2 CHRONICLES 1 COMMENTARY

EDITED BY GLENN PEASE

INTRODUCTION

BENSON, "THE argument of the former book will, in a great measure, serve for this. Some things recorded in the two books of Kings are omitted in this book; and several things are contained in it, of which no mention is made there; particularly in the history of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah. And many other things there mentioned are here more fully and clearly explained, as will be observed in the acts of Abijah, Asa, Joash, and other kings of Judah. Upon which account, St. Jerome says, this book is such, and of so great use, that he who without it will pretend to understand the prophets, will expose himself to scorn.

This book begins where the former left off, with the reign of Solomon, from the death of David, and continues the history of the kings of Judah to the captivity, and concludes with the fall of that illustrious monarchy, and the destruction of the temple. That monarchy, as it was prior in time, so it was in dignity, to the four which Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of. The Babylonian began in Nebuchadnezzar himself, and lasted about seventy years: the Persian monarchy, in several families, about a hundred and thirty: the Grecian, in its several branches, about three hundred: and three hundred more went far with the Roman. Whereas the monarchy of Judah continued considerable in a lineal descent, between four and five hundred years. We had the story of the house of David before, intermixed with that of the kings of Israel; but here we have it entire: much is repeated here which we had before; yet many passages are enlarged on, and divers added, which we had not before, especially relating to religion; the reign of Solomon we have, chap. 1.-9. That of Rehoboam, chap. 10.-12. The short reign of Abijah, chap. 13. The long reign of Asa, chap. 14.-16. The reign of Jehoshaphat, chap. 17.-20. Of Jehoram and Ahaziah, chap. 21., 22. Of Joash and Amaziah, chap. 23., 24. Of Uzziah, chap. 26. Of Jotham, chap. 27. Of Ahaz, chap. 28. Of Hezekiah, chap. 29.-32. Of Manasseh and Amon, chap. 33. Of Josiah, chap. 34., 35. Of his sons, chap. 36.

1

ECPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMMENTARY, "INTRODUCTION

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

CHRONICLES is a curious literary torso. A comparison with Ezra and Nehemiah shows that the three originally formed a single whole. They are written in the same peculiar late Hebrew style; they use their sources in the same mechanical way; they are all saturated with the ecclesiastical spirit; and their Church order and doctrine rest upon the complete Pentateuch, and especially upon the Priestly Code. They take the same keen interest in genealogies, statistics, building operations, Temple ritual, priests and Levites, and most of all in the Levitical doorkeepers and singers. Ezra and Nehemiah form an obvious continuation of Chronicles; the latter work breaks off in the middle of a paragraph intended to introduce the account of the return from the Captivity; Ezra repeats the beginning of the paragraph and gives its conclusion. Similarly the register of the high-priests is begun in 1 Chronicles 6:4-15 and completed in Nehemiah 12:10-11

We may compare the whole work to the image in Daniel’s vision whose head was of fine gold, his breast and arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Ezra and Nehemiah preserve some of the finest historical material in the Old Testament, and are our only authority for a most important crisis in the religion of Israel. The torso that remains when these two books are removed is of very mixed character, partly borrowed from the older historical books, partly taken down from late tradition, and partly constructed according to the current philosophy of history.

The date of this work lies somewhere between the conquest of the Persian empire by Alexander and the revolt of the Maccabees, i.e., between B.C. 332 and B.C. 166. The register in Nehemiah 12:10-11, closes with Jaddua, the well-known high-priest of Alexander’s time; the genealogy of the house of David in 1 Chronicles 3:1-24 extends to about the same date, or, according to the ancient versions, even down to about B.C. 200. The ecclesiastical system of the Priestly Code, established by Ezra and Nehemiah B.C. 444, was of such old standing to the author of Chronicles that he introduces it as a matter of course into his descriptions of the worship of the

2

monarchy. Another feature which even more clearly indicates a late date is the use of the term "king of Persia" instead of simply "the King" or "the Great King." The latter were the customary designations of the Persian kings while the empire lasted; after its fall, the title needed to be qualified by the name "Persia." These facts, together with the style and language, would be best accounted for by a date somewhere between B.C. 300 and B.C. 250. On the other hand, the Maccabaean struggle revolutionized the national and ecclesiastical system which Chronicles everywhere takes for granted, and the silence of the author as to this revolution is conclusive proof that he wrote before it began.

There is no evidence whatever as to the name of the author but his intense interest in the Levites and in the musical service of the Temple, with its orchestra and choir, renders it extremely probable that he was a Levite and a Temple-singer or musician. We might compare the Temple, with its extensive buildings and numerous priesthood, to an English cathedral establishment, and the author of Chronicles to some vicar-choral, or, perhaps better, to the more dignified presenter. He would be enthusiastic over his music, a cleric of studious habits and scholarly tastes, not a man of the world, but absorbed in the affairs of the Temple, as a monk in the life of his convent or a minor canon in the politics and society of the minster close. The times were uncritical, and so our author was occasionally somewhat easy of belief as to the enormous magnitude of ancient Hebrew armies and the splendor and wealth of ancient Hebrew kings; the narrow range of his interests and experience gave him an appetite for innocent gossip, professional or otherwise. But his sterling religious character is shown by the earnest piety and serene faith which pervade his work. If we venture to turn to English fiction for a rough illustration of the position and history of our chronicler, the name that at once suggests itself is that of Mr. Harding, the preceptor in "Barchester Towers." We must however remember that there is very little to distinguish the chronicler from his later authorities; and the term "chronicler" is often used for "the chronicler or one of his predecessors."

HISTORICAL SETTING

IN the previous chapter it has been necessary to deal with the chronicler as the author of the whole work of which Chronicles is only a part, and to go over again ground already covered in the volume on Ezra and Nehemiah; but from this point we can confine our attention to Chronicles and treat it as a separate book. Such a

3

course is not merely justified; it is necessitated, by the different relations of the chronicler to his subject in Ezra and Nehemiah on the one hand and in Chronicles on the other. In the former case he is writing the history of the social and ecclesiastical order to which he himself belonged, but he is separated by a deep and wide gulf from the period of the kingdom of Judah. About three hundred years intervened between the chronicler and the death of the last king of Judah. A similar interval separates us from Queen Elizabeth; but the course of these three centuries of English life has been an almost unbroken continuity compared with the changing fortunes of the Jewish people from the fall of the monarchy to the early years of the Greek empire. This interval included the Babylonian Captivity and the Return, the establishment of the Law, the rise of the Persian Empire, and the conquests of Alexander. The first three of these events were revolutions of supreme importance to the internal development of Judaism; the last two rank in the history of the world with the fall of the Roman Empire and the French Revolution. Let us consider them briefly in detail. The Captivity, the rise of the Persian empire, and the Return are closely connected, and can only be treated as features of one great social, political, and religious convulsion, an upheaval which broke the continuity of all the strata of Eastern life and opened an impassable gulf between the old order and the new. For a time, men who had lived through these revolutions were still able to carry across this gulf the loosely twisted strands of memory, but when they died the threads snapped; only here and there a lingering tradition supplemented the written records. Hebrew slowly ceased to be the vernacular language, and was supplanted by Aramaic; the ancient history only reached the people by means of an oral translation. Under this new dispensation the ideas of ancient Israel were no longer intelligible; its circumstances could not be realized by those who lived under entirely different conditions. Various causes contributed to bring about this change. First, there was an interval of fifty years, during which Jerusalem lay a heap of ruins. After the recapture of Rome by Totila the Visigoth in A.D. 546 the city was abandoned during forty days to desolate and dreary solitude. Even this temporary depopulation of the Eternal City is emphasized by historians as full of dramatic interest, but the fifty years’ desolation of Jerusalem involved important practical results. Most of the returning exiles must have either been born in Babylon or else have spent all their earliest years in exile. Very few can have been old enough to have grasped the meaning or drunk in the spirit of the older national life. When the restored community set to work to rebuild their city and their temple, few of them had any adequate knowledge of the old Jerusalem, with its manners, customs, and traditions. "The ancient men, that had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice" [Ezra 3:12] when the foundation of the second Temple was laid before their eyes. In their critical and disparaging attitude towards the new building, we may see an early trace of the tendency to glorify and idealize the monarchical period, which culminated in

4

Chronicles. The breach with the past was widened by the novel and striking surroundings of the exiles in Babylon. For the first time since the Exodus, the Jews as a nation found themselves in close contact and intimate relations with the culture of an ancient civilization and the life of a great city.

Nearly a century and a half elapsed between the first captivity under Jehoiachin (B.C. 598) and the mission of Ezra (B.C. 458); no doubt in the succeeding period Jews still continued to return from Babylon to Judaea, and thus the new community at Jerusalem, amongst whom the chronicler grew up, counted Babylonian Jews amongst their ancestors for two or even for many generations. A Zulu tribe exhibited for a year m London could not return and build their kraal afresh and take up the old African life at the point where they had left it. If a community of Russian Jews went to their old home after a few years’ sojourn in Whitechapel, the old life resumed would be very different from what it was before their migration. Now the Babylonian Jews were neither uncivilized African savages nor stupefied Russian helots; they were not shut up in an exhibition or in a ghetto; they settled in Babylon, not for a year or two, but for half a century or even a century; and they did not return to a population of their own race, living the old life, but to empty homes and a ruined city. They had tasted the tree of knowledge, and they could no more live and think as their fathers had done than Adam and Eve could find their way back into paradise. A large and prosperous colony of Jews still remained at Babylon, and maintained close and constant relations with the settlement in Judaea. The influence of Babylon, begun during the Exile, continued permanently in this indirect form. Later still the Jews felt the influence of a great Greek city, through their colony at Alexandria.

Besides these external changes, the Captivity was a period of important and many-sided development of Jewish literature and religion. Men had leisure to study the prophecies of Jeremiah and the legislation of Deuteronomy; their attention was claimed for Ezekiel’s suggestions as to ritual, and for the new theology, variously expounded by Ezekiel, the later Isaiah, the book of Job, and the psalmists. The Deuteronomic school systematized and interpreted the records of the national history. In its wealth of Divine revelation the period from Josiah to Ezra is only second to the apostolic age.

Thus the restored Jewish community was a new creation, baptized into a new spirit;

5

the restored city was as much a new Jerusalem as that which St. John beheld descending out of heaven; and, in the words of the prophet of the Restoration, the Jews returned to a "new heaven and a new earth." [Isaiah 66:22] The rise of the Persian empire changed the whole international system of Western Asia and Egypt. The robber monarchies of Nineveh and Babylon, whose energies had been chiefly devoted to the systematic plunder of their neighbors, were replaced by a great empire, that stretched out one hand to Greece and the other to India. The organization of this great empire was the most successful attempt at government on a large scale that the world had yet seen. Both through the Persians themselves and through their dealings with the Greeks, Aryan philosophy and religion began to leaven Asiatic thought; old things were passing away: all things were becoming new.

The establishment of the Law by Ezra and Nehemiah was the triumph of a school whose most important and effective work had been done at Babylon, though not necessarily within the half-century specially called the Captivity. Their triumph was retrospective: it not only established a rigid and elaborate system unknown to the monarchy, but, by identifying this system with the law traditionally ascribed to Moses, it led men very widely astray as to the ancient history of Israel. A later generation naturally assumed that the good kings must have kept this law, and that the sin of the bad kings was their failure to observe its ordinances.

The events of the century and a half or thereabouts between Ezra and the chronicler have only a minor importance for us. The change of language from Hebrew to Aramaic, the Samaritan schism, the few political incidents of which any account has survived, are all trivial compared to the literature and history crowded into the century after the fall of the monarchy. Even the far-reaching results of the conquests of Alexander do not materially concern us here. Josephus indeed tells us that the Jews served in large numbers in the Macedonian army, and gives a very dramatic account of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem; but the historical value of these stories is very doubtful, and in any case it is clear that between B.C. 333 and B.C. 250 Jerusalem was very little affected by Greek influences, and that, especially for the Temple community to which the chronicler belonged, the change from Darius to the Ptolemies was merely a change from one foreign dominion to another.

Nor need much be said of the relation of the chronicler to the later Jewish literature of the Apocalypses and Wisdom. If the spirit of this literature were already stirring

6

in some Jewish circles, the chronicler himself was not moved by it. Ecclesiastes, as far as he could have understood it, would have pained and shocked him. But his work lay in that direct line of subtle rabbinic teaching which, beginning with Ezra, reached its climax in the Talmud. Chronicles is really an anthology gleaned from ancient historic sources and supplemented by early specimens of Midrash and Hagada.

In order to understand the book of Chronicles, we have to keep two or three simple facts constantly and clearly in mind. In the first place, the chronicler was separated from the monarchy by an aggregate of changes which involved a complete breach of continuity between the old and the new order: instead of a nation there was a Church; instead of a king there were a high-priest and a foreign governor. Secondly, the effects of these changes had been at work for two or three hundred years, effacing all trustworthy recollection of the ancient order and schooling men to regard the Levitical dispensation as their one original and antique ecclesiastical system. Lastly, the chronicler himself belonged to the Temple community, which was the very incarnation of the spirit of the new order. With such antecedents and surroundings, he set to work to revise the national history recorded in Samuel and Kings. A monk in a Norman monastery would have worked under similar but less serious disadvantages if he had undertaken to-rewrite the "Ecclesiastical History" of the Venerable Bede.

SOURCES AND MODE OF COMPOSITION

OUR impressions as to the sources of Chronicles are derived from the general character of its contents, from a comparison with other books of the Old Testament, and from the actual statements of Chronicles itself. To take the last first: there are numerous references to authorities in Chronicles which at first sight seem to indicate a dependence on rich and varied sources. To begin with, there are "The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel," "The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah," and "The Acts of the Kings of Israel." These, however, are obviously different forms of the title of the same work.

Other titles furnish us with an imposing array of prophetic authorities. There are

7

"The Words" of Samuel the Seer, of Nathan the Prophet, of Gad the Seer, of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer, of Jehu the son of Hanani, and of the Seers; "The Vision" of Iddo the Seer and of Isaiah the Prophet; "The Midrash" of the Book of Kings and of the Prophet Iddo; "The Acts of Uzziah," written by Isaiah the Prophet; and "The Prophecy" of Ahijah the Shilonite. There are also less formal allusions to other works.

Further examination, however, soon discloses the fact that these prophetic titles merely indicate different sections of "The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah." On turning to our book of Kings, we find that from Rehoboam onwards each of the references in Chronicles corresponds to a reference by the book of Kings to the "Chronicles of the Kings of Judah." In the case of Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Amon, the reference to an authority is omitted both in the books of Kings and Chronicles. This close correspondence suggests that both our canonical books are referring to the same authority or authorities. Kings refers to the "Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" for Judah, and to the "Chronicles of the Kings of Israel" for the northern kingdom; Chronicles, though only dealing with Judah, combines these two titles in one: "The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah."

In two instances Chronicles clearly states that its prophetic authorities were found as sections of the larger work. "The Words of Jehu the son of Hanani" were "inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel," [2 Chronicles 20:34] and "The Vision of Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz," is in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. [2 Chronicles 32:32] It is a natural inference that the other "Words" and "Visions" were also found as sections of this same "Book of Kings."

These conclusions may be illustrated and supported by what we know of the arrangement of the contents of ancient books. Our convenient modern subdivisions of chapter and verse did not exist, but the Jews were not without some means of indicating the particular section of a book to which they wished to refer. Instead of numbers they used names, derived from the subject of a section or from the most important person mentioned in it. For the history of the monarchy the prophets were the most important personages, and each section of the history is named after its leading prophet or prophets. This nomenclature naturally encouraged the belief that the history had been originally written by these prophets. Instances of the use of such nomenclature are found in the New Testament, e.g. Romans 11:2 : "Wot ye

8

not what the Scripture saith in Elijah"-i.e., in the section about Elijah-and Mark 12:26 : "Have ye not read in the book of Moses in the place concerning the bush?"

While, however, most of the references to "Words," "Visions," etc., are to sections of the larger work, we need not at once conclude that all references to authorities in Chronicles are to this same book. The genealogical register in 1 Chronicles 5:17 and the "lamentations" of 2 Chronicles 35:25 may very well be independent works. Having recognized the fact that the numerous authorities referred to by Chronicles were for the most part contained in one comprehensive "Book of Kings," a new problem presents itself: What are the respective relations of our Kings and Chronicles to the "Chronicles" and "Kings" cited by them? What are the relations of these original authorities to each other? What are the relations of our Kings to our Chronicles? Our present nomenclature is about as confusing as it well could be; and we are obliged to keep clearly in mind, first, that the "Chronicles" mentioned in Kings is not our Chronicles, and then that the "Kings" referred to by Chronicles is not our Kings. The first fact is obvious; the second is shown by the terms of the references, which state that information not furnished in Chronicles may be found in the "Book of Kings," but the information in question is often not given in the canonical Kings. And yet the connection between Kings and Chronicles is very close and extensive. A large amount of material occurs either identically or with very slight variations in both books. It is clear that either Chronicles uses Kings, or Chronicles uses a work which used Kings, or both Chronicles and Kings use the same source or sources. Each of these three views has been held by important authorities, and they are also capable of various combinations and modifications.

Reserving for a moment the view which specially commends itself to us, we may note two main tendencies of opinion. First, it is maintained that Chronicles either goes back directly to the actual sources of Kings, citing them, for the sake of brevity, under a combined title, or is based upon a combination of the main sources of Kings made at a very early date. In either case Chronicles as compared with Kings would be an independent and parallel authority on the contents of these early sources, and to that extent would rank with Kings as first-class history. This view, however, is shown to be untenable by the numerous traces of a later age which are almost invariably present wherever Chronicles supplements or modifies Kings.

The second view is that either Chronicles used Kings, or that the "Book of the Kings

9

of Israel and Judah" used by Chronicles was a post-Exilic work, incorporating statistical matter and dealing with the history of the two kingdoms in a spirit congenial to the temper and interests of the restored community. This "post-Exilic" predecessor of Chronicles is supposed to have been based upon Kings itself, or upon the sources of Kings, or upon both: but in any case it was not much earlier than Chronicles and was written under the same influences and in a similar spirit. Being virtually an earlier edition of Chronicles, it could claim no higher authority, and would scarcely deserve either recognition or treatment as a separate work. Chronicles would still rest substantially on the authority of Kings.

It is possible to accept a somewhat simpler view, and to dispense with this shadowy and ineffectual first edition of Chronicles. In the first place, the chronicler does not appeal to the "Words" and "Visions," and the rest of his "Book of Kings" as authorities for his own statements; he merely refers his reader to them for further information which he himself does not furnish. This "Book of Kings" so often mentioned is therefore neither a source nor an authority of Chronicles. There is nothing to prove that the chronicler himself was actually acquainted with the book. Again, the close correspondence already noted between these references in Chronicles and the parallel notes in Kings suggests that the former are simply expanded and modified from the latter, and the chronicler had never seen the book he referred to. The Books of Kings had stated where additional information could be found, and Chronicles simply repeated the reference without verifying it. As some sections of Kings had come to be known by the names of certain prophets, the chronicler transferred these names back to the corresponding sections of the sources used by Kings. In these cases he felt he could give his readers not merely the somewhat vague reference to the original work as a whole, but the more definite and convenient citation of a particular paragraph. His descriptions of the additional subjects dealt with in the original authority may possibly, like other of his statements, have been constructed in accordance with his ideas of what that authority should contain; or more probably they refer to this authority the floating traditions of later times and writers. Possibly these references and notes of Chronicles are copied from the glosses which some scribe had written in the margin of his copy of Kings. If this be so, we can understand why we find references to the Midrash of Iddo and the Midrash of the book of Kings.

In any case, whether directly or through the medium of a preliminary edition, called "The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah," our book of Kings was used by the

10

chronicler. The supposition that the original sources of Kings were used by the chronicler or this immediate predecessor is fairly supported both by evidence and authority, but on the whole it seems an unnecessary complication.

Thus we fail to find in these various references to the "Book of Kings," etc., any clear indication of the origin of matter peculiar to Chronicles; nevertheless it is not difficult to determine the nature of the sources from which this material was derived. Doubtless some of it was still current in the form of oral tradition when the chronicler wrote, and owed to him its permanent record. Some he borrowed from manuscripts, which formed part of the scanty and fragmentary literature of the later period of the Restoration. His genealogies and statistics suggest the use of public and ecclesiastical archives, as well as of family records, in which ancient legend and anecdote lay embedded among lists of forgotten ancestors. Apparently the chronicler harvested pretty freely from that literary aftermath that sprang up when the Pentateuch and the earlier historical books had taken final shape.

But it is to these earlier books that the chronicler owes most. His work is very largely a mosaic of paragraphs and phrases taken from the older books. His chief sources are Samuel and Kings; he also lays the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Ruth under contribution. Much is taken over without even verbal alteration, and the greater part is unaltered in substance; yet, as is the custom in ancient literature, no acknowledgment is made. The literary conscience was not yet aware of the sin of plagiarism. Indeed, neither an author nor his friends took any pains to secure the permanent association of his name with his work, and no great guilt can attach to the plagiarism of one anonymous writer from another. This absence of acknowledgment where the chronicler is plainly borrowing from elder scribes is another reason why his references to the "Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah" are clearly not statements of sources to which he is indebted, but simply "what they profess to be" indications of the possible sources of further information.

