrian gods.  II Chronicles 28, in the former view, may not be narrating everything in chronological order, but rather is detailing examples of Ahaz’s distresses, then making the point that the distresses did not lead Ahaz to repentance.

But one should note that, in II Chronicles 28, Ahaz never asks Assyria for help against Syria, but rather against the Edomites and the Philistines.  The commentators who struggle over how Ahaz could worship the Syrian gods when the Assyrians defeated the Syrians do so because they are reading the accounts in light of each other, in juxtaposition.  Should they necessarily do that, though?

2.  Is II Chronicles 28 historically-accurate?  Most of the critical commentators I read presented II Chronicles 28 as a mixture of history and ideology.  David Rothstein and Raymond Dillard speculate that the Chronicler may be drawing on previous sources.  Rothstein says that II Chronicles 28 is accurate on the expansion of Edom, and Dillard says that the statement in v 15 that the Northern Israelites took the Judahite captives to Jericho may be from a previous source that the Chronicler was using.

At the same time, Dillard and Rothstein believe that II Chronicles 28 shows indications of the Chronicler’s ideology.  As I discussed above, the Northern Israelites and the Syrians do not appear to be in alliance in II Chronicles 28, and Dillard argues that this could be because the Chronicler is trying to depict the Northern Israelites positively and thus does not present them in an alliance.  (I am not sure if this is true, though, for II Chronicles 28 depicts the Northern Israelites positively after they repent in response to the prophet Oded, not necessarily before that.)  Dillard notes that the Chronicler is more explicit than the other accounts about the successes of Syria and Northern Israel against Judah, and Dillard believes this is consistent with the Chronicler’s belief in immediate retribution: Judah sins and gets immediately punished.

Rothstein and Dillard interpret the Northern Israelites’ repentance in II Chronicles 28 in light of other parts of Chronicles.  The Northern Israelites repent in response to a prophet in II Chronicles 28 and then treat the Judahites nicely, whereas the Northern Israelites do not repent in response to the prophet in II Chronicles 13 but proceed to fight the Judahites.  Rothstein and Dillard say that II Chronicles 28 may be a reversal of II Chronicles 13.  There is also the suggestion that the Northern Israelites’ repentance in II Chronicles 28 may foreshadow the acceptance of King Hezekiah’s religious reforms by Northern Israelites later in II Chronicles, and maybe even the fall of the Northern Israelite monarchy, since the chieftains in II Chronicles 28 are the ones exercising influence (Ralph Klein in the HarperCollins Study Bible makes the latter point).

3.  The story of the Northern Israelites returning the Judahite captives reminds me of Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan.  II Chronicles 28:15 states: “And the men which were expressed by name rose up, and took the captives, and with the spoil clothed all that were naked among them, and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them upon asses, and brought them to Jericho, the city of palm trees, to their brethren: then they returned to Samaria" (KJV).  Luke 10:34 says regarding the Good Samaritan: “And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him” (KJV).  In both stories, people seem to go above and beyond the call of duty, not just helping, but taking care of the one(s) needing help.

II Chronicles 27

II Chronicles 27 is about Jotham the king of Judah.  Jotham was a righteous king.

Rashi’s comments on Jotham caught my eye (see here what Rashi says about verse 2).  Rashi refers to something that Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai said that was told to him by Rabbi Eliezer ben Moses.  (This discussion appears in Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 45b, albeit in a briefer and a different form.)
Essentially, according to Rashi, Rabbi Simeon was told that we do not find sin in Jotham, and so Jotham and “I” (I guess Rabbi Eliezer) can take upon themselves the sins of people from Abraham to Rabbi Eliezer’s time, and even to the end of the generations, the same way that Abraham took upon himself the sins from creation to his own time.  What does this mean exactly?  The text does not go into much detail, but it reminds me of what a number of Christians say about Jesus: that Jesus was a righteous man (God, even) and could thus make atonement for sinful humanity.  Jesus bore blame that he did not deserve, so that sinners could be freed from blame that they do deserve.

