,

ZUR ERFORSCHUNG
DES ALTEN TESTAMENTS
UND DES ANTIKEN JUDENTUMS
Herausgegeben von Matthias Augustin (5., )
)
Band9

Verlag Peter Lang

Frankfurt am Main . Bern . NewYork Paris
SaraJaphet
The Ideologyof the
Bookof Chronicles
and Its Place
in Biblical Thought
ff' ISo- /98
f
oRf
I

Verlag Peter Lang

Frankfurt am Main Bern' NewYork Paris
-- _.......,,"" -,,..
C. Guiding Principles for Divine Action
h 1 have noted that one of
From the first, biblical sc of res is its particular
Chronicles' most in the history of Israel:
understanding of God ah it is not a natural and human,
"In the kingdom of Je ov that is operative...Never does sin
but a divine pragmatism. here misfortune occurs is
miss its view is founded on a
guilt wanting. We Chronicles and their parallels in
comparison of texts in r in some fonn or other, in
Kings
435
and tends to reappea i ." {the Chronicler) was
later commentaries. For examp e'
l
"H'e interpreted Israel's
d in the divine ru e.
equally intereste h h with constant rewards and
if
that of a c urc d
1 e... as h ignal divine intetvention...He ma e
punishments throug s ti n between piety and prosperity,
more universal the connec 0 "436 Rudol h too, writes:
and wickedness to this
.....the Chronicler gen Y een deeds and destiny
divinely-ordered ... in general, the
in the life of each atnd by ihe idea of reward and
description is domina e
h
t "437
punts men., I f God's active role in Israelite
Chronicles portraya 0 ession of this concept of
h
b en seen as an expr ,
history as e d 'to the Deuteronomist s
retribution
438
and compare rks has been
k
439 The difference between the two wo
wor .
OOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN TIlE HISTORY OF ISRAEL 151
conSidered quantitative, not qualitative;440 in other words,
the ChrOnicler attempts to be comprehensive and include
more details. Because most critics saw the Chronicler's
method merely as evidence of his unreliability as an
historical source, almost no attempt was made to
understand the origins and causes of his particular concept:
of retribution - what was important was its effect on the :
writing of history. Yet these questions are central to any
understanding of the Chronicler's outlook. Where did this
principle originate, why is it so crucial to the book's world-
view, and how did it lead to the moulding of all history in
accordance with "divine pragmatism"?
A belief in reward and punishment .stgn1fies an assurance
that God requites the deeds, good and bad, of human beings
and stems from a conviction of divine prOVidence. "Belief
in" reward and punishment becomes a principle, or theory
of retribution, when divine recompense is perceived as
something constant operating in accordance with fixed
rules. Any such theory is based on the view that retribution
is meted out constantly and consistently and on the
axiomatic acceptance of the system's rules. In the Bible,
these rules derive from the principle of justice. Thus, in
addition to a belief in divine providence, every concept of
retribution also entails the belief that God is just and
reqUites human deeds justly. These two beliefs - in divine
prOVidence and divine justice - are among the most
important assumptions in biblical religion.
441
with the books of Kings especially makes clear
W
(Eichrodt, Theology,
II, p. 487). In Eichrodt's terms, Kings stills reflects the old historical
tradition, W whereas the historiography in Chronicles ha's been
rationalized by means of mechanistic reward and punishment.
Regarding this subject, see also below, pp. 153 fI. There is no doubt,
however, that Kings, too, expresses a sense that God's deeds must be
justified. For example, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena. pp. 277-279.
For example, cf. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 9: Rudolph, Chronik, p. xiv.
Wellhausen does see a qualitative difference, not in method of
redaction, but in the degree to which the Torah serves as the
authority and in the specific Pentateuchal source that provides the
authoritative basis (Prolegomena, p. 294).
For example, see Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 595-623: M. Weiss, Some
Problems of the Biblical Doctrine of Retribution
w
(I) (Heb.), 31
441
440
YHWH, mE GOD OF IsRAEL
Wellhausen, p. 203.
IbftL, pp. 203-210.
Curtis, Chronicles, p. 9. M i has argued fiercely against the
Rudolph, Chronlk, pp. xix
h
, xiv. inscshronicles but his case is rather
rtan
of divine retri ution '
impo ce 14-16,201-202, and passtmJ.
weak (see Untersudwngen, pp. 10-15: Bickerman, Ezra to
See von Rad, Chronicler,w 372 IT; Eichrodt,
Maccabees, pp. 24-26, 0 ,
II 307 487 and elsewhere.
new theological development, post-hdatin
ld
g
nCCO., i vident in Chronicles. "T e 0
the DeuteronomisUc redaction, s e f: f God's inconceivable
d
with its reverence in ace 0
historical tra ition, as rationalized by introducing
majesty, was no longer tolerated, and;'son of the Chronicler's work
a mechanical retribution, as a comp
439
438
434
435
436
437
150
Religious doubt concerning God's actions in the world
usually assaults one or both of these beliefs, questioning the
existence of divine providence
442
and/or doubting whether
God really rules the world justly.443 Usually, doubt is
focussed on the latter principle; the belief that
prevails in the world is challenged by the view that God s
actions are arbitrary and completely unrelated to any
principle of justice.
In the Bible, the existence of evil poses the foremost
challenge to the belief in divine justice. Since biblical
thinking is pragmatic and realistic, it is the reality of evil
that raises the problem of justice. This concrete evil has a
number of aspects: the evils of nature - death, disease, and
natural affl1ctions;444 social evils - the unfair lot of the
righteous and the wicked;445 and national evils - the fate
of Israel446 and of other nations.44
7
All the biblical
attempts to explain the exIstence of evil - stories, poems,
sayings, aphorisms, and so on - by blaming it on human
misdeeds, thus leaving absolute divine justice intact, may be
considered forms of theodicy. They are all intended to show
that a person's fate has been justly determined by God in
reqUital of his deeds.
448
Likewise, biblical historiography, with its explanation
that the changes in Israel's fortunes stem from the people's
deeds and misdeeds and are produced as divine requital, is
based on the belief that God's justice is absolute. In this
sense, both Kings and Chronicles are works of theodicy;
they attribute the people's fate to its deeds and acquit God
the Just of responsibility for that fate.
449
The two major
historical compositions share the desire not merely to
describe Israel's history, but to explain it. Their explanation
rests on the accentuation of God's justice throughout the
course of history. Although Chronicles and Deuteronomistic
historiography are alike with respect to ends and motives,
their means of explaining history differ. This difference
focusses on two particular questions: the "starting point"
and the concept of divine justice.
(I) Starting Point: The Deuteronomist wished to explain
the reality of his time, of the destruction of Judah and the
Temple. That is his work's starting point. For him, Israel's
history during the First Commonwealth is a history of
Kaufmann claims that "the Bible is a book of theodicy" (Religion, II,
p. 609), whereas Eichrodt attempts to prove that it contains no
element of theodicy whatever ("Vorsehungsglaube und Theodlzee 1m
AT," Procksch Festsch. [Leipzig, 1934), pp. 60 ff.: Theology, II, pp. 484-
495). Indeed, with his one-sided definition of theodicy as "theoretical
reconciliation" in keeping with a "Platonic-Stoic worH::l-view"
Eichrodt does manage to banish theodicy from the Bible. His
for doing so are clear - see, in particular, Theology, II, pp. 260, 487,
489: he believes that an "attempt to construct a theodicy on the basis
of a rationalistic theory of retribution" is characteristic of "late
Judaism" and antithetical to both Christianity and the Bible.
According to Kaufmann, "the reworking of historical literature
provided in the book of Kings represents an enormous undertaking
which contains the great work of historical theodicy" (Religion, II, p:
300). Von Rad writes: "the Chronicler's singular grapplings with
reward and punishment, like Job's questioning, must be understood
as a form of... the problem of theodicy" (Geschlchtsbf1d, p. 11).
153 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN mE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
449
448
YHWH, TIlE OOD OF ISRAEL
(1961/62), 249. Urbach attaches particular importance to the rabbis'
belief in providence and the justice of God: 11le Sages, pp. 28-31, 178-
179 256-257. Cf. also Schechter, Rabbinic Theology, p. 26.
As in: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps 14: 1: 1
[Heb., 2) _ in the NJPS translation: "The benighted man thinks, God
does not care''') or "Let him make haste, let him speed his work that
we may see it" (lsa 5:19).
This doubt lies at the heart of Job and Ecclesiastes. Although Kohelet
affirms that God watches over the world, he does not believe that His
actions are determined by the principle of justice. Instead, the guiding
principle, divine favour - expressed by the phrase :n" ("that
pleases Him") _ remains unexplained: "For to.. the man who ple"ases
him God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy (Eccles 2:26) or it is
God's gift: to man that every one should eat and drink..... (3: 13). See
H.L. Ginsberg's commentary on Qohelet (Heb., Jerusalem, 1961), pp.
16-17. Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 494-495, holds a different opinion
on this subject.
For example, Genesis 2 - 3 explainS the pain of bearing
man's toil, and the snake's crawling all as the result of Adam s sin.
See Kaufmann, Religion, II, p. 601.
As in Jer 12: 1-3, Psalm 37, and elsewhere.
As in Deuteronomistic historiography: see the discussion below.
As in Genesis 18 - 19, which explains that Sodom and Gomorrah
were destroyed because of the sinfulness of their inhabitants or Deut
9:5, which attributes the Israelite conquest of Canaan to "the
wickedness of these nations."
445
446
447
444
443
442
152
diSintegration In three stages: division into two kingdoms,
the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, and, finally, the
destruction of Judah. The entire history of the people is seen
from the perspective of its disastrous end, producing a sense
of disintegration and impending doom which comes to
dominate the description.
450
Thus, in Kings, the principle of
reward and punishment has as its starting point a
particularly relevant concern: the need to explain the
destruction of Judah in terms of divine providence and
justice.
451
Chronicles' starting point has to do with an overall
religious system. The impetus is not an immediate need to
provide the believer with answers to the acute challenge
posed by the destruction, but rather a general religious
awareness. This awareness entails a desire to demonstrate
that divine justice is at work in the world and can be
discerned throughout Israelite history.452 The Chronicler
expresses his general religious motivation in his writing
and in his way of reworking sources. Two particular aspects,
which may be termed the quantitative and qualitative
dimensions of his reworking, reveal this motivation.
Within the quantitative dimension, each and every event in
Israel's history has to be explained in terms of the
Chronicler's belief system - it is not enough to explain two
or three crucial events.
453
Wellhausen discussed this aspect
of the ChrOnicler's work at length, and we shall return to it
below.
45
4 The qualitative difference lies in his need to
explain good as well as evil. The Deuteronomist does not
account for the existence of good, When he deScribes a
change for the better in Israelite history, he does not
attribute that change to divine justice, but to God's
. compassion:
455
-And the anger of the LORD was kindled
against Israel, and he gave them continually into the hand
of Hazael king of Ararn...Then Jehoahaz besought the LORD
and the LORD hearkened to him; for he saw the o p p r e s s i o ~
of Israel, how the king of Aram oppressed
them..,Nevertheless they did not depart from the sins of the
house of Jeroboam. .,and the Asherah also remained in
Samaria" (2 Kings 13:3-6). The people's behaviour does not
improve, but because YHWH is compassionate and responds
to their oppression, they are saved. 456 In the case of the
Chronicler, things are different. To begin With, his view of
history is more optimistic - he sees a greater degree of good
in the people's past.
457
Moreover, he explains both good and
from extra-biblical sources, which was not reworked thoroughly.
Prolegomena. pp. 203-210; see below, pp. 165 ff.
In only one instance does he see SUccess as reward for the king's
actions: He trusted in the LORD the God ofIsrael...he held fast to the
LORD; he did not depart from follOWing him, but kept the
commandments... and the LORD was with him; wherever he went
forth, he prospered... He smote the Philistines as far as Gaza and its
territory, from watchtower to fortified city" (2 Kings 18:5-8,
concerning Hezekiah). We have here an excellent example of the way
in which historical data, taken from various royal sources, were
woven into the Oeuteronomistic religious appraisal. Cf. Montgomery,
Kings, p. 482; Gray, Kings, p. 609.
Likewise 2 Kings 13:22-23 - "Now Hazael king of Aram oppressed
Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. But the LORD was gracious to them
and had compassion on them. and he turned toward them, because of
his cov:
nant
with Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob. and would not destroy
them... - and 2 Kings 14:26-27. These passages combine redactional
material with authentic historical data. and their reliabUity is the
subject of disagreement among scholars. cr. Montgomery. Kings. pp.
433-434. 443-444; Gray. Kings. pp. 538-539. 557.
Cf. Kaufmann. Religion., IV. pp. 480-481.
155
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
454
455
456
457
YHWH, mE GOD OF ISRAEL
There is only one interruption in this description - the stories about
Elijah and Elisha shift the focus of attention from the future to the
present.
See Kaufmann, Religion. II, pp. 296 ff.
In this respect, Chronicles is closer to the redaction of Judges. (1be
relationship between the redaction of Judges and of Kings is another
issue and not the subject of discussion here.) The editor of Judges did
not attempt to Justify a particular reality; he wished to explain a
historic period from within a religious system.
