An Overview of 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles

The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, originally one book, were given the title Chronicles by Jerome in the fourth century AD, because it seemed to him to be a more descriptive title than the Greek (LXX) title Paraleipomena, “the things omitted.” The Greek translators apparently considered these books to be something of an addendum or an appendix to the main historical accounts of Samuel and Kings. Unfortunately, that opinion about the books of Chronicles still prevails in many places today (and the fact that these books appear last in the Hebrew Bible has reinforced that idea.) It is something of a cliché to suggest that 1 and 2 Chronicles are among the most neglected, least read and studied (especially in key parts of the book such as the genealogies in chaps. 1–9), and least understood books in the Bible. Actually, the term Chronicles is a good idiomatic expression for the Hebrew title dibre hayyamim [lit., “the words of the days”]. The books of the Chronicles are “annals, records, histories” of the nation of Israel with a particular focus on the family and dynasty of David (cf. 1Ch 27:24). They are “theological histories.” As such, they are an invaluable portion of the inspired Word of God, and it is a serious mistake to overlook them.

Who Wrote 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles?

Old Testament scholars generally speak of two major strands of historical narrative—the Deuteronomistic History (hereafter DH—Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings) and the Chronicler’s History (hereafter CH—1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah). In broad terms the former is a history of Israel from a perspective that reflects preexilic and exilic views, and the latter from a generally postexilic perspective. For instance, the DH traces the history of Israel in the light of her faithfulness, or lack thereof, to the law, the Mosaic covenant. The

failure of the nation as a whole to live by that covenant led to the exile as a judgment for serial idolatry. The CH understands the exile as a judgment on Israel for her failure to “seek the Lord,” and for “forsaking the Lord” (see below under “Purpose and Themes”). These are not mutually exclusive concepts, but a matter of perspective. While this contrast is helpful in identifying different themes and emphases (especially where the two histories overlap) there are serious questions about the notion of a single “Deuteronomistic historian” and the identity of “the chronicler.”

Jewish tradition, followed by a number of later scholars and commentators, attributes authorship of the books of Chronicles to Ezra the priest and scribe (Ezr 7:1-6), author of the book by the same name (and likely the author of Nehemiah). The strongest argument for this tradition is that the last verses of 2 Chronicles (2Ch 36:22-23) contain wording identical to that of the opening words of Ezra’s book (Ezr 1:1-3). Furthermore, internal analysis of the books of the Chronicles makes it clear that there was a single author who used a variety of sources, a person who was intimately familiar with the temple and the services in the temple (cf. 1Ch 23, 24; 2Ch 2–5). There is a consistency of literary style and vocabulary, as the commentary will show, and a consistent theological perspective (cf. Payne, J. Barton, “1, 2 Chronicles,” in vol. 4 EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988], 305). This person was in a unique position to understand the need for such a book as Chronicles and also had the ability to write it.

While Ezra seems to fit all of these criteria, scholarship (evangelical and otherwise) is still divided on the question of his authorship of these books. The author of Chronicles appears to have had some ideas that were dissimilar to those of Ezra. The Chronicler (as it has become custom to refer to the author of these books) seems to have had a more open view with respect to mixed marriages (Jews and non-Jews) than does Ezra (see Neh 13:26; but not a word in protest appears about Solomon’s wives from the Chronicler; 2Ch 8:11). Ezra, Nehemiah, and those who returned from the captivity often found themselves at odds with those who had remained in the land through the captivity (epitomized later in the conflict between the Samaritans and the Jews). Yet the Chronicler has given no evidence of such a conflict.

Indeed, the Chronicler seems to have intentionally included in his community any and all who could trace their heritage to the Israel of the United Monarchy. While his focus was on the Davidic dynasty and the southern kingdom of Judah, he regularly included, and had, in contrast to the author of Kings, a generally positive attitude toward the northern kingdom. The tribes of the northern kingdom are often included when he uses the expression “all Israel”; for instance, in the acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the Davidic king (1Ch 11:3) and the primacy of the temple in Jerusalem as the locus for true worship (1Ch 13:5; 28:1; cf. 2Ch 30:11, 18-19). These differences tend to militate against identifying Ezra as the Chronicler.

It seems best simply to affirm that the author of the Chronicles was likely a Levite, or at least one who served in the temple services, who sought by his extensive but selective history to bring encouragement and unity to the postexilic Jewish community.

When Were 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles Written?

