The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Monotheism: Yhwh Among Other Gods and Its Didactic Impact on the Yehud Community

Abstract

This essay elucidates Chronicles’ puzzling presentation of Yhwh’s position in the universe. While Chronicles affirms Yhwh’s sole authority, it also describes his presence among other deities. Instead of seeing this as a tension, this essay argues that the book serves a didactic function, warning against syncretism. Ancient Israelites’ beliefs, recorded in the Hebrew Bible, often replaced God’s position with idols or served them simultaneously while professing their trust in Yhwh, despite his explicit prohibition against other gods. The Yehud community found itself in a similar situation, facing Persian influences. Under these circumstances, the book attempts to bridge the gap between the readers’ learned knowledge and intuitive understanding so they may acquire an appropriate perception of Yhwh. Readers of Chronicles who possess adequate knowledge of authoritative texts are expected to heuristically deduce that they cannot worship Yhwh and other gods simultaneously; thus, they should turn away from idols and devote themselves solely to God. Through this process, Chronicles reinforces Yhwh’s uniqueness and encourages the post-exilic community to align their worship with monotheistic devotion.

1. Introduction

The dictionary meaning of monotheism is “the doctrine or belief that there is only one God” (Soanes and Stevenson 2004, s.v. “monotheism”). It would be no exaggeration to say that this notion is probably one of the most familiar and, at the same time, controversial statements to the Old Testament (OT) scholars, if not the only definition.1 However, applying this definition to the OT proves to be a complex task, as the OT presents Yhwh’s divine status in ways that resist simple categorization. Certain passages highlight Yhwh’s unparalleled authority and exclusive relationship with Israel, as seen in Deuteronomy 4.39: “Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, he is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other” (see also Exod. 20.3; Deut. 4.35; 6.4; 32.39; Ps. 96.5; Isa. 43.10–13).2 At the same time, other texts appear to reflect a broader worldview in which Yhwh interacts with or presides over a realm of other divine beings, as illustrated in Psalm 82.1: “God takes his stand in his own congregation; he judges in the midst of the rulers” (see also Exod. 12.12; Dan. 2.47). It seems that the OT’s portrayal of Yhwh is too complex to confine to an abstract concept of monotheism nor reducible to polytheistic frameworks. Instead, it reflects a dynamic and multifaceted theological presentation, wherein Yhwh’s supremacy is emphasized in relation to other divine entities, challenging modern (or traditional) notions of monotheism as a static or singular category.3

The question concerning God’s position is not novel, and scholars have long attempted to elucidate the OT’s teachings on God’s existence.4 Like other OT texts, Chronicles reflects a complex portrayal of Yhwh, emphasizing both his supremacy and the way he is depicted within Israel’s historical narrative. Given this complexity, Chronicles engages with these theological themes while presenting its own perspective on Yhwh’s relationship with Israel. In this context, Chronicles, composed in the Persian period (Japhet 1993, p. 24; Williams and Pearson 2024, pp. 39–40; see also note 9), reinterprets Israel’s past to shape the post-exilic community’s theological identity. Unlike the book’s Vorlage (e.g., Sam-Kgs), which often focuses on divine judgment through Israel’s history, Chronicles reframes the same events to emphasize Yhwh’s supreme authority and exclusive worship (Duke 1990, p. 152).5 This suggests that the book was not merely recording history but was intended to shape the post-exilic community’s theological identity (Kim 2021).

This theological emphasis is further reflected in the way Chronicles presents the relationship between Yhwh and other gods. While Chronicles does not deny that references to other deities appear in Israel’s history, it systematically frames them within the Chronicler’s overarching theological agenda. Superficially, Chronicles mentions the coexistence of Yhwh and other gods (e.g., 1 Chron. 16.25; 2 Chron. 2.5) and reports the Israelites’ worshiping of those other gods (e.g., 2 Chron. 14.3; 28.2–4; 33.3–7). But Chronicles simultaneously underscores the need for the Israelites to avoid syncretism by highlighting that they cannot serve multiple deities concurrently and thereby insists that Yhwh is the one true God (e.g., 1 Chron. 17.20; 2 Chron. 6.14). Although these dual depictions might initially appear to create confusion about Yhwh’s position, they actually help readers better understand what the Chronicler intends.6 One way to resolve this tension is to argue that Chronicles presents monolatry, which acknowledges the existence of many gods but encourages worshiping only one god (Stanley 2010, p. 154; Wilson 2009, p. 138).7 However, such an interpretation does not fully capture the Chronicler’s intent. A close reading of Chronicles does not allow one to settle on this concept since Chronicles actively seeks to guide its readers toward a firm understanding of Yhwh’s supreme and exclusive status and does not admit other gods as real gods but portrays them as idols (1 Chron. 16.25; 2 Chron. 11.15; 13.9; 25.14; 32.19).

Under these observations, the current study raises the following questions: What if the tension Chronicles exhibits does not imply the book’s indecisive nature concerning the perspective of Yhwh’s position? Instead, could the depiction of such tension lead readers to a deeper understanding of the Chronicler’s intent? One possible assumption to this perplexing challenge is that the book strategically reflects the reality of the post-exilic readers’ lives which were influenced by foreign polytheism under Persian ideology (see notes 34 and 40).8. If this tentative explanation is correct, then it is arguable that the portrayal does not generate tension but instead reinforces the book’s intended message. This study suggests that readers of Chronicles, along with authoritative texts, can heuristically overcome the apparent tension produced in the text by utilizing their “learned knowledge” from the authoritative texts of their days.9 Overcoming this tension helps readers bridge the gap between their knowledge and the external influences they perceive from the surrounding world, as experienced in the socio-historical context of the readers, i.e., their real world. Thus, through Chronicles, readers are encouraged to reject syncretism and worship the only one true God, Yhwh (monotheistic belief).10

In summary, the literary context of Chronicles—depictions concerning the conflicting position of Yhwh—reflects the socio-historical context of the Yehud community surrounded by polytheistic ideology. This shows how difficult it was for the post-exilic community to worship Yhwh exclusively. Nevertheless, it is unnecessary to suggest that the book introduces the notion of the existence of various deities. Instead, from a didactic perspective, Chronicles could effectively alleviate the tension regarding the presentation of Yhwh’s position in the cosmos and guide readers to understand that, in the end, God’s people should worship only Yhwh (Pajunen 2017, pp. 565–84).

