2 Chronicles and the Good Samaritan

WTJ 46 (1984) 317-349

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-15 AND THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN*

F. SCOTT SPENCER

AMID admirable aspirations of comprehensive coverage, bib-lical scholarship has, nonetheless, largely ignored the con-tribution 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, paraleipomenn "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 ar-rangement of material. Indeed, it may be said that the influence of this misnomer in LXX and V on the Christian church has contributed signifi-cantly 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 relationship?

* 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.

*. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1982) 4.

317

318 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

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 Chronicles-Luke 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

2 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 Uni-versity, 1914; reprinted, New York: Ktav, 1968) 381-91; D. M. Turpie, The Old Testament in the New: A Contribution to Biblical Criticism (Lon-don: Williams and Norgate, 1868) 271-74; R. G. Bratcher, ed., Old Testa-ment Quotations in the New Testament (rev. ed.; London/New York/ Suttgart: United Bible Societies, 1961).

3 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.

4 P. R. Ackroyd, / and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torch Bible Com-

mentaries; 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. Zckler, "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, Chronikbcher (HAT 21; Tbingen: 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 28:5-15 319

possible that Luke 10 is formally dependent on this passage?"5

One suspects that Braun would answer his own question affirma-tively, yet he leaves the issue unexamined and unresolved.6

O. Zckler is more elaborate but equally ambiguous when he writes:

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 [par-able 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? Zckler 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 105-37 (J. C. B. Mohr: Tbingen, 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.

5 Braun, "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude," 61 n. 12 ; Braun,

"The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, 29," 194. 6 In all fairness to Braun, this issue was outside the major concern of his

research; hence, the relegation of this question to a footnote. ? Zckler, "The Books of the Chronicles," 241-42. 8 In addition to the shared emphasis on the "Samaritans' " assisting of

the Jews, the only other explicit connection Zckler draws between the par-able and 2 Chronicles 28 is the common site of Jericho.

9 T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1937) 262.


asserts: "The comparison deserves fuller consideration."10 We agree. This paper seeks to fill a void in understanding both the parable of the Good Samaritan and 2 Chron 28:5-15 by care-fully investigating the relationship between the two passages with a special eye to linguistic, structural, and thematic affinities.

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. The most salient similarities are enumerated in Figure A. 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, Anonymous "man," probably

including soldiers and a Jew and resident of their families, and var- Jerusalem ( v 3 0 ) n ious prominent citizens all denizens of Jerusalem (vv6-8)

Victims* Hardship of nakedness Stripping of clothes injures (v lS )

Beating (plgn megaln Beating {plgn epithentes "a great blow" S [LXX] ) "they placed blows") Confiscation of posses Theft (marauders called sions ("took much spoil") "robbers") (vv 8, IS) (v30)

Attackers Aramean and Israelite Undesignated robbers warriors guilty of (lestais 30) appropriating "much spoil" (vv 8, 15)

Israel's Prophet (Oded) and Priest and Lvite leaders Ephraimite rulers

(vv 9-13) (vv31,32)

Place of Judean captives taken Samaritan takes victim convales- to Jericho for treat- to an inn probably located cence ment and recuperation in Jericho for convales-

( v l S ) cence (vv30, 35 ) 1 2

!F. H. Wilkinson, "Oded: Proto-Type of the Good Samaritan," ExpTim 69 (1957-58) 69.

1 1 For a survey of the identity of the travellers in the parable, see E. F. F.

Bishop, "People on the Road to Jericho," EvQ 42 (1970) 2-6. 1 2

The precise itinerary of the Samaritan is somewhat ambiguous, includ-


Ministry of Anointing (suk), probably Pouring on of oil and healing with oil (v 15) and wine (v 34)

Transport on donkey to Transport on donkey to Jericho for treatment inn for treatment (vlS) (v34) Clothing the naked (twice Clothing implied as part inv 15 endy [LXX]) of Samaritan's ministry

since victim had been "stripped" (ekdy, 30)

Ministers Northern Israelites Samaritan of healing (Samarians) Kinship "Kinsfolk" ( ' 4 [MT], "Neighbor" (plsion) terminol- adelphos [LXX]) three three times (vv 27, 29, 36) ogy times (vv 8, 11, 15)

forced parallelism between 2 Chronicles 28 and Luke 10. The multiplicity and specificity of the connections are just too strong to ignore. But a mere drawing of linking lines between people, places, and events hardly illumines the hermeneutical significance of Jesus' utilization of the Chronicles tradition in his parable. Of course, the issue may not really be a hermeneutical one at all. Conceivably one could claim that Jesus simply employs the furni-ture of the Chronicles narrative for illustrative purposes and that his parabolic message is essentially independent of his OT source. But this rather cavalier approach to OT material is not character-istic of Jesus' teaching methodology taken as a whole,14 and we feel that further research into the above parallels between 2 Chron-

ing the exact locale of the inn to which he transports the injured party. Which direction he comes from is conjectural, but at any rate, the site of the inn to which he carries the victim is probably in Jericho. Since Jericho was a frontier city on the border between Judea and Samaria, 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, the heart of Jewry. See E. F. F. Bishop, "Down from Jerusalem to Jericho," EvQ 35 (1963) 99-100; Bishop, "People on the Road to Jericho," 4-6.

13 The verb suk has no object expressed in 15, but in other places it

associates with semen ("oil," e. g. 2 Sam 14:2), which is probably implied in our text. The LXX utilizes aleiph, a verb used for anointing the sick with oil (Mark 6:13; Jas 5:14). See BAGD, 35.

14 See R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale,

1971; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 14)82) esp. the last chapter, pp. 172-226.


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 par-able of the Good Samaritan.

I. Israel's Leaders

In Jesus' parable the insensitive responses of the priest and Lvite figure dramatically as stark contrasts to the helping min-istry of the Good Samaritan. The exact reason for the clerics' lack of attention to the victim's plight is debatable, but the most satis-factory explanations focus on some dimension of scrupulosity re-garding ceremonial defilement.15 Nevertheless, Jesus leaves the precise motives for the priest's and Levite's callousness to con-jecture, choosing to underscore the fact of the indifference (what-ever the reason) by prominent religious figures in Israel normally expected to exemplify proper ethical responses, worthy of emu-lation.16

The scenario of 2 Chronicles 28 certainly parades characters (Israelite attackers) who display insensi ti vity to the suffering of the defeated Judeans. However, these negligent northern neigh-bors are not neutral third parties (as the unresponsive clerics in the Lucan parable) but the actual inflicters of pain. Too, the cold-hearted personnel of 2 Chronicles 28 have no apparent clerical connection. With these points in mind, Chronicles appears to have little bearing on the formation of the parable of the Good Samari-tan. But we must not ignore the following considerations surround-ing Israel's indifference to Judah's suffering:

(1) The author in 2 Chronicles 28 strongly emphasizes that the Israelites, of all peoples, should have known better than to

15Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 212-17; S. J. Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 170.

