main theme: the importance of the Temple, its ritual, and its ministers.
Incidentally and perhaps unconsciously, he here suggests another lesson,
which is specially significant as coming from an ardent ritualist, namely
the necessary limitations of uniformity in ritual. Hezekiah’s celebration
of the Passover is full of irregularities: it is held in the wrong month;
it is prolonged to twice the usual period; there are amongst the
worshippers multitudes of unclean persons, whose presence at these
services ought to have been visited with terrible punishment. All is
condoned on the ground of emergency, and the ritual laws are set aside
without consulting the ecclesiastical officials. Everything serves to
emphasise the lesson we touched on in connection with David’s sacrifices
at the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite: ritual is made for man, and
not man for ritual. Complete uniformity may be insisted on in ordinary
times, but can be dispensed with in any pressing emergency; necessity
knows no law, not even the Torah of the Pentateuch. Moreover, in such
emergencies it is not necessary to wait for the initiative or even the
sanction of ecclesiastical officials; the supreme authority in the Church
in all its great crises resides in the whole body of believers. No one is
entitled to speak with greater authority on the limitations of ritual than
a strong advocate of the sanctity of ritual like the chronicler; and we
may well note, as one of the most conspicuous marks of his inspiration,
the sanctified common sense shown by his frank and sympathetic record of
the irregularities of Hezekiah’s passover. Doubtless emergencies had
arisen even in his own experience of the great feasts of the Temple that
had taught him this lesson; and it says much for the healthy tone of the
Temple community in his day that he does not attempt to reconcile the
practice of Hezekiah with the law of Moses by any harmonistic quibbles.
The work of purification and restoration, however, was still incomplete:
the Temple had been cleansed from the pollutions of idolatry, the heathen
altars had been removed from Jerusalem, but the high places remained in
all the cities of Judah. When the Passover was at last finished, the
assembled multitude, “all Israel that were present,” set out, like the
English or Scotch Puritans, on a great iconoclastic expedition. Throughout
the length and breadth of the Land of Promise, throughout Judah and
Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh, they brake in pieces the sacred pillars,
and hewed down the Asherim, and brake down the high places and altars;
then they went home.
Meanwhile Hezekiah was engaged in reorganising the priests and Levites and
arranging for the payment and distribution of the sacred dues. The king
set an example of liberality by making provision for the daily, weekly,
monthly, and festival offerings. The people were not slow to imitate him;
they brought first-fruits and tithes in such abundance that four months
were spent in piling up heaps of offerings.
“Thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah; and he wrought that which was
good, and right, and faithful before Jehovah his God; and in every work
that he began in the service of the Temple, and in the Law, and in the
commandments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and brought
it to a successful issue.”
Then follow an account of the deliverance from Sennacherib and of
Hezekiah’s recovery from sickness, a reference to his undue pride in the
matter of the embassy from Babylon, and a description of the prosperity of
his reign, all for the most part abridged from the book of Kings. The
prophet Isaiah, however, is almost ignored. A few of the more important
modifications deserve some little attention. We are told that the Assyrian
invasion was “after these things and this faithfulness,” in order that we
may not forget that the Divine deliverance was a recompense for Hezekiah’s
loyalty to Jehovah. While the book of Kings tells us that Sennacherib took
all the fenced cities of Judah, the chronicler feels that even this
measure of misfortune would not have been allowed to befall a king who had
just reconciled Israel to Jehovah, and merely says that Sennacherib
purposed to break these cities up.
The chronicler(427) has preserved an account of the measures taken by
Hezekiah for the defence of his capital: how he stopped up the fountains
and watercourses outside the city, so that a besieging army might not find
water, and repaired and strengthened the walls, and encouraged his people
to trust in Jehovah.
Probably the stopping of the water supply outside the walls was connected
with an operation mentioned at the close of the narrative of Hezekiah’s
reign: “Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and
brought them straight down on the west side of the city of David.”(428)
Moreover, the chronicler’s statements are based upon 2 Kings xx. 20, where
it is said that “Hezekiah made the pool and the conduit and brought water
into the city.” The chronicler was of course intimately acquainted with
the topography of Jerusalem in his own days, and uses his knowledge to
interpret and expand the statement in the book of Kings. He was possibly
guided in part by Isa. xxii. 9, 11, where the “gathering together the
waters of the lower pool” and the “making a reservoir between the two
walls for the water of the old pool” are mentioned as precautions taken in
view of a probable Assyrian siege. The recent investigations of the
Palestine Exploration Fund have led to the discovery of aqueducts, and
stoppages, and diversions of watercourses which are said to correspond to
the operations mentioned by the chronicler. If this be the case, they show
a very accurate knowledge on his part of the topography of Jerusalem in
his own day, and also illustrate his care to utilise all existing evidence
in order to obtain a clear and accurate interpretation of the statements
of his authority.
The reign of Hezekiah appears a suitable opportunity to introduce a few
remarks on the importance which the chronicler attaches to the music of
the Temple services. Though the music is not more prominent with him than
with some earlier kings, yet in the case of David, Solomon, and
Jehoshaphat other subjects presented themselves for special treatment; and
Hezekiah’s reign being the last in which the music of the sanctuary is
specially dwelt upon, we are able here to review the various references to
this subject. For the most part the chronicler tells his story of the
virtuous days of the good kings to a continual accompaniment of Temple
music. We hear of the playing and singing when the Ark was brought to the
house of Obed-edom; when it was taken into the city of David; at the
dedication of the Temple; at the battle between Abijah and Jeroboam; at
Asa’s reformation; in connection with the overthrow of the Ammonites,
Moabites, and Meunim in the reign of Jehoshaphat; at the coronation of
Joash; at Hezekiah’s feasts; and again, though less emphatically, at
Josiah’s passover. No doubt the special prominence given to the subject
indicates a professional interest on the part of the author. If, however,
music occupies an undue proportion of his space, and he has abridged
accounts of more important matters to make room for his favourite theme,
yet there is no reason to suppose that his actual statements overrate the
extent to which music was used in worship or the importance attached to
it. The older narratives refer to the music in the case of David and
Joash, and assign psalms and songs to David and Solomon. Moreover, Judaism
is by no means alone in its fondness for music, but shares this
characteristic with almost all religions.
We have spoken of the chronicler so far chiefly as a professional
musician, but it should be clearly understood that the term must be taken
in its best sense. He was by no means so absorbed in the technique of his
art as to forget its sacred significance; he was not less a worshipper
himself because he was the minister or agent of the common worship. His
accounts of the festivals show a hearty appreciation of the entire ritual;
and his references to the music do not give us the technical circumstances
of its production, but rather emphasise its general effect. The
chronicler’s sense of the religious value of music is largely that of a
devout worshipper, who is led to set forth for the benefit of others a
truth which is the fruit of his own experience. This experience is not
confined to trained musicians; indeed, a scientific knowledge of the art
may sometimes interfere with its devotional influence. Criticism may take
the place of worship; and the hearer, instead of yielding to the sacred
suggestions of hymn or anthem, may be distracted by his æsthetic judgment
as to the merits of the composition and the skill shown by its rendering.
In the same way critical appreciation of voice, elocution, literary style,
and intellectual power does not always conduce to edification from a
sermon. In the truest culture, however, sensitiveness to these secondary
qualities has become habitual and automatic, and blends itself
imperceptibly with the religious consciousness of spiritual influence. The
latter is thus helped by excellence and only slightly hindered by minor
defects in the natural means. But the very absence of any great scientific
knowledge of music may leave the spirit open to the spell which sacred
music is intended to exercise, so that all cheerful and guileless souls
may be “moved with concord of sweet sounds,” and sad and weary hearts find
comfort in subdued strains that breathe sympathy of which words are
incapable.
Music, as a mode of utterance moving within the restraints of a regular
order, naturally attaches itself to ritual. As the earliest literature is
poetry, the earliest liturgy is musical. Melody is the simplest and most
obvious means by which the utterances of a body of worshippers can be
combined into a seemly act of worship. The mere repetition of the same
words by a congregation in ordinary speech is apt to be wanting in
impressiveness or even in decorum; the use of tune enables a congregation
to unite in worship even when many of its members are strangers to each
other.