The internal evidence of the books of the Chronicles suggests that they were written sometime between 450 and 430 BC. The decree of Cyrus, King of Persia noted in 2Ch 36:22 was made in 538 BC, and the decree was carried out soon after that. In 1Ch 3, the genealogy of David’s family is traced through Zerubbabel, the leader of those who first returned to Jerusalem (Ezr 2:2) around 520 BC. After Zerubbabel the Chronicler identified several more generations. If each generation is calculated to be 15 to 20 years, the dates for composition would be, as suggested, sometime in the second half of the fifth century BC. Furthermore, if we accept the view that 1Ch 9 is a genealogy of “the first who lived in their cities” after the exile (1Ch 9:2) and we compare this list to the lists in Nehemiah chaps. 11 and 12, we may legitimately presume that the books were written after the third generation of returnees, again in the range of 450–400 BC. While further precision in dating the book is probably unattainable, it seems that the Chronicles were written to the postexilic community of Jewish people living in the land promised by God to Abraham (see Gn 12:1-3; 15:18-21) near or in the city of Jerusalem.

The dating of the kings of Israel and Judah has been a source of frustration for the readers of the narrative and of scholarly debate for centuries. Many fine and detailed studies have attempted to unravel the complexities of the chronology of the Hebrew kings, and the reader is urged to consult them (cf. esp. Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, new rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983]). No attempt will be made in this commentary to date the reigns of the kings or to correlate the narrative to other secular histories.

What Are the Purposes and Themes of 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles?

As noted above, Chronicles was written using the Deuteronomistic history as a source and a guide for the “pure history” of the nation. That is, the Chronicler was not trying to rewrite the history but to give his generation a perspective on that history that would encourage and sustain them in difficult times. The genealogies were meant broadly to ensure the legitimacy of his generation’s claim to the covenant promises (to Abraham and David) and specifically the legitimacy of the Levitical institutions that had been revived in his day. In both of these the legitimacy is proven by the continuity of the generational lines. In effect he was saying to his generation, “We are the legitimate heirs of those promises and institutions.” His history was selective for the same reasons. He expected his readers to know the DH, and he selected those parts of the narrative that would support the claims of legitimacy and continuity with the nation’s past—particularly the history of the Davidic dynasty based as it was on the Davidic covenant.

The Chronicler was not shy about his predilection for the Davidic dynasty. Throughout the entire work—from the genealogies to the accounts of the last kings of Judah—the Chronicler demonstrated his concern for the dynasty of David. He consistently sought to present a positive view of David and the descendants of David who sat on his throne after him, going so far as to omit accounts from Samuel and Kings that are unfavorable (e.g., David’s sin with Bathsheba; the negative influences of Solomon’s many foreign wives). Even where he had to acknowledge sin and apostasy, he was quick to interpret the matter in a providentially positive manner (i.e., David’s census in 1Ch 21) or to offer a mitigating turn of events (i.e., Manasseh’s repentance in 2Ch 33).

The Chronicler emphasized that God had chosen (elected) David and given him and his descendants the covenant (1Ch 17:1-15) that ensured a kingdom forever (17:14). That note would have had singular significance for the Chronicler’s readers. This covenant was an extension of the Abrahamic covenant (Gn 17:6-8). In that covenant God had promised Abraham “kings will come forth from you” (17:6), and that “all the land of Canaan” would belong to his descendants “for an everlasting possession” (17:8). The Chronicler wanted his generation of Jews, those whose great-grandparents had come back into the land after the captivity, to know that the Lord was still faithful to those promises. His message was, “In accord with the promises He made to the Fathers, the Lord has chosen, made promises to, and preserved the Davidic dynasty through the tumultuous decades before the captivity. Therefore, we can be sure that He can be trusted to be faithful to those promises in our day.” The Davidic dynasty was God’s instrument for nurturing and preserving the promises and for maintaining the temple and its services as the place and means for the nation to experience the blessings of those promises.

The Chronicler was also devoted to the temple and took a keen interest in the worship and services of the temple. The temple was the locus of God’s presence with His people. Proper worship was the outward evidence of a genuine inward faith in the Lord; proper worship was “seeking the Lord” and failure in proper worship was “forsaking the Lord.” In this emphasis, the Chronicler was not advocating mere formalism, but he was concerned about true worship from the heart; the term “heart” appears some 30 times in Chronicles (Payne, “1 Chronicles,” 318). For the Chronicler the temple was inextricably tied to the Davidic dynasty. The king was to establish and preserve the temple (as in the case of David and Solomon), and if need be restore it (as did Hezekiah and Josiah) and its proper services. For the Chronicler one of the main reasons for God’s choice of David’s line was to build, care for, and safeguard the temple. Part of this entailed the appointment of the proper functionaries in the temple—for example, the Levites, the priests, and the musicians (see 1Ch 23–26). For the Chronicler, when the kings took an interest in the temple it was a tangible expression of their faith and confidence in the promises the Lord made with David (1Ch 17).

