You are on page 1of 34

WTJ 46 (1984) 317-349


MID admirable aspirations of comprehensive coverage, biblical scholarship has, nonetheless, largely ignored the contribution of the books of Chronicles to scriptural study. We may
trace the matrix of such neglect as far back as the LXX tradition
which labelled the Chronicler's works, paraleipomenön — "the
things left out." Concerning this Greek designation, H. G. M.
Williamson remarks:


Such a name is clearly misleading, however, for it obscures the fact that
Chronicles also repeats much material from Samuel and Kings and, more
importantly, it fails to do justice to the Chronicler's own positive purpose
which he had in writing and which has determined his selection and arrangement of material. Indeed, it may be said that the influence of this
misnomer in LXX and V on the Christian church has contributed significantly to the undervaluing and consequent neglect of these books until
comparatively recent times.1

The modern revival of interest in Chronicles studies owes almost
exclusively to OT scholars, which is logical enough considering
the presence of Chronicles in the Hebrew canon. But what of NT
scholarship as it seeks to understand its discipline against the
backdrop of OT influence? The NT student readily admits the
prevalence of OT quotations, terminology, and themes in the NT,
but what about the place of Chronicles in this intertestamental
* I wish to thank Professor R. B. Dillard for his gracious encouragement,
helpful insights, and most of all, the inspiration to pursue Chronicles studies
as an extremely important facet of biblical interpretation; and Professor
M. Silva for his patient editorial guidance and inspiration to explicate the
vital link between OT and NT.
*Η. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 4.




In a typical table listing all NT citations of the OT, the books
of Chronicles are conspicuous only by their absence.2 Even if we
expand the list to include allusions and associations, the Chronicler
fares no better. To be sure, the NT writers obviously mention
David, Solomon, and the temple, but these OT references are
usually attributed to Samuel-Kings with scarcely a side glance
at the Chronicler's input.3
Is this really a fair assessment of the Chronicler's impact on
the NT authors? At least one pleasant exception to an otherwise
negative appraisal emerges in the connection between a passage
unique to the Chronicler in 2 Chron 28:5-15 (the capture and
release of Judean victims by Israel) and Luke 10:25-37 (the
parable of the Good Samaritan) noted by several OT and NT
scholars.4 Even so, interpreters who acknowledge the ChroniclesLuke parallel typically abandon the task of working out the details
and implications of the relationship. For instance, commenting on
2 Chron 28:5-15, R. L. Braun merely queries in a footnote: "Is it
See, for example, the tables in H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek (rev. R. R. Ottley; 2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1914; reprinted, New York: Ktav, 1968) 381-91; D. M. Turpie,
The Old Testament in the New: A Contribution to Biblical Criticism (London: Williams and Norgate, 1868) 271-74; R. G. Bratcher, ed., Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (rev. ed.; London/New York/
Suttgart: United Bible Societies, 1961).
For example, modern versions (e. g. NIV) and listings of OT-NT parallels
(e. g. Bratcher's table) typically attribute the reference in 2 Cor 6:18 and
Heb 1:5 to 2 Sam 7:14, curiously ignoring the 1 Chronicles 17 parallel.
This predilection toward Samuel-Kings may owe to the clear citation of
I Kgs 19:10, 14, 18 in Rom 11:2-6, assuming then (unfairly) that all NT
writers were more familiar with Samuel-Kings than Chronicles.
P. R. Ackroyd, / and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1973) 177; R. J. Coggins, The First and Second
Books of the Chronicles (Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English
Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976) 259; A. S. Herbert, "I and
II Chronicles," in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (ed. M. Black and
H. H. Rowley; London: Thomas Nelson, 1962) 367; O. Zòckler, "The Books
of the Chronicles," in Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 4 (ed.
P. Schaff, 1873; new ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960) 241-42; R. North,
"The Chronicler: 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah," JBC, 423; W. Rudolph,
Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955) 291; R. L. Braun,
"The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, 29 for the Structure and Theology
of the Work of the Chronicler" (Th.D. dissertation, Concordia Seminary,
1971) 194; R. L. Braun, "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude
Toward the North," JBL 96 (1977) 61; J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15


possible that Luke 10 is formally dependent on this passage?"5
One suspects that Braun would answer his own question affirmatively, yet he leaves the issue unexamined and unresolved.6
O. Zöckler is more elaborate but equally ambiguous when he
For, in fact, there is here [2 Chron 28:5-15] a grand archetype of the
deed of compassion described in this didactic narrative of the Lord [parable of the Good Samaritan], as sure as they were inhabitants of the city
and later country of Samaria, who took so loving a interest in the helpless
Jews. The thought that Christ drew directly from this episode of the
present war several points of His noble lesson should by no means be
absolutely rejected.7
Exactly how is 2 Chronicles 28 "a grand archetype" of the parable
of the Good Samaritan? What are the specific "several points"
which Jesus draws from Chronicles in his parabolic teaching?
Zöckler does not elaborate.8
NT researchers studying the parable of the Good Samaritan also
offer little more than the barest cross-reference to 2 Chronicles 28.
T. W. Manson, for example, poses the provocative comparison,
"With the parable itself, cf. 2 Ch 28:1-15," but then proceeds
without explaining the relationship at all.9 Lamenting Manson's
sketchy allusion to the Chronicles passage, F. H. Wilkinson flatly
Testament (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970) 210; I. H. Marshall,
The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NICGNT; Exeter:
Paternoster, 1978) 445; W. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According
to Luke (New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978) 594; W.
Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Zurich: Theologischer, 1980) 128;
W. Monselewski, Der barmherzige Samariter: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zu Lukas 10¿5-37 (J. C. B. Mohr: Tübingen, 1967) 174;
C. E. B. Cranfield, "The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)," TToday 11
-(1954-55) 370; R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (2d
rev. ed.; New York: Harper and Row, 1968) 204. Also Bultmann and
Derrett both make note of the older German articles by F. Orth, Protest.
Monatschr. 18 (1914) 406-11; and K. Kastner in BZ 12 (1914) 29-30.
Braun, "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude," 61 n. 12 ; Braun,
"The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, 29," 194.
In all fairness to Braun, this issue was outside the major concern of his
research; hence, the relegation of this question to a footnote.
? Zöckler, "The Books of the Chronicles," 241-42.
In addition to the shared emphasis on the "Samaritans' " assisting of
the Jews, the only other explicit connection Zöckler draws between the parable and 2 Chronicles 28 is the common site of Jericho.
T . W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1937) 262.

The linguistic and circumstantial parallels between 2 Chron 28:5-15 and Luke 10:25-37 are lucid from even a cursory perusal of the two texts. 11 For a survey of the identity of the travellers in the parable. IS) Stripping of clothes Beating {plëgën epithentes — "they placed blows") Theft (marauders called "robbers") (v30) Attackers Aramean and Israelite warriors guilty of appropriating "much spoil" (vv 8. including soldiers and their families. "Oded: Proto-Type of the Good Samaritan. Wilkinson. and various prominent citizens — all denizens of Jerusalem (vv6-8) Anonymous "man. structural. H." EvQ 42 (1970) 2-6." probably a Jew and resident of Jerusalem ( v 3 0 ) n Victims* injurìes Hardship of nakedness (vlS) Beating (plëgën megalën — "a great blow" — ν S [LXX] ) Confiscation of posses­ sions ("took much spoil") (vv 8. "People on the Road to Jericho. Bishop. This paper seeks to fill a void in understanding both the parable of the Good Samaritan and 2 Chron 28:5-15 by carefully investigating the relationship between the two passages with a special eye to linguistic.32) Place of convalescence Judean captives taken to Jericho for treatment and recuperation (vlS) Samaritan takes victim to an inn probably located in Jericho for convalescence (vv30."10 We agree. 12 The precise itinerary of the Samaritan is somewhat ambiguous. see E. 15) Undesignated robbers (lestais — ν 30) Israel's leaders Prophet (Oded) and Ephraimite rulers (vv 9-13) Priest and Lévite (vv31. 35 ) 1 2 !<>F. and thematic affinities." ExpTim 69 (1957-58) 69. The most salient similarities are enumerated in Figure A. includ- . This chart serves at least to silence any charges of FIGURE A 2 Chron 28:5-15 Luke 10:25-37 Victims Massive number of Judeans.320 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL asserts: "The comparison deserves fuller consideration. F. F.

