47. In ver. 12 rtnnbm nfen is the true reading, and we should so read in 1 Kings vii. 41 also, since the fl&i, circumvolutions, are to be distinguished from the rvhnb, crowns; see on iii. 16. In ver. 14 the first flfry is a mistake for lfe>P, the second for rwy, Kings ver. 43; for the verb nfcy is not required nor expected^ the accusative depends upon nib']£, ver. 11, while the number cannot be omitted, since it is always given with the other things. In ver. 1G HWTO is an orthographic error for nipnrp; cf. ver. 11 and 1 Kings vii. 44. DiTfe-fcrnw is surprising, for there is no meaning in speaking of the utensils of the utensils enumerated in ver. 12-1 Gc. According to 1 Kings vii. 45, we should read n^? D^?~^ ™. As to tt?K, see on ii. 12. pn» rata is accusative of the material, of polished brass; and so also Wpp ta, 1 Kings vii. 45, with a similar signification. In reference to the rest, see the commentary on 1 Kings vii. 40 ff. — Vers. 19-22. In the enumeration of the golden furniture of the holy place, our text diverges somewhat more from 1 Kings vii. 48-50. On the difference in respect to the tables of the shew-bread, see on 1 Kings vii. 48. In ver. 20 the number and position of the candlesticks in the holy place are not stated as they are in 1 Kings vii. 40, both having been already given in ver. 7. Instead of that, their use is emphasized: to light them, according to the right, before the most holy place (CB'^3 as in ver. 7). As to the decorations and subordinate utensils of the candlesticks, see on 1 Kings vii. 49. To 3JTT, ver. 21 (accus. of the material), is added nnj nfoo ran, « that is perfect gold." rfoo, which occurs only here, is synonymous with fep, perfection.' This addition seems superfluous, because before and afterwards it is remarked of these vessels that they were of precious gold ("WD nnj), and it is consequently omitted by the LXX., perhaps also because rri^p was not intelligible to them. The words, probably, are meant to indicate that even the decorations and the subordinate utensils of the candlesticks (lamps, snuffers, etc.) were of solid gold, and not merely gilded.— Ver. 22. nntptD, knives, probably used along with the snuffers for the cleansing and trimming of the candlesticks and lamps, are not met with among the utensils of the tabernacle, but are here mentioned (Chron. and Kings), and in 2 Kings xii. 14 and Jer. Iii. 18, among the temple utensils. Along with the nip-irp, sacrificial vessels (see on ver. 8), in 1 Chron. xxviii. 17 HOTD, forks of gold, are also mentioned, which are not elsewhere spoken of. Among the utensils of the tabernacle we fnul only nwtJD of brass, flesh-forks, as an appurtenance of the altar of burnt-offering (Ex. xxvii. 3, xxxviii. 3, Num. iv. 14; cf. 1 Sam. ii. 13 f.), which, however, cannot be intended here, because all the utensils here enumerated belonged to the holy place. What purpose the golden forks served cannot be determined, but the mention of golden knives might lead us to presuppose that there would be golden forks as well. That the forks are not mentioned in our verse does not render their existence doubtful, for the enumeration is not complete: e.g. the ni2D? 1 Kings \ ii. 50, are also omitted, rites, vessels for the incense, and rnnnft, extinguishers, as in 1 Kings vii. 50. Instead of WjiJlTjj ivan WISH, " and as regards the opening (door) of the house, its door-leaves," in 1 Kin<rs vii. 50 we have rpan ninri? nhbm "and the hinges of the door-leaves of the house." This suggests that nriD is only an orthographical error for nhb; but then if we take it to be so, we must alter Wrtflf^ into wWx6. And, moreover, the expression ivan nnbj door-hinges of the house, is strange, as rrisa properly denotes a recess or space between, and which renders the above-mentioned conjecture improbable. The author of the Chronicle seems rather himself to have generalized the expression, and emphasizes merely the fact that even the leaves of the doors in the most holy place and on the holy place were of gold; — of course not of solid gold; but they were, as we learn from, hi. 7, overlaid with gold. This interpretation is favoured by the simple 2HT being used without the predicate "W3D. To the sing. nn$3 no objection can be made, for the word in its fundamental signification, u opening," may easily be taken collectively. — Chap. v. 1 contains the conclusion of the account of the preparation of the sacred utensils as in 1 Kings vii. 51, and with it also the whole account of the building of the temple is brought to an end. The 1 before P|D3frftK and nn-jrrnx corresponds to the Lat. et — et, both — and also. As to David's offerings, cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 10 and 11; and on the whole matter, compare also the remarks on 1 Kings vii. 51.
This solemnity, to which Solomon had invited the elders and heads of all Israel to Jerusalem, consisted in four acts: («) the transfer of the ark into the temple (v. 2-vi. 11); (b) Solomon's dedicatory prayer (vi. 12-42); (c) the solemn sacrifice (vii. 1-10); and (d) the Lord's answer to Solomon's prayer (vii. 11—22). By the first two acts the temple was dedicated by the king and the congregation of Israel to its holy purpose; by the two last it was consecrated by Jahve to be the dwelling-place of His name. If we compare our account of this solemnity with the account given in the book of Kings, we find that they agree in their main substance, and for the most part even verbally coincide. Only, in the Chronicle the part performed by the priests and Levites is described more in detail; and in treating of the third act, instead of the blessing spoken by Solomon (1 Kings viii. 54-61), we have in Chron. vii. 1-3 a narrative of the devouring of the sacrifices by fire from heaven.
Chap. v. 2-vi. 11. The first part of the celebration was the transfer of the ark from Mount Zion to the temple (v. 2-14), and in connection with this we have the words in which Solomon celebrates the entry of the Lord into the new temple (vi. 1-11). This section has been already commented on in the remarks on 1 Kings viii. 1-21, and we have here, consequently, only to set down briefly those discrepancies between our account and that oilier, which have any influence upon the meaning. — In ver. 3 the name of the month, E^n^n rnja (Kings ver. 2), with which the supplementary clause, " that is the seventh month," is there connected, is omitted, so that we must either change W'inn into £Hh:i, or supply the name of the month; for the festival is not the seventh month, but was held in that month. — Ver. 4. Instead of D^pHj we have in 2 Kings Q^rpn, the priests bare the ark; and since even according to the Chronicle (ver. 7) the priests bare the ark into the holy place, we must understand by D^?p such Levites were also priests. — In ver. 5, too, the words n?vj] &^L?3n are inexact, and are to be corrected by Kings ver. 4, D^?rn D^nbn, For even if the Levitic priests bare the ark and the sacred utensils of the tabernacle into the temple, yet the tabernacle itself (the planks, hangings, and coverings of it) was borne into the temple, to be preserved as a holy relic, not by priests, but only by Levites. The conj. i before D^vn has probably been omitted only by a copyist, who was thinking of D^Sn D'oron (Josh. iii. 3, Deut. xvii. 9, 18, etc.). — In ver. 8 ^)] is an orthographical error for EfDJ, 1 Kings viii. 7; cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, Ex. xxv. 20. — In ver. 9, too, |hN*rr}p has probably come into our text only by a copyist's mistake instead of UhfiTP (Kings ver. 8).— Ver. 10. |nj ngfrj, who had given, i.e. laid in, is not so exact as DP H*3H "I55W (Kings ver. 9), but may be justified by a reference to Ex. xl. 20. — Vers. 116-13a describe the part which the priests and Levitical singers and musicians took in the solemn act of transferring the ark to the temple, — a matter entirely passed over in the narrative in Kings viii. 11, which confines itself to the main transaction. The mention of the priests gives occasion for the remark, ver. 11£, " for all the priests present had sanctified themselves, but the courses were not to be observed," i.e. the courses of the priests (1 Chron. xxiv.) could not be observed. The festival was so great, that not merely the course appointed to perform the service of that week, but also all the courses had sanctified themselves and co-operated in the celebration. In reference to the construction TtoB& \% cf. Ew. § 321, b. — Ver. 12. All the Levitic singers and musicians were also engaged in it, to make the festival glorious by song and instrumental music: " and the Levites, the singers, all of them, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, and their sons and brethren, clad in byssus, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, stood eastward from the altar, and with them priests to 120, blowing trumpets." The? before D?3 and the following noun is the introductory?: "as regards." On the form D^r^TiD, see on 1 Chron. xv. 24; on these singers and musicians, their clothing, and their instruments, see on 1 Chron. xv. 17-28 and chap. xxv. 1-8. — Ver. 13a runs thus literally: " And it came to pass, as one, regarding the trumpeters and the singers, that they sang with one voice to praise and thank Jahve." The meaning is: and the trumpeters and singers, together as one man, sang with one voice to praise. ^^S3 is placed first for emphasis; stress is laid upon the subject, the trumpeters and singers, by the introductory?; and nvi is construed with the following infinitive QPQWij?) - it was to sound, to cause to hear, for they were causing to hear, where? c. injin. is connected with HVJj as the participle is elsewhere, to describe the circumstances; cf. Ew. § 237. But in order to express very strongly the idea of the unisono of the trumpet-sound, and the singing accompanied by the harpplaying, which lies in *JnN3, "inK h\p is added to JHMWlb. By 'W?)? D*1!^ all that was to be said of the song and music is drawn together in the form of a protasis, to which is joined Tani n?9> tne apodosis both of this latter and also of the protasis which was interrupted by the parenthesis in ver. 11: u When the priests went forth from the holy place, for... (ver. 11), and when they lifted up the voice with trumpets and with cymbals, and the (other) instruments of song, and with the praise of Jahve, that He is good, that His mercy endureth for ever (cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 34), then was the house filled with the cloud of the house of Jahve." The absence of the article before \W requires us thus to connect the fWP TV3 at the close of the verse with |?5 (stat. constr.), since the indefinite jW (without the article) is not at all suitable here; for it is not any cloud which is here spoken of, but that which overshadowed the glory of the Lord in the most holy place. — Ver. 14, again, agrees with 1 Kings viii. 6, and has been there commented upon, chap. vi. 1-11. The words with which Solomon celebrates this wondrous evidence of divine favour, entirely coincide with the narrative in 1 Kings viii. 12-21, except that in ver. 5 f. the actual words of Solomon's speech are more completely given than in 1 Kings viii. 16, where the words, " and I have not chosen a man to be prince over my people Israel, and I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might be there," are omitted. For the commentary on this address, see on 1 Kin^s viii. 12-21.