Chronicles, however, illustrates ancient methods of historical composition, not only by its free appropriation of the actual form and substance of older works, but also by its curious blending of identical reproduction with large additions of quite heterogeneous matter, or with a series of minute but significant alterations. The primitive ideas and classical style of paragraphs from Samuel and Kings are broken in upon by the ritualistic fervor and late Hebrew of the chronicler’s additions. The

11

vivid and picturesque narrative of the bringing of the Ark to Zion is interpolated with uninteresting statistics of the names, numbers, and musical instruments of the Levites 2 Samuel 6:12-20 with 1 Chronicles 15:1-29; 1 Chronicles 16:1-43. Much of the chronicler’s account of the revolution which overthrew Athaliah and placed Joash on the throne is taken word for word from the book of Kings; but it is adapted to the Temple order of the Pentateuch by a series of alterations which substitute Levites for foreign mercenaries, and otherwise guard the sanctity of the Temple from the intrusion, not only of foreigners, but even of the common people. [2 Kings 11:1-21, 2 Chronicles 23:1-21] A careful comparison of Chronicles with Samuel and Kings is a striking object lesson in ancient historical composition. It is an almost indispensable introduction to the criticism of the Pentateuch and the older historical books. The "redactor" of these works becomes no mere shadowy and hypothetical personage when we have watched his successor the chronicler piecing together things new and old and adapting ancient narratives to modern ideas by adding a word in one place and changing a phrase in another.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CHRONICLES

BEFORE attempting to expound in detail the religious significance of Chronicles, we may conclude our introduction by a brief general statement of the leading features which render the book interesting and valuable to the Christian student.

The material of Chronicles may be divided into three parts: the matter taken directly from the older historical books; material derived from traditions and writings of the chronicler’s own age; the various additions and modifications which are the chronicler’s own work. Each of these divisions has its special value, and important lessons may be learnt from the way in which the author has selected and combined these materials.

The excerpts from the older histories are, of course, by far the best material in the book for the period of the monarchy. If Samuel and Kings had perished, we should have been under great obligations to the chronicler for preserving to us large portions of their ancient records. As it is, the chronicler has rendered invaluable service to the textual criticism of the Old Testament by providing us with an

12

additional witness to the text of large portions of Samuel and Kings. The very fact that the character and history of Chronicles are so different from those of the older books enhances the value of its evidence as to their text. The two texts, Samuel and Kings on the one hand and Chronicles on the other, have been modified under different influences; they have not always been altered in the same way, so that where one has been corrupted the other has often preserved the correct reading. Probably because Chronicles is less interesting and picturesque, its text has been subject to less alteration than that of Samuel and Kings. The more interested scribes or readers become, the more likely they are to make corrections and add glosses to the narrative. We may note, for example, that the name "Meribaal" given by Chronicles for one of Saul’s sons is more likely to be correct than "Mephibosheth," the form given by Samuel.

The material derived from traditions and writings of the chronicler’s own age is of uncertain historical value, and cannot be clearly discriminated from the author’s free composition. Much of it was the natural product of the thought and feeling of the late Persian and early Greek period, and shares the importance which attaches to the chronicler’s own work. This material, however, includes a certain amount of neutral matter: genealogies, family histories and anecdotes, and notes on ancient life and custom. We have no parallel authorities to test this material, we cannot prove the antiquity of the sources from which it is derived, and yet it may contain fragments of very ancient tradition. Some of the notes and narratives have an archaic flavor which can scarcely be artificial; their very lack of importance is an argument for their authenticity, and illustrates the strange tenacity with which local and domestic tradition perpetuates the most insignificant episodes.

But naturally the most characteristic, and therefore the most important, section of the contents of Chronicles is that made up of the additions and modifications which are the work of the chronicler or his immediate predecessors It is unnecessary to point out that these do not add much to our knowledge of the history of the monarchy; their significance consists in the light that they throw upon the period towards whose close the chronicler lived: the period between the final establishment of Pentateuchal Judaism and the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to stamp it out of existence; the period between Ezra and Judas Maccabaeus. The chronicler is no exceptional and epoch-making writer, has little personal importance, and is therefore all the more important as a typical representative of the current ideas of his class and generation. He translates the history of the past into the ideas and

13

circumstances of his own age, and thus gives us almost as much information about the civil and religious institutions he lived under as if he had actually described them. Moreover, in stating its estimate of past history, each generation pronounces unconscious judgment upon itself. The chronicler’s interpretation and philosophy of history mark the level of his moral and spiritual ideas. He betrays these quite as much by his attitude towards earlier authorities as in the paragraphs which are his own composition; we have seen how his use of materials illustrates the ancient, and for that matter the modern, Eastern methods of historical composition, and we have shown the immense importance of Chronicles to Old Testament criticism. But the way in which the chronicler uses his older sources also indicates his relation towards the ancient morality, ritual, and theology of Israel. His methods of selection are most instructive as to the ideas and interests of his time. We see what was thought worthy to be included in this final and most modern edition of the religious history of Israel. But in truth the omissions are among the most significant features of Chronicles; its silence is constantly more eloquent than its speech, and we measure the spiritual progress of Judaism by the paragraphs of Kings which Chronicles leaves out. In subsequent chapters we shall seek to illustrate the various ways in which Chronicles illuminates the period preceding the Maccabees. Any gleams of light on the Hebrew monarchy are most welcome, but we cannot be less grateful for information about those obscure centuries which fostered the quiet growth of Israel’s character and faith and prepared the way for the splendid heroism and religious devotion of the Maccabaean struggle.

STATISTICS

STATISTICS play an important part in Chronicles and in the Old Testament generally. To begin with, there are the genealogies and other lists of names, such as the lists of David’s counselors and the roll of honor of his mighty men. The chronicler specially delights in lists of names, and most of all in lists of Levitical choristers. He gives us lists of the orchestras and choirs who performed when the Ark was brought to Zion [1 Chronicles 15:1-29] and at Hezekiah’s passover (Cf. 2 Chronicles 29:12; 2 Chronicles 30:22) also a list of Levites whom Jehoshaphat sent out to teach in Judah. [2 Chronicles 17:8] No doubt family pride was gratified when the chronicler's contemporaries and friends read the names of their ancestors in connection with great events in the history of their religion. Possibly they supplied him with information from which these lists were compiled. An incidental result of the celibacy of the Romanist clergy has been to render ancient ecclesiastical

14

genealogies impossible; modern clergymen cannot trace their descent to the monks who landed with Augustine. Our genealogies might enable a historian to construct lists of the combatants at Agincourt and Hastings; but the Crusades are the only wars of the Church militant for which modern pedigrees could furnish a muster-roll.

We find also in the Old Testament the specifications and subscription-lists for the Tabernacle and for Solomon’s temple. These [Exodus 25:1-40; Exodus 26:1-37; Exodus 27:1-21; Exodus 28:1-43; Exodus 29:1-46; Exodus 30:1-38; Exodus 31:1-18; Exodus 32:1-35; Exodus 33:1-23; Exodus 34:1-35; Exodus 35:1-35; Exodus 36:1-38; Exodus 37:1-29; Exodus 38:1-31; Exodus 39:1-43, 1 Kings 7:1-51, 1 Chronicles 29:1-30, 2 Chronicles 3:5] statistics, however, are not furnished for the second Temple, probably for the same reason that in modern subscription-lists the donors of shillings and half-crowns are to be indicated by initials, or described as "friends" and "sympathizers," or massed together under the heading "smaller sums."

The Old Testament is also rich in census returns and statements as to the numbers of armies and of the divisions of which they were composed. There are the returns of the census taken twice in the wilderness and accounts of the numbers of the different families who came from Babylon with Zerubbabel and later on with Ezra; there is a census of the Levites in David’s time according to their several families; [1 Chronicles 15:4-10] there are the numbers of the tribal contingents that came to Hebron to make David king, [1 Chronicles 7:23-37] and much similar information.

Statistics therefore occupy a conspicuous position in the inspired record of Divine revelation, and yet we often hesitate to connect such terms as "inspiration" and "revelation" with numbers, and names, and details of civil and ecclesiastical organization. We are afraid lest any stress laid on purely accidental details should distract men’s attention from the eternal essence of the gospel, lest any suggestion that the certainty of Christian truth is dependent on the accuracy of these statistics should become a stumbling-block and destroy the faith of some. Concerning such matters there have been many foolish questions of genealogies, Profane and vain babblings, which have increased unto more ungodliness. Quite apart from these, even in the Old Testament a sanctity attaches to the number seven, but there is no warrant for any considerable expenditure of time and thought upon mystical arithmetic. A symbolism runs through the details of the building, furniture, and

15

ritual alike of the Tabernacle and the Temple, and this symbolism possesses a legitimate religious significance; but its exposition is not specially suggested by the book of Chronicles. The exposition of such symbolism is not always sufficiently governed by a sense of proportion. Ingenuity in supplying subtle interpretations of minute details often conceals the great truths which the symbols are really intended to enforce. Moreover, the sacred writers did not give statistics merely to furnish materials for Cabbala and Gematria or even to serve as theological types and symbols. Sometimes their purpose was more simple and practical. If we knew all the history of the Tabernacle and Temple subscription-lists, we should doubtless find that they had been used to stimulate generous gifts towards the erection of the second Temple. Preachers for building funds can find abundance of suitable texts in Exodus, Kings, and Chronicles.

But Biblical statistics are also examples in accuracy and thoroughness of information, and recognitions of the more obscure and prosaic manifestations of the higher life. Indeed, in these and other ways the Bible gives an anticipatory sanction to the exact sciences.

The mention of accuracy in connection with Chronicles may be received by some readers with a contemptuous smile. But we are indebted to the chronicler for exact and full information about the Jews who returned from Babylon; and in spite of the extremely severe judgment passed upon Chronicles by many critics, we may still venture to believe that the chronicler’s statistics are as accurate as his knowledge and critical training rendered possible. He may sometimes give figures obtained by calculation from uncertain data, but such a practice is quite consistent with honesty and a desire to supply the best available information. Modern scholars are quite ready to present us with figures as to the membership of the Christian Church under Antoninus Pius or Constantine; and some of these figures are not much more probable than the most doubtful in Chronicles. All that is necessary to make the chronicler’s statistics an example to us is that they should be the monument of a conscientious attempt to tell the truth, and this they undoubtedly are.

This Biblical example is the more useful because statistics are often evil spoken of, and they have no outward attractiveness to shield them from popular prejudice. We are told that "nothing is so false as statistics," and that "figures will prove anything"; and the polemic is sustained by works like "Hard Times" and the awful

16

example of Mr. Gradgrind. Properly understood, these proverbs illustrate the very general impatience of any demand for exact thought and expression. If "figures" will prove anything, so will texts.

Though this popular prejudice cannot be altogether ignored, yet it need not be taken too seriously. The opposite principle, when stated, will at once be seen to be a truism. For it amounts to this: exact and comprehensive knowledge is the basis of a right understanding of history, and is a necessary condition of right action. This principle is often neglected because it is obvious. Yet, to illustrate it from our author, a knowledge of the size and plan of the Temple greatly adds to the vividness of our pictures of Hebrew religion. We apprehend later Jewish life much more clearly with the aid of the statistics as to the numbers, families, and settlements of the returning exiles; and similarly the account-books of the bailiff of an English estate in the fourteenth century are worth several hundred pages of contemporary theology. These considerations may encourage those who perform the thankless task of compiling the statistics, subscription-lists, and balance-sheets of missionary and philanthropic societies. The zealous and intelligent historian of Christian life and service will need these dry records to enable him to understand his subject, and the highest literary gifts may be employed in the eloquent exposition of these apparently uninteresting facts and figures. Moreover, upon the accuracy of these records depends the possibility of determining a true course for the future. Neither societies nor individuals, for instance, can afford to live beyond their income without knowing it.

Statistics, too, are the only form in which many acts of service can be recognized and recorded. Literature can only deal with typical instances, and naturally it selects the more dramatic. The missionary report can only tell the story of a few striking conversions; it may give the history of the exceptional self-denial revolved in one or two of its subscription-lists; for the rest we must be content with tables and subscription-lists. But these dry statistics represent an infinitude of patience and self-denial, of work and prayer, of Divine grace and blessing. The city missionary may narrate his experiences with a few inquirers and penitents, but the great bulk of his work can only be recorded in the statement of visits paid and services conducted. We are tempted sometimes to disparage these statements, to ask how many of the visits and services had any result; we are impatient sometimes because Christian work is estimated by any such numerical line and measure. No doubt the method has many defects, and must not be used too mechanically; but we cannot

17

give it up without ignoring altogether much earnest and successful labor.

Our chronicler’s interest in statistics lays healthy emphasis on the practical character of religion. There is a danger of identifying spiritual force with literary and rhetorical gifts; to recognize the religious value of statistics is the most forcible protest against such identification. The permanent contribution of any age to religions thought will naturally take a literary form, and the higher the literary qualities of religious writing, the more likely it is to survive. Shakespeare, Milton, and Bunyan have probably exercised a more powerful direct religious influence on subsequent generations than all the theologians of the seventeenth century. But the supreme service of the Church in any age is its influence on its own generation, by which it moulds the generation immediately following. That influence can only be estimated by careful study of all possible information, and especially of statistics. We cannot assign mathematical values to spiritual effects and tabulate them like Board of Trade returns; but real spiritual movements will before long have practical issues, that can be heard, and seen, and felt, and even admit of being put into tables. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth"; [John 3:8] and yet the boughs and the corn bend before the wind, and the ships are carried across the sea to their desired haven. Tables may be drawn up of the tonnage and the rate of sailing. So is every one that is born of the Spirit. You cannot tell when and how God breathes upon the soul; but if the Divine Spirit be indeed at work in any society, there will be fewer crimes and quarrels, less scandal, and more deeds of charity. We may justly suspect a revival which has no effect upon the statistical records of national life. Subscription-lists are very imperfect tests of enthusiasm, but any widespread Christian fervor would be worth little if it did not swell subscription-lists.

Chronicles is not the most important witness to a sympathetic relationship between the Bible and exact science. The first chapter of Genesis is the classic example of the appropriation by an inspired writer of the scientific spirit and method. Some chapters in Job show a distinctly scientific interest in natural phenomena. Moreover, the direct concern of Chronicles is in the religious aspects of social science. And yet there is a patient accumulation of data with no obvious dramatic value: names, dates, numbers, specifications, and ritual which do not improve the literary character of the narrative. This conscientious recording of dry facts, this noting down of anything and everything that connects with the subject, is closely akin to the initial processes of the inductive sciences. True, the chronicler’s interests are in

18

some directions narrowed by personal and professional feeling; but within these limits he is anxious to make a complete record, which, as we have seen, sometimes leads to repetition. Now inductive science is based on unlimited statistics. The astronomer and biologist share the chronicler’s appetite for this kind of mental food. The lists in Chronicles are few and meager compared to the records of Greenwich Observatory or the volumes which contain the data of biology or sociology; but the chronicler becomes in a certain sense the forerunner of Darwin, Spencer, and Galton. The differences are indeed immense. The interval of two thousand odd years between the ancient annalist and the modern scientists has not been thrown away. In estimating the value of evidence and interpreting its significance, the chronicler was a mere child compared with his modern successors. His aims and interests were entirely different from theirs. But yet he was moved by a spirit which they may be said to inherit. His careful collection of facts, even his tendency to read the ideas and institutions of his own time into ancient history, are indications of a reverence for the past and of an anxiety to base ideas and action upon a knowledge of that past. This foreshadows the reverence of modern science for experience, its anxiety to base its laws and theories upon observation of what has actually occurred. The principle that the past determines and interprets the present and the future lies at the root of the theological attitude of the most conservative minds and the scientific work of the most advanced thinkers. The conservative spirit, like the chronicler, is apt to suffer its inherited pre-possessions and personal interests to hinder a true observation and understanding of the past. But the chronicler’s opportunities and experience were narrow indeed compared with those of theological students today; and we have every right to lay stress on the progress which he had achieved and the onward path that it indicated rather than on the yet more advanced stages which still lay beyond his horizon.

THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE TIME OF THE CHRONICLER

WE have already referred to the light thrown by Chronicles on this subject. Besides the direct information given in Ezra and Nehemiah, and sometimes in Chronicles itself, the chronicler by describing the past in terms of the present often unconsciously helps us to reconstruct the picture of his own day. We shall have to make occasional reference to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, but the age of the chronicler is later than the events which they describe, and we shall be traversing different ground from that covered by the volume of the "Expositor’s Bible" which

19

deals with them.

Chronicles is full of evidence that the civil and ecclesiastical system of the Pentateuch had become fully established long before the chronicler wrote. Its gradual origin had been forgotten, and it was assumed that the Law in its final and complete form had been known and served from the time of David onwards. At every stage of the history Levites are introduced, occupying the subordinate position and discharging the menial duties assigned to them by the latest documents of the Pentateuch. In other matters small and great, especially those concerning the Temple and its sanctity, the chronicler shows himself so familiar with the Law that he could not imagine Israel without it. Picture the life of Judah as we find it in 2 Kings and the prophecies of the eighth century, put this picture side by side with another of the Judaism of the New Testament, and remember that Chronicles is about a century nearer to the latter than to the former. It is not difficult to trace the effect of this absorption in the system of the Pentateuch. The community in and about Jerusalem had become a Church, and was in possession of a Bible. But the hardening, despiritualizing processes which created later Judaism were already at work. A building, a system of ritual, and a set of officials were coming to be regarded as the essential elements of the Church. The Bible was important partly because it dealt with these essential elements, partly because it provided a series of regulations about washings and meats, and thus enabled the layman to exalt his everyday life into a round of ceremonial observances. The habit of using the Pentateuch chiefly as a handbook of external and technical ritual seriously influenced the current interpretation of the Bible. It naturally led to a hard literalism and a disingenuous exegesis. This interest in externals is patent enough in the chronicler, and the tendencies of Biblical exegesis are illustrated by his use of Samuel and Kings. On the other hand, we must allow for great development of this process in the interval between Chronicles and the New Testament. The evils of later Judaism were yet far from mature, and religious life and thought in Palestine were still much more elastic than they became later on.

We have also to remember that at this period the zealous observers of the Law can only have formed a portion of the community, corresponding roughly to the regular attendants at public worship in a Christian country. Beyond and beneath the pious legalists were "the people of the land," those who were too careless or too busy to attend to ceremonial; but for both classes the popular and prominent ideal of religion was made up of a magnificent building, a dignified and wealthy clergy, and

20

an elaborate ritual, alike for great public functions and for the minutiae of daily life.

Besides all these the Jewish community had its sacred writings. As one of the ministers of the Temple, and, moreover, both a student of the national literature and himself an author, the chronicler represents the best literary knowledge of contemporary Palestinian Judaism; and his somewhat mechanical methods of composition make it easy for us to discern his indebtedness to older writers. We turn his pages with interest to learn what books were known and read by the most cultured Jews of his time. First and foremost, and overshadowing all the rest, there appears the Pentateuch. Then there is the whole array of earlier Historical Books: Joshua, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings. The plan of Chronicles excludes a direct use of Judges, but it must have been well known to our author. His appreciation of the Psalms is shown by his inserting in his history of David a cento of passages from Psalms 96:1-13. Psalms 105:1-45, and Psalms 106:1-48; on the other hand, Psalms 18:1-50, and other lyrics given in the books of Samuel are omitted by the chronicler. The later Exilic Psalms were more to his taste than ancient hymns, and he unconsciously carries back into the history of the monarchy the poetry as well as the ritual of later times. Both omissions and insertions indicate that in this period the Jews possessed and prized a large collection of psalms.

There are also traces of the Prophets. Hanani the seer in his address to Asa [2 Chronicles 16:9] quotes Zechariah 4:10 : "The eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth." Jehoshaphat’s exhortation to his people, "Believe in the Lord your God; so shall ye be established," [2 Chronicles 20:20] is based on Isaiah 7:9 : "If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established." Hezekiah’s words to the Levites, "Our fathers have turned away their faces from the habitation of the Lord, and turned their backs," [2 Chronicles 29:6] are a significant variation of Jeremiah 2:27 : "They have turned their back unto Me, and not their face." The Temple is substituted for Jehovah.

There are of course references to Isaiah and Jeremiah and traces of other prophets; but when account is taken of them all, it is seen that the chronicler makes scanty use, on the whole, of the Prophetical Books. It is true that the idea of illustrating and supplementing information derived from annals by means of contemporary literature not in narrative form had not yet dawned upon historians; but if the chronicler had taken a tithe of the interest in the Prophets that he took in the

21

Pentateuch and the Psalms, his work would show many more distinct marks of their influence.

An apocalypse like Daniel and works like Job, Proverbs, and the other books of Wisdom lay so far outside the plan and subject of Chronicles that we can scarcely consider the absence of any clear trace of them a proof that the chronicler did not either know them or care for them.