Of course, rabbinic Judaism would not suggest that Abraham and Jotham were God.  A number of Christians, perhaps drawing from Anselm, say that a significant reason that Jesus’ atonement was so efficacious was that Jesus was God, and thus was worth more than all human lives put together.  How could one man, Jesus, atone for the sins of all of humanity?  Because Jesus was more than a man, many Christians say: Jesus was God.

Rabbi Eliezer does not go so far in his portrayal of Abraham, Jotham, and himself.  In his mind, Abraham did not have to be God to bear the sins of all of the people before him, and thereby to persuade God to spare sinful humanity.  Abraham simply qualified for this role as an especially righteous human being, one who pleased God.  Similarly, in the Book of IV Maccabees, the righteous martyrs die, and their martyrdom is depicted as an act that brings forgiveness to Israel (IV Maccabees 6:27-29; 17:17-22).  These martyrs did not have to be God to atone for the sins of Israel, but they were righteous people.  (On a related note, see this article, which explores substitutionary atonement in the Bible, Greek thought, and IV Maccabees).

Rabbi Eliezer appears a bit proud in suggesting that he could bear the sins of humanity after the time of Abraham.  To be fair, however, he is not saying that he could do that all by himself.  He is saying that, if he had to bear the sins of humanity, the person he would choose to do so with him would be Jotham.  The reason is that II Chronicles 27 does not record any sin that Jotham committed, whereas the Bible does refer to the sins that other kings—-including righteous ones, like David—-did.  For Rabbi Eliezer, apparently, that must mean that Jotham was sinless!

Was Jotham perfect, though?  He did do good things.  He added to the Temple in order to protect it.  He was brave in war—-he challenged the Ammonites.  I suppose whether or not that counts as “good” is in the eye of the beholder: Is it good to challenge and subordinate another nation?  But perhaps the other nation would challenge and subordinate Judah if Judah did not act first.  And yet, God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 2:19 to leave the Ammonites alone.  In any case, it does appear that the Chronicler approves of Jotham’s war policies, for II Chronicles 27:6 says that Jotham became mighty because he prepared his ways before God.

But was Jotham perfect?  II Chronicles 27:2 says that the people of Judah continued to do corruptly under his reign.  Was that Jotham’s fault, though, or could one simply say that the people of Judah were so corrupt that not even the righteous leadership and example of Jotham could inspire them to desist from sin and pursue righteousness?  The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary says that at least Jotham’s predecessor, Uzziah, sought to reach a higher spiritual level by entering a part of the Temple that he was not permitted to enter, whereas II Chronicles 27:2 makes the point that Jotham did not do that.  Jotham, seeing that his father was stricken with leprosy, shied away from doing what his father did, and the Artscroll says that this was why Jotham failed to stem the tide of Judah’s corruption.  That is an interesting interpretation, not that I would suggest that the Chronicler had any of that in mind.  I doubt that the Artscroll is suggesting that Jotham should have tried to enter the area of the Temple that was forbidden to him.  I think that what it is saying, though, is that Uzziah at least had a passion for spiritual advancement, whereas Jotham did not, even though Jotham may have done good and right things.  Can one be an inspiring spiritual leader without spiritual passion and hunger?

II Kings 15:35 says that the high places were not taken away under Jotham.  That, perhaps, was a blight on his record, and Rashi does not interact with that.  Was Jotham in that case sinning, or simply failing to be a strong spiritual leader?  Well, Deuteronomy 12:2-4 commands the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite high places and not to worship God in that fashion.  Was Jotham sinning and disobeying God?  Or did he just realistically conclude that he could not force the Judahites to abandon the high places, since they were popular?

