Original Meaning

King Manasseh (33:1–20)

THE RECORD ON Manasseh’s reign may be divided into four reports: Judah’s relapse into false worship under Manasseh (33:1–10), Manasseh’s exile and repentance (33:11–13), Manasseh’s infrastructural repairs and spiritual reforms (33:14–17), and the concluding regnal résumé (33:18–20). The most significant divergence from 2 Kings 21 is the report of Manasseh’s repentance during his exile in Assyria. No doubt the Prayer of Manasseh in the Apocrypha was inspired by the Chronicler’s cryptic allusion to the king’s pleas for divine mercy.4

Judah’s Relapse into False Worship (33:1–10)

Judah’s relapse into false worship (33:1–10). This section repeats 2 Kings 21:1–9 with some minor variations, such as the omission of Manasseh’s mother’s name (Hephzibah). In fact, Chronicles leaves off the queen mother of the Judahite kings after the reign of Hezekiah—perhaps because of a shift in the source material or the deliberate expunging of these women’s names as a result of their Arabian origin.5 The Chronicler also avoids comparing Manasseh to King Ahab of Israel (cf. 2 Kings 21:3).

Manasseh rules longer than any other Israelite king. His fifty-five-year reign probably includes a coregency of several years with his father, Hezekiah. The dates of his reign extend from about 696 to 642 B.C. As an aside, it bears mention that Manasseh was probably born into the royal family during the fifteen-year extension of Hezekiah’s life granted by God in response to his prayer for healing from a fatal disease (cf. 2 Kings 20:1–6). This entire section turns on the juxtaposition of the evil deeds of Manasseh and the identification of God’s “Name” with the Jerusalem temple (33:4–5, 7). The litany of the king’s detestable practices possibly represents the conflation of two independent sources (i.e., 33:3–6 and 33:7–9), given the repetition of the desecration of the temple precincts. The specific catalog of abominations promoted by Manasseh as “alternative religion” for the kingdom of Judah invites comparison with the Mosaic prohibitions against false worship (Deut. 16:21–17:7; 18:9–13). Among the taboos borrowed wholesale from Canaanite culture are idolatry associated with the fertility cult deities Asherah and Baal, astral worship, infanticide, and the occult (2 Chron. 33:3–6).

According to 2 Kings 17:7–13, 16–20, these are the very sins that incited God’s wrath against the northern kingdom of Israel and brought about the Assyrian exile. Note too how centuries earlier the theocratic kingdom of Israel under Joshua’s leadership waged war against the indigenous populations of Canaan as divine judgment for the same list of abominations (Lev. 18:24–28). The narrative in 2 Kings 24:3–4 ascribes blame directly to King Manasseh for the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom. Like matter reaching an irreversible energy state of critical mass in the science of physics, the course charted by the political and religious policies of Manasseh lead irrevocably to the Exile.

The Chronicler hints at Manasseh’s role in Judah’s exile by referring to the “nations” driven out by the Lord when Israel entered the land of Canaan (33:2). Manasseh’s responsibility for the welfare of Judah is made more clear in the Chronicler’s allusion to the Davidic covenant and Israel’s security in the land of covenant promise (33:7; cf. 2 Sam. 7:10). The king leads the people astray by breaking the first commandment (2 Chron. 33:7; cf. Ex. 20:3–4). The carved image he erects in God’s temple symbolizes his rejection of God’s rule at both the personal and the national level. King Manasseh’s arrogance breeds the evil of idolatry and poisons his subjects with the sin of idolatry (1 Sam. 15:23; cf. Ex. 20:3–4).

Once the Israelites renounce their covenant loyalty to Yahweh and become more evil than the nations he destroyed in the land of Canaan, God has no choice but to invoke the covenant curses on his people (cf. Deut. 28:36–37). The conclusion of the first report (2 Chron. 33:10), however, shifts some of the responsibility for the Babylonian exile to the people of Judah as well. They shoulder blame for the catastrophe because they refuse to heed the word of the Lord through his prophets.

Manasseh’s Exile and Repentance (33:11–13)

Manasseh’s exile and repentance (33:11–13). While Manasseh’s exile has no parallel in 2 Kings and is uncorroborated by extant Assyrian sources, it seems likely that he is a coconspirator with the Babylonians in the revolt against Shamash-shum-ukin in Babylon.6 Shamash-shum-ukin was the brother of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal and the appointed king of Babylon. The nose “hook” and “bronze shackles” (33:11) are typical of the humiliation inflicted on captives in the biblical world (cf. Isa. 37:29; Amos 4:2; Hab. 1:15).

God often brings trouble against his people in the Old Testament to punish and to purify them. The psalmist recognizes that God is a refuge for those in distress (cf. Ps. 20:1; 41:1; 46:1). Unlike King Ahaz, Manasseh turns to God in his distress and finds favor with the Almighty (2 Chron. 33:12; cf. 28:22). The expression “seek the favor” (lit., “soften [ḥlh] the face”) is found in the intercessory prayers of Moses, Hezekiah, and Daniel; it connotes an appeal to the mercy of God (cf. Ex. 32:11; Jer. 26:19; Dan. 9:13).

