WTJ 46 (1984) 317-349

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 AND THE PARABLE

OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN*
F. SCOTT SPENCER

MID admirable aspirations of comprehensive coverage, biblical scholarship has, nonetheless, largely ignored the contribution of the books of Chronicles to scriptural study. We may
trace the matrix of such neglect as far back as the LXX tradition
which labelled the Chronicler's works, paraleipomenn "the
things left out." Concerning this Greek designation, H. G. M.
Williamson remarks:

Such a name is clearly misleading, however, for it obscures the fact that
Chronicles also repeats much material from Samuel and Kings and, more
importantly, it fails to do justice to the Chronicler's own positive purpose
which he had in writing and which has determined his selection and arrangement of material. Indeed, it may be said that the influence of this
misnomer in LXX and V on the Christian church has contributed significantly to the undervaluing and consequent neglect of these books until
comparatively recent times.1

The modern revival of interest in Chronicles studies owes almost

exclusively to OT scholars, which is logical enough considering
the presence of Chronicles in the Hebrew canon. But what of NT
scholarship as it seeks to understand its discipline against the
backdrop of OT influence? The NT student readily admits the
prevalence of OT quotations, terminology, and themes in the NT,
but what about the place of Chronicles in this intertestamental
relationship?
* I wish to thank Professor R. B. Dillard for his gracious encouragement,
helpful insights, and most of all, the inspiration to pursue Chronicles studies
as an extremely important facet of biblical interpretation; and Professor
M. Silva for his patient editorial guidance and inspiration to explicate the
vital link between OT and NT.
*. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 4.

317

318

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

In a typical table listing all NT citations of the OT, the books

of Chronicles are conspicuous only by their absence.2 Even if we
expand the list to include allusions and associations, the Chronicler
fares no better. To be sure, the NT writers obviously mention
David, Solomon, and the temple, but these OT references are
usually attributed to Samuel-Kings with scarcely a side glance
at the Chronicler's input.3
Is this really a fair assessment of the Chronicler's impact on
the NT authors? At least one pleasant exception to an otherwise
negative appraisal emerges in the connection between a passage
unique to the Chronicler in 2 Chron 28:5-15 (the capture and
release of Judean victims by Israel) and Luke 10:25-37 (the
parable of the Good Samaritan) noted by several OT and NT
scholars.4 Even so, interpreters who acknowledge the ChroniclesLuke parallel typically abandon the task of working out the details
and implications of the relationship. For instance, commenting on
2 Chron 28:5-15, R. L. Braun merely queries in a footnote: "Is it
2
See, for example, the tables in H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek (rev. R. R. Ottley; 2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1914; reprinted, New York: Ktav, 1968) 381-91; D. M. Turpie,
The Old Testament in the New: A Contribution to Biblical Criticism (London: Williams and Norgate, 1868) 271-74; R. G. Bratcher, ed., Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (rev. ed.; London/New York/
Suttgart: United Bible Societies, 1961).
3
For example, modern versions (e. g. NIV) and listings of OT-NT parallels
(e. g. Bratcher's table) typically attribute the reference in 2 Cor 6:18 and
Heb 1:5 to 2 Sam 7:14, curiously ignoring the 1 Chronicles 17 parallel.
This predilection toward Samuel-Kings may owe to the clear citation of
I Kgs 19:10, 14, 18 in Rom 11:2-6, assuming then (unfairly) that all NT
writers were more familiar with Samuel-Kings than Chronicles.
4
P. R. Ackroyd, / and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1973) 177; R. J. Coggins, The First and Second
Books of the Chronicles (Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English
Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976) 259; A. S. Herbert, "I and
II Chronicles," in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (ed. M. Black and
H. H. Rowley; London: Thomas Nelson, 1962) 367; O. Zckler, "The Books
of the Chronicles," in Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 4 (ed.
P. Schaff, 1873; new ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960) 241-42; R. North,
"The Chronicler: 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah," JBC, 423; W. Rudolph,
Chronikbcher (HAT 21; Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955) 291; R. L. Braun,
"The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, 29 for the Structure and Theology
of the Work of the Chronicler" (Th.D. dissertation, Concordia Seminary,
1971) 194; R. L. Braun, "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude
Toward the North," JBL 96 (1977) 61; J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

319

possible that Luke 10 is formally dependent on this passage?"5

One suspects that Braun would answer his own question affirmatively, yet he leaves the issue unexamined and unresolved.6
O. Zckler is more elaborate but equally ambiguous when he
writes:
For, in fact, there is here [2 Chron 28:5-15] a grand archetype of the
deed of compassion described in this didactic narrative of the Lord [parable of the Good Samaritan], as sure as they were inhabitants of the city
and later country of Samaria, who took so loving a interest in the helpless
Jews. The thought that Christ drew directly from this episode of the
present war several points of His noble lesson should by no means be
absolutely rejected.7
Exactly how is 2 Chronicles 28 "a grand archetype" of the parable
of the Good Samaritan? What are the specific "several points"
which Jesus draws from Chronicles in his parabolic teaching?
Zckler does not elaborate.8
NT researchers studying the parable of the Good Samaritan also
offer little more than the barest cross-reference to 2 Chronicles 28.
T. W. Manson, for example, poses the provocative comparison,
"With the parable itself, cf. 2 Ch 28:1-15," but then proceeds
without explaining the relationship at all.9 Lamenting Manson's
sketchy allusion to the Chronicles passage, F. H. Wilkinson flatly
Testament (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970) 210; I. H. Marshall,
The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NICGNT; Exeter:
Paternoster, 1978) 445; W. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According
to Luke (New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978) 594; W.
Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Zurich: Theologischer, 1980) 128;
W. Monselewski, Der barmherzige Samariter: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zu Lukas 105-37 (J. C. B. Mohr: Tbingen, 1967) 174;
C. E. B. Cranfield, "The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)," TToday 11
-(1954-55) 370; R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (2d
rev. ed.; New York: Harper and Row, 1968) 204. Also Bultmann and
Derrett both make note of the older German articles by F. Orth, Protest.
Monatschr. 18 (1914) 406-11; and K. Kastner in BZ 12 (1914) 29-30.
5
Braun, "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude," 61 n. 12 ; Braun,
"The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, 29," 194.
6
In all fairness to Braun, this issue was outside the major concern of his
research; hence, the relegation of this question to a footnote.
? Zckler, "The Books of the Chronicles," 241-42.
8
In addition to the shared emphasis on the "Samaritans' " assisting of
the Jews, the only other explicit connection Zckler draws between the parable and 2 Chronicles 28 is the common site of Jericho.
9
T . W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1937) 262.

320

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

asserts: "The comparison deserves fuller consideration."10 We

agree. This paper seeks to fill a void in understanding both the
parable of the Good Samaritan and 2 Chron 28:5-15 by carefully investigating the relationship between the two passages with
a special eye to linguistic, structural, and thematic affinities.
The linguistic and circumstantial parallels between 2 Chron
28:5-15 and Luke 10:25-37 are lucid from even a cursory perusal
of the two texts. The most salient similarities are enumerated in
Figure A. This chart serves at least to silence any charges of
FIGURE A
2 Chron 28:5-15

Luke 10:25-37

Victims

Massive number of Judeans,

including soldiers and
their families, and various prominent citizens
all denizens of Jerusalem
(vv6-8)

Anonymous "man," probably

a Jew and resident of
Jerusalem ( v 3 0 ) n

Victims*
injures

Hardship of nakedness
(vlS)
Beating (plgn megaln
"a great blow" S [LXX] )
Confiscation of posses
sions ("took much spoil")
(vv 8, IS)

Stripping of clothes
Beating {plgn epithentes
"they placed blows")
Theft (marauders called
"robbers")
(v30)

Attackers

Aramean and Israelite

warriors guilty of
appropriating "much
spoil" (vv 8, 15)

Undesignated robbers
(lestais 30)

Israel's
leaders

Prophet (Oded) and

Ephraimite rulers
(vv 9-13)

Priest and Lvite

(vv31,32)

Place of
convalescence

Judean captives taken

to Jericho for treatment and recuperation
(vlS)

Samaritan takes victim

to an inn probably located
in Jericho for convalescence (vv30, 35 ) 1 2

!<>F. H. Wilkinson, "Oded: Proto-Type of the Good Samaritan," ExpTim

69 (1957-58) 69.
11
For a survey of the identity of the travellers in the parable, see E. F. F.
Bishop, "People on the Road to Jericho," EvQ 42 (1970) 2-6.
12
The precise itinerary of the Samaritan is somewhat ambiguous, includ-

