Literary Analysis of 2 Chroncles 33:1-20
This is a paper I wrote for a class I recently had. The referencing was messed up in the transfer from my computer to the vast Internet so if you have any questions feel free to ask.
Stories have an ability of sticking with a person. Stories can begin to shape and mold a person into the person they are destined to become. It is no wonder why the entertainment industry does so well. People are always looking for stories to not only relate to, but for a way to escape reality. The bible is full of stories in which the lives of Christians can relate. 2 Chronicles 33:1-20 gives a beautiful story which can help shape lives and teach people about the importance of redemption.
All great stories have some key elements in common. One of these key elements is character development. There are three main types of characters: round, flat, and agents. Round characters are the fully developed characters with in narrative, whereas a flat character only displays one basic quality. Agents are the characters which help the narrative flow, yet they have no development. In this passage, King Manasseh is introduced as the main character. He rules in Judah for fifty-five year from the age of twelve. From the very beginning, the author of this passage expresses the evil that Manasseh committed. Another character that this passage brings to light was the father of Manasseh, Hezekiah. Hezekiah is a flat character which is shown in contrast with his son. As with much of the Old Testament, there is a contrast between God and the agents with which the evil of the story is carried through, like the Baals and Asherahs. In this passage, God would be considered a flat character, but because of the previous writings of the Old Testament, God would also be seen as a round character to those understanding the previous writings. Only a few characters remain in this story. David and Solomon are also agents to help the message flow, yet both would have some form of intertextuality within the story.
The plot of this narrative is pretty simple and resembles the story of the Israelites within the book of Judges. In Judges the Israelites did evil in the Lord’s eyes; God would then punish them; the Israelites would cry out for redemption; and God would save them. In this narrative: Manasseh did evil in God’s sight; God sent the Assyrians to punish the Israelites; Manasseh cried out in forgiveness; then God delivered Manasseh. This intertextuality between Judges would have resounded deep within the Israelite culture. Manasseh’s father, Hezekiah, was one of the few kings in Judah who lived a righteous life for God. Hezekiah destroyed all of the high places which the Baals and Asherahs were worshipped. These were the same places that his son rebuilt. In this the conflict began in the life of Manasseh. Manasseh’s conflict worsened when he placed an idol in the house of the Lord and even sacrificed his own sons. The conflict becomes the most intense when the Lord used the Assyrians to attack Judah. Assyria posed a real threat to Judah because they were the nation to destroy the nation of Israel in 2 Kings 17. This account was still fresh in the minds of those living in Judah, and they had to be thinking when they were to be next. Judah fell and Manasseh was taken by the Assyrians. It was in this distress Manasseh cried out to the Lord and the Lord saved him. The conflict was resolved when Manasseh arrived back in Judah. He proclaimed a spiritual reform and brought the land back to the Lord. The plot then comes to a close as Manasseh dies and sleeps with his fathers.
Not only is the story also displayed in 2 Kings 21, as previously stated, this passage is paralleled with the cycle seen throughout Judges. The story of Manasseh echoes 2 Chr. 7:14 and proves that when men humble themselves to God he will deliver them. This passage also has a unique narrative style in that it is also a chiasum. Mary Katherine of the University of Cambridge would call this a narrative chiasum. As such a chiasum is a unique style used in the Old Testament to show a paralleled repetition in order to create a stronger point.
The writers of the bible not only wrote historically, but they wrote in their own style and theological outlook. This causes an exegetical problem between the two main passages about Manasseh. While the account in Chronicles gives details about Manasseh turning his life and the country of Judah back towards God, the account in Kings leave Manasseh at being a wicked king who died as such. For some these passages strongly oppose each other. For Brian Kelly this shouldn’t be seen as an opposition but a chance for a complimentary view between the two stories. The account in Chronicles does become suspicious about its historical accuracy for a few reasons. Briefly this historical account comes into question when both historical and theological accounts are viewed. Some scholars have concluded that, in Chronicles, Manasseh’s fifty-five year reign was being made into a theological statement of blessing for following after God. Not only do the historical records in Assyria have no record of this account, it would be very unlikely that Babylon would have been the place of the imprisonment. Typically the Assyrians would have taken kingly prisoners to their capital in Nineveh.