Manasseh’s plea issues from a contrite heart, for he “humbled himself [knʿ ] greatly” (33:12). This word signifies true repentance, demonstrated by a broken spirit coupled with acts of penance (e.g., tearing of garments and weeping) for personal sin and disobedience to God (cf. 2 Kings 22:19). For this reason, the report of Manasseh’s repentance and prayer of forgiveness is reminiscent of the language of God’s promise to King Solomon to restore those who “humble themselves and pray” (2 Chron. 7:14).

The expression “the LORD was moved” (33:13) is unusual and marks a theological distinctive of the God of the Bible. Unlike the deaf Baals after which the Israelites continually strayed, the God of Israel is not only approachable, but he listens to prayer and is capable of responding with empathy toward those in dire need (Ex. 22:27; 2 Chron. 30:9; cf. 1 Kings 18:26; Isa. 44:18; Hab. 2:18). The stark contrast between God who listens to the plea of Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:13) and the people who pay no attention to God (33:10) would not be lost on the Chronicler’s audience. The episode foreshadows the hallmark attribute of Jesus Christ as the great high priest, who is moved to grant mercy because he sympathizes with human weakness, having experienced it himself (Heb. 4:14–16).

According to Selman, the conversion of King Manasseh ranks second in dramatic impact only to the experience of Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus road (Acts 9:3–6).7 God is always faithful in returning to those who return to him (Jer. 3:22; Zech. 1:3; Mal. 3:7). In fact, this is how Manasseh knows that “the LORD is God”—not only because he is restored to the throne out of exile but because “who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression … of his inheritance?” (Mic. 7:18).

Manasseh’s Infrastructural Repairs and Spiritual Reforms (33:14–17)

Manasseh’s infrastructural repairs and spiritual reforms (33:14–17). This next report emphasizes Manasseh’s political and religious reforms. Usually this is construed as the “healing of the land,” the natural aftermath of prayer and repentance according to God’s promise in 7:14. The Chronicler sees royal building projects as an indication of divine blessing for obedience.8 Manasseh’s reforms are both political and religious in nature, suggesting God’s acceptance of the king’s prayer of repentance. The rebuilding of the city wall of Jerusalem (33:14) may refer to repairs made necessary when Manasseh was taken captive by the Assyrians or to the continuation of the expansion of Jerusalem begun under Hezekiah (cf. Isa. 22:10–11; 2 Chron. 32:5). Strengthening the military presence in the fortified cities of Judah (33:14) is almost routine for kings ruling in Jerusalem, since these cities form a shield against foreign invaders (cf. 2 Kings 18:13; 2 Chron. 14:6; 17:2; 26:9). Assuming Manasseh’s renewed loyalty as an Assyrian vassal after his release from exile, both initiatives may have been encouraged by the Assyrians as defensive measures aimed at discouraging an Egyptian military campaign into Judah.

Curiously, the religious reforms of Manasseh are unsupported by other biblical passages (33:15–17). This should not discount the historical validity of the Chronicler’s report (as some critics contend). Numerous biblical events receive only single citations. For example, Elijah’s contest with the prophets of Baal lacks parallels as well (1 Kings 18). Specifically, Manasseh orders the direct reversal of previous policies he implemented with respect to temple worship (2 Chron. 33:15; cf. vv. 3, 7).

Yet the depth, extent, and duration of Manasseh’s religious reforms remain an open question. Clearly, the temple is purified and proper worship is restored at least for a short time. We are told, however, that false worship is pervasive during the reigns of the next two kings of Judah (33:22; 34:3–7). The impact of Manasseh’s religious reforms seems restricted to Jerusalem and its immediate environs, given the Chronicler’s reference to ongoing worship in the high places (33:17). The worship associated with the Canaanite high places proves a snare for the Israelites throughout the history of the monarchies (cf. the theological commentary on the reigns of Asa in 15:17 and Jehoshaphat in 20:33).

Of course, the chief architect of the religious syncretism in Israel was King Solomon, who promoted the worship of Yahweh in Canaanite high places (1 Kings 3:3). Unfortunately, as Selman has rightly observed, too often the reform of the ritual of Israelite worship has little impact on the heart of the majority of the people, given the irresistible sensual appeal of Canaanite religious practice (cf. Isa. 29:13; Jer. 3:10).9 As another commentator has noted, “it is easier to lead a people into sin than to lead them back out of it.”10

Concluding Regnal Résumé (33:18–20)

Concluding regnal résumé (33:18–20). The summaries of both Manasseh’s and Josiah’s reigns contain introductory and concluding regnal résumés (33:1–2, 18–20; 34:1–2; 35:24–36:1). Typically, the introductory résumé includes various formulas announcing the king’s age at accession, the length and location of the king’s reign, the king’s mother, and the theological review. The concluding one usually includes the historical source citation formula, the death and burial formula, and the succession formula. Manasseh’s concluding résumé is significant theologically because of the emphasis on the king’s prayer of entreaty and God’s response to his repentance (33:18–19). Selman reminds us that “the Bible consistently affirms that God’s door remains open to anyone, even after what should have been closing time.”11 Apparently the Chronicler desires to remind his postexilic audience of this timeless truth as well!