Rudolph correctly points out that this intention was not carried out
completely (Chronik, p. xix). He indicates two exceptions: 2 Chr 25: 13
- the attack by Amaziah's Northern recruits - and 2 Chr 32: 1 -
Sennacherib's campaign. However, the story of Sennacherib's
campaign fulftlls a different purpose in Chronistic historiography
(see below pp. 193 ff.). The story of the recruits (2 Chr 25: 13), as well as
1Chr 7:21-22, must be considered uncharacteristic. These exceptions
to the system suggest an earlier tradition, taken by the Chronicler
451
452
453
450
154
458 The explanation of good provides a suitable starting point from
which to examine the concept of divine retribution. When the need to
explain a specific reality is of prtmary concern, the existence of evil
usually poses the greatest theological challenge; in such a case, the
principal question is "why do the righteous suffer?". However, when a
comprehensive bellef system is being expounded, the question is not
one-sided, and both good and evil must be explained (as in Ezek 18;
33:10-20; Exod 20:5-6; 34:6-7; and elsewhere). See M. Weiss, Tarbi?, 32
(1962/63), 1-18.
459 See Montgomery, Kings, p. 235; Gray. Kings. p. 260.
evil in tenns of divine justice.
458
Thus the Chronicler's special method of reworking his
is evident in his interpretation of every historical
event in terms of reward and pUnishment and in his
explanation of good as well as evil. We might call this
method an attempt at the systematization of history -
historical description regulated by a religious system.
(2) The Concept of Divine Justice: In both Kings and
Chronicles, the aim is to prove that God acts in history
according to the principle of divine justice. However, the two
differ in their definition of the concept; what one considers
an act of justice may be interpreted by the other as an
injustice.
.According to Kings, the division of the kingdom sexved as
punishment for Solomon's sins:
1 Kings 11:11-13: ""Therefore the LORD said to Solomon,
'Since this has been your .mind and you have not kept my
covenant and my statutes which I have commanded you, I
will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to
your sexvant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not
do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your
son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will
give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my sexvant
and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen...
This passage reflects the position of the Deuteronomistic
redactor:459 the kingdom was divided because Solomon
sinned, yet the punishment does not affect Solomon
himself, but rather Rehoboam and his contemporaries. It
was deferred, not by virtue of Solomon's good behaviour, but
because of David. It is also thanks to David that the Davidic
dynasty continues to reign over one tribe. Thus, Rehoboam's
fate is sealed, for better (his rule over Judah) and for worse
(the loss of everything else and the creation of the kingdom
of Israel), without any consideration of his own behaviour.
Only David's virtue and Solomon's misdeeds are responsible
for his destiny. In fact. even Solomon's fate is, ultimately,
the result of David's good deeds.
This pattern recurs throughout the history of the Northern
Kingdom. Jeroboam son of Nebat sins, but the pUnishment
is meted out to his son: "As soon as (Ba'asha] was king, he
killed all the house of Jeroboam; he left to the house of
Jeroboam not one that breathed... according to the word of
the LORD which he spoke.. .it was for the sins of Jeroboam"
(l Kings 15:29-30).460 Jeroboam himself is never pUnished
and dies of natural causes in due time,461 as is the case with
other kings. 462
The destruction of the Temple provides the most striking
example of the book's concept of divine justice. In the Bible,
justice, whether human or divine, is always based on the
principle that the punishment must fit the crime.
463
Because the punishment - destruction of the kingdom and
the Temple - is considered unparalled in its severity, the
sins which led to the punishment are magnified and
overstated.
464
In the book of Kings, the actual sin is
157 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
This passage, too. is Deuteronomlstic. See Gray. Kings, p. 323.
1 Kings 14:20. which contradicts Ahijah the ShilonUe's prophecy in
14: 13. The Chronicler "emends" his version to conform with
Ahljah's prophecy (2 Chr 13:20). See above. p. 135.
For example. 1 Kings 16: 12. The next verse (16: 13) adds Elah's sins to
those of Ba'asha.
S.E. Loewenstamm. "Measure for Measure" (Heb.), EB IV, 845. This
principle is one of the punishment fitting the crime or "measure for
measure" (as in the rabbinic phrase, "11,1 11)' "11.1) only in terms of Us
abstract dictum that "the size of the punishment be equal to the size
of the crime" (Loewenstamm. loco cfL. 840). It does not involve literary
dimensions. whereby the punishment resembles the sin by means of
some external analogy; Loewenstamm, 844-845; I. Heinemann,
Darlcel 2nd edt (Heb.. Jerusalem. 1954). pp. 64-70; and see
170,n.493.
Kaufmann writes: "The Bible could not explain reality, the terrible
calamity and destruction of the Temple without assuming that Israel
463
462
464
460
461
YHWH, nIE GOD OF ISRAEL
156
is a sinful nation.. .If the sin did not exist, one would have to invent it.
Israel's sinfulness is imperative for biblical theodicy" (Religion, I, p.
663).
465 This passage is not uniform, but its exact composition is the subject
of disagreement; cf. Montgomery, Kings, p. 470, Gray, Kings, pp. 587-
592, and below, p. 326, n. 225. In any case, all its components are
based on the idea of Mcumulative sin".
466 1 Kings 14: 15-16: Mthe LORD wUl smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in
the water, and root up Israel out of this good land...and scatter them
beyond the Euphrates...and he will give Israel up because of the sins
of Jeroboam..... This passage is a Oeuteronomistic addition to
AhiJah's speech (see Montgomery, Kings, p. 266) and appears to be
composed of various elements.
described in a number of ways. This lack of uniformity also
testifies to the continued sense of confusion left by a very !
real and painful awareness of the destruction.
The downfall of the Northern Kingdom was the result of
generations of sin. The great indictment in 2 Kings 17:7-
23
465
lists Israel's transgressions - idolatry, disobeying
God's prophets, making Jeroboam their king and imitating
his sinful ways - throughout its history. Yet the destruction
already expected during Jeroboam's reign
466
was held in
abeyance until the people's sinfulness had run its course.
Here, the sin is considered "cumulative"; thus, it is not
necessary to explain why certain generations are not
punished in spite of their many misdeeds (as in the case of
Omri and his dynasty) and why there is no correspondence
(chronological or otherwise) between the sin and the
behaviour of the one who is pUnished. In fact, we read of
Hoshea, the son of Elah, that "he did what was evil in the
sight of the LORD, yet not as the kings of Israel who were
before him" (2 Kings 17:2). Hoshea's improved behaviour
notwithstanding, it is in his reign that Israel is destroyed.
The sins have been adding up for generations; the final total
alone is important.
The book of Kings explains the destruction of Judah in
two ways, both presented in ..the prophets'" speech in 2
Kings 21:11-15. This speech is a characteristic justification
of the final destruction. To begin with, the destruction of
Jerusalem waS caused by Manasseh's sins:
467 The words Mand has done things more wicked than all that the
Amorites did before him" shift the verse's focus from M a n a s ~ h to the
entire people of Judah, and it is possible that they were added to the
speech (see Montgomery, Kings,p. 522). This addition and the idea
expressed in Gen 15: 16 are part of the same historical outlook. In
Genesis, the Amorites are destroyed only after their sinfulness has
run its course: MAnd they shall come back here in the fourth
generation: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." In
the past, the removal of the Amorites allowed the children of Israel to
occupy Canaan. Now that the latter have outdone the Amorites as
sinners, they will share the same fate: exile and dispossession.
468 See also 2 Kings 23:26-27: 24:3: and Jer 15:4.
469 See also 1Kings 9:6 fIt and 2 Kings 17:7 ff.
159 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
2 Kings 21:11-14: "Because Manasseh... has committed
these abominations, and has done things more wicked than
all that the Amorites did, who were before him,467 and has
made Judah also to sin with his idols; therefore thus says
the LORD, the God of Israel. ..I will wipe Jerusalem as one
wipes a dish... and I will cast off the remnant of my heritage,
and give them into the hand of their enemies... "468
Secondly, the conquest of the land and exile to Babylonia
were caused by the sins of all generations from the Exodus
until the present:
,2 Kings 21:15: "Because they have done what is evil in my
sight and have provoked me to anger, since the days their
fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day. "469
What the two views share is their extensive, detailed
description of the sin - an elaboration necessitated by the
severity of the pUnishment - and the fact that pUnishment
has been delayed. Both explanations (but mainly the first)
are motivated by one goal in particular: to discover who was
"to blame" for the calamity which befell the people. As ad
hoc solutions go, they manage to defer several pressing
questions rather successfully. However, they also raise a
number of new problems, especially in the area of divine
justice.
The principal problem posed by the first explanation is
one of chronology: why did God postpone execution of the
sentence instead of punishing the sinners themselves? A
meaningful response, and one that might withstand critical
religious scrutiny, is the idea that God still hoped that the
YHWH, TIlE GOD OF ISRAEL
158
470 Only Hezekiah merits a simUar appraisal (2 Kings 18:5-6), but Josiah
seems to be considered the more admirable; at any rate, his
repentance is portrayed as being more profound.
471 Jehoiachin was exiled in 597 B.C.E., only twelve years after Josiah's
death in 609. See H. Tadmor, Chronology (Heb.), EB IV, 276.
472 The sin either began to mount up from the Solomon's reign onwards
or even, as in Ezekiel's extreme opinion (20:7 fT.), from the period of
Egyptian bondage.
people would repent and wipe out Manasseh's sin.
Unfortunately, this idea conflicts with the facts.
There was, after all, a national repentance of unparalleled
proportions during the reign of Josiah, which had no effect.
This is the purpose of 2 Kings 23:26 - to assert that the
Temple was indeed destroyed because of Manasseh's
misdeeds, Josiah's reforms notwithstanding: "Still the
WRD did not tum from the fierceness of his great wrath, by
which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all
the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him."
This verse appears immediately after a glowing appraisal of
Josiah and his reign
470
- "Before him there was no king
like him who turned to the LORD with all his heart and
with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the
law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him" (2 Kings
23:25) - and makes the question all the more acute. Why
was Judah destroyed after Josiah's reign - and so soon
after it?471 The theodicy of verse 26 is obvious, but it does
not solve the problem. In fact, God's continued wrath in the
face of such splendid penitence might be considered
somewhat arbitrary, the antithesis of divine justice.
The second view, which explains the destruction as
pUnishment for the people's cumulative stil,472 provides a
better solution to the problem posed by Josiah's reign: even
though the reforms mitigated the sin, they did not wipe it
out. The kings who succeeded Josiah - Jehoiakim and
Zedekiah - more than made up for Josiah's lack of
wickedness, so that the requisite measure of sin was
complete. Since this explanation handles the question of
deferral and that of the punishment's severity more
successfully, it no doubt represents the second stage of
theodicy in the book of Kings.
473 Jer 31:29-30; Ezek 18:2; and see also Lam 5:7: Our fathers Sinned,
and are no more; and we bear their iniqUities."
474 Ezekiel's struggle with divine recompense and retribution _ and the
question of whether he really discusses reward and punishment as
such - has been the subject of extensive scholarship which lies
beyond the scope of this study. See Zlmmerli, Ezekiel, I, pp. 369 fT., as
well as the references on p. 369; Eichrodt, 1'11eology, II, pp. 484-486;
Kaufmann, Religion. II, pp. 595 fr., III, pp. 553-554; M. Weiss, Tarbf.?,
31 (1961/62), 253, 256-259; M. Greenberg, Prolegomenon to: C.C.
Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New York, 1970),
pp. XXV-xxix.
475 Ezek 18; 33: 10-20. Some scholars beUeve that the two passages were
written by different men, one of them a later editor (see Zlmmerli,
Ezekiel, I, p. 158, II, p. 189). In any event, the question of authorship
does not affect our discussion here.
476 Greenberg beUeves that all of Ezekiel's prophecy grapples with the
paramount problem of its time, the destruction of the Temple. Thus,
the entire work is one of theodicy - although Greenberg himself does
not use the term. He explains Ezekiel's description of sins and
161
GOO'S INVOLVEMENT IN TIlE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
However, both explanations raise a further problem: why
is the sinner not punished, and why do those who are
pUnished suffer for something they did not do? The first
part of the question may be answered in terms of divine
grace - God is patient and will wait for the sinner to repent.
It is more difficult to explain why the innocent are
pUnished. Even if they are not completely innocent, does the
punishment fit their own crime? Here we see the root of the
biblical puzzle, ""The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the
children's teeth are set on edge. "473 The real problem is not
.that the fathers' teeth remain untouched, but that the
children, who have eaten no sour grapes, suffer the
consequences. That is why Jeremiah promises that in the
future, "each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be
set on edge." It is Ezekiel who really confronts the
questton;474 his answer is "the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the
wicked shall be upon himself' (18:20). There is no such
thing as cumulative sin or punishing one generation for the
sins of another. Ezekiel provides examples from the realm
of the individual - the righteous man and his son, the
sinner and his son
475
- but his statement of principle
extends the conclusion to divine justice in general. 476
YHWH, TIlE GOD OF ISRAEL 160
TIle concept of divine justice that we find in the book of
Chronicles is essentially the same as Ezekiel's, although
Chronicles does not provide us with a theological dictum.