Another question: How exactly would Jotham bear the sin of people after the time of Abraham?  Did God cause him to suffer or die in place of those people, as Jesus did?  Not as far as I can see in II Chronicles 27 and II Kings 15.  But perhaps a few considerations should be kept in mind.  For one, Rabbi Eliezer is presenting a hypothetical situation.  He is not saying that Jotham actually did bear the sins of people, but that, if Rabbi Eliezer were to bear the sins of people, he would want Jotham bearing them with him.  Second, bearing other people’s sins does not necessarily imply suffering or dying in their place.  According to Leviticus 10:17, Aaronide priests bear the iniquity of Israel by eating the sin offering.  They do not suffer and die in Israel’s place, but they still perform a priestly role of bearing iniquity and bringing atonement to Israel.  (I attribute this point to R.N. Whybray’s book on Isaiah 53, Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet.)

Here is a question: Could a righteous person bear the iniquity of sinners by interceding for them before God, while being burdened about the sinners’ sins and wanting God to forgive them?  I do not see that explicitly in the Bible, but how else would Abraham and Jotham bear people’s iniquity, in the mind of Rabbi Eliezer?

II Chronicles 26

II Chronicles 26 is about King Uzziah of Judah.  He was righteous, but God punished him with leprosy because he went into the Temple to offer incense, which only the Aaronide priests were allowed to do.

Here are some thoughts:

1.  II Chronicles 26:2 states: “He built Eloth, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers” (KJV).

Other translations say that the king rebuilt Eloth, and I was confused.  He rebuilt Eloth and restored it to Judah?  Wouldn’t it be more logical for the king to restore Eloth to Judah first, and then to rebuild it, since it is only after Judah possesses Eloth that the King of Judah can have the authority over Eloth to rebuild it?  Can a king of Judah rebuild Eloth in a time when Eloth does not even belong to Judah?

The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary, drawing from Radak and Metzudos, says that Eloth could only be fully restored to Judah after it had been rebuilt.  Judah could have taken Eloth, but, if it was in ruins, it was not fully restored to Judah.  Only once it was rebuilt could it be said to be restored to Judah, as a functioning city.  It was captured, rebuilt, and then restored to Judah.

2.  II Chronicles 26:21 states: “And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD: and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land” (KJV).

The KJV says that Uzziah after getting leprosy dwelt in a “several” house.  Other translations say that he lived in a separate house.  The Hebrew word relates to freedom, so the idea may be that Uzziah dwelt in a house that was free, or separate from, others.

What is interesting is that the text says that he was separate because he was cut off from the house of the LORD.  How would being cut off from the house of the LORD cause Uzziah to live in a separate house?

The idea could be that, because Uzziah was a leper, he could not defile the Temple by being close to it.  Thus, Uzziah had to live far away from it.  And Uzziah not being near the Temple could have led him to retire from being king and thus to separate himself from others (Artscroll), since he arguably could not be king without having access to the Temple.  Could a king who is cut off from the Temple seek strength and guidance from God to rule, or represent the people of Israel in festivals and at sacrifices, which took place at the Temple?  Not really, I would say.

Maybe one could have had a relationship with God apart from the Temple in Hebrew Bible times, for David, when he was away from the Tabernacle, still found strength in the LORD (I Samuel 30:6).  Yet, David had a priestly ephod, so he was not entirely cut off from ritual access to God in his time of exile (I Samuel 23, 30).  Moreover, when David was driven out of Israel, God’s inheritance, he felt like he was being pressured to worship other gods (I Samuel 26:19).  Perhaps David could honor God anywhere, but there was something special about being in God’s presence in Israel and the Temple, something that one did not obtain outside of them.  Maybe Uzziah, years later, could not have a full relationship that a king needed with God apart from the Temple, so he retired from being king to a place of separation.  He had sought access to the Temple that was not permitted to him and was stricken with leprosy; now, as a leper, he had no access to the Temple, and that contributed to his further isolation.  He could not fulfill his role—-as the city of Eloth did not fulfill its role as a city, and thus was not restored, until it was rebuilt.  Depressing!