To demonstrate this assertion, this essay will first briefly examine the history of scholarly efforts to elucidate the notion of monotheism and determine whether the current study has room to participate in the ongoing discourse. Then, this essay will explain how the Chronicler strategically portrays Yhwh’s status among other gods. Finally, this essay will discuss in what manner Chronicles functions didactically to enhance the Yehud community’s belief in the existence of only one God as they live in the idol-surrounded Persian world.11 This study adopts a mixed-method approach that integrates literary analysis, historical contextualization, and cognitive theory. While a close literary analysis is used to examine the text’s language and rhetorical strategies, a historical approach situates Chronicles within its socio-historical context—particularly in light of Persian influences and polytheistic ideologies—thereby elucidating how these external factors shaped its didactic intent. Furthermore, by applying cognitive perspectives, this study explores how readers employ both learned knowledge from authoritative texts and intuitive cognition to resolve the apparent tensions within the text, ultimately guiding them toward exclusive monotheistic worship.

As part of defining the scope of this study, it is important to clarify that this study does not seek to provide a comparative analysis of how different biblical books articulate monotheism. Instead, it focuses on how Chronicles uniquely employs rhetorical and didactic strategies to engage its readers and reinforce monotheistic belief. While some biblical texts assert monotheism through explicit theological declarations, Chronicles takes a more nuanced approach by shaping its audience’s perception through literary and cognitive mechanisms. As such, this study primarily investigates how the Chronicler strategically guides readers in bridging the gap between learned theological knowledge and their lived religious experience.

This paper contributes to the ongoing scholarly discussion in two key ways. First, it introduces a fresh perspective on monotheism in Chronicles, an area that remains underexplored in OT scholarship. Second, its analysis of monotheism not only advances discussions on the broader trajectory of Israel’s religious development but also provides a valuable resource for scholars examining the literary design and theological shaping of the OT canon.

2. Debating Monotheism: Scholarly Perspectives and the Marginalization of Chronicles

The study of monotheism in biblical scholarship has primarily focused on the historical development of Israel’s religious beliefs. However, the methodological landscape has gradually shifted, emphasizing theological and rhetorical dimensions rather than relying solely on diachronic reconstructions. Accordingly, scholarly discussions on monotheism can largely be categorized into two areas. First, scholars have investigated the origins and development of the concept of monotheism within the history of Israel’s religion. Second, considerable debate has centered on the very definition and meaning of monotheism.

Particularly concerning Chronicles, while scholars have increasingly shown interest in its theology and ideology, studies on monotheism in Chronicles have yet to take a central position in scholarly discussions. This is primarily because Chronicles has not been widely regarded as a significant historical source for reconstructing Israel’s religious history (Kleinig 1994, p. 43). Additionally, several factors have contributed to the book’s marginalization in monotheism studies: its lack of explicit statements regarding Yhwh’s position within the narrative, its comparatively late composition, and the delayed recognition of its authority within the Israelite faith community.12 The following discussion illustrates the complexities of this subject within Old Testament scholarship.

Over the past hundred years or so, one of the main focal points of scholarly debate concerning Israel’s religion has been the development (or origin) of the notion of monotheism. During this period, the mainline scholarship’s interest concentrated on the history of Israel’s religion; therefore, discussions on monotheism, considered a sub-theme of Israel’s religion, naturally followed this primary trend.13 Scholars like Julius Wellhausen (1875, pp. 396–432; 1885) and A. Kuenen (1887) in the late nineteenth century attempted to explain the progression of Israel’s perception of God based on the concept of evolution (Smith [1889] 1972; see also MacDonald 2003, pp. 21–29). According to them, Israel’s understanding of God’s existence and influence in the early history of Israel was not the same as in the post-exilic period, and Yhwh was not the only God among the Israelites (MacDonald 2003, pp. 26–27). By placing great emphasis on the contributions made by prophets, the critical OT scholarship of the time explained that Israelites established a clear understanding of Israel’s God through the works of these innovators of Israel’s religion (Kuenen 1887, pp. 1–20).

However, in the mid-twentieth century, W. F. Albright (1932, pp. 163–67) highlighted the lack of academic discussion on archeological findings and critiqued the evolutionary monotheism position developed by his predecessors based on Hegelian premises. Albright argued that Israel’s monotheistic belief did not originate from the post-exilic period but from the Mosaic era (Albright 2006, chap. 4). For him, the prophets of Israel were not the innovators of monotheism but the guardians of the Mosaic teachings. The debate continued in a heated fashion as followers of Wellhausen responded to the Albright School (Meek 1950, p. 228). While Albright responded negatively to his predecessors’ view (i.e., the evolutionary nature of monotheism), his counterparts argued that his understanding of the concept of monotheism was flawed since the Pentateuch, according to them, never clearly states that God exists solely. Even moderators between these two extreme views participated in the dialogue, further complicating the debate (Rowley 2018, p. 42).14 A major background for the complexity of the debate lies in the deeper inquiry into how the meaning of monotheism should be understood, and this has continued to the present day. Below is an illustration of the increasingly complex approaches scholars have taken to the concept of monotheism.

Yehezkel Kaufmann (1960) is another notable figure who added a Jewish voice to this dialogue. As he traced the history of Israel’s religion, he believed that Israelites held monotheistic beliefs from the early days of their history. In a sense, his argument mirrors that of Albright and his opponents, whose debate centered on the meaning of monotheism. Kaufmann, however, argued that monotheism should be understood not in terms of the number of deities but in terms of the nature of divinity itself. He theorized that when one recognizes a particular deity’s sovereignty over others, it is natural to worship that supreme god. Thus, he concluded that the notion of monotheism is not a matter of quantity but of quality (Sommer 2017, pp. 205–7).