King Amon (33:21–25)

Bridging Contexts

THE PREACHING OF THE CHRONICLER. We have already noted that the peculiar literary genius of the Chronicler lies in his ability to retell Israelite history as a sermon. According to Rex Mason, the essential features of the sermon include an appeal to some recognized source of authority, a proclamation of some theological teaching about the person and works of God, an appeal for some kind of response on the part of the audience, and the use of rhetorical devices designed to arouse the interest of the audience and engage them in the message topic.33

(1) The Chronicler cites two authoritative historical sources in his review of the reigns of the Kings Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah. The “annals of the kings of Israel” (33:18) and the “book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (35:27) are documents belonging to the royal archives and portions of which are now a part of the Old Testament books of 1 and 2 Kings. A third resource, the “records of the seers” (33:19) proves more difficult to identify. Clearly it is widely recognized as a reliable historical document compiled by the school of the prophets.

(2) This section of Chronicles highlights certain character traits of God, especially his compassion and mercy in responding to those who humble themselves and offer prayer seeking God’s forgiveness (i.e., Manasseh, 33:12–19; Josiah, 34:27). God is portrayed as one who listens and is moved to benevolent action on behalf of the penitent (33:13). Conversely, God’s righteousness in not acquitting the guilty is demonstrated in his response to Amon, who “increased his guilt” before God by refusing to humble himself (33:23).

(3) The repeated theme of this literary unit is repentance, or more specifically, “humbling oneself” before God (33:12, 19, 23; 34:27). The biblical term used (knʿ ) denotes a change of heart and attitude from a posture of defiance to submission toward God and principles of righteousness. The idea of repentance in the Old Testament, then, is basically that of turning around or returning to a point of departure. The “turn” of repentance and conversion consists of turning from something and turning toward something.34 Theologically, repentance is turning away from self and sin to God in utter humility and dependence.

Of special interest to the Chronicler are the immediate moral consequences of human behavior. Manasseh’s sin leads to his exile and imprisonment in Assyria (33:10–11). Later, Manasseh’s repentance leads to his restoration as king of Judah (33:12–13). Seemingly, all this would have been a great encouragement to the Chronicler’s audience. Yet, curiously, Chronicles is a sermon without an application since the books contain no direct reference to the writer’s own time period. The writer preaches from the examples of repentance in the lives of the Judahite kings of Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah but makes no direct appeal to the citizens of postexilic Jerusalem to respond in like manner.

(4) Finally, the Chronicler employs the literary or rhetorical approach of “storytelling” as the means of capturing and maintaining audience interest in his message. By storytelling we mean the use of the genre of biblical narrative as the primary vehicle for preaching the sermon. Biblical narrative may be separated (somewhat artificially) into two categories: heroic narrative and epic narrative.35 Chronicles is primarily epic narrative in that it is national rather than familial or tribal history, tends to emphasize cause-and-effect sequences more than plot development, contains commentary offered by the narrator, and often notes how God acts through human agents (e.g., prophet, king).36

Biblical narrative “presents a theology—that is, a proclamation about God—told by means of narrative.”37 For Mathews, this means that “historical narrative is narrative theology” because the biblical writers assume the role of God’s prophet and present a theological interpretation of Hebrew history.38 The audience’s intuited understanding of the Chronicler’s application is a key ingredient in the art of preaching through the medium of biblical narrative. Narrative theology is a subtle but most powerful literary technique for penetrating the heart and mind of the hearer (or reader) with the truth claims of the preacher’s message.

Two characteristics of biblical narrative are especially important to the subliminal approach in evoking the desired response from the writer’s audience. (1) The first is related to the idea of plot development, a central feature of storytelling. The plot of a story is a coherent sequence of related events moving toward closure. The essence of a story plot is conflict moving toward resolution.39 By his careful selection, arrangement, and reshaping of the narrative events associated with Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah, the Chronicler encourages his audience to consider the history of Judah during this time as a type of theological commentary on the divine response to human repentance. For the Chronicler, the resolution of the conflict (i.e., the seeming failure of the divine promise concerning the Davidic covenant after the return from exile) is found in the continuity of repentance and blessing as exhibited in the lives of certain kings of Judah.