1 6 A tone of anticlericalism in the parable of the Good Samaritan has been

noted by B. Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan The Good Shepherd? (ConNT 16; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1958) 11; E. P. Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Phillipsburg, . J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979) 115; L. Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Tyndale NT Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 187; R. W. Funk, Parables and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 47; For a position against an anticlerical interpretation, see G. Friedrich, Was heisst das: Liebe? (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972) 20-24.

2 CHRONICLES 28:5-1 S 323

oppress their Judean brothers. After all, 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. Both Oded's speech (vv 9-11) and the reply of the Ephraimite leaders (vv 12-13) confirm the appalling unreason-ableness of the Israelites' harsh treatment in view of Israel's own iniquitous state. Such reaction corresponds with the parabolic im-plication that of all people, the priest and Lvite, as servants of the Lord, should have moved with compassion toward the victim in the ditch rather than spurn the opportunity to minister.

(2) 2 Chronicles 28 does highlight the response of Israel's leaders to Judah's suffering. To be sure, the writer does not feature priest and Lvite, but rather prophet (Oded) and rulers (Ephraim-ite chieftains) ; nevertheless, the focus on leadership provides some bridge with Luke 10. However, we must still admit the antithetical responses of Israel's leaders in Chronicles and Luke. Chronicles portrays them exhorting the northern soldiers to extend duty-bound, loving ministry to their Judean brothers. Far from dis-playing the inexcusable apathy of the parable's priest and Lvite, the Chronicler's prophet and rulers admirably fulfill their expected ministries of benevolence toward their injured neighbors.

Do we then abandon any linkage between Luke 10 and 2 Chron-icles 28 at this point? Not necessarily. We must not overlook the possibility that Jesus exploits this dramatic contrast, saying in effect: "We all know from 2 Chronicles 28 how Israel's leaders should and in fact did respond to their hurting brothers. The in-credible situation today is quite the reverse. Would that the con-temporary priests and Lvites deport themselves as the prophet and rulers of 2 Chronicles 28!"

(3) Though not explicitly discussed in the 2 Chronicles 28 passage, 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. Well-known among the distinctive elements of the Chronicler's historiography is his spe-cial interest in the ministry of the priests and Lvites, generally depicted in a favorable light.17 The priesthood receives specific

17 A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Its Date

(London: Oxford University, 1939) 55-56; D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite


commendation for siding with Rehoboam during the schism and for abandoning the Northern Kingdom completely (2 Chron 11:13-17). Abijah's speech especially exalts the faithfulness of the cultic ministers over against the apostates of Jeroboam's Israel:

But as for us, the Lord is our God, and we have not forsaken him. We have priests ministering to the Lord who are sons of Aaron, and Lvites for their service. They offer to the Lord every morning and every evening burnt offerings . . . . for we keep the charge of the Lord our God, but you have forsaken him. Behold, God is with us at our head, and his priests with their battle trumpets to sound the call to battle against you. [2 Chron 13:10-12a]

Noting this total alignment of priests and Lvites 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. On the surface we again face a marked antithesis to Luke 10. Quite the opposite of being indifferent to the victims' suffering as in the parable, the priests and Lvites are the victims in the Chronicles account.

But acknowledging the inclusion of priests and Lvites among the victims in 2 Chronicles 28 does not glorify them in the slight-est. The victims in this passage represent no innocent, neutral parties as in the NT parable. Rather they suffer due to God's wrath poured out against the apostasy of Judah under the wicked reign of Ahaz. In effect 2 Chronicles 28 depicts an historical re-versal of Abijah's speech. Judah and Israel have switched roles for the moment.18

And what about the priests and Lvites? They must be partici-pants in the decadence of Judah. The sacrificial system has be-come a travesty through Ahaz's idolatrous worship of the Baals and despicable offering of sacrifices (including his sons) "on the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree" (2 Chron 28:1-4; see also vv 22-27). 2 Kings 16 expressly describes the compliance of Uriah the priest with Ahaz's cultic activities, so the priesthood can hardly avoid implication in the spiritual decline of the nation. To be sure, the Chronicler does not mention the priesthood in 2 Chronicles 28, but he could scarcely have been Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (Mis-soula: Scholars, 1977) 60ff.

H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 343-44.


unaware of its guilt. In fact, his silence may be a tacit admission of the priesthood's negligence, since he might wish to avoid sully-ing an otherwise positive portrayal of the ministry of priest and Lvite in the remainder of his work with an overt mention of their shortcomings at this period. In other words, if the Chronicler had known of some noble deeds engineered by the priests and Lvites in Ahaz's day, these would no doubt have been recorded. But the priesthood's total eclipse in 2 Chronicles 28 hints at least that the author may be camouflaging a negative portrait. However, 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, though, consistent with the Chronicler's favorable presentation of the priesthood, the stress is more on the renewed consecration of the cultic figures than on their past failures, however real these might have been.

If we assume a thorough acquaintance with the entire Chron-icles corpus on the part of Jesus and his audience, it may not be stretching the point to claim that Jesus draws a subtle parallel between the priest and Lvite in Jerusalem of his day and those of Ahaz's time. The priesthood of the Chronicler's description, normally faithful in discharging its duties and expected to con-tinue on that path, shockingly falters in 2 Chronicles 28 and be-comes worthy of judgment. Likewise, the priesthood of Jesus' day, while expected to carry out beneficent duties, ignores its responsi-bilities by "passing by on the other side" and qualifies for judg-ment just as surely as the unfaithful clerics in Ahaz's day.

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. The following chiastic schema relative to the parable of the Good Samaritan features the element of response to the traveller on the Jericho road, high-lighting both the antithetical responses of the robbers and the Samaritan and the identical responses of the priest and Lvite.

1 Victim attacked by robbers (v 30) 2 Victim neglected by priest (v 31) 2' Victim neglected by Lvite ( 32)

1' Victim ministered to by Samaritan (vv 33-35) 1 9 1 9

A somewhat similar, though more elaborate, chiastic pattern is proposed


The coincidence of response between priest and Lvite is sig-nalled by the repetition of kai idn antiparlthen ("and when he saw him he passed by on the other side" vv 31, 32).

Significantly, we observe a similar structural pattern revolving around response to the injured party in 2 Chron 28:5-15.

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)20

Just as the priest and Lvite evince equivalent responses in the parable of the Good Samaritan, so the prophet Oded and the Ephraimite leaders (2,2') react in virtually identical fashion in 2 Chronicles 28. Note the comparisons in Figure B.