The scholarly debate concerning monotheism has become more intricate from the late-twentieth century to the present day. Due to the Copenhagen School’s attempt to minimalize the value of Scripture as a reliable source for the study and the newer archeological discovery of inscriptions such as Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, the somewhat positive views on early Israel’s teaching of monotheism by Albright and the Baltimore School began losing momentum (MacDonald 2003, pp. 43–44).15 In such circumstances, Rainer Albertz (1994) argued that searching for monotheistic religion in texts is unnecessary and questioned the approaches that establish a comparative framework between the religions of Israel and Canaan because various religious beliefs and practices among the Israelites could have coexisted simultaneously over time (Hess 2007, p. 66).16 Similarly, Karel van der Toorn (1996) addressed that Israel could have a family and state religion simultaneously and explained how these two religions interacted as the nation went through periods of upheaval.17 Robert Karl Gnuse (1997) argued, based on the axial age theory, that 800–600 BCE should receive attention since, in this period, there were revolutionary changes in thinking from India and Greece that eventually provoked the emergence of monotheism among the Israelite people. Another outcome was the release of Aspects of Monotheism: How God Is One (Shanks and Meinhardt 1997), which received attention because an Egyptologist, Assyriologist, archeologist, and biblical scholar produced dialogues together. Ziony Zevit (2003) examined various inscriptions’ paleographical and morphological features and suggested that the Iron Age was a significant period of the standardization of monotheism. Nevertheless, Moshe Greenberg (1983) observed Israel’s prayers and concluded that Israel’s belief in God did not evolve but was consistent. Jeffery Tigay (1986) assumed that the inscriptions reflect Israel’s faith and investigated whether evidence of non-Yahwistic names appears in the biblical records. Johannes de Moor (1997) followed Tigay, focusing on onomastic studies, and found evidence of early monotheism during the second millennium in the ancient Near East area, including Israel. Both rejected the evolutionary transformation of Israel’s belief from polytheism to monotheism. David Carr’s interdisciplinary research, bridging the OT and trauma studies, has examined the emergence of monotheism (Carr 2014, “The Birth of Monotheism”). He presents a novel approach, arguing that the rise of monotheism among the Israelites was a response to their traumatic experiences.

In recent years, monotheism research has increasingly moved beyond solely historical reconstructions, reflecting a broader shift in biblical studies toward literary and theological approaches. Rather than tracing a linear development of belief, newer studies emphasize how biblical texts actively shape theological discourse, including how monotheism functions as a rhetorical and ideological element within specific writings. This new approach fundamentally challenges previous scholarship by arguing that monotheism as a philosophical and theological concept is a modern invention originating from Enlightenment thought. Thus, earlier attempts are said to have distorted the understanding of ancient Israel’s religion (Römer 2013, pp. 1–5; Lynch 2014, pp. 21–22). The recent trend attempts to see God’s existence in the universe more dynamically within a given context. For instance, MacDonald (2003, pp. 209–10) explains that God’s oneness is related to one’s recognition and expression of Yhwh’s love in obedience and worship by giving attention to the book of Deuteronomy (see note 3 for detailed summary of MacDonald’s work).

Bob Becking (2020) introduces three different models that could explain how ancient Israel bridges the gap between “monotheistic creed and religious pluriformity” in real life: intolerant monotheism, conditional acceptance, and lending deities. Intolerant monotheism strictly adheres to the Yhwh-alone belief system. The concept of conditional acceptance aligns with monolatry, which acknowledges the existence of multiple deities while worshiping only Yhwh. The lending deities model appears only in Ruth 1 and is not a dominant OT perspective. Thus, it should not be considered the OT’s exclusive presentation of the concept of deity. This last model assumes that as different ethnic groups interacted from time to time, they harmoniously exchanged aspects of their divine realm. In other words, people venerated other religious traditions. Becking does not attempt to establish one definitive model; instead, he focuses on presenting the diversity of perspectives found in the OT.

Given the evolving methodologies in monotheism studies, it is important to recognize how these discussions have shaped (or neglected) the study of Chronicles. Since early monotheism research primarily focused on diachronic reconstructions and the historical trajectory of Israel’s religious development, scholars primarily examined texts that aligned with this framework. However, as previously mentioned, the historiographical nature of Chronicles, which reinterprets Israel’s past with a strong theological agenda, did not align well with dominant scholarly methodologies that prioritized historical reconstruction. As a result, its portrayal of Yhwh has often remained at the margins of scholarly discussions on monotheism.

Therefore, analyzing why Chronicles has been excluded from monotheism studies helps illuminate the differences between previous scholarly approaches to monotheism and the theological framework of Chronicles. This, in turn, contributes to the development of new research methodologies that can more precisely analyze the theological significance of Chronicles. Rather than engaging with the Chronicler’s own theological agenda, scholars have often approached the book within the broader post-exilic context of Israel’s religious development, limiting its role in monotheism discussions. For instance, although Japhet (2009, pp. 33–35) was one of the precursors to inspire listening to the Chronicler’s own voice, she still remained within the traditional perspective. She argued that the monotheistic idea had already been formulated in the Israelite community by the time Chronicles was written. Yet, the book exhibits no explicit presentation of this new view since the book is “not religious dogma”. She noticed Chronicles’ complex presentation of Yhwh’s position and explained that the “unequivocal affirmation” of monotheism is the trace of the “old popular look”. In other words, the old polytheistic belief remained even after the new look (i.e., monotheism) formed. Japhet’s approach is somewhat similar to Albertz’s perspective (Lynch 2014, p. 31).