(2) The second characteristic is linked to the role of the Chronicler as “narrator” (whether overt or covert) of the events in his retelling of Israel’s history. Typically, the narrator speaks in the third-person in biblical narrative, leaving personal judgment and moral commentary to the subtle influences of literary structure and the dialogue of the main characters. According to Bar Efrat, the narrator tends to “hint at things—in delicate and indirect ways—rather than stating them explicitly. The method of the biblical narrator requires a constant mental effort on the part of the reader, involving careful thought and attention to every detail of the narrator.”40

The same holds true for the Chronicler’s readers (or hearers). As narrator, the Chronicler persuades the audience to understand the history of Israel from his theological viewpoint, a viewpoint (sometimes) different from those of the participants in the story. Point of view is crucial for the interpretation of the narrative because it is the ideological and theological lens through which the audience comprehends the events of the plot of the story. By recounting the stories of repentance and subsequent divine blessing associated with Kings Manasseh and Josiah, as well as the divine judgment resulting from Amon’s failure to heed the word of God and repent, the Chronicler delicately and indirectly persuades his audience that humbling themselves before God in repentance would be in their best interests too!

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

PREACHING REPENTANCE. According to John Stott, the preacher is called to both comfort and disturb people.41 Admittedly, the latter task is an unpopular one. Nevertheless, it is necessary at times for the servant of God to confront his audience. The tradition of the prophet as “conscience” for God’s people has its roots in the ministry of the Old Testament prophets, who were called both to “uproot and tear down” and to “build and to plant” (Jer. 1:10).

The preacher both comforts and disturbs the audience through the act of preaching, the proclamation of the Word of God. The messenger must deliver the message of the One who sends the servant—not an invented message (cf. Amos 3:8; 2 Peter 1:21). For Stott, contemporary preaching builds bridges between two worlds: the Word or Holy Scripture and the world of everyday life.42 The preacher “earths” the Word in the world by communicating God’s truth with relevance and pertinence to our ever-changing society.

The “preaching” of Chronicles informs contemporary preaching at two levels. (1) In terms of content, the disturbing message of preaching is the call to repentance. (2) In terms of style, the narrative approach permits the preacher to locate the disturbing message in a larger story that also includes the message of comfort.

We have defined repentance as an “about face,” a turning away from sin, self, and death to righteousness, God, and life (Jer. 31:18–20; Luke 3:8–14). The effects of the Fall are still manifest in the world, as both the psalmist and the apostle Paul observe that “all have turned aside … there is no one who does good” (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:12). One need only pick up a daily newspaper or turn on a local television news broadcast to verify the biblical assessment of the human condition. The real question, then, is not one of why anyone should repent of sin and turn to God. Rather, the crucial questions are twofold: Who can truly forgive sin and restore human dignity and purpose? When is it too late to repent and turn to God?

There is a sense in which the story of Manasseh’s repentance foreshadows that of the believing thief in the Gospel (33:12–13; cf. Luke 23:40–43). Both stories answer the crucial questions by illustrating the point that the God of the Bible can truly forgive sin and that his door of salvation and restoration is always open. The old and new covenants alike portray God as one who is gracious, merciful, compassionate, and slow to anger—not desiring that anyone should perish but that all should repent and live (Ezek. 18:32; cf. Ex. 34:6–7; John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9). The lyrics of an old nineteenth-century Christian hymn capture the truth of this biblical teaching: “There is a wideness in God’s mercy like the wideness of the sea; there’s a kindness in His justice which is more than liberty.”

Scott has aptly reminded us that the preacher’s call to repentance, in any age, must be both personal and corporate. That is, corporate or community repentance “for social sin and the defects of accepted morality” goes hand in hand with personal repentance for sin and rebellion against God and his holy law.43 Beyond this, the call to repentance is necessarily coupled with the summons to believe and live in God’s way—the way that leads to life and “fruitful” living (cf. Matt. 7:13–20). The enduring reality that encourages the prophets in their ministry and saves them from despair as heralds of God’s “disturbing” word—the idea of humanity’s capacity for repentance—should sustain today’s preacher in like manner.44

Barclay furthers the discussion by developing the idea that today’s preacher should also be sustained by what he calls “the great challenge and privilege of the Christian.”45 That great challenge and privilege are partnering with God in the ministry of the conversion of individuals to Christianity, and this partnership is necessary because the primary means of conversion in the early church was the preaching of the gospel.

Repentance does not necessarily suspend the consequences of personal or corporate sin. The kingdom of Judah was destroyed and the Hebrews were exiled in Babylonia despite Josiah’s national revival (36:15–19). As Heschel has warned, God’s forgiveness must not be mistaken for indulgence or complacency.46 Nor are we to be seduced by the preaching of “cheap grace” decried by Bonhoeffer.47 Lest we tame God and fashion him after our own image, it is important to remember he is loving and faithful, but he is also terrible and dangerous. We would do well to recall Lucy’s conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver about the great lion Aslan of Narnia fame:

“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.

“Safe?” said Mrs. Beaver. “Who said anything about safe? Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King.”48

Indeed, the God of the Bible is holy and just; but he is also “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made” (Ps. 145:8–9). The glorious message of the Bible, unique among all the holy books of the world’s religions, is that God’s anger, though provoked by human sin, may be revoked by human repentance. Happily, assuredly God returns to those who return to him (Zech. 1:3; Mal. 3:7).