Rashi understands the verse differently in his attempt to account for the causal relationship.  According to Rashi, the verse means that it was decreed from the house of the LORD that Uzziah had to be separate from people.  The word that the KJV and other versions translate as “cut off” in “cut off from the house of the LORD,” “nigzar,” means “decreed” in Esther 2:6.

3.  II Chronicles 26:23 states: “So Uzziah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.”

II Kings 15:7 says that Uzziah was buried with his fathers in the city of David.  Was he buried with the other kings, or not?  Somehow, his leprosy had something to do with where he was buried, for II Chronicles 26:23 says, “for they said, He is a leper…”  The usual explanation is that Uzziah was buried near his fathers, but not directly with them, on account of his leprosy.  There was a Hasmonean ossuary said to contains the bones of Uzziah, and some (the scholars who write about Chronicles in the HarperCollins Study Bible and the Jewish Study Bible) appear to see that as evidence that perhaps there is some historical authenticity to the story in Chronicles about Uzziah’s burial (or such is my impression).

4.  In studying this chapter, I was thinking about Mishnah Kelim 1.6-9, which talks about gradations of holiness: the cities of Israel are holier than other cities, which means that the Israelite cities must expel lepers; Jerusalem is even holier; and the Temple is holier still.  Of course, the Mishnah was much later than I-II Chronicles, but could Kelim 1.6-9 be relevant somehow to what is in II Chronicles 26?  Leviticus 13:46, which probably existed prior to I-II Chronicles, says that lepers must dwell alone and outside of the camp.  Obviously, Uzziah in II Chronicles 26 had to be separate from the Temple because he was a leper.  Yet, in some way, Uzziah the leper was still buried in the holy city of Jerusalem, the city of David.  Go figure!

II Chronicles 25

II Chronicles 25 is about King Amaziah of Judah.  The Chronicler says that Amaziah was a righteous king, but his heart was not perfect.  Amaziah’s father, King Joash, had been killed, and Amaziah as king obeyed the Torah by executing the men who killed his father but not their sons, for the Torah says that children shall not die for the sins of their fathers, but each shall die for his own sins (Deuteronomy 24:16).  Amaziah decides to go to war, and he hires men from Northern Israel to help him in this.  A man of God comes and tells Amaziah not to enlist the help of the Northern Israelites, for God is not with them.  Amaziah points out that he has already paid a hundred talents to the soldiers from Northern Israel, and the man of God responds that God is able to give Amaziah more than that.  Amaziah sends away the Northern Israelites, who now are angry with Judah.  Amaziah proceeds to kill Edomites and even to throw ten thousand of them over a cliff.  The upset Northern Israelite soldiers return to the scene and capture Judahite cities, kill Judahites, and take a lot of spoil.  Amaziah decides to worship Edomite gods, and a prophet tells Amaziah that this makes no sense, for the Edomite gods could not deliver Edom from Amaziah and Judah, so why would Amaziah worship them?  The chapter then talks about a conflict between Amaziah and Northern Israel.

I have four items.

1.  Why did Amaziah decide to go to war against Edom?  The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary says that Amaziah did so because Israel being over Edom was an indication of Israel’s spiritual preeminence.  Did not Isaac in Genesis 27 tell Jacob (the ancestor of Israel) that he would rule over Esau (the ancestor of Edom)?  Was not Amaziah affirming God’s promises to Israel?  Yes, but Jacob also said that Esau would break the yoke of Jacob from off his neck (v 40).  God in Deuteronomy 2:4ff. instructed the Israelites to leave the Edomites and their land alone.