Although scholars such as Frevel (1991), Grätz (2011), and Weinberg (1988) have explored theological themes in Chronicles, their studies do not explicitly center on monotheism as an independent research focus. Instead, they approach Chronicles in broader discussions of divine identity and theological frameworks. This gap in scholarship highlights the need for studies that examine monotheism as a core theological feature within Chronicles. Frevel primarily delves into the Chronicler’s strategy for suppressing Asherah, based on Chronicles’ theological approach (i.e., monotheism). Weinberg focuses on God’s names in Chronicles and demonstrates how the Chronicler omits or alters them compared to other biblical books to exhibit the emergence of monotheism in Chronicles. Grätz pays attention to the role of Israel under the Deutro-Isaiah’s monotheistic agenda. These more recent works depart from the traditional evolutionary approach to understanding monotheism, focusing instead on the literary and theological reinforcement of Chronicles’ message on monotheism. However, OT scholars, in general, have not considered Chronicles a core element in their discussions on monotheism, and the book has largely been neglected (Lynch 2014, pp. 31–35).

Matthew Lynch’s Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles (2014) is one of the rare recent studies that extensively focuses on monotheism within Chronicles. Lynch explains that Israel’s institutions (i.e., Temple, priesthood, and monarchy) are designed to manifest God’s supremacy over Israel’s surroundings. Lynch acknowledges the complex literary depiction of Yhwh’s coexistence with other divine beings in Chronicles. He argues that Chronicles does not promote polytheistic or henotheistic ideas but asserts monotheism because Yhwh is “categorically different from other gods”; thus, Yhwh is not in a competing mode against other divine beings (Lynch 2014, p. 27; see also Heiser 2014, p. 98).18

In sum, the recent scholarly dialogue does not show a unanimous conclusion regarding the origin, development, or formation of monotheism among Israel’s people. Scholarly research has only added intrigue and complexity. Some insist that there is still a common denominator: the emergence of monotheism is quite late (Garrett 2014, p. 528). Yet, others believe that the formation of monotheistic belief in Israel should be placed in the early era of her history. In addition, a new trend is to seek the concept of monotheism by overcoming the traditional understanding of the notion and focusing instead on the dynamism of ancient Israel’s religion. Concerning Chronicles, research on monotheism is not abundant in the scholarly field, as the book was outside the realm of scholars’ interest. While much of the scholarly discourse on monotheism has centered on its historical development within Israel’s religion, a growing trend in Chronicles studies urges scholars to engage with the Chronicler’s own voice on this subject. Rather than simply reiterating existing traditions, Chronicles actively shapes and reinforces monotheistic belief to serve a didactic function for the post-exilic Yehud community. The following section explores how the Chronicler strategically presents Yhwh’s supremacy and the exclusive worship expected of Israel, distinguishing its theological perspective from earlier interpretations.

3. Reframing Monotheism: The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Yhwh

The scholarly conversation has centered on the development of monotheism in Israel, and its recent tendency has been to criticize the older (i.e., modern) approaches to understanding monotheism, even hesitating to apply the term monotheism to ancient Israel’s religion. However, as Macdonald (2003, p. 201) and Lynch (2014, pp. 21–22) have already pointed out, this term is still applicable primarily when one carefully examines the context of Israel’s life situation (“contextual understanding of monotheism and divine oneness”).

Chronicles presents a unique case—its portrayal of Yhwh—that warrants focused examination, particularly in relation to monotheism within the post-exilic context.19 In Chronicles, monotheism is not just a philosophical conception but a rhetorical–strategic tool for persuading its readers and, therefore, should be understood in a practical and existential manner.20 On the one hand, a practical understanding involves examining how monotheism shaped the communal life of the Yehud community, influencing their religious practices and societal structures. This perspective emphasizes how Yhwh-centered worship and exclusive devotion played a crucial role in rebuilding the community during the post-exilic era. On the other hand, an existential approach explores how Chronicles’ depiction of Yhwh as the sole divine authority shaped the community’s identity and sense of purpose. In times of vulnerability, this belief provided a sense of meaning and assurance as it reinforces Yhwh’s ultimate authority over their lives and the world.

Chronicles’ strategic presentation highlights Yhwh’s role in the cosmic hierarchy. The Chronicler carefully crafted his narrative to clarify Yhwh’s unique and supreme position. This clarification could help readers understand the significance of their worship of Yhwh (Lynch 2014, pp. 44–48, chap. titled “Rhetorical Function of Monotheism”). The key aspect of the Chronicler’s theological agenda is to depict Yhwh’s presence within the dynamic hierarchy of divine beings. Through this portrayal, Yhwh’s unique and supreme position in the cosmos is emphasized, distinguishing him categorically from other deities. To explore this portrayal, two key observations regarding the Chronicler’s strategy will be examined.

First, in Chronicles, the uniqueness and supremacy of Yhwh are manifested through the religion of Israel. The Chronicler asserts that Israel’s Temple, priesthood, and monarchy are designed to exhibit Yhwh’s supremacy over other deities. The Temple is the central place of worship, operated by priests’ superb cult performance. Israel’s kings should subordinate themselves to the model Davidic kings’ path and are required to maintain Israel’s worship to the highest level. Israel’s institutions function to witness Yhwh’s supremacy and uniqueness over other gods (Kim 2021, p. 142; Throntveit 2003, pp. 105–22; Lynch 2014, pp. 261–67).21 Then, how does Chronicles portray Yhwh’s uniqueness and supremacy over other gods in Israel’s worship, especially concerning the highlighting of monotheism? The straightforward answer is that Israelites are unable to serve Yhwh and other gods simultaneously.