The Chronicler was concerned to include “all Israel” in the restoration of the nation after the exile. All who will “seek the Lord” and who will acknowledge the temple as the only legitimate locus of worship are included in the blessings of the national relationship with the Lord. Accordingly, in his history the Chronicler downplayed the issues that divided the nation between northern and southern kingdoms and highlighted those institutions (David’s regnancy 1Ch 11:1; Solomon’s regnancy, 2Ch 1:2; the temple, 2Ch 6:3) and events (Hezekiah’s restoration of Passover, 2Ch 30:1; Josiah’s restoration of Passover, 2Ch 35:18) that brought “all Israel” together.

The Chronicler was concerned about the issues of faithfulness (“seeking the Lord”) and apostasy (“forsaking the Lord”). These expressions appear regularly in his narrative—ideal Davidic kings “seek the Lord,” and apostates “forsake the Lord.” Failure to do the former while pursuing the latter brought the chastisement of the Lord. This was a key lesson from the nation’s history that the Chronicler sought to teach his generation. It explained why the nation had gone into captivity and how those who returned could experience God’s blessings. The Chronicler was very clear about retribution— the notion of “whatever man sows that shall he also reap.” Yet he was equally interested in restoration—the notion that humble repentance and renewed obedience will restore a sinner (and the nation) to fellowship and blessing (see 2Ch 7:12-18). The experience of several later kings bore out this principle, and it was the message the Chronicler’s generation needed to hear.

The Chronicler believed in prayer. Those who pray—from Jabez (1Ch 4:10) to David (17:1) and Solomon (2Ch 1:8; 6:12), to Rehoboam (12:6), Asa (14:11), Abijah (13:14), Jehoshaphat (18:31; 20:6-12), Hezekiah (32:20-21; 32:24), and even Manasseh (33:12-13, 18)—find that God hears and answers with blessing and forgiveness. The Chronicler was urging his generation to pray for God’s blessing. This emphasis on prayer is a part of the general theme, noted several times already, of “seeking the Lord.” The Chronicler was urging his generation to “seek the Lord” as David and his descendants had—through proper worship, through repentance, through prayer, and through obedience to the Word of God. The dangers of “forsaking the Lord” are also vividly (if minimally) noted by the Chronicler, not to warn of impending calamity (the perspective of the DH), but to encourage his generation to “seek the Lord” who is faithful to His promises (1Ch 16:11; 22:17; 28:9; 2Ch 15:2; 17:4; 30:9, 18b-19; 33:12, 19; 34:3).

The Chronicler was a man of hope and optimism, but this was not based on a superficial view of human nature or human history—a vague notion of “progress” and “prosperity.” His hope was in the promise of God, in the covenants the Lord had made with Abraham and David. His hope was “Messianic” and will be vindicated when the Greater Son of David—the Lord Jesus Christ—fulfills those promises fully, literally, and forever.

What Is the Background of 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles?

In composing his work the Chronicler used a number of sources, some of which he identified for the reader. It is likely that he used the canonical books of Samuel and Kings (1Ch 9:1; 2Ch 16:11; 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 35:27; 36:8). He also used other canonical sources such as Genesis in the genealogies in chaps. 1 and 2 of 1 Chronicles and Psalms in 1Ch 16. He used a number of other sources identified as “chronicles” (1Ch 27:24, 29), “prophecy” (2Ch 9:29), “vision” (2Ch 9:29; 32:32), and “records” (2Ch 12:15; 33:19). The Chronicler has not simply “cut and pasted” his work from these sources, but has selected, crafted, and created from these sources his own skillfully composed literary product. First and Second Chronicles are not mere supplements to the histories of Samuel and Kings. The Chronicler had a unique message and provided his readers with a much-needed perspective on the history of his people. While he assumed that his readers were familiar with the histories in Samuel and Kings, he added a viewpoint intended to enrich their understanding and appreciation of that history.

A question related to the Chronicler’s use of sources is the matter of historical accuracy and reliability. One area where the Chronicler has been questioned is his numerical citations. He has been accused of inflating the numbers (see 1Ch 18:4 compared to 2Sm 8:4; 1Ch 19:18 compared to 2Sm 10:18) and deflating the numbers (see 2Ch 8:10 compared to 1Kg 9:23; 2Ch 9:25 compared to 1Kg 4:26) and other anomalies. However, careful examination of these discrepancies shows that the apparent problem can be explained by scribal errors, or that the supposed discrepancy is a matter of alternative methods of counting (for an explanation of these details, see the comments on the relevant verses). The Chronicler has been shown to be highly reliable as a historian, even in somewhat incidental details (see J. B. Payne, “The Validity of the Numbers in Chronicles,” BibSac 136 [1979], 109–28).