FIGURE

Prophet (vv 9-11) Leaders (vv 12-13) Confrontation "He went out to meet "The men . . . stood up of army the army (saba') that against those who were com

came to Samaria" ing from the war (saba*) " ( v 9 ) . (v 12).

Israel's sin "Have you not sins " . . . for you propose to and guilt ('asamot) of your bring upon us guilt ('aSmah)

own against the Lord against the Lord in addition your God?" (v 10). to our present sins and

guilt ('asmah). For our guilt ('asmah) is already great" (v 13).

Fierce anger ". . . for the ". . . there is fierce of God fierce wrath wrath (haron 'ap) against

(haron fap) of the Israel" (v 13). Lord is upon you" ( v l l ) .

by K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 72-74; B. Van Elderen ("Another Look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan," in Saved By Hope [ed. J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978] 109-19) relies heavily on Bailey's schema.

2 0 Some debate ensues as to whether the Ephraimite leaders who respond

to the victims in 12-13 (2') are really a distinct group from the Israelites who minister to the victims in vv 14-15 (1'). We support the stance of


Denial of ". . . send back "You shall not bring the entrance to the captives captives Csibyah) in the prisoners (sibyah) from your here" (v 13).

kinsfolk whom you have taken" (v 11).

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 bat-tered Judeans in the Chronicles account and the identical responses of the priest and Lvite in Jesus' story. However, the two sets of leaders react in exactly the opposite manner. The prophet and rulers in Chronicles respond with active attention favorable to the victims, sternly calling for their release and succour; on the other hand, the priest and Lvite in the parable respond with passive indifference to the beaten traveller, totally unconcerned with his plight. 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. A more prudent conclusion substantiates our earlier suggestion that Jesus purposefully ex-ploits this contrast between the prophet/leaders in Israel of Ahaz's day and the priest/Levite in Israel of his own period. A poignant implication results concerning how the priests and Lvites should have responded, namely, in consonance with the actions of Oded and the Ephraimite chieftains in 2 Chronicles 28.

II. The Ministers of Healing Immortalized in the standard title given to the parable of Luke

10:30-35, the minister of healing to the wounded victim is, of course, the "Good Samaritan." Obviously Jesus deliberately selects

several scholars who interpret the identifying phrase in 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, though possibly including some of them. See Zckler, "The Books of the Chronicles," 241; C. F. Keil, The Books of the Chronicles (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 437; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 347; J. M. Myers, / / Chronicles (AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1965) 161; For a position that identifies the men in 12 and IS as the same, see I. W. Slotki, Chronicles (London/Bournemouth: Soncino, 1952) 293.

S2S WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

a Samaritan as the protagonist of the story and attaches great significance to this ethnically distinctive character. Several NT passages make plain the extreme antipathy characterizing Jewish-Samaritan relations, corroborating the statement that "Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:9; see also Luke 9:51-56 and John 8:48). The bitter racial conflict owes to a long, complex history of tension between inhabitants of Judea and Samaria, pre-cipitated by key watershed events notably, the construction of a rival Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in the fourth century B.C. and its subsequent destruction by the Jews under John Hyr-canus in 129 B.c. as well as the finalization of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the late second century B.c. Most certainly the hostility between Jews and Samaritans had fully matured by the time of Jesus. Neither group would claim the other among its "neighbors."21

The parable of the Good Samaritan, then, 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.22

Coming to Chronicles, we find a group acting as ministers of healing to the battered Judeans, namely, a delegation from the Northern Kingdom (2 Chron 28:15). Historically, animosity brewed between minister (Israel) and victim (Judah) the Syro-Ephraimitic 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).23 Also, as citi-zens of northern Palestine, these unexpected helpers of 2 Chron-icles 28 represent a further link with Luke 10 as ancestors of the

2 1 J Jeremas, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress,

1969) 352-58; J. Bright, A History of Israel (2d ed.; Philadelphia: West-minster, 1976) 411-12; J. D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university, 1968) 5-15.

2 2 The "surprise" element in the Samaritan's ministry is noted by R. W.

Funk, "The Good Samaritan as Metaphor," Semeia 2 (1974) 80; R. W. Funk, "The Old Testament in Parable: A Study of Luke 10:25-37," Encounter 26 (1965) 261; Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 220-21.

2 3 Rudolph (Chronikbcher, 291) refers to the Israelites' ministry as "das

Wunder."


subsequently developed Samaritan sect, well-defined in Jesus' day. 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, the unexpected, indeed one might also say totally unnatural conduct of the Ephraimites at 2 Chron. and their descendant the Samaritan at Luke x. 29ff.24

Still another connecting line between Samaritanism and 2 Chronicles 28 manifests itself in a peculiar reference from the Samaritan Chronicle II, a Samaritan auto-historical record, to Zichri (cf. 2 Chron 28:7) as a member "of the community of the Samaritan Israelites . . . zealous for the Lord his God." Furthermore, the leaders of Ephraim in 2 Chron 28:12 are also called Samaritans. So the Samaritan Chronicle II documents a hermeneutical handling of 2 Chronicles which showcases the Sa-maritans in a favorable light.25 Could not the parable of the Good Samaritan represent a similar utilization of the Chronicles passage to highlight the nobility of the Samaritan, 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, thus substantiating a pro-Samaritan stance when interpreting Chronicles. R. J. Coggins reports:

2* M. Black, "The Parables as Allegory," BJRL 42 (19S9-60) 285-86. The whole question of Samaritan origins is a thorny one in biblical historical studies. Most scholars are reluctant to date any finalized, well-defined schism before the late Hasmonean period, but would still admit to an extended build-up of conflict prior to this time. Purvis' (The Samaritan Pentateuch, 7) remarks reflect sober judgment on this matter: "It should be recognized that the estrangement between Jews and Samaritans and the emergence of Samari-tanism as a distinct sect were the result of a long history of tensions between Jews and Samaritans, punctuated by a number of incidents which drove the two communities further and further apart." In light of this "long history of tensions," the link between preexilic northern and southern Jewish rela-tions and later Jewish-Samaritan intercourse maintains its validity, even while recognizing the hazards of pinning down the connection with precision. See also J. Bowman, The Samaritan Problem (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975) 2; R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 70.

2 5 Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, 124-25.

3 3 0 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

It is clear that the Samaritan Chronicler had no inhibitions about using the biblical books of Chronicles, a fact which suggests that the purpose of those books was not understood by him to have been anti-Samaritan, and it is from 2 Chronicles that most of the account of the remaining years of the Assyrian pressure is drawn.26

If this pro-Samaritan outlook on 2 Chronicles was extant in any form and known by Jesus and his audience, it would have been particularly natural and effective for Jesus to draw his material on the Good Samaritan from this section of the OT. (Again we would emphasize, however, that if Jesus was aware of this Samari-tan tradition he in no way crusaded for the supremacy of Sa-maritanism any more than he supported Pharasaic Judaism or any other sectarian movement.)