Nevertheless, the book's outlook may be defined in Ezekiel's
words: -rhe righteousness of the righteous shall be upon
himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
himself." TIle sinner is punished for his sins, the righteous
man receives his d u , ~ , and no onets fate is decided by his
father's actions. The deeds of one generation are not "visited
on" another: any ideology of "the sins of the fathers" or
ancestral merit bn:c n1:>l) has no place in the book.
411
Each
generation is responsible for its deeds and for its own
fate.
418
The book of Chronicles presents a particular
refinement of this basic principle, a refinement that might
be termed ..the imperative of reward and pUnishment". Not
only is man rewarded or pUnished for his deeds - each and
every deed must be requited. That is the unavoidable
consequence of human behaviour.
479
Chronicles does not
allow for the theoretical possibility that a man may sin and
neither he nor his son will be pUnished: every sin must be
punished. For this reason, Chronicles cannot justify the
destruction of the Temple as pUnishment for the sins of
previous generations. The two attempts at theodicy we find
in Kings are omitted altogether. Neither Manasseh's
sinfulness nor the people's cumulative transgression
brought about the Temple's destruction. Only ZedeIdah and
his generation are responsible for the disaster that occurred
in his time.
480
In Chronicles, ..the imperative of reward and pUnishment"
is fully realized. Alongside this idea, a second principle is
introduced, albeit less consistently: Chronicles negates the
idea of collective retribution.
481
The behaviour of one
generation cannot affect the fate of another; now, moreover,
one man's acts cannot determine another's destiny. This
separation comes into playt primarily, in defining the king
and the people as two distinct "individuals," each
responsible for its deeds;482 the people is still thought of in
a collective sense. However, the separation of king and
people is not consistent.
weakening of the sense of duty and of the need to fulfil the
commandments" (p. 497). Cf. also Schechter, Ra.bbinic Theology pp
170 fr. ' .
It may be that Ezekiel also contains Ws belief to a certain degree. It is
possible to conclude from 33: 18-19 and 18: 13 that requital inevitably
follows any human action.
Which is why their sins are described at much greater length in
Chronicles (2 ehr 36: 12-14,16). See also Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p.
474; Greenberg, Ope cu., pp. xxiv-xxv.
See Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 595-596. .
The rise of the indtvldual and the conception of the people as distinct
from their king appear to be the result of sociological influence on
religious thought, and not vice versa. These changes represent the
. decline of the "corporate personality". which was a long, gradual
process. See Eichrodt. Theology, II, pp. 231-167; below. pp. 416 fr.
163 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN mE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
481
482
480
479
YHWH. WE GOD OF ISRAEL
historical outlook In terms of this basic principle. "Ezekiel's
recasting of the past was the only way to bring history under the yoke
of tntell1gibUlty. to show that it followed rules" (Greenberg. Opt cft., p.
xxvlU).
And. indeed. the idea of ancestral merit appears nowhere in
Chronicles. apart from one exceptional case, 2 Chr 21:7 (2 Kings 8: 19).
The effect of the preceding generations' behaviour on the division of
the kingdom as presented in Kings has been discussed above (po 156-
151). The stoxy in Chronicles leaves out this idea: Solomon's sins are
not even mentioned; only Rehoboam's actions are responsible for the
division. Nor does David's merit have any effect on the course of
events (see 2 Chr 10: 1-11; 13:6-7). It would appear that 2 ehr 10: 151s
an inconsistent holdover from 1 Kings 12:15.
The complete negation of "ancestral merit" is therefore a
consequence of the concept of justice, not the product of human or
social factors. In II Esdras, we find the question, "if perchance on the
day of judgment the just will be able to intercede for the wicked or to
plead with the Most High on their behalf - fathers for sons, or
children for parents, or brothers for brothers, relatives for next of
kin...He answered as follows...The day of judgment is decisive, making
clear to all the seal of truth... all will bear. each, then, his own
injustice or justice" (7: 102-105). Concerning the day of judgment, it
will be said: "Intemperance has been abolished. Faithlessness has
been cut off, But justice has grown up, And truth has arisen. Then no
one will be able to have compassion for him who is convicted in the
judgment or to cast down him who is victorious" (7: 114-115). Urbach
discusses the question of "merit" (including "ancestral merit") and its
importance in rabb1n1c thought at great length (The Sages. pp. 496 m.
He desertbes the debate concerning the power of "merit" and comes to
the conclusion that the rabbis made little of this idea because they
"were afraid of too much reliance on this merit and the consequent
478
477
162
(1) The book of Chronicles reshapes Israelite history as a
description of YHWH's direct intervention in the course of
events.
(2) The starting point for this description is one of
theodicy. Israel's history is interpreted in terms of the
principle of divine retribution: the people's deeds determine
its fate, for better or worse.
(3) Chronicles does not attempt to justify a specific
reality, but to present a religiOUS system combining
knowledge, conviction. and faith.
(4) Systematization entails a reworking that is
comprehensive and an explanation of both types of requital,
good and bad.
(5) Chronicles' theodicy is based on a particular concept
of divine justice: it is the sinner who is punished and the
Although, as we have seen, Chronicles' concept of justice
may be compared to that in Ezekiel, a number of differences .'
exist. Two in particular should be mentioned. First, Ezekiel
only discusses reward and punishment in individual terms
_ personal sin and righteousness. Chronicles deals with the
question on the national. historical level that constitutes
the book's principal sphere of interest. Second, Ezekiel
affirms theoretical dicta concerning reward and
pUnishment. He does not describe past or present events; his
focus is the future: ..this proverb shall no more be used by
you in Israel" (Ezek 18:3). He does not attempt to refute the
people's words with evidence from the past; instead, he calls
them to repent and sets out the principles of divine
retribution. Conversely, Chronicles' goal is an accurate,
comprehensive description of the past within the context of
those principles. There are no promises for the future,
whether immediate (Ezekiel) or distant (Jeremiah); what we
find instead is the conviction that divine justice has
actually been realized in human history. This is how God
has acted throughout history of His people. Chronistic
historiography takes the concept of divine justice, as
expressed by Ezekiel, and uses it to reshape the history of
Israel.
To conclude:
righteous man who is rewarded. and the deeds of one
generation are not visited on the next.
(6) Retribution is imperative and, to a certain degree
there is no such thing as "cumulative sin" '
ancestral merit". or
(7) These ideas are not presented as abstract truths b t
as a reworking of the historical narrative. The' ne:
narrative constitutes a description of their realization in
the course of history.
We come now to the question of how history was
reworked.
165 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
D. Reworking the Historical Narrative
According to the Principles of Retribution
The nature of Chronistic historiography is determined
above all, by the fact that it represents a reworking of
existing material. This material determines the text to
very large extent; the writer is not free to portray events
complete adherance to his axioms. A comparison of the
narrative in Chronicles and its parallels in Kings suggests
certain rules governing the reworking and thus the
ChrOnicler's method of moulding the sources to confonn to
his system.
A fundamental assertion of the principle of retribution
phrased in the negative, appears once in Chronicles
the source text has been altered: '
2 Kings 14:6: "But he did not put to death the children of
the murderers; according to what is written in the book of
the law of Moses. where the LORD commanded, The fathers
shall not be put to death for the children. or the children be
put to death for the fathers; but every man be put to death
(Qere. Ketib: shall die) for his own sin."
2 Chr 25:4: "But he did not put their children to death
according to what is written in the law. in the book of
Moses. where the LORD commanded. The fathers shall not r
die for the children, or the children die for the fathers but
every man shall die for his own sin:"
YHWH. TI-IE GOD OF ISRAEL
164
In Kings, the two parts of the story are
consistent. Amaziah does not execute the conspirators
children because "children shall not be put to death for the
fathers." The rule cited is perfectly appropriate to this
judicial situation involving the conviction and execution of
political insurgents. It appears as a law in Deut 24: 16: lhe
fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall
the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall
be put to death for his own sin." The Chronistic version
contains a seemingly minor change: the verb n"'0 is put in
the qal (In,o') rather than in the hoph'al (lno,') (- in English,
"die" instead of "be put to death"). Yet this small change
extends the rule's validity from the purely judicial execution
of punishment to pUnishment in general. 483 It is now not
merely a legal ruling affecting the court, but a statement of
principle involVing PrOVidence -. one feature of divine
justice.
An examination of Chronicles' reworking of historical
events shows that
(1) in the case of any transgression (described as such in
Samuel-Kings or conceived as such by the Chronicler), an
appropriate pUnishment is added by the Chronicler;484
(2) whenever righteousness or piety is displayed with no
mention of recompense, the Chronicler adds a fitting
reward; 485
(3) every difficulty, afiltction, and defeat is automatically
perceived as retribution, For this reason, when any incident
which might be a punishment remains unexplained, the
ChrOnicler adds a suitable s1o;486
(4) every success, whether personal or public, is considered
a reward, Whenever a possible reward is mentioned without
the appropriate causes for it, the Chronicler provides the
source of merit;487
(5) if two occurrences, one a possible sin, the other an
apparent punishment, are described independently, the
485 Such as: the peace, security, prosperous buUding, and milibuy success
enjoyed dUring the reigns of Asa (2 Chr 14:5-7,11-14; 15:15) and
Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:2-5,10-19; 20:1-30); Jehoiada's long life and
burial in the city of David among the kings -because he had done
good in Israel" (2 Chr 24: 15-16); the prosperity and milibuy victories
in the time of Uzztah (2 Chr 26:6-15), Jotham (2 Chr 27:3-6), and
Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:27-30).
486 Asa's double sin - his treatment ofHanant the seer (2 Chr 16:10) and
his seeking help from physicians instead of YHWH (2 Chr 16: 12) _
explains why his feet became diseased and he ultimately died of this
illness. Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahaziah leads to their ships
being wrecked (2 Chr 20:35-37, where the order of events differs from
that in Kings). The sins committed by Joash and the people dUring
his reign account for his defeat by Aram and subsequent
assassination (2 Chr 24:17-19,21-22,24,25). It is because Amaziah
worships Edomite gods and sUences YHWH's prophet that he is
defeated by Joash king of Israel and killed by conspirators (2 Chr
25: 14-16,27). Uzziah's behaviour in the Temple explains why he is
stricken with leprosy (2 Chr 26: 16-20). Josiah's sin of ignoring God's
message via Pharaoh Neeo explains his defeat at Megtddo (2 Chr
35:22). Finally, the many sins of Zedekiah and his contemporaries
provide an explanation for the destruction of the Temple (2 Chr
36:12-16).
487 The beginning of Rehoboam's reign is portrayed as God-fearing to
explain the four years of peace and prosperity (2 Chr 11:5-23; and see
discussston below). The penitence of Rehoboam and Judah provides
an explanation for the outcome of Shishak's campaign (2 Chr
12:6,7,12); Abtjah's good deeds account for his defeat of Jeroboam (2
Chr 13: 10-12); Jehoshaphat's appeal to God saves him dUring the war
(2 Chr 18:31); Amaziah vanqUishes the Edomites because he behaved
properly (2 Chr 25:7-10); Manasseh's repentance explains why his
reign ended successfully and he himself lived a long life (2 Chr 33: 12-
13).
167
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN TIlE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
YHWH, TI-lE GOD OF ISRAEL
On the difference between -put to death" (by an earthly court) and
-die- (a fate determined on high), see Ibn Ezra's comment:aIy to Exod
21:12 and Deut 24:16, as well as Rashbam's interpretation of the
latter verse. The relation in biblical thought between -the fathers
shall not be put to death for the children- and "visiting the iniqUity
of the fathers upon the children" (Exod 20:5) is discussed by M.
Greenberg, "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law," Y. Kaufmann
JubUee Volume (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 20-26. Greenberg does not
include the evidence from Chronicles.
Thus the following pUnishments are added: Israel's defeat by Abijah
and Jeroboam's untimely death are pUnishment for Jeroboam's sins
and the kingdom of Israel's rebellion against the Davidic (2
Chr 13: 17-20); the promise that -from now on you will have wars is
pUnishment for ABa's appeal to Arant for help and his lack of faith in
YHWH (2 Chr 16:7-9); Jehoram and Judah are punished severely for
their sins (2 Chr 22: 16-19); the milit:aIy defeats suffered by Ahaz are
punishment for his sins (2 Chr 28: 17 ffl; and Manasseh is punished
with exile and humiliation (2 Chr 33: 11).
484
483
166
(1) Rehoboam. There is one outstanding piece of
information in Kings' account of Rehoboam's reign: in the
fifth year of his reign, Shishak attacked Jerusalem and
carried off the king's treasure and the riches in the Temple
(1 Kings 14:25-28). This fact might give rise to a number of
conclusions on the Chronicler's part, given his outlook and
principles: (a) The attack itself is a punishment and
therefore implies a prior misdeed. (b) Since Shishak attacks
488 Such as the connection between: Saul's transgression and his death
(l Cm 10: 13-14); Rehoboam's sins and Shishak's campaign (2 Chr
12:2.5); Jehoram's sins and the revolts by Edom and Libnah (2 Chr
21:10); Ahaz' sins and his defeat (2 Cm 28:19).
489 Also 2 Cm 12:7.12; 13:18; 15:15; 16:8; 17:3-5; 24:24.
490 At first glance. it seems as though the principle of retribution comes
into play from' the time of Rehoboam onwards and the book's
approach to history could be divided into two periods. only one of
which employs the criterion of retribution. However. this dUTerence
stems only from the fact that, in Chronicles' account. no sins mar the
reigns of David and Solomon, a period portrayed as a time of peace
and prosperity, of building and expansion. The ups and downs of
reward and punishment become far more noticeable after the
monarchy is divided.