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

321

Ministry of
healing

Anointing (suk), probably

with oil (v 15)
Transport on donkey to
Jericho for treatment
(vlS)
Clothing the naked (twice
inv 15 endy [LXX])

Pouring on of oil and

and wine (v 34)
Transport on donkey to
inn for treatment
(v34)
Clothing implied as part
of Samaritan's ministry
since victim had been
"stripped" (ekdy, 30)

Ministers
of healing

Northern Israelites
(Samarians)

Samaritan

Kinship
terminology

"Kinsfolk" ( ' 4 [MT],

adelphos [LXX]) three
times (vv 8, 11, 15)

"Neighbor" (plsion)
three times (vv 27, 29, 36)

forced parallelism between 2 Chronicles 28 and Luke 10. The

multiplicity and specificity of the connections are just too strong
to ignore. But a mere drawing of linking lines between people,
places, and events hardly illumines the hermeneutical significance
of Jesus' utilization of the Chronicles tradition in his parable. Of
course, the issue may not really be a hermeneutical one at all.
Conceivably one could claim that Jesus simply employs the furniture of the Chronicles narrative for illustrative purposes and that
his parabolic message is essentially independent of his OT source.
But this rather cavalier approach to OT material is not characteristic of Jesus' teaching methodology taken as a whole,14 and we
feel that further research into the above parallels between 2 Chroning the exact locale of the inn to which he transports the injured party.
Which direction he comes from is conjectural, but at any rate, the site of
the inn to which he carries the victim is probably in Jericho. Since Jericho
was a frontier city on the border between Judea and Samaria, it proves a
more likely place where a Samaritan would be trusted as a businessman ("I
will repay you when I come back" [v 35]) as opposed to Jerusalem, the
heart of Jewry. See E. F. F. Bishop, "Down from Jerusalem to Jericho,"
EvQ 35 (1963) 99-100; Bishop, "People on the Road to Jericho," 4-6.
13
The verb suk has no object expressed in 15, but in other places it
associates with semen ("oil," e. g. 2 Sam 14:2), which is probably implied
in our text. The LXX utilizes aleiph, a verb used for anointing the sick
with oil (Mark 6:13; Jas 5:14). See BAGD, 35.
14
See R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale,
1971; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 14)82) esp. the last chapter, pp. 172226.

322

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

icles 28 and Luke 10 will demonstrate a real sensitivity on Jesus'

part to the broad structural and thematic context of the Chronicles
passage and how this context relates to the emphases of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
I. Israel's Leaders
In Jesus' parable the insensitive responses of the priest and
Lvite figure dramatically as stark contrasts to the helping ministry of the Good Samaritan. The exact reason for the clerics' lack
of attention to the victim's plight is debatable, but the most satisfactory explanations focus on some dimension of scrupulosity regarding ceremonial defilement.15 Nevertheless, Jesus leaves the
precise motives for the priest's and Levite's callousness to conjecture, choosing to underscore the fact of the indifference (whatever the reason) by prominent religious figures in Israel normally
expected to exemplify proper ethical responses, worthy of emulation.16
The scenario of 2 Chronicles 28 certainly parades characters
(Israelite attackers) who display insensi ti vity to the suffering of
the defeated Judeans. However, these negligent northern neighbors are not neutral third parties (as the unresponsive clerics in
the Lucan parable) but the actual inflicters of pain. Too, the coldhearted personnel of 2 Chronicles 28 have no apparent clerical
connection. With these points in mind, Chronicles appears to have
little bearing on the formation of the parable of the Good Samaritan. But we must not ignore the following considerations surrounding Israel's indifference to Judah's suffering:
(1) The author in 2 Chronicles 28 strongly emphasizes that
the Israelites, of all peoples, should have known better than to
15

Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 212-17; S. J. Kistemaker, The

Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 170.
16
A tone of anticlericalism in the parable of the Good Samaritan has been
noted by B. Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan The Good Shepherd?
(ConNT 16; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1958) 11; E. P. Clowney, Preaching
and Biblical Theology (Phillipsburg, . J.: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1979) 115; L. Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Tyndale NT
Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 187; R. W. Funk, Parables
and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition (Philadelphia: For
tress, 1982) 47; For a position against an anticlerical interpretation, see
G. Friedrich, Was heisst das: Liebe? (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972) 20-24.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S

323

oppress their Judean brothers. After all, these Jerusalemites of

southern Palestine were Israel's fellow-countrymen who had only
been delivered into northern hands because of the judgment of
God upon Judah's sins sins with which Israel herself was all
too familiar. Both Oded's speech (vv 9-11) and the reply of the
Ephraimite leaders (vv 12-13) confirm the appalling unreasonableness of the Israelites' harsh treatment in view of Israel's own
iniquitous state. Such reaction corresponds with the parabolic implication that of all people, the priest and Lvite, as servants of
the Lord, should have moved with compassion toward the victim
in the ditch rather than spurn the opportunity to minister.
(2) 2 Chronicles 28 does highlight the response of Israel's
leaders to Judah's suffering. To be sure, the writer does not feature
priest and Lvite, but rather prophet (Oded) and rulers (Ephraimite chieftains) ; nevertheless, the focus on leadership provides some
bridge with Luke 10. However, we must still admit the antithetical
responses of Israel's leaders in Chronicles and Luke. Chronicles
portrays them exhorting the northern soldiers to extend dutybound, loving ministry to their Judean brothers. Far from displaying the inexcusable apathy of the parable's priest and Lvite,
the Chronicler's prophet and rulers admirably fulfill their expected
ministries of benevolence toward their injured neighbors.
Do we then abandon any linkage between Luke 10 and 2 Chronicles 28 at this point? Not necessarily. We must not overlook
the possibility that Jesus exploits this dramatic contrast, saying
in effect: "We all know from 2 Chronicles 28 how Israel's leaders
should and in fact did respond to their hurting brothers. The incredible situation today is quite the reverse. Would that the contemporary priests and Lvites deport themselves as the prophet
and rulers of 2 Chronicles 28!"
(3) Though not explicitly discussed in the 2 Chronicles 28
passage, an implied emphasis on cultic personnel may lurk in the
not too remote background and still prove significant in relation
to the parable of the Good Samaritan. Well-known among the
distinctive elements of the Chronicler's historiography is his special interest in the ministry of the priests and Lvites, generally
depicted in a favorable light.17 The priesthood receives specific
17
A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Its Date
(London: Oxford University, 1939) 55-56; D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite

324

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

commendation for siding with Rehoboam during the schism and

for abandoning the Northern Kingdom completely (2 Chron
11:13-17). Abijah's speech especially exalts the faithfulness of
the cultic ministers over against the apostates of Jeroboam's
Israel:
But as for us, the Lord is our God, and we have not forsaken him. We
have priests ministering to the Lord who are sons of Aaron, and Lvites
for their service. They offer to the Lord every morning and every evening
burnt offerings . . . . for we keep the charge of the Lord our God, but
you have forsaken him. Behold, God is with us at our head, and his priests
with their battle trumpets to sound the call to battle against you. [2 Chron
13:10-12a]

Noting this total alignment of priests and Lvites with the

Southern Kingdom after the schism, we can safely assume that
these clerics number among the victims ravaged by the northern
armies in 2 Chronicles 28. On the surface we again face a marked
antithesis to Luke 10. Quite the opposite of being indifferent to
the victims' suffering as in the parable, the priests and Lvites
are the victims in the Chronicles account.
But acknowledging the inclusion of priests and Lvites among
the victims in 2 Chronicles 28 does not glorify them in the slightest. The victims in this passage represent no innocent, neutral
parties as in the NT parable. Rather they suffer due to God's
wrath poured out against the apostasy of Judah under the wicked
reign of Ahaz. In effect 2 Chronicles 28 depicts an historical reversal of Abijah's speech. Judah and Israel have switched roles
for the moment.18
And what about the priests and Lvites? They must be participants in the decadence of Judah. The sacrificial system has become a travesty through Ahaz's idolatrous worship of the Baals
and despicable offering of sacrifices (including his sons) "on the
high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree" (2
Chron 28:1-4; see also vv 22-27). 2 Kings 16 expressly describes
the compliance of Uriah the priest with Ahaz's cultic activities,
so the priesthood can hardly avoid implication in the spiritual
decline of the nation. To be sure, the Chronicler does not mention
the priesthood in 2 Chronicles 28, but he could scarcely have been
Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 60ff.
H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 343-44.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S