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. Remember that according to this outline, just as the responses of Israel's leaders (prophet-rulers/ priest-Levite) to the victims emerge as virtually identical, so the actions of attackers and ministers appear as diametrically op-posed. In the case of the parable of the Good Samaritan, the robbers' malicious activity toward the injured traveller is com-pletely reversed by the Samaritan's gracious ministry, even to the point of detail (see Fig. C).

FIGURE C27

The robbers' attack (v 30) The Samaritan's ministry (vv 33-35) 1. Took the victim's money 1. Spent his own money 2. Beat the victim 2. Cared for the victim 3. Left the victim half dead 3. Left the victim cared for and

and will not return promised to return

Coming to 2 Chronicles 28, 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' con-dition, is also manifest with great precision. Note the specific contrasts in Figure D.

26 Ibid., 12S. 2 7

This pattern is taken virtually verbatim from Bailey, Poet and Peasant, 72.


FIGURE D

Attack (vv 5-8) Capture and " . . . the king . . . release of took captive a great prisoners number of his people

(sibyah)" ( v S ) . "The men of Israel took captive two hundred thousand of their kinsfolk" ( v 8 ) .

"They also took much "So the armed men left . . . spoil (salai) from the spoil" (v 14). them" (v 8). " . . . and with the spoil "They brought the (salai) they clothed" spoil (salai) to (v IS). Samaria" ( v 8 ) .

Capture and "The men of Israel "They brought them release of took captive . . . to their kinsfolk ('ahim) kinsfolk2* of their kinsfolk at Jericho" ( IS).

('ahim)" ( v 8 ) .

Again, 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. 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. In both cases, true benevolence moves to totally restore helpless sufferers by overturning every evil effect of violent injury.

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.

The wickedness and judgment of King Ahaz mark a clearly 2 8

Here the parallelism focuses on the key-word "kinsfolk," but it must be admitted that slightly different kinship relationships are in view. In 8 it is kinship between Israel and Judah; in IS intra-kinship relations within the region of Judah seem to be in mind.

Ministry (vv 14-15) "So the armed men left the captives (sibyah) " (v 14). "And the men . . . rose and took the captives" (v 15).

Capture and release of plunder


dominant theme in this 28th chapter of 2 Chronicles.29 We set forth the following structural schema based on this retributional emphasis:

I. The Wickedness of Ahaz (vv 1-4)30 II. The Judgment of Ahaz (portrayed in two parallel scenes, vv 5-23 ) 3 1

A. Judah's defeat (vv 5-15) 1. Instruments of

defeat (vv 5-8) a. Arameans (v 5)

(take prisoners) b. Israelites (vv 5-8)

(take prisoners) 2. Reason for

defeat (v 9): ". . . the Lord gave them [Judah] into your hand" (also 6 "because they [Judah] had forsaken the Lord")

3. Help in the midst of defeat (vv 9-15) ; help supplied from unexpected source Israelites

I'. The Wickedness of Ahaz (vv 24-27)

A'. Judah's defeat (vv 16-23) Instruments of defeat (vv 17-18) a'. Edomites (v 17)

(take prisoners) b\ Philistines (v 18)

(capture cities) Reason for defeat (v 19): "For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel."

Help in the midst of defeat (vv 16, 20-23) ; help sought and expected but unsupplied Assyrians and Arameans

Relating this structure to the parable of the Good Samaritan, the key category is "Help in the midst of defeat" (3,3') compared and contrasted in the parallel scenes of vv 9-1S and 16-23. In

2 9 The theme of retribution theology is noted in 2 Chronicles 28 by

H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1977) 114-18; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (reprinted; Cleveland/New York: Meridian, 1957) 206; J. Goldingay, "The Chronicler as Theologian," BibThBul 5 (1975) 121-22.

3 0 The sections beginning and ending the chapter on "The Wickedness of

Ahaz" (vv 1-4, 24-27) present a very similar appraisal of the king's deplorable condition. Note particularly the double reference to Ahaz's idolatrous activities on "the high places" in vv 4, 25.

3 1 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 activity of Damascus and the king(s) of Aram at the beginning and end of the section (vv 5, 22-23).


the first, the Judeans receive aid unsolicited and presumably un-expected by Ahaz from the very people who attacked Judah the Israelites. In the second scene, Ahaz actively seeks assistance from the foreign nations of Assyria and Aram in the midst of his crisis and optimistically awaits it (vv 16, 23). Ironically, though, the Chronicler tells us that "Tiglath-Pilneser king of Assyria came against him [Ahaz], and afflicted him instead of strengthening him" (v 20). And concerning the gods of Damascus which Ahaz beckoned for deliverance, we find: "But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel" (v 23).

This contrast between unexpected help rendered and expected help withheld may again foreshadow the contrast between the Good Samaritan (surprise, unexpected helper) on the one hand, and the priest and Lvite (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 Priest and Lvite of 2 Chronicles 28 of Luke 10

Follow the pattern Respond antithetically of Oded the prophet to the sensitive pro-and Ephraimite lea- phet/leaders of 2 Chron-ders (vv 9-15) icles 28 Diverge from the Respond identically pattern of Arameans to the negligent Aram-and Assyrians eans and Assyrians of (vv 9-23) 2 Chronicles 28

III. 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. Scholars differ on the unity of this passage. Many label the parable a Lucan interpolation,32 while others claim that the parable fits in nicely following Jesus' dialogue with the lawyer

3 2 E. g. Black, "The Parables as Allegory," 285.


and that the entire passage (vv 25-37) comprises a single, cohesive literary unit.33

. E. Ellis adopts the latter position. 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. The following schema emerges:34

1. vv 25-27 Dialogue including question and initial texts: Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18

2. 28 Second text: Lev 18:5 3. vv 29-36 Exposition (by means of parable) linked to initial texts by

the catchrwords plsion (vv 27,29,36) and poiein (vv 28, 37a,37b)

4. 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, chiefly Lev 19:18, with key-words plsion ("neighbor") and poiein ("do") serving as major connecting lines. In short, the Good Samaritan exempli-fies what it means to be obedient to the OT law as a true lover of the oppressed neighbor.