The Chronicler also provides instruction on preaching style. A. W. Tozer wrote about those who preach the “old cross” and those who preach the “new cross.”49 The old cross is the symbol of death, representing the abrupt and violent end of a human being. It “slays the sinner” and makes no compromise, modifies nothing, and spares nothing. It strikes the “victim” cruel and hard—and completely. The new cross does not slay the sinner but attempts to redirect him or her into a cleaner and happier way of living. It saves one’s self-respect and offers the individual a new and improved “old life.”

The message of the Christian church today must be the “old cross” of Tozer. Indeed, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). Again, Paul says that those in Christ have died to sin because we have been buried with him through baptism in his death (Rom. 6:1–4). True repentance slays the sinner and creates a new person in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

Much like the Old Testament prophets, the preacher today is called to “slay the sinner” with the words of God’s righteous judgment (e.g., Hos. 6:5). There is still a place for the fiery and confrontational ministry of a John the Baptist-like evangelist. A dark world will always need the uncompromising witness to the “true light” (John 1:7–9). Yet contemporary North American society has experienced a shift in communication paradigms. The multiple forms of electronic media utilized to both entertain and inform our technological society have profoundly influenced the “language” of communication. For example, today’s audio-visual communication especially appeals to the hearts and feelings of the audience. This contrasts starkly with the notational form of communication that appeals chiefly to the intellect and reason.50

The emergence of what is now called “symbolic language” is directly related to this cultural shift in communication paradigms. According to Babin, symbolic language is a language of stories, images, suggestions, and inferences.51 This is also the language of biblical narrative, a language that hints at things “in delicate and indirect ways.”52 The Chronicler reminds us that at times the preacher can “slay the sinner” indirectly with stories and personal examples of repentance couched in biblical narrative. There is an important place for the use of symbolic language in the church today as people reconnect with the idea of story and imagination as a result of the electronic media.

Naturally, the indirect communication of story and image is never a substitute for the direct communication of the prophetic call to repentance. Rather, it is complementary. This is why indirect communication is usually interpreted for the audience (e.g., Jesus’ interpretation of the parable of the sower; cf. Matt. 13:18). The Chronicler’s audience knows the history of Israel from the Kings’ parallels and the books of the major and minor prophets. His indirect call to repentance through the story of Hebrew history is contextualized for his audience by the shared national experience culminating in the Babylonian exile and the restoration of Judah. Like the parables of Jesus, however, the indirect communication of story as found in biblical narrative has much to commend it for the ministry of Christ’s gospel in our postmodern society. The indirect communication of the Bible was often prompted by historical or theological crises. The shift in the historical paradigm from the modern world to a postmodern world seems such a historical crisis, with considerable “theological fallout” for the Christian church.

(1) It places the onus on the audience (whether reader or hearer) to enter the story and search for personal meaning and application. Thus, indirect communication becomes both clue and snare because it simultaneously informs and conceals. For those with “ears to hear,” indirect communication of biblical narrative incites curiosity and excites the imagination. It becomes an invitation to the “seeker” to enter the mystery of the kingdom of God (cf. Col. 1:26–27).

(2) Indirect communication dulls the ears and pronounces judgment on the “outsider,” those who have willfully chosen not to “see” and “hear” God’s truth (cf. Ezek. 24:3–14). In quoting Isaiah the prophet, Jesus indicated that some have already “closed their eyes” and “hardly hear with their ears” and thus have hearts that have become “calloused” (Matt. 13:15; cf. Isa. 6:9–10). The implicit answer to the question posed to Jesus by his disciples as to why he spoke in parables is really that of winnowing the faithful from the unfaithful by means of indirect communication (Matt. 13:10–13). This is no doubt a hard teaching, but it serves to further our understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ as a “stumbling block” and a “rock” that makes people fall (1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Peter 2:8).

(3) This approach gives a preeminent place to the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing people into a conversation with God. One aspect of the genius of indirect communication is its ability to break down “defense mechanisms” in the audience as the reader or hearer gets caught up in the story. This means the “punch line” often has far greater impact for the “insider” or the person of faith than truth expressed by more direct means of communication.

Perhaps the best example of this is Nathan’s explanation to King David of the parable about a poor man who had but one ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–6). What else could David say but “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Sam. 12:13)? What else could have prompted David to write about the experience of his own repentance with such depth of feeling and force of spiritual conviction as in Psalm 51? In a way, the Chronicler anticipates the later ministry of Jesus, who “did not say anything to them without using a parable” (Mark 4:34).

Original Meaning

King Amon (33:21–25)

THE CHRONICLER OFFERS a condensed version of Amon’s reign as found in 2 Kings 21:19–26. Concluding the report of Amon’s reign by referring to Josiah’s succession, however, provides a natural lead into the account of Josiah (2 Chron. 33:25; cf. 2 Kings 21:24b, 26).