Again, music may be regarded as an expansion of language: not new dialect,
but a collection of symbols that can express thought, and more especially
emotion, for which mere speech has no vocabulary. This new form of
language naturally becomes an auxiliary of religion. Words are clumsy
instruments for the expression of the heart, and are least efficient when
they undertake to set forth moral and spiritual ideas. Music can transcend
mere speech in touching the soul to fine issues, suggesting visions of
things ineffable and unseen.
Browning makes Abt Vogler say of the most enduring and supreme hopes that
God has granted to men, “’Tis we musicians know”; but the message of music
comes home with power to many who have no skill in its art.
Chapter IX. Manasseh: Repentance And Forgiveness. 2 Chron. xxxiii.
In telling the melancholy story of the wickedness of Manasseh in the first
period of his reign, the chronicler reproduces the book of Kings, with one
or two omissions and other slight alterations. He omits the name of
Manasseh’s mother; she was called Hephzi-bah—“My pleasure is in her.” In
any case, when the son of a godly father turns out badly, and nothing is
known about the mother, uncharitable people might credit her with his
wickedness. But the chronicler’s readers were familiar with the great
influence of the queen-mother in Oriental states. When they read that the
son of Hezekiah came to the throne at the age of twelve and afterwards
gave himself up to every form of idolatry, they would naturally ascribe
his departure from his father’s ways to the suggestions of his mother. The
chronicler is not willing that the pious Hezekiah should lie under the
imputation of having taken delight in an ungodly woman, and so her name is
omitted.
The contents of 2 Kings xxi. 10-16 are also omitted; they consist of a
prophetic utterance and further particulars as to the sins of Manasseh;
they are virtually replaced by the additional information in Chronicles.
From the point of view of the chronicler, the history of Manasseh in the
book of Kings was far from satisfactory. The earlier writer had not only
failed to provide materials from which a suitable moral could be deduced,
but he had also told the story so that undesirable conclusions might be
drawn. Manasseh sinned more wickedly than any other king of Judah: Ahaz
merely polluted and closed the Temple, but Manasseh “built altars for all
the host of heaven in the two courts of the Temple,” and set up in it an
idol. And yet in the earlier narrative this most wicked king escaped
without any personal punishment at all. Moreover, length of days was one
of the rewards which Jehovah was wont to bestow upon the righteous; but
while Ahaz was cut off at thirty-six, in the prime of manhood, Manasseh
survived to the mature age of sixty-seven, and reigned fifty-five years.
However, the history reached the chronicler in a more satisfactory form.
Manasseh was duly punished, and his long reign fully accounted for.(429)
When, in spite of Divine warning, Manasseh and his people persisted in
their sin, Jehovah sent against them “the captains of the host of the king
of Assyria, which took Manasseh in chains, and bound him with
fetters,(430) and carried him to Babylon.”
The Assyrian invasion referred to here is partially confirmed by the fact
that the name of Manasseh occurs amongst the tributaries of Esarhaddon and
his successor, Assur-bani-pal. The mention of Babylon as his place of
captivity rather than Nineveh may be accounted for by supposing that
Manasseh was taken prisoner in the reign of Esarhaddon. This king of
Assyria rebuilt Babylon, and spent much of his time there. He is said to
have been of a kindly disposition and to have exercised towards other
royal captives the same clemency which he extended to Manasseh. For the
Jewish king’s misfortunes led him to repentance: “When he was in trouble,
he besought Jehovah his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of
his fathers, and prayed unto him.” Amongst the Greek Apocrypha is found a
“Prayer of Manasses,” doubtless intended by its author to represent the
prayer referred to in Chronicles. In it Manasseh celebrates the Divine
glory, confesses his great wickedness, and asks that his penitence may be
accepted and that he may obtain deliverance.
If these were the terms of Manasseh’s prayers, they were heard and
answered; and the captive king returned to Jerusalem a devout worshipper
and faithful servant of Jehovah. He at once set to work to undo the evil
he had wrought in the former period of his reign. He took away the idol
and the heathen altars from the Temple, restored the altar of Jehovah, and
re-established the Temple services. In earlier days he had led the people
into idolatry; now he commanded them to serve Jehovah, and the people
obediently followed the king’s example. Apparently he found it
impracticable to interfere with the high places; but they were so far
purified from corruption that, though the people still sacrificed at these
illegal sanctuaries, they worshipped exclusively Jehovah, the God of
Israel.
Like most of the pious kings, his prosperity was partly shown by his
extensive building operations. Following in the footsteps of Jotham, he
strengthened or repaired the fortifications of Jerusalem, especially about
Ophel. He further provided for the safety of his dominions by placing
captains, and doubtless also garrisons, in the fenced cities of Judah. The
interest taken by the Jews of the second Temple in the history of Manasseh
is shown by the fact that the chronicler is able to mention, not only the
“Acts of the Kings of Israel,” but a second authority: “The History of the
Seers.” The imagination of the Targumists and other later writers
embellished the history of Manasseh’s captivity and release with many
striking and romantic circumstances.
The life of Manasseh practically completes the chronicler’s series of
object-lessons in the doctrine of retribution; the history of the later
kings only provides illustrations similar to those already given. These
object-lessons are closely connected with the teaching of Ezekiel. In
dealing with the question of heredity in guilt, the prophet is led to set
forth the character and fortunes of four different classes of men.
First(431) we have two simple cases: the righteousness of the righteous
shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
These have been respectively illustrated by the prosperity of Solomon and
Jotham and the misfortunes of Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Ahaz. Again,
departing somewhat from the order of Ezekiel—“When the righteous turneth
away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according
to all the abominations of the wicked man, shall he live? None of his
righteous deeds that he hath done shall be remembered; in his trespass
that he hath trespassed and in his sin that he hath sinned he shall
die”—here we have the principle that in Chronicles governs the Divine
dealings with the kings who began to reign well and then fell away into
sin: Asa, Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah.
We reached this point in our discussion of the doctrine of retribution in
connection with Asa. So far the lessons taught were salutary: they might
deter from sin; but they were gloomy and depressing: they gave little
encouragement to hope for success in the struggle after righteousness, and
suggested that few would escape terrible penalties of failure. David and
Solomon formed a class by themselves; an ordinary man could not aspire to
their almost supernatural virtue. In his later history the chronicler is
chiefly bent on illustrating the frailty of man and the wrath of God. The
New Testament teaches a similar lesson when it asks, “If the righteous is
scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?”(432) But in
Chronicles not even the righteous is saved. Again and again we are told at
a king’s accession that he “did that which was good and right in the eyes
of Jehovah”; and yet before the reign closes he forfeits the Divine
favour, and at last dies ruined and disgraced.
But this sombre picture is relieved by occasional gleams of light. Ezekiel
furnishes a fourth type of religious experience: “If the wicked turn from
all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all My statutes, and do that
which is lawful and right, he shall live; he shall not die. None of his
transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him; in
his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in
the death of the wicked, saith the Lord Jehovah, and not rather that he
should return from his way and live?”(433) The one striking and complete
example of this principle is the history of Manasseh. It is true that
Rehoboam also repented, but the chronicler does not make it clear that his
repentance was permanent. Manasseh is unique alike in extreme wickedness,
sincere penitence, and thorough reformation. The reformation of Julius
Cæsar or of our Henry V., or, to take a different class of instance, the
conversion of St. Paul, was nothing compared to the conversion of
Manasseh. It was as though Herod the Great or Cæsar Borgia had been
checked midway in a career of cruelty and vice, and had thenceforward
lived pure and holy lives, glorifying God by ministering to their
fellow-men. Such a repentance gives us hope for the most abandoned. In the
forgiveness of Manasseh the penitent sinner receives assurance that God
will forgive even the most guilty. The account of his closing years shows
that even a career of desperate wickedness in the past need not hinder the
penitent from rendering acceptable service to God and ending his life in
the enjoyment of Divine favour and blessing. Manasseh becomes in the Old
Testament what the Prodigal Son is in the New: the one great symbol of the
possibilities of human nature and the infinite mercy of God.
The chronicler’s theology is as simple and straightforward as that of
Ezekiel. Manasseh repents, submits himself, and is forgiven. His captivity
apparently had expiated his guilt, as far as expiation was necessary.