This presentation of the Samaritan's love as obedient love, flowing from OT mandate, finds its match in the love of the "Samaritans" in 2 Chronicles 28. The helping action of "the men who have been mentioned by name" (v 15) proceeds not from spontaneous, self-induced motivation but rather follows on the heels of pointed prophetic exhortation from Oded and the Ephraim-ite leaders (vv 9-13). The Chronicler specifically designates Oded, "a prophet of the Lord," and places great stress on his word as worthy of attention ("Now hear me . . . " [v 11]). So, properly evaluated, the gracious ministry by Israel to the Judean captives is nothing less than direct obedience to the word of the Lord through his prophet.35

33 Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan, 28-29; Van Elderen, "Another Look

at the Parable," 113-14; A. R. C. Leaney, The Gospel According to St. Luke (New York: Harper, 1958) 182-83.

34 . E. Ellis, "How the New Testament Uses the Old," in New Testament

Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (ed. I. H. Marshall; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 203-6.

3 5 Braun, "1 Chronicles 22, 28, 29," 195; Myers, // Chronicles, 163; Ru

dolph, Chronikbcher, 291.


An apparent disparity, however, arises between Chronicles and Luke when we note the slightly different messages which the min-isters of healing are exhorted to obey. The Chronicler's "Samari-tans" are called upon to heed the challenge: "Love your brother" (or "kinsfolk" [RSV] 'ah, vv 8, 11, 15).36 On the other hand, following closely the letter of Lev 19:18, the NT parable cries for action consonant with the injunction: "Love your neighbor" (plsion, vv 27, 29, 36).

Nonetheless, a closer examination of brother-neighbor termin-ology in the ancient world as well as the larger context of Levit-icus 19 reveals a tight linkage between 2 Chronicles 28 and Luke 10 on this matter of obedience to OT law, even to the point of suggesting that Oded, like Jesus, consciously refers to the Leviticus 19 section of Pentateuchal legislation.

We must not drive a wedge too sharply between the ideas of "brother" and "neighbor" in biblical thought. Examples from the Hebrew OT, LXX, and QL (with a special eye to Leviticus 19) will suffice to disclose an intimate correlation between 'ah/adelphos ("brother") and rea'/plesion ("neighbor").

(1) Hebrew OT Taking Lev 19:17-18 as a composite unit, we find the command to love one's neighbor (rea() which con-cludes 18 as nothing but the positive reversal of the negative exhortation opening 17: "You shall not hate your brother ('ah) in your heart." The difference in linguistic terms seems attributable merely to stylistic preference rather than to any substantive semantic variation.

(2) LXX Though the LXX customarily renders rea' with plsion and 'ah with adelphos, thereby keeping neighbor and brother somewhat distinct, the pattern is by no means a rigid one. In a few instances, it employs plesion for 'ah (see e.g., Gen 26:31, Lev 25:14, and Mie 7:2).37 The Micah text particularly instructs

3 6 The prominence of the "brotherhood" theme is noted by Williamson,

1 and 2 Chronicles, 346; Rudolph, Chronikbcher, 289. 3 7

E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897) 2.1148-49. 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. In the LXX (38:34) renders rea* with politn and 'ah with adelphon (generally ac-cepted as the preferred reading), but important variants in A and Origene Hexapla substitute adelphon for politn (rendering MT rea') and plsion for adelphon (rendering MT 'ah) ; see the critical apparatus in J. Ziegler,


us because of its identical setting to 2 Chronicles 28, emphasizing violent oppression within the household of Israel: ". . . they all lie in wait for blood, and each hunts his brother (MT 'ah; LXX plsion) with a net."

(3) QLFurther connecting "brother" and "neighbor," a Qumran passage expounding Lev 19:18 clearly substitutes 'ah for rea1 : "They shall love each man his brother ('ah) as himself; they shall succour the poor, the needy and the stranger" (CD 6.20-21 ) ,38

Such a correlation between brother-neighbor terminology in the biblical material, particularly evidenced in relation to Leviticus 19, 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.

Two additional features of the context of Lev 19:18 harmonize with emphases in 2 Chronicles 28 and further confirm the Penta-teuchal basis of Oded's speech. First, between the simple negative and positive exhortations in Lev 19:17-18 ("You shall not hate . . . you shall love . . .") we find this elaboration: ". . . but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people." This implies the special importance of loving one's brother/neighbor when that brother/neighbor is some-how in the wrong. Rather than retaliating in vengeful brutality, the loving respondent will confront the offending brother with reason in hopes of correcting his misguided behavior and avoiding any complicity in his sins.

In 2 Chronicles 28 we find the Judeans clearly in the throes of sin. To be sure, God ordains the victory of the Israelites as a needed judgment upon wicked Judah, but Israel goes too far. Oded remarks in language quite reminiscent of Lev 19:17-18

Behold, because the Lord, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand, but you have slain them in a rage which

ed., Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, E pis tula Ieremiae (Septuaginta 15; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957) 363. A similar variation between A's and B's treatment of MT 'ah (A = plsion; B = adelphos) may be viewed in Deut 19:19. These changes attest to the high degree of overlap between brother-neighbor concepts in biblical literature.

3 8 G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Baltimore: Penguin, 1962)

103; Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 213.


has reached up to heaven. And now you intend to subjugate the people of Judah and Jerusalem, male and female, as your slaves. 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, the northerners only react with vicious cruelty, thereby re-vealing a despicable partnership with Judah in her sinful state.

Second, recognizing that Leviticus 19 constitutes part of the larger section of Leviticus 17-27 known as the Holiness Code, we observe a parallel with Oded's speech in the prohibition of slavery among fellow-Israelites (cf. Lev 25:42-43, 46b; 2 Chron 28:10).39

Evidently, though he shuns verbatim citation, Oded still looks to Levitical legislation as authority for his challenging speech. The Israelites' benevolent ministry, then, 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. If this is so, then we find Jesus employing the herme-neutical technique of explaining Scripture (Lev 19:18) with Scrip-ture (2 Chronicles 28). Furthermore, he identifies his own inter-pretation of Lev 19:18 (manifest in the parable) with that of Scripture itself (manifested in 2 Chronicles 28). S. Kistemaker, who affirms the background of 2 Chron 28:5-15 to the parable, acknowledges this implication of Jesus' method in the following statement:

By teaching the parable which echoes familiar words of Scripture [e.g. 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. Thus, his skillful exposition of the second great commandment, 'Love your neighbor as yourself/ receives a deeper perspective. Jesus appears as the interpreter of the Law.40

3 9 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 346-47 ; Rudolph, Chronikbcher, 290.