ChroniCler makes a causal coIUlection between the two.
4BB
In all these inStances. the Chronicler does not alter the
historical facts in his sources; he merely explainS them
according to his system. For the most part. he relates one
fact from his sources and provides the misSing corollary. In
the rema1JliI1g cases. both elements are present in the source
text, and the Chronicler provides the causal link.
The principle of cause and effect is evident throughout
Chronicles (although not operative in every single incident).
Not only Implied by the course of events. it is also stated
explicitly: "From the time when he turned away from the
WRD they made a conspiraCY against him" (2 Chr 25:27) or
'"we have sought the LORD our God: we have sought him, and
he has given us peace on every side" (2 Chr 14:7 [Heb.,
14:61l.
489
The stories of three kings may be used as a detailed
illustration of the Chronicler's method: Rehoboam, Abijah,
and Joash.
490
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
Wellhausen, Prolegomena p 204' Rudol h
Rudolph discusses the h PI' Chronik, pp. 233-234.
description of Asa's reign in d taU ( c og1cal structure of the
systems 1n Chronicles merit e
1mt1
pp. 39-240); all the chronological
H
s ar examination
ere, the kings "rebel" (n'D)' 1 .
("forsook", "were unfaithful to")'I n
th
2 Chr 12:2, the term is "'))/D"
th . n ese contexts the two rd h
e same meaning. See Josh 22:22 and 18: 19; 29:31. wo s ave
492
491
169
in the fifth year of Rehoboam's
punishment cannot lag to f b reign, and since a
implIcation is that no sin 0 ar ehind its cause, the
. years of the reign. (c) committed in the early
disastrous, something must h he attack is not all that
pUnishment. ave appened to mitigate the
Given these assumption th .
story is almost to be exp Chronistic version of the
the fifth year of King date of the attack - Min
new chronological framework' th provides the basis for a
-year, the sin in the f rth e attack occurs in the fifth
Rehoboam's reign were f' first three years of
2 Chr 11: 17: Mfor the walk
o
0 e ience to God. Thus:
David and Solomonft. y ed for three years In the way of
2 Chr 12: 1: "'When'the rul f
and was strong, he forsook was established
Israel with him'" e aw 0 the LORD, and all
2 Chr 12: 12 the fifth
unfaithful to the LORD ..because they had been
against Jerusalem." ' s a king of Egypt came up
!rom a literary
they had served Ched-or-Iaomer en 14.4-5. 'Twelve years
they rebelled.
492
In the fourteenili
but
inthe thirteenth year
the kings who were with him year Ched-or-laomer and
imil
came and, subdued "Th
s arity is also evident In She' M ... e
be servants to him, that they m::
h
s words: they shall
service of the kingdoms of th y ow my service and the
Service of YHWH brin s the e countries" (2 Chr 12:8).
whereas forsaking peace and prosperity,
Mthe service of the kin dom ce
f
ea s to ,a pUnitive attack,
oppression, and destructon. s 0 the countries": vassalage,
The attack led to loss and destruction, but not to total
YHWH. nIE GOD OF IsRAEL
168
ruin For the Chronicler, this may mean that something
must have intervened to forestall annihilation, and so he
k
rtain
additi
ons First he puts words expressing his
ma es ce .' ah' --r1... ys the
inion into the mouth of Shemai . J. uus sa
own op'You have abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to
of Shishak'" (2 Chr 12:5).493 comes the
the h f the kin and his people - the princes of
king humbled themselves and said,
i: righteous'" (v. 6). Although Shishak
i l
l ....... ted as the prophet has foretold.
attacks his success s lUll , th
-rI- h e humbled themselves: I will not destroy em,
J.uey av 11 and my wrath shall
but I will grant them some de verance, "
not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shlshak
(v.7). th t t
The fact of Shishak's campaign also explainS e s ruc ure
of 2 Chr 11:5-22. The Chronicler sees prosperity and
military success as rewards. Therefore, in prefacing
494 Despite Alt's opinion that the cities listed were built in Josiah's time.
it would appear that these cities do in fact date from the reign of
Rehoboam, as Beyer argues - A. Alt. "Festungen und Lev1tenorte 1m
Lande Juda," KS, II (l953). 306-315; G. Beyer, "Das Festungssystem
Rehabeams," ZDPV. 54 (1931), 113-134. However. they would have
been built after Shishak's attack.
495 See 1 Chr 26:4-5: "And Obed-edom had sons...for God blessed him."
Once again, however, this list must be assigned to the end of
Rehoboam's reign. According to Noth (Studien. p. 143), and Rudolph
(Chronlk, p. 233), it is post-Chronistic.
496 Including the Deuteronom1stic framework in 2 ehr 12:13-16, which
Shishak's campaign with three years of obedience to YHWH,
he prOVides an appropriate spot for other data at his
disposal and includes the construction of the fortified cities
(2 Chr 11:5-12) at this point,494 By these means, the
Chronicler is able to attribute national prosperity to the
people's piety, to magnify Shishak's attack by adding that
"he took the fortified cities of Judah" (2 Chr 12:4), and to
suggest that everything achieved thanks to the people's
obedience to YHWH was lost when they abandoned Him. In
the same way, the list of women and children is included
because it is assumed that fertility indicates blessing and
Rehoboam's blessings were confined to the first years of his
reign.
495
The question of divine justice affects the description of
Shishak's campaign in another way. Since the attack
injured both Rehoboam and the people (2 Chr 12:4), the
ChrOnicler makes a point of mentioning both the king's
behaviour and that of the princes and people: "he forsook
the law of the LORD, and all Israel with him" (2 Chr 12: 1):
"because they had been unfaithful to the LORD" (v. 2): ..then
the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves" (v.6):
and, in summation, "when he humbled himself the wrath of
the LORD turned from him, so as not to make a complete
destruction: in Judah, too, good things were found" (v. 12). A
most important aspect of the story, the fate of the entire
people, is not determined by the king's behaviour. It is the
people who sin and are pUnished, repent and are pardoned.
Rehoboam is responsible for his fate, the people for theirs.
Thus, the Chronicler begins with the facts concerning
Rehoboam's reign found in the book of Kings.
496
He
171 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
YHWH. TI-lE OOD OF ISRAEL
The wording of this verse emphasiZes that in this case, divine
retribution takes the form of "measure for measure". There is a
perfect formal correspondence between the punis'hment and the
crime _ "you have abandoned me, so I have abandoned you." (See
S.E. Loewenstam.m. "Measure for Measure" [Heb.], EB IV. 845-846.) The
writer plays on the double meaning of the verb ::a"1)' (see D. Yellin,
Selected Writings (Heb. Jerosalem 1938/391, pp. 86-106). 'Ole first part
of the sentence uses the ::a"t)' in its simple meaning - "abandon"; in
the second part, 'f1::I::a", means "to hand over". Cf. Ps 37:33: Neh 9:28.
We find a few other examples of this sort of correspondence between
crime and punishment in Chronicles. such as "because you have
forsaken the LORD, he has forsaken you" (2 Chr 24:20). The most
fully-developed case appears in 2 Chr 30:6-9: "O.people of Israel,
return (1::a,..,) to the LORD...that he may tum again (::a",,,) to the remnant
of you...serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may tum away
(::a,,,,) from you. For if you return (o:::a,..,::a) to the LORD, your brethren
and your children will find compassion with their captors, and
return (::a',,')") to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and
merciful. ..if you return (1::a""n) to him." The root ::a",," has several
connotations. It describes the people's behaviour: returning
sptrttually - in penitence (w. 6.9) and physically - from exile (v. 9)
The verb is also used of God, who will tum again to the remnant (v. 6)
and tum away his anger (v. 8). A tum to God will bring the turning
away of dtvtne wrath and return from exile. The use of the root ""::a",
which bears an external resemblance to ::a",.." heightens the effect. See
also 2Chr 25: 16 (which plays on the root 'f)")
493
170
considers these facts in the light of his particular concept of
divine justice and proceeds to create a new framework. He
fills this framework out with additional material - some of
his own creation, some based on other sources at his
disposal. In the end, the story of Rehoboam is moulded into
a finished product perfectly in keeping with the Chronicler's
special historical outlook. 497
(2) AbfJah. The book of Kings contains a very brief account
of Abijah's reign. It comprises certain standard details:
498
synchronism vis-a-vis the Northern Kingdom, the length of
his reign, and his mother's name (1 Kings 15: 1-2); the source
of data concerning Abijah, his death and burial place, and
the accession of his son (15:7-8). The account also includes a
negative appraisal of Abijah's reign with reference to that of
David (15:3-5) and the comment that he and Rehoboam were
constantly at war with Jeroboam (15:6,7b).
In addition to the story in Kings, the Chronicler had two
pieces of Jnfonnation fromother sources at his disposal: the
fact that Abijah defeated Jeroboam in battle (2 Chr 13: 19)
and the number of Abijah's wives, sons, and daughters (2
does not pertain to our discussion here.
497 Rudolph discusses the history of Asa along similar lines, showing
how the structure and chronology combine information from Kings
with the principle of retribution, together with details from other
sources (ChronIk, pp. 239-242). We might add that in the stOly of Asa,
the Chronicler almost always distinguishes between Asa's deeds and
the people's behaviour. For example, at the beginning of the reign, the
people are recompensed for their piety: -'we have sought the LORD our
God: we have sought him and he has given us peace on evety side.' So
they built and prospered- (2 Chr 14:7 [Heb., 14:6). Although the
initiative is Asa's, the entire people participate and therefore deserve
the reward. The reform in Chapter 15 also represents a national
endeavour for which the people are rewarded: -and the LORD gave
them rest round aboue (v. 15). However, Asa alone is responsible for
the appeal to Aram (16:7) and improper treatment of Hanani (16: 10),
and he alone is punished: -Asa was diseased in his feet, and his
disease became severe- (16: 12). Once he is affi1cted, Asa continues to
sin by consulting doctors and, as punishment, dies of his illness
(16: 12-13). This story, too, carefully ensures that it is the sinner who
is punished.
498 See Driver, Introduction, p. 186.
173 OOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN TIlE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
(3) Joash. Joash is described in Kings as doing "what was
right in the eyes of the LORD all his days" (2 Kings 12:2
[Heb., 12:3]).502 Yet immediately after Joash works
energetically at repairing the Temple (vv. 4-16 [Heb., 5-17]),
he is defeated by Hazael king of Amm (vv. 17-18 [18-19]) and
murdered by his servants (vv. 20-21 [21-22]).
This course of events raises serious problems for the
Chronicler. How could a king who had been described so
499 Wellhausen emphatically denies the historical accuracy of these data
(Prolegomena, pp. 209-210), but Oraf believes that they are reliable
(Die Geschlchtlfchen Bucher, p. 137; likewise Rudolph, Chronik, pp.
235-237, 239). More recently, Welten has denied the historicity of the
entire story (Chronik, pp. 122-129).
500 1 Kings 15:1,2,7-8 - 2 Chr 13:1-2,22-23. The framework is altered in
two respects: the name of Abijah's mother (v. 2), which has been the
subject of much discussion (see Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 231-233), and
the source of -the rest of the acts of Abyah- (v. 22). References to
sources in Chronicles always differ from those in Kings.
501 2 Chr 12:14: 14:1: 15:17: 20:32-33; 21:6: 22:4; 24:2: 25:2; 26:4; 27:2:
28:1-4: 29:2: 33:2-9,22: 34:2: 36:5,9,12 fT. The only other king whose
assessment has been omitted is Jehoahaz the son of Josiah (2 Chr
36:2). In the case of Jehoahaz, the omission may be explained by the
extreme brevity of this king's history in Chronicles.
502 The words -because Jehoiada the priest instructed him- do not lessen
the period of Jehoash's righteousness in any way: rather, they
explain the form his good behaviour took and the reason for it (cf.
Burney, Kings, pp. 312-313).
Chr 13:21).499 The Chronicler would see these two details as
divine recompense and would therefore regard as impossible
the contradictory Deuteronomistic assessment that Abijah
""walked in all the sins which his father did before him; and
his heart was not wholly true to the WRD" (1 Kings 15:3).
Thus, when the Chronicler reworks the infonnation from
Kings and incorporates the Deuteronomistic framework, 500
he omits his source's appraisal of Abijah's reign. Instead, he
expresses a positive appraisal by means of the king's speech
and the description of his victory (2 Chr 13:10-11,18,21).
Because of this omission, the description of Abijah's reign
differs from all other Chronistic accounts of the kings of
Judah: all the others retain the Deuteronomistic assessment
in Kings verbatim or with minor changes.501
YHWH, TIlE GOD OF ISRAEL 172
503 See Rudolph, Chronik. p. 273.
504 It is difficult to believe that the Chronicler "invented" the story of
Zechariah: more likely, he found it in one of his sources. Although
this assessment does nothing to establish the tradition's historicity,
it does illustrate the way in which various elements were
incorporated into an ideological framework.
505 Curtis writes: "Thus the Chronicler brings upon the princes a just
retribution for their seduction of Joash into idolatry" (Chronicles, p.
438).
