"With the close of Solomon's reign we embark upon a new phase in Chr.'s account of Israel's history. That account can be broadly divided . . . into the pre-Davidic era, the time of David and Solomon, and the period of the divided monarchy up until the Babylonian exile."24
". . . the Chronicler never regarded the northern monarchy as anything but illegitimate and a rebellion against God's chosen dynasty. As far as he was concerned, all Israel had one and only one ruling family."25
The writer continued his sermon by evaluating each of Solomon's successors with the same yardstick he had used on Solomon, namely, the example of David. His intent appears to have been to show that none of David's descendants measured up to him much less surpassed him. Consequently the promised Son of David was yet to appear. The relationship of each king to temple worship showed his heart commitment to God. Consequently there is much in what follows that deals with the kings' relationship to the temple and temple worship.
Abijah generally did not please God (1 Kings 15:3). However there was the instance the Chronicler recorded in which he spoke out in favor of the temple, the priests, and the Levites against the apostate Jeroboam and Israel.
This is the only place in Chronicles where the writer linked the reigns of the southern and northern kings (vv. 1-2). He may have done this to identify the occasion on which Abijah made his speech since Jeroboam and he were constantly fighting. Abijah took the offensive this time even though Jeroboam outnumbered him two soldiers to one (v. 3). Abijah charged Israel with fighting against Yahweh since the Judahites had remained faithful to Him (vv. 11-12). Judah won because the people relied on Yahweh (vv. 15, 18).
"It is hard to avoid the thought that, in biblical theology, weakness is a positive advantage, because it is a prerequisite of reliance (cf. 2 Cor. 12:10)."33
The reference to a "covenant of salt"(v. 5) suggests the connection between the ratification of a treaty and a meal (Exod. 24:11) at which salt provided seasoning (cf. Lev. 2:13). Normally participants sealed covenants by eating a meal together. What is more important, salt as a preservative symbolized the covenant makers' hope that their agreement would last a long time (cf. Num. 18:19).
The real difference between the Southern and Northern Kingdoms was theological. Judah was relying on what God had done, but Israel was trusting in what she could do. The temple site and ritual were God's provision for His people (cf. Gen. 22:14). Israel had rejected these and had set up a system of her own devising that she hoped would make her acceptable to God. Israel had rejected God's grace and had adopted a works system of worship.
This chapter is the only assessment in Chronicles of the Northern Kingdom's sin. From here on, the writer's attention focused on Judah primarily.
Other evidences of God's blessing on Abijah were the cities he was able to take from Israel (v. 19), the death of his enemy Jeroboam (v. 20), his power (v. 21), and his many children (v. 21). Though marrying many wives was a sin, fathering many children was an evidence of divine blessing (fruitfulness).
Chronicles gives much more attention to Asa than Kings does. That is because Asa's experiences illustrated the points the Chronicler wanted to drive home to his readers.
We have already seen in Rehoboam's history that obedience brought blessing from God, but disobedience brought discipline (chs. 11-12). The Chronicler used this retributive motif frequently. We see it clearly here in Asa's history.34In chapters 14-15 we see Asa obeying and blessed. In chapter 16 he was disobedient, and God disciplined him.
This account of Jehoshaphat's rule reveals that God was then actively leading His people. These were the years of alliance with Israel. Ahab was on the throne of the Northern Kingdom.
The Chronicler deliberately presented Jehoshaphat's record very similarly to the way he recounted Asa's experiences. In chapters 17-20, as in 14-16, we have a series of contrasts that teach the same lessons. These lessons are the importance of depending on Yahweh and being loyal to Him by obeying His Word and seeking His help.
Both Asa and Jehoshaphat followed similar patterns of reform, experienced victory in battle, and transgressed. Both of them suppressed and failed to suppress the high places (cf. 14:2-5; 17:6). Both enjoyed prosperity, conducted great building programs, and experienced victory because of their obedience. Both made foreign alliances, and both are mentioned together as the standard of piety to which Jehoram failed to attain.42
The events from Jehoram's reign that the Chronicler selected present a classic example of the consequences that follow departing from Yahweh. The king violated God's will by murdering his brothers (v. 4) and practicing idolatry (v. 6).