Chap. vi. 12-42. Solomon's dedicatory 'prayer likewise corresponds exactly with the account of it given in 1 Kino-s viii. 22-53 till near the end (vers. 40-42), where it takes quite a different turn. Besides this, in the introduction (ver. 13) Solomon's position during the prayer is more accurately described, it being there stated that Solomon had caused a high stage pis3, a basinlike elevation) to be erected, which he ascended, and kneeling spoke the prayer which follows. This fact is not stated in 1 Kings viii. 22, and Then, and Berth, conjecture that it has been dropped out of our text only by mistake. Perhaps so, but it may have been passed over by the author of the books of Kings as a point of subordinate importance. On the contents of the prayer, which begins with the joyful confession that the Lord had fulfilled His promise to David in reference to the building of the temple, and proceeds with a request for a further bestowment of the blessing promised to His people, and a supplication that all prayers made to the Lord in the temple may be heard, see the Com. on 1 Kings viii. 22 ff. The conclusion of the prayer in the Chronicle is different from that in 1 Kings viii. There the last supplication, that the prayers might be heard, is followed by the thought: for they (the Israelites) are Thy people and inheritance; and in the further amplification of this thought the prayer returns to the idea with which it commenced. In the narrative of the Chronicle, on the other hand, the supplications conclude with the general thought (ver. 40): "Now, my God, let, I beseech Thee, Thine eyes be open, and Thine ears attend unto the prayer of this place " (i.e. unto the prayer spoken in this place). There follows, then, the conclusion of the whole prayer, — a summons to the Lord (ver. 41 f.): " And now, Lord God, arise into Thy rest, Thou and the ark of Thy strength; let Thy priests, Lord God, clothe themselves in salvation, and Thy saints rejoice in good! Lord God, turn not away the face of Thine anointed: remember the pious deeds of Thy servant David." DHDn as in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 32, xxxv. 26, and Neh. xiii. 14. On this Thenius remarks, to 1 Kings viii. 53: " This conclusion is probably authentic, for there is in the text of the prayer, 1 Kings viii., no special expression of dedication, and this the summons to enter into possession of the temple very fittingly supplies. The whole contents of the conclusion are in perfect correspondence with the situation, and, as to form, nothing better could be desired. It can scarcely be thought an arbitrary addition made by the chronicler for no other reason than that the summons spoken of, if taken literally, is irreconcilable with the entrance of the cloud into the temple, of which he has already given us an account." Berth, indeed thinks that it does not thence follow that our conclusion is authentic, and considers it more probable that it was introduced because it appeared more suitable, in place of the somewhat obscure words in 1 Kings viii. 51-53, though not by the author of the Chronicle, and scarcely at an earlier time. The decision on this question, can only be arrived at in connection with the question as to the origin of the statements peculiar to the Chronicle contained in chap. vii. 1-3. If we consider, in the first place, our verses in themselves, they contain no thought which Solomon might not have spoken, and consequently nothing which would tend to show that they are not authentic. It is true that the phrase flints^ T^N occurs only here and in vii. 15, and arrain in Ps. cxxx. 2, and the noun no instead of nrptfD is found only in Esth. ix. 16-18 in the form nu; but even if these two expressions be peculiar to the later time, no further conclusion can be drawn from that, than that the author of the Chronicle has here, as often elsewhere, given the thoughts of his authority in the language of his own time. Nor is the relation in which vers. 41 and 42 stand to Ps. cxxxii. 8-10 a valid proof of the later composition of the conclusion of our prayer. For (a) it is still a question whether our verses have been borrowed from Ps. cxxxii., or the verses of the psalm from our passage; and (b) the period when Ps. cxxxviii. was written is so doubtful, that some regard it as a Solomonic psalm, while others place it in the post-exilic period. Neither the one nor the other of these questions can be determined on convincing grounds. The appeal to the fact that the chronicler has compounded the hymn in 1 Chron. xv. also out of post-exilic psalms proves nothing, for even in that case it is at least doubtful if that be a correct account of the matter. But the further assertion, that the conclusion (ver. 42) resembles Isa. lv. 3, and that recollections of this passage may have had some effect also on the conclusion (ver. 41), is undoubtedly erroneous, for TH Hon in ver. 42 has quite a different meaning from that which it has in Isa. lv. 3. There TH *T[Dn are the favours granted to David by the Lord; in ver. 42, on the contrary, they are the pious deeds of David, — all that he had done for the raising and advancement of the public worship (see above). The phrase 'tin nmp, "Arise, O Lord God, into Thy rest," is modelled on the formula which was spoken when the ark was lifted and when it was set down on the journey through the wilderness, which explains both HOfop and the use of ^ni:^ which is formed after nhttSj Num. x. 36. The call to arise into rest is not inconsistent with the fact that the ark had already been brought into the most holy place, for nttip has merely the general signification, " to set oneself to anything." The idea is, that God would now take the rest to which the throne of His glory had attained, show Himself to His people from this His throne to be the God of salvation, endue His priests, the guardians of His sanctuary, with salvation, and cause the pious to rejoice in His goodness. *hDt?J nirsn is generalized in Ps. cxxxii. 9 into tijfV. '£ *JS 2&ny to turn away the face of any one, i.e. to deny the request, cf. 1 Kino;s ii. 16.
Chap. vii. 1-22. The divine confirmation of the dedication of the temple. — Vers. 1-10. The consecration of the sacrificial service by fire from heaven (vers. 1-3), and the sacrifices and festival of the people (vers. 4-10). — Vers. 1-3. At the conclusion of Solomon's prayer there fell fire from heaven, which devoured the burnt-offering and the thank-offering, and the glory of the Lord filled the house, so that the priests could not enter the house of Jahve. The assembled congregation, when they saw the fire and the glory of the Lord descend, bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped God to praise. Now since this narrative is not found in 1 Kings viii. 54 ff., and there a speech of Solomon to the whole congregation, in which he thanks God for the fulfilment of His promise, and expresses the desire that the Lord would hear his prayers at all times, and bestow the promised salvation on the people, is communicated, modern criticism has rejected this narrative of the Chronicle as a later unhistorical embellishment of the temple dedication. "If we turn our attention/' says Berth, in agreement with Then., ato chap. v. 11-14, and compare chap. v. 14 with our second verse, we must maintain that our historian found that there existed two different narratives of the proceedings at the dedication of the temple, and received both into his work. According to the one narrative, the clouds filled the house (1 Kings viii. 10, cf. 2 Chron. v. 11-14); and after this was done Solomon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which we find in 1 Kings viii.; according to the other narrative, Solomon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which we find in Chron., and God thereafter gave the confirmatory signs. Now we can hardly imagine that the course of events was, that the glory of Jahve filled the house (chap. v. 14); that then Solomon spoke the words and the prayer in chap. vi.; that while he uttered the prayer the glory of Jahve again left the house, and then came down in a way manifest to all the people (chap. vii. 3), in order to fill the house for a second time." Certainly it was not so; but the narrative itself gives no ground for any such representation. Not a word is said in the text of the glory of Jahve having left the temple during Solomon's prayer. The supposed contradiction between chap. v. 14 and the account in chap. vii. 1-3 is founded entirely on a misinterpretation of our verse. The course of events described here was, as the words run, this: Fire came down from heaven upon the sacrifices and devoured them, and the glory of the Lord filled the house; and this is in ver. 3 more exactly and precisely repeated by the statement that the people saw the fire and the glory of Jahve descend upon the house. According to these plain words, the glory of Jahve descended upon the temple in the fire which came down from heaven. In the heavenly fire which devoured the sacrifices, the assembled congregation saw the glory of the Lord descend upon the temple and fill it. But the filling of the temple by the cloud when the ark was brought in and set in its place (v. 14) can be without difficulty reconciled with this manifestation of the divine glory in the fire. Just as the manifestation of the gracious divine presence in the temple by a cloud, as its visible vehicle, does not exclude the omnipresence of God or His sitting enthroned in heaven, God's essence not being so confined to the visible vehicle of His gracious presence among His people that He ceases thereby to be enthroned in heaven, and to manifest Himself therefrom; so the revelation of the same God from heaven by a descending fire is not excluded or set aside by the presence of the cloud in the holy place of the temple, and in the most holy. We may consequently quite well represent to ourselves the course of events, by supposing, that while the gracious presence of God enthroned above the cherubim on the ark made itself known in the cloud which filled the temple, or while the cloud filled the interior of the temple, God revealed His glory from heaven, before the eyes of the assembled congregation, in the fire which descended upon the sacrifices, so that the temple was covered or overshadowed by His glory. The parts of this double manifestation of the divine glory are clearly distinguished even in our narrative; for in chap. v. 13, 14 the cloud which filled the house, as vehicle of the manifestation of the divine glory, and which hindered the priests from standing and serving (in the house, i.e. in the holy place and the most holy), is spoken of; while in our verses, again, it is the glory of God which descended upon the temple in the fire coming down from heaven on the sacrifices, and so filled it that the priests could not enter it, which is noticed.
Since, therefore, the two passages involve no contradiction, the hypothesis of a compounding together of discrepant narratives loses all standing ground; and it only remains to determine the mutual relations of the two narratives, and to answer the question, why the author of the book of Kings has omitted the account of the fire which came down from heaven upon the sacrifices, and the author of the Chronicle the blessing of the congregation (1 Kings viii. 54-61). From the whole plan and character of the two histories, there can be no doubt that in these accounts we have not a perfect enumeration of all the different occurrences, but only a record of the chief things which were done. The authority made use of by both, however, doubtless contained both the blessing of the congregation (1 Kings viii.
55-01) and the account of the fire which devoured the sacrifices (2 Chron. vii. 2, 3); and probably the latter preceded the blessing spoken by Solomon to the congregation (Kings). In all probability, the fire came down from heaven immediately after the conclusion of the dedicatory prayer, and devoured the sacrifices lying upon the altar of burnt-offering; and after this had happened, Solomon turned towards the assembled congregation and praised the Lord, because He had given rest to His people, of which the completion of the temple, and the filling of it with the cloud of the divine glory, was a pledge. To record this speech of Solomon to the congregation, falls wholly in with the plan of the book of Kings, in which the prophetic interest, the realization of the divine purpose of grace by the acts and omissions of the kings, is the prominent one; while it did not lie within the scope of his purpose to enter upon a detailed history of the public worship. We should be justified in expecting the fire which devoured the sacrifices to be mentioned in the book of Kings, only if the temple had been first consecrated by this divine act to be the dwelling-place of the gracious presence of God, or a sanctuary of the Lord; but such significance the devouring of the sacrifices by fire coming forth from God did not possess. Jahve consecrated the temple to be the dwelling-place of His name, and the abode of His gracious presence, in proclaiming His presence by the cloud which filled the sanctuary, when the ark was brought into the most holy place. The devouring of the sacrifices upon the altar by fire from heaven was merely the confirmatory sign that the Lord, enthroned above the ark in the temple, accepted, well pleased, the sacrificial service carried on on the altar of this temple; and since the people could draw near to the Lord only with sacrifices before the altar, it was a confirmatory sign that He from His throne would bestow His covenant grace upon those who appeared before Him with sacrifices; cf. Lev. ix. 23 f. Implicitly, this grace was already secured to the people by God's consecrating the sanctuary to be the throne of His grace by the cloud which filled the temple; and the author of the book of Kings thought it sufficient to mention this sign, and passed over the second, which only served as a confirmation of the first. With the chronicler the case was different; for his plan to portray in detail the glory of the worship of the former time, the divine confirmation of the sacrificial worship, which was to be carried on continually in the temple as the only legitimate place of worship, by fire from heaven, was so Important that he could not leave it unmentioned; while the words of blessing spoken by Solomon to the congregation, as being already implicitly contained in the dedicatory prayer, did not appear important enough to be received into his book. For the rest, the sacrifices which the fire from heaven devoured are the sacrifices mentioned in chap. v. 6, which the king and the congregation had offered when the ark was borne into the temple. As there was an immense number of these sacrifices, they cannot all have been offered on the altar of burnt-offering, but, like tho thank-offerings afterwards brought by Solomon and the congregation, must have been offered on the whole space which had been consecrated in the court for this purpose (ver. 7). This is expressly attested by ver. 7, for the IWjfrj can only be the sacrifices in v. 6, since the sacrifices in ver. 5 of our chapter were onlv Dw; cf. 1 Kin^s viii. Q>2.