15) "Neighbor" (plêsion) — three times (vv 27. See BAGD. Conceivably one could claim that Jesus simply employs the furniture of the Chronicles narrative for illustrative purposes and that his parabolic message is essentially independent of his OT source. 36) forced parallelism between 2 Chronicles 28 and Luke 10. it proves a more likely place where a Samaritan would be trusted as a businessman ("I will repay you when I come back" [v 35]) as opposed to Jerusalem. 35. Jas 5:14)." 4-6. The multiplicity and specificity of the connections are just too strong to ignore. and events hardly illumines the hermeneutical significance of Jesus' utilization of the Chronicles tradition in his parable. the issue may not really be a hermeneutical one at all. Grand Rapids: Baker. "Down from Jerusalem to Jericho. a verb used for anointing the sick with oil (Mark 6:13. But a mere drawing of linking lines between people. Bishop. ν 30) Ministers of healing Northern Israelites (Samarians) Samaritan Kinship terminology "Kinsfolk" ( ' 4 [MT]. 13 The verb suk has no object expressed in ν 15. 2 Sam 14:2). the site of the inn to which he carries the victim is probably in Jericho. Which direction he comes from is conjectural. which is probably implied in our text. See E. 1971. the last chapter. but in other places it associates with semen ("oil. pp. 14 See R. 11. 29. places. T. g. Of course. France." EvQ 35 (1963) 99-100. Since Jericho was a frontier city on the border between Judea and Samaria. but at any rate. "People on the Road to Jericho.14 and we feel that further research into the above parallels between 2 Chroning the exact locale of the inn to which he transports the injured party. Bishop. Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale. The LXX utilizes aleiphö. . 172226. F. the heart of Jewry. probably with oil (v 15) ι« Transport on donkey to Jericho for treatment (vlS) Clothing the naked (twice inv 15·— endyö [LXX]) Pouring on of oil and and wine (v 34) Transport on donkey to inn for treatment (v34) Clothing implied as part of Samaritan's ministry since victim had been "stripped" (ekdyö. F. But this rather cavalier approach to OT material is not characteristic of Jesus' teaching methodology taken as a whole.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 321 Ministry of healing Anointing (suk). reprinted." e. 14)82) esp. adelphos [LXX]) —three times (vv 8.

E. Funk. The Good Samaritan — The Good Shepherd? (ConNT 16. However. The Gospel According to St. Gleerup. 1958) 11. Too. choosing to underscore the fact of the indifference (whatever the reason) by prominent religious figures in Israel normally expected to exemplify proper ethical responses. the coldhearted personnel of 2 Chronicles 28 have no apparent clerical connection. The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker. Luke (Tyndale NT Commentaries. Morris. R.15 Nevertheless. Was heisst das: Liebe? (Stuttgart: Calwer. 212-17. J. 1972) 20-24. Lund: C. 1980) 170.322 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL icles 28 and Luke 10 will demonstrate a real sensitivity on Jesus' part to the broad structural and thematic context of the Chronicles passage and how this context relates to the emphases of the parable of the Good Samaritan. see G. of all peoples. 1982) 47. L. I. but the most satisfactory explanations focus on some dimension of scrupulosity regarding ceremonial defilement. The exact reason for the clerics' lack of attention to the victim's plight is debatable. Clowney.: Presbyterian and Reformed. P. .16 The scenario of 2 Chronicles 28 certainly parades characters (Israelite attackers) who display insensi ti vity to the suffering of the defeated Judeans. Gerhardsson. With these points in mind. Chronicles appears to have little bearing on the formation of the parable of the Good Samaritan. 16 A tone of anticlericalism in the parable of the Good Samaritan has been noted by B. Ν. W. S. worthy of emulation. For a position against an anticlerical interpretation. K. Kistemaker. Preaching and Biblical Theology (Phillipsburg. Parables and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition (Philadelphia: For­ tress. W. 1979) 187. Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Israel's Leaders In Jesus' parable the insensitive responses of the priest and Lévite figure dramatically as stark contrasts to the helping ministry of the Good Samaritan. J. should have known better than to 15 Derrett. But we must not ignore the following considerations surrounding Israel's indifference to Judah's suffering: (1) The author in 2 Chronicles 28 strongly emphasizes that the Israelites. Jesus leaves the precise motives for the priest's and Levite's callousness to conjecture. these negligent northern neighbors are not neutral third parties (as the unresponsive clerics in the Lucan parable) but the actual inflicters of pain. Law in the New Testament. 1979) 115.

L. Such reaction corresponds with the parabolic implication that of all people. Chronicles portrays them exhorting the northern soldiers to extend dutybound. We must not overlook the possibility that Jesus exploits this dramatic contrast. Well-known among the distinctive elements of the Chronicler's historiography is his special interest in the ministry of the priests and Lévites. but rather prophet (Oded) and rulers (Ephraimite chieftains) . the priest and Lévite. an implied emphasis on cultic personnel may lurk in the not too remote background and still prove significant in relation to the parable of the Good Samaritan.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S 323 oppress their Judean brothers. Would that the contemporary priests and Lévites deport themselves as the prophet and rulers of 2 Chronicles 28!" (3) Though not explicitly discussed in the 2 Chronicles 28 passage. generally depicted in a favorable light. Both Oded's speech (vv 9-11) and the reply of the Ephraimite leaders (vv 12-13) confirm the appalling unreasonableness of the Israelites' harsh treatment in view of Israel's own iniquitous state. The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Its Date (London: Oxford University. the writer does not feature priest and Lévite. To be sure. Petersen. saying in effect: "We all know from 2 Chronicles 28 how Israel's leaders should and in fact did respond to their hurting brothers. After all. we must still admit the antithetical responses of Israel's leaders in Chronicles and Luke. the Chronicler's prophet and rulers admirably fulfill their expected ministries of benevolence toward their injured neighbors.17 The priesthood receives specific 17 A. C. the focus on leadership provides some bridge with Luke 10. these Jerusalemites of southern Palestine were Israel's fellow-countrymen who had only been delivered into northern hands because of the judgment of God upon Judah's sins — sins with which Israel herself was all too familiar. Do we then abandon any linkage between Luke 10 and 2 Chronicles 28 at this point? Not necessarily. Far from displaying the inexcusable apathy of the parable's priest and Lévite. Late Israelite . loving ministry to their Judean brothers. Welch. The incredible situation today is quite the reverse. should have moved with compassion toward the victim in the ditch rather than spurn the opportunity to minister. as servants of the Lord. nevertheless. (2) 2 Chronicles 28 does highlight the response of Israel's leaders to Judah's suffering. 1939) 55-56. D. However.

God is with us at our head. and Lévites for their service. and we have not forsaken him. Quite the opposite of being indifferent to the victims' suffering as in the parable. Behold. the priests and Lévites are the victims in the Chronicles account. « H.18 And what about the priests and Lévites? They must be participants in the decadence of Judah. G. 1977) 60ff. so the priesthood can hardly avoid implication in the spiritual decline of the nation. . [2 Chron 13:10-12a] Noting this total alignment of priests and Lévites with the Southern Kingdom after the schism. we can safely assume that these clerics number among the victims ravaged by the northern armies in 2 Chronicles 28. and his priests with their battle trumpets to sound the call to battle against you. but he could scarcely have been Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (Missoula: Scholars. 2 Kings 16 expressly describes the compliance of Uriah the priest with Ahaz's cultic activities.324 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL commendation for siding with Rehoboam during the schism and for abandoning the Northern Kingdom completely (2 Chron 11:13-17). and on the hills. To be sure. Williamson. . But acknowledging the inclusion of priests and Lévites among the victims in 2 Chronicles 28 does not glorify them in the slightest. Judah and Israel have switched roles for the moment. the Chronicler does not mention the priesthood in 2 Chronicles 28. Rather they suffer due to God's wrath poured out against the apostasy of Judah under the wicked reign of Ahaz. On the surface we again face a marked antithesis to Luke 10. but you have forsaken him. and under every green tree" (2 Chron 28:1-4. for we keep the charge of the Lord our God. 343-44. see also vv 22-27). . The sacrificial system has become a travesty through Ahaz's idolatrous worship of the Baals and despicable offering of sacrifices (including his sons) "on the high places. . M. In effect 2 Chronicles 28 depicts an historical reversal of Abijah's speech. We have priests ministering to the Lord who are sons of Aaron. The victims in this passage represent no innocent. 1 and 2 Chronicles. They offer to the Lord every morning and every evening burnt offerings . the Lord is our God. neutral parties as in the NT parable. Abijah's speech especially exalts the faithfulness of the cultic ministers over against the apostates of Jeroboam's Israel: But as for us.