325

unaware of its guilt. In fact, his silence may be a tacit admission

of the priesthood's negligence, since he might wish to avoid sullying an otherwise positive portrayal of the ministry of priest and
Lvite in the remainder of his work with an overt mention of
their shortcomings at this period. In other words, if the Chronicler
had known of some noble deeds engineered by the priests and
Lvites in Ahaz's day, these would no doubt have been recorded.
But the priesthood's total eclipse in 2 Chronicles 28 hints at
least that the author may be camouflaging a negative portrait.
However, what is tacit concerning the priests' misconduct in 2
Chronicles 28 blooms into a more explicit statement in the next
chapter where Hezekiah is said to purify the defiled temple-system
including the priesthood (2 Chron 29:4-5). Even here, though,
consistent with the Chronicler's favorable presentation of the
priesthood, the stress is more on the renewed consecration of the
cultic figures than on their past failures, however real these might
have been.
If we assume a thorough acquaintance with the entire Chronicles corpus on the part of Jesus and his audience, it may not be
stretching the point to claim that Jesus draws a subtle parallel
between the priest and Lvite in Jerusalem of his day and those
of Ahaz's time. The priesthood of the Chronicler's description,
normally faithful in discharging its duties and expected to continue on that path, shockingly falters in 2 Chronicles 28 and becomes worthy of judgment. Likewise, the priesthood of Jesus' day,
while expected to carry out beneficent duties, ignores its responsibilities by "passing by on the other side" and qualifies for judgment just as surely as the unfaithful clerics in Ahaz's day.
Another literary approach which reveals the linkage between
the actions of Israel's leaders in 2 Chronicles 28 and Luke 10
utilizes the results of structural analysis. The following chiastic
schema relative to the parable of the Good Samaritan features
the element of response to the traveller on the Jericho road, highlighting both the antithetical responses of the robbers and the
Samaritan and the identical responses of the priest and Lvite.
1 Victim attacked by robbers (v 30)
2 Victim neglected by priest (v 31)
2' Victim neglected by Lvite ( 32)
1' Victim ministered to by Samaritan (vv 33-35) 1 9
19

A somewhat similar, though more elaborate, chiastic pattern is proposed

326

WESTMINSTER

THEOLOGICAL

JOURNAL

The coincidence of response between priest and Lvite is signalled by the repetition of kai idn antiparlthen ("and when he
saw him he passed by on the other side" vv 31, 32).
Significantly, we observe a similar structural pattern revolving
around response to the injured party in 2 Chron 28:5-15.
1

Victims attacked by northern armies (vv 5-8)

2 Prophet's response to victims (vv 9-11)
2' Leaders' response to victims (vv 12-13)
1' Victims ministered to by Israelites (vv 14-15) 2 0

Just as the priest and Lvite evince equivalent responses in the

parable of the Good Samaritan, so the prophet Oded and the
Ephraimite leaders (2,2') react in virtually identical fashion in
2 Chronicles 28. Note the comparisons in Figure B.
FIGURE
Prophet (vv 9-11)

Leaders (vv 12-13)

Confrontation
of army

"He went out to meet

the army (saba') that
came to Samaria"
(v9).

"The men . . . stood up

against those who were com
ing from the war (saba*) "
(v 12).

Israel's sin
and guilt

"Have you not sins

('asamot) of your
own against the Lord
your God?" (v 10).

" . . . for you propose to

bring upon us guilt ('aSmah)
against the Lord in addition
to our present sins and
guilt ('asmah). For our
guilt ('asmah) is already
great" (v 13).

Fierce anger
of God

". . . for the

fierce wrath
(haron fap) of the
Lord is upon you"
(vll).

". . . there is fierce

wrath (haron 'ap) against
Israel" (v 13).

by K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the

Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 72-74; B. Van Elderen
("Another Look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan," in Saved By Hope
[ed. J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978] 109-19) relies heavily on
Bailey's schema.
2 0
Some debate ensues as to whether the Ephraimite leaders who respond
to the victims in 12-13 (2') are really a distinct group from the Israelites
who minister to the victims in vv 14-15 (1'). We support the stance of

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15
Denial of
entrance to
the prisoners

". . . send back

the captives
(sibyah) from your
kinsfolk whom you
have taken" (v 11).

327

"You shall not bring the

captives Csibyah) in
here" (v 13).

This parity of structure between Luke 10:30-35 and 2 Chron

28:5-15 compels us to appreciate the correspondence between the
similar responses of Oded and the Ephraimite leaders to the battered Judeans in the Chronicles account and the identical responses
of the priest and Lvite in Jesus' story. However, the two sets of
leaders react in exactly the opposite manner. The prophet and
rulers in Chronicles respond with active attention favorable to
the victims, sternly calling for their release and succour; on the
other hand, the priest and Lvite in the parable respond with
passive indifference to the beaten traveller, totally unconcerned
with his plight. Do we then jettison the parallel on the basis of
this antithesis? The structural similarities between Chronicles and
Luke seem too strong for this approach. A more prudent conclusion
substantiates our earlier suggestion that Jesus purposefully exploits this contrast between the prophet/leaders in Israel of Ahaz's
day and the priest/Levite in Israel of his own period. A poignant
implication results concerning how the priests and Lvites should
have responded, namely, in consonance with the actions of Oded
and the Ephraimite chieftains in 2 Chronicles 28.
II.

The Ministers of Healing

Immortalized in the standard title given to the parable of Luke

10:30-35, the minister of healing to the wounded victim is, of
course, the "Good Samaritan." Obviously Jesus deliberately selects
several scholars who interpret the identifying phrase in IS "the men who
have been mentioned [NIV 'designated'] by name" as implying a specially
appointed task force distinct from the leaders cited in vv 12-13, though
possibly including some of them. See Zckler, "The Books of the Chronicles,"
241; C. F. Keil, The Books of the Chronicles (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1872; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 437; Williamson, 1 and 2
Chronicles, 347; J. M. Myers, / / Chronicles (AB. Garden City: Doubleday,
1965) 161; For a position that identifies the men in 12 and IS as the
same, see I. W. Slotki, Chronicles (London/Bournemouth: Soncino, 1952)
293.

S2S

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

a Samaritan as the protagonist of the story and attaches great

significance to this ethnically distinctive character. Several NT
passages make plain the extreme antipathy characterizing JewishSamaritan relations, corroborating the statement that "Jews have
no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:9; see also Luke 9:51-56
and John 8:48). The bitter racial conflict owes to a long, complex
history of tension between inhabitants of Judea and Samaria, precipitated by key watershed events notably, the construction of
a rival Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in the fourth century
B.C. and its subsequent destruction by the Jews under John Hyrcanus in 129 B.c. as well as the finalization of the Samaritan
Pentateuch in the late second century B.c. Most certainly the
hostility between Jews and Samaritans had fully matured by the
time of Jesus. Neither group would claim the other among its
"neighbors."21
The parable of the Good Samaritan, then, brings to light the
very unusual (even shocking) phenomenon of a loving Samaritan
breaking the barriers of prejudice by nursing his ailing enemy
back to health.22
Coming to Chronicles, we find a group acting as ministers of
healing to the battered Judeans, namely, a delegation from the
Northern Kingdom (2 Chron 28:15). Historically, animosity
brewed between minister (Israel) and victim (Judah) the SyroEphraimitic War proved that and we are undoubtedly surprised
that these who had inflicted the pain (Israelites) now turn around
and administer relief to their prisoners (Judeans).23 Also, as citizens of northern Palestine, these unexpected helpers of 2 Chronicles 28 represent a further link with Luke 10 as ancestors of the
21
J Jeremas, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1969) 352-58; J. Bright, A History of Israel (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 411-12; J. D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the
Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university, 1968)
5-15.
22
The "surprise" element in the Samaritan's ministry is noted by R. W.
Funk, "The Good Samaritan as Metaphor," Semeia 2 (1974) 80; R. W. Funk,
"The Old Testament in Parable: A Study of Luke 10:25-37," Encounter 26
(1965) 261; Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 220-21.
23
Rudolph (Chronikbcher, 291) refers to the Israelites' ministry as "das
Wunder."

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S

329

subsequently developed Samaritan sect, well-defined in Jesus' day.