The Chronicler’s theological assessment of Amon expands the Kings parallel on two key points. (1) Amon differs from his father, Manasseh, in that he refuses to humble himself and repent of his sin (33:23a). (2) As a result of this behavior, Amon increases his guilt before God (33:23b). The Old Testament prophets promise restoration to those who turn to God in repentance (cf. Isa. 59:20; Jer. 15:19), while those who spurn God’s mercy and reject his forgiveness experience judgment (Jer. 5:3–6). There is a foreshadowing of later New Testament teaching when we consider the judgment Jesus pronounced on Korazin and Bethsaida for their failure to turn to God in repentance despite the miracles they witnessed (Matt. 11:20–24).

Amon’s rule lasts only two years (642–640 B.C., 33:21). He is judged an evil king because he perpetuates the false worship established in Judah by his father (33:22). The reason behind his assassination is unspecified (33:24). Clearly the general populace is not in sympathy with the coup since they execute those palace officials party to the conspiracy (33:25a). Selman notes that reports of such treachery in Chronicles are interpreted as divine judgment, and such may be the case here (cf. 24:25; 25:27).12 The expression “people of the land” (33:25a) may be an idiom for a coalition of religious and political leadership centered in Jerusalem since they also function as “king makers” in other succession crises (cf. 22:1; 26:1; 36:1).

Josiah (34:1–36:1)

Bridging Contexts

THE PREACHING OF THE CHRONICLER. We have already noted that the peculiar literary genius of the Chronicler lies in his ability to retell Israelite history as a sermon. According to Rex Mason, the essential features of the sermon include an appeal to some recognized source of authority, a proclamation of some theological teaching about the person and works of God, an appeal for some kind of response on the part of the audience, and the use of rhetorical devices designed to arouse the interest of the audience and engage them in the message topic.33

(1) The Chronicler cites two authoritative historical sources in his review of the reigns of the Kings Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah. The “annals of the kings of Israel” (33:18) and the “book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (35:27) are documents belonging to the royal archives and portions of which are now a part of the Old Testament books of 1 and 2 Kings. A third resource, the “records of the seers” (33:19) proves more difficult to identify. Clearly it is widely recognized as a reliable historical document compiled by the school of the prophets.

(2) This section of Chronicles highlights certain character traits of God, especially his compassion and mercy in responding to those who humble themselves and offer prayer seeking God’s forgiveness (i.e., Manasseh, 33:12–19; Josiah, 34:27). God is portrayed as one who listens and is moved to benevolent action on behalf of the penitent (33:13). Conversely, God’s righteousness in not acquitting the guilty is demonstrated in his response to Amon, who “increased his guilt” before God by refusing to humble himself (33:23).

(3) The repeated theme of this literary unit is repentance, or more specifically, “humbling oneself” before God (33:12, 19, 23; 34:27). The biblical term used (knʿ ) denotes a change of heart and attitude from a posture of defiance to submission toward God and principles of righteousness. The idea of repentance in the Old Testament, then, is basically that of turning around or returning to a point of departure. The “turn” of repentance and conversion consists of turning from something and turning toward something.34 Theologically, repentance is turning away from self and sin to God in utter humility and dependence.

Of special interest to the Chronicler are the immediate moral consequences of human behavior. Manasseh’s sin leads to his exile and imprisonment in Assyria (33:10–11). Later, Manasseh’s repentance leads to his restoration as king of Judah (33:12–13). Seemingly, all this would have been a great encouragement to the Chronicler’s audience. Yet, curiously, Chronicles is a sermon without an application since the books contain no direct reference to the writer’s own time period. The writer preaches from the examples of repentance in the lives of the Judahite kings of Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah but makes no direct appeal to the citizens of postexilic Jerusalem to respond in like manner.

(4) Finally, the Chronicler employs the literary or rhetorical approach of “storytelling” as the means of capturing and maintaining audience interest in his message. By storytelling we mean the use of the genre of biblical narrative as the primary vehicle for preaching the sermon. Biblical narrative may be separated (somewhat artificially) into two categories: heroic narrative and epic narrative.35 Chronicles is primarily epic narrative in that it is national rather than familial or tribal history, tends to emphasize cause-and-effect sequences more than plot development, contains commentary offered by the narrator, and often notes how God acts through human agents (e.g., prophet, king).36

Biblical narrative “presents a theology—that is, a proclamation about God—told by means of narrative.”37 For Mathews, this means that “historical narrative is narrative theology” because the biblical writers assume the role of God’s prophet and present a theological interpretation of Hebrew history.38 The audience’s intuited understanding of the Chronicler’s application is a key ingredient in the art of preaching through the medium of biblical narrative. Narrative theology is a subtle but most powerful literary technique for penetrating the heart and mind of the hearer (or reader) with the truth claims of the preacher’s message.

Two characteristics of biblical narrative are especially important to the subliminal approach in evoking the desired response from the writer’s audience. (1) The first is related to the idea of plot development, a central feature of storytelling. The plot of a story is a coherent sequence of related events moving toward closure. The essence of a story plot is conflict moving toward resolution.39 By his careful selection, arrangement, and reshaping of the narrative events associated with Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah, the Chronicler encourages his audience to consider the history of Judah during this time as a type of theological commentary on the divine response to human repentance. For the Chronicler, the resolution of the conflict (i.e., the seeming failure of the divine promise concerning the Davidic covenant after the return from exile) is found in the continuity of repentance and blessing as exhibited in the lives of certain kings of Judah.