506 It is hard to know what is meant by "from among the people" (0)'1':)).
The reading of LXX - "among the people" (apparently the result of
the interchange of a:l and a 1':)) - does not make things any clearer.
positively come to such an unhappy end? In order to solve
the problem, he divides Joash's reign into two periods.
503
The turning point comes with the death of J ehoiada the
priest: in Jehoiada's lifetime, king and people benefit from
his influence (2 Chr 24:2-16), but after his death, the
influence and its positive effects on the reign of Joash end (2
Chr 24: 17-27). The importance of this division is also
expressed in the story's structure. In Kings, the first part of
Joash's reign occupies seventeen verses, whereas the second
is described in only five. The Chronicler doubles the second
part, thereby creating a balanced description. In the second
part of Joash's reign, the king forsakes YHWH and, under
the influence of his princes, begins to worship idols (2 Chr
24:17-18). Punishment does not follow immediately; in the
beginning, prophets are sent to admonish and warn him.
These prophets are described twice - once in a general way
- "he sent prophets among them to bring them back to the
WRD; these testified against them, but they would not give
heed" (2 Chr 24: 19) - and once in the specific case of
Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2 Chr 24:20). Joash's
reaction to Zechariah adds insult to injury - or vice versa:
he orders that the prophet be stoned in the Temple court (2
Chr 24:21).504
After the prophets have been sent, suitable consequences
of Joash's deeds are deSCribed. The Aramean attack begins
directly "at the end of the year" (2 Chr 24:23). The attack
has a threefold effect: it affects the princes
505
- "and
destroyed all the princes of the people from among the
people,506 and sent all their spoil to the king of Damascus"
(24:23); the people - ..though the Aramean anny had come
with few men, the LORD delivered into their hand a very
great anny, because they had forsaken the WRD the God of
their fathers" (24:24); and the king himself - 'lh.us they
executed judgment on Joash" (24:24). In this way, every
sinner is pUnished for his sins. However, Joash commits
two sins: he forsakes YHWH, ignoring the prophets'
indictment, and he is responsible for the death of
Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. Therefore, he is pUnished
twice, once by means of the Aramean army - ..they executed
judgment on Joash...they departed from him, leaving him
severely wounded"507 (2 Chr 24:24-25) - and once by means
of his own servants - "his servants conspired against him
because of the blood of the sons
508
of Jehoiada the priest,
and slew him on his bed" (v. 25).
Thus the ChrOnicler assembles and fits together his data
from the book of Kings and other sources. He creates a solid
structure whereby the life of Joash testifies to the inevitable
role of diVine justice in the course of history.
When all of history becomes theodicy, two aspects of
religious thought aret greatly emphaSized: (a) Belief in diVine
providence, both general and specific, becomes absolute: God
is omniscient, and nothing escapes his justice. Justice and
prOVidence alike are absolute. (b) Human moral
responSibility is of prime importance. Man becomes master
of his fate; his actions are responsible for whatever befalls
him. Moreover, these actions are the result of his free
choice. 509
These two foci raise certain questions. Given that diVine
justice is speedy and alI-embraCing, what place is there for
175
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN mE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
Perhaps it is the result of dittography.
The Hebrew word O " ~ D (the plural of ' ' ' I ~ ' ' ' D ) is a hapax legomerwn. The
root n ' ~ may also exl>ress wounding, as in 1Kings 22:34; 2 Kings 8:29.
LXX reads "son": the corruption in MT seems to be the result of
dittography of the yod. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 276.
A few isolated verses in Chronicles indicate that man does not have
complete freedom of choice and that his temperament has been
detennmed by God. See 1Chr 22: 12: 29: 18-19: 2Chr 30: 12; and below
pp. 264-255 fIt '
507
508
509
YHWH, TIlE GOD OF ISRAEL
174
tance? Can it have any effect? If, at the same
detennines his fate, divine action fbehciomtes
, A ly mechanical view 0 s ory
a series of reactions. pure ld b me of divine
ld be possible What, then, wou eco
wou i ty? The book of Chronicles consistently stresses
sovere gn . f Hi wUI
510
His
that God's actions are the direct .. ..trial"
sovereignty is exemplified by means 0 e
_ an initiative controlled completely by God. d
These questions bring us to discusS (a) warning an
repentance and (b) God's testing of man.
E. Wa.rnJng and Repentance
In Chronicles, the call to repentance is the responsibility
of prophets. They have a twofold role; in addition t,? calling
the people to repent, they also admonish them: He sent
prophets among them to bring them back to the LORD: they
admonished them..." (2 Chr 24:19).
The definition of the prophet's task as the call to
repentance appears in the prose passages of Jeremiah,511 as
in ..the LORD... sent to you all his servants the prophets,
saying, "Tum now, every one of you, from his evil way and
wrong doings'" (Jer 25:4-5).512 Similarly, the role of the
"former prophets" is described in this way by Zechariah:
"Be not like your fathers, to whom the former prophets
cried out...'Return from your evil ways and from your evil
deeds'" (zech 1:4).513
Ezekiel's prophecy defines the prophet as one who
warns. 514 Like watchman whose duty it is to warn the
people of a military attack (Ezek 33: 1-6), the prophet must
warn the Israelites that their evil deeds will be requited: the
wicked (3: 18-19: 33:8-9) and the righteous who have strayed
(3:20) must therefore change their ways.515
177 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
here), see Zimmerli, I. pp. 57-58,60.
On the prophet's role as watchman, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, II, p. 190
and the bibliographical references on p. 179.
The form 1')ln, derived from the root ""')I, first signified a warning or
admonition involving repetition. At a later stage, as a denominative
vprb from ")I (-witness
W
), it came to mean -to enjoin witnesses
w
(KOhler-Baumgartner, pp. 685-686). See I.L. Seel1gmann, Zur
Terminologie fOr das Gerichtsverfahren, W Festsch. W. Baumgartner
(SVT, XVI, Leiden, 1967), pp. 265-266. For an account of the semantic
development that differs (particularly with regard to the verb's
meaning as -admonition
W
), cf. BDB, pp. 723,729-730: see also below,
p. 187, n. 554.
On the textual problems of this verse, see Montgomery (Kings, p. 478)
and Gray (Kings, p. 587).
Wellhausen acknowledges that many prophets appear in Chronicles
but he believes that their principal function was the interpretation of
history in the light of the Chronicler's theory of retribution: "They
connect the deeds of men with the events of the course of the world,
and utilize the sacred history as a theme for their preaching, as a
collection of examples illustrative of the promptest operation of the
518
517
516
515
Late biblical literature combines the prophet's two roles:
he warns the people and calls them to repent.
(al Neh 9:26-30: ... killed thy prophets, who had
warned516 them in order to tum them back to thee...And
thou dldst warn them in order to tum them back to thy law.
Yet they acted presumptuously...Thou didst...warn them by
thy spirit through thy prophets; yet they would not give
ear."
(b) 2 Kings 17:13: "Yet the WRD warned Israel and Judah
by every prophet and every seer,517 saying, Tum from your
evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes. '"
2 Chr 24:19, discussed above, may also be included.
In the book of Chronicles, the prophet's call to repentance
represents an historical fact and an integral element in the
course of events. At various times in the people's history -
and always in times of crisis - prophets appear and charge
the people or king to refonn.
518
YHWH, TIlE GOD OF ISRAEL
See above, pp. 125 fT.
The question of the origins of these passages does not concern us
here. Cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, pp. 217-218; A. Rofe, -Studies on
the Composition of the Book of Jeremiah
w
(Heb.), 44
(1974/75), 1iI.
Likewise Jer 26:3-5: 29: 19: 35: 15: 44:4: etc.
Zech 7:7-12 expresses the same idea, although without using the word
-return
w

Ezek 3:16-21: 33:1-9. The root ,"m ("mn - -warn

W
) is found twenty-four
times in the Bible, including fifteen occurrences in these verses. On
the relation between the two passages (which does not concern us
514
512
513
510
511
176
righteousness of Jehovah- (Prolegomena, p. 203). However,
Wellhausen 18 mistaken in his view of the prophets' role. They are
not theoreticians of reltgion or interpreters of history; their job is to
preach repentance. Welch also does not appear to take this role into
account (Chronicler, pp. 42-54). See Rudolph, Chronfk, p. xx; Willi
provides an extensive discussion of the prophets' importance in
Chronicles (Auslegw1g, pp. 216-244); see also Newsome, JBL, 94 (1975),
212-213.
519 And also 2 Chr 25:7-8; 28:9-11.
520 And 2 Chr 12:7-8; 16:7.
521 Such as 2 Chr 12: 12 - WAnd when he humbled himself the wrath of
the LORD turned from him. so as not to make a complete destruction;
in Judah, too, good things were found
w
- and many other examples.
See WOO, Ausle9ung, 217-222.
In terms of formulation and structure, prophecies may be
said to take two forms. Some of them contain an explicit
call to repent and refonn, for example, "But you, take
courage! Do not let your hands be for your work shall
be rewarded" (2 Chr 15:7).519 Others merely explain events,
showing the connection between actions and consequences:
"Because you have joined with Ahaziah, the LORD will
destroy what you have made" (2 Chr 20:37). Prophecies of
this type, in tum, take two forms. They may explain an
event after it has occurred, as in 2 Chr 19:2-3:
520
"Should
you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD?
Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the
LORD. Nevertheless some good is found in you, for you
destroyed the Asherahs out of the land, and have set your
heart to seek God." These explanations are really no
dtfIerent from those which the Chronicler himself includes
in his narrative;521 the fact that they are given by prophets
is merely a means of creating a rhetorical-poetic style and
enhancing their authority. The second and most common
type of explanatory prophecy provides the explanation
before an event or while it occurs. This explanation is, in
reality, an implicit call to repentance. Shemaiah appears to
be relating facts when he prophesies, '"TI1us says the LORD,
"You have abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the
hand of Shishak'" (2 Chr 12:5), yet his prophecy convinces
the people to return to YHWH: '"Then the princes of Israel
and the king humbled themselves and said, errhe LORD is
178
YHWH, nlE GOD OF ISRAEL
GOO's INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL 179
righteous'" (v. 6). Azariah the
words to Asa -"But you tak son of Oded concludes his
be weak" (2 Chr 15'7) 'H e courage! Do not let your hands
out the call to cohnclusion only spells
facts: lhe LORD is with c n is statement of the
seek him, he will be whfie you are with him. If you
will forsake you" (2 Chr but if you forsake him, he
represent God's reaction t h' ). The very idea that events
return to Him. 0 uman deeds demands that man
Other prophecies in Chro I
. the same way. When zecha:
c
es should be understood in
do you transgress the comm h
d
son of Jehoiada says, UWhy
you cannot pros er? an ments of the LORD, so that
he has forsaken forsaken the LORD,
situation. He is crying out for . h ' e is not explaining the
Amaziah appears to be asking c ange. The prophet sent to
resorted to the gods of a a question - -why have you
own people from your not deliver their
understands what is meant. Both:m - but the king
we made you a royal counsell :ztah s reaction (Have
concluding words ("I know th or?) and the prophet's
destroy you because you h at God has determined to
in verse 16 show that ave listened to my counsel")
and was received as such on was intended as advice
questions or analyses of of this type are not
to change the situation. a on, their real purpose is
The Chronicler also menti n
them. It is taken for granted without quoting
bring the people back to God.
522
e prophets were sent to
We see the importance of the h'
the waym which the king d prop et s role in the fact that
a decIsive effect on their :e react to him may have
men listen to Shemaiah J' Rehoboam and his
destruction (2 Chr 12' 6 ' ff ,em is saved from utter
prophecy and the .; resionse to Azariah's
period of peace (2 Chr 15'S ona refonn lead to a
treatment of Hanani the ., . However, the king's
filness and, ultimately, cause of Asa's
r 16.10 ff.). Joash is
522 As in 2 Chr33:10,18; 36:15; and elsewhere.
assassinated by conspirators because he had Zechariah
stoned (2 Chr 24:25), and Amaziah suffers the same fate : ~ ~
not listening to the prophet sent to him (2 Chr 25:16 fI.).
The sins of Manasseh and his generation and later of .
Zedekiah include ignoring the words of God's prophets (2
Chr 33: 10: 36: 12). Among the reasons given for the
Babylonian conquest, rebelling against the prophets is
considered a particularly grave sin:
524
"but they kept
mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and
scoffing at his prophets, tlll the wrath of the LORD rose
against his people, till there was no remedy" (2 Chr 36: 16). It
is the people's attitude towards God's prophets which fllis
the quota of sins and brings them to a point of no return,
"tlll there was no remedy."
Chronicles does not only suggest a correct attitude towards
prophecy in the way events are described; we also find an
explicit statement of principle in Jehoshaphat's
exhortation' "Believe in the WRD your God, and you will be
established; believe his prophets, and you will succeed" (2
Chr 20:20). With this deliberate paraphrase of Isaiah Usa
7:20), the Chronicler transforms belief in prophets into an
essential of religious faith
525
and, in doing so, departs from
earlier views on prophecy. Deuteronomy cautions the people
not to believe in prophets or prophecy as such but to
consider only the content of a prophetic message (Deut 13:2-
6); yet, in Chronicles, they are told: "believe his
prophets. "526
The book of Chronicles accords prophets an unusually
important role in history. It is true that Deuteronomistic
historiography mentions many prophets:527 in terms of
typology, Chronistic prophets do resemble those who
proclaim the beliefs of the Deuteronomistlc redactor.