While the Chronicler acknowledges the historical presence of idolatrous institutions—such as high places, divine images, and altars dedicated to other gods (e.g., 2 Chron. 11.15; 15.8, 16–17; 33.3)—these are consistently condemned and presented as deviations that must be removed. The theological focus of Chronicles regarding Yhwh’s position is that Yhwh is categorically incomparable to other deities in Chronicles; thus, they are not worth seeking or worshiping. The following shows several reports regarding Israel’s act of seeking other deities in Chronicles and the implication of the book’s records compared to the book’s Vorlage (Lynch 2014, pp. 77–78): (1) First, Samuel 28.6-7a writes that “When Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him… Then Saul said to his servants, ‘Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her’”. But, 1 Chronicles 10.13–14 says that “So Saul died for his trespass… and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, and did not inquire of the Lord”. Samuel reports that Saul inquired of the Lord, but Chronicles says the opposite. From the Chronicler’s perspective, Saul’s act of seeking both the Lord and a medium does not qualify him to find the Lord. (2) Second, Samuel 5.21 reports that “They abandoned their idols there, so David and his men carried them away”. Yet, 1 Chronicles 14.21 writes that “They abandoned their gods there, so David gave the order, and they were burned with fire”. The Chronicler reports the act of destruction of idols with much intensification. (3) First, Kings 11.4 reports that “For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been”. No parallel exists in Chronicles because the model King Solomon cannot serve other gods from the Chronicler’s perspective. (4) First, Kings 15.12 writes that “He also put away the male cult prostitutes from the land and removed all the idols”. However, 2 Chronicles 15.8 says that “Asa… removed the abominable idols… He then restored the altar of the Lord…”. Kings simply writes the removal of idols, but Chronicles adds the restoration of the altar.

When one compares Chronicles to its Vorlage, the former explicitly emphasizes that the Israelites’ institutions are dedicated solely to worshiping Yhwh. Israel should remove the idols, and this act leads them to restore the proper worship. The Chronicler’s portrayal of Yhwh’s existence manifests that Israel’s God does not stand with other gods. The comparison between Vorlage and Chronicles reveals that the Chronicler invites readers to recognize the book’s intensified message. In other words, Israel’s religion is not henotheism—although the original readers did not know this technical term—for Yhwh is not comparable to other gods; thus, the people of Israel cannot serve both Yhwh and other deities simultaneously, as such worship is inherently incompatible with the nature of Yhwh. They should turn away from other gods and solely worship Yhwh.

Second, Chronicles carefully shapes the concept of God (אלהים).22 The meaning of God is not simple in Chronicles. According to Joshua E. Williams’ study (2023, pp. 1–2) on monotheism in Chronicles, in which he applies the prototype theory (see note 23), divinity’s definition should not be limited to the sphere of language.23 As the community shapes the definition of her specific divine being, the process goes through cognitive development among community members. They develop and share the concept of God based on the extent to which it includes elements that the members of the community can naturally agree upon. Not only the presence or absence of certain characteristics but also how those elements interact with the community are more important in this process. In sum, the concept of Israel’s God may or may not share elements with foreign concepts. However, when various elements combine to form the concept of God, only the God who possesses a concept that best fits the post-exilic community’s expectations in the communal and cognitive development process is recognized as the God of the community.

Then, what aspect of Israel’s God, Yhwh, is exhibited compared to other gods in Chronicles? Yhwh is the specifically designated one as Israel’s God (“the God” [האלהים]). First Chronicles 17.26 writes that “Yhwh, your God he is the God”, which could be considered the formulaic usage to indicate, especially with the definite article, the Yhwh’s uniqueness over the cosmos (Macdonald 2003, p. 80). This God established a covenant with his people (1 Chron. 16.15–17; 2 Chron. 33.13) and is an almighty God who dwells in heaven and rules over the cosmos (20.6–7). Israel’s God has a specific plan for Israel’s future and uses his protective power to accomplish it (1 Chron. 17.19–24; Williams 2023, pp. 2–9).24 However, other gods (“all other gods” [כָּל־אֱלֹהֵ֤י הָעַמִּים]) in Chronicles are presented as idols (אלילים). These idols are not “the” God (“as his gods” [לוֹ֖ לֵאלֹהִ֑ים] in 2 Chron. 25.14; “gods of the people” [אֱלֹהֵ֣י הָעָ֔ם] in 25.20). The story in 2 Chron. 32.13–19 is notable since Sennacherib underestimates Yhwh’s mightiness as he threatens the people of Jerusalem. When this Assyrian king mentions foreign kings, he utters, literally, “gods of the nations of the land” (אֱלֹהֵי֙ גּוֹיֵ֣ הָאֲרָצ֔וֹת [32.13]), “among all gods of nations (בְּֽכָל־אֱלֹהֵ֞י הַגּוֹיִ֤ם [v. 14]), and “as gods of the nations of the lands” (כֵּֽאלֹהֵ֞י גּוֹיֵ֤ הָאֲרָצוֹת֙ [v. 17]), but when he refers to Yhwh (v. 16), he is “the” God (“Yhwh, the God” [יְהוָ֖ה הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים]). This contrast highlights the Chronicler’s intention to portray Yhwh as unique and incomparable among deities.25 Idols should be understood as the ones who exhibit opposite characteristics of Israel’s God (1 Chron. 16.26). They are worthless (Lev. 19.4) and handmade (Isa. 2.8); thus, they are unable to protect the people (2 Chron. 25.14–20; 32.13–19) and even themselves (13.8; 28.23).26 The golden calves are typical examples of gods that the people of Israel worshiped in Chronicles, and the Chronicler points out clearly that these are no gods (13.9 [לא אלהים]; Williams 2023, pp. 9–14).

Overall, Chronicles’ depiction of Yhwh’s supreme and exclusive status serves not only as a theological claim but also as a guiding principle for the Yehud community. This portrayal invites readers to engage more deeply with the implications of monotheism, particularly in relation to their religious practices and identity. To fully grasp its significance, one must consider how the Chronicler’s literary and socio-historical strategies work together to reinforce this message.