(2) The second characteristic is linked to the role of the Chronicler as “narrator” (whether overt or covert) of the events in his retelling of Israel’s history. Typically, the narrator speaks in the third-person in biblical narrative, leaving personal judgment and moral commentary to the subtle influences of literary structure and the dialogue of the main characters. According to Bar Efrat, the narrator tends to “hint at things—in delicate and indirect ways—rather than stating them explicitly. The method of the biblical narrator requires a constant mental effort on the part of the reader, involving careful thought and attention to every detail of the narrator.”40

The same holds true for the Chronicler’s readers (or hearers). As narrator, the Chronicler persuades the audience to understand the history of Israel from his theological viewpoint, a viewpoint (sometimes) different from those of the participants in the story. Point of view is crucial for the interpretation of the narrative because it is the ideological and theological lens through which the audience comprehends the events of the plot of the story. By recounting the stories of repentance and subsequent divine blessing associated with Kings Manasseh and Josiah, as well as the divine judgment resulting from Amon’s failure to heed the word of God and repent, the Chronicler delicately and indirectly persuades his audience that humbling themselves before God in repentance would be in their best interests too!

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

PREACHING REPENTANCE. According to John Stott, the preacher is called to both comfort and disturb people.41 Admittedly, the latter task is an unpopular one. Nevertheless, it is necessary at times for the servant of God to confront his audience. The tradition of the prophet as “conscience” for God’s people has its roots in the ministry of the Old Testament prophets, who were called both to “uproot and tear down” and to “build and to plant” (Jer. 1:10).

The preacher both comforts and disturbs the audience through the act of preaching, the proclamation of the Word of God. The messenger must deliver the message of the One who sends the servant—not an invented message (cf. Amos 3:8; 2 Peter 1:21). For Stott, contemporary preaching builds bridges between two worlds: the Word or Holy Scripture and the world of everyday life.42 The preacher “earths” the Word in the world by communicating God’s truth with relevance and pertinence to our ever-changing society.

The “preaching” of Chronicles informs contemporary preaching at two levels. (1) In terms of content, the disturbing message of preaching is the call to repentance. (2) In terms of style, the narrative approach permits the preacher to locate the disturbing message in a larger story that also includes the message of comfort.

We have defined repentance as an “about face,” a turning away from sin, self, and death to righteousness, God, and life (Jer. 31:18–20; Luke 3:8–14). The effects of the Fall are still manifest in the world, as both the psalmist and the apostle Paul observe that “all have turned aside … there is no one who does good” (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:12). One need only pick up a daily newspaper or turn on a local television news broadcast to verify the biblical assessment of the human condition. The real question, then, is not one of why anyone should repent of sin and turn to God. Rather, the crucial questions are twofold: Who can truly forgive sin and restore human dignity and purpose? When is it too late to repent and turn to God?

There is a sense in which the story of Manasseh’s repentance foreshadows that of the believing thief in the Gospel (33:12–13; cf. Luke 23:40–43). Both stories answer the crucial questions by illustrating the point that the God of the Bible can truly forgive sin and that his door of salvation and restoration is always open. The old and new covenants alike portray God as one who is gracious, merciful, compassionate, and slow to anger—not desiring that anyone should perish but that all should repent and live (Ezek. 18:32; cf. Ex. 34:6–7; John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9). The lyrics of an old nineteenth-century Christian hymn capture the truth of this biblical teaching: “There is a wideness in God’s mercy like the wideness of the sea; there’s a kindness in His justice which is more than liberty.”

Scott has aptly reminded us that the preacher’s call to repentance, in any age, must be both personal and corporate. That is, corporate or community repentance “for social sin and the defects of accepted morality” goes hand in hand with personal repentance for sin and rebellion against God and his holy law.43 Beyond this, the call to repentance is necessarily coupled with the summons to believe and live in God’s way—the way that leads to life and “fruitful” living (cf. Matt. 7:13–20). The enduring reality that encourages the prophets in their ministry and saves them from despair as heralds of God’s “disturbing” word—the idea of humanity’s capacity for repentance—should sustain today’s preacher in like manner.44

Barclay furthers the discussion by developing the idea that today’s preacher should also be sustained by what he calls “the great challenge and privilege of the Christian.”45 That great challenge and privilege are partnering with God in the ministry of the conversion of individuals to Christianity, and this partnership is necessary because the primary means of conversion in the early church was the preaching of the gospel.

Repentance does not necessarily suspend the consequences of personal or corporate sin. The kingdom of Judah was destroyed and the Hebrews were exiled in Babylonia despite Josiah’s national revival (36:15–19). As Heschel has warned, God’s forgiveness must not be mistaken for indulgence or complacency.46 Nor are we to be seduced by the preaching of “cheap grace” decried by Bonhoeffer.47 Lest we tame God and fashion him after our own image, it is important to remember he is loving and faithful, but he is also terrible and dangerous. We would do well to recall Lucy’s conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver about the great lion Aslan of Narnia fame:

“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.