52
8
However, there are also significant differences between the
two groups of prophets - differences in what they say and
in their historical role. What is the source of the
phenomenon in Chronicles?
The answer would appear to be Obvious. The call to
,repentance is the essence or substance of classical
prophecy.529 We see this even before the prophet's role is
defined, and it is clearly the case after Jeremiah and
Zechariah prOvided a definition. One would assume, given
the provenance of Chronicles, that the prophets' function,
as well as the content of their prophecies, would be
patterned after the classical mode1. 530 Yet the literary
prophets play no part in the Chronicler's narrative.
Kaufmann emphasizes this phenomenon in Kings.
53
1
527 Theman of God- (1 Sam 2:27 fT.); Samuel (l Samuel 3 fT.); Gad (l Sam
22:5 and elsewhere); Nathan (2 Samuel 12 and elsewhere); Ahijah the
Shilonite (lKings 11:29-39; 14); Shemaiah the prophet (l Kings 12:22-
24); the man of God from Bethel (1 Kings 13); Jehu the son of Hanam
(l Kings 16: 1-4); Elijah (1 Kings 17 fT.); Mica1ah the son of Imlah (l
Kings 22); Elisha (2 Ittngs 2 fT.); Jonah the son of Amittal (2 Kings
14:25); Isaiah (2 Kings 19-20); and Huldah the prophetess (2 Kings
22:14).
528 On the function and importance of prophecy in the Deuteronomistic
redaction, see I.L. Seeligmann, Aetiological Elements in Biblical
Historiography- (Heb.) , Zion.. 26 (1960/61), 167-169; Weinfeld, Fonner
Prophets, pp. 56 fr.
529 Kaufmann, Religion.. III, p. 37: -rhe prophets were sent to Israel to
protest the desecration of YHWH's covenant... but their mission was
not one of protest alone. It was their duty to convince the people to
repent.- See also pp. 88, 144, 266, and entries in the index.
530 Although Willi expfains the prophet's role in Chronicles differently,
he does believe that, in the matter of repentance, it is based on
classical prophecy (Auslegung, p. 223).
531 See Religion.. I, pp. 25-26: ... the historical books make absolutely no
mention of literary prophecy. The book of Kings does not mention
any literary prophet other than Isaiah, who appears not as preacher
but as soothsayer, physician, and miracle-worker... Had the prophetic
books not been preserved, we would not even know from Kings that
181
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN mE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
YHWH, mEGOD OF ISRAEL
Chronicles describes two sins and two punishments at the end of
Amaziah's reign. The punishments are taken from Kings (2 Kings
14:8-14,19), but the Chronicler has added the sins: worshipping
Edomite gods (2 Chr 25: 14) and mistreating the prophet (v. 16). The
punishments are (1) military defeat by Joash, king of Israel, and the
looting of Jerusalem's treasuries (vv. 17-24) and (2) the king's
assassination (vv. 27-28). It is not clear which sin is responsible for
which punishment.
See Welch, Chronicler, p. 42.
Cf. Willi, Auslegung, pp. 227-228.
It would seem that the change in historical circumstances led to this
departure. In the context of Deuteronomy 13, prophecy still occurred
and represented a real problem; by the time of Chronicles, it was a
tradition.
524
525
526
523
180
However, although it might be said of Kings that classical
prophecy had no real influence because -the books of the
prophets as we know them only became sacrosanct at a later
date,"532 this explanation cannot be applied to a book as
late as Chronicles. Furthermore, in order to provide the
narrative with a continuous prophetic tradition, the
Chronicler includes all the prophets mentioned in Kings
(apart from Elisha and Jonah ben Amittai). He even moves
some of them from Israel to Judah as the need arises.
533
He
also mentions prophets who do not appear in Kings,534
includes anonymous prophets,535 and sometimes transmits
prophetic messages via men who are not prophets.
536
Yet
the literary prophets do not figure in his narrative:
Jeremiah alone is mentioned.
537
Since it cannot be that
these prophets were unknown in his time, we must assume
that the Chronicler was aware of them but made a conscious
distinction between classical literary and non-classical
prophecy and included only the latter in his work. The
many verses of classical prophecy quoted by the Chronicler,
particularly in his speeches,538 prove his familiarity with
this corpus. However, quotations from the prophets
constitute only a small portion of the Chronicler's biblical
citations and, most significantly, they do not include the
prophetic call to repentance. It would seem, then, that the
Chronistic prophet's role as a preacher of reform was not
shaped by the idea in claSSical prophecy. The role expresses
a religious principle, but that principle comes from legal,
Theman of God" in 2 Chr 25:7-9, the prophet in 2 Chr 25:15-16, and
the seers in 2 Chr 33: 18,19. (Ibe troublesome 'M in 33: 19 seems to be
a corruption, due to haplography, of "Ittln - His seers.) That the
Chronicler does use most of the names found in Kings and relegates
nameless prophets to the reigns of Amaziah and Manasseh indicates
that the named prophets unknown to us from our sources may
nevertheless have appeared in the sources at his disposal. The
attempt to synchronize Northern prophets with Judean history also
shows that the Chronicler was working with an existing tradition
and did not invent facts. The existence of such a tradition does not
prove its authenticity but it does tell us something about the
Chronicler's methods.
Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the Levtte (2 Chr 20: 14); Zechariah, the
son of Jeholada the priest (2 Chr 24:20).
2 Chr 36: 12,21. Isaiah appears thanks to his inclusion in Kings; see
Kaufmann's comments, above, p. 181, n. 531. Jeremiah seems to be
included because of his activities dUring Zedekiah's reign and
because parts of the book of Jeremiah are prophetic narratives or
historiography similar to what we find in Kings.
Such as 2 Chr 16:9 (ZeCh 4: 10),2 Chr 15:6 (Zech 11:6),2 Chr 15:7 ~ e r
31:16), and 2 Chr 20:20 (Isa 7:9). These are the most obvious
quotations, cited by von Rad in "The Levitical Sermon in I and II
Chronicles, in his The Problem of the Hexat.euch and Other Essays,
trans. E.W. Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh, London, 1966), pp. 267-280.
See above p. 129, n. 370. Cf. also WOO, Auslegung, p. 177, n. 2, pp. 223
ff.
183 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN mE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
538
537
536
535
YHWH, mE 000 OF ISRAEL
such a thing as literary prophecy existed:
IbtL, p. 26. 1
In doing so, the Chronicler adjUSts the date of the prophet in Israe to
his period of activity in Judah. He transfers Jehu the son of Hanani,
prophet against Ba'asha in Israel, to Jehoshaphat's reign in Judah (l
Kings 16: 1-4; 2 Chr 19: 1-3) and Elijah to the reign of Jehoshaphat's
son Jehorarn (l Kings 17 - 2 Kings 2; 2 Chr 21:12).1b1s adjustment
is ~ o t entirely successful, particularly in the case of Elijah, who
(according to 2 Kings 2) died during Jehoshaphat's reign (see Rudolph,
ChronOc, p. 267). The Chronicler also identifies AhiJah the Sh1lonite
as an author of Solomon's annals (2 Chr 9:29).
Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29; 12: 15); Azarlah the son of Oded (2 Chr 15: 1);
Hanani the seer (2 Chr 16:7); El1ezer the son of Dodavahu of
Mareshah (2 Chr 20:37); Zecharlah (2 Chr 26:5); Oded (2 Chr 28:9). It is
possible that the tradition concerning Hanani the seer, father of
Jehu proVided an illustration of the principle formulated in
Leviticus Rabbah 6:6: Rabbi Johanan sald: Wherever a prophet's
own name is speclfled and his father's name also, he is a prophet the
son of a prophet; wherever a prophet's name is specified, but his
father's name is not speclfled, it indicates that he was a prophet. but
that his father was not a prophet... But the Rabbis say that whether
the father's name is speclfled or not, it is to be assumed that in all
cases it was a prophet the son of a prophet."
534
532
533
182
d t
the rabbis would
h tic tradition. At a later a e,
not prop e, d stematlcally.
formulate it clearly an iz s the concept of warning,
Rabbinic thought emp ads e ("azharah") The purpose
(
..... tra'ah"l an n,nnt .
tenned nK,nn 'La of the meaning of what
i
t make man aware
of a warning s 0 to rovide the opportunity
he is doing or anPunequivocal distinction
for reconsideration. d unintentional transgression and
between deliberate an ibility that a man might be
thereby eliminates For this reason, the
punished for sin com I islating that warnings be given
rabbis were scrupulous in leg ho would know exactly what
and ruled that even a scho ar, : in order to avoid any chance
was forbidden, must be wan;ewitnesses to warn a potential
of error. It was the duty -requires two witnesses,
sinner, and, since any co min s must be given. The
the rabbis deduced that two wa rt j they had warned the
witnesses would be the offence in spite of their
accused and if he had co
warning. 540 i does not apply only to
The legal with Israel. In
human affairS, but so t and ruling the world, God
providing the commandmen His world according to the
interacts with His peo
ple
h
an the principle is termed
same principle.
541
In t is case,
.. ,azharah ".542
The rabbis assume that every prohibition mentioned in
the Pentateuch entails two elements: warning and
punishment. The Torah does not consider casuistic
fonnulations such as ""whoever strikes a man so that he dies
shall be put to death" (Exod 21:12), which describe the
transgression and its punishment, sufficient; it also sets
forth explicit prohibitions, regarded as "warnings": "You
shall not murder" (Exod 20:13). The prohibition should not
be Inferred from the pUnishment: a potential sinner must be
'given an explicit warning.
543
The Mekilta reasons in the
same way and looks for the warning: "We have heard the
penalty but we have not heard the warning. "544 These are
standard formulations which demonstrate that the
principle was a familiar one basic to legal thinking.
Whenever the Bible does not appear to provide an explicit
warning, the rabbis deduce one by various means. 545
The warning inherent in the commandments parallels the
witness's caution of the potential criminal. Both accentuate
only tells Israel to do and observe those things which He himself
does" (Exodus Rabbah 30:9).
542 See "'azharah (Warning)" (Heb.), ET, I, 193-195. This entry only
discusses warnings concerning Pentateuchal commandments. See
also Maimonides' commentary on the Mishna, Makkot 3: 1; W.
Bacher, Dle Exegetlsche Termlnologle der Judlschen
Tradltlonsllteratur (leipZig, 1905), p. 41.
543 Sanhedrin 56b: "[The Almighty) does not punish without first
warning"; see ET, I. 193.
544 For example. the Mek1lta to Exodus 20: 13: "Thou Shalt Not Murder.'
Why is this said? Because it says: 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood,' etc.
(Gen. 9.6). We have thus heard the penaltyfor it but we have not heard
the warning against it; therefore it says here: Thou shalt not murder:
Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery: Why is this said? Because it says:
'Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death'
(Lev. 20.10). We have thus heard the penalty for it but we have not
heard the warning it; therefore it says here: Thou shalt not
commit adultery.' Thou Shalt Not Steal: Why is this said? Because it
says: 'And he that stealeth a man aild selleth him' (Exod. 21.16). We
have thus heard the penalty for it but we have not heard the warning
against it; therefore it says here: 'Thou shalt not steal.,..
545 "According to the rule that warning is indicated by four words
[prefacing prohibitions] in the Torah: 'Dwn. ')!I. (ET. I, 193). The
many examples include Mak. 14b; Yoma 81a; Sanh. 56b.
185 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN mE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
YHWH, nIE GOD OF IsRAEL
" given to someone about to commit
ET
defines hatra' ah as a warning tion" (291' see entire
I
bn gging or execu '
an offence punishab e Y 0 ri t1 n in the Torah carries
article, 291-332). Si?ce "every :pplY to almost any case
(suchl a punishment, this warn) i g hich a biblical prohibition is
(apart from a few exceptions n w
ignored (fbfd., 311-314).
See Tosefta sanhedrin 9: 1. fi or pro,tection from one plane
I of trans erence, ,
We see here an examp e t th ir idea of absolute justice onto
to another. The rabbiS projec to their understanding of the
divine behaviour; however, acco t his concepts onto God. It is God
situation. it is not man who s to "cleave to His ways". Thus:
who calls upon man to 1m1= after the Lord your God'? Is it,
-What means the text, 'Ye s t walk after the Shekh1nah. ..? But
then, possible for a b:
g
of the Holy One, blessed be
{the meaning isl to walk r e: thou also clothe the naked" (50tah
He. As He clothes the naked, so 0 f God ditTer from those of man;
th words' "The ways 0 d
14a). And, in 0 er th' t d a thing whilst he does nothing, Go
whereas man directs 0 ers 0 0
540
541
539
184
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN TIlE HISTORY OF ISRAEL 187
upon Israel Without wamtng552 them first. "553
The beg1nnfngs of the rabbis' outlook may be seen already
in late biblical literature.