I cannot say that the Chronicler disapproves of Amaziah’s war, however, because the man of God does promise that Amaziah will succeed in this endeavor.  Amaziah’s attack of Edom appears unprovoked in II Chronicles 25, but maybe it wasn’t.  II Chronicles 20 presents a situation in which the Edomites were attacking Judah, notwithstanding God’s instructions to the Israelites years earlier not to take Edom’s land; the Edomites, there, were the ones attacking when unprovoked.  Or perhaps the Chronicler actually thought that Judah was entitled to Edom, and that Edom only became independent because Judah disobeyed God.  II Chronicles 21 appears to have this kind of story.

2.  Amaziah throwing Edomites over a cliff appears very brutal.  Some commentators seek to explain or to justify this action.  The Artscroll says that Amaziah was resorting to brutality to keep the brutal and obscene nation of Edom in line: he was speaking to them in a language that they could understand, namely, brute force.  The Artscroll also suggests that Amaziah may have been applying against the Edomites God’s command in Deuteronomy 25:17 to blot out the wicked nation of Amalek, for Josephus in Antiquities 9 alternates between Edom and Amalek.  The Sages, however, considered Amaziah’s act to be cruel.

In reading this story, I thought that, if it is true, then it is no wonder that the Edomites were so cruel to the Judahites when the Babylonians came and destroyed Jerusalem.  The Edomites blocked the Judahites way of escape during this disaster (Obadiah 1:14).  God condemns the Edomites for doing this, and Ezekiel 35:5 criticizes the Edomites for their perpetual wrath.  Perhaps the Edomites should have forgiven and forgotten, but I can see why that may have been difficult for them.

3.  Amaziah does what God wants by dismissing the Northern Israelite soldiers, and the man of God tells Amaziah that God can compensate Amaziah for this act of obedience on his part.  While Amaziah indeed does defeat Edom and take spoil, not everything goes well for him.  The Northern Israelites whom he dismissed return and attack Judah.  This is puzzling, in light of the Chronicler’s view that doing the right thing leads to rewards.  Raymond Dillard suggests that the Chronicler may have included this story to set the stage for Judah’s conflict with Northern Israel later in the chapter.  Matthew Henry speculates that God allowed the Northern Israelites to afflict the Judahite cities because those particular cities were close to Northern Israel and thus were influenced by Northern Israelite idolatry.  Henry, like the Chronicler, may have found it odd that Amaziah was suffering for doing the right thing, so he proposed that some sin on the part of the Judahite cities brought about their affliction.

A lesson that I can glean could be that things do not always go well when we do the right thing, for the world is full of covetous, resentful people.  But God is with us through it all, working good, and hopefully our story will have a happy ending.

4.  Amaziah decided to worship the gods of Edom, the nation that he just defeated.  Why would he do that?  The Artscroll says that Amaziah feared that the Edomite gods would take revenge against him on account of his atrocity against the Edomites, so he tried to placate them.  John MacArthur, similarly, says that Amaziah could have been seeking to prevent an Edomite threat in the future.  The commentator on I-II Chronicles in the HarperCollins Study Bible, however, says that Amaziah believed that the Edomite gods assisted him in defeating Edom.  That sort of view was common in that day.  The Babylonian captain of the guard, Nebuzaradan, for example, attributed Babylon’s success against Jerusalem to the God of Israel’s anger at Judah’s sins (Jeremiah 40).

For some reason, though, this possibility did not enter the Chronicler’s mind, for the Chronicler presents a prophet who thinks it absurd that Amaziah would worship Edomite gods, after defeating Edom.  Perhaps the lesson that I can glean from all this is that I should worship God and trust in God rather than being afraid of what might happen.

II Chronicles 24

I have three thoughts about II Chronicles 24.  Two of the items are more questions than answers.

1.  King Joash of Judah attempts to repair the Temple of Judah, and he needs donations to do that.  Initially, he sends out priests and Levites throughout Judah to collect, but the Levites stall.  Joash’s approach then is to set up a collection chest, presumably in Jerusalem, and leaders of Judah would come and drop donations into the chest.  The latter approach is successful.