Our brief review suggests that the literary concern of the chronicler and his circle was chiefly in the books most closely connected with the Temple; viz., the Historical Books, which contained its history, the Pentateuch, which prescribed its ritual, and the Psalms, which served as its liturgy. The Prophets occupy a secondary place, and Chronicles furnishes no clear evidence as to other Old Testament books.

We also find in Chronicles that the Hebrew language had degenerated from its ancient classical purity, and that Jewish writers had already come very much under the influence of Aramaic.

We may next consider the evidence supplied by the chronicler as to the elements and distribution of the Jewish community in his time. In Ezra and Nehemiah we find the returning exiles divided into the men of Judah, the men of Benjamin, and the priests, Levites, etc. In Ezra 2:1-70. we are told that in all there returned 42,360, with 7,337 slaves and 200 "singing men and singing women." The priests numbered 4,289; there were 74 Levites, 128 singers of the children of Asaph, 139 porters, and 392 Nethinim and children of Solomon’s servants. The singers, porters, Nethinim, and children of Solomon’s servants are not reckoned among the Levites, and there is only one guild of singers: "the children of Asaph." The Nethinim are still distinguished from the Levites in the list of those who returned with Ezra, and in various lists which occur in Nehemiah. We see from the Levitical genealogies and the Levites in 1 Chronicles 6:1-81; 1 Chronicles 9:1-44, etc., that in the time of the chronicler these arrangements had been altered. There were now three guilds of singers, tracing their descent to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan or Jeduthun, and reckoned by descent among the Levites. The guild of Heman seems to have been also known as "the sons of Korah." 1 Chronicles 6:33; 1 Chronicles 6:37; Cf. Psalms

22

88:1-18 (title) The porters and probably eventually the Nethinim were also reckoned among the Levites. [1 Chronicles 16:38; 1 Chronicles 16:42]

We see therefore that in the interval between Nehemiah and the chronicler the inferior ranks of the Temple ministry had been reorganized, the musical staff had been enlarged and doubtless otherwise improved, and the singers, porters, Nethinim, and other Temple servants had been promoted to the position of Levites. Under the monarchy many of the Temple servants had been slaves of foreign birth; but now a sacred character was given to the humblest menial who shared in the work of the house of God. In after-times Herod the Great had a number of priests trained as masons, in order that no profane hand might take part in the building of his temple.

Some details have been preserved of the organization of the Levites. We road how the porters were distributed among the different gates, and of Levites who were over the chambers and the treasuries, and of other Levites how-

"They lodged round about the house of God, because the charge was upon them, and to them pertained the opening thereof morning by morning."

"And certain of them had charge of the vessels of service; for by tale were they brought in, and by tale were they taken out."

"Some of them also were appointed over the furniture, and over all the vessels of the sanctuary, and over the fine flour, and the wine, and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices."

"And some of the sons of the priests prepared the confection of the spices."

"And Mattithiah, one of the Levites who was the first-born of Shallum the Korahite,

23

had the set office over the things that were baked in pans,"

"And some of their brethren, of the sons of Kohathites, were over the shewbread to prepare it every sabbath." [1 Chronicles 9:26-32; Cf. 1 Chronicles 23:24-32]

This account is found in a chapter partly identical with Nehemiah 11:1-36, and apparently refers to the period of Nehemiah; but the picture in the latter part of the chapter was probably drawn by the chronicler from his own knowledge of Temple routine. So, too, in his graphic accounts of the sacrifices by Hezekiah and Josiah, [2 Chronicles 29:1-36; 2 Chronicles 30:1-27; 2 Chronicles 31:1-21; 2 Chronicles 34:1-33; 2 Chronicles 35:1-27] we seem to have an eyewitness describing familiar scenes. Doubtless the chronicler himself had often been one of the Temple choir "when the burnt-offering began, and the song of Jehovah began also, together with the instruments of David, king of Israel; and all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded; and all this continued till the burnt-offering was finished." [2 Chronicles 29:27-28] Still the scale of these sacrifices, the hundreds of oxen and thousands of sheep, may have been fixed to accord with the splendor of the ancient kings. Such profusion of victims probably represented rather the dreams than the realities of the chronicler’s Temple.

Our author’s strong feeling for his own Levitical order shows itself in his narrative of Hezekiah’s great sacrifices. The victims were so numerous that there were not priests enough to flay them; to meet the emergency the Levites were allowed on this one occasion to discharge a priestly function and to take an unusually conspicuous part in the national festival. In zeal they were even superior to the priests: "The Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests." Possibly here the chronicler is describing an incident which he could have paralleled from his own experience. The priests of his time may often have yielded to a natural temptation to shirk the laborious and disagreeable parts of their duty; they would catch at any plausible pretext to transfer their burdens to the Levites, which the latter would be eager to accept for the sake of a temporary accession of dignity. Learned Jews were always experts in the art of evading the most rigid and minute regulations of the Law. For instance, the period of service appointed for the Levites in the Pentateuch was from the age of thirty to that of fifty. [Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:35] But we gather from Ezra and Nehemiah that comparatively few Levites could be induced to throw in their lot with the returning exiles; there

24

were not enough to perform the necessary duties. To make up for paucity of numbers, this period of service was increased; and they were required to serve from twenty years old and upward. As the former arrangement had formed part of the law attributed to Moses, in course of time the later innovation was supposed to have originated with David.

There were, too, other reasons for increasing the efficiency of the Levitical order by lengthening their term of service and adding to their numbers. The establishment of the Pentateuch as the sacred code of Judaism imposed new duties on priests and Levites alike. The people needed teachers and interpreters of the numerous minute and complicated rules by which they were to govern their daily life. Judges were needed to apply the laws in civil and criminal cases. The Temple ministers were the natural authorities on the Torah; they had a chief interest in expounding and enforcing it. But in these matters also the priests seem to have left the new duties to the Levites. Apparently the first "scribes," or professional students of the Law, were mainly Levites. There were priests among them, notably the great father of the order, "Ezra the priest, the scribe," but the priestly families took little share in this new work. The origin of the educational and judicial functions of the Levites had also come to be ascribed to the great kings of Judah. A Levitical scribe is mentioned in the time of David. [1 Chronicles 24:6] In the account of Josiah’s reign we are expressly told that "of the Levites there were scribes, and officers, and porters"; and they are described as "the Levites that taught all Israel." [2 Chronicles 34:13;, 2 Chronicles 35:3] In the same context we have the traditional authority and justification for this new departure. One of the chief duties imposed upon the Levites by the Law was the care and carriage of the Tabernacle and its furniture during the wanderings in the wilderness. Josiah, however, bids the Levites "put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, did build; there shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel." [2 Chronicles 35:3; Cf. 1 Chronicles 23:26] In other words, "You are relieved of a large part of your old duties, and therefore have time to undertake new ones." The immediate application of this principle seems to be that a section of the Levites should do all the menial work of the sacrifices, and so leave the priests, and singers, and porters fret for their own special service; but the same argument would be found convenient and conclusive whenever the priests desired to impose any new functions on the Levites.

Still the task of expounding and enforcing the Law brought with it compensations in

25

the shape of dignity, influence, and emolument; and the Levites would soon be reconciled to their work as scribes, and would discover with regret that they could not retain the exposition of the Law in their own hands. Traditions were cherished in certain Levitical families that their ancestors had been "officers and judges" under David; [1 Chronicles 26:29] and it was believed that Jehoshaphat had organized a commission largely composed of Levites to expound and administer the Law in country districts. [2 Chronicles 17:7; 2 Chronicles 17:9] This commission consisted of five princes, nine Levites, and two priests; "and they taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the Lord with them; and they went about throughout all the cities of Judah and taught among the people." As the subject of their teaching was the Pentateuch, their mission must have been rather judicial than religious. With regard to a later passage, it has been suggested that "probably it is the organization of justice as existing in his own day that he" (the chronicler) "here carries back to Jehoshaphat, so that here most likely we have the oldest testimony to the synedrium of Jerusalem as a court of highest instance over the provincial synedria, as also to its composition and presidency." We can scarcely doubt that the form the chronicler has given to the tradition is derived from the institutions of his own age, and that his friends the Levites were prominent among the doctors of the law, and not only taught and judged in Jerusalem, but also visited the country districts.

It will appear from this brief survey that the Levites were very completely organized. There were not only the great classes, the scribes, officers, porters, singers, and the Levites proper, so to speak, who assisted the priests, but special families had been made responsible for details of service: "Mattithiah had the set office over the things that were baked in pans; and some of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites, were over the shewbread, to prepare it every sabbath." [1 Chronicles 9:31-32]

The priests were organized quite differently. The small number of Levites necessitated careful arrangements for using them to the best advantage; of priests there were enough and to spare. The four thousand two hundred and eighty-nine priests who returned with Zerubbabel were an extravagant and impossible allowance for a single temple, and we are told that the numbers increased largely as time went on. The problem was to devise some means by which all the priests should have some share in the honors and emoluments of the Temple, and its solution was found in the "courses." The priests who returned with Zerubbabel are registered in

26

four families: "the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua the children of Immer the children of Pashhur the children of Harim." [Ezra 2:36; Ezra 2:39] But the organization of the chronicler’s time is, as usual, to be found among the arrangements ascribed to David, who is said to have divided the priests into their twenty-four courses. [1 Chronicles 24:1-19] Amongst the heads of the courses we find Jedaiah, Jeshua, Harim, and Immer, but not Pashhur. Post-Biblical authorities mention twenty-four courses in connection with the second Temple. Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged to the course of Abijab; [Luke 1:5] and Josephus mentions a course "Eniakim." Abijah was the head of one of David’s courses; and Eniakim is almost certainly a corruption of Eliakim, of which name Jakim in Chronicles is a contraction.

These twenty-four courses discharged the priestly duties each in its turn. One was busy at the Temple while the other twenty-three were at home, some perhaps living on the profits of their office, others at work on their farms. The high-priest, of course, was always at the Temple; and the continuity of the ritual would necessitate the appointment of other priests as a permanent staff. The high-priest and the staff, being always on the spot, would have great opportunities for improving their own position at the expense of the other members of the courses, who were only there occasionally for a short time. Accordingly we are told later on that a few families had appropriated nearly all the priestly emoluments.

Courses of the Levites are sometimes mentioned in connection with those of the priests, as if the Levites had an exactly similar organization. [1 Chronicles 24:20-31,, 2 Chronicles 31:2] Indeed, twenty-four courses of the singers are expressly named. [1 Chronicles 25:1-31] But on examination we find that "course" for the Levites in all cases where exact information is given [1 Chronicles 24:1-31, Ezra 6:18,, Nehemiah 11:36] does not mean one of a number of divisions which took work in turn, but a division to which a definite piece of work was assigned, e.g. the care of the shewbread or of one of the gates. The idea that in ancient times there were twenty-four alternating courses of Levites was not derived from the arrangements of the chronicler’s age, but was an inference from the existence of priestly courses. According to the current interpretation of the older history, there must have been under the monarchy a very great many more Levites than priests, and any reasons that existed for organizing twenty-four priestly courses would apply with equal force to the Levites. It is true that the names of twenty-four courses of singers are given, but in this list occurs the remarkable and impossible group of names already

27

discussed:-"I-have-magnified, I-have-exalted-help; Sitting-in-distress, I-have-spoken In-abundance Visions," which are in themselves sufficient proof that these twenty-four courses of singers did not exist in the time of the chronicler.

Thus the chronicler provides material for a fairly complete account of the service and ministers of the Temple; but his interest in other matters was less close and personal, so that he gives us comparatively little information about civil persons and affairs. The restored Jewish community was, of course, made up of descendants of the members of the old kingdom of Judah. The new Jewish state, like the old, is often spoken of as "Judah"; but its claim to fully represent the chosen people of Jehovah is expressed by the frequent use of the name "Israel." Yet within this new Judah the old tribes of Judah and Benjamin are still recognized. It is true that in the register of the first company of returning exiles the tribes are ignored, and we are not told which families belonged to Judah or which to Benjamin; but we are previously told that the chiefs of Judah and Benjamin rose up to return to Jerusalem. Part of this register arranges the companies according to the towns in which their ancestors had lived before the Captivity, and of these some belong to Judah and some to Benjamin. We also learn that the Jewish community included certain of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh. [1 Chronicles 9:3] There may also have been families from the other, tribes; St. Luke, for instance, describes Anna as of the tribe of Aser Luke 2:36. But the mass of genealogical matter relating to Judah and Benjamin far exceeds what is given as to the other tribes, and proves that Judah and Benjamin were co-ordinate members of the restored community, and that no other tribe contributed any appreciable contingent, except a few families from Ephraim and Manasseh. It has been suggested that the chronicler shows special interest in the tribes which had occupied Galilee-Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar-and that this special interest indicates that the settlement of Jews in Galilee had attained considerable dimensions at the time when he wrote. But this special interest is not very manifest: and later on, in the time of the Maccabees, the Jews in Galilee were so few that Simon took them all away with him, together with their wives and their children and all that they had, and brought them into Judaea.

The genealogies seem to imply that no descendants of the Trans-jordanic tribes or of Simeon were found in Judah in the age of the chronicler.

Concerning the tribe of Judah, we have already noted that it included two families

28

which traced their descent to Egyptian ancestors, and that the Kenizzite clans of Caleb and Jerahmeel had been entirely incorporated in Judah and formed the most important part of the tribe. A comparison of the parallel genealogies of the house of Caleb gives us important information as to the territory occupied by the Jews. In 1 Chronicles 2:42-49 we find the Calebites at Hebron and other towns of the south country, in accordance with the older history; but in 1 Chronicles 2:50-55 they occupy Bethlehem and Kirjath-jearim and other towns in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. The two paragraphs are really giving their territory before and after the Exile; during the Captivity Southern Judah had been occupied by the Edomites. It is indeed stated in Nehemiah 11:25-30 that the children of Judah dwelt in a number of towns scattered over the whole territory of the ancient tribe; but the list concludes with the significant sentence, "So they encamped from Beersheba unto the valley of Hinnom." We are thus given to understand that the occupation was not permanent.

We have already noted that much of the space allotted to the genealogies of Judah is devoted to the house of David. [1 Chronicles 3:1-24] The form of this pedigree for the generations after the Captivity indicates that the head of the house of David was no longer the chief of the state. During the monarchy only the kings are given as heads of the family in each generation: "Solomon’s son was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son," etc., etc.; but after the Captivity the first-born no longer occupied so unique a position. We have all the sons of each successive head of the family.

The genealogies of Judah include one or two references which throw a little light on the social organization of the times. There were "families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez," [1 Chronicles 2:55] as well as the Levitical scribes. In the appendix [1 Chronicles 4:21-23] to the genealogies of chapter 4 we read of a house whose families wrought fine linen, and of other families who were porters to the king and lived on the royal estates. The immediate reference of these statements is clearly to the monarchy, and we are told that "the records are ancient"; but these ancient records were probably obtained by the chronicler from contemporary members of the families, who still pursued their hereditary calling.

As regards the tribe of Benjamin, we have seen that there was a family claiming descent from Saul.

29

The slight and meager information given about Judah and Benjamin cannot accurately represent their importance as compared with the priests and Levites, but the general impression conveyed by the chronicler is confirmed by our other authorities. In his time the supreme interests of the Jews were religious. The one great institution was the Temple; the highest order was the priesthood. All Jews were in a measure servants of the Temple; Ephesus indeed was proud to be called the temple-keeper of the great Diana, but Jerusalem was far more truly the temple-keeper of Jehovah. Devotion to the Temple gave to the Jews a unity which neither of the older Hebrews states had ever possessed. The kernel of this later Jewish territory seems to have been a comparatively small district of which Jerusalem was the center. The inhabitants of this district carefully preserved the records of their family history, and loved to trace their descent to the ancient clans of Judah and Benjamin; but for practical purposes they were all Jews, without distinction of tribe. Even the ministry of the Temple had become more homogeneous; the non-Levitical descent of some classes of the Temple servants was first ignored and then forgotten, so that assistants at the sacrifices, singers, musicians, scribes, and porters, were all included in the tribe of Levi. The Temple conferred its own sanctity upon all its ministers.

In a previous chapter the Temple arid its ministry were compared to a mediaeval monastery or the establishment of a modern cathedral. In the same way Jerusalem might be compared to cities, like Ely or Canterbury, which exist mainly for the sake of their cathedrals, only both the sanctuary and city of the Jews came to be on a larger scale. Or, again, if the Temple be represented by the great abbey of St. Edmundsbury, Bury St. Edmunds itself might stand for Jerusalem, and the wide lands of the abbey for the surrounding districts, from which the Jewish priests derived their free-will offerings, and firstfruits, and tithes. Still in both these English instances there was a vigorous and independent secular life far beyond any that existed in Judaea.

A closer parallel to the temple on Zion is to be found in the immense establishments of the Egyptian temples. It is true that these were numerous in Egypt, and the authority and influence of the priesthood were checked and controlled by the power of the kings; yet on the fall of the twentieth dynasty the high-priest of the great temple of Amen at Thebes succeeded in making himself king, and Egypt, like Judah, had its dynasty of priest-kings.

30

The following is an account of the possessions of the Theban temple of Amen, supposed to be given by an Egyptian living about B.C. 1350:-

"Since the accession of the eighteenth dynasty, Amen has profited more than any other god, perhaps even more than Pharaoh himself, by the Egyptian victories over the peoples of Syria and Ethiopia. Each success has brought him a considerable share of the spoil collected upon the battle-fields, indemnities levied from the enemy, prisoners carried into slavery. He possesses lands and gardens by the hundred in Thebes and the rest of Egypt, fields and meadows, woods, hunting-grounds, and fisheries; he has colonies in Ethiopia or in the oases of the Libyan desert, and at the extremity of the land of Canaan there are cities under vassalage to him, for Pharaoh allows him to receive the tribute from them. The administration of these vast properties requires as many officials and departments as that of a kingdom. It includes innumerable bailiffs for the agriculture; overseers for the cattle and poultry; treasurers of twenty kinds for the gold, silver, and copper, the vases and valuable stuffs; foremen for the workshops and manufactures; engineers; architects; boatmen; a fleet and an army which often fight by the side of Pharaoh’s fleet and army. It is really a state within the state."

Many of the details of this picture would not be true for the temple of Zion; but the Jews were even more devoted to Jehovah than the Thebans to Amen, and the administration of the Jewish temple was more than "a state within the state": it was the state itself.

Solomon Asks for Wisdom

1 Solomon son of David established himself firmly

31

over his kingdom, for the Lord his God was with him and made him exceedingly great.

CLARKE, "And Solomon the son of David - The very beginning of this book shows that it is a continuation of the preceding, and should not be thus formally separated from it. See the preface to the first book.

The Lord his God was with him - “The Word of the Lord was his support.” - Targum.

GILL, "And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom,.... Well settled and established on the throne of his father, after the death of some persons, from whom he might expect trouble, see 1Ki_2:46.

and the Lord God was with him; directing and instructing him, prospering and succeeding him: the Targum is,"the Word of the Lord was his help:''and magnified him exceedingly; see 1Ch_29:25.

HENRY, "Here is, I. Solomon's great prosperity, 2Ch_1:1. Though he had a contested title, yet, God being with him, he was strengthened in his kingdom; his heart and hands were strengthened, and his interest in the people. God's presence will be our strength.

II. His great piety and devotion. His father was a prophet, a psalmist, and kept mostly to the ark; but Solomon, having read much in his Bible concerning the tabernacle which Moses built and the altars there, paid more respect to them than, it should seem, David had done. Both did well, and let neither be censured. If the zeal of one be carried out most to one instance of religion, and of another to some other instance, let them not judge nor despise each other.

JAMISON, "2Ch_1:1-6. Solemn offering of Solomon at Gibeon.

K&D 1-6, "2Ch_1:1-6The sacrifice at Gibeon, and the theophany. - 2Ch_1:1-6. When Solomon had

established himself upon his throne, he went with the princes and representatives of the congregation of Israel to Gibeon, to seek for the divine blessing upon his reign by a solemn sacrifice to be offered there before the tabernacle. 2Ch_1:1 forms, as it were, the

32

superscription of the account of Solomon's reign which follows. In ויתחזק וגו = Solomon established himself in his kingdom, i.e., he became strong and mighty in his kingdom, the older commentators saw a reference to the defeat of Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and his followers (1 Kings 2). But this view of the words is too narrow; we find the same remark made of other kings whose succession to the throne had not been questioned (cf. 2Ch_12:13; 2Ch_13:21; 2Ch_17:1, and 2Ch_21:4), and the remark refers to the whole reign-to all that Solomon undertook in order to establish a firm dominion, not merely to his entry upon it. With this view of the words, the second clause, “his God was with him, and made him very great,” coincides. God gave His blessing to all that Solomon did for this end. With the last words cf. 1Ch_29:25.