55
4 It is expressed clearly, with
reference to Israel and other nations, in Nehemiah 9.555
Sinners are pUnished only when their sin is deliberate:
Concerning Israel, we read "but they and their fathers acted
presumptuously hl'lil) and stiffened their neck and did not
obey thy commandments" (Neh 9:16); concerning Pharaoh
and the Egyptians: lbou didst peIform signs and wonders
against Pharaoh and all his sexvants and all the people of
his land, for thou knewest that they acted insolently (l"T,tn)
against Our fathers" (v. 10). The Sinner Who "acts
insolently" is a deliberate sinner, one who has been warned
but disregards the warning.
The function of warning falls to the prophets. God sends
prophets to caution the people and exhort them to repent:
Neh 9:26,29-30: "They... killed thy prophets, Who had
warned them in order to tum them back to thee....And thou
didst warn them in order to turn them back to thy law. Yet
552 Here, the bibliCal verb ")rn is still used to indicate a warning; see
immediately below.
553 Sifra to portion Behukkotay 5: 1. The statement is made by "R.
Eliezer" - R El1ezer b. Hyrkanus, a pupU of R. Johanan ben Zakkat.
554 The Bible's term for this kind of warning is 1')rM", as in Gen 43:3;
Exod 19:21,23; Jer 11:7; and elsewhere. The legal phraSing in Exod
21:29 reads "if...its owner has been warned C1Yln) but has not kept it
in... " It is the warning which distinguishes between a blameless ox
and one known to be. dangerous (whose owner may be held
accountable). In rabbinic usage, the second meaning of the verb 1')rM _
"to enjoin witnesses" - came to predOminate, although the Mekilta
retains the sense of "warning": "'And Warning Hath Been Given to Its
Owner.' This tells us that he is not responsible unless he has been
forewarned" (Mekilta to Exod 21:29). Also, see R. Eliezer's statement
quoted in S1fra (above, n. 553).
555 However, it does not appear in Ezekiel. The rabbis believed that "God
does not pUnish without warning"; in other words, a sinner cannot be
pUnished unless he has been warned. It is true that Ezekiel is sent to
warn the people, but the sinner will be pUnished whether or not he
hears a warntflg: "If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you
give hini no warning... that wicked man shall die in his iniqUity"
(Ezek 3: 18). "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and
commits iniquity... he shall die; because you have not warned him, he
shall die for his sin" (v. 20). See also 33:8.
YHWH, TIlE GOD OF ISRAEL
Sifrei to the portion Slwfenntim,d yarar:a
ph
not punish without
TJ Yoma 1:5, or, as we e sew ere,
warning." For example, see Yorna 81a.
Tosefta Av. Zar. 8:6-7. b y, hal and the R Yose mentioned
This Rabbi Simeon is Simeon a:th upUs of R Aldva. It would
above is R Yose ben Halafta.
h
inptwo versions, attributed to
seem that the same mtdras appears
two of R. Akiva's students. 73
Sifrei to Slwfetim, "b . t God warned Pharaoh with every
See also Exodus Rabb .. u "
plague, in the hope that he might repent.
550
551
548
549
546
547
186
nl be unished for a crime if he
the fact that a man can
h
0
y on the assumption that
lmows it is a crime. Bot are he has been warned."546
"a man cannot be pUnished unless n e ression of divine
The rabbis saw this principle as :me ?virtual dogma for
justice at work in the world: warning. "547 The
them: "God does not punis Ww this principle is upheld
following midrashim says, "The children of
in God's rule of the wor. din everything mentioned in
Noah have been not be found among
this passage, for it is s s his son or his daughter as an
you anyone who burn f these abominable practices the
offering... land because 0 them out before you]" (Deut 18:10-
LORD your God is that Scripture imposes a
12).' Is it possible, en, ? No it prOVides a warning
punishment without From this we learn
and afterwards imparts and then pUnished them. "548
that He has warned them . "'And because of
h the same verse.
Another tanna teac es on WRD your God is driving
these abominable says: 'Thus we see
them out before you. d bout these practices, since
that the Canaanites were warne a d "550 The
h d tll after he has been warne .
man is not punts e un . l' the simple fact that the
principle is conside::d 'the rabbi to suppose that
Canaanites were pu s d although no such warning
t st have been warne , h
they, 00, mu h Bibl 551 The rabbis also apply it wit
is mentioned in t, e e.. "G d will not bring pUnishment
reference to Israel s destiny. 0
they acted presumptuously...and turned a stubborn shoulder
and stiffened their neck and would not obey. Many years
thou didst bear with them, and didst warn them by thy
spirit through thy prophets; yet they would not give ear."
Because the people ignore the prophets' warnings, they are
considered deliberate sinners - their punishment is
therefore inevitable. 556 This view combines two ideas: the
concept found in Ezekiel that the prophet is a watchmen
who must warn the sinner and the legal principle that only
a deliberate sinner can be punished.
We find this view of prophecy in the book of
Chronicles.557 As a general formulation, it appears in 2 Chr
24:19: -rb.e LORD sent prophets among them to bring them
back to Him; they admonished them (0:1 ,,,)",) but they would
not pay heed" (NJPS). However, more important than this
abstract principle is its realization in events, its
transformation into an historical reality. The Chronicler
believed that the historical events described in his narrative
must have conformed to the principle of "no punishment
without warning." That is why God sends prophets to warn
Israel of requital; if they ignore the warning and do not
repent, they will be pUnished. Not only is it the prophet's
duty to warn - it is God's duty to send a prophet. The
constant appearaI\ce of new prophets, continuing even after
the first warnings go unheeded, is an outstanding expression
of YHWH's compassion for His people. Because of their
repeated calls to repentance, it is always possible for
punishment to be rescinded. Right before the end of the
Judean monarchy, Jeremiah is sent to warn Zedekiah: it is
not too late to repent and be spared.
558
On the very eve of
destruction, God "sent persistently to them by his
messengers, because he had compassion on his people and
on his dwelling place" (2 Chr 36: 15).
. The function of warning is not confined to prophets; in a
few cases, depending on the context or the source of his
tradition, the Chronicler attributes messages of warning to
other figures. During Abijah's reign over Judah, the king
himself delivers such a message to the Northern Kingdom
"0 sons of Israel, do not fight against the LORD, the God of
your fathers; for you cannot succeed" (2 Chr 13:12). As the
context of the story itself demands, priests, not prophets,
warn "and they withstood King Uzziah, and said to
him, It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the
LORD, .. Go out of the sanctuary; for you have done wrong'" (2
Chr 26: 18). Hezekiah calls upon those left in the Northern
Kingdom after its downfall to repent: "0 people of Israel,
return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Israel. ..Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were...
Serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may tum
away from you" (2 Chr 30:6-8). King Josiah is warned not
only by Huldah the prophetess, but also by Pharaoh Neco to
abandon the war (2 Chr 35:21-22). Joab's words to David
ought to be understood as a warning - which would explain
the change in phrasing: "'Why then should my lord require
this? Why should he bring guilt upon Israel?" (I Chr
21:3).559 Because David ignores the warning, he is punished
immediately after the census has been taken: "But God was
displeased with this thing, and he smote Israel" (1 Chr
21:7).560
The fact that warnings are transmitted by people other
2 Sam 24:3 conveys only the first part of the text in Chronicles: why
does my lord the king delight in this thing?". The Chronicler added
the second questionto make it quite clear that taking the census was
a sin.
This verse" does not appear in 2 Samuel 24. Scholars have shown
that this early punishment disrupts the order of events (e.g. see
Curtis. Chronicles. p. 248). In light of the outlook discussed above we
see that the apparent disruption is part of a new chain of
intention to sin - warning - sin - punishment. The passage is
quite in keeping with descriptions found elsewhere.
189 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
560
559
YHWH. TIlE GOD OF ISRAEL
"The same pattern appears in 2 Kings 17:13-14 (see above. p. 177): Yet
the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer.
saying. 'Tum from your evil ways and keep my commandments...but
they would not listen, but were stubborn."
As far as I can tell. only Bickerman connects the Chronicler's
outlook to the views on wamtng and premeditation developed by the
rabbis. He does not discuss the matter in any detall; see Ezra to
Maccabees, p. 23.
Because Zedekiah does not heed Jeremiah. he is a deliberate sinner:
.He stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against tumtng to the
LORD. the God of Israel" (2 ehr 36: 13).
558
557
556
188
than prophets proves that the following principle informs
the Chronicler's narrative: a sinner must be warned and
asked to repent. This principle is applied almost without
exception.561 The sinner is forewarned, and his reaction to
the warning determines whether or not he will be pUnished.
The Chronicler's view of repentance is quite clear.
Repentance has the power to change destiny, personal and
national. It can counteract the effects of even the worst
sin.
562
Repentance and the call to repentance are not only
connected to divine justice;! God's compassion, or mercy, is
also involved. Chronicles contains only two mentions of
YHWH's compassion for His people,563 and both touch on
two aspects of repentance. One aspect is the power of
repentance to appease God's wrath and evoke the divine
quality of mercy: "0 people of Israel. return to the
LORD... and selVe the LORD your God, that his fierce anger
may turn away from you... For the LORD your God is
gracious and merciful, and wUI not turn away his face from
you if you return to him" (2 Chr 30:6-9). Second, divine
mercy is expressed in the very opportunity to repent and
change one's fate for the better: "'TIle LORD, the God of their
fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers,
he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place
(2 Chr 36: 15).
Because the Chronicler's world-view proclaims that man
is master of his own destiny, repentance is of prime
importance. Repentance obviates a mechanical concept of
retribution, whereby reward and punishment automatically
follow human actions,564 and even when divine justice is
most stringently applied, the pOSSibility of repentance
demonstrates God's love and compassion.
(1) Some wars of conquest and expansion are not
considered a form of retribution in and of themselves.
However, their outcome confonns to the principle of reward
and pUnishment: victory is achieved with God's help and
therefore constitutes a reward; defeat represents punish-
ment. These wars include:
a) the war of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh against the
191
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN mE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
sterile, Immutable prtnciple...1t is in the hands of the living God...who
shows sinners the way to repentance (Chronik, p. xx).
Contrasting he had no war with "you will have wars" lD)/-l'K _
nonm 10)/ tI') is a literary device which heightens the contrast between
the beginning and end of Asa's reign. As the phrases show, his reign
began with reward and ended with punishment. From a textual point
. of view, they also show that the prophet's speech was written by the
author of the narrative.
F. God's Testing of Man
Certain episodes in the ChrOnicler's histOrical narrative
do not conform to his usual view of divine retribution.
Before we examine their place in his idea of history, a
preliminary look at the Chronistic concept of war - which
occupies an important place in the book - is in order.
According to the Chronistic view of history and
retribution, not only the aftermath of war, but war itself is
a the absence of war is considered a reward.
Asa s reign provides an illustration. During Asa's first ten
years as king, "the land had rest. He had no war in those
years, for the LORD gave him peace" (2 Chr 14:6 (Heb., 14:5]).
Later, when Punishment is threatened, the prophet tells Asa:
"You have done foolishly; for from now on you will have
wars" (2 Chr 16:9).565 An examination of the wars described '
in ChrOnicles reveals that this principle is not always an
inherent part of the deSCription. The book distinguishes
between two types of wars.
565
YHWH, mE GOD OF ISRAEL
No warning is mentioned in the case of a few kings -Ahaziah,
Athaliah, Ahaz, Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin. It is
surprising that Ahaz, unlike other sinful kings (such as Jehoram and
Manasseh), receives no warning, since both his sins and his
punishment are very serious. The other kings listed are in any case
described somewhat sketchily by the Chronicler. See below, pp. 364
fr.: Rudolph, Chronik, p. xx, note 3.
Consider the life of Manasseh (2 Chr 33: 12 fr.), for example.
Apart from 1Chr 21:13, which parallels 2 Sam 24:14.
Eichrodt considers '"mechanical retribution a feature of Chronistic
historiography (Theology, II, p. 487). Rudolph is more correct in
saying that the '"agreement [between action and retribution] is not a
562
563
564
561
190
Hagrites (1 Chr 5: 18-22);566
b) all of David's wars (l Chr 11:4-6; 14:8-16; 18-20);
c) Solomon's war against Hamath-zobah (2 Chr 8:3);
d) Abijah's war against the Northern Kingdom (2 Chr 13:2
ff.); d
e) the war of Ahab and Jehoshaphat against Ramoth-gUea
(2 Chr 18);567
f) Amaziah's war against Edom (2 Chr 25:11-12) and
against Joash king of Israel (2 Chr 25:17-24);
g) Uzziah's wars of conquest (2 Chr 26:6-8);
h) Jotham's war against the Ammonites (2 Chr 27:5).
(2) In other wars, Israel is attacked as a means of
punishment; usually, these wars are portrayed as direct
divine intervention. They include:
a) TIglath-pileser's war againSt Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh
(l Chr 5:25-26);
b) Shishak's campaign (2 Chr 12:2 tl);
c) the war of the Philistines and Arabs against Jehoram (2
Chr 21:16-17);
d) Aram's war againSt Joash (2 Chr 24:23-24);
e) the war of Aram, Israel, et ale against Ahaz (2 Chr 28:5-
8,17-19);
o the campaigns conducted by the king of Egypt and
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia up to the conquest of
Judah (2 Chr36:3,6-7,10,17-19).
Thus, the consequences of a war are always a function of
the principle of retribution.