4. Chronicles’ Didactic Impact on Yehud Community

How does Chronicles’ message function didactically for its readers? Two aspects must be considered: the literary and socio-historical nature of the book. Chronicles’ literary strategy reflects the socio-historical reality of its readers, helping them bridge the gap between their lived experiences and learned knowledge, thus encouraging exclusive worship of Yhwh (i.e., monotheistic belief).

4.1. The Chronicler’s Literary Strategy and Its Engagement with Authoritative Texts

Chronicles provides an opportunity for its readers to interpret and synthesize the book’s teachings heuristically—that is, actively discovering and constructing meaning based on their prior knowledge and experience. Although not every reader reaches the same conclusion when interacting with a text, people often share questions or issues raised by the text and seek the best answers based on their available resources (Meier et al. 1991, pp. 135–36).27 The Chronicler’s writing is strategic and consistent, effectively conveying the book’s message; thus, it is able to fully realize the mentioned effects (Kim 2021, chap. 2). In Chronicles, even when an apparent tension exists between different theological presentations, it is likely not a true contradiction. Ben Zvi (2006, p. 27) says,

[W]hereas the persuasive social function of the individual accounts in Chronicles may explain their seemingly unequivocal, universal claims, the cumulative effect of the implications or implicatures of the different accounts provided the community with an interpretative and qualifying key to understand their true message. The community may have read and learned separate accounts and may have abstracted from them theological or ideological lessons, but eventually the community read and learned the entire book, and lessons were integrated and reinterpreted according to the emerging pattern, a pattern in which a sense of proportion and balance was much at the forefront[Emphasis original].

Ben Zvi’s observation demonstrates that the Chronicler strategically shaped his book and expected his readers to engage with it actively (i.e., heuristic reading).

Also, when engaging with the book’s content, original readers of Chronicles would have recognized that they need to compare the book with its Vorlage.28 The Chronicler likely expected readers to evaluate and reinforce their belief system through this process. Thus, given that the members of the Yehud community lived under similar circumstances under Persian governance, if they shared similar questions about Yhwh’s existence as raised by Chronicles, they would likely have sought answers in similar ways.

Moreover, the Chronicler’s strategy was deeply intertwined with Israel’s religious traditions, which were embodied in the authoritative texts that the community revered. In addition to the Chronicles and its Vorlage, Chronicles’ chronological position, as a relatively late production among other authoritative texts, must also be considered. These texts, along with Chronicles, played a crucial role in shaping the community’s religious identity (e.g., theological perspective toward divinity).29 Chronicles is not merely a historical record but a theological reinterpretation of Israel’s past, offering a synthesis that restores the community’s future hope; thus, its rhetorical impact becomes clear when its message is read alongside other authoritative texts.30 While it is unclear whether the Chronicler anticipated how his work would be received in the long term, his use of Vorlage among various authoritative texts suggests that he intended it to resonate with his contemporary audience.31 It is evident that the Chronicler knew and expected that his contemporary readers, at least the elite, would have access to various authoritative texts when reading Chronicles (Ben Zvi and Edelman 2011).32 If the post-exilic readers had questions about the status of Yhwh, then the Chronicler could have expected that his book would provide a conclusive resolution to that tension among the authoritative texts. At the very least, it may have served as a hint to those questions.33

In sum, it is plausible that the Chronicler and his readers would acknowledge the texts’ teachings of Yhwh’s placement within the universe since the Chronicler and the post-exilic community had access to key texts related to monotheism (Ben Zvi and Edelman 2011). They knew that the texts repeatedly say that Yhwh exhibits unparalleled authority and established an exclusive relationship with Israel (e.g., Deut. 4.35; 6.4–5; 32.12, 39; Isa. 40.18; 43.10; 44.6; 45.18) and that the other gods (i.e., idols) that the Israelites worshiped are in vanity, handmade, or impotent (e.g., Deut. 4.28; Ps. 135.15–18; Jer. 10.3–5, 8–9; 16.20; cf. Acts. 14.15; 19.26; 1 Cor. 8.4–6; 12.2; Rev. 9.20; Craigie 1976, p. 144; Merrill 1994, p. 424; Oswalt 1994, p. 149; Erickson 2000, p. 18; Huey 1993, pp. 125–126; Japhet 1993, p. 24). At the same time, the post-exilic readers also dealt with the authoritative texts’ reports of the existence of other gods (e.g., Exod. 12.12; Pss. 82.1; 89.6–7; 2 Chron. 2.5). Thus, upon encountering Chronicles—written at the last stage of the OT—readers might have initially thought that its depiction of Yhwh among other gods did not clarify Yhwh’s existence but rather added complexity. However, if readers heuristically synthesized Chronicles’ portrayal of Yhwh’s position within the broader literary—and eventually canonical—context, they would likely recognize that the Chronicler did not merely repeat earlier complex portrayals found in other authoritative texts. Instead, Chronicles certainly has a deeper intent to persuade readers to understand Yhwh’s position properly. How does this literary–rhetorical effect shape readers’ understanding of divine perception? This impact is even more evident when examined in light of the broader socio-historical realities that shaped the Yehud community’s understanding of divine authority, a key factor in the Chronicler’s theological approach.

4.2. The Socio-Historical Influence on the Chronicler’s Theological Strategy

The literary strategies of Chronicles are inseparable from the socio-historical realities the Yehud community faced, as those strategies did not arise from a vacuum. They reflect the community’s lived experiences, particularly under Persian rule, highlighting how external influences, such as Zoroastrianism (i.e., Mazdaism), shaped the Chronicler’s approach through the perception of divine authority.34 Although Zoroastrianism is primarily characterized by its system centered on Ahura Mazda as the supreme deity and is often described as monotheism or monolatry, it also exhibits dualistic traits by positing Angra Mainyu as the adversary of Ahura Mazda (Holt 2023, p. 60; Silva and Tenney 2009, p. 105). This implies that when Chronicles emphasizes exclusive worship of Yhwh, it could have led to a clash between different theologies and ideologies within the members of the community.35 In this regard, Chronicles encourages readers to engage with both the text and their socio-historical reality. Therefore, the book urges its readers to heed the Chronicler’s desired hope (i.e., a literary–rhetorical function of the book).36 This context—especially the pressures and influences of Zoroastrianism during the Achaemenid period—played a pivotal role in shaping how the post-exilic community understood the status of a divine being. How the members of the post-exilic community responded to this influence might be different, such as fully receiving (identification), resisting (counter-identification), or adopting it with modification (dis-identification; Lee 2023, p. 49; Pêcheux 1975, pp. 155–70). Nevertheless, the influence itself was actual and thus needed to be treated appropriately in shaping or maintaining the community’s belief in Yhwh. Kiyoung Kim (2021, pp. 130–31) writes the following:

There was an influx of the Persians into the community, and this physical contact could have brought continual cultural-religious impact upon the community… [T]here could be a possible threat to the shaping of Israel’s identity if the distinctiveness of Yhwh and Israel’s religion was not revealed to the audience. In this regard, the community needed to maintain the correct perception of divinity…

As mentioned earlier, the readers of Chronicles were able to access the biblical teaching that God is the only God, and there is none other (e.g., Neh. 9.6). But the way they perceived Yhwh’s existence might have been a more complicated issue than one could imagine due to the external influence. This cognitive dissonance, arising from differences between the knowledge they had learned from authoritative texts and their intuitive perceptions, could create confusion regarding Yhwh’s exclusive status. During the Achaemenid Empire period, most Persians adhered to Zoroastrianism, and wherever they traveled, their influence sparked questions and discussions about it among the local inhabitants.37 Although the Achaemenid Empire allowed its colonies to maintain their own belief systems, the empire still encouraged these occupied provinces to adopt this royal religion (Yoo 2010, pp. 36, 45).38 The Persian king, as a patron, attempted to influence the religious dynamics of colonized communities by sponsoring favored priestly groups or religious systems. These royally supported groups or beliefs benefited from this patronage and, as a result, eventually increased their influence within the community (Silverman 2024, pp. 442–43). Through such interventions, the Persian king legitimized his power and authority, potentially even shaping the community’s perception of the divine. Jason M. Silverman states that “[T]he royal inscriptions manage to redefine the value of deities based on their creative powers and on their benevolence” (Silverman 2024, p. 443 [emphasis added]). This suggests that Persian ideology, introduced into the Yehud community, may have circulated among the people, regardless of whether it was fully accepted (Silverman 2024, pp. 445–52).39 Thus, while the Chronicler acknowledged the authoritative texts’ teachings of Yhwh’s place in the universe, at the same time, he must also have considered the surrounding influences on the post-exilic community.40

Overall, given the complexity within the post-exilic community, the Chronicler’s portrayal of Yhwh among other gods may not merely indicate an acknowledgment of their existence. Rather, it may serve as evidence that the Chronicler understood the situation or manner in which the post-exilic community conceptualized the existence of God. To put it more clearly, it can also be understood as the Chronicler’s effort to bridge the gap between the post-exilic community’s knowledge of divinity and their intuitive cognition—the mind’s natural, automatic processing of religious and social stimuli from the surrounding world.41 How the community perceived, believed, and thus acted may not have fully reflected what they learned from the text because the readers’ intuitive cognition reflects the whole experience of their surroundings.42 If the message of Chronicles does not reflect the post-exilic community’s intuitive understanding of divinity, then how can its readers effectively engage with its message? Therefore, the Chronicler’s complex expressions concerning God are a literary strategy that, within the broader framework of Chronicles, reflect how readers intuitively understand the position of the divine. Consequently, these expressions become crucial elements in the process through which Chronicles seeks to correct the readers’ monotheism, if necessary. Building on this foundation, the following section will explore how the Chronicler’s literary strategy encourages readers to engage in this process, refining their understanding of Yhwh’s status within the universe and his exclusive role as Israel’s God.

4.3. A Case Study in the Chronicler’s Didactic Strategy: Refining the Perception of Yhwh

One of the Chronicler’s key didactic strategies is to guide readers in refining their perception of Yhwh’s nature. Rather than merely stating theological claims, the Chronicler’s presentation invites readers to assess their existing understanding and align it with the theological vision embedded in the text. First, Chronicles allows readers to confirm how they currently understand their God and his position. The phrase “the God of heaven” is likely one of the strongest examples in Chronicles that supports the Chronicler’s effort to reflect readers’ intuitive cognition. The expression reflects the influence of Zoroastrianism, as the Persian god Ahura Mazda was also referred to as the God of heaven (Kratz 2024, p. 268; see also Ezra. 1.2; Neh. 1.4–5; 2.4, 20; For Ahura Mazda, see Skjærvø 2002, p. 399).43 In Chronicles, this expression appears only once, in the conclusion of the book (e.g., 2 Chron. 36.22). The reason that this occurrence is a strong indication of the Chronicler’s effort to reflect the readers’ intuition is due to its placement in the book and its connection to Cyrus. Regarding the former, by closing the historical narrative in this way, the book has already strategically highlighted the characteristics of Israel’s true God and his unique position throughout. Therefore, this concluding section is where readers encounter the conflict between learned knowledge and intuition more explicitly. Presumably, readers not only already possess the teachings of the authoritative texts (i.e., learned knowledge), but by the end of the book, they would have also gained a more solid understanding of Yhwh’s position through the Chronicler’s strategic presentation. This reasoning (i.e., readers experiencing conflict) is likely and further supported when considering the latter point. Cyrus was the emperor of the Achaemenid Empire and is thought to have received divine approval from the Persian god concerning his rule. However, Chronicles conveys the message that it is not the Persian god, but Yhwh, who grants all the nations of the land to Cyrus. This message is even delivered through the words of Cyrus himself. Thus, readers of Chronicles reflect on their perception in light of the Chronicler’s presentation and are given an opportunity to deepen or edify their understanding of God if it does not align with the message that the Chronicler has conveyed.

