Literary Analysis of 2 Chronicles 33:1-20

2 Chronicles 33:1-2 does not waste any time introducing the round character named Manasseh that was so unqualified to be king that he was only twelve years old when be was first king, and the text suggests that by him reigning for fifty-five years that the people of the southern kingdom really had a long drawn out problem on their hands (especially since he did more evil than the nations that God had driven out prior to Israel living in the land). 2 Chronicles 33:3-6 builds the conflict by explaining the general details on how Manasseh was a wicked king, and it uses the literary device of contrast to show the promise of the lord in verse four that highlights God's goodness in contrast to Manasseh's wickedness. Overall, Manasseh offering his sons, practicing sorcery, witchcraft, and other such things in verse six would almost suggest a climax of the plot (but the narrator even goes on from their).

The narrator draws out the point more about Manasseh being a wicked king by showing contrast to the Word of God in verses 7-8 and Manasseh's actions in the same verses. The narrator uses repetition in verse nine (parallel to verse two) to conclude the conflict of God's will verses Manasseh's governance. Overall, verse nine opens the door for the resolution to the conflict of the Word of God being true and Manasseh doing more evil than the nations that the Lord drove out before them, and at this point the conflict begins being resolved by God (this soon takes the form of captivity of Manasseh).

Verse ten introduces the Lord as a somewhat flat Character in the context (he is well defined as a round character among other scripture however), and it builds suspense to deliver how the Lord resolved the conflict in verses eleven through thirteen. The way that the Lord resolved the conflict was to have Babylon take Manasseh as prisoner, and when Manasseh prayed, the Lord delivered Manasseh back to his own land. Overall, at this point the original conflict is solved, and the story then explains resolutions that Manasseh took to undue what he had done to lead Israel astray in the past.

Manasseh gave Jerusalem military strength as the first action when returning home, and the narrator appears to introduce this fact in verse fourteen as a way of introducing the subject of restoration. The story takes a decline from the climax as verses fifteen through seventeen talk about how the foreign gods had been removed and the alter restored. The story about Manasseh ends in verse seventeen, but it is also summarized (and sort of fades away) in verses eighteen through twenty.

Verse eighteen gives a reference for further reading, and verse nineteen gives another reference for future reading. Verse twenty ends the talk about Manasseh by describing his death and the rise of his son (this was used as a transition into a new story). Overall, the narrator has a way of completely reducing the plot until nothing is left to talk about regarding the main character Manasseh.

The total section of 2 Chronicles 33:1-20 is proportionate in its telling of Manasseh and what he did. The narrator does not slow down the pace of his story telling very much by adding lots of details to make specific dramatic points more dramatic. Overall, what is however true is that the story of Manasseh could be dramatic in its telling if a reader focused upon the plot development, and this could have been one of its uses as ancient literature.

Interpretative Problem

One main interpretative problem that could be raised with the story of Manasseh is that people could get the idea that the moral of the story being promoted is that the story of Manasseh teaches that rebellion to God always brings about knowing the Lord (like in 2 Chronicles 33:13). The idea is that Manasseh prayed to the Lord in his distress and rebellion such that it could be seen as just like Jonah in the belly of the whale (note intertextually), and in this case people could develop the universal principle that God will always save a person from their rebellion if they call on him no matter how bad the situation is. The problem is that if such a principle as universal salvation through repentance from rebellion by calling upon God was truly being taught, then even Satan himself could be saved under this principle.

If God has a choice over the administration of his own grace, then he can decide how to use it wisely. For example although God was moved by Manasseh calling out to God (verse thirteen) this does not mean that God will always be moved by such actions. On the other hand by limiting the story of Manasseh just to its context without a universalized moral or set of morals would take the purpose away from telling the story to begin with.

The point is that the way that a person should read the story of Manasseh is that if a reader ever found themselves in calamity due to rebellion to God, then they should pray in earnestly and humility for restoration with the hope of God's anger subsiding but not with the expectation that God's anger will subside. The point is that when Manasseh prayed to the Lord in his desperation he (perhaps for the first time) was not trying to impose his will over God's will. Readers thus should take the moral of the story to be that hope exists in calamity caused by rebellion, but that hope is contingent on God's choice to dispense grace. Overall, to many people today read into stories like that of Manasseh that God is always forgiving no matter what when given the proper acts taken to relate to God (salvation then becomes very formalistic), but clearly the Lord only dispensed grace because he felt 'moved' (he may not have acted the same exact way in all similar situations).

Timeless Theology and Application Principles

The story of Manasseh gives a biblical principle that no matter how far a person is in rebellion they can always have the hope that God will deliver them from a crisis, but the timeless theological truth is that people should not take a guarantee that turning to the Lord in crisis (to reduce the results of rebellion) will produce deliverance. The story of Manasseh lists the promises of God to the line of David, but one of the principles of the story is that people should not rely upon the promises of God in order to endorse evil actions while resting in the confidence of God's promises. In other words Manasseh should not have thought to himself that, "since the Lord promised to always have a son of David on the throne, thus I am going to sit on the throne and do whatever I want." Overall, the problem is that many people like to replace faith, hope, and perhaps even love with what they consider to be knowledge and truth, and in the story of Manasseh the only way that he was ever rescued from his situation is through humbling himself before the Lord and putting his hope in God.

The fact that Manasseh practiced witchcraft, did his own pagan worship, and went his own way with his rituals suggests that he thought that what he was doing was somehow better than what Moses did and somehow better than what his forefathers did to relate to God. For Manasseh to have sacrificed his own children (verse six) for example he must have believed that he knew better than the Word of God that would have never supported such acts of worship. Overall, the point is that people should away be careful not to replace hope with knowledge, faith with knowledge, or even love with knowledge.

For Manasseh to have sacrificed his own children he must have believed that he knew what was best regardless of how he must have felt about the situation (if he felt anything at all). For Manasseh to have acted so deliberately to look for knowledge in mediums, divination, witchcraft, and sorcery he must have given up all hope that the Lord gives answers to mysteries and that the Lord can bless people or punish enemies. For Manasseh to have believed so strongly in what he was doing as to go against God's decrees he must have not have had any faith (the assurance that what is hoped for will happen, See Hebrews 11:1) regarding what God had said and done in the past, and thus Manasseh thought that his knowledge was better than anything that he was perhaps taught about God (or learned about God). Overall, the point is that Manasseh is perhaps a good example of how a person should not trust in their own knowledge to guide them but instead should develop the godly qualities of faith, hope, and love for guidance into doing what God wants done.

A Christian that applies the message of the story of Manasseh to their life should be so guided by love as to never even think about sacrificing their own children (unless it had been commanded by God). A Christian should never be in such a state of hopelessness that they turn to every evil device to solve the need that drives them to look for answers. A Christian should never be in such a state of faithlessness that they just give up on everything that Christianity stands. The point however in the story of Manasseh teaches that if a person (a Christian) does lose all their love, hope, and faith, then even in their deepest crisis God can and perhaps will rescue them if they humble themselves, confess their sins, and repent of their evil actions.