We have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon (2Ch_1:7-13) in 1Ki_3:4-15 also. The two narratives agree in all the main points, but, in so far as their form is concerned, it is at once discernible that they are two independent descriptions of the same thing, but derived from the same sources. In 1 Kings 3 the theophany-in our text, on the contrary, that aspect of the sacrifice which connected it with the public worship-is more circumstantially narrated. While in 1Ki_3:4 it is briefly said the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, our historian records that Solomon summoned the princes and representatives of the people to this solemn act, and accompanied by them went to Gibeon. This sacrifice was no mere private sacrifice-it was the religious consecration of the opening of his reign, at which the estates of the kingdom were present as a matter of course. “All Israel” is defined by “the princes over the thousands ..., the judges, and all the honourable;” then לכל־שראל is again taken up and explained by the apposition

ת is to be repeated before ל .to all Israel, viz., the heads of the fathers'-houses :ראשי האב

;What Solomon said to all Israel through its representatives, is not communicated .ראשיbut it may be gathered from what succeeds, that he summoned them to accompany him to Gibeon to offer the sacrifice. The reason why he offered his sacrifice at the במה, i.e., place of sacrifice, is given in 2Ch_1:3. There the Mosaic tabernacle stood, yet without the ark, which David had caused to be brought up from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem (1Ch_13:1-14 and 15). In בהכין ל the article in ba represents the relative באשר = אשר or ל

ם אשר הכין cf. Jdg_5:27; Rth_1:16; 1Ki_21:19; see on 1Ch_26:28. Although the ;במקark was separated from the tabernacle, yet by the latter at Gibeon was the Mosaic altar of burnt-offering, and on that account the sanctuary at Gibeon was Jahve's dwelling, and the legal place of worship for burnt-offerings of national-theocratic import. “As our historian here brings forward emphatically the fact that Solomon offered his burnt-offering at the legal place of worship, so he points out in 1Ch_21:28-30 :1, how David was only brought by extraordinary events, and special signs from God, to sacrifice on the altar of burnt-offering erected by him on the threshing-floor of Ornan, and also states how he was prevented from offering his burnt-offering in Gibeon” (Berth.). As to Bezaleel, the maker of the brazen altar, cf. Exo_31:2 and Exo_37:1. Instead of שם, which

most manuscripts and many editions have before לפני, and which the Targ. and Syr. also

express, there is found in most editions of the 16th century, and also in manuscripts, שם,

which the lxx and Vulgate also read. The reading שם is unquestionably better and more

correct, and the Masoretic pointing שם, posuit, has arisen by an undue assimilation of it

to Exo_40:29. The suffix in ידרשהו does not refer to the altar, but to the preceding word

הים .cf ;יהוה .1Ch_21:30; 1Ch_15:13, etc ,דרש א

33

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:1-2. Solomon was strengthened in his kingdom — Or, established, after his seditious brother Adonijah and his partisans were suppressed; and he was received with the universal consent and joy of his princes and people. Solomon spake unto all Israel — Namely, concerning his intention of going to Gibeon, and that they should attend him thither, as the next verse shows. Authority and interest are well bestowed on those that will thus use them for the glory of God, and the promotion of religion. But it is the duty of all men to engage all they have any influence upon in the solemnities of religion, and very desirable to have many to join with them therein: the more the better: it makes these solemnities the more like heaven.

ELLICOTT, "(a) The sacrifice at Gibeon, and Solomon’s dream (2 Chronicles 1:1-13). (b) The king’s chariots and horsemen, wealth and commerce (2 Chronicles 1:14-17).

(1) And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom.—Or, showed himself strong over his kingdom; firmly grasped the reins of power, and showed himself a strong ruler. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 17:1; also 2 Chronicles 12:13; 2 Chronicles 13:21; 2 Chronicles 21:4.) The chronicler omits all that is related in 1 Kings 1, 2, as not falling within the scope of his narrative. Comp. with this opening sentence 1 Kings 2:46, “And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.”

And the Lord his God was with him.—Comp. 1 Chronicles 11:9; 1 Chronicles 9:20.

Magnified him exceedingly.—1 Chronicles 29:25; 1 Chronicles 22:5.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:1 And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom, and the LORD his God [was] with him, and magnified him exceedingly.

Ver. 1. And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom.] Defying the opposition of Adonijah and his accomplices. See 1 Kings 1:4-10.

POOLE, "King Solomon's solemn offering at Gibeon, 2 Chronicles 1:1-6. His choice of wisdom is blessed by God, 2 Chronicles 1:7-12. His strength and wealth, 1 Chronicles 1:13-17.

34

Was strengthened, or established, after his seditious brother Adonijah and his partisans were suppressed; and he was received with the universal consent and joy of his princes and people.

PARKER 1-12, "I. And Solomon [ 1 Kings 2:46] the son of David was strengthened [a favourite expression with the writer of Chronicles. It recurs in chaps. 1 Kings 12:13; 1 Kings 13:21; and 1 Kings 21:4. The meaning seems to be simply, "he became firmly settled in his government." Comp. 1 Kings 2:12, 1 Kings 2:46] in his kingdom, and the Lord his God was with him [comp. 1 Chronicles 11:9; and see also Genesis 39:2; Exodus 3:12; Joshua 1:5; 2 Chronicles 15:9] and magnified him exceedingly.

2. Then Solomon spake unto all Israel, to the captains of thousands and of hundreds [see 1 Chronicles 27:1; 1 Chronicles 28:1], and to the judges [David had made six thousand Levites "officers and judges" ( 1 Chronicles 23:4). The "judge" among the Israelites was always regarded as a high functionary, whose presence was desirable on all occasions of importance], and to every governor ["prince," or "man of rank"] in all Israel, the chief of the fathers.

3. So Song of Solomon , and all the congregation with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness.

4. But the ark of God had David brought up from Kirjath-jearim to the place which David had prepared for it: for he had pitched a tent for it at Jerusalem.

5. Moreover the brazen altar, that Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, he put before the tabernacle of the Lord: and Solomon and the congregation sought unto it.

6. And Solomon went up thither to the brazen altar before the Lord, which was at

35

the tabernacle of the congregation, and offered a thousand burnt-offerings upon it.

7. In that night [in the night which followed the conclusion of the sacrifice] did God appear [the most important point omitted in Chronicles, and supplied by Kings, is the conditional promise of long life made to Solomon ( 1 Kings 3:14); while the chief point absent from Kings, and recorded by our author, is the solemn appeal made by Solomon to the promise of God to David his father ( 2 Chronicles 1:9), which he now called upon God to "establish" or "perform"] unto Song of Solomon , and said unto him, Ask what I shall give thee.

8. And Solomon said unto God, Thou hast shewed great mercy unto David my father, and hast made me to reign in his stead.

9. Now, O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude.

10. Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people [for the decision of difficult cases, which in those days came immediately before the king, great discrimination and experience were requisite in order to distinguish at once right from wrong, and pass a just sentence. How old Solomon was at this time we do not know, scarcely more than twenty years] that is so great?

11. And God said to Song of Solomon , Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king:

12. Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour [The Speaker"s Commentary upon this says: Remark that the writer says nothing of any promise to Solomon of "long life" which however had been mentioned in the preceding verse among the blessings which he might have

36

been expected to ask. The reason for the omission would seem to lie in the writer"s desire to record only what is good of this great king. Long life was included in the promises made to him ( 1 Kings 3:14): but it was granted conditionally, and Solomon not fulfilling the conditions, it did not take effect], such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.

GUZIK 1-4, "A. Solomon meets God at Gibeon.

1. (2 Chronicles 1:1-4) Solomon brings the leaders of Israel to the tabernacle at Gibeon.

Now Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom, and the LORD his God was with him and exalted him exceedingly. And Solomon spoke to all Israel, to the captains of thousands and of hundreds, to the judges, and to every leader in all Israel, the heads of the fathers’ houses. Then Solomon, and all the assembly with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for the tabernacle of meeting with God was there, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness. But David had brought up the ark of God from Kirjath Jearim to the place David had prepared for it, for he had pitched a tent for it at Jerusalem.

a. Now Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom, and the LORD his God was with him: Solomon made a great start to his reign as king, and God blessed it. He had been left with almost every possible advantage by his father David and his kingdom was strong.

b. Then Solomon . . . went to the high place that was at Gibeon: Solomon made these special sacrifices at Gibeon because the tabernacle of meeting with God was there. Though the ark of the covenant had been brought to Jerusalem (the place David had prepared for it), the tabernacle itself stayed at Gibeon.

i. Morgan on the phrase, tabernacle of meeting: “That is, it was the place where the

37

people met with God. That is always the idea; not the meeting of the people with each other, but their meeting with God.”

ii. We can track the progress of tabernacle and the ark of the covenant in the Promised Land:

· Joshua brought both the ark and the tabernacle to Shiloh (Joshua 18)

· In the days of Eli the ark was captured and the tabernacle wrecked (1 Samuel 4, Psalms 78:60-64, Jeremiah 7:12 and Jeremiah 26:9)

· The ark came back to Kiriath-Jearim (1 Samuel 7:1-2)

· Saul restored the tabernacle at Nob (1 Samuel 21)

· Saul moved the tabernacle to Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39-40)

· David brought the ark to Jerusalem and built a temporary tent for it (2 Samuel 6:17, 2 Chronicles 1:4)

iii. There are several reasons to explain why David did not bring the tabernacle from Gibeon to Jerusalem.

· He may have believed if the tabernacle was there the people would be satisfied with that and they would lose the passion and vision for the temple God wanted built.

38

· It may be that the tabernacle was only moved when it was absolutely necessary - as when disaster came upon it at Shiloh or Nob.

· David simply focused on building the temple, not continuing the tabernacle.Verse 1-9:31

PULPIT, "THE CAREER OF SOLOMON AS KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM is here commenced, covering the ground to the end of 2 Chronicles 9:1-31. The same period is described in 1 Kings 1-11Was strengthened in his kingdom. This expression, or one very closely resembling it, is frequently found both in Chronicles and elsewhere, so far as the English Version is concerned. But the verb in its present form (hithp. conjugation) is found in Chronicles, omitting other books, just fifteen times, and rarely, if ever, to the level of the mere passive voice. It carries rather the idea of a person who exerts himself, and does all that in him lies to nerve himself with strength for any object (1 Chronicles 11:10; 1 Chronicles 19:13; 2 Chronicles 12:13; 2 Chronicles 13:7, 2 Chronicles 13:8, 2 Chronicles 13:21; 2 Chronicles 15:8; 2 Chronicles 16:9; 2 Chronicles 17:1; 2 Chronicles 21:4; 2 Chronicles 23:1; 2 Chronicles 25:11; 2 Chronicles 27:6; 2 Chronicles 32:5). It may suggest to us that Solomon threw the force of moral energy and resolution into his work and life at this period. The Lord his God was with him; i.e. Jehovah his God was with him. The parallels of this very simple and natural expression are too numerous for quotation. Some of the earliest are found in well-known connections in the Book of Genesis, as e.g. Genesis 21:22; Genesis 26:28; Genesis 28:15, Genesis 28:20; Genesis 31:3. Again, Numbers 14:14, Numbers 14:43; Numbers 23:21; Joshua 14:12; 6:13; Ruth 2:4; 1 Samuel 17:37; 2 Samuel 5:10; 1 Chronicles 11:9; 1 Chronicles 22:11, 1 Chronicles 22:16; 2 Chronicles 15:9; 2 Chronicles 19:11; 2 Chronicles 36:23; Amos 5:14. The beautiful New Testament equivalent occurs in 2 Thessalonians 3:16, and elsewhere. Like some other of those earliest concisest religious expressions, brevity and simplicity are fully charged with suggestion. And the above quotations will be found to furnish examples of the manifold practical use of the Lord's presence with any one. That presence may infer the help just of companionship, or of sure sympathy, or of needed counsel, or of strength in the hour of temptation, or of absolute practical help, or of the highest revealings of faith. The whole circle of need, of human and Christian need, the Divine presence "will supply" (Philippians 4:19). The "need" of Solomon in his present position was

39

patent and pressing. Would that he had always kept by the true supply of it! Magnified him exceedingly. This verb in its piel conjugation, signifying "to make grow," occurs twenty-six times in the various books of the Old Testament, some of the more characteristic occurrences of it being found in the following passages: Genesis 12:2; Numbers 6:5; Joshua 3:7; Joshua 4:17; 1 Kings 1:37, 1 Kings 1:47; 2 Kings 10:6; 1 Chronicles 29:12, 1 Chronicles 29:25; Esther 3:1; Job 7:17; Psalms 34:4; Psalms 69:31; Isaiah 1:2; Isaiah 4; Ezekiel 31:4; Daniel 1:5; Hosea 9:12.

BI 1-12, "And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom.

The splendid beginning

I. Solomon’s succession to the throne was providentially secured: “The Lord his God was with him.”

II. Solomon’s claims to the throne were sanctioned by a representative assembly.

III. Solomon’s accession to the throne was signalisd by solemn acts of worship.

1. In obedience to Divine law.

2. In appropriate magnificence.

IV. Solomon’s accession to the throne was in a spirit of devout supplication. When Victoria learned that she was about to become Queen of England, her first words to the Archbishop of Canterbury were, “I beg your grace to pray for me.” Together they knelt, and the new reign began with prayer.

V. Solomon’s accession to the throne was unequalled in splendour (2Ch_1:12).

1. Outward splendour: “Riches and wealth and honour.”

2. Moral splendour: “Wisdom and knowledge.” (James Wolfendale.)

2 Then Solomon spoke to all Israel—to the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds, to the judges and to all the leaders in Israel, the heads of families—

40

BARNES, "The narrative here corresponds with 1Ki_3:4; but is very much fuller. We learn from the present passage:

(1) that Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon was a great public festivity, to which he collected vast numbers of the people;

(2) that it was made upon the brass altar of Bezaleel, which(3) stood before the tabernacle; and(4) that Solomon’s vision was on the night of his sacrifice. Consult the marginal

references

CLARKE, "Then Solomon spake - This is supposed to have taken place in the second year of his reign.

GILL, "Then Solomon spake unto all Israel,.... To their representatives about going to Gibeon to sacrifice, as the next words show: so Jarchi and Kimchi observe:

to the captains of thousands, and of hundreds, to the judges, and to every governor in all Israel, the chief of the fathers; whom he had convened on this occasion; though some think this is the same congregation gathered by his father, by whom he was anointed and made king, and that he spoke of this to them before they broke up, 1Ch_28:1 which seems not so probable, since it was after the death of his father, after he had been king some time, and even after his marriage with Pharaoh's daughter, that what follows was done, see 1Ki_3:1.

HENRY, "1. All his great men must thus far be good men that they must join with him in worshipping God. He spoke to the captains and judges, the governors and chief of the fathers, to go with him to Gibeon, 2Ch_1:2, 2Ch_1:3. Authority and interest are well bestowed on those that will thus use them for the glory of God, and the promoting of religion. It is our duty to engage all with whom we have influence in the solemnities of religion, and it is very desirable to have many join with us in those solemnities - the more the better; it is the more like heaven. Solomon began his reign with this public pious visit to God's altar, and it was a very good omen. Magistrates are then likely to do well for themselves and their people when they thus take God along with them at their setting out.

JAMISON 2-5, "Then Solomon spake unto all Israel — The heads, or leading officers, who are afterwards specified, were summoned to attend their sovereign in a

41

solemn religious procession. The date of this occurrence was the second year of Solomon’s reign, and the high place at Gibeon was chosen for the performance of the sacred rites, because the tabernacle and all the ancient furniture connected with the national worship were deposited there. Zadok was the officiating high priest (1Ch_16:39). It is true that the ark had been removed and placed in a new tent which David had made for it at Jerusalem [2Ch_1:4]. But the brazen altar, “before the tabernacle of the Lord,” on which the burnt offerings were appointed by the law to be made, was at Gibeon. And although David had been led by extraordinary events and tokens of the divine presence to sacrifice on the threshing-floor of Araunah, Solomon considered it his duty to present his offerings on the legally appointed spot “before the tabernacle,” and on the time-honored altar prepared by the skill of Bezaleel in the wilderness (Exo_38:1).

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:3-4. Solomon, &c., went to the high place at Gibeon — Upon which the tabernacle was placed; whence it is called the great high place, 1 Kings 3:4. But the ark, &c. — David had separated the ark from the tabernacle, and brought it to Jerusalem, because there he intended to build a far more noble and lasting habitation for it.

ELLICOTT, " (2) Then Solomon spake unto all Israel.—Or, commanded all Israel (1 Chronicles 21:17; 2 Samuel 16:11; 2 Kings 1:11; Vulg., prœcepit).

To the captains of thousands . . . chief of the fathers.—This is an apposition, explaining what is meant by “all Israel” in the first clause, viz., the national representatives. The account in Kings allows only one verse for the sacrifice, and so omits to mention that the princes took part in it (1 Kings 3:4). The fact, however, is likely in itself. (Comp. the similar assemblies under David, 1 Chronicles 13:1; 1 Chronicles 23:2; 1 Chronicles 28:1.)

Every governor.—Heb. nûsî’, prince, emir of a tribe, or chief of a clan. (Comp. Genesis 23:6; Numbers 7:10; 1 Kings 8:1.)

The chief of the fathers.—The heads of the clans. This defines the preceding phrase.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:2 Then Solomon spake unto all Israel, to the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and to the judges, and to every governor in all Israel, the chief of the fathers.

Ver. 2. Then Solomon spake unto all Israel.] As David had done before him. [1 Chronicles 28:1; 1 Chronicles 29:1]

42

PULPIT, "This verse and the following four supersede the one verse, 1 Kings 3:4; and the five together give us, of course, a much fuller view of the events of the sacrifice. Our present verse purports to show the representative components of "all Israel" in a fourfold classification. Captains of thousands and of hundreds (see first 1 Chronicles 13:1; 1 Chronicles 27:1; 1 Chronicles 28:1; and then Exodus 18:21, Exodus 18:25; Numbers 31:14, Numbers 31:48, Numbers 31:52, Numbers 31:54; Deuteronomy 1:15; 1 Samuel 8:12; 1 Samuel 17:18; 1 Samuel 18:13; 1 Samuel 22:7; 2 Samuel 18:1; 2 Kings 11:9, 2 Kings 11:15, 2 Kings 11:19). The judges. The office and the person of the judge were held in high honour among the Jewish people from the first, and perhaps, also, with a noteworthy uniformity, even in the more degenerate periods of their history. Their commencement in patriarchal simplicity can be easily imagined, and receives illustration from such passages as Job 29:7, Job 29:8, Job 29:9; Job 32:9. Their more formal development may be considered to date from the crisis related in Exodus 18:14-24. And the allusions to the judge and his office thenceforward sustain our impression of the honour in which they were held, arising, no doubt, largely from the deep-felt necessity for them, the more society crystallized (Numbers 25:5; Deuteronomy 16:18; Deuteronomy 19:17; Deuteronomy 21:2; Joshua 8:33; 1 Chronicles 23:24; 1 Chronicles 26:29; 2 Chronicles 19:8-10). In 1 Chronicles 23:24 we are told how David set apart "six thousand Levites" to be "officers and judges." Every governor. The word employed here ( נשיא ) is rendered by five different words in our Authorized Version: "prince" (Genesis 17:20, passim), "ruler" (Exodus 16:22, passim), "captain" (Numbers 2:3, passim), "chief" 1 Chronicles 3:24, passim), and "governor" in the present passage only. It is evidently a term of generic signification, used of a king (1 Kings 11:34; Ezekiel 12:10); of leaders of the Ishmaelites (Genesis 17:20); of the captains of the tribes of Israel (Numbers 7:11); of the chiefs of families (Numbers 3:24); while the use of it (Genesis 23:6) to set forth the position of Abraham as one raised to eminence so high and undisputed that it might be clearly said to be God's doing, is sufficient to determine its central signification. The chief of the fathers; i.e. the heads of the fathers. The first occurrence of the expression, "the heads of their fathers' houses" (Exodus 6:14), and of "the heads of the fathers of the Levites according to their families" (Exodus 6:25), sufficiently explains the original and perfectly natural meaning of the phrase. The great importance and significance of the position of the heads "of families" and "of houses" and" of fathers" in early patriarchal times must necessarily have declined by the time of Solomon, when the nation had received so much more of civil form and system. But the name remained, and the family and social position did not fail to make themselves felt, and finally the official recognition of them in David's time is evidenced by 1 Chronicles 27:1, and in Solomon's time both by the present passage and 2 Chronicles 5:2 with its parallel 1 Kings 8:1. Our present use of the expression ought probably to show it, in close apposition with the foregoing words,

43

"to all Israel" (wrongly translated "in all Israel" in the Authorized Version), and which itself is a repetition of the "to all Israel" in the beginning of the verse. Although the existing Hebrew pointing of the verse does not favour the supposition, it may be that the writer means to emphasize Solomon's summons as made both to the kingdom as such, and to the people also as a united people. We are not, indeed, told here, in so many words, what it was that Solomon said "to all Israel." But there can be no doubt as to his object, as betrayed in the first clause of the following verse.

3 and Solomon and the whole assembly went to the high place at Gibeon, for God’s tent of meeting was there, which Moses the Lord’s servant had made in the wilderness.