Neither prophet nor chronicler was conscious of the moral difficulties
that have been found in so simple a plan of salvation. The problems of an
objective atonement had not yet risen above their horizon.
These incidents afford another illustration of the necessary limitations
of ritual. In the great crisis of Manasseh’s spiritual life, the Levitical
ordinances played no part; they moved on a lower level, and ministered to
less urgent needs. Probably the worship of Jehovah was still suspended
during Manasseh’s captivity; none the less Manasseh was able to make his
peace with God. Even if they were punctually observed, of what use were
services at the Temple in Jerusalem to a penitent sinner at Babylon? When
Manasseh returned to Jerusalem, he restored the Temple worship, and
offered sacrifices of peace-offerings and of thanksgiving; nothing is said
about sin-offerings. His sacrifices were not the condition of his pardon,
but the seal and token of a reconciliation already effected. The
experience of Manasseh anticipated that of the Jews of the Captivity: he
discovered the possibility of fellowship with Jehovah, far away from the
Holy Land, without temple, priest, or sacrifice. The chronicler, perhaps
unconsciously already foreshadows the coming of the hour when men should
worship the Father neither in the holy mountain of Samaria nor yet in
Jerusalem.
Before relating the outward acts which testified the sincerity of
Manasseh’s repentance, the chronicler devotes a single sentence to the
happy influence of forgiveness and deliverance upon Manasseh himself. When
his prayer had been heard, and his exile was at an end, then Manasseh knew
and acknowledged that Jehovah was God. Men first begin to know God when
they have been forgiven. The alienated and disobedient, if they think of
Him at all, merely have glimpses of His vengeance and try to persuade
themselves that He is a stern Tyrant. By the penitent not yet assured of
the possibility of reconciliation God is chiefly thought of as a righteous
Judge. What did the Prodigal Son know about his father when he asked for
the portion of goods that fell to him or while he was wasting his
substance in riotous living? Even when he came to himself, he thought of
the father’s house as a place where there was bread enough and to spare;
and he supposed that his father might endure to see him living at home in
permanent disgrace, on the footing of a hired servant. When he reached
home, after he had been met a great way on with compassion and been
welcomed with an embrace, he began for the first time to understand his
father’s character. So the knowledge of God’s love dawns upon the soul in
the blessed experience of forgiveness; and because love and forgiveness
are more strange and unearthly than rebuke and chastisement, the sinner is
humbled by pardon far more than by punishment; and his trembling
submission to the righteous Judge deepens into profounder reverence and
awe for the God who can forgive, who is superior to all vindictiveness,
whose infinite resources enable Him to blot out the guilt, to cancel the
penalty, and annul the consequences of sin.
“There is forgiveness with Thee,
That Thou mayest be feared.”(434)
The words that stand in the forefront of the Lord’s Prayer, “Hallowed be
Thy name,” are virtually a petition that sinners may repent, and be
converted, and obtain forgiveness.
In seeking for a Christian parallel to the doctrine expounded by Ezekiel
and illustrated by Chronicles, we have to remember that the permanent
elements in primitive doctrine are often to be found by removing the
limitations which imperfect faith has imposed on the possibilities of
human nature and Divine mercy. We have already suggested that the
chronicler’s somewhat rigid doctrine of temporal rewards and punishments
symbolises the inevitable influence of conduct on the development of
character. The doctrine of God’s attitude towards backsliding and
repentance seems somewhat arbitrary as set forth by Ezekiel and
Chronicles. A man apparently is not to be judged by his whole life, but
only by the moral period that is closed by his death. If his last years be
pious, his former transgressions are forgotten; if his last years be evil,
his righteous deeds are equally forgotten. While we gratefully accept the
forgiveness of sinners, such teaching as to backsliders seems a little
cynical; and though, by God’s grace and discipline, a man may be led
through and out of sin into righteousness, we are naturally suspicious of
a life of “righteous deeds” which towards its close lapses into gross and
open sin. “Nemo repente turpissimus fit.” We are inclined to believe that
the final lapse reveals the true bias of the whole character. But the
chronicler suggests more than this: by his history of the almost uniform
failure of the pious kings to persevere to the end, he seems to teach that
the piety of early and mature life is either unreal or else is unable to
survive as body and mind wear out. This doctrine has sometimes,
inconsiderately no doubt, been taught from Christian pulpits; and yet the
truth of which the doctrine is a misrepresentation supplies a correction
of the former principle that a life is to be judged by its close. Putting
aside any question of positive sin, a man’s closing years sometimes seem
cold, narrow, and selfish when once he was full of tender and considerate
sympathy; and yet the man is no Asa or Amaziah who has deserted the living
God for idols of wood and stone. The man has not changed, only our
impression of him. Unconsciously we are influenced by the contrast between
his present state and the splendid energy and devotion of self-sacrifice
that marked his prime; we forget that inaction is his misfortune, and not
his fault; we overrate his ardour in the days when vigorous action was a
delight for its own sake; and we overlook the quiet heroism with which
remnants of strength are still utilised in the Lord’s service, and do not
consider that moments of fretfulness are due to decay and disease that at
once increase the need of patience and diminish the powers of endurance.
Muscles and nerves slowly become less and less efficient; they fail to
carry to the soul full and clear reports of the outside world; they are no
longer satisfactory instruments by which the soul can express its feelings
or execute its will. We are less able than ever to estimate the inner life
of such by that which we see and hear. While we are thankful for the sweet
serenity and loving sympathy which often make the hoary head a crown of
glory, we are also entitled to judge some of God’s more militant children
by their years of arduous service, and not by their impatience of enforced
inactivity.
If our author’s statement of these truths seem unsatisfactory, we must
remember that his lack of a doctrine of the future life placed him at a
serious disadvantage. He wished to exhibit a complete picture of God’s
dealings with the characters of his history, so that their lives should
furnish exact illustrations of the working of sin and righteousness. He
was controlled and hampered by the idea that underlies many discussions in
the Old Testament: that God’s righteous judgment upon a man’s actions is
completely manifested during his earthly life. It may be possible to
assert an _eternal_ providence; but conscience and heart have long since
revolted against the doctrine that God’s justice, to say nothing of His
love, is declared by the misery of lives that might have been innocent, if
they had ever had the opportunity of knowing what innocence meant. The
chronicler worked on too small a scale for his subject. The entire Divine
economy of Him with whom a thousand years are as one day cannot be even
outlined for a single soul in the history of its earthly existence. These
narratives of Jewish kings are only imperfect symbols of the infinite
possibilities of the eternal providence. The moral of Chronicles is very
much that of the Greek sage, “Call no man happy till he is dead”; but
since Christ has brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel,
we no longer pass final judgment upon either the man or his happiness by
what we know of his life here. The decisive revelation of character, the
final judgment upon conduct, the due adjustment of the gifts and
discipline of God, are deferred to a future life. When these are
completed, and the soul has attained to good or evil beyond all reversal,
then we shall feel, with Ezekiel and the chronicler, that there is no
further need to remember either the righteous deeds or the transgressions
of earlier stages of its history.
Chapter X. The Last Kings Of Judah. 2 Chron. xxxiv.-xxxvi.
Whatever influence Manasseh’s reformation exercised over his people
generally, the taint of idolatry was not removed from his own family. His
son Amon succeeded him at the age of two-and-twenty. Into his reign of two
years he compressed all the varieties of wickedness once practised by his
father, and undid the good work of Manasseh’s later years. He recovered
the graven images which Manasseh had discarded, replaced them in their
shrines, and worshipped them instead of Jehovah. But in his case there was
no repentance, and he was cut off in his youth.
In the absence of any conclusive evidence as to the date of Manasseh’s
reformation, we cannot determine with certainty whether Amon received his
early training before or after his father returned to the worship of
Jehovah. In either case Manasseh’s earlier history would make it difficult
for him to counteract any evil influence that drew Amon towards idolatry.
Amon could set the example and perhaps the teaching of his father’s former
days against any later exhortations to righteousness. When a father has
helped to lead his children astray, he cannot be sure that he will carry
them with him in his repentance.
After Amon’s assassination the people placed his son Josiah on the throne.