these would no doubt have been recorded. consistent with the Chronicler's favorable presentation of the priesthood.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S 325 unaware of its guilt. the priesthood of Jesus' day. it may not be stretching the point to claim that Jesus draws a subtle parallel between the priest and Lévite in Jerusalem of his day and those of Ahaz's time. what is tacit concerning the priests' misconduct in 2 Chronicles 28 blooms into a more explicit statement in the next chapter where Hezekiah is said to purify the defiled temple-system — including the priesthood (2 Chron 29:4-5). Even here. The following chiastic schema relative to the parable of the Good Samaritan features the element of response to the traveller on the Jericho road. Another literary approach which reveals the linkage between the actions of Israel's leaders in 2 Chronicles 28 and Luke 10 utilizes the results of structural analysis. In other words. shockingly falters in 2 Chronicles 28 and becomes worthy of judgment. The priesthood of the Chronicler's description. while expected to carry out beneficent duties. the stress is more on the renewed consecration of the cultic figures than on their past failures. However. If we assume a thorough acquaintance with the entire Chronicles corpus on the part of Jesus and his audience. since he might wish to avoid sullying an otherwise positive portrayal of the ministry of priest and Lévite in the remainder of his work with an overt mention of their shortcomings at this period. normally faithful in discharging its duties and expected to continue on that path. Likewise. In fact. ignores its responsibilities by "passing by on the other side" and qualifies for judgment just as surely as the unfaithful clerics in Ahaz's day. But the priesthood's total eclipse in 2 Chronicles 28 hints at least that the author may be camouflaging a negative portrait. 1 Victim attacked by robbers (v 30) 2 Victim neglected by priest (v 31) 2' Victim neglected by Lévite (ν 32) 1' Victim ministered to by Samaritan (vv 33-35) 1 9 19 A somewhat similar. his silence may be a tacit admission of the priesthood's negligence. if the Chronicler had known of some noble deeds engineered by the priests and Lévites in Ahaz's day. though. though more elaborate. however real these might have been. highlighting both the antithetical responses of the robbers and the Samaritan and the identical responses of the priest and Lévite. chiastic pattern is proposed .

2 0 Some debate ensues as to whether the Ephraimite leaders who respond to the victims in ν ν 12-13 (2') are really a distinct group from the Israelites who minister to the victims in vv 14-15 (1'). 1976) 72-74.2') react in virtually identical fashion in 2 Chronicles 28. Note the comparisons in Figure B. . . E. Van Elderen ("Another Look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan. for the fierce wrath (haron fap) of the Lord is upon you" (vll). . I. B. Fierce anger of God ". We support the stance of . . stood up against those who were com­ ing from the war (saba*) " (v 12). 1 Victims attacked by northern armies (vv 5-8) 2 Prophet's response to victims (vv 9-11) 2' Leaders' response to victims (vv 12-13) 1' Victims ministered to by Israelites (vv 14-15) 2 0 Just as the priest and Lévite evince equivalent responses in the parable of the Good Samaritan. J. Significantly. we observe a similar structural pattern revolving around response to the injured party in 2 Chron 28:5-15.326 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL The coincidence of response between priest and Lévite is signalled by the repetition of kai idôn antiparêlthen ("and when he saw him he passed by on the other side" — vv 31. ." in Saved By Hope [ed. For our guilt ('asmah) is already great" (v 13). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. for you propose to bring upon us guilt ('aSmah) against the Lord in addition to our present sins and guilt ('asmah). Bailey. . . Cook. FIGURE Β Prophet (vv 9-11) Leaders (vv 12-13) Confrontation of army "He went out to meet the army (saba') that came to Samaria" (v9). ". 32). 1978] 109-19) relies heavily on Bailey's schema. so the prophet Oded and the Ephraimite leaders (2. Israel's sin and guilt "Have you not sins ('asamot) of your own against the Lord your God?" (v 10). Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. there is fierce wrath (haron 'ap) against Israel" (v 13). . "The men . " . by K.

Slotki. 1971) 437. 1872. 327 "You shall not bring the captives Csibyah) in here" (v 13). Keil. This parity of structure between Luke 10:30-35 and 2 Chron 28:5-15 compels us to appreciate the correspondence between the similar responses of Oded and the Ephraimite leaders to the battered Judeans in the Chronicles account and the identical responses of the priest and Lévite in Jesus' story. The prophet and rulers in Chronicles respond with active attention favorable to the victims. A more prudent conclusion substantiates our earlier suggestion that Jesus purposefully exploits this contrast between the prophet/leaders in Israel of Ahaz's day and the priest/Levite in Israel of his own period. Chronicles (London/Bournemouth: Soncino. Garden City: Doubleday. / / Chronicles (AB. namely. send back the captives (sibyah) from your kinsfolk whom you have taken" (v 11). J. totally unconcerned with his plight. the "Good Samaritan. sternly calling for their release and succour. & T. W. 1952) 293. The Ministers of Healing Immortalized in the standard title given to the parable of Luke 10:30-35. in consonance with the actions of Oded and the Ephraimite chieftains in 2 Chronicles 28. M. see I. on the other hand. . F. the two sets of leaders react in exactly the opposite manner. though possibly including some of them.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 Denial of entrance to the prisoners ". Do we then jettison the parallel on the basis of this antithesis? The structural similarities between Chronicles and Luke seem too strong for this approach." Obviously Jesus deliberately selects several scholars who interpret the identifying phrase in ν IS — "the men who have been mentioned [NIV 'designated'] by name" — as implying a specially appointed task force distinct from the leaders cited in vv 12-13. Williamson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans." 241. For a position that identifies the men in ν 12 and ν IS as the same. II. C. the priest and Lévite in the parable respond with passive indifference to the beaten traveller. However. . "The Books of the Chronicles. reprinted. A poignant implication results concerning how the priests and Lévites should have responded. The Books of the Chronicles (Edinburgh: T. 1 and 2 Chronicles. 1965) 161. See Zöckler. 347. Myers. the minister of healing to the wounded victim is. . Clark. of course.

22 The "surprise" element in the Samaritan's ministry is noted by R. 1976) 411-12. Neither group would claim the other among its "neighbors.22 Coming to Chronicles.." . Philadelphia: Westminster. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Cambridge. 1969) 352-58."21 The parable of the Good Samaritan. 1968) 5-15. brings to light the very unusual (even shocking) phenomenon of a loving Samaritan breaking the barriers of prejudice by nursing his ailing enemy back to health. A History of Israel (2d ed. "The Old Testament in Parable: A Study of Luke 10:25-37. these unexpected helpers of 2 Chronicles 28 represent a further link with Luke 10 as ancestors of the 21 J· Jeremías. D. a delegation from the Northern Kingdom (2 Chron 28:15). Purvis.23 Also. then. 23 Rudolph (Chronikbücher. "The Good Samaritan as Metaphor. Most certainly the hostility between Jews and Samaritans had fully matured by the time of Jesus. we find a group acting as ministers of healing to the battered Judeans. R. Funk. Bright.C. Funk. Several NT passages make plain the extreme antipathy characterizing JewishSamaritan relations. W. J. The bitter racial conflict owes to a long.c. namely.: Harvard university. and its subsequent destruction by the Jews under John Hyrcanus in 129 B. W. 220-21." Encounter 26 (1965) 261." Semeia 2 (1974) 80.S2S WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL a Samaritan as the protagonist of the story and attaches great significance to this ethnically distinctive character. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress. 291) refers to the Israelites' ministry as "das Wunder.c. see also Luke 9:51-56 and John 8:48). Derrett. precipitated by key watershed events — notably. as well as the finalization of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the late second century B. J. as citizens of northern Palestine. Mass. Historically. animosity brewed between minister (Israel) and victim (Judah) —the SyroEphraimitic War proved that — and we are undoubtedly surprised that these who had inflicted the pain (Israelites) now turn around and administer relief to their prisoners (Judeans). complex history of tension between inhabitants of Judea and Samaria. Law in the New Testament. the construction of a rival Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in the fourth century B. corroborating the statement that "Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:9.

