-
In what ways does the author of 1 and 2 Chronicles give a special perspective on the time period already covered in 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings? Why does he offer this perspective?
-
9 Replies
-
Don’t know
-
It is widely believed that the Chronicler (perhaps Ezra?) wrote about 520 B.C. – at a time when the Persian king Cyrus had issued a decree to allow Jews to return to Judah (539 B.C.), and the temple rebuilding had started (538 B.C.) but halted. Since the Chronicler’s aim was to encourage his readers to finish building the temple and inspire hope that God will restore and bless them, he writes from a different perspective than that in the books of Samuel and Kings.
He emphasized whatever pertained to the temple, the priesthood and worship. He emphasized on David and what happened to Judah (David’s tribe and the faithful remnant) more than the rest of Israel. This was because he believed God had promised a kingdom to David and it was going to be renewed in his days. From the checkered lives of David’s and Solomon’s lives, he chose to focus on details about the preparation for and the building of the temple, and the installation of its services. To inspire hope that God will bless when we obey, he focused on the right deeds of Abijah, Hezekiah and Josiah. Even the evil king Manasseh was described with a note of hope because he repented and God restored him. At the same time, he ignored large chunks from Samuel and Kings, such as Ahab, Elijah and Elisha, that do not contribute to the purpose of his storytelling.
#Chronicles
-
While they are the same story, they are from different points of view.
-
The author of 1 and 2 Chronicles largely covers the same time period that was covered in 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. The perspective, however, is different. 1 and 2 Chronicles is written from the perspective of the exile of Israel from the promised land being over whereas the other books were written earlier. For instance, 1 and 2 Kings was written while the Israelites were still in exile. This perspective is used to highlight that when Israel was faithful, God blessed Israel and that when Israel was unfaithful, things did not go well for Israel. Furthermore, the author wanted to encourage the reconstruction of the temple so that the Israelites could become faithful worshipers of God. He wanted the Israelites to restore their relationship with God and used 1 and 2 Chronicles to motivate the people in that task.
-
The chronicler reviews the history of both the united and divided kingdoms in a way intended to encourage the returning Jewish exiles in restoration to God. He emphasizes the positive actions and decisions in Israel’s history that would be worthy guides to restore fellowship with God.
I used to think that the chronicler sugar-coated Israel’s history when compared to the history given in the four books of Samuel and Kings. After the study I have done so far for this course, I realize that he focused on those things that were worthy of repetition.
The peace and security that we Christians experience rest on God’s grace. His grace is not strictly a New Testament concept. God’s grace and His desire to restore His people to Himself undergirds the entire Old Testament. It is His desire for restoration that inspires the chronicler in his writing.
The chronicler’s main concern is the restoration of the people to God. He did not browbeat Israel with a recount of her past failures. Instead, he chose to present examples of those actions and decisions that brought Israel closer to God. He built on the optimism sparked by the opportunity for a fresh start for the nation of Israel.