Vers. 4-10. The sacrifices and the festival. After fire from heaven had devoured the sacrifices, and Solomon had praised the Lord for the fulfilment of His word, and sought for the congregation the further bestowal of the divine blessing (1 Kings viii. 54- 61), the dedication of the temple was concluded by a great thankoffering, of which we have in vers. 5, 6 an account which completely agrees with 1 Kings viii. 62, 63. — In ver. 6 the author of the Chron. again makes express mention of the singing and playing of the Levites when these offerings were presented. In the performance of this sacrificial act the priests stood Drrt"lDtPD"7y? in their stations; but that does not signify separated according to their divisions (Berth.), but in officiis suis (Vulg.), i.e. ordines suos et functioned suas a Davide 1 Chron. xxiv. 7 sqq. institutas servarunt (Ramb.); see on Num. viii. 26. The Levites with the instruments of sonc of Jahve, which David had made, i.e. with the instruments invented and appointed by David for song to the praise of the Lord. <!?n3 DTit YH, not liymnos David canentes per mantis suas (Vulg.), taking Tffi bpn for the praising appointed by David, which by the hands of the Levites, i.e. was performed by the hands of the Levites (Berth.), but literally: when David sang praise by their hand (i.e. their service). This clause seems to be added to the relative clause, " which king David had made," for nearer definition, and to signify that the Levites used the same instruments which David had introduced when he praised God by the playing of the Levites. The form D^wno as in 1 Chron. xv. 24. —
Ver. 7 contains a supplementary remark, and the 1 relat. expresses only the connection of the thought, and the verb is to be translated in English by the pluperfect. For the rest, compare on vers. 4-10 the commentary on 1 Kings viii. 62—66.
Vers. 11-22. The Lord's answer to Solomon's dedicatory prayer. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 1-9. The general contents, and the order of the thoughts in the divine answer in the two texts, agree, but in the Chronicle individual thoughts are further expounded than in the book of Kings, and expressions are here and there made clear. The second clause of ver. 11 is an instance of this, where " and all the desire of Solomon, which he was pleased to do," is represented by a and all that came into Solomon's heart, to make in the house of the Lord and in his own house, he prosperously effected." Everything else is explained in the Com. on 1 Kings ix.
The building of the temple was the most important work of Solomon's reign, as compared with which all the other undertakings of the king fall into the background; and these are consequently only summarily enumerated both in the book of Kings and in the Chronicle. In our chapter, in the first place, we have, (a) the building or completion of various cities, which were of importance partly as strongholds, partly as magazines, for the maintenance of the army necessary for the defence of the kingdom against hostile attacks (vers. 1-6); (b) the arrangement of the statute labour for the execution of all his building works (vers. 7-11); (c) the regulation of the sacrificial service and the public worship (vers. 12-16); and (d) the voyage to Ophir (vers. 17, 18). All these undertakings are recounted in the same order and in the same aphoristic way in 1 Kings ix. 10-28, but with the addition of various notes, which are not found in our narrative; while the Chronicle, again, mentions several not unimportant though subordinate circumstances, which are not found in the book of Kings; whence it is clear that in the two narratives we have merely short and mutually supplementary extracts from a more elaborate description of these matters.
Vers. 1-6. The city-building. — Ver. 1. The date, u at the end of twenty years, when Solomon... had built," agrees with that in 1 Kings ix. 10. The twenty years are to be reckoned from the commencement of the building of the temple, for he had spent seven years in the building of the temple, and thirteen years in that of his palace (1 Kings vi. 38, vii. 1). — Ver. 2 must be regarded as the apodosis of ver. 1, notwithstanding that the object, the cities which... precedes. The unusual position of the words is the result of the aphoristic character of the notice. As to its relation to the statement 1 Kings ix. 10-13, see the discussion on that passage.. HJ3, ver. 2, is not to be understood of the fortification of these cities, but of their completion, for, according to 1 Kings ix. 10, 13, they were in very bad condition. y^% he caused to dwell there, i.e, transplanted Israelites thither, cf. 2 Kings xvii. 6. The account of the cities which Solomon built, i.e. fortified, is introduced (ver. 3) by the important statement, omitted in 1 Kings ix.: " Solomon went to Ilamath-zobah, and prevailed against it."?V Ptn, to be strong upon, that is, prevail against, conquer; cf. xxvii. 5. Ilamath-zobah is not the city Hamath in Zobah, but, as we learn from ver. 4, the land or kingdom of Hamath. This did not lie, any more than the city Hamath, in Zobah, but bordered on the kingdom of Zobah: cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 3; and as to the position of Zobah, see the Commentary on 2 Sam. viii. 3. In David's time Hamath and Zobah had their own kings; and David conquered them, and made their kingdoms tributary (1 Chron. xviii. 49). Because they bordered on each other, Hamath and Zobah are here bound together as a nomen compos. Hyy RJJ5 signifies at least this, that these tributary kingdoms had either rebelled against Solomon, or at least had made attempts to do so; which Solomon suppressed, and in order to establish his dominion over them fortified Tadmor, ix. Palmyra, and all the store cities in the land of Hamath (see on 1 Kings ix. 18 f.); for, according to 1 Kings xi. 23 ff., he had Rezon of Zobah as an enemy during his whole reign; see on that passage. — Vers. 5 ff. Besides these, he made Upper and Nether Beth-horon (see on 1 Chron. vii. 24) into fortified cities, with walls, gates, and bars. TOD ny is the second object of IJ5}, and niftin '\X\ is in apposition to that. Further, he fortified Baalah, in the tribe of Dan, to defend the kingdom against the Philistines, and, according to 1 Kings ix. 15-17, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer also, — which are omitted here, while in 1 Kings ix. 17 Upper
Beth-horon is omitted, — and store cities, chariot cities, and cavalry cities; see on 1 Kings ix. 15-19.
Vers. 7-10. On the arrangement of the statute labour, see on 1 Kings ix. 20-23. — This note is in Chron. abruptly introduced immediately after the preceding. Ver. 7 is an absolute clause: " as regards the whole people, those." DH^'ID (ver. 8) is not partitive: some of their sons; but is only placed before the Itt^K: those of their sons (i.e. of the descendants of the whole Canaanite people) who had remained in the land, whom the Israelites had not exterminated; Solomon made a levy of these for statute labourers. The \0 is wanting in 1 Kings, but is not to be struck out here on that account. Much more surprising is the *)£>K after piTp) \J3~JD, ver. 9, which is likewise not found in 1 Kings, since the following verb jrn &6 is not to be taken relatively, but contains the predicate of the subject contained in the words '& *?3TO. This "i^'tf cannot be otherwise justified than by supposing that it is placed after 'W "02 p, as in Ps. lxix. 27 it is placed after the subject of the relative clause, and so stands for 'fe* *J3 JD "ity'K: those who were of the sons of Israel (i.e. Israelites) Solomon did not make... The preplacing of B^?.? I*? in ver. 8 would naturally suggest that 'w 'Ol |D should also precede, in order to bring out sharply the contrast between the sons of the Canaanites and the sons of Israel.— Ver. 9. W$tf *#J should be altered into VTfc VB>vK*l as in 1 Kings ix. 22, for D^'w are not chariot combatants, but royal adjutants; see on Ex. xiv. 7 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. Over the statute labourers 250 upper overseers were placed. BWtt *ife^ chief of the superiors, i.e. chief overseer. The Keth. W^W, prwfccti, is the true reading; cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 13, 2 Chron. xvii. 2. The Keri has arisen out of 1 Kings ix. 23. These overseers were Israelites, while in the number 550 (1 Kings ix. 23) the Israelite and Canaanite upper overseers are both included; see on ii. 17. DJ3 refers to tiyn-?3y ver. 7, and denotes the Canaanite people who remained.
Ver. 11. The remark that Solomon caused Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had married (1 Kings iii. 1), to remove from the city of David into the house which he had built her, i.e. into that part of his newly-built palace which was appointed for the queen, is introduced here, as in 1 Kings ix. 24, because it belongs to the history of Solomon's buildings, although in the Chronicle it comes in very abruptly, the author not having mentioned Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings iii. 1). The reason given for this change of residence on the part of the Egyptian princess is, that Solomon could not allow her, an Egyptian, to dwell in the palace of King David, which had been sanctified by the reception of the ark, and consequently assigned to her a dwelling in the city of David until he should have finished the building of his palace, in which she might dwell along with him. HDH is, as neuter, used instead of the singular; cf. Ew. § 318, b. See also on 1 Kings iii. 1 and ix. 24. Vers. 12-16. The sacrificial service in the new temple. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 25, where it is merely briefly recorded that Solomon offered sacrifices three times a year on the altar built by him to the Lord. In our verses we have a detailed account of it.?K, at that time, sciL when the temple building had been finished and the temple dedicated (cf. ver. 1), Solomon offered burnt-offerings upon the altar which he had built before the porch of the temple. He no longer now sacrifices upon the altar of the tabernacle at Gibeon, as in the beginning of his reign (i. 3 ff.). — Ver. 13. il Even sacrificing at the daily rate, according to the direction of Moses." These words give a supplementary and closer definition of the sacrificing in the form of an explanatory subordinate clause, which is interpolated in the principal sentence. For the following wrords 'til riinn^p belong to the principal sentence (ver. 1 2): he offered sacrifices... on the sabbaths, the new moons, etc. The 1 before Via is explicative, and that = viz.; and the infin. flfe'L?, according to the later usage, instead of infin. absol.; cf. Ew. § 280, d. The preposition 1 (before T?l) is the so-called 2 essentia?: consisting in the daily (rate) to sacrifice (this); cf. Ew. § 299, b. The daily rate, i.e. that which was prescribed in the law of Moses for each day, cf. Lev. xxiii. 37. Hil^DP is further explained by the succeeding clause: on the three chief festivals of the year. — Ver. 14 ff. He ordered the temple service, also, entirely according to the arrangement introduced by David as to the service of the priests and Levites. He appointed, according to the ordinance of David his father, i.e. according; to the ordinance established by David, the classes of the priests (see on 1 Chron. xxiv.) to that service, and the Levites to their stations (nrift^o as in vii. 6), to praise (cf. 1 Chron. xxv.), and to serve before the priests (1 Chron. xxiii. 28 ff.), according to that which was appointed for eveiy day, and the doorkeepers according to their courses, etc. (see 1 Chron. xxvi. 1-19). With the last words cf. Neh. xii. 24. — Ver. 15. This arrangement was faithfully observed by the priests and Levites. The verb "no is here construed c. accus. in the signification to transgress a command (cf. E\v. § 282, a), and it is therefore not necessary to alter nWD into rVNBD. D^nbn-^y depends upon r\VSi2: the king's command concerning the priests and the Levites, i.e. that which David commanded them, 'til "QT^??j in regard to all things, and especially also in regard to the treasures; cf. 1 Chron. xxvi. 20-28. — With ver. 16 the account of what Solomon did for the public worship is concluded: " Now all the work of Solomon was prepared until the (this) day, the foundation of the house of Jahve until its completion; the house of Jahve was finished.'' D3K7D is explained by "?WD. Di*n is the day on which, after the consecration of the completed temple, the regular public worship was commenced in it, which doubtless was done immediately after the dedication of the temple. Only when the regular worship according to the law of Moses, and with the arrangements as to the service of the priests and Levites established by David, had been commenced, was Solomon's work in connection with the temple completed, and the house of God D7IP, integer, perfect in all its parts, as it should be. The last clause, '* JV2 DX>, is connected rhetorically with what precedes without the conjunction, and is not to be regarded as a subscription, " with which the historian concludes the whole narrative commencing with chap. i. 18" (Berth.); for vM does not signify "ended," or to be at an end, but to be set thoroughly (perfectly) in order.