Both policies, though, are connected by the Chronicler with a law in the Law of Moses (II Chronicles 24:6, 9).  Many scholars say that this law is the one in Exodus 30:12-16 and 38:25-26.  This law said that the Israelites in the wilderness, when they were numbered, were to donate a half shekel, so that a plague would not befall them (probably in punishment for the census, which God did not like).  Each Israelite, rich and poor, paid the same amount, and the money would be used for the construction of the Tabernacle.

I wrote a post a while back about the Temple tax and Shmuel Safrai’s statement that what in Exodus 30 and 38 may have been a one-time occurrence became a regular obligation in II Chronicles 24, Nehemiah 10:33ff, Second Temple sources, and the Mishnah.   Indeed, Joash does appear to be going a bit beyond the written letter of the law in his application and interpretation of it.  The law originally may have been for one time, and part of its design was to prevent a plague.  Joash says that the law still applies in his time, however, and there is nothing about the threat of a plague in II Chronicles 24.  Perhaps Joash was following the spirit of the law, though, or saw his own situation as analogous to the historical context of the law.  When the law was given, it was so that the Tabernacle could be built, and the Tabernacle was a place where God dwelt and was worshiped.  Joash wanted to repair the Temple, the successor to the Tabernacle.

A question that I had is how leaders coming to Jerusalem and dropping off contributions into a chest constituted a tax.  It’s a donation, right, not a tax?  Yet, this method of obtaining resources is said to accord with the collection that Moses laid on Israel in the wilderness.  Perhaps the leaders collected the tax in their locality and brought it to Jerusalem.  I think also of Numbers 7, in which princes of Israel come to the Tabernacle and give gifts after the Tabernacle’s consecration.

2.  Joash starts off righteous but turns bad.  Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest rebukes Joash for transgressing God’s commandments, and the king commands that Zechariah be stoned.  This occurs in the Temple court.

Jesus in Matthew 23:35 is criticizing the Pharisees and says: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (KJV).

Was Jesus referring to the stoning of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada in II Chronicles 24?  Believers in biblical inerrancy will not have this because Jesus calls Zechariah the son of Barachias, not the son of Jehoiada (the Zechariah in II Chronicles 24), and they do not think that Jesus would make a factual error.

Gleason Archer, an inerrantist, offers a pretty good reason that Jesus meant Zechariah the son of Berechiah, the prophet who wrote the Book of Zechariah, rather than Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.  Archer says that Jesus in Matthew 23:35 appears to be referring to a merism that goes from the first Old Testament martyr (Abel) to the last one.  As Archer notes, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was not the last Old Testament martyr, for he died during the time of Joash, the pre-exilic period, and much more martyrs were to come.  Zechariah the son of Berachiah, by contrast, was a post-exilic martyr and was quite late.

I am not entirely convinced by Archer’s argument, however.  For one, there would come more martyrs after Zechariah the son of Berechiah, particularly around the time of the Maccabees.  Second, Jesus may have been respecting the order of books in the Jewish canon, in which Genesis is the first book and II Chronicles is the last.  Abel is in the first book, and Zechariah the son of Jehoiada is in the last.  Finally, not only is there no evidence that Zechariah the son of Berachiah was martyred, but I also find it unlikely.  Zechariah the son of Jehoiada spoke truth to power and had a message that could get him killed.  Zechariah the son of Berachiah, by contrast, supported the establishment, specifically the attempts by Governor Zerubabbel and Joshua the priest to rebuild Israel.  Why would Zechariah the son of Berechiah be martyred?  Was it because he was challenging post-exilic Jews for not completely giving paganism up?  Still, he was part of the establishment.

3.  II Chronicles 24:16 says that the priest Jehoiada was buried among the kings because he did good for Israel, God, and the Temple.  King Joash, by contrast, was not buried among the kings in their tombs, at least according to the Chronicler in v 25; II Kings 12:21, however, affirms that Joash was buried with his ancestors in the city of David.