GILL, "So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon,.... They agreed to his motion, and went with him thither, see 1Ki_3:4.

for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness: by the Lord's direction; where was also the altar of the Lord, and so most proper to offer sacrifice on, which was what Solomon went thither to do; see 1Ch_21:29.

ELLICOTT, "(3) The tabernacle of the congregation of God.—Rather, God’s tent of meeting; viz., with man (Exodus 25:22; Exodus 27:21; Numbers 17:4). Solomon repaired to Gibeon because “that was the great high place” (1 Kings 3:4). We learn from our text why Gibeon stood pre-eminent above the other high places. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 6:31 sqq.; 1 Chronicles 16:39 sqq.)

TRAP, "2 Chronicles 1:3 So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the

44

high place that [was] at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness.

Ver. 3. Went to the high place.] This word is usually taken in an ill sense: but here in a good. (a) See on 1 Kings 3:4.

PULPIT, "All the congregation; i.e. in the persons of their captains, judges, princes, and family representatives. The high place … at Gibeon. It may readily be allowed that even nature and instinct would suggest a certain fitness in selecting high places, and the impressive grandeur of groves, for the worship of the High and Lofty One and for the offerings of sacrifice to him. It was not otherwise historically (Genesis 12:7, Genesis 12:8; Genesis 22:3, Genesis 22:4; Genesis 31:54). However, first, it was part of the education of a nation (situated in the heart of the young world) in the unity of the one God, that its worship should be offered in one place, and the smoke of its sacrifices ascend from one altar; and secondly, it was not difficult to foresee that the very force that lay in the associations, which dictated the choice of some places (not least, certainly, "the grove"), would constitute their weakness and snare. The prohibitions, therefore, of the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 12:5, Deuteronomy 12:11, Deuteronomy 12:14, Deuteronomy 12:19, Deuteronomy 12:21, Deuteronomy 12:26), witnessed to by such corroborations as are found in commands to obliterate certain Canaanitish traces, that looked long time a different way (Le 2 Chronicles 17:8; 2 Chronicles 26:1-23 :30; Numbers 33:52; Deuteronomy 33:29; Joshua 22:29; 1 Kings 20:23), approve themselves as in thorough harmony with what all would feel to be the genius of the religious education of Israel, and, through Israel, of the nations of the world. The wonder that impresses us is rather that means were not found to abide by the "letter" of the Law to a far greater degree during all the generations that elapsed before the people were settled in their land, and were gathered in their temple so typical. Is it not possible to regard this as an impressive instance of how, even in a system that sought to be of the closest and most exclusive, the "spirit," by force of circumstances, resented the tyrannous bondage of the "letter"? Anyway, for ages from the time of that prohibition, the nation had the moral principle as their guide rather than any possibility of keeping safe within a commandment's "letter" (so see 6:25, 6:26; 13:17-24; 1 Samuel 7:10; 1 Samuel 13:9; 1 Samuel 16:5; 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 1 Kings 18:30). Even now, accordingly, the prohibited is still the observed, and by Solomon, too, in the steps of David, even if it be necessary to describe it as the "winked at." And to the "high place" at Gibeon Solomon and all the representatives, the congregation of Israel, have to repair in order to do sacrifice. The tabernacle was now at Gibeon, whither it had come from Nob (1 Chronicles 16:39, 1 Chronicles 16:40; 1 Samuel 21:1, 1

45

Samuel 21:6; from which latter reference, speaking of the "shew-bread," it comes that we know the tabernacle to have resided at Nob awhile; for the circumstance is not positively narrated in any passage of the history (but see also 1 Samuel 22:9, 1 Samuel 22:11). Gibeon was one of the four Hivite cities, the other three being Beeroth, Chephirah, and Kirjath-jearim. It had its first fame from its "wiliness" (Joshua 9:3, Joshua 9:4, etc.). By the directest road, it was five miles distant from Jerusalem, in the direction of the sea. It was further noted for the encounter between Joab and Abner (2 Samuel 2:12-17). Again, for the slaying of Amasa by Joab (2 Samuel 20:6-10), and for the death of Joab himself at the hand of Benalak, at the very horns of the altar (1 Kings 2:28-34). Although the exact date of the lodging of the tabernacle at Gibeon is not told us, nor even the person who was answerable for briging it there, yet there can be no reasonable doubt that it was David, as we read (1 Chronicles 16:40) of his appointing the priests to offer "the daily sacrifices" there, on the brazen altar of Moses, when Zadok was at their head, and Heman and Jeduthun were their resident musicians. In what particular part of Gibeon or of its immediate neighbourhood the tabernacle was stationed cannot be said with any certainty. Amid a considerable choice of likely places, one forming part of Gibeon itself, and just south of El-Tib, seems the likeliest, and to be preferred to the suggestion of Stanley, of Neby-Samuil, which is a mile distant. The present imposing occasion is the last of any importance on which Gibeon is brought before us (see also 1 Kings 8:3; 1 Chronicles 9:35). There was the tabernacle. The removal of the tabernacle to Gibeon no doubt followed immediately on the destruction of Nob by Saul (1 Samuel 22:9; 1 Chronicles 16:39, 1 Chronicles 16:40, compared with 1 Chronicles 16:37; 1 Chronicles 21:28, 1 Chronicles 21:29). Moses … made in the wilderness (see Exodus 25:1-40; Exodus 26:1-37; Exodus 27:1-21; Exodus 33:7-10).

4 Now David had brought up the ark of God from Kiriath Jearim to the place he had prepared for it, because he had pitched a tent for it in Jerusalem.

46

CLARKE, "But the ark - The tabernacle and the brazen altar remained still at Gibeon; but David had brought away the ark out of the tabernacle, and placed it in a tent at Jerusalem; 2Sa_6:2, 2Sa_6:17.

GILL, "But the ark of God had David brought up from Kirjathjearim,.... See 2Sa_6:2.

ELLICOTT, " (4) But.—Or, But indeed, but no doubt (’ăbâl) (2 Chronicles 19:3; 2 Chronicles 33:17). For the transfer of the ark see 1 Chronicles 13, 15; 2 Samuel 6.

To the place which David had prepared.—Into that David had prepared for it (the article as relative: comp. 1 Chronicles 26:28).

Pitched.—Or, spread (1 Chronicles 15:1).

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:4 But the ark of God had David brought up from Kirjathjearim to [the place which] David had prepared for it: for he had pitched a tent for it at Jerusalem.

Ver. 4. But the ark.] See on 2 Samuel 6:2, &c.

PULPIT, "But the ark. Again, as in 1 Chronicles 16:39, the writer emphasizes the fact of the temporary divorce that had obtained between the ark and the tabernacle (so 1 Samuel 6:20; 2 Samuel 6:2-19; 1 Kings 3:2, 1 Kings 3:4, 1 Kings 3:15; 1 Chronicles 13:3-14; 1 Chronicles 15:1-3, 1 Chronicles 15:12-15, 1 Chronicles 15:23-29). David's pitching of the tent for it is recorded emphatically 1 Chronicles 15:1; 1 Chronicles 16:1; 2 Samuel 6:17.

5 But the bronze altar that Bezalel son of Uri, the

47

son of Hur, had made was in Gibeon in front of the tabernacle of the Lord; so Solomon and the assembly inquired of him there.

BARNES, "2Ch_1:5Sought unto it - i. e., “frequented it” - “were in the habit of making use of it.”

CLARKE, "Sought unto it - Went to seek the Lord there.

GILL, "Moreover, the brasen altar that Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made,.... According to the pattern given by Moses, at the direction of God, Exo_38:1,

he put before the tabernacle of the congregation; either David, or rather Solomon; though it seems best to read the words as in the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions, "and there it was before the tabernacle"; for it was always there:

and Solomon and the congregation sought unto it; to sacrifice unto it; or rather sought "unto him", the Lord, before whose tabernacle the altar was, so Gussetins (a).

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:5. The brazen altar he put before the tabernacle, &c. — He continued it there, and did not remove it, as he did the ark, from the tabernacle. Solomon and the congregation sought unto it — Sought the Lord and his favour by hearty prayers and sacrifices in the place which God had appointed for that work, Leviticus 17:3-4.

ELLICOTT, " (5) Moreover the brasen altar . . . he put before the tabernacle of the Lord.—Rather, And the brasen altar . . . was there before the dwelling of Jehovah. In Hebrew, shâm is “there”; and sâm, “he put.” Some MSS., supported by the LXX. and Vulg., read the former; most of the MSS. and the Syr., Arab., and Targ., the

48

latter. The former reading is preferable, as it is not likely that David found the brazen altar separated from the Mosaic sanctuary, and restored it to its place. The sentence further explains why Solomon resorted to Gibeon. The presence of the old brazen altar constituted it the legitimate place of sacrifice. With perfect consistency, the chronicler accounted for David’s not going to Gibeon (1 Chronicles 21:28-30).

That Bezaleel the son of Uri . . . had made—See Exodus 31:2; Exodus 31:9; Exodus 38:1-8; Exodus 27:1-8.

And Solomon and the congregation sought unto it.—Rather, And Solomon and the assembly sought Him—i.e., the Lord. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 13:3; 1 Chronicles 15:13; 1 Chronicles 21:30.) The old versions translate as A. V.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:5 Moreover the brasen altar, that Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, he put before the tabernacle of the LORD: and Solomon and the congregation sought unto it.

Ver. 5. He put,] i.e., Moses put.

And Solomon and all the congregation sought unto it.] Or, Unto him, i.e., the Lord; there they did their devotions to him: they diligently sought him, as the word signitieth. Compare Hebrews 11:6.

POOLE, " He put; either Moses, mentioned 2 Chronicles 1:3, or Bezaleel, here last named, by the command and direction of Moses; or David, who may be said to put it there, because he continued it there, and did not remove it, as he did the ark from the tabernacle.

Sought unto it, i.e. sought the Lord and his favour by hearty prayers and sacrifices in the place which God had appointed for that work, Leviticus 17:3,4.

COFFMAN, ""The brazen altar that Bezalel ... had made" (2 Chronicles 1:5). Continually throughout Chronicles we find an acute consciousness of all that was written in the Pentateuch in the times of Moses. The references here are from Exodus 17:10; 28:1-8; 31:2.

"Solomon offered a thousand burnt-offerings upon it" (2 Chronicles 1:6). This means that Solomon provided the burnt-offerings, not that he offered them

49

personally, a duty that pertained to the priests. "This altar is mentioned as assurance that Gibeon was the proper place for sacrifice and worship."[1]

By beginning his record of Solomon's reign in this manner, the Chronicler apparently sought to focus the attention of Israel upon their ancient heritage of the favor and blessing of God, and upon his deliverance of them from Egypt by the hand of Moses.

GUZIK 5-6, "2. (2 Chronicles 1:5-6) Solomon and the assembly seek God together.

Now the bronze altar that Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, he put before the tabernacle of the LORD Solomon and the assembly sought Him there. And Solomon went up there to the bronze altar before the LORD, which was at the tabernacle of meeting, and offered a thousand burnt offerings on it.

a. Now the bronze altar that Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, he put before the tabernacle of the LORD: This was the same altar made in the wilderness between Egypt and the Promised Land (Exodus 36:1-2). This altar was at least 500 years old and had received many sacrifices over Israel’s long history since the Exodus.

b. Solomon and the assembly sought Him there: Solomon and the people of God sought the LORD at the place of atoning sacrifice. This was the Old Testament equivalent to “coming to the cross” in seeking God.

i. This was an important event marking the “ceremonial” beginning of Solomon’s reign. Solomon wanted to demonstrate from the beginning that he would seek God and lead the kingdom to do so.

c. And offered a thousand burnt offerings: This almost grotesque amount of sacrifice demonstrated both Solomon’s great wealth and his heart to use it to glorify God.

50

PULPIT, "The brazen altar. This statement is introduced to lay stress on the fact that, though the ark indeed was not with the tabernacle, the brazen altar of burnt offering assuredly was there, this constituting the place, the proper spot, for sacrifice and worship. (For the account of the brazen altar and its making, see Exodus 27:1-8; Exodus 38:1-7; also Numbers 16:38, Numbers 16:39.) This altar of burnt offering is often spoken of as the altar, to distinguish it from the altar of incense (Exodus 30:1; Exodus 39:38; Numbers 4:11). Bezaleel. (For detailed genealogy, see our 1 Chronicles 2:3-20; also Exodus 31:2-5; Exodus 35:30-35.) He put before. The reading ( שם ), "was there before," is to be preferred, tallying as it does exactly with Exodus 40:6. This was the reading understood by the Septuagint and Vulgate. The majority of manuscripts, however, and the Syriac Version, have שם . Sought unto it. The analogy of the use of this word would make to be preferred the translation "sought him," i.e. the "Jehovah" just spoken of. But whether the object of the verb be in this place Jehovah or the altar, it would seem probable that the clause purports to say that Solomon and his people were accustomed to repair thither, while now they were about to repair thither with a very vast burnt offering.

6 Solomon went up to the bronze altar before the Lord in the tent of meeting and offered a thousand burnt offerings on it.

GILL, "And Solomon went up thither,.... To the high place at Gibeon:

to the brasen altar before the lord; where he used to be, and accept the sacrifices of his people, though the ark, the symbol of his presence, was not there:

which was at the tabernacle of the congregation; that is, which altar was there; or rather "who", that is, God, was there, as Osiander, hearing the prayers of his people, and accepting their offerings:

51

and offered a thousand offerings upon it; by the priests, see 1Ki_3:4.

HENRY, "2. He offered abundance of sacrifices to God there (2Ch_1:6): 1000 burnt-offerings, and perhaps a greater number of peace-offerings, on which he and his company feasted before the Lord. Where God sows plentifully he expects to reap accordingly. His father David had left him flocks and herds in abundance (1Ch_27:29, 1Ch_27:31), and thus he gave God his dues out of them. The ark was at Jerusalem (2Ch_1:4), but the altar was at Gibeon (2Ch_1:5), and thither he brought his sacrifices; for it is the altar that sanctifieth every gift.

3. He prayed a good prayer to God: this, with the answer to it, we had before, 1Ki_3:5, etc. (1.) God bade him ask what he would; not only that he might put him in the right way of obtaining the favours that were intended him (Ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be full), but that he might try him, how he stood affected, and might discover what was in his heart. Men's characters appear in their choices and desires. What wouldst thou have? tries a man as much as, What wouldst thou do? Thus God tried whether Solomon was one of the children of this world, that say, Who will show us any good, or of the children of light, that say, Lord, lift up the light of thy countenance upon us. As we choose we shall have, and that is likely to be our portion to which we give the preference, whether the wealth and pleasure of this world or spiritual riches or delights. (2.) Like a genuine son of David, he chose spiritual blessings rather than temporal. His petition here is, Give me wisdom and knowledge. He owns those to be desirable gifts, and God to be the giver of them, Pro_2:6. God gave the faculty of understanding, and to him we must apply for the furniture of it. Two things are here pleaded which we had not in Kings: - [1.] Thou hast made me reign in my father's stead, 2Ch_1:8. “Lord, thou hast put me into this place, and therefore I can in faith ask of thee grace to enable me to do the duty of it.” What service we have reason to believe God calls us to we have reason to hope he will qualify us for. But that is not all. “Lord, thou hast put me into this place in the stead of David, the great and good man that filled it up so well; therefore give me wisdom, that Israel may not suffer damage by the change. Must I reign in my father's stead? Lord, give me my father's spirit.” Note, The eminency of those that went before us, and the obligation that lies upon us to keep up and carry on the good work they were engaged in, should provoke us to a gracious emulation, and quicken our prayers to God for wisdom and grace, that we may do the work of God in our day as faithfully and well as they did in theirs. [2.] Let thy promise to David my father be established, 2Ch_1:9. He means the promise of concerning his successor. “In performance of that promise, Lord, give me wisdom.” We do not find that wisdom was any of the things promised, but it was necessary in order to the accomplishment of what was promised, 2Sa_7:13-15. The promise was, He shall build a house for my name, I will establish his throne, he shall be my son, and my mercy shall not depart from him. “Now, Lord, unless thou give me wisdom, thy house will not be built, nor my throne established; I shall behave in a manner unbecoming my relation to thee as a Father, shall forfeit thy mercy, and fool it away; therefore, Lord, give me wisdom.” Note, First, God's promises are our best pleas in prayer. Remember thy word unto thy servant. Secondly, Children may take the comfort of the promises of that covenant which their parents, in their baptism, laid claim to, and took hold of, for them. Thirdly, The best way to obtain the benefit of the promises and privileges of the covenant is to be earnest in prayer with God for wisdom and grace to do the duties of it.

52

JAMISON, "offered a thousand burnt offerings — This holocaust he offered, of course, by the hands of the priests. The magnitude of the oblation became the rank of the offerer on this occasion of national solemnity.

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:6. To the brazen altar before the Lord — It is said to be before the Lord, though the ark was not there, because God was pleased graciously to accept the sacrifices offered before the place, though wanting the token of his glorious presence. And offered a thousand burnt-offerings upon it — Namely, by the ministry of the priests, He probably offered as many peace- offerings, on which he and his company feasted before the Lord; unless, as Pellicanus thinks, burnt-offerings here signify peace-offerings, the general name being put for the special.

ELLICOTT, " (6) And Solomon went up thither to the “brasen altar.—So Vulg. incorrectly. Rather, And Solomon offered there on the brasen altar; so LXX. and Syriac.

Before the Lord.—The altar stood before the entry of the Lord’s dwellingplace (Exodus 40:6). (Comp. Judges 20:23; Judges 20:26.)

Which was at the tabernacle of the congregation.—Which altar belonged to the tent of tryst. In 1 Kings 6:22 the golden altar is said in like manner to belong to the Holy of holies, before which it stood. (The Vulg. seems to have read “the brasen altar, before the Lord’s tent of meeting”; comp. 2 Chronicles 1:3.)

And offered.—He offered (I say). The verb is repeated before its object for clearness’ sake.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:6 And Solomon went up thither to the brasen altar before the LORD, which [was] at the tabernacle of the congregation, and offered a thousand burnt offerings upon it.

Ver. 6. The tabernacle of the congregation.] Which was so called, because there the people met to serve God.

POOLE, "i.e. Which altar. But that he had now said, 2 Chronicles 1:5, and therefore

53

would not unnecessarily repeat it. Or rather, who; and so these words are emphatical, and contain a reason why Solomon went thither, because the Lord was there graciously present to hear prayers and receive sacrifices.

PULPIT, "A thousand burnt offerings. The first instance of the burnt offering is Genesis 8:20, and thereafter in the same book Genesis 15:9, Genesis 15:17; Genesis 22:2, Genesis 22:7, Genesis 22:13. It was manifestly the chiefest of the eucharistic kind of sacrifices, and for manifest reasons also was preceded by a "sin" offering (Exodus 29:36-38; Le Exodus 8:14, etc.). (For full details of the ceremonial, see Leviticus 1:1-17; Leviticus 6:1-30; Leviticus 7:1-38; Leviticus 8:1-36, passim) The extraordinary number of the burnt offerings on this and some similar occasions may well excite our wonder (Numbers 7:3, Numbers 7:17; 1 Kings 8:64; 2 Chronicles 4:1 compared with 2 Chronicles 7:7. See also Herod; 'Hist.,' 7.43). The priests, of course, performed the sacrifices at the command of Solomon.

7 That night God appeared to Solomon and said to him, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.”

BARNES 7-11, "The verbal differences between this passage and the corresponding one of Kings 1Ki_3:5-14 are very considerable, and indicate the general truth that the object of the sacred historians is to give a true account of the real bearing of what was said: not ordinarily to furnish us with all or the exact words that were uttered. The most important point omitted in Chronicles, and supplied by Kings, is the conditional promise of long life made to Solomon 1Ki_3:14; while the chief point absent from Kings, and recorded by our author, is the solemn appeal made by Solomon to the promise of God to David his father 2Ch_1:9, which he now called upon God to “establish,” or to perform.

CLARKE, "In that night - The night following the sacrifice. On Solomon’s choice,

54

see the notes on 1Ki_3:5-15 (note).

GILL 7-12, "In that night did God appear unto Solomon,.... From hence to the end of 2Ch_1:12 it is the same with 1Ki_3:5. See Gill on 1Ki_3:5, 1Ki_3:6, 1Ki_3:7, 1Ki_3:8, 1Ki_3:9, 1Ki_3:10, 1Ki_3:11, 1Ki_3:12, 1Ki_3:13, 1Ki_3:14, 1Ki_3:15

JAMISON, "2Ch_1:7-13. His choice of wisdom is blessed by God.

In that night did God appear unto Solomon — (See on 1Ki_3:5).

K&D 7-10, "2Ch_1:7-10The theophany, cf. 1Ki_3:5-15. In that night, i.e., on the night succeeding the day of

the sacrifice. The appearance of God by night points to a dream, and in 1Ki_3:5-15 we are expressly informed that He appeared in a vision. Solomon's address to God, 2Ch_1:8-10, is in 1Ki_3:6-10 given more at length. The mode of expression brings to mind 1Ch_17:23, and recurs in 2Ch_6:17; 1Ki_8:26. מדע, with Pathach in the second syllable,

elsewhere מדע (2Ch_1:11, 2Ch_1:12), occurs elsewhere only in Dan_1:4, Dan_1:17; Ecc_10:20.