Vers. 17 and 18. Voyage to Ophir. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 26-28, and the commentary on that passage, where we have discussed the divergences of our narrative, and have also come to the conclusion that Ophir is not to be sought in India, but in Southern Arabia. By TK the date of this voyage is made to fall in the period after the building of the temple and the palace, i.e. in the second half of Solomon's reign.
Vers. 1-12. The visit of the queen of Sheba. Cf. 1 Kings x. 1-13. — This event is narrated as a practical proof of Solomon's extraordinary wisdom. The narrative agrees so exactly in both texts, with the exception of some few quite unimportant differences, that we must regard them as literal extracts from an original document which they have used in common. For the commentary on this section, see on 1 Kings x. 1-13.
Vers. 13-21. Solomon's revenue in gold, and the use he made of it. Cf. 1 Kings x. 14-22, and the commentary there on this section, which is identical in both narratives, with the exception of some trifling differences. Before S'N'Oft D'nnbiTi the relative pronoun is to be supplied: u and what the merchants brought." As to the derivation of the word niri3? which comes from the Aramaic form nns? governor (ver. 14), see on Hagg. i. 1. — t^Enn ntapn TitoK, in ver. 21, ships going to Tarshish, is an erroneous paraphrase of B^Khn ritaN, Tarshish-ships, i.e. ships built for long sea voyages; for the fleet did not go to Tartessus in Spain, but to Ophir in Southern Arabia (see on 1 Kings ix. 26 ff.). All the rest has been explained in the commentary on 1 Kin^s x.
In vers. 22-28, all that remained to be said of Solomon's royal glory, his riches, his wisdom, and his revenues, is in conclusion briefly summed up, as in 1 Kings x. 23-29. From ver. 25 onwards, the account given in the Chronicle diverges from that in 1 Kings x. 26 ff., in so far that what is narrated in 1 Kings x. 26-28 concerning Solomon's chariots and horses, and his trade with Egypt in horses, is here partly replaced by statements similar in import to those in 1 Kings v., because the former matters had been already treated of in Chron. i. 14-17, — Ver. 25 does not correspond to the passage 1 Kings x. 26, but in contents and lano;uao;e agrees with 1 Kinirs v. 6, and ver. 26 with 1 Kings v. 1. Only the general estimate of Solomon's riches in gold and silver, in ver. 27, repeated from chap. i. 15, corresponds to 1 Kings x. 27. Finally, in ver. 28 the whole description is rounded off; all that has already been said in chap. i. 16 and 17 as to the trade in horses with Egypt (1 Kings x. 28, 29) being drawn together into one general statement.
After giving an account of the revolt of the ten tribes of Israel from the divinely chosen royal house of David (chap, x.), the author of the Chronicle narrates the history of the kingdom of Judah — to which he confines himself, to the exclusion of the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes — at much greater length than the author of the books of Kings has done. This latter portrays the development of both kingdoms, but treats only very briefly of the history of the kingdom of Judah, especially under its first rulers, and characterizes the attitude of the kings and people of Judah to the kingdom of Israel and to the Lord only in the most general way. The author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, depicts the development of Judah under Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat much more thoroughly, by communicating a considerable number of events which are omitted in the book of Kings. As we have already proved (p. 19), the purpose of the chronicler was to show, according to the varying attitude of the kings of the house of David to the Lord and to His law, how, on the one hand, God rewarded the fidelity of the kings and of the people to His covenant with prosperity and blessing, and furnished to the kingdom of Judah, in war with its enemies, power which secured the victory; and how, on the other, He took vengeance for every revolt of the kings and people, and for every fall into idolatry and superstition, by humiliations and awful judgments. And more especially from the times of the godless kings Ahaz and Manasseh does our author do this, pointing out how God suffered the people to fall ever deeper into feebleness, and dependence upon the heathen world powers, until finally, when the efforts of the pious kings Hezekiah and Josiah to bring back the people, sunk as they were in idolatry and moral corruption, to the God of their fathers and to His service failed to bring about any permanent repentance and reformation, He cast forth Judah also from His presence, and gave over Jerusalem and the temple to destruction by the Chaldeans, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah to be led away into exile to Babylon.
This event is narrated in our chapter, except in so far as a few unessential differences in form are concerned, exactly as we have it in 1 Kings xii. 1-19; so that we may refer for the exposition of it to the commentary on 1 Kings xii., where we have both treated the contents of this chapter, and have also discussed the deeper and more latent causes of this event, so important in its consequences.
When the ten tribes had renounced their allegiance to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, and had made Jeroboam their king (1 Kings xii. 20), Rehoboam wished to compel them by force of arms again to submit to him, and made for this purpose a levy of all the men capable of bearing arms in Judah and Benjamin. But the prophet Shemaiah commanded him, in the name of the Lord, to desist from making war upon the Israelites, they being brethren, and Rehoboam abandoned his purpose (vers. 1-4, cf. 1 Kings xii. 21-24), and began to establish his dominion over Judah and Benjamin. His kingdom, moreover, was increased in power by the immigration of the priests and Levites, whom Jeroboam had expelled from the priesthood, and also of many God-fearing Israelites out of the ten tribes, to Judah (vers. 13—17). Rehoboam also set his family affairs in order, by nominating from among his many sons, whom his wives had borne to him, Abijah to be his successor on the throne, and making provision for the others in different parts of the country (vers. 18-23). But when he had established his royal authority, he forsook the law of Jahve, and was punished for it by the inroad of the Egyptian king Shishak, who marched through his land with a numerous host, took Jerusalem, and plundered the palace and the temple (chap. xii. 1-11), but without wholly ruining Judah; and Rehoboam was king until his death, and his son succeeded him on the throne (vers. 12-16).
The order in which these events are narrated is not chronological; they are rather grouped together according to their similarities. As Rehoboam becan even in the third year of his reign to forsake the law of God, and King Shishak made war upon Judah as early as in his fifth year, the building of the fortresses may have been begun in the first three or four years, but cannot have been ended then; still less can the sons of Rehoboam have been provided for in the time before Shishak's inroad.
Chap. xi. 1-4. — Rehoboams attitude to the ten rebel tribes, Cf. 1 Kings xii. 21-24. — Rehoboam' s purpose, to subdue these tribes by force of arms, and bring them again under his dominion, and the abandonment of this purpose in consequence of the command of the prophet Shemaiah, belong in a certain measure to the history of the revolt of the ten tribes from the house of David; for the revolt only became an accomplished fact when the prophet Shemaiah proclaimed in the name of the Lord that the matter was from the Lord. Ver. 3 f. Of Jahve was the thing done; He had ordained the revolt as a chastisement of the seed of David for walking no more in His ways. Solomon had, by allowing himself to be seduced by his many foreign wives into departing from the Lord, exposed himself to the divine displeasure, and his successor Rehoboam increased the guilt by his impolitic treatment of the tribes dissatisfied with Solomon's rule, and had, if not brought about the revolt, yet hastened it; but yet the conduct of these tribes was not thereby justified. Their demand that the burdens laid upon them by Solomon should be lightened, flowed from impure and godless motives, and at bottom had its root in discontent with the theocratic rule of the house of David (see on 1 Kings xii. 21 ff.). The expression, a to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin," is deeper than " the whole house of Judah and Benjamin and the remnant of the people," i.e. those belonging to the other tribes who were dwelling in the tribal domains of Judah and Benjamin (1 Kings xii. 23); for it characterizes all who had remained true to the house of David as Israel, i.e. those who walked in the footsteps of their progenitor Israel (Jacob).
Vers. 5-12. — Rehoboams measures for the fortifying of his kingdom. — To defend his kingdom against hostile attacks, Rehoboam built cities for defence in Judah. The sing. ~ftXo? is used, because the building of cities served for the defence of the kiri£- dom. Judah is the name of the kingdom, for the fifteen fenced cities enumerated in the following verses were situated in the tribal domains of both Benjamin and Judah. — Ver. 6. In Judah lay Bethlehem, a small city mentioned as early as in Jacob's time
(Gen. xxxv. 19), two hours south of Jerusalem, the birthplace of David and of Christ (Mic. v. 1; Matt. ii. 5, 11), now Beit- Lahm; see on Josh. xv. 59. Etam is not the place bearing the same name which is spoken of in 1 Chron. iv. 32 and Judg. xv. 8, and mentioned in the Talmud as the place where, near Solomon's Pools, the aqueduct which supplied Jerusalem with water commenced (cf. Robins. Pal. sub voce; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. S. 84 ff., 855 ff.);* nor is it to be looked for, as Robins, loc. citn and Neio Bibl. Researches, maintains, in the present village Urtas (Artas), for it has been identified by Tobl., dritte Wand. S. 89, with Ain Attan, a valley south-west from Artas. Not only does the name Attan correspond more than Artas with Etam, but from it the water is conducted to Jerusalem, while according to Tobler's thorough conviction it could not have been brought from Artas. Tekoa, now Tekua, on the summit of a hill covered with ancient ruins, two hours south of Bethlehem; see on Josh. xv. 59. — Ver. 7. Beth-zur was situated where the ruin Beth-Sur now stands, midway between Urtas and Hebron; see on Josh. xv. 58. Shoko, the present Shuweike in Wady Sumt, 3J- hours south-west from Jerusalem; see on Josh. xv. 35. Adullam, in Josh. xv. 35 included among the cities of the hill country, reckoned part of the lowland (Shephelah), i.e. the slope of the hills, has not yet been discovered. Tobler, dritte Wand. S. 151, conjectures that it is identical with the present Dula, about eight miles to the east of Beit-Jibrin; but this can hardly be correct (see against it, Arnold in Herzog's Realenc. xiv. S. 723). It is much more probable that its site was that of the present Deir Dubban, two hours to the north of Beit- Jibrin; see on Josh. xii. 15. — Ver. 8. Gath, a royal city of the Philistines, which was first made subject to the Israelites by David (1 Chron. xviii. 1), and was under Solomon the seat of its own king, who was subject to the Israelite king (1 Kings ii. 39). has not yet been certainly discovered; see on Josh. xiii. 3.2 Mareshah, the city Marissa, on the road from Hebron to the
1 For further information as to the commencement of this aqueduct, see the masterly dissertation of Dr. Herm. Zschokke, "Die versiegelte Quelle Salomo's," in the Tubingcr Thcol Quarlalschr. 18G7, H. 3, S. -126 ff.
