Below is a summary with added comments here and there of a lecture given by Dr. Peter Enns of Westminster Theological seminary on Chronicles and intrabiblical interpretation.
*******
When we look at the Bible itself, we see evidence of intrabiblical interpretation. The book of Chronicles is an excellent example of intrabiblical interpretation. Though our (Protestant) canonical order follows the LXX, in the Hebrew Bible the book of Chronicles is last. Chronicles is not simply the “extra stuff” that the Samuel/Kings books failed to use, rather it is a theological statement, a theology. In some respects, Chronicles is a theology of the OT, and that is precisely why it is placed last. In fact, Chronicles something different about the same event. When you compare 2 Samuel 7:16 with 1 Chronicles 17:14, the natural question to ask is, “Whose house/kingdom is in view? Is it David’s or God’s?” Harmonization is a common approach used by many evangelicals to “solve” this “problem.” (Here we might ask as to whether the ancients would even see a problem?) Instead of the harmonization approach, Enns suggests that we should look for theological reasons for why these apparent discrepancies are found. To be sure, it is logically possible for one event to be told from various points of view, yet without contradiction. So instead of harmonization, we might consider exploring the ancient way. Chronicles is a post-exillic book, i.e., it is written after the return from exile. Samuel/Kings is a pre-exillic text. The pre-exillic Israelite world had confidence in David’s everlasting reign. In contrast, the post-exillics came back to a land that God had said that they would have forever—a land now with no king, no temple, no sacrifice, no forgiveness etc. So, as you would imagine, one of the first things they did was to rebuild the temple. Being without a temple in the ancient world was something of a crisis and caused God’s people great confusion and dismay. Given the seriousness of the exile for God’s people, it is rather strange that it is often so quickly dismissed. I Chronicles 17 transfers the ultimate fulfillment of 2 Samuel from the earthly transitory realm and locates it in the unchanging heavenly realm. This is an extremely significant theological point, viz. the emphasis is that God is on the throne. The Israelites have come back after the exile and they are asking, “Are we still the people of God? Is the God of the past still the God of the present even though we do not have what we used to have?” The reason why Chronicles is last in the canon is that it is a statement of Israel’s self-identity in view of their circumstances. This is why it begins with a genealogy, and the first name in the genealogy is Adam. Why Adam? The people want to emphasize that their identity goes back to the very beginning—they are God’s people and have always been God’s people.
Chronicles (and the Scriptures in general) also help us to see that God’s revelation progressed through history. The ultimate basis of hope is based in heaven with the kingdom of God, not with the kingdom of man. In Jesus, the two dimensions are fused such that the kingdom has come with Christ. The “spin” that Chronicles puts on the earlier texts is that we now have to understand our past in light of present circumstances. This is why it is inadequate to look at these texts (Samuel and Chronicles) and ask, “Which is right?” (Interestingly, this is the question of both the modern critic and the fundamentalist). Instead, the biblical question is, “Why are these different accounts given to us?” As Enns points out, Chronicles is one of the most Messianic books in the OT. That is, Messianic in that we are looking for a future that will restore the glories of the past—where a king is on the throne, a priesthood is established, Jerusalem is a safe haven, boundaries are extended, there no threats from the outside, and so on,. This is the Messianic hope of the OT. Christ comes and fills that hope and much, much more.Lastly, Chronicles raises the issue of the relationship between text and event. The whole issue of the relationship between text and event brings us into dialogue with modern biblical scholarship. For example, instead of asking, “What did x actually say, or which of the gospels gets it right,” perhaps a better question is “What is this gospel trying to say?” In other words, we want to consider what each corpus of material is attempting to say. Then we can begin to look at the various points of view and see how they relate. Enns closed the lecture by reminding us that we should also ask, “What does this tell us about what God is like?” Given God’s comfort with history and all its vicissitudes, not to mention that the Bible that we have is that one that God has chosen to give us, we must continually strive to have a doctrine of Scripture that Scripture itself can actually support. All to often we instead find ourselves ardently defending a doctrine of Scripture that fits more comfortably with our modern presuppositions and that in the end that forces us into explaining away what Scripture is actually doing.