“Safe?” said Mrs. Beaver. “Who said anything about safe? Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King.”48

Indeed, the God of the Bible is holy and just; but he is also “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made” (Ps. 145:8–9). The glorious message of the Bible, unique among all the holy books of the world’s religions, is that God’s anger, though provoked by human sin, may be revoked by human repentance. Happily, assuredly God returns to those who return to him (Zech. 1:3; Mal. 3:7).

The Chronicler also provides instruction on preaching style. A. W. Tozer wrote about those who preach the “old cross” and those who preach the “new cross.”49 The old cross is the symbol of death, representing the abrupt and violent end of a human being. It “slays the sinner” and makes no compromise, modifies nothing, and spares nothing. It strikes the “victim” cruel and hard—and completely. The new cross does not slay the sinner but attempts to redirect him or her into a cleaner and happier way of living. It saves one’s self-respect and offers the individual a new and improved “old life.”

The message of the Christian church today must be the “old cross” of Tozer. Indeed, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). Again, Paul says that those in Christ have died to sin because we have been buried with him through baptism in his death (Rom. 6:1–4). True repentance slays the sinner and creates a new person in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

Much like the Old Testament prophets, the preacher today is called to “slay the sinner” with the words of God’s righteous judgment (e.g., Hos. 6:5). There is still a place for the fiery and confrontational ministry of a John the Baptist-like evangelist. A dark world will always need the uncompromising witness to the “true light” (John 1:7–9). Yet contemporary North American society has experienced a shift in communication paradigms. The multiple forms of electronic media utilized to both entertain and inform our technological society have profoundly influenced the “language” of communication. For example, today’s audio-visual communication especially appeals to the hearts and feelings of the audience. This contrasts starkly with the notational form of communication that appeals chiefly to the intellect and reason.50

The emergence of what is now called “symbolic language” is directly related to this cultural shift in communication paradigms. According to Babin, symbolic language is a language of stories, images, suggestions, and inferences.51 This is also the language of biblical narrative, a language that hints at things “in delicate and indirect ways.”52 The Chronicler reminds us that at times the preacher can “slay the sinner” indirectly with stories and personal examples of repentance couched in biblical narrative. There is an important place for the use of symbolic language in the church today as people reconnect with the idea of story and imagination as a result of the electronic media.

Naturally, the indirect communication of story and image is never a substitute for the direct communication of the prophetic call to repentance. Rather, it is complementary. This is why indirect communication is usually interpreted for the audience (e.g., Jesus’ interpretation of the parable of the sower; cf. Matt. 13:18). The Chronicler’s audience knows the history of Israel from the Kings’ parallels and the books of the major and minor prophets. His indirect call to repentance through the story of Hebrew history is contextualized for his audience by the shared national experience culminating in the Babylonian exile and the restoration of Judah. Like the parables of Jesus, however, the indirect communication of story as found in biblical narrative has much to commend it for the ministry of Christ’s gospel in our postmodern society. The indirect communication of the Bible was often prompted by historical or theological crises. The shift in the historical paradigm from the modern world to a postmodern world seems such a historical crisis, with considerable “theological fallout” for the Christian church.

(1) It places the onus on the audience (whether reader or hearer) to enter the story and search for personal meaning and application. Thus, indirect communication becomes both clue and snare because it simultaneously informs and conceals. For those with “ears to hear,” indirect communication of biblical narrative incites curiosity and excites the imagination. It becomes an invitation to the “seeker” to enter the mystery of the kingdom of God (cf. Col. 1:26–27).

(2) Indirect communication dulls the ears and pronounces judgment on the “outsider,” those who have willfully chosen not to “see” and “hear” God’s truth (cf. Ezek. 24:3–14). In quoting Isaiah the prophet, Jesus indicated that some have already “closed their eyes” and “hardly hear with their ears” and thus have hearts that have become “calloused” (Matt. 13:15; cf. Isa. 6:9–10). The implicit answer to the question posed to Jesus by his disciples as to why he spoke in parables is really that of winnowing the faithful from the unfaithful by means of indirect communication (Matt. 13:10–13). This is no doubt a hard teaching, but it serves to further our understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ as a “stumbling block” and a “rock” that makes people fall (1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Peter 2:8).

(3) This approach gives a preeminent place to the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing people into a conversation with God. One aspect of the genius of indirect communication is its ability to break down “defense mechanisms” in the audience as the reader or hearer gets caught up in the story. This means the “punch line” often has far greater impact for the “insider” or the person of faith than truth expressed by more direct means of communication.

Perhaps the best example of this is Nathan’s explanation to King David of the parable about a poor man who had but one ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–6). What else could David say but “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Sam. 12:13)? What else could have prompted David to write about the experience of his own repentance with such depth of feeling and force of spiritual conviction as in Psalm 51? In a way, the Chronicler anticipates the later ministry of Jesus, who “did not say anything to them without using a parable” (Mark 4:34).