Who is the Chronicler? He is not a historian. The account here of Jehoshaphat’s victories seems to be a free composition that is probably based on some historical facts. In chapter 21 he revised 2 Kings to declare that, in spite of Jehoram’s great wickedness, God will not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant which he had made with David. Is he a theologian? Elijah purportedly writes a letter although he is no longer alive at this time. Is he writing a historical novel? In chapter 22 the Chronicler’s account of hiding the infant Joash for 7 years emphasizes the role of the Levites in the plot, not laymen as recorded in 2 Kings. For the Chronicler, laymen in the temple court would have been sacrilegious. He had to change the story to include Levites in order to preserve the sanctity of the temple. Or is he, like us, just trying to make sense of life and overwhelmed by the profanity? He so wants this to be a cause and effect world. And, don’t we, too, want good to be rewarded according to our definition of good?
Who is the Chronicler? He is not a historian. The account here of Jehoshaphat’s victories seems to be a free composition that is probably based on some historical facts. In chapter 21 he revised 2 Kings to declare that, in spite of Jehoram’s great wickedness, God will not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant which he had made with David. Is he a theologian? Elijah purportedly writes a letter although he is no longer alive at this time. Is he writing a historical novel? In chapter 22 the Chronicler’s account of hiding the infant Joash for 7 years emphasizes the role of the Levites in the plot, not laymen as recorded in 2 Kings. For the Chronicler, laymen in the temple court would have been sacrilegious. He had to change the story to include Levites in order to preserve the sanctity of the temple. Or is he, like us, just trying to make sense of life and overwhelmed by the profanity? He so wants this to be a cause and effect world. And, don’t we, too, want good to be rewarded according to our definition of good?
ReplyDelete