From monarch to bishop: Covenant, Torah, and community formation in the Old Testament and the Anglican Communion

Anglican Theological Review, Winter 2003 by Newman, Judith H

A third difference is that Chronicles states that all Israel observed the Passover, that is, both the people of Judah and of Israel. Although Chronicles was written at a time when the kingdom was no longer in existence, it was important to the author to portray the people, both from the north and the south, as a unified community. The means of this unification was the centralized worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus, the first part of the Davidic covenant relating to the eternal dynasty of David was no longer a reality; the legacy of the Davidic monarch now lies in the second part of the Davidic covenant: the service of the Temple, which reflects the divine order.

We might also note some smaller, more subtle differences in the Chroniclers' account. One is the way in which the "scroll of the Torah" is characterized. In the Kings account, "the book of the law" or the "book of the covenant" appears eight times. At the end of the account, these written traditions are called "the law/Torah of Moses." But in Chronicles we have nine references to the "book of the law." Moreover, two of these explicitly refer to the word of Yahweh that is contained therein. The written "book of law" thus is given more, and explicitly divine, authority as opposed to the more implicitly prophetic authority conveyed in Kings. There are also ancient authorities other than Moses to whom appeal is made in order to convey authority. Chronicles states that the Passover preparations are made "following the written direction of King David of Israel and the written directions of his son Solomon." Thus David's role as cult founder, very important in the book of Chronicles as a whole, is stressed.

There is also a tendency to honor and synthesize earlier legal traditions, not only from Deuteronomy, but also from the rest of the Pentateuch and other parts of Scripture, much of which seems to reflect an advanced stage of crystallization by the post-exilic period when Chronicles was written. The authority of earlier tradition is exemplified in the fusion of two Pentateuchal commands about the Passover sacrifice. Matters of ritual observance were very important in the post-exilic period. The Torah was conceived, after all, as divinely ordained, so its proper observance was essential. Exodus 12:8-9 calls for the Passover lamb to be roasted, but according to Deuteronomy 16:7, it is to be boiled. How, then, should the lamb be prepared? 2 Chronicles 35:13 reads, "They roasted the Passover lamb with fire according to the ordinance and they boiled the holy offering in pots. . . ." What were once two different traditions about how to observe the Passover are now brought into harmony-while in fact calling for a new way to cook the festal beast!

There are several values reflected in the Chronicler's account, but most prominent is the expression of a unified polity of all the people, not just the southern kingdom of Judah, under one sovereign, in which worship, properly offered, is the binding force for community. This stands in contrast to the account in 2 Kings, in which the Davidic king's submission to the conditional law of Moses is paramount for ensuring the stability of the polity. While both recognize and reaffirm the older covenant as represented by the "book of the law," they do so in ways that shape community differently.