2 Chron 28:7) as a member "of the community of the Samaritan Israelites . "The Parables as Allegory. The whole question of Samaritan origins is a thorny one in biblical historical studies. to Zichri (cf. thus substantiating a pro-Samaritan stance when interpreting Chronicles. . R. albeit for a different purpose than supporting the political-religious primacy of the Samaritan sect? This usage of Chronicles by the Samaritans goes beyond the single instance of 2 Chronicles 28 to include widespread attention to the remainder of the Chronicler's works. punctuated by a number of incidents which drove the two communities further and further apart." the link between preexilic northern and southern Jewish relations and later Jewish-Samaritan intercourse maintains its validity. 25 Coggins.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S 329 subsequently developed Samaritan sect." BJRL 42 (19S9-60) 285-86." In light of this "long history of tensions. So the Samaritan Chronicle II documents a hermeneutical handling of 2 Chronicles which showcases the Samaritans in a favorable light. 1975) 2. but would still admit to an extended build-up of conflict prior to this time. indeed one might also say totally unnatural conduct of the Ephraimites at 2 Chron.24 Still another connecting line between Samaritanism and 2 Chronicles 28 manifests itself in a peculiar reference from the Samaritan Chronicle II. and their descendant the Samaritan at Luke x. . 29ff. the leaders of Ephraim in 2 Chron 28:12 are also called Samaritans. Coggins reports: 2* M. . 7) remarks reflect sober judgment on this matter: "It should be recognized that the estrangement between Jews and Samaritans and the emergence of Samaritanism as a distinct sect were the result of a long history of tensions between Jews and Samaritans. Coggins. zealous for the Lord his God. Most scholars are reluctant to date any finalized. See also J. the unexpected. Samaritans and Jews (Atlanta: John Knox. J. even while recognizing the hazards of pinning down the connection with precision.25 Could not the parable of the Good Samaritan represent a similar utilization of the Chronicles passage to highlight the nobility of the Samaritan. The Samaritan Problem (Pittsburgh: Pickwick. R. 1975) 70. 124-25. As Matthew Black comments: It seems impossible to deny that we have in this story one of the sources of inspiration of the parable — and a clue to its main point. well-defined schism before the late Hasmonean period. Black. J. Purvis' (The Samaritan Pentateuch." Furthermore. Samaritans and Jews. a Samaritan auto-historical record. well-defined in Jesus' day. Bowman.

the robbers' malicious activity toward the injured traveller is completely reversed by the Samaritan's gracious ministry. Took the victim's money 2. Remember that according to this outline. Spent his own money 2. Note the specific contrasts in Figure D. that if Jesus was aware of this Samaritan tradition he in no way crusaded for the supremacy of Samaritanism any more than he supported Pharasaic Judaism or any other sectarian movement. however.330 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL It is clear that the Samaritan Chronicler had no inhibitions about using the biblical books of Chronicles. Left the victim half dead and will not return The Samaritan's ministry (vv 33-35) 1. 12S. Poet and Peasant. Beat the victim 3. so the actions of attackers and ministers appear as diametrically opposed. the detailed antithesis between the assault on the victims (vv 5-8) and the ministry to the victims (vv 14-15). amounting to a complete reversal of the victims' condition. a fact which suggests that the purpose of those books was not understood by him to have been anti-Samaritan. even to the point of detail (see Fig. This pattern is taken virtually verbatim from Bailey.) Another method of comparing ministers of healing returns us to the chiastic structural pattern noted earlier concerning 2 Chron 28:5-11 and Luke 10:30-35. 27 . 72. and it is from 2 Chronicles that most of the account of the remaining years of the Assyrian pressure is drawn. Left the victim cared for and promised to return Coming to 2 Chronicles 28. In the case of the parable of the Good Samaritan. C). 26 If this pro-Samaritan outlook on 2 Chronicles was extant in any form and known by Jesus and his audience.. (Again we would emphasize. it would have been particularly natural and effective for Jesus to draw his material on the Good Samaritan from this section of the OT. just as the responses of Israel's leaders (prophet-rulers/ priest-Levite) to the victims emerge as virtually identical. FIGURE C27 The robbers' attack (v 30) 1. 26 Ibid. is also manifest with great precision. Cared for the victim 3.

"They brought the spoil (salai) to Samaria" ( v 8 ) . the spoil" (v 14).2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 331 FIGURE D Attack (vv 5-8) Ministry (vv 14-15) Capture and release of prisoners " . . . . " . "So the armed men left the captives (sibyah) " (v 14). . "So the armed men left . . the structural similarity between Luke 10:30-35 and 2 Chron 28:5-15 confirms the illustrative value which the Chronicles passage serves for the point Jesus makes. . rose and took the captives" (v 15). the king . took captive a great number of his people (sibyah)" ( v S ) . "The men of Israel took captive two hun­ dred thousand of their kinsfolk" ( v 8 ) . "And the men . Yet another structural pattern which illuminates the connection between ministers of healing in Luke and Chronicles takes its point of departure from a literary analysis of the entire Ahaz story of 2 Chronicles 28 in which the ministry to the Judeans is set rather than limiting ourselves to the pericope in w 5-15 alone. in ν IS intra-kinship relations within the region of Judah seem to be in mind. . . "They brought them to their kinsfolk ('ahim) at Jericho" (ν IS). . In ν 8 it is kinship between Israel and Judah. true benevolence moves to totally restore helpless sufferers by overturning every evil effect of violent injury. The wickedness and judgment of King Ahaz mark a clearly 2 8 Here the parallelism focuses on the key-word "kinsfolk. Capture and release of plunder "They also took much spoil (salai) from them" (v 8). Capture and release of kinsfolk2* "The men of Israel took captive . and with the spoil (salai) they clothed" (v IS). . . In both cases. . This analysis simply shows that the ministry of the Israelites to their Judean brethren provides an apt OT precursor of the Samaritan's deeds of love in the NT parable. . of their kinsfolk ('ahim)" ( v 8 ) . Again." but it must be admitted that slightly different kinship relationships are in view.

22-23)." (also ν 6 —"be­ cause they [Judah] had forsaken the Lord") Help in the midst 3.29 We set forth the following structural schema based on this retributional emphasis: 30 I. vv 5-23 ) A'." BibThBul 5 (1975) 121-22. 1957) 206. Judah's defeat (vv 16-23) A. Help in the midst of defeat (vv 16. The Wickedness of Ahaz (vv 24-27) Relating this structure to the parable of the Good Samaritan. Judah's defeat (vv 5-15) Instruments of 1. Cleveland/New York: Meridian. Arameans (v 5) (take prisoners) (take prisoners) b\ Philistines (v 18) b. 1977) 114-18. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (reprinted. Instruments of defeat (vv 17-18) defeat (vv 5-8) a'. Williamson.3') compared and contrasted in the parallel scenes of vv 9-1S and 16-23. J. 31 The treatment of vv 5-23 as a complete literary unit may be tipped off by an inclusio technique marked by the reference to the destructive ac­ tivity of Damascus and the king(s) of Aram at the beginning and end of the section (vv 5. the Lord brought Judah low gave them [Judah] because of Ahaz into your hand" king of Israel. "The Chronicler as Theologian. of defeat (vv 9-15) . G. 25. Wellhausen.332 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL dominant theme in this 28th chapter of 2 Chronicles. M. In 29 The theme of retribution theology is noted in 2 Chronicles 28 by H. . J. Israelites (vv 5-8) (capture cities) (take prisoners) Reason for 2. . . The Wickedness of Ahaz (vv 1-4) 31 II. Note particularly the double reference to Ahaz's idolatrous activities on "the high places" in vv 4. Goldingay. help sought and help supplied from expected but unsupplied — unexpected source — Assyrians and Arameans Israelites I'. the key category is "Help in the midst of defeat" (3. Edomites (v 17) a. 24-27) present a very similar appraisal of the king's de­ plorable condition. Reason for defeat (v 19): defeat (v 9): "For the Lord ". 20-23) . Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University. 30 The sections beginning and ending the chapter on "The Wickedness of Ahaz" (vv 1-4. The Judgment of Ahaz (portrayed in two parallel scenes.

though. and the priest and Lévite (expected helpers who renege) on the other. Also. we are now in a position to set forth a two-pronged connection between the parable's priest/Levite and the Israelite ministers of 2 Chronicles 28: FIGURE E Israelite ministers of 2 Chronicles 28 Priest and Lévite of Luke 10 Follow the pattern of Oded the prophet and Ephraimite leaders (vv 9-15) Respond antithetically to the sensitive prophet/leaders of 2 Chronicles 28 Diverge from the pattern of Arameans and Assyrians (vv 9-23) Respond identically to the negligent Arameans and Assyrians of 2 Chronicles 28 III." 285. And concerning the gods of Damascus which Ahaz beckoned for deliverance. Ironically. Many label the parable a Lucan interpolation. we find: "But they were the ruin of him. In the second scene. the Judeans receive aid unsolicited and presumably unexpected by Ahaz from the very people who attacked Judah — the Israelites. Scholars differ on the unity of this passage. and of all Israel" (v 23). 23). Obedience to Leviticus 19 The theme of obedience to OT law appears through a structural analysis of Luke 10:25-37 in which the parable of the Good Samaritan is set. the Chronicler tells us that "Tiglath-Pilneser king of Assyria came against him [Ahaz]. "The Parables as Allegory. This contrast between unexpected help rendered and expected help withheld may again foreshadow the contrast between the Good Samaritan (surprise.32 while others claim that the parable fits in nicely following Jesus' dialogue with the lawyer 32 E. and afflicted him instead of strengthening him" (v 20). . Black. unexpected helper) on the one hand.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 333 the first. g. Ahaz actively seeks assistance from the foreign nations of Assyria and Aram in the midst of his crisis and optimistically awaits it (vv 16.