To these questions that are inquired there some very appropriate responses. The Chronicler never once connects the piety of Manasseh with his long life. This was not an attempt to connect an evil king with a fifty-five year reign. Both Kings and Chronicles both have different theological approaches. It could have been that the author of Kings left out the account of Manasseh’s repentance because of the theological persuasion he was working into the story of Amon, Manasseh’s son. Kelly sums up this problem of interpretation that, “Although the Chronicler’s primary aim was certainly to address the concerns of his community (and to that end he gave his own distinctive portrayal of Manasseh), there are many indications that he relied on pre-exilic sources, and so acted as a historian and not simply as a homilist.” The author of Chronicles had information from the Chronicle of Seers to help make his account more complete based on what happened and not just based on theological concepts.
It can be concluded that this passage was written as a historical narrative but having different theological implications. Kings shows the theological implication to justify the exile of Judah while the Chronicler uses his account to give a theological purpose behind their return. The records that have been discovered about the Assyrians are very fragmentary. Even though Nineveh would have been the normal city for any capture of prisoners, the writer of Chronicles could have used Babylon as the city for the exile as a theological statement paralleling Judah’s exile. Thus it would not have been odd for Chronicles to show a more stylized version of the exile to allude to the previous exiles of the Israelites.
Theologically, Chronicles is a beautiful story all about failure and redemption. As stated before, this narration echoes what the Chronicler stated in 2 Chr. 7:14, “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” For an Israelite nation this would have been a foreign concept. Since the time of their exodus from Egypt all the Israelites have known is the sacrificial system. For repentance a burnt offering was offered up unto God and only then would their sins be forgiven. Even Genesis shows this idea in the redemption of Adam and Eve by the sacrifice of a lamb on their behalf by God. This set up for something greater to happen, namely the sacrifice of Christ in which Christians can go directly to God for their redemption because of the sacrifice of Jesus. The point of 2 Chr. 7:14 can be illuminated by many other passages. Both Hosea and Samuel show principles of love and obedience being more important to God than sacrifice.
This idea can be resounded deeply within the church structure that is in place now. The New Covenant set up by Christ gives a deeper understanding of the understanding of redemption. Christians not only pray for forgiveness but come into a personal relationship with Christ. 2 Chr 7:14 only asks God’s called people to humble themselves and pray. Christians may have questions in this passage about the prayer that Manasseh prayed to God in his time of exile. What was his prayer? What did he ask for? Did Manasseh repent of his evil ways or did he simply ask for God to restore him from exile? These questions can cause a strain on Christian understanding of what it means to be humble and pray. What is given, though, is that even though Manasseh was a very evil king there was grace for him still. Paul reflects this unconditional grace. In 1 Timothy 1:15 Paul calls himself the foremost of all sinners. Even being the most sinful man there was grace for him still. For the church this idea is paramount. No one is too sinful to be covered by God’s grace. Even a king, who brought a whole nation into idolatry and evil practices, even to the point of sacrificing his own sons, is not outside of God’s grace. God desires that no man should perish but come to an everlasting life with him.
Not only though are Christians called to repent from their evil ways, but from there they must take the steps to reform their lives. Clearly Manasseh does not fully complete his reform as his son, Amon, sacrifices to the same idols that his father made. Manasseh fails in leading his own family and destroying the idols which brought him to captivity in the first place. Christians should learn from both the successes and failures of Manasseh. He was right in his return to the Lord, yet should have completed the reform in the destruction of all of his former life. So often Christians ask for forgiveness for the sins they commit yet are unwilling to completely give up on the sin. Manasseh’s life is a beautiful story of redemption. If only Manasseh would have completely turned from his ways, destroyed all of the idols from his former life, and taught his children the right way to live maybe Judah as a nation would have prospered for a while longer.
Bibliography
Abadie, Philippe. 2003. “From the impious Manasseh (2 Kings 21) to the convert Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33): theological rewriting by the Chronicler.” In Chronicler as theologian, 89-104. London: T & T Clark, 2003. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2011).
English Standard Version (ESV) Study Bible, Wheaton: Crossway, 2007.
Hom, Mary Katherine. 2009. “Chiasmus in Chronicles: investigating the structures of 2 Chronicles 28:16-21; 33:1-20; and 31:20-32:33.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 47, no. 2: 163-179. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2011).
Hulbert, W G. 2008. “Good king and bad king: traditions about Manasseh in the Bible and late Second Temple Judaism.” Stone-Campbell Journal 11, no. 1: 71-81. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2011).
Kelly, Brian E. 2002. “Manasseh in the books of Kings and Chronicles (2 Kings 21:1-18; 2 Chron 33:1-20).”In Windows into Old Testament history, 131-146. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2011).
Lasor, William Sanford. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
Schniedewind, William M. 1991. “The source citations of Manasseh : King Manasseh in history and homily.” Vetus testamentum 41, no. 4: 450-461. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2011).
No comments yet.