As Matthew Black comments:
It seems impossible to deny that we have in this story one of the sources
of inspiration of the parable and a clue to its main point, the unexpected,
indeed one might also say totally unnatural conduct of the Ephraimites
at 2 Chron. and their descendant the Samaritan at Luke x. 29ff.24

Still another connecting line between Samaritanism and 2

Chronicles 28 manifests itself in a peculiar reference from the
Samaritan Chronicle II, a Samaritan auto-historical record, to
Zichri (cf. 2 Chron 28:7) as a member "of the community of
the Samaritan Israelites . . . zealous for the Lord his God."
Furthermore, the leaders of Ephraim in 2 Chron 28:12 are also
called Samaritans. So the Samaritan Chronicle II documents a
hermeneutical handling of 2 Chronicles which showcases the Samaritans in a favorable light.25 Could not the parable of the Good
Samaritan represent a similar utilization of the Chronicles passage
to highlight the nobility of the Samaritan, albeit for a different
purpose than supporting the political-religious primacy of the
Samaritan sect?
This usage of Chronicles by the Samaritans goes beyond the
single instance of 2 Chronicles 28 to include widespread attention
to the remainder of the Chronicler's works, thus substantiating a
pro-Samaritan stance when interpreting Chronicles. R. J. Coggins
reports:
2* M. Black, "The Parables as Allegory," BJRL 42 (19S9-60) 285-86.
The whole question of Samaritan origins is a thorny one in biblical historical
studies. Most scholars are reluctant to date any finalized, well-defined schism
before the late Hasmonean period, but would still admit to an extended
build-up of conflict prior to this time. Purvis' (The Samaritan Pentateuch, 7)
remarks reflect sober judgment on this matter: "It should be recognized that
the estrangement between Jews and Samaritans and the emergence of Samaritanism as a distinct sect were the result of a long history of tensions between
Jews and Samaritans, punctuated by a number of incidents which drove the
two communities further and further apart." In light of this "long history
of tensions," the link between preexilic northern and southern Jewish relations and later Jewish-Samaritan intercourse maintains its validity, even
while recognizing the hazards of pinning down the connection with precision.
See also J. Bowman, The Samaritan Problem (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975)
2; R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 70.
25
Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, 124-25.

330

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

It is clear that the Samaritan Chronicler had no inhibitions about using the
biblical books of Chronicles, a fact which suggests that the purpose of those
books was not understood by him to have been anti-Samaritan, and it is
from 2 Chronicles that most of the account of the remaining years of the
Assyrian pressure is drawn. 26

If this pro-Samaritan outlook on 2 Chronicles was extant in any

form and known by Jesus and his audience, it would have been
particularly natural and effective for Jesus to draw his material
on the Good Samaritan from this section of the OT. (Again we
would emphasize, however, that if Jesus was aware of this Samaritan tradition he in no way crusaded for the supremacy of Samaritanism any more than he supported Pharasaic Judaism or any
other sectarian movement.)
Another method of comparing ministers of healing returns us
to the chiastic structural pattern noted earlier concerning 2 Chron
28:5-11 and Luke 10:30-35. Remember that according to this
outline, just as the responses of Israel's leaders (prophet-rulers/
priest-Levite) to the victims emerge as virtually identical, so the
actions of attackers and ministers appear as diametrically opposed. In the case of the parable of the Good Samaritan, the
robbers' malicious activity toward the injured traveller is completely reversed by the Samaritan's gracious ministry, even to the
point of detail (see Fig. C).
FIGURE C27
The robbers' attack (v 30)
1. Took the victim's money
2. Beat the victim
3. Left the victim half dead
and will not return

The Samaritan's ministry (vv 33-35)

1. Spent his own money
2. Cared for the victim
3. Left the victim cared for and
promised to return

Coming to 2 Chronicles 28, the detailed antithesis between the

assault on the victims (vv 5-8) and the ministry to the victims
(vv 14-15), amounting to a complete reversal of the victims' condition, is also manifest with great precision. Note the specific
contrasts in Figure D.
26 Ibid., 12S.
This pattern is taken virtually verbatim from Bailey, Poet and Peasant,
72.
27

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

331

FIGURE D
Attack (vv 5-8)

Ministry (vv 14-15)

Capture and
release of
prisoners

" . . . the king . . .

took captive a great
number of his people
(sibyah)" ( v S ) .
"The men of Israel
took captive two hun
dred thousand of their
kinsfolk" ( v 8 ) .

"So the armed men left

the captives (sibyah) "
(v 14).
"And the men . . . rose
and took the captives"
(v 15).

Capture and
release of
plunder

"They also took much

spoil (salai) from
them" (v 8).
"They brought the
spoil (salai) to
Samaria" ( v 8 ) .

"So the armed men left . . .

the spoil" (v 14).
" . . . and with the spoil
(salai) they clothed"
(v IS).

Capture and
release of
kinsfolk2*

"The men of Israel

took captive . . .
of their kinsfolk
('ahim)" ( v 8 ) .

"They brought them

to their kinsfolk ('ahim)
at Jericho" ( IS).

Again, the structural similarity between Luke 10:30-35 and 2

Chron 28:5-15 confirms the illustrative value which the Chronicles
passage serves for the point Jesus makes. This analysis simply
shows that the ministry of the Israelites to their Judean brethren
provides an apt OT precursor of the Samaritan's deeds of love in
the NT parable. In both cases, true benevolence moves to totally
restore helpless sufferers by overturning every evil effect of violent
injury.
Yet another structural pattern which illuminates the connection
between ministers of healing in Luke and Chronicles takes its
point of departure from a literary analysis of the entire Ahaz
story of 2 Chronicles 28 in which the ministry to the Judeans is
set rather than limiting ourselves to the pericope in w 5-15 alone.
The wickedness and judgment of King Ahaz mark a clearly
2 8

Here the parallelism focuses on the key-word "kinsfolk," but it must be

admitted that slightly different kinship relationships are in view. In 8 it is
kinship between Israel and Judah; in IS intra-kinship relations within the
region of Judah seem to be in mind.

332

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

dominant theme in this 28th chapter of 2 Chronicles.29 We set

forth the following structural schema based on this retributional
emphasis:
30

I. The Wickedness of Ahaz (vv 1-4)

31
II. The Judgment of Ahaz (portrayed in two parallel scenes, vv 5-23 )
A'. Judah's defeat (vv 16-23)
A. Judah's defeat (vv 5-15)
Instruments of
1. Instruments of
defeat (vv 17-18)
defeat (vv 5-8)
a'. Edomites (v 17)
a. Arameans (v 5)
(take prisoners)
(take prisoners)
b\ Philistines (v 18)
b. Israelites (vv 5-8)
(capture cities)
(take prisoners)
Reason for
2. Reason for
defeat (v 19):
defeat (v 9):
"For the Lord
". . . the Lord
brought Judah low
gave them [Judah]
because of Ahaz
into your hand"
king of Israel."
(also 6 "be
cause they [Judah]
had forsaken the
Lord")
Help in the midst
3. Help in the midst
of defeat (vv 16, 20-23) ;
of defeat (vv 9-15) ;
help sought and
help supplied from
expected but unsupplied
unexpected source
Assyrians and Arameans
Israelites
I'. The Wickedness of Ahaz (vv 24-27)

Relating this structure to the parable of the Good Samaritan, the

key category is "Help in the midst of defeat" (3,3') compared
and contrasted in the parallel scenes of vv 9-1S and 16-23. In
29

The theme of retribution theology is noted in 2 Chronicles 28 by

H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cam
bridge University, 1977) 114-18; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History
of Ancient Israel (reprinted; Cleveland/New York: Meridian, 1957) 206;
J. Goldingay, "The Chronicler as Theologian," BibThBul 5 (1975) 121-22.
30
The sections beginning and ending the chapter on "The Wickedness of
Ahaz" (vv 1-4, 24-27) present a very similar appraisal of the king's de
plorable condition. Note particularly the double reference to Ahaz's idolatrous
activities on "the high places" in vv 4, 25.
31
The treatment of vv 5-23 as a complete literary unit may be tipped
off by an inclusio technique marked by the reference to the destructive ac
tivity of Damascus and the king(s) of Aram at the beginning and end of
the section (vv 5, 22-23).

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

333

the first, the Judeans receive aid unsolicited and presumably unexpected by Ahaz from the very people who attacked Judah
the Israelites. In the second scene, Ahaz actively seeks assistance
from the foreign nations of Assyria and Aram in the midst of his
crisis and optimistically awaits it (vv 16, 23). Ironically, though,
the Chronicler tells us that "Tiglath-Pilneser king of Assyria came
against him [Ahaz], and afflicted him instead of strengthening
him" (v 20). And concerning the gods of Damascus which Ahaz
beckoned for deliverance, we find: "But they were the ruin of
him, and of all Israel" (v 23).
This contrast between unexpected help rendered and expected
help withheld may again foreshadow the contrast between the
Good Samaritan (surprise, unexpected helper) on the one hand,
and the priest and Lvite (expected helpers who renege) on the
other. Also, we are now in a position to set forth a two-pronged
connection between the parable's priest/Levite and the Israelite
ministers of 2 Chronicles 28:

FIGURE E
Israelite ministers
of 2 Chronicles 28

Priest and Lvite

of Luke 10

Follow the pattern

of Oded the prophet
and Ephraimite leaders (vv 9-15)

Respond antithetically
to the sensitive prophet/leaders of 2 Chronicles 28

Diverge from the

pattern of Arameans
and Assyrians
(vv 9-23)

Respond identically
to the negligent Arameans and Assyrians of
2 Chronicles 28

III.