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:7. In that night — After those sacrifices were offered; did God appear to Solomon in a dream — Of which see the notes on 1 Kings 3:5. And said, Ask what I shall give thee — God bid him ask what he would; not only that he might put him in the right way to obtain the favours which were intended him, Ask, and ye shall receive; but that he might try him how he stood affected, and give him an opportunity of knowing and manifesting what was in his heart. For men’s characters appear in their desires and choices. What wouldst thou have? tries a man as much as, What wouldst thou do?

ELLICOTT, " (7) In that night did God appear unto Solomon.—Kings, “In Gibeon did Jehovah appear unto Solomon in a dream of the night.” Our text fixes the night as that which followed the sacrifices; the parallel passage explicitly states that it was in a dream that God appeared.

Ask what I shall give thee.—Rather, Ash thou! what shall I give thee? So Kings.

Verses 7-13

55

(7-13) God’s revelation to Solomon by night. (Comp. 1 Kings 3:5-15.)

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:7 In that night did God appear unto Solomon, and said unto him, Ask what I shall give thee.

Ver. 7. In that night.] See on 1 Kings 3:5.

Did God appear.] That this was a divine dream, Solomon was sufficiently , ""That night God appeared unto Solomon" (2 Chronicles 1:7). First, we should dispose of the critical suggestion that this is a contradiction of the statement in 1 Kings 3:5 that, "Jehovah appeared unto Solomon that night in a dream." Curtis (Madsen) commented that, "The dream has disappeared, and the revelation is a more direct one."[2] Such a comment is totally in error. There's not a word here about the dream's disappearance, nor any suggestion that the revelation was in any manner `more direct' than what was mentioned in 1Kings. The very fact of the appearance having been at night made it unnecessary to add the fact that all Israel already knew, namely, that the appearance was in a dream

The Chronicler's account here is more brief than that in Kings; and, "The principal point of omission was the conditional promise of long life to Solomon,"[3] This omission was probably because the Chronicler knew that Solomon's wickedness had voided that promise. "Otherwise there is no essential difference of any importance in the parallel accounts."[4]sensible, by the great wisdom wherewith he found himself indued when he awoke.

COFFMAN, ""That night God appeared unto Solomon" (2 Chronicles 1:7). First, we should dispose of the critical suggestion that this is a contradiction of the statement in 1 Kings 3:5 that, "Jehovah appeared unto Solomon that night in a dream." Curtis (Madsen) commented that, "The dream has disappeared, and the revelation is a more direct one."[2] Such a comment is totally in error. There's not a word here about the dream's disappearance, nor any suggestion that the revelation was in any manner `more direct' than what was mentioned in 1Kings. The very fact of the appearance having been at night made it unnecessary to add the fact that all Israel already knew, namely, that the appearance was in a dream.

The Chronicler's account here is more brief than that in Kings; and, "The principal point of omission was the conditional promise of long life to Solomon,"[3] This omission was probably because the Chronicler knew that Solomon's wickedness had

56

voided that promise. "Otherwise there is no essential difference of any importance in the parallel accounts."[4]

PARKER, ""In that night did God appear unto Song of Solomon , and said unto him, Ask what I shall give thee" ( 2 Chronicles 1:7).

WE know that this is a fact. Had it occurred once for all, we might have asked questions about it, but it occurs somewhere every night. God has done, as we have seen frequently in our Biblical studies, many things in the night-time. The darkness and the light are both alike unto him. Night is a geographical term. Even in some places on the earth it is hardly known, and in heaven it is wholly unknown; there is no night there. Here is the crisis of life—the chance! Every man has it. Blessed are they whose eyes are open, whose ears are on the alert; for the opportunity may come at any moment, and the proposal may be made, either in the stillness of night, or amid the uproar and clamour of the busy day. But every soul has its opportunity, its asking-time, its hour when it may say anything to God. We speak sometimes of hours of great spiritual liberty, so that we who are dull of speech, poorly gifted in words, can say what we please, can utter all the desire of the heart, and plead right eloquently with God to fill both our hands with blessings. This is not in us. The ability to pray comes by the inspiration of God. When he asks a question he supplies the answer. God answers prayer because he prays. He answers himself. It is not we who pray; we clamour, we talk ignorantly, we use words, we represent false measures and values of things, and God is pleased to allow us so to talk, taking care that such rude speech is dissolved in high air: but when we pray it is he who prayeth in us. There is no mystery about the answering of prayer. A man can answer himself within given limits: God can answer himself without any limits or boundaries. The prayer that is answered is the prayer that is given. Inspired prayer is self-answering prayer. Yet sometimes God allows us to talk much folly to him. Even here providence is educative, and not judicial and chiding. We must get rid of many things before we can receive the right thing that is to be pronounced in pious language. Observe what an opportunity the king has—"Ask what I shall give thee." God always gives; he so loved the world that he gave—till he had nothing else to give, for he parted with his only Son. So much is lost by men imagining that these great proposals were only given once for all to certain men of unique character and specific office; whereas all that is exceptional in providence is but indicative of the general method. We may turn history into prayer; we may remind God of his own example; we may go before him with chapter and verse, and plead with him book in hand, saying, Thy hand is

57

not shortened that it cannot save; it did this miracle, and wrought this mighty sign and token: renew thy relations with an undeserving world. Sometimes we cannot pray at all; sometimes we are practically blank atheists,—not theoretically; if we were well shaken, really awakened to an average attention, we should disclaim the imputation of being atheistical; but we are practically so many a day; we use high terms, sweet words, pious expressions, but they effect no miracles, they heal not the soul: at other times we can pray without ceasing; when we are told that it is time to arise, we say, Nay: let the sun stand still, and the moon, until we have out all this sweet communion with God. Let us not judge ourselves by the one occasion or by the other, lest in the one case we be swallowed up of despair and in the other be discontented with any spiritual experience short of ecstasy. We speak chidingly and upbraidingly of men who have had what we call their chance and have not availed themselves of it. Should a man come to poverty we review his life and say, He had no opportunity of doing better; he has made the best of his circumstances, and the best is but poor; he deserves sympathy: let us extend our help to him. Or we say, He has had his chance; he might have been as high as most of us; we remember the time when his life was crowned with a gracious opportunity; he was slothful, incapable; he was busy here and there, and the king passed by; and now we do not feel any kindling of real regard and interest in relation to him: he has had his chance, and he can have it no more. God gives every man his opportunity—some in this form, some in that, and some in forms that are not at all patent except to the man himself. Is it possible that God may sometimes say to the soul, What shall I give thee? The soul should always have its prayer ready, not in mean detail, which always indicates more or less of calculation and selfishness, but in aspiration after God himself. How that prayer works will appear in the sequel.

GUZIK 7-10, "3. (2 Chronicles 1:7-10) Solomon’s request.

On that night God appeared to Solomon, and said to him, “Ask! What shall I give you?” And Solomon said to God: “You have shown great mercy to David my father, and have made me king in his place. Now, O LORD God, let Your promise to David my father be established, for You have made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude. Now give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people; for who can judge this great people of Yours?”

a. God appeared to Solomon: 1 Kings 3:5 tells us that this remarkable visitation

58

from God happened in a dream. This was one of the more significant dreams in the Bible.

i. “It is interesting to note that notwithstanding the fact that the ark was not there, God met with Solomon and communed with him.” (Morgan) Here God made it clear that His presence was not to be superstitiously restricted to an association with the ark of the covenant.

b. Ask! What shall I give you? This was an amazing promise. God seemed to offer Solomon whatever he wanted. This wasn’t only because Solomon sacrificed 1,000 animals. It was because his heart was surrendered to God, and God wanted to work something in Solomon through this offer and his response.

i. The natural reaction to reading this promise of God to Solomon is to wish we had such a promise. We do have them.

· Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)

· If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. (John 15:7)

· Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. (1 John 5:14)

ii. “The problem for many Christians, then, is not whether they will receive anything when they ask, but whether they will ask at all.” (Selman)

c. You have shown great mercy: Before responding to God’s offer and asking for

59

something, Solomon remembered God’s faithfulness to both David and now to Solomon himself.

d. Now give me wisdom and knowledge: Solomon asked for more than great knowledge; he wanted wisdom, and according to 1 Kings 3, he wanted it in his heart, not merely in his head.

e. That I may go out and come in before this people: This was a Hebrew expression that meant, “That I may fulfill my duties before this people.” Solomon asked for the knowledge and wisdom necessary to be a good king.

i. “Such words referred originally to military leadership (1 Chronicles 11:2; cf. 1 Samuel 18:13) but are here broadened into representing good governmental administratorship in general.” (Payne)

PULPIT, "That night. This can mean no other night than that which followed the day (or the days) of sacrifices so multitudinous. The parallel account in 1 Kings 3:5 tells us the way in which "God appeared to Solomon," viz. by dream. The words of God's offer, Ask what I shall give thee, are identical in the parallel place.

8 Solomon answered God, “You have shown great kindness to David my father and have made me king in his place.

60

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:8. And hast made me to reign — Give me the spirit of my father David, that Israel may not suffer by the change. The eminence of those that went before us, and the obligation that lies upon us to keep and carry on the good work they were engaged in, should quicken our prayers for wisdom and grace, that we may do the work of God in our day as faithfully as they did in theirs.

ELLICOTT, " (8) Thou hast shewed great mercy unto David.—Literally, Thou, thou hast done great kindness with David. (The regular phrase; comp. Luke 1:72.) From this point the relation here is briefer on the whole than that of Kings. The greater part of the long verse (1 Kings 3:6) is omitted, and the variations between the two texts become numerous, though the general sense is the same in each.

And hast made me to reign in his stead.—Comp. 1 Kings 3:7; and the similar language of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria (B.C. 681-668): “Ever since Asshur, Samas, Bel, Nebo . . . made me, Esarhaddon, sit securely on the throne of my father” (Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, 3:15, Colossians 2).

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:8 And Solomon said unto God, Thou hast shewed great mercy unto David my father, and hast made me to reign in his stead.

Ver. 8. Thou hast showed, &c.] God must be praised for the kindness he hath showed to our ancestors also. See on 1 Kings 3:6.

PULPIT, "Thou hast showed great mercy unto David my father. These also are the exact words found in the parallel place, but they omit the words, "thy servant," before "David," found there. And hast made me to reign in his stead. This concise expression takes the place of two equivalent expressions, found at the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh verses in the parallel passage, the former of which passages also describes it as "this great kindness," i.e. kindness on the part of God—a description very much in harmony with David's own grateful acknowledgment to God (1 Kings 1:48). Up to this point our present account differs from its parallel in cutting out Solomon's eulogy of his father ("According as he walked before thee in truth and in righteousness and in uprightness of heart with thee"), and his humbler disparagement of himself ("And I, a little child, know not how to go out or come in").

61

9 Now, Lord God, let your promise to my father David be confirmed, for you have made me king over a people who are as numerous as the dust of the earth.

CLARKE, promise - דברך debarcha, thy word; פתגמך pithgamach, Targum. It is very remarkable that when either God or man is represented as having spoken a word then the noun פתגם pithgam is used by the Targumist; but when word is used personally,

then he employs the noun מימרא meymera, which appears to answer to the Λογος of St. John, Joh_1:1, etc.

ELLICOTT, " (9) Now, O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established.—A reminiscence of 1 Chronicles 17:23.

Over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude.—Over a people numerous as the dust of the earth. This last clause freely corresponds with 1 Kings 3:8. (Comp. the common title of Assyrian monarchs, “king of multitudes,” sar kissâti.)

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:9 Now, O LORD God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude.

Ver. 9. Let thy promise,] viz., To the utmost extent of it.

PULPIT, "Now, O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established. This challenge on the part of Solomon, intended, without doubt, most reverently, is

62

not given in the parallel place, and forms not only a distinctive but an interesting additional feature of the present account. It is thought by some that the "promise "here challenged is not very distinctly recorded anywhere, but surely passages like 1 Chronicles 17:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:10; 1 Chronicles 28:6, 1 Chronicles 28:7 amply meet the case. See also 2 Samuel 7:12, 2 Samuel 7:15. King over a people like the dust. It is noteworthy that, though the equivalent of this phrase is found in the parallel, the distinctiveness of this simile is not found there. (For the use of the simile to express a vast number, see Genesis 28:14; Numbers 23:10; Zephaniah 1:17; Zechariah 9:3.) It is not at all of frequent use in Scripture.

10 Give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may lead this people, for who is able to govern this great people of yours?”

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:10. Give me now wisdom and knowledge — Like a genuine son of David and Abraham, he chose spiritual blessings rather than temporal. That I may go out and come in before this people — This is a proverbial speech for governing the people both at home and abroad, in peace and war. See Numbers 27:17; Deuteronomy 31:2. For who can judge this thy people, that is so great? — Among such a numerous people he knew there would be so many, and so various, and, many times, difficult cases brought before him, that it would be impossible for him to hear them and judge aright, without wisdom more than human. See note on 1 Kings 3:9.

ELLICOTT, " (10) Give me now wisdom and knowledge.—Now wisdom and knowledge give thou me; a petition co-ordinate with that of 2 Chronicles 1:9 : “Now, O Lord God,” &c. The clause answers to 1 Kings 3:9. The word rendered “knowledge” (madda’) is late, and occurs besides only in Daniel 1:4; Daniel 1:17;

63

Ecclesiastes 10:20.

That I may go out and come in before this people.—See 1 Kings 3:7; Numbers 27:17; Deuteronomy 31:2.

For who can judge.—The simple impf.; Kings has, “who is able to judge?”

This thy people, that is so great (gâdôl).—Kings: “This thy numerous (kôbçd) people.” For the king as judge comp. 1 Samuel 8:20.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:10 Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, [that is so] great?

Ver. 10. Give me now wisdom and knowledge.] Knowledge to discern, and wisdom to do that which is right.

That I may go out, &c.] See on 1 Kings 3:7.

PARKER, "It must be exciting to listen to Solomon"s reply to such a question. Solomon said,—

"Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great?" ( 2 Chronicles 1:10).

In modern language, Solomon prayed to be qualified for his work. That was the sublime desire. First he recognised that the work itself was divine—"For who can judge this thy people?" He was not doing atheistic work on supernatural inspiration. Many men would be glad to do that, to use all heaven"s light for the purpose of making themselves selfishly secure and comfortable. Many a man would use all the resources of the Church that he might double his individual prosperity. Song of Solomon , on the other hand, recognises the divinity of the call, the divinity of his function; he says, I am appointed king by God to do God"s work, and what I want is not the office only but the ability to administer it with beneficent effect. This man will get an answer presently. He must be answered he builds himself upon a rock. There is no excitement of invention or ingenuity for the purpose of making some new request, some fanciful and whimsical petition. Solomon falls back upon

64

the eternal commonplace that nothing is lasting that is not wise, nothing is useful that is not good. His prayer, therefore, would be: Connect me with thyself, thou living Fountain; or, Take up this little life, and make it one of the lamps of thy heaven, which are all fed by the invisible, the infinite Shekinah. Solomon would not be sustained in his vanity, or have his greatness multiplied; would not be loaded with additional purple, or enriched with increase of crown and gem and jewel: he would have wisdom—the sagacious mind; not only sagacity, which men may respect but not love, but sagacity steeped in sacred sentiment, the sagacity that doubles itself by the inspiration of sympathy; he would have the statesman"s soul, and the royal soul that lives in others, reading their unuttered desires and responding in advance to the petitions which they are tremblingly formulating. A king should be beforehand. Thus would he be not royal only but almost divine; for it is God that proposes that man should ask; it is God who comes down with the gift, and says, Take it. So should it be with all greater souls—leaders, parents, heads of houses, heads of business,—they should have something to say, and they should always say it first. He leads best who is the first to utter the great word of offering, to create the solemn opportunity of life, to tempt the people by gracious suggestion into larger prayer and nobler, more confiding communion. Every man needs divine wisdom in order that he may do well his earthly work. You would light a lamp better if you first asked God to show you how to light it. It is a degrading doctrine which sets up a distinction between the temporalities and the spiritualities of the Church. There are no temporalities; the copper is to be turned into gold, the gold is to be turned into fine gold; the simplest labour is to be elevated to the rank and quality of sacrifice. Whatever, therefore, we may be—heads of firms, or youngest helpers in business; great geniuses in commerce, or poor dull heads that must have everything taught and can only repeat prayers by rote,—we all need wisdom for the discharge of our daily duty, then business becomes a sacrament; in the clink of gold there is music of another world, in the exchange and barter of life there is a form of religious intercourse.

How will God treat a prayer like this?—"And God said to Song of Solomon , Because this was in thine heart" I will give thee everything along with it,—"thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life:" all these prayers were already in heaven, uttered by other petitioners. We have said that we have talked selfishly to God; God here quotes by implication the selfishness by which he had been vainly importuned; he would seem to say, The prayers that have come up to me have been prayers for riches, wealth, honour, the life of enemies, and long life; these poor vapid prayers have been sent up

65

to me from time immemorial; thou hast created a variety in petition, thou hast taken a point of departure; thou hast really prayed: I am surprised and pleased. So would God be represented by language that would accommodate the occasion with this feeble degree of expression. God himself has confessed to surprise and to grief, and has called upon the universe to share his amazement, because of certain issues. In this instance he quotes all the little prayers that had been offered, and says in effect, Solomon has surpassed all these; he has made no mention of them; he has gone for the inclusive blessing; he has asked the all-involving benefaction, therefore he shall have all the rest:—

PULPIT, "Give me now wisdom and knowledge. The force of the opening of this verse, and the relation of it to the former, are both prejudiced by the "now" ( עתה ) being deposed from its right position as the first word in the verse. For the rest of this verse, the parallel passage has "an understanding heart" in place of our "wisdom and knowledge;" and "that I may discern between good and bad," in place of our that I may go out and come in before this people. In using the words, "wisdom and knowledge," Solomon seems to have remembered well the prayer of his father (1 Chronicles 22:12). (For the pedigree of the simple and effective phrase, "know how to go out and come in," see Numbers 27:17; Deuteronomy 31:2; 1 Samuel 18:13, 1 Samuel 18:16; 2 Samuel 3:25). It is at the same time refreshing to revisit the times when the most exalted nominal ruler was also the real ruler, as being the leader, the judge, the teacher in the highest sense, and "the feeder" of his people. Nor is it less refreshing to notice how, in Israel at least, the fact was so well recognized and honoured, that justice and to judge just judgment lay at the deepest foundation of civil society.

11 God said to Solomon, “Since this is your heart’s desire and you have not asked for wealth, possessions or honor, nor for the death of your enemies, and since you have not asked for a long life but for wisdom and knowledge to govern my

66

people over whom I have made you king,

HENRY, "4. He received a gracious answer to this prayer, 2Ch_1:11, 2Ch_1:12. (1.) God gave him the wisdom that he asked for because he asked for it. Wisdom is a gift that God gives as freely and liberally as any gift to those that value it, and wrestle for it; and will resolve to make use of it; and he upbraids not the poor petitioners with their folly, Jam_1:5. God's grace shall never be wanting to those who sincerely desire to know and do their duty. (2.) God gave him the wealth and honour which he did not ask for because he asked not for them. Those that pursue present things most earnestly are most likely to miss of them; while those that refer themselves to the providence of God, if they have not the most of those things, have the most comfort in them. Those that make this world their end come short of the other and are disappointed in this too; but those that make the other world their end shall not only obtain that, and full satisfaction in it, but shall enjoy as much as is convenient of this world in their way.

K&D 11-13, "2Ch_1:11-13

The divine promise. Here עשר is strengthened by the addition נכסים, treasures (Jos_

22:8; Ecc_5:18; Ecc_6:2). אשר תשפט, ut judicare possis. In general, the mode of expression is briefer than in 1Ki_3:11-13, and the conditional promise, “long life” (1Ki_3:14), is omitted, because Solomon did not fulfil the condition, and the promise was not fulfilled. In 2Ch_1:13 לבמה is unintelligible, and has probably come into our text only by

a backward glance at 2Ch_1:3, instead of מהבמה, which the contents demand, and as the lxx and Vulgate have rightly translated it. The addition, “from before the tabernacle,” which seems superfluous after the preceding “from the Bamah at Gibeon,” is inserted in order again to point to the place of sacrifice at Gibeon, and to the legal validity of the sacrifices offered there (Berth.). According to 1Ki_3:15, Solomon, on his return to Jerusalem, offered before the ark still other burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, and prepared a meal for his servants. This is omitted by the author of the Chronicle, because these sacrifices had no ultimate import for Solomon's reign, and not, as Then, supposes, because in his view only the sacrifices offered on the ancient brazen altar of burnt-offering belonging to the temple had legal validity. For he narrates at length in 1Ch_21:18, 1Ch_21:26. how God Himself directed David to sacrifice in Jerusalem, and how the sacrifice offered there was graciously accepted by fire from heaven, and the threshing-floor of Araunah thereby consecrated as a place of sacrifice; and it is only with the purpose of explaining to his readers why Solomon offered the solemn burnt-offering in Gibeon, and not, as we should have expected from 1 Chron 21, in Jerusalem, that he is so circumstantial in his statements as to the tabernacle. The last clause of 2Ch_1:13, “and he was king over Israel,” does not belong to the section treating of the sacrifice at Gibeon, but corresponds to the remark in 1Ki_4:1, and forms the transition to what follows.