2 C. Schick, Reiseindas PMUstcrland (in " Ausland" 1867, Nr. 7, S. 162), identifies Gath with the present Tel Safieh, "an isolated conical hill in the plain, like a sentinel of a watchtower or fortress, and on that account there was so much struggling for its possession." On the other hand, Konr. Furrer, land of the Philistines, was at a later time very important, and is not represented by the ruin Marash, twenty-four minutes to the south of Beit-Jibrin (Eleutheropolis); see on Josh. xv. 44, and Tobl. dritte Wand. S. 129, 142 f. Ziph is probably the Ziph mentioned in Josh. xv. 55, in the hill country of Judah, of which ruins yet remain on the hill Ziph, about an hour and a quarter south-east of Hebron; see on Josh. xv. 55. C. v. Eaumer thinks, on the contrary, Pal. S. 222, Anm. 249, that our Ziph, as it is mentioned along with Mareshah and other cities of the lowland, cannot be identified with either of the Ziphs mentioned in Josh. xv. 24 and 55, but is probably Achzib in the lowland mentioned along with Mareshah, Josh. xv. 44; but this is very improbable. — Ver. 9. Adoraim (AScopat/jb in Joseph. Antt. viii. 10. 1), met with in 1 Mace. xiii. 20 as an Idumean city, "Ahwpa, and so also frequently in Josephus, was taken by Hyrcanus, and rebuilt by Gabinius (Jos. Antt, xiii. 15. 4, and xiv. 5. 3) under the name Acopa, and often spoken of along with Marissa (s. Reland, Palcest. p. 547). Robinson {Pal. sub voce) has identified it with the present Dura, a village about 7i miles to the westward of Hebron. Lachish, situated in the lowland of Judah, as we learn from Josh. xv. 39, is probably the present Um Lakis, on the road from Gaza to Beit-Jibrin and Hebron, to the left hand, seven hours to the west of Beit- Jibrin, on a circular height covered with ancient walls and marble fragments, and overgrown with thistles and bushes; see on Josh. x. 3, and Pressel in Herz.'s Realenc. viii. S. 157 f. Azekah, situated in the neighbourhood of Shoco (ver. 7), and, according to 1 Sam. xvii. 1, in an oblique direction near Ephes- Dammim, i.e. Damum, one hour east to the south of Beit-Nettif,1 has not been re-discovered; see on Josh. x. 10. — Ver. 10. Zorah, Samson's birthplace, is represented by the ruin Sura, at the south-west end of the ridge, which encloses the Wady es Surar on the north; see on Josh. xv. 33. To the north of that again lay Ajalon, now the village Jalo, on the verge of the plain Merj ibn Omeir, four leagues to the west of Gibeon; see on
Wanderuiujen durch Palastina, Zurich 18C5, thinks, S. 133, that he has found the true situation of Gath in the AYady el Gat, northward of the ruins of Askalon.
1 Compare the interesting note of Breytenbach (Reylb. des licil. Landes, i. 134) in Tobler, dritte Wand. S. 4G3: "Thence (from Azekah) three miles is the city Zuchot-Jude, not far from Nobah, where David slew Goliath."
Josh. x. 12 and xix. 42. Finally, Hebron, the ancient city of the patriarchs, now called el Khalil (The friend of God, i.e. Abraham); see on Gen. xxiii. 2. All these fenced cities lay in the tribal domain of Judah, with the exception of Zorah and Ajalon, which were assigned to the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 41 f.). These two were probably afterwards, in the time of the judges, when a part of the Danites emigrated from Zorah and Eshtaol to the north of Palestine (Judg. xviii. 1), taken possession of by Benjamites, and were afterwards reckoned to the land of Benjamin, and are here named as cities which Rehoboam fortified in Benjamin. If we glance for a moment at the geographical position of the whole fifteen cities, we see that they lay partly to the south of Jerusalem, on the road which went by Hebron to Beershe ba and Egypt, partly on the western slopes of the hill country of Judah, on the road by Beit-Jibrin to Gaza, while only a \few lay to the north of this road towards the Philistine plain, land there were none to the north to defend the kingdom against invasions from that side. " Rehoboam seems, therefore, to have had much more apprehension of an attack from the south and west, i.e. from the Egyptians, than of a war with the northern kingdom" (Berth.). Hence we may conclude that Rehoboam fortified these* cities only after the inroad of the Egyptian king Shishak. — Ver. 11 f. "And he made strong the fortresses, and put captains, in them," etc.; i.e. he increased their strength by placing them in a thoroughly efficient condition to defend themselves against attacks, appointing commandants (D'H\'tf)> provisioning them, and (ver. 12) laying up stores of all kinds of arms. In this way he made them exceedingly strong. The last clause, ver. 12, u And there were to him Judah and Benjamin," corresponds to the statement, x. 19, that Israel revolted from the house of David, and forms the conclusion of the account (vers. 1-1 7a) of that which Rehoboam did to establish his power and consolidate his kingdom. There follows hereupon, in
Vers. 13-17, the account of the internal spiritual strengthening of the kingdom of Judah by the migration of the priests and Levites, and many pious worshippers of Jalive out of all the tribes, to the kingdom of Judah. — Ver. 13. The priests and Levites in all Israel went over to him out of their whole domain, bv SjPrin, to present oneself before any one, to await his commands, cf. Zech. vi. 5, Job i. 6, ii. 1; here in the signification to place oneself at another's disposal, i.e. to go over to one. The suffix in bj*3l refers to "all Israel." For — this was the motive of their migration, ver. 14 — the Levites (in the wider signification of the word, including the priests) forsook their territory and their possessions, i.e. the cities assigned to them, with the pasture lands for their cattle (Num. xxxv. 1-8), scil. in the domain of the ten tribes; " for Jeroboam and his sons had driven them out from the priesthood of Jahve." To prevent his subjects from visiting the temple at Jerusalem, which he feared might ultimately cause the people to return to the house of David, Jeroboam had erected his owrn places of worship for his kingdom in Bethel and Dan, where Jahve was worshipped in the ox images (the golden calves), and had appointed, not the Levites, but men from the body of the people, to be priests in these so-called sanctuaries (1 Kings xii. 2G-31), consecrated by himself. By these innovations not only the priests and Levites, who would not recognise this unlawful image-worship, were compelled to migrate to Judah and Jerusalem, but also the pious worshippers of the Lord, who would not renounce the temple worship which had been consecrated by God Himself. All Jeroboam's successors held firmly by this calfworship introduced by him, and consequently the driving out of the priests and Levites is here said to have been the act of Jeroboam and his sons. By his sons are meant Jeroboam's successors on the throne, without respect to the fact that of Jeroboam's own sons only Nadab reached the throne, and that his dynasty terminated with him; for in this matter all the kings of Israel walked in the footsteps of Jeroboam. — Ver. 15. And had ordained him priests for the high places, ft"*1^^ is a continuation of DlTOTn "G, ver. 14. rriEn are the places of worship which were erected by Jeroboam for the image-worship, called in 1 Kings xii. 31 HiD3 JV3; see on that passage. The gods worshipped in these houses in high places the author of the Chronicle calls Dn\y^ from their nature, and Dv3V from their form. The word
D*Vjfcf is taken from Lev. xvii. 7, and signifies demons, so named from the Egyptian idolatry, in which the worship of goats, of Pan (Mendes), who was always represented in the form of a goat, occupied a prominent place; see on Lev. xvii. 7. For further details as to the DvJy, see on 1 Kin^s xii. 28. — Ver. 16. BH^niCj after them, i.e. following after the priests and Levites. With DnaWiX D^njjn who turned their hearts thereto, cf. 1 Chron.
xxii. 19. They went to Jerusalem to sacrifice there; i.e., as we learn from the context, not merely to offer sacrifices, but also to remain in the kingdom of Judah. — Ver. 17. These immigrants — priests, Levites, and pious worshippers of Jahve — made the kingdom of Judah strong, by strengthening the religious foundation on which the kingdom was founded, and made Rehoboam strong three years, so that they (king and people) walked in the way of David and Solomon. The strengthening lasted only three years — only while the opposition to Jeroboam's action in the matter of religion was kept alive by the emigration of the pious people from the ten tribes. What occurred after these three years is narrated only in chap. xii. — Here there follows, in
Vers. 18-23, information as to Relioboarrfs family relationships.— Yer. 18. Instead of |3 we must read, with the Keri, many mss., LXX., and Vulg., A3: Mahalath the daughter of Jerimoth, the son of David. Among the sons of David (1 Chron. hi. 1-8) no Jerimoth is found. If this name be not another form of Dinn11, 1 Chron. iii. 3, Jerimoth must have been a son of one of David's concubines. Before the name 5W2X, 1 must have been dropped out, and is to be supplied; so that Mahalath's father and mother are both named: the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David, and Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse, i.e. David's eldest brother (1 Chron. ii. 13; 1 Sam. xvii. 13). For Abihail cannot be held to be a second wife of Rehoboam, because ver. 19, " and she bore," and ver. 20, " and after her," show that in ver. 18 only one wife is named. She bare him three sons, whose names occur only here (ver. 19). — Ver. 20. Maachah the daughter, i.e. the granddaughter, of Absalom; for she cannot have been Absalom's daughter, because Absalom, according to 2 Sam. xiv. 27, had only one daughter, Tamar by name, who must have been fifty years old at Solomon's death. According to 2 Sam. xviii. 18, Absalom left no son; Maachah therefore can only be a daughter of Tamar, who, according to 2 Chron. xiii. 2, was married to Uriel of Gibeah: see on 1 Kings xv. 2. Abijah, the oldest son of Maachah, whom his father nominated his successor (ver. 22 and xii. 16), is called in the book of Kings constantly Abijam, the original form of the name, which was afterwards weakened into Abijah. — Ver. 21 f. Only these wives with their children are mentioned by name, though besides these Rehoboam had a number of wives, 18 wives and 60 (according to Josephus, 30) concubines, who bore him twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters. Rehoboam trod in his father's footsteps in this not quite praiseworthy point. The eldest son of Maachah he made head (Ptfv), i.e. prince, among his brethren; tavOW *?, for to make him king, scil. was his intention. The infin. with? is here used in the swiftness of speech in loose connection to state with what further purpose he had appointed him TJJ; cf. Evv. § 351, c, at the end. — Ver. 23. And he did wisely, and dispersed of all his sons in all the countries of Judah and Benjamin, i.e. dispersed all his sons so, that they were placed in all parts of Judah and Benjamin in the fenced cities, and he gave them victual in abundance, and he sought (for them) a multitude of wives. ^'^, to ask for, for the father brought about the marriage of his sons. He therefore took care that his sons, by being thus scattered in the fenced cities of the country as their governors, were separated from each other, but also that they received the necessary means for living in a way befitting their princely rank, in the shape of an abundant maintenance and a considerable number of wives. They were thus kept in a state of contentment, so that they might not make any attempt to gain the crown, which he had reserved for Abijah; and in this lay the wisdom of his conduct.