4 0 Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus, 172. Our focus in this section has

been on the relation of 2 Chronicles 28 and the parable of the Good Samar-itan to Lev 19:18, since this "second great commandment" is the principal OT law behind Jesus' story. But, of course, as elsewhere in the Synoptics (Matt 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34), the parable's setting in Luke 10 matches the law of neighborly love (Lev 19:18) with the "first great commandment"


IV. Repentance and Retribution

Nothing shines more transparently through the author's narra-tive in 2 Chronicles 28 than his negative portrait of King Ahaz, replete with a full-scale description of his wickedness and conse-quent downfall from the hand of God.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. In fact, 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. But, as Wellhausen points out, "Chronicles could not let him [Ahaz] off so cheaply."43

The most illuminating method uncovering the Chronicler's retri-bution 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, "He even made molten images for the Baals" (v 2b), thereby intensifying Ahaz's wickedness by casting it as an explicit violation of Exod 34:17.44

(2) The Chronicler adds, "He burned incense in the valley of "Love the Lord your God . . ." (Deut 6:4,5). Interestingly, W. Mon-selewski (Der barmherzige Samariter, 174) notes a parallel between Luke 10 and 2 Chronicles 28 precisely at the point of a common link to Deuteronomy 6. Luke 10:27 specifically cites Deut 6:5, and the ministry of the Israelites to the suffering Judeans in 2 Chronicles 28 comes as a response of obedience to "the Lord, the God of your fathers" (2 Chron 28:9) a designation for Yahweh which evokes reminiscences of Israel's covenantal obligations/bless-ings enumerated in Deuteronomy 6 (see especially the references to the relationship between God and Israel's "fathers" in vv 3, 10, 18, and 23).

4 1 The formative coloring of retribution theology is everywhere apparent

in the Chronicler's work. R. Dillard ("The Reign of Asa [2 Chr 14-16] : an Example of the Chronicler's Theological Method," JETS 23 [1980] 209) offers a helpful general appraisal: "On one theme of the Chronicler's histori-ography, however, there is virtually no debate. It is his dominant com-positional technique and can be discerned by even a cursory reading of the text. It is called 'retribution theology' and represents the Chronicler's con-viction that sin always brings judgment and guilt always brings disaster (usually war or illness), whereas obedience and righteousness yield the fruit of peace and prosperity."

42 W. A. L. Elmslie, "The First and Second Books of Chronicles," IB 3.518. 4 3

Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 206. 4 4

Coggins, First and Second Chronicles, 258.


the son of Hinnom" (v 3a). The valley, also known as Ge-hinnon, was later notorious as the site of torment following death, that is, hell (Gehenna). As a place associated with unpleasant activities such as burning trash and burying bones, it provides an apt setting for the despicable practices of Ahaz.45

(3) The Chronicler reads, "He . . . burned his soni" ( 3), where 2 Kings 16 has, "He . . . burned his son" (v 3). The pluralizing increases the severity of the offence.46

(4) Comparing 2 Chron 28:23 and 2 Kgs 16:10-16, we find the Chronicler specifically states that Ahaz commits the detestable deed of sacrificing directly to the gods of Damascus, whereas Kings, in somewhat softer fashion, presents Ahaz offering sacrifices, still presumably to the Lord, on an altar patterned after the one in Damascus.

(5) Only Chronicles mentions the penultimate act of apostasy: shutting the doors of the temple (2 Chron 28:24 later condemned by Hezekiah, 2 Chron 29:7).47

(6) Virtually the entire section of 2 Chron 28:5-23 represents an addition to the Kings narrative. The only parallel is the plea for Assyrian aid in 2 Chron 28:16 and 2 Kgs 16:7. Totally different perspectives underly the Syro-Ephraimitic War. Kings features a single, ultimately ineffectual, attack of a united Ara-mean-Israelite coalition, whereas the Chronicler speaks of separate strikes upon Judah, both devastating in their results (vv 5-8).48 Furthermore, the Chronicler unmistakably connects Judah's mili-

45Ackroyd, / and II Chronicles, 175. 4 6

Coggins, First and Second Chronicles, 258. 4 7

R. C. Dentan, The First and Second Books of the Kings. The First and Second Books of the Chronicles (The Layman's Bible Commentary; Richmond: John Knox, 1964) 150; Elmslie, "The First and Second Books of Chronicles," 517.

4 8 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. The following sources may be consulted for both positive and negative evaluations: Zckler, "The Books of the Chronicles," 12 ; Dentan, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, 150; Slotki, Chronicles, 290; Keil, The Books of the Chronicles, 433-35; Coggins, First and Second Chronicles, 258; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 345; E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910) 457-58; J. W. McKay, Religion in Judah Under the Assyrians (London: SCM, 1973) 78.


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, Azrikam, Elkanah, vv 7-8) thus evidencing the gravity of judg-ment to match the gravity of offences.49

(7) The Chronicler uniquely records the attacks of the Edom-ites and Philistines (vv 17-18) to doubly emphasize the judgment of God upon Ahaz.

(8) Whereas both Kings and Chronicles mention Ahaz's seek-ing of Assyrian aid, the nature of the help received is vastly dif-ferent. In Kings, Assyria appears as basically beneficent to Judah by eliminating the Aramean opposition, even putting Rezin to death. In Chronicles, however, Tiglath-Pilneser still comes to aid Ahaz, but the evaluation shifts: "Tiglath-Pilneser afflicted him [Ahaz] instead of strengthening him" (v 20). Concerning the Arameans, quite unlike the helpless foe of Kings, they further ensnare Judah, this time through religious rather than militaristic means. Ahaz worships the Damascene gods, whom the Chronicler reports, "were the ruin of him, and of all Israel" (v 33).

In view of this historiographical analysis of 2 Chronicles 28, 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."50 With the stage thus set, 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. For one, C. F. Keil concentrates on Israel's barbarism toward Judah and associates this violent behavior with Ahaz's wickedness, equally deserving of judgment. He argues:

Out of the historical materials, those facts which show how Ahaz, not-withstanding the heavy blows which Jahve inflicted upon him, always sinned more deeply against the Lord his God, are chosen, and oratorically so presented as not only to bring before us the increasing obduracy of Ahaz, but also, by the representation of the conduct of the citizens and

49 Keil, The Books of the Chronicles, 435; W. E. Barnes, The Book of Chronicles (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1899) 248-49.

