Step back in time now about 250 years, from the time of Jonah, Amos, Hosea and the long reign of King Jeroboam II of Israel and we find ourselves back again at the birth of the United Monarchy, and reintroduced to the story of King David.

The Book of Chronicles (or sometimes Paraleipomêna meaning ‘additions’, or ‘supplements’) is a great example of the highly subjective nature of History. The books together span the time covered by 2 Samuel – 2 Kings, detailing the reigns of David and Solomon as well as the other kings of the Divided Monarchy. But they tell the story very differently.

If you remember back to March when we were in Numbers, I wrote on the different sources used to compile the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). There was J & E, sources reflecting different historical traditions from the Southern & Northern Kingdoms respectively. And then there was D & P, D covering material related to the Deuteronomic Covenant and P providing information and narrative related to the Priestly tradition of Israel, often concerned with facts, figures and regulatory data connected to the maintenance of the Tabernacle and the Cultic rituals as well as the recording of genealogies.

It is clear from even a cursory reading of 1 Chronicles that P has been significantly involved, such are the long sections of genealogical record as well as the extensive, detailed lists of land-division and priestly duties in the Temple (very little of this appears in the Samuel-Kings accounts). This is also obvious with the extended narrative on the return of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (chapters 13-16, contra 2 Samuel where it only features in chapter 6), the Ark being a key symbol of Temple (and therefore priestly) life.

This reflects the difference in Israel’s balance of power between the time that the Chronicler was busy redacting and the earlier time of the compilation of the Samuel & Kings accounts. As I said back in that post on Numbers, after the Exile it was the priestly tradition rather than the monarchy that held most influence over Israel. The books of Samuel and Kings were most likely written during the Exile. Battered and bruised by the experience of occupation and deportation, the Redactors exude a painful desperation and a lack of hope. Chronicles, on the other hand, written later after the return from Babylon convey a sense of renewed vigour and purpose. Land must be redistributed and the Temple management resumed (thus detailed records of how they left off are important). The Chronicler’s account of David omits his affair with Bathsheba and the bitter infighting with his sons. Instead his reign is remembered strongly for his preparation for the building of the Temple (something hardly mentioned in 2 Samuel) and, as part of that, the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem.

This looks a little like rose-tinted history.

Does it matter?

The simple fact is: All history is tinted. Whether rose-tinted, dung-tinted, battle-proud, self-doubting, every piece of history reveals not just fact, but feeling as well.

And this is part of the beauty and the frustration of our readings. There is something in us that would love to know what ‘really’ happened. But even if we could each be a fly on the wall for any of these events we would record it differently. We would be shocked by different attitudes, inspired by different people. We would note different moments in different orders with different emphases because our account would reflect us, and we are all different. ‘Real’ in any re-telling, is a matter of opinion.

This is part of the wonder of the Scriptures. Each perspective may be enlivened by the breath of God, but it is still just one perspective, just as Jesus was God incarnate, but still an individual from a particular point in history, from a particular geographical region, of a particular gender, with a particular personality etc. We like to declare things in absolutes and universals, but the Scriptures take us into the particularities of one people’s story, and make us feel their emotion and experience in order to help us engage with our own.

I grew up on the idea that the Bible had no inconsistencies; it is the Word of God, after all, and God would not contradict himself! Yet my experience of the Scriptures tells me this is not the case, many doctrines prioritising what we think ‘God’s’ Word should be like, rather than taking it as it comes. One of the starkest contradictions I have found comes in this section of the Chronicles. In 21:1 it reads ‘Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.’ The same story is told as the closing passage of 2 Samuel, but in that account, in 24:1, it reads ‘Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them…’ It is hard to find any theological reconciliation for these texts; either this mischief was the work of Satan or the Lord, such is the distinction between the two.

If the Bible is there to microwave us some ‘universal-truth’ ready-meals then this passage is a serious problem. But if it is our food, of the kind that takes time to prepare, and maybe time to mature, then this contradiction is a mere matter of time. Israel had not encountered the idea of a ‘Satan’ until they met the Zoroastrian religion whilst in Babylon (indeed they had neither a developed concept of Angels, Hell or even Heaven till this point). Thus 2 Samuel reflects the older theological idea that things, both bad and good happened at the initiative of Yahweh. 1 Chronicles, on the other hand, sports the newer idea that bad things were actually the result of a separate and ‘invisible’ evil being.

Which of these is right?

Maybe the newer idea is a progressive step on the older; God, like any father, not revealing everything to his children in one go. This does, of course, leave open the possibility, or even probability, that God continues to work with humankind to develop these ideas further, beyond even those found explicitly in the biblical accounts.

Or maybe the older idea is the better more established view. The new worldview is rather bizarre after all. Of course, the problem still remains, how can God be the author of evil and rebellion against himself? (A point that Jesus aptly made, Mark 3:20-30)

If we think that in a world of constant conflict and complexity God would offer simple solutions in a handbook, we have come to the Scriptures with the wrong expectations. But, if we are prepared to search, with patience, for the Word of God to our times, then we will find it, even within the jumbled history of an ancient people.