Help on a Question about Kings and Chronicles

Ed Chait

I received the following question I need some help with. I know that there was a book and record kept by scribes about the chronicles of the kings of Israel but I don’t know how it relates to this question.

“Question 452594: II Kings 14:28â??Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of chronicles of the kings of Israel? Was some part of I&II Chronicles lost? Or are they originally a part of a larger, more comprehensive document called the “book of chronicles of the kings of Israel”? If the “book of chronicles” in II Kings 14:28 refers to II Chronicles, the original scribes made a mistake because Jeroboam son of Joash does not appear in II Chronicles. Chronologically, he should be mentioned somewhere around II Chronicles 25â??26. But scribes making that big of a mistake seems unlikely to me, because they would have had a plentiful amount of time to construct both I&II Kings and I&II Chronicles. I hope someone who is familiar with this question could give me an answer. It may be that I have failed to read a passage of the books of Chronicles which actually explains II Kings 14:28. But even the commentaries and cross references seem to evade this question. How come?”

Note:

Profile: Male, 18-30, North America, Christian

Like Comment

Seen by 60

Comments

Julie Kimani I was just wondering about this last week! I never got around to following through though. Looking forward to hearing the answer.

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 6:58pm

Ed Chait Wondering about the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Israel or the specific question about Jeroboam not being mentioned in 2 Chronicles?

Like · Reply · January 31 at 7:02pm · Edited

Julie Kimani About Jeroboam not being mentioned.

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 7:09pm

Ed Chait There was an ongoing document kept by scribes that chronicled the lives of the kings apart from Scripture, so is that answer enough to satisfy the question?

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 7:22pm

Joseph Ford Ed, 2nd Chronicles was written after the Babylonian captivity with encouragement in mind. If you notice, only a few of the Kings of the Northern kingdom are even mentioned. That is because they were all evil. Though all kings had their acts written down by their scribes, the evil ones were not a source of encouragement and, thus, mostly left out of the Chronicles.

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 7:26pm

Tim White The Official Chronicles of the Kings was the ongoing kingdom record as part of governmental posterity. It was not scripture, but was cross-referenced by the contemporaries to document the event. It was never intended on being scripture and often reflected the pressure from the king to put events in to a positive light that normally would have been condemned in scriptures, particularly in later times when integrity was lost.

Like · Reply · 3 · January 31 at 7:28pm

Tim White Some of the official Chronicles have been found or preserved and has been used to disprove historical critics of the Bible, if I remember correctly. I am checking my notes to see if I recorded a reference on that.

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 7:30pm

Ed Chait Did each king keep their own separate record or was it one ongoing record that was added to in both north and south kingdoms?

Like · Reply · January 31 at 7:32pm

Joseph Ford “Talk Through The Bible” says 1 & 2 Chronicles were one continuous work. Together they “present a religious history of the Davidic dynasty of Judah. The former are written from a prophetic and moral viewpoint, the latter from a priestly and spiritual perspective.”

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 7:38pm

Tim White The chronicles you are talking about refer to what would be official government records.

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 7:56pm

Write a reply…

Tim White From Gill: behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel; not in that canonical book of Scripture, so called, for in that there is very little account of the reign of Jeroboam; but in the annals and diaries of the kings of Israel, written by persons appointed for that purpose, and out of which it is generally thought that inspired writers, by divine direction, took what was thought proper to be transmitted to future times. So with the Romans, from their very beginning to the times of Mutius, all the events of every year were committed to writing by the order of the Pontifex Maximus, and lay open to be read by the people in common; and these, as Tully (l) says, were what are called annals.

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 7:37pm

Ed Chait I understand how these annals and diaries could be used to refute historical critics of the Bible, but are also generally considered to have been inspired?

Like · Reply · January 31 at 7:43pm

Tim White Absolutely not. They were governmental records. the compilers of Chronicles in the inspired books referred to these, but they are no way considered inspired.

Like · Reply · 2 · January 31 at 7:55pm

Ed Chait I wonder what Gill is talking about then? Maybe he means that the people at the time thought they were inspired?

Like · Reply · January 31 at 7:57pm

Tim White What Gill said was the said chronicles were assigned by the king and not inspired. The inspired writers drew from those records in their writings as guided by the Holy Spirit, but the original official Chronicles were not inspired. The Biblical Chronicles compiled later were.

Like · Reply · 1 · January 31 at 8:50pm

Ed Chait ahhhh, gotcha, thanks!

Like · Reply · January 31 at 8:50pm

Ed Chait Thank you guys for your help. I appreciate it!

Like · Reply · January 31 at 10:41pm