We return to the alternative history this week with the second half of the Chronicles. Detailing the history of the Kings of Judah the account follows it Southern-Kingdom Priestly-tradition perspective on the reign of Solomon through to Zedekiah and the Exile to Babylon.

Like the book of Kings, this is in part a frantic picking over entrails; a throbbing question that relentlessly demands ‘what went wrong?’ From the grandeur and glamour of Solomon wends a dismal trail of failure, till even the great reformers cannot stem the tide of demise. The loyal Levitical priesthood long for answers; some explanation that can undo their doubt and pain; some power to ensure success in their brave new post-exilic world. The writing of Chronicles is part of their journey.

In the first post on Chronicles I wrote about the contradictions and particularities of different scriptural perspectives. In the discipline of Biblical Theology, one of the concepts designed to help find some clarity and unity amongst this multiplicity is that of ‘trajectory’. A trajectory is the path taken by a ball if you throw it. Initially it rises, gaining height. Then it peaks. Finally, it arches downwards on the home-stretch of its movement, gravity giving it renewed momentum.

Some ideas and themes display a trajectory of movement through the biblical material. A classic example is that of ‘covenant’. God’s very broad covenant with Noah develops to a family covenant with Abraham. It continues into a national covenant with Moses and monarchical covenant with David. In Jesus it finds its fulfilment and ‘peak’, leaving it changed with new vitality and power to catch us up in its accelerating downward motion. There are many other concepts that display this trend (though the metaphor shouldn’t be forced; I’ve found the ideas of God to move more like a bouncy ball!) hence the idea is particularly useful in exploring the progression and evolution of Israel’s religious life.

In 2 Chronicles we find ourselves somewhere in the middle of this covenant-trajectory rise. 1 Chronicles documented the covenant Yahweh makes with David for a kingly line for his descendants. 2 Chronicles follows the ramifications of this promise in the context of a national split, but also, particularly by 34:14-33 and the discovery of the Book of the Law, explores the ongoing saga of the role of the Mosaic covenant in the life of Judah.

Chronicles, remember, is a history written to address the concerns of the post-exilic Yahwist community. For the Priesthood, the covenant with Yahweh had been broken by both Israel and Judah; the Book of Kings made that clear enough. But more than that, it had been broken because it had been ignored. For the Israelites in Jerusalem, living now under foreign rule, one key question overwhelmed: with Jews everywhere – Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine – and the monarchy gone, who are the people of God? Through Chronicles, the Priests give their answer: those who follow Torah.

This concern for the importance of the Mosaic covenant, expressed at Sinai and reaffirmed on the plains of the Jordan, is evident through Chronicles’ Temple-centric narrative; most of the action is in the Temple and most of the controversy surrounds its use, or misuse. The enthroning of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy Place by Solomon and the reforms and covenant-renewal of Asa, Hezekiah and Josiah play such a significant part in the story that there is hardly room for much else. As a work of history, Chronicles gives its readers a perspective on the judgement on Judah that empowers them with new vigour for the task of living as the People of Yahweh. As a piece on the journey of covenant trajectory it raises some important questions.

The first is: are they right? Was closer observance of Torah the path to life as the People of God and protection from judgement? As the covenant trajectory peaks into Jesus – the fulfilment of Torah – his life and teachings suggest that to live by the Law leaves you in serious danger of missing its ‘spirit’. Certainly Paul, an early pioneer on the trajectory’s downbend, was pretty adamant that the Law was an old-school headmaster; Jesus led the way to liberation.

The second question is: What does it mean to be the People of God today? As Chronicles wrestles with its history to emphasise its priorities, the life and power of the Yahweh-covenant is brought alive in the newly re-settled Israelite community. How do we tell our history – national, international, cultural and Christian – in a way that makes clear our priorities for life in this post-Christian pluralist, Western world?

If we are to take Jesus’ New Covenant seriously, our rejection of the Old Torah must go hand in hand with an understanding of what the new Way entails. So how would we tell Chronicles if it were up to us? What would we emphasise? What would we critique? What will we say about the early church, the Christianisation of Europe, Imperial Expansion, Globalisation? These histories will continue to be told in a certain manner. What is our take on the past? It will shape the future.

Big Questions for reflection (require some proper thought):

1) Try and sum up Jesus whole life and ministry in one word. Ridiculously difficult, but have a go. How does Chronicles match up to this value?

2) From everything you’ve read so far, what do think the New Covenant is about?

3) How does this New Covenant relate to the Covenant made with Moses and the people of Israel as set out in the Pentateuch?