Like Joash and Manasseh, Josiah was a child, only eight years old. The
chronicler follows the general line of the history in the book of Kings,
modifying, abridging, and expanding, but introducing no new incidents; the
reformation, the repairing of the Temple, the discovery of the book of the
Law, the Passover, Josiah’s defeat and death at Megiddo, are narrated by
both historians. We have only to notice differences in a somewhat similar
treatment of the same subject.
Beyond the general statement that Josiah “did that which was right in the
eyes of Jehovah” we hear nothing about him in the book of Kings till the
eighteenth year of his reign, and his reformation and putting away of
idolatry is placed in that year. The chronicler’s authorities corrected
the statement that the pious king tolerated idolatry for eighteen years.
They record how in the eighth year of his reign, when he was sixteen, he
began to seek after the God of David; and in his twelfth year he set about
the work of utterly destroying idols throughout the whole territory of
Israel, in the cities and ruins of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, even
unto Naphtali, as well as in Judah and Benjamin. Seeing that the cities
assigned to Simeon were in the south of Judah, it is a little difficult to
understand why they appear with the northern tribes, unless they are
reckoned with them technically to make up the ancient number.
The consequence of this change of date is that in Chronicles the
reformation precedes the discovery of the book of the Law, whereas in the
older history this discovery is the cause of the reformation. The
chronicler’s account of the idols and other apparatus of false worship
destroyed by Josiah is much less detailed than that of the book of Kings.
To have reproduced the earlier narrative in full would have raised serious
difficulties. According to the chronicler, Manasseh had purged Jerusalem
of idols and idol altars; and Amon alone was responsible for any that
existed there at the accession of Josiah: but in the book of Kings Josiah
found in Jerusalem the altars erected by the kings of Judah and the horses
they had given to the sun. Manasseh’s altars still stood in the courts of
the Temple; and over against Jerusalem there still remained the high
places that Solomon had built for Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom. As the
chronicler in describing Solomon’s reign carefully omitted all mention of
his sins, so he omits this reference to his idolatry. Moreover, if he had
inserted it, he would have had to explain how these high places escaped
the zeal of the many pious kings who did away with the high places.
Similarly, having omitted the account of the man of God who prophesied the
ruin of Jeroboam’s sanctuary at Bethel, he here omits the fulfilment of
that prophecy.
The account of the repairing of the Temple is enlarged by the insertion of
various details as to the names, functions, and zeal of the Levites,
amongst whom those who had skill in instruments of music seem to have had
the oversight of the workmen. We are reminded of the walls of Thebes,
which rose out of the ground while Orpheus played upon his flute.
Similarly in the account of the assembly called to hear the contents of
the book of the Law the Levites are substituted for the prophets. This
book of the Law is said in Chronicles to have been given by Moses, but his
name is not connected with the book in the parallel narrative in the book
of Kings.
The earlier authority simply states that Josiah held a great passover;
Chronicles, as usual, describes the festival in detail. First of all, the
king commanded the priests and Levites to purify themselves and take their
places in due order, so that they might be ready to perform their sacred
duties. The narrative is very obscure, but it seems that either during the
apostacy of Amon or on account of the recent Temple repairs the Ark had
been removed from the Holy of holies. The Law had specially assigned to
the Levites the duty of carrying the Tabernacle and its furniture, and
they seem to have thought that they were only bound to exercise the
function of carrying the Ark; they perhaps proposed to bear it in solemn
procession round the city as part of the celebration of the Passover,
forgetting the words of David(435) that the Levites should no more carry
the Tabernacle and its vessels. They would have been glad to substitute
this conspicuous and honourable service for the laborious and menial work
of flaying the victims. Josiah, however, commanded them to put the Ark
into the Temple and attend to their other duties.
Next, the king and his nobles provided beasts of various kinds for the
sacrifices and the Passover meal. Josiah’s gifts were even more munificent
than those of Hezekiah. The latter had given a thousand bullocks and ten
thousand sheep; Josiah gave just three times as many. Moreover, at
Hezekiah’s passover no offerings of the princes are mentioned, but now
they added their gifts to those of the king. The heads of the priesthood
provided three hundred oxen and two thousand six hundred small cattle for
the priests, and the chiefs of the Levites five hundred oxen and five
thousand small cattle for the Levites. But numerous as were the victims at
Josiah’s passover, they still fell far short of the great sacrifice(436)
of twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep which
Solomon offered at the dedication of the Temple.
Then began the actual work of the sacrifices: the victims were killed and
flayed, and their blood was sprinkled on the altar; the burnt offerings
were distributed among the people; the Passover lambs were roasted, and
the other offerings boiled, and the Levites “carried them quickly to all
the children of the people.” Apparently private individuals could not find
the means of cooking the bountiful provision made for them; and, to meet
the necessity of the case, the Temple courts were made kitchen as well as
slaughterhouse for the assembled worshippers. The other offerings would
not be eaten with the Passover lamb, but would serve for the remaining
days of the feast.
The Levites not only provided for the people, for themselves, and the
priests, but the Levites who ministered in the matter of the sacrifices
also prepared for their brethren who were singers and porters, so that the
latter were enabled to attend undisturbed to their own special duties; all
the members of the guild of porters were at the gates maintaining order
among the crowd of worshippers; and the full strength of the orchestra and
choir contributed to the beauty and solemnity of the services. It was the
greatest Passover held by any Israelite king.
Josiah’s passover, like that of Hezekiah, was followed by a formidable
foreign invasion; but whereas Hezekiah was rewarded for renewed loyalty by
a triumphant deliverance, Josiah was defeated and slain. These facts
subject the chronicler’s theory of retribution to a severe strain. His
perplexity finds pathetic expression in the opening words of the new
section, “After all this,” after all the idols had been put away, after
the celebration of the most magnificent Passover the monarchy had ever
seen. After all this, when we looked for the promised rewards of piety—for
fertile seasons, peace and prosperity at home, victory and dominion
abroad, tribute from subject peoples, and wealth from successful
commerce—after all this, the rout of the armies of Jehovah at Megiddo, the
flight and death of the wounded king, the lamentation over Josiah, the
exaltation of a nominee of Pharaoh to the throne, and the payment of
tribute to the Egyptian king. The chronicler has no complete explanation
of this painful mystery, but he does what he can to meet the difficulties
of the case. Like the great prophets in similar instances, he regards the
heathen king as charged with a Divine commission. Pharaoh’s appeal to
Josiah to remain neutral should have been received by the Jewish king as
an authoritative message from Jehovah. It was the failure to discern in a
heathen king the mouthpiece and prophet of Jehovah that cost Josiah his
life and Judah its liberty.
The chronicler had no motive for lingering over the last sad days of the
monarchy; the rest of his narrative is almost entirely abridged from the
book of Kings. Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah pass over the
scene in rapid and melancholy succession. In the case of Jehoahaz, who
only reigned three months, the chronicler omits the unfavourable judgment
recorded in the book of Kings; but he repeats it for the other three, even
for the poor lad of eight(437) who was carried away captive after a reign
of three months and ten days. The chronicler had not learnt that kings can
do no wrong; on the other hand, the ungodly policy of Jehoiachin’s
ministers is labelled with the name of the boy-sovereign.
Each of these kings in turn was deposed and carried away into captivity,
unless indeed Jehoiakim is an exception. In the book of Kings we are told
that he slept with his fathers, _i.e._, that he died and was buried in the
royal tombs at Jerusalem, a statement which the LXX. inserts here also,
specifying, however, that he was buried in the garden of Uzza. If the
pious Josiah were punished for a single error by defeat and death, why was
the wicked Jehoiakim allowed to reign till the end of his life and then
die in his bed? The chronicler’s information differed from that of the
earlier narrative in a way that removed, or at any rate suppressed the
difficulty. He omits the statement that Jehoiakim slept with his fathers,
and tells us(438) that Nebuchadnezzar bound him in fetters to carry him to
Babylon. Casual readers would naturally suppose that this purpose was
carried out, and that the Divine justice was satisfied by Jehoiakim’s
death in captivity; and yet if they compared this passage with that in the
book of Kings, it might occur to them that after the king had been put in
chains something might have led Nebuchadnezzar to change his mind, or,
like Manasseh, Jehoiakim might have repented and been allowed to return.
But it is very doubtful whether the chronicler’s authorities contemplated
the possibility of such an interpretation; it is scarcely fair to credit
them with all the subtle devices of modern commentators.