"Jehoram is the first king of the Davidic line of whom the Chronicler's judgment is totally negative."55
"There is both irony and retributive justice in that Jehoram sets in motion events that would ultimately lead to the near obliteration of his own line (22:10; 2 Kgs 11:1)."56
The retributions Yahweh brought for these sins were the rebellion of and invasion by his neighbors (vv. 8-10, 16-17), his own painful death (vv. 18-19), and death with no one's regret (v. 19).
"It cannot be said too often that the tracing of cause and effect which so typifies Chr. does not imply that all suffering is the result of specific sin. The central point here relates rather to the folly and wickedness of usurping the place of God. Jehoram did not merely aim to exercise authority. He sought to control destinies. The same urge is not absent from the twentieth century."57
Even though Jehoram apostatized largely through the influence of his wife and in-laws in Israel (v. 6), God did not cut off the Davidic line. This was because He had promised David He would never do that (v. 7).
It is significant that the prophet God sent to announce judgment on Jehoram was Elijah (v. 12). Elijah's ministry was to condemn Baalism in Israel, but God sent him to Jehoram because Jehoram shared the same guilt as the kings of Ahab's house. This is the only record we have of a prophet from the Northern Kingdom rebuking a king of the Southern Kingdom. All the other prophets God sent to the Davidic kings were from Judah.
"As with most illnesses mentioned in the Old Testament, we are left to conjecture about the clinically imprecise vocabulary. Ulcers, colitis, chronic diarrhea, and dysentery have been proposed."58
The reference to Jehoshaphat having been the king of Israel (v. 2) is not an error. As we have already noted, the Chronicler regarded Judah as the true Israel and sometimes referred to Judah as Israel (cf. 12:6; 23:2; et al.).
The house of Ahab also strongly influenced Ahaziah (v. 3). His mother was Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. Because of his apostasy Jehu executed Ahaziah along with his uncle Jehoram, the king of Israel. Ahaziah had no descendant who could succeed him on the throne when he died (v. 9). His mother killed all his sons except one whom the high priest and his wife hid away when he was only an infant (vv. 10-11).
"The fact that royal infants may regularly have been put into the care of wet nurses or foster mothers becomes the key to Jehosheba's frustrating Athaliah's plans; the suckling child was overlooked and could have escaped detection as he grew by mingling with other priests' children or perhaps as a temple devotee like the young Samuel."59
The place where they hid him was evidently a bedding storeroom.60This too was a judgment from God on Ahaziah.
The Chronicler did not have much interest in Athaliah because she was not of the Davidic line. She was the daughter of Ahab. His concern in this chapter was with the events that brought the next Davidic king to the throne, Joash.
Instead of protecting the temple as had all the good kings of Judah so far, Joash enjoyed protection in the temple. The temple was the visual symbol of the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Even though there was no visible king during Athaliah's usurpation the temple reminded the people that God would fulfill His promise to David of an unbroken royal line.
The returned exiles were in a similar situation. A Davidic king was not on the throne in their day, but the rebuilt temple gave hope that a successor to David would again sit on his throne. In their day they could not set a king on their throne because they were no longer a sovereign nation but only a province of the Persian Empire. Evidently the people had rebuilt the temple when the Chronicler wrote this book (cf. 5:9). Clearly the restoration community's hope of the fulfillment of the promise God made to David centered on the temple. As long as they had permission to rebuild the temple there was hope that someday a successor to David might rule over them again. The temple was in that sense the protector of the promise to David both in Athaliah's day and in the Chronicler's day.
The public presentation of Joash recalls the anointing of Solomon, which ended Adonijah's vain attempt to succeed David (1 Kings 1:39-40, 45-46).
Jehoiada's reforms indicated the extent to which Judah had departed from God's ordained worship (vv. 16-17). Jehoiada was the Chronicler's ideal high priest.61It is interesting to read that the popular reaction to Athaliah's death was joy (v. 21).
"All the people of the land rejoiced, a characteristic response found in Chronicles whenever the Lord's will was being followed."62
The flame of love for Yahweh burned low, but it was still alive in His people. In the absence of a king the Lord raised up the high priest as Judah's spiritual leader.