568
However, the war itself is
only seen as punishment when Israel is attacked. Yet we
find four exceptions to the latter rule: the attack by Zerah
the Cushite (2 Chr 14:9-15 (Heb" 8-14)); the war between Asa
and Ba'asha (2 Chr 16:1-7); the Moabites' and Ammonites'
war against Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20: 1-30);569 and
Sennacherib's campaign (2 Chr 32:1-21).570 One exception
may be considered carelessness, inconsistency, or a case of
verbatim transmission; however, when the phenomenon
recurs - in reference to important events - some sort of
explanation is required. This explanation may be found in
the concept of the divine test.
571
The verb il "03 (to "test" or "try") appears once in
Chronicles:
572
"And so in the matter of the envoys of the
princes of. Babylon, who had been sent to him to inquire
about the sign that had been done in the land, God left him
to himself, in order to try him and to know all that
was in his heart" (2 Chr 32:31). This complex, somewhat
unclear sentence
573
relates to the description of Merodach-
Exceptions to this rule are the tradition oC Simeon's attack of the
Meunim and the Amalekites (l Chr 4:41,43) and the brief tradition
concerning Reuben's war with the Hagrites (l Chr 5: 10). Both are
incorporated directly from their sources into Chronicles without any
reworking. See above, p. 192, n. 566.
Wellhausen believed that this war also contains elements of divine
retribution (Prolegomena, p. 204), but Rudolph has already disproved
this view (Chronik, pp. 255,260).
See Rudolph, Chrontk, p. xix.
S.E. Loewenstamm & J. Ucht, "Test" (Heb.) , EB, V, 879-883: J. Ucht,
Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-biblical Judalsm (Heb.,
Jerusalem, 1973).
It also appears once in a nonreligious sense in a parallel text: the
queen of Sheba "came to Jerusalem to test Solomon with hard
questions" (2 Chr 9: 1 - 1 Kings 10: 1).
According to Ehrlich, the "envoys" are the princes of Babylon"
(Mikrd ki-Pheschuto, II, p. 467). Rudolph suggests reading "prince" -
a reference to Merodach-baladan. In Mikrd ki-Pheschuto, Ehrlich
vocalizes the problematic verb in keeping with the targumim:
("envoys"), as do other commentators (cf. Curtis, Chronicles,
pp. 493, 494). Elsewhere (Randglossen, VII, p. 381) Ehrlich suggests
193 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN TIlE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
573
572
570
571
569
568
YHWH, nIE GOD OF ISRAEL
This appears to be the same war as that mentioned in 1 Chr 5: 10.
However, the latter description differs in that: it only mentions
Reuben; its scope is smaller; the number oC captives is not given: and
it is not accompanied by any religious exegesis. All these elements
were added when the story was reworked in 1 Chr 5: 18-22 and
provide a good 1llustration oC the Chronicler's method oC redaction.
See Brunet, "Le Chroniste," RB, 60 (1953), 496-497. The words "Cor
they cried to God in the battle, and he granted their entreaty because
they trusted in him" (v. 20) ascribe the outcome of the battle to the
tribes' behaviour.
This story has not been properly reworked: it is transmitted almost
word Cor word Crom 1 Kings 22. Neither war nor outcome is explicitly
described as divine retribution. Ahab's defeat represents the
fulffiment of Mica1ah's prophecy, which foretells the defeat but does
not explain it as punishment Cor theking's deeds.
567
566
192
baladan's delegation to Jerusalem in 2 Kings 20:12-19. The
Chronicler does not recount the full story: he merely refers
to it and defines it as a test. This definition indicates that
the Chronicler was familiar with the idea that human
beings were sometimes tested by God. When he describes
events in detail, there is no need for him to provide a
defintion: only in this verse, which transmits the barest
essentials, do we find the phenomenon summariZe?: "in
order to try him and to lmow all that was in his heart .
In Kings, this episode is not described as a trial, and
neither the account in Kings nor the laconic reference in 2
Chr 32:31 explainS how Hezekiah was tried
574
or whether he
passed the test. 575 From a literary point of view, the concept
is taken from Deut 8:2: .....testing you to know what was in
your heart," In this verse, as in other biblical passages 576
God's test is to see "whether you would keep 'hiS
commandments, or not." However, the commandments are
not even mentioned in the story of Hezeldah. It may be that
king's reaction to Isaiah's prophecy is being tested
( then Hezekiah said... "The word of the LORD which you
have spoken is good'" - 2 Kings 20: 19), or perhaps God
wishes to test the extent of Hezeldah's faith and trust in
HUn. In either case, the concept of a trial is extended beyond
observance of the commandments to include inner religious
convictions. In the words of 2 Chr 32:31, testing these inner
convictions is ..to know all that was in his heart" 577
The episodes in Chronicles which represent' trials test
moral fibre and faith and trust in God. In Asa's wars
against Zerah the Cushite and Ba"asha king of Israel the
events themselves suggest a divine test. The wars not
perceived in terms of retribution, nor are they deSCribed as
pUnishment. In the tenth year of Asa's reign, Zerah the
Cushite prepares to attack with an unusually strong army
King Asa's behaviour is irreproachable: he prays to his God:
Such as Deut 13:3-4 (Heb., 4-5) - "For the LORD your God is testin
you, to know whether you love the LORD...You shall waIk. after
LORD your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey
his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him" - d J d
2:22: "that by them I may test Israel, whether they will taka:-
walk in the way of the LORD as their fathers did, or not. "
Licht makes a distinction between the biblical concept of a trial and
that of the Apocrypha. Among the differences between the two is the
that the apocIYphal trial does not test deeds; instead it looks for
a certain pious mentality" indicated by "fortitude in the face of
misfortune, trust in God, and patience": "In the Bible, God tests man
to see whether or not he will observe the commandments In
apocryphal literature, the test is a means of verifying man's ..
(Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-biblical Judais
70, 71). Therefore, "a biblical test will consist of a specific
whereas an apocryphal test occurs over a long and unspecified period
of time (ibid.., p. 71). Thus, we see that the book of Chronicles
represents the transitional stage between these two views. The trial is
intended to assess inner piety, not outward observance. It is both a
one-time episode and a day-by-day process. Yet its ultimate concern
is the difBcult problem of reward and punishment. It may be that this
concern constitutes the uniqueness of the book's contribution.
195 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
577
576
YHWH, TIlE 000 OF ISRAEL
another passive form, reading o'n)w on, which is also adopted by
Rudolph (ChronOc, p. 312). In both'interpretations, Ehrlich gives the
verb a passive vocalization, altering the active form we find in MF.
According to the story in Kings, Isaiah foretells God's punishment of
Hezekiah without indicating his sin (2 Kings 20: 16-18). The midrash
is sensitive to this omission and relates that the king sinned twice,
once in thought and once in deed: "His heart was puffed with
pride... and further, he opened the Ark of the Covenant, and he
showed them the tables of the Law, and he said to them: With this do
we wage war and conquer,''' (Pfrke de Rabbi Elfezer, trans. G.
Friedlander [New York, 1965, c1916), Chapter 52). Elsewhere, we read:
"For this reason it is said that a man should not benefit from the
words of the Torah and be proud because of them, lest he lose his
position: for we find that Hezekiah was proud and was himself almost
overthrown. Furthermore, because he ate with idolaters and showed
them the ark, revealing sublime mysteries, he was given a son like
Manasseh" (Yalkut Shimoni, II, Section 243).
The controversy on this point begins at an early date. The two
midrashim quoted above make it clear that Hezekiah sinned and
therefore failed God's test. However, in the version of the midrash
from Pirke de Rabbi Ellezer found in the Aramaic targum to
Chronicles, the outcome is not so dire: "Because he was permitted by
God to show them. he himself was not injured - 'in order to try him
and know all that was in his heart.'" The exegetes follow the example
of the midrash and comment that Hezekiah sinned: see the
interpretation of Pseudo-Rashi - "he did not withstand the test and
showed them all his treasures" - and the commentary by David
Kimhi. Curtis (Chronicles, p. 493) and Rudolph (Chronik, p. 315) take
the middle ground: the king was proud at first but ended by humbling
himself.
575
574
194
578 See below, pp. 256 fT.
579 But the war was against Israel, not Aram, and ABa himself appealed to
the king of Aram for helpl Hananl's prophecy reveals the tension
between the historical material and its theological reworking. The
Chronicler did not alter the actual story in spite of the theological
problems it posed. This tension led Galling to suggest and Rudolph to
assert that the text should read "king of Israel" instead of "king of
Aram"; see Galling, Chronlk, p. 177; Rudolph, Chronlk, pp. 247-248.
expressing peIfect confidence in YHWH's power. and asks for
divine assistance (2 Chr 14: 11 [Heb. 14: 10)). Sure enough.
God answers his prayer. and Asa enjoys complete victory
(vv. 12-15 [11-14)). No explanation is provided. but the
implicit moral of the story is obvious. Only perfect faith
and trust in God can guarantee divine help and victory,
"because the war was of God" (1 Chr 5:22). Apart from minor
changes, the war with Ba'asha appears in Chronicles as it
does in 1 Kings 15:17-22. During the course of the war, Asa
appeals to Ben-hadad, the king of Amm, for assistance and.
with the latter's help, manages to rout Ba'asha (2 Chr 16:5-
6). ABa's actions in this war are totally different from his
behaviour in 2 Chronicles 14, and his victory is
incomprehensible by the Chronicler's religious
standards. 578 For this reason, Hanani the seer appears to
chastise the kings and convert the victory into a defeat: ..the
anny of the king of Aram has escaped you" (2 Chr 16:7).579
Hanani's words explain the message in both wars: "Because
you relied on the king of Aram. and did not rely on the
WRD your God, the anny of the king of Aram has escaped
you. Were not the Cushites and the Libyans a huge army
with exceedingly many chariots and horsemen? Yet because
you relied on the LORD, he gave them into your hand" (2 Chr
16:7-8).
Thus it becomes clear that the two wars were intended as a
test of Asa's faith and trust in God. The king passed the first
test, but not the second. Even though the wars are described
objectively and not portrayed as divine intervention, it is
evident that they represent a trial. This is true of the other
exceptional wars mentioned above. The Ammonite-Moabite
war tests Jehoshaphat, and Sennacherib's campaign tests
Hezekiah. Both kings pass their tests with flying colours.
580 2 Chr 20:6 fT.; 2 Chr 32:7.
581 2 Chr 20: 12; 2Chr 32:20.
582 This situation represents a different type of test in that man's
behaviour and convictions are constantly being tested. Urbach
illustrates the tension between the two when he writes: "The precepts
constantly test man. The very testing constitutes the refining process
and suffices to save a person from making mistakes, and there is no
need for him to add thereto other tests." The distinction is made
although not explicitly, between the demands of religiQn as ~
ongoing test and special trials with limited aims. This distinction
explains Urbach's statement that "The precepts are intended to
augment man's strength, so that he can stand up to the tests" (Urbach,
The Sages, p. 367).
583 See above, pp. 168 ff. The reigns of Uzziah and Manasseh provide
good examples of the series of causes and effects. Each change in their
lives is the direct result of some form of retribution. In the case of
Manasseh, the pattern is: sin - exile to Babylon - repentance -
return to Jerusalem - religious reform - peace and prosperity. With
Uzziah: obedience to God - success - pride and the desire to burn
incense in the Temple - leprosy.
197 GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN mE HIS10RY OF ISRAEL
They express their confidence in God
580
and pray to Him for
help,581 and therefore they are utterly victorious. Not only
are their wars won - much more is achieved. In the case of
Jehoshaphat, ..the fear of God came on all the kingdoms of
the countries when they heard that the LORD had fought
against the enemies of Israel. So the realm of Jehoshaphat
was quiet, for his God gave him rest round about" (2 Chr
20:29-30). As for Hezekiah - "many brought gifts to the
LORD and to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah
king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all
nations from that time onward" (2 Chr 32:23).
These particular, noteworthy cases present divine trials of
men and their faith. However, the idea of God's testing of
man has broader applications. As far as the Chronistic view
of retribution is concerned, each king's account is settled
with his death. A new unblemished and neutral chapter
freed from the influence of the past, opens with t h ~
accession of the succeeding king. This situation in itself is a
test for each king,582 who determines his future of his own
free will. The chain of reactions described above
583
begins
anew with each monarch. Some kings depart from their
YHWH, TIlE GOD OF ISRAEL
196
198 YHWH. mE GOD OF ISRAEL
father's righteous ways,584 some compensate for the
misdeeds of the father, 585 and still others merely follow in
their father's footsteps. Yet in every case, each king is
master of his fate.
Including the concept of tests in the framework of a
historical outlook selVes two purposes. On the one hand, it
emphasizes that human free will determines the course of
events. On the other, it shows that there is a place for
voluntary, sovereign divine actions that are not controlled
by rules of reward and pUnishment. (3od retains His freedom
of action even within the context of a refined system of
retribution. 586
584 Such as Rehoboam (in the fourth year of his reign), Jehoram. Abaz.
Manasseh. and Jehoahaz.
585 Such as Abijah. Joash. Amaztah, Hezeldah. and Josiah.
586 The Chronicler was not aware that divine trials are problematic in
that they suggest that God does not know something. He saw no
conflict between divine omniscience and human free will. See J.
Licht. "Tese (Heb.). EB. V. 882-883; idem, Testing in the Hebrew
Scriptures. Section 21. pp. 25 fT.