The real conclusion of the chronicler’s history of the kings of the house
of David is a summary of the sins of the last days of the monarchy and of
the history of its final ruin in xxxvi. 14-20.(439) All the chief of the
priests and of the people were given over to the abominations of idolatry;
and in spite of constant and urgent admonitions from the prophets of
Jehovah, they hardened their hearts, and mocked the messengers of God, and
despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of Jehovah
arose against His people, and there was no healing.
However, to this peroration a note is added that the length of the
Captivity was fixed at seventy years, in order that the land might “enjoy
her sabbaths.” This note rests upon Lev. xxv. 1-7, according to which the
land was to be left fallow every seventh year. The seventy years captivity
would compensate for seventy periods of six years each during which no
sabbatical years had been observed. Thus the Captivity, with the four
hundred and twenty previous years of neglect, would be equivalent to
seventy sabbatical periods. There is no economy in keeping back what is
due to God.
Moreover, the editor who separated Chronicles from the book of Ezra and
Nehemiah was loath to allow the first part of the history to end in a
gloomy record of sin and ruin. Modern Jews, in reading the last chapter of
Isaiah, rather than conclude with the ill-omened words of the last two
verses, repeat a previous portion of the chapter. So here to the history
of the ruin of Jerusalem the editor has appended two verses from the
opening of the book of Ezra, which contain the decree of Cyrus authorising
the return from the Captivity. And thus Chronicles concludes in the middle
of a sentence which is completed in the book of Ezra: “Who is there among
you of all his people? Jehovah his God be with him, and let him go up....”
Such a conclusion suggests two considerations which will form a fitting
close to our exposition. Chronicles is not a finished work; it has no
formal end; it rather breaks off abruptly like an interrupted diary. In
like manner the book of Kings concludes with a note as to the treatment of
the captive Jehoiachin at Babylon: the last verse runs, “And for his
allowance there was a continual allowance given him of the king, every day
a portion, all the days of his life.” The book of Nehemiah has a short
final prayer: “Remember me, O my God, for good”; but the preceding
paragraph is simply occupied with the arrangements for the wood offering
and the first-fruits. So in the New Testament the history of the Church
breaks off with the statement that St. Paul abode two whole years in his
own hired house, preaching the kingdom of God. The sacred writers
recognise the continuity of God’s dealings with His people; they do not
suggest that one period can be marked off by a clear dividing line or
interval from another. Each historian leaves, as it were, the loose ends
of his work ready to be taken up and continued by his successors. The Holy
Spirit seeks to stimulate the Church to a forward outlook, that it may
expect and work for a future wherein the power and grace of God will be no
less manifest than in the past. Moreover, the final editor of Chronicles
has shown himself unwilling that the book should conclude with a gloomy
record of sin and ruin, and has appended a few lines to remind his readers
of the new life of faith and hope that lay beyond the Captivity. In so
doing, he has echoed the key-note of prophecy: ever beyond man’s
transgression and punishment the prophets saw the vision of his
forgiveness and restoration to God.
FOOTNOTES
1 Cf. _Ezra_; _Nehemiah_; _Esther_, by Professor Adeney, in
“Expositor’s Bible.”
2 Ezra iii. 12.
3 Isa. lxvi. 22.
4 Quoted for _Asa_ (2 Chron. xvi. 11); _Amaziah_ (2 Chron. xxv. 26);
_Ahaz_ (2 Chron. xxviii. 26).
5 Quoted for _Jotham_ (2 Chron. xxvii. 7); _Josiah_ (2 Chron. xxxv.
26, 27).
6 Quoted for _Manasseh_ (2 Chron. xxxiii, 18).
7 Quoted for _David_ (1 Chron. xxix. 29).
8 Quoted for _David_ (1 Chron. xxix. 29) and _Solomon_ (2 Chron. ix.
29).
9 Quoted for _David_ (1 Chron. xxix. 29).
10 Quoted for _Rehoboam_ (2 Chron. xii. 15).
11 Quoted for _Jehoshaphat_ (2 Chron. xx. 34).
12 Quoted for _Manasseh_ (2 Chron. xxxiii. 19). “Seers,” A.V., R.V.
Marg., with LXX.; R.V., with Hebrew text, “Hozai.” The passage is
probably corrupt.
13 Quoted for _Solomon_ (2 Chron. ix. 29).
14 Quoted for _Hezekiah_ (2 Chron. xxxii. 32).
15 Quoted for _Joash_ (2 Chron. xxiv. 27).
16 Quoted for _Abijah_ (2 Chron. xiii, 22).
17 Quoted for _Uzziah_ (2 Chron. xxvi. 22).
18 Quoted for _Solomon_ (2 Chron. ix. 29).
19 Cf. pp. 17, 18.
20 2 Chron. xx. 34.
21 Chron. xxxii. 32.
22 R.V. marg.
23 R.V.
_ 24 E.g._, the wars of Jotham (2 Chron. xxvii. 7).
25 2 Chron. xiii. 22; xxiv. 27. The LXX., however, does not read
“Midrash” in either case; and it is quite possible that glosses have
attached themselves to the text of Chronicles.
26 Cf. 2 Sam. vi. 12-20 with 1 Chron. xv., xvi.
27 Cf. 2 Kings xi.; 2 Chron. xxiii.
28 The last two classes are not easily distinguished; but the additions
which introduce the Levitical system into earlier history are
clearly the work of the chronicler or his immediate predecessor, if
such a predecessor be assumed, or were found in somewhat late
sources. This is also probably true of other explanatory matter.
29 Cf. 2 Sam. iv. with 1 Chron. viii. 34, also 2 Sam. vii. 7 with 1
Chron. xvii. 6, and 2 Sam. xvii. 25 with 1 Chron. ii. 17. In both
these instances Chronicles preserves the correct text.
30 Cf. Book II., Chap. IV.
31 Oehler, _Old Testament Theology_, i. 283 (Eng. trans.).
32 Nestle, _Die Israelitischen Eigennamen_, p. 27. The present chapter
is largely indebted to this standard monograph.
33 Nestle.
34 1 Chron. vii. 14.
35 Philo, _De Cong. Quær. Erud. Grat._, 8.
36 Hiller’s _Onomasticon ap._, Nestle 11.
37 vii. 8.
38 i. 35.
39 xviii. 15.
40 i. 20.
41 viii. 36.
42 ii. 18.
43 iii. 20.
44 iv. 3.
45 Bertheau, i. 1.
46 iv. 22.
47 iv. 22.
48 The translation of these words is not quite certain.
49 Nestle, p. 68.
50 Num. i. 10.
51 Num. i. 12.
52 Num. i. 6.
53 Cf. p. 40.
54 xi. 30; vii. 25 (Nestle).
55 Nestle.
56 Joel i. 15; Isa. xiii. 6. It is not necessary here to discuss either
the etymological or the theological history of these words in their
earliest usage, nor need we do more than recall the fact that
Jehovah was the term in common use as the personal name of the God
of Israel, while El was rare and sometimes generic.
57 Ezra ii. 61-63; Neh. vii, 63-65.
58 Acts xvii. 26.
59 Col. iii. 11.
60 Josh. xiv. 6.
61 1 Sam. xxvii 10.
62 Ver. 55.
63 The occurrence of Caleb the son of Jephunneh in iv, 15, vi. 56, in
no way militates against this view: the chronicler, like other
redactors, is simply inserting borrowed material without correcting
it. _Chelubai_ in ii. 9 stands for _Caleb_; cf. ii. 18.
64 viii. 33-40; ix. 35-44. We have used Mephibosheth as more familiar,
but Chronicles reads Meribbaal, which is more correct.
65 Psalm lxxviii. 59, 60, 67-69.
66 iv. 14, 21-23.
67 1 Chron. xv.
68 Cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 12 and xxx. 22.
69 2 Chron. xvii. 8.
70 Exod. xxv-xxxix.; 1 Kings vi.; 1 Chron. xxix.; 2 Chron. iii., v.
71 1 Chron. xv. 4-10.
72 1 Chron. xii. 23-37.
73 John iii. 8.
74 i. 10.
75 i. 19.
76 i. 46.