5 0 Dentan, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, 150.


warriors of the kingdom of Israel towards the people of Judah who were prisoners, the deep fall of that kingdom.61

From a different perspective, underscoring the Northern Kingdom's loving ministry, R. J. 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 understand the unexpected episode in 9-15 the wickedness of Ahaz even serves to put the northerners in a favourable light."52

Though these comments of Keil and Coggins seem diametrically opposed, actually both are correct, and together they comprise a full, balanced picture of Israel's place in the retributional framework of the Chronicler's Ahaz account. On the one hand (cf. Keil), due to their rapacious militarism, the Israelites stand guilty before the Lord and just as meritorious of his wrath and judgment as the Judeans they have slaughtered. The speeches of Oded and the Ephraimite leaders make this plain (vv 9-13). But the story does not end here; the Israelites realize the error of their malicious treatment and repent. The "Samaritans' " gracious ministry of vv 14-15 then ensues, creating a moving scene of repentance and obedience set off in dramatic contrast to the apostasy and disobedience of King Ahaz (cf. Coggins). Others appreciate this element of repentance by the Israelites, notably Williamson, 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.53

How does this "repentance" interpretation of the Israelites' ministry square with the parable of the Good Samaritan? Interestingly, 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. . 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.54 Actually many scholars evaluate this connection con-trarily as a discrepancy (implying a Lucan interpolation qf the parable), claiming that Jesus' story more appropriately answers

51 Keil, The Books of the Chronicles, 433. 5 2

Coggins, First and Second Chronicles, 257. 53Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 344-45; Israel, 115-16.

4 Van Elderen, "Another Look at the Parable," 111-14.


the question, "How should I love my neighbor?" (Answer: "as the Samaritan does"), 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. The lawyer inquires after Jesus only because "he desires to justify himself" (v 29). Typical of the Pharisaic mind-set as depicted in the Gospels, this legal expert imagines himself to be thoroughly self-righteous. He merely seeks clarification on the identity of his neighbors, not to learn and grow in righteousness, but in order to corroborate his own smug personal appraisal that indeed he had already fulfilled the stipulations of the second great command-ment.56

But Jesus throws the self-satisfied lawyer off-guard. 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, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (Luke 10:36). The lawyer, choking on the obvious response, replies with the circumlocution, "the one who had mercy on him" (v 37), rather than uttering the loathsome name, "Samaritan."57

The impact is undeniable. 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). This strikes a shattering blow at the lawyer's self-pronounced justification. If the second great commandment entails loving Samaritans, then he and virtually all Jews must confess to being transgressors. The final exhortation, then "Go and do likewise" (v 37) does not encourage the lawyer to emulate the Samari-tan's kindness as much as it calls for kindness to be shown to the Samaritan, in fact all people, regardless of distinctions.

Van Elderen sums up this interpretation well: In dealing with this lawyer, Jesus had to break down his pride and con-ceit, rather than to teach him to be kind, helpful, humanitarian, and

6 5 E. g. see Black, "The Parables as Allegory," 285.

5 6 Van Elderen, "Another Look at the Parable," 111-14.

5 7 N. Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 314.


benevolent. The lawyer did not need a lesson in helping someone in need; rather he needed a lesson in what it means to be human within the framework of the grace (and the law) of God.

The lawyer is not instructed by Jesus primarily to do as the Samaritan did (i.e., help someone in need), but rather to fulfill the commandment of love for his neighbor who, he must recognize, can be a Samaritan the very person his pride refused to accept.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 28:15.59

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 loving ministry; (2) Hortatory purpose: they represent the lawyer and provide a "type" for his needed repentance and obedience.

V. Universal Love

Some analysts of the Chronicler's methodology detect a strongly antinorthern polemic in his writings coupled with support for exclusive Judean claims to be the true and only people of God.60 This interpretation rests heavily on contentions of common authorship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, knowing well the rife anti-Samaritanism of the latter. Also, commentators attributing 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 Southern Kingdom.61

58 Van Elderen, "Another Look at the Parable," 112. 5 9

C. . B. Cranfield ("The Good Samaritan," 370) explicitly compares Jesus' reversal of the lawyer's self-justification with Oded's convicting question directed toward his fellow Israelites in 2 Chron 28:10 (". . . are there not even with you trespasses of your own against the Lord your God?").

6 0 See e. g. W. Rudolph, "Problems of the Book of Chronicles," VT 4

(1954) 404. 6 1

See the discussion in J. D. Newsome, Jr., "Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes," JBL 94 (1975) 205-7; Braun, "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude Toward the North," 59-61.


If this antipathy to non-Judeans truly characterizes the Chron-icler's predisposition, then any Chronicles passage would serve as a strange foundation indeed on which to build the parable of the Good Samaritan, so transparent in its call for universal love in-volving Jews and Samaritans, and by implication all men. Fur-thermore, we find it almost incredible that one so compassionate toward a broad spectrum of humanity including harlots, pub-licans, lepers, etc. as Jesus, and one so clearly a champion of the poor and downtrodden (even Gentiles) as Luke,62 could look with full favor on and draw essential truths from a work like Chronicles if it really was so prejudicially charged.

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 con-cerning the inclusion of the Northern Kingdom in a unified Israel. R. L. Braun, for example, relates that the Chronicler portrays no less than six kings of Judah, including Ahaz, interacting with the north in a manner which often casts a favorable light on the North-ern Kingdom and enhances the possibility of reconciliation. After surveying these reigns, Braun concludes:

These passages indicate clearly that the writer of Chronicles continued to be concerned about the people of the north, and frequently introduces this concern without precedence in his Vorlage. The people of the north are his kinsmen. Yahweh's prophets, such as Elijah and Oded, still function there. Israel's best kings undertake military and missionary expeditions into Ephraim. Representatives of the north participate both in the worship of the Jerusalem temple, where they are accepted as brothers even when ritually unclean, as well as in reforming activities in both north and south. On one occasion northern leaders, many of whom bear Yahwistic names, respond positively to prophetic admonition and deal mercifully with Judean captives [2 Chron 28:9-15].e3

This penetrating analysis has led Braun and others to reject the claim of common authorship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, particularly when juxtaposing various anti-neighbor

6 2 For a brief, but helpful, discussion of the prominence of universalism in

Lucan theology, see I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 101, 137-44.

6 3 Braun, "A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude Toward the

North," 61-62.


passages such as Ezra 4:1-4 and Neh 10:28-31 with the Chron-icler's patently more positive portrait of the north.64

To further illuminate the Chronicler's attitude toward the scope of love, we notice an openness on his part not only to embrace the Northern Kingdom in Yahweh worship but also to include non-Jewish foreigners. Schaefer reminds us of the noble, spiritual words concerning Yahweh and his people emanating from such unlikely Gentile candidates as Pharaoh Neco (2 Chron 35:21), Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22 ff.), Huram (2 Chron 2:11), and the Queen of Sheba (2 Chron 9:8).65 Newsome speaks of "a tentative kind of internationalism" present in Chronicles, starkly contrasted to the exclusivism of Ezra-Nehemiah, 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 7.66

Looking more specifically at 2 Chronicles 28, we discover the following signposts illuminating the theme of universal love (es-pecially related to the unification of "all Israel"):

(1) One king for north and south. Only one king reigns in 2 Chronicles 28 Ahaz and significantly, he is called "king of Israel" (v 19). The Chronicler tends to view the Northern King-dom as already subdued during the days of Ahaz and therefore without a separate monarch of its own. Undoubtedly, Ahaz falls short in quality of the preeminent king that the Chronicler en-visages ruling over "all Israel," but the stage is now set for the glorious unification efforts of a truly noble Davidic king, Heze-kiah.67

6 4 Ibid., 62 ; Newsome, "Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler,"

206; T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-precht, 1972) 190-91, 221-22.