Second, as readers come to realize their perception of Yhwh within the socio-historical context, their perception undergoes a process of correction within the literary–historical context of Chronicles (i.e., heuristic edification of the perception of God).44 For instance, once again, the last scene of the book is intriguing and receives highlights. It has an open-ended quality (Merrill 2016, p. 700). The ending of Chronicles does not stop at the destruction of the nation and the Temple; instead, it introduces the decree of Cyrus, encouraging readers not to abandon the possibility of restoration, which relates to their perception of Yhwh—as the Temple represents Yhwh’s supremacy over the world (Lynch 2014, chap. 3, “The Temple and Divine Supremacy”). When readers encounter an open-ended story, they might have two reactions. On the one hand, they may feel compelled to see if there is another story or chapter, leading them to turn more pages: “Are there more stories left?” On the other hand, since the ending may not provide a sense of closure or catharsis—especially if it leaves some of their questions unanswered—they might turn back through the pages in search of answers: “Did I miss something?” (Segal 2019, pp. 1, 11). The ending of Chronicles encourages its readers of the book to initiate the process of heuristic edification.

In this process, they realize that the text hallmarks the characteristics of Israel’s true God by appropriately interpreting the differing records from the Vorlage and other sources. This related content has already been discussed in the foregoing section, “Reframing Monotheism: The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Yhwh” (e.g., Section 3). Yhwh is the almighty who protects Israel and ensures her future.45 God’s people should perceive that the idols are handmade and that there is only one God. The text ultimately warns against syncretism and emphasizes monotheism. Therefore, the book’s didactic effect assists readers in edifying their understanding of Yhwh’s position by reducing the gap between their knowledge and their perception of the surrounding world. Chronicles teaches the rejection of other gods, affirms the monotheistic position of Yhwh, and—simultaneously—embraces the post-exilic community’s circumstantial limits.

In sum, Chronicles’ strong warning against syncretism is worth heeding in the Yehud community. The Chronicler’s teaching is not merely a simple and straightforward statement that Yhwh is the only God. Instead, the Chronicler explains that fact in a way that fits the circumstances of the post-exilic community. With greater nuance, the book teaches that the practice of worshiping Yhwh and other gods simultaneously is inherently incompatible, since Yhwh’s position and characteristics are categorically different from those of other deities. Thus, the Israelites can only serve either Yhwh or other gods (i.e., idols). Chronicles, as it is produced at the last phase of the formulation of the Hebrew Scriptures, could provide a conclusive perspective on the status of Yhwh in the universe: though the Israelites live in a world heavily influenced by idols, Yhwh is the only God; therefore, God’s people must turn away from idols and worship him alone.

5. Conclusions

Monotheism has been a long-circulated subject among OT scholars. They have mostly delved into this topic with a diachronic approach to determine how the perception of deity among Israelites developed over time. In this discussion, Chronicles has not been central to their argument. Although recent trends have shown new methodological interest in this particular topic, scholarly interest in the theme of monotheism in Chronicles remains limited. This essay has suggested one way to interpret the probable contribution of Chronicles to the understanding of monotheism in Chronicles and even beyond because the OT’s, even Chronicles’, descriptions of Yhwh’s position are too complex to establish a clear understanding. By situating Chronicles within its historical and literary context, this study argues that the book serves a didactic function that actively shapes the theological identity of the Yehud community.

The Chronicler’s portrayal of Yhwh’s existence in the cosmos seems somewhat intriguing at first glance. On the one hand, Chronicles portrays Yhwh who exists solely in the universe. On the other hand, the book addresses the opposite: Yhwh and other gods coexist in the world. This essay does not see this as a seemingly contradictory description of Yhwh’s position in the universe. Instead, one could understand these presentations according to the book’s didactic function. In other words, the Israelites could have a gap between what they have learned from authoritative texts and how they perceived their surroundings regarding Yhwh’s cosmic position, and the Chronicler attempted to bridge the gap and edify the post-exilic readers’ view on Yhwh’s position. Rather than presenting a static theological claim, Chronicles employs a rhetorical strategy that encourages its readers to internalize a monotheistic worldview—not merely as a doctrinal assertion but as a lived commitment that rejects syncretistic worship. Through this process, readers of Chronicles, with adequate knowledge of authoritative texts, could heuristically derive the appropriate conclusion that Yhwh is the only God, and that worshiping Yhwh and other gods (i.e., idols) simultaneously is inherently incompatible.

This perspective could open new avenues for further research. For example, future studies could explore how Chronicles’ rhetorical approach to monotheism compares with other post-exilic texts or examine how its portrayal of Yhwh influenced later Jewish thought. This portrayal is not unique to Chronicles but is consistent with other post-exilic biblical texts that emphasize Yhwh’s universal rule. For instance, Ezra-Nehemiah presents him as the sovereign ruler over foreign kings, as seen in Ezra. 1.1–4, where he moves Cyrus to restore the exiles and rebuild the Temple. Nehemiah 9:6 affirms Yhwh as the creator and the sustainer, who directs rulers like Artaxerxes (Neh. 2.5, 8, 18). Haggai (2.6–8) and Malachi (1.5, 11) also stress his supremacy, particularly regarding his control over resources and nations. Similarly, post-exilic psalms (e.g., Pss. 105–106, 135–136) celebrate Yhwh’s deliverance of Israel and his supremacy over other gods (Ps. 135.5). By examining these intertextual connections, future research could further illuminate how Chronicles participates in this broader post-exilic discourse, not by simply echoing theological claims, but by actively shaping the theological identity of the Yehud community through its distinct rhetorical approach. Exploring the didactic role of Chronicles in relation to these texts could provide deeper insights into how post-exilic biblical literature functioned in reinforcing monotheism within the community. Future studies could also examine whether other post-exilic biblical texts employed a similar didactic strategy and explore the specific theological messages they sought to teach. The methodological approach of this study could serve as a model for such research.