77 Cf. Gen. xxxvi. 24 and 1 Chron. i. 40.
_ 78 I.e._, Achan (ii. 3, 7).
79 1 Sam. ii. 7, 8.
80 Vv. 17, 18, as they stand, do not make sense. The second sentence of
ver. 18 should be read before “and she bare Miriam” in ver. 17.
Mered and Bithiah formed a tempting subject for the rabbis, and gave
occasion for some of their usual grotesque fancies. Mered has been
identified by them both with Caleb and Moses.
81 Deut. vii. 3; Josh. xxiii. 12; Ezra ix. 1, x.; Neh. xiii. 23.
82 iv. 9, 10.
83 The reading on which this translation is based is obtained by an
alteration of the vowels of the Masoretic text; cf. Bertheau, i. 1.
84 Gen. xxviii. 20; xxxiii. 20.
85 This translation is obtained by slightly altering the Masoretic
text.
86 iv. 41; cf. R.V.
87 1 Sam. xv.
88 Judges i. 17.
89 Judges i. 22-26.
90 Judges xviii.
91 Vv. 7-10, 18-22.
92 Deut. xxxiii. 20; 1 Chron. xii. 8, 21.
93 Gen. xxv. 15.
94 Gen. xvi. 12.
_ 95 Lay of the Last Minstrel_, iv. 3.
96 Vv. 25, 26. Note the curious spelling _Tilgath-pilneser_ for the
more usual _Tiglath-pileser_.
97 Cf. Bertheau, i. 1.
98 In Josh. xix. 42, xxi. 24, Aijalon is given to Dan; in Judges i. 34
it is given to Dan, but we are told that Amorites retained
possession of it, but became tributary to the house of Joseph; in 2
Chron. xi. 10 it is given to “Judah and Benjamin.” As a frontier
town, it frequently changed hands.
99 2 Chron. xvi. 9.
100 2 Chron. xx. 20.
101 2 Chron. xxix. 6.
102 1 Chron. vi. 31-48, xv. 16-20; cf. psalm titles.
103 1 Chron. vi. 33, 37; cf. Psalm lxxxviii. (title).
104 1 Chron. xvi. 38, 42.
105 1 Chron. ix. 26-32; cf. 1 Chron. xxiii. 24-32.
106 2 Chron. xxix.-xxxi.; xxxiv.; xxxv.
107 2 Chron. xxix. 27, 28.
108 Num. iv. 3, 23, 35.
109 1 Chron. xxiii. 24, 27. Probably “twenty” should be read for
“thirty” in ver. 3.
110 1 Chron. xxiv. 6.
111 2 Chron. xxxiv. 13; xxxv. 3.
112 2 Chron. xxxv. 3; cf. 1 Chron. xxiii 26.
113 1 Chron. xxvi. 29.
114 2 Chron. xvii. 7, 9.
115 Wellhausen, _History of Israel_, p. 191; cf. 2 Chron. xix. 4-11.
116 1 Chron. ix. 31, 32.
117 Ezra ii. 36-39.
118 1 Chron. xxiv. 1-19.
119 Luke i. 5.
_ 120 Bell. Jud._, IV. iii. 8.
121 1 Chron. xxiv. 20-31; 2 Chron. xxxi. 2.
122 1 Chron. xxv.
123 1 Chron. xxvi.; Ezra vi. 18; Neh. xi. 36.
124 Recently a complaint was received at the General Post-office that
some newspapers sent from France had failed to arrive. It was stated
that the names of the papers were—_Il me manque_; _Plusieurs;
Journaux_; _i.e._, I am short of “Several” “Papers.”
125 1 Chron. ix. 3.
126 Luke ii. 36.
127 Levi of course excepted.
128 1 Chron. iii.
129 ii. 55.
130 iv. 21-23.
131 Maspero, _Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, p. 60.
132 Craddock, _Despot of Bromsgrove Edge_. Teck Jepson is, of course, an
imaginary character, but none the less representative.
133 Cave, _Scripture Doctrine of Sacrifice_, p. 163.
134 George Eliot, _Janet’s Repentance_, chap. xix.
135 2 Chron. xii. 1, 6.
136 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18.
137 Ezra ii. 2.
138 Isa. xlix. 6.
139 Isa. ix. 7.
140 Isa. xvi. 5.
141 Isa. xxxvii. 35.
142 Isa. xxxviii. 5.
143 Acts ii 29.
144 Hos. iii. 5.
145 Amos ix. 11.
146 Micah v. 2.
147 Jer. xxiii. 5, 6; cf. xxxiii. 15 and Isa. iv. 2, xi. 1. The Hebrew
word used in the last passage is different from that in the
preceding.
148 Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24; xxxvii. 24, 25.
149 Zech. iii. 8; the text in vi. 12 is probably corrupt.
150 Hag. ii. 23.
151 Zech. xii. 8.
152 Written after the death of Pompey.
153 Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_, ii. 444.
154 An incidental reference is made to these facts in 1 Chron. xii. 19.
155 2 Sam. iii. 39.
156 2 Sam. v. 21; 1 Chron. xiv. 12.
157 Deut. xxiv. 16, quoted in 2 Chron. xxv. 4.
158 2 Sam. xxi. 19; 1 Chron. xx. 5.
159 1 Chron. x. 14.
160 Cf. xi. 1-9; xii. 23-xiii. 14; xv.
161 1 Chron. xi. 2.
162 1 Chron. ii. 15.
163 1 Chron. xii. 1, 19. There is no certain indication of the date of
the events in xi. 10-25. The fact that a “hold” is mentioned in xi.
16, as in xii. 8, 16, is not conclusive proof that they refer to the
same period.
164 xii. 20.
165 1 Chron. xxix. 27.
166 xi. 10-47; xx. 4-8.
167 xiii. 14-xvi.
168 xvii.
169 xviii.; xx. 3.
_ 170 I.e._, virtually Jehovah our God and the only true God.
171 For a more detailed treatment of this incident see chap. ix.
172 xxi.-xxix.
173 xxix. 20-22, 28.
174 xvi. 8-36.
175 xvii. 16-27.
176 For a short exposition of this passage see Book. IV., Chap. i.
177 1 Chron. xi. 15-19.
178 xxix. 20.
179 Rom. xiv. 22.
180 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chron. xx. 3.
181 Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, i. 205.
182 x. 14; xi. 3.
183 xii. 38.
184 xxix. 1, 22.
185 xiii. 2-4.
186 1 Sam. xxiii. 9-13; xxx. 7, 8.
187 xxv. 1, 2.
188 xiii. 1.
189 xxviii. 1.
190 xxix. 22.
191 But cf. 2 Chr. xxvi.
192 Cf. xvii. 4-15 and xxviii. 2-10.
193 xiii. 1-14.
194 The casual reference in Jer. lii. 20 is only an apparent exception.
The passage is really historical, and not prophetic.
195 Deut. xvii. 16, 17; cf. 2 Chron. i. 14-17 and 1 Kings xi. 3-8.
196 Psalms lxxii. and cxxvii. are attributed to him, the latter,
however, only in the Hebrew Bible.
197 Ecclus. xlvii. 12-21.
198 Matt. xii. 42.
199 Matt. vi. 29.
200 Acts vii. 47.
201 1 Chron. xxix. 25.
202 2 Chron. ix. 22, 23.
203 2 Chron. viii. 11.
204 Neh. xiii. 26.
205 Such changes occur throughout, and need not be further noticed
unless some special interest attaches to them.
206 Kings v. 13; ix. 22, which seems to contradict this, is an editorial
note.
207 2 Chron. ii. 2, 17, 18; viii. 7-10.
208 1 Kings ix. 11, 12.
209 2 Chron. viii. 1, 2, R.V.
210 1 Chron. xxii. 9.
211 1 Chron. xxix. 23, 24.
212 2 Chron. i. 7-13.
213 2 Chron. i. 14-17.
214 v. 11, 12, peculiar to Chronicles.
215 vi. 41, 42, peculiar to Chronicles, apparently based on Psalm
cxxxii. 8-10.
216 1 Chron. xxi. 26; 2 Chron. vii. 1-3, both peculiar to Chronicles.
217 vii. 8-10, mostly peculiar to Chronicles. The text in 1 Kings viii.
65 has been interpolated from Chronicles.