67

ELLICOTT, " (11) Because this was in thine heart.—For this phrase see 1 Chronicles 22:7.

Wealth, or honour.—Added by chronicler. Wealth (nĕkâsîm) is a late word, common in the Targums, and in Syriac (neksîn). The phrase “riches, wealth, and honour” occurs in Ecclesiastes 6:2.

Long life.—Many days.

But (and) hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge . . . king.—An expansion of what we find in Kings: “And hast asked discernment for thyself, to hear judgment.” The verb hast asked is expressed in better idiom than in Kings.'

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:11 And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king:

Ver. 11. Thou hast not asked riches.] See 1 Kings 3:11.

GUZIK 11-12, "B. God answers Solomon’s request.

1. (2 Chronicles 1:11-12) Solomon receives wisdom and more from God.

And God said to Solomon: “Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked riches or wealth or honor or the life of your enemies, nor have you asked long life; but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself, that you may judge My people over whom I have made you king; wisdom and knowledge are granted to you; and I will give you riches and wealth and honor, such as none of the kings have had who were before you, nor shall any after you have the like.”

68

a. Because this was in your heart: God was pleased by what Solomon asked for, in that he knew his great need for knowledge and wisdom. God was also pleased by what Solomon did not ask for, in that he did not ask for riches or fame or power for himself.

i. Solomon’s request was not bad. We are specifically told in 1 Kings 3:10 that the speech pleased the LORD. Yet we can also ask if this was the best Solomon could ask for. “Was this the highest gift that he could have asked or received? Surely the deep longings of his father for communion with God were yet better.” (Maclaren)

ii. Solomon did his job well - as well or better than anyone. Yet as his falling away in the end showed (1 Kings 11:1-11) there was something lacking in his spiritual life. “There is no sign in his biography that he ever had the deep inward devotion of his father. After the poet-psalmist came the prosaic and keen-sighted shrewd man of affairs.” (Maclaren)

b. Wisdom and knowledge are granted to you; and I will give you riches and wealth and honor: God not only answered Solomon’s prayer, he answered it beyond all expectation. Solomon did not ask for riches and wealth and honor, but God gave him those also.

i. “God’s answer was a beautiful instance of the overflowing love and grace of the divine heart. All the things Solomon set aside for the sake of wisdom were also given to him.” (Morgan)

ii. Appearing in his dream, God answered Solomon’s prayer and made him wise, powerful, rich, and influential. His reign was glorious for Israel. At the same time, his end was tragic. We can fairly say that Solomon wasted these gifts God gave him. Though he accomplished much, he could have done much more - and his heart was led away from God in the end (1 Kings 11:4-11).

ii. “Instead of being the wisest of men, did he not become more brutish than any

69

man? Did he not even lose the knowledge of his Creator, and worship the abominations of the Moabites, Zidonians, and [so forth]? And was not such idolatry a proof of the grossest stupidity? How few proofs does his life give that the gracious purpose of God was fulfilled in him! He received much; but he would have received much more, had he been faithful to the grace given. No character in the sacred writings disappoints us more than the character of Solomon.” (Clarke, commenting in 1 Kings)

PULPIT, "With this verse the answer to Solomon's prayer begins. It is here concisely given in two verses, but occupies five (2 Chronicles 1:10-14) in the parallel place, including the verse not found here, which says, "The speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing." Otherwise there is no essential difference of any importance, though it may be noted that the parallel gives voice to the promise of "length of days," on the condition of Solomon fulfilling his part in showing obedience to the Divine will, and in following the steps of his father. Riches, wealth The most elementary idea of the former of these two words seems to be .( עשרנכסים )"straight growth," "prosperity;" of the latter, "to gather together" or "heap up." The former is found first in Genesis 31:16; and in the verb (hiph. conjugation) in Genesis 14:23. Afterwards it is found in almost all of the historical books, in the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and in the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel. The latter word occurs only five times (Joshua 22:8; in this and the following verses; and in Ecclesiastes 5:19; Ecclesiastes 6:2). Its Chaldee form is also found in Ezra 6:8 and Ezra 7:26. A comparison of these passages scarcely sustains the supposition of some, suggested by the derivation of the word, that it marks specially those stores of useful things which constituted largely the wealth of Old Testament times. Wisdom and knowledge. The distinction between these is evident, as also that they are needful complements of one another for the forming of a catholic, useful, sound character.

12 therefore wisdom and knowledge will be given you. And I will also give you wealth, possessions and honor, such as no king who was before you

70

ever had and none after you will have.”

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:12. And I will give thee riches and wealth, &c. — Those that make this world their end, come short of the other, and frequently of this too. But those who make the other world their end shall not only obtain that, but shall have as much as is convenient of this world in their way.

ELLICOTT, " (12) Wisdom and knowledge.—The wisdom and the knowledge, viz., which thou hast asked for.

Is granted unto thee.—The Hebrew expression is found only here and in Esther 3:11. The parallel passage gives three verses for this one (1 Kings 3:12-14).

And I will give thee.—Kings, “I have given.” The perfect tense (I will certainly give) is more idiomatic than the chronicler’s simple imperfect.

Such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee . . . the like.—Rather, Such as hath not been to the kings before thee, and after thee shall not be. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 29:25 and Note.) The Assyrian kings were fond of similar comparisons between themselves and their predecessors. Kings: “That there hath not been (i.e., shall not be) a man like thee among the kings, all thy days,” a different promise. The conditional promise, “And if thou wilt walk in my ways . . . I will lengthen thy days” (1 Kings 3:14), is hero omitted, although 2 Chronicles 1:11 has mentioned long life; perhaps because Solomon fell short of it. But comp. 2 Chronicles 7:17 seq. Of course the omission may be a mere abridgment.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:12 Wisdom and knowledge [is] granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that [have been] before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.

Ver. 12. Wisdom and knowledge is granted.] See here how highly therefore we are to esteem Solomen’s writings. Well might he say, "Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge?" [Proverbs 22:20]

71

PARKER, ""Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like" ( 2 Chronicles 1:12).

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." This was the teaching of a greater than Solomon. Sometimes a short prayer may be a long one. "Think not that ye shall be heard for your much speaking." God supplements prayers; the sooner we get done the better, because then we leave God his opportunity; we take our position as initiators and give God his chance. He accepts it; he works miracles within the golden opportunity which our faith creates. He does not know where to stop. What a catalogue is this—riches, and wealth, and honour, and promotion beyond all that is known in the history of royalty. We might have had more if we had asked for less. We have made great mistakes in prayer; we have said, Lord, make us strong in body: make our children all good and great men: give us great success in business to-day: create for us friends in all the field of life: and thus we have prayed ourselves out in trifling detail. Had we said, "Lord, not my will, but thine, be done," he would have made our enemies dizzy, so that they could not tell east from west; he would have made them falter in their fulminations; he would have turned their objurgations into blessings; he would have melted their knee-joints, so that they could not have come upon us in fierce assault; he would have made the ground grow gold: but we have been petty, selfish, narrow, trustless. We have thought a prayer was comprehensive in proportion as it omitted nothing. What mistakes are made about comprehensive prayers! There is but one comprehensive prayer—"Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven:" or, "Not my will, but thine, be done:" or, "God be merciful to me a sinner." We find here and there in Holy Writ examples of these epitomising, all-including prayers. When we take up one of these and, so to say, send it to heaven by way of the cross, there shall come back to us answers like a great rain on a summer day.

PULPIT, "Such as none of the kings … before thee, neither … after thee. These words were sadly ominous of the short-lived glory of the kingdom Only two kings had reigned before Solomon in Israel, and the glory of the kingdom too surely culminated in his reign, and even before the end of it (2 Chronicles 9:22, 2 Chronicles 9:23; 1 Chronicles 29:25; Ecclesiastes 2:9). On the other hand, the gratuitous and spontaneous fulness of promise in the Divine reply to a human prayer that "pleased" the Being invoked is most noticeable, and preached beforehand indeed, the lesson of the life of Jesus, "Seek ye first the kingdom … and

72

all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33). The contents of this verse are followed in the parallel by the words," And Solomon awoke; and behold it was a dream." There can be no doubt that what is here rehearsed did not lose any force or anything of reality from its transpiring in a dream, of which the abundantly open statement of the method of it, as in "sleep," and in "a dream," may be accepted as the first cogent evidence. But beside this, the frequent recital in the Old Testament of occasions when significant and weighty matters of business import were so conducted by the Divine will forms ample ground and defence for the other class of occasions, of which more spiritual matter was the subject (Genesis 28:12; Genesis 41:7; Genesis 20:3; Genesis 31:10, Genesis 31:24; Genesis 37:5; Genesis 40:5; Genesis 41:32; 7:15; Job 33:15; Daniel 2:3; Daniel 7:1; Matthew 1:20; Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:22; Matthew 27:19). On the other hand, side by side with such passages are those that refer to dreams for their emptiness and transiency of impression, when similes of this kind of thing are required (Job 20:8; Psalms 73:20; Psalms 126:1). This is not the place to enter into any argument of a metaphysical or physiological character respecting dreams, and what they may or may not avail. But as some persons know even too well how dreams have brought them most vivid, most torturing, and most exquisite experiences in turn, there will seem, to them at least, the less difficulty in admitting utterly their availableness for communications of highest import, not only from God to man, but under certain conditions from man to God. Without doubt, certain disabilities (and those, perhaps, more especially of the moral kind) attach to our mind in dreams. But do not dreams also find the scene of the keener activities of mind pure? Granted that the mind is then under ordinary circumstances without a certain control and self-commanding power, yet is it also in some large respects much more at liberty from that besetting tyranny of sense with which waking hours are so familiar! Hence its consummate daring and swiftness and versatility in dream beyond all that it knows in the body's waking state.

13 Then Solomon went to Jerusalem from the high place at Gibeon, from before the tent of

73

meeting. And he reigned over Israel.

BARNES, "From his journey - These words are not in the original text, which is thought to be corrupt. It is best to correct the text, and then simply to translate: “And Solomon came from the high place that was at Gibeon to Jerusalem.”

GILL 13-17, "Then Solomon came from his journey to the high place that was at Gibeon,.... Or rather without the supplement, the words may be read as in the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions:

Solomon came from the high places; having sacrificed there, so Vatablus; ל being

put for מ, as R. Jonah observes (b); but the Targum agrees with us, he"came to the high place which is in Gibeon, and from thence to Jerusalem;''and to the same purpose Kimchi; having been there, he came to Jerusalem:

from before the tabernacle of the congregation; which was at Gibeon, where he had been sacrificing:

and reigned over Israel in great splendour and prosperity. From hence, to the end of the chapter, the same things are said as in 1Ki_10:26. See Gill on 1Ki_10:26, 1Ki_10:27, 1Ki_10:28, 1Ki_10:29.

HENRY 13-17, "Here is, 1. Solomon's entrance upon the government (2Ch_1:13): He came from before the tabernacle, and reigned over Israel. He would not do any acts of government till he had done his acts of devotion, would not take honour to himself till he had given honour to God - first the tabernacle, and then the throne. But, when he had obtained wisdom from God, he did not bury his talent, but as he received the gift ministered the same, did not give up himself to ease and pleasure, but minded business: he reigned over Israel. 2. The magnificence of his court (2Ch_1:14): He gathered chariots and horsemen. Shall we praise him for this? We praise him not; for the king was forbidden to multiply horses, Deu_17:16. I do not remember that ever we find his good father in a chariot or on horseback; a mule was the highest he mounted. We should endeavor to excel those that went before us in goodness rather than in grandeur. 3. The wealth and trade of his kingdom. He made silver and gold very cheap and common, 2Ch_1:15. The increase of gold lowers the value of it; but the increase of grace advances its price; the more men have of that the more they value it. How much better therefore is

74

it to get wisdom than gold! He opened also a trade with Egypt, whence he imported horses and linen-yarn, which he exported again to the kings of Syria, with great advantage no doubt, 2Ch_1:16, 2Ch_1:17. This we had before, 1Ki_10:28, 1Ki_10:29. It is the wisdom of princes to promote industry and encourage trade in their dominions. Perhaps Solomon took the hint of setting up the linen-manufacture, bringing linen-yarn out of Egypt, working it into cloth, and then sending that to other nations, from what his mother taught when she specified this as one of the characteristics of the virtuous woman, She maketh fine linen, and selleth it, and delivereth girdles of it to the merchant, Pro_31:24. In all labour there is profit.

ELLICOTT, " (13) Then Solomon came from his journey to the high place that was at Gibeon to Jerusalem.—Heb., And Solomon came to the high place that was in Gibeon to Jerusalem. Clearly we should read, “from the high place,” with the LXX. and Vulgate. The difficulty is as old as the Syriac version, which reads, “And Solomon came to the great high place [reading bûmsâ—i.e., βῶμος—with Dr. Payne Smith] that is in Gibeon the city, which is on the east of Jerusalem, from before the tabernacle.”

From before the tabernacle of the congregation.—See 2 Chronicles 1:3; 2 Chronicles 1:6. Perhaps “to (or at) the high place that was at G-ibeon,” was originally a marginal gloss upon this expression. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 1:3.) The reading, “And Solomon came to Jerusalem from before the tent of tryst,” would be quite intelligible without this addition.

And reigned over Israel.—Syr., over all Israel. (Comp. 1 Kings 4:1.) But the remark, “and he reigned over Israel,” is by no means “superfluous” (Bertheau), inasmuch as it naturally introduces the following sketch of the reign, which carries us on from God’s promise to its fulfilment.

The chronicler does not notice the sacrifices which, on his return, Solomon offered before the ark at Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:15), nor the story of the king’s wise judgment which there follows (1 Kings 3:16-28). It is unreasonable to seek any other ground of such omissions than the free and legitimate exercise of the compiler’s discretion in the choice of his own materials. That he did not depreciate the sanctuary on Mount Zion as a place of sacrifice, is evident from 1 Chronicles 21:18 to 1 Chronicles 22:1.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:13 Then Solomon came [from his journey] to the high place that [was] at Gibeon to Jerusalem, from before the tabernacle of the congregation, and reigned over Israel.

Ver. 13. And reigned over Israel.] Sic regnabat, he so reigned, sc., with that wisdom

75

and knowledge which God had promised him.

GUZIK 13-17, "2. (2 Chronicles 1:13-17) The great wealth of King Solomon.

So Solomon came to Jerusalem from the high place that was at Gibeon, from before the tabernacle of meeting, and reigned over Israel. And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen; he had one thousand four hundred chariots and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. Also the king made silver and gold as common in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as abundant as the sycamores which are in the lowland. And Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh; the king’s merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price. They also acquired and imported from Egypt a chariot for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for one hundred and fifty; thus, through their agents, they exported them to all the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria.

a. So Solomon came to Jerusalem . . . and reigned over Israel: Solomon actually reigned – or began his reign – in the great wisdom God gave him at Gibeon. A famous example of this wisdom is found in 1 Kings 3:16-28, where he wisely judged between two mothers who each claimed the same baby as their own.

b. And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen: The famous stables of Solomon show what a vast cavalry he assembled for Israel. Unfortunately, it also shows that Solomon did not take God’s word as seriously as he should. In Deuteronomy 17:16, God spoke specifically to the future kings of Israel: But he shall not multiply horses for himself.

c. The king made silver and gold as common in Jerusalem as stones: When we think of Solomon’s great wealth, we also consider that he originally did not set his heart upon riches. He deliberately asked for wisdom to lead the people of God instead of riches or fame. God promised to also give Solomon riches and fame, and God fulfilled His promise.

76

i. We also consider that Solomon gave an eloquent testimony to the vanity of riches as the preacher in the Book of Ecclesiastes. He powerfully showed that there was no ultimate satisfaction through materialism. We don’t have to be as rich as Solomon to learn the same lesson.

ii. Certainly, Solomon presided over a prosperous and wealthy kingdom. Yet the Chronicler is also warning us here. He assumes that we know of the instructions for future kings of Israel in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. He assumes we know Deuteronomy 17:17 of that passage, which says: nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. God blessed Solomon with great riches, but Solomon allowed that blessing to turn into a danger because he disobediently multiplied silver and gold for himself.

iii. “There was nothing wrong in all this, but it created a very subtle peril. Prosperity is always a more insidious danger to men of faith than adversity.” (Morgan)

d. Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh: At the end of this great description of Solomon’s wealth and splendor, we have the sound of this dark note. This was in direct disobedience to Deuteronomy 17:16, which said to the Kings of Israel: But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, “You shall not return that way again.”

i. Keveh (also known as Cilicia) was “in what is now southern Turkey, at the east end of the Mediterranean, was a prime ancient supplier of horses.” (Payne)

e. Thus, through their agents, they exported them to all the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria: This may explain why Solomon broke such an obvious commandment. Perhaps the importation of horses from Egypt began as trading as an agent on behalf of other kings. From this, perhaps Solomon could say, “I’m importing horses from Egypt but I am not doing it for myself. I’m not breaking God’s command.” Many examples of gross disobedience begin as clever

77

rationalizations.

i. It is hard to know in what order Solomon’s compromise was expressed. Yet it is possible to say that this disobedience to this seemingly small command began the downfall of Solomon.

· First, in disobedience he multiplied horses for the service of his kingdom and he obtains them from the Egyptians (1 Kings 4:26; 1Ki_10:28-29).

· Then, because of these connections with Egypt he married Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 3:1).

· Then, because he started by marrying an Egyptian he married many other foreign women (1 Kings 11:1-4).

· Then, because of the presence of the foreign wives he built temples to their gods for their use (1 Kings 11:7-8).

· Then, because of the presence of these temples he began to worship these other gods himself (1 Kings 11:4-5).

PULPIT, "Solomon's return after sacrifice from Gibeon to Jerusalem, and from "before the tabernacle of the congregation" to "before the ark of the covenant of the Lord" in Mount Zion. the condensed and cut-down method of Chronicles, and its strong preferences for selecting out of the various material at its command. The tabernacle of the congregation. This styling of the "tabernacle" is of very frequent occurrence. It is found above thirty times in Exodus, and fully as often in Leviticus and Numbers. Afterwards it is sprinkled more rarely in the historical books. The reason of its being styled "the tabernacle of the congregation" ( מוער ) is doubtful—perhaps because of the gatherings of the people in front of it, or possibly because of its being the place where God would meet with Moses. The other name, the

78

tabernacle of "witness" or "testimony" or covenant" ( עדות ; Numbers 9:15, etc.), is not unfrequent. Hence the LXX. σκηνη του μαρτυριου; the Vulgate, tabernaculum testimonii; and Luther's Stifisuitten. This verse very much stints the information contained in the parallel, to the effect that Solomon forthwith took his place before the ark of the covenant in Mount Zion, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and gave a feast to all his servants (2 Samuel 6:17-19; 1 Chronicles 16:1-3; Deuteronomy 14:26-29). And he reigned over Israel. These words seem nugatory both in themselves and as placed here. They probably stand for 1 Kings 4:1.

BI 13-14, "And Solomon gathered chariots.

Solomon’s wealth

I. Wealth derived from trading speculations.

II. Wealth acquired in opposition to God’s commands (Deu_17:16-17). He must trust in the Lord God, not in chariots and horses (Psa_20:7).

III. Wealth therefore risky in its possesion. Prosperity of Solomon his great misfortune. The smallest departure from rectitude may lead to grievous errors and fearful miseries. (J. Wolfendale.)

14 Solomon accumulated chariots and horses; he had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses,[a] which he kept in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem.

BARNES 14-17, "This passage is very nearly identical with 1Ki_10:26-29.

79

CLARKE, "He had a thousand and four hundred chariots - For these numbers, see the notes on 1Ki_4:26.

JAMISON, "2Ch_1:14-17. His strength and wealth.

Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen — His passion for horses was greater than that of any Israelitish monarch before or after him. His stud comprised fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses. This was a prohibited indulgence, whether as an instrument of luxury or power. But it was not merely for his own use that he imported the horses of Egypt. The immense equestrian establishment he erected was not for show merely, but also for profit. The Egyptian breed of horses was highly valued; and being as fine as the Arabian, but larger and more powerful, they were well fitted for being yoked in chariots. These were light but compact and solid vehicles, without springs. From the price stated (2Ch_1:17) as given for a chariot and a horse, it appears that the chariot cost four times the value of a horse. A horse brought a 150 shekels, which amounts to about $100, while a chariot brought 600 shekels, equal to about $400; and as an Egyptian chariot was usually drawn by two horses, a chariot and pair would cost about $600. As the Syrians, who were fond of the Egyptian breed of horses, could import them into their own country only through Judea, Solomon early perceived the commercial advantages to be derived from this trade, and established a monopoly. His factors or agents purchased them in the markets or fairs of Egypt and brought them to the “chariot cities,” the depots and stables he had erected on the frontiers of his kingdom, such as Bethmarcaboth, “the house of chariots,” and Hazarsusah, “the village of horses” (Jos_19:5; 1Ki_10:28).