It seems to me that some of the bad kings in II Chronicles get bad burials.  In II Chronicles 21, Jehoram, a wicked king, is buried in the city of David but not in the sepulchres of the kings, and the customary burning for dead kings at their funerals is not made for him.  In II Chronicles 22:9, wicked king Ahaziah is buried, but that is on account of the righteousness of his father, Jehoshaphat.  In II Chronicles 26, Uzziah, a righteous king who becomes proud and makes a horrible mistake, is not exactly buried with the other kings.

A question that went through my mind is who exactly was making these burial decisions.  Here are people with enough power to decide where a king would be buried.  They appear to have been devout Yahwists, though, and their brand of devout Yahwism was not always honored within Judah.  Could they have been priests?  Or the people of the land, landholders (according to some scholars) who were devout Yahwists and who helped install the righteous king Josiah years later (II Kings 20:24)?  Keil-Delitzsch say regarding Joash’s dishonorable burial that people were discontent with his reign.  Perhaps, according to the Chronicler, the multitudes did not care for the divine punishments that their nation received when they had a bad king (bad according to the judgments of a certain brand of devout Yahwism), so they did not support giving the king an honorable burial.

II Chronicles 23

In II Chronicles 23, a conspiracy overthrows the wicked Queen Athaliah of Judah, and the rightful Davidid Joash is installed as king.  Joash was hidden in the Temple for years, to keep him safe from Athaliah, who had slaughtered many Davidids.

What stood out to me in my reading of II Chronicles 23 was the references to keeping people out of the house of the LORD.  In II Chronicles 23:6, the priest Jehoiada says: “But let none come into the house of the LORD, save the priests, and they that minister of the Levites; they shall go in, for they are holy: but all the people shall keep the watch of the LORD” (KJV).  In II Chronicles 23:14, Jehoiada tells the captains of the army to bring Athaliah out, for she is not to be killed in the house of the LORD.  In II Chronicles 23:19, Jehoiada stations gatekeepers at the house of the LORD to keep out unclean people.

But it does appear that non-priests were in the house of the LORD.  Athaliah was, of course, but one could say that she was wicked, so, of course, she did not obey the traditional rules of the priests.  My point, though, is that godly people—-the good guys, from the perspective of the story—-appear to be in the house of the LORD.  Joash was hidden there.  II Chronicles 23:12-13 says that Athaliah went into the house of the LORD and saw there the people conspiring against her—-the priests, the captains, the musicians, and the people of the land.

I was wondering if looking at the prepositions before “house of the LORD” could help me understand this surface inconsistency.  The non-priests may have been at the house of the LORD, I reasoned to myself, but that is different from being in the house of the LORD.  The problem is that, in many of the relevant passages, there is no preposition before “house of the LORD.”  II Chronicles 22:12 says that Joash was hidden in the house of the LORD, but 23:6, 12, and 14 just have “house of the LORD.”

Keil-Delitzsch distinguish between the courts of the Temple and the sanctuary.  According to them, II Chronicles 23:6 is saying that the non-priests are to stay in the courts and are not to press into the sanctuary.  That makes sense, even if it is not explicit in the text.  When Athaliah enters the house of the LORD and sees the priestly and non-priestly members of the conspiracy, she is probably seeing them in the courts, where the non-priestly people are allowed.  Still, even the courts must be sacred or holy, on some level, for Jehoidah does not want bloodshed to take place there.

The conspiracy is going out of its way to respect priestly rules about where non-priests can and cannot go.  Yet, according to the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary, Joash actually was hidden for six years in the Temple itself and thus appeared as more than human.  I am not saying that the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary is an accurate indicator of the worldview of the Chronicler.  I am just noting that it may maintain that Joash was an exception to the rule that only priests can enter the Temple.  I could be wrong, though: maybe it is saying that Joash was raised in the courts or someplace other than the sanctuary, but Joash’s proximity to the sanctuary gave him a special holiness.