ν 28 Second text: Lev 18:5 3. 291.334 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL and that the entire passage (vv 25-37) comprises a single. Ellis. Lev 19:18 2. E. properly evaluated." in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (ed. Ellis adopts the latter position." 195. The Chronicler specifically designates Oded. chiefly Lev 19:18. 34 Ε. "a prophet of the Lord. the gracious ministry by Israel to the Judean captives is nothing less than direct obedience to the word of the Lord through his prophet. // Chronicles. Myers.35 33 Gerhardsson. R. This presentation of the Samaritan's love as obedient love. "Another Look at the Parable. He sets forth the unified structure of Luke 10:25-37 after the models of (1) the "proem" midrash used in the synagogues of Jesus' day and (2) the yelammedenu rabbenu ("let our master teach us") technique of rabbinic writings. characterized by an inquiry-reply sequence.36) and poiein (vv 28. I." 113-14. 37a. "How the New Testament Uses the Old. A. vv 25-27 Dialogue including question and initial texts: Deut 6:5. Marshall. C. 1958) 182-83. E. 29. 163. 28-29. vv 29-36 Exposition (by means of parable) linked to initial texts by the catchrwords plêsion (vv 27. self-induced motivation but rather follows on the heels of pointed prophetic exhortation from Oded and the Ephraimite leaders (vv 9-13). . "1 Chronicles 22. 28. In short. Leaney. H. 35 Braun. The helping action of "the men who have been mentioned by name" (v 15) proceeds not from spontaneous. the Good Samaritan exemplifies what it means to be obedient to the OT law as a true lover of the oppressed neighbor. Ε. ν 37 Concluding allusion to second text: Lev 18:5 This structure presents the parable of the Good Samaritan as an expository illustration of Pentateuchal texts. with key-words plêsion ("neighbor") and poiein ("do") serving as major connecting lines. " [v 11]). . . The 34 following schema emerges: 1. 1977) 203-6. Van Elderen. Luke (New York: Harper.37b) 4. Chronikbücher. Ru­ dolph. co­ 33 hesive literary unit. The Gospel According to St. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.29. So. finds its match in the love of the "Samaritans" in 2 Chronicles 28." and places great stress on his word as worthy of attention ("Now hear me . flowing from OT mandate. The Good Samaritan.

Chronikbücher. 36 On the other hand." The difference in linguistic terms seems attrib­ utable merely to stylistic preference rather than to any substantive semantic variation. consciously refers to the Leviticus 19 section of Pentateuchal legislation. . and QL (with a special eye to Leviticus 19) will suffice to disclose an intimate correlation between 'ah/adelphos ("brother") and rea'/plesion ("neighbor"). even to the point of suggesting that Oded. We must not drive a wedge too sharply between the ideas of "brother" and "neighbor" in biblical thought. and Mie 7:2). however. Nonetheless. Hatch and H. arises between Chronicles and Luke when we note the slightly different messages which the ministers of healing are exhorted to obey. Redpath. (2) LXX — Though the LXX customarily renders rea' with plêsion and 'ah with adelphos. 37 E. a closer examination of brother-neighbor terminology in the ancient world as well as the larger context of Leviticus 19 reveals a tight linkage between 2 Chronicles 28 and Luke 10 on this matter of obedience to OT law. 11. 346. but important variants in A and Origene Hexapla substitute adelphon for politên (rendering MT rea') and plêsion for adelphon (rendering MT 'ah) .37 The Micah text particularly instructs 36 The prominence of the "brotherhood" theme is noted by Williamson. 1897) 2. like Jesus. Ziegler. 289. 1 and 2 Chronicles. A. (1) Hebrew OT — Taking Lev 19:17-18 as a composite unit. Examples from the Hebrew OT. Lev 25:14.. vv 27. In the LXX (38:34) Β renders rea* with politên and 'ah with adelphon (generally accepted as the preferred reading). thereby keeping neighbor and brother somewhat distinct. Rudolph. LXX. The Chronicler's "Samaritans" are called upon to heed the challenge: "Love your brother" (or "kinsfolk" [RSV] — 'ah. 15). In a few instances.g. the pattern is by no means a rigid one.1148-49. we find the command to love one's neighbor (rea() which concludes ν 18 as nothing but the positive reversal of the negative exhortation opening ν 17: "You shall not hate your brother ('ah) in your heart. 29. the NT parable cries for action consonant with the injunction: "Love your neighbor" (plêsion. following closely the letter of Lev 19:18. Gen 26:31. it employs plesion for 'ah (see e. vv 8. 36). see the critical apparatus in J. Also notice should be taken of Jer 31:34 where rea* and 'ah both appear in the MT as virtually parallel direct objects of Imd. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 335 An apparent disparity.

because the Lord. . Threni.38 Such a correlation between brother-neighbor terminology in the biblical material. These changes attest to the high degree of overlap between brother-neighbor concepts in biblical literature. you shall love . . . . 1957) 363. 1962) 103. . Baruch. In 2 Chronicles 28 we find the Judeans clearly in the throes of sin. A similar variation between A's and B's treatment of MT 'ah (A = plêsion. LXX —plêsion) with a net. . he gave them into your hand. lest you bear sin because of him. the needy and the stranger" (CD 6." This implies the special importance of loving one's brother/neighbor when that brother/neighbor is somehow in the wrong. . . To be sure. 213. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. between the simple negative and positive exhortations in Lev 19:17-18 ("You shall not hate .") we find this elaboration: ".336 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL us because of its identical setting to 2 Chronicles 28. . emphasizing violent oppression within the household of Israel: ". and each hunts his brother (MT — 'ah. they shall succour the poor. B = adelphos) may be viewed in Deut 19:19." a Qumran passage expounding Lev 19:18 clearly substitutes 'ah for rea1 : "They shall love each man his brother ('ah) as himself. they all lie in wait for blood. Rather than retaliating in vengeful brutality. the God of your fathers. Two additional features of the context of Lev 19:18 harmonize with emphases in 2 Chronicles 28 and further confirm the Pentateuchal basis of Oded's speech. God ordains the victory of the Israelites as a needed judgment upon wicked Judah. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Baltimore: Penguin." (3) QL—Further connecting "brother" and "neighbor. particularly evidenced in relation to Leviticus 19. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people.. was angry with Judah. Ieremias. at least opens the door for the possibility that Oded draws his call for brotherly love from Lev 19:17-18 just as surely as Jesus founds his call for neighborly love in Luke 10 from the same OT passage. E pis tula Ieremiae (Septuaginta 15. Oded remarks in language quite reminiscent of Lev 19:17-18 — Behold. Vermes. 38 G. but you shall reason with your neighbor. but Israel goes too far. but you have slain them in a rage which ed. Law in the New Testament.20-21 ) . the loving respondent will confront the offending brother with reason in hopes of correcting his misguided behavior and avoiding any complicity in his sins. First. Derrett.

the parable's setting in Luke 10 matches the law of neighborly love (Lev 19:18) with the "first great commandment" 40 . 2 Chron 28:5-15] Jesus demonstrates that his words are a continuation of the Scripture and an explanation of the Law and the Prophets. in 2 Chron 28:14-15 represents concrete obedience to the Holiness Code's requirement to love their brethren/neighbors as themselves. Describing both 2 Chron 28:5-15 and the parable of the Good Samaritan as exposition of Lev 19:18 unquestionably strengthens the claim that the 2 Chronicles passage in some way underlies the parable. Mark 12:28-34). The Israelites' benevolent ministry. The Parables of Jesus. 346-47 . male and female. acknowledges this implication of Jesus' method in the following statement: By teaching the parable which echoes familiar words of Scripture [e. the northerners only react with vicious cruelty. 2 Chron 28:10). 172. as your slaves. S. 39 Evidently. recognizing that Leviticus 19 constitutes part of the larger section of Leviticus 17-27 known as the Holiness Code. Have you not sins of your own against the Lord your God? [2 Chron 28:9-10] Far from reasoning with their southern neighbors to return to God.g. Second. Lev 25:42-43. thereby revealing a despicable partnership with Judah in her sinful state. 1 and 2 Chronicles. 'Love your neighbor as yourself/ receives a deeper perspective. And now you intend to subjugate the people of Judah and Jerusalem. Rudolph. Kistemaker. as elsewhere in the Synoptics (Matt 22:34-40. though he shuns verbatim citation. we observe a parallel with Oded's speech in the prohibition of slavery among fellow-Israelites (cf. Oded still looks to Levitical legislation as authority for his challenging speech. Thus. since this "second great commandment" is the principal OT law behind Jesus' story. he identifies his own interpretation of Lev 19:18 (manifest in the parable) with that of Scripture itself (manifested in 2 Chronicles 28). But. then.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S 337 has reached up to heaven. Chronikbücher. who affirms the background of 2 Chron 28:5-15 to the parable. 46b. 290.40 39 Williamson. of course. Furthermore. Our focus in this section has been on the relation of 2 Chronicles 28 and the parable of the Good Samaritan to Lev 19:18. Jesus appears as the interpreter of the Law. If this is so. then we find Jesus employing the hermeneutical technique of explaining Scripture (Lev 19:18) with Scripture (2 Chronicles 28). Kistemaker. his skillful exposition of the second great commandment.

