First, we mention the briefness of the account. It takes only seven verses, even though Asa ruled for forty-one years. Yet the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 14:1–16:14 comprises three chapters of the book. Second, we also see from the narrative in 2 Chronicles 14:1–16:14 that all the events mentioned in 1 Kings took place in the last few years of Asa’s reign. Third, though the writer of 1 Kings makes no criticism of Asa in his narrative, the inspired writer of Chronicles does.
All three of these facts raise questions, whose answers are both difficult and necessarily speculative. Why the brevity? Why no criticism of matters that are clearly either foolish or sinful?
First to the question concerning the omission of any criticism of Asa, even regarding those matters that 2 Chronicles 14:1–16:14 condemns. This is by no means an easy question to answer, which is why many commentators do not attempt an answer. Indeed, no answer other than the will of the Holy Spirit may be given with assurance. Nevertheless, there are some ideas that may suggest an answer.
It is sometimes helpful in considering an omission to look first at what is given. In the comment on 1 Kings 15:16 we mentioned matters that brought questions to mind. We mentioned the brevity of the narrative. In total, it consists of fifteen verses, as compared to the three chapters of 2 Chronicles 14:1–16:14 that are devoted to the narrative of Asa. Second, the last nine verses deal only with the events of the last five years of Asa’s reign, though he reigned a total of forty-one years. Finaly, there is the difference that is found in the comparison and contrast of Kings and Chronicles regarding all these matters. In other words, the questions are, Why the brevity? Why the time frame? and Why the contrast?
These questions blend into one another. The answer as to why the narrative is so brief is that the writer wanted for some reason to emphasize a certain timeframe of Asa’s reign that took place in only a few years near the end of his life. As it happened, those were the years when Asa’s whole-hearted trust in the Lord had begun to fail. This in turn supplies a reason for the contrast with 2 Chronicles 14:1–16:14. When you read that passage, and see the prophet’s denunciation, you come away with a negative feeling toward the king. This is true despite the praiseworthy acts recorded in the earlier chapters. When, on the other hand, you finish the account of 1 Kings, your view of Asa tends to be favourable.
What keeps us, nevertheless, from concluding that Asa is more than a type of the Messiah? Is it not, in the first place, the record of the faithless use of gifts given to the Lord to bribe Ben-hadad? And, in the second place, a disease in his feet that suggests the possible chastisement of the Lord? They are not directly criticized here, since the writer wished to present an overall positive picture of Asa, and the Holy Spirit knew that the Chronicler would make the failing of Asa very clear.
9 In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa began to reign over Judah,