Chap. xii. Rehoboams defection from the Lord, and his humiliation by the Egyptian king Shishak. — Ver. 1. The infinitive T^3, u at the time of the establishing," with an indefinite subject, may be expressed in English by the passive: when Rehoboam's royal power was established. The words refer back to xi. 17. iniJJ0?> "when he had become strong" (nj^Tn is a nomen verbale: the becoming strong; cf. xxvi. 16, Dan. xi. 2), he forsook the Lord, and all Israel with him. The inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are here called Israel, to hint at the contrast between the actual conduct of the people in their defection from the Lord, and the destiny of Israel, the people of God. The forsaking of the law of Jahve is in substance the fall into idolatry, as we find it stated more definitely in 1 Kings xiv. 22 ff. — Ver. 2. In punishment of this defection (s3 vJ/O *3, because they had acted faithlessly to Jahve), Shishak, the king of Egypt, marched with a great host against Jerusalem. This hostile invasion is also briefly narrated in 1 Kings xiv. 25-28. Shishak (Sisak) is, as we have remarked on 1 Kings xiv., Sesonchis or Sechonchosis, the first king of the 22d dynasty, who has celebrated his victory in a relief at Karnak. In this sculpture the names of the cities captured are recorded on shields, and a considerable number have been deciphered with some certainty, and by them our account is completely confirmed. According to ver. 3, Shishak' s host consisted of 1200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen — numbers which, of course, are founded only upon a rough estimate— and an innumerable multitude of footmen, among whom were D,|?v, Libyans, probably the Libyaegyptii of the ancients (see on Gen. x. 13); D^Sp, according to the LXX. and Vulg. Troglodytes, probably the Ethiopian Troglodytes, who dwelt in the mountains on the west coast of the Arabian Gulf; and Cushites, i.e. Ethiopians. The Libyans and Cushites are mentioned in Nahum iii. 9 also as auxiliaries of the Egyptians. — Ver. 4. After the capture of the fenced cities of Judah, he marched against Jerusalem. — Ver. 5. Then the prophet Shemaiah announced to the king and the princes, who had retired to Jerusalem before Shishak, that the Lord had given them into the power of Shishak because they had forsaken Him. *P2i OT, forsaken and given over into the hand of Shishak. When the king and the priests immediately humbled themselves before God, acknowledging the righteousness of the Lord, the prophet announced to them further that the Lord would not destroy them since they had humbled themselves, but would give them deliverance in a little space. B#p3, according to a little, i.e. in a short time, njj »^ 1S accusative after WJ1. My anger shall not pour itself out upon Jerusalem. The pouring out of anger is the designation of an exterminating judgment; cf. xxxiv. 25. — Ver. 8. But Q3 after a negative clause) they shall be his servants, sc. for a short time (see ver. 7), " that they may know my service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries" (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 30); i.e. that they may learn to know by experience the difference between the rule of God and that of the heathen kings, and that God's rule was not so oppressive as that of the rulers of the world.
With ver. 9 the account of the war is taken up again and continued by the repetition of the words, " Then marched Shishak... against Jerusalem" (ver. 4). Shishak plundered the treasures of the temple and the palace; he had consequently captured Jerusalem. The golden shields also which had been placed in the house of the forest of Lebanon, i.e. the palace built by Solomon in Jerusalem, which Solomon had caused to be made (cf. ix. 16), Shishak took away, and in their place Rehoboam caused brazen shields to be prepared; see on 1 Kings xiv. 26-28. — In ver. 12 the author of the Chronicle concludes the account of this event with the didactic remark, a Because he
(Rehoboam) humbled himself, the anger of Jahve was turned away from him." r^n^n? N7i, and it was not to extermination utterly (»Y??j properly to destruction, i.e. completely; cf. Ezek. xiii. 13). And also in Judah were good things. This is the other motive which caused the Lord to turn away His wrath. Good things are proofs of piety and fear of God, cf. xix. 3. — Ver. 13 f. The length of Rehoboam's reign, his mother, and the judgment about him. Cf. 1 Kings xiv. 21 and 22a. P;tnrn here, as in xiii. 21, can, in its connection with what precedes, be only understood to mean that Rehoboam, after his humiliation at the hands of Shishak, by which his kingdom was utterly weakened and almost destroyed, again gained strength and power. Cf. also i. 1, where PJTO is used of Solomon in the beginning of his reign, after he overcame Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and his party. — As to the a^e of Rehoboam, etc., see on 1 Kings xiv. 21. ^in fc>]M ver. 14, is denned by the addition, "for he prepared not his heart to seek the Lord." For the expression cf. xix. 3, xxx. 19, Ezra vii. 10. — Vers. 15 and 16. Close of his reign. On the authorities, see the Introduction, p. 34; and in reference to the other statements, the commentary on 1 Kings xiv. 29-31. ni^nta, wars, i.e. a state of hostility, was between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all days, can only be understood of the hostile attitude of the two rulers to each other, like '"^pD in Kings; for we have no narrative of wars between them after Rehoboam had abandoned, at the instance of the prophet, his proposed war with the Israelites at the commencement of his reign.
In the book of Kings it is merely remarked in general, that the hostile relationship between Jeroboam and Rehoboam continued during his whole life, and that between Abijah and Jeroboam there was war (vers. 6 and 7); but not one of his enterprises is recounted, and only his attitude towards the Lord is exactly characterized. In our chapter, on the contrary, we have a vivid and circumstantial narrative of the commencement, course, and results of a great war against Jeroboam, in which Abijah, with the help of the Lord, inflicted a crushing defeat on the great army of the Israelites, and conquered several cities.
Vers. 1 and 2. The commencement and duration of the reign, as in 1 Kings xv. 1, 2. Abijah's mother is here (ver. 2)
called Michaiah instead of Maachah, as in xi; 20 and 1 Kings xv. 2, but it can hardly be a second name which Maachah had received for some unknown reason; probably irP2sO is a mere orthographical error for r\syn. She is here called, not the daughter = granddaughter of Abishalom, but after her father, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah; see on xi. 20.1
Vers. 2b-21. The War between Abijah and Jeroboam. — nrvn nttrro, war arose, broke out. — Ver. 3. Abijah began the war with an army of 400,000 valiant warriors, "fina B*K? chosen men. 'e rix "1DX? to bind on war, i.e. to open the war. Jeroboam
1 Against this Bertheau remarks, after the example of Thenius: " "When we consider that the wife of Abijah and mother of Asa was also called Maachah, 1 Kings xv. 13, 2 Chron. xv. 16, and that in 1 Kings xv. 2 this Maachah is again called the daughter of Abishalom, and that this latter statement is not met with in the Chronicle, we are led to conjecture that Maachah, the mother of Abijah, the daughter of Abishalom, has been confounded with Maachah the mother of Asa, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah, and that in our passage Asa's mother is erroneously named instead, of the mother of Abijah." This conjecture is a strange fabric of perverted facts and inconsequential reasoning. In 1 Kings xv. 2 Abi jam's mother is called Maachah the daughter of Abishalom, exactly as in 2 Chron. xi. 20 and 21; and in 1 Kings xv. 13, in perfect agreement with 2 Chron. xv. 16, it is stated that Asa removed Maachah from the dignity of Gebira because she had made herself a statue of Asherah. This Maachah, deposed by Asa, is called in 1 Kings xv. 10 the daughter of Abishalom, and only this latter remark is omitted from the Chronicle. How from these statements we must conclude that the mother of Abijah, Maachah the daughter of Abishalom, has been confounded with Maachah the mother of Asa, the daughter of Uriel, we cannot see. The author of the book of Kings knows only one Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom, whom in xv. 2 he calls mother, i.e. ITV23, *.e. Sul- tana Walide of Abijah, and in xv. 10 makes to stand i-n the same relationship of mother to Asa. From this, however, the only natural and logically sound conclusion which can be drawn is that Abijam's mother, Rehoboam's wife, occupied the position of queen-mother, not merely during the three years1 reign of Abijam, but also during the first years of the reign of his son Asa, as his grandmother, until Asa had deprived her of this dignity because of her idolatry. It is nowhere said in Scripture that this woman was Abijam's wife, but that is a conclusion drawn by Thenius and Bertheau only from her being called ifttf, his (Asa's) mother, as if QN could denote merely the actual mother, and not the grandmother. Finally, the omission in the Chronicle of the statement in 1 Kings xv. 10, " The name of his mother was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom," does not favour in the very least the conjecture that Asa's mother has been confounded with the mother of Abijah; for it is easily explained by the fact that at the accession of Asa no change was made in reference to the dignity of queen-mother, Abijah's mother still holding that position even under Asa.