Obedience to Leviticus 19

The theme of obedience to OT law appears through a structural

analysis of Luke 10:25-37 in which the parable of the Good
Samaritan is set. Scholars differ on the unity of this passage. Many
label the parable a Lucan interpolation,32 while others claim that
the parable fits in nicely following Jesus' dialogue with the lawyer
32

E. g. Black, "The Parables as Allegory," 285.

334

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

and that the entire passage (vv 25-37) comprises a single, co

33
hesive literary unit.
. E. Ellis adopts the latter position. He sets forth the unified
structure of Luke 10:25-37 after the models of (1) the "proem"
midrash used in the synagogues of Jesus' day and (2) the
yelammedenu rabbenu ("let our master teach us") technique of
rabbinic writings, characterized by an inquiry-reply sequence. The
34
following schema emerges:
1. vv 25-27 Dialogue including question and initial texts: Deut 6:5;
Lev 19:18
2. 28
Second text: Lev 18:5
3. vv 29-36 Exposition (by means of parable) linked to initial texts by
the catchrwords plsion (vv 27,29,36) and poiein (vv 28,
37a,37b)
4. 37
Concluding allusion to second text:
Lev 18:5
This structure presents the parable of the Good Samaritan as
an expository illustration of Pentateuchal texts, chiefly Lev 19:18,
with key-words plsion ("neighbor") and poiein ("do") serving
as major connecting lines. In short, the Good Samaritan exemplifies what it means to be obedient to the OT law as a true lover
of the oppressed neighbor.
This presentation of the Samaritan's love as obedient love,
flowing from OT mandate, finds its match in the love of the
"Samaritans" in 2 Chronicles 28. The helping action of "the men
who have been mentioned by name" (v 15) proceeds not from
spontaneous, self-induced motivation but rather follows on the
heels of pointed prophetic exhortation from Oded and the Ephraimite leaders (vv 9-13). The Chronicler specifically designates Oded,
"a prophet of the Lord," and places great stress on his word as
worthy of attention ("Now hear me . . . " [v 11]). So, properly
evaluated, the gracious ministry by Israel to the Judean captives
is nothing less than direct obedience to the word of the Lord
through his prophet.35
33
Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan, 28-29; Van Elderen, "Another Look
at the Parable," 113-14; A. R. C. Leaney, The Gospel According to St. Luke
(New York: Harper, 1958) 182-83.
34
. E. Ellis, "How the New Testament Uses the Old," in New Testament
Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (ed. I. H. Marshall; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 203-6.
35
Braun, "1 Chronicles 22, 28, 29," 195; Myers, // Chronicles, 163; Ru
dolph, Chronikbcher, 291.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

335

An apparent disparity, however, arises between Chronicles and

Luke when we note the slightly different messages which the ministers of healing are exhorted to obey. The Chronicler's "Samaritans" are called upon to heed the challenge: "Love your brother"
(or "kinsfolk" [RSV] 'ah, vv 8, 11, 15). 36 On the other hand,
following closely the letter of Lev 19:18, the NT parable cries
for action consonant with the injunction: "Love your neighbor"
(plsion, vv 27, 29, 36).
Nonetheless, a closer examination of brother-neighbor terminology in the ancient world as well as the larger context of Leviticus 19 reveals a tight linkage between 2 Chronicles 28 and Luke
10 on this matter of obedience to OT law, even to the point of
suggesting that Oded, like Jesus, consciously refers to the Leviticus
19 section of Pentateuchal legislation.
We must not drive a wedge too sharply between the ideas of
"brother" and "neighbor" in biblical thought. Examples from the
Hebrew OT, LXX, and QL (with a special eye to Leviticus 19)
will suffice to disclose an intimate correlation between 'ah/adelphos
("brother") and rea'/plesion ("neighbor").
(1) Hebrew OT Taking Lev 19:17-18 as a composite unit,
we find the command to love one's neighbor (rea() which concludes 18 as nothing but the positive reversal of the negative
exhortation opening 17: "You shall not hate your brother ('ah)
in your heart." The difference in linguistic terms seems attrib
utable merely to stylistic preference rather than to any substantive
semantic variation.
(2) LXX Though the LXX customarily renders rea' with
plsion and 'ah with adelphos, thereby keeping neighbor and
brother somewhat distinct, the pattern is by no means a rigid one.
In a few instances, it employs plesion for 'ah (see e.g., Gen 26:31,
Lev 25:14, and Mie 7:2).37 The Micah text particularly instructs
36

The prominence of the "brotherhood" theme is noted by Williamson,

1 and 2 Chronicles, 346; Rudolph, Chronikbcher, 289.
37
E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the
Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897)
2.1148-49. Also notice should be taken of Jer 31:34 where rea* and 'ah both
appear in the MT as virtually parallel direct objects of Imd. In the LXX
(38:34) renders rea* with politn and 'ah with adelphon (generally accepted as the preferred reading), but important variants in A and Origene
Hexapla substitute adelphon for politn (rendering MT rea') and plsion
for adelphon (rendering MT 'ah) ; see the critical apparatus in J. Ziegler,

336

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

us because of its identical setting to 2 Chronicles 28, emphasizing

violent oppression within the household of Israel: ". . . they all
lie in wait for blood, and each hunts his brother (MT 'ah;
LXX plsion) with a net."
(3) QLFurther connecting "brother" and "neighbor," a
Qumran passage expounding Lev 19:18 clearly substitutes 'ah for
rea1 : "They shall love each man his brother ('ah) as himself; they
shall succour the poor, the needy and the stranger" (CD 6.20-21 ) ,38
Such a correlation between brother-neighbor terminology in the
biblical material, particularly evidenced in relation to Leviticus
19, at least opens the door for the possibility that Oded draws his
call for brotherly love from Lev 19:17-18 just as surely as Jesus
founds his call for neighborly love in Luke 10 from the same OT
passage.
Two additional features of the context of Lev 19:18 harmonize
with emphases in 2 Chronicles 28 and further confirm the Pentateuchal basis of Oded's speech. First, between the simple negative
and positive exhortations in Lev 19:17-18 ("You shall not hate
. . . you shall love . . .") we find this elaboration: ". . . but
you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of
him. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the
sons of your own people." This implies the special importance of
loving one's brother/neighbor when that brother/neighbor is somehow in the wrong. Rather than retaliating in vengeful brutality,
the loving respondent will confront the offending brother with
reason in hopes of correcting his misguided behavior and avoiding
any complicity in his sins.
In 2 Chronicles 28 we find the Judeans clearly in the throes
of sin. To be sure, God ordains the victory of the Israelites as a
needed judgment upon wicked Judah, but Israel goes too far.
Oded remarks in language quite reminiscent of Lev 19:17-18
Behold, because the Lord, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah,
he gave them into your hand, but you have slain them in a rage which
ed., Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, E pis tula Ieremiae (Septuaginta 15; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957) 363. A similar variation between A's and
B's treatment of MT 'ah (A = plsion; B = adelphos) may be viewed in
Deut 19:19. These changes attest to the high degree of overlap between
brother-neighbor concepts in biblical literature.
38
G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Baltimore: Penguin, 1962)
103; Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 213.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S

337

has reached up to heaven. And now you intend to subjugate the people
of Judah and Jerusalem, male and female, as your slaves. Have you not
sins of your own against the Lord your God? [2 Chron 28:9-10]

Far from reasoning with their southern neighbors to return to

God, the northerners only react with vicious cruelty, thereby revealing a despicable partnership with Judah in her sinful state.
Second, recognizing that Leviticus 19 constitutes part of the
larger section of Leviticus 17-27 known as the Holiness Code,
we observe a parallel with Oded's speech in the prohibition of
slavery among fellow-Israelites (cf. Lev 25:42-43, 46b; 2 Chron
28:10). 39
Evidently, though he shuns verbatim citation, Oded still looks
to Levitical legislation as authority for his challenging speech.
The Israelites' benevolent ministry, then, in 2 Chron 28:14-15
represents concrete obedience to the Holiness Code's requirement
to love their brethren/neighbors as themselves.
Describing both 2 Chron 28:5-15 and the parable of the Good
Samaritan as exposition of Lev 19:18 unquestionably strengthens
the claim that the 2 Chronicles passage in some way underlies the
parable. If this is so, then we find Jesus employing the hermeneutical technique of explaining Scripture (Lev 19:18) with Scripture (2 Chronicles 28). Furthermore, he identifies his own interpretation of Lev 19:18 (manifest in the parable) with that of
Scripture itself (manifested in 2 Chronicles 28). S. Kistemaker,
who affirms the background of 2 Chron 28:5-15 to the parable,
acknowledges this implication of Jesus' method in the following
statement:
By teaching the parable which echoes familiar words of Scripture [e.g. 2
Chron 28:5-15] Jesus demonstrates that his words are a continuation of
the Scripture and an explanation of the Law and the Prophets. Thus, his
skillful exposition of the second great commandment, 'Love your neighbor
as yourself/ receives a deeper perspective. Jesus appears as the interpreter
of the Law.40

39

Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 346-47 ; Rudolph, Chronikbcher, 290.

Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus, 172. Our focus in this section has
been on the relation of 2 Chronicles 28 and the parable of the Good Samaritan to Lev 19:18, since this "second great commandment" is the principal
OT law behind Jesus' story. But, of course, as elsewhere in the Synoptics
(Matt 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34), the parable's setting in Luke 10 matches
the law of neighborly love (Lev 19:18) with the "first great commandment"
40

338

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

IV. Repentance and Retribution

Nothing shines more transparently through the author's narrative in 2 Chronicles 28 than his negative portrait of King Ahaz,
replete with a full-scale description of his wickedness and consequent downfall from the hand of God.41 The Chronicler purposes
to "vilify Ahaz thoroughly"42 through a certain "rewriting" of his
2 Kings 16 Vorlage where the depths of Ahaz's decadence and
judgment are not as poignantly delineated. In fact, Kings records
Ahaz's escape from the Syro-Ephraimitic alliance by virtue of his
pleading with Assyria for help and scarcely notes any real defeats
which Ahaz might have experienced. But, as Wellhausen points
out, "Chronicles could not let him [Ahaz] off so cheaply."43
The most illuminating method uncovering the Chronicler's retribution theology in the Ahaz story takes note of where he differs
from the parallel account (2 Kings 16). Several distinctives in
the Chronicler's record may be noted:
(1) The Chronicler adds, "He even made molten images for
the Baals" (v 2b), thereby intensifying Ahaz's wickedness by
casting it as an explicit violation of Exod 34:17.44
(2) The Chronicler adds, "He burned incense in the valley of
"Love the Lord your God . . ." (Deut 6:4,5). Interestingly, W. Monselewski (Der barmherzige Samariter, 174) notes a parallel between Luke 10
and 2 Chronicles 28 precisely at the point of a common link to Deuteronomy
6. Luke 10:27 specifically cites Deut 6:5, and the ministry of the Israelites
to the suffering Judeans in 2 Chronicles 28 comes as a response of obedience
to "the Lord, the God of your fathers" (2 Chron 28:9) a designation for
Yahweh which evokes reminiscences of Israel's covenantal obligations/blessings enumerated in Deuteronomy 6 (see especially the references to the
relationship between God and Israel's "fathers" in vv 3, 10, 18, and 23).
41
The formative coloring of retribution theology is everywhere apparent
in the Chronicler's work. R. Dillard ("The Reign of Asa [2 Chr 14-16] : an
Example of the Chronicler's Theological Method," JETS 23 [1980] 209)
offers a helpful general appraisal: "On one theme of the Chronicler's historiography, however, there is virtually no debate. It is his dominant compositional technique and can be discerned by even a cursory reading of the
text. It is called 'retribution theology' and represents the Chronicler's conviction that sin always brings judgment and guilt always brings disaster
(usually war or illness), whereas obedience and righteousness yield the fruit
of peace and prosperity."
42 W. A. L. Elmslie, "The First and Second Books of Chronicles," IB 3.518.
43
Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 206.
44
Coggins, First and Second Chronicles, 258.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

339

the son of Hinnom" (v 3a). The valley, also known as Ge-hinnon,

was later notorious as the site of torment following death, that
is, hell (Gehenna). As a place associated with unpleasant activ
ities such as burning trash and burying bones, it provides an apt
setting for the despicable practices of Ahaz.45
(3) The Chronicler reads, "He . . . burned his soni" ( 3),
where 2 Kings 16 has, "He . . . burned his son" (v 3). The
pluralizing increases the severity of the offence.46
(4) Comparing 2 Chron 28:23 and 2 Kgs 16:10-16, we find
the Chronicler specifically states that Ahaz commits the detestable
deed of sacrificing directly to the gods of Damascus, whereas
Kings, in somewhat softer fashion, presents Ahaz offering sacri
fices, still presumably to the Lord, on an altar patterned after the
one in Damascus.
(5) Only Chronicles mentions the penultimate act of apostasy:
shutting the doors of the temple (2 Chron 28:24 later con
demned by Hezekiah, 2 Chron 29:7). 4 7
(6) Virtually the entire section of 2 Chron 28:5-23 represents
an addition to the Kings narrative. The only parallel is the plea
for Assyrian aid in 2 Chron 28:16 and 2 Kgs 16:7. Totally dif
ferent perspectives underly the Syro-Ephraimitic War. Kings
features a single, ultimately ineffectual, attack of a united Aramean-Israelite coalition, whereas the Chronicler speaks of separate
strikes upon Judah, both devastating in their results (vv 5-8). 48
Furthermore, the Chronicler unmistakably connects Judah's mili45

Ackroyd, / and II Chronicles, 175.

Coggins, First and Second Chronicles, 258.
47
R. C. Dentan, The First and Second Books of the Kings. The First and
Second Books of the Chronicles (The Layman's Bible Commentary; Rich
mond: John Knox, 1964) 150; Elmslie, "The First and Second Books of
Chronicles," 517.
48
It is outside the scope of this paper to discuss the historicity of the
Chronicles account of the Syro-Ephraimitic War relative to Kings and Isaiah.
The following sources may be consulted for both positive and negative eval
uations: Zckler, "The Books of the Chronicles," 12 ; Dentan, The First and
Second Books of the Chronicles, 150; Slotki, Chronicles, 290; Keil, The
Books of the Chronicles, 433-35; Coggins, First and Second Chronicles, 258;
Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 345; E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC;
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910) 457-58; J. W. McKay, Religion
in Judah Under the Assyrians (London: SCM, 1973) 78.
46

340

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

tary defeat with the wickedness of Ahaz (v 6) and forcefully

punctuates the impact of that defeat with large tallies of casualties
and obituaries of prominent people in Ahaz's court (Maaseiah,
Azrikam, Elkanah, vv 7-8) thus evidencing the gravity of judgment to match the gravity of offences.49
(7) The Chronicler uniquely records the attacks of the Edomites and Philistines (vv 17-18) to doubly emphasize the judgment
of God upon Ahaz.
(8) Whereas both Kings and Chronicles mention Ahaz's seeking of Assyrian aid, the nature of the help received is vastly different. In Kings, Assyria appears as basically beneficent to Judah
by eliminating the Aramean opposition, even putting Rezin to
death. In Chronicles, however, Tiglath-Pilneser still comes to aid
Ahaz, but the evaluation shifts: "Tiglath-Pilneser afflicted him
[Ahaz] instead of strengthening him" (v 20). Concerning the
Arameans, quite unlike the helpless foe of Kings, they further
ensnare Judah, this time through religious rather than militaristic
means. Ahaz worships the Damascene gods, whom the Chronicler
reports, "were the ruin of him, and of all Israel" (v 33).
In view of this historiographical analysis of 2 Chronicles 28,
it cannot be denied that the author generally follows the narrative
flow of the 2 Kings 16 account "but completely rewrites it so
as to emphasize even more strongly the wickedness of the king
and the magnitude of his defeats."50 With the stage thus set, we
now ask the leading question relative to our topic: What part
does the activity of the "Samaritans" toward Ahaz's army play
in the retributive schema of 2 Chronicles 28?
This question has yielded varied responses. For one, C. F. Keil
concentrates on Israel's barbarism toward Judah and associates
this violent behavior with Ahaz's wickedness, equally deserving
of judgment. He argues:
Out of the historical materials, those facts which show how Ahaz, notwithstanding the heavy blows which Jahve inflicted upon him, always
sinned more deeply against the Lord his God, are chosen, and oratorically
so presented as not only to bring before us the increasing obduracy of
Ahaz, but also, by the representation of the conduct of the citizens and
4
9 Keil, The Books of the Chronicles, 435; W. E. Barnes, The Book of
Chronicles (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1899) 248-49.
50
Dentan, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, 150.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

341

warriors of the kingdom of Israel towards the people of Judah who were
prisoners, the deep fall of that kingdom.61

