The End and the Beginning

2 Chronicles 36

            The Chronicler’s agenda is not to explain why the exile happened but to show that the post-exilic community was still the people of God’s promise. To that end, he condenses the story of the last four kings and the destruction of Jerusalem by about half. More than that, the things he adds advance his purpose. Notice, for example, verse 21, in which he suggests that the exile wasn’t punitive so much as purgative. That is, the exile was to purify the land and the people. Hence, the statement that the land finally enjoyed its sabbath rest, suggesting that the sabbath year (Leviticus 25) hadn’t been observed but the exile was a kind of “catch-up” time. Also, the ending is different than the ending of Kings. In Kings, the story ends with Jehoiachin being allowed to sit at the table of the king of Babylon, still very much in exile but honored. Chronicles skips ahead decades to the decree of Cyrus, in which the first of the exiles return to rebuild the temple. Beginning to end, the Chronicler never gives up his themes: God is faithful to His promises to the line of David, centered in the temple, and his post-exilic community is still the beneficiary of those promises.