"The story of Athaliah, like that of Jehoram and Ahaziah, is a testimony to the ephemeral and ultimately illusory character of brute power exercised in a self-serving way."63
Joash's life, as the writer narrated it, proves again the principles that Chronicles stresses. God was faithful to His promise to provide rulers over His people from David's descendants. Each king's success depended on his submission to God's authority as expressed in the Law of Moses and the announcements of the prophets. The writer evaluated each king's success and measured it by his attitude toward prescribed worship that centered at the temple.
"His rule . . . serves as a characterization in miniature for the historical course of his entire nation."64
The use of boxes or baskets to receive the gifts of the people was common in the ancient Near East.65Coined money did not exist before the seventh century B.C., so the people evidently brought their contributions in the form of refined or unrefined metals.
The priests were to instruct the kings in God's Law. As long as Joash listened to this instruction, he succeeded. When he stopped listening, he began to fail. He began to lead the people away from God.
Nevertheless God did not abandon His people because they had abandoned Him. He sent at least one prophet to warn them to return to Him or experience discipline (v. 20). When the people refused to respond properly, judgment followed (vv. 21-27). The way of repentance was still open to the people (cf. 6:24-25; Jer. 18:7-10).
The murder of Zechariah was especially heinous. He died in the very courtyard where "Jehoiada and his sons"(23:11) had anointed his executioner, Joash, as king.66Ironically Jehoiada sought to protect the sanctity of the temple from murder (23:14-15), but his own son was murdered there.67
In this chapter in particular the people's response to the temple clearly reflects their response to God (vv. 4, 5, 13, 18, 20, 24). This is always the case in Chronicles.
The Chronicler selected three events from Amaziah's reign to teach important spiritual lessons.
First, Amaziah followed the Mosaic Law faithfully in dealing with the people who had killed his father (vv. 1-4; cf. Deut. 24:16). These actions transpired at the beginning of his reign.
Second, the king obeyed God partially in his war with the Edomites (vv. 5-16). He unwisely hired mercenary soldiers from Israel to help him rather than seeking the Lord's help (v. 6). However when the prophet rebuked him, he obediently dismissed them even though it cost him 7,500 pounds of silver (v. 10). Nevertheless because he had hired them, he not only lost his money but he also lost the lives of some of his soldiers when the Edomites retaliated for having been dismissed (v. 13). Furthermore he disobeyed Yahweh by importing the gods of Edom (v. 14). Finally he refused to repent (v. 10).68
Third, Amaziah disobeyed God by attacking Israel late in his reign (vv. 17-24). This was due, from the divine perspective, to the king's idolatry (v. 20) and, from the human perspective, to his pride (v. 18).69The consequences were that Judah's enemy destroyed a portion of the wall around Jerusalem (God removed its defense, v. 23), and stripped the temple (the glory of God diminished, v. 24).
"At bottom, it is the breakdown in the relationship between Amaziah and God which causes his downfall."70
Idolatry was a serious matter because it struck at the heart of God's relationship with His people. God blessed Israel with the opportunity to have intimate personal relationship with the living sovereign Lord as no other people in the world then. To turn from this privilege to pursue dead idols was the height of effrontery (cf. Exod. 20:5). From the time Amaziah turned from Yahweh, God began to turn against him by using the faithful in Judah as His instruments of judgment (v. 27). "The city of Judah"(v. 28) is a later name for Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kings 14:20).
"Instead of royal building programs, the walls of Jerusalem are destroyed; instead of wealth from the people and surrounding nations, the king is plundered; instead of a large family, there were hostages; instead of peace, war; instead of victory, defeat; instead of loyalty from the populace and long life, there is conspiracy and regicide."71
The Chronicler gave us much more information about Uzziah than we have in Kings (2 Kings 15:1-7). Uzziah ("Yahweh is strong") was evidently the king's throne name and Azariah ("Yahweh helps") his personal name.
Uzziah, as his father, began well but ended poorly. The writer documented his fidelity to Yahweh and God's consequent blessing of him and his kingdom at length (vv. 1-15). Perhaps verse 5 summarizes this best. To seek the Lord meant to seek to please Him by trusting and obeying Him.