From a different perspective, underscoring the Northern King

dom's loving ministry, R. J. Coggins notes the tremendous contrast
between Ahaz and Israel in 2 Chronicles 28: "It is in the light
of this complete condemnation of Ahaz that we may best under
stand the unexpected episode in 9-15 the wickedness of Ahaz
even serves to put the northerners in a favourable light."52
Though these comments of Keil and Coggins seem diametrically
opposed, actually both are correct, and together they comprise a
full, balanced picture of Israel's place in the retributional frame
work of the Chronicler's Ahaz account. On the one hand (cf. Keil),
due to their rapacious militarism, the Israelites stand guilty before
the Lord and just as meritorious of his wrath and judgment as
the Judeans they have slaughtered. The speeches of Oded and the
Ephraimite leaders make this plain (vv 9-13). But the story does
not end here; the Israelites realize the error of their malicious
treatment and repent. The "Samaritans' " gracious ministry of
vv 14-15 then ensues, creating a moving scene of repentance and
obedience set off in dramatic contrast to the apostasy and diso
bedience of King Ahaz (cf. Coggins). Others appreciate this ele
ment of repentance by the Israelites, notably Williamson, who sees
2 Chronicles 28 as a momentary fulfillment of Abijah's invitation
in 2 Chronicles 13 calling for the Northern Kingdom's return to
the Lord.53
How does this "repentance" interpretation of the Israelites'
ministry square with the parable of the Good Samaritan? Inter
estingly, some NT interpreters envision the central thrust of the
parable as Jesus' appeal to the lawyer to repent of his unloving
mentality and become truly obedient to Lev 19:18. . Van Elderen
articulates this position built on the linkage between the lawyer's
question "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29) and the
subsequent parabolic presentation of the Samaritan as the model
neighbor.54 Actually many scholars evaluate this connection contrarily as a discrepancy (implying a Lucan interpolation qf the
parable), claiming that Jesus' story more appropriately answers
51 Keil, The Books of the Chronicles, 433.
52
Coggins, First and Second Chronicles, 257.
53
Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 344-45; Israel, 115-16.
4 Van Elderen, "Another Look at the Parable," 111-14.

342

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

the question, "How should I love my neighbor?" (Answer: "as

the Samaritan does"), rather than the lawyer's inquiry concerning
"Who is my neighbor?"55
But this reasoning overlooks the perfect blending of the parable
of the Good Samaritan with the Jesus-lawyer dialogue. The lawyer
inquires after Jesus only because "he desires to justify himself"
(v 29). Typical of the Pharisaic mind-set as depicted in the
Gospels, this legal expert imagines himself to be thoroughly selfrighteous. He merely seeks clarification on the identity of his
neighbors, not to learn and grow in righteousness, but in order to
corroborate his own smug personal appraisal that indeed he had
already fulfilled the stipulations of the second great commandment.56
But Jesus throws the self-satisfied lawyer off-guard. He tells
the parable which unmistakeably features the noble deeds of a
hated Samaritan (from the lawyer's perspective) and follows by
asking the lawyer: "Which of these three, do you think, proved
neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (Luke 10:36).
The lawyer, choking on the obvious response, replies with the
circumlocution, "the one who had mercy on him" (v 37), rather
than uttering the loathsome name, "Samaritan."57
The impact is undeniable. Jesus faithfully answers the lawyer's
question by circumscribing the true scope of neighborliness: it
even extends to the despised Samaritans (Question: "Who is my
neighbor?" Answer: "The one who showed mercy" = Samaritan).
This strikes a shattering blow at the lawyer's self-pronounced
justification. If the second great commandment entails loving
Samaritans, then he and virtually all Jews must confess to being
transgressors. The final exhortation, then "Go and do likewise"
(v 37) does not encourage the lawyer to emulate the Samaritan's kindness as much as it calls for kindness to be shown to the
Samaritan, in fact all people, regardless of distinctions.
Van Elderen sums up this interpretation well:
In dealing with this lawyer, Jesus had to break down his pride and conceit, rather than to teach him to be kind, helpful, humanitarian, and
65

E. g. see Black, "The Parables as Allegory," 285.

Van Elderen, "Another Look at the Parable," 111-14.
57
N. Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 314.
56

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

343

benevolent. The lawyer did not need a lesson in helping someone in need;
rather he needed a lesson in what it means to be human within the frame
work of the grace (and the law) of God.
The lawyer is not instructed by Jesus primarily to do as the Samaritan
did (i.e., help someone in need), but rather to fulfill the commandment
of love for his neighbor who, he must recognize, can be a Samaritan
the very person his pride refused to accept. 58

Repentance from a limited application of Lev 19:18 toward the

larger obedience of loving all types of people exactly parallels our
previous explanation of Israelite behavior in 2 Chron 28:15. 59
We may now posit another two-dimensional purpose which the
Israelite ministers of 2 Chronicles serve for the parable of the
Good Samaritan: (1) Illustrative purpose: they represent the Good
Samaritan and provide the circumstantial background for his lov
ing ministry; (2) Hortatory purpose: they represent the lawyer
and provide a "type" for his needed repentance and obedience.

V.

Universal Love

Some analysts of the Chronicler's methodology detect a strongly

antinorthern polemic in his writings coupled with support for ex
clusive Judean claims to be the true and only people of God.60
This interpretation rests heavily on contentions of common author
ship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, knowing well the
rife anti-Samaritanism of the latter. Also, commentators attrib
uting an antinorthern bias to Chronicles give full weight to the
author's omission of large amounts of material concerning the
Northern Kingdom found in Samuel-Kings and incorporation of
northern affairs only as they affect the larger interests of the
61
Southern Kingdom.
58 Van Elderen, "Another Look at the Parable," 112.
C. . B. Cranfield ("The Good Samaritan," 370) explicitly compares
Jesus' reversal of the lawyer's self-justification with Oded's convicting ques
tion directed toward his fellow Israelites in 2 Chron 28:10 (". . . are there
not even with you trespasses of your own against the Lord your God?").
6 0
See e. g. W. Rudolph, "Problems of the Book of Chronicles," VT 4
(1954) 404.
6 1
See the discussion in J. D. Newsome, Jr., "Toward a New Understanding
of the Chronicler and His Purposes," JBL 94 (1975) 205-7; Braun, "A
Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude Toward the North," 59-61.
5 9

344

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

If this antipathy to non-Judeans truly characterizes the Chronicler's predisposition, then any Chronicles passage would serve as
a strange foundation indeed on which to build the parable of the
Good Samaritan, so transparent in its call for universal love involving Jews and Samaritans, and by implication all men. Furthermore, we find it almost incredible that one so compassionate
toward a broad spectrum of humanity including harlots, publicans, lepers, etc. as Jesus, and one so clearly a champion of
the poor and downtrodden (even Gentiles) as Luke,62 could look
with full favor on and draw essential truths from a work like
Chronicles if it really was so prejudicially charged.
But recently several studies have overturned this indictment
of anti-Samaritanism and Judean exclusivism levied against the
Chronicler by demonstrating a more or less positive attitude concerning the inclusion of the Northern Kingdom in a unified Israel.
R. L. Braun, for example, relates that the Chronicler portrays no
less than six kings of Judah, including Ahaz, interacting with the
north in a manner which often casts a favorable light on the Northern Kingdom and enhances the possibility of reconciliation. After
surveying these reigns, Braun concludes:
These passages indicate clearly that the writer of Chronicles continued to
be concerned about the people of the north, and frequently introduces this
concern without precedence in his Vorlage. The people of the north are his
kinsmen. Yahweh's prophets, such as Elijah and Oded, still function there.
Israel's best kings undertake military and missionary expeditions into
Ephraim. Representatives of the north participate both in the worship of
the Jerusalem temple, where they are accepted as brothers even when
ritually unclean, as well as in reforming activities in both north and south.
On one occasion northern leaders, many of whom bear Yahwistic names,
respond positively to prophetic admonition and deal mercifully with
Judean captives [2 Chron 28:9-15]. e 3

This penetrating analysis has led Braun and others to reject

the claim of common authorship between Chronicles and EzraNehemiah, particularly when juxtaposing various anti-neighbor
62
For a brief, but helpful, discussion of the prominence of universalism in
Lucan theology, see I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 101, 137-44.
63
Braun, "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude Toward the
North," 61-62.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