Monselewski (Der barmherzige Samariter. It is his dominant compositional technique and can be discerned by even a cursory reading of the text. . 41 The formative coloring of retribution theology is everywhere apparent in the Chronicler's work. "Chronicles could not let him [Ahaz] off so cheaply. "He even made molten images for the Baals" (v 2b).41 The Chronicler purposes to "vilify Ahaz thoroughly"42 through a certain "rewriting" of his 2 Kings 16 Vorlage where the depths of Ahaz's decadence and judgment are not as poignantly delineated. W. . "The First and Second Books of Chronicles. First and Second Chronicles."43 The most illuminating method uncovering the Chronicler's retribution theology in the Ahaz story takes note of where he differs from the parallel account (2 Kings 16). Several distinctives in the Chronicler's record may be noted: (1) The Chronicler adds. It is called 'retribution theology' and represents the Chronicler's conviction that sin always brings judgment and guilt always brings disaster (usually war or illness). "He burned incense in the valley of — "Love the Lord your God . But. 18. there is virtually no debate.44 (2) The Chronicler adds. Interestingly. 43 Wellhausen. . and 23)." 42 W. Dillard ("The Reign of Asa [2 Chr 14-16] : an Example of the Chronicler's Theological Method. 258. 206." IB 3. as Wellhausen points out. 10. Repentance and Retribution Nothing shines more transparently through the author's narrative in 2 Chronicles 28 than his negative portrait of King Ahaz. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. thereby intensifying Ahaz's wickedness by casting it as an explicit violation of Exod 34:17." JETS 23 [1980] 209) offers a helpful general appraisal: "On one theme of the Chronicler's historiography. and the ministry of the Israelites to the suffering Judeans in 2 Chronicles 28 comes as a response of obedience to "the Lord. Luke 10:27 specifically cites Deut 6:5. 44 Coggins. replete with a full-scale description of his wickedness and consequent downfall from the hand of God. L. 174) notes a parallel between Luke 10 and 2 Chronicles 28 precisely at the point of a common link to Deuteronomy 6. however. R. the God of your fathers" (2 Chron 28:9) — a designation for Yahweh which evokes reminiscences of Israel's covenantal obligations/blessings enumerated in Deuteronomy 6 (see especially the references to the relationship between God and Israel's "fathers" in vv 3. A.5)." (Deut 6:4. whereas obedience and righteousness yield the fruit of peace and prosperity.518. Elmslie. Kings records Ahaz's escape from the Syro-Ephraimitic alliance by virtue of his pleading with Assyria for help and scarcely notes any real defeats which Ahaz might have experienced. In fact.338 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL IV.

Elmslie. 1 and 2 Chronicles. the Chronicler unmistakably connects Judah's mili45 Ackroyd. First and Second Chronicles. . we find the Chronicler specifically states that Ahaz commits the detestable deed of sacrificing directly to the gods of Damascus. also known as Ge-hinnon. "The First and Second Books of Chronicles. McKay. Dentan. burned his son" (v 3). (5) Only Chronicles mentions the penultimate act of apostasy: shutting the doors of the temple (2 Chron 28:24 — later con­ demned by Hezekiah. The First and Second Books of the Kings. "He . hell (Gehenna). 433-35. that is. Religion in Judah Under the Assyrians (London: SCM. 47 R. The First and Second Books of the Chronicles (The Layman's Bible Commentary. ultimately ineffectual. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC. Coggins. Curtis and A. "He . 345. First and Second Chronicles. L. whereas the Chronicler speaks of separate strikes upon Judah. 258. both devastating in their results (vv 5-8). 2 Chron 29:7). 1910) 457-58." 12 . As a place associated with unpleasant activ­ ities such as burning trash and burying bones. Williamson. on an altar patterned after the one in Damascus. . 4 7 (6) Virtually the entire section of 2 Chron 28:5-23 represents an addition to the Kings narrative. J. where 2 Kings 16 has. Rich­ mond: John Knox. / and II Chronicles." 517. 48 Furthermore. 258. Keil. W. attack of a united Aramean-Israelite coalition. Totally dif­ ferent perspectives underly the Syro-Ephraimitic War. 175.45 (3) The Chronicler reads. E. burned his soni" (ν 3). was later notorious as the site of torment following death. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. . The valley. The Books of the Chronicles. The First and Second Books of the Chronicles. "The Books of the Chronicles. still presumably to the Lord. Kings features a single. in somewhat softer fashion. 290. 1964) 150. C. Chronicles. . The pluralizing increases the severity of the offence. 48 It is outside the scope of this paper to discuss the historicity of the Chronicles account of the Syro-Ephraimitic War relative to Kings and Isaiah. A. 150.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 339 the son of Hinnom" (v 3a). 46 .46 (4) Comparing 2 Chron 28:23 and 2 Kgs 16:10-16. presents Ahaz offering sacri­ fices. Dentan. The only parallel is the plea for Assyrian aid in 2 Chron 28:16 and 2 Kgs 16:7. Coggins. Madsen. it provides an apt setting for the despicable practices of Ahaz. Slotki. whereas Kings. The following sources may be consulted for both positive and negative eval­ uations: Zöckler. 1973) 78.

by the representation of the conduct of the citizens and 4 9 Keil. Assyria appears as basically beneficent to Judah by eliminating the Aramean opposition. F. Barnes. . In Chronicles. equally deserving of judgment.49 (7) The Chronicler uniquely records the attacks of the Edomites and Philistines (vv 17-18) to doubly emphasize the judgment of God upon Ahaz. In view of this historiographical analysis of 2 Chronicles 28. For one. E. but the evaluation shifts: "Tiglath-Pilneser afflicted him [Ahaz] instead of strengthening him" (v 20). they further ensnare Judah. Elkanah. and oratorically so presented as not only to bring before us the increasing obduracy of Ahaz. however. "were the ruin of him. The First and Second Books of the Chronicles. we now ask the leading question relative to our topic: What part does the activity of the "Samaritans" toward Ahaz's army play in the retributive schema of 2 Chronicles 28? This question has yielded varied responses. those facts which show how Ahaz. 50 Dentan. 1899) 248-49. The Book of Chronicles (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.340 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL tary defeat with the wickedness of Ahaz (v 6) and forcefully punctuates the impact of that defeat with large tallies of casualties and obituaries of prominent people in Ahaz's court (Maaseiah. Cambridge: Cambridge University. but also. Ahaz worships the Damascene gods. whom the Chronicler reports. it cannot be denied that the author generally follows the narrative flow of the 2 Kings 16 account "but completely rewrites it so as to emphasize even more strongly the wickedness of the king and the magnitude of his defeats. even putting Rezin to death. W. the nature of the help received is vastly different. quite unlike the helpless foe of Kings. (8) Whereas both Kings and Chronicles mention Ahaz's seeking of Assyrian aid. The Books of the Chronicles. 435. Tiglath-Pilneser still comes to aid Ahaz. He argues: Out of the historical materials. notwithstanding the heavy blows which Jahve inflicted upon him. In Kings. this time through religious rather than militaristic means. Azrikam. vv 7-8) — thus evidencing the gravity of judgment to match the gravity of offences. are chosen."50 With the stage thus set. Concerning the Arameans. 150. always sinned more deeply against the Lord his God. Keil concentrates on Israel's barbarism toward Judah and associates this violent behavior with Ahaz's wickedness. C. and of all Israel" (v 33).