K&D, "Solomon's chariots, horses, and riches. - In order to prove by facts the fulfilment of the divine promise which Solomon received in answer to his prayer at Gibeon, we have in 1Ki_3:16-28 a narrative of Solomon's wise judgment, then in 2 Chron 4 an account of his public officers; and in 2Ch_5:1-14 the royal magnificence, glory, and wisdom of his reign is further portrayed. In our Chronicle, on the contrary, we have in 2Ch_1:14-17 only a short statement as to his chariots and horses, and the wealth in silver and gold to be found in the land, merely for the purpose of showing how God had given him riches and possessions. This statement recurs verbally in 1Ki_10:26-29, in the concluding remarks on the riches and splendour of Solomon's reign; while in the parallel passage, 2 Chron 9:13-28, it is repeated in an abridged form, and interwoven with other statements. From this we see in how free and peculiar a manner the author of the Chronicle has made use of his authorities, and how he has arranged the material derived from them according to his own special plan.

(Note: The assertion of Thenius on 1Ki_10:26., that he found this section in his authorities in two different places and in different connections, copied them mechanically, and only towards the end of the second passage remarked the repetition and then abridged the statement, is at once refuted by observing, that in the supposed repetition the first half (2Ch_9:25-26) does not at all agree with 1Ki_10:26, but coincides with the statement in 1Ki_5:6-7.)

80

For the commentary on this section, see on 1Ki_10:26-28.

2Ch_1:14-152Ch_1:14, 2Ch_1:15, with the exception of one divergence in form and one in matter,

correspond word for word to 1Ki_10:26 and 1Ki_10:27. Instead of וינחם, he led them

(Kings), there stands in 2Ch_1:15, as in 2Ch_9:25, the more expressive word ויניהם, “he

laid them” in the chariot cities; and in 2Ch_1:15 ואת־הזהב is added to את־הכסף, while it is omitted from both 1Ki_10:27 and also 2Ch_9:27. It is, however, very suitable in this connection, since the comparison “like stones” has reference to quantity, and Solomon had collected not only silver, but also gold, in quantity.

BENSON, "2 Chronicles 1:14. And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen, which he placed in the chariot-cities, and with the king at Jerusalem — Of this and the three following verses, see the notes on 1 Kings 10:26, &c

ELLICOTT, " (14) And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen.—Word for word as in 1 Kings 10:26; see the Notes there.

Which he placed.—And he placed, or bestowed them (wayyanhîhem) (2 Chronicles 9:25). Kings 50100 reads, “and he brought them into the chariot cities” (wayyanhem). The difference turns on the pointing only, and the versions there support our text; LXX., “he put; “Vulg., disposuit; Targum, ’ashrinnûn, “he lodged them;” Syriac, “he left them.” The chariots (rekeb; see 1 Chronicles 18:4; 1 Chronicles 19:6) and horsemen were, of course, military. The “chariot cities” probably lay in the south towards Egypt. The Simeonite Beth-marcaboth (house of chariots), and Hazar-susim (court of horses) may have been included amongst them. (See 1 Chronicles 4:31.)

Verses 14-17

(14-17) Solomon’s “riches, and wealth, and honour” illustrated (comp. 1 Kings 10:26-29). In the parallel passage of Kings, this short section closes the account of Solomon’s wealth and glory. 2 Chronicles 9:25-28 is very similar; a fact which will not surprise those who bear in mind that the chronicler is careless of repetition.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:14 And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen: and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, which

81

he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Ver. 14. And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen.] This is here added to show how God made good to Solomon that other part of his promise also concerning riches and honours. And here the lawgiver might dispense with that law of his, [Deuteronomy 17:16] by a singular privilege to this king of Israel. See on 1 Kings 4:26.

COFFMAN, "It is evident to this writer that some have missed altogether the Chronicler's intention. The allegation that, "It was contrary to the Chronicler's purpose to convey a too unfavorable impression of Solomon,"[5] has often been cited; but how could that be true, in the light of this very first chapter, where practically the first thing Solomon did was to violate in the most contemptuous and wholesale manner the divine prohibition in Deuteronomy?

"Thou shalt surely set a king over thee ... Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to ... multiply horses." - Deuteronomy 17:15-16.

This shameful violation of God's word by Solomon has been remarkably confirmed by archaeological discoveries in recent times. There were many of these `chariot cities'; and, "At Megiddo, southeast of Mount Carmel, has been excavated the ruins of a single extensive stone stable capable of housing about four hundred horses."[6]

"This passage (2 Chronicles 1:14-17) is very nearly identical with 1 Kings 10:26-29."[7]

PULPIT, "The attraction to Jerusalem of the signs of wealth—chariots, horses, etc.—on the part of Solomon. The excitement attending the great sacrifices at Gibeon, and before the ark in Jerusalem, had now subsided. And we obtain just a glimpse of the range of thought and purpose present to the mind of the reigning king. The largo expenditure of money would infer without fail the show of brilliant prosperity in the grand city for the time. Whether this would last, and whether it would not infer oppressive taxation somewhere or other (1 Kings 9:15, 1 Kings 9:21, 1 Kings 9:22; 1 Kings 10:25) among the people, time would show. Had this expenditure been all to record, none could suppose the commencing of the practical part of the king's reign either sound or auspicious. But, of course, it is to be qualified by other things that were transpiring, with which the parallel acquaints us

82

(e.g. 1 Kings 3:16-28), only in different order. We now, however, begin a rapid and self-contained sketch of the reign of Solomon to his very death (2 Chronicles 9:1-31.)—the sketch one of marked characteristics, and in consistent keeping with the presumable objects of this work. For it is very much monopolized by the account of the temple.

2 Chronicles 1:14

The contents of this and the following three verses are identical with the parrallel 1 Kings 10:26-29, except that the words, "and gold," of our 1 Kings 10:15 (2 Chronicles 9:20) are not found there. The position of these four verses in the parallel, towards the close of the account of Solomon, would seem more natural than their position here, which has somewhat the appearance of a fragment interpolated, as on the other hand the account of the harlot-mothers there. Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen. The chariot was no institution of Israel (so Deuteronomy 20:1), neither of their earliest ancestors, nor of those more proximate. The earliest occasions of the mention of it (Genesis 41:43; Genesis 46:29; Genesis 50:9) are in connection with Egypt, and almost all subsequent occasions for a long stretch of time show it in connection with some foreign nation, till we read (2 Samuel 8:4; 1 Chronicles 18:4) of David "reserving horses" unhoughed "for a hundred chariots," apparently also "reserved" out of the very much larger number which he had taken in battle from Hadadezer King of Zobah. The very genius of the character of God's people, a pilgrim-genius, as well as their long-time pilgrim-life, quite accounts for the "chariot," though it be a war-chariot, having never ranked among their treasures (Deuteronomy 17:16; 1 Samuel 8:11). Now, however, Solomon thinks it the time to make it a feature of the nation's power and splendour. He gives the large order for fourteen hundred chariots apparently to Egypt (1 Kings 10:17; also 1 Kings 9:28), the appropriate number of horses to which would be probably four thousand. Solomon's fourteen hundred chariots were probably intended to exceed the numbers of the Egyptian king, of Hadadezer's (2 Samuel 8:4; 1 Chronicles 18:4), and of the Syrians (2 Samuel 10:18). But, on the other hand, see 1 Samuel 13:5 and 1 Chronicles 19:7, unless, as seems very probable, the numerals in these places are again incorrect. Dr. Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible' contains an interesting article on the chariot (vol. 1:295). For significant allusions to the horsemen, reference may be made to 1 Samuel 8:11; 1 Kings 20:20; 2 Kings 2:12; Isaiah 21:7. Twelve thousand horsemen. These probably purport what we should call horse-soldiers, or cavalry. And. it is likely that they come to designate these in virtue of the Hebrew

83

word here used ( פרשים ) meaning horses of the cavalry sort (see Gesenius, 'Lexicon,' sub voce). The chariot cities. In 2 Chronicles 8:5, 2 Chronicles 8:6 we are expressly told that Solomon "built" purposely these cities, for the chariots and for the horsemen, just as he built the "store" cities (see also 1 Kings 19-9:17 ; Xenoph; 'Anab.,' 1 Kings 1:4. § 10).

15 The king made silver and gold as common in Jerusalem as stones, and cedar as plentiful as sycamore-fig trees in the foothills.

CLARKE, "Made silver and gold - See on 1Ki_10:27 (note), 1Ki_10:28 (note).

ELLICOTT, " (15) Silver and gold . . . stones . . . cedar trees.—Each of these words has the definite article in the Hebrew.

And gold.—Not in 1 Kings 10:27, with which the rest of the verse coincides; nor in 2 Chronicles 9:27. The Syriac omits it here also, but the other versions have it, and the phrase is a natural heightening of the hyperbole.

The sycomore trees that are in the vale.—(Comp. 1 Chronicles 27:28.) The Syriac reads instead. “As the sand which is on the seashore.”

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:15 And the king made silver and gold at Jerusalem [as plenteous] as stones, and cedar trees made he as the sycomore trees that [are] in the

84

vale for abundance.

Ver. 15. And the king made.] Heb., Gave. By giving he made it so. This was a golden age indeed.

PULPIT, "And gold. The omission of these words in the parallel (1 Kings 10:27) is remarkable in the light of what we read in 2 Chronicles 9:20. We find the contents of this verse again in 2 Chronicles 9:27; as also in the parallel (1 Kings 10:27), just quoted with the exception already named. Cedar trees. The meaning is felled trunks of cedar (1 Chronicles 22:4) ( ארזים ). Whether the wood intended is the cedar of Lebanon (Pinus cedrus, or Cedrus conifera), "tall" (Isaiah 2:13; Isaiah 37:24; Amos 2:9), "widespreading" (Ezekiel 31:3), odoriferous, with very few knots, and wonderfully resisting decay, is considered by authorities on such subjects still uncertain. Gesenius, in his 'Lexicon,' sub voc; may be consulted, and the various Bible dictionaries, especially Dr. Smith's, under "Cedar;" and Dr. Kitto's 'Cyclopaedia,' under "Eres." The writer in Dr. Smith's 'Dictionary' suggests that under the one word "cedar," the Pinus cedrus, Pinus deodara, Yew, Taxus baccata, and Pinus sylvestris (Scotch pine) were referred to popularly, and were employed when building purposes are in question. That the said variety was employed is likely enough, but that we are intended to understand this when the word "cedar" is used seems unlikely (see for further indication of this unlikeliness, the instancing of "firs" occasionally with "cedars," 1 Kings 5:10; 1 Kings 9:11; 2 Chronicles 2:8). Sycomore trees ( שקמים ). This word is found always in its present masc. plur. form except once, Psalms 78:47, where the plur. fem. form is found. The Greek equivalent in the Septuagint is always συκαμινος; but in the New Testament, and in the same treatise, i.e. the Gospel according to St. Luke, we find both συκαμινος and συκομωρεα (Luke 17:6 and Luke 19:4 respectively). Now, the former of these trees is the well. known mulberry tree. But the latter is what is called the fig-mulberry, or the sycamore-fig; and this is the tree of the Old Testament. Its fruit resembles the fig, grows on sprigs shooting out of the thick stems themselves of the tree, and each fruit needs to be punctured a few days before gathering, if it is to be acceptable eating (Amos 7:14; Isaiah 9:10). In the vale; i.e. in the lowland country, called the Shefelah. This is the middle one of the three divisions in which Judaea is sometimes described—mountain, lowland, and valley. This lowland was really the lowhills, between mountains and plain, near Lydda and Daroma (the "dry," 1.q. Negeb, Deuteronomy 34:1-12 :13), while the valley was the valley of Jordan, from Jericho to Engedi.

85

16 Solomon’s horses were imported from Egypt and from Kue[b]—the royal merchants purchased them from Kue at the current price.

CLARKE, "Linen yarn - See the note on 1Ki_10:28, where this subject is particularly examined.

K&D, "2Ch_1:16-17

2Ch_1:16, 2Ch_1:17 coincide with 1Ki_10:28-29, except that מקרא is used for

hw'q;mi, and ותעלה ותצא is altered into ציאו For the commentary on these .ויעלו ויverses, see 1Ki_10:28.

ELLICOTT, "(16) And Solomon had horses brought out . . .—Rather, And the outcome (export) of horses for Solomon was from Egypt, and the company of the king’s merchants—a company (of horses) they would fetch at a price. The same is read in Kings, only that the word company (miqwç) is there spelt in the ancient fashion (miqwçh), and two words are transposed (“they would fetch a company”). Miqweh means gathering, collection (Genesis 1:10 [of the waters]). The repetition of this term constitutes a kind of artless play on words, such as is common in the Old Testament. (Comp. Genesis 15:2; Judges 15:16.) Both here and in Kings the Vulg. renders the word as a proper name, “from Coa.” So also the LXX. in Kings “from Thekkoue” (Tekoa); and the Syriac of Chronicles, “from the city of the Aphelâvç.” These variations only prove that the text was felt to be obscure. The “linen yarn” of the Authorised version is a guess based upon the likeness of the word miqweh to qaw, “rope,” and tiqwâh, “line” (Joshua 2:18), and upon the fact that much linen was made in Egypt.

86

COKE, "2 Chronicles 1:16. And Solomon had horses, &c.— See the note on 1 Kings 10:28. Moses had expressly prohibited the multiplying of horses, Deuteronomy 17:16 by which the future king was forbidden to establish a body of cavalry, because this could not be effected without sending into Egypt, with which people the Lord had forbidden any communication; as, of all foreign commerce, that was the most dangerous to true religion. When Solomon had violated this law, and multiplied horses to excess, (1 Kings 4:26.) it was soon attended with those fatal consequences which the law foretold: for, this wisest of kings having likewise, in violation of another law of Moses, married Pharaoh's daughter, (the early fruits of this commerce,) and then, by a repetition of the same crime, but a transgression of another law, espoused more strange women (1 Kings 4:26; 1 Kings 11:1.); they first, in defiance of a fourth law, persuaded him to build them idol temples for their use; and afterwards, against a fifth law, still more fundamental, brought him to erect other temples for his own. Now the origin of all this mischief was the forbidden traffic with Egypt for horses; for thither, we are told in this and the next verse, the agents of Solomon were sent to mount his cavalry. Nay, this great king even turned factor for the neighbouring monarchs; 2 Chronicles 1:17. This opprobrious commerce was kept up by his successors, and attended with the same pernicious consequences. Isaiah, with his usual majesty, denounces the mischiefs of this traffic, and foretels that one of the good effects of leaving it would be the forsaking of their idolatries. Isaiah 4:6; Isaiah 4:6. Div. Leg. vol. 3: p. 289.

REFLECTIONS.—We left Solomon in quiet possession of Israel's throne. His authority was still more firmly established by the removal of some secret enemies; and, God being evidently with him, his prosperity increased.

1. He summoned the chief men of Israel to attend him at Gibeon, where the tabernacle was; for he well knew, that having God for his friend was the only sure establishment of his throne. By his own example also he laboured to diffuse an universal attachment to God and his ordinances through his kingdom; as being persuaded that good men would be the most loyal subjects. There he offered a thousand burnt-offerings, beside peace-offerings, and all the assembled congregation kept a feast with him before the Lord. Note; (1.) Great is the influence of a good magistrate's example. (2.) When we begin well, we have half ended. (3.) The more God does for us, the more should we labour to testify our gratitude towards him.

87

2. God appeared to him at night, and bid him ask and have whatever he chose. His prayer and happy choice, with God's gracious answer, we find 1 Kings 3:5. We may farther observe here, (1.) That a man's state is best known by the secret desires of his soul. (2.) Faith, which through the great sacrifice enables us to realize eternal things, will make us count all things dung and loss, compared with spiritual graces, and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom. (3.) Our fathers' mercies are an encouragement to us to pray and hope for the same blessing. (4.) The more eminent our predecessors, the more earnestly had we need beg, that, being in their place, we may be strengthened with equal ability and fidelity for our work. (5.) If we have God's promises with us, we may pray in faith, nothing doubting. (6.) God often exceeds our desires. When, seeking only his favour, we are content to trust all our worldly affairs on his providence, the blessing of the Lord shall enrich us; and, better than all our gains, he will give us a heart to enjoy what he bestows with thankfulness to his glory.

PULPIT, "Horses brought.; out of Egypt. Later on we read that horses were imported from other countries as well (2 Chronicles 9:24, 2 Chronicles 9:28), as, for instance, from Arabia and Armenia (Ezekiel 27:14). Linen yarn. The words are without doubt wrong here. But it is impossible to say with any certainty what should be in their place. The Vulgate shows here from Coa, presumably meaning Tekoa, a small place on the road from Egypt to Jerusalem. It might not have been easy to surmise, however, so much as this, but for the fact that the Septuagint shows in the parallel place, "And from Tekoa" (Amos 1:1). The Septuagint, however, has for the present place, και η τιμη των εμπορωντου βασιλεως πορευεσθαι και ηγοραζον The Hebrew word here translated "linen yarn" is מקוא (i.q. מקוה niph. of קוה, "to be gathered together").' Gesenius, followed by De Wette (and others), and himself following Piscator and Vatablus, would translate the word "company," and read, "a company of the king's merchants took a company (of horses) at a price." Others would translate the word "import;" and read, "the import of the king's merchants was an import at a price," i.e. in money. Neither of these renderings can be considered really satisfactory. Some slight corruption of text still baulks us, therefore.

BI, "The King’s merchants received the linen yarn at a price.

The king’s merchants

I. The advantages of commerce. In softening manners and breaking down prejudices, in helping industry, promoting peace, and stimulating into Nature’s resources.

88

II. The blessings of the nation whose sovereign takes an interest in commerce (J. Wolfendale.).

17 They imported a chariot from Egypt for six hundred shekels[c] of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty.[d] They also exported them to all the kings of the Hittites and of the Arameans.

CLARKE, "A horse for a hundred and fifty - Suppose we take the shekel at the utmost value at which it has been rated, three shillings; then the price of a horse was about twenty-two pounds ten shillings.

On Solomon’s multiplying horses, Bishop Warburton has made some judicious remarks: -

“Moses had expressly prohibited the multiplying of horses, Deu_17:16, by which the future king was forbidden to establish a body of cavalry, because this could not be effected without sending into Egypt, with which people God had forbidden any communication, as this would be dangerous to religion. When Solomon had violated this law, and multiplied horses to excess, 1Ki_4:26, it was soon attended with those fatal consequences that the law foretold: for this wisest of kings having likewise, in violation of another law, married Pharaoh’s daughter, (the early fruits of this commerce), and then, by a repetition of the same crime, but a transgression of another law, having espoused more strange women, 1Ki_11:1; they first, in defiance of a fourth law, persuaded him to build them idol temples for their use, and afterwards, against a fifth law, brought him to erect other temples for his own. Now the original of all this mischief was the forbidden traffic with Egypt for horses; for thither were the agents of Solomon sent to mount his cavalry. Nay, this great king even turned factor for the neighboring monarchs, 2Ch_1:17, and this opprobrious commerce was kept up by his successors and attended with the same pernicious consequences. Isaiah denounces the mischiefs of this

89

traffic; and foretells that one of the good effects of leaving it would be the forsaking of their idolatries, Isa_31:1, Isa_31:4, Isa_31:6, Isa_31:7.” - See Divine Legation, vol. iii., p. 289 and Dr. Dodd’s Notes.

JAMISON, "brought ... for all the kings of the Hittites — A branch of this powerful tribe, when expelled from Palestine, had settled north of Lebanon, where they acquired large possessions contiguous to the Syrians.

ELLICOTT, " (17) And they fetched up, and brought forth out of Egypt.—Literally, And they caused to come up and to come out. Kings has: “And there came up and came out a chariot from Egypt.” The rest of the verse is identical there and here.

TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 1:17 And they fetched up, and brought forth out of Egypt a chariot for six hundred [shekels] of silver, and an horse for an hundred and fifty: and so brought they out [horses] for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Syria, by their means.

Ver. 17. And Solomon had horses, &c.] See 1 Kings 10:28-29.

PULPIT, "Six hundred shekels of silver. Some add up in this amount the vehicle itself, harness, horse or horses necessary to it, and the expense of carriage of the whole. Whether or no horses are included may be doubtful. The amount added up reaches, according to various estimates, £90 or £70. If we take the silver shekel at 3s. 4d. according to one of the later authorities, the amount will be £100; and so for a horse £25. For all the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of Syria; see 2 Chronicles 8:7, 2 Chronicles 8:8; 2 Chronicles 9:14, 2 Chronicles 9:23, 2 Chronicles 9:24, 2 Chronicles 9:26; 1 Kings 4:21, 1 Kings 4:24; 2 Kings 7:6; which last place in particular suggests that Solomon would be the more willing to assist neighbouring peoples in the purchase of horses, etc; who might be already tributary to him, or even vassals, or who might in future be in the better position to help him, when either required or hired to do so.

90