345

passages such as Ezra 4:1-4 and Neh 10:28-31 with the Chronicler's patently more positive portrait of the north.64
To further illuminate the Chronicler's attitude toward the scope
of love, we notice an openness on his part not only to embrace
the Northern Kingdom in Yahweh worship but also to include
non-Jewish foreigners. Schaefer reminds us of the noble, spiritual
words concerning Yahweh and his people emanating from such
unlikely Gentile candidates as Pharaoh Neco (2 Chron 35:21),
Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22 ff.), Huram (2 Chron 2:11), and the Queen
of Sheba (2 Chron 9:8). 65 Newsome speaks of "a tentative kind
of internationalism" present in Chronicles, starkly contrasted to
the exclusivism of Ezra-Nehemiah, and carefully distinguishes our
story in 2 Chron 28:8-15 from the prohibition against foreigners
in Ezra 9:1-15 and Neh 13:23-2 7.66
Looking more specifically at 2 Chronicles 28, we discover the
following signposts illuminating the theme of universal love (especially related to the unification of "all Israel"):
(1) One king for north and south. Only one king reigns in 2
Chronicles 28 Ahaz and significantly, he is called "king of
Israel" (v 19). The Chronicler tends to view the Northern Kingdom as already subdued during the days of Ahaz and therefore
without a separate monarch of its own. Undoubtedly, Ahaz falls
short in quality of the preeminent king that the Chronicler envisages ruling over "all Israel," but the stage is now set for the
glorious unification efforts of a truly noble Davidic king, Hezekiah.67
64

Ibid., 62 ; Newsome, "Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler,"

206; T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972) 190-91, 221-22.
65
G. E. Schaefer, "The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of
the Chronicler" (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
1972) 11-13.
66
Newsome, "Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler," 207.
67
Only ruling administrators (v 12), but no king, appear over Israel in
2 Chronicles 28. Furthermore, the letter of Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 30 set
at the beginning of his reign (and therefore presumably indicative of the
state of affairs during Ahaz's reign as well) addresses its message to the
"people of Israel . . . to the remnant of you who have escaped from the
hand of the kings of Assyria" (2 Chron 30:6). See Williamson, 1 and 2
Chronicles, 344, 348.

346

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

(2) The brotherhood of north and south. As we have previously

noted, the stress on kinship ties between north and south figures
prominently in 2 Chronicles 28 (vv 8, 11, IS references to
'ahim). Judah and Israel still constitute a family unit, torn asunder
by strife, but a family nonetheless, with prospects of reconciliation
that are always possible for estranged brothers because of their
common heritage.
(3) Levelling the fortunes of north and south. By the end of
2 Chronicles 28, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms occupy an
amazingly similar position. They both stand guilty of forsaking
the Lord and offering unacceptable worship. (Though the north
has displayed a spark of repentance in vv 9-15, this hardly classi
fies as total spiritual renewal.) Furthermore, they both reside
essentially in "exile," that is, under foreign domination. In fact,
an "exilic atmosphere" pervades the entire 2 Chronicles 28 narra
tive, signalled by repeated references to either "prisoners," "cap
tives," or "slaves" (see vv 5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18). The exilic
milieu of the Chronicler's own time no doubt accounts for this
phenomenon, thus establishing a bridge between the author's day
and the reign of Ahaz. In both periods, distinctions between north
and south are somewhat obliterated. They find themselves equally
ensnared in the trials of foreign subjugation, and consequently,
together, as "all Israel," they seek the blessings of restored
Yahweh worship in Jerusalem under a united Davidic monarchy.68
Having discovered in 2 Chronicles 28 the theme of universal
love under the rubric of "all Israel," we are now in position to
understand the Chronicler's interest in recording the "Samaritan"
ministry of vv 9-15. More than anything else, through this moving
episode, the author issues a simple plea to his audience to act like
"all Israel" compassionately ministering to each other as
68 D. N. Freedman, "The Chronicler's Purpose," CBQ 23 (1961) 441;
Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 344; P. R. Ackroyd ("The Chronicler as
Exegete," JSOT 2 [1977] 29) rightly detects the "exilic" theme as prominent
in 2 Chronicles 28. He particularly applies it to our passage of interest by
saying: "Vss 8-1S may be understood in various ways, but we may perhaps
properly see here too an exemplification of that element in the prayer of
Solomon, found in 1 8:50 but not in the Chronicler's form of the text,
which asks that God should 'put pity for them (i. e. the exiles) in their
captors' hearts'." We do not expand on this "exilic" theme because of its
apparent inapplicability to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15

347

brothers irrespective of sociological boundary lines, even as the

Israelites of 2 Chronicles 28 came to their senses and finally dealt
with their Judean kinsmen in kindness.
Quite clearly, then, such open-armed missionaries as Jesus and
Luke gladly find a sympathetic partner in the Chronicler, who
too was deeply concerned about the unity of God's people. Also,
a story like the parable of the Good Samaritan, full of tenderness
yet powerful in its breaking of ethnic barriers, quite appropriately
owes its inspiration to 2 Chronicles 28 where estranged brothers
cease their strife momentarily in the experience of benevolent
ministry. Essentially, the Chronicler, Jesus, and Luke represent
an unbroken chain of prophets calling for loving unity among the
people of God, unfettered by social discrimination.
VI. Conclusion
The chief contributions of our study may be summarized under
two headings: one related to our understanding of the parable of
the Good Samaritan, the other concerned with Chronicles studies
in general.
(1) Any interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan
must seriously take into account the input and impact of 2 Chron
28:5-15, not simply as supplying circumstantial baggage, but as
providing an ideological foundation for the key topics of love,
brotherhood, obedience, repentance, and anticlericalism. We contend that Jesus was sensitive to these thematic connections by
virtue of his acquaintance with and appreciation for the broad
literary setting of the ministerial episode in 2 Chron 28:5-15,
including the structural and theological contexts of the entire 2
Chronicles 28 chapter and the books of Chronicles as a whole. No
theory of haphazard proof-texting is sufficient to account for the
numerous parallels of thought (not merely language and circumstance) we have drawn between the Chronicler and the Parabler.
In short, Jesus proves himself a most responsible exegete and
expositor of the Chronicles passage.
We are not purporting to say in any way that Jesus was conscious
of our precise structural outlines and intricate theological analyses
and then worked in some kind of deliberate systematic fashion to
line up every facet of the parable with the Chronicler's narrative.
We are not even campaigning for the unequivocal certainty of all

348

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

the parallels we have drawn. Frankly, in light of the scanty prior

research into our topic, our study has been highly exploratory,
pursuing all possible connecting avenues between Chronicles and
Luke through a variety of literary lenses. In this investigative
mode, we cannot dogmatically press every minute detail of the
affinities we have posited (much less ascribe to Jesus an awareness
of all the suggested fine points of the Chronicles-Luke relationship). But seeing that time and time again, through a study of
several feasible areas of correspondence (see headings), similar
themes and perspectives have emerged between the Chronicler and
the Parabler, we feel confident to assert that in these two biblical
story-tellers we have truly kindred minds at work. We cannot be
sure of all that Jesus drew from the Chronicler, but it was certainly more than a simple plot-line about first-aid. In summation,
it is the 2 Chronicles 28 rescue story in its theological and
literary context! which informs and illumines the parable of
the Good Samaritan.
(2) With a unique (unshared with Samuel-Kings) passage in
Chronicles so clearly alluded to in the Gospel of Luke, further
research is in order to discover additional Chronicles allusions or
citations in the NT. At any rate, the bias of scholars cataloguing
the NT usage of the OT against Chronicles in favor of SamuelKings where they parallel should be forever abandoned. Furthermore, our appetites should be whetted for a feast of additional
insights which Chronicles studies might afford NT interpreters.
I think particularly of help in deciphering the "Synoptic Problem"
with its peculiar difficulties surrounding harmonization and historiography. Precisely the same issues prevail in the relationship
between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings that we find among the
Gospels, though unencumbered by the "which came first" dilemma
plaguing NT scholars.69 All in all, it is time for biblical interpreters
69

For example, R. H. Gundry (Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982] 635) briefly mentions the correlation between the Chronicler's and Matthew's handling of
source material. Also, we may find fruitful a further comparison of chiastic
artistry in Chronicles (see R. B. Dillard, "The Chronicler's Solomon," WTJ
43 [1980-81] 289-300; and forthcoming commentary on 2 Chronicles in the
Word Biblical Commentary; also see J. A. Groves, "Chiasm as a Structuring
Device in Old Testament Narrative" [Th.M. thesis, Westminster Theological

2 CHRONICLES 28:515

349

to recognize that "the things left out" best be included in our appraisal of OT influence on the NT tradition.
University of Durham
Durham, England

Seminary, 1983]) with similar literary method in the NT, particularly Luke
(cf. C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre
of Luke-Acts [SBLMS 20; Missoula: Scholars, 1974] 51-58).

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.