δ 4 Van Elderen. Β. Others appreciate this ele­ ment of repentance by the Israelites.53 How does this "repentance" interpretation of the Israelites' ministry square with the parable of the Good Samaritan? Inter­ estingly. Israel. creating a moving scene of repentance and obedience set off in dramatic contrast to the apostasy and diso­ bedience of King Ahaz (cf. 115-16. Van Elderen articulates this position built on the linkage between the lawyer's question — "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29) —and the subsequent parabolic presentation of the Samaritan as the model neighbor. balanced picture of Israel's place in the retributional frame­ work of the Chronicler's Ahaz account.54 Actually many scholars evaluate this connection contrarily as a discrepancy (implying a Lucan interpolation qf the parable). the Israelites stand guilty before the Lord and just as meritorious of his wrath and judgment as the Judeans they have slaughtered. underscoring the Northern King­ dom's loving ministry. Coggins notes the tremendous contrast between Ahaz and Israel in 2 Chronicles 28: "It is in the light of this complete condemnation of Ahaz that we may best under­ stand the unexpected episode in 9-15 — the wickedness of Ahaz even serves to put the northerners in a favourable light. actually both are correct. Coggins). due to their rapacious militarism.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 341 warriors of the kingdom of Israel towards the people of Judah who were prisoners. 1 and 2 Chronicles." 111-14. who sees 2 Chronicles 28 as a momentary fulfillment of Abijah's invitation in 2 Chronicles 13 calling for the Northern Kingdom's return to the Lord. R. notably Williamson. 344-45. 52 Coggins. and together they comprise a full. . The "Samaritans' " gracious ministry of vv 14-15 then ensues. 53 Williamson. J. "Another Look at the Parable. claiming that Jesus' story more appropriately answers 51 Keil. But the story does not end here. the deep fall of that kingdom. 257.61 From a different perspective. The Books of the Chronicles. the Israelites realize the error of their malicious treatment and repent. 433. On the one hand (cf. Keil)."52 Though these comments of Keil and Coggins seem diametrically opposed. First and Second Chronicles. The speeches of Oded and the Ephraimite leaders make this plain (vv 9-13). some NT interpreters envision the central thrust of the parable as Jesus' appeal to the lawyer to repent of his unloving mentality and become truly obedient to Lev 19:18.

this legal expert imagines himself to be thoroughly selfrighteous. He merely seeks clarification on the identity of his neighbors. in fact all people." 111-14. and 65 E. rather than uttering the loathsome name."57 The impact is undeniable. 1979) 314. rather than to teach him to be kind. g. Van Elderen sums up this interpretation well: In dealing with this lawyer. He tells the parable which unmistakeably features the noble deeds of a hated Samaritan (from the lawyer's perspective) and follows by asking the lawyer: "Which of these three. "The Parables as Allegory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. choking on the obvious response. regardless of distinctions." 285. proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (Luke 10:36).56 But Jesus throws the self-satisfied lawyer off-guard. Van Elderen. Typical of the Pharisaic mind-set as depicted in the Gospels. replies with the circumlocution. helpful. "How should I love my neighbor?" (Answer: "as the Samaritan does").342 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL the question. This strikes a shattering blow at the lawyer's self-pronounced justification. see Black. The lawyer inquires after Jesus only because "he desires to justify himself" (v 29). "the one who had mercy on him" (v 37). 56 . Jesus had to break down his pride and conceit. "Another Look at the Parable. Jesus faithfully answers the lawyer's question by circumscribing the true scope of neighborliness: it even extends to the despised Samaritans (Question: "Who is my neighbor?" Answer: "The one who showed mercy" = Samaritan). but in order to corroborate his own smug personal appraisal that indeed he had already fulfilled the stipulations of the second great commandment. The lawyer. humanitarian. then — "Go and do likewise" (v 37) —does not encourage the lawyer to emulate the Samaritan's kindness as much as it calls for kindness to be shown to the Samaritan. "Samaritan. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT. rather than the lawyer's inquiry concerning "Who is my neighbor?"55 But this reasoning overlooks the perfect blending of the parable of the Good Samaritan with the Jesus-lawyer dialogue. then he and virtually all Jews must confess to being transgressors. The final exhortation. do you think. not to learn and grow in righteousness. Geldenhuys. If the second great commandment entails loving Samaritans. 57 N.

." VT 4 (1954) 404. Universal Love Some analysts of the Chronicler's methodology detect a strongly antinorthern polemic in his writings coupled with support for ex­ clusive Judean claims to be the true and only people of God. Jr. Rudolph. "Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes.60 This interpretation rests heavily on contentions of common author­ ship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Cranfield ("The Good Samaritan. he must recognize. (2) Hortatory purpose: they represent the lawyer and provide a "type" for his needed repentance and obedience.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 343 benevolent. B. "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude Toward the North..e. V. 5 9 . The lawyer did not need a lesson in helping someone in need. "Another Look at the Parable. can be a Samaritan — the very person his pride refused to accept. commentators attrib­ uting an antinorthern bias to Chronicles give full weight to the author's omission of large amounts of material concerning the Northern Kingdom found in Samuel-Kings and incorporation of northern affairs only as they affect the larger interests of the 61 Southern Kingdom. help someone in need). g. Braun. knowing well the rife anti-Samaritanism of the latter. D. . Also." 112." JBL 94 (1975) 205-7. are there not even with you trespasses of your own against the Lord your God?")." 59-61. 6 1 See the discussion in J. 58 Repentance from a limited application of Lev 19:18 toward the larger obedience of loving all types of people exactly parallels our previous explanation of Israelite behavior in 2 Chron 28:15. "Problems of the Book of Chronicles." 370) explicitly compares Jesus' reversal of the lawyer's self-justification with Oded's convicting ques­ tion directed toward his fellow Israelites in 2 Chron 28:10 (". rather he needed a lesson in what it means to be human within the frame­ work of the grace (and the law) of God. Newsome. but rather to fulfill the commandment of love for his neighbor who. 58 Van Elderen. . W. Ε. C. 59 We may now posit another two-dimensional purpose which the Israelite ministers of 2 Chronicles serve for the parable of the Good Samaritan: (1) Illustrative purpose: they represent the Good Samaritan and provide the circumstantial background for his lov­ ing ministry. The lawyer is not instructed by Jesus primarily to do as the Samaritan did (i. 6 0 See e.

. particularly when juxtaposing various anti-neighbor 62 For a brief. respond positively to prophetic admonition and deal mercifully with Judean captives [2 Chron 28:9-15]. still function there. Yahweh's prophets. Furthermore." 61-62. Representatives of the north participate both in the worship of the Jerusalem temple. Marshall. 63 Braun.344 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL If this antipathy to non-Judeans truly characterizes the Chronicler's predisposition. many of whom bear Yahwistic names. etc. such as Elijah and Oded. then any Chronicles passage would serve as a strange foundation indeed on which to build the parable of the Good Samaritan. R. The people of the north are his kinsmen.62 could look with full favor on and draw essential truths from a work like Chronicles if it really was so prejudicially charged. e 3 This penetrating analysis has led Braun and others to reject the claim of common authorship between Chronicles and EzraNehemiah. Braun concludes: These passages indicate clearly that the writer of Chronicles continued to be concerned about the people of the north. On one occasion northern leaders. and one so clearly a champion of the poor and downtrodden (even Gentiles) as Luke. Israel's best kings undertake military and missionary expeditions into Ephraim. where they are accepted as brothers even when ritually unclean. L. so transparent in its call for universal love involving Jews and Samaritans. relates that the Chronicler portrays no less than six kings of Judah. But recently several studies have overturned this indictment of anti-Samaritanism and Judean exclusivism levied against the Chronicler by demonstrating a more or less positive attitude concerning the inclusion of the Northern Kingdom in a unified Israel. publicans. we find it almost incredible that one so compassionate toward a broad spectrum of humanity — including harlots. After surveying these reigns. 137-44. but helpful. for example. as well as in reforming activities in both north and south. and by implication — all men. lepers. Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1971) 101. and frequently introduces this concern without precedence in his Vorlage. including Ahaz. H. — as Jesus. discussion of the prominence of universalism in Lucan theology. Braun. interacting with the north in a manner which often casts a favorable light on the Northern Kingdom and enhances the possibility of reconciliation. "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude Toward the North. see I.