6 5 G. E. Schaefer, "The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of

the Chronicler" (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1972) 11-13.

6 6 Newsome, "Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler," 207.

6 7 Only ruling administrators (v 12), but no king, appear over Israel in

2 Chronicles 28. Furthermore, 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 . . . to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria" (2 Chron 30:6). See Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 344, 348.


(2) The brotherhood of north and south. As we have previously noted, the stress on kinship ties between north and south figures prominently in 2 Chronicles 28 (vv 8, 11, IS references to 'ahim). Judah and Israel still constitute a family unit, torn asunder by strife, but a family nonetheless, with prospects of reconciliation that are always possible for estranged brothers because of their common heritage.

(3) Levelling the fortunes of north and south. By the end of 2 Chronicles 28, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms occupy an amazingly similar position. They both stand guilty of forsaking the Lord and offering unacceptable worship. (Though the north has displayed a spark of repentance in vv 9-15, this hardly classifies as total spiritual renewal.) Furthermore, they both reside essentially in "exile," that is, under foreign domination. In fact, an "exilic atmosphere" pervades the entire 2 Chronicles 28 narrative, signalled by repeated references to either "prisoners," "captives," or "slaves" (see vv 5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18). The exilic milieu of the Chronicler's own time no doubt accounts for this phenomenon, thus establishing a bridge between the author's day and the reign of Ahaz. In both periods, distinctions between north and south are somewhat obliterated. They find themselves equally ensnared in the trials of foreign subjugation, and consequently, together, as "all Israel," they seek the blessings of restored Yahweh worship in Jerusalem under a united Davidic monarchy.68

Having discovered in 2 Chronicles 28 the theme of universal love under the rubric of "all Israel," we are now in position to understand the Chronicler's interest in recording the "Samaritan" ministry of vv 9-15. More than anything else, through this moving episode, the author issues a simple plea to his audience to act like "all Israel" compassionately ministering to each other as

68 D. N. Freedman, "The Chronicler's Purpose," CBQ 23 (1961) 441; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 344; P. R. Ackroyd ("The Chronicler as Exegete," JSOT 2 [1977] 29) rightly detects the "exilic" theme as prominent in 2 Chronicles 28. He particularly applies it to our passage of interest by saying: "Vss 8-1S may be understood in various ways, but we may perhaps properly see here too an exemplification of that element in the prayer of Solomon, found in 1 8:50 but not in the Chronicler's form of the text, which asks that God should 'put pity for them (i. e. the exiles) in their captors' hearts'." We do not expand on this "exilic" theme because of its apparent inapplicability to the parable of the Good Samaritan.


brothers irrespective of sociological boundary lines, even as the Israelites of 2 Chronicles 28 came to their senses and finally dealt with their Judean kinsmen in kindness.

Quite clearly, then, such open-armed missionaries as Jesus and Luke gladly find a sympathetic partner in the Chronicler, who too was deeply concerned about the unity of God's people. Also, a story like the parable of the Good Samaritan, full of tenderness yet powerful in its breaking of ethnic barriers, quite appropriately owes its inspiration to 2 Chronicles 28 where estranged brothers cease their strife momentarily in the experience of benevolent ministry. Essentially, the Chronicler, Jesus, and Luke represent an unbroken chain of prophets calling for loving unity among the people of God, unfettered by social discrimination.

VI. 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.

(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, not simply as supplying circumstantial baggage, but as providing an ideological foundation for the key topics of love, brotherhood, obedience, repentance, and anticlericalism. We con-tend 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, including the structural and theological contexts of the entire 2 Chronicles 28 chapter and the books of Chronicles as a whole. No theory of haphazard proof-texting is sufficient to account for the numerous parallels of thought (not merely language and circum-stance) we have drawn between the Chronicler and the Parabler. In short, Jesus proves himself a most responsible exegete and expositor of the Chronicles passage.

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. We are not even campaigning for the unequivocal certainty of all


the parallels we have drawn. Frankly, in light of the scanty prior research into our topic, our study has been highly exploratory, pursuing all possible connecting avenues between Chronicles and Luke through a variety of literary lenses. In this investigative mode, 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 relation-ship). But seeing that time and time again, through a study of several feasible areas of correspondence (see headings), similar themes and perspectives have emerged between the Chronicler and the Parabler, we feel confident to assert that in these two biblical story-tellers we have truly kindred minds at work. We cannot be sure of all that Jesus drew from the Chronicler, but it was cer-tainly more than a simple plot-line about first-aid. In summation, it is the 2 Chronicles 28 rescue story in its theological and literary context! which informs and illumines the parable of the Good Samaritan.

(2) With a unique (unshared with Samuel-Kings) passage in Chronicles so clearly alluded to in the Gospel of Luke, further research is in order to discover additional Chronicles allusions or citations in the NT. At any rate, the bias of scholars cataloguing the NT usage of the OT against Chronicles in favor of Samuel-Kings where they parallel should be forever abandoned. Further-more, our appetites should be whetted for a feast of additional insights which Chronicles studies might afford NT interpreters. I think particularly of help in deciphering the "Synoptic Problem" with its peculiar difficulties surrounding harmonization and his-toriography. Precisely the same issues prevail in the relationship between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings that we find among the Gospels, though unencumbered by the "which came first" dilemma plaguing NT scholars.69 All in all, it is time for biblical interpreters

6 9 For example, R. H. Gundry (Matthew: A Commentary on His Liter-

ary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982] 635) briefly men-tions the correlation between the Chronicler's and Matthew's handling of source material. Also, we may find fruitful a further comparison of chiastic artistry in Chronicles (see R. B. Dillard, "The Chronicler's Solomon," WTJ 43 [1980-81] 289-300; and forthcoming commentary on 2 Chronicles in the Word Biblical Commentary; also see J. A. Groves, "Chiasm as a Structuring Device in Old Testament Narrative" [Th.M. thesis, Westminster Theological

2 CHRONICLES 28:515 349

to recognize that "the things left out" best be included in our ap-praisal of OT influence on the NT tradition.

University of Durham Durham, England

Seminary, 1983]) with similar literary method in the NT, particularly Luke (cf. C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts [SBLMS 20; Missoula: Scholars, 1974] 51-58).

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. 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. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Documents

2 Chronicles and the Good Samaritan