Unfortunately Uzziah took personal credit for what God had given him (v. 16). Note the recurrence of the record that Uzziah was strong (vv. 8, 15, 16). His pride led to self-exaltation; he put himself over God.
"If he had only remembered the message of his names, that he was powerful because of the Lord's help, he would not have fallen."72
The Mosaic Law permitted only the priests to offer incense in the temple (Exod. 30:1-10; Num. 3:10, 38; 16:40; 18:1-7). The Davidic kings could offer sacrifices on the bronze altar in the temple courtyard, and they could enter the temple. Uzziah's offering incense manifested rebellion against God. For this reason God struck him with leprosy (v. 19).73
"He had not been one of the weak kings of Judah who was easily swayed by others (like Jehoshaphat) or too open and accommodating with the leaders in the north. But as is often the case with strong leaders, this virtue gave way to a headstrong, I-can-do-no-wrong attitude. It was precisely his strength that blinded him to the effrontery of his action."74
Uzziah's leprosy meant he could no longer enjoy personal worship at the temple (v. 21). Rather than caring for the temple and building it up as God had said David's son would do, Uzziah could not even enter its courtyard. The king's leprosy was an outward evidence of his inward uncleanness (cf. Isa. 6:5).
Uzziah's reign was the third in a "royal trilogy"of kings who began well but ended poorly: Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah. Their histories show the reader how difficult yet how important it is to hold the confidence we had at the beginning of our lives firm until the end (Heb. 3:14).75
Jotham was also a good king. He built up the temple and so contributed to the greater glory of Yahweh (v. 3). Consequently his neighbors to the east submitted to him and paid him tribute (v. 5). The Chronicler stated the reason Jotham became strong clearly (v. 6).
However, Jotham appears to have failed to lead his people in righteousness (v. 2). There was no reformation of abuses or revival during his reign as far as we know.
Evidently the reference to Jotham's not entering the temple (v. 2) means he did not inappropriately violate the holy place as his father had done (26:16).
With the reign of Ahaz the Chronicler introduced a new interest, the prospect of captivity for Judah, which he again called Israel, the true Israel, twice in this chapter (vv. 19, 23).
Why did Israel go into captivity? Why did the perfectly obedient King not appear? Ahaz's behavior helps explain the reason. The writer selected three major events from his reign: the king's idolatry (vv. 2-15), his appeal for help to Assyria (vv. 16-21), and his sacrifices to foreign gods (vv. 22-25).
Ahaz's heart was far from God. He was more like Saul in this respect than like David. Even though he failed to obey God as the other kings, there is no mention of his ever repenting when God chastened him. Instead he hardened his heart even more (v. 22). The reason for Israel's exile was the hardness of heart that Ahaz exemplified. At this time in her history the nation needed a faithful Son of David more than ever. A prophet who spoke in Ahaz's reign promised that He would appear (Isa. 7:1-12:6).
In Ahaz's day the army of Israel threatened to capture the people of Judah and lead them into slavery (vv. 8, 10). While God prevented this (vv. 9-15) the threat of captivity by another foreign foe became more of a realistic possibility. The Edomites even captured some Judahites and took them to Edom (v. 17). The Philistines took some of Judah's glory captive during the Philistine conquest (v. 18), and Ahaz gave more of it away to Tiglath-Pileser III (v. 21). Ahaz's personal disregard for Yahweh mirrored his disrespect for the temple.
"Under Ahaz, Judah appeared to have reached its nadir. But for the Chronicler there was always hope of tragedy and despair being turned to rejoicing through repentance. Such a return would occur preeminently under Hezekiah, the king most like David (cf. 29:2, 25-30)."76
In contrast to Ahaz, we can see Hezekiah's love for Yahweh in how he cared for the temple. Ahaz's reign was full of war, but Hezekiah enjoyed peace. God rewarded Hezekiah's spiritual restoration of Judah with a remarkable military deliverance. Yet good king Hezekiah was not the completely faithful Son of David whose kingdom God had promised to establish forever (1 Chron. 17:11-14).
"He is the golden boy' of Chronicles."77
The Chronicler gave more space to Hezekiah's reign than to any others except David and Solomon, to whom he likened Hezekiah.78
Manasseh was one of the few examples of an evil Judean king who turned out good. Nevertheless his wickedness made captivity inevitable for Judah (2 Kings 23:26; Jer. 15:4).
