Eariler this week I wrote in detail through part one why David and Solomon's accounts of idolatry, adultery, murder, intrigue, and oppression were whitewashed from its source in Samuel and Kings -- and presented as virtually sinless.
What does all this mean? The following points are, I think, clear: 1) Chronicles uses Samuel and Kings as the source for roughly 50% of the writing; 2) almost anything negative about David, and everything negative about Solomon, has been expunged from the Chronicler’s account; 3) David and Solomon are together the twin ideal monarchs in Israel’s early history; 4) David is the initiator and planner, and Solomon is the executor, of the temple building and organization of the Levites; and 5) the Chronicler is not concerned with temple matters alone, but with the totality of the covenant with David, including God’s eternal choice of the line of David.
As I began by asking, why was it important for the Jews in exile to hear of the faults and foibles of their forebears, but for the post-exilic Jews to hear accounts of their faithfulness and successes? I think the answer to this question is partially the difference in historical setting.