prepared for the war with 800,000 warriors. The number of Jeroboam's warriors is exactly that which Joab returned as the result, as to Israel, of the numbering of the people commanded by David, while that of Abijah's army is less by 100,000 men than Joab numbered in Judah (2 Sam. xxiv. 9). — Ver. 4 ff. When the two armies lay over against each other, ready for the combat, Abijah addressed the enemy, King Jeroboam and all Israel, in a speech from Mount Zemaraim. The mountain EpJJV is met with only here; but a city of this name is mentioned in Josh, xviii. 22, whence we would incline to the conclusion that the mountain near or upon which this city lay was intended. But if this city was situated to the east, not only of Bethel, but also of Jerusalem, on the road to Jericho (see on Josh, xviii. 22), as we may conclude from its enumeration between Beth-Arabah and Bethel in Josh. loc. cit., it will not suit our passage, at least if Zemaraim be really represented by the ruin el Sumra to the east of Khan Hadur on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho. Robinson (Phys. Geog. S. 38) conjectures Mount Zemaraim to the east of Bethel, near the border of the two kingdoms, to which Mount Ephraim also extends. Abijah represented first of all (vers. 5-7) to Jeroboam and the Israelites that their kingdom was the result of a revolt against Jahve, who had given the kingship over Israel to David and his sons for evey. — Ver. 5. " Is it not to you to know 1 " i.e. can it be unknown to you f n?D n*i3, accus. of nearer definition: after the fashion of a covenant of salt, i.e. of an irrevocable covenant; cf. on Lev. ii. 13 and Num. xviii. 19. " And Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon the son of David (cf. 1 Kings xi. 11), rebelled against his lord," with the help of frivolous, worthless men (Qsi?l as in Judg. ix. 4, xi. 3;?Vv3 *J3 as in 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13, — not recurring elsewhere in the Chronicle), who gathered around him, and rose against Rehoboam with power. bv p3Ntnn? to show oneself powerful, to show power against any one. Against this rising Rehoboam showed himself not strong enough, because he was an inexperienced man and soft of heart. TO denotes not " a boy," for Rehoboam was fortyone years old when he entered upon his reign, but u an inexperienced young man," as in 1 Chron. xxix. 1. 3X? XI) soft of heart, i.e. faint-hearted, inclined to give way, without energy to make a stand against those rising insolently against him. $?\ 'a? ptftftn, and showed himself not strong before them, proved to be too weak in opposition to them. This representation does not conform to the state of the case as narrated in chap. x. Kehoboam did not appear soft-hearted and compliant in the negotiation with the rebellious tribes at Sichem; on the contrary, he was hard and defiant, and showed himself youthfully inconsiderate only in throwing to the wrinds the wise advice of the older men, and in pursuance of the rash counsel of the young men who had grown up with him, brought about the rupture by his domineering manner. But Abijah wishes to justify his father as much as possible in his speech, and shifts all the guilt of the rebellion of the ten tribes from the house of David on to Jeroboam and his worthless following. — Vers. 8 and 9. Abijah then points out to his opponents the vanity of their trust in the great multitude of their warriors and their gods, while yet they had driven out the priests of Jahve. " And now ye say," scil. in your heart, i.e. you think to show yourself strong before the kingdom of Jahve in the hands of the sons of David, i.e. against the kingdom of Jahve ruled over by the sons of David, by raising a great army in order to make war upon and to destroy this kingdom. 3"J jion DAN"), and truly ye are a great multitude, and with you are the golden calves, which Jeroboam hath made to you for gods; but trust not unto them, for Jahve, the true God, have ye not for you as a helper. — Ver. 9. " Yea, ye have cast out the priests of Jahve, the sons of Aaron, and made you priests after the manner of the nations of the lands. Every one who has come, to fill his hand with a young bullock and he has become a priest to the no-god." \V N?p, to fill his hand, denotes, in the language of the law, to invest one with the priesthood, and connected with mrvS it signifies to provide oneself with that which is to be offered to Jahve. To fill his hand with a young bullock, etc., therefore denotes to come with sacrificial beasts, to cause oneself to be consecrated priest. The animals mentioned also, a young bullock and seven rams, point to the consecration to the priesthood. In Ex. xxix. a young bullock as a sin-offering, a ram as a burnt-offering, and a ram as a consecratory-offering, are prescribed for this purpose. These sacrifices were to be repeated during seven days, so that in all seven rams were required for consecratory-sacrifices. Abijah mentions only one young bullock along with these, because it was not of any importance for him to enumerate perfectly the sacrifices which were necessary. But by offering these sacrifices no one becomes a priest of Jahve, and consequently the priests of Jeroboam also are only priests for
Not-Elohim, i.e. only for the golden calves made Elohim by Jeroboam, to whom the attributes of the Godhead did not belong. — Vers. 10 and 11. While, therefore, the Israelites have no-gods in their golden calves, Judah has Jahve for its God, whom it worships in His temple in the manner prescribed by Moses. C{ But in Jahve is our God, and we have not forsaken Him," in so far, viz., as they observed the legal Jahve-worship. So Abijah himself explains his words, " as priests serve Him the sons of Aaron (who were chosen by Jahve), and the Levites are fDNppsij in service," i.e. performing the service prescribed to them. As essential parts of that service of God, the offering of the daily burnt-offering and the daily incense-offering (Ex. xxix. 38 ff., xxx. 7), the laying out of the shew-bread (Ex. xxv. 30; Lev. xxiv. 5 ff.), the lighting of the lamps of the golden candlesticks (Ex. xxv. 37, xxvii. 20 f.), are mentioned. In this respect they keep the mm nwp (cf. Lev. viii. 35).— Ver. 12. Abijah draws from all this the conclusion: " Behold, with us at our head are (not the two calves of gold, but) God (D\T>Nn with the article, the true God) and His priests, and the alarm-trumpets to sound against you." He mentions the trumpets as being the divinely appointed pledges that God would remember them in war, and would deliver them from their enemies, Num. x. 9. Then he closes with a warning to the Israelites not to strive with Jahve, the God of their fathers.
Vers. 13-17. The war; Judah's victory, and the defeat of Jeroboam and the Israelites. — Ver. 13. Jeroboam caused the ambush (the troops appointed to be an ambush) to go round about, so as to come upon their rear (i.e. of the men of Judah); and so they (the main division of Jeroboam's troops) were before Judah, and the ambush in their rear (i.e. of the men of Judah); and the men of Judah, when they turned themselves (soil, to attack), saw war before and behind them, i.e. perceived that they were attacked in front and rear. In this dangerous position the men of Judah cried to the Lord, and the priests blew the trumpets (ver. 15); and as they raised this war-cry, God smote their enemies so that they took to flight. In WHJ1 and V^nn the loud shout of the warriors and the clangour of the trumpets in the hands of the priests are comprehended; and)TV} is neither to be taken to refer only to the war-cry raised by the warriors in making the attack, nor, with Bertheau, to be referred only to the blowing of the trumpets. — Ver. 16 f. So Abijah and his people inflicted a great blow (defeat) on the Israelites, so that 500,000 of them, i.e. more than the half of Jeroboam's whole army, fell.
Ver. 18 f. The results of this victory. The Israelites were bowed down, their powder weakened; the men of Judah became strong, mighty, because they relied upon Jahve their God. Following up his victory, Abijah took from Jeroboam several cities with their surrounding domains: Bethel, the present Beitin, see on Josh. vii. 2; Jeshanah, occurring only here, and the position of which has not yet been ascertained; and Ephron (fl^B?, Keth.; the Keri, on the contrary, £*!???)• This city cannot well be identified with Mount Ephron, Josh. xv. 9; for that mountain was situated on the southern frontier of Benjamin, not far from Jerusalem, while the city Ephron is to be sought much farther north, in the neighbourhood of Bethel. C. v. Raumer and others identify Ephron or Ephrain both with Ophrah of Benjamin, which, it is conjectured, was situated near or in Tayibeh, to the east of Bethel, and with the 'E<ppatfjL, John xi. 54, whither Jesus withdrew into the wilderness, which, according to Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 9, lay in the neighbourhood of Bethel. See on Josh, xviii. 23.1 — Ver. 20. Jeroboam could not afterwards gain power
1 The account of this war, which is peculiar to the Chronicle, and which de Wette declared, on utterly insufficient grounds, to be an invention of the chronicler (cf. against him my apol. Vers, iiber die Chron. S. 444 if.), is thus regarded by Ewald (Gesch. Isr. iii. S. 466, der 2 Aufl.): " The chronicler must certainly have found among his ancient authorities an account of this conclusion of the war, and we cannot but believe that we have here, in so far, authentic tradition;" and only the details of the description are the results of free expansion by the chronicler, but in the speech vers. 4-13 every word and every thought is marked by the peculiar colouring of the Chronicle. But this last assertion is contradicted by Ewald's own remark, i. S. 203, that "in 2 Chron. xiii. 4-7, 19-21, an antiquated manner of speech and representation appears, while in the other verses, on the contrary, those usual with the chronicler are found," — in support of which he adduces the words i)pi?3 *J3, ver. 7, and rhl2 rp13, ver. 5. According to this view, Abijah's speech cannot have been freely draughted by the chronicler, but must have been derived, at least so far as the fundamental thoughts are concerned, from an ancient authority, doubtless the Midrash of the prophet Iddo, cited in ver. 22. But Ewald's further remark (iii. S. 466), that the author of the Chronicle, because he regarded the heathenized Samaria of his time as the true representative of the old kingdom of the ten tribes, seized this opportunity to put into King Abijah's mouth a long denunciatory and didactic speech, addressed at the commencement of the battle to the enemy as rebels not merely against the house of David, but also against the true religion, is founded upon the unscriptural idea that the calf-worship of the Israelites was merely a some-
(rri3 "ivy, as in 1 Chron. xxix. 14): " And Jahve smote him, and he died." The meaning of this remark is not clear, since we know nothing further of the end of Jeroboam's life than that he died two years after Abijah. ^HB3^ can hardly refer to the unfortunate result of the war (ver. 15 ff.), for Jeroboam outlived the war by several years. We would be more inclined to understand it of the blow mentioned in 1 Kings xiv. 1—8, when God announced to him by Ahijah the extermination of his house, and took away his son Abijah, who was mourned by all Israel.
Vers. 21-23. Wives and children of Abijah. His death. — Ver. 21. While Jeroboam was not able to recover from the defeat lie had suffered, Abijah established himself in his kingdom (Pjnn!> cf. xii. 13), and took to himself fourteen wives. The taking of these wives is not to be regarded as later in time than his establishment of his rule after the victory over Jeroboam. Since Abijah reigned only three years, he must have already had the greater number of his wives and children when he ascended the throne, as we may gather also from chap. xi. 21-23. The) consec. with KJp. serves only to connect logically the information as to his what sensuous form of the true Jahve -worship, and was fundamentally distinct from the heathen idolatry, and also from the idolatry of the later Samaritans. In the judgment of all the prophets, not only of Hosea and Amos, but also of the prophetic author of the book of Kings, the calf -worship was a defection from Jahve, the God of the fathers, — a forsaking of the commands of Jahve, and a serving of the Baals; cf. e.g. 1 Kings xiii., 2 Kings xvii. 7-23. What Abijah says of the calf-worship of the Israelites, and of Judah's attitude to Jahve and His worship in the temple, is founded on the truth, and is also reconcilable with the statement in 1 Kings xv. 3, that Abijah's heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord, like David's heart. Abijah had promoted the legal temple- worship even by consecratory gifts (1 Kings xv. 15), and could consequently quite well bring forward the worship of God in Judah as the true worship, in contrast to the Israelitic calfworship, for the discouragement of his enemies, and for the encouragement of his own army; and we may consequently regard the kernel, or the essential contents of the speech, as being historically well-founded. The account of the war, moreover, is also shown to be historical by the exact statement as to the conquered cities in ver. 19, which evidently has been derived from ancient authorities. Only in the statements about the number of warriors, and of the slain Israelites, the numbers are not to be estimated according to the literal value of the figures; for they are, as has been already hinted in the commentary, only an expression in figures of the opinion of contemporaries of the war, that both kings had made a levy of all the men in their respective kingdoms capable of bearing arms, and that Jeroboam was defeated with such slaughter that he lost more than the half of his warriors.
wives and children with the preceding, as the great increase of his family was a sign of Abijah's increase in strength, while Jeroboam's dynasty was soon extirpated. — Yer. 22. As to the trn*? of the prophet Iddo, see the Introduction, p. 34. — Ver. 23. Under his son and successor Asa the land had a ten-years' rest. This is remarked here, because this rest was also a result of Abijah's great victory over Jeroboam.
In 1 Kings xv. 9-24 it is merely recorded of Asa, that he reigned forty-one years, did that which was right as David did, removed from the land all the idols which his fathers had made, and, although the high places were not removed, was devoted to the Lord during his whole life, and laid up in the temple treasury all that had been consecrated by his father and himself. Then it is related that when Baasha inarched against him, and began to fortify Raman, he induced the Syrian king Benhadad, by sending to him the treasures of the temple and of his palace, to break faith with Baasha, and to make an inroad upon and smite the northern portion of the land; that Baasha was thereby compelled to abandon the building of Eamah, and to fall back to Tirzah, and that thereupon Asa caused the fortifications of Raman to be pulled down, and the cities Geba in Benjamin and Mizpah to be fortified with the materials; and, finally, it is recorded that Asa in his old age became diseased in his feet, and died. The Chronicle also characterizes Asa as a pious king, who did that which was right, and removed the high places and sunpillars in the land; but gives, as to other matters, a much more detailed account of his reign of forty-one years. It states that in the first years, as the land had rest, he built fortified cities in Judah, and had an army fit for war (xiv. 1-7); that thereupon he marched against the Cushite Zerah, who was then advancing upon Judah with an innumerable host, prayed for help to the Lord, who then smote the Cushites, so that they fled; and that Asa pursued them to Gerar, and returned with great booty (vers. 8-14). Then we learn that the prophet Azariah, the son of Oded, came to meet him, who, pointing to the victory which the Lord had granted them, called upon the king and the people to remain stedfast in their fidelity to the Lord; that Asa thereupon took courage, extirpated all the still remaining idolatrous abominations from the land, and in the fifteenth year of his reign held with the people a great sacrificial feast in Jerusalem, renewed the covenant with the Lord, crushed out all the remains of former idolatry, although the high places were not destroyed, and also deposited in the temple treasury all that had been consecrated by his father and himself (chap. xv.). Thereafter Baasha's inroad upon Judah and the alliance with Benhadad of Syria are narrated (xvi. 1-6), as in the book of Kings; but it is also added that the prophet Hanani censured his seeking help from the king of Syria, and was thereupon put into the prison-house by Asa (vers. 7-10); and then we have an account of the end of his reign, in which several additions to the account in 1 Kings are communicated (vers. 11-14).