218 vii. 13-15, peculiar to Chronicles.
219 viii. 3, 4, peculiar to Chronicles. Hamath is apparently referred to
as a possession of Judah in 2 Kings xiv. 28.
220 viii. 12-16, peculiar in this form to Chronicles, but based upon 1
Kings ix. 25.
221 ix., as in 1 Kings x. 1-13.
222 ix. 31.
223 ix. 28.
224 It is not suggested that the chronicler intended to convey this
impression, or that it would be felt by most of his readers.
225 xiv. 3, 5, contradicting 1 Kings xv. 14 and apparently 2 Chron. xv.
17.
226 xv. 8-14, peculiar to Chronicles.
227 xv. 18, 19.
228 xvii. 6 contradicts 1 Kings xxii. 43 and 2 Chron. xx. 33.
229 xvii. 7-9, peculiar to Chronicles.
230 xxiv. 1-14.
231 xxi. 11, peculiar to Chronicles.
232 xxv. 4.
233 2 Chron. xxviii. 24-xxxi., mostly peculiar to Chronicles; but
compare Kings xviii. 4-7, which mentions the taking away of the high
places.
234 xxxiii. 16.
235 xxxiv.; xxxv.
236 xxx. 2.
237 xxii. 1; xxiii. 1-15; xxvi. 1; xxxiii. 25; xxxvi. 1.
238 xxv. 12.
239 xvi. 12.
240 xx. 37.
241 xxiv. 20-27.
242 xxv. 14-27.
243 xxvi. 16-23.
244 xxxii. 25-33.
245 xxxv. 20-27.
246 Milton, Hymn to the Nativity.
247 Tennyson, In Memoriam.
248 2 Chron. ix. 1.
249 Prov. xxxi. 1-9.
250 Articles XXI. and XXXVII.
251 Eph. ii. 12.
252 2 Chron. xii. 12, peculiar to Chronicles.
253 1 Kings xv. 3.
254 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11-20, peculiar to Chronicles.
255 2 Kings xxiii. 32.
256 2 Kings xvi. 5.
257 Isa. viii. 2.
258 2 Chron. xxxiii. 9.
259 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5, 8, 11.
260 2 Chron. xxviii. 5-15, peculiar to Chronicles; cf. 2 Kings xvi. 5,
6.
261 2 Chron. xxviii. 16-25, peculiar to Chronicles; cf. 2 Kings xvi.
7-18.
262 xxviii. 27, peculiar to Chronicles.
263 2 Chron. xi. 13, 14, xxix. 34, xxx. 27, all peculiar to Chronicles.
In xxx. 27 the text is doubtful; many authorities have “the priests
and the Levites.”
_ 264 I.e._, in the view given us by the chronicler of the period of the
monarchy, after the Return the priests were far more numerous than
the Levites.
265 1 Chron. xxvi. 30-32.
266 2 Chron. xix. 4-11.
267 2 Chron. xv. 3. In the older literature the phrase would bear a more
special and technical meaning.
268 Exod. xxxii. 26-35.
269 Num. xxv. 3.
270 Psalm cvi. 30, 31.
271 1 Chron. xii. 23-28.
272 1 Chron. xxvii. 5; cf. however, R.V. marg.
273 2 Chron. xiii. 12.
274 2 Chron. xxiii. 7. All the passages referred to in this paragraph
are peculiar to Chronicles.
275 Neh. iv. 17.
276 1 Macc. v. 67.
277 1 Chron. xiii. 8; xvi. 2.
278 1 Chron. xxix. 10-19.
279 2 Chron. vi.
280 2 Chron. xx. 4-13; xxx. 6-9, 18-21, 27.
281 2 Chron. xxxv.
282 1 Chron. xiii. 10.
283 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-23.
284 2 Chron. xxxi. 3-5.
285 Mal. i. 8; iii. 4, 10.
286 2 Chron. xxxi. 10.
287 Exod. xv. 3.
288 Psalm lxxiv. 8, 9. This psalm is commonly regarded as Maccabæan, but
may be as early as the chronicler or even earlier.
289 1 Macc. iv. 46.
290 Ezra ii. 63.
291 2 Chron. xxix. 25, peculiar to Chronicles.
292 2 Chron. xii. 5-8, peculiar to Chronicles.
293 2 Chron. xv.-xvi. 10, peculiar to Chronicles.
294 2 Chron. xix. 2, 3, xx. 14-18, 37, all peculiar to Chronicles.
295 xxi. 12-15, peculiar to Chronicles.
296 xxiv. 18-22, peculiar to Chronicles.
297 xiv. 15, 16, peculiar to Chronicles.
298 2 Kings xix. 5-7, 20-34.
299 xxxii. 20.
300 xxxiii. 10, 18.
301 xxxv. 21, 22, 25, peculiar to Chronicles.
302 1 Esdras i. 28.
303 Ezra v. 1; vi. 14.
304 Neh. vi. 14.
305 1 Chron. xii. 18, peculiar to Chronicles.
306 Acts ii. 30.
307 2 Kings iv. 42.
308 Abbott, _Through Nature to Christ_, p. 295.
309 Jer. xv. 10.
310 Deut. xviii. 18.
311 Ecclus. xlix. 10.
312 R.V. “delight in” is somewhat too strong.
313 It is, however, possible that the text in Samuel is a corruption of
text more closely parallel to that of Chronicles.
314 Noldius and R. Salom. _apud_ Bertheau i. 1.
315 Josh. xviii. 28; Judges i. 21, as against Josh. xv. 63; Judges i. 8,
which assign the city to Judah.
316 1 Chron. xxvii. 23, 24.
317 Ver. 7 is apparently a general anticipation of the narrative in vv.
9-15.
318 Josh. v. 13.
319 Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_, ii. 270.
320 Exod. iv. 21; Josh. xi. 20; 1 Sam. xix. 9, 10; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; 1
Kings xxii. 20-23.
321 Prov. xvi. 4; Lam. iii. 38; Isa. xlv. 7.
322 Zech. iii. 1.
323 Jer. vii. 12-14; xxvi. 6.
324 1 Chron. xxviii. 19.
325 Heb. vii. 14.
326 Hos. xii. 13.
327 Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_, ii. 353.
328 2 Chron. xxx. 6; 1 Kings xviii. 36.
329 1 Chron. xvi. 13, 17; Gen. xxxii. 28.
330 Gen. xxiii. 4; cf. Psalms xxxix. 13, cxix. 19.
331 Job viii. 9.
332 Called, however, at that time Antonia.
333 viii. 9.
334 xi. 5-xii. 1, peculiar to Chronicles.
335 xii. 2-8, 12, peculiar to Chronicles.
336 xii. 14, peculiar to Chronicles.
337 Ecclus. xlvii. 23.
338 xiii. 3-22, peculiar to Chronicles.
339 Josh. xviii. 22.
340 Judges ix. 8.
341 Num. xviii. 19.
342 2 Chron. x. 15.
343 This verse must of course be understood to give his whole family
history, and not merely that of his three years’ reign.
344 xiv. 1, 7, peculiar to Chronicles.
345 xiv. 3-9, peculiar to Chronicles.
346 1 Chron. xii., etc.; 2 Chron. xi. 5 ff., xvii. 12 ff., xxvi. 9 ff.
xxvii. 4 ff., xxxiii. 14.
347 xiv. 9-15.
348 So R.V. marg.; R.V. text (with which A.V. is in substantial
agreement): “There fell of the Ethiopians so many that they could
not recover themselves”; _i.e._, the routed army were never able to
rally.
349 The second reformation is dated early in Asa’s fifteenth year, and
Abijah only reigned three years.
350 xv., based upon 1 Kings xv. 13-15, but the great bulk of the chapter
is peculiar to Chronicles; the original passage from Kings is
reproduced, with slight changes in vv. 16-18.
351 2 Sam. xii. 9-11. “Barak” with LXX. and Peshite; Masoretic text has
“Bedan.”
352 Judges v. 6, 7; vi. 11; viii. 15-17; ix.; xii. 1-7; xx.; xxi.
353 Cf. 1 Kings xv. 12.
354 1 Chron. ix. 3.
355 Exod. xxii. 20; Deut. xiii. 5, 9, 15.
356 1 Kings xv. 16, 32, 33.