to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria" (2 Chron 30:6). 65 G.). 67 Only ruling administrators (v 12). Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.. 1972) 190-91. T. 62 . . but no king.D. Newsome. Ahaz falls short in quality of the preeminent king that the Chronicler envisages ruling over "all Israel. Huram (2 Chron 2:11). starkly contrasted to the exclusivism of Ezra-Nehemiah.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 345 passages such as Ezra 4:1-4 and Neh 10:28-31 with the Chronicler's patently more positive portrait of the north. Schaefer reminds us of the noble. and the Queen of Sheba (2 Chron 9:8). . Only one king reigns in 2 Chronicles 28 — Ahaz — and significantly. Schaefer.66 Looking more specifically at 2 Chronicles 28. 1 and 2 Chronicles. See Williamson. 221-22. 344. and carefully distinguishes our story in 2 Chron 28:8-15 from the prohibition against foreigners in Ezra 9:1-15 and Neh 13:23-2 7. Furthermore. "Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler. 66 Newsome. Die Chronik als Auslegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. we discover the following signposts illuminating the theme of universal love (especially related to the unification of "all Israel"): (1) One king for north and south. 348. . spiritual words concerning Yahweh and his people emanating from such unlikely Gentile candidates as Pharaoh Neco (2 Chron 35:21)." 206. "Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler. the letter of Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 30 set at the beginning of his reign (and therefore presumably indicative of the state of affairs during Ahaz's reign as well) addresses its message to the "people of Israel . we notice an openness on his part not only to embrace the Northern Kingdom in Yahweh worship but also to include non-Jewish foreigners. The Chronicler tends to view the Northern Kingdom as already subdued during the days of Ahaz and therefore without a separate monarch of its own. "The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the Chronicler" (Ph. Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22 ff." 207.64 To further illuminate the Chronicler's attitude toward the scope of love. appear over Israel in 2 Chronicles 28.67 64 Ibid. Hezekiah. dissertation. E. Undoubtedly. 65 Newsome speaks of "a tentative kind of internationalism" present in Chronicles. 1972) 11-13." but the stage is now set for the glorious unification efforts of a truly noble Davidic king. Willi. he is called "king of Israel" (v 19).

. They find themselves equally ensnared in the trials of foreign subjugation. the stress on kinship ties between north and south figures prominently in 2 Chronicles 28 (vv 8. 11. IS — references to 'ahim). torn asunder by strife. Williamson. through this moving episode. as "all Israel." or "slaves" (see vv 5. under foreign domination. 13-15. 344." "cap­ tives.346 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL (2) The brotherhood of north and south. Freedman. they both reside essentially in "exile. 8." CBQ 23 (1961) 441. signalled by repeated references to either "prisoners." JSOT 2 [1977] 29) rightly detects the "exilic" theme as prominent in 2 Chronicles 28. P. an "exilic atmosphere" pervades the entire 2 Chronicles 28 narra­ tive. Ackroyd ("The Chronicler as Exegete. with prospects of reconciliation that are always possible for estranged brothers because of their common heritage. distinctions between north and south are somewhat obliterated. found in 1 Κ 8:50 but not in the Chronicler's form of the text. R. N. but a family nonetheless. "The Chronicler's Purpose. the author issues a simple plea to his audience to act like "all Israel" — compassionately ministering to each other as 68 D." We do not expand on this "exilic" theme because of its apparent inapplicability to the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Though the north has displayed a spark of repentance in vv 9-15. More than anything else. By the end of 2 Chronicles 28. thus establishing a bridge between the author's day and the reign of Ahaz.) Furthermore. the exiles) in their captors' hearts'. As we have previously noted. e." they seek the blessings of restored Yahweh worship in Jerusalem under a united Davidic monarchy." that is. Judah and Israel still constitute a family unit. The exilic milieu of the Chronicler's own time no doubt accounts for this phenomenon. He particularly applies it to our passage of interest by saying: "Vss 8-1S may be understood in various ways. In fact. and consequently. but we may perhaps properly see here too an exemplification of that element in the prayer of Solomon. which asks that God should 'put pity for them (i. 17-18). 1 and 2 Chronicles. 10-11. They both stand guilty of forsaking the Lord and offering unacceptable worship. (3) Levelling the fortunes of north and south. together. the Northern and Southern Kingdoms occupy an amazingly similar position.68 Having discovered in 2 Chronicles 28 the theme of universal love under the rubric of "all Israel. this hardly classi­ fies as total spiritual renewal." we are now in position to understand the Chronicler's interest in recording the "Samaritan" ministry of vv 9-15. In both periods.

and anticlericalism. We are not purporting to say in any way that Jesus was conscious of our precise structural outlines and intricate theological analyses and then worked in some kind of deliberate systematic fashion to line up every facet of the parable with the Chronicler's narrative. VI. (1) Any interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan must seriously take into account the input and impact of 2 Chron 28:5-15. repentance. including the structural and theological contexts of the entire 2 Chronicles 28 chapter and the books of Chronicles as a whole. the Chronicler. a story like the parable of the Good Samaritan. quite appropriately owes its inspiration to 2 Chronicles 28 where estranged brothers cease their strife momentarily in the experience of benevolent ministry. but as providing an ideological foundation for the key topics of love. We contend that Jesus was sensitive to these thematic connections by virtue of his acquaintance with and appreciation for the broad literary setting of the ministerial episode in 2 Chron 28:5-15. full of tenderness yet powerful in its breaking of ethnic barriers. In short. and Luke represent an unbroken chain of prophets calling for loving unity among the people of God. No theory of haphazard proof-texting is sufficient to account for the numerous parallels of thought (not merely language and circumstance) we have drawn between the Chronicler and the Parabler. Conclusion The chief contributions of our study may be summarized under two headings: one related to our understanding of the parable of the Good Samaritan. the other concerned with Chronicles studies in general. obedience. Essentially. Jesus proves himself a most responsible exegete and expositor of the Chronicles passage.2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 347 brothers irrespective of sociological boundary lines. Jesus. such open-armed missionaries as Jesus and Luke gladly find a sympathetic partner in the Chronicler. brotherhood. then. not simply as supplying circumstantial baggage. Also. even as the Israelites of 2 Chronicles 28 came to their senses and finally dealt with their Judean kinsmen in kindness. who too was deeply concerned about the unity of God's people. Quite clearly. unfettered by social discrimination. We are not even campaigning for the unequivocal certainty of all .

We cannot be sure of all that Jesus drew from the Chronicler. in light of the scanty prior research into our topic. Groves. "Chiasm as a Structuring Device in Old Testament Narrative" [Th. B. and forthcoming commentary on 2 Chronicles in the Word Biblical Commentary. the bias of scholars cataloguing the NT usage of the OT against Chronicles in favor of SamuelKings where they parallel should be forever abandoned. R." WTJ 43 [1980-81] 289-300. (2) With a unique (unshared with Samuel-Kings) passage in Chronicles so clearly alluded to in the Gospel of Luke. our study has been highly exploratory. Gundry (Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. At any rate. But seeing that time and time again. but it was certainly more than a simple plot-line about first-aid. 1982] 635) briefly mentions the correlation between the Chronicler's and Matthew's handling of source material. In summation. Precisely the same issues prevail in the relationship between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings that we find among the Gospels.348 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL the parallels we have drawn. pursuing all possible connecting avenues between Chronicles and Luke through a variety of literary lenses. Dillard. Also. we cannot dogmatically press every minute detail of the affinities we have posited (much less ascribe to Jesus an awareness of all the suggested fine points of the Chronicles-Luke relationship). In this investigative mode. I think particularly of help in deciphering the "Synoptic Problem" with its peculiar difficulties surrounding harmonization and historiography. further research is in order to discover additional Chronicles allusions or citations in the NT. through a study of several feasible areas of correspondence (see headings). A. it is the 2 Chronicles 28 rescue story — in its theological and literary context! —which informs and illumines the parable of the Good Samaritan. Frankly. also see J. thesis. similar themes and perspectives have emerged between the Chronicler and the Parabler. our appetites should be whetted for a feast of additional insights which Chronicles studies might afford NT interpreters.69 All in all. we feel confident to assert that in these two biblical story-tellers we have truly kindred minds at work.M. Furthermore. "The Chronicler's Solomon. we may find fruitful a further comparison of chiastic artistry in Chronicles (see R. it is time for biblical interpreters 69 For example. though unencumbered by the "which came first" dilemma plaguing NT scholars. H. Westminster Theological .

and the Genre of Luke-Acts [SBLMS 20.2 CHRONICLES 28:5—15 349 to recognize that "the things left out" best be included in our appraisal of OT influence on the NT tradition. particularly Luke (cf. University of Durham Durham. Theological Themes. Talbert. Literary Patterns. C. 1974] 51-58). England Seminary. 1983]) with similar literary method in the NT. Missoula: Scholars. H. .

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. please refer to the copyright information in the journal. However. About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission.S. you may print. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. . This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association. download.^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user. for certain articles. decompiling. if available. or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. For information regarding the copyright holder(s). The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). who also may own the copyright in each article. Any use. The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner. reproduction. the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.