A<\/span>fter nine long chapters of names, genealogies, and snippets of narrative, the Chronicler plunges the reader into a scene of frantic action: Saul\u2019s battle with the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (1 Chronicles 10; cf. 1 Samuel 31). The story of Israel\u2019s monarchy starts out as a sad story of the death of kings.<\/p>\n Why start here? Summarizing the work of Rudolph Mosis, Saul Zalewski argues that Saul foreshadows the various kings who do evil in the eyes of Yahweh. Like other commentators, Mosis emphasizes the importance of \u201ctransgression\u201d (Heb. ma\u2019al<\/em>) and points to specific cases where the concept plays a key role in the fate of kings: \u201cthe story of the death of Saul (1 Chr. x 13), the description of the evil deeds of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxviii 19), and the description of the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Chr. xxxvi 14).\u201d <\/p>\n Zalewski notes that \u201cMosis finds a special resemblance between Saul and Ahaz. Whereas Hezekiah is con\u00adceived of as a second David, Ahaz his father is conceived of as a second Saul. The disasters which came down upon the state in the time of Ahaz are narrated in 2 Chr. xxviii. The king of Aram (v. <\/em>5) and the Edomites (v. <\/em>17) had taken captives from Judah while the Philistines had invaded the cities of Judah, had taken many cities, and had settled in them (v. <\/em>18). This description of the deeds of the Philistines in the time of Ahaz reminds us especially of the situation described in the story of the death of Saul (1 Chr. x 7)\u201d (451). Ultimately, Saul\u2019s death foreshadows \u201cthe sins of Israel and its kings caused the destruction of the Land and the exile of the people to Babylon\u201d (451).<\/p>\n Zalewski doesn\u2019t buy it. Ahaz\u2019s sin isn\u2019t to imitate Saul but to follow the ways of the kings of Israel. More generally, Saul\u2019s name is never mentioned after 1 Chronicles 26:28. He concludes that \u201cSaul does not serve as a negative example for the sinful kings who came after him\u201d (452). This is weak. It isn\u2019t necessary for Saul and Ahaz to be the same in every respect for the two kings to form an internal typology. The parallel between Saul-David and Ahaz-Hezekiah is strong, and has significance for the theology of Chronicles as a whole.<\/p>\n Mosis also finds a contrast between Saul and Josiah with regard to the \u201cword of the Lord.\u201d Saul\u2019s failure to guard the Lord\u2019s word is one dimension of his ma\u2019al<\/em>, and Josiah\u2019s righteousness is evident in his insistence on following the word of Yahweh (2 Chronicles 34:21). These are the only two places where the phrase \u201cthe word of Yahweh\u201d appears in Chronicles. Josiah is the last to do so, and Judah goes into exile because she rejects and mocks the prophets, the Lord\u2019s messengers (453). The collapse of Saul\u2019s house because of his transgression again foreshadows the complete collapse of exile.<\/p>\n Zalewski is right to say\u2014against Mosis\u2014that the specific sins of 1 Samuel are relevant to the Chronicler\u2019s account. But that doesn\u2019t cancel out the various internal echoes of Saul in the book.<\/p>\n (Zalewski, \u201cThe Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul in 1 Chronicles X,\u201d Vetus Testamentum<\/em> 39:4 [1989]: 449-467.)<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After nine long chapters of names, genealogies, and snippets of narrative, the Chronicler plunges the reader into a scene of frantic action: Saul\u2019s battle with the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (1 Chronicles 10; cf. 1 Samuel 31). The story of Israel\u2019s monarchy starts out as a sad story of the death of kings. Why start […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bible-ot-chronicles"],"yoast_head":"\n