"Manasseh's acts are . . . a calculated attempt to throw off the lordship of Yahweh, to claim independence from the Covenant, to drive him from the land which he had given Israel."85
"If Manasseh had searched the Scriptures for practices that would most anger the Lord and then intentionally committed them, he could not have achieved that result any more effectively than he did."86
The Babylonians captured Manasseh but released him after he turned back to Yahweh. The Assyrian king in view (v. 11) was Ashurbanipal.87
His experience would have been an encouragement to the returned exiles who first read Chronicles. If God had had mercy on Manasseh and had reestablished him in the land, He could do the same for them (cf. 7:14). The writer emphasized the results of the king's repentance. He magnified the grace of God rather than the rebellion of the sinner.
". . . in terms of the experience of an individual, Manasseh furnishes the most explicit and dramatic example of the efficacy of repentance in the whole of the Chronicler's work."88
"Manasseh's sin is repeated, in essence, whenever man uses or manipulates his fellow-men for some supposedly higher good than their own welfare--or, indeed, uses any part of God's creation for purposes other than those which God intends."89
"The Chronicler is as concerned as his predecessor [the writer of Kings] was to point out the effects of sin. Both historians note the moral consequences of the actions of men. But the Chronicler regularly deals in immediate consequences: the soul that sins shall die' (Ezek. 18:4, 20). Though it is true that one man's sin can cause others to suffer sixty years after he is dead and gone, this is not the kind of lesson which Chronicles as a whole aims to teach . . . What Manasseh's sin leads to is not the fall of Jerusalem long after his death, as Samuel/Kings say, but distress' for him himself, as he is taken by Assyrian forces with hooks . . . and fetters of bronze' to Babylon (33:11-12)."90
Amon was an evil king, as Manasseh was, but he did not repent as his father had done. Consequently rather than experiencing forgiveness and restoration he died prematurely. He represented the other alternative the returned exiles could take. His fate would have been, and is, a warning to seek the Lord.
Like Amon's death, Josiah's was unnecessarily premature. However unlike Amon Josiah was one of Judah's reformers.
"Josiah instituted the most thorough of all the OT reforms . . ."91
"Despite this, however, Josiah is not so significant a monarch overall for the Chronicler as he is for the earlier historian [i.e., the writer of Kings]. Much that he records is now to be understood as recapitulation of Hezekiah's work, who stands out as the real innovator in Chronicles."92
The sovereignty of the Davidic kings over Judah had ended. Instead of working throughthem as His instruments Yahweh was now working onthem in discipline. He used other more powerful kings and kingdoms to punish His people. The temple motif in Chronicles also climaxes in this section with its destruction.
These two verses determine the whole mood of Chronicles. Rather than ending with the failure of man the writer concluded by focusing our attention on the faithfulness of God (cf. Lam. 3:22-23). God was in control of the Persian king as He had controlled the kings of Babylon, Egypt, and Israel. God had promised Israel a future as a nation. His people would experience this future under the rule of a perfect Davidic Son. Yahweh was moving now after 70 years of captivity to bring that future to pass (cf. Isa. 9:7). Even though the Babylonian army had burned Yahweh's temple to the ground (v. 19) it would rise again (v. 23).
The message to the returned exiles was clear. God would respond to their repentance (6:36-39). He would forgive their sin and heal their land (7:14). Moreover He would raise up a descendant of David who would rule over not only Israel but all the nations forever (1 Chron. 17:11-14).
"Now that Cyrus had decreed the rebuilding of the temple (36:22-23), here was prima facie evidence that God had not annulled His covenant with Israel nor the Levitical system revealed at Sinai."106
The closing words of Chronicles are identical to the opening ones in Ezra.107
"Unlike the Book of Kings, with its central message of stern moral judgments . . . Chronicles exists essentially as a book of hope, grounded on the grace of our sovereign Lord."108
"If Chronicles in its last chapter tells us that God acted in mercy by restoring his people Judah, Ezra-Nehemiah will reveal to us how they fared upon their return, privileged with a new opportunity to be God's people in their own land."109