357 xvi. 7-10, peculiar to Chronicles.
358 Isa. vii. 17.
359 Isa. xxxi. 1; xxx. 3.
360 Jer. ii. 36.
361 Zech. iv. 10.
362 The date, as before, is peculiar to Chronicles.
363 xvi. 12_b_, peculiar to Chronicles.
_ 364 Time and Tide_, xii. 67.
365 George Eliot, _Romola_, xxi.
366 Part II., Chap. IX.
367 xvii., peculiar to Chronicles.
368 1 Chron. xviii. 1-3.
369 xix. 1-3, peculiar to Chronicles.
370 xix. 4-11, peculiar to Chronicles.
371 Milman, _Latin Christianity_, Book XI., Chap. I.
372 xx. 1-30, peculiar to Chronicles.
373 So R.V. marg., with the LXX. The Targum has “Edomites,” the A.V. is
not justified by the Hebrew, and the R.V. does not make sense.
374 Cf. 1 Chron. iv. 41, R.V.; and 2 Chron. xxvi. 7.
375 One Hebrew manuscript is quoted as having this reading. A.R.V., with
the ordinary Masoretic text, have “Syria”; but it is simply absurd
to suppose that a multitude from beyond the sea from Syria would
first make their appearance on the western shore of the Dead Sea.
376 2 Chron. iv. 9.
377 Ver. 9; cf. 2 Chron. vi. 28, and the whole paragraph (vv. 22-30) of
which our verse is a brief abstract.
378 Not Ziz, as A.R.V.
379 הדרת קדש, literally, as A.R.V., “beauty of holiness”; _i.e._, sacred
robes. Translate with R.V. marg. “praise in the beauty of holiness,”
not, as A.R.V., “praise the beauty of holiness.”
380 Exod. xiv. 30.
381 With R.V. marg.
382 The identification of the valley of Berachah with the valley of
Jehoshaphat, close to Jerusalem and mentioned by Josephus, is a mere
theory, quite at variance with the topographical evidence.
383 Kings xxii. 48, 49.
384 2 Chron. xxiv. 24, peculiar to Chronicles.
385 Psalm xx. 7.
386 1 Macc. ii. 35-38.
387 xxi. 2-4, peculiar to Chronicles.
388 Vv. 5-10; cf. 2 Kings viii. 17-22.
389 xxi. 11-19, peculiar to Chronicles.
390 So R.V. marg., with LXX. and Vulgate A.R.V. have “mountains,” with
Masoretic text.
391 Jer. xxix.; xxxvi.
392 Green’s _Shorter History_, p. 404.
393 xxii. 1_b_, peculiar to Chronicles.
394 The Hebrew original of the A.R.V., “departed without being desired,”
is as obscure as the English of our versions. The most probable
translation is, “He behaved so as to please no one.” The A.R.V.
apparently mean that no one regretted his death.
395 We need not discuss in detail the question of Ahaziah’s age at his
accession. The age of forty-two, given in 2 Chron. xxii. 2, is
simply impossible, seeing that his father was only forty years old
when he died. The Peshito and Arabic versions have followed 2 Kings
viii. 26, and altered forty-two to twenty-two; and the LXX. reads
twenty years. But twenty-two years still presents difficulties.
According to this reading, Ahaziah, Jehoram’s youngest son, was born
when his father was only eighteen, and Jehoram having had several
sons before the age of eighteen, had none afterwards.
396 xiii. 7_a_, peculiar to Chronicles.
397 Cf. p. 20.
398 Cf. xxv. 2 with 2 Kings xiv. 4, xxvi. 4 with 2 Kings xv. 4, xxvii. 2
with 2 Kings xv. 34, where similar statements are omitted by the
chronicler.
399 2 Kings xii. 9.
400 Exod. xxx. 11-16.
401 Neh. x. 32.
402 xxiv. 14-22, peculiar to Chronicles.
403 Curiously enough, Jehoiada’s name does not occur in the list of
high-priests in 1 Chron. vi. 1-12.
404 1 Chron. xxviii. 9; 2 Chron. vii. 19, xii. 5, xiii. 10, xv. 2, xxi.
10, xxviii. 6, xxix. 6, xxxiv. 25.
405 Cf. 2 Kings xii. 17, 18, of which this narrative is probably an
adaptation.
406 xxv. 5-13, peculiar to Chronicles, except that the account of the
war with Edom is expanded from the brief note in Kings. Cf. ver.
11_b_ with 2 Kings xiv. 7.
407 In the phrase “from Samaria to Beth-horon,” “Samaria” apparently
means the northern kingdom, and not the city, _i.e._, from the
borders of Samaria; the chronicler has fallen into the nomenclature
of his own age.
408 For the discussion of the chronicler’s account of Ahaz see Book
III., Chap. VII.
409 So R.V. marg., with LXX., Targum, Syriac and Arabic versions,
Talmud, Rashi, Kimchi, and some Hebrew manuscripts (Bertheau, i. 1).
A.R.V., “had understanding in the visions” (R.V. vision) “of God.”
The difference between the two Hebrew readings is very slight. Vv.
5-20, with the exception of the bare fact of the leprosy are
peculiar to Chronicles.
410 Cf. Ezek. xxvi. 9.
411 Pliny, vii. 56 _apud_ Smith’s _Bible Dictionary_.
412 Num. xviii. 7; Exod. xxx. 7.
413 Kimchi interprets “those days” as meaning “after the death of
Jotham.”
414 The reference to the wall of Ophel is peculiar to Chronicles:
indeed, Ophel is only mentioned in Chronicles and Nehemiah; it was
the southern spur of Mount Moriah (Neh. iii. 26, 27). Vv. 3_b_-7 are
also peculiar to Chronicles.
415 This is usually understood as Nisan, the first month of the
ecclesiastical year.
416 xxix. 3-xxxi. 21 (the cleansing of the Temple and accompanying
feast, Passover, organisation of the priests and Levites) are
substantially peculiar to Chronicles, though in a sense they expand
2 Kings xviii. 4-7, because they fulfil the commandments which
Jehovah commanded Moses.
417 Exod. vi. 18, 22; Num. iii. 30, mention Elizaphan as a descendant of
Kohath.
418 So Strack-Zockler, i. 1.
419 Lev. i. 6.
420 According to 2 Kings xviii. 10, Samaria was not taken till the sixth
year of Hezekiah’s reign. It is not necessary for an expositor of
Chronicles to attempt to harmonise the two accounts.
421 Cf xxx. 11, 18.
422 xxx. 14; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 4. The chronicler omits the statement
that Hezekiah destroyed Moses’s brazen serpent, which the people had
hitherto worshipped. His readers would not have understood how this
corrupt worship survived the reforms of pious kings and priests who
observed the law of Moses.
423 Cf. xxix. 34, xxx. 3.
424 Lev. xv. 31.
425 So Bertheau, i. 1, slightly paraphrasing.
426 A.R.V., with Masoretic text, “the priests the Levites”; LXX., Vulg.
Syr., “the priests and the Levites.” The former is more likely to be
correct. The verse is partly an echo of Deut. xxvi. 15, so that the
chronicler naturally uses the Deuteronomic phrase “the priests the
Levites”; but he probably does so unconsciously, without intending
to make any special claim for the Levites: hence I have omitted the
word in the text.
427 xxxii. 2-8, peculiar to Chronicles.
428 xxxii. 30.
429 xxxiii. 11-19, peculiar to Chronicles.
430 So R.V.: A.V., “among the thorns”; R.V. marg., “with hooks”, if so
in a figurative sense. Others take the word as a proper name: Hohim.
431 Ezek. xviii. 20.
432 Peter iv. 18.
433 Ezek. xviii. 21-23.
434 Psalm cxxx. 4, probably belonging to about the same period as
Chronicles.
435 1 Chron. xxiii. 26, peculiar to Chronicles.
436 2 Chron. vii. 5. The figures are peculiar to Chronicles; 1 Kings
viii. 5 says that the victims could not be counted.
437 Jehoiachin. The ordinary reading in 2 Kings xxiv. makes him
eighteen.
438 2 xxxvi. 6_b_, peculiar to Chronicles.
439 Mostly peculiar to Chronicles.