Chap. xiv. 1-7. — Ascls efforts for the abolition of idolatry and the establishment of the kingdom. — Vers. 1-4. The good and right in God's eyes which Asa did is further defined in vers. 2-4. He abolished all the objects of the idolatrous worship. The " altars of the strangers" are altars consecrated to foreign gods; from them the ^^3, high places, are distinguished, — these latter being illegal places of sacrifice connected with the worship of Jahve (see on 1 Kings xv. 14). The ni35ifD are the statues or monumental columns consecrated to Baal, and Q*"jBW the wooden idols, tree-trunks, or trees, which were consecrated to Astarte (see on 1 Kings xiv. 23 and Deut. xvi. 21). Asa at the same time commanded the people to worship Jahve, the God of the fathers, and to follow the law. — Ver. 4. He removed from all the cities of Judah the altars of the high places, and the Q^ftn, sun-pillars, pillars or statues consecrated -to Baal as sun-god, which were erected near or upon the altars of Baal (2 Chron. xxxiv. 4; see on Lev. xxvi. 30). In consequence of this the kingdom had rest V3Q?, before him, i.e. under his oversight (cf. Num. viii. 22). This ten-years' quiet (xiii. 23) which God granted him, Asa employed in building fortresses in Judah (ver. 5). " We will build these cities, and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bolts." It is not said what the cities were, but they were at any rate others than Geba and Mizpah, which he caused to be built after the war with Baasha (xvi. 6). " The land is still before us," i.e. open, free from enemies, so that we may freely move about, and build therein according to our pleasure. For the phraseology, cf. Gen. xiii. 9. The repetition of ttBh^, ver. 6, is impassioned speech. " They built and had success;" they built with effect, without meeting with any hindrances.— Ver. 7. Asa had also a well-equipped, well-armed army. The men of Judah were armed with a lar^e shield and lance (cf. 1 Chron. xii. 24), the Benjamites with a small shield and bow (cf. 1 Chron. viii. 40). The numbers are great; of Judah 300,000, of Benjamin 280,000 men. Since in these numbers the whole population capable of bearing arms is included, 300,000 men does not appear too large for Judah, but 280,000 is a very large number for Benjamin, and is founded probably on an overestimate.
Vers. 8-14. The victory over the Cushite Zerah. — Ver. 8. " And there went forth against them Zerah." Drrta for Drvity refers to Asa's warriors mentioned in ver. 7. The number of the men in Judah capable of bearing arms is mentioned only to show that Asa set his hope of victory over the innumerable host of the Cushites not on the strength of his army, but on the all-powerful help of the Lord (ver. 10). The Cushite rnt is usually identified with the second king of the 22d (Bubastitic) dynasty, Osorchon i.; while Brugsch, hist de VEg. i. p. 298, on the contrary, has raised objections, and holds Zerah to be an Ethiopian and not an Egyptian prince, who in the reign of Takeloth I., about 944 B.C., probably marched through Egypt as a conqueror (cf. G. Bosch in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. S. 460). The statement as to Zerah' s army, that it numbered 1,000,000 warriors and 300 war-chariots, rests upon a rough estimate, in which 1000 times 1000 expresses the idea of the greatest possible number. The Cushites pressed forward to Mareshah, i.e. Marissa, between Hebron and Ashdod (see on xi. 8). — Ver. 9. Thither Asa marched to meet them, and drew up his army in battle array in the valley Zephathah, near Mareshah. The valley Zephathah is not, as Robins., Pal. sub voce, thinks, to be identified with Tel es Safieh, but must lie nearer Mareshah, to the west or north-west of Marasch. — Ver. 10. Then he called upon the Lord his God for help. 'W ^tpV "K we translate, with Berth., "None is with Thee (on spay, cf. xx. G, Ps. lxxiii. 25) to help between a mighty one and a weak," i.e. no other than Thou can help in an unequal battle, i.e. help the weaker side; while the Vulg., on the contrary, after the analogy of 1 Sam. xiv. 6, translates, " non est apud te irfla distanlia, iitrum in paucis auxilieris an injiluribns;" and the older commentators (Schmidt, Ramb.) give the meaning thus: u pcrinde est tibi potentiori vel imbecilliori opem ferre." But in 1 Sam. xiv. 16 the wording is different, so that that passage cannot be a standard for us here. "In Thy name (i.e. trusting in Thy help) are we come against this multitude" (not " have we fallen upon this multitude"). '*I31 Up h*, "Let not a mortal retain strength with Thee" ("ttV = nb 1VV, xiii. 20, 1 Chron. xxix. 14), i.e. let not weak men accomplish anything with Thee, show Thy power or omnipotence over weak men. — Ver. 11. God heard this prayer. Jahve drove the Cushites into flight before Asa, soil, by His mighty help. — Ver. 12. Asa, with his people, pursued to Gerar, the old ancient Philistine city, whose ruins Rowlands has discovered in the Khirbet el Gerar, in the Wady Jorf el Gerar (the torrent of Gerar), three leagues south-south-east of Gaza (see on Gen. xx. 1). "And there fell of the Cushites, so that to them was not revival," i.e. so many that they could not make a stand and again collect themselves, ut eis vivificatio i. e. copias restaurandi ratio non esset, as older commentators, in Annott. uberior. ad h. Z., have already rightly interpreted it. The words are expressions for complete defeat. Berth, translates incorrectly: "until to them was nothing living;" for f&O does not stand for r*6 "W, but? serves to subordinate the clause, "so that no one," where in the older language r$ alone would have been sufficient, as in xx. 25, 1. Chron. xxii. 4, cf. Ew. § 315, c; and H*no denotes, not "a living thing," but only " preservation of life, vivification, revival, maintenance." For they were broken before Jahve and before His host, ^D*?, i.e. Asa's army is called Jahve's, because Jahve fought in and with it against the enemy. There is no reason to suppose, with some older commentators, that there is any reference to an angelic host or heavenly camp (Gen. xxxii. 2 f.). And they (Asa and his people) brought back very much booty. — Yer. 13. " They smote all the cities round about Gerar," which, as we must conclude from this, had made common cause with the Cushites, being inhabited by Philistines; for the fear of Jahve had fallen upon them. HliT1 ins here, and in xvii. 10, xx. 29, as in 1 Sam. xi. 7, the fear of the omnipotence displayed by Jahve in the annihilation of the innumerable hostile army. In these cities Judah found much booty. — Ver. 14. They also smote the tents of the herds of the wandering tribes of that district, and carried away many sheep and camels as booty.
Chap. xv. The prophet AzariaJts exhortation to faithful cleaving to the Lord7 and the solemn renewal of the covenant. —
Vers. 1-7. The prophet's speech. The prophet Azariah, the son of Oded, is mentioned only here. The conjecture of some of the older theologians, that *n.W was the same person as fa? (xii. 15, ix. 29), has no tenable foundation. Azariah went to meet the king and people returning from the war (^B? N-Cj he went forth in the presence of Asa, i.e. coming before him; cf. xxviii. 9, 1 Chron. xii. 17, xiv. 8). u Jahve was with you (has given you the victory), because ye were with Him (held to Him)." Hence the general lesson is drawn: If ye seek Him, He will be found of you (cf. Jer. xxix. 13); and if ye forsake Him, He will forsake you (cf. xxiv. 20, xii. 5). To impress the people deeply with this truth, Azariah draws a powerful picture of the times when a people is forsaken by God, when peace and security in social intercourse disappear, and the terrors of civil war prevail. Opinions as to the reference intended in this portrayal of the dreadful results of defection from God have been from antiquity very much divided. Tremell. and Grot., following the Targ., take the words to refer to the condition of the kingdom of the ten tribes at that time; others think they refer to the past, either to the immediately preceding period of the kingdom of Judah, to the times of the defection under Rehoboam and Abijah, before Asa had suppressed idolatry (Syr., Arab., Raschi), or to the more distant past, the anarchic period of the judges, from Joshua's death, and that of the high priest Phinehas, until Eli and Samuel's reformation (so especially Vitringa, de synag, vet. p. 335 sqq.). Finally, still others (Luther, Clericus, Budd., etc.) interpret the words as prophetic, as descriptive of the future, and make them refer either to the unquiet times under the later idolatrous kings, to the times of the Assyrian or Chaldean exile (Kimchi), or to the condition of the Jews since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans up till the present day. Of these three views, the first, that which takes the reference to be to the present, i.e. the state of the kingdom of the ten tribes at that time, is decidedly erroneous; for during the first thirty years of the existence of that kingdom no such anarchic state of things existed as is portrayed in vers. 5 and 6, and still less could a return of the ten tribes to the Lord at that time be spoken of (ver. 4). It is more difficult to decide between the two other main views. The grounds which Vitr., Ramb., Berth, adduce in support of the reference to the times of the judges are not convincing; for the contents and form (ver. 4) do not prove that here something is asserted which has been confirmed by history, and still less is it manifest (ver. 5) that past times are pointed to. Whether the statement about the return to Jahve in the times of trouble (ver. 4) refers to the past or to the future, depends upon whether the past or future is spoken of in ver. 3. But the unquiet condition of things portrayed in ver. 5 corresponds partly to various times in the period of the judges; and if, with Vitr., we compare the general characteristics of the religious condition of the times of the judges (Judg. ii. 10 ff.), we might certainly say that Israel in those times was without WK DEK, as it again and again forsook Jahve and served the Baals. And moreover, several examples of the oppression of Israel portrayed in vers. 5 and 6 may be adduced from the time of the judges. Yet the words in ver. 6, even when their rhetorical character is taken into account, are too strong for the anarchic state of things during the period of the judges, and the internal struggles of that time (Judg. xii. 1-6 and chap. xx. f.). And consequently, although Vitr. and Ramb. think that a reference to experiences already past, and oppressions already lived through, would have made a much deeper impression than pointing forward to future periods of oppression, yet Ramb. himself remarks, nihilominus tamen in sceculis Asm imperium antegressis vix ullum tempus post ingressum in terram Canaan et constitutam rempubl. Israel, posse ostendi, cui omnia criteria hujus orationis prophetical omni ex parte et secundum omnia pondera verbis insita conveniant. But, without doubt, the omission of any definite statement of the time in ver. 3 is decisive against the exclusive reference of this speech to the past, and to the period of the judges. The verse contains no verb, so that the words may just as well refer to the past as to the future. The prophet has not stated the time definitely, because he was giving utterance to truths which have force at all times,1 and which Israel had had experience of already in the time of